Spitfire List Web site and blog of anti-fascist researcher and radio personality Dave Emory.

Books For Download  

Germany Plots with the Kremlin

by T. H. Tetens
1953, Henry Schuman, 294 pages
Download Pt. 1 | Download Pt. 2

T.H. Tetens’ Germany Plots with the Kremlin (1953) treats the pivotally important German “Ostpolitik,” which German power structure has traditionally exploited in order expand and develop its influence. The German threat to either remain neutral during the Cold War, or to ally with the USSR, was a significant factor in persuading conservative American power brokers to go along with the reinstatement in Germany of the Nazi elements that prosecuted World War II. Under the circumstances, some of these conservatives felt that permitting Nazi elements to return to power behind a democratic façade was the lesser of two evils, although many would have preferred a more traditionally conservative German political establishment. This German “Ostpolitik,” in turn, is characteristic of the geopolitical foresight and cynicism with which pan-Germanists have successfully pursued their goal of world domination through the centuries.

An authority on pan-Germanism employed by the U.S. government during World War II, Tetens analyzes German Ostpolitik in the aftermath of the war in the context of centuries of German policy toward Russia and the former Soviet Union. Tracing the roots of Ostpolitik, Tetens begins with Frederick the Great’s secret pact of 1762 with Czar Peter III, which disrupted the European coalition that almost crushed Prussia in the Seven Years War. This pact saved Prussia from total defeat and led to the first partition of Poland. In 1867, German chancellor Otto von Bismarck made a secret pact (called a “re-insurance treaty”) with Russia, which secured Germany’s Eastern frontier, helping to make Germany the strongest military power on the continent. Following in the footsteps of their predecessors, General Hans von Seeckt (head of the German general staff) created a new army after the German defeat in World War I. That army trained and armed in Soviet Russia after the Rapallo Treaty between Germany and the USSR in 1922. While German Chancellor Gustav Stresemann feigned neutrality, von Seeckt contemplated “war against the West in alliance with the East.” Perhaps the best-known example of Ostpolitik was the Hitler Stalin pact of 1939, which secured Germany’s Eastern border on the eve of World War II.

After World War II, the German geopoliticians (acting at the direction of the leaders of the Underground Reich under Martin Bormann) pursued a similar tack. Threatening neutrality, or even an alliance with the Soviets, the Germans were able to manipulate the U.S. into wooing Germany as an ally- –granting it renewed economic and military power and re-installing Nazis in positions of great influence. Kevin Coogan’s remarkable text Dreamer of the Day: Francis Parker and the Postwar Fascist International contains an excellent contemporary account of this phenomenon. Listeners are emphatically encouraged to read the Coogan text as a supplement to the Tetens book (which was published in 1953.)

In 1950, the Madrid Geo-political Center (a Nazi think tank operating in exile under the friendly auspices of fascist dictator Franco) discussed the successful realization of the Reich’s plan to go underground. (These plans were described by Curt Reiss in The Nazis Go Underground. The Nazi grooming and installation of Franco, whose country was an important base for the postwar Reich activities, is discussed in Falange by Alan Chase.) The following passage appears on page 73 of the Tetens text: “According to the Madrid Circular Letter, referred to above, the German planners have never ceased their political warfare against the Allies. They admit that they had ‘blueprinted the bold plan and created a flexible and smoothly working organization,’ in order to safeguard Germany from defeat and to bring Allied post-war planning to nought. They boast that they were able to create total confusion in Washington, and that they saved German heavy industry from destruction: ‘By no means did the political and military leadership of the Third Reich skid into the catastrophe in an irrational manner as so many blockheads and ignoramuses often tell us. The various phases and consequences of the so-called ‘collapse’ . . . were thoroughly studied and planned by the most capable experts . . . Nothing occurred by chance; everything was carefully planned. The result of this planning was that, already a few months after Potsdam, the coalition of the victors went on the rocks.’. . .”

The Madrid Circular Letter goes on to set forth the course to be pursued by Germany, more startlingly relevant from the vantage point of early 2006 than in it was in 1950. The following is from page 52 of Tetens’ book:

“ ‘In view of the present political situation . . . the policy of orientation towards the West has lost all meaning or sense. . . . We must not forget that Germany has always considered orientation towards the West as a policy of expedience, or one to be pursued only under pressure of circumstances. Such was the case in Napoleon’s time, after 1918, and also after 1945. All of our great national leaders have constantly counseled the long-range policy of close cooperation with the East . . . .’” Fear of this dynamic drove the U.S. to accede to all of Germany’s demands for renewed power. “Anti-Communism Uber Alles!”

A stunning measure of the success of the Underground Reich and German Ostpolitik can be obtained by reading Dorothy Thompson’s analysis of Germany’s plans for world dominance by a centralized European economic union. (In this, we can see the plans of pan-German theoretician Friedrich List, as realized by the European Monetary Union.) Ms. Thompson was writing in The New York Herald Tribune on May 31, 1940! Her comments are reproduced by Tetens on page 92.

“The Germans have a clear plan of what they intend to do in case of victory. I believe that I know the essential details of that plan. I have heard it from a sufficient number of important Germans to credit its authenticity . . . Germany’s plan is to make a customs union of Europe, with complete financial and economic control centered in Berlin. This will create at once the largest free trade area and the largest planned economy in the world. In Western Europe alone . . . there will be an economic unity of 400 million persons . . . To these will be added the resources of the British, French, Dutch and Belgian empires. These will be pooled in the name of Europa Germanica . . .”

“The Germans count upon political power following economic power, and not vice versa. Territorial changes do not concern them, because there will be no ‘France’ or ‘England,’ except as language groups. Little immediate concern is felt regarding political organizations . . . . No nation will have the control of its own financial or economic system or of its customs. The Nazification of all countries will be accomplished by economic pressure. In all countries, contacts have been established long ago with sympathetic businessmen and industrialists . . . . As far as the United States is concerned, the planners of the World Germanica laugh off the idea of any armed invasion. They say that it will be completely unnecessary to take military action against the United States to force it to play ball with this system. . . . Here, as in every other country, they have established relations with numerous industries and commercial organizations, to whom they will offer advantages in co-operation with Germany. . . .”

Again, check out the current European Monetary Union and the “borderless” EU against the background of what Ms. Thompson forecast in 1940 and Mr. Tetens reproduced in 1953.

Discussion

3 comments for “Germany Plots with the Kremlin

  1. […] still in denial as to which country is the "heart of Europe"? Dr Hans Christian Seebohm pointed out which country it is, 58 years ago. […]

    Posted by The Heart of Europe - Page 3 - Politics.ie | October 5, 2009, 2:16 pm
  2. […] the EU treaties? This has been even from the European Coal and Steel Community also; have a look at this book, which has details about Germany's plans to bring about a united Europe first by economic means and […]

    Posted by Anonymous | March 22, 2012, 8:00 am
  3. Microsoft obtained an agreement to address “US internet spying” to ease European fears in lieu of revelations by Edward Snowdon about NSA spying. Microsoft will allow foreign customers to hold data in new European facilities safely in Germany that are instead under the control of Deutsche Telekom, the German telecommunications group. The article further indicates that this initiative “may soon also result a tough new privacy standard and require similar practices “from other “cloud computing’ such as a Google, Amazon and Oracle (all from the U.S.).

    This ultimately serves the economic interests of the German Corporation Deutsche Telekom – see:
    http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/540a296e-87ff-11e5-9f8c-a8d619fa707c.html#axzz3rIHiTDl4

    This is further evidence that the EU is a continuation of a power structure designed to benefit German based or controlled multi-national corporations through a cartel system that was originally identified by Prussian Economist Frederick Von List then formalized with a plan by Frederick Naumann during World War I in his 1915 publication Mitteleuropa?” – see:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitteleuropa. The articles states:

    “The Mitteleuropa plan was to achieve an economic and cultural hegemony over Central Europe by the German Empire[11][12] and subsequent economic and financial exploitation[13][14] of this region combined with direct annexations,[13] settlement of German colonists, expulsion of non-Germans from annexed areas, and eventual Germanization of puppet states created as a buffer between Germany and Russia. The issue of Central Europe was taken by German thinker Friedrich Naumann in 1915 in his work Mitteleuropa.

    Mitteleuropa was to be created by establishing a series of puppet states whose political, economic and military aspects would be under the control of the German Reich.[18] The entire region was to serve as an economic backyard of Germany, whose exploitation would enable the German empire to better compete against strategic rivals like Britain, the United States and Japan.[18]

    Political, military and economic organization was to be based on German domination,[19] with commercial treaties imposed on countries like Poland and Ukraine. It was believed that the German working classes could be appeased by German politicians through the economic benefits of territorial annexation, settlement of Germans in Central and Eastern Europe and exploitation of conquered countries for the material benefit of Germany.[20] Partial realization of these plans was reflected in the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, where guarantees of economic and military domination over Ukraine by Germany were laid out.[21] . “

    There was other information in Dorothy Thompson’s May 31, 1940 article in the Herald Tribune. The article stated:

    “Germany’s plan is to make a customs union of Europe, with complete financial and economic control centered in Berlin. This will create at once the largest free trade area and the largest planned economy in the world. In western Europe alone-Russia is another chapter-there unify of 400,000,000 persons, skilled, civilized, white men, with a high standard of living. To these will be addled the resources of the British, French, Dutch and Belgian empires. These will be pooled, in the name of Europa Germanica.”…

    “The Germans count upon political power following economic power, and not vice versa.”…

    “The Nazification of all countries will be accomplished by economic pressure. In all countries contacts have been established long ago with sympathetic business men and industrialists, and those who have been openly hostile will be punished by boycott. The German occupation armies.”…

    “As far as the United States is concerned, the planners of the World Germanica laugh off the idea of any armed invasion. They say that it will be completely unnecessary to take military action against the United States in order to force it to play ball with this system. They point out that there will be no other foreign market for the raw materials and agricultural products of the United States, since these can hardly be sold in the Western Hemisphere. Here, as in every other country, they have established relations with numerous industries and commercial organizations, to whom they will offer advantages in co-operation with Germany. Certain conditions will have to be met. No orders will be taken from or given by personalities unfavorably regarded by the Nazis. No advertising contracts will be placed with newspapers directed by or publishing the work of pro-Ally or anti-Nazi editors or writers.”…

    “The German planners predict a stampede of the South to collaborate with this system. This stampede will be fostered and directed by their agents.”…

    “[T]he economic penetration has already been established in all South American countries and in Mexico, and will be accompanied by political ultimatums and propaganda activities.”…

    “To accomplish all this it is necessary to complete a total war against Britain and France.”…

    “The Nazis believe in the system of hostages. They tried it first with the Jews to see whether world-Jewry would buy out its co-religionists. They thus demonstrated that the humanitarian impulses of the world are one of their own most useful weapons”…

    “They argue that the tendency in all democracies demonstrate that workers only want to eat and have work, and care nothing for national matters or for individual liberty. What remnants are left of the pre-Hitlerian epoch myths will be terrorized out of the workers by the Gestapo. “And,” they add, nothing that capitalists will not do, if profitable. Democracies have taught their people, workers or corporation chiefs to believe only money.”…

    “And, finally, only the master the Germans, will be allowed to bear arms. If, however, the United States wants to concur, all armaments be radically reduced.”

    Going back to current events, it is interesting that Great Britain is challenging the power structure of the European Union and is requesting substantive reform – see the article “Cameron’s EU demands: Are they enough to appease europskeptics?” – see:
    http://m.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2015/1110/Cameron-s-EU-demands-Are-they-enough-to-appease-euroskeptics-video?cmpid=ema:nws:Daily%2520Newsletter%2520%2811-10-2015%29&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20151110_Newsletter:%20Daily&utm_term=Daily

    The articles shows how British Prime Minister Cameron wanted more protection for EU members outside the Eurozone, more competition and less bureaucracy, more sovereignty for national parliaments from Brussels mandates, and exemption from the EU commitment to an “ever-closer union.” He also called for restrictions on migrants from other EU nations coming to Britain for work or welfare. The British Prime Minister’s efforts were greeted with some unfavorable commentary “front-page headline of Liberation, a leftist French daily, screamed “Cameron’s blackmail.” Not even an hour after he wrapped up his talk at the think tank Chatham House in central London, the EU was calling some of the measures “highly problematic” and even “illegal.”

    Another interesting parallel involves Israel where, the German dominated EU took an anti-Israeli stance when it established labelling requirements, which sets the stage for a boycott of Israeli goods manufactured in Israeli Settlements located in occupied portions of Palestine – see the BBC article “EU sets guidelines on labelling Israeli settlement goods” -see:
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34786607

    The articles states: “The EU considers settlements built on territories occupied by Israel in 1967 to be illegal under international law, but Israel disputes this position….The EU says settlements constitute an obstacle to peace and threaten to make a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict impossible… Israel’s economy ministry estimates that the impact of Wednesday’s decision will be about $50m a year, according to Reuters…

    “We regret that the EU has chosen, for political reasons, to take such an exceptional and discriminatory step, inspired by the boycott movement, particularly at this time, when Israel is confronting a wave of terrorism targeting any and all of its citizens,” Israel’s foreign ministry said, referring to a recent wave of stabbings of Israelis by Palestinians.

    “It is puzzling and even irritating that the EU chooses to apply a double standard concerning Israel, while ignoring that there are over 200 other territorial disputes worldwide.”

    The EU says Israel’s occupation means the situation in the Palestinian territories is considered not comparable to other territories like Cyprus or Western Sahara.
    The Israeli foreign ministry also said product labelling would not advance the peace process, but “strengthen the radical elements advocating a boycott against Israel and denying Israel’s right to exist”.

    [11] A history of eastern Europe: crisis and change Robert Bideleux,Ian Jeffries, page 12,Routledge 1998
    [12] The Challenge of Hegemony: Grand Strategy, Trade, and Domestic Politics Steven E. Lobell, page 52, University of Michigan Press
    [13] “War and Punishment: The Causes of War Termination and the First World War” Hein Erich Goemans, Princeton University, page 116 Press 2000
    [14\ The First World War, 1914-1918 Gerd Hardach, page 235 University of California Press 1981…
    [18] Imanuel Geiss”Tzw. polski pas graniczny 1914-1918″. Warszawa 1964
    [19 ] Barry Hayes, Bismarck and Mitteleuropa, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1994, p. 16
    [20] “War and Punishment: The Causes of War Termination and the First World War” Hein Erich Goemans, page 115, Princeton University Press 2000
    [21]”Coalition Warfare: An Uneasy Accord”.Roy Arnold Prete, Keith Neilson 1983 Wilfrid Laurier University Press

    Posted by Anon | January 28, 2016, 7:14 pm

Post a comment