Falsifiers of history (Historical Survey)

Download 280.49 Kb.
Size280.49 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5

FALSIFIERS of HISTORY (Historical Survey)

[Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1948]
At the end of January the State Department of the United States of America in collaboration with the British and French Foreign Offices published a collection of reports and diary records of Hitler diplomatic officials under the mysterious title: Nazi-Soviet Relations, 1939-1941.
We learn from the preface to the collection that as early as the summer of 1946 the Governments of the U.S.A., Great Britain and France agreed among themselves to publish materials from the archives of the German Foreign Office relating to the period 1918-1945 which had been seized in Germany by the American and British military authorities. It is noteworthy that the materials published in the collection pertain only to the period 1939-1941. The materials relating to the preceding years and in particular to the Munich period, have not been included by the U.S. State Department and thus concealed from the knowledge of the world. This, of course, is not accidental, and was done with a purpose which is quite alien to an objective and honest treatment of historical truth.
In order to provide some manner of justification in the eyes of the public for this unilateral publication of a collection of unverified and arbitrarily chosen records of Hitler officials, the British and American press circulated the story that “the Russians had rejected the proposal of the West to publish jointly a full account of Nazi diplomacy.”
This assertion of British and American circles does not correspond to the facts.
The real facts are as follows. In the summer of 1945, when reports appeared in the foreign press that preparations were being made in England to publish documents captured in Germany, the Soviet Government approached the Government of Great Britain and insisted that Soviet experts participate in a joint examination of the German documents captured by the British and American troops. The Soviet Government held that publication of such documents without common consent was inadmissible. Nor could it assume responsibility for the publication of documents without careful and objective verification; for unless these elementary conditions were observed, publication of the materials could only harm relations between the member states of the anti-Hitler coalition. However, the British Foreign Office declined the Soviet proposal, on the grounds that the Soviet Government had raised the question of exchanging copies of the captured Nazi documents prematurely.
It is likewise known that on September 6, 1945, the American delegation to the Political Directorate of the Control Council in Germany submitted a draft directive on the handling of German archives and documents. This draft provided that a uniform procedure of collecting and keeping archives be instituted all over Germany, and that representatives of members of the United Nations shall have right of access to them. It also provided that the documents might be copied and published. This proposal was examined at four meetings of the Political Directorate, but its further examination was postponed at the request of the British and the Americans on the plea that they had no instructions. And when subsequently the American representative announced that the U.S. Government was preparing a new proposal and requested that the submitted draft be regarded as non-effective, the question was removed from the Political Directorate’s agenda.
Consequently, the allegation that the Soviet Government refused to take part in preparing the publication of the German archive materials is false.
Simultaneously with the publication of the above-mentioned collection, and as though at the wave of a magic wand, a fresh campaign of unrestrained vilification and slander was started in the United States and the countries dependent on it in connection with the non-aggression pact concluded between the U.S.S.R. and Germany in 1939, which it is alleged was directed against the Western Powers.
There can therefore be no doubt as to what was the real purpose of the publication in the U.S.A. of the collection of documents on Soviet-German relations in 1939-1941. It was not to give an objective account of historical developments, but to present a distorted picture of events, to heap lies and slanders an the Soviet Union and to undermine the international influence it enjoys as a staunch and genuinely democratic fighter against aggressive and anti-democratic forces.
This treacherous behaviour is in conformity with the attitude toward inter-allied relations typical of the ruling circles of the Anglo-American countries: instead of honest and sincere relations between allies, instead of mutual confidence and support, a policy is pursued of using every means, down to and including calumny, for the purpose of weakening one’s ally, exploiting him in one’s own narrow and selfish interest and strengthening one’s own position at his expense.
Nor must the fact be lost sight of that the ruling circles of the U.S.A. are endeavouring by their slanderous campaign against the U.S.S.R. to undermine the influence of the progressive elements in their own country who advocate improvement of relations with the U.S.S.R. This blow at the progressive elements in the U.S.A. is undoubtedly designed to weaken their influence in view of the presidential elections to be held in the autumn of this year.
The collection is crammed with documents concocted by Nazi diplomatic officials in the seclusion of German diplomatic chancelleries. This fact alone should have acted as a restraint against the unilateral use and publication of documents which by their nature are one-sided and tendentious, recount events from the standpoint of the Hitler Government and are intended to present them in a light favourable to the Hitlerites. It was precisely for this reason that the Soviet Government was opposed to the unilateral publication of the captured German documents without thorough and joint preliminary verification. Even the French government news agency France Presse had to admit that the manner of publication of the materials by the three Governments without the knowledge of the Soviet Union was “not quite in accord with normal diplomatic procedure.”
Nevertheless, the British Government did not agree with this. The American, British and French Governments have taken the step of unilaterally publishing the German documents, and have not stopped at falsifying history in their attempt to slander the Soviet Union, which bore the main brunt of the struggle against Hitler aggression.
By doing so, these Governments have assumed full responsibility for the consequences of this unilateral action.
In view of this, the Soviet Government feels itself entitled, in its turn, to make public the secret documents concerning the relations between Hitler Germany and the Governments of Great Britain, France and the U.S.A. which fell into its hands, and which the above three Governments have concealed from the public. They have concealed these documents; they do not want to publish them. But we believe that, after all that has taken place, these documents should be made public, so that historical truth may be re-established.
The Soviet Government possesses important documents captured by the Soviet troops at the time of the defeat of Hitler Germany, the publication of which will help to throw true light on the preparation and development of Hitler’s aggression and the Second World War.
This too is the purpose of the present historical survey, Falsifiers of History, published by the Soviet Information Bureau of the Council of Ministers of the U.S.S.R.
The secret documents pertaining to this subject will be published shortly.

How the Preparations for German Aggression Began
The American falsifiers and their British and French abettors are trying to create the impression that the preparations for German aggression which developed into the Second World War began in the autumn of 1939. But who nowadays save the most naïve who are prepared to believe any sensational hoax will swallow this? Who does not know that Germany began preparing for war immediately after Hitler’s advent to power? Who does not know, moreover, that the Hitler regime was set up by the German monopolists with the full approval of the ruling camp in Britain, France and the United States?
In order to prepare for war and to provide herself with up-to-date armament, Germany had to restore and develop her heavy industry and, first and foremost, the metallurgical and war industries of the Ruhr. After her defeat in the first imperialist war, and weighed down moreover by the yoke of the Versailles Treaty, Germany could not have accomplished this in a short space of time with her own unaided resources. In this German imperialism received powerful assistance from the United States of America.
Who does not know that in the post-Versailles period American banks and trusts, with the full consent of their Government, made investments in the German economy and granted Germany credits running into billions of dollars, which were spent on the reconstruction and development of her war-industrial potential?
It is general knowledge that a whole series of measures were taken in the post-Versailles period to reconstruct Germany’s heavy industry and, in particular, her war-industrial potential. Immense assistance was rendered in this by the Dawes Reparations Plan, by means of which the U.S.A. and Great Britain planned to make German industry dependent upon American and British monopolies. The Dawes Plan cleared the way for a powerful influx and infiltration of foreign, chiefly American, capital into German industry. The result was that already in 1925 the German economy began to expand, consequent upon an intensive process of re-equipment of her production facilities. At the same time her exports rose sharply, and by 1927 reached the level of 1913, while in the case of finished goods they even surpassed that level by 12 per cent (at 1913 prices). In the six years 1924-1929, the influx of foreign capital into Germany totalled more than 10-15 billion Reichsmarks in long-term investments and more than 6 billion Reichsmarks in short-term investments. According to some authorities, the volume of capital investments was considerably higher. This led to a colossal growth of Germany’s economic and, in particular, her war potential. American investments played the leading part, amounting to no less than 70 per cent of the total long-term loans.
The role played by the American monopolies, headed by the duPont, Morgan, Rockefeller, Lamont and other industrial baronial families, in financing German heavy industry and establishing the closest ties between American and German industry is well known. The leading American monopolies had intimate connections with German heavy industrial, armament and banking concerns. DuPont de Nemours, the leading American chemical concern and one of the biggest shareholders in General Motors, and the British Imperial Chemical Industries maintained close industrial relations with the German chemical concern I. G. Farbenindustrie, with which in 1926 they concluded a cartel agreement for the ‘division of the world powder market. Before the war the president of Robin and Haas, Philadelphia (U.S.A.), was a partner of the head of the same company in Darmstadt (Germany). Incidentally, the former director of this concern, Rudolf Muller, is now active in Bizonia and is a prominent figure in the leading circles of the Christian Democratic Union. The German capitalist Schmitz, president of I. G. Farbenindustrie and a member of the board of the Deutsche Bank, from 1931 to 1939 controlled the General Dyestuffs Corporation, an American firm. After the Munich conference (1938), American Standard Oil signed a contract with I. G. Farbenindustrie, under which the latter was given a share in the profits from the production of aviation petrol in the United States, in return for which it willingly agreed to cease exporting from Germany its own synthetic petrol, which Germany was stocking for war purposes.
Such connections are not only typical of the American capitalist monopolies. Extremely close economic relations, of not only commercial but also military significance, existed on the outbreak of the war, between the Federation of British Industries and the German Reichs-Industrie group. In 1939, representatives of these two monopolist associations issued a joint statement in Düsseldorf which said in part that the purpose of the agreement was “to insure the fullest possible co-operation between the industrial systems of their respective countries.” And this was at the time when Hitler Germany had swallowed Czechoslovakia! No wonder the London Economist wrote in this connection: “Is not there something in the Düsseldorf air that makes reasonable men lose their senses?” 1
The Schröder bank, in which a leading part was played by the German steel trust Vereinigte Stahlwerke A. G., organised by Stinnes, Thyssen and other captains of Ruhr industry with headquarters in New York and London, furnishes a typical example of the close interlocking of American and German, as well as British, capital. Allen Dulles, director of the J. Henry Schröder Banking Corporation in New York, which represented the Schröder interests in London, Cologne and Hamburg, played a leading role in the affairs of this bank. An outstanding role in the New York branch of the Schröder bank was played by the law firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, headed by John Foster Dulles, now Mr. Marshall’s chief adviser, and closely connected with the Rockefeller world oil trust, Standard Oil, as well as with the Chase National, the biggest bank in America, which made enormous investments in German industry.
Richard Sasuly, in a book published in New York in 1947, stresses the fact that no sooner had inflation in Germany in the post-Versailles period been checked and the Reichsmark had gained stability, than a regular torrent of foreign loans poured into Germany. Between 1924 and 1930 Germany’s foreign debt increased by over 30 billion Reichsmarks.
With the help of foreign, chiefly American, capital, German industry, especially the Vereinigte Stahlwerke A. G., was extensively reconstructed and modernised. Some of the loans were granted directly to the companies which played a leading part in the re-armament. 2
Along with the Anglo-German-American Schröder bank, a leading part in financing the Vereinigte Stahlwerke A. G. in that period was played by Dillon, Read & Co., one of the biggest New York banks, of which the present Secretary of Defence, Forrestal, was a director for a number of years. 3
It was this golden rain of American dollars that fertilised the heavy industry, and in particular the war industry, of Hitler Germany. It was the billions of American dollars invested by overseas monopolies in the war economy of Hitler Germany that rebuilt Germany’s war potential and placed in the hands of the Hitler regime the weapons it needed for its aggression.
With the financial support chiefly of the American monopolies, Germany within a short period rebuilt a powerful war industry capable of producing enormous quantities of first-rate weapons, many thousands of tanks, aircraft, guns, naval ships of latest design and other armaments.
All this the falsifiers of history would now like to forget in their desire to evade responsibility for their policy, a policy which armed Hitler aggression, unleashed the Second World War, and led to a military holocaust without parallel in history which took a toll of millions upon millions of human lives.
Therefore, it must not be forgotten that the first and foremost prerequisite of Hitler aggression was provided by the resurrection and modernisation of Germany’s heavy and war industry, and that this was only made possible by the direct and extensive financial support rendered by the ruling circles of the United States of America.
But this is not all.
Another decisive factor which helped to unleash Hitler aggression was the policy of the ruling circles of Britain and France known as the “appeasement” of Hitler Germany, the policy of renouncing collective security. It should now be clear to everyone that it was precisely this policy of the British and French ruling circles, their renunciation of collective security, their refusal to resist German aggression, their compliance with Hitler Germany’s aggressive demands, that led to the Second World War.
Let us turn to the facts.
In 1933, soon after Hitler came to power, as a result of the efforts of the British and the French Governments a Pact of Accord and Co-operation was signed in Rome by four powers — Great Britain, Germany, France and Italy. This pact signified a compact between the British and French Governments and German and Italian fascism, which even at that time made no concealment of its aggressive intentions. The pact with the fascist states furthermore signified a renunciation of the policy of strengthening the united front of the peace-loving powers against the aggressive states. At that very time the Disarmament Conference was discussing the Soviet proposal for the conclusion of a non-aggression pact and a pact defining an aggressor. By coming to terms with Germany and Italy behind the backs of other powers taking part in the conference, Great Britain and France dealt a blow to the cause of peace and security of nations.
Soon after, in 1934, Britain and France helped Hitler to take advantage of the hostile attitude toward the U.S.S.R. of their allies, the gentry of Poland, the result of which was the conclusion of the German-Polish non-aggression pact, which was an important stage in the preparation of German aggression. Hitler needed this pact as a means of disrupting the ranks of the adherents of collective security and as an example to show that what Europe needed was not collective security but bilateral agreements. This enabled the German aggressor to decide for himself with whom and when to conclude agreements, and whom and when to attack. The German-Polish pact undoubtedly constituted the first serious breach in the edifice of collective security.
Hitler, now grown bold, began to take open measures to rebuild Germany’s armed forces, without encountering any opposition from the rulers of Britain and France. On the contrary, soon after, in 1935, a naval agreement between Britain and Germany was concluded in London, where Ribbentrop had arrived for this purpose. Under this agreement Great Britain consented to the restoration of Germany’s naval forces to a strength almost equal to that of the French navy. In addition, Hitler obtained the right to build submarines to an aggregate tonnage equal to 45 per cent of the British submarine fleet. During this same period Hitler Germany also took unilateral actions aimed at abolishing all other restrictions on the growth of Germany’s armed forces imposed by the Treaty of Versailles. These actions encountered no opposition on the part of Britain, France and the U.S.A.
The appetites of the fascist aggressors grew by leaps and bounds, with the manifest acquiescence of the U.S.A., Great Britain and France. It was certainly not accidental that at that time Germany and Italy got away so easily with their armed interventions in Ethiopia and Spain.
The Soviet Union alone consistently and firmly pursued a policy of peace, championing the principles of equality and independence in the case of Ethiopia, which was moreover a member of the League of Nations, and the right of the lawful Republican Government of Spain to receive support from the democratic countries against the German and Italian intervention. Referring, at the session of the Central Executive Committee of the U.S.S.R. on January 10, 1936, to Italy’s attack on Ethiopia, V. M. Molotov said:
The Soviet Union has demonstrated in the League of Nations its fidelity to this principle, the principle of the political independence and national equality of all states, in the case of one of the small countries — Ethiopia. The Soviet Union has also taken advantage of its membership of the League of Nations to put into practice its policy toward an imperialist aggressor.” 4
V. M. Molotov further said:
the Italo-Ethiopian war shows that the threat of a world war is growing and is steadily spreading over Europe.” 5
What were the Governments of the U.S.A., Great Britain and France doing at a time when the fascist bandits were growing ever more brazen in the treatment of their victims? They did not so much as lift a finger to curb the German and Italian aggressors, to defend the outraged rights of nations, to preserve peace and to halt an impending second world war.
The Soviet Union alone was doing everything possible to block the fascist aggressors. The Soviet Union was the initiator and champion of collective security. As early as February 6, 1933, the Soviet representative in the General Commission on Disarmament, M. M. Litvinov, proposed that a declaration be adopted defining aggression and an aggressor. In proposing that a definition be given of an aggressor, the Soviet Union held that it was necessary in the interest of general security, and in order to facilitate agreement being reached for a maximum reduction of armaments, to define the term “aggression” with the utmost possible precision, so as to “forestall every pretext for its justification.” But the conference, acting under the direction of Britain and France, rejected this proposal — to the advantage of German aggression.
Everybody knows what a persistent and prolonged struggle was waged by the Soviet Union and by its delegation to the League of Nations, headed by M. M. Litvinov, to maintain and strengthen collective security. Throughout the whole pre-war period the Soviet delegation upheld the principle of collective security in the League of Nations, raising its voice in defence of this principle at practically every session and in practically every commission of the League. But, as we know, the voice of the Soviet delegation was a voice crying in the wilderness. The whole world is familiar with the proposals concerning measures for the strengthening of collective security which, on August 30, 1936, the Soviet delegation, acting on the instructions of the Soviet Government, addressed to Mr. Avenol, Secretary General of the League of Nations, with the request that they be discussed by the League. But it is also known that these proposals were consigned to the League’s archives without any action being taken on them.
It was clear that Britain and France, who at the time controlled the League of Nations, rejected collective resistance to German aggression. They rejected collective security because it stood in the way of their newly adopted policy of “appeasing” German aggression, their policy of ceding to Hitler aggression. Naturally, this policy could not but result in the intensification of German aggression, but the ruling British and French circles believed that this was not dangerous because, after satisfying Hitler aggression by concessions in the West, it could then be directed to the East and utilised as a weapon against the U.S.S.R.
In his report to the Eighteenth Congress of the C.P.S.U.(B.), in March 1939, J. V. Stalin, explaining the reasons for the growth of Hitler aggression, said:
The chief reason is that the majority of the non-aggressive countries, particularly England and France, have rejected the policy of collective security, the policy of collective resistance to the aggressors, and have taken up a position of non-intervention, a position of ‘neutrality.’” 6
Neal Stanford, an American journalist, asserts, with the idea of misleading his readers and at the same time vilifying the Soviet Government, that the Soviet Government was opposed to collective security, that M. M. Litvinov was dismissed from the post of People’s Commissar of Foreign Affairs and replaced by V. M. Molotov because he had been pursuing a policy of strengthening collective security. It would be hard to imagine anything more stupid than this fantastic assertion. It should be obvious that M. M. Litvinov was not pursuing his own personal policy but the policy of the Soviet Government. On the other hand, everybody knows how all through the pre-war period the Soviet Government and its representatives, including M. M. Litvinov, fought for collective security.
As regards the appointment of V. M. Molotov to the post of People’s Commissar of Foreign Affairs, it is perfectly clear that in so complex a situation, when the fascist aggressors were preparing a second world war, when Great Britain and France, backed by the United States of America, were directly abetting the aggressors and spurring them on to war against the USSR, it was necessary to have in such a responsible post as that of People’s Commissar of Foreign Affairs a political leader of greater experience and greater popularity in the country than M. M. Litvinov.
The rejection by the Western Powers of a collective security pact was not fortuitous. This was a period when a struggle between two lines in international politics developed. One line strove for peace, for the organisation of collective security and for resistance to aggression by the joint efforts of the peace loving nations. This was the line of the Soviet Union, which consistently and staunchly defended the interests of all peace loving nations, big and small. The other line rejected the organisation of collective security, rejected opposition to aggression, and this inevitably encouraged the fascist countries to intensify their aggressive action and thereby helped to unleash a new war.
The historical truth, as can be seen from all this, is that Hitler aggression became possible, firstly, because the United States helped the Germans to build at fast speed, a war-economic base for German aggression, and thus armed her aggression, and, secondly, because the rejection of collective security by the ruling circles of Britain and France disrupted the ranks of the peace-loving countries, disintegrated their united front against aggression, cleared the way for German aggression and helped Hitler to unleash a second world war.
What would have happened if the United States had not financed Hitler Germany’s heavy industry, and if Britain and France had not rejected collective security, but, on the contrary, had together with the Soviet Union organised collective resistance to German aggression?
Hitler’s aggression would not have had sufficient arms, Hitler’s annexationist policy would have been gripped in the vice of a system of collective security. The Hitlerites chances of successfully unleashing a second world war would have been reduced to a minimum. And if the Hitlerites had nevertheless ventured, in spite of these unfavourable conditions, to unleash a second world war, they would have been defeated in the very first year.
But this unfortunately was not the case, because of the fatal policy pursued by the United States of America, Britain and France throughout the pre-war period.
It is they that are to blame for the Hitlerites being able with some measure of success to unleash a second world war that lasted nearly six years and took a toll of millions of human lives.

Download 280.49 Kb.

Share with your friends:
  1   2   3   4   5

The database is protected by copyright ©essaydocs.org 2023
send message

    Main page