GRUESOME HARVEST

GRUESOME HARVEST 

The Costly Attempt To Exterminate The People of Germany 

By Ralph Franklin Keeling 

INSTITUTE OF AMERICAN ECONOMICS  127 N. Dearborn Street Chicago 1947 

 

 Table of Contents  

DEDICATION 

PREFACE 

INTRODUCTION 

Chapter I: 

WAR DEVASTATION 

Chapter II: 

EXTERMINATION BY OVERCROWDING 

Chapter III: 

PULLING DOWN THE PILLAR OF LABOR 

Chapter IV: 

THE ATTACK AGAINST GERMAN CAPITAL  

Chapter V: 

BASTARDIZING THE GERMAN RACE  

Chapter VI: 

THE PEOPLE HUNGER 

Chapter VII: 

ECONOMIC TRIBULATION  

Chapter VIII: 

TEACHING DEMOCRACY IN REVERSE  

Chapter IX: 

THE KREMLIN’S PROGRAM 

Chapter X: 

FACTS WE MUST FACE 

 

DEDICATION 

This book is dedicated to those people in all lands who are ruled 

primarily by reason, rather than emotion; who think consistently in 

terms of principle, rather than prejudice; who try to see events now 

the way they will be viewed a generation hence by sober historians; 

who try to identify the present distortion in public sentiment and 

understanding caused by total war and propaganda; who are willing 

to appraise the problems of peace in terms of national, rather than 

presumed personal self-interest; who do not ask others to follow rules 

and standards which they would not accept for themselves; who 

believe in equality before the law for whole peoples as for individuals; 

who recognize the injustice of condoning an act committed by one 

country while condemning the same act committed by another; who 

can see that an a priori picking of sides and choosing of favorites 

among nations without regard to their conduct is a repugnant form of 

racial or national discrimination; who strive for better human 

relations by helping overcome chauvinism, ethno-centrism, and 

persecution on any account; who respect human dignity and 

fundamental human rights; who have democratic faith in the simple 

honesty and soundness of the broad masses of people in all countries; 

who therefore believe that the people of no nation can be collectively 

condemned without condemning human nature itself; who 

sympathize with those millions of suffering, starving victims of total 

war wherever they may be; who seek the peace, prosperity, and 

happiness of all people, including those who live in our America – and 

our former enemies. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

PREFACE 

A year and a month after the Potsdam Declaration was published, 

Secretary of State Byrnes suddenly left the Paris peace conference 

and went to Stuttgart where among the German people he attempted 

to justify and defend America’s policy toward the defeated Reich. 

This willingness to place a value on German public opinion marked a 

fundamental and welcome turning point in our official attitude, for 

previously we were carrying out our mission in Germany with utter 

disregard for what the Germans might think of it or us. 

The change did not arise from any newly discovered fondness for our 

defeated subjects. Mr. Byrnes had put his finger on the real reason 

when he said: “It is not in the interest of the German people or in the 

interest of world peace that Germany should become a pawn or a 

partner in a military struggle for power between East and West.” 

That is precisely what had already happened. Belatedly, we had come 

to realize that while we were busily and blindly alienating the German 

people by carrying out one of the most brutal and terrifying peace 

programs ever inflicted on a defeated nation, Russia, who had been 

egging us on, was quietly preparing to come forward as their 

champion and to offer them an avenue of escape from us through the 

establishment of a unified, revived, and Communist Reich to be 

joined to the Soviet Union. This had been made clear by Molotov in 

July at Paris. 

Germany is more than a mere pawn in the struggle for power between 

world ambitious Communist Russia and the West, she is the major 

price. World Communism has long coveted Germany as the brightest 

jewel in its crown. The Kremlin knows and we know that all Europe 

would have to fall before the combined might of a union between 

Soviet Russia and a resuscitated Reich. 

Such an eventuality cannot be tolerated by Britain who, with a hostile 

Europe at her back, would find her very existence threatened. Nor 

could we countenance such a threat to England, because treatment of 

the British Isles as our first line of defense in the Atlantic is one of the 

imperatives of our present foreign policy. 

Union between Soviet Russia and a sovietized Germany would mean 

war. To prevent war, we must therefore prevent the fruition of 

Russia’s design. Hence, it becomes necessary that we attract Germany 

to our side and keep her there. 

The situation demands a thorough review of our German program, 

followed by whatever changes are required to establish a decent peace 

and prevent the Germans from feeling compelled by desperation to go 

over to the Russians. 

The time has come for frank admission of past mistakes and 

courageous facing of hard facts. It is necessary for the American 

people to become thoroughly acquainted with what has been going on 

and to see to it that the proper corrective steps are taken and taken 

promptly. 

This book is offered as a contribution to that end. It sets forth in plain 

terms just what has happened in Germany, because such knowledge is 

essential both to apprehend the German point of view and to become 

acquainted with the status quo from which we must proceed with 

remedial measures. It outlines the nature of Russia ‘s design, together 

with a description of the mistakes we have made in falling so deeply 

into her trap. And finally it presents some suggestions for a peace 

settlement with Germany which would be at once just and permanent. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION 

At Yalta in the Crimea, Messrs. Churchill, Roosevelt, and Stalin met to 

decide the fate of Europe and in their joint statement solemnly 

declared: 

“It is not our purpose to destroy the people of Germany.” 

Again at Potsdam, the representatives of the Big Three met and in 

their joint Declaration, signed by Messrs. Stalin, Truman, and Attlee, 

officially proclaimed: 

“It is not the intention of the Allies to destroy or enslave the German 

people.” 

Despite these and other assurances, the Potsdam decisions, as we at 

first interpreted them, meant throwing the German people on their 

own, with outside assistance prohibited, after the necessary means 

for their survival had been destroyed. This could have but one result: 

to blot out Germany and the German people. 

The life of every nation is supported by three main pillars: land (all 

natural resources), labor (both brawn and brains), and capital 

(plants and equipment). Break down any one of these and the nation 

is plunged into catastrophe. 

We have been guilty of pulling down all three in Germany. 

The war started the process by destroying the flower of German 

manpower, shattering cities, factories, railroads, and impoverishing 

the soil by a five year cessation of fertilizer production. And an 

equally oppressive war has been waged against the German people 

since their unconditional surrender. The supporting power of the 

land has been undermined by vital territorial losses followed by 

overcrowding caused by the influx of millions of Germans expelled 

into the shrunken Reich from the lost areas and from Czechoslovakia, 

and Poland. Industrial capital resources have been further 

diminished by loss of all production facilities in the territories taken 

by the conquerors and by a gigantic program of sacking politely 

known as “deindustrialization” and “reparations in kind.” The 

working force had been decimated by the enslavement of millions, the 

throwing of other millions out of posts of responsibility through 

“denazification,” and weakened by undernourishment which causes 

workmen to fall at their posts of duty. Even the German race itself has 

been attacked by a program of mass violation of Germany’s 

unconditionally surrendered motherhood. 

In consequence, Germany lies prostrate and her people famish. After 

they began to die en masse, it was finally decided that the importation 

of some food would be necessary – unfortunately barely enough to 

keep the great masses of people in the twilight zone between life and 

death. Their agonies and despair have been perpetuated at the 

maximum of human capacity. 

The following pages portray what TIME magazine has aptly called 

“history’s most terrifying peace”, a peace which fully explains why 

many Germans are ready to turn to communism, or worse. For, 

strangely, our modern age which brought us the atom bomb has also 

given birth to nations which at the expense of their allies are able to 

derive profit from the production of human suffering. 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

Chapter I: 

WAR DEVASTATION 

Devastation of the Reich by total warfare was alone enough to cast serious doubt on 

Germany’s postwar ability to survive. 

Never before in history have the life-sustaining resources of a nation been so 

thoroughly demolished. Returning from victory in Europe, General Bradley declared, 

“I can tell you that Germany has been destroyed utterly and completely.”[1] 

The demand for unconditional surrender had forced the desperate Germans to fight 

to the bitter end, until their cities had been pulverized into death-ridden rubble and 

their factories, railroads, canals, dams, power installations, communications, 

buildings, homes – all their exposed facilities – had been converted into heaps of 

twisted, smouldering ruins. 

Allied fervor to destroy everything German had been expressed by General 

Eisenhower with the opening of the Ruhr drive. “Our primary purpose,” he declared, 

“is destruction of as many Germans as possible. I expect to destroy every German 

west of the Rhine and within that area in which we are attacking.”[2] 

Allied capacity to destroy became overwhelming after the American industrial 

colossus had been converted from peace-time to war production. American output 

soon surpassed that of all other belligerents in the war combined and became twice 

as great as the capacity of the doomed Axis.[3] 

Stunned by American power, Hermann Göring confessed to his Nuremberg prison 

guards: “The industrial genius of America is something of which no one dreamed.” 

A glimpse of America’s smashing force when devoted to the grim business of mass 

production of death and destruction is provided by the following description written 

by a front line war correspondent: 

“A cataclysmic blast of exploding, splintering steel rent the earth before us and it 

seemed like the world was coming to an end. 

“The Americans were blasting out a path for a forward drive. 

“Man and beast shuddered in their tracks. Whole towns were disintegrating. Life 

seemed to disappear from the scene. It was the most terrifying destructive force of 

warfare Germany has ever seen. And it was a symbol of what was to come as the 

U.S. 1st Army unloosed this shattering blow within the borders of Germany. 

“For an hour and a half more than 2,000 bombers and hundreds of guns pounded the 

German countryside, making the earth dance before this mighty man-made force. 

When the heavies and mediums were not making the earth quake for miles around, 

our massed artillery was giving them hell out there. They were firing at an average 

rate of one round every 15 seconds, blasting every conceivable obstacle in our path. 

Minefields went up as though touched off by an electric switch… 

“In the center of that frightful scene, the Germans were entrenched as a ‘human 

wall.’ They were dug in foxholes and inside houses of ‘fortified towns.’ Many died 

without knowing what had hit them. 

“Having seen brave men and wild beasts crack as they do sometimes in the grip of a 

terrible earthquake, I could have sworn there would be no opposition when the zero 

hour came. 

“Yet, when our tanks and doughboys went over the top after the barrage, as in the 

battle of Verdun, there were Germans still alive and they fought us with 

violence.”[4] 

Great though it was, the destruction resulting from ground fighting pales in 

comparison with that caused by our gigantic air raids. The two atom bombs dropped 

on Japan may have been more dramatic, but they could hardly have been more 

destructive than the millions of phosphorous, fire, and “blockbuster” bombs dropped 

on Germany. Near the end we were using 11-tonners which crews said caused their 

planes to bounce up over 500 feet when the huge 25-foot missiles were released, 

sending up “a tremendous pall of black smoke and a fountain of debris” which 

“dwarfed the terrific explosions of the six-ton ‘earthquake’ bombs.” 

During the war, more bombs by weight were dropped on Berlin alone than were 

released over the whole of England. So great was the ruin that General Eisenhower 

was constrained to say: 

“I have seen many great engineering jobs during the war – such as the clearing of 

the port of Cherbourg – but I just wouldn’t know where to begin to rebuild 

Berlin.”[5] 

An American writer, among the first group of correspondents allowed to spend more 

than 24 hours in the smashed metropolis, wrote: 

“The capital of the Third Reich is a heap of gaunt, burned-out, flame-seared 

buildings. It is a desert of a hundred thousand dunes made up of brick and powdered 

masonry. Over this hangs the pungent stench of death . . . It is impossible to 

exaggerate in describing the destruction . . . Downtown Berlin looks like no thing 

man could have contrived. Riding down the famous Frankfurter Allee, I did not see 

a single building where you could have set up a business of even selling apples.”[6] 

All German cities above 50,000 population and many smaller ones were from 50 to 

80 per cent destroyed. Dresden, as large as Pittsburgh, was wiped out and nearly all 

of its 620,000 inhabitants buried under the ruins.[7] Cologne, with a population of 

750,000, was turned into a gigantic wasteland. Hamburg, with its 1,150,000 people, 

was blasted by huge attacks, in one of which the flames rolled a mile into the sky and 

roasted alive hundreds of thousands of civilians in street temperatures of a thousand 

degrees. Frankfurt-on-Main, a city of 500,000, was reduced to a mass of rubble. All 

cities and industrial areas, such as the Ruhr and Saar regions, were laid waste.[8] 

The story of Kassel typifies the tragedy which befell the others: 

“Three hundred times the people of Kassel ran terrified to their air-raid shelters as 

giant British and American planes dropped their bombs. Nearly 10,000 were killed 

in the first terrible bombing, the night of October 22, 1943. That was largely an 

incendiary attack, which set the whole center of the city afire. Thousands were 

killed in their air-shelters by the gas fumes from great piles of burning coal, never 

knowing why they felt sleepy, never awakening. 

“From that night on they never knew when; they just knew they were doomed. 

Sometimes they got only a few bombs; often raiding parties which couldn’t reach 

objectives farther east around Berlin picked Kassel on the way home. 

“Occasionally swarms of planes went directly overhead and nothing happened; 

other times they went overhead, and when the people of Kassel thought they were 

going on eastward, they wheeled around and came back to drop their powerful tons 

of TNT. 

“They got so they knew all the tricks, those that remained in Kassel. Steadily their 

town was beaten down upon their heads 

. . . Less than 15,000 of their 65,000 homes remained livable. They learned how to 

dig in, to escape the coal fumes, the fires. Somehow, I thought it was with just a 

touch of pride that the Burgomeister said, ‘And then our latest raid, March 8 and 9, 

1945. It was by far the biggest. Perhaps a thousand big bombers, one of the biggest 

raids in all Germany; and we lost very few killed – less than 100.’ 

“‘And then, just before Easter, we heard the American armies were coming and 

wanted to make Kassel an open city,’ said Helga Aspen, a pretty blond girl who 

stayed through it all. ‘But,’ she added bitterly, ‘the Fuehrerhauptquartier (Himmler) 

gave orders to defend to the last man.’ 

“And so Kassel, beaten by 300 air-raids, must know the crashing of American 

artillery fire. They gathered about 6,000 civilians in a deep bunker in the center of 

town and waited – as the rather inept German defense units gradually were driven 

back. 

“So, on April 4, 1945, Kassel surrendered, not more than 15,000 of its 250,000 still 

in the the city and living. Thousands lay buried under the countless tons of brick 

and mortar and twisted steel that had been dwellings and stores and factories. 

“That was a year ago and it’s no exaggeration to say that they are still dazed. Only a 

few have snapped out of their stupor to become real leaders. It is not uncommon to 

see a person burst into helpless tears, if the conversation turns to recounting the war 

terror.”[9] 

This wholesale destruction of the cities and production facilities of the most highly 

industrialized nation in Europe was successful from a strictly military point of view; 

however, it was also an attack against the livelihood of millions of workers, for the 

wrecking of factories and machines is also destruction of jobs, the basic means of 

life. 

Some of Germany’s jobless millions have found temporary employment in clearing 

rubble and similar work. But genuine reconstruction is impossible without 

production of vast amounts of building materials and new equipment, neither of 

which can be produced in Germany today, because the necessary facilities no longer 

exist. It takes factories and machines Germany lacks to build the factories and 

machines Germany needs. 

To get the German economy off this dead center demands external assistance. And 

meanwhile the people, unable to produce the necessities of life for themselves, must 

either be allowed to die in masses or be given outside help until recovery has gone 

far enough to enable them once more to take care of themselves. 

  

Reference Notes: 

[1] Associated Press, New York, June 3, 1945 

[2] J. Kingsbury Smith, Paris, Feb. 24, 1945, [INS] 

[3] Cf. address by Donald M. Nelson, Chr. U.S. Production Board, Toronto, Canada. July 8, 1943; 

James D. White, Chicago Daily News [AP], May 7, 1945; and Chicago Sunday Tribune, Sept. 22, 

1946, reporting statement by Troyer S. Anderson, War Dept. Historian. 

[4] Henry T. Gorrell [UP], Chicago Daily News, Nov. 17, 1944 

[5] Associated Press, London, June 11, 1945 

[6] Eddie Gilmore [AP], Berlin, June 9, 1945 

[7] United Press, London, Feb. 14, 1945 and Associated Press, London, March 5, 1945 

[8] Associated Press, London, March 24, 1945 

[9] Jack Bell, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service, Kassel, Germany, May 15, 1946. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter II: 

EXTERMINATION BY OVERCROWDING 

Territorial Amputations 

Germany’s living space, even in 1937, was small for her heavy 

population and afforded important natural resources only in the form 

of farm lands and deposits of coal and potash. Her agricultural lands 

have been overworked by intensive cultivation for 1,000 to 2,000 

years and her soil has been starved for fertilizer during and since the 

recent war. Even when plenty of fertilizer was available and her 

territory was intact, Germany was never able to produce more than 

80 per cent of the food and other farm products needed to meet her 

domestic needs.[1] 

The rest had to be imported in exchange for coal and manufactured 

exports. 

As her agricultural lands became overcrowded, Germany had 

resorted to manufacturing. By importing iron ore and exploiting her 

coal and potash resources to the utmost, she had built up the world’s 

second largest steel and chemical industries which, in turn, formed 

the “workshop of Europe,” raised the general European standard of 

living, and provided direct or indirect support for fully two thirds of 

her own population. 

On account of destruction by total warfare and deliberate Allied 

policy, these industrial resources are now largely wiped out. Without 

them, over half of the German workers must resort to the soil as their 

only other means of life. Under the circumstances it is extremely 

doubtful that the land, even if all held in 1937 were left intact, could 

support the huge, now jobless, industrial population on even the 

barest subsistence level. 

Without waiting to see, Germany’s conquerors have ruthlessly 

stripped her of lands constituting 28 per cent of her living space, 

producing an even higher proportion of her food, and containing two 

of her three principal coal regions. To make matters still worse, they 

are expelling into the remaining Reich millions of Germans from the 

lost provinces, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and elsewhere; are 

coddling a large population of “displaced persons” within stricken 

Germany; and, in the case of the Russians and French, are 

maintaining large armies of occupation which live off the land. Both 

the “displaced persons” and these occupation forces enjoy priority 

over the Germans by being able to make requisitions against them for 

whatever food and other items they need in order to live in 

comparative ease and luxury. The deplorable situation created by 

these actions ean well be imagined. 

The Atlantic Charter had promised: 

“No aggrandizement.” – “No territorial changes that do not accord 

with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned.” – “the 

right of all peoples to choose the form of govemment under which 

they live.” – “To all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their 

own borders.” – “A peace . . . which will afford assurance that all men 

in all lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want.” 

In their Yalta statement, the Big Three reaffirm their “faith in the 

principles of the Atlantic Charter” and say they uphold “the right of all 

people to choose the form of government under which they live.” Yet 

in the same pronouncement they grant Russia the eastern half of 

Poland and as compensation promise the Poles “substantial 

accessions of territory” in eastern Germany – all without regard to 

“the wishes of the peoples concerned,” – “freely expressed” or 

otherwise. 

Although Yalta prescribes that the exact amount of such territory 

Poland is to receive must await final adjudication at the peace 

conferenee, Russia at Potsdam confronted her two western allies with 

a territorial fait accompli. She had taken a third of East Prussia as her 

own permanent acquisition and had placed her Polish puppet in 

possession of all other German territory east of the Oder and Neisse 

Rivers. Even the drastic Morgenthau Plan had called for ceding 

Poland only the part of East Prussia not taken by Russia and the 

Upper Silesian coal and industrial region. But in addition to these 

areas, Poland had now possessed herself of German Posen, nearly all 

of Pomerania and Lower Silesia, and the eastern part of Brandenburg 

– the best part of the Reich’s breadbasket. In urging her two allies to 

accept these acquisitions as permanent, Russia argued that so many 

German inhabitants had fled when the Red armies invaded that to get 

the regions back into production would require their incorporation 

into the Russian and Polish economies along the lines already 

drawn.[2] 

Russia’s seizure of Koenigsberg and adjacent East Prussian territory 

was accepted at Potsdam and has since gone unopposed. Renamed 

Kaliningrad, the former East Prussian capital has been developed into 

a prized warm water port for the Soviet Union, most of the German 

inhabitants have been ousted, and the whole region has been 

thoroughly Russified.[3] 

But concerning German lands held by Poland, Potsdam decides that 

“the final delimitation of the western frontier of Poland should await 

the peace settlement”; however, it permits the territories to be held 

meanwhile “under the administration of the Polish state.” Apparently 

looking upon this arrangement as tantamount to de facto recognition 

of her title to the regions, Poland has proceeded to dispossess and 

drive out the millions of German inhabitants, and to replace them 

with Poles. 

Although Moscow had led Poland to believe that she could keep the 

German provinces in question, German Communists with Soviet 

backing early in 1946 started hinting to the Germans that all or part of 

the lands might be returned and Poland herself partitioned again 

between Russia and Germany, if the Reich would accept 

communization and membership in the Soviet Union. Marshall 

Zhukov himself had made such a suggestion to German Communists 

in April and in July Molotov at Paris had lent his tacit support when, 

to the consternation of his western allies, he came out boldly for a 

territorially unified, centralized strong Reich. He specifically opposed 

any territorial amputations in the west and although silent on the 

subject, permitted the inference that some or all of the eastern 

territories might be returned. The coup came as a discomforting 

surprise especially to France and the United States, whose “tough 

peace” programs which they had assumed met with hearty Russian 

approval, called for severe amputations of the Reich. It became plain 

that Russia approved the programs only as long as her western 

friends would put them forward and thereby permanently alienate 

the German people. 

Finally realizing that we must meet the Russian bid for German 

sympathy and support, Mr. Byrnes at Stuttgart made it plain to the 

Germans that, while the United States will continue to support 

Poland’s claim to some German territory, it does not necessarily 

consider the western Polish frontier to be permanently fixed at the 

Oder River. His object was clearly to place the United States in a 

position to match any offer the Russians might make to return to the 

Germans all or part of their lost eastern territory. Communist 

inspired Polish reaction to the Byrnes statement was immediate and 

bitter. The day after it was given crowds with clenched fists waving 

milled about in front of the Warsaw residence of the American 

Ambassador shouting, “Down with the defenders of Germany!” A 

spokesman of the Polish puppet government publicly warned that 

Poland “will fight” if any attempt is made to move her western 

frontier east of the Oder. A little later Stalin declared that he 

considers Poland’s present frontiers permanent. With the situation 

thus stalemated awaiting the peace settlement, Poland remains in 

what may easily become permanent possession of the disputed areas. 

France, meanwhile, had waged a bitter fight to deprive Germany of 

vital western areas. Insisting that the Reich must be permanently 

weakened by economic and political dismemberment, she demanded 

that the Ruhr be detached and internationalized, that the Rhineland 

be turned into an autonomous state, and that she be allowed to annex 

the rich Saar coal and industrial regions. Placing settlement of these 

questions and her exorbitant reparation claims above all bilateral 

agreements and alliances, she attempted to force the issue by blocking 

all Allied attempts to treat Germany as an economic whole. 

Prior to the Molotov coup at Paris, France had been supported in her 

territorial claims against Germany by French Communists with 

Moscow backing. But just as she was making her strongest appeal for 

Allied approval of their severe plans for western Germany, Molotov 

suddenly abandoned her and made his unexpected bid for German 

territorial unity and support. Rejecting outright the proposed 

internationalization of the Ruhr and, by implication, French 

annexation of the Saar, he quoted from Stalin’s speech of November 

2, 1942, in which he had said that it is “just as impossible to destroy 

Germany as to destroy Russia.” Opposing any “alamode” plans to 

dismember or pastoralize the Reich, or to turn it into a federation or 

confederation of small states, as had been proposed, he demanded 

four-power control and administration of the Ruhr. 

Despite this stinging Russian rejection of territorial changes in 

western Germany, the United States, in exchange for a French 

promise to cease blocking treatment of Germany as an economic 

whole, promised to back French claims to the Saar which France 

thereupon began to enlarge by annexing adjoining areas. But at 

Stuttgart, Mr. Byrnes, after repeating the promise to support the 

French claim to the Saar, followed Mr. Molotov’s example and 

opposed detachment of the Ruhr and Rhineland. His stand, 

supported by both Russia and Britain, will undoubtedly force 

substantial moderation in future French claims. 

Byrnes declared that apart from the Saar, and the eastern territories 

to go to Russia and to Poland as decided at the peace conference, “the 

United States will not support any encroachment on territory which is 

indisputably German or any division of Germany which is not 

genuinely desired by the people concerned. So far as the United States 

is aware the people of the Ruhr and the Rhineland desire to remain 

united with the rest of Germany. And the United States will not 

oppose their desire.” 

With the exceptions noted, Mr. Byrnes, here with telling effect, 

applied to Germany the principles of the Atlantic Charter. There 

should be no exceptions. If these principles apply to the Ruhr and 

Rhineland, as they do, they apply with equal force to the Saar and to 

German territories east of the Oder-Neisse line. Such principles 

cannot be used merely as convenient trumps in the sordid game of 

power politics without convincing the world, including the Germans, 

that our stand is unprincipled, inherently contradictory, and 

prejudiced, that in consequence they are being unjustly deprived of 

territory vital to their very existence. 

The Germans have long suffered from acute overpopulation. In 

earlier years they sought relief in colonies and heavy emigration, 

which incidentally brought us the large German element in our own 

population. Later, they resorted to intensive industrialization. After 

World War I, they were stripped of their colonies, emigration was 

impeded by barriers such as immigration quotas, and their homeland 

was reduced from 208,830 to 181,699 square miles. Following World 

War II, emigration has been entirely prohibited, and all the Germans 

in Europe are being jammed into a homeland further slashed to only 

133,000 square miles. 

Although Germany’s population is half as large as our own, her 

territory in 1937 was only one sixteenth as large as ours, or about 

equal to the combined areas of Michigan, Indiana, Ohio, and 

Pennsylvania. Since the present losses to Poland, Russia, and France 

subtract an area as large as Pennsylvania, they mean that the 70 

million Germans are being crammed into a territory no larger than 

Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio. 

Imagine trying to force half the people of the United States into these 

three states with their cities, factories, railways, and, other 

production facilities demolished! 

The resultant population compression is tremendous. Thinking 

people in France are justly worried that it will bring another violation 

of their territory impelled by millions of desperate Germans faced by 

extermination through overcrowding. 

Diplomacy which creates such powder kegs is singularly lacking in 

statesmanship and humanity. It makes sense only in terms of Soviet 

designs. 

 

Mass Expulsions of Outside Germans into the Shrunken Reich  

The forced exodus of Germans from the lost German territories and 

elsewhere in eastem Europe constitutes one of the blackest pages of 

history. Potsdam gives its permission by saying that the “transfer to 

Germany of German populations, or elements thereof, remaining in 

Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, will have to be undertaken.” 

However it adds that “any transfers that take place should be effected 

in an orderly and humane manner.” 

Some 15 million people are victimized by this decree: a half million 

from Hungary, nearly three million from Czechoslovakia, and most of 

the rest from the German territories taken by Russia and Poland. 

Potsdam calls for annulment of all Nazi laws which established 

discrimination on grounds of race and declares: “No such 

discrimination, whether legal, administrative or otherwise, shall be 

tolerated.” Yet these forced migrations of German populations are 

predicated squarely on rank racial discrimination. The people 

affected are mostly wives and children of simple peasants, workers, 

and artisans whose families have lived for centuries in the homes 

from which they have now been ejected, and whose only offense is 

their German blood. How “orderly and humane” their banishment 

has been is now a matter of record. 

Winston Churchill was not exaggerating when, in referring to the 

expulsions some three months after V-E Day, he informed the House 

of Commons: 

“It isn’t impossible that a tragedy on a prodigious scale is imposing 

itself behind the iron curtain which presently divides Europe.”[4] 

The conservative newletter, REVIEW OF WORLD AFFAIRS, quotes as 

follows from a confidential memorandum prepared by an eminent 

European economist: 

“Since the end of the war about 3,000,000 people, mostly women and 

children and overaged men, have been killed in eastern Germany and 

south-eastern Europe; about 15,000,000 people have been deported 

or had to flee from their homesteads and are on the road. About 25 

per cent of these people, over 3,000,000, have perished. About 

4,000,000 men and women have been deported to eastern Europe 

and Russia as slaves. … It seems that the elimination of the German 

population of eastern Europe – at least 15,000,000 people – was 

planned in accordance with decisions made at Yalta. Churchill had 

said to Mikolajczyk when the latter protested during the negotiations 

at Moscow against forcing Poland to incorporate eastern Germany: 

‘Don’t mind the five or more million Germans. Stalin will see to them. 

You will have not trouble with them: they will cease to exist.'”[5] 

Dr. Lawrence Meyer, executive secretary of the Lutheran Church, 

Missouri Synod, after a tour of Germany stated: 

“About 16,000,000 German refugees east of the Oder are being 

deported from their homes. It has been estimated that already 

10,000,000 have been driven out. The human tragedy and suffering 

caused by this ‘Volkswanderung’ are unparalleled in history. Hunger, 

cold, sickness, and death is the lot of millions. An authentic eye- 

witness report of the physical wretchedness of most of the refugees is 

pictured in the following: 

“A !arge barge is slowly being towed across the Oder River. In it, lying 

on straw, are 300 children ranging from 2 to 14 years of age. There is 

hardly a sign of life in the whole group. Their hollow eyes, their 

swollen bellies, knees, and feet are telltale signs of starvation. These 

are merely the vanguard of hundreds of thousands – millions of 

homeless, shattered, hungry, sick, helpless, hopeless human beings 

fleeing westward – west of the Oder and Neisse Rivers. 

“A trust in God – in his goodness and mercy – these are the only hope 

of Germany today. And thank God in many there is still faith in God 

against which the gates of hell have stormed in vain during the past 

decade.”[6] 

In describing the expulsions in Poland and Czechoslovakia, Russian 

officers told Chicago Daily News correspondents: 

“The Poles have cleaned out all the Germans as far west as the Oder 

River, and now all that property is for any Poles who want it. 

“The Czechs have taken care of the Germans in Sudetenland in their 

own way – and it’s not pretty. They round them up, with only what 

they can carry, and start them moving.” 

Upon returning to his post as professor of political science at the 

University of Michigan, after serving 14 months as director of AMG’s 

regional government coordinating office, Dr. James K. Pollock, in 

August, 1946, said most of the 2-1/4 million expellees from Hungary 

and Sudetenland are old women and children. He said: 

“The Germans we are getting are mostly from the Sudetenland or 

Germans whose families had been living in Hungary for some 500 

years. They come in perfectly frightful condition. They even took the 

women’s wedding rings before they left. In many cases they have no 

clothes except those they are wearing.”[7] 

An officer would call at the door of the victims and order them to 

leave their home within a few hours, permitting them to take along 30 

to 100 lbs. of luggage containing nothing of value which might help 

them in making a new start elsewhere. The property forcibly left 

behind would be confiscated by the state. Any able-bodied men found 

would be hustled off to slavery. The others would then start their 

perilous hegira to overcrowded Germany wholly without protection of 

law, subjected to every conceivable abuse, including robbery, 

beatings, rape and murder. 

A dispatch in December, 1945, paints a picture of the plight of the 

exiles in the new Poland, where hundreds of thousands had been 

ousted from their homes and left to wander where they would. 

Former German cities like Breslau are described as almost 

depopulated of Germans, with Poles taking their place. The dispatch 

goes on to say: 

“Hundreds of thousands of persons in Poland are constantly on the 

move, restlessly seeking a spot where they can grub a living out of the 

war raged land. In every rail station and junction men, women, and 

children await transport. Clusters of human beings, almost hidden 

under loads of parcels and cans and other remnants of what must 

have been their homes, wait along the roads or in blasted villages for 

any transport that will carry them somewhere else. Life with its birth 

and death continues even in these nomadic streams and everywhere 

you see womenfold tending their sick or nursing babies.”[8] 

An eye-witness report of the arrival in Berlin of a train which had left 

Poland with exacly 1,000 refugees aboard reads: 

“Nine hundred and nine men, women, and children dragged 

themselves and their luggage from a Russian railway train at Leherte 

station today, after 11 days travelling in boxcars from Poland. 

“Red Army soldiers lifted 91 corpses from the train, while relatives 

shrieked and sobbed as their bodies were piled in American lend- 

lease trucks and driven off for internment in a pit near a 

concentration camp. 

The refugee train was like a macabre Noah’s ark. Every car was 

jammed with Germans . . . The families carry all their earthly 

belongings in sacks, bags, and tin trunks. . . Nursing infants suffer the 

most, as their mothers are unable to feed them, and frequently go 

insane as they watch their offspring slowly die before their eyes. 

Today four screaming, violently insane mothers were bound with 

rope to prevent them from clawing other passengers. 

“‘Many women try to carry off their dead babies with them,’ a Russian 

railway official said. ‘We search the bundles whenever we discover a 

weeping woman, to make sure she is not carrying an infant corpse 

with her.'”[9] 

New York Daily News correspondent Donald Mackenzie likewise 

reports from Berlin: 

“In the windswept courtyard of the Stettiner Bahnhof, a cohort of 

German refugees, part of 12,000,000 to 19,000,000 dispossessed in 

East Prussia and Silesia, sat in groups under a driving rain and told 

the story of their miserable pilgrimage, during which more than 25 

per cent died by the roadside and the remainder were so starved they 

scarcely had strength to walk. 

“Filthy, emaciated, and carrying their few remaining possessions 

wrapped in bits of cloth they shrank away crouching when one 

approached them in the railway terminal, expecting to be beaten or 

robbed or worse. That is what they have become accustomed to 

expect. 

“A nurse from Stettin, a young, good-looking blond, told how her 

father had been stabbed to death by Russian soldiers who, after 

raping her mother and sister, tried to break into her own room. She 

escaped and hid in a haystack with four other women for 4 days . . . 

“On the train to Berlin she was pillaged once by Russian troops and 

twice by Poles. . . Women who resisted were shot dead, she said, and 

on one occasion she saw a guard take an infant by the legs and crush 

its skull against a post because the child cried while the guard was 

raping its mother. 

“An old peasant from Silesia said . . . victims were robbed of 

everything they had, even their shoes. Infants were robbed of their 

swaddling clothes so that they froze to death. All the healthy girls and 

women, even those 65 years of age were raped in the train and then 

robbed, the peasant said.”[10] 

Precedent for these inhuman expulsions was set long before Potsdam 

in Romania where, according to a diplomatic report from Bucharest, 

520,000 Romanian citizens of German ancestry, men between the 

ages of 17 and 45 and women between 18 and 30, were rounded up 

like slaves and deported to Soviet Russia. The document said “there 

were heart-rending scenes and many preferred suicide to an 

unknown fate in Soviet Russia.”[11] 

The United States had made its own direct contribution by ousting 

more than 16,000 people of German extraction from Latin American 

countries, obtaining permission to do so by pressure of various kinds 

applied from Washington, extraditing them without trial to this 

country, holding them here in concentration camps incommunicado 

and still without trial, and finally deporting them out of this 

hemisphere where many of them have been impressed into slavery by 

England and France.[12] 

These wholesale expulsions of native populations are as 

reprehensible as anything the Nazis are accused of doing, and have 

caused deep resentment among all classes of Germans. Had America 

kept her skirts clean, and especially if she had denounced them, as 

she should have done, German respect for us would have soared. As 

matters stand, Germans blame us almost as much as the Russians and 

Poles. Our hands, too, are stained with the blood of millions of 

innocent victims of this savage, thoroughly un-American program. 

Apart from the moral aspects of the matter, the dumping of all these 

millions of expropriated, helpless, people into what remains of 

wrecked Germany piles chaos upon chaos and helps convert the 

entire German nation into one vast Belsen or Buchenwald. 

  

Reference Notes: 

[1] Karl Brandt, “The Rehabilitation of Germany,” address Oct. 11, 1944, Chicago 

Council of Foreign Relations. 

[2] Brought out by U.S. Secretary of State Byrnes in speech at Stuttgart, Germany, 

Sept. 6, 1946. 

[3] Hal Foust, Berlin, July 14, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[4] August 16, 1945, as reported by E.R. Noderer, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[5] Quoted by Sen. Homer Capehart in speech before U.S. Senate, Feb. 5, 1946. 

[6] Same source as No. 5. 

[7] Statement to press conference August 22, 1946, in Washington, D.C., as reported 

by John Fisher, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[8] Chicago Tribune Press Service, Stockholm, Sweden, Dec. 13, 1945. 

[9] Henry Wales, Berlin, Nov. 18, 1945, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[10] Congressional Record, Dec. 4, 1945, p. 11554, and New York Daily News, 

October 8, 1945. 

[11] Chicago Herald American, April 1, 1945, p. 16. 

[12] Chicago Daily Tribune, March 14, 1946. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter III: 

PULLING DOWN THE PILLAR OF LABOR 

Enslavement 

Allied attacks against German manpower have proceeded along three main 

fronts: enslavement, denazification, and physical incapacitation through 

undernourishment. Our present discussion will take up the first two of these, 

with starvation postponed for special treatment. 

President Roosevelt on October 21, 1944, promised that “the German people are 

not going to be enslaved, because the United Nations do not traffic in human 

slavery.” In the preceding month of Quebec, however, he had used strong 

pressure to obtain Mr. Churchill’s acceptance of the Morgenthau Plan which 

called for “forced German labor outside Germany.” Pravda writer Boris Izakov 

wrote that when in the following February at Yalta the proposal was advanced to 

force German workers to rebuild war-damaged areas, “President Roosevelt called 

this a healthy idea.”[1] It was at this meeting that Mr. Roosevelt pressed the 

Morgenthau Plan and won Mr. Stalin’s ominously ready acceptance. 

Although at Potsdam it was solemnly promised again that “It is not the intention 

of the Allies to . . . enslave the German people,” thousands of Germans had 

already been marched eastward into Russia’s yawning slave camps. More that a 

month earlier, on June 29, 1945, the following had been published: 

“German prisoners in Russian hands are estimated to number from four to five 

millions. When Berlin and Breslau surrendered, the long grey-green columns of 

prisoners were marched east. . . downcast and fearful. . . toward huge depots near 

Leningrad, Moscow, Minsk, Stalingrad, Kiev, Kharkov, and Sevastopol. All fit 

men had to march some 22 miles a day. Those physically handicapped went in 

handcarts or carts pulled by spare beasts. . . They will be made to rebuild the 

Russian towns and villages which they destroyed. They will not return home until 

the work is completed.”[2] 

It has long been an open secret that Russia maintains under the direction of the 

NKVD (secret police) a vast army of Russian slaves, varying in number form 10- 

20 millions, mainly recruited as “political unreliables.”[3] The presence and 

importance of this huge slave force explains, among other things, the profitability 

and frequency of Soviet Russia’s many “purges”: they are primarily a device for 

rounding up prisoners for enslavement. It is not surprising, therefore, that the 

Soviet Union should jump at the opportunity to enslave millions of defeated 

enemy civilians and soldiers and, to avoid special criticism, induce her allies to do 

likewise. When it was learned that the Soviets were impressing German civilian 

personnel for service in factories being removed to Russia, Britain and the United 

States protested. In reply the Russians produced a proclamation signed by Gen. 

Eisenhower a year earlier requiring that German authorities must carry out any 

measures of restitution, reinstatement, restoration, reparations, reconstruction, 

relief or rehabilitation as the Allied representatives might prescribe, to 

accomplish which the Germans must “provide such transporation, plant 

equipment and materials of all kinds, labor, personnel, specialists, and other 

services for use in Germany or elsewhere as the Allied representatives may 

direct.” Since the document did not require four-nation agreement, the Russians 

are permitted by it to act unilaterally. After it was produced, Britain and the 

United States had to withdraw their protests. 

A few crippled and ailing Germans who have survived the ordeal have been 

returned from the Russian slave camps to Berlin where American correspondents 

have obtained first hand accounts of what is happening. German Red Cross girls 

went at 9 a.m. on the morning of September 10, 1946, to meet a 20-car trainload 

of returning forced laborers. As the sealed cars were opened by the armed guards 

who had been riding on top, the girls were greeted with thin, scabby-faced men in 

rags begging for water or hysterically calling for help in removing the dead. A 

professional nurse told the story: 

“They had been in the train almost a week traveling about 60 miles from 

Frankfurt-on-Oder. There had been deaths from starvation, not from starvation 

just during the ride, but from the hardships of the trip after months of 

malnutrition in Russian labor camps. Almost all of the 800 or 900 in the train 

were sick or crippled. You might say they were all invalids. With 40 to 50 packed 

in each of those little boxcars, the sick had to sleep beside the dead on their 

homeward journey. I did not count them but I am sure we removed more than 25 

corpses. Others had to be taken to hospitals. I asked several of the men whether 

the Russian guards or doctors had done anything on the trip to care for the sick. 

They said ‘No.’ 

“I met only one alert, healthy man in the lot and I have seen him since. He was 

just a kid of 17. The boy told me that prisoners leaving Russian camps for 

Germany are searched to prevent any from smuggling mail for their comrades. 

Therefore; when one of them has been diagnosed as a hopeless invalid, in 

anticipation of discharge he will memorize the names and addresses of relatives 

to whom he can report for his fellow prisoners. He said only prisoners in special 

favor are able to mail postcards to their nearest of kin. This kid of 17 had 

memorized 80 names and addresses in Berlin of relatives of his prison friends. 

He found the buildings at most of the addresses in rubble, with the present 

whereabouts of the former occupants unknown, but he visited all 80 addresses in 

his first six days in Berlin.”[4] 

The daily diet in Russian slave camps is soup and lectures on the glories of 

Communism and the evils of western democracy. The slightest disobedience is 

penalized by such heavy work that a third of the culprits die within three weeks 

from exhaustion. A tenth of the slaves died during the first year, according to 

those who have returned.[5] 

If prisoners released by the Russians as unfit for further forced labor happen to 

recuperate, they are re-impressed and sent back for more.[6] Moreover, able 

bodied Germans we have released who have returned to their former homes in 

the Russian zone are arrested by the Russians and sent to the Soviet Union for 

enslavement, on the pretext that they have been rendered “politically unreliable” 

through exposure to British or American influences.[7] Refusal of released 

prisoners to return to the Russian zone has created a major problem, which 

France has attempted to meet by permitting the men to remain in France as a 

special class of citizens. 

When the war ended, we enjoyed a decided advantage over the Russians in 

German esteem. Aware of the barbarities of the NKVD’s treatment of slaves, 

German soldiers did their best to avoid falling into the hands of the Red armies, 

preferring instead to surrender to the British or Americans. German prisoners 

who were to be turned over to the Russians often committed suicide or tried to 

incapacitate themselves by slashing their bodies with knives, razors, or bits of 

glass.[8] Persistent reports coming from Russia, however, tell of large numbers of 

German prisoners joining the Red Army, after indoctrination in Communism, 

and justify the fear that ultimately the huge German prison army in Russia may 

be successfully converted into a potent military force which may someday be 

turned against the West. [9] 

France, according to the International Red Cross, had 680,000 former German 

soldiers slaving for her in August, 1946. 475,000 of their number had been 

captured by the United States and later turned over to the French for forced 

labor.[10] French treatment of her slave subjects is revolting to the civilized 

conscience. In an article entitled, “We Should Not Resemble Them,” FIGARO 

reveals: 

“In certain camps for German prisoners of war . . . living skeletons may be seen, 

almost like those in German concentration camps, and deaths from 

undernourishment are numerous. We learn that prisoners have been savagely 

and systematically beaten and that some have been employed in removing mines 

without protection equipment so that they have been condemned to die sooner or 

later. 

“People, of course, will point to the Gestapo tortures, the gas chambers and the 

mountains of human bodies found in the internment camps in Germany. But 

these horrors should not become the theme of sports competition in which we 

endeavor to outdo the Nazis. . . We have to judge the enemy, but we have a duty 

not to resemble him.”[11] 

Gathering his facts from numerous reliable sources, Louis Clair writes in THE 

PROGRESSIVE of “the horrible conditions in the French camps of German 

POW’s.” He says: 

“In a camp in the Sarthe district for 20,000 prisoners, inmates receive 900 

calories a day; thus 12 die every day in the hospital. Four to five thousand are 

unable to work at all any more. Recently trains with new prisoners arrived in the 

camp: several prisoners had died during the trip, several others had tried to stay 

alive by eating coal that had been lying in the freight train by which they came. 

“In an Orleans camp, the commander received 16 francs a day per head or 

prisoner to buy food, but he spent only nine francs, so that the prisoners were 

starving. In the Charentes district, 2,500 of the 12,000 camp inmates are sick. A 

young French soldier writes to a friend just returned from a Nazi camp: 

“‘I watch those who made you suffer so much, dying of hunger, sleeping on cold 

cement floors, in no way protected from rain and wind. I see kids of 19, who beg 

me to give them certificates that they are healthy enough to join the French 

Foreign Legion. . . . 

Yes, I who hated them so much, today can only feel pity for them.’ 

“A witness reports on the camp in Langres: ‘I have seen them beaten with rifle 

butts and kicked with feet in the streets of the town because they broke down of 

overwork. Two or three of them die of exhaustion every week.’ 

“In another camp near Langres, 700 prisoners slowly die of hunger; they have 

hardly any blankets and not enough straw to sleep on; there is a typhoid epidemic 

in the camp which has already spread to the neighboring village. In another camp 

prisoners receive only one meal a day but are expected to continue working. 

Elsewhere so many have died recently that the cemetery space was exhausted and 

another cemetery had to be built. 

“In a camp where prisoners work an the removal of mines, regular food supplies 

arrive only every second day so that ‘prisoners make themselves a soup of grass 

and some stolen vegetables.’ All prisoners of this camp have contracted 

tuberculosis. Here and elsewhere treatment differs in no respect from the Nazi SS 

brutality. Many cases have been reported where men have been so horribly 

beaten that their limbs were broken. In one camp, men were awakened during 

the night, crawled out of their barracks and then shot ‘because of attempted 

escape.’ 

“There are written affidavits proving that in certain camps commanding officers 

sold on the black market all the supplies that had been provided by American 

Army authorities; there are other affidavits stating that prisoners were forced to 

take off their shoes and run the gauntlet. And so on, and so on . . . These are the 

facts.”[12] 

After we had delivered the first 320,000 prisoners, the French returned 2,474 of 

them to us, claiming that we had given them weaklings. Correspondents 

described them as “a beggar army of pale, thin men clad in vermine infested 

tatters.” All were pronounced unfit for work – three-fourths of them on account of 

malnutrition – and 19 per cent had to be hospitalized. Associated Press 

photographer Henry Griffin, who had taken pictures of the corpses piled in all 

German concentration camps, including Buchenwald and Dachau, said of the 

men: “The only difference I can see between these men and those corpses is that 

here they are still breathing.”[13] 

Asked to investigate, the Red Cross reported the prisoners were receiving 

inhuman treatment. Upon our threat to stop further transfers the French 

protested that they must have more prisoners or suffer heavy financial loss. It 

then came out that the French Government was hiring the men out to French 

employers for which it collected regular union wages, an average of 150 francs per 

day per man. Out of this, the government paid each prisoner 10 francs, and stood 

their daily cost of upkeep of perhaps another 40 francs, leaving a daily net profit 

of 100 francs per slave. In the aggregate the French Government thus stood to 

make a profit of over 50 billion francs a year from its German slaves!” [14] No 

wonder it became upset when we threatened to stop handing them over. 

When we resumed deliveries, we took pains to make sure that the prisoners were 

in satisfactory physical condition. The men would be lined up and examined, 

their mouths opened and inspected, their chest thumped, their joints tried, their 

eyes, ear and teeth looked over, as if they were horses being offered for sale. GI’s 

witnessing this spectacle were overheard to remark: “Gee! I hope we don’t ever 

lose a war.” 

In the summer of 1946 a hopeful development which may bring an end to the 

slave traffic in France put in its appearance. It began when prisoners newly 

arrived from American POW camps not only refused to work in French coal 

mines but persuaded prisoners already there to follow their example.[15] A 

month later some of the prisoners were freed and then hired to work at full union 

wages, frankly as a measure to increase output.[16] The experience proves that in 

this modern world at least men when free produce more abundantly and 

profitably than when enslaved. 

On December, 5, 1946, it was announced that the American Government had 

requested the repatriation by October 1, 1947, of the 674,000 German POW’s it 

had turned over to France, Belgium, The Netherlands, and Luxemburg. France 

had agreed to release its 620,000 of this number but gave no definite pledge of 

when they would be freed. The French Government also disclosed that the United 

States, in a Dec. 21, 1945, memorandum, expressly stipulated that the Germans 

captured by the American Army and handed over to France were chattels to be 

used indefinitely for forced labor as part of France’s war reparations from 

Germany. Meanwhile reports continued to pour into the press that conditions in 

the French slave camps remained as bad or worse than before – starvation diets, 

little protection from the elements or disease, in filthy, vermin-infested quarters. 

Great Britain in August, 1946, according to the International Red Cross, had 

460,000 German prisoners slaving for her,[17] and as in the case of France 

bringing in a handsome profit to the War Office. Upon embarking from our ports 

the prisoners were given to understand that they were being sent home; when 

they learned upon arrival in British or French ports that they were to be worked 

indefinitely as slaves, they became sullen. As one British officer said, “It takes us 

several weeks to bring them around where they will work hard.”[18] 

A British contractor employing German slaves for skilled work is reported to have 

remarked: 

“When you see how well they do things and how awful our own Ministry of Works 

– we call the Ministry the O.C., short for organized chaos – messes things up, it 

makes you wonder how we ever won the war.”[19] 

Among other projects, the prisoners were forced to build in Kensington Gardens 

a British victory celebration camp to house 24,000 empire troops who marched 

in the Empire’s Victory Day parade. One foreman remarked: “I guess the Jerries 

are preparing to celebrate their own downfall. It does seem as though that is 

laying it on a bit thick.”[20] 

The British Government nets over $250,000,000 annually from its slaves. The 

Government, which frankly calls itself the “owner” of the prisoners, hires the men 

out to any employer needing men, charging the going rates of pay for such work – 

usually $15 to $20 per week. It pays the slaves from 10 cents to 20 cents a day, 

depending on the character of the work required, plus such “amenities” as slaves 

customarily received in the former days of slavery in the form of clothing, food, 

and shelter.[21] The prisoners are never paid in cash, but are given credits, either 

in the form of vouchers for camp post exchange items or credits against the time 

when they will be liberated. In March 1946, 140,000 prisoners were working on 

farms, for which the Government collected $14 a week per prisoner, 24,000 on 

housing and bomb damage clearance, 22,000 on railroads, mostly as section 

hands, the balance at odd jobs, such as digging weeds out of the Thames river or 

serving as menials for GI brides awaiting shipment to America.[22] 

According to revelations by members of the British House of Commons, about 

130,000 former German officers and men were held during the winter of 1945-46 

in British camps in Belgium under conditions British officers have described as: 

“Not much better than Belsen.” The prisoners lived through the winter in tents 

and slept on the bare ground under one blanket each. They say they are underfed 

and beaten and kicked by the guards. Many have no underclothes or boots.[23] 

In the summer of 1946 an increasing number of prisoners were escaping from 

British slave camps with British civilian aid. Accounts of the chases by military 

police are reminiscent of pre-Civil War pursuits of fleeing negro fugitives.[24] By 

mid-September public indignation had risen to such a pitch that the British War 

Office announced that plans were under way to release 15,000 slaves per month, 

with preference given those displaying “genuine democratic” convictions. Army 

officers and important Nazis would not be repatriated under the plan. However, 

promises were made to improve conditions in the camps.[25] 

The official International Red Cross report in August 1946 showed that our own 

government, through its military branch in the German zone, was exacting forced 

labor from 284,000 captives, 140,000 of them in the occupation zone, 100,000 

in France, 30,000 in Italy, and 14,000 in Belgium.[26] 

Slave holdings of other countries, as reported by the Red Cross, were: Yugoslavia 

80,000; Belgium 48,000; Czechoslovakia 45,000; Luxemburg 4,000; Holland 

1,300.[27] 

Keeping these millions of Germans away from their families is a direct attack 

against the German home and family, and in this respect serves only 

Communism. Still the tie that binds the men to their loved ones has remained 

strong. A dispatch from Geneva tells a touching story. 

“Hundreds of tons of parcels shipped by German war prisoners in United States 

camps to relatives in the Reich via the International Red Cross during the last 

three years are congesting warehouses here. The Geneva organization is unable to 

forward them because no central Red Cross is permitted in Germany. Other 

hundreds of tons are being held in New York pending a solution. 

“‘The contents of the packages tell a pitiful story,’ said Col. T. F. Wessels, provost 

marshall at U.S. army headquarters in Frankfurt, Germany. They contain chiefly 

wooden toys laboriously made by hand by the prisoners to send to their children, 

and even hand made shoes for their wives and mothers. Many German captives 

refrained from smoking and sent their cigarette allowances and candy. Many sent 

books about American life.”[28] 

An attempt is made by British officials to justify the enslavement on the grounds 

that the men are prisoners of war, and that as such they can be forced to work 

under the Geneva Convention rules. It is said that the war is not yet legally ended, 

that the prisoners are still soldiers of the German Government, and that when 

they return to Germany it will be the responsibility of the German Government to 

give them their pay accumulated as soldiers and prisoners. This argument rests 

on the assumption that there is a German government. But they also argue that 

repatriation of the prisoners cannot take place, as called for by the Geneva 

Convention as soon as hostilities are over, because there has been no armistice or 

peace treaty signed with Germany, and that none can be signed at present, 

because there is no German Government. 

By similar double-talk they justify feeding the prisoners rations well below army 

standards on the pretext that the Geneva Convention which requires standard 

army rations has expired with World War II; yet, when press representatives ask 

to examine the prison camps, the British loudly refuse, with the excuse that the 

Geneva Convention bars such visits to prisoner-of-war camps.[29] 

The International Red Cross, the highest authority on the subject, roundly 

condemns the slave system. As related from Geneva: 

“The United States, Britain, and France, nearly a year after peace, are violating 

International Red Cross agreements they solemnly signed in 1929. 

“Investigation at Geneva headquarters today disclosed that the transfer of 

German war prisoners captured by the American army to French and British 

authorities for forced labor is nowhere permitted in the statutes of the 

International Red Cross, which is the highest authority on the subject in the 

world. 

“Although thousands of the former German soldiers are being used in the 

hazardous work of clearing mine fields, sweeping sea mines, destroying surplus 

ammunition and razing shattered buildings, the Geneva Convention expressly 

forbids employing prisoners ‘in any dangerous labor or in the transport of any 

material used in warfare.’ 

“Russia refused to attend the 1929 conference of the International Red Cross and 

Japan never ratified that convention, so neither Moscow nor Tokyo was bound by 

the provisions regulating war prisoners. 

“‘The American delivery of German prisoners to the French and British for forced 

labor already is being cited by the Russians as justification for them to retain 

German army captives for as long as they are able to work,’ an International Red 

Cross official admitted. ‘The bartering of captured enemy soldiers by the victors 

throws the world back to the dark ages – when feudal barons raided adjoining 

duchies to replenish their human live stock.'”[30] 

A Red Cross observer condemns the enslavement in these words: 

“It is an iniquitous system and an evil precedent because it is wide open for 

abuses with difficulty in establishing responsibility. German soldiers were not 

common law convicts – they were drafted to fight in a national army on patriotic 

grounds and could not refuse military service any more than the Americans 

could. It is manifestly unjust to buy and sell them for political reasons as the 

African Negroes were a century ago.”[31] 

It must be emphasized, moreover, that many of the slaves were never German 

soldiers. Many were civilian Germans held in America during the war, including 

seamen picked up before we entered the war, former legal residents of the United 

States, and persons brought here by force from Latin America for having pro- 

German sentiments. Even anti-Nazi Germans who have voluntarily returned to 

Germany from America to help the military government rebuild the destroyed 

countries and to help families and friends in dire need have been nabbed for 

enslavement.[32] 

In sharp contrast with our treatment of German war prisoners was German 

treatment of American war prisoners. Allan Wood, war front correspondent of 

the London Express, in summarizing German treatment of their prisoners said: 

“The most amazing thing about the atrocities in this war is that there have been 

so few of them. I have come up against few instances where the Germans have 

not treated prisoners according to the rules, and respected the Red Cross.”[33] 

Lieutenant Newton L. Marguiles, Assistant Judge Advocate of Jefferson Barracks, 

said in St. Louis, Mo., April 27, 1945: 

“The Germans even in their greatest moments of despair obeyed the Convention 

in most respects. True it is that there were front line atrocities – passions run high 

up there – but they were incidents, not practices; and maladministration of their 

American prison camps was very uncommon.”[34] 

Chief of Staff Gen. George C. Marshall, on Jan. 5, 1945, wrote to the National 

Commander of the American Legion: 

“Our treatment of them” (prisoners of war) “is governed by the Geneva 

convention which, among other provisions, requires them to be furnished rations 

equal in quality and quantity to those of American troops at base camps in this 

country. This is done as a matter of treaty obligation and our soldiers in German 

hands receive generally reciprocal treatment.”[35] 

The American Red Cross in 1945 reported officially that “99 per cent of the 

American prisoners of war in Germany have survived and are on their way 

home.” 

German treatment of Russian war prisoners was on a par with Russian treatment 

of German war prisoners. Since Russia had not signed the Geneva Convention, 

neither it nor Germany was bound by its provisions. And it must be remembered 

that the atrocities in German concentration camps did not involve war prisoners, 

but people supposed to be German, people who now proudly admit, those who 

have survived, that they were members of the German underground, saboteurs, 

doing their best to obstruct and defeat the German war effort. The treatment they 

received, while deplorable and inhuman in the extreme, is on a par with Russian 

treatment of her political prisoners. If one is to be condemned, so must the other, 

if there is to be justice. Otherwise, we are guilty of rank discrimination, 

condemning a crime committed by one, condoning or overlooking it when 

committed by another. If we really fought this war to stop such things, the war 

will not be over until the inmates of the Russian slave camps are also liberated. If 

we fought a half trillion dollar war to free those in German camps only, but not to 

free those in Russian camps, an explanation is due. 

In any case, we must ask ourselves what we would do if we should go to war with, 

let us say, Russia, and were beset from within by an “underground” movement of 

sabotaging Communist fifth-columnists. 

An attempt has been made to justify enslavement of the common man of 

Germany on the ground that the Nazi government exacted forced labor from 

foreign workers. It is true that the Reich had millions of imported workers, but it 

is also true that, except for special cases such as war prisoners coming under the 

Geneva Convention, they were for the most part paid and fed well. 

Dr. James K. Pollock, for 14 months with AMG [American Military Government], 

said of Germany’s “forced laborers”: “I think some of the persons found 

themselves better off than at any time in their lives before.”[36] A mass of 

evidence proves that this is true and that Allied war propaganda to the contrary 

was greatly exaggerated. Besides, there can be no justification for punishing the 

average citizen of any country for the sins of its political leaders. 

In July, 1946, Max H. Forester, chief of AMG’s coal and mining division when 

asked, “What did the Germans do to get efficient production for forced labor that 

we are not able to do with Germans working the mines?” replied: “They fed their 

help and fed them well.”[37] 

The American Federation of Labor in the summer of 1946 came out strongly 

against the slave system as a fundamental threat to free labor all over the world. 

Calling attention to tariff laws which specifically forbid the importation from 

foreign countries of goods produced wholly or in part by convict, forced, 

indentured, or any other form of involuntary labor,[38] AF of L spokesman 

Herbert Thatcher warned in a radio address that the slave labor system may 

grind down trade and production to a level that can lead to another war. 

Conditions of slave labor in Britain, France, and Russia, he said, “menace world 

peace and they destroy world trade.” – “Therefore, the American Federation of 

Labor,” he concluded, “calls upon the United States government to propose to the 

United Nations that all member nations renounce the use of forced labor and 

agree to bar the products of forced labor from world trade.”[39] 

Upon his return from the Nuernberg trial Justice Jackson, who had served as U. 

S. chief prosecutor, reported to President Truman that German industrialists and 

financiers could be tried “on such specific charges as the use of slave labor.” He 

went on to say: 

“We negotiated and concluded an agreement with the four dominant powers of 

the earth which for the first time made explicit and unambiguous what was 

theretofore, as the tribunal has declared, implicit in international law, namely, 

that . . . to enslave or deport civilian populations is an international crime and 

that for the commission of such crimes individuals are responsible.”[40] 

Willis Smith of Raleigh, N. C., President of the American Bar Association, in 

defending the Nuernberg convictions said: 

“The time has come when men who order criminal things to be done should 

themselves be declared criminals. Since when are murder and deportations and 

slave labor not crimes?”[41] 

 

Denazification 

Germany under Hitler was ruled by the single National Socialist German Workers 

party, with all other parties outlawed. The system in this respect was similar to 

that of the Communists of Russia who since the 1917 coup d’etat have enforced a 

one party system upon the Russian people and treated all dissident political 

opinions as treason. 

Rejecting parliamentarism, the Nazis followed what they called the leadership 

principle. The chief leader or “Fuehrer” exercised supreme authority; under him 

descending layers of subordinate leaders spread out fan-wise through all 

branches of society to bring the entire German nation under centralized party 

control. 

After it took over, leaders in all walks of life found it necessary or expedient to 

join the party or one or more of its affiliated organizations. Among its 7,500,000 

members were nearly all government workers, professional men, scientists, 

technicians, professors, teachers, writers, and businessmen inducted as “führers” 

of business and compelled under heavy penalties, such as confiscation of 

property, to conform to party policies and mandates. White collar workers, 

craftsmen, and technicians had to fall in line to be eligible for promotion. 

Membership expanded rapidly during the war and the period of high tension 

immediately preceding. Party and nation became so closely identified that to join 

was to display patriotism; to refuse, to invite penalization for disloyalty. In short, 

almost everybody in Germany with brains, skills, and managerial ability belonged 

to the Nazi party, or one of its affiliated organizations and obeyed its orders. 

By placing sole blame for the war on Germany and therefore the Nazi party, by 

declaring the war to be one of aggression, and by outlawing aggression as a crime 

against humanity, Germany’s conquerors have condemned the Nazi party, its 

affiliates, and its millions of members as criminal. The punishment meted out at 

Potsdam, if carried out to the letter, would mean the virtual liquidation of 

Germany’s middle and upper classes. 

The blanket incrimination rests upon an infirm base, as revealed in the Potsdam 

denazification decrees. In one breath they order that all “discrimination on 

grounds of . . . political opinion shall be abolished”; yet in the next breath they 

permanently dissolve the Nazi party and its affiliated organizations and 

institutions, ban propagation of Nazi political opinion, without identifying it in 

particular, and call for severe punishment of all Nazis simply for being Nazis. 

Potsdam commands that “Nazi leaders, influential Nazi supporters and high 

officials of Nazi organizations and institutions . . . shall be arrested and interned” 

and that all lesser Nazis “shall be removed from public and semi-public office and 

former positions of responsibility in private undertakings.” 

In attempting to carry out these unusual edicts, which were looked upon as a 

purge order “to throw the rascals out,” the American military government issued 

“Law Number Eight” to denazify business and various mandatory removal edicts, 

the exact provisions of which were military secrets, to purge government of all 

Nazis. Approximately 3,000,000 German men were affected in our zone out of a 

total population of 16,682,000. Our occupation authorities jailed 75,000 and 

earmarked another 80,000 unreturned war prisoners for internment for being 

important Nazis; ousted more than 100,000 from public office; and denuded 

business of managerial and technical talent by firing and demoting hundreds of 

thousands of others.[42] 

In other words, we set out to ruin the lives and reputations of three million men 

in our zone alone because, as they see it, they made a “political mistake.” In 

consequence, the Germans are afraid to identify themselves with any political 

party or to express any political views, for fear of being punished later on, just as 

the Nazis are being punished now. 

Most important of all, the zone and its people have been denied the economic 

benefits which would accrue if these men were permitted to do the work which 

they alone by talent, training, and experience are capable of performing. Putting 

the zone’s most productive men in pick and shovel gangs and filling their places 

with incapables has been one of the chief contributing causes to the zone’s 

economic paralysis. 

Our occupation authorities have been confronted with two opposing mandates 

which often set them to working at cross purposes. They were ordered at 

Potsdam to secure enough production to supply the needs of the occupation 

forces and the “displaced persons,” with enough left over “to enable the German 

people to subsist without external assistance.” In the attempt to carry out this 

mandate some of our zonal authorities, for example, might be out scouring the 

zone with scanty success for trained personnel to run the undermanned railway 

system. But at the same time, some of our other authorities, attempting to 

enforce the denazification decrees, would be out ahead of the others nabbing and 

jailing trainmen and locomotive engineers, because they had been Nazis. 

Administration of the denazification decrees proved to be a task of forbidding 

magnitude. The limited AMG personnel found it impossible to get the three 

million Nazis properly registered, their questionnaires filled out and tabulated, 

and proper files set up. Nor could individual trials and hearings for so many be 

properly conducted, especially when each error added to the rising tide of 

German indignation. 

Fearing organized resistance, we carried out in Gestapo fashion one of the 

greatest mass raids in history. Striking at daybreak without warning, our troops 

halted every vehicle in our zone, checked the papers of civilians and soldiers, and 

swept through every German house from cellar to attic. Although the German 

populace had supposedly been under the influence and domination of criminals 

and criminal organizations for a dozen years, according to the men in charge “the 

search showed less crime than perhaps would be uncovered in a similar action 

over a comparable area in the United States.”[43] 

A few months of experience proved to us that in the denazification program we 

had taken hold of a very hot iron, impossible to hold, yet difficult to drop. We 

therefore tossed it to the Germans for them to handle. 

The law turning the job of denazification in our zone over to the Germans was 

largely formulated by one Heinrich Schmitt, a corpulent Communist Quisling 

serving under AMG as Bavarian Denazification Minister. The execution of the law 

was also partly placed in his hands.[44] This sort of thing is a logical outgrowth of 

the program which automatically places political responsibility on former 

political neutrals or active anti-Nazis, including Communists, who, with 

Communist Russia signing the Potsdam Declaration, must be accepted as 

“democratic.” 

The law is designed to permit some Nazis, otherwise condemned, to prove their 

innocence or pay the penalties and be restored to citizenship. It sets up five 

catgories of war criminals and potentially dangerous persons, namely: 

1) Major offenders, 2) offenders broadly described as Nazi activists, militarists, 

and profiteers, 3) lesser offenders, 4) followers, constituting the broad 

membership of the party and affiliates, and 5) persons exonerated after a tribunal 

finds them innocent. 

Penalties for those in the first category range from death or life imprisonment to 

imprisonment for five or more years with or without hard labor. Those in the 

second category may be imprisoned for a period up to ten years. Those in lower 

categories are subject to a variety of “sanctions,” including loss of citizenship and 

the right to vote, debarment from public office, loss of personal rights such as the 

privilege to own an automobile, demotion in position with heavy cut in 

compensation, discharge from position, confiscation of property, and 

employment only at ordinary labor. [45] 

To make matters easier, we granted an amnesty to all Nazis in our zone under 27 

years of age who had no special charges against them. The action readmitted to 

citizenship about a million men who, as General Clay put it, had become Nazis 

before they were old enough to know what they were doing. He failed to explain 

why the same consideration might not apply to most of the older men as well. At 

any rate, the action was accompanied by a statement to the effect that it was the 

desire of the military govemment “to offer encourgement to the youth of 

Germany to understand and develop a democratic way of life.”[46] 

Unfortunately, most of those pardoned under the blanket order were in France, 

Britain, Belgium, Holland, Russia or elsewhere for indefinite terms performing 

forced labor in the manner of convicts. 

Within a few months left wing critics again began to complain that the elaborate 

German court system which had been set up to adjudicate the million remaining 

cases was far too lenient, that it was permitting Hitler’s Hordes to creep back. In 

November 1946, Lt. Gen. Lucius D. Clay expressed concern over the leniency 

being shown Nazis in German courts. Setting a 60 day deadline before which the 

Germans must prove they had developed “the will to do this job which is not 

present today,” he warned that the military government was ready to take back 

the job of denazification unless the German courts tightened up. The day before 

the following Christmas, Gen. McNarney proclaimed a general amnesty for 

approximately 800,000 “little Nazis” in the U.S. zone. Included were minor Nazis 

whose incomes during the calendar years 1943 and 1945 were less than 3,000 

marks and whose taxable property in 1945 did not exceed 20,000 marks. 

Nevertheless, in the autumn of 1946 the Allied Control Council’s Coordinating 

Committee passed general denazification laws for the whole of Germany 

patterned after the American zonal law, with enforcement, however, left entirely 

to each zonal authority.[47] This loophole permits the other occupation 

governments to continue to denazify as they see fit, which thus far has been with 

greater reasonableness and leniency than have been exercised in the American 

zone where enforcement, in other words, has been far more rigid and drastic than 

elsewhere. At Stuttgart Mr. Byrnes was able to boast that denazification in the 

American zone had been completed. 

Less than four weeks later, the Nuernberg tribunal handed down its momentous 

decision. Out of 22 arch-Nazis the Allied court, which certainly cannot be accused 

of judicial neutrality or leniency, and which tried the cases on four all-embracing 

counts, gave the death penalty to only 12, life imprisonment to three, prison 

terms ranging from 10 to 20 years to four, and acquitted three. If three of the very 

highest Nazis were free of all guilt, and four others were only partly guilty, the 

broad party membership could not be seriously guilty at all. This means that the 

denazification decrees which condemn all Nazis without trial are thoroughly 

unjust. The Nuernberg proceedings themselves have been roundly condemned 

for violating basic principles of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence, particularly for 

condemning on the basis of ex-post facto law, for placing partisan judges on the 

bench, and for excluding evidence that would reflect on the victorious powers. 

But the verdict handed down at Potsdam was still worse, for there a blanket 

verdict of guilty was pronounced, without even a pretense of trial, evidence, or 

testimony. Under the present denazification laws, all Nazis are still guilty, unless 

they can prove themselves innocent in the face of procedure which permits 

violation of the accepted rules of evidence.[48] 

The Nuernberg tribunal also tried various Nazi organizations to determine 

whether or not they and their members were criminal. The SS, Gestapo, SD – elite 

guard, secret police, and security police – and the higher brackets of the Nazi 

leadership corps were adjudged criminal organizations. This means that for 

acquittal, some 400,000 members must prove they were forced to join or knew 

nothing of the criminality. Punishment ranges to the death penalty. On the other 

hand, the SA – original storm troopers – was dismissed as not linked with 

conspiracy to wage aggressive war, and the General Staff, High Command, and 

Brown Shirts were found not guilty. Certainly, then, the broad masses of the 

German people could not be guilty, and should not be punished. 

The denazification program in general and the Nuernberg trial in particular 

violates our traditional ideas of justice; on the contrary, they embody the Nazi 

and Communist concept of jurisprudence – the liquidation of ideological 

opponents. As Barron’s weekly says: 

“. . . the punishment is being meted out one-sidedly to the vanquished. After all, 

except that they did not commit the same spectacular atrocities on the spot, the 

Russians did just about the same things in Poland that the Nazis did. Thus a 

combination of excusably fanatic Nazi-haters and purposeful fellow-travelers has 

provided a Roman holiday by exploiting our legitimate desire for a new 

international law. 

“In the eyes of the world we have adopted the Communist view of justice.”[49] 

Even worse, we have permitted Communists, whose worst doctrines and those of 

the Nazis are identical, to continue to preach and agitate and even to work their 

way into key positions in our military govemment. When we first arrived the 

Germans were strongly anti-Communist; they have since started fleeing our zone 

and entering the Russian where they are welcomed into the Communist party and 

even into the Red Army, in whose ranks they may someday be able to get their 

revenge against us. 

Denazification in the Russian zone has been far more enlightened and less 

economically disruptive. The strong men of the Kremlin could hardly take 

seriously the condemnation of all Nazis as criminals when they know full well 

that their own party, which rules Russia much as the Nazi party ruled Germany 

and which demands the same blind obedience of its members, is guilty of every 

act for which we so strongly condemn the Nazis: wars of aggression against 

peaceful neighbors, wars of nerves, confiscation of property of whole classes 

without compensation to the owners, violation of treaties and agreements, 

hostility toward religion, concentration camp atrocities, slave labor, looting and 

abusing conquered countries, the use of fifth columns and Quislings, one-party 

rule by terror with the aid of civilian informers and a brutal secret police system, 

stifling of human rights and individual liberties of all kinds, and even the aim to 

conquer the world. 

The Russians know this and so do the Germans. When we condone the one and 

condemn the other we become ridiculous in the eyes of both. 

The attitude of the Kremlin toward denazification was expressed years ago and 

probably has not changed since. Russia in partnership with Hitler had just 

attacked, defeated, and partitioned Poland and Hitler had proposed that since the 

issue which had started the war had been settled, all the belligerents should stop 

fighting and call a general disarmament conference. Britain and France had 

declined with the terse remark that they would fight on for the “extermination of 

Hitlerism.” The Kremlin scoffed. Its reaction, which is probably still its inner 

conviction, was reported by the Associated Press from highly censored Moscow 

(Oct 9, 1939), as follows: 

“Soviet Russia threw her weight behind Adolph Hitler’s peace gestures today in 

an editorial in the government newspaper Izvestia, accusing Great Britain and 

France of ‘returning to the middle ages’ for waging war to ‘exterminate Hitlerism.’ 

“Izvestia asserted British-French arguments that the war must be prolonged to 

crush Hitlerism ‘makes us return to the gloomy middle ages when devastating 

religious wars were carried on to exterminate heretics and people of different 

religions.’ The paper asserted: 

“‘It is impossible to exterminate any idea or any opinion by fire and sword. 

“‘One may respect or hate Hitlerism or any other system of political opinion. That 

is a matter of taste. But to begin a war for the ‘extermination of Hitlerism’ means 

to admit to criminal silliness in policy.'” 

Potsdam’s decrees calling for the “extermination of Hitlerism” have been highly 

useful to the Kremlin, however, for they have provided a basis for the liquidation 

of the German “bourgeoisie” and therefore set the stage for ultimate 

communization. The necessary expropriation of property has been accomplished 

through confiscation of the holdings of Nazis, absentee fugitives, “war profiteers,” 

and other classes of synthetic criminals. But once a nominal Nazi in the Russian 

zone has been dispossessed he is offered a chance to redeem himself. He is given 

his job back if he works satisfactorily for six months with clean-up crews. 

Denazification is thus linked to “Aufbau” or reconstruction.[50] Minor offenders 

have been tried in German courts and penitent Nazis are invited to join the 

Communist party.[51] According to Reuters, German military officers have been 

taken into the Red army by invitation. When the officers cross the zonal frontiers 

they are nominally “arrested,” placed in quarantine camps, and invited to enlist. 

Upon acceptance, they are given preferential treatment. In other words, the 

union of the Red and Nazi armies has begun.[52] 

In her zone, Russia is taking full advantage of the many points of similarity 

between her own system and that of the Nazis under Hitler. Some Germans are 

remarking that “Communism is nothing but National Socialism under a different 

name.”[53] While we continue to pound away at the evils of Nazism, which we 

apparently consider as something unique, Russia, which our army men have been 

ordered not to criticize, matches up these evils to those of her own system and 

thereby facilitates the desired transformation from the one to the other. 

By eliminating the “bourgeoisie” in our zone we have played into the Kremlin’s 

hands, for the action has removed the principle barrier to the establishment of 

the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” and ultimate absorption of the zone into the 

Soviet Union – the Kremlin’s own United Nations. Our entire denazification 

procedure has been highly satisfactory to Moscow, for the greater the chaos, 

despair, and disgust we create, and the greater the resentment of the German 

people becomes, the stronger becomes the grip of Communism, and the closer we 

come to losing everything for which we fought the war. 

  

Reference Notes: 

[1] Associated Press, Moscow, March 31, 1945. 

[2] Quoted in Congressional Record, March 29, 1946, p. 2864. 

[3] Cf. David Dallin, The Real Soviet Russia (Yale University Press, 1944), Chapter XI, “Forced 

Labor.” 

[4] Hal Foust, Berlin, Sept. 17, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[5] Hal Foust, Berlin, Aug. 11, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[6] Hal Foust, Berlin, Aug. 19, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[7] Hal Foust, Berlin, June 5, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[8] Associated Press, Stockholm, Nov. 30, 1945. 

[9] Chicago Tribune Press Service, Geneva, Switzerland, Sept. 15, 1946. 

[10] John Thompson, Geneva, Switzerland, Aug. 24, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[11] The Progressive, Jan. 14, 1946, p. 4. 

[12] Louis Clair, The Progressive, Jan. 14, 1946. 

[13] Congressional Record, Dec. 11, 1945, p. A-5816. 

[14] Henry Wales, Paris, March 12, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[15] Chicago Tribune Press Service, Lille, France, July 6, 1946. 

[16] John Thompson, Geneva, Aug. 18, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[17] John Thompson, Geneva, Aug. 24, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[18] Arthur Veysey, London, May 28, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[19] Arthur Veysey, London, May 8, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[20] Same as No. 19. 

[21] Same as No. 18. 

[22] Ward Walker, London, March 7, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[23] Chicago Tribune Press Service, London, May 19, 1946. 

[24] Chicago Tribune Press Service, London, Aug. 27, 1946, and The Chicago Sun, Aug. 27, 1946 

(London AP dispatch). [25] John Wilhelm, London, Sept. 12, 1946, The Chicago Sun, London 

Bureau. 

[26] Same as No. 10. 

[27] Same as No. 10. 

[28] Chicago Tribune Press Service, Geneva, Switzerland, May 30, 1946. 

[29] Same as No. 18. 

[30] Henry Wales, Geneva. Switzerland, April 13, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[31] Same as No. 30. 

[32] Chicago Daily Tribune, March 14, 1946. 

[33] Cf. The Progressive, Feb. 4, 1945, p. 1. 

[34] Vital Speeches, May 15, 1946. p. 480. 

[35] National Legionaire, Feb. 1945. 

[36] James M. Haswell, Washington, Aug. 27, 1946, Chicago Daily News, Washington Bureau. 

[37] Hal Foust, Berlin, July 23, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[38] Cf. Charles Manley, Washington, D.C., Aug. 18, 1946, Chicago Daily Tribune of same date. 

[39] Chicago Tribune Press Service, Washington, Aug. 24, 1946. 

[40] Associated Press, Washington, D.C., Oct. 15, 1946. 

[41] The Chicago Sun, Oct. 11, 1946, p. 3. 

[42] Lt. Gen. Lucius Clay, as reported by Hal Foust, Berlin, April 24, 1946, and Chicago Tribune 

Press Service. [43] Associated Press, Frankfurt on the Main, July 23, 1945. 

[44] Edward P. Morgan, Berlin, Feb. 7, 1946, and April 9, 1946, Chicago Daily News Foreign 

Service. 

[45] Edward P. Morgan, Berlin, March 5, 1946, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[46] The Chicago Sun, Stuttgart, Germany, July 2, 1946 (United Press). 

[47] Associated Press, Berlin, Oct. 14, 1946. 

[48] Chicago Tribune Press Service, Berlin, Oct. 24, 1946. 

[49] Barron’s, Oct. 7, 1946. 

[50] Edward P. Morgan, Berlin, Mar. 27, 1946, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[51] Associated Press, Berlin, Jan. 30, 1946. 

[52] Hal Foust, Berlin, June 5, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[53] Edd Johnson, Berlin, Mar. 29, 1946, Chicago Sun Foreign Service. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter IV: 

THE ATTACK AGAINST THE GERMAN CAPITAL 

Looting 

The sacking of Germany after her unconditional surrender will go down in 

history as one of the most monstrous acts of modern times. Its excess beggars 

description and its magnitude defies condemnation. 

Allied armies that swept into Germany came with blood in their eyes and the 

conviction born of propaganda that the Germans had lost caste as members of 

the human race, were unworthy of protection afforded by human law and 

civilized institutions such as property rights and security of person. It was not 

thought of as looting, but simply as helping one’s self to property the Germans 

had forfeited by being German. 

Russian soldiers were particularly ravenous, their appetites for loot being 

restrained only by the limitation placed on their own rights to hold property. 

Things the individual Russian soldier could keep, such as wrist watches, they 

snatched on sight, even from the arms of Yankees. 

The serious looting by the Russians was conducted officially, systematically and 

thoroughly. Every house and apartment was entered, searched, and stripped of 

everything at once valuable and movable – jewelry, silverware, works of art, 

clothing, household appliances, money. Stores, shops, warehouses were 

ransacked. Farms were denuded of farm animals, machinery, seed reserves, 

fodder, wine and food stocks. Telephones were removed from residences, 

telephone and telegraph lines and equipment were dismantled. Automobiles, 

motor trucks, even fire engines, were seized. Everything not nailed down was 

hauled away.[l] For the German standard of living must be lowered to the average 

of Europe. 

The Russian armies of occupation, kept equal in size to the combined occupation 

forces of the western powers, live off the land, paying for requisitions by paper 

occupation marks. Exorbitant occupation costs afford the Kremlin an effective 

device for milking the territory. Charges in the Soviet zone of Austria are several 

times greater, relatively, than those the Germans imposed on France, Belgium, 

Holland, Greece, and elsewhere.[2] This, despite Austria’s promised “liberated” 

status. 

All of the Allies have issued huge amounts of military currency which the 

Germans are forced to accept in “payment.” It is conservatively estimated that 

altogether they have pumped into the country between 15 billion and 20 billion 

occupation marks as against a normal currency circulation of between 7 and 9 

billion.[3] This means that the four powers have obtained between 2 and 4 billion 

dollars worth of German property for the mere cost of printing money issued in 

payment. 

Just as there was a preponderance of American forces in the armies that struck 

against the west and south of Germany, so in these sectors was the 

preponderance of the looting American. Chicago Daily News foreign 

correspondent William H. Stoneman, stationed with the U.S. 3rd Army, wrote in 

May, 1945, when Germany was surrendering: 

“I have been impressed by the careless manner in which the booty has been 

handled and the way in which great stocks of foodstuffs have been left to the 

reckless inroads of looters.”[4] 

A few days later he cabled: 

“Millions of dollars worth of rare things varying from intricate Zeiss lenses to 

butter and cheese and costly automobiles are being destroyed because the Army 

has not organized a system for the recovery of valuable enemy material. 

“Frontline troops are rough and ready about enemy property. They naturally take 

what they find if it looks interesting, and, because they are in the front lines, 

nobody says anything. 

“There are no M.P.s in the front lines. 

“But what front-line troops take is nothing compared to the damage caused by 

wanton vandalism of some of the following troops. 

“They seem to ruin everything, including the simplest personal belongings of the 

people in whose houses they are billeted. 

“Today, we have had two more examples of this business, which would bring 

tears to the eyes of anybody who has appreciation of material values. 

“First I found two boxcars loaded with magnificent Zeiss rangefinders for ack-ack 

guns, thousands of rare lenses, worth at rough estimate, perhaps $1,000,000. 

“Most of the things we saw there – many of them scattered about the tracks – were 

priceless, and thousands of dollars worth of stuff had been scattered as G.I.s 

combed boxcars for binoculars and other items which appeared easy to sell. 

Anybody with any knowledge of precision instruments would have cried his eyes 

out to see instruments worth $500 to $1,000 scattered around like so much junk. 

“Later I visited a warehouse which had been loaded with textiles and it was like a 

pigsty. 

“There still were thousands of yards of printed cotton goods and artificial woolen 

goods lying around, but much more bad been looted by somebody or other.”[5] 

In one case looting resulted in arrests and trials. A WAC Captain and a Colonel 

were arrested in America and tried in Frankfurt, Germany, for taking $1,500,000 

worth of jewels, mostly of the House of Hesse, from a castle owned by Princess 

Margaret of Hesse, granddaughter of Queen Victoria. Defense attorneys at the 

trials made clear the extent of looting which had been done and the philosophy 

behind it. An on the scene account reads as follows: 

“The princess scored heavily against the defense contention that the owners of 

the jewels were just a bunch of Nazis whose loss was a misfortune of war which 

should not be singled out for prosecution from among hundreds of thousands of 

thefts from Germans by the American army personnel.”[6] (emphasis added) 

It is, indeed, unlikely that the case would have gone to trial had the owners lacked 

such imposing connections. It is well known that we took from German museums 

some 200 art masterpieces with the intention of keeping them. Public opinion 

was so outraged that President Truman found it expedient to promise their 

return; yet no one was prosecuted or even arrested. 

American Provost Marshall Lt. Col. Gerald F. Beane, whose duty it is to deal with 

crimes committed by our soldiers, in an official report released in Berlin late in 

1945 on the nature and extent of criminality in our army of occupation stated that 

larceny and robbery are the crimes most frequently committed by our soldiers. A 

leading daily comments: 

“As to the crimes against property, the explanation is fairly obvious. No effective 

steps were taken to discourage looting by the invading armies during the war. 

Officers and men alike committed this crime and for much the most part went 

unpunished. It was tolerated under some such euphemism as souvenir collecting. 

The habit of stealing, once formed, is difficult to break. The fault, of course, lies 

with the high command which permitted the abuse. Col. Beane’s pronouncement 

suggests that the army is tardily seeking to correct its error.”[7] 

Most of this type of looting died out during the first year of occupation; after that 

the methods became more subtle and indirect. Late in July, 1946, GI’s were called 

to task for “sleeper purchases” of German properties which could be bought at 

the time for almost nothing, but which may some day have great value.[8] Full 

advantage has been taken of the currency chaos. In September, 1946, military 

authorities, to kill American profiteering in the black markets and illegal 

acquisition of foreign exchange, issued a new scrip currency, to replace all 

“foreign and allied military currencies in financial transactions throughout 

United States army installations.”[9] And if official Russian accusations can be 

given credence, American officials have stolen equipment from plants in our zone 

earmarked for shipment to Russia on reparations account and sold it to foreign 

countries for their personal profit.[10] 

However, the type of looting just discussed, although it has run in value into 

hundreds of millions of dollars and robbed the German people of comforts and 

necessities they have sorely needed during the dreadful days through which they 

are having to pass, is but petty larceny as compared to the gigantic program of 

industrial sacking authorized at Potsdam. 

 

Economic Cannibalism 

Potsdam decrees that future German production shall be so limited by the Allied 

Control Council that the average German standard of living will not exceed the 

average of the standards of living of other European countries, exclusive of 

Britain and Russia, and that “productive capacity not needed for permitted 

production” shall be taken by the conquerors as plunder or destroyed. The 

prostrated German economy must be drawn and quartered and its flesh fed to 

other economies, a project which has aptly been called “economic cannibalism.” 

Potsdam piously recites, as a mere observation, not a mandate, that the program 

“should leave enough resources to enable the German people to subsist without 

external assistance.” At the same time it admits that remaining resources are 

disastrously inadequate, for it says that the war and defeat “have destroyed 

German economy and made chaos and suffering inevitable.” Still, it proceeds to 

lay down a reparations program to destroy or remove a large part of the scanty 

remaining production facilities. 

After much wrangling and horse trading, the Control Council in March, 1946, 

reached its decisions fixing the future levels of production both for Germany as a 

whole and for individual industries in accordance with Potsdam’s stipulations. As 

a top limit, but by no means a guaranteed minimum, Germany’s output under 

these orders may reach by 1949, but not surpass, the level to which it plunged at 

the bottom of the great depression of 1932, just before the Nazis were voted into 

power, when a third of the German workers were unemployed. . 

In carrying out the Potsdam mandate calling for the “elimination or control of all 

German industry that could be used for military production” and emphasis on 

“the development of agriculture and peaceful domestic industries,” many 

ordinarily peaceful industries are entirely prohibited. These include shipbuilding, 

manufacture and operation of airplanes, ball and taper roller bearings, nearly all 

types of heavy machine tools, heavy materials, aluminum, magnesium, beryllium, 

vanadium, radioactive materials, hydrogen peroxide, and synthetic oil, gasoline 

and ammonia. 

Exports and imports are rigidly controlled and drastically restricted. Payments 

for necessary imports are given first call on proceeds from exports. Imports are 

confined mostly to a small amount of food and nitrates for fertilizer; exports are 

limited largely to coal, potash, and lumber. Foreign trade in the ordinary sense 

has been impossible, however, and will remain so, as long as the mark is given no 

value in terms of other currencies. 

Future production of a large number of domestic industries is drastically 

restricted. Electrical engineering is cut in half; mechanical engineering by two- 

thirds. Synthetic textiles are sharply curtailed. Over-all chemical production is 

reduced to 45 per cent of the old level. Steel production may not surpass 

5,800,000 ingot tons a year, against the former 54,000,000 ton capacity.[11] 

Britain had argued that such a level would turn the Reich into an economic desert 

and had fought for a 7,500,000 ton level. Since Russia had held out for a much 

lower figure, however, the 5,800,000 ton ceiling was reached as a compromise. 

All during the negotiations Russia had fought for extremely low production 

ceilings. She had even asked for a sharp reduction in permitted food imports, to 

reduce the volume of necessary exports, and thus to free more industrial booty in 

which she was to share. When a little later shipment of reparations to her from 

the western zones was halted, she suddenly reversed her stand, however, and 

asked for higher ceilings. Molotov specifically demanded higher coal production 

and said, “The Reich must be permitted more steel, greater industry and foreign 

trade.” 

Mr. Byrnes at Stuttgart stubbornly defended the agreed production ceilings and 

insisted the program would permit some betterment in the German standard of 

living if the German people would work and save hard enough. 

Apart from generating bitter despair through closing the door to any hope of 

achieving prosperity, the ceilings have had little practical significance, because 

actual German output has remained far below the permitted levels. Our military 

authorities have asserted that it will require years for German recovery to reach 

the ceilings which have been set. The current effect of the program has been 

largely confined to repression of power to produce thorough destruction and 

removal of productive capacity and other measures, such as the banning of 

scientific research. 

German science, upon which German industry depended heavily, has been dealt 

a lethal blow, partly by direct prohibitions and partly by the operations of the 

denazification decrees which automatically ended the careers of the great 

majority of German scientists, at least within the Reich. Potsdam has ordered 

control of “all German public or private scientific bodies, research and 

experimental institutions, laboratories, etc., connected with economic activities.” 

In harmony with this decree, German science has been suppressed by orders 

from the Control Council. 

Research (in Germany) by scientists who had been Nazis or had contributed to 

the development of German weapons, secret or otherwise, has been banned. 

Others, and they are very few, are forbidden to probe into a long list of specific, 

comprehensive subjects, 10 general categories of chemicals, and anything of 

military value or nature. Pure or theoretical science – explorations into the basic 

laws of nature and the like – may be conducted by the few eligibles, but only 

under military government surveillance. 

In other words, German science has been destroyed, and with it German ability to 

compete commercially with the war victors. 

German scientists, as a matter of fact, have become a highly esteemed form of 

war plunder. Russia, the first to recognize their value, was unable to hide her 

anxiety and frantic efforts to grab as many as she could. Britain, France, and the 

United States were not slow in following her example, entering the competition 

with marked success. We even managed to kidnap a large number from the 

western Russian zone when we retired to let the Russians take over. At first our 

interest was confined to experts who had been working on war developments, 

especially atomic fission and secret weapons. Others in our zone, including 

numbers who had fled before the Red armies, were held in jail. We changed this 

wasteful policy, however, after Dr. Roger Adams, head of the chemistry 

department of the University of Illinois and scientific adviser to the deputy 

governor of AMG, declared it unwise to confine ourselves only to war industry 

scientists, since many of those languishing in prison would prove equally valuable 

to us for other purposes if we chose to use them. In consequence we have now at 

our disposal hundreds of ex-German scientists who no doubt constitute one of 

our most profitable acquisitions taken from the fallen Reich. Perhaps they should 

be counted as reparation. 

In addition we have sent into Germany teams of experts to scour the country and 

search out all German patents, designs, and secret processes, privately owned, or 

otherwise. According to Assistant Secretary of State Willliam L. Clayton, in 

testimony before a U.S. Senate committee in June 1945: 

“We intend to secure the full disclosure of an existing German technology and 

invention for the benefit of the United Nations. . . This Government and other 

governments with which Germany has been at war have reduced to their control 

inventions and designs both patented and unpatented which were owned and 

controlled by German nationals at the time of the outbreak of war . . . It is 

probable that no steps will be taken by either the legislative or executive branch 

of this government which would have the effect of returning such rights to the 

former German owners.” 

Mr. Morgenthau called for the industrial sacking of Germany by proposing that, 

instead of repeating the mistake made after the last war by demanding 

“reparations in the form of future payments and deliveries,” requiring 

production and sale of exports, this time 

“reparations shall be effected by the transfer of existing resources and territories, 

e.g. . . . by transfer of German territory and German private rights in industrial 

property situated in such territory to invaded countries. . .; by the removal and 

distribution among devastated countries of industrial plants and equipment . . .; 

by forced German labor outside Germany; and by confiscation of all German 

assets of any character whatsoever outside of Germany.” (emphasis added) 

These proposals to trample on the sanctity of private German property could 

hardly fail to meet with wholehearted approval in the Politburo. In effecting the 

program no pretense is made that the owners of confiscated private property will 

be compensated now or later by either the Allies or the German government, for 

the latter, if it is ever established, will no doubt be so weak that such 

compensation would be beyond its financial capacity. 

Yet the Hague convention in Article 46 in the section dealing with “Military 

Authority Over the Territory of the Hostile State” says: “Private property cannot 

be confiscated.” Article 53 underscores the point by saying that any private 

property taken during an occupation “must be restored and compensation fixed 

when peace is made.” 

In view of the present deadly, worldwide assault against the institution of private 

property, those who pretend to be its defenders should insist upon adherence to 

these provisions of international law. Flagrant Big Four violations not only create 

the injustices the laws were established to prevent but incriminate the victors of 

World War II for the very actions for which they so strongly and justly 

condemned Hitler. One can readily understand why Socialistic Soviet Russia 

would violate private property rights in occupied countries, but the same cannot 

be said of the United States. 

Russia at Yalta took the lead in demanding that German reparations be set at 20 

billion dollars, half of which was to go to herself. President Roosevelt, engrossed 

as he was in his “great design,” gambling that Russian suspicions of the western 

capitalistic powers could be allayed by giving Stalin everything he wanted, and 

more, agreed to support the demand. Prime Minister Churchill, however, pointed 

out the obvious fact that if Germany was to be so weakened by de- 

industrialization that she could not pay reparations from current production and 

if reparation was to be limited to plant and equipment discarded by de- 

industrialization, there could be no justification for Russia’s position. The de- 

industrialization program would automatically limit the amount of reparation to 

the amount to plant and equipment not ruined by war, less whatever amount 

would be left to the Germans. For the sake of harmony, however, the 20 billion 

dollar figure was accepted “as a basis for discussion.” 

At Potsdam Russia was apportioned the lion’s share of the reparation. She was to 

receive all from her own zone, plus 25 per cent from the other zones. Of the latter, 

two-fifths was to go to Russia outright and three-fifths was to be given to her “in 

exchange for an equivalent value of food, coal, potash, zinc, timber, day products, 

petroleum products, and such other commodities as may be agreed upon,” 

presumably to be taken from her zone. President Truman said of the 

arrangement: “It is a means of maintaining a balanced economy in Germany and 

providing the usual exchange of goods between the eastern part and the western.” 

In other words, one section of German economy must give up to Russia 15 per 

cent of the flesh to be stripped from its bones in order to receive sustenance from 

another section – a most remarkable form of economic cannibalism. 

The value of Germany’s bombed and battered plant and equipment remaining at 

the end of the war has been officially estimated at between 5 and 10 billion 

dollars, of which 45 per cent was located in the Russian zone where Russia was 

given a free hand. Under the “level of industry plan” 40 per cent of this was to be 

available for removal as reparation or destroyed. Total reparation, therefore, 

could not be more than 2 to 4 billions, and if Russia were to adhere to the general 

plan in her zone her total share from all Germany could not exceed 2.4 billion 

dollars. 

At first Russia went along amicably with the program and, according to some 

reports, apparently took far less than the 40 per cent allowable from her own 

zone. In March, 1946, the head of the local Thuringian government told 

correspondents permitted to visit there on a conducted tour that Russia has 

dismantled less than 100 out of Thuringia’s 5,200 industries.[12] A later report 

had it that out of 6,272 industries in the province only 310 had been dismantled, 

of which 80 had been able to get under way again. Neither gave the relative size 

of the establishments seized. If the plants taken were of average size, they 

constituted only 2 to 5 per cent of the total. Early in the summer of 1946 the 

United States estimated that actual removals from the Russian zone amounted to 

between 500 and 750 million dollars, exclusive of war booty, restitution for 

destroyed or stolen Russian goods, or occupation costs.[13] This was still less 

than the allowance. Considering how thoroughly she stripped such regions as 

Manchuria and northern Iran before evacuating her troops, her early restraint in 

her German zone, if true, would suggest an ulterior motive. 

What this motive might be is indicated by the fact, also according to reports, that 

over 90 per cent of the plants in her zone were in operation, with from 80 to 100 

per cent of their output going to Russia as occupation costs or reparation. For 

example, at one plant with an output of 20 million razors, the German market 

was to receive 3 million; the rest was to go to the Soviet Union. Persistent rumors, 

moreover, told of large German munitions plants operating day and night in the 

zone producing munitions and implements of war for the Soviet Union. 

Meanwhile reparations shipments from the western zones had gotten under way 

in April. The first shipment was six shiploads carrying the physical assets of the 

Deschimag shipyard, Germany’s largest, valued at $4,800,000. Soon to follow 

were 20 carloads of machinery and tools valued at $5,000,000, representing half 

of the assets of the country’s largest ball bearing plant. Other early shipments 

included the Gendorf unit of the Anorgana Chemical works, valued at 

$10,000,000 and the vast Daimler-Benz underground aircraft engine plant near 

Oberingheim. 

By May, according to Reparations Commissioner Edwin W. Pauley, the U.S. zone 

had earmarked 144 plants for removal to Russia, of which 35 or 40 were actually 

shipped, before we suddenly halted further shipments on the ground that we 

must do so to protect the economic interests of our zone until interzonal 

economic unity had been achieved, in harmony with Potsdam. Shortly before 

this, however, the western powers had failed to get the Russians to agree on how 

much inspection a four power commission would be allowed to do in all four 

zones, including the Russian. The idea has originated in the Paris conference of 

Foreign Ministers to allay interzonal suspicions and to give each occupying power 

a clearcut picture of disarmament in other zones. Britain has hinted that she 

wanted to check rumors that munitions were being turned out in the Russian 

zone; Russia had retorted with the direct accusation that Britain had not 

disbanded large units of the captured German army and wanted to investigate. 

Whatever the reasons, we stopped further shipments of reparations from our 

zone. And then the storm broke loose. 

Russia apparently reversed her whole attitude toward Germany. In June at Paris 

Molotov declared it ridiculous to try to destroy Germany, called for a strong, 

centralized and economically balanced Reich with the Ruhr and Saar attached, 

specifically asked for higher steel and coal production levels than those Russia 

had previously agreed upon, saying, “The Reich must be permitted more steel, 

greater industry and foreign trade,” and added, “The Soviet Government insists 

that reparations from Germany to the amount of ten billion dollars be exacted 

without fail.” His object was clear: Russia now wanted a Germany able and 

required to pay large reparations so heavy that socialization would become 

mandatory, with “Anschluss” with the Union of Socialist Soviet Republics to 

follow. 

Meanwhile, Russia was stripping her zone to the bone, implying that it was 

necessary to do so to guarantee a continued flow of reparations to the Soviet 

Union. Many of Germany’s greatest producers of civilian goods were dismantled 

and shipped eastward. Among them were the two largest shoe factories (Lingel 

and Tack); the largest sugar refineries in the great beet-sugar region; the largest 

grain processing mills in Europe, at Barby near Magdeburg; the great Bemberg 

Silk Mills, famous before the war for their hosiery and lingerie, and the Zeiss 

Optical Works at Jena. All secondary rail lines were torn up and all electric 

locomotives removed from the zone. 

But many of the confiscated plants were left in Germany where they could be 

operated by Germans for Russia’s benefit. She installed Russian or Communist 

foremen and placed Russians or Communists on the Boards of Directors. In this 

fashion she acquired complete ownership and control of 200 of Germany’s key 

industries comprising the zone’s real economic wealth and employing 1,300,000 

workers – a third of the zone’s working population. Examples of the industries 

seized are all of the I.G. Farben Industrie plants in Saxony, including the famous 

Leuna chemical factories at Merseburg, Bitterfeld, and Wollin; the Reich’s only 

important copper works, the Mansfield Co., in Saxony; the machine works of 

Krupp Gruson at Magdeburg; the Brabag Brown Coal and Gasoline Co., near 

Gera in Thuringia; the Polysius machine works at Dessau; and many of the most 

important iron ore plants, machine tool factories, coal mine companies, potash 

mines, and electrical plants. 

America, which from the beginning had been the most zealous in carrying out de- 

industrialization in its own zone, made no protest to Russia until it was learned 

that two establishments owned by American concerns, the United Shoe 

Machinery Co. and the Corn Products Refining Co., had been among those seized. 

We then offered the suggestion that Allied owned property should be exempted 

from seizure and added the pious thought that plants producing civilian goods 

should be kept in Germany. Our note went unanswered. It is known, however, 

that Russia has invented numerous excuses to give her seizures apparent legality, 

among them being the contention that plants with international backing are 

abandoned property and that the owners, most of whom have fled or been 

liquidated, were war profiteers. 

Since Britain had come forward with a scheme to nationalize the Ruhr and other 

industries in her zone, potentially worth billions of dollars, in a manner that 

would place title to much of it in her own hands as “custodian” without one cent 

of compensation to the former owners, she had lost all moral ground on which to 

base a protest against the Russian action. Nor could the French object, in view of 

their avaricious, vengeful treatment of their own zone, where looting has been 

just as thorough as in the Russian, but far less intelligent; where, for example, 

they demand most of the crops to be harvested and at the same time requisition 

draft animals in July just when most needed to help gather the harvest. 

Although America went about the business of dismantling and dynamiting 

German plants with more fervor than was at first exhibited in any other zone, our 

motive was quite different from the motives of our allies. Russia is anxious to get 

as much loot as possible from Germany and yet to make it produce abundantly 

for Russia to help make her new five year plan successful, and ultimately to 

absorb the Reich into the Soviet Union. France is ravenous for loot, has been 

anxious to destroy Germany forever and to annex as much of her territory as 

possible. Britain has found uses for large amounts of German booty, wants to get 

rid of Germany as a trade competitor, while retaining her as a market for British 

goods. The United States has no use for German plant and equipment as booty, 

and has often said so. We consider our own abundant production equipment 

superior. Apart from one or two special cases, our primary interest in German 

assets has been in those located outside Germany, to eliminate German 

competition in world trade. We are willing to permit the German people to 

subsist on their own little plot of land, if they can, but we are determined that 

they never again shall engage in foreign commerce on an important scale. In 

partnership with Britain we have carried out a systematic campaign to root out all 

German contacts and assets located abroad and have put our own traders in their 

place. 

Known as the “replacement program,” the campaign is closely related to the 

“safehaven” program which calls for the forcible elimination of all accumulations 

of German capital abroad. 

The following extracts from testimony by assistant Secretary of State William L. 

Clayton before the “Kilgore Committee” of the U.S. Senate, June 25, 1945, tell the 

story: 

“LATIN AMERICA” 

“The government soon determined that German enterprises could not be 

permitted to survive . . . in this hemisphere. The replacement program was 

accordingly evolved as a means of bringing about the elimination of German 

enterprises and of German interests. 

“The businesses of any persons who were acting against the political and 

economic independence or security of the American republics ‘shall be the object 

of forced transfer or total liquidation.'” German economic and political 

penetration in this hemisphere has, for the most part, been dealt a blow from 

which it will probably not recover . . .”  

“THE SAFEHAVEN PROGRAM” 

“The replacement and safehaven programs are both based upon the common 

knowledge that totalitarin Germany was able to marshall the ostensible private 

interests of German nationals abroad for the purpose of waging economic war.” – 

“The safehaven program concerns itself with denying to Germany” among other 

things “the German capital investments already located abroad when the war 

began.” – “The financial and corporate interests of German nationals located 

outside of Germany have either been seized or will be subject to seizure.” (Mr. 

Clayton also advocated that Germans with brains and skills, including citizens of 

Latin American countries of German extraction who had publicly expressed any 

sympathy for the German cause, should be extradited and sent to Germany.) 

Accordingly, we have confiscated nearly a billion dollars of property in this 

country believed by our Justice Department to be owned by Germans, although 

held in the name of citizens of neutral countries such as Sweden and Switzerland. 

Attorney General Clark says the Justice Department contends these holdings now 

belong to the United States Government. 

The external operation of the program has been illustrated by our forcing 

Switzerland, Sweden, Spain and other countries to hand over their German 

owned assets. Sweden, for example, held German wealth valued at 104 million 

dollars. At the same time we held 200 million dollars of Swedish assets which we 

had “blocked,” that is, cut off from Swedish control during the war. We used 

these blocked funds as a club to compel Sweden to turn the assets over to us. 

After long negotiations, she finally did deliver 77 million dollars worth of the 

German resources and we in turn unblocked the 200 million dollars in Swedish 

funds in America. After obtaining the funds we confiscated them and divided the 

loot with Britain and France. 

We were able to obtain half of the 200 to 250 million dollars worth of German 

assets held in Switzerland and pried loose over 100 million dollars worth of 

German assets from Spain. We have used and are using every weapon and 

pressure at our command to root out and confiscate German assets all over the 

world, and in the process, as Mr. Clayton testified, have dealt a death blow to 

German foreign trade. 

That we officially recognize that the program will also destroy Germany and 

exterminate the German people was made perfectly clear by Mr. Clayton in his 

testimony before the Kilgore Committee. Dr. Schimmel, chief investigator, had 

inquired of the Under-Secretary of State if it were not true that the Germans had 

made their successful penetration of South American trade for the purpose of 

acquiring superior information facilities. Mr. Clayton replied: 

“With the Germans it was not a matter of information, it was largely a matter of 

necessity. I mean they had to have foreign trade, they had to export in order to 

live. The country has, as you know, very little natural resources. The only natural 

resources of any consequence that they have are coal and potash, and they had to 

export manufactured goods in order to acquire the raw materials that they 

needed in their economic life, in their industry, and foreign trade was an 

absolute necessity for the Germans. “(emphasis added) 

Taking their foreign trade away from them, and making it impossible for them to 

export manufactured goods, the program advocated by Mr. Clayton and 

embodied in the Potsdam agreements, was tantamount, therefore, to 

pronouncing the death sentence on the German people. 

  

Reference Notes: 

[1] Henry Wales, Berlin, April 8, 1947, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[2] Lee Hills, Vienna, Austria, July 20, 1946, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[3] Edward P. Morgan, Berlin, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. Cf. also Edd Johnson, Berlin, 

April 29, 1946, Chicago Sun Foreign Service. 

[4] William H. Stoneman, with U.S. 3rd Army, May 4, 1945, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[5] William H. Stoneman, with U.S. 3rd Army, May 8, 1945, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[6] Hal Foust, Frankfurt, Germany, Aug. 26, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[7] Chicago Sunday Tribune, Nov. 18, 1945, p. 22. 

[8] Associated Press, New York, July 24, 1946, Chicago Daily News. 

[9] United Press, Berlin, Sept. 25, 1946. 

[10] United Press, Moscow, Aug. 2, 1946, Chicago Daily News. 

[11] Allen Haden, Washington, Nov. 14, 1944, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[12] Edd Johnson, Berlin, Mar. 28, 1946, Chicago Sun Foreign Service. 

[13] James P. Warburg, The Chicago Sun, Aug. 5, 1946, p. 10.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter V: 

BASTARDIZING THE GERMAN RACE 

Not only have the conquerors set out to destroy Germany economically by pulling 

down the three pillars of production but they have launched an assault against 

the German race itself by an attack against its mothers. From the record it 

appears that the men who met at Yalta deliberately formulated a diabolical 

program of racial bastardization which they considered an appropriate response 

to the claim of racial superiority. 

A Russian General told General Ira Eaker, Commander of the Mediterannean air 

forces: “We’ve decided just to kill all the German men, take 17,000,000 German 

women and that will solve it.” Something on this order was obviously the intent. 

The millions of German men of marriageable age not killed or disabled in war 

were marched off into slavery where they could not protect their wives, 

sweethearts, daughters and sisters. And then the attack began. 

From the east came the Bolshevized Mongolian and Slavic hordes, repeatedly 

raping every captured woman and girl, contaminating them with venereal 

diseases and impregnating them with a future race of Russo-German bastards. In 

the west the British used colonial troops, the French Sengalese and Moroccans, 

the Americans an excessively high percentage of negroes. Our own method was 

not so direct as the Russian: instead of using physical force, we compelled the 

German women to yield their virtue in order to live – to get food to eat, beds to 

sleep in, soap to bathe with, roofs to shelter them. 

Senator Eastland of Mississippi, after a European tour of observation, told his 

colleagues in the U.S. Senate early in December, 1945: “The virtue of womanhood 

and the value of human life are civilized man’s most sacred possessions, yet they 

are the very cheapest thing in Russian-occupied Germany today.” 

He had learned first-hand of such incidents as the following, told by a priest in a 

letter smuggled out of Breslau, Germany, September 3, 1945: 

“In unending succession were girls, women and nuns violated. . . Not merely in 

secret, in hidden corners, but in the sight of everybody, even in churches, in the 

streets and in public places were nuns, women and even eight-year-old girls 

attacked again and again. Mothers were violated before the eyes of their children; 

girls in the presence of their brothers; nuns, in the sight of pupils, were outraged 

again and again to their very death and even as corpses.“[l] 

Meanwhile newspaper headlines assured us that “Ivan and Joe Are Brothers 

Under the Skin.” 

Prime Minister Churchill had told the Germans in January, 1945, just before they 

surrendered unconditionally: 

“We Allies are no monsters. This, at least, I can say on behalf of the United 

Nations. . . Peace, though based on unconditional surrender, will bring to 

Germany and Japan immense and immediate alleviation of suffering and 

agony.”[2] 

When our Russian Allies “liberated” Danzig they promptly liberated all the 

women of their virtue and chastity – by raping all – from small girls to ladies as 

much as 83 years of age. A 50-year-old teacher says that her niece, 15, was 

violated seven times the day after the Russians arrived, while her other niece, 22, 

was raped 15 tirnes the same day. When women of the city pleaded for protection, 

a Russian officer told them to seek shelter in the Catholic Cathedral. After 

hundreds of women and girls were securely inside, the brave sons of mother 

Russia entered and “playing the organ and ringing the bells, kept up a foul orgy 

through the night, raping all the women, some more than 30 times.[3] 

A Catholic pastor of Danzig states: “They even violated eight-year-old girls and 

shot boys who tried to shield their mothers.” 

It was the same in all regions overrun by the Communist Armies. When Berlin 

fell the Commander told his Russian soldiers the women of the city were theirs, 

to help themselves. They did! The only escape the women had was suicide. 

The following is an eye-witness account of what the Russians did in eastern 

Germany written by a veteran American newspaperman who had been taken 

prisoner by the Germans in Paris and later freed by the Russians with whom he 

stayed for nearly three months as they swept over eastern Germany and on to 

Berlin and beyond: 

“REDS TERRORIZE CONQUERED WITH RAPE AND DEATH 

“London, August 4, 1945 – As our long line of British Army lories (trucks) 

carrying American, British, and French liberated prisoners of war from the 

Russian to the main Anglo-American zone of Germany rolled through the main 

street of Brahlsdorf, the last Russian occupied-town, a pretty blond girl darted 

from the crowd of Germans watching us and made a dash for our truck. 

“Clinging with both hands to the tailboard, she made a desperate effort to climb 

in. But we were driving too fast and the board was too high. After being dragged 

several hundred yards she had to let go and fell on the cobblestone street. 

“That scene was a dramatic illustration of the state of terror in which women in 

Russian-occupied eastern Germany were living. All these women, Germans, 

Polish, Jewish, and even Russian girls ‘freed’ from Nazi slave camps were 

dominated by one desperate desire – to escape from the Red zone.” 

“In the district around our internment camp – the territory comprising the towns 

of Schlawe, Lauenburg, and Buckow and hundreds of larger villages – Red 

soldiers during the first weeks of their occupation raped every woman and girl 

between the ages of 12 and 60. That sounds exaggerated but it is the simple 

truth.”(emphasis added) 

“The only exceptions were girls who managed to remain in hiding in the woods or 

who had the presence of mind to feign illness – typhoid, dyptheria or some other 

infectious disease. Flushed with victory – and often with wine found in the cellars 

of rich Pomeranian land owners – the Reds searched every house for women, 

cowing them with pistols or tommy guns, and carried them into their tanks or 

trucks. 

“Husbands and fathers who attempted to protect their women folk were shot 

down and girls offering extreme resistance were murdered. 

“Some weeks after the invasion, Red ‘political commissions’ began a tour of the 

countryside ostensibly in search of members of the Nazi party. In every village 

the woman were told to report for examination of papers to these commissions, 

which looked them over and detained those with sex appeal. The youngest and 

prettiest were taken by the officers and the rest left to the mercy of the privates. 

“This reign of terror lasted as long as I was with the Reds in Pomerania. Several 

girls whom I had known during my captivity committed suicide. Others died after 

having been raped by ten soldiers in succession. 

“In an isolated farmhouse where my French comrade and myself spent three 

months after joining the Reds, there were eight young girls from neighboring 

villages hiding from the Reds. One was always on watch and when the Russians 

were seen approaching they scampered off into a nearby woods and hid in the 

dense underbrush. This sometimes happened several times daily and the girls 

never had a quiet moment but while we were there the Reds never discovered 

them. 

“All of these girls already had been raped and three of them – one a little girl of 13 

– were pregnant. 

“Inevitably the Red occupation is having a disastrous effect on the morality of the 

inhabitants and the existing conditions of anarchy will exert an evil influence for 

years. Many woman have been infected with venereal diseases and now a very 

few youthful girls have joined the Reds for pleasure and food and are helping 

them spot their compatriots. 

“Whenever possible, girls attach themselves to liberated Anglo-American or 

French prisoners of war for protection against the Russians. Curiously, the Reds 

seemed to have a special code of honor in this respect – they will take an Allied 

prisoner’s watch but won’t touch his girl. 

“When the Red Army starts a big offensive its commanders held out prospects of 

unrestricted rape and pillage as encouragement to the troops, but later they try to 

stem the tide of lust – not on grounds of humanity but because it threatens to 

undermine discipline. 

“Squadrons of Cossacks, used by the Reds as they were by the Tsar, as mounted 

police, periodically surrounded villages in Pomerania and searched all the houses 

for deserters and stragglers who had remained behind with women. The Cossacks 

mercilessly drove the soldiers off to jail with their ‘nagaikas’ – Cossack whips – but 

they kept the women for their own pleasure.”[4] 

In refusing Yamashita’s plea for clemency General MacArthur in the following 

words condemned the Japanese leader for his maltreatment of the defenseless: 

“The soldier, be he friend or foe, is charged with the protection of the weak and 

unarmed. It is the very essence and reason for his being. When he violates this 

sacred trust, he not only profanes his entire cult but threatens the very fabric of 

international society. The traditions of fighting men are long and honorable. They 

are based on the noblest of human traits – sacrifice.”[5] 

The Russians were not alone in violating these principles. Police records of 

Stuttgart show that during the French occupation, 1,198 women were raped and 

eight men violated by French troops, mostly Moroccans. Dr. Karl Hartenstein, 

prelate of the Evangelical church in the city estimated the number at 5,000. Frau 

Schumacher, secretary of the police woman’s section, in submitting a 

documented report on numerous rapings, said that on the night the French 

evacuated the city a child of 9 was raped and killed, her mother also raped and 

shot, and her father killed by Moroccans. In the town of Vailhingen, with a 

population of 12,000, for example, 500 cases of rape were reported.[6] So it went 

in areas occupied by the French. 

While a good number of American troops have resisted the example of others and 

deported themselves in a manner becoming their Christian backgrounds, the 

record for our occupation forces as a whole is dark. 

An Associated Press dispatch from Nuernberg, Germany, quotes a letter which 

appeared in STARS AND STRIPES written by Capt. Frederick B. Eutsler, 

Chaplain of the 478th United States port battalion, charging that public behavior 

of American troops in Germany had become deplorable. He urged that the 

newspaper “launch a crusade against this disgraceful conduct which is earning a 

bad name for our army,” and added, “I refer particularly to the assumption of 

many GI’s that every German woman is immoral and it is their privilege to force 

their attentions on these women and insult them with indecent proposals.[7] 

In April, 1946, the military authorities found it necessary to “crack down” and 

ordered stricter adherence to soldierly standards so as not to “discredit” the “fine 

performance of our troops in general.”[8] 

That same month an anonymous staff sergeant wrote in STARS AND STRIPES a 

charge that married men in the army were afraid to bring their wives to Germany 

because many American soldiers behaved like “supercharged wolves” toward 

women in public. He wrote: “Wise up, men. The hardest part of the war is now 

being fought, not with tommy guns, but with personalities. Let’s show the 

Germans that we are men, not pigs.” 

In reporting the latter, Edward P. Morgan of the Chicago Daily News foreign 

service wrote: 

“Whether he knew it or not the sergeant aired a subject which long has been a 

sore spot with Arnerican – and other – women in the European theatre. Ask 

almost any woman correspondent who has been around Europe at all and she will 

tell you reluctantly that the conduct of the average American soldier in public 

toward women is “disgraceful” compared to the reserve and discipline of his 

British, Russian, and French Allies. 

“Now that spring has come to Bavaria, one of the favorite pastimes of the GI’s in 

Nuremberg seems to be to drive slowly along the curb in jeeps and reach out and 

pat the posteriors of startled frauleins.”[9] 

When wives of men in our occupation forces arrived in Germany it became 

necessary, for their protection against indecent advances by American men, to 

wear special badges on their arms to distinguish them from German women. 

One of the consequences of the immoralities of howling G.I. wolf packs is an 

upsurge in venereal diseases which has reached epidemic proportions. Before we 

arrived, although the rate had increased with the return of German soldiers from 

France and North Africa, it was still moderate and well under control. After our 

arrival, contamination soared. In December, 1945, only 7 per cent of German 

civilians receiving venereal disease treatment were men; by August, 1946, 

however, men constituted 41 per cent of the patients.[10] In other words, 

contamination had spread from our troops to the German women and finally to 

German men. 

A large proportion of the contamination has originated with colored American 

troops which we have stationed in great numbers in Germany and among whom 

the rate of venereal infection is many times greater than among white troops. In 

July, 1946, the current rate of infections among white soldiers was 190 per 1,000 

men per annum, meaning that slightly less than one in five would be infected in 

the course of a year. In contrast the rate among negro troops stationed in the 

American zone of Germany was 771 per thousand![11] In speaking of this general 

problem, Lee Hills, Chicago Daily News foreign correspondent, writes: 

“Two of the biggest headaches in the American occupation of Germany are 

problems we brought with us. One is the extreme youth and inexperience our 

army men . . . The other problem – and one so politically touchy the War 

Department is afraid to remedy – is the heavy use of Negro American troops. The 

result, despite some superb Army leadership at the top, is that American prestige 

has steadily dropped from its V-E Day peak. 

“The top men in Germany, almost without exception, think it’s a mistake to have 

so many (42,000) Negro troops here. ‘They’re simply not trained and disciplined 

for this job, which is vastly more complicated and delicate than fighting,’ said one 

general. ‘They have a higher crime rate, a venereal disease rate several times that 

of the white soldier, and a worse record for mischief in general. . . Frankly, the 

worst problem comes from our colored troops going with white German girls. 

This stirs bitter hatred among German men. Many of our own soldiers feel almost 

as strongly about it.'”[12] 

That the German women do not accept advances from American troops out of 

choice but rather out of sternest necessity is shown by the close connection 

between the venereal disease rate and availability of food. As one correspondent 

writes: 

“Statistics show that the venereal rate is related to the food supply of the German 

civilians during our occupation. After the winter’s supply of potatoes was issued 

to the Germans last fall, there was a drop in the number of soldiers infected. As 

frauleins became more hungry, more soldiers were infected. Ration cuts last 

spring also were reflected in higher venereal figures.”[13] 

The German press broke its long silence on the subject of venereal contamination 

in a front page editorial in the NEUE ZEIT, a Soviet licensed Berlin newspaper. 

The author, a young woman editor named Renate Lengnick, whose husband had 

not returned from the American zone of occupation, where he was a prisoner of 

war, struck at the collapse in moral foundations for sex relations: She wrote: 

“There are husbands and sweethearts who have not yet returned. Many never will 

return. There are girls who will never have husbands. There is unemployment. 

Apprenticeships are empty promises. There is little to inspire hope. 

“Thirty-five per cent of the civilian venereal disease victims are girls under 20. 

For most of them it was desperation that turned them to sex indulgence. They 

needed food, clothing, and shelter. Most important of what they lacked was hope 

for a normal, decent life. 

“Doctors and police must continue their campaign of eradication without 

abatement. We must also rescue the spirit as well as the bodies of youth from 

demoralization.”[14] 

The main difference between American and Russian methods of ravishing the 

unconditionally surrendered women of Germany is the American capitalistic, free 

economy touch. THE CHRISTIAN CENTURY, for Decernber 5, 1945, reports: 

“The American provost marshal, Lieutenant Colonel Gerald F. Beane, said that 

rape represents no problem to the military police because ‘a bit of food, a bar of 

chocolate, or a bar of soap seems to make rape unnecessary.’ Think that over if 

you want to understand what the situation is in Germany.” 

Dr. George N. Schuster, President of Hunter College, charged, after a visit to the 

American zone: 

“You have said it all when you say that Europe is now a place where woman has 

lost her perennial fight for decency because the indecent alone live.” 

“Except for those who can establish contacts with members of the armed forces, 

Germans can get nothing from soap to shoes.”[15] 

L.F. Filewood, writing in the WEEKLY REVIEW, London, Oct. 5, 1945, stated: 

“Young girls, unattached, wander about and freely offer themselves, for food or 

bed . . . Very simply they have one thing left to sell, and they sell it . . . As a way of 

dying it may be worse than starvation, but it will put off dying for months – or 

even years.”[16] 

Significantly, the Potsdam Declaration declares: 

“The Allied armies are in occupation of the whole of Germany and the German 

people have begun to atone for the terrible crimes committed under the 

leadership of those whom in the hour of their success, they openly approved and 

blindly obeyed.” 

It fails to declare that the crimes to be committed by the Allied armies of 

occupation would eclipse those of which the Nazi armies have been accused. Now 

that the war is over and the heat of combat has died down enough to enable us to 

view the cold facts again, it must be brought home to the Arnerican people that 

much of what they have been led to believe was born of propaganda, that the 

German army, for example, actually behaved itself very correctly toward the 

people of occupied territories whose governments were signatories of the Hague 

and Geneva Conventions. The facts are now well known, and are beyond dispute, 

despite the opposite picture previously painted in the press as part of the 

horrendous business of war. 

William L. Shirer, in his Berlin Diary (p. 412), on June 17, 1940, in the first flush 

of German occupation, described how many French women had fled Paris for 

fear of what the German armies might do to them. 

“It seems,” he wrote, “the Parisians actually believe the Germans would rape the 

women and do worse to the men . . . The ones who stayed are all the more 

amazed at the very correct behavior of the troops – so far.” 

And their behavior never changed. 

Frederick C. Crawford, President of Thompson Products, after a tour of 

inspection in which he, with others of the War Department, visited areas where 

the Germans had been in occupation for four years, in his “REPORT FROM THE 

WAR FRONT”, said: 

“The Germans tried to be careful in their dealings with the people . . . We were 

told that if a citizen attended strictly to business and took no political or 

underground action against the occupying army, he was treated with 

correctness.”[17] 

  

Reference Notes: 

[1] From “In den Haenden unserer russischen Allierten,” Der Wanderer, April 11, 1946. 

[2] Time, Jan. 29, 1945. 

[3] Nord-Amerika, Dec. 6, 1945, as summarized by Dr. A.J. App, Slave-Laboring German 

Prisoners of War. 

[4] B.J. Kospoth, London, August 4, 1945, Washington Times Herald, and Congressional Record, 

Dec. 4, 1945, p. 11554. 

[5] Walter Trohan, Washington, Feb. 6, 1945, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[6] David Darrah, Stuttgart, Germany, July 24, 1945, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[7] Associated Press, Nuremberg, Germany, Feb. 24, 1946. 

[8] Associated and United Press, Frankfurt, Germany, April 24, 1946. 

[9] Edward P. Morgan, Nuremberg, Germany, April 3, 1946, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[10] Hal Foust, Berlin, Aug. 17, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[11] Hal Foust, Berlin, July 22, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[12] Lee Hills, Frankfurt, Germany, Aug. 8, 1946, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[13] Same as No. 11. 

[14] Same as No. 10. 

[15] Dr. A.J. App, Ravishing the Women of Conquered Europe. 

[16] Catholic Digest, December, 1945. 

[17] Requoted from Dr. A.J. App, Ravishing the Women of Conquered Europe.  

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter VI: 

THE PEOPLE HUNGER 

In view of all that has happened in Germany, it is small wonder that the people 

have been overtaken by extreme shortages of basic necessities, especially food. 

Months after the war had ended and the conquerors had assumed complete 

control of the German government and therefore responsibility for the German 

people and their future, the Bishop of Chichester, quoting a noted German 

pastor, said: 

“Thousands of bodies are hanging in the trees in the woods around Berlin and 

nobody bothers to cut them down. Thousands of corpses are carried into the sea 

by the Oder and Elbe Rivers – one doesn’t notice it any longer. Thousands and 

thousands are starving in the highways. . . Children roam the highways alone, 

their parents shot, dead, lost.”[1] 

A wireless to the New York Times in April, 1946, says: 

“Like Russia’s half-wild vagabonds after World War I, Germany’s youth is on the 

road . . . because there was not enough to eat at home. Homeless, without papers 

or ration cards . . . these groups rob Germans and displaced persons. They are . . . 

wandering aimlessly, disillusioned, dissolute, diseased, and without 

guidance.”[2] 

Despite conditions, the German people are putting up a brave struggle for 

existence. After a five-week tour of Europe, including Germany, Malcolm Muir, 

publisher of BUSINESS WEEK, told the Union League Club of Chicago: 

“The Germans are making every effort to help themselves . . . It is not unusual to 

see a milk cow hitched to a plow, a woman leading the cow and a small boy 

guiding the plow.”[3] 

What harvesting machinery remains is mostly small, old fashioned and run 

down, often useless for want of parts. Draught work is supplied by animals and 

men. Oxen are used where available, and a horse and cow hitched together are 

common. It is not unusual to see a wagon of straw moving along a road with one 

or two old men at the tongue and a flock of women and children pushing. One 

observer writes: 

“The plight of the Germans is epitomized by scenes in the stubble fields, which 

are thoroughly gleaned by the owners. Villagers, old men, women and children, 

may be seen picking up one grain at a time from the ground to be carried home in 

a sack the size of a housewife’s shopping bag.”[4] 

Crop yields have been reduced by the five year fertilizer famine, which continues 

and the fact, as mentioned before, that the soil for the most part has been worked 

for 1,000 to 2,000 years. 

Food reserves which were ample when the war ended were soon depleted, thanks 

in part to deliberate destruction by invading armies, and, in the case of the 

Russians and French, to armies of occupation living off the land. When we first 

invaded Normandy we were surprised by the large stores of food we found. It was 

the same elsewhere. Although his statement contrasted sharply with the current 

propaganda which had all Europe starving, Prof. Theodore Shultz of the 

University of Chicago, in November, 1943, had said that continental Europe that 

year had harvested good crops, that “farm production had been so well 

maintained despite the war that Europe will meet 90 to 95 per cent of her food 

requirements in the year after peace is declared.”[5] Although distribution was 

disrupted at the end of the war, aggregate food stocks were large. But under 

Allied management they were soon dissipated. 

The situation, worsened by the loss of the eastern “bread basket” and the large 

number of displaced persons and evacuees from the east, became critical and 

then catastrophic. 

For six months our military govemment refused to supply any food from the 

outside to supplement the vanishing German stocks; however, the terrible 

consequences of this policy ultimately got under the tough hides of the 

occupation authorities to such an extent that by December they appealed to the 

U.S. Government to send sufficient food to prevent universal starvation. Relief 

was finally promised, and after many heartbreaking delays, a dribble arrived. 

The intensity of the famine through which Germany is passing can be guaged by 

comparing the German diet with our own and with what experiments prove to be 

the minimum to maintain life. 

An average slice of bread yields around 200 calories. The average American diet 

is 3,000 calories per person per day. To maintain weight and health, a 

lumberjack needs as much as 7,600 calories, an active woman at least 3,000.[6] 

Herbert Hoover, famed for his work in famine relief, says that 2,200 calories “is a 

minimum in a nation for healthy human beings.”[7] 

Various studies have been made to determine the effects of subnormal diets and 

the limits of starvation. The University of Minnesota conducted a test during the 

war in which a group of conscentious objectors voluntarily lived for several 

months on a daily diet of 1,650 calories. Within six months each man lost a fourth 

of his weight and experienced fainting spells, dizziness, and a feeling of always 

being cold. Their hearts shrank and some had to have two blankets even in 

summer. All lost three-fourths of their energy and work ability. “Each individual 

gradually tended to withdraw to himself, to shun social companionship . . . The 

main interest in life became the next meal.”[8] 

Northwestern University Medical School conducted a similar experiment with 

similar effects. A diet with protein and vitamin contents 40 per cent and 25 per 

cent of normal, respectively, was tried with results which in the words of Dr. 

Andrew C. Ivy, “hold out a dismal prospect for the people of food-restricted 

countries.” He said little change was noted in the patients during the first month 

and a half; “after six weeks, however, they showed a slow, progressive 

deterioration in physical and mental health, accompanied by loss of endurance, 

skin lesions, leg pains, and mental slowness.” It was difficult to get the subjects 

back to normal: “the time of recovery was in no case less than a month.”[9] 

In response to a question on the subject of minimum diets, the National Research 

Council states: 

“The best evidence available to the Board would indicate that adult European 

males reduced to an intake on the average of 1,400 to 1,700 calories for a period 

of six months will suffer: 1) Reduction of capacity for work (endurance) to the 

point where only very light work can be performed effectively, moderate heavy 

work, and heavy work not at all. 2) Loss of power of mental concentration 

associated with apathy, depression, and a high level of irritability. 3) Increased 

susceptibility to infections and contagious diseases . . . The ability of a population 

to maintain or increase its own community production of food, not to speak of 

other goods, would be diminished. In the second place, there would be less hope 

of establishing acceptable community political organization. In the third place, a 

population subjected to such a low level of food supply might be expected to 

develop epidemics which might spread to other nations and consequently 

represent a hazard to the entire world.”[10] 

These facts prove the excruciating character of the rations imposed upon the 

German populace by the conquerors. In the American zone where the level has 

been consistently higher than in other zones the base ration since V-E Day has 

ranged between a high of 1,550 to a low of 1,180 calories per person per diem. 

Here is the record: before November 11, 1945, 1,262 calories; from that date 

through the following March, 1,550 calories; from April 1, 1946, through most of 

the following May, 1,275 calories; from then on through most of the summer, 

1,180 calories. In August, 1946, it was raised to 1,350 calories, and in the fall was 

restored to 1,550 calories where it was supposed to remain during the winter of 

1946-47. 

Herbert Hoover in April, 1946, in commenting on the European situation in 

general called the 1,550 calorie level a “grim and dangerous base” and said: “At 

this level we believe most of the adults can come through the short period of four 

months until the next harvest. The children’s health will become suceptible to 

disease. Many of the children and aged will fall by the wayside.”[11] The 

consequences of keeping the base German rations at or below the 1,500 calorie 

level since V-E Day are not difficult to imagine. Although some of the German 

workers, such as farmers and miners, are allowed somewhat higher rations, the 

base ration applies to the great majority, including housewives and children. 

Such reports as the following made by an official of the food branch of the 

American Military Government should therefore cause no surprise.[12] 

“The greatest famine catastrophe of recent centuries is upon us in central Europe. 

Our Government is letting down our military government in the food deliveries it 

promised, although what Generals Clay, Draper, and Hester asked for and were 

promised was the barest minimum for survival of the people. We will be forced to 

reduce the rations from 1,550 calories to 1,000 or less calories. 

“The few buds of democracy will be burned out in the agony of death of the aged, 

the women, and the children. 

“The British and we are going on record as the ones who let the Germans starve. 

The Russians will release at the height of the famine substantial food stores they 

have locked up (300,000 to 400,000 tons of sugar, large quantities of potatoes). 

“Aside from the inhumanity involved, it is so criminally stupid to give such a 

performance of incredible fumbling before the eyes of the world. It makes all the 

many hard-working officers of the Office of Military Government, Food and 

Agricultural Branch, ashamed.  

Karl Brandt 

Berlin, Germany, March 18, 1946.”  

The following is taken from a report prepared by the German Central 

Administration for Health, a German agency created by the Russian occupation 

authorities: 

“The people hunger. They hold only the immediate present responsible for their 

condition. They are without the energy to trace the links of causes. They have 

even forgotten Hitler. Beyond the immediate present their power to reproduce 

even memory does not reach. There is growing as though by psychological 

compulsion, a mass hysteria, with a thousand different symptoms of drug 

addiction, drunkenness, perversities, sadism, murder and infantilism. . . The 

situation is reaching a generally psychopathological state, through chronic 

hunger. We are seeing aberrations such as were previously known only among 

stranded and starving sailors in lifeboats, or thirsting persons forgotten by 

caravans in desert sands. It is increasingly impossible to discover in the masses of 

the people opinions. They have only animal urges. 

“The explanation of this mass phenomenon, this mental and spiritual paralysis, is 

physical. They are emaciated to the bone. Their clothes hang loose on their 

bodies, the lower extremities are like the bones of a skeleton, their hands shake as 

though with palsy, the muscles of the arms are withered, the skin lies in folds, 

and is without elasticity, the joints spring out as though broken. 

“The weight of the women of average height and build has fallen way below 110 

pounds. Often women of child-bearing age weigh no more than 65 pounds. The 

number of still-born children is approaching the number of those born alive, and 

an increasing proportion of these die in a few days. Even if they come into the 

world of normal weight, they start immediately to lose weight and die shortly. 

Very often the mothers cannot stand the loss of blood in childbirth and perish. 

Infant mortality has reached the horrifying height of 90 per cent.”[13] 

The following dispatch from Wiesbaden, Germany, portrays the lot which has 

befallen the children: 

“Those fat, round cheeked, chubby-legged German children so well known in 

picture and story – remember them? 

“They’re of another era. You do not see them now. 

“I sat with a mother, watching her eight-year-old daughter playing with a doll and 

carriage, her only playthings. Then she came to supper – hard brown bread, three 

slim slices of pressed sausage, a cup of coffee substitute. Her legs were tiny, the 

joints protruding. Her arms had no flesh. Her skin drawn taut across the bones, 

the eyes dark, deep-set and tired. 

“‘She doesn’t look well,’ I said. 

“‘Six years of war,’ the mother replied, in that quiet toneless manner so common 

here now. ‘She hasn’t had a chance. None of the children have. Her teeth are not 

good. She catches illness so easily. 

“‘She laughs and plays – yes; but soon she is tired. She never has known’ – and the 

mother’s eyes filled with tears – ‘what it is not to be hungry.’ “‘Was it this bad 

during the war?’ I asked. 

“‘Not this bad,’ she replied, ‘but not good at all. And now I am told the bread 

ration is to be less. What are we to do; all of us? 

“‘For six years we suffered. We love our country. My husband was killed – his 

second war. My oldest son is a prisoner somewhere in France. My other boy lost a 

leg. That’s what the Nazis did for us. And now . . .’ 

“By this time she was weeping. I gave this little girl a Hershey bar and she wept – 

pure joy – as she held it. By this time I wasn’t feeling too chipper myself. . . But it 

gives you an idea.”[14] 

Dr. Lawrence Meyer, Executive Secretary of the Lutheran Church, Missouri 

Synod, after returning from Germany said on January 13, 1946: 

“Germany literally swarms with children. Eight children per family is nothing 

extraordinary. Millions of these children must die before there is enough food. In 

Frankfurt at a children’s hospital there have been set aside 25 out of 100 children. 

These will be fed and kept alive. It is better to feed 25 enough to keep them alive 

and let 75 starve then to feed the 100 for a short while and let them all 

starve.”[15] 

Dorothy Thompson reported: 

“In Berlin, in August, 1945, out of 2,866 children born, 1,148 died, and it was 

summer, and the food more plentiful than now . . . From Vienna a reliable source 

reports that . . . infant mortality is approaching 100 per cent.”[16] 

Edd Johnson of P.M., on October 3, 1945, wrote from Germany: 

“The infant mortality rate is 16 times as high today as in 1943 . . . There is going 

to be a definite age group elimination. Most children under 10 and people over 60 

cannot survive the coming winter.”[17] 

A United States Press dispach from Berlin, February 8, 1946, reads: 

“Official announcement that two German women bad been murdered and their 

flesh sold on a food black market aroused fear today that organized gangs of 

human butchers were at work here. Spokesmen for the criminal investigation 

department of the German police said only two cases of murder-for-flesh bad 

been established but that it was possible that butchers were operating on a much 

larger scale, killing their victims and peddling their flesh in local black 

markets.”[18] 

Hal Foust wrote from Berlin, February 20, 1946: 

“Germans are dying in masses, not so much from starvation alone as from 

illnesses aggravated by acute malnutrition.”[19] 

A United Press dispatch from Hamburg, Germany, March 22, 1946, reads: 

“33 workmen collapsed from hunger today – the first signs of starvation were 

apparent in this area – with hostility rising among the Hamburg working classes, 

and food riots continued in Hamburg for the fourth straight day.”[20] 

Dorothy Thompson wrote: 

“The children of Europe are starving. Six years of war, indescribable destruction, 

and the lunatic policies which have added to the disintegration inherited from the 

collapse of the Nazi regime have done their work. Germany, and with it Europe, is 

skidding into the abyss. 

“The facts are at last being revealed through what has amounted to a conspiracy 

of silence here . . . This war was fought by the West in the name of Christian 

civilization, the Four Freedoms, and the dignity of man against those who were 

perpetrating crimes against humanity. But policies which must inevitably result 

in the postwar extermination of tens of thousands of children are also “crimes 

against humanity.”[21] 

General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower in November, 1945, solemnly warned 

that if our military victory is to have lasting significance, the United States and 

other nations must “assist the war devastated countries back on their feet” and 

added: 

“If this bitter situation is not to become so disastrous as to make me wonder if it 

was worthwhile to have taken up arms against the Nazis, we in the United States – 

which is truly the land of plenty as compared to Europe – must be prepared to 

discharge a heavy responsibility.”[22] 

After giving Herbert Hoover, serving as Chairman of President Truman’s Famine 

Investigating Commission, a grim report of Germany’s food situation on April 13, 

1946, Generals Joseph T. McNarney and Lucius Clay said in a formal statement: 

“Political stabilty cannot develop under conditions which create political apathy. 

Political apathy can be overcome in a population which must devote its full effort 

to the daily search for food. Political stability in Germany is closely related to 

political stability in the rest of Europe. 

“German transport facilities are required to move relief supplies and exports 

across Europe. German workmen must be used to man available transport 

facilities. 

“German coal is vital to Europe. German potash, salt, lumber, spare parts, and 

other products are needed throughout Europe. Coal production in the Ruhr has 

declined substantially since the recent food cut. Without food Germany cannot 

produce coal. Without coal Germany cannot produce fertilizer and unless it 

produces fertilizer it cannot improve its food supply.”[23] 

The statement went on to point out that the American zone even in normal times 

had been a deficit area with regard to food, requiring 2,000,000 tons of imports 

in 1943-44. It said that the German economic pump must be primed with food 

imports, because the American zone and other western areas cannot produce 

enough to sustain life even at starvation levels. 

Ten months after V-E Day, only 600,000 tons of food had been imported into our 

zone by AMG, or about one ounce per person per meal. Yet AMG officers asked 

GI’s to remind the Germans they owe America a debt of gratitude for feeding 

them.[24] 

 

Evidence that the German Famine is Deliberate 

Senator Homer E. Capehart of Indiana in an address before the United States 

Senate February 5, 1946, said in part: 

“The fact can no longer be suppressed, namely, the fact that it has been and 

continues to be, the deliberate policy of a confidential and conspirational clique 

within the policy-making circes of this government to draw and quarter a nation 

now reduced to abject misery . 

“In this process this clique, like a pack of hyenas struggling over the bloody 

entrails of a corpse, and inspired by a sadistic and fanatical hatred, are 

determined to destroy the German nation and the German people, no matter 

what the consequences. 

“At Potsdam the representatives of the United States, the United Kingdom, and 

the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics solemnly signed the following declaration 

of principles and purposes: 

“‘It is not the intention of the Allies to destroy or enslave the German people.’ 

“Mr. President, the cynical and savage repudiation of these solemn declarations 

which has resulted in a major catastrophe, cannot be explained in terms of 

ignorance or incompetence. This repudiation, not only of the Potsdam 

Declaration, but also of every law of God and men, has been deliberately 

engineered with such a malevolent cunning, and with such diabolical skill, that 

the American people themselves have been caught in an international death trap. 

“For nine months now this administration has been carrying on a deliberate 

policy of mass starvation without any distinction between the innocent and the 

helpless and the guilty alike. 

“The first issue has been and continues to be purely humanitarian. This vicious 

clique within this administration that has been responsible for the policies and 

practices which have made a madhouse of central Europe has not only betrayed 

our American principles, but they have betrayed the GI’s who have suffered and 

died, and they continue to betray the American GI’s who have to continue their 

dirty work for them. 

“The second issue that is involved is the effect this tragedy in Germany has 

already had on the other European countries. Those who have been responsible 

for this deliberate destruction of the German state and this criminal mass 

starvation of the German people have been so zealous in their hatred that all 

other interests and concerns have been subordinated to this one obsession of 

revenge. In order to accomplish this it mattered not if the liberated countries in 

Europe suffered and starved. To this point this clique of conspirators have 

addressed themselves: ‘Germany is to be destroyed. What happens to other 

countries of Europe in the process is of secondary importance.'”  

These remarks were interspersed with a mass of supporting evidence. 

There can be no question that there has been a deliberate attempt to keep the 

facts from the American public. Senator Eastland of Mississippi, for example, in a 

stirring address to the United States Senate December 3, 1945, exposing the 

chaotic conditions in Germany, told of the great difficulty he had encountered in 

gaining access to the official report on conditions in the Reich made by Calvin 

Hoover. He said the State Department at first refused to furnish him a copy of the 

report, but that through the intercession of a high official in the department he 

had been able to obtain it, but only “with the understanding and the promise 

received from me first that the information therein would be made available to 

the people of this country.” Senator Eastland continued: 

“There appears to be a conspiracy of silence to conceal from our people the true 

picture of conditions in Europe, to secrete from us the fact regarding conditions 

of the continent and information as to our policies toward the German people . . . 

Are the real facts withheld because our policies are so cruel that the American 

people would not endorse them? 

“What have we to hide, Mr. President? Why should these facts be withheld from 

the people of the United States? There cannot possibly be any valid reason for 

secrecy. Are we following a policy of vindictive hatred, a policy which would not 

be endorsed by the American people as a whole if they knew true conditions? 

“Mr. President, I should be less than honest if I did not state frankly that the 

picture is so much worse, so much more confused, than the American people 

suspect, that I do not know of any source that is capable of producing the 

complete factual account of the true situation into which our policies have taken 

the Ameriean people. The truth is that the nations of central, southern, and 

eastern Europe are adrift on a flood of anarchy and chaos.”[25] 

Victor Gollancz, influential left-wing British publisher and pamphleteer, in his 

book “Leaving Them to Their Fate – the Ethics of Starvation,” after marshalling 

voluminous proof explains the starvation in these words: 

“The plain fact is when Spring is in the English air we are starving the German 

people, and we are starving them not deliberately in the sense we prefer their 

death to our own inconvenience. 

“Others, including ourselves, are to keep or be given comforts while the Germans 

lack the bare necessities of existence. If it is a choice between discomfort for 

another and suffering for the German, the German must suffer; if between 

suffering for another and death for the German, the German must die.”  

He describes the ample British diet and stocks of food while the Germans starve 

and says: 

“Stocks of food and feeding stuffs in this country owned and controlled by the 

minister of food, exclusive of stocks on farms or held by secondary wholesalers 

and manufacturers, were estimated to total on the last day of March no less than 

4,000,000 tons.” 

He rejects the thesis that we should starve the Germans because they would have 

starved us had they won, on the ground that those who reason as the Nazis are no 

better than the Nazis. He could have added that starvation of children of an 

enemy country is to admit having enemy children. One leading daily thinks Mr. 

Gollancz fails to plumb the depths of the infamy: 

“On the contrary it [the starvation] is the product of foresight. It was deliberately 

planned at Yalta by Roosevelt, Stalin, and Churchill, and the program in all its 

brutality was later confirmed by Truman, Attlee, and Stalin . . . The intent to 

starve the German people to death is being carried out with a remorselessness 

unknown in the western world since the Mongol conquest.”[26] 

Ample food stocks nearer to Germany even than those in England existed while 

the Germans starved. On the same page of a newspaper in the autumn of 1945 

two articles appeared under the following headlines: 

(1) “WEST GERMANS FACE HARD FIGHT AGAINST FAMINE” 

(2) “COME AND GET IT, DENMARK TELLS HUNGRY EUROPE” 

The article under the latter reads: 

“The exhausted Danish farming industry succeeded in increasing pigs to nearly 

two million, 60 per cent of the prewar stock, and last week 45,000 live cattle were 

offered to slaughtering, of which 32,000 had to be refused as the warehouses are 

filled to capacity and no shipping was available. 

“Denmark has, in vain, drawn the attention of Britain, the United States, and 

UNRRA to the facts, at the same time forwarding proposals, but no reply has 

been received so far. 

“The huge cold storage facilities in north Germany are not being utilized, and 

refrigerator ships are lying idle in north German harbors. At the same time 

slaughtering houses are forced to return live cattle to farmers, the cattle now 

consuming fodder that otherwise would be available to further increase 

production, as a result of the failure of distribution machinery. 

“Denmark would welcome it if public opinion would induce the united shipping 

pool, UNRRA and other concerned agencies to overcome difficulties and supply 

shipping essential to emptying ‘Europe’s bursting larder.'”[27] 

An Associated Press dispatch from Copenhagen a month earlier had told the 

same story: 

“While the rest of Europe hungers for meat, Denmark has 3,000 to 4,000 tons of 

surplus beef weekly which cannot be exported for lack of shipping space. 

Hoegsbro Holm, permanent secretary of the agricultural council of Denmark, 

said today that for the last six weeks farmers have had as many as 16,000 head of 

cattle ready for slaughter, but Denmark has been able to use and export only 

10,000. Holm said, ‘We have been trying to get transport for at least two months 

but to date nothing is ready to take the meat.'”[28] 

Another report, by Robert Conway of the New York News, written March 22, 

1946, from Rome, under the headline: “FINDS EUROPEAN ‘SHORTAGES’ ARE 

EXAGGERATION reads: 

“Coincident with the arrival of former President Hoover on his food mission, it is 

timely and vital that the American public should receive the simple facts 

regarding the grossly exaggerated talk of shortages in Europe. 

“England is not starving, although food is short. France is better off than 

England, and Italy is better off than France. The rich and the racketeers are 

eating sumptuously in London, Paris, and Rome, and the poor in Italy have 

rations equivalent to the diet enjoyed in 1937 at the peak of Mussolini’s 

prosperity era. 

“England is the only one of the three countries which is making an honest, 

serious effort to ration food and clothing and control prices. France is doing 

better than Italy, but the black market in Paris is flourishing in all lines of goods. 

Italy is exploiting everything in a fantastic black market based on the contempt of 

the majority of the nation for the ignorance of Allied – chiefly American – officers 

of language, customs, and the traditional system of bartering and begging. 

“In addition, some officers are flagrantly cooperating in the various rackets.” 

“I found it possible to eat well and cheaply in London, Canterbury, and other 

English towns. I found a similar situation in Paris and its environs. Then I came 

to Italy which is a veritable land of plenty, although in all three countries black 

market restaurants supplied steaks, eggs, fruits and other delicacies at prices 

equivalent to those of restaurants in New York. 

“The task of ferreting out the truth of the food and economic situation is a 

difficult one, and unless a better and more experienced personnel is supplied for 

the purpose than is evident in the permanent allied administration here, a 

distorted and inadequate picture will be given to Mr. Hoover.”[29] 

That the general European famine advertised by Washington is for the most part 

German, as reported by Senator Butler of Nebraska after a trip through 33 

countries, is indicated by the fact that UNRRA has been used “to finance 

governments and not to feed the hungry.” UNRRA has in effect supported these 

governments, mostly satellites of the Soviet Union, by supplying them with 

billions of dollars worth of goods which they, in turn, have sold to those with the 

money to buy, thus bringing to themselves handsome revenues in lieu of 

taxes.[30] In Germany, where there is widespread hunger and poverty, UNRRA is 

specifically forbidden to function for the benefit of any but “displaced persons,” 

and then only by making requisitions against the starving Germans.[31] In 

August, 1946, Cyril Osborn, M.P., denounced the so-called relief agency of the 

United Nations as “the biggest racket in Europe.” 

For another thing, no Central Red Cross has been permitted to function in the 

stricken Reich. And it is now a matter of history that the Washington 

administration for nearly a year hotly resisted all efforts to bring private relief to 

the Germans, and only permitted a miserable dribble when it finally did allow it, 

at the urgent request of AMG officials. It placed the limit at 2,000 tons a month, 

limiting packages to 11 pounds and 72 inches in girth, with shipping charges of 14 

cents a pound. 

Senator Albert W. Hawkes, of New Jersey had made a strong appeal to the 

President urging that private relief packages be permitted to prevent mass 

starvation of the German people. In his reply, dated December 21, 1945, 

President Truman professed that “there is as yet no possibility of making 

deliveries of individual packages in Germany,” because “the postal system and 

the communications and transportation systems of Germany are in the state of 

total collapse.” He then said: 

“Our efforts have been directed particularly toward taking care of those who 

fought with us rather than against us – Norwegians, Belgians, the Dutch, the 

Greeks, the Poles, the French. Eventually the enemy countries will be given some 

attention. 

“While we have no desire to be unduly cruel to Germany, I cannot feel any great 

sympathy for those who caused the death of so many human beings by starvation, 

disease, and outright murder, in addition to all the destruction and death of war. 

Perhaps eventually a decent government can be established in Germany so that 

Germany can again take its place in the family of nations. I think that in the 

meantime no one should be called upon to pay for Germany’s misfortune except 

Germany itself. 

“Until the misfortunes of those whom Germany oppressed and tortured are 

oblivated [sic], it does not seem right to divert our efforts to Germany itself. I 

admit that there are, off course, many innocent people in Germany who had 

little to do with the Nazi terror. However, the administrative burden of trying to 

locate these people and treat them differently for the rest is one which is almost 

insuperable.” (emphasis added)[32] 

This letter makes perfectly clear that we are deliberately discriminating against 

“the Germans,” that Mr. Truman expeeted to be at least a little cruel in his 

treatment of them, and that he had not the slightest consciousness of the German 

children, as such, and the agonies they must suffer, although they surely “had 

little to do with Nazi terror” and certainly could be as easily located as Nazis and 

war criminals. It is difficult, indeed, to see how those responsible for our policy 

can escape condemnation under the following principles laid down by General 

Eisenhower: 

“While I and my subordinates believe that stern justice should be meted out to 

war criminals by proper legal procedure, we would never condone inhuman or 

un-American practices upon the helpless, which is one of the crimes for which 

those war criminals must now stand trial.”[33] 

Michael Foote, M.P., in discussing this question reminded the House of 

Commons that there is an older law than any promulgated at Potsdam for the 

protection of victims or our policy: 

“But who shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better 

for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and that he were drowned in 

the depth of the sea.”[34] 

It later came out that Russian objection in the Control Council was at least partly 

responsible for our inability to send private relief packages to Germany. Four 

Senators, after being rebuffed at the White House in their request that the mails 

be opened to permit relief packages to Germany, learned that permission to do so 

must meet with unanimous consent of all four occupying powers and that the 

Soviet Union had opposed the idea. The four gave out this information in a 

statement which said in part: 

“The American people should know once and for all that as a result of this 

government’s official policy they are being made the unwilling accomplices in the 

crime of mass starvation. How long must we expect Mr. Stalin to deny the 

American people the opportunity to express their native humanitarianism and 

desires?”[35] 

Russia’s inhuman truculence was referred to indirectly by General McNarney in a 

letter to Senator Wiley (February 14, 1946). He explained: 

“United States citizens have not been permitted to send individual gift supplies to 

German nationals, as the establishment of international postal service, while 

under study, is yet to be effected. 

“Once such agreement has been reached, the distribution of packages within the 

United States zone can be reasonably well met by the parcel post service which 

has now been reinstalled within Germany.” (emphasis added)[36] 

In other words, the difficulty was a question of agreement, rather than lack of 

facilities. 

In close harmony with Russia’s inhuman attitude, which had an ulterior purpose 

as part of a larger program, as we shall see, the “liberal” press has for the most 

part greeted with silence or derision all efforts to publicize the facts concerning 

German prostration and to bring relief to the suffering German masses. Eleanor 

Roosevelt, Senator Connelly, and the late Sidney Hillman, backed by personages 

in AMG, upon visiting Germany professed to see no evidence of starvation or 

suffering beyond what they considered tolerable. The New Republic expressed its 

horror over the possibility that Senator Wherry, who had agitated for a Senate 

investigation of conditions in Europe, including Germany, might become more 

influential. In the New Republic’s own words, this was his crime: “His present 

efforts are devoted to getting more food for Germany and Austria.” 

In commenting on the New Republic attitude and PM’s professed liberalism, 

William Henry Chamberlain, in his excellent article “The Crisis of Liberalism,” 

which was entered in the Congressional Record, says: 

“So it becomes a crime, in the eyes of a liberal magazine, to try to ward off what is 

at best acute malnutrition, at worse starvation. As to PM, with its loudly 

professed code of humanitarian ethics, it gives a daily exhibition, in its attitude 

toward relief for central Europe, of nazism in reverse, of a positively sadistic 

desire to inflict maximum suffering on all Germans, irrespective of their 

responsibility for Nazi crimes.”[37] 

“Liberals” have, however, indulged in some relief activities. Here is one case, as 

reported by correspondent Philip Warden: 

“Washington, D.C., June 6 (1946) – The emergency food collection committee 

headed by Henry A. Wallace, Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, and Herbert Lehman, has 

collected $323,000 in cash and is incurring an estimated $300,000 in 

administrative expenses, Chairman Wallace reported to the Senate Small 

Business’ Committee today. 

“Wallace listed among the ‘estimated cash requirements’ for the two month 

campaign which is expected to wind up by July 1, $75,000 in salaries, $45,000 in 

travel and subsistence claims, $115,000 for publicity, materials, and stationery, 

$28,000 for communications, and $20,000 in state and metropolitan 

organizational expenses.”[38] 

  

Reference Notes: 

[1] Congressional Record, Dec. 20, 1945, p. A-6130. 

[2] Wireless to New York Times and Chicago Tribune, Frankfurt, Germany, April 13, 1946. 

[3] The Chicago Sun, June 7, 1946, p. 29. 

[4] Hal Foust, Berlin, Aug, 6, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[5] George Theim, Chicago Daily News Farm Editor, Chicago Daily News, Nov. 4, 1943. 

[6] Chicago Daily Tribune, Oct. 10, 1945. 

[7] Same as No. 6. 

[8] Chicago Tribune Press Service, Washington, April 26, 1946. 

[9] Chicago Daily News, April 12, 1946. 

[10] Congressional Record, Jan. 29, 1946, p. 533. 

[11] Associated Press, Washington, D.C., April 19, 1946. 

[12] Congressional Record, March 29, 1946, pp. 2858-9. 

[13] Congressional Record, March 29, 1946, p. 2865. 

[14] Jack Bell, Wiesbaden, Germany, May 10, 1946, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[15] American Economist, Feb. 1946, p. 6. 

[16] Congressional Record, Dec. 4, 1945, p. 11562. 

[17] Congressional Record, Dec. 4, 1945, p. 11553. 

[18] United Press, Berlin, Feb. 8, 1946, The Chicago Daily News. 

[19] Hal Foust, Berlin, Feb. 20, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[20] United Press, Hamburg, Germany, March 22, 1946. 

[21] Congressional Record, Dec. 4, 1945, p. 1156l. 

[22] Reported by Griffing Barcroft, Washington, Nov. 22, 1945, Chicago Sun Washington Bureau. 

[23] John Thompson, Berlin, April 13, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[24] Associated Press, Berlin, June 22, 1946. 

[25] Congressional Record, Dec. 4, 1945, p. 11552. 

[26] Chicago Daily Tribune, May 8, 1946. 

[27] Einar Christiansen, Chicago Tribune Press Service, Copenhagen, Denmark, Oct. 19, 1945, 

Chicago Daily Tribune, Oct. 20, 1945. 

[28] Associated Press, Copenhagen, Denmark, Sept. 16, 1946. 

[29] Robert Conway, Rome, March 22, 1946, wireless to New York News. 

[30] Chicago Tribune Press Service, Washington D.C., Aug. 5, 1946. 

[31] Edd Johnson, Frankfurt, Germany, The Chicago Sun for Nov. 19, 1945. 

[32] Congressional Record, Jan. 29, 1946, pp. 530-l. 

[33] Congressional Record, Jan. 29, 1946, p. 537. 

[34] Congressional Record, Dec. 4, 1945, p. 11557. 

[35] Chicago Daily Tribune, Washington, D.C., Jan. 8, 1946. 

[36] William Moore, Washington, D.C., Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[37] Congressional Record, May 20, 1946, p. 2953. 

[38] Philip Warden, Washington, D.C., June 6, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter VII: 

ECONOMIC TRIBULATION 

It is inconsistent to show solicitude for the welfare of Germany or the German 

people and at the same time to support the Potsdam agreements, because, as we 

have seen, the latter were intended not to help Germany recover but rather to 

prevent her from doing so. Potsdam was based on the Morgenthau Plan and the 

Morgenthau Plan had stipulated: 

“The sole purpose of the military in control of the German economy shall be to 

facilitate military operations and military occupation. The Allied Military 

Government shall not assume responsibility for such economic problems as price 

controls, rationing, unemployment, production, reconstruction, distribution, 

consumption, housing, or transportation, or take any measures designed to 

maintain or strengthen the German economy, except those which are essential 

to military operations. The responsibility for sustaining the German economy and 

people rests with the German people with such facilities as may be available 

under the circumstances. “(emphasis added) 

“Under the circumstances” must be underscored as meaning an absence of 

essential facilities. The territorial losses and seizures; the program of over- 

crowding through expulsions of millions of eastern Germans; the wholesale 

enslavement of German manpower; the liquidation of German science and 

managerial, technical, and professional classes through de-nazification; the 

settling of the low level of industry decided upon, coupled with the industrial 

sacking and elimination of all German external resources – all these measures on 

top of the war devastation cannot be described as anything but a program to 

throw Germany and her people into a state of collapse. 

But these are not the only acts of repression. Taxes have been raised to 

confiscatory levels which stifle incentives and prevent operation of the free 

enterprise system. They have helped to socialize German economy and kill the 

profit motive. They have corrupted public morals for even the poor must contrive 

to dodge them in order to have enough income to buy shoes.[1] We have refused 

to establish an exchange value for the German mark in terms of other currencies, 

preventing privately handled imports and exports and throwing what little 

external trade there is into the hands of the military government. And instead of 

trying to work out some intelligent plan for the resuscitation of the collapsed 

financial system we have proceeded to make matters far worse by such actions as 

the printing of vast sums of occupation currency which will almost certainly help 

create the 1923 inflation disaster and complete the destruction of the German 

middle class.[2] Such a result would serve the ends of Soviet Russia, but hardly 

those of the other powers. 

 

Economic Prostration 

It is difficult to imagine the depth of German depression. When the United States 

reached the bottom of 1932, industrial production had fallen to 60 per cent of 

normal. The depression was so severe – the losses so enormous, the 

unemployment so widespread – that it almost brought a revolution. 

Industrial production in Germany a year after V-E Day was 10 per cent of what 

used to be normal. 

Production in our zone has gradually risen until it reached a high of about 12 per 

cent of the old normal, or about 20 per cent of the new permitted levels. With the 

cut in rations, however, the index began a steady decline.[3] On May 4, Brig. Gen. 

William H. Draper, AMG director of economics, reported that output in our zone 

was “far below that necessary to maintain the minimum standard of living.” The 

report went on to give production figures for individual industries as percentages 

of capacity. Here are a few samples: chemicals 25 per cent; electric power 20 per 

cent; building materials 20 per cent; steel products 13 per cent; ceramics 5 per 

cent; farm machinery 22 per cent; electrical equipment 15 per cent; automotive 

and industrial machinery 10 per cent.[4] The following summer it was reported 

that less than 30 per cent of available industry in our zone was in operation.[5] 

Deputy Military Governor Clay at the end of August declared that it will take at 

least four more years for Germany to recover sufficiently to bring production up 

to the bare subsistence levels set under the deindustrialization program.[6] 

War destruction plus the Allied program of repression have created thorough 

disorganization. Of the plants not bombed out completely, many were obsolete, 

others located in areas where residential destruction was so complete that there 

was no room for workers, or where available transportation and communications 

could serve only a fraction of production.[7] Freight carrying has been slow and 

unreliable, able to meet only 70 per cent of the low demand. Passenger service is 

covering only 30 per cent of German requirements. Cars are jammed and 

passengers even hang on the sides and tops. Railroad shortages lie in rolling 

stock, ships, manpower, coal, and result in part from bottlenecks and the 

inevitable inefficiency of military control.[8] 

Low coal production has been a key problem resulting in part from lack of civilian 

goods available to miners and their families. The AMG official in charge said in 

July, 1946, that the miners must be fed better and treated better in other ways to 

get improved output. “We are going to have to provide decent housing and we are 

going to have to make consumer goods available, as an incentive for the miners to 

dig. At present they cannot even buy needle and thread with which to patch their 

pants . . . There is no slowdown conspiracy nor underground political sabotage by 

the workers, it is just that they have not enough incentive to work.”[9] 

A high ranking British officer a few days earlier had admitted that anti-British 

sentiment is growing in the Ruhr. He said: “The Germans are just beginning to 

appreciate the economic hardships imposed upon them by allied policy. It is 

natural there should be a stiffening of the German attitude toward this policy, 

and that the British should receive the brunt of this stiffening since the 

reparation program takes more from the British zone than from other parts of 

Germany.” He pointed out that the miners lack incentive due to the absence of 

food and other necessities and added: “In a vicious economic cycle we do not 

have consumer goods because manufacturing plants lack the coal to make them. 

Therefore we must have more coal for production.”[10] 

Bottlenecks and shortages permeate the whole German economy as the inevitable 

consequence of war destruction and the production prohibitions enforced under 

the level of industry plan. In July, 1946, for example, it was reported that the 

metal shortage had halted the production of plows, while the supply of 

horseshoes and nails was about exhausted. The number of motor trucks in Berlin, 

with its 3,000,000 inhabitants and area five times that of Chicago, was down to 

8,000. Solder was not available even for mending pots and pans. Shoe cobblers 

were using old portfolios, dice boxes, helmet liners, any piece of salvage leather 

they could find to repair shoes. Although 50,000 school children were out of 

shoes, the supply of shoe nails was about exhausted. Because of lack of 

permanganate of potash, caused by dismantlement of I.G. Farben plants, the 

manufacture of saccharine, vitally needed on account of the sugar famine as well 

as by diabetics, was threatened. Manufacture of adhesive tape, muslin, bandages, 

and surgical dressings was halted in Thuringia because cotton mills appropriated 

by the Russians would not furnish raw materials. Cement production, sorely 

needed for reconstruction, was low because of dismantlements and shortage of 

machinery and tools.[11] Reports reveal that such industries as rug, fabric, 

cutlery, toy, and musical instrument factories, fortunate to have survived the war, 

lack fuel and raw materials.[12] 

Current German production has been far less than enough to supply current 

minimum needs of the populace. For the first year, it was possible to draw on 

reserve supplies left over from pre-surrender days and spared in the looting and 

destruction even of vast leftover food stores by the armies of the victors.[13] But 

these reserves were gradually exhausted, leaving a dark prospect for the future. 

Clothes wore out and could not be replaced, due to the virtual nonexistence of 

textiles for civilian use. In consequence, as one report put it: 

“The best dressed frauleins in Berlin this spring will wear a combination of 

window curtains and old bedclothes.”[14] 

Desperation for money to buy food on the black markets to supplement the 

starvation rations, has led the Germans to sell their assets, disposing first of what 

they need the least. Their rings have gone, then watches, bracelets, that other pair 

of shoes, dresses, jackets, suits. As one Berlin reporter put it: 

“Last winter there was no coal, and Berliners burned every tree in town and for 

several miles around. Cold is the most miserable of all living conditions, and as 

people get closer and closer to the primitive, it’s natural that they look to the 

future. At first I was amazed to see girls walking down Berlin streets in summer 

clad in long coats of fox, or squirrel, or sheep. Then I realized. Remembering last 

winter; looking toward another winter without fuel – they’ve sold the clothing 

least needed. And I’m not kidding when I say a lot of these frauleins are down to 

their last fur coat.”[15] 

Associated Press bulletin from Hereford, Germany, dated September 9, 1946 

reads: 

“The British officially informed Germans in their zone today they could expect no 

coal for heating this winter.”[16] 

A little later an arrangement was made for miners to work Sundays, so that the 

average family of four in the merged American and British zone could have fuel 

this winter equivalent in heating value of a little over half a ton of hard coal for a 

six months period.[17] A month later the unions voted not to work on Sundays. 

In the face of this grim prospect, the best that could be hoped for in the way of 

food by the population living on the very edge of starvation, suffering from 

famine edema, swelling of joints, and all the other terrors of gradual starvation, 

as stated before, was an increase in rations to the “grim and dangerous” 1,500 

calorie level throughout the 1946-47 winter. In June, 1946, Col. H.B. Hester, in 

charge of the American military government food branch, predicted a disastrous 

famine in Germany the next winter unless the ration level was raised by 

October.[18] His report followed another by Col. W.L. Wilson, chief of public 

health and welfare, that the condition of the conquered people was sinking 

rapidly under the present ration.[19] 

In the French zone 5,000 have died weekly of starvation.[20] In mid-summer of 

1946, in Berlin, 19,000 very serious tuberculosis cases for whom no beds were 

available were reported officially by American authorities. The Senate of 

Hamburg issued an appeal to England and the entire world to send food and 

medicines to “avert terrible epidemics and mass deaths.” Hamburg motormen 

and conductors were imperiling safety of public transport by “fainting from 

hunger” and dropping at their posts from long undernourishment and weakness 

while on duty. The Medical Council of Cologne informed the British military 

authorities that the population there “is facing catastrophe” unless food was 

quickly provided, adding that “resistance to infectious diseases, especially 

tuberculosis, is vanishing.” Authorities in the Rhineland sent an appeal from 

Düsseldorf to the British military government to “close the murderous food gap,” 

in order to check rapidly spreading disease and epidemics caused by hunger.” A 

medical authority said: 

“Many thousands of men, women, and children, who, with what reserves in 

strength and vitality they still possessed, managed to live through the rigors, cold 

and hunger of last winter, will not survive this winter, after another year’s 

depletion in their power of resistance to diseases fostered by starvation and semi- 

starvation. Death’s harvest indeed may be appalling.”[21] 

With this frightful prospect it will behoove relief organizations to operate at 

maximum capacity if millions of lives are to be saved. 

 

Economic Dismemberment 

Big Four officials have laid all the blame for Germany’s distress on the war and 

zonal separation. In their view Potsdam would afford the best possible solution to 

all difficulties if only zonal division could be corrected. 

German territory west of the Oder-Neisse line was divided into four zones to be 

occupied and administered by the military forces of Russia, Great Britain, the 

United States, and France. 

Russia’s zone, comprising the eastern half of Prussia west of the Oder-Neisse 

river line is the best balanced of the four zones. In addition to containing some 45 

per cent of Germany’s manufacturing during the war, it produced more than 

enough food for its own consumption and mines brown coal and other minerals. 

Other sections of the Reich had been heavily dependent upon it for many key raw 

materials and manufactures. Stripped as it has been, it nevertheless supplies 

Russia with a sizable flow of goods taken as reparation. 

Britain’s zone comprises the western half of Prussia. Within it is the Ruhr District 

which contains the continent’s most valuable natural resources, especially large 

deposits of high grade coal close to Europe’s best iron ores, and lies in the midst 

of Europe’s densest concentration of population in a region served by excellent 

rail and water transportation. Molotov rightly called it “Europe’s workshop.” 

Despite intensive cultivation the zone suffers a heavy food deficit, and even coal 

production has been at a low ebb since V-E Day. Administration costs are 320 

million dollars a year above revenues. 

The American zone lies in the central and southern sections of the Reich. Most of 

it is mountainous and largely scenic. It is not and cannot become self-sufficient in 

food production and is highly dependent upon various imports. It perfectly 

illustrates the essential interdependence of all sections of German economy. All 

of its hard coal requirements must be imported from the Ruhr or Saar regions, 

and 83 per cent of the steel required by its many manufacturing establishments 

must come from the outside. Lack of coal has forced partial or total closing of 

many industries; for example, the pharmaceutical industry, which needs coal tar; 

the tire business, which needs buna made from coal; and various fabricating, 

processing and finishing establishments. Because of the steel shortage, the largest 

tin can manufacturer in Bavaria closed so that some 10 million tins badly needed 

to put up the 1946 crop of peas, beans, and fruit, were not made. Large numbers 

are unemployed and administration is costing the American taxpayers 200 

million dollars a year. 

France’s zone consists mostly of provincial fragments of former Germany 

bordering on France and contains no complete political or economic entities. Its 

chief asset is the Saar Basin, rich in coal and steel. Although intensively 

cultivated, the zone is not self-sufficient in food, because of heavy specialization 

in vineyards and orchards. It must import its potatoes from Bavaria, for example, 

and other zones rely upon its food specialties. 

One of the outstanding facts about Germany is the dependence of each section, 

and now each zone, upon all the others – for food, steel, coal, timber, and other 

essentials. The peace settlements did not anticipate economic separation of 

Germany’s highly interdependent regions. Since the zones were set up strictly for 

administrative purposes and were not supposed to exert any divisive influence 

upon Germany economy, zonal boundary lines were laid out promiscuously 

across political and economic subdivisions. The belief that the zones would 

remain one thing and German economy another is clearly shown in the early 

statements and declarations of policy. 

Potsdam directs that “during the period of occupation Germany shall be treated 

as an economic unit,” and an earlier Big Four statement on control machinery for 

Germany decrees that: 

“The Control Council, whose decisions shall be unanimous, will ensure 

appropriate uniformity of action by the Commanders in Chief in their respective 

zones of occupation and will reach agreed decisions on the chief questions 

affecting Germany as a whole.” 

This demand for results made impossible by the conditions laid down 

simultaneously has been about as effective as commanding the sun to stand still. 

Insisted upon by Russia the requirement that Control Council decisions “shall be 

unanimous” has in practice barred “agreed decisions on the chief questions 

affecting Germany as a whole,” and has brought anything but uniformity of zonal 

action. It has killed Control Council effectiveness just as the veto power also 

insisted upon by Russia has destroyed the effectiveness of the Security Council of 

the United Nations Organization. 

France has been particularly obstructive in Control Council voting. Although 

British and American delegations insisted upon inclusion of France in the Four 

Power control and occupation of the Reich, France has never signed the Potsdam 

agreements. In consequence she is not bound by the agreements, yet is able to 

veto their execution.[22] She has frankly admitted her opposition to German 

unification and, for her own presumed self-protection and territorial 

aggrandizement, has demanded that Germany be Balkanized and destroyed as a 

power factor of Europe. To achieve this end she had obdurately insisted, as 

mentioned before, that the whole of western Germany be broken off and either 

internationalized or added to France. Upon taking her place among the Big Four, 

she served notice that until these demands were met, she would veto all Control 

Council decisions aiming to treat the Reich as an economic unit and thereafter 

lived up to her promise – even to such a fine point as rejecting a national postage 

stamp. 

France has been by no means alone in blocking unified economic administration. 

Russia has been almost as obstructive and would probably have been more so had 

France not been so obliging. Even Britain and the United States have not 

hesitated to balk whenever it appeared selfishly advantageous for them to do so. 

In the absence of “agreed decisions” calling for uniform action in all zones, the 

Reich has become divided into four economically deficient and unbalanced “air 

tight” compartments, each administered exclusively by its occupying power as 

though it were a colony or protectorate. More difficult to surmount than those of 

independent states, zonal boundaries form such barriers to interzonal intercourse 

that what little trade occurs must be barter deals arranged by special treaty. [23] 

Although such economic dismemberment would alone guarantee economic 

disorganitation, it cannot rightly be made to serve as a scape-goat for all the sins 

of Potsdam, nor for the British and American zonal deficits. Even in the absence 

of zonal separation the other harsh and repressive measures ordered at Potsdam 

would assure German economic paralysis. 

Disregarding this manifest fact, many officials find it convenient to lay all the 

blame on the zonal barriers and to argue that if they could be eliminated Potsdam 

would be transformed from a dismal failure into a dazzling success. The thesis 

may enable them to avoid admitting the colossal blunder Potsdam really is, but it 

also serves as a bar to taking the steps necessary to meet the trouble 

fundamentally. 

Put forward as a general panacea for all German administrative ills, economic 

anschluss of as many zones as possible has become the chief objective of our 

zonal authorities. In the attempt to break down French and Russian objections, 

they offered to divide the Reich into a number of federated states and to 

guarantee German disarmament for 25 or even 40 years. After this proposal was 

rejected on the ground that it was wholly inadequate and would lead to war, they 

offered to merge the American zone economically “with one, two, or three other 

zones.”[24] In making the offer, AMG Commander in Chief, General McNarney, 

observed: 

“The United States Government proposes this arrangement because of its belief 

that Germany can no longer be administered in four air tight compartsments 

without free economic intercourse, unless paralysis is to result. The United States 

Government is unwilling to permit creeping economic paralysis to grow if it is 

possible to attain economic unity between its zone and any other zone in 

Germany, as a prelude to economic unity for all Germany.”[25] 

Although Russia and France turned down the offer, Britain accepted and the task 

of effecting economic unification of the British and American zones was 

undertaken. 

Even if such an economic merger can be made effective in the absence of political 

unification, which is doubtful, it is but one short step in a long way that must be 

traveled before substantial permanent amelioration of Germany’s plight can be 

attained. On the other hand, the merger partitions the Reich between East and 

West and intensifies and embitters the conflict between the two. 

  

Reference Notes: 

[1] Hal Foust, Berlin, July 5, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[2] Edd Johnson, Berlin, April 30, 1946, Chicago Sun Foreign Service. 

[3] Hal Foust, Berlin, June 2, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[4] Hal Foust, Berlin, May 4, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[5] John Fisher, Washington, Aug. 22, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service, quoting Prof. Jas. K. 

Pollock. 

[6] Associated Press, Berlin, Aug. 31, 1946. 

[7] Same as No. 6. 

[8] Hal Foust, Berlin, April 27, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[9] Hal Foust, Berlin, July 23, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service, quoting Max H. Forester, 

Chief of Coal and Mining Div. of AMG. 

[10] Hal Foust, Berlin, July 17, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[11] Hal Foust, Berlin, July 29, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[12] Hal Foust, Berlin, Feb. 26, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[13] Reuters, Frankfurt-on-Main, Germany, Dec. 16, 1945. 

[14] Edward P. Morgan, Berlin, Mar. 12, 1946, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[15] Jack Bell, Berlin, July 21, 1946, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[16] Associated Press, Hereford, Germany, Sept. 9, 1946. 

[17] Hal Foust, Berlin, Sept. 21, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[18] John Elliott, Berlin, June 2, 1946, Special to The Chicago Sun. 

[19] Hal Foust, Berlin, June 3, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[20] James P. Warburg, New York, The Chicago Sun , Aug. 8, 1946. 

[21] Karl H. von Wiegand, Paris, Aug. 3, 1946, Chicago Herald-American. 

[22] Same as No. 20. 

[23] Edward P. Morgan, Berlin, May 25, 1946, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[24] Associated Press, Berlin, July 21, 1946. 

[25]Hal Foust, Berlin, July 20, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter VIII: 

TEACHING DEMOCRACY IN REVERSE  

The Lord High Executioners  

We thought we were coming to Germany as liberators to free the German people 

from dictatorship, to teach them the errors of their ways, and to give them the 

benefits of our form of democracy and free enterprise. Actually we accepted at 

Potsdam a program which negated all of our principles, which could sell our form 

of democracy only in reverse. The Potsdam plan was made to order for Soviet 

Russia, but not for free enterprise or free democratic processes. Its very execution 

requires totalitarianism of the kind the Soviets are accustomed to, of the kind 

which, when the Nazis were practicing it, so outraged us that we fought a half 

trillion dollar war to eradicate it from the earth. 

We first eliminated the German government, the only instrumentality through 

which the German people might take collective self-preservative action and then 

substituted a system of military absolutism, born not of free American 

institutions or ideals, but of the absolutisms dominant at Potsdam. Military 

absolutism was set up under the following edict: 

“In the period when Germany is carrying out the basic requirements of 

unconditional surrender, supreme authority in Germany will be exercised, on 

instruction from their Governments, by the Soviet, British, United States, and 

French Commanders-in-Chief, each in his own zone of occupation, and in 

matters affecting Germany as a whole. The four Commanders-in-Chief will 

together constitute the Control Council.” 

Set up to function under the heads of this alien military dictatorship is a 

complicated bureaucracy headed by a hierarchy of descending Caesars, forming a 

neat replica of the authoritarian apparatus employed by both the Soviets and 

Nazis. 

This dictatorship, as we have seen, has as its purpose not the resuscitation and 

rehabilitation of the fallen Reich, but rather its repression and the erection of 

barriers to recovery. With hundreds of thousands of heavily armed occupation 

troops behind it, the alien dictatorship was also prepared to prevent resistance by 

the Germans as they saw the ground prepared for their extermination by their 

being thrown on their own, and forbidden outside assistance while the necessary 

means for their survival were destroyed. It has dropped a soundproof iron curtain 

down around its victims, virtually cutting off intercourse with the outside world, 

ostensibly to prevent contamination of other nations by Nazi ideas, but also to 

prevent the anguished cries of the German women and children from reaching 

and disturbing others while the gruesome program was carried into effect. 

As the death noose tightened about them, the Germans were to be made to 

believe they are entirely to blame for their dilemma. Even the inevitable 

economic collapse must be laid at the door of German administrators. They must 

be made to spring their own trap door. Potsdam says: 

“In the imposition and maintenance of economic controls . . ., German 

administrative machinery shall be created and the German authorities shall be 

required to the fullest extent practicable to proclaim and assume administration 

of such controls. Thus it should be brought home to the German people that the 

responsibility for the administration of such controls and any breakdown in 

these controls will rest with themselves.” (emphasis added) 

This was the craven way we were to bring self government to the Germans. 

We no doubt hoped, for example, that by turning denazification over to so-called 

“German” prosecutors and courts set up and operating under our mandate we 

could make the Germans blame themselves for the deleterious effects. 

We have said it is democratic to make the Germans conduct their own purge, 

which is tantamount to accepting the Russian purges as democratic. But those 

purges were at least Russian affairs. The German purge machinery is operated by 

Communists and radical Marxist Socialists placed in office by an alien 

dictatorship and no more representative of the Germans than Quisling’s Nazi 

government was of the Norwegians. The Germans know full well that whatever 

our puppets do reflects our will and dicta. If we should by any chance convince 

them that this is what we mean by the democracy we came to force upon them, 

we could hardly blame them if they rejected it at the first opportunity. 

Our military government is anything but democratic, except in the Russian sense. 

It is headed by well-trained military men, competent to carry out military tasks 

and orders received from Washington prepared by politicians and behind-the- 

scenes operators. Instead of a democratic body representative of free Americans, 

they are order takers, willing to carry out without question whatever directive 

they receive from above. They are identical in this respect with Hitler’s loyal 

hierarchy of lord high executioners. 

Our troops of occupation have been splendid young American boys, but for the 

most part raw, inexperienced, teenage draftees who could be expected neither to 

relish their job nor to comprehend its exacting nature. The whole experience has 

tended to corrupt and brutalize them. As mentioned before, our use of a 

disproportionate number of negro troops has helped alienate the Germans and 

disgust our own personnel. 

In conjunction with the military forces we have sent over a corps of high salaried 

civilian employees, consisting in large measure of people who had failed the 

social and economic competition at home, including in some cases broken down, 

discharged officers who could not stand the rough going of actual combat in 

France and Italy, or the chagrin of having to return home as failures before the 

war was over, but who now draw higher pay than ever in their lives during 

peacetime before, and who enjoy swelling arrogantly with self-assumed 

importance before defeated but often more refined, cultured, and substantial 

people caught under their delegated authority. 

This motley crew for the most part has no intimate knowledge of European and 

especially German conditions, mores, problems, or history, but was hastily 

recruited and superficially trained for its extremely demanding mission. 

Although circumstances do not permit our body of civilian employees as a whole 

to be representative of the best there is in America, there are, fortunately, some 

notable exceptions. Often at great personal sacrifice, some very able, well- 

informed, conscientious experts and specialists have gone over and by their 

influence and efforts helped to mitigate the difficult situation. To these splendid 

products of our free institutions must go the lion’s share of credit for whatever 

success AMG has achieved. For army men, if they are competent as such, cannot 

be expected to manage and perform major operations on a crippled foreign 

economy and social system without creating chaos. If the Army has proved 

unequal to the task of running such relatively simple things as railroads and mail 

order houses in America, it surely must be unequal to the stupendous job given it 

in Germany. 

Potsdam has imposed upon us a program which runs counter to our fundamental 

convictions and philosophy. The military men who head AMG generally believe 

that the less government interferes with business the better it is for everybody, 

except in Germany. And they oppose collectivism philosophically, except in 

Germany. Although they fought a war to destroy dictatorship, they are willing to 

serve as one themselves and to impose almost complete control over the lives of 

individual Germans. Nothing runs without their permission. 

Zonal rule over the economic, political, and cultural life of the German people, as 

commanded at Potsdam, could be handled with a modicum of success only by 

men with long experience in totalitarian philosophy and methodology. And in 

this respect the Russian zonal authorities enjoy a great advantage. Whereas the 

rule which Potsdam orders is alien to our background, training, and philosophy, 

it conforms perfectly to Russian practice at home. Such rule cannot bring free 

enterprise to Germany; only some form of collectivist society could grow up 

under it. 

These are points of cardinal importance in the rivalry between Soviet Russia and 

the western powers over ultimate control of the German Reich. 

 

“Reeducation” 

Many ardent supporters of Potsdam have become greatly upset about Communist 

plans for taking over the Reich. They have no right to be, because the very first 

signature affixed to the document is that of Joseph Stalin. The Russians, 

therefore, have just as much right as we to lay down the meaning of its loose 

provisions and undefined terms. When Potsdam calls for democratization of the 

Reich without specifying exactly what is meant by “democracy,” the Soviets have 

a perfect right to insist that the order calls for German communization. And this 

is but one of the pernicious features of its “re-education” program. 

Potsdam, in connection with denazification, decrees that ousted Nazis “shall be 

replaced by persons who by their political and moral qualities, are deemed 

capable of assisting in developing genuine democratic institutions in Germany.” 

But no hint is given as to what “genuine democratic institutions” might be. It 

prohibits propagation of national socialist ideas, without stating what they are, 

and then provides that “German education shall be so controlled as completely to 

eliminate Nazi and militarist doctrines and to make possible the successful 

development of democratic ideas,” again without definition. 

But forbidding propagation and discussion of one political philosophy and 

forcing the public to accept a different one held by those in the seats of power is 

Nazi doctrine. It is also Communist doctrine. And the Communists claim theirs is 

the one and only genuine democracy. 

Political democracy, say the Bolsheviks, is impossible over the long run without 

“economic democracy,” by which they mean abolition of private ownership of 

property, the foundation of free enterprise. But they call free enterprise fascism, 

and defenders of the American system fascists. And Nazism is a form of fascism. 

Denazification, in Russian eyes, therefore, is tantamount to rooting out our own 

system, along with all other private property systems. 

The Bolsheviks call any country or party fascist or Nazi if it takes or advocates 

measures to curb the activities of Communist parties; those which permit the 

Communists to go freely about their business of destroying them and building a 

world soviet union are denominated “democratic.” Thus, Potsdam qualifies as a 

“democratic” document. 

These facts were known, or should have been known, by all the principals at 

Potsdam. When Russia was permitted to sign the agreements without a clear 

definition of what was meant by “democracy,” we were falling into a dangerous 

trap from which we cannot escape, unless we simply repudiate the agreements we 

signed. The whole thing makes us look very stupid. 

If by democracy we meant our way of life – free enterprise, private property, 

individual liberties, the protections guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, and 

government of, by, and for the people – it should have been obvious to us from 

the beginning that the program to establish democracy by force was foredoomed 

to failure. We might logically have hoped to wipe out Hitlerism by Hitlerite 

methods, but we certainly could never hope to establish our way of life that way. 

Our intolerance of Nazi political opinion, however justified it may seem, is 

nevertheless the opposite of democratic in the American sense. Our 

determination to wipe out ideas by force is a repudiation of democracy’s most 

sacred tenets. People who really believe in freedom of thought and opinion do not 

use clubs on the debating platform. We despised Hitler for burning books 

proscribed by the Nazis, not because we were necessarily partial toward the 

particular books involved, but as a matter of principle. Yet we have ourselves 

violated the principle, and adopted Hitlers, by burning the Nazi books. In words 

we denounce Hitlerism; in deeds we exonerate it! 

The impression has been given by prolonged propaganda that national socialist 

tenets were obviously evil and criminal, that they openly called for aggressive 

war, for example, and conquest of the world. This is not true. Like the platform of 

any political party seeking support at the polls, its planks appeared to be quite 

innocuous. In fact, Nazism and its works were praised by many foreign notables 

such as Lloyd George and Winston Churchill. When polled, 51 per cent of our 

own GI’s, stationed in Germany, said they believed Hitler “did the Reich a lot of 

good before 1939,” and 19 per cent of those questioned believed “the Germans 

had some or a good deal of justification for starting the war.” – “It showed large 

percentages of the soldiers ready to accept German explanations and willing to 

absolve the mass of Germans from responsibility for concentration camp 

atrocities.” – “29 per cent conceded they had grown ‘more favorable’ toward their 

former enemies since they had been in the country.”[1] 

It was perfectly possible for honest, intelligent, conscientious German citizens to 

be party members and even enthusiasts. For us to assume differently is merely to 

exhibit our ignorance and gullibility for propaganda. Nazism was wrong in many 

fundamental respects, and these features should be exposed. The Germans 

should be shown in principle where these ideas were wrong and dangerous. They 

should be stated as general principles to be opposed no matter who advances 

them, even if they are communists. And the operation should be discussion by 

free, uncensored debate. Certainly, nothing can be gained by treating the subjects 

as undiscussable. 

The Nazis were wrong in their invasion of the schools and forcing elimination of 

certain ideas and texts and acceptance of certain others. They were wrong in 

principle. So are we, when we impose our ideas and textbooks on the Germans. 

We are even more so for being outsiders, whereas the Nazis were at least German. 

The Nazis were wrong in their strict censorship of the German press. And so are 

we. We cannot create a free press in Germany through rigid censorship and we 

look very foolish when we try it. 

Persecution of people on account of their blood is deplorable – whether practiced 

by the Germans or against them. Persecution arises from hate and is stirred by 

hatemongers. Walter Winchell has said we must hate the Germans. “Let future 

German generations see them [German monuments] and find out what kind of 

blood they were born with,” he wrote a year after Germany surrendered. “If they 

can grow up among reminders of what it costs to be a monster, maybe they’ll 

work a little harder to get back into the human race.”[2] Likewise, while Secretary 

of State Byrnes was appealing to the Germans at Stuttgart, the information and 

education department of the U.S. Army in the European theatre was still calling 

for hatred toward the German people. In a pamphlet it said: “The feeling of pity 

for the Germans is very similar to the psychological reaction we get toward a 

pretty girl who murdered her father in cold blood, owing to the reluctance to 

condemn one who looks so nice and kind, as a murderess.” The Germans in their 

hate mongering were no more unheedful of the Christian, “Love thine enemy.” 

The German leaders applied the hideous and indefensible doctrine of collective 

guilt against a whole people whom they looked upon as deadly enemies. This was 

one of their greatest crimes. We have committed the same crime by applying the 

same doctrine against all the people of Germany, including unborn babies. 

Perhaps the reason we forbid discussion of Nazism, fail to list its features, and try 

to destroy it by force, goes back to our having unconsciously accepted most of its 

worst features since 1932, without knowing their identity.[3] 

And so we go blithely on our way trying to stamp out Nazism while practicing it 

ourselves. The very stamping is Nazi like. 

We came as liberators to teach the Germans how to enjoy self-government and 

political freedom. Yet we have imposed our denazification decrees which so 

frighten them that they refuse to take part in politics for fear of the possible 

consequences under our “democratic” control. We are trying to teach them 

democracy, and yet we have so circumscribed what they may teach that their 

teachers, unless they are Communists, are afraid to say anything. Politically, 

German leaders are not permitted to speak freely, and even those in our military 

government are afraid to say what they think, for fear of the consequences. 

Because of our undemocratic policies regarding freedom of the press, which we 

preach while violating in practice, the German press is operating in a vacuum. 

Intellectual hunger in Germany is almost as acute as physical hunger. 

On top of everything else, our system of justice has become brutalized and highly 

discriminatory. We have three separate bodies of laws, one for our forces, one for 

displaced persons, and one for the German population, and in none is there a 

serious effort to make the punishment fit the crime. For example, a frail, 

widowed, German mother of two small children was sent to jail for five months 

for having in her possession a parachute knife given her as a trophy and 

remembrance by her husband just before he was shot down over Britain.[4] This 

is typical, not exceptional. It makes the Germans shudder at “democratic justice.” 

While we preach law and order, we coddle and grant special privileges to 

“displaced persons,” who according to AMG officers, have been responsible for 50 

per cent of the crimes in the American zone.[5] 

While preaching democracy we have installed ourselves as an alien plutocracy, 

many of whose members have found blackmarket operations and other shady 

deals not beneath them. While the Germans around them starve, wear rags, and 

live in hovels, the American aristocrats live in often unaccustomed ease and 

luxury. Their wives must be specially marked to protect them from licentious 

advances; they live in the finest homes from which they drove the Germans; they 

swagger about in fine liveries and gorge themselves on diets three times as great 

as they allow the Germans, and allow “displaced persons” diets twice as great. 

When we tell the Germans their low rations are necessary because food is so 

short, they naturally either think we are lying to them or regard us as inhuman 

for taking the lion’s share of the short supplies while they and their children 

starve. 

We have in many ways shown ourselves quite callous to the sufferings of the 

conquered. The war left in its wake countless numbers of war victims with 

disabled bodies, some without arms, legs, eyes, or otherwise disfigured. They and 

the millions killed in battle or held as war prisoners have millions of dependents, 

aged parents, wives and children. In addition there are the hordes of 

impoverished, suffering expellees from the east. But the towering needs of all 

these millions of helpless Germans have been a minor consideration to the 

feeding and housing of displaced persons. Only a little news comes from their 

loved ones held as war prisoners in England, France, and other western 

countries, none from Russia. Nor has the Allied Control Council yet issued a full 

and detailed list of either war casualties or war prisoners. Thousands are still held 

in unnecessary, agonizing suspense wondering whether fathers and brothers who 

were in the war are still alive or dead. As one German mother said, “Even a little 

sympathy would help. I haven’t heard from my son for more than a year now. If I 

knew he were dead, I could get over it.” 

This is the way to teach democracy in reverse. If the Germans are ever to become 

adherents, they must do so voluntarily, through conviction, not compulsion. By 

our behavior we are making it impossible for them to gain the conviction. In the 

light of what they are having to endure under our control and because of our 

policies and weaknesses, they will not easily conclude, as we wish them to, that 

Hitlerism is uniquely brutal, oppressive, or dishonest. 

One of the main difficulties is the fact that our democracy is confronted by a 

paradox which almost defies solution. Far from facing or solving it, we have failed 

to notice it. And those whom we wish to win to democratic principles see our 

blindness and lose their respect for their would-be teachers. We must sooner or 

later make up our minds whether democracy can tolerate the spread of 

democracy-destroying doctrines, and if not, how it can stop them and still remain 

democracy. 

If what we are doing in Germany against Nazism is right, then what we are doing 

here at home about Communism is wrong. If we must stamp out Nazism there, 

we must stamp out Communism here; if in the name of democracy and freedom 

of opinion we can tolerate dissemination of Communist doctrine and treasonable 

Communist fifth column activities here, we should treat Nazism with equal 

kindness over there. For the one is just as bad as the other. 

  

Reference Notes: 

[1] Associated Press, Wiesbaden, Germany, Jan. 24, 1946, The Chicago Sun and Chicago Daily 

Tribune, Jan. 25, 1946. 

[2] Walter Winchell [daily column], San Francisco, May 4, 1946. 

[3] Prof. Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (University of Chicago Press, 1944), p. 184. 

[4] Larry Rue, Munich, Germany, July 10, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[5] Larry Rue, Munich, Germany, July 6, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter IX: 

THE KREMLIN’S PROGRAM  

Imperialist Expansion and World Revolution  

To comprehend Russia’s bid for control over the German Reich, it is necessary 

first to have an understanding of the Soviet Union’s more general aims and ideas. 

Lack of such knowledge is primarily responsible for the botch our leaders have 

made of our relations with Moscow. 

Surging, aggressive Soviet Russia represents a merger of the territorial ambitions 

of old Russian imperialism and the communist program of world revolution. The 

former proceeds as before on military power and the allurements of Pan-Slavism, 

to which has now been added the force of world communism. The latter, 

motivated as always by the crusading urge of ideological fanaticism, finds itself 

carried along by the expansionist imperialism of its base, Soviet Russia. 

Reinforcing each other as they do, the two confront the world with menacing 

power. 

Russian imperial expansion now as in former years threatens British trade 

routes, strategic oil reserves, and commercial opportunities. Russian attempts to 

penetrate through Iran to the Persian Gulf and through the Dardanelles and 

Trieste to the Mediterranean are to Britain intolerable threats to her lifeline to 

India. Equally damaging is the actual and potential enlargement of the Soviet 

Union itself, for wherever it expands it virtually closes the door to international 

trade and financial operations on which Britain thrives and without which she 

starves. Through the force of world communism the U.S.S.R., which has already 

drawn into its orbit the eastern half of Europe and important sections of Asia, 

actively menaces other sectors all over the globe – in Asia, Africa, western Europe, 

and even the Americas. 

And because we believe our own vital interests parallel those of Britain, our 

reaction to Russian expansion is similar to the British and collaborates closely 

with it. 

World Communism, based on the teachings of Marx, Lenin, and now Stalin, 

paints capitalism as a diabolical exploitative system in which the propertied 

classes rob the workers through the wage system. In harmony with Marx’s 

dialectical materialism and economic teachings, Communists and many Socialists 

believe that capitalism is dying by predestined, convulsive stages involving 

commercial crises, wars, and catastrophes, that the end of the capitalist world is 

at hand, to be superseded by a new world order of socialism. 

Communists deem it their mission to hasten by all available means the process of 

capitalist disintegration and the advent of the socialist millennium. Following the 

philosophy that might makes right, that the end justifies the means, their every 

act, even when disguised as “reform,” is calculated to hasten the revolutionary 

downfall of the private property and wage systems.[1] Communists aim to lead 

the revolution and to command the new socialist world order by having charge of 

the “dictatorship of the proletariat” by which it is to be ruled.[2] 

The chief instrument to carry out this mission is the Communist Party with 

branches in all countries and its headquarters now in Moscow. But it is not a 

political party in the ordinary sense. It is not intended to be a voting aggregation, 

to gain power by legal means, but rather a thoroughly trained, highly disciplined 

Military Staff and vanguard of the revolutionary masses to seize power by 

violence and to hold it by terror, “unlimited power, resting on violence and not on 

law.” In the words of Lenin, as quoted by Stalin: 

“The successful victory over capitalism requires a correct relationship between 

the leading Communist Party and the revolutionary class, the proletariat, on the 

one hand, and the masses, i.e., all those who toil and are exploited, on the other. 

Only the Communist Party, if it really is the vanguard of the revolutionary class, if 

it incorporates all the best representatives of the class, if it is composed of fully 

conscious and devoted Communists who have been educated and steeled by the 

experience of stubborn revolutionary struggle, if this party has succeeded in 

linking itself inseparably with the whole life of its class and through this class 

with the whole mass of the exploited, and in imbuing this class and these masses 

with complete confidence – only such a party is capable of leading the proletariat 

in the most ruthless, decisive, and final struggle against all the forces of 

capitalism.”[3] 

The proselytizing power of the Party arises primarily from mass discontent with 

the existing order to which Communists attribute all the annoyances and troubles 

of life. The Party takes full advantage of the many admitted defects of the present 

system, a large part of which are rooted in human nature itself and would be 

present under any arrangement. It thrives on such things as the failure of 

classical political economy to explain or mitigate business crises; the 

inadequacies and the distortions of orthodox history; the failure of church and 

other leaders to recognize and face the great issues of our times; the universal 

tendency to envy those who are better off and to blame “the system” for personal 

failure and maladjustment; the secret desire to witness, perhaps aid, the downfall 

of those in superior positions gained, it is supposed, by foul play or personal 

connections, rather than merit. Finally, there is the idealistic attraction of the 

slogan “from each according to his ability and to each according to his need.” The 

prospect offered seems like perfect brotherhood and altruistic interest in the 

welfare of one’s fellow men, which contrasts sharply with the cold, self-regarding 

character of private enterprise. But those who permit themselves to follow this 

lure fail to realize what Russia has learned, though she does not preach it, 

namely, that in practice removal of incentive for superior performance provided 

by personal reward in accordance with deed causes interest and performance to 

fall, and compulsion, by enslavement or worse, to follow. 

The first country to fall to world communism was Russia, which since the 

Bolshevist Revolution of October, 1917, has provided a powerful national base for 

international communist operations. A strong effort is now made to create the 

impression that the Communist International has been dissolved, that there is no 

longer any connection between Russia and communist parties in other countries. 

Stalin when recently asked, “What is your opinion regarding the accusation that 

the policies of communist parties in western Europe are ‘dictated by Moscow’?” 

replied, “I consider the accusation absurd and to be borrowed trom the bankrupt 

arsenal of Hitler and Goebbels.”[4] 

Yet in his own book, PROBLEMS OF LENINISM, currently revised by him, 

translated under his authorization into all civilized languages, distributed by 

communist parties everywhere, and accepted by them as unquestionable gospel, 

Stalin cries: “For what else is our country, the country that is building socialism, 

if not the base of the world revolution?”[5] Quoting Lenin, he says: 

“The victory of socialism is possible, first in a few or even in one single capitalist 

country taken separately. The victorious proletariat of that country, having 

expropriated the capitalists and organized its own socialist production, would rise 

against the rest of the capitalist world, attract to itself the oppressed classes of 

other countries, raise revolts among them against the capitalists, and even in the 

event of necessity come out even with armed forces against the exploiting classes 

and their states.[6] 

“It is inconceivable that the Soviet republic should continue to exist for a long 

period side by side with imperialist states. Ultimately one or the other must 

conquer. Meanwhile a number of terrible clashes between the Soviet republic and 

the bourgeois states in inevitable. This means that if the proletariat, as the ruling 

class, wants to and will rule, it must prove it also by military organization.”[7] 

Stalin says that all but traitors to the cause of communism must accept these 

views, that to deny them “is to abandon internationalism, to abandon 

Leninism.”[8] In his equally widely translated and distributed FOUNDATIONS 

OF LENINISM, Stalin says: 

“But overthrowing the power of the bourgeoisie and establishing the power of the 

proletariat in a single country does not yet guarantee the complete victory of 

socialism. After consolidating its power and leading the peasantry after it, the 

proletariat of the victorious country can and must build up socialist society. But 

does that mean that in this way the proletariat will secure a complete and final 

victory for socialism, i.e., does it mean that with the forces of a single country it 

can finally consolidate socialism and fully guarantee that country against 

intervention, which means against restoration? Certainly not. That requires 

victory for the revolution in at least several countries. It is therefore the essential 

task of the victorious revolution in one country to develop and support the 

revolution in others. So the revolution in a victorious country ought not consider 

itself as a self-contained unit, but as an auxiliary and a means of hastening the 

victory of the proletariat in other countries. 

“Lenin has tersely expressed this thought by saying that the task of the victorious 

revolution is to do the “utmost possible in one country for the development, 

support and stirring up of the revolution in all countries.”[9] 

In the same work, Stalin emphasizes the necessity of maintaining absolute 

uniformity of policy in all branches of the world communist party through iron 

discipline.[10] He says: 

“But the parties of the Communist International, which organize their activities 

on the basis of the task of achieving and strengthening the dictatorship of the 

proletariat, cannot afford to be “liberal” or to permit the formation of factions. 

The Party is synonymous with unity of will, which leaves no room for 

factionalism or division of authority in the Party.”[11] 

This is the reason for the well-known close conformity of the American 

Communist Party to Moscow policy. And neither these realities nor the 

quotations just given can be obliterated for Mr. Stalin’s present convenience as 

absurdities “borrowed from the bankrupt arsenal of Hitler and Goebbels.” Lying 

and deception are among communism’s most useful weapons. Stalin explains the 

necessity of deceiving one’s bourgeois enemies, even when serving as allies, of 

waging relentless war against all bourgeois states, i.e., states operating under the 

private property system, which includes the United States of America. Quoting 

Lenin, he says: 

“To carry on a war for the overthrow of the international bourgeoisie, which is a 

hundred times more difficult, prolonged and complicated than the most stubborn 

of ordinary wars between states; and to refuse beforehand to maneuver, to utilize 

the conflict of interests (even though temporary) among one’s enemies; to refuse 

to temporise and compromise with possible (even though transient, unstable, 

vacillating and conditional) allies – is not this ridiculous in the extreme? Is it not 

as though, in the difficult ascent of an unexplored and hitherto inaccessible 

mountain, we were to renounce beforehand the idea that at all times we might 

have to go in zigzags, sometimes retracing our steps, sometimes giving up the 

course once selected and trying various others?”[12] 

Russia’s wartime pretense that she had abandoned the revolution both at home 

and abroad was done merely to deceive her unstable allies of the moment, was 

merely a necessary zigzag or strategic retreat in the continuing effort to reach the 

ultimate goal of destruction of private enterprise throughout the world. In a 

speech to the Russian people, February 9, 1946, Stalin made clear that the 

Kremlin looks upon the Soviet Union as its own united nations organization 

which it wishes to spread all over the world ostensibly to end wars and other 

difficulties among nations. He said: 

“The Soviet state system has proved an example of a multinational state system 

where the national problem and the problem of collaboration among nations are 

solved better than in any other multinational state.”[12A] 

While assuring the Russians that under normal conditions they are better off 

than any other people, the Kremlin constantly paints the outside world in lurid, 

hateful colors. It tells the people that the diabolical capitalists are plotting to 

attack them from within and from without in order to destroy the workers 

paradise which threatens to overthrow the capitalist system of exploitation. Stalin 

in 1939, for example, warned the Communist Party: 

“Never to forget that we are surrounded by a capitalist world; to remember that 

the foreign espionage services will smuggle spies, murderers and wreckers into 

our country; and, remembering this, to strengthen our socialist intelligence 

service and systematically help it to defeat and eradicate the enemies of the 

people.”[13] 

A people thus stirred up to believe they are fighting to save their national life are 

more easily ruled, more willing to obey orders unquestioningly, more willing to 

accept purges of their ranks as necessary cleansings of deadly capitalistic 

influences. Any Russian found conversing with a foreigner is naturally suspected 

of being an agent of free enterprise and is dealt with accordingly. 

Between those who accept and those who reject the teachings of communist 

ideology and the decrees of its leaders there is and can be no compromise, no give 

and take, no margin of tolerance. When they get the upper hand, Communists 

root out and destroy under a reign of terror all capitalistic elements and 

influences. They believe that the workers as they are awakened to the truth about 

their former masters will welcome the new order as a vast improvement over the 

old. Lenin said, as quoted by Stalin: 

“The dictatorship of the proletariat. . . is not merely the use of violence against 

the exploiters, and is not even mainly the use of violence. The economic basis of 

this revolutionary violence, the guarantee of its vitality and success, is that the 

proletariat represents and introduces a higher type of social organization of labor 

compared with capitalism. That is the essential point. This is the source of the 

strength of Communism and the guarantee of its inevitable complete 

victory.”[14] 

 

The German Program 

Communists believe that fascism is the final state of capitalism, that when it falls, 

as it must, it can be succeeded only by communism.[15] They believe that our 

attempt to democratize fascist Germany in the western sense is as futile as to try 

to transform a chicken into an egg or a butterfly into a larva. They believe that 

Germany must pass through a natural metamorphosis from nazism to 

communism, and that when they help the process along they are working in 

harmony with the inevitable course of history . 

Walther Ulbricht, Director of the Communist Party in Germany, whose wife was a 

secretary to General Zhukov, and who was in Russia between 1933 and V-E Day, 

stated before a secret Berlin meeting of the “Free German Trade Union’s” 45-man 

executive committee for the Soviet zone: 

“When the job of Communizing the Soviet zone is completed we shall devote 

ourselves to the other zones. 

“Soon there will not be any privately owned companies in the Soviet zone in 

Germany. All the large companies, even medium-sized ones will revert to 

community ownership. This must be done rapidly, before the establishment of a 

central administration in Germany can interfere in our zone.”[16] 

Communism is fundamentally an attack against private property and the 

propertied class. In the Russian zone the process of stripping Germans of their 

property has been accomplished by destruction through war action, by looting, 

reparations, inflation, confiscation, and by forced sales. Meanwhile, liquidation of 

the property owning classes has been completed by denazification, forced labor, 

executions, and terror which has led thousands to suicide and other thousands to 

turn fugitive and thus to forfeit their holdings. 

We have already noted the thoroughness with which the zone was sacked and 

looted, yielding billions of dollars worth of lucre to Russia. The other operations 

have been equally devastating. Inflation, which destroys whole classes and eats 

the very marrow out of the bones of any economy, has been deliberately created. 

Russia’s share of the occupation marks which had been printed up in advance by 

the U.S. Treasury was not enough. She asked for the plates and after we turned 

them over to her printed up and circulated untold billions more. Finally, she 

opened the vaults of the Reichsbank, its branches, and other banks and seized 

their contents.[17] The resulting inflation has yielded fabulous spoil at little or no 

cost and at the same time helped to ruin and expropriate the propertied class. 

The dispossessed German masses have been reduced to prostrate, helpless, 

submissive proletarians. Having lost all individual security, they are utterly 

dependent upon their new masters for jobs, food, and all other necessities. Since 

nothing is supplied to critics and objectors, survivors are submissive. Farmers, as 

stated before, were stripped of equipment, tools, seeds, and livestock during the 

early looting. To obtain replacements necessary to carry on operations they must 

apply to the “co-operatives” which are under communist control and which use 

their monopoly to prevent “politically unreliable” farmers from obtaining 

essential supplies. Unless they submit, they must abandon farming and give up 

their land. In this fashion the way is opened wide for zonal sovietization with 

minimum interference.[18] 

Soviet authorities believe that the German masses will enthusiastically accept the 

liquidation of the propertied classes as liberation from capitalistic exploitation. 

Carefully censored press and radio assure them that the present painful 

difficulties are only birth pains of a glorious new order which had been blocked 

by the former upper classes. In harmony with this thought, all schools and 

universities that are operating teach the Germans the advantages of communism 

and belittle the western democracies as strongholds of fascism and capitalistic 

exploitation, of wretched imperialism and fomenters of imperialist wars. Such 

ideas are taught the members of the Russian sponsored, nationwide “Free Youth” 

movement,[19] and thousands of children who have been snatched from their 

families and placed in special children’s “Homes” for systematic 

indoctrination.[20] Here is a sample of what they are taught: 

“In comparison with the Soviet Republic, the parliamentarian democracies are a 

step backward. . . The difference between bourgeois society in the Soviet Union is 

like the difference between ape and man. Socialism is the future of all humanity . 

. . The old powers can delay this development, but they cannot destroy it . . . This 

change in the structure of society cannot be achieved in a reformatory way. You 

can only achieve it in the revolutionary way . . . If this socialist structure we have 

in Russia were introduced in all nations of the world, it would be impossible to 

wage war, just as war is impossible between the Ukraine and Armenia.”[21] 

The Soviets, according to their lights, are making an effort to woo the Germans 

into acceptance of communism and to minimize resentment. As already noted, 

they have handled denazification with comparative enlightenment. Scientists, 

technologists, military experts, and others with special talents have been eagerly 

sought after and offered attractive inducements to render service to the new 

regime. Penitent Nazis are invited to transfer allegiance to the Communist Party 

and to start working through it for German salvation. Taking advantage of the 

deep resentment of the French and Morgenthau proposals to amputate the 

western Reich, Communists have taken the lead in an intensely pro-Fatherland 

movement. This gives the Germans the impression that the western democracies 

who would stand in the way of “the new and greater German Reich” are the real 

enemies, rather than either nazism or communism.[22] Russian occupation 

troops apparently no longer molest frauleins, “at least not in the careless, 

irresponsible way the Americans do,” reports an American correspondent.[23] It 

is interesting to note in this connection that only one man remains in the zone for 

every 15 women in the 20 to 30 years of age bracket.[24] 

Hitler had freed the peasants of the scourge of usurious mortgage holders; Russia 

goes a step further in her bid for popular approval by breaking up the Junker and 

other large estates and making the land available in small plots of between 11 and 

17 acres to approved Germans on easy terms.[25] The operation does not increase 

total production but appears to spread ownership. The maneuver is obviously a 

preliminary to collectivization similar to the procedure followed in liquidation of 

the Ukrainian Kulaks. The new “owners” are promised houses and equipment. 

Since these are not available, the owners have no choice but to band together in 

the existing estate buildings, where collectivist headquarters must be located. 

Collectivization can thus proceed a little later with minimum disturbance, and the 

new government can with ease slip into position to exploit those who work the 

soil in place of the former owners. 

All farmers are given production quotas to fill at controlled prices. Part of any 

surplus, and there rarely is one since the quotas are set so high, may be sold in 

markets where those with the money to buy, usually members of the new ruling 

bureaucracy, can buy food to supplement rations, which are nominally set at 

about the same level as those in the American zone. The requisite supplies are not 

always available in many places, however, and widespread starvation has 

occurred.[26] Persistent reports nevertheless tell of substantial food exports to 

Russia.[27] However people are allowed rationed brown coal for residential 

heating,[28] whereas, as previously mentioned, Berliners and those in the 

western zones have had no coal to heat their homes. 

The industries left in the zone are all in operation and are either managed by 

Russians or “workers councils” dominated by Communists. Although most of the 

product is taken as reparation and sent to the Soviet Union, a small amount is 

made available for sale to the German workers. Correspondents permitted to tour 

the zone in March, 1946, reported that a long list of manufactured products were 

on display, including carpenter tools, typewriters, sewing machines, even 

automobiles.[29] They reported that the Germans they saw displayed less of an 

attitude of futility and a more vigorous spirit than are encountered in other 

zones.[30] 

Only one political party is allowed, the Social Unity Party, representing a forced 

merger of the Communist and Social Democratic Parties, with the former 

completely dominant. Since all positions carrying power, prestige, and higher 

than ordinary incomes are held by Communists and their pets, thousands of 

Germans have rushed into the Party simply to gain its perquisites.[31] The 

Germans are learning spoils politics from their Red overlords on a scale that 

would make a Tammany ward heeler blush.[32] Even if Russia should be forced 

to withdraw her occupation forces, with political control returned to the 

Germans, the deeply entrenched German Communists would no doubt continue 

to maintain themselves in power and in all probability provide the whole of 

Germany with political leadership.[33] 

The way for ultimate communization of the western areas is being assiduously 

prepared by Communists in the western zones of occupation,[34] many of whom 

have worked their way into important posts in both the occupation bureaucracies 

and the local governmental establishments which have been set up to be run by 

Germans under the watchful eye of the military forces. Such communist 

penetration has automatically been abetted by the Potsdam program, by de- 

industrialization, de-nazification, enslavement, repression, by the whole terrible 

catastrophe. The roaming bands of vagabonds may be a curse to the western 

zonal authorities, but they afford the Communists excellent revolutionary 

material. Since the institution of private property and the propertied classes are 

now largely wiped out, the way has been opened for converting the whole Reich 

into a Sovietized “democracy.” 

We have done much already to facilitate realization of Russia’s plans, and the 

Kremlin expects us to do more. It wants us to accept the Russian claim to 10 

billion dollars in German reparations, not only to produce handsome booty but to 

place such a load on the crippled German economy that it could survive only 

under communization.[35] It is to Russia’s advantage to delay the signing of a 

peace treaty with Germany as long as possible, for the delay will give her plans 

that much longer to mature. And if any German government is to be set up in the 

meantime, Russia wants it to be a provisional, centralized government, one that 

will give maximum opportunity to the thoroughly entrenched Communists to 

draw into their grasp controls over all of Germany. 

 

The West Awakens 

The West has been slow to recognize that the Russian ally is really no ally at all, 

but a determined enemy, that behind the Kremlin’s every move lurks a sinister, 

dangerous motive. Our own leaders were long caught under the influence of Mr. 

Roosevelt’s “great design,” the strategy of trying to cure the Soviet leaders of their 

suspicion, animosity, and hatred of the West by showering them with favors and 

kindness. While under the spell we considered the truculent sons of Russia 

prodigals just returning to the family of nations, and felt it our duty to cater to 

their whims and eccentricities, to overlook their insults and stabs. 

We signed the Potsdam Declaration, without suspecting that it was a Russian 

booby trap, that its vague, contradictory, undefined provisions and phrases could 

be applied by and yield advantage to only a Soviet Union which thrives on human 

misery. We shut our eyes to the vital difference between our way of life and 

Russian communism. Because Communists called their way “democracy,” we 

assumed it was somehow akin to our “democracy” and we accepted in good faith 

Russia’s wartime pretension that she was finished with revolution both at home 

and abroad, that her aggressions were nothing more than moves to strengthen 

her “essential security.” 

We have had our clashes with the Russians both in and out of Germany, have 

endured slaps and humiliations such as Americans have never accepted before. 

We have permitted our telephone lines running through the Russian zone to our 

zone in Berlin to be tapped. We have even put up with a Russian refusal to supply 

our Berlin zone with fresh food. We have bowed to Russian refusal to permit us to 

double track our single rail line into Berlin. We have had serious conflicts over 

newspaper censorship, control of radio outlets and programs, schools and school 

curricula, and a multitude of things both important and trivial, taking it all with a 

friendly smile when we had to yield to Soviet demands. 

But finally we began to realize that such tactics were impressing the Russians 

only as weakness and to awaken to the menacing character of Soviet designs. 

Mildly at first, but with growing determination, we began to take a firmer stand, 

to demand that our own interests be given some attention. Our disillusionment 

was complete when Mr. Molotov at Paris finally showed his hand. We have been 

staggering to our senses ever since. We must hope that the awakening has come 

in time to prevent the Kremlin from absorbing the German Reich. 

In the struggle we must recognize that Russia will have certain advantages, apart 

from those gained by our attempt to apply the sadistic Potsdam decrees, 

including deep German resentment. The Russian bureaucracy with its long 

experience in managing economic institutions and processes has found it 

relatively simple to take over control of the German economy in its zone and is 

fully prepared to extend the control over the rest of the Reich when opportunity 

presents itself. On the other hand, our own Government and especially our 

military forces are notoriously incompetent in handling economic affairs. 

Conditions reached bottom early in the Russian zone, so that what change has 

come has been for the better; whereas, bad as things are in our zone, they must 

be expected to become progressively worse. Germans will not fail to note the 

contrast and to draw dangerous conclusions. As stated before, the former 

movement of Germans from the East to the West has already reversed. 

Thousands of disillusioned, discouraged Germans are crossing into the Russian 

zone where they will enthusiastically prepare to help drive the hateful 

democracies out of Germany. 

We have numerous advantages, however, which, if handled properly, should 

prove decisive. German antipathy toward Russia and Bolshevism is deepseated; 

in contrast, Germans have hitherto always admired us Americans and have 

imitated us in many ways, especially in economic techniques. Russia has also 

compromised herself in fundamental ways. She was behind the terrible 

expulsions of Germans from the lost territories and other places. She has been 

the instigator and chief beneficiary of the slave system, having taken from three 

to four times as many prisoners as all the western powers together. Germans of 

all classes deeply resent the cruel and violent liquidation of the former upper and 

middle classes, especially because it was carried out by foreigners and 

Communists whose patriotism is suspect. 

Our task is to formulate a new and just German peace program – one that will 

give effect to our basic ideals and convictions and lead Germany toward, not away 

from, us and our way of life. But before we can take this step intelligently we must 

first face certain basic facts, must disabuse our minds of certain gross 

misconceptions which have lowered us in German esteem and misled us into the 

present danger. 

  

Reference Notes: 

[1] Josef Stalin, Foundations of Leninism (New York: International Publishers), Chapter 6, Sec. 6. 

[2] Josef Stalin, Problems of Leninism (New York: International Publishers, 1934), Chapter V, 

“The Party and the Working Class Within the System of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. 

[3] Josef Stalin, Problems of Leninism. pp. 43-4. 

[4] Reported in Chicago Daily News and other newspapers, Sept. 24, 1946. 

[5] Problems of Leninism , p. 75. 

[6] Problems of Leninism , p. 69. 

[7] Problems of Leninism , p. 66. 

[8] Same as No. 7. 

[9] Foundations of Leninism, p. 44. 

[10] Foundations of Leninism, Chapter VIII, “The Party,” (5) ‘The Party as the Expression of 

Unity of Will, Which Is Incompatible with the Existence of Factions,’ pp. 118 ff. 

[11] Foundations of Leninism, p. 120. 

[12] Foundations of Leninism, p. 102-3. 

[12a] Congressional Record , Feb. 11, 1946, p. A-683. 

[13] Josef Stalin, From Socialism to Communism in the Soviet Union (New York: International 

Publishers, 1939), p. 38. 

[14] Problems of Leninism, p. 25. 

[15] David Dallin, The Real Soviet Russia (Yale University Press, 1945), p. 46. 

[16] Chicago Herald-American, April 14, 1946. 

[17] Prof. Karl Brandt, “Behind the Iron Curtain,” The Progressive, Sept. 16, 1946. p. 5. 

[18] Same at No. 17. 

[19] Henry Wales, Berlin, March 26, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[20] United Press, Berlin, Aug. 8, 1946, Chicago Daily News. 

[21] Hal Foust, Berlin, May 20, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[22] Edd Johnson, Berlin, Jan. 30, 1946, Chicago Sun Foreign Service. 

[23] Edward P. Morgan, Berlin, March 25, 1946, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[24] Henry. Wales, Berlin, April 9, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[25] Hal Foust, Berlin, July 7, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[26] Prof. Karl Brandt, “Behind the lron Curtain,” The Progressive, Sept. 16, 1946, p. 5. 

[27] John Thompson, Berlin, Oct. 3, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[28] Edd Johnson, Berlin, March 26, 1946, Chicago Sun Foreign Service. 

[29] Edward P. Morgan, Berlin, March 27, 1946, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[30] Same as No. 29. 

[31] Same as No. 24. 

[32] Hal Foust, Berlin, July 13, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[33] Same as No. 23. 

[34] Cf. Hal Foust, Berlin, May 4, 1946, Chicago Daily Tribune; Wallace R. Deuel, Chicago Daily 

News, Sept. 12 and 16, 1946. 

[35] Cf. Samuel Grafton, The Chicago Sun, July 22 and 23, 1946.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chapter X: 

FACTS WE MUST FACE  

How We Played into Russia’s Hands 

General Eisenhower told a press conference in London that the Russians “like to 

laugh.” Well they might, in view of the way we have played into their hands and 

fallen for their subterfuges. 

Things have come to such a pass that we have seriously been told we must not 

criticize the Russians or their government; yet those who said so have felt 

perfectly free to criticize everything American and have made no corresponding 

effort to stop Soviet blasts at us. 

In March, 1945, GI’s in Germany were actually placed under oflicial orders not to 

make unflattering remarks about the Reds.[1] Typical of our un-American efforts 

to throttle critics was AMG censorship in April, 1946, of a letter by a Catholic 

Bishop calling attention to Russian abuses of Germans through forced labor and 

expulsions. We prohibited the reading of the letter in churches, because it might 

offend Russia.[2] Social Democrats and other German political parties have not 

been allowed to criticize the Communist party, lest Russia take offense. 

We must realize that there is something seriously wrong with nations, as with 

people, who cannot stand criticism, who try to place themselves beyond reproach, 

and that something is equally wrong with people who truckle to them. 

Russia deserves not only criticism but condemnation. Stalin in 1939 told the 

Communist Party of Russia it must beware of us, for we would send our “spies, 

murderers, and wreckers” into the Soviet Union. The facts are that the Soviet 

Union has sent its spies, murderers, and wreckers into this country, as in all 

others, where they have infiltrated into our government, occupying hundreds of 

key positions, sitting in our inner councils, and even helping mold our foreign 

policy. 

It must make the Russians chortle up their sleeves the way we coddle these 

insidious fifth columnists. In contrast, the Reds shoot on suspicion anyone they 

catch in Russia who they think might represent outside influences. 

In the Canadian spy trial it was established both by direct testimony and 

documentary proof that “the dissolution of the Communist International was 

probably the greatest farce of the Communists in recent years,” and that “only the 

name was liquidated with the object of reassuring public opinion in the 

democratic countries. Actually, the Comintern exists and continues its work.” 

Communist insiders were warned by their higher-ups with regard to Britain and 

the United States: “Yesterday they were allies, today they are neighbors, 

tomorrow they will be our enemies.” It was also brought out that “in Russia there 

is a great deal of propaganda carried on by conversation of the propagandists and 

even in the press. It is all done to train people to think they must fight another 

war, that maybe it will be our final war.”[3] 

In Germany we have permitted the Comintern to place its agents in AMG and the 

local German government apparatus we have erected. Newspapermen in our zone 

tend to lean toward communism, mostly because former anti-Nazi talent was first 

cleared for press work by German emigres with leftist leanings hired by AMG to 

do the screening.[4] 

In May, 1946, it was revealed that the State Department with the aid of the FBI 

had purged itself of hundreds of pro-Soviet employees.[5] Some time later Mr. 

Byrnes, head of the department, when asked why certain others had not been let 

out, despite their having been identified, replied that it would be inadvisable to 

do so while we are involved in a serious diplomatic struggle with the Soviet 

Union.[6] 

His excuse was a tacit admission that he recognized that the men are agents of 

the Soviet Government, and that the Kremlin might get upset if we turned the 

rotters out. 

There is no valid reason why we should treat Russia and her fifth column any 

differently from the way we treated Nazi Germany and its fifth column. The only 

important difference between the two in terms of their threat against our national 

tranquility and safety is that the Soviet fifth column is far stronger and more 

deeply entrenched than the Nazi one ever was. If it was right for us to crack down 

on the Nazis here the way we did, without regard to Hitler’s feelings, it is right 

that we should crack down with equal firmness and effectiveness on the 

Communists in our midst, without regard to Stalin’s feelings, for all of them 

would be potential traitors and saboteurs if we should get into serious trouble 

with Russia. 

One of the most costly consequences of Soviet penetration of our State 

Department has been our acceptance of wily Russian proposals at Yalta and 

Potsdam. These include: division of Germany into zones, each to be occupied by a 

different power; the Allied Control Council, with the clause calling for unanimity 

on all decisions, with the disastrous results already noted; requiring Germany to 

pay reparations in kind; the forced labor system; the forcible expulsions of 

Germans from lost German territories, Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia. 

The territorial settlements and arrangements accepted at Potsdam were all the 

ones pressed by Russia; French claims were left open. The idea of a long 

armistice for Germany, if not of actual Russian origin, would certainly play into 

Russia’s hands.[7] 

Britain and the United States in the days between Teheran and Potsdam, thanks 

in large measure to Mr. Roosevelt’s unfortunate “great design” and Red 

influences in the administration, were eager to borrow any Soviet idea and 

acclaim any Soviet plan for Germany. Although deeply involved in war, the brains 

of the Politburo found the time to frame a program to take full advantage of the 

westerners’ solicitude. They have been cashing in on it ever since, and we have 

been suffering the consequences. 

We have even given Russia help both direct and indirect in extending her power 

over eastern Europe and half of Germany. Instead of following Churchill’s advice 

of attacking Germany through the Balkans and thus warding off Russian 

conquest and occupation, we sided with Russia and decided to attack across the 

English Channel. As the Russians swept into the Balkans and on into Austria and 

Germany, they rode in American lend-lease trucks, jeeps and airplanes. Since 

then we have supported their brutal rule through such agencies as UNRRA. As 

fast as we have shipped relief supplies into these areas, Russia has drained out an 

equivalent amount for herself and claims the credit for what we pour in.[8] In 

Germany we even handed the Russians our money plates and permitted them to 

print billions of occupation marks which we were originally supposed to make 

good, and possibly still are. But all such aid, including the eleven billion dollars in 

lendlease gifts has been ignored by the Kremlin which has gone blithely on its 

way opposing our most vital interests. 

 

We Should Have Known Better  

In addition to all this, as Dorothy Thompson has well expressed it: “Mr. 

Morgenthau’s fantastic concepts laid the basic ‘principles’ for the Potsdam 

program, which played straight into Soviet hands.”[9] In other words, the 

Morgenthau Plan was made to order for the Kremlin. 

When we came to Russia at Yalta with a so-called peace plan which called for 

vengeance and destruction of a trade competitor, she saw and seized her 

opportunity to turn the whole program to her advantage at our expense. 

Although the Plan promises to bring the blessings of peace and prosperity to a 

troubled world, if we had only taken the trouble to analyze its proposals in the 

light of Mr. Morgenthau’s own principles as expressed in other connections on 

other occasions, we should have recognized immediately that it could only bring 

catastrophe. 

In promoting acceptance of the Bretton Woods Fund and Bank Plan, Mr. 

Morgenthau as Secretary of the Treasury, proclaimed the thesis that “prosperity, 

like peace, is indivisible.” And in promoting the loan to Britain later on he 

elaborated at length on this principle. These are his words: 

“If we have learned nothing else from the frightful experience of war, we should 

have learned at least that we live in an incorribly integrated world. It is a world 

which cannot exist half slave and half free, nor half at war and half at peace. 

Neither can it exist half prosperous and half impoverished. Prosperity, like peace 

is indivisible. It must be shared by all if any are to enjoy it.” – “Our own living 

standards cannot rise and remain at high levels without progressive prosperity 

throughout the world.” – “As I have observed before, prosperity cannot be 

segmented; all must share in it or in time all will lose it.”[10] (emphasis added) 

The contradiction between these tenets and the deliberate impoverishment of any 

nation is irreconcilable and obvious. Mr. Morgenthau advances these ideas as 

universal principles, applicable to all countries without exception. If they could 

validly be used to support making sacrifices to put one country, Britain, on its 

feet to bolster world trade and prosperity, with equal force they compel the 

conclusion that a program calling for permanent impoverishment of any leading 

country, Germany not excepted, would plunge the whole world into an economic 

quagmire. 

Mr. Morgenthau is not alone, however, in thus compromising himself with his 

own principles. Mr. Bernard Baruch, well known adviser of Presidents, has also 

been at one and the same time a one-worlder and an implacable advocate of 

converting Germany into a poor house. As the war was drawing to its close in the 

European theater, Mr. Baruch, who loves to address his audiences as “Fellow 

citizens of the world,” was in London where he granted an interview to a Victor 

Lasky, a Stars and Stripes staff writer. In explaining his presence in the British 

capital, Baruch said, according to Lasky: 

“And one reason I am over here is to hold a big stick over the big 

boys to make damn sure they’re not going to foul up the peace. 

We’ve got to de-industrialize Germany and Japan – for at least a 

generation – to see that those subsidized slave labor countries do 

not again flood the world with their cheap products . . .”[11] 

This was Mr. Baruch’s way of saying that he was abroad to see to it that Germany 

was permanently eliminated as a competitor in world trade. 

Baruch failed to explain the nature of the “big stick” he was holding over the big 

boys, but the following June, before the Senate Military Affairs Committee, he 

made very clear what he wanted done with the Reich. He said it was not enough 

merely to demand an “economically weak” Germany, that the program of 

weakening Germany must be “sufficiently specific – industry by industry – so that 

all the occupying nations know they have agreed to the same thing.” First of all, 

he said, reparations should be paid in German labor, instead of rebuilding the 

country’s industry so it could pay reparations through exports from current 

production. Germany’s “war making potential must be eliminated. Many of her 

plants must be shifted east and west to friendly countries; all heavy industries 

destroyed; the Junker estates broken up; her exports strictly controlled; German 

assets and business organizations all over the world rooted out.” 

This program of impoverishment and that of Mr. Morgenthau are, of course, very 

similar. Mr. Baruch candidly admits that his aim is to destroy Germany as a trade 

competitor; Mr. Morgenthau’s program tacitly contains the same objective. 

People were appalled when it was said that the elder Rockefeller burned down the 

refineries of competitors he could not otherwise destroy. How much more 

revolting are these proposals to destroy the economy of a whole nation for a 

similar purpose! Conservative leaders who use their influence in this manner 

furnish a basis for effective criticism of capitalistic morality, or lack of it, and 

weaken the basis for defense of the profit system. Since, according to the one 

world thesis, prosperity “must be shared by all if any are to enjoy it,” and “all 

must share in it or in time all will lose it,” the Morgenthau-Baruch Plan would 

impoverish not only Germany, but Europe, and the whole world, not excluding 

the United States, and therefore presumably Messrs. Baruch and Morgenthau as 

well. 

The Morgenthau-Baruch proposals have been the official policy of our 

Government, which at the same time is committed to one-world principles. As a 

result, our leading officials, in their efforts to uphold these mutually exclusive 

theories, have been forced, like Mr. Morgenthau, into absurd self-contradiction. 

For example, Mr. Truman, while advocating impoverishment of Germany along 

Morgenthau-Baruch lines, said at Soldiers Field in Chicago: 

“We shall work to achieve equal opportunity in world trade because closed 

economic blocs in Europe or any place in the world can only lead to 

impoverishment and isolation of the people who inhabit it. We shall press for the 

elimination of artificial barriers to international navigation, in order that no 

nation, by accident of geographic location, shall be denied unrestricted access to 

seaports and international waterways.”  

Later he said in the same speech: 

“Economic distress, anywhere in the world, is a fertile breeding ground for 

violent political upheaval.”[12] 

By continuing our policy of creating economic distress in Germany, we would 

therefore create a fertile breeding ground for communism. Here Mr. Truman 

admits as much. 

In his speech in Stuttgart, Mr. Byrnes contradicted himself in similar fashion, for 

he tried to justify the original program of deindustrialization and denazification, 

which means holding Germany in poverty, and at the same time said: 

“We have learned, whether we like it or not, that we live in one world from which 

we cannot isolate ourselves. We have learned that peace and well-being are 

indivisible.”  

Before we can win the respect of the world and get on the right road leading to 

real world prosperity and well-being, we must eradicate the whole Morgenthau 

and Potsdam contamination from our thinking and official policies. 

 

Germany, the Heart of Europe 

We must take seriously the recognized fact that Germany is the heart of Europe 

on which the economic life of that Continent depends, and that when we make 

that heart stop beating all Europe must die. We must realize, too, that any 

reduction of the German standard of living would only lower the standards of 

other European countries, that to bring them all to the same mean level would 

bring universal impoverishment that would cancel out the progress of centuries. 

Despite his one-world principles expressed elsewhere, Mr. Morgenthau in his 

book, GERMANY IS OUR PROBLEM, writes: 

“Actually there is no ‘European Economy,’ certainly not in the sense that there is 

a United States economy. Some thirty countries in Europe have their separate 

economies, and a great variety of them, too.” (p. 31) 

He factiously argues that “a strong Europe is better than a strong Germany,” as 

though the two were opposed, and insists that weakening Germany and reducing 

her foreign trade will add to European prosperity. He says: 

“Before World War I, Germany accounted for 12 per cent of the world’s 

international commerce. By the 1920’s her share had fallen below 10 per cent. In 

1936 and 1937 it was a bit more than 8 per cent. The world would not be the loser 

if Germany fell to 2 or 3 per cent and her share were taken over by other nations.” 

(pp. 71-2)  

In short, where Germany is concerned, Mr. Morgenthau finds foreign trade quite 

unimportant either for the Reich or for the countries trading with her; however, 

when other countries are involved, foreign trade takes on unique importance. 

In a statement submitted to the Small Business Committee of the Senate, April 

20, 1945, Mr. Morgenthau said: 

“Our exports may seem to be only a small part of our total production. They are, 

nevertheless, vital. . . . They mean the difference between prosperity and 

depression for both agriculture and industry.”  

On Feb. 26, 1945, he told the Detroit Economic Club, while urging building up 

our exports of automobiles to a million cars a year: 

“We can reach such a trade level only if both the producing and consuming 

powers of all countries are expanded, not merely restored to their old levels.”  

Such statements show that Mr. Morgenthau himself, if he will only think things 

through, must repudiate his proposals to impoverish the Reich and destroy its 

trade with the rest of the world, or give up one-world principles. 

Britain’s experience testifies eloquently to the importance of Germany to 

European economy. At first she fell under the influence of those advocating 

German impoverishment, ostensibly to prevent another war but actually to 

remove the Reich as a trade competitor and possibly turn it into a market for the 

very products it had formerly exported. But when she saw that Germany was 

facing complete disaster, and pulling Europe down with her, she partly reversed 

her position, to prevent what “approximated closely to cutting off one’s nose to 

spite one’s face.” For, after all, she had to realize that destruction of Germany to 

prevent German exports from competing with hers would also mean loss of a 

large German demand for British goods. As Prime Minister Attlee told the U. S. 

Congress, “We cannot have prosperity at home with hell abroad.” 

The German prostration has been felt everywhere. Sweden has officially 

expressed concern over the fact that she has been unable to carry on any of her 

accustomed trade with the Reich, with damaging consequences to herself as well 

as to Germany.[13] Holland, too, has been hard hit, having to export food and 

fuel while the homeland does without. Dutch farmers used to exchange food 

products for German fertilizer, which they can obtain now only at high prices 

from high cost producers. Holland used to get fees for transmitting goods 

between Germany and other countries; now this trade and its profit are gone with 

the suppression of German commerce. Germany and Holland used to exchange 

the things each made best in its own country. This put German machinery, tools, 

and instruments in Dutch plants, on Dutch farms and railroads. Now this 

equipment cannot be replaced or even repaired due to stoppage of manufacture 

in the Reich. As one observer puts it: 

“The deindustrialization decrees have been encouraged by less efficient interests 

of the United Nations, especially England, which hope to gain by the death 

sentences for German competition. The Netherlands and other countries are 

missing what they used to get from Germany.”[14]  

In London, “Food ministers of 17 European countries,” says an Associated Press 

dispatch, “turned to defeated Germany as a possible source of coal and fertilizer, 

both sorely needed to avoid famine.”[15] 

Showing deep concern, The London Economist says: 

“The truth is that the prosperity of Western Europe has depended to a great 

extent upon the existence of a great wealth producing industrial concentration in 

the Ruhr. That wealth-producing machinery is now almost completely idle, and 

all of Germany’s western neighbors are bearing the consequences. 

“To say that the ruin of Germany is the ruin of Europe would not raise in Russia 

more than a sigh of relief that both should be weakened together. The American 

attitude is more difficult to understand.”[16] 

The Chicago Sun said editorially: 

“It is good business – plain, hardboiled common sense – for any wholesaler to help 

his best customer back on his feet when that customer is in financial difficulty. If 

the customer is a whole nation, the need becomes immensely more 

pressing.”[17] 

Of course this was said in defense of a loan to Britain, but the same logic would 

apply as well to Germany, once one of our best customers. 

Mr. Byrnes said at Paris: 

“The economic revival of Germany is essential to the well-being of Europe.”  

At Stuttgart he admitted, as had Molotov at Paris, that Germany is the industrial 

workshop of Europe. 

To repeat, we are having to face the fact that we cannot continue with our original 

policies toward Germany and hope to have anything but impoverishment of 

Germany, and, as a consequence, of Europe, and the world. 

 

The Matter of War Guilt  

Mr. Morgenthau, whose ideas on the subject correspond to the official opinion of 

the United Nations, rests his entire case for turning Germany into a poorhouse on 

the thesis that German lust for war was the sole cause of both World Wars. 

“Desire for war,” he writes in bis book, “has been as firmly planned in the 

German as desire for freedom in the American.” Sheer will to war, accompanied 

by a plot to conquer the world, he says, has been intensively cultivated in the 

German people for nearly two hundred years and would probably require another 

two hundred years to eradicate. Hence, he argues, the only way to stop Germany 

from again disturbing the peace of the world at her first opportunity is to prevent 

the opportunity, and this can be done best by permanently weakening her to a 

point where she cannot, even though she would, wage war.[18] 

The justice of his whole program, and therefore of Potsdam, must stand or fall on 

this premise. If there is any doubt as to its validity or completeness, there must be 

equal doubt as to the justice of his plan. 

Without attempting to exhaust the subject we offer the following evidence which 

does tend to raise doubt concerning the accuracy of the premise, and therefore 

equal doubt as to the justice of our treatment of the German people. 

Let us again consult Mr. Morgenthau on other occasions. On March 7, 1945, he 

told the House Committee on Banking and Currency: 

“Power politics . . . has become a term of reproach in the world. . . . The United 

Nations hope to abolish it from the earth. But power economics may be just as 

dangerous, for if it is not the root of all evil in international affairs it is at the very 

least a frequent cause of conflict. The legislation before this committee is our best 

hope of banishing that too. 

“We cannot say that we will join the other nations in an organization to maintain 

peace, but will not help remove one of the most dangerous causes of war – 

economic dislocation.”[19] 

Economic dislocation is hardly the same thing as the perversity of German nature 

or “will to war.” 

Three months later, Mr. Morgenthau told the Senate Banking and Currency 

Committee: 

“Peace is more than a political problem. It is a complicated structure than can be 

built only upon the solid foundation of economic order and prosperity in all 

countries. Peace and prosperity are two sides of the same problem. We can ‘t 

neglect one without endangering the other. If peace is to endure, there must be 

jobs, there must be hope of economic betterment. 

“International monetary and financial problems have been a source of conflict 

for a generation. We must see that after this war they do not become the basis for 

new conflicts.”[20]  

Lack of prosperity and hope of economic betterment and international monetary 

and financial problems were therefore at least partly to blame for the recent war, 

according to Mr. Morgenthau himself, not merely German lust for war, argued in 

his book. 

He told the St. Louis Chamber of Commerce: 

“After the last war, informal attempts were made to stabilize currencies but they 

failed. . . . Competitive currency depreciation led to other forms of economic 

warfare. . . . New currency tricks restricted and burdened trade. They must 

certainly be counted as a contributory cause of the great depression. And they 

were the first phase of the tragic war in which we are now engaged.”[21] 

Mr. Vinson, successor to Mr. Morgenthau as Secretary of the Treasury, gave his 

version of the causes of war in these words: 

“We have the political, social, and economic problems among nations that twice 

in our generation rocked us into war. The resolution of these problems is 

necessary for prolonged prosperity and for lasting peace.”[22] 

Solving such problems to prevent war is a far cry from our original policy of 

trying to maintain peace by turning Germany into a goat pasture. 

Herbert E. Gasten, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, in a published speech 

said: 

“It was almost entirely because of the sick condition of foreign trade that we were 

barely getting out of the last depression when war came upon us.”[23] 

And on another occasion he said: 

“It seemed apparent even before the present war began with Germany’s assault 

on Poland that we could not have political peace without economic peace and 

thriving world trade were not possible except under conditions of monetary 

peace.”[24] 

That most wars, including the last one, have been caused by economic disruption 

and consequent “foul growths,” to borrow a phrase from the late Lord Keynes, is 

a truism which no informed person will deny. Such dislocations and their results 

are not the same as human beings; human beings are the victims. Therefore, it is 

wrong to blame people for the forces which compel their behavior. When people 

fall into a trap where their very existence is threatened, they will fight their way 

out if there is any possibility to do so. They will fight, even though it might appear 

suicidal to do so. For most people prefer to die fighting than to die supinely. Such 

behavior may be wrong, but it is the way people have behaved for many 

thousands of years, and the chances are they will continue to do so. 

The British themselves have often found conditions during peace more 

unbearable than war. Whenever the balance of power is upset in Europe so that 

the continent starts to fall under the domination of some one of its powers, 

Britain considers the situation a threat to her very existence and goes to war to 

preserve herself. One of the best and most authoritative analyses of the matter 

appeared in the September, 1943, issue of the semi-official British publication, 

“The Nineteenth Century and After,” by the editor, Mr. F. A. Voight. The 

following are pertinent excerpts: 

“It is fashionable to dismiss the balance of power as an obsolete doctrine. It is not 

a doctrine. It is, for Great Britain and the Empire the immutable condition of 

survival. Any power that becomes undisputed master of the European mainland 

can become master of the British Isles. . . . 

“England has no one permanent foe in Europe, and none of her vital interests 

conflict with the vital interests of any European power. Her only foe is that 

power, or that coalition of powers, which may endeavor to dominate Europe. 

Against that foe she must always be ready, always be strong, and always have 

allies. As her foe varies, so her allies must vary. The foe of yesterday may be the 

ally of tomorrow and the ally of yesterday may be the foe of tomorrow. 

“The power of the British Empire, plus the power of continental allies, will, if the 

Empire is strong, always balance the power of whatever power seeks domination. 

And as long as the balance is maintained, there will be peace, for no one power 

can prevail over the rest of Europe plus the British Empire, as long as the Empire 

is strong. 

“This simple mechanism is the balance of power. It exists by virtue of the 

immutable physical realities. Neither the League of Nations, nor any system of 

collective security, nor disarmament can change these realities. As soon as the 

balance of power is challenged, every collective system will collapse and England 

will, if she is not to perish, make the counter-challenge. She did so in 1939. The 

mechanism of the balance was released and the League of Nations was at once 

deprived of whatever reality it had ever possessed on the 1st of September in that 

year, on the day when Germany attacked Poland and, so releasing the 

mechanism, began the second world war. England fought to preserve the balance 

– for that reason and no other. 

“The commonly accepted view that Germany made war to dominate the world is, 

in our opinion, mistaken. 

“She wanted to be a world power, but world power and world domination are not 

the same thing (England is a world power, but she does not dominate the world). 

Hitler would have been glad to share the world with the English. . . . Had England 

remained neutral he would have been successful. But she would then have been 

at his mercy, or the mercy of his successor – in any case at the mercy of the 

German Nation. . . . Nothing could have saved England from destruction – except 

the good will of the Germans…. 

“It was to avert this fate that England went to war in 1939. It is to avert a similar 

fate in future years that the balance must always be maintained. The political 

complexion of those that maintain the balance is quite irrelevant. . . . The nature 

of the peace must be determined by the enduring realities of the European 

situation, not by transient phenomena like fascism, national socialism, socialism, 

or communism. This exorbitant strength of Germany must be reduced and it 

must be kept reduced. Better a despotically governed Germany that is not too 

strong than a liberal Germany that is too strong. . . . But it is . . . important that 

the weakening of Germany be relative rather than absolute.”[25]  

This explains in terms very different from Mr. Morgenthau’s the underlying cause 

of the two world wars. It explains Britain’ s interest in the Potsdam agreements, 

including de-industrialization and de-nazification, and the exigencies behind 

Britain’s present opposition to Russia, which again threatens to upset the 

European balance, just as Germany did. It disputes the thesis that the German 

people and their perversities were solely responsible for the war and should be 

punished accordingly. 

It also clarifies a good many otherwise unexplainable episodes connected with the 

war and its outbreak. It shows why Britain went to war ostensibly to oppose 

aggression, but applied the policy only to Germany, and not to Russia when she 

attacked Poland in full partnership with Germany. It explains the reason for the 

secret protocol attached to her declaration guaranteeing British and French aid to 

Poland, which qualified and limited the guarantee to German aggression and 

none other. The portion of this treaty that was made public at the time, gave the 

impression that the guarantee stood on moral ground, against any and all 

aggression. The published part stated: 

“Should one of the contracting powers become engaged in hostilities with a 

European power in consequence of aggression by the latter against that 

contracting party, the other contracting party will at once give the contracting 

power engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power.”  

Although the language is somewhat involved, the meaning is clear, that defense 

against aggression was the prime consideration and what England would fight 

for. The German attack against Poland was considered a high international 

wrong. But when Russia also attacked and Britain failed to oppose this aggression 

which was also a brutal stab in the back, but continued the war against Germany 

alone, it became clear to many observers that something more was present in the 

situation than readily met the eye. There was a secret rider attached to the treaty 

which has since been made public and which stipulates that “The expression, a 

European power, employed in the agreement is to be understood as 

Germany.”[26] 

In other words, Britain was taking advantage of the situation to go to war against 

Germany because the Reich had become too strong and had upset the European 

balance. To correct the fundamental trouble, from Britain’s point of view, 

Germany, after her defeat, must be weakened as a protective measure. No 

morality enters into the matter, only considerations of power politics and British 

survival. 

Lord Lothian, ihen British ambassador to the United States, said in March, 1938, 

at the time of the Austrian crisis: 

“If another war comes and the history of it is ever written, the dispassionate 

historian a hundred years hence, will say not that Germany alone was responsible 

for it, even if she strikes first, but that those who mismanaged the world between 

1918 and 1917 had a large share of responsibility in it.”[27] 

In his column, April 23, 1944, Karl Von Wiegand wrote: 

“On April, 1939, four months before Hitler invaded Poland, Ambassador William 

C. Bullitt, whom I had known for 20 years, called me to the American embassy in 

Paris. Both of us standing before the fireplace in his office, the windows of which 

faced the beautiful Place de la Concorde, the American Ambassador told me that 

war had been decided upon. He did not say, nor did I ask, by whom. He let me 

infer it. When I said that in the end Germany would be driven into the arms of 

Soviet Russia and Bolshevism, the ambassador replied: ‘What of it. There will not 

be enough Germans left when the war is over to be worth bolshevizing.'”[28]  

A month earlier, according to the Associated Press: 

“Joseph Stalin, in one of his most outspoken statements, told the world that 

Soviet Russia would not be dragged into conflict with Germany as a ‘cat’s paw’ to 

pull British and French chestnuts out of the fire. . . . Underlying the policy of 

nonintervention (against fascism) he said was a desire to embroil ltaly, Japan, 

and Germany as deeply as possible in war against the Soviet Union and then, 

when they all had become weakened by conflict, ‘come on the stage with fresh 

forces and dictate peace.”[29] 

And a month after the conflict started Pravda said: 

“Peace and friendship between the U.S.S.R. and Germany are also in the interests 

of all nations of Europe. Conditions of anxiety, enmity and mutual distrust in 

Eastern Europe are advantageous only for warmongers who are used to make 

others pull chestnuts out of the fire for them. Such conditions were maintained in 

the course of many years by a policy of incitement of one country against the 

other.”[30] 

Professor Harry Elmer Barnes in reply to the charge of bellicosity of the German 

people says: 

“England has been way out in front in point of relative bellicosity among the 

nations, while Germany and the Netherlands stand at the very bottom of the list, 

next to Denmark.”  

This conclusion is forced by such findings as those in Professor Quincy Wright’s 

“A Study of War” wherein it is shown that in the period from 1480 to 1940 there 

were 278 wars involving European countries, whose percentage participation was 

as follows: 

“England, 28; France, 26; Spain, 23; Russia, 22; Austria, 19; Turkey, 15; Poland, 

11; Sweden, 9; Italy, 9; Netherlands, 8; Germany (including Prussia), 8; and 

Denmark, 7,” (Vol. I, p. 221)  

Likewise Pitirim Sorokin, in Vol. III, Part II of his SOCIAL AND CULTURAL 

DYNAMICS, shows that from the twelfth century to 1925 the percentage of years 

in which leading European powers have been at war is as follows (p. 352): 

Country………Percent of Years at War 

Spain ……………………….67 

Poland ……………………..58 

England …………………….56 

France ………………………50 

Russia ………………………46 

Holland …………………….44 

Italy ………………………….36 

Germany ……………………28 

Sorokin concludes, therefore, “that Germany has had the smallest and Spain the 

largest per cent of years at war.” Of leading modern European states England, 

France, and Russia thus show nearly twice the bellicosity displayed by the “war- 

loving” Germans. 

Prof. Barnes goes on: 

“President Truman has well said that constructive public acts must be based on 

truth. It is too bad somebody could not have whispered a little truth into his ear 

before he left for Potsdam. There is little prospect that a structure erected wholly 

on lies in 1945 will endure any better than the one that was wholly based on lies 

in 1919. 

“And the probability is that the disillusionment after Potsdam will set in much 

more rapidly than it did after Versailles. In the period after 1919, we had to wait 

some years to obtain formerly secret documents to upset the lies of the period of 

war and peacemaking. This time, the upsetting facts are already available and so 

clear that any honest and informed man can read them while running. The only 

thing that we have to wait for is courage enough to state what is today well known 

and above serious doubt – in short, to know that an honest historian will not be 

listed immediately as a defendant in a mass sedition trial. [31] 

Incitement to war is a terrible thing. Oliver Lyttleton, British Minister of 

Production, told the Chamber of Commerce of America in London, June 20, 

1944, as reported by the United Press: 

“Japan was provoked into attacking the United States at Pearl Harbor. It is a 

travesty on history ever to say that America was forced into the war.”[32] 

It is now established that to avoid war with the United States, Germany ordered 

its submarines not to retaliate in any way when attacked by U.S. forces under 

orders from Washington. In clear violation of international law our vessels in the 

Atlantic were ordered two months before Pearl Harbor to shell all Axis craft 

encountered. At the time, Admiral Stark had sent a message to Admiral Kimmel 

that “we are at war” in the Atlantic. 

Two months after Pearl Harbor, Prime Minister Churchill told the House of 

Commons: 

“When I survey and compute the powers of the United States and its vast 

resources and feel that they are now in it with us, with British Commonwealth of 

Nations all together, however long it lasts, till death or victory, I cannot believe 

that there is any other fact in the whole world which can compare with that. That 

is what I had dreamed of, aimed at, and worked for, and now it has come to 

pass.”[33] 

Our lend-lease program had been squeezed through Congress by the narrowest of 

margins as a “peace measure.” Senator Glass had given away its real purpose, 

however, when he said he favored loaning Great Britain all the war equipment we 

could spare “to wipe Germany off the face of the map.[34] He had the courage to 

say what was on the mind of many a figure in Washington and elswhere. 

Hitler has been condemned as a violator of international pacts and agreements; 

yet when we sent destroyers to Britain long before Pearl Harbor and later on 

permitted many of our vessels to be commandeered by British officers we 

violated Section 3 of Article V of the Act of June 15, 1917, which provides that 

during a war in which the United States is a neutral nation, it shall be unlawful to 

send out of the jurisdiction of the United States any vessel built, armed, or 

equipped as a vessel of war with any intent or with reasonable cause to believe 

that it shall be used by any belligerent nation. We also violated the Hague 

Convention which forbids a neutral nation to supply any war materials whatever 

to any belligerent country. 

There is no need to pursue the argument further. We have shown that good 

grounds exist for doubting in some degree, at least, the charge that the German 

people, because of their perverse natures, and their will and lust for war, were the 

sole culprits in the late conflict. There is equal room, therefore, for doubting the 

Justice of the Potsdam program to cripple Germany and condemn its people to 

perpetual poverty, and equally sound moral grounds for the repudiation of that 

program. 

 

On “Collective Guilt” and Propaganda 

The victors in every war think they are right and the defeated wrong. The late war 

has offered no exception. By continuing to condemn the defeated in this war as a 

race of criminals and punishing them accordingly, as we at first set out to do, we 

would be setting a most dangerous precedent, one which our children might have 

good reason to regret. For if we should ever lose a war we could only expect 

similar treatment. 

It is manifestly unjust to blame and punish the people of any country for the acts 

of their leaders, especially where the people have been brought under the heel of 

a dictatorship which under heavy penalty compels conformity to the leaders 

edicts and orders. 

The truth is that the people of no nation in modern history, including ourselves, 

have ever enjoyed an important voice in the making of the great decisions either 

of going to war or of framing the peace arrangements. This is one of the greatest 

facts we must face. America cannot possibly add amelioration to the sordid game 

of power politics which has plunged the nations of the world into one terrible war 

after another, until the people do assert themselves and insist upon the injection 

of justice into the peace arrangements. 

But before this can be accomplished they must break the bonds of false 

propaganda. This propaganda flows from two major levels, a higher and a lower. 

Britain’s pose as upholder of righteousness while actually engaged in 

manipulating the balance of power system exemplifies the upper level. This type 

of propaganda is poignantly described by the late John Maynard Keynes in THE 

ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES OF THE PEACE: 

“The politics of power are inevitable and there is nothing very new to learn about 

this war or the end it was fought for; England had destroyed, as in each preceding 

century, a trade rival; a mighty chapter had been closed in the secular struggle 

between the glories of Germany and of France. Prudence required some measure 

of lip service to the ‘ideals’ of foolish Americans and hypocritical Englishmen, but 

it would be stupid to believe that there is much room in the world, as it really is, 

for such affairs as the League of Nations or any sense in the principle of self- 

determination, except as an ingenious formula for rearranging the balance of 

power in one’s own interests.” 

This was written about World War I, but it applies as well to the second. Another 

Englishman, the great Disraeli, said: 

“All great events have been distorted, most of the important causes concealed, 

some of the principal characters never appear, and all who figure are so 

misunderstood and misrepresented that the result is a complete mystification. If 

the history of England is ever written by one who has the knowledge and the 

courage, the world would be astonished.”[35] 

British Foreign Minister Ernest Bevin told the truth about the propaganda of the 

lower level when he said at the London Conference of Foreign Ministers, 

February 10, 1946: 

“A newspaper has three things to do. One is to amuse, another is to entertain, and 

the rest is to mislead.”[36] 

That such propaganda has played an enormous part in fomenting most wars 

cannot be doubted. It deceives and bewilders the public, inflaming it and 

strengthening its innate prejudices which civilizing processes ordinanarily hold to 

tolerable proportions. People can accurately judge only those things which come 

within the purview of their direct experience or which they are allowed to view 

from all angles by educational processes. When the mediums upon which the 

people rely to bring them their foreign news, color and emasculate the facts, or 

even manufacture them out of whole cloth, as they sometimes do, there is no 

possibility for the public to get the truth. Its collective judgment, the accuracy of 

which is the base upon which democratic processes rest, cannot, in consequence, 

be reliable; on the contrary, if its judgment is misled and its passions inflamed 

properly for the purpose, it will inevitably support mad adventures, unjust 

interventions, and other tragic missteps in international affairs. 

Thus, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, a month before war broke out, sadly 

observed: 

“Unhappily, bad feeling between nations is fomented daily by poisonous 

propaganda in the press and by other means. I cannot help feeling that if only we 

halt this war of words and some action is taken which would tend to restore 

confidence of the people in the peaceful intentions of all the statesmen of Europe 

– if only that could be done, then I still feel that I know of no question that could 

not and should not be solved by peaceful discussions. The gain would be 

enormous. On the other hand, if war should come, whichever side may claim 

ultimate victory, nothing is more certain that victor and vanquished alike would 

glean a gruesome harvest of human misery and suffering.”[37] 

Americans, as well as the British, were flooded with misleading, inflamatory 

propaganda on the eve of the war. Only a few calm, informed observers were able, 

apparently, to see through it. In a letter to Hugh W. Long & Co., an executive of 

Roosevelt & Son of Pine Street, wrote six months before we were plunged into 

war: 

“I cannot refrain from expressing my contempt for those who are politically 

toying with the fear motif at this time and painting a picture of the United States 

overrun by Adolph Hitler. There never was a country so strongly situated 

strategically for defense as this one, and when, in addition, that country has more 

oil than any other country in the world and more practical inventive 

achievements to its credit (inclucling the original invention of and most of the 

significant improvements upon the airplane), and has an established and 

recognized aptitude for mass production, it is clear to me that it has a special 

genius for mechanized warfare and that all talk about what Adolph Hitler’s armed 

forces may do to us is just bunk. 

“No. If totalitarianism is coming to the United States it will come because the 

American people can be charmed by insincere, superficial, adroit politicians and 

fail to demand the leadership of men of character, of courage, of honesty.”[38] 

Perhaps the most poisonous of all the propaganda themes circulated in this 

country in full page newspaper ads and elsewhere was the purported statement of 

Adolph Hitler that he was going to come over here some day and finish off 

“decadent Yankeedom.” The passage was dressed up to look like a direct 

quotation and was placed over the name of Adolph Hitler. Every effort was made 

to give the impression that it came from Mein Kampf; whereas, it was something 

Herman Rauschnigg had said Hitler had said – the unsupported testimony of one 

man, a refugee. 

Such a proposition is quite at variance with what Hitler actually wrote in Mein 

Kampf where he decries Germany’s vulnerability on account of her exposed 

borders and the small extent of her national territory and extolls the United 

States on account of “its vast space, which is equivalent to the site of a Continent” 

and its “incomparable inner strength.”. . . “The gigantic North American State,” 

he says, “with the enormous resources of its soil, is much more invulnerable than 

the encircled German Reich.” Again he says: 

“Military decisions are more quickly, more easily, more completely and more 

effectively gained against States which have extensive territories. Moreover, the 

magnitude of a national territory is of itself a certain assurance that an outside 

power will not hastily risk the adventure of an invasion; for in that case the 

struggle for power would have to be long and exhausting before victory could be 

hoped for. The risk being so great, there would have to be extraordinary reasons 

for such an aggressive adventure. Hence it is that the territorial magnitude of a 

State furnishes a basis whereon national liberty and independence can be 

maintained with relative ease . . .”[39] 

Yet, how firmly propaganda had fixed the public impression that Mein Kampf 

offered a program for world conquest is brought out in the following excerpt 

taken from the transcript of the question period following an address given by 

Ambassador John Cudahy before the Chicago Council of Foreign Relations a 

month and a half before Pearl Harbor. 

“Chairman Bentley: I have a question here in writing: ‘How do you reconcile 

Hitler’s announced plan of world conquest with his statements made to you?’ 

“Mr. Cudahy: I know of no plan of world conquest. (Cries of ‘How about Mein 

Kampf?’ from audience). 

“I read Mein Kampf very thoroughly and I cannot find any plan of world 

conquest. (Cries of Oh-h-h-h from audience). It used to put me to sleep; but after 

I had been in Germany I read the thing very thoroughly. Hitler has made a 

number of statements that would indicate that he has dreamed of world empire, 

but I guess Hitler can be guilty of a bit of campaign oratory. 

“I know that this war was caused by the last war.” 

There never was any actual evidence that world conquest was contemplated. 

General Marshall, Army Chief of Staff, in his biennial report released in October, 

1945, stated that valuation by the War Department General Staff of 

interrogations of ranking members of the German high command had “failed to 

disclose any over-all German strategic plan to conquer the world.”[40] 

 

Conclusion 

The Allied program to reeducate the Germans is a case of one deluded group 

trying to disillusion another. Our conviction that the Germans have been filled 

with poisonous propaganda is quite correct and our impulse to extirpate the 

effects of that propaganda is a good one. However, we cannot accomplish our 

purpose when so many of our own ideas are false, and especially when the 

Germans know from direct experience that they are false. To be successful, a 

teacher must enjoy the respect of those he attempts to teach. He must win that 

respect through the demonstrated superiority of his knowledge and 

understanding. Part of what we are trying to teach the Germans is true and could 

have a most salutary effect on the German outlook, if only we could get the 

Germans to listen with respect and sympathy. But too much of what we try to 

make them believe the Germans know to be untrue, and this knowledge on their 

part causes them to lose their respect for us and to turn a deaf ear to everything 

we say. 

Our reeducation program should begin at home. If we could only overcome the 

effects of our own illusions born of propaganda and ignorance arising from lack 

of intimate knowledge of European affairs, if we could only possess ourselves of 

the facts and then face them courageously, we not only could reeducate the 

Germans but could eliminate many erroneous and tragically dangerous features 

of our German program. Unless we do revise our own ideas and the program to 

which those ideas have given birth, we are in danger of losing Germany, Europe, 

and everything for which we fought this costly war. It is hoped that this book will 

help point the way to truth and therefore to our future success. 

Our experience in Europe has already taught us some bitter lessons and has 

forced us to ameliorate in some degree the harsh and brutal program which we 

set about to force upon our defeated enemy. But we have much more to learn and 

must make many more changes in our policy before we can hope for the success 

of our German adventure. With these facts in mind we offer the following 

suggestions. 

 

A Brief Plan for Germany 

Rush emergency food supplies to Germany. Raise the base diet to 2,200 calories 

per person per day immediately, and to 2,500 calories during the winter. Permit 

the Central Red Cross to function. Remove all limitations to private relief. 

Organize great drives under the sponsorship of Government, if possible, to 

provide clothing, fuel, medicines, and other necessities now lacking. 

Free all German war prisoners, return them to Germany, and provide them with 

the tools needed so they can work in Germany to feed and otherwise provide for 

the German people, and thereby remove a heavy burden from our shoulders. Give 

all prisoners full union wages for work exacted from them since V-E-Day, to 

enable them to reestablish themselves and provide for their surviving 

dependents. 

Return all German lands and restore the Reich’s 1937 borders. Hold plebiscites in 

all other territories heavily populated by Germans in 1937, Danzig and Austria 

included, to determine, in harmony with the Atlantic Charter, under what flag 

these peoples wish to live. 

To relieve the present unbearable population pressure, encourage all countries 

with low population densities, such as the United States, Canada, Latin America, 

Australia, and Africa to lower the bars and permit the excess German population 

to emigrate. 

Extend all possible aid to rebuild German cities, restore essential public services, 

and create decent housing facilities. 

Remove all limitations to industrial production and encourage highest possible 

output (except munitions), in harmony with the thesis that “prosperity, like 

peace, is indivisible.” 

Encourage German foreign trade in order to enable the Germans to maintain 

themselves as soon as possible. Place a value on the mark in terms of other 

currencies to make private German foreign trade possible. Permit production and 

operation of commercial airships and ocean-going vessels. 

Rehabilitate national finances and forestall inflation by stabilizing the currency. 

Contract existing currency by calling in outstanding marks and exchanging them 

for new marks on some such basis as five old for one new, and make all debts and 

contracts payable in the new marks at the same ratio in place of the old. Let 

experts decide the exact ratio needed for this operation which will aim to bring 

the price level down to that of 1937. Thereafter changes in the total supply of 

means of payment should be made to correspond to changes in national capacity 

to produce. 

Lower taxes to revive incentives and the profit motive. 

Remove all limitations on scientific research and invention, with prohibitions 

continued only in the fields of atomic fission, poison gas, and weapons of war. 

Draw up a peace treaty with Germany and officially end the war. 

Allow the Germans to set up a unified, central Government of their own choosing, 

in harmony with the Atlantic Charter, with only such external controls as those 

mentioned below. Encourage the Germans to frame a Constitution for 

themselves, with all parties advocating dictatorship or revolution barred from the 

Constitutional Convention. 

Thereupon, withdraw all occupation troops, remove the military governments, 

and abolish all zones. Continue disarmament permanently, however, and prohibit 

production of munitions and all weapons of war. To enforce United Nations 

controls install a system of observation and surprise inspection by roving patrols, 

permitted to inspect any and all records and activities, and backed by the military 

might of the United States and other United Nations. Violators to be tried before 

German courts by Allied prosecutors, with verdicts subject to appeal and retrial, 

if necessary, before Allied tribunals. 

Insist on abolition of all discrimination in favor of displaced persons and others, 

and make all persons in Germany equal before the law. 

Withdraw the reeducation program as gracefully and soon as possible. Replace 

the general anti-Nazi decrees with specific laws forbidding propagation and 

advocacy of certain clearly defined and specified ideas or activities, making these 

prohibitions apply to all alike, including Communists, so that if a certain 

principle previously advocated by the Nazis and outlawed as socially dangerous, 

happens also to be advocated by the Communists, the suppression will apply to 

Communists and all others alike, and not just to former Nazis as at present. 

Abolish all other edicts establishing political discrimination and give former 

Nazis a chance to reestablish themselves as productive, respectable, law abiding 

citizens with full rights. Abolish all censorship and facilitate intercourse between 

the Germans and the outside world. Permit Germans to travel freely to other 

countries and citizens of other countries to visit Germany as they wish. 

Only by such an example of wisdom and humanity, can we teach the Germans 

effectively the advantages of our way of life. By advancing such a program and 

pressing for its acceptance by our allies, we could instantly win the support and 

sympathy of virtually all Germans. Russia’s designs on Germany would be 

frustrated, war between East and West would be unnecessary, the world would be 

spared another tragic holocaust. 

  

Reference Notes: 

[1] Associated Press, Wuerzburg, Germany, March 11, 1946. 

[2] Associated Press, Wiesbaden, Germany, April 26, 1946. 

[3] Associated Press, Ottawa, Ontario, July 15, 1946. 

[4] Lee Hills, Berlin, July 10, 1946, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[5] Willard Edwards, Washington, May 2, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[6] Chester Manly, Washington, Aug. 6, 1946, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[7] David J. Dallin, “Germany Between War and Peace.” New Leader (World Events Section), Vol. 

XXVIII, No. 51, Dec. 22, 1945. 

[8] Larry Rue, Prague, Czechoslovakia, Dec. 15, 1945, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[9] Dorothy Thompson, “Moscow’s Plan for Germany,” Chicago Daily News, July 18, 1946. 

[10] From Henry Morgenthau, Jr., “Morgenthau on Economic Problems,” The Chicago Sun, Sept. 

12, 13, and 14, 1945. 

[11] Associated Press, London, April 5, 1945. 

[12] April 7, 1946. 

[13] Financial Times, London, May 24, 1946, on report of Swedish Minister of Foreign Trade, M. 

Gunnar Myrdal. 

[14] Cf. Chicago Daily Tribune, April 16, 1946, p. 14. 

[15] Associated Press, London, April 6, 1946. 

[16] William H. Stoneman, London, Sept. 8, 1945, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service. 

[17] The Chicago Sun, (editorial), Sept. 14, 1945, p. 16. 

[18] Henry Morgenthau, Germany Is Our Problem (New York: Harper and Bros., 1945), Chapter I 

(esp. p. 2) and Chapter 8, “Germany Has the Will to Try It Again.” 

[19] Statement on “The Bretton Woods Agreement,” as released by Treasury Dept., pp. 3 and 5. 

[20] June 12, 1945, p. 4, of U.S. Treasury press release. 

[21] Feb. 14, 1945, p. 2, of U.S. Treasury press release. 

[22] Address before Bar Association of the District of Columbia, Dec. 1, 1945, Press Service No. V- 

148, p. 5. 

[23] Before the Lower East Side Citizens Committee, at the Seward Park High School, New York 

City, April 19, 1945, Press Service No. 45-89, p. 2. 

[24] Before New York Chapter, American Society of Chartered Life Underwriters, Waldorf-Astoria 

Hotel, New York City, Friday, April 20, 1945, Press Service No. 45-91, p. 4. 

[25] From Congressional Record, Nov. 16, 1943, pp. 9672 ff. 

[26] Col. C.H. Lanza, Chicago Daily Tribune, Sept. 6, 1945. 

[27] Chicago Leader, Jan. 10, 1941. 

[28] Chicago Herald-American, April 23, 1944, p. 18. 

[29]Associated Press, Moscow, March 11, 1939. 

[30] Associated Press, Moscow, Sept. 30, 1939. 

[31] Harry Elmer Barnes, “Britain’s Top War Criminal,” The Progressive, Sept. 17, 1945, p. 8. 

[32] Congressional Record, June 21, 1944, p. 6429. 

[33] Congressional Record, Dec. 8, 1942. 

[34] United Press, Washington, Jan. 3, 1941. 

[35] Congressional Record, Dec. 11, 1945, p. A-5815. 

[36] Associated Press, London, Feb. 10, 1946 

[37] David Darrah, London, July 31, 1939, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

[38] Roosevelt and Son, 30 Pine St., N.Y., to Hugh W. Long and Co., 155 Exchange Place, Jersey 

City, N.J., May 8, 1941. 

[39] Mein Kampf (London: Hurst and Blackett, Ltd), p. 125. Cf. also pp. 127, 463, and 520. 

[40] Walter Trohan, Washington, Oct. 9, 1945, Chicago Tribune Press Service. 

 


 http://www.aaargh.com.mx/fran/livres8/KEELINGgruesom.pdf

Published on February 11, 2009 at 12:53 pm  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://jewise.wordpress.com/gruesome-harvest/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: