letter to the times, 1938

[Ken Gargett]

thought that this was really interesting.

September 28, 1938

To the editor of The Times

Sir, -Since the immediate future of Europe appears to depend largely on Herr Hitler's intentions, it is most important that we should have a clear knowledge of exactly what those intentions are. The present crisis has shown that to be forewarned is not necessarily to be forearmed, but it may be argued that forearming did not appear necessary when the warning was so incredible. Doubts are dispelled, and it may now be of interest to your readers to learn that exact details of the National-Socialist Party Programme as circularized to members of the party and others on February 24 1920, four years before "Mein Kampf" was written.

The original 25 points were issued from Munich in the form of a circular which is now extremely rare. I know of only one other copy, in the Nazi archives at the Brown House.

This is a literal translation, from an original copy in m possession, of the preamble and the first three points:-

"The Programme of the German Workers' Party is a 'Time-Programme' (Zeit-Program). The Leaders will abstain from setting up new goals, after the attainment of the goals set out in the Programme, with the sole object of permitting the continued existence of the Party by artificially stimulating the appetite of the Masses.
 

1. We demand the union of all Germans within the Greater-Germany on the grounds of the right of peoples to self-determination.
2. We demand equality of rights for the German people vis-a-vis other nations, and repeal of the Peace Treaties of Versailles an dSt. Germain.
3. We demand land and soil (colonies) for the feeding of our people and the emigration of our surplus population.

The remaining 22 points deal with racial questions and other internal matters, and, although they do not concern the purpose of this letter, it is remarkable with what minute fidelity each of these 22 points has been adhered to. One might say with justice that only the above three points remain to be carried out to the letter.

If we finally agree, then, that Herr Hitler means what he says, we must also be clear in our minds whether there is anything in the above three points which runs contrary to England's interests, and, if so, whether we are prepared to shed Europe's blood and our own in preventing their attainment. A possible answer would be that we have no great objection to Germany regaining her pre-War strength so long as we can be sure that she will not use that strength as she did in 1914, or, in other words, that those three points represent the absolute limit of Germany's territorial ambition.

It would therefore seem that there will be no peace, no return of prosperity, and no happiness in Europe until and England and France agree to the fulfilment of Herr Hitler's stated programme in exchange for a binding disarmament pact, and the guarantee of the traditional protective alliances of the signatory Powers.

If and when Herr Hitler refuses a settlement on these lines - if, that is to say, it is made clear that Germany already aims once again at world domination by aggression - then it will be time to organize this country on a wartime basis and announce to Germany that we shall fight at the final act of aggression against our fundamental treaty of obligations.

Above all, should it be necessary to make this announcement, we must hope that the basic issues will be made crystal clear to the world in the immediate future. The policy of keeping our hands free in Europe has confused the German nation and bewildered our own. Moral issues must be disentangled from the instinct of self-preservation, and we must state what we would fight for and why.

Many people must hope that Mr. Chamberlain will finally deal fully with this broader aspect of the present crisis when he addresses Parliament, as it is to be presumed that it has been fully discussed in his talks with Herr Hitler. I personally hope that if he does not obtain the settlement I have outlined above he will, at any rate, put before Herr Hitler the concrete alternative I mention.

When it is certain that he has done neither then it will be time to turn a reluctant ear either to the dangerous counsels of the slaughter-house brigade or to the bemused vapourings of those who long for the day when England is another Holland and out of the fight for ever.

Yours faithfully,
Ian L. Fleming
22b, Ebury Street SW1

[BuzzArd]

Great read. And insightful.   

[Ken Gargett]

10 minutes ago, BuzzArd said:

Great read. And insightful.   

agreed. suggests ian fleming had a bit more to him than just 007, although that was not a bad contribution to the world. 

[99call]

12 hours ago, Mr. Z said:

Socialism has always been a source of great suffering and evil.

And it always will be.

Do you genuinely think the Nazi's were a Socialist party? 

[Nino]

2 hours ago, 99call said:

Do you genuinely think the Nazi's were a Socialist party? 

Maybe not genuinely, but it was in the official name of the party ....
NSDAP - National Socialist German Workers Party.
In the end shortened to just f###ng Nazis.

The National Socialist German Workers' Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (help·info), abbreviated NSDAP), commonly referred to in English as the Nazi Party (English: /ˈnɑːtsi, ˈnætsi/),^[5] was a far-right political party in Germany that was active between 1920 and 1945, that created and supported the ideology of National Socialism. Its precursor, the German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; DAP), existed from 1919 to 1920.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party

[99call]

2 minutes ago, nino said:

Maybe not genuinely, but it was in the official name of the party ....
NSDAP - National Socialist German Workers Party.
In the end shortened to just f###ng Nazis.

Indeed they did, but this is widely acknowledged to be the birth of how people like Steve Bannon learned their playbook.   I.e. sell a disaffected people a vision of something they are desperate for, then when they offer their support, you go off in a radically different direction......Brexit being a perfect example of this. 

I think it's important that we don't let idiots try and white wash the ill's of right wing movements out of the history books. 

The destruction of failed socialism is there, plainly in the history books,  and we should all rightly criticise it,  but personally, i find it really perverse, that someone is trying to say....."Yeah...Nazi's   those were all commies right?"          wrong!.

It pisses me off, how the history books are just being ripped up, and replaced by either ultra right wing or ultra left wing cliffnotes.    it's all BS.   All of our Grandfathers died for nothing, if people are going to teach their kids nonsense.

[99call]

56 minutes ago, nino said:

that created and supported the ideology of National Socialism. Its precursor, the German Workers' Party (Deutsche Arbeiterpartei; DAP), existed from 1919 to 1920.

Yep, and widely acknowledged to be a calculated vote/support drive, even if there weren't ultimately elected by the people.

[SenorPerfecto]

Let's not confuse things with the "Nazis were socialists" conspiracy theory.

 

Nazis are not socialists (left). They are fascists (right). That is the literal opposite side of the political spectrum.

 

Words mean things.

[99call]

1 minute ago, SenorPerfecto said:

Words mean things.

They do indeed, and the truth

 

[Nino]

2 hours ago, 99call said:

The destruction of failed socialism is there, plainly in the history books,  and we should all rightly criticise it,  but personally, i find it really perverse, that someone is trying to say....."Yeah...Nazi's   those were all commies right?"          wrong!.

It pisses me off, how the history books are just being ripped up, and replaced by either ultra right wing or ultra left wing cliffnotes.    it's all BS.   All of our Grandfathers died for nothing, if people are going to teach their kids nonsense.

100% agree with you.

[Nino]

1 hour ago, SenorPerfecto said:

Nazis are not socialists (left). They are fascists (right). That is the literal opposite side of the political spectrum.

Another 100% agreement.

[CaptainQuintero]

  The futher you go to each extreme on the political spectrum the more each side comes together and you realise it's not linear but circular.

 The Nazi's were not communists, the Bolsheviks were some of the first to go into the camps. They were nationalists who did have socialist policies though, (Hence the translation of the name: German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party) ie guaranteed work and bread paid for with taxes. There is an important point to make that socialism is not communism, for some reason schools don't teach this anymore. Socialism is the redistribution of wealth. The military, schools, police, anything paid for with taxes are all socialised programs.

  The communists of the Soviet Union were extreme left but were also fiercely nationalistic and fascist. 

 At both ends of the spectrum it blurs into one where you're forced to do what you're told at the point of a gun

[99call]

7 minutes ago, CaptainQuintero said:

The Nazi's were not communists, the Bolsheviks were some of the first to go into the camps. They were nationalists who did have socialist policies though, (Hence the translation of the name: German Nationalist Socialist Workers Party) ie guaranteed work and bread paid for with taxes. There is an important point to make that socialism is not communist, for some reason schools don't teach this anymore. Socialism is the redistribution of wealth. The military, schools, police, anything paid for with taxes are all socialised programs

I think it's fairly simple to see the importance of them adopting socialist policies as ,   A, for them to appeal to factions that previously existed in the country, a basic political con job etc  but also B, if the plan was to go on an immediate land grab, I would see seizing and nationalising the goods/infrastructure of a nation, is sort of what you'd have to do anyway in a war effort.        If he ran the country as he did whilst not in wartime, I think you could call parts of their policy socialist.  but during war, surely it's just logistical no?    by this I mean you could frame wartime rationing in Britain as Socialism,  but really it was just necessary management of resources.  

[JamesKPolkEsq]

Nazi ideology did not in principle favour the idea of social welfare. In Mein Kampf, Hitler, writing about the time he had spent living amongst the poor and destitute in Vienna before the first World War, had waxed indignant about the way in which social welfare had encouraged the preservation of the degenerate and the feeble... The Nazi Party frequently condemned the elaborate welfare system that had grown up under the Weimer Republic as bureaucratic, cumbersome, and directed to the wrong ends. 

-Richard Evans, The Third Reich in Power

Please stop parroting nonsense about Nazis being left wing. You damage discourse when you do so.