By Benito Mussolini
The American journalist David Lawrence wrote a violent indictment in the New York Sun against Roosevelt and Churchill for their policy of unconditional surrender proclaimed at Casablanca. Lawrence says:
"The responsibility for prolonging the war in Europe must fall sharply on Prime Minister Churchill and President Roosevelt. All the warnings over the past two years have continuously shown that the psychological warfare program was badly conducted in Great Britain and the United States; and now the world is witnessing the consequences of that terrible error of assessment. If there were no other way to achieve lasting peace in Europe, then it would be understandable that one would also try utilize that means to serve the Allied cause; but this phase of Roosevelt-Churchill policy is not necessary for victory or peace."After other considerations, the writer concludes:
"We should proclaim a constructive program and propose an economic possibility for the German people."We're not quoting the American writer for the sake of propaganda nor for the purpose of attributing to Lawrence an intention which is not his own. He criticizes Roosevelt and Churchill solely because they have proved grossly clumsy in asking Germany for unconditional surrender, instead of undermining the political position of Hitler and National Socialism with diabolical abilities, thereby giving the German people the impression that its liberty and prosperity would depend on an Allied victory, while a German victory would in reality be the defeat of the German people. This in fact is a propaganda device implemented with much success against the Italian people. But Lawrence forgets that it is not possible to use it against the German people, who will not fall for the same trick a second time. They know very well, by sad experience, how to avoid falling into the traps of these present calamities after having already believed and surrendered to that other charlatan who used to occupy the White House. I am referring to the Quaker Woodrow Wilson. Thus, Lawrence is peddling an old scam as if it were an absolute novelty, a scam which has been relegated for twenty-five years to the jumble and wrecks of the First World War.
Of course, at Casablanca, if Roosevelt and Churchill wanted to do something to save Europe and civilization by devising a fair form of conciliation, they could have done so. If it failed they would have at least earned our moral respect. They are not so full of human and political righteousness so as to waste any opportunity that may arise to gain moral support for themselves. Lawrence believes that the careless decision at Casablanca bears the clear character of criminality, because, in the opinion of the American journalist, the prolongation of the war by two or perhaps three years would be due to this very decision. This statement is most probably true. But making such an accusation against Roosevelt and Churchill is like approaching a thief who is guilty of having murdered a family for the purpose of robbery, but rebuking him for leaving the door open when he left.
However, it is very significant that in American newspapers it is difficult to use such language against the President who is on the verge of death, but he has always been a man of low quality and will remain low quality even if his fellow citizens re-elect him for the fourth time. It is the first step towards the inevitable nemesis. Soon it will be time for someone in the United States and in Great Britain to have the courage to publicly call for Roosevelt and Churchill to sit on the bench of the accused, no longer for prolonging the war, but for wanting it and preparing it.
The documents found in the archives of some countries occupied by German forces, which will be made public, demonstrate that Roosevelt began his methodical work of preparing the war at least as early as 1937, galvanizing the elderly English conservatism to aggression, undermining the senile restlessness of France, stirring up the impatience and megalomania of small European states. For his part, Churchill, aside from his poisonous political action against any possibility of distension and continental agreement, until 1925, in a not-forgotten apocalyptic vision of a future world war, envisioned a war of extermination conducted above all against the civilian populations. Before being called to the high place of responsibility he now occupies, he was already praying for this kind of war, the kind which he preferred and which he has duly implemented with undeniable consistency.
War criminal number one (Roosevelt) and number two (Churchill) never fail to remind the world that they are the bishops of international justice, a kind of two-faced archangel Gabriel commissioned by God Almighty to bring down his tremendous sword against the heads of those men whom they regard as chiefly responsible for this war. The Anglo-Saxons are a people of poor pattern: they repeat themselves with an unbearably tedious cadence. They excuse it by always attributing the true concept of justice to themselves: because it comes directly from the supreme wisdom of God, which is unique, immutable, eternal; and they are the sole depositories. This concept of "justice" grants the Anglo-Saxons—and only the Anglo-Saxons—the right to life, power and wealth; meanwhile the other peoples of the world, according to Providential design, are preordained to serve them. If they rebel and do not serve, then it is as if they refuse to obey God and rebel against divine will itself; and therefore such peoples must be punished without concern or pity. For this very "crime" Napoleon was relegated to Saint Helena and Wilhelm II was placed under house arrest in a Dutch castle.
You see, these privileges apply only to the English and the Americans; it is not permissible for the leaders of other nations to defend their people, or to fight for living space, work and prosperity. Such a crime—according to them—should be answered not only by the judge of history, which the Anglo-Saxons do not trust (and with good reason!), but before a tribunal of men constituted by themselves, who "judge and condemn" the guilty without appeal for the crime of defending their Fatherland and their peoples against Anglo-Saxon invasion and robberies. If there is an authentic delinquent who wanted this war and unleashed it for the triumph of the Masonic Lodge and the Jewish Bank, that man is Franklin Delano Roosevelt; and another authentic delinquent, one who has knowingly and scientifically imprinted a bestial character on this war, one of indiscriminate slaughter and barbaric ruin of all the spiritual values of our civilization, that man is Winston Churchill; yet up until now no one on the Axis side has ever said nor thought that they should be called to stand trial one day to answer for their criminal activity. This inexplicable negligence is equivalent to recognizing that they have the full and legitimate right to do what they have done and are doing, and that "blows are not exchanged by agreement", as Benvenuto Cellini—that quick-handed man—once said.
Unfortunately, we have a different view of justice, but it is dangerous to insist upon it. We could find ourselves in an awkward position of physical inferiority. For once, therefore, we too will accept the Anglo-Saxon legal conception in our international relations. Will will pay our enemies back in their own coin. We too will have to put war criminals on trial, so that those chiefly responsible for this immense catastrophe that bloodied the world for more than five years will have to answer for their dark and bloody acts before a tribunal of men. We agree with London and Washington: no postponement before the judge of history. We are confident that inexorable judgment will weigh on Roosevelt and Churchill; but for the sufferings, miseries and tribulations that they have inflicted upon us, we want to see it with our own eyes, we want to see these two men sitting on the bench of the accused, in the prison of the accused, and it will we, ourselves, who pronounce the sentence of condemnation. In our incurable clemency, we will not exclude the possibility of granting them semi-infirmity of mind at the last minute; in which case, for a certain number of years, we will allow them to be interned in a criminal asylum.
