G.L-W.: Documents, Treaties, Acts & Essays

A Compilation of Documents, Treaties, Acts, Agreements, Quotes etc. mainly pertaining to Constitution, EU etc.

#GD006* – EWG Part 06

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 17/10/2009

Europaische WirtschaftsGemeinschaft

BEING in Translation:

EUropean Economic Community

Von:

ReichsWirtschaftMinister u. President der Deutschen ReichsBank Funk;

Professor Dr. Jecht, Berlin; Professor Dr. Woermann, Halle;

Dr. Reithinger, Berlin; MinisterialDirektor Dr. Benning, Berlin;

Gesandter Dr. Clodius, Berlin, und GauWirtschaftsBerater Professor

Dr. Hunke, Berlin

Mit einer EinFuhrung von:

GauWirtschaftsBerater Professor Dr. Heinrich Hunke

President des Vereins Berliner Kaufleute und Industrieller

HerausGeGeben von dem

Verein Berliner Kaufleute und der Wirtschafts – HochSchule

Und Industrieller Berlin

Published

BERLIN 1942
Second edition 1943

Haude & Spenesche VerlagsBuchHandlung Max Paschke

——————————————————————————————————————————

To assist non Germans, reading the above, certain letters have been capitalised for convenience ONLY

Pamphlet #06

Europaische WirtschaftsGemeinschaft

BEING in Translation:

EUropean Economic Community

Von:

ReichsWirtschaftMinister u. President der Deutschen ReichsBank Funk;

Professor Dr. Jecht, Berlin; Professor Dr. Woermann, Halle;

Dr. Reithinger, Berlin; MinisterialDirektor Dr. Benning, Berlin;

Gesandter Dr. Clodius, Berlin, und GauWirtschaftsBerater Professor

Dr. Hunke, Berlin

Mit einer EinFuhrung von:

GauWirtschaftsBerater Professor Dr. Heinrich Hunke

President des Vereins Berliner Kaufleute und Industrieller

HerausGeGeben von dem

Verein Berliner Kaufleute und der Wirtschafts – HochSchule

Und Industrieller Berlin

Published

BERLIN 1942
Second edition

1943

Haude & Spenesche VerlagsBuchHandlung Max Paschke

——————————————————————————————————————————

To assist non Germans, reading the above, certain letters have been capitalised for convenience ONLY

Pamphlet #06
Being the SIXTH of a series of Pamphlets being published on the internet at: http://www.SilentMajority.co.UK/EUroRealist/Germany1942

Greg Lance-Watkins, who has overseen this project for SilentMajority over the last few years would like to thank ALL those who have helped in tracking down the original full text in German, and the short term acquisition thereof, for photocopying., Also for the lengthy process of accurate translation and independent checking of the translation work.

The original copy is available for inspection at Glance Back Books in Chepstow.

The final pamphlet in the series will contain ALL the maps and relevant charts, together with a brief summary of the document.

The European Economic Community

Mr. Funk, the Reich’s Economic Minister and President of the German Reichsbank

Professor Dr. Jecht, Berlin

Professor Dr. Woermann, Halle

Dr. Reithinger, Berlin, Ministerial Director

Dr. Beisiegel, Berlin

Secretary of State Königs, Berlin

Director Dr. Benning, Berlin

Ambassador Dr. Clodius, Berlin and Economics Committee Advisor

Professor Dr. Hunke, Berlin

With an introduction by

Economics Committee Advisor, Professor Dr. Heinrich Hunke, President of the Society of Berlin Industry and Commerce

Issued by

The Society of Berlin Industry and Commerce and the Berlin School of Economics

Second Revised Edition (Berlin 1943)

Haude and Spenersche Publishing House Max Paschke

Preface to the First and Second Edition

This text contains the lectures presented under the title “The European Economic Community” by the Society of Berlin Industry and Commerce at the start of 1942 in conjunction with the Economic Advisor to the Berlin Committee of the NSDAP and The Chamber of Trade and Industry. The order of lectures was as follows:

· Walter Funk, Reichs Economic Minister and President of the Reichsbank:

“The Economic Face of the New Europe”

· Dr. Horst Jecht, Professor at The Berlin School of Economics:

“Developments towards the European Economic Community”

· Dr. Emil Woermann, Professor at Halle University:

“European Agriculture”

· Dr. Anton Reithinger, Director of the Economics Department of I.G. Farbenindustrie A.G., Berlin:

“The European Industrial Economy”

· Dr. Philipp Beisiegel, Ministerial Director of the Reich’s Labour Ministry:

“The Deployment of Labour in Europe”

· Gustav Koenigs, Secretary of State, Berlin:

“Questions About European Transport”

· Dr. Bernhard Benning, Director of the Reich’s Credit Company, Berlin:

“Questions About Europe’s Currency”

· Dr. Carl Clodius, Ambassador of the Foreign Office:

“European Trade and Economic Agreements’’

· Professor Dr. Heinrich Hunke, Economic Committee Advisor of the NSDAP, President of Germany’s Economic Publicity Agency and the Berlin Society of Industry and Commerce:

“The Basic Question: Europe – Geographical Concept or Political Fact?”

The lectures met with considerable interest and very strong agreement. On account of this, we feel we should make them available to a wider circle of people.

Berlin, September 1942

The Society of Berlin’s Trade and Industry – The President: Professor Dr. Heinrich Hunke, Advisor to the Economics Committee

The Berlin School of Economics – The Rector: Dr. Edwin Fels, Professor of Geography

Index
Page
Preface

2

Hunke
Introduction 8

The Discussion So Far and its Results
8

Economic Practice
9

Problems Related to Economic Community of Continental Europe
10

PAMPHLET #01

Funk
The Economic Face of the New Europe
15

Real and False Economic Freedom 15

Co-operation in Continental Europe
18

Europe’s Resources and Completion
20

Directing of the Economy by the State and Work

between the States of the Community
22

The Movement of Payments between the States and European Currency Issues
24

Securing the Area and Economy of Europe
27

The Will for Co-operation in the Economic Community
28

PAMPHLET #02

Jecht
Developments towards the European Economic Community
30

The European Economic Community and its Enlargement 30

The Problem of the European Economic Area in Late Antiquity and
the Middle Ages
31

Recent Changes to the Problem of the Area of Europe
33

The Formation of the Nations and Independent Economies
33

Overseas Expansion and its Consequences for Europe
34

The Release of England from the Continent and the Formation of the

“Free Global Economy”
35

Europe’s Economic New Order: The Present Task
37

Collapse of the Previous World Economy
38

Means and Objectives of the European Economic Community
39

Outlook
41

PAMPHLET #03

Woermann
European Agriculture
42

The Development of Agricultural Enterprises and

the Structure of Europe’s Food Economy
42

The Formation of the Division of Labour in World Agriculture
47

Production Increase in Germany and Italy
49

The Supply Situation under the Influence of Economic Restrictions and Change
50

Political Consequences for Production
52

Possibilities of Increasing Europe’s Food Production
53

PAMPHLET #04

Reithinger
The European Industrial Economy
59

The Development of Industry in the 19th Century
59

Stages of Technical and Economic Development
60

Socio-Political Effects
60

The Loss of Europe’s Hegemony in the World War
61

The Transition to State Direction and Planning
62

New Europe and its Shared Features
64

Regional Differences in Europe
66

The Major Powers at War – A Comparison of their Capabilities
68

PAMPHLET #05

Beisiegel
The Deployment of Labour in Europe
71

Population Density, Number and Structure of the Employed
71

People – The Wealth of Europe
72

Worker Exchange on the Basis of Inter-State Agreements
75

Adaptation of the Organisation for Labour Deployment
78

Employer Action and Order Switching
79

PAMPHLET #06

Koenigs
Questions about European Transport
81

“Technical Unity” in the Railway System
82

The Magna Carta of Europe’s Internal Riverboat Traffic
84

Motorways’ Contribution to the European Transport Community
87

Community Work in Shipping
88

Joint Work in Air Traffic
89

PAMPHLET #07

Benning
Questions about Europe’s Currency
91

Currency’s Two Sides
91

The Internal Economic Situation of Europe’s Currencies
92

Managing Foreign Exchange and Bilateral Settlements
92

Development of Multi-Lateral Settlements
94

The Problem of the Clearing Balances
95

Adjustment of Europe’s Exchange Rates
96

Future Formation of the European Currency System
97

Europe’s Future Currency Relationship to the Currencies of Other Major Nations
99

What about Gold?
100

The European Currency Bloc
101

PAMPHLET #08

Clodius
European Trade and Economic Treaties
102

The Period of the Old Trade Policy
102

German Economic and Trade Policy since 1933
103

Changes to Trade Policy Caused by the War
105

The Reversal of the Law of Supply and Demand
106

The Question of Labour Deployment in Europe
106

The Problem of Traffic
106

Effects of the English Blockade on Europe
106

Principles of European Co-operation
107

The European Regional Principle
107

Europe’s Economic Independence
107

Europe and the Global Economy
108

Internal Preconditions of a European Economic Community
109

Ways to Achieve European Co-operation
111

PAMPHLET #09

Hunke
The Basic Question: Europe – Geographical Concept or Political Fact?
113

New Learning and Thought
113

Starting Point for European Task
114

Three Eras
114

The Character of the Global Economy
114

Political Weakness of Continental Europe due to the Idea of

English World Superiority
116

Britain’s Dominant Theory about the Modern National Economy
117

The Foundation of the European Economic Community
118

Categories within the European Economic Community
119

Three Principles
119

A New Era
121

Taking a Look Back to the Past and to the Future
123

PAMPHLET #10
The Illustrations – Maps, Charts etc. Summary of the series and Comments

Request for help locating further FACTS

Including Reinhard Heydrich’s 1942 Reichs Plan for The Domination

of EUrope – published in Berlin in 1942 believed to have been November.

ALSO – details of the Berlin Conference of 1944 Titled ‘How Will Germany Dominate The

Peace, When It Loses The War.’ & details of the massive amounts of cash moved

out of Germany during the war to safeguard the future of German domination against the economic collapse of losing the Second World War against EUropean Union. AND connections with organisations like The Bilderbergers, Council for Foreign relations, Tri Lateral Commission and other arms of the New World Order.

Introduction – by Professor Dr. Heinrich Hunke, Economic Committee Adviser to the NSDAP, President of Germany’s Economic Publicity Agency

Around the end of 1939, most of Europe was either consciously or unconsciously under the influence of the economic concept of England. Over recent years, however, it has been swept out of European countries, politically, militarily and economically. Politically the three-power pact has given honour once again to the ancient figures of life, people and room. It has also established a natural order and a neighbourly way of co-existing as the ideal of the new order. The foundation of English economics, which is the basis of the balance of powers, has been militarily destroyed. And economically, a change has come about following the political and military development, the shape of which is easy to describe, but whose final significance is very difficult to evaluate. I can only repeat, that the changing order that is happening now has to be ranked as one of the greatest economic revolutions in history. It signifies a reversion of the economy of Europe to a time before the English concept of building an overseas Europe, i.e. an awareness of one’s own country.

The Discussion so far and its Results

Discussions about questions relating to Europe started as the power of the NSADP grew. At the Congress of Europe in Rome from 14th to 20th November 1932, Alfred Rosenberg developed, for the first time in front of an international forum, thoughts and ideas that have moved us since. No one, who fights for a new economic order in Europe, can ignore these perceptions and conclusions. The economic and political wheel was set in motion, when the NSDAP declared the militarisation of the German economy. It is to the credit of the journal ‘Germany’s Economy’ that it first seized these questions in 1932, kept on bringing them up and stuck doggedly to those original perceptions. The idea of German economic self- sufficiency in the new political sense and the German economic militarisation are synonymous with this journal. Besides this, Daitz, the ambassador, has earned the special credit of being the first to have related German economic history to the present time. Part II of his selected speeches and essays, which appeared in 1938 under the title ‘Germany and the European Economy’, summarizes his concepts formed between 1932 and 1938. The Italian, Carlo Scarfoglio, delivered with his book ‘England and the Continental Mainland’, a decisive historical contribution to the consciousness of the European continent. Meanwhile German and Italian economic policy drew the political consequences from the historical lessons that were learnt during the blockade and learnt again during the sanctions. The speech made in Munich in 1939 by the leader of the Reich’s farmers, R. Walther Darre, at the 6th Great Lecture at the Commission of Economic Policy of the NSDAP, takes a special place in the discussion at that time. Its theme was “The market order of the National-Socialist agricultural policy – setting the pace for a new foreign trade order.”

While our leader maintained the hope of reaching a peaceful agreement with England, the route for European economic unity remained problematic. The end of 1939 was a decisive point and it was natural that the years 1940-1941 heralded the new economic and political order. The writer, in particular, developed and extended in speech and writing the intellectual fund of the new economic policy, which has been translated into most languages, so that today everywhere the great constructive texts are known. These contexts revolve around the following issues:

1. Theory about the Reich and the European economy.

2. The historic, cultural, and economic significance of the German economic order.

3. The foundations of the future economic relationships between the states.

4. The nature of the European economic community.

On 25th June 1940 the Reich’s Economic Minister, Funk, publicised in his official capacity his thoughts, which underlined the development so far and thus gave them state sanction. In October, the journal ‘German Economy’ summarised for the first time the principles of European co-operation, the fundamental principles of German foreign trade, Germany’s export economy and ways and means of promoting export. It did so in a popular review “About A New Europe”, providing an overview of the important problem of European economic fusion. Around the end of 1940 the Berlin historian Fritz Rorig finally outlined in his book “Hanseatic Essence” the historical foundations of the greatest economic and political achievement by the Germans.

I am clear in my mind that total clarity is to be found in the principle questions: The necessity is recognised for a political order for the economic co-operation of the people. The nature of the new order which is: awareness of tradition, using up one’s own economic resources, long term economic agreements and fair relations, is affirmed. The economic inter-dependence is underlined by fate. The economic unity of Europe is thus evident.

Economic Practice

Even practical economic life has increasingly allowed entry to new thoughts. I am able to see the decisive steps in the start and realisation of the following points:

1. In the increasing payment traffic through Berlin.

2. In the exchange of experiences in various areas of economic life. Thereto belong also the statements of ministers and business people, the calls made by special advisers and the collective tackling of important tasks relating to the economy. Even the specialist is surprised, once he has taken the trouble to put together all the connections. Today they are already legion.

3. In the signing of long term economic agreements between the Reich and the other European states, which the public is aware of. There can be no doubt that such agreements are those of the future.

Of course, that cannot prevent unclear points and new problems from arising, which become evident at the time when the situation is reviewed.

Problems Related to the Economic Community of Continental Europe

These unclear points primarily relate to the concept of economic direction, the extent of solidarity and neighbourly attitude, the development of one’s own powers, the care to maintain the standard of living and the question of raw material purchase from foreign countries. It is natural that one or another issue will take priority of interest, depending on the set of conditions that prevail. It should be attempted at this point to give a reply, albeit a summary one.

There can be no doubt that the concept of direction of the economy, or rather its leadership, is as novel as it is revolutionary. Its classification is all the more important, as the fate and consequence of European co-operation depend principally on a new consistent form of economic understanding. The Anglo-Saxon view of economics is dead: consequently, even the so-called ‘classical’ national economy is no longer classical, but it has survived. So what it comes down to is that a new understanding arises to do with ideology and terminology, which represents a sound basis for agreement and co-operation. Relating to this, one must point out the following in detail:

1. Economic direction is not a momentary emergency solution, instead it forms the core of new theory and practice. First of all, it takes the place of individual egotism and the automatic autonomy of the Anglo-Saxon precept.

2. Economic direction is not identical to the tendencies of a centrally planned economy. It does not seek to cancel the individual or to administer through the state operators.

3. Economic direction really means the following: the new instruction of the creative and constructive power of the individual in relation to the whole system; the creation of a consistent economic view and an attitude towards the economy; the selection of important tasks through political leadership and the state’s final decision on all questions about economic power. Beyond this, the economy is free and responsible to itself.

The degree of solidarity of the individual economies and their neighbourly attitude is characterised by three guidelines:

Firstly, it is limited in regard to its own economic development by the recognition that the utilisation of individual resources represents not only a requirement of the new economic precept, but is the very foundation for economic activity. The European economic community has no interest in leaving any abilities or possibilities unutilised.

Secondly, it contains the obligation that, because of Europe’s freedom, consideration is given firstly to continental Europe regarding any matter related to economic activity. Not only should the shared fate of the European people be emphasized, but the fact should also be stressed that the supplementation of the European economies beyond their borders is possible and sought after.

Thirdly, it must be maintained that, above all else, the spirit of the individual economies may not be allowed to go against the spirit of neighbourly co-operation.

The question of developing one’s own powers refers to the problem of monocultures, of industrialisation of the agrarian south-east and the awakening of new needs.

An answer can easily be given to the first question. Monocultures are the result of the same economic precept that made the world market price the determining factor in the economy. According to that precept, people and land are the vestiges of some by-gone age. Europe is well on the way to destroying these monocultures with initiatives ranging from land improvements and growing new crops to discovering new local resources. All these have the same aim, which is to develop the economy and broaden its basis. Germany and the whole of Europe can only greet these efforts with gratitude.

The industrialisation of the south-east poses a particular problem regarding these questions. As I am unable to handle this problem – like all other problems – here in a comprehensive and exhaustive manner, because the industrialisation of economies is theoretically a difficult problem, I can only say as follows:

1. Just as it is in the nature of things that each country will strive to utilise its available resources for its own production, so will there will be a knock-on effect for other economic partners.

2. If, as is the case in the South-east European countries, there is heavy

over-population in the countryside, then there are only three possibilities to solve it: itinerant workers, a permanent emigration and an ‘intensivisation’ of the local economy, a term correctly created by Dr. Ilgner for the problem of industrialisation. Itinerant workers can only form a part solution. Besides, it only applies to agricultural and construction workers and gone on for ages. Permanent emigration from Europe is just as false as impossible. There just remains the intensivisation of the economies of south-east Europe as the way to self-help.

3. The economies should make it possible for an independent life according to the modern economic view. The intensivisation of their economies therefore is right for the time.

4. The old features of industrialisation, which evolved from the price collapses in countries with agriculture and raw materials, have to now belong to the past. Europe is a communal living area. Only through a joint development of economies – and not through independence from one another – can protection against crises be achieved.

5. The tasks that have to be solved in Europe are so big that the powers needed to do so have to be released by an intensivisation of the individual economies. This can be easily done by employing the workers that have been liberated in new branches of the economy.

Without affecting the difficult questions of purchasing power, it can be regarded as proven that the joint work to build up Germany’s and the south-eastern states’ in the area of industrialisation lies in the direction of the intensivation of interest of the whole continent.

One important and until now completely overlooked task in this regard exists and that is the awakening of new needs in the south-eastern countries. It is because, in those countries, wealth has grown and will gradually continue to grow, as a result of the reliable purchase of agricultural products and available raw materials at adequate price levels. According to the principle in economics that giving equals taking, peoples’ living habits there will have to change, otherwise one day the process will come to a halt. Germany’s ability to absorb the products from the south-east is practically infinite, whereas creating a demand for German goods there is not only a matter for economic intensivation but also one of modifying the people so they consume more. This task is of such importance that it has to be considered from the very outset, so that the south-eastern European economies are elevated after the war.

Equally important as the industrialisation of south-east Europe is the question of the standard of living in the north. Their economic development and high standard of living, which underpin their lives though all economic conditions, should not be mistaken. This standard of living has grown considerably during the 19th century and around the time of the world war due to free trade, so that various circles view world economic events with particular concern. From a German viewpoint, only the following points can be made:

Firstly, a higher standard of living is also the aim of the German government. The German people not only understand this well, but also through its fight wants to ensure European civilisation and culture. This fight will benefit the whole of Europe, and with it the north.

Secondly, despite being connected successfully to England and its economic system (one should not ignore the countless economic troughs that feature there), the economies of the north whose fate and greatness are very closely linked to Germany.

Thirdly, the northern states’ difficulties are going through a temporary phase of adjustment. In the long term, this will bring about a lasting advancement, rather than destruction, for their economies’ foundations.

Maintaining a high standard of living is not an insoluble problem. To finish, I now come to the problem of purchasing raw materials from overseas markets. A leading south-east European economist once wrote about this principal question: “Unlike the war, we were in the following situation: in order to import raw materials from overseas countries, we bought goods from west European countries with foreign exchange. In the area of continental Europe there is no gold. Everything had to pass through the system of clearing – goods sold against goods. We have no product that can be sold to North or South America. That means that the leading nations are obliged to acquire and distribute to us the raw materials that we need. The leading nations of Europe can supply, with its capacity, enough products to overseas countries with which to acquire raw materials. The one question is whether exchange will ever happen… Even before the new order is introduced, and without even joining in with the Axis powers, we stand in solidarity outside Europe with its traffic of goods…”

We can only agree with this view, leaving the matter open, as the Reich’s Economic Minister Funk described, how large the direct sources of help will be and whether raw material acquisition from overseas will take place through the system of clearing or free flow of currency. With the introduction of the multi-lateral clearing system, on a practical level there is no change from the pre-war time. As this learned person said, “All the benefits of the method of paying are regained from the system of free currency.” Nor can it be realised – contrary to him – that this system of clearing through Berlin should function without those countries outside the European system. But the decisive factor is the way in which the continent is bound to Germany and Italy by one fate.

Since 1940, therefore, we are faced with an unparalleled economic and political revolution. The problems created for us are large but can be solved. Their solution will give Europe the peace it yearns for and will bring a great era of joint development. It is worth fighting and working for this.

The following discourses should contribute to helping us to broaden and deepen our understanding of the tasks and nature of the European economic community.

Questions about European Transport – by Gustav Koenigs

Secretary of State, Berlin

It is difficult to know where to begin, as this is such a broad topic. Maybe with the issue over the routing of the Orient express – either via northern Italy or Switzerland or Strasbourg-Karlsruhe-Muncih-Salzburg. This has been hotly debated in previous timetable planning conferences.

Alternatively I could investigate new trade routes between Germany and the Near East looking at the sea route from the Hanseatic cities or along the Danube or via rail through the south-eastern European nations or via Trieste and the Mediterranean. Then there are the ports of Rotterdam, Amsterdam and Antwerp. Today routes over the Atlantic and Mediterranean are blocked for us, we have only the Danube and rail route open to us. If our ships can use the North Sea ports and Trieste again, then goods will find the most economical routes for themselves and we have time now to decide if we want to take economically and politically motivated measures to influence the flow of commercial traffic. By looking at recent developments we can clearly see the problems facing European transport policy.

At the moment the so-called ‘European Economic Community’ is not yet fact; there is no pact, no organisation, no council and no General Secretary. However, it is not just a part of our imagination or some dream by a politician – it is very real. The idea lives in the consciousness of Europe’s people who have been brought together as a result of the English sea blockade and the unnatural alliance of England and Soviet Russia. Presently we have a European military community, made up of troops and volunteers from Italy, Finland, Hungary, Romania, Spain, Slovakia, Croatia, Holland, Norway and Germany, which is fighting against Bolshevism. Its roots are in the economic co-operation of the European nations and it will develop after the war into a permanent European economic community.

Our community – unlike the British Commonwealth – preserves each nation’s independence and sovereignty and it has no imperialist aims and no plans to exploit any of its members. Germany pursues its task in this community on a comrade-like basis. Our trade policy consciously does not set out to seek goods at the cheapest price, instead it seeks to raise the living standard of all the nations so that they can buy our products in future.

The European economic community is going to create a flow of goods on the continent, which will challenge the transport facilities and means available in ways we do not yet know. In any case, the transport administration will have to be ready to take control of an unparalleled level of transport.

Transport does not just fulfil the task of moving goods and people, it also creates new needs and underpins the European community. It is not yet decided whether transport brought about the division of labour or the other way round, but it seems that they are both cause and effect. Transport has a centripetal effect and reaffirms the community, which it serves. In future it will become the column of the community rather than an external entity.

The saying in Geneva was: “In the beginning there was organisation”. Faust had it, “In the beginning there was the deed!” The community is based on the structural life of European people and will be developed as we fulfil the laws of the community.

We will meet the task that has been set for Germany concerning transport, which is:

1. Our own transport system has to be a shining example and act to assist foreign economies by helping to create transport programmes which adapt to the growing demands.

2. Germany has to ensure the technical transport development beyond its own borders, which is emphasised as it extends beyond matters, such as duties, import and export, and currency and labour related questions.

3. Germany must take charge so that participating countries do not export vital transport construction materials.

These propositions will now be related to the five means of transport: rail, riverways, road, and steam-driven transport, sea and air journeys.

“Technical Unity” in the Railway System

The extension of Germany’s railroad network came to a halt just before the war. Without the great peacetime effort, the huge achievement of the German Reich railway would not have been possible. After the war our rolling stock will have to be overhauled and increased, and facilities extended in commercially vital areas. Certain lines will need four tracks but within one the year, the Reich will have sorted it out.

Our recently experienced delays were normally related to conditions outside our rail network, such as Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland, which could not take in our trains or return the empty carriages. All this affected the services on our internal railroads, but such problems no longer occur. In no time, the standard of our branch lines equalled that of the old Reich and extended throughout the enlarged Reich area.

Soon it may become necessary for neighbouring countries to bring their rail systems up to our level and we will offer all our hard earned experience of the last century so they can develop their transport systems. Many countries, however, do not have any national planning in such areas, instead they rely on the goodwill of foreign patrons in order to extend the lines often influenced by capitalistic or political considerations. We will allow these countries time to think along national economic lines, so they adapt to the needs of the European economic community.

During the war we started to build the second link with Denmark from Lübeck via Fehmarn, Laaland and Falster to Copenhagen, which had the slogan: “As The Crows Flies”, but which had not progressed beyond planning. Indeed it can be called a piece of transport policy for the enlarged area. On the other hand, these plans neglected the east and south-east where rail conditions were poor.

We talk of connection improvements between Venice and Trieste to Silesia and Romania and a better connection between the Baltic and the Danube basin and of cutting through the Alps. The one concern I have is that we should never admit something as impossible on the grounds of cost of construction. The Gotthardt railway, for instance, was jointly financed by Switzerland, Germany and Italy – such cases we do well to remember when certain community nations seem too financially weak to meet the task set.

National borders in Europe’s rail system ceased to be a problem long ago and we can travel with our luggage on through tickets to any European destination. Germany has led the production of this international rail transport and the rules have been developed by the administrations of the European countries moving towards an international form of self-administration. One of the most important ones is “The Union of the German Rail Administration” and which has had its present name since 1932. In 1850 the union received its first charter to transport people, luggage, corpses, cars, and live animals and thus created the basis for today’s international law for rail freight and for transporting people. In 1884 it issued for the very first time the licence books for transporting people and carried out ground-breaking work in the promotion of international rail transport by organising the construction and running of the main and small lines.

“Technical Unity” for the rail system contains standards about track gauge, the method of construction and the level of maintenance of the rolling stock, loading and duty bonding, as well as the brakes of through goods trains. Even the arrangements represent a piece of international self-administration and were created by the German railways.

In 1922 at the Conference for Economy and Finance in Genoa, the world war allies formed the “Union Internationale de Chemin de Fer” with its base in Paris, thus taking away the leadership of the development away from Germany. At the second conference in Genoa in 1923 there were few signs of success or activity. With the change in the political conditions after the conclusion of peace, I believe that Germany, will once again assume responsibility for shaping the international rail system and will become the representative of the “Union of Central European Rail Administration” in the self-administration of the railways of the European economic community.

The Magna Carta of Europe’s Internal Riverboat Traffic

Our waterways are the most modern in Europe and are designed for maximum efficiency, yet we have been left behind in the extension of the network. That is because only until 20 years ago did the responsibility of planning pass from the individual states to the Reich itself. Another problem was in Prussia where any extension of the waterways was dependent on ship journey taxation and any construction upon the costs of operation, maintenance and capital servicing being met by business from sea cargo. This condition created by the waterway administration effectively ended all construction. Extending rivers and the laying of canals ought to create cheap freight opportunities for the economy, but they are taken away if the waterways are burdened with these taxation costs. This is really a case of three steps forward and two steps back. After the world war it was the weak-minded who saw no future for Germany and resisted the extension of the waterways. They coined phrases such as “inflation of transport means” and “misuse of capital” to put an end to such schemes.

Nature gave us six rivers in northern Germany running south to north: the Rhein, Ems, Weser, Elbe, Oder and Weichsel; and in the south, the Danube running west to east. The vital duty regarding our overseas trade has been to extend the rivers leading to the German sea ports and to continue clearing the Rhein, controlling the Elbe, canalising the Weser, improving the Elbe and extending the Dortmund-Ems Canal. Over three-fifths of our exported goods are transported by waterway (on a weight basis).

From a continental perspective, all our rivers tend away from the continent. Looking today at the German lowlands and Balkans we just start to realise what intentions England had with the internationalisation of German rivers in the Treaty of Versailles. Under this, the Rhein, Elbe, Oder and Danube were internationalised and placed under the river commissions; this would allow more than one nation access on these rivers and their tributaries to the sea. The aim was to free the rivers from the control of the surrounding nation and place them under the control of a supra-state body i.e. the international rivers commissions. This would allow countries, such as Czechoslovakia, Switzerland and nations in the south-east, guaranteed access to the rivers and to the sea without being impeded in any way.

This was a typical example of England’s philanthropic ideas to ensure that each nation had access to the sea and in reality it was to ensure that these nations did not concentrate their exports on their continental neighbours. England was intent on binding these nations to the sea where its fleet and traders ruled, thus keeping them under its control.

Switzerland accepted England’s proposal for the internationalistion of the Rhein and contributed three-fifths of the costs for the control of the upper Rhein from Strasbourg to Basle. This is the first case I have seen of a nation paying costs for the rivers outside its borders and is likely to do with access to the North Sea. It was, however, restrained when it came to the navigation of the Rhein from Basle to Constance, even though it shares the same amount of river with Germany. The answer lies in protecting the privileges of its terminal port in Basle and its railway from any competition.

Czechoslovakia in the central European highlands could not reach the Elbe, Oder and Danube and made great use of these routes to the North Sea, Baltic and Black Sea. Until Austria, Hungary and Yugoslavia directed its trade policy to Germany, they used the Danube. The Treaty of Neuilly removed the use of Saloniki as a port.

In October 1936 our leader made a declaration which was conveyed to the international river commission which freed us from the terms of the Treaty of Versailles.

Let us turn now to the waterway construction programme of our government from a “continental perspective”. In 1938 the main central canal was completed and on 11 May a law under the four-year plan ordered that “By 1945 the Reich’s waterway joining the Rhein and the Danube via the Main should be complete”. In the autumn of 1939 the Oder-Danube Canal was started, as was the connection of the Rhein via the Neckar to the Danube, and the canalisation of the Neckar from Mannheim to Heilbronn was completed. Plans are under way for a canal between the Werra and the Main, as well as one for a Hanseatic canal linking the Ruhr area to Hamburg, Bremen and Lübeck, and one from Riesa at the Elbe via the brown coal area of central Germany to Maltsch at the Oder, called the Elbe-Oder Canal. The idea of the uniform tendency is to link all the rivers, which tend away from the continent and to connect the German rivers to the waterway network. The result should be to promote Germany’s internal goods traffic.

The former Poland offered a ‘plastic’ example of a continental nation with an anti-continental attitude. It began to develop Gdynia into one of the most modern ports. Using French capital it built the so-called “Magistrale”, a rail track joined the former Polish upper Silesia to the free city of Danzig and Gdynia, taking its entire export traffic via these cities to the Baltic. Poland’s long border with Germany had to be broken through so that Germany could be linked to East Prussia. After Gdynia’s port was finished, Poland extended a large industrial area at Sandomis and I believe Poland would have embarked on another task – the control of the Weichsel river. Poland would have obtained coal and iron from its mines in upper Silesia via the Weichsel which is navigable further north and via the Przesma, which could have been linked cheaply to the Weichsel. It would have acquired other raw materials the same way and shipped goods manufactured at Sandomis via the Weichsel to Gdynia and Danzig. Poland’s anti-continental attitude explains why the internationalisation of Germany’s rivers did not affect the Weichsel. Poland offered the assurance that it would not become part of the continent, instead it saw its future in sea trade with England.

The important duty of Europe in the south-east was to extend the Danube into a route navigable for large ships. Until the middle of the last century it was barely possible to get from the Danube estuary to the Black Sea. The Russians owned the estuary and in order to protect its Black Sea ports, it allowed three arms of it to silt over. In the Paris Peace Accord of 1865, which concluded the Crimean War, the Danube estuary became subject to the “European Danube Commission”, which has functioned to this day. In the Treaty of Berlin in 1878 it was expressly confirmed that it should function independently of the sovereignty of Romania. The commission, to which Prussia also belonged till the Treaty of Versailles, kept the middle Danube estuary completely open but hampered the ship journey with deposits. Last year the commission ceased to exist.

The rapids of the Danube above and below Linz are being extended now by the German waterway administration to make it passable for ships, but the most difficult place is at the “Iron Gate”. In the 1890’s Hungary was asked to construct some large defences and received loans to do so. It will depend on the new political map which country will carry out the plans made to ease the passage of ships through the “Iron Gate”. It is quite possible that for a second time the community will have to strive to overcome this natural obstacle to the passage of ship.

The Rhein is the largest and most extensive route in Europe and, despite this and its history, it is less mentioned than the Danube in books and speeches. We are doing all we can now to join the German waterway system to this great European traffic route. Besides the river connections mentioned earlier, the Aachen area and the Saarland have demanded the construction of canals for more than a century to link their coal mines and industrial areas to the Rhein. France, on the other hand, has made no effort to link up with the Rhein. In the Versailles Treaty France relinquished the port of Strasbourg which had been well extended before the war and made use of the control of the Rhein from Mannheim to Strasbourg, but it did nothing to develop the river itself. Between Strasbourg and Basle, France refused to contribute financially and limited itself to a technical/administrative rôle. France did develop the dam at Kembs but only to obtain electrical work at the steep slope at Istein. Over a century ago France built the Rhein-Marne and Rhein-Rhône canals but it never considered extending them to take large ships, so only 300 ton ‘péniches’ can ply them. It seems obvious to have wanted to link the French mining area of Lothringen and the Rhône via the Burgundy Gate to the Rhein with modern canals. France will have to give up its conservative canal policy if it wants to be involved the in the future of waterway development in Europe, which is determined by the sizes of the German rivers and canals. The task of the south-west German waterway planning body is to achieve a link with the French river network and to join the Rhein to the Mediterranean via the Burgundy Gate and the Rhône.

The Magna Carta for Europe’s internal riverboat traffic was contained in our leader’s declaration in November 1936. “For those nations living at peace with Germany, their

ships can use the waterways freely on our territory. These foreign ships and Germany’s will be treated equally even concerning the issue of ships’ deposits, provided of course other nations act mutually.”

This encapsulates perfectly the theory of the European economic community, leaving, as it does, the sovereignty of other nations intact. Before the war the Warthe and Netze rivers were blocked by Poland from us, the Save river by Yugoslavia, the Bega by Romania, and France limited access of its canals to German ships. According to our leader’s declaration, all German rivers, artificial or natural, should be open to countries, which act mutually, which means no more than the expression of a true economic community. No other nation has such well-developed rivers as Germany and no other nation contributes to the community as we do. Our leader’s words are perfectly clear and give the best guarantee for the freedom of ships, which is more than could be offered by any legal treaties or ship acts.

All preparations have been made by Germany for the measurement of the waterways, the standardisation of riverboats and sailing rules, which will enable uniform regulation in the European economic community.

Motorway’s Contribution to the European Transport Community

We should not let the present situation of petrol and rubber shortages affect our view when we consider transport, as they are only temporary manifestations.

The future belongs to motorisation. Germany did not exploit the petrol engine until National Socialism came along. Over 100 years ago circles in the Rhein area had constructed a steam-driven engine, which was capable of moving a carriage. They considered reserving one side of the road for this steam-driven vehicle, which could have had its own track. Then Daimler and Benz developed a light and compact vehicle ideal for the roads, but tragically cars were seen as dangerous instruments created by the devil, from which humans should be protected, unlike in the USA, where the car was seen as progress and thus promoted in every way. We lagged behind until 1933 when our leader taught us that the car was there to serve people and gave them freedom from timetables. In just a few years the government had managed to catch up with other countries.

Germany became a leading nation of Europe in road traffic and our leader ordered the construction of the Reich’s motorway and peoples car. Dr. Porsche built the car combining performance with quality at very low cost. The Reich’s motorway and peoples’ car (or the ‘KdF’ car, as designated by our leader) were the visible symbols of the German desire to get motorised and in peacetime they will ‘set the scene’ for road traffic.

Even before the war the Reich’s motorways had a significant effect on all European nations and most powers asked whether they should build their own, but they deferred due to political reasons or prestige concerns. Only in November 1938 did Czechoslovakia sign an agreement for the construction of a Reich’s motorway between Breslau, Brno and Vienna, while it still remained outside the Protectorate.

Our motorway network was designed so that neighbouring nations could join on to it. During the war new large projects are not possible but after it our task will be to extend our motorways into a European network. The first route will definitely not be from London to Istanbul, but from Germany to Italy; and the communities of the Axis powers, which these two countries have preserved in this war, will be re-affirmed through this work of peace.

Community Work in Shipping

Until the war the law of market forces prevailed in shipping and it was the pride of German ship companies and their own efforts that enabled them to compete with other sea-faring nations. After the war the same law will come into force, as the sea is not subject to the force of nature, not state control.

Another question, though, is whether European nations enter the fight individually or join together and compete against the largest overseas nations of the future. It would be interesting to mention the possibilities, which could result from such an alliance of north-west Europe and the Mediterranean into two large fighting communities. The time is not yet right though, so I will not go into it. I will say that political co-operation between European nations will not leave shipping policy untouched in the future.

Traffic developments in the north and east, on the other hand, reveal perhaps the way of the future. The problem is simple: we need iron from Sweden, which has to be mainly loaded at Lulea or Narvik. Scandinavian nations need coal and depend totally on the continent for both its other imports and exports. Demand for shipping space has grown exponentially, but space has had to be reduced because German commercial shipping had to forego a large part of its tonnage for land defence. In peacetime, rates would have gone up and loads not able to afford these higher rates would be pushed back and tramp ships would come in. Loads can no longer be pushed back as Germany needs iron, Scandinavia its coal, and foreign shipping space, especially tramp ships are not available because every ship that existed in the world has been claimed by England. Free market forces have failed and a new organisation form has to be found.

The Reich’s transport group for sea shipping realised it could have overcome these difficulties by coming to agreements with Scandinavian shipping groups. The transport group decides which transports are to be carried out and sets an agreement with the loaders and Scandinavian shipping groups concerning freight according to the list of priority guidelines from the government. While freight levels on the international sea shipping market have increased eight or 10-fold, rates on North Sea and Baltic routes have gone up by 60% at the most. German and Scandinavian shipping companies operate under community co-operation, which aims to meet the needs of highest priority of the member nations and excludes any exploitation of the war-related business cycle. Before us, we have a real European economic community based on international self-administration and I am convinced that such co-operation will endure through the war. Nations are so used to freight stability and secure supply of goods that even after the war they will not want to give up those advantages that have accrued from such joint work.

Joint Work in Air Traffic

Germany is the undisputed leader in air traffic since it freed itself from the rules in the agreement with the world war allies in 1926, which were imposed by the Ambassador Conference of Boulogne in 1921. German Lufthansa, the number one company in the International Air Traffic Association, led the traffic between the cities of Europe and ran regular services up to the war. Right from the inception of the airlines it arranged that each national air traffic company had the same number of aircraft in service. Gross earnings were halved and each company handled its own expenditure. Thus an international form of transport was created which obviated any national sensitivities and was truly community based. German Lufthansa soon covered all of Europe, it formed “Eurasia”, created the Condor syndicate in South America and carried out the first systematic flights over the South and North Atlantic and to the Far East. Air transport’s future lies very much with the overseas nations and the Far East, but it still remains a powerful instrument for holding Europe together and concentrating our co-operation.

In this brief overview I have tried to demonstrate how we in Germany can develop structurally a European traffic community without falling into imperialist ways. The building up of the European traffic community can and will proceed step by step together with the economic community. It is wrong to believe that idle happiness will reign in the European traffic community as important battles have yet to be fought. There will be arguments about which countries and lines should run the big international express trains, about the development of traffic between Germany and the Far East and there will be heavy competition between the sea ports of Hamburg and Bremen, Rotterdam and Antwerp, Genoa and Trieste. These battles are not all bad, because life is a battle and, as we say, “the churchyard starts and finishes in the same place”. Progress is achieved through competition between nations and within nations. However it is important that all transport companies remain aware of their part in Europe and we remember that the fate of the continent stands above the welfare of the individual national economy. “Everything that damages or suppresses a nation of the continent, does the same to the whole continent. Everything that benefits a nation of the continent, without disadvantage to another, is a benefit to the whole continent”. With these words, the Italian Carlo Scarfoglio encapsulated the idea of the new sense of the continent in his essay “ Europe without England”. Europe’s traffic community will also gain victory under this banner.

THE END OF KOENINGS’ essay.

YOU are perfectly at liberty, and are in fact encouraged, to download this document and make prints of it or distribute it electronically as you may wish.

We believe the more people who are made aware of the grim realities of this document, and the others in the series, as stepping stones to the present day EUropean Union and the deceit and dishonesty that has been essential in bringing the EU into being the better for mankind.

There is NO CopyRight on this document, which is one of many 1,000s of items freely available on http://www.silentmajority.co.uk/ hosts other web sites also, 1,000s of apposite quotations, Articles, Speeches, Commentaries, ArtWork, & The FULL text of The EU Treaties, Several Related Books, The British Constitution, The American Constitution & Numerous related Items.

SilentMajority nor any associate thereof does NOT vouch for the veracity of the documents hosted on its site or CD nor any foreign language documents thereon & advises you consult your own solicitor on legal details as we do not accept liability for, nor presume to give legal advice ourselves.

Greg Lance – Watkins,

Glance Back Books,

17 Upper Church Street,

CHEPSTOW,

NP16 5EX

Monmouthshire,

GREAT BRITAIN

IF YOU wish to use the Material Above, which is freely provided

Please have the Courtesy to Print It out in its entirety from start to finish with NO alterations, as displayed.

“In politics, stupidity is not a handicap.”
Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821),

Regards,
Greg L-W.

for all my contact details & Blogs:
CLICK HERE

For More Information & Facts visit:
WEB SITES:
SilentMajority/
WelshAssembly
CatterpillarsAndButterflies
Greg’s WordPress Blog

‘The arrogance and hubris of corrupt politicians
will be responsible for every drop of blood spilt
in the Wars of Disassociation, if Britain does not
leave the EU.

The ugly, centralised, undemocratic supra national policies being imposed by the centralised and largely unelected decisionmakers of The EU for alien aims, ailien values and to suit alien needs stand every possibility of creating 200,000,000 deaths across EUrope as a result of the blind arrogance and hubris of the idiologues in the central dictatorship, and their economic illiteracy marching hand in glove with the idiocy of The CAP & The CFP – both policies which deliver bills, destroy lives and denude food stocks.

The EU, due to the political idiocy and corruption of its undemocratic leaders, is now a net importer of food, no longer able to feed itself and with a decreasing range of over priced goods of little use to the rest of the world to sell with which to counter the net financial drain of endless imports.

British Politicians with pens and treachery, in pursuit
of their own agenda and greed, have done more
damage to the liberty, freedoms, rights and democracy
of the British peoples than any army in over 1,000 years.

The disastrous effects of British politicians selling Britain
into the thrall of foreign rule by the EU for their own
personal rewards has damaged the well-being of Britain
more than the armies of Hitler
and the Franco – German – Italian axis of 1939 – 1945.

~ for more Quotes & Facts:
http://www.silentmajority.co.uk/

############-\\\///-########### #
############= ~ = ############
###########(`~0~0~’) ###########
——–oooO——–(_)——-Oooo———
############Regards############
##########M r C H A D###########

Until we gain our liberty, restore our sovereignty, repatriate our democracy and reinstate our Justice system and our borders – defended by our Police and Military armed with sustainable and obtainable weaponry:
Treat every election as a referendum.

Don’t spoil your Ballot Paper by wasting it on a self serving Politician in ANY election until we are liberated from the EU and are a Free Sovereign peoples, with independent control of our own borders, making and managing Law & Justice for our own benefit, in our own elected Westminster Parliament where we can fire our politicians at the ballot box, if they fail to represent OUR best interests and de-centralise their powers.

Make your vote count

Write on YOUR ballot Paper in EVERY Election:
LEAVE THE EU
to
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: