Is
Denmark
in Danger?
(Er
Danmark I Fare?)
by
Frederik Alexander Gottlieb Klee
April
7, 1848
Foreword
by Gerald D Klee;
Webmaster/Editor.
G D Klee
is a grandson of Frederik A G Klee's youngest child, Waldemar G. Klee (alternate
spelling Valdemar).
Frederik
A. G. Klee (F. Klee) was a prominent Danish statesman, historian, writer and
civil servant. (He was a member of the Danish Parliament from 1856-1864, when he
died. He represented the National Liberal Party)
In 1848
Denmark
was faced with a crisis as
Germany
prepared to seize Danish territory. The Danish patriot F. Klee sounded the
alarm in a manifesto on April 7, 1848, urging his countrymen to defend their
nation against the German aggressors.
F. Klee
warned that
Denmark
was in imminent danger of losing the territories (duchies) of Schleswig and
Holstein to
Germany
. Danish and German troops were already on the move. The ownership of these
duchies, located between
Denmark
on the north and
Germany
on the south, had been disputed for centuries, but the
Kingdom
of
Denmark
retained possession until the mid 19th century. Unless you grew up in
Denmark
and learned about the "Schleswig-Holstein Question" in your school
days, you may not understand it much better than I did before looking it up. I
sampled many Internet sources and summarized some of the highlights for this
discussion. I focused on the events during F. Klee's lifetime. I hope you find
it helpful. You can get a more comprehensive historical view of the subject from
the following website.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleswig-Holstein_Question
F. Klee's background is relevant. He was the son of
the military hero, Heinrich (alt. sp. Hendrich) G. Klee, who was wounded defending
Copenhagen
from the British in 1807.
The Danish King, Frederik VI, supported the son, F. Klee during his study of
law. Besides his law degree, F. Klee was a historian, a civil servant and
the celebrated author of books on subjects such as geology, geography and
history. He played a major role in developing Danish communication systems,
including the Postal system, as well as railway, steamship and telegraph systems for
Denmark
and
Schleswig
. In 1852 he obtained the title
of justice councilor. Although F.
Klee’s father Heinrich had been a decorated army officer, Frederik was not a military man.
However, his grasp of military strategy and power politics is evident. I
will try to outline the national and international context underlying this
crisis. (I can’t resist commenting on F. Klee’s flattering comments about
England
; the country he is hoping will come to
Denmark
’s rescue against
Germany
. He reveals himself as a consummate statesman by expressing sympathy for
England
’s headaches with
Ireland
as a constant source of worry and goes on to say in the broader context, “…
England
could remain as the world’s absolute mistress, still spreading peace and
freedom.”
This was a clever bit of blarney in 1848 when the
potato famine was decimating the Irish as the English did nothing but make
things worse. His flattery may have helped
Denmark
's cause, since the English responded positively to
Denmark
’s needs in the crisis.
I
must comment on the generally awkward writing style of the manifesto, which is
atypical for F. Klee - it lacks his usual elegance. The sentences are too long
and references to God, King and Country are overabundant. Given the perilous
situation, it must have been written hastily. It reads like the impassioned
rallying cry that it is. Perhaps it was based on a speech he had given around
that time.
F.
Klee’s call to arms during the national emergency may have had a significant
effect upon the Danish public and government.
His passion certainly comes through and his geopolitical understanding is
impressive. It shows the intense feelings he has on the subject and which he
wants to arouse in his countrymen. It's probably not a coincidence that
Denmark
's actions in this conflict closely corresponded with Klee's proposals.
Background: The European pot came to a boil with the French
Revolution in 1789. The rise of Napoleon soon afterward, destabilized
Europe
and much of the world, until his final defeat in 1815. During the Napoleonic
conflagration,
Denmark
was among the small nations caught between the opposing superpowers,
France
and
England
. Neutral Denmark suffered devastating attacks from the British in 1801 and
1807. F. Klee’s father, a Lieutenant at the time, was wounded in defending
Copenhagen
against the British and was awarded the Cross of Honor for
his heroism. http://letreb.com/historyandgenealogy/heinrich_v_klee_awarded_the_cros.htm
Keep
those facts in mind when reading F. Klee’s expectation that
England
would protect
Denmark
from the Germans. It is surprising to think of
England
coming to
Denmark
's rescue only 41 years after
England
unjustly and brutally battered Denmark. But Frederik understood power politics and he was right.
The
period between 1815 and 1848 was comparatively tranquil in
Europe
as European statesmen attempted to re-establish the old order. However, huge
population growth took place throughout the continent, accompanied by
nationalistic movements and demands for greater freedom. The
German National awakening following the Napoleonic
Wars led to a strong popular movement in Holstein and Southern
Schleswig for unification with a new Prussian
dominated
Germany. This development was paralleled by an equally strong national awakening in
Denmark
and
Northern Schleswig
. It called for the complete reintegration of Schleswig into Denmark.
A
wave of revolutions swept
Europe
in 1848. Even peaceful Denmark had a (quiet) revolution in which King
Frederick VII signed a constitution that gave Denmark a government
and the country became a constitutional monarchy on June
5, 1849. Perhaps Frederik Klee played a part in bringing that
about. I quote from his
manifesto, "The other most pressing question, namely the adoption
of a constitution permitting the greatest possible freedom and based on
principles of law, already seems to exist de facto."
Denmark
had been ruled by Absolutist
Monarchs since absolute rule was established in 1665 by King Frederik II.
Growing
nationalism in
Germany
led to demands for German unification. By 1848, the movement was underway for
consolidation of the many small Princely German states into a united,
expansionist
Germany
under Prussian leadership. Although the adjacent duchies of Schleswig &
Holstein were under Danish rule, the territories bordered on
Germany
and the populations were predominantly German speaking. A majority of them was
swept up in the German unification movement and took steps to join the German
federation. By March 21, 1848 Danish troops were marching into
Schleswig
to head off the Germans. On April 10, 3 days after F. Klee’s manifesto was
written, Prussian troops crossed the
Eider
River
to take
Schleswig
for the Provisional Government.
Denmark
fought back effectively. The
Danish Navy succeeded in blocking German ports, which caused a food crisis in Germany. But it was the threat of Russian and British intervention that brought about a
cease fire and a treaty. As F. Klee had predicted,
Britain
and
Russia
stepped in to demand a withdrawal by the Germans, because they didn't want Germany
to become too strong. The fighting continued off and on until July 10, 1849
when a cease fire was arranged under Russian pressure. One year later, on July
2, 1850,
Prussia
concluded a peace treaty with Denmark.
In
1863 the conflict broke out again as King Frederick VII of Denmark died. The
passing of a common constitution for
Denmark
and Schleswig in November 1863 was one of the events that Chancellor Bismarck
of
Prussia
saw as an excuse to intervene. On
February 1, 1864
Prussia
and
Austria
declared war on
Denmark. This
was the "Second
War of Schleswig" and it ended in a Danish defeat. British
attempts to mediate failed, and
Denmark
lost Schleswig, Holstein, and Lauenburg to
Prussia
and Austria.
Frederik
Klee died at age 56 on March 13, 1864 about 6 weeks after
Prussia
and
Austria
declared war on
Denmark
to regain Schleswig-Holstein. We have no information about the cause of his
death, but the loss of Schleswig-Holstein must have been a severe blow for him.
Perhaps his reaction to the loss hastened his death.
After
Germany's defeat in World War I, parts of the lost territories were returned to
Denmark. A plebiscite among
the inhabitants of
Northern Schleswig
led to its return to Danish rule in 1920.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleswig-Holstein
F.
Klee's fears of an increasingly powerful and expansionist
Germany
were well founded, as demonstrated most recently by the German occupation of Denmark
in World War II. In 1944, Henning Klee (1880-1944), a grandson of Frederik A G
Klee, was assassinated by the Gestapo. Why? -- Because Henning, who was a Danish
industrialist, refused to manufacture war materials for the Germans. He was shot
down on the street in
Copenhagen
. Two of Henning's sons, Poul Klee (1917-1971) and Mogens Klee (1919- ) served
in the Danish underground during the occupation and played a role in helping
Jews flee to Sweden. Their great-grandfather Frederik Klee would have been very proud of them.
Poul
and Mogens and their respective children, Ida Klee and Henning Klee have made
major contributions to the family history found on the Klee/Bang family and
genealogy website.
Frederik
A. G. Klee was buried in Copenhagen. His Gravestone is situated in the cemetery of the historic Holmens Kirke
(Church). The photo was taken during a visit to Denmark
by me and my wife Carol in the
summer of 2005. Mogens’ son, Henning Klee tells me that F. Klee is one of the
Danish national heroes that are buried in this cemetery and that Klee's grave
will always be protected. The English translation of the inscription on the
stone is: "HE LOVED HIS COUNTRY”
_________________________________________________________________
Gravesite
of Frederik Alexander Gottlieb Klee
(November
26, 1808-March 13, 1864)
The English translation of the inscription on the stone is:
"HE LOVED HIS
COUNTRY"
Photo
by Gerald D. Klee, July 2005
Er Danmark I Fare? Is Denmark in
Danger?
Written April 7, 1848 by Frederik A. G. Klee
For
sale to benefit the surviving relatives of departed warriors
Price:
12 cents [“shillings”]
Copenhagen
Published
by the author, commissioned to Gyldendal Publishing; printed in the Berlingske
print shop, 1848.
Translated into English by Barbara Snead, April 2006
What
a truly inspiring and splendid sight it is to see an entire nation, fervent for
freedom, lawfulness and order, rise up as one to assert its independence and to
fend off foreign violence and injustice with life and property. Its will
purified and its enthusiasm strengthened through many arduous tribulations, the
Danish people have never before cultivated greater
moral strength, greater unity, and harmony more inspiring to all ranks of
citizens, than in these days that are so meaningful for Denmark. This highly
fateful period has catapulted us a century ahead in time, yet has also brought
us closer to a timely decision on the question which was gnawing like a worm
hiding on the root of national life. Even in those olden times of adversity -
which perhaps in their outward form most resemble the present time - in those
days when Denmark’s unforgettable Thyre Danebod, supported by the nation’s
collective forces, raised a Danevirke against German violence and subordination,
it was the material evils: war, plundering and their attendant miseries, rather
than a conscious national will, that incited the separate Danish provinces,
united in a powerful front, to carry
out the glorious deed, whose consequences a millennium has not managed to
destroy and whose memory beckons us inspiringly to imitate. In the present day
there is still indeed the same strong solidarity among all Danes, but in
addition an unshakable national will which invites us to oppose foreign
arrogance with utmost power. The solidarity evidenced now is influenced by the
moral conviction of our just cause and the necessity of securing our future
political independence, as well as by the national will, expressed in the most
beautiful manifestations, which willingly brings the greatest sacrifices for the
fatherland and is inspired by the mild and redeeming genius of humanity,
encouraged and strengthened by the warm rays of freedom’s sun.
We
are indeed indignant and embittered to see how the most slender thread of
treachery, concealed in the most secretive way, managed to steal in and
infiltrate even the highest offices of the government. Our goal must be to
destroy the Hydra that is dissolving the state and which has drained the blood
from our heart. However, we must not rage in blind national hate against our
German neighbors, whom we have considered brothers through four centuries of
unity, and who have shared hardship and prosperity with us, but who for a long
time have strayed from the path of moderation and lawfulness, seduced by greedy
and treacherous leaders. We shall not, as in those days, respond to murder with
murder, plundering with plundering and violence with violence, but we come armed
with the sword of the law in one hand, freedom and the palm of peace in the
other. We want our due, no more and no less. But we want this with the ardor of
our entire soul and the mature strength of cool-mindedness. All as one will be
prepared to sacrifice life and blood for the good cause.
But
just as that single man sets his sights on a glorious deed, one on which his
whole future fate depends, I, too examine my inner spirit and calmly dedicate
the inner and outer powers at my command with whole-hearted sober-mindedness.
It is not only advantageous but also necessary that the Danish people
examine its entire internal and external position with the calm presence of mind
that is such a distinctive feature of its character, and seek the answer to this
question: Is Denmark in danger? Is its political independence threatened with
destruction? Are we capable of emerging victorious from the battle, not only
when it comes to subduing the rebellion, but also if
Denmark
should become entangled in a general European war through the unforeseeable
magnitude of the situation? A calm examination of the situation will show that
we, with the help of God, who has never abandoned
Denmark
in crisis and has preserved the purity of her time-honored name, would fight
the just war under conditions that are more advantageous than they might
generally be considered.
At
this time there can neither be talk nor thought of partisanship in
Denmark
. To the extent that parties have had any importance or have opposed one
another, this opposition has occurred more in form than substance, as all have
agreed on the main issue, and only disagreed on when and how we wish to realize
the common goal. The other most pressing question, namely the adoption of a
constitution permitting the greatest possible freedom and based on principles of
law, already seems to exist de facto. This matter will spur internal
controversy again, but the time and form it will take must remain unknown into
the indefinite future. But it is well known that so long as
Denmark
’s independence is threatened, we dare not allow disagreement to occur.
The
interests of each and every Dane are no doubt represented by the Ministry
created on the 22nd of March.
Likewise we shall rally behind our king, who is beloved by the people and has
readily fulfilled their desires, and who now, led by our heartfelt wishes and
our best hopes, stands at the forefront of the trustworthy defenders of the
fatherland. This unity, this solidarity, is our first and greatest advantage, an
advantage that is much more significant because our enemies are divided by
internal cross-purposes and are driven by conflicting interests.
Our
second great advantage, which cannot be emphasized enough if it comes to a
serious fight, is that we have the king, law and order, and trustworthiness on
our side. We cannot deny without
political blindness that the opponent consists of a plurality inspired by a
strong and honorable, though misunderstood and misled sense of nationality.
Aroused by deep sympathy for a large and united German fatherland, however, the
enemy has resorted to false pretenses, lawlessness, disorder and treachery.
Our
third great advantage is that we can pit our strong and well-equipped army,
fervent for king and fatherland, against the disordered and poorly supplied
troops of Schleswig-Holstein. Our army will effectively double its actual
strength, since we can easily expect it to be supported by a sizeable and
well-equipped flotilla, whose bold crew burns with the desire to preserve the
flag’s ancient honor. Under the present circumstances it will be crucial not
only to spare our own blood, but also as much as possible that of our brothers
gone astray. Therefore we should realize that, while a victorious land army will
be necessary to destroy the insurrection, our naval power has the most certain
means, by blocking all the rebel harbors on both the east and west coasts, to
exhaust the enemy without greatly sacrificing human life. This will give the
sober-minded portion of Schleswig and
Holstein
’s German-sympathizing residents the opportunity to choose between the horrors
of war and anarchy versus the blessings of freedom and peace.
If
we had but to battle Schleswig-Holstein and the lawless troops who come to their
aid in the name of freedom and German unity (but who in truth will bring
ruination rather than benefit to the residents of Schleswig and Holstein), then
we could, we all agree, be calm. The same God who has dispensed the blessings of
peace and lawfulness in our happy isles will also hold his protecting hand over
the king and will not permit our young and strong bid for freedom to be darkened
by the chaos of anarchy. But perhaps a single voice, anxious about the foreign
political situation, might ask “What should
Denmark
do if the powerful
Prussia
, indeed if all of
Germany
sides with the rebels, and if the interests of
France
,
Russia
and colossal
England
should thwart one another? Won’t little
Denmark
be tossed about like a dinghy on a rough sea? Won’t our independence sink to
the bottom? Won’t we be ravaged by
Germany
and split asunder by
Russia
and
England
?”
A
half century ago such a terrible fear would perhaps have been justified, but the
time is over when one can treat an entire nation with impunity, like a serf,
doing with it as one will. With respect to
Denmark
, its political independence is perhaps stronger than in any other time of
crisis. We will not mention those days when the poor unenviable Christopher the
Second barely commanded a footprint of Danish land, or when
Copenhagen
encompassed within its ramparts the last remnant of our independence. Better
that we cast our eye on the present, and so far as
Europe
’s complicated situation permits, examine the near future to see whether it is
likely to bring us despair or hope.
First
we will examine the latter question: “What should we do if Prussia or all of
Germany were to force us through armed power to cede Schleswig, a land which in
ancient times was Danish, but which now is half-German?” After having
exhausted all of the arguments for justice and all diplomatic methods, should we
relinquish it without a fight? Given the current conditions, the answer must
certainly be an unconditional No. But could we defend it against all of
Germany
by ourselves? I believe, and every patriotic man will no doubt stand by me:
Yes! Our present, justifiable demand is for the unification of Holstein with
Denmark
to the Eider [River], and if we take Rendsburg Fortress, we would not surrender
it without striking a blow. But if a more powerful enemy should capture it
before us, i.e., if a sizeable German army should overrun Holstein and threaten
to spill into
Schleswig
, the situation would change. No matter how furious we feel over the Germans’
uninvited and unlawful interference in our situation, we must not forget that
Holstein will effectively be foreign to us, and has been so since the king
himself declared his desire to separate it from Danish statehood and give it an
independent constitution, a special army and separate finances. Thus the
scenario would be the reverse of what existed previously, though it has not yet
been lawfully resolved. We must remember that we would certainly receive a joint
governor with Holstein, but this ruler’s sympathies and interests would in
many ways restrict and run counter to ours, so complete harmony between Holstein
and
Denmark
could never be realized. I do not mean in the slightest that we should
sacrifice the nation’s honor and interests by letting go of Holstein just like
that, or that its legitimate duke, Denmark’s king, should not have the right
or power to quell a rebellion in his own country or to show uninvited guests the
door. From a purely national standpoint the best course might be to launch a
determined occupation of entire Schleswig, as soon as possible, then to
observe for a while how much support and assistance Holstein receives from its
German helpers, and whether it doesn’t repentantly acknowledge that its
half-brother Denmark has been as good and faithful a friend and support as its
“full brother” Germany has been. If Holstein does not readily acknowledge
this, it won’t realize that our most effective and most redeeming revenge
would be a total blockade toward
Schleswig
and toward the sea - and it would be but little gain if we had to teach these
truths with bloody weapons.
However,
Holstein
will always be German. If countless German troops stream in from Holstein to
Schleswig, then perhaps the only strategically and politically justifiable
course would be for us not to spill unnecessary blood trying to recapture such a
precarious place as Rendsburg and such a widespread and difficult to defend line
as the
Eider
River
and the
Schleswig-Holstein
Canal
. The nature of the land and the
politics, plus the experience of our forefathers, would suggest a line of
defense where a plucky little army, if well commanded and sufficiently supported
on both sides by our navy, might be able to withstand a superior and sizeable
enemy army. Each of us will
recognize that I am referring to that line of defense where the gigantic
earthworks and moats of the ancient Danevirke once towered. Of course there can
be no talk of restoring this to its original condition, but even for those
uninitiated in the rules of strategy it must be clear that the rules of modern
warfare dictate that a renewed Danevirke must rise up here, regardless of
whether we wage war or maintain peace.
If
we occupy Husum, Schleswig and Eckernförde, all of which offer exceedingly
advantageous terrain (Husum and Eckernförde would be virtually impregnable as
long as we command the sea); if we utilize the waterways, namely the Reider
River, the Trene River and the western waters and streams, as well as if
necessary the partially flooded western lands; and if we establish detached
forts or temporarily capture the favorable positions where the countryside is
open - and above all occupy
Hollingsted - then we would have an extremely effective line of defense. Not
only would it be considered strongly fortified both by nature and our handiwork,
but also it is the narrowest land in all of
Schleswig
. South of that, of course, the land is either just as barren and sandy or as
marshy and flat as in the olden times, when an enemy army had difficulty gaining
a foothold. Northwards there would be only a few miles’ expanse with a truly
Danish-sympathizing population, which would rise up en masse to protect hearth
and home only as a last resort. Furthermore, if our army (contrary to
expectation) should have to yield to the superior power, these people would
stand by them step by step to defend the fatherland’s holy soil.
But
if our brave land troops should have to surrender (and a retreat of our navy is
out of the question, since the enemy has no naval forces), would we then be
lost? Can we expect no sympathy for our righteous cause, no support among the
nations of
Europe
? Has the deep bond that recently united the Scandinavian brother states been
broken? Can
Sweden
, our closest neighbor - several provinces of which scarcely 200 years ago
obeyed the same kings and followed the same unblemished flag as our
forefathers– watch the old
Denmark
succumb without shame or indignation? Could the great powers of
France
,
Russia
and
England
(who, along with the once great power
Austria
secured
Schleswig
for us) break their holy promises? We must presume this, for which foreign
promises can be relied upon in these times of anarchy and dissolution; I wonder
whether at this point they could disregard their own national interests?
With
regard to
France
, a nation which at the moment does not seem to know what it wants, the
situation is surely doubtful, but we must not overlook the fact that
France
is exactly in a similar position to ours.
France
will not relinquish
Lorraine
or
Alsace
(already a “half German” country) at any price, and its fervent goal is to
extend its borders to the
Rhine
. Viewed this way, can it be so
insignificant to favor
Germany
, which shares its desire for freedom, yet whose enlargement and expansion of
force not only opposes its well known politics, but also runs counter to its
national interests? Even if France could forget its promises, even if it could
be so dishonorable as to sacrifice one of its most faithful allies (which gave
up half of its power for its sake) to the enemy, which in the last great war of
nations most cursedly and arrogantly opposed its nationality and independence (a
humiliation France never will forget), it is unthinkable
that it would permit Germany once again , as the result of German
expansion attempts, to win back the German residents who are now French citizens.
Whatever government might be in place,
France
must of course sympathize more with
Denmark
than with
Germany
. Even if this doesn’t bring us any direct help, it will serve to hold
southwestern
Germany
in check either with or without
France
’s blessing.
But
an even more dangerous enemy threatens
Germany
(whose interior is in the throes of quarreling and opposing interests) from the
opposite side.
Russia
’s formidable troops stand poised on its eastern borders and thus serves, even
if we maintain a cautious distance, as a powerful ally in our cause. Though our
national sympathies may differ, we uphold nonetheless the same political
principal, namely that we both maintain the status quo, and our positions
therefore have more in common than we would care to admit. If we only had to
choose between aligning ourselves either with
Russia
or
England
, the choice wouldn’t be in doubt even for a moment. “English Alliance”
would of course be the people’s unanimous cry. But since
England
and
Russia
share at the moment the same political interests, we would have, given the
existing conditions, nothing to worry about from that side, and the fear that
England
and
Russia
might divide us is nothing but a fantasy. Nevertheless we must be cautious
about concluding an alliance.
Denmark
should try to defend itself for as long as possible. An alliance with a great
power should only be the last resort; for we should not forget that strong
allies usually expect compensation for any help offered.
If
we must seek an alliance, then it should first and foremost be with our
Scandinavian brother countries, with whom we already are united in spirit and in
truth, and who alone among
Europe
’s nations could be expected to take our side with the unselfish sympathy of a
sincere heart. Common blood runs in our veins, and the cause of Danish
nationality is also that of the Scandinavian North. The cause of Scandinavia,
however, is neither
Russia
’s nor
England
’s, except in so far as their political interests at the moment might coincide
with ours. But exactly these things speak more strongly in our favor than it
might seem at a cursory glance.
England
thus has double reasons to protect our independence. On the one hand it does
not desire a Scandinavian union, which it fears would arise from our defeat, a
union which, whose naval forces, if combined with those of
France
, could become a formidable opponent. On the other hand, its politics won’t
permit
Germany
to attain power over the seas by acquiring harbors in
Schleswig
, nor to consequently represent a greater enemy to its industrial superiority
than it already does! Thus it is not only the guarantee given to us by
England
and its national honor that persuades it to take our side, but also the more
powerful incentives: political and national interests.
In
the meantime we should by no means trust confidently that
England
will bring us speedy help.
England
itself is in a difficult position;
Ireland
is a constant source of worry and it wishes to use its might as little as
possible, so long as it believes it can achieve the same goal by other means.
That demon called
England
’s politics (I don’t mean its government or the English people, for the
latter in any case are too noble for this), would like to see all of the
remaining nations of
Europe
exhaust themselves.
France
and
Russia
, its only current rivals, should weaken one another through a bloody clash, so
England
could remain as the world’s absolute mistress, still spreading peace and
freedom. And which governing politicians would not like to attain such a lofty
goal, if it could happen in an honest and righteous way! But
England
can only achieve this goal precisely by preserving the Scandinavian states,
namely
Denmark
, such as they exist right now; for we would form its natural allies against the
continental powers. Comprising the latter are
Prussia
(fallen from the heights of the political Great Powers) and
Austria
, both of which apparently want to join with
Germany
. This union would then pose a threatening counterbalance against the British
influence. Therefore if
England
were to see us falter in the imminent battle, we could safely expect her to
hasten to our aid. But until we clearly see proof of this aid, we would best
place our trust in God and our righteous cause, relying on our own might and our
Scandinavian brothers, who neither could nor would fail us if serious danger
threatened. With solid courage and dauntless self-confidence we would boldly
fight the good fight, and if we should prevail, we would offer a hand in
reconciliation to every brave German. Our common goal shall then be: Freedom and
independence for everyone, enlightenment and humanity for all.