From Peace In Our Time ?, James P. Warburg, 1940

Is it not essential that we realize as fully as we can what . . . a Hitler-Stalin or Stalin-Hitler victory might mean to the world and, more particularly, to ourselves ?

It is not our purpose here to paint a picture of possible horrors, but to appraise as calmly and dispassionately as we can the probably implications of a triumph of the two dictators.

The first and most obvious implication would be the final triumph within Germany of all that Hitler stands for. We know only vaguely what that means. Those of us who have struggled through "Mein Kampf" undoubtedly have some conception of what it means. Those of us who have read Hermann Rauschning's "Revolution of Nihilism" have perhaps a more definite picture. Ernst Wilhelm Meyer, former Counselor at the German Embassy in Washington, has this to say :

"Hitler's victory would be both a defeat for Germany and a defeat for Europe. [ . . . ]"

( pages 22-3 )

 

. . . After the [1914-18] war and the Bolshevik Revolution there was distrust between a Communist Russia and a German Republic which had barely escaped Communism. In spite of this antithesis, however, under the unrelenting pressure from the West, the Weimar Republic secretly trained its officers in Russia [i.e. 'U.S.S.R.']. It was not until Hitler came into power that Communism became Germany's arch-enemy.

Just as Mussolini (once himself practically a Communist) had founded Fascism to save Italy from Bolshevism, so Hitler "saved Germany from Bolshevism" and, at the same time laid the foundations for the Rome-Berlin Axis. But, whereas the Fascism of Mussolini developed into a nationalist dictatorship with more or less old-fashioned imperialist aims, which really was antagonistic to the communist idea of world socialist revolution, Hitler's National Socialism soon developed into a world revolutionary movement of its own. This movement . . . and the Russian Nationalist Communism—developed by Stalin out of Lenin's Internationalist revolution—soon found the way into each other's arms.

Comment : The origins of the Bolshevik development were almost exclusively non-Russian. Lenin was a Tartar, Bronstein (Trotzky) was a Jew. Stalin, initially an 'internationalist' himself, was from Georgia and he could not even speak Russian well.

Was there ever any truth in Stalin's 'nationalism' (or pan-Slavism) — other than using other people's sentiments to his own (and his cronies) crooked purposes ? And antagonising on this one issue the non-Russian or non-Slav people ?

It does not follow . . . that Hitlerism and Stalinism are . . . one and the same thing, even though they appear to have a great many things in common. But, from our point of view, the important thing is that they are both world revolutionary movements ; they both have the avowed purpose of setting up a new world order about which as yet we know very little—except what it seeks to destroy.

And so we must ask ourselves :

Can we [1940] contemplate a Hitler-Stalin or a Stalin-Hitler victory with any degree of assurance that it will leave us in peace to enjoy the things we care about ?

( pages 27-8 )

New York and London : Harper, 1940.

"We shall [?] have World Government . . . The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent."

Comment How can you guarantee that any such world government would not be taken over by some cabal of crooks ?

Are you proposing conquest ? Who would be the would-be conqueror ? — (WPT).

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote/james_warburg_quote_bc08