Hans-Ulrich Rudel: Do We Favor the East? [Der Weg 1951-02]
An original translation of "Zum hundertsten male: sind wir ostfreundlich?"
Source Documents:
Note(s): This article appears in “Der Weg”, a German-language magazine founded in Buenos Aires, Argentina in the years immediately following the destruction of the Third Reich. See the links above for more information on the magazine and its contents.
From Dieter Vollmer’s autobiography:
“To briefly recall, Rudel had, on the Eastern Front, disabled over five hundred Soviet tanks with his dive bombings, thereby liberating many encircled German troop units during the retreat, and in the final weeks of the war, also rescuing cut-off refugee columns. After being shot down in the Russian hinterland, he had, despite his injuries, made his way on foot back to the German lines. After an anti-aircraft hit on his aircraft resulted in the amputation of his lower leg, he climbed back into his Ju 87 long before the surgical wound had healed, with his leg stump still bleeding, for new combat missions. And when Hitler, upon awarding him the highest decoration ever bestowed and because of his severe injury, intended to withdraw him from the fighting front, Rudel refused, standing eye to eye with him, and succeeded in returning to his Immelmann squadron to continue flying until the very last day of the war, in continuous service.
After his release from first French, then American captivity, he initially set up a successful transport business with two comrades from his squadron and only emigrated to Argentina in 1948—via Rome—where President Perón showed him great sympathy and offered every possible assistance.”
Title: Do We Favor the East? [de: Zum hundertsten male: sind wir ostfreundlich?]
Author(s): Hans-Ulrich Rudel
“Der Weg” Issue: Year 5, Issue 02 (February 1951)
Page(s): 133-134
Referenced Documents:
Offiziere gegen Hitler (1946) by Fabian von Schlabrendorff
Invasion 1944: Rommel and the Normandy Campaign (1950) by Hans Speidel
Do We Favor the East?
Hans-Ulrich Rudel
Ever since we soldiers took a firm stand on the rearmament question—in a manner unacceptable to the occupying powers and the German federal government under their sway—they have sought to tarnish and defame us by every means at their disposal. The press, once again, proves the simplest and most potent instrument for such a campaign. Through its aid, lies and slanders are unleashed upon the world, striking at both our beliefs and our very persons, designed solely to drag our names, and with them our cause, into the mud. This tactic is time-honored, shielded by the so-called democratic freedom of the press. Yet, when we voice truths that echo the people’s genuine sentiments—truths today’s rulers find distasteful to hear—they brand it a breach of the Republic Protection Act or the Occupation Statute, and we are treated accordingly.
Our foes in the press, bolstered by the favor of Bonn and the occupying powers, know this well and exploit their advantage to the fullest, especially as their wealth commands the lion’s share of propaganda outlets. With sheer volume and the creed “any means is fair,” they aim to silence and trample their adversaries. Beyond crude forgeries—like pinning on us interviews that never occurred, their cunningly concocted contents meant only to ruin us—they wield subtler, yet equally proven methods, ones that have long deceived even the sharpest minds. Typically, this entails sprinkling their smear campaign with minor, truthful tidbits, widely accepted as fact by the populace; then, they lace in “facts” wholly divorced from reality, brewed solely in the venomous cauldrons of that same press, forming the true poison in the broth they serve! As I’ve said, this ruse is ancient, yet ever anew it triumphs, and time and again most will reason:
“If the part we can verify holds true, then the rest, beyond our grasp, must be true as well.”
The lure of false analogy has always been a sinister and cunning tool to sway the masses, against which there is no shield—unless one can muster a press of equal might to counter and correct it each time. By contrast, lawsuits for defamation or insult against these press organs yield no real victory, for the liars care little about retracting their words later, in some obscure corner, knowing such corrections seldom reach those poisoned by the original, ruinous lies. Thus, more or less, these “champions” achieve their aim, all while preserving their honor before their patron—the state.
Beyond such personal assaults, they now assail us with the charge of being “pro-East,” fully aware that this accusation is the gravest one can face in the Western world today, sufficient to mark us as avowed enemies of the state in any land. They press this claim relentlessly, propped up by “authentic documents” as fabricated and false as those I first mentioned—though they know we, who battled Russia, could never turn Bolshevik nor abet that system. Who, after all, stood against the Soviets unto self-sacrifice? Was it not us? Have we not proclaimed our convictions loudly enough? The real architects of Bolshevism stand on the other side—precisely where these attacks chiefly spring from! These are the men who now stride forth again, hungry for offices and honors, comrades in spirit to Mr. von Schlabrendorf, who, through his book Officers Against Hitler, raised a monument to himself and the so-called heroic movement of the July 20, 1944, plot. It is he—not we—who wrote therein:
“Any means is justified to ensure Germany’s defeat.”
Well, he has it! Yet we may rightly note that this defeat paved the way for Bolshevism’s present dominance. Thus, it is sheer folly to seek the guilty among us. We are inconvenient voices of warning, and so they strive to make us pariahs. That is the sum of our “pro-Eastern” bent! The rearmament advocates, now haggling over Germany’s rearming, bear the guilty conscience—while our comrades from the last war languish still as “war criminals” in Spandau, Landsberg, French prisons, and other dungeons, tormented without end. Rather than demand an end to these and kindred outrages as the bedrock of any talks, they plunge headlong into the fray. Yet, just as many postwar scribes would now give much to unwrite their works, so too will some of these gentlemen awaken to their folly too late!
They also tag us “pro-East” because we refuse to become any power’s colony, because we will not sell ourselves—not even to a Mr. Speidel, who, in his book Invasion 1944 on page 71, muses of “considerations” to hold back two tank divisions for political ends at the invasion’s onset, rather than hurl them against the Allied landings. In truth, these divisions—the 2nd and 116th Panzer Divisions—were indeed kept idle at first, leaving thousands of our comrades to bleed out without proper tank cover, and so the invasion prevailed. (These divisions fell under the army group’s command, not the so-called Führer’s reserve, deployable only by headquarters—else Speidel’s “considerations” would scarce have been needed!)
Further, they wield the “pro-East” label to cow us, for we demand absolute equality and sovereignty in all economic, military, and political affairs as a prerequisite for any partnership, and insist that, as we rearm, a shield of 100 divisions be granted us. Such protection is vital if German rearmament is to proceed with any surety—without it, it’s a reckless roll of the dice, or sheer suicide.
So this is our so-called “pro-Eastern” stance, oft paired with the slur “Nazi.” But is a man who cherishes national dignity truly “pro-East” or a “Nazi”? Even if so, an army of comrades stands undaunted by such terms, steadfast in their fight for their ideals.