Hitler's peace moves least known

If Adolf Hitler was one sided into destroying every possible
formidable foe he encountered, one must not forget the many colourful
sides to his character in his quest for world peace.
Killer, dictator, ruthless ruler and what not are the accompanying
labels that go into the mere mention of Hitler. But then come to think
of it who isn't? What of the thousands slaughtered in Central Europe in
the middle ages?
What of the hundreds of thousands killed in the course of conquests
and invasions that comprise a blood splattered world history? This then
is not to justify whatever was Hitler's inadequacies or to hail him as a
paragon of virtue. Yet, let us look at the coin's other side. Very
little is known of Hitler as a man who kept his word.
Collective effort
If the collective effort of those times into disarmament - Hitler's
prime interest, was taken seriously, the world may have chartered a
different course.
Signing the 1919 treaty of Versailles intended as a collective effort
to destroy every conceivable weapon of destruction, he suffered a sense
of intense 'let down' when other nations secretly resorted to increasing
their stockpile, letting him destroy all what was in Germany's defence.
All her heavy artillery and world war tanks Hitler destroyed to
comply with the Treaty of Versailles. In realistic terms to fall in line
with the treaty's collectiveness, all nations party to this accord
should have in the same vain and force of licensing it, implemented it
to the very letter which was not to be.
Spiritual property
The US as is always the case, led this insincere collaboration under
Woodrow Wilson who pulled the wool over Hitler's eyes with Hitler
himself being morally marooned.
Utterly disillusioned, cut up and so very frustrated, he made a very
poignant pronouncement applicable even today, "The present day idea of
collective co-operation among nations is essentially the spiritual
property of Woodrow Wilson".
That was Hitler's intellectual confrontation with a moral shortfall.
Hitler surely was, by this utterance, implying the lack of equity in
this whole exercise of integrity and wholesomeness which in itself
created and fostered international chaos. Had collective effort of the
times collaborated with Hitler in his quest for worldwide disarmament,
world peace would certainly have been a reality.
Burden of disarmament
On the topics of disarmament and equity, Hitler strikes compatibility
with British Prime Minister Clment Attlee. Addressing the 1941
International Labour Organisation Conference, Attlee insisted, "It is
certain that until the crushing burden of disarmament throughout the
world is lifted from the back of the people, they cannot enjoy the
maximum social being.
We cannot build the city of our desire under the constant menace of
aggression. Freedom from fear and freedom from want must be sought
together."
Citing the Atlantic Charter's equality of access to trade and raw
material, labour standards, economic advancement and social security,
Attlee reiterated that wars do not enrich but impoverish the world and
bold statesmanship will be needed if we were to repair the ravages of
war and to ensure to all the highest possible measure of labour
standards, economic advancement and social security to which the
Atlantic Charter looks forward.
Also President Hoover's 'Hoover Plan in reducing armaments - naval
and military, the abolition of lethal weapons and bombing aircraft got
the support of Italy, Russia, Germany and the smaller nations - those
that held back being Britain and France.
The British public were supportive while the cabinet remained
divided. Baldwin was defeated by a narrow margin ending Hoover's grand
plans into world peace - the end result being a fragmented league of
nations culminating in the outbreak of World War II and Hitler's rise to
power.
Accumulation and power
If these were great men's peace initiatives, what made world powers
back track the peace agenda? Why then was Hitler to historians a brutal
guy? Why not those backtrackers to peace equally or rather more brutal?
Why then are those that conquered a quarter of the world and plundered
its wealth looked at as virtuous by these historians? If means must
justify ends, what were the means that led to 'virtuous ends' of wealth
accumulation and power?
Continuing his address Hitler asks, "If the world says today that the
nations must be divided into virtuous and non-virtuous nations and that
the English and French belong to first class and Germans and Italians
belong to the non-virtuous, we can only answer the judgement. Whether a
people are virtuous or not can hardly be passed by humans.
That should be left to God. Perhaps the same British statesman would
retort, 'God has passed the verdict already because he presented the
virtuous nations with one quarter of the world and he took everything
away from the non-virtuous.
The question is 'By what means have virtuous nations obtained for
themselves all that wealth. And one must answer: "They did not apply
virtuous methods. As Hitler himself said, addressing a meeting at
Wilhelmshaven in 1939.
"What of the blood splattered history of the European continent for
three hundred years. France, Britain, Austria, Poland, Italy and so on
with their political passions and wealth aggrandizement was into much
blood letting."
Yet, only Adolf Hitler is projected as brutal.
Politicising personalities and events is all part of politicising
history - be it at international or national level.
Nothing new anyway in a world where the morally deviant
socio/political/economic order is projected as just and fair.
[email protected]
|