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