Frederick III Writes About the End of the War and the End of the German Monarchy

January 22, 1918
Received by James Padgett
Washington, D.C.

I am here, Frederick III, the father.

Let me write a line. I have heard what Bismarck said and I fully agree with him in his predictions as to the ending of the war and while it is not in accord with what would be my desire as a German when on earth, yet it will prove to the great liberator of the Germans as individuals and as a nation. The government of men are intended by the powers that they have in thought the best interests of mankind to be the means by which the greatest good may be bestowed upon the people individually and as a whole, and the government which is founded upon the divine right of any one man or family to rule is not best suited for either the progress of the nation or of the individuals that comprise that nation.

Hence, I say that the ending of the German monarchy and dethronement of the Kaiser and his family and all who make claim any right to govern men will work out for the people of Germany individually and as a nation the great good and justice and freedom to which all the children of God on earth are entitled.

Of course, when I lived on earth, I did not look on these things from the viewpoint that I now see is the only correct one to assume. I was a monarch and believed in the divine obligations of the people to be ruled and, hence, were I on earth now I might believe that the Empire of Germany should be maintained under all circumstances. Now I am a spirit and realize the hollowness and untruth of all such ideas. In sight of God and in the workings of His unchangeable laws, no one man is by birth or nation better and entitled to any greater rights than any other man, and every Emperor and King and nobleman of earth will, when he comes to the spirit life, sooner or later realize this fact and, in the case of some, the conviction will come, as it may be said, with a vengeance.

It will do no good to write of the great misery and distress that now exists in Germany and of how the cruel masters of the people are compelling them to submit to all this misery, for my writing would not lessen this condition one iota. But I will say that the end of all this horrible nightmare is in sight and peace and happiness will come to the people, though in the meantime many of these people will have become spirits and among them will be the Kaiser and many of his advisers and sustainers in his unholy ambitions.

As a human father, it would be distressing for me to write in this (way) because then I would be controlled by my natural affections and solicitation for my children, but having become a spirit with enlarged and more truthful view of the relationship of mortals and of the importance of each individual soul, while I may still maintain the affection for my children yet, I can see and know that the greatest good to the people of Germany will come when the ruler of the Empire shall cease. Suffering and death must follow, but out of them will rise peace and happiness and a deeper feeling of the people in their relationship to God.

I will only say further, that the end is here. Yes, very soon and the great sacrifice of men and peace and things material will cease. I will not write more. Good night, your friend

Frederick, the father of the wounded nation

(Father of William II, the last Kaiser)

Bismarck Writes His Opinion of the War

May 16, 1917
Received by James Padgett
Washington, D.C.

I am here, Bismarck.

Well, I am here and will give you my opinion of the war as best I can. My views are based on the conditions that I am aware of in all the countries engaged in the war.

I understand that you do not want a long message tonight so I will say briefly that the Germans will have to sue for peace and that will happen, I feel certain, before the beginning of August. The condition of the German people is such that they will cease to sustain the Kaiser in the longer prosecution of the war, and the revolutionary party will grow so rapidly that the monarch of Germany will soon cease to exist.

This is the opinion of the one who is responsible for the formation of the Empire.

Bismarck

Helen Writes About the Spirits Who Come to the Spirit World From the Battlefields of War in a Very Bad Condition

February 1, 1917
Received by James Padgett
Washington, D.C.

I am here, Helen.

Well dear, you have received some very interesting letters tonight, and both the spirits who claimed to write actually did so.

Blaine is very much interested in the crisis that has arisen, and his advice is given with much enthusiasm and desire that the President take immediate action to protect the rights of the U.S.

Bismarck was most serious and not at all excited while writing, but was very calm in stating what he considered to be the right of his country.

Well, it is all very sad and we spirits, as well as you mortals, will be very glad when this cruel war is over, for I must tell you that many spirits come over from the battlefields in a very bad condition, and the spirits who receive them are given much work to do in helping them.

I have visited some of the battlefields during the battles and have seen some very terrible sights, and sometimes I will write you the results of my observations, and what the spirits of some of the soldiers have said and done after they were in the spirit world a little while. Peace will come, but never will it be a certain lasting peace until men receive in their hearts the true love for their brother mortals. The reforms must come to the individual, and the victory of nations, as such, will not bring this peace.

Well, you are tired and I must not write more. But I must say that you are in a much better condition of spirit and soul, and if you continue to pray to the Father, you will soon be in condition so that the higher spirits will be able to write their messages, which they so much wish to do.

We all send love and blessings and desire you to be happy. You know how I love you and want you to be happy, and how my prayers go to the Father for your happiness and the inflowing of the Love. So think of me and love me, and have faith and courage, and you will be blessed. Give me my kiss and say good night.

Your own true and loving,
Helen

Bismarck, a Former German Statesman, Writes His Thoughts on the Current World War

February 1, 1917
Received by James Padgett
Washington, D.C.

I am here, Bismarck.

Let me say a word, as I have listened to what has just been written, and am interested in the subject matter of that communication, and do not agree with the sentiments or the conclusions of the thoughts there contained. I am not impartial, I confess, but yet I think that I can do justice to both of the contending parties in the war, as I am a spirit and have learned that right is right irrespective of the person or nation that may claim to be in the right in its actions.

I was a German, and a rather important one, as men consider importance in the earth life, and was acknowledged by the world to be something of a statesman. I have kept in constant touch with the thoughts and motives of the leaders of the various nations that are engaged in this great conflict, and know the right and wrong of things to a greater extent, I claim, than does the spirit who has just written you, and submit that my inferences and opinions are as worthy of consideration and acceptance as are his.

In the first place, this was not brought about by the Germans without justification and cause, and for a long time the German rulers delayed and endeavored to postpone and, if possible, avoid the war. But their rights, as a nation, were so seriously preyed upon and not recognized, that the only thing left for them to do was to compel their secret enemies to respect their rights by force of arms, and so you have the real cause of the conflict. The Germans were not desirous or ambitious for conquest or territory or advancement to the detriment of other nations, but only for what they, as a great nation, were entitled to.

And England, in its greed, stood in the way of and prevented these rights from being recognized, and tried every way in her power to prevent the German nation from enjoying these rights, and especially from extending its commerce to countries in which England had established her commerce and trade, almost to the exclusion of every other nation.

The Germans waited in hope that, by diplomatic means, their rights would be established and recognized but such hope was never realized and as a last and only resort, they threw down the gauge of battle, quick and sharp and destructive - with some violation of the rights of a neutral that stood in the way of accomplishing what the German nation considered its decisive blow. But this is history, and it is not necessary that I should add further detail.

And now, as the war has progressed for more than two years, Germany has naturally become depleted of its resources, and especially in those things that are necessary to sustain the physical existence of its people, and all through the action of the Allies in preventing foodstuff and other necessaries being imported from other nations. Its ports have been blockaded for a long time, and it has been unable to obtain supplies that were absolutely necessary to the existence of its people, until famine and want are staring them in the face, and more than that, have actually worked their ruinous effects, and the cry of the people is for sustenance.

Then, such being the fact, what is the duty of the German rulers? Can humanity ask that they shall sit supinely by and see their people starve and their country ruined, because of the conditions that I speak of, brought about by their enemies in preventing intercourse with outside nations?

I know that international law should be respected by nations in war as well as in peace, and that it is for the good of all nations that such laws be held sacred and inviolable, and Germany has tried to observe these laws, even after some of its enemy nations have violated them.

Let me ask here, what difference does the means used in considering the right or wrong of a thing, make when the same result is accomplished? England, by her superior number of war vessels, has succeeded in blockading the ports of Germany and preventing its people from getting the supplies necessary to their sustenance, and at the same time is enjoying the benefits of unrestricted importation of these necessaries, because Germany had not had it in its power to blockade the ports of England and, thus, prevent her from obtaining these supplies. This kind of blockade, the nations claim, international law justifies, no matter what the results may be.

And now, when Germany has found a way to accomplish the same thing, as regards the ports of England and place her and her people in the same condition that the people of Germany have been in for so long a time, and have given notice of its intention to use such means, the nations hold up their hands in horror because such means are not known to international law.

The effect of one blockade is just the same as the effect of another, then why should the means make any difference?

America has not been permitted for a long time to send its products to a German port, and to that extent its, America's have been blockaded, as the last writer says; but this is allowable, because, as they say, the English blockade is in accordance with recognized international law. All which means, that because one nation has the power to do a thing in accordance with international law, another nation has not the same right because the means used are not contemplated by that law.

Well such reasoning is one that if applied to the progress of the world would have kept that progress in a state of stagnation. When international law was formulated, the means and instruments used in this war were never heard of, and they are only the evolution of the war, growing out of the progress of man in the knowledge and necessities of war. Laws are always subject to change and that change need not be by agreement, for sometimes, and it has often happened, necessity has compelled and justified the modification of the law.

It is said that necessity knows no law, and it is a truth, and one that has been recognized and applied by many nations, at many times. In the present circumstances of Germany, this necessity has arisen to such an extent that the very existence of Germany, not only as a nation, but of her people as individuals is involved, and life is at stake, and the only remedy is that the nations who are fighting Germany, be placed in the same position as she is in, and that can be done only by preventing those nations from obtaining those supplies that are necessary to maintain their people, and this can only be accomplished by blockading their ports.

It may be said that the use of the submarine is brutal and inhuman. Well, for the argument admit this to be a fact, yet it is not necessary that any brutality or any murder be actually inflicted, for if the persons interested will heed the warnings and not attempt to run the blockade, there will be no murder or outrage. And why, may I not ask, is it not just as reasonable to demand that the blockade established by the German submarines shall not be attempted to be violated as that the blockade which the English have established shall not be attempted to be violated? In the latter instance, the neutral nations recognize the blockade and do not attempt to have their merchant ships enter the ports that are so blockaded, and why is there any greater injustice done when Germany demands that these neutral vessels shall not enter the ports that she intends to blockade? The only difference is in the means used, and if the neutral nations will observe the obligations that each blockade imposes to the same extent, there will become no necessity for using the means in either.

I do not see why the U.S. should feel that her rights are being violated to any greater or different extent, as a question of right, by the proposed German blockade, than by the blockade that has been created by the English, and for so long a time existed. Of course, the effects of the two blockades upon the business of the U.S. are different in degree, as more business is done and has been done with the Allies, than was done with Germany. But this does not enter into or affect the question of the right or wrong of the matter. Well, I will not write more along this line.

Now as to the results of the war, or rather as to its ending, I cannot prognosticate. Germany is fighting on very unequal terms, and she may be defeated, and I would not be surprised if such was the end of the conflict. But, nevertheless, and even though victory may come to the Allies, I assert as true that the right of the matter is with her, and that the neutral nations are not doing her justice, when they declare that she is the aggressor; and that she is not justified in the course that she is now pursuing. I am told that I have written enough, and so I must stop, but what I have said is the right of the matter. Good night,

Your friend,
Bismarck