Hitler’s Declaration of War Against the US

Wednesday, May 29th, 2013

Have you ever read Hitler’s declaration of war against the US? A commenter at Foseti’s asked that, and I immediately realized how odd it is that we don’t read any such primary sources in school.

The declaration goes along with a long speech:

With regard to Germany’s relationship with America, the following should be said:

1. Germany is perhaps the only great power which has never had a colony in either North or South America. Nor has it been otherwise politically active there, apart from the emigration of many millions of Germans with their skills, from which the American continent, and particularly the United States, has only benefited.

2. In the entire history of the development and existence of the United States, the German Reich has never been hostile or even politically unfriendly towards the United States. To the contrary, many Germans have given their lives to defend the USA.

3. The German Reich has never participated in wars against the United States, except when the United States went to war against it in 1917. It did so for reasons that have been thoroughly explained by a commission [a special U.S. Senate investigating committee, 1934-1935, chaired by Sen. Gerald Nye], which president Roosevelt himself established [or rather, endorsed]. This commission to investigate the reasons for America’s entry into the [First World] war clearly established that the United States entered the war in 1917 solely for the capitalist interests of a small group, and that Germany itself had no intention to come into conflict with America.

Furthermore, there are no territorial or political conflicts between the American and German nations that could possibly involve the existence or even the [vital] interests of the United States. The forms of government have always been different. But this cannot be a reason for hostility between different nations, as long as one form of government does not try to interfere with another, outside of its naturally ordained sphere.

America is a republic led by a president with wide-ranging powers of authority. Germany was once ruled by a monarchy with limited authority, and then by a democracy that lacked authority. Today it is a republic of wide-ranging authority. Between these two countries is an ocean. If anything, the differences between capitalist America and Bolshevik Russia, if these terms have any meaning at all, must be more significant than those between an America led by a President and a Germany led by a Führer.

It is a fact that the two historical conflicts between Germany and the United States were stimulated by two Americans, that is, by Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt, although each was inspired by the same forces. History itself has rendered its verdict on Wilson. His name will always be associated with the most base betrayal in history of a pledge [notably, Wilson's "14 points"]. The result was the ruin of national life, not only in the so-called vanquished countries, but among the victors as well. Because of this broken pledge, which alone made possible the imposed Treaty of Versailles [1919], countries were torn apart, cultures were destroyed and the economic life of all was ruined. Today we know that a group of self-serving financiers stood behind Wilson. They used this paralytic professor to lead America into a war from which they hoped to profit. The German nation once believed this man, and had to pay for this trust with political and economic ruin.

After such a bitter experience, why is there now another American president who is determined to incite wars and, above all, to stir up hostility against Germany to the point of war? National Socialism came to power in Germany in the same year [1933] that Roosevelt came to power in the United States. At this point it is important to examine the factors behind the current developments.

First of all, the personal side of things: I understand very well that there is a world of difference between my own outlook on life and attitude, and that of President Roosevelt. Roosevelt came from an extremely wealthy family. By birth and origin he belonged to that class of people that is privileged in a democracy and assured of advancement. I myself was only the child of a small and poor family, and I had to struggle through life by work and effort in spite of immense hardships. As a member of the privileged class, Roosevelt experienced the [First] World War in a position under Wilson’s shadow [as assistant secretary of the Navy]. As a result, he only knew the agreeable consequences of a conflict between nations from which some profited while others lost their lives. During this same period, I lived very differently. I was not one of those who made history or profits, but rather one of those who carried out orders. As an ordinary soldier during those four years, I tried to do my duty in the face of the enemy. Of course, I returned from the war just as poor as when I entered in the fall of 1914. I thus shared my fate with millions of others, while Mr. Roosevelt shared his with the so-called upper ten thousand.

After the war, while Mr. Roosevelt tested his skills in financial speculation in order to profit personally from the inflation, that is, from the misfortune of others, I still lay in a military hospital along with many hundreds of thousands of others. Experienced in business, financially secure and enjoying the patronage of his class, Roosevelt then finally chose a career in politics. During this same period, I struggled as a nameless and unknown man for the rebirth of my nation, which was the victim of the greatest injustice in its entire history.

Two different paths in life! Franklin Roosevelt took power in the United States as the candidate of a thoroughly capitalistic party, which helps those who serve it. When I became the Chancellor of the German Reich, I was the leader of a popular national movement, which I had created myself. The powers that supported Mr. Roosevelt were the same powers I fought against, out of concern for the fate of my people, and out of deepest inner conviction. The “brain trust” that served the new American president was made up of members of the same national group that we fought against in Germany as a parasitical expression of humanity, and which we began to remove from public life.

And yet, we also had something in common: Franklin Roosevelt took control of a country with an economy that had been ruined as a result of democratic influences, and I assumed the leadership of a Reich that was also on the edge of complete ruin, thanks to democracy. There were 13 million unemployed in the United States, while Germany had seven million unemployed and another seven million part-time workers. In both countries, public finances were in chaos, and it seemed that the spreading economic depression could not be stopped.

From then on, things developed in the United States and in the German Reich in such a way that future generations will have no difficulty in making a definitive evaluation of the two different socio-political theories. Whereas the German Reich experienced an enormous improvement in social, economic, cultural and artistic life in just a few years under National Socialist leadership, President Roosevelt was not able to bring about even limited improvements in his own country. This task should have been much easier in the United States, with barely 15 people per square kilometer, as compared to 140 in Germany. If economic prosperity is not possible in that country, it must be the result of either a lack of will by the ruling leadership or the complete incompetence of the men in charge. In just five years, the economic problems were solved in Germany and unemployment was eliminated. During this same period, President Roosevelt enormously increased his country’s national debt, devalued the dollar, further disrupted the economy and maintained the same number of unemployed.

The list of grievances goes on and on.


  1. Matthew Walker says:

    The emphasis on personal history is weirdly reminiscent of a contemporary American leader whose name escapes me at the moment. Not that there’s anything fishy on my tax return that I should worry about.

  2. The reason they don’t let school children read stuff like this is that it makes the bad guys look sane and reasonable. And that messes with The Narrative.

  3. Candide III says:

    The same speech is available in original German text and audio. Somehow I expected Hitler to sound crazy, shrill and unhinged, but he just talks in a normal voice. Hm.

  4. Isegoria says:

    I immediately noticed how easily Hitler transitions from sane and reasonable to insane and unreasonable, and it’s hard to take his sane and reasonable points seriously when he’s ranting about “Jewish and Negroid blood mixture,” or whatever.

  5. Isegoria says:

    We’ve all seen plenty of footage of Hitler ranting, but most of us haven’t seen the hours of him speaking calmly and building up to his rather emotional point — which we can’t understand anyway.

    We of the Internet generation did not invent the rhetorical tool of taking people’s comments out of context.

  6. FNN says:

    “Jewish and Negroid blood mixture”

    Did he ever use that kind of terminology in a public speech? Coincidentally, a week or so ago I was listening to a podcast in which the speaker said that AH never used the terms “master race” or “Aryan superman” in any of his speeches.

  7. Isegoria says:

    Yes, the linked speech mentions “Jewish or Negroid blood mixture”:

    “And from this Europe there have not only been settlements in other parts of the world, but intellectual-spiritual [geistig] and cultural fertilization as well, a fact that anyone realizes who is willing to acknowledge the truth rather than deny it. Thus, it was not England that cultivated the continent, but rather Anglo-Saxon and Norman branches of the Germanic nation that moved from our continent to the [British] island and made possible her development, which is certainly unique in history. In the same way, it was not America that discovered Europe, but the other way around. And all that which America did not get from Europe may seem worthy of admiration to a Jewified mixed race, but Europe regards that merely as symptomatic of decay in artistic and cultural life, the product of Jewish or Negroid blood mixture.”

    He doesn’t mention the Aryan race at all though, now that you mention it.

  8. Jast says:

    Interesting, the YouTube channel with the video is blocked in Germany. The videos themselves are available though.

  9. Zimriel says:

    The “Aryan” theory was a bigger deal in the 1920s when he wrote Mein Kampf. 1941 was almost two decades later. Even Adolf might have been a little embarrassed by then.

  10. Bill says:

    …it’s hard to take his sane and reasonable points seriously when he’s ranting about “Jewish and Negroid blood mixture,” or whatever.

    The “whatever” bringing up the rear is the indicator of a truly questing mind.

  11. FNN says:

    …it’s hard to take his sane and reasonable points seriously when he’s ranting about “Jewish and Negroid blood mixture,” or whatever.

    Aside from that they were both philo-Semitic, how different is this from the writings of Madison Grant and Lothrop Stoddard? Both were mainstream American figures in the 1920s.

  12. Isegoria says:

    While it’s possible to talk sensibly about race, Hitler rarely does, and he often sounds unhinged when he brings up the topic. He sounds especially unhinged to a modern audience, of course.

  13. Sam says:

    Hitler said,”…symptomatic of decay in artistic and cultural life, the product of Jewish or Negroid blood mixture…”

    You say he’s unhinged.

    Jewish people control the vast amount of all media in the U.S. It is their culture for all practical purposes. They believe rap and other such productions they order are a suitable culture. Do you believe this is,”symptomatic of decay in artistic and cultural life” or do you believe this is admirable? Is the present U.S. culture better than that of Nazi Germany?

Leave a Reply