’Twas a long, long Money Trail a-winding
By 1914, as we have already seen, the interests of Britain and the
Anglo-Persian Oil Company had become inseparable, and British foreign
policy and the Rothschild Banking family foreign policy became one and
the same. During this period of purported U.S. neutrality from 1914 to
1917, American sentiment was shifted gradually but inexorably toward a
pro-Ally, pro-war position, first because of the sophisticated British
propaganda campaign, and later from the increasing pressure from
business and corporate elite on both sides of the Atlantic who had a
financial and commercial stake in a British and French victory.
American business was soon booming from the war in Europe. Between
1914 and 1917, the American GNP was up 20% and manufacturing was up
40%. Allied Powers purchased over 3 billion dollars in wartime orders
and borrowed over 2 billion dollars in bonds, compared to twenty
million in Central power bonds. The British surface naval blockade of
Germany ensured that American trade was almost exclusively with the
Allies.
As early as 1915, the United States, not yet involved in the War, had
loaned France and Great Britain millions of dollars through American
banks. Had Germany won, those bonds held by American bankers would
have been worthless. By the spring of 1917, American bankers had
loaned the Allies almost $3 billion dollars plus another $6 billion
for exports, and the steel, munitions, chemical and agricultural
industries had all become dependent on the war for profit. Lastly,
some of the democrats (and Woodrow Wilson’s biggest financial backers)
had vested personal financial interests with Britain and France. How
did this happen?
The financial aspect of the conflict which became known as World War
One is too vast to relate here with the respect the subject deserves,
but let it suffice to point out that World War One elevated
approximately 21,000 US investors into the brackets of millionaires
and billionaires. The Rockefellers alone, who displayed great
eagerness for the US to enter World War One on the British side, made
in excess of $200,000,000 from that conflict, and in just one
afternoon during the war, Bernard Baruch, Wilson’s Czar of American
Industry and part of the commission that handled all purchasing for
the Allies during the war, made a personal profit of $750,000.
The Federal Reserve System, which began operations in 1914, was the
vehicle which in effect forced the American people, without them even
knowing it, to lend the Allies twenty-five billion dollars in loans
which went unpaid, although the interest on the loans was indeed
paid... to New York bankers. The cartel of the Rothschilds and the
Bank of England and other London banking houses which ultimately
controlled the Federal Reserve Banks through their controlling amounts
of bank stock (along with that of their subsidiary firms in New York,
J.P. Morgan Co. and Kuhn, Loeb & Co., etc.) directed the
successful campaign to have the plan enacted into law by Congress.
These very firms had their principal officers appointed to the Federal
Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Advisory Council in 1914.
The banking and business elites salivating for war included J. Henry
Schroder Banking Company, the Rockefellers, the Eugene Meyer family,
J.P. Morgan, Alex Brown & Sons, Kuhn Loeb & Co., the
Rothschilds, the Warburgs, the Baruch and Guggenheim families and a
few others who weaved a tightly connected web of power, money, arms
and influence for their own financial gains. Their mutual influence on
world affairs often crossed as they financed all sides for a
continual, profit rendering conflict.
J. P. Morgan, Jr., one of the signatories to the establishment of the
Federal Reserve in 1913, played a prominent role in the financial
aspects of war-mongering. It was he who made the first loan of
$12,000,000 to Russia, and in 1915, a loan of $50,000,000 to the
French Government. All of the munitions purchases in the United States
by the British were made through one of his firms, and he organized a
syndicate of about 2,200 banks and floated a loan of $500,000,000 to
the Allies.
J.P. Morgan also received the proceeds of the First Liberty Loan to
pay off $400,000,000 which he in turn advanced to Great Britain at the
outbreak of war. By 1917, the Morgans and Kuhn, Loeb Company had
floated a billion and a half dollars in loans to the Allies. The
bankers also financed a slew of pro-war (disingenuously named “peace”)
organizations which prodded US citizens to become involved in the War.
The “Commission for Relief in Belgium” made up grisly atrocity stories
against the Germans, while a Carnegie organization called the “League
to Enforce Peace” (later, the Carnegie Endowment for International
Peace) agitated in Washington for US entry into war.
Sometimes, the bankers financed both sides. The Rothschilds’ agents,
the Warburg banking house, were financing the Kaiser. Paul Warburg, a
naturalized citizen from Germany who had been decorated by the Kaiser
in 1912, was vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. He had also
handled large sums furnished by Germany for Lenin and Trotsky while
his brother Max (who was Kaiser Wilhelm’s personal banker) was the
leader of the German espionage system! It was this brother, Max, who
authorized Lenin’s train to pass through the lines and execute the
Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Jacob Schiff, like the Warburgs, also
had two brothers in Germany during the war, Philip and Ludwig, who
also were active as bankers to the German Government.
The Rothschilds meanwhile bought the German news agency, Wolff, to
further control the flow of information to the German people and what
the rest of the world would hear from inside Germany. One of the
leading executives of Wolff was none other than Max Warburg! The
Rothschilds would later buy an interest in the Havas news agency in
France and Reuters in London. The tentacles of the banking families
reached deep into the power elites: Dr. von Bethmann Hollweg, was the
son of Moritz Bethmann from the Frankfurt banking family of Frankfurt,
a cousin of the Rothschilds.
Kuhn, Loeb & Co. represented the Rothschild interests in the US,
and along with the Harrimans, the Goulds and the Rockefellers, became
the dominant powers in the railroad and America financial world while
they war-mongered to fatten themselves even more. The first available
appointment on the Supreme Court of the United States which Woodrow
Wilson filled was given to Kuhn-Loeb lawyer Louis Brandeis who had
been selected by Jacob Schiff to carry on war agitation. Through
marriage, the Kuhn Loeb Company managed to twine itself throughout the
U.S. Food Administration, the British Secret Service and the Wilson
White House. And on and on and on it went, like a ball of twine,
tangling and tying the bankers, their progeny and their friends
together for war and profits.
On October 13, 1917, Woodrow Wilson stated: “It is manifestly
imperative that there should be a complete mobilization of the banking
reserves of the United States. The burden and the privilege (of the
Allied loans) must be shared by every banking institution in the
country. I believe that cooperation on the part of the banks is a
patriotic duty at this time, and that membership in the Federal
Reserve System is a distinct and significant evidence of patriotism.”
That “patriotism” served the bankers and their cronies well, although
it did little for the people of America who sacrificed their sons,
fathers, brothers and husbands to a bloody, needless war.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
HOW BRITAIN
INITIATED BOTH WORLD WARS
Transcription of a talk given to the London 9/11Keeptalking Group on
March 3rd. 2016
by
Nick Kollerstrom, PhD
Contents
Chapter 1 World War One Chapter 2 World War Two
Part One – World war one
I LIGHT-HEARTEDLY GAVE this topic to Ian last summer, "How Britain
initiated both world wars" and he's been going on since about me
doing it, so I could not back out now ... We have done the idea of
First World War initiation before[1], and will be recalling that.
This isn't about the history of the wars, it isn't about who are the
good guys guy s and who are the bad b ad guys, it is the concept of
initiating a world war - a very extraordinary concept concep t - and
who wanted it, who wanted it to happen. We do not accept that it
just happened by itself, and I will try and argue that a will to
war-initiation came from this country, and not some other country.
Let's start off in the months coming up to the First World War, May
of 1914, when an American statesman reported back to America after a
tour o f Europe. He said, “The situation is extraordinary, jingoism
run stark mad” - he was talking about the instability of the
European nations - there was no way of o f avoiding this awful
cataclysm, no-one in Europe can do it, it's locked into too many
jealousies, and “… whenever England consents, France and Russia
Russia will [2] close in on Germany and Austria.” [See slide
2, on page 27] Now that is a very good summary of what
happened, France and Russia would 'close in.' Let's have a look at
the map here, how Austria-Hungary was about to be 'closed in' by
Russia and
France. [slide 3] Those were two nations which both wanted war -they
believed they had territories they could only get back from Germany
by war. The other nation that wanted war was Serbia, but
not not with Germany - it wanted war with Austria, because it
had dreams of a greater Serbia, and it believed that war was a
way of getting this, and it believed that, although it was smaller,
Russia would support it. So those were the countries that actually
wanted war, and the situation was, that Russia would never have
dared to go to war with Germany, unless it believed that France was
supporting it, and France wouldn't have dared to support Russia in
war against Germany, unless it believed that Britain was supporting
it. Britain had as such no motive for going to war with Germany,
unlike France or Russia. So the Question is, did Britain want to do
it? Did it initiate this situation, this cataclysm? It all depended
on a French-English Entente which was secretive. This was woven from
about 1905 onwards: a deal that if war broke out, France - which had
been for centuries the traditional enemy of Britain - if war broke
out, we would support France. Edward Grey secretly assured Poincarè
that Britain would support France and Russia as an obligation of
honour, if war broke out.[3] It was supposed to be a defensive
alliance, but as this excellent book makes clear, Hidden clear,
Hidden History, Secret Origins of the First World World
War by by Docherty & McGregor, it was really
functioning as an offensive war-generating alliance [4]. This is the
best book on the subject. Bertrand Russell recalled how he was
shocked by how happy people seemed to be, when war was
declared, around the beginning of August[4]. Also, he always noticed
how carefully Edward Grey concealed what he was doing [5] as he
secretly committed us to war. The Government and the Cabinet and the
people pe ople didn't realise this. We have here the concept of a
secret elite: is it possible that a secret elite can drag this
country into war? Belgium was founded on a treaty of perpetual
neutrality, which was supposed to guarantee that it would not take
sides in a European war, but actually it had been making detailed
war-plans with Britain in the event of war breaking out. Such things
as stockpiles of cannon balls of the British standard not French,
and coats co ats for the soldiers, were found in Belgium, and when
the Germans invaded Belgium they found agreements a greements with
Britain in the Belgian palace of go vernment.[5] So Belgium was
actually not neutral at all. There was a deal for the hundred
thousand British soldiers to be transported across to France a nd
Belgium immediately when war broke out. Detailed plans had been
made. So this meant that Germany realised that it was surrounded by
not three but four hostile nations - it was totally surrounded. This
was the terrific deep fear and panic that built up and couldn't c
ouldn't really be resolved. Who was the Kaiser, Kaiser Wilhelm? He
had quite a reputation as a peacemaker in Europe here is the New the
New York Times’ Times’ judgment, made a year before, June 1913. [7]
'Now he is acclaimed everywhere as the greatest factor for peace
that our time can show. It was he, again and again, who threw the
weight of his personality into the balance for peace, whenever whene
ver war-clouds gathered over Europe.” That is quite fulsome praise.
I would describe him as a wise peacemaker. Let's have another
verdict, by a former US president, just before the war broke out:
“…the
critically important part which has been his among the nations, he
has been for the last quarter of a century, the single
greatest force in the practical maintenance of peace in the world.”
There was a BBC program, a centenary tribute to him which talked
about his love of England and his deep attachment to Queen Victoria:
the two Royal families shared the same ancestry with Queen Victoria.
In twenty-five years on the throne, he'd never gone to war and the
German army hadn't fought a battle in nearly half a century.
So it’s reasonable to say that this was quite a pacific nation,
whereas Britain and America had been to war quite a lot. He had a
certain confidence in being able to use the strength of Germany to
resolve issues of war and peace in Europe. If I may give you one
more quote, from a very influential American statesman, Colonel
House, he wrote a letter after visiting in July 1914, just before
the war broke out. His letter to the Kaiser after his tour of Europe
[10] recalled the wonderful wonde rful conversations they had
together: about how he the Kaiser had wanted to bring about a better
understanding between the great powers: "because of your
well-known desire to maintain peace, I came as your Majesty knows
directly to Berlin. I can never forget the gracious acceptance ac
ceptance of the general purposes of o f my mission, the masterly
exposition of the world-wide political conditions as they exist
today, and the prophetic forecast for the future.” And he felt
confident: "I live happy in the belief that your y our majesty's
great influence was thrown on behalf of peace and the broadening of
the world's commerce.” So we have had several judgments of the
Kaiser, of him understanding how - if anyone could maintain peace in
Europe - how it could be done. And then we get, just before the
cataclysm, a friendly visit of the British Royal Navy to Germany.
The new Dreadnoughts came to Kiel Harbour, and the Kaiser inspects a
British ship wearing a British admiral uniform, to stress his
connection with the British royal family. So we wonder, how on earth
could cataclysmic war break out, under these circumstances,
between two nations that had been friendly for a thousand years? The
assassination came at the end of June of the Austrian Arch-Duke, and
it takes a while before anything happened then. All the Serbian
newspapers were rejoicing at this assassination, so Austria has to
respond. The problem leading to both world wars, was that the
geographical definition of Germany is smaller than the extent of the
Germanic people. pe ople. People who feel they are German, are wider
than the boundary of what is fixed as Germany in 1871. For the first
World War, that very much applies to Austria. The ruling family of
Germany, since Mediaeva l times had been in Austria the Habsburgs -
and so there was a deep connection of Austria and Germany. Austria
wanted to be part of Germany but wasn't allowed to: so this
was in a sense what dragged Germany into the First World war. Let's
look at the development of the cataclysm, the sequence. Austria
gives a severe ultimatum to Serbia, a ten-point ultimatum, what it’s
got to do - and, to everyone's surprise, Serbia nearly accepts them
all, nine out of ten. But Austria is still angry, it was '"You've
got to accept them all." The Kaiser insists: "This is capitulation,
of the most humiliating sort, with it disappears every reason for
war - every cause ca use for war now falls to the ground". He tells
Austria to accept that Serbian acquiescence. But he does not succeed
in stopping - things happen too quickly now -
he doesn't succeed in stopping Austria from shelling Belgrade in
Serbia on 28th July. One historian reckoned that they did it right
away because they reckoned that, if they waited any longer, the
Kaiser would have stopped them.[6] They were furious with Serbia and
wanted to start shelling. The cataclysm begins, and the Kaiser
angrily says, “Stop in Belgrade!" – that, this must not happen. He
explains exp lains very clearly what has to happen now: this is the
third time the Austrian army has been mobilized, so one has to do
something - you can't just tell them to stand down. So he says, let
the Austrian army go into Serbia and stand there and do nothing
else. Just occupy part of Serbia, until the attempt to
ascertain who did the assassination assassination has been carried
out satisfactorily, and then come back. No war - don't kill anybody,
the army just goes in and stays there, it’s a show of strength. He
says: "On this basis, I'm prepared to mediate for peace". [13] And I
think you'll yo u'll find that Grey said something rather similar.
So, if there was time - if we we had time - that would
have been the peace formula. Which was what the Kaiser kind of
assumed was going to happen, how to de-fuse it. However, someone
else on the scene had a different agenda. There's a long-predicted
war agenda coming up, with Churchill in charge of the British navy,
and the British navy has just been displayed to the King on the 26th
of July. On his own initiative, he sends up - this is the largest
fleet in the world - he sends it up u p to Scapa Flow north of o f
Scotland, right outside Germany - and then, as the Kaiser said in
his memoirs, he knew then that the war was coming. That's about the
28th of July: he knew that, once the British fleet is up there, that
is the signal to all the warmongers in Europe - this is it, it’s
going to happe n. The world's biggest navy cannot canno t be sent up
there without anything happening.
Churchill: the First Sea-Lord We note the psychology of Winston
Churchill, the terrific happiness he felt as the war was
approaching. All the other Cabinet members, the Liberals, they are
all ashen-faced and despairing, with all the principles they have
worked for all their life ... peace ... going out the window, as
they are dragged into horrible war. Whereas Churchill was exultant,
and he wrote to his wife Clementine, "My Darling, everything tends
towards catastrophe and collapse, but I am
geared up and happy, is it not horrible to be built like that?" To
someone else, a year later, he says, "Why, I would not be out of
this glorious, delicious war for anything the world could give me."
He gets a terrific thrill from managing it, moving the ships around
and managing the war. [15] He loves war more than anything else,
more even than brandy, or the sound of his own voice - he loves the
war, and he gets on with it. You'll find omitted, in a lot of WW1
books, book s, the fact that the entire Royal Navy was sent up
North, by Churchill's own initiative. How amazing is that? This is
not the the Prime Minister. This is the decisive war-initiating act.
When we come to the Second World War, you'll find him as Prime
Minister ringing up Bomber Command, on his own initiative, without
having to tell anyone else. On his own initiative, he can send the
fleet right up to its wartime base, in full battle-readiness.
The whole of Europe was in a condition of fear, and there was the
horrible argument that the war is going to happen anyway, so one
might as well be first. The Rothchilds have to come into this story
somewhere, don't they? Nathaniel Rothschild visits Prime Minister
Asquith to advise him of the preparations that the bank had put into
place, to prepare for war.[17] This is late in July, and the
meeting is 'to prepare for war,' war,' to make sure that the Prime
Minister has got the money and bank reserves available. There is the
'secret elite' Grey, Asquith, Haldane and Churchill - these are
people who are preparing for the coming war they have said that it's
going to happen, and how are they going to manage it? Parliament
doesn't know a thing about this. The great modern Revisionist, Henry
Elmer Barnes, wrote in the 1950s - see the Barnes the Barnes Review
in memory of his work – he was a wonderful pioneer of modern
Revisionism. What he called: "The moment when the horrors ho rrors
of war were specifically unchained in Europe" [18] - he puts on the
29th July, when Poincarè and Izvolski - these were the ministers of
defence of France and Russia - met together, to finalise that they
were going to war. The Czar of Russia doesn't doe sn't quite know
about this, he is very feeble, he keeps trying to tell the Kaiser
that he isn't going to war, but he doesn't have the strength to
resist it. Hidden History says, History says, the War was
“deliberately and wilfully begun by Sazonov, Poincarè and Sir
Edward Grey, at the bequest of the Secret Elite in London” [18] -
I'm defending that thesis here, that they would not have had the
nerve to do d o it without the Secret Elite in London telling them
to do it. Here is a great Revisionist masterpiece, which should be
on all your shelves really, by Patrick Buchanan, the wise American:
Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War , and this is the one
mainstream book which Revisionists like and approve of. It’s been a
best-seller. Here is what he says: “By secretly committing Britain
to war for France, these three - Grey, Churchill and Asquith - left
the Kaiser in the dark, da rk, unaware that a war with France meant
war with the British Empire.” He had not been told that. The German
plan was to go quickly into France, beat France, and then fight
Russia, because it couldn't fight the two of them together. That Th
at was the Schlieffen Plan. They weren't sure whether Britain
would come in too - if Britain had said, yes we will come in too,
then nothing would have happened - that would have stopped it from
happening. Thereby the European war was turned into a world War.
There was a conflict going on in Eastern Europe, between Serbia and
Austria,
one backed by Russia and the other backed by Germany, and that was a
local conflict, and the Kaiser was hoping to keep it local. But once
the British fleet appeared on the Western coast of Germany,
the Kaiser realized that this wasn't a local conflict, it was a
conflict that didn't have any meaning other than Germany being done
in. Britain had a choice here: there was as it were nothing
impelling Britain to do this - I think that's very important. On the
30th July, the Kaiser was still desperately telegramming the Czar,
imploring him to stop mobilization. A million Russian troops had
been mobilized, and there's a lot of debate, did mobilisation mean
war? Well it makes it pretty damn likely. And he's begging him not
to mobilize any more. "Serious preparations for war on my Eastern
frontier. In my endeavours to maintain the peace of the world, I
have gone to the utmost limit possible." [20] Germany was the last
country to mobilise in Europe - if anyone tells you Germany started
this war, the other countries all mobilised before Germany
did.[7] "The responsibility for the disaster which now threatens the
whole civilized world will not be laid at my door. In this moment it
still lies in your power to avert it," he is saying to
the Czar - which is technically quite true. "My friendship for
for you and your empire, transmitted to me by my Grandfather
on his deathbed, has always been sacred to me, and I have always
honestly backed up Russia when she was in serious trouble." So he's
reminding how he'd helped Russia in the past. "The peace of Europe
may still be maintained by you" - if he [the Czar] could stop
the military build-up. He's still believing that he can maintain the
peace of Europe. This is right at the end of July. The timetable of
the disaster [21] shows how Russia is mobilising right at the e nd
of July: the Kaiser sends his telegram to the Czar, and around the
end of July we get the irrevocable French decision to support
Russia, that is shown in [French] telegrams, which can be
documented. France was kind of pretending, it kept its troops ten
miles from the border, it was trying to tell Britain that it wasn't
going to war, that it wasn't committed, but I think documents show
that it was. On the first of August we get a vital conversation of
the German ambassador Lichnovsky with Grey in London. This is as it
were the last attempt by the Kaiser to get a peace deal with
Britain. All the Cabinet except Grey and Churchill are in favor of
total neutrality, that if war breaks out Britain does not come in.
In a way, you could say that the war came because Britain didn't
make its position clear: if it had clearly said, No we're not coming
into the war, then France and Russia would not have gone into it. So
it was the ambivalence of Britain which kind of led to this
disaster. Right at the end of July Kaiser Wilhelm writes in despair
in his diary - he realises he's trapped, he realises he cannot stop
the war, there's nothing he can do: "The most frightful war, of
which the ultimate aim is the overthrow of Germany" - so it’s not a
question of maintaining peace between Serbia and Austria, it’s
a war against Germany. because people want to do in Germany. in
Germany. In a way, it hasn't got a rational purpose, that's the
terrible thing, that's why diplomats couldn't resolve it. "I no
longer have any doubt, that England, Russia and France have agreed
amongst themselves, knowing that our treaty obligations compel us to
support Austria, to use the AustriaSerb conflict as a pretext for
waging a war of annihilation against us.” He alludes to, "A purely
anti-German policy which England has been scornfully pursuing" -
Germany can't escape from it. [22] Grey is very duplicitous - he's
an honest-sounding ho nest-sounding fellow, and he had a terrific
reputation as Britain's Foreign Secretary, but he had this
duplicitous role. Here's the writer H.G. Wells making his final
judgment: "I think Grey wanted the war, and I think he wanted it to
come when it did." The great paradox is, that everyone in Europe
after the war said, We didn't want it, no, we did our best to avoid
it. So you've got, nine million people die, then everybody in Europe
says they didn't want it - afterwards. “The charge is, that he did
not definitely warn Germany, that we would certainly come into the
war. He was sufficiently ambiguous, to let them take the risk, and
he did this deliberately." That is a final judg ment of H.G.Wells,
which I think is pretty sound. August 1st, people begin to realise,
suddenly, of some disaster impending, that someone's going to pull
us into this war, of which we've had no notice. The Daily The Daily
News says, News says, "The greatest calamity in our history is upon
us. At this moment our fate is being sealed by hands we know not, by
motives alien to our interests, and by influences which, if we knew,
we would certainly repudiate.” [24] How true! That sums up the way
in which hidden forces made the deal, that pulled Britain into
war. There is a very good author, Morel, Truth and the War , and he
referred to "Those dreadful fields of senseless carnage" as the
soldiers were fighting each other on the fields of Flanders. We were
fighting a country which had never ever threatened us in our entire
history, and the flower of British youth was dying there. And
what the hell was it for? As Morel so clearly said of the alliance
with France: "While negative assurances had been given to the House
of Commons, positive assurances diametrically opposed had been
concocted by the War Office and the Admiralty. All the obligations
of an alliance had been incurred by dangerous and an d subtle
methods, in such a way as to leave the Cabinet free to deny d eny
its existence." Here is Albion speaking with a double tongue! It's a
two-forked language, whereby Parliament was constantly being told,
we have no obligation for war - no of course not - but actually,
detailed war-plans have been made, all ready to be activated – which
very soon happened. Another good book is How is How the War Came by
Came by Lord Loreburn (1919). Let me say, there is virtually no
modern book on this subject which I recommend, except for the Hidden
the Hidden History which has come out recently. These are old,
Revisionist classics which I'm recommending here, which manage to, I
think, get the ambiguity of what really happened. "Edward Gray
slipped into a new policy, but without either Army, or treaty, or
warrant of parliamentary approval. This country has a right to know
its own obligations, and when the most momentous decision of
our whole history had to be taken, taken , we were not free to
decide… de cide… A war to which were committed beforehand in
the dark..." [26] Parliament was only told on the 3rd! Parliament
first heard about the coming war, by means of a stirring speech by
Edward Grey on August 3rd and then - no questions, no discussion! No
discussion! Does it remind you of the Iraq war, or what? Parliament
is suddenly given this emotionally traumatic announcement: because
of an invasion of Belgium that has not yet happened , that is
due to happen, we've got to go, we have to start a war, quickly!
After giving his masterly talk, Grey then walks out - No sorry, we
can't
discuss the matter. And that was the way of informing the country
and parliament, by that speech. So, as Lord Loreburn says here,
"Parliament found itself at two hours’ notice, unab le, had it so
desired, to extricate itself from this fearful predicament.”[8]
Belgium was invaded the next day on the 4th, so the talk was in
anticipation of this this event. I came to this story in
my youth, reading the Austrian philosopher Rudolf Steiner, who ha d
been giving talks in December, 1916. So S o I heard the German point
of view, it was the only time I'd ever heard a German point of view
concerning the War. And that was terribly moving, because December
1916 was when Germany had offered a peace deal to Britain, which was
being declined. Germany said, Look, whatever whateve r the point of
this war is, can we just stop? Can we just go home, and be friends
again? It’s called Status quo ante ante - and even the American
government encouraged this, they said, It’s a good peace deal, why
doesn't Europe stop fighting? But no, we had to go on, because ..
well, why? Let's not go into why, I'm sure we all have our own
views, as to why Britain could not accept the peace deal. I remind
you that we are only concerned with the initiation of war - who
wanted who wanted to to start the war? That's all
we are looking at today. today . Steiner made the very outrageous
outrageou s statement, that "With a single sentence, this war in the
West would not have taken place:" that, if Grey had given a straight
answer to Lichnovsky, then we could have avoided the catastrophe
that took place. Here is the event which is missed out from just
about every book on WW1. Any book you've got on your shelf, have a
look at it and it won't have this event, on the first of August –
but it it cannot be written out of history, because Grey
sent off a letter that same afternoon, saying exactly what you read
here - and it went into the British White Book, the record of war
documents.[9] It’s in there, you can read it. No one can deny
that Grey summarized the meeting in this way: "Lichnovski asked me
whether, if Germany gave a promise not to violate Belgian
neutrality, we would engage to remain neutral." Huh, what more do
you want? "I replied that we could not say that, our hands must be
free." No commitment - even though the British fleet has gone up
North - no commitment! So, "We could not give a promise on that
condition alone". That is an amazing, staggering offer that
Lichnovsky makes, to avoid war with Britain. And, he then asks a
further question: “he then pressed me on what conditions, on
which we would remain neutral” - any conditions, on which Britain
would remain neutral. “He even sugge sted the integrity of France
and her colonies might be guaranteed.” Well, what more do you
want? Not only did Grey refuse to reply, but - get this he didn't
mention this interview to Parliament. When he gave his speech he
made no mention of the fact that this interview with the
German ambassador had taken place just before. And he tried to
pretend that he thought it was just a personal meeting. This was the
final attempt by the Kaiser, and there is a story that he heard the
news back from Lichnovsky, and he misunderstood it. He thought there
was a deal made mad e - this is late afternoon of the 1st of
August - he said, let's open op en a bottle of champagne, or
something, there's some hope. And he thought there was some sort of
agreement. And he told von Moltke, head of his military Stop! The
troops were already going towards the Belgian border, and he said,
stop them! And von Moltke said, We can't do that, that is
impossible. Von Moltke was totally traumatized that
day. Then later the King of England contacted the Kaiser and told
him, no there had been no agreement, it was a misunderstanding.[10]
And that was as it were the end of the Kaiser's role in the war, and
basically the end of the German royal family, it was the last royal
d ynasty. He didn't really play any further role in the war once his
final struggle to avoid war had h ad been defeated and outwitted.
He'd been outwitted by the British, by this clever double entendre
of, entendre of, will we / won't we. Various people on the Continent
have discussed and evaluated that meeting - not in Britain of
course, you won't find any historians discussing that meeting on
August 1st in any British college, it just gets deleted from the
books, except for this one recently[11], this is the only one that
has it. "Prince Lichnovsky asked if Britain would agree to remain
neutral if Germany refrained from violating German neutrality. Sir
Edward Grey refused. Would he agree if Germany was to guarantee the
integrity of both France and her colonies? No." [29] Now, No w, that
is a fair summary of what Germany asked, as a way of avoiding
the war. So if there had been a will to avoid the war, can we agree
that that is the last possible date on which an answer could have
been given that could have avoided the war? Nine million people need
not have died, if Grey had given a straight answer: 'Yes that sounds
like a great deal, let's shake on it.' That was the last possible
moment on which the catastrophe could have been avoided, which
extinguished all the bright hopes and optimism of European
civilization. Here is a nice simple summary of the enigma, e nigma,
which a US President gave, years later, when the war was all over:
"We know for a certainty that, if Germany had thought for a moment
that Great Britain would go in with France and Russia, she would
never have undertaken the enterprise.” [30] Now you should all
appreciate, the enterprise here was the Schlieffen Plan - that if
you are threatened by attack from Russia, which Germany was, you go
into France, beat France, and then you can take on Russia - which
sounds sort of horrific now, but that was the plan. It was a
defensive plan, the only one they had. So, going into Belgium was
Germany's defensive war plan. This is what one might call an early
conspiracy-theory view, of what caused the war, that the
people visible in Britain, namely Churchill and Grey and Asquith,
who were making the war happen, were puppets., and behind them
was an influential group. Rudolf Steiner said that this war was not
wanted by people in Germany, there was not a force for war in
Germany, that would be unthinkable.[12] Germany wanted
cultural growth and trade. He said: "Behind those who were in a way
the puppets, there stood in England a powerful and influential group
of people, who pushed matters doggedly towards a war with
Germany, and through whom the way was paved for the World War that
had always been prophesied. How powerful was the group, who like an
outpost of mighty impulses stood before the puppets in the
foreground. These latter are perfectly honest people, yet they are a
re puppets, and now they will vanish into obscurity." He is saying
that people, who we might nowadays call the international
bankers, or the Illuminati or freemasons or whatever, were
behind these public figures. Reply to floor comment: The Kaiser
desperately wanted a friendship friendship deal with Britain,
Britain, where Germany was the main land-power and Britain rules the
waves: couldn't there be some peace deal between them? He was very
baffled that it couldn't be, and it couldn't be
because of what we may call the Churchillian doctrine, that
Britain always had to oppose the strongest power in Europe: an
everlasting-war policy. That was the grounds on which Britain said,
no we can't have a deal of security and peace with Germany. So
tragically that couldn't happen. We're on the 3rd of August now, n
ow, and this is the day when whe n Grey makes his speech to the
Commons, on the grounds of Germany going into Belgium. Germany had
politely asked Belgium if it could go through into France - a
gentleman here [in the audience] says it was an invasion of Belgium,
but there were legal precedents, of Britain asking permission to go
through a country, to go to war - on being asked that, Belgium
immediately contacted the British government to say it had been be
en asked by Germany if it could c ould go through, and it was
all-important for Britain that Belgium said, No, you cannot canno t
go through, as that was going to be the grounds on which Britain
could declare war. Here is what Bernard Shaw said: "The violation of
Belgian neutrality by the Germans was the mainstay of our
righteousness. I guessed that, when the German account of our
dealings with Belgium reached the United States, it would b e found
that our own account of the neutrality of Belgium was as little
compatible with neutrality as the German invasion[13]."[33] We did
not have a very righteous position in alluding to the [Belgian]
Treaty of Perpetual Neutrality, because as mentioned Britain
had already violated it. Britain’s Prime Prime Minister
Asquith made a speech explaining why Britain had entered the war (on
August 6th) based on the lie that that that treaty obliged us to
come c ome to the rescue of Belgium. That Tha t Treaty had no clause
whatever obliging countries to come to the defence of Belgium if it
was invaded. If I may quote again from Hidden from Hidden History:
History: "Germany offered Belgium friendly neutrality, if a safe
passage
35 US poster, The Phantom Menace
could be allowed, because in its defence against France it had to
have passage across Belgium." [34] There were precedents: in the
Boer war British troops were permitted passage across neutral
Portuguese territory, to fight in South Africa, so this was regarded
a s having a legal precedent. It isn't just an invasion - though in
a sense, because Belgium said no, there was fighting. What we may
call the ‘Phantom Menace’ appears here as a horrific h orrific image
of Germany, as if it were liable to come up onto on to the shores of
America – atrocity propaganda for America, "Destroy this mad brute!"
Massive lies were created by Britain's Ministry of Information, and
it was found after the war that none of it had been true. Audience
Comment: They shredded the archives of the lie-factory at the end of
o f the war. This is a book which I recommend, Propaganda recommend,
Propaganda for War , it’s very much from an American point of view.
It's an excellent book about the atrocity propaganda from the first
World War. (An earlier book, is the old classic Unconditional
Hatred by by Captain Grenfell.) I'll just quote from it:
"As passions cooled after the war, the gigantic lies created by
American and British propaganda, were one by one exposed to the
light." There is only o nly one authenticated atrocity story from
the First World War, and that was the illegal blockade of Germany,
which extended till after the war, so that about seven hundred
thousand people died of starvation, that was the one authenticated
atrocity of the First World War. Furthermore -you don't have to
agree with me here - I would say that there was an asymmetry here,
whereby the atrocity propaganda was mainly on the British
and American and somewhat French side, but not on the German side.
The Germans didn't have the same concept of fabricating untruths to
motivate their troops. Audience comment: A week before, on July
25th, the British treasury began printing special notes that were
marked 'for war expen ses.'[14] Many believed that a mistake made by
Germany leading to the war, was its building up a navy to rival
Britain's, which led to an arms race, a huge military arms race.
Germany said, we've got colonies, so we have to have a navy - some
people said that was the great disaster, that they should not have
done it. So here's a view from 1925, if you'll excuse me quoting
Adolf Hitler, looking at what he thought was the terrible mistake
which needed to be avoided. He was wondering, how friendship with
Britain could be achieved, and why had it failed so badly in the
war? "No sacrifice should have been too great … We should have
renounced colonies and sea power, spared British industry our
competition.” [37] Germany should remain a land power. Renunciation
of a German war-fleet and power of the land army - that would, he
reckoned, be the key to not aggravating Britain, whereby they could
have peaceful, friendly relations in the future. Finally, here is a
review of a hundred years of friendship and enmity of Germany and
England Best of Enemies, Enemies, by Richard Milton. He
referred to Britain's propaganda machine as “An infernal engine
created in war but impossible to switch off in peace." We may
reflect upon the main thing to have come out from the First World
War, in his view: The indelible memory of atrocity stories that had
taken place only in the imaginations of British propaganda agents
proved to be stronger and more persistent than any facts.
*******
Slides used 1 Image: Your Country Needs You
2 Report by Col. Mandell House, May 1914: The situation is
extraordinary. It is jingoism run stark mad. Unless someone acting
for you [Wilson] can bring about a different understanding, there is
coming some day an awful cataclysm. No one in Europe can do it.
There is too much hatred, too many jealousies. Whenever England
consents, France and Russia will close in on Germany and Austria.’
4 French position: Under Poincaré, the nature of the Franco-Russian
alliance was fundamentally committed to war, not defence. Thus he
visited Sazonov in St Petersburg to reassure him of French and
British commitment to war with Germany… Edward Grey secretly assured
Poincaré that Britain would support France and Russia as ‘an
obligation obligation of honour’ should the Balkan trouble trouble
lead to a European war.’ - Docherty & McGregor, Hidden McGregor,
Hidden History, History, 2013, p.209, 236
5 Bertrand Russell’s Autobiography ‘I had noticed during previous
years how carefully Sir Edward Grey lied in order to prevent
the public from knowing the methods by which he was committing
us to the support of France in the event of war.’
6. Belgian non-neutrality: According to evidence later published in
New York, the Belgians were advised in November 1912 by the
British military that as soon as a European war broke out, 160,000
men would be transported to Belgium and northern France, with or
without the permission of the Belgian government - Hidden - Hidden
History, History, p.237
7. Kaiser as peacemaker ‘Now ... he is acclaimed everywhere as
the greatest factor for peace that our time can show. It was he, we
hear, who again and again threw the weight of his dominating
personality, backed by the greatest military organisation in the
world – an organ isation built up by himself – into the
balance for peace wherever war clouds gathered over Europe.’ - New
York Times, Times, ‘William II, II, King of Prussia and German
Emperor, Kaiser 25 years a ruler, hailed as chief peacemaker’, 8
June 1913
8. Kaiser as peacemaker – 2 A former US President, William Howard
Howard Taft, said of him: ‘The truth of history requires the verdict
that, considering the critically important part which has been his
among the nations, he has been, for the last quarter of a century,
the single greatest force in the practical maintenance of peace in
the world .’ In 1960 a BBC centenary centena ry tribute to the
Kaiser was permitted to say: ‘Emphasis was placed on his love of
England and his deep attachment to Queen Que en Victoria,’ his
grandmother. Never had the Kaiser gone to war in 25 years on the
throne, nor had the German army fought a battle in nearly half a
century.
9 Kaiser Wilhelm
10 Colonel House’s view view of the Kaiser, 8 July 1914 Sir! Your
Imperial Majesty will doubtless recall our conversation at Potsdam,
and that with the President’s consent and approval I came to Europe
for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not it was possible to
bring about a better be tter understanding between the Great Powers
… Because of the commanding position your Majesty occupies, and
because of your well-known desire to maintain peace, I came,
as your Majesty knows, directly to Berlin. I can never forget the
gracious acceptance of the general g eneral purposes of my mission,
the masterly exposition of the orld-wide political conditions as
they exist today and the prophetic forecast as to the future which
your Majesty then made. I received every reasonable assurance of
your Majesty’s cordial approval of he President’s purpose, and
I left Germany happy in the belief that your Majesty’s great
influence would be thrown in behalf of peace and the broadening of
the world’s commerce … Edward House
11 Friendship Fest
June 23, 1914: Royal Navy battle squadron with new dreadnoughts
dreadnou ghts sails into Kiel harbour. The Kaiser, wearing British
British admiral uniform, inspects the King the King George V . June
28: assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.
12 Austria’s Ultimatum 24 July: Austria gives ultimatum to Serbia 26
July: Serbia accepts 9 out of 10 of Austrian demands. The Kaiser:
‘It was capitulation of the most humilating humilating sort. With it
disappears every reason for war … Every cause for war now falls to
the ground.’
27th
Austria declares war.
28th
Belgrade is shelled.
The Kaiser writes: ‘Stop in Belgrade!’
13 The Kaiser’s Advice
The Kaiser advocated a temporary military occupation: occupation:
Let the Austrians occupy Belgrade until Serbia accepts their
demands – but stop at that. History, p.290 ‘On this basis, I am
prepared to mediate for peace.’ - Hidden History,
15 A Happy Man ‘Churchill was the only minister to feel any sense of
e xultation at the course of events’ (his biographer John Charmley,
on the days d ays leading up to the War) Churchill to his wife
Clementine: ‘My darling one & beautiful. Everything tends
towards catastrophe and collapse. I am interested, geared up and
happy. Is it not horrible to be built like that?’
‘Why I would not be out of o f this glorious delicious war for
anything the world could give me.’ (Margot Asquith’s diary, January
1915)
16 Churchill sends British fleet to Germany on 28 July On July 26th,
a ‘Test Mobilisation’ of the entire Royal Navy pa raded before the
King at Spithead, after which the Navy was held in full
battle-readiness. ‘Churchill, upon his own responsibility and
against the express decision of the Cabinet, ordered the
mobilisation of the Naval Reserve. ’ On the 27th, ‘the fleet [was]
sent North’ Hugh Martin, Battle, Martin, Battle, the Life-story of
the Rt Hon. Winston Churchill, 1937. Churchill secretly ordered the
core of the fleet to move north to its protected wartime base ..
riding at top speed and with its lights out, it tore through the
night up the North sea.’ Adam Hochschild, To End All Wars, 2011,
p.85.
17 To Prepare for War Lord Nathaniel Rothschild made an
unscheduled visit to Prime Minister Asquith to advise him on the
preparations that his bank had put in place to prepare for war (Late
July, 1914) - Hidden History, p.290. History, p.290. The
Secret Elite meet:
29th July: Grey, Asquith, Haldane and Churchill had a meeting to
discuss what Asquith called ‘the coming war.’
18 Harry Elmer Barnes, on war-initiation The secret conference
of Poincaré, P oincaré, Viviani and Messimy, in consultation with
Izvolski, on the night of 29th of July, marks the moment momen t
when the horrors of war were specifically unchained in Europe. -
Barnes, The Genesis of the World War 1926 p.242 Compare: War was
‘deliberately, wilfully begun by Sazonov, Poincare and Sir Edward
Grey, all a ll at the behest of the secret elite in London.’ -
Hidden History, p.297 History, p.297
19 The Secret Deal By secretly committing Britain to war for France,
Grey, Churchill and Asquith left the Kaiser in the dark, unaware
that a war with France meant war with the British empire. Britain
turned the European war of August 1 into a world war… For Britain,
World War 1 was was not a war war of necessity but a war war of
choice.’ Buchanan, -Buchanan, The Unnecessary War pp.50,
War pp.50, 64
20 Kaiser telegrams Czar, 30 July I now receive authentic news of
serious preparations for war on my Eastern frontier. … In my
endeavours to maintain the peace of the world I have go ne to the
utmost limit possible. The responsibility for the disaster which is
now threatening the whole civilized world will not be laid at my
door. In this moment it still lies in your po wer to avert it… My
friendship for you and your empire, transmitted to me by my
grandfather on his deathbed has always been sacred to me and I have
honestly often backed up Russia when she was in serious trouble e
specially in her last war. The peace of Europe may still be
maintained by you , if Russia will agree to stop the military
measures which must threaten Germany and Austro-Hungary.
21 Timeline of war-outbreak 26th July: King reviews British
fleet at Spithead, Churchill instructs it not to disperse. 27th Grey
tells tells parliament he will resign, if Cabinet does not support
his go-to-war-for-France go-to-war-for-France policy.
Churchill orders British fleet up to Scapa Flow. 29th Russia
mobilised 30th Kaiser telegrams Tzar, ‘The ‘The peace of Europe may
still still be maintained…’ st 31 Evening: French government
‘irrevocably decides’ to support Russia. French troops enter
Belgium 1st August, 1 am: French Govt. cables Russia, its
war-support Noon: Grey – Lichnowsky conversation in London Night:
Germany Germany declares war on Russia and mobilises 1st-2nd All
Cabinet except Grey & Churchill are pro- British neutrality. 2nd
Grey gives France the assurance of war-support. French planes flying
over Belgium, German govt. warning to Belgium over neutrality
violation violation th Tuesday 4 Germany invades Belgium, UK
declares war on Germany, and then cuts the trans-Atlantic telephone
cables from Germany 6th 200,000 of British Expeditionary Force to
France
22 Kaiser Wilhelm’s diary 30-31st of July Frivolity and weakness are
going to plunge the world into the most frightful war of which the
ultimate object is the overthrow of Germany. For I no longer have
any doubt that England, Russia and France have agreed among
themselves – knowing that our treaty obligations compel us to
support Austria – to use the Austro-Serb conflict as a pretext for
waging a ar of annihilation against us.. . In this way the stupidity
and clumsiness c lumsiness of our ally [Austria] is turned into a
noose. So the celebrated encirclement of Germany has finally become
an accepted fact... The net has suddenly been closed over our heads,
and the purely anti-German policy hich England has been scornfully
pursuing all over the world has won the most spectacular victory
which we have proved ourselves powerless to prevent while they,
having got us despite our struggles all alone into the net through
our loyalty to Austria, proceed to throttle our political and
economic existence. A magnificent achievement, which even those for
whom it means disaster are bound b ound to admire.
23 H.G.Wells on Grey’s role ‘I think he (Gray) wanted the war and an
d I think he wanted it to come when it did ... The charge is, that
he did not definitely warn Germany, that we should certainly come
into the war, that he was sufficiently ambiguous to let her take a
risk and attack, and that he did d id this deliberately. I
think that this charge is sound. Autobiography
24 Daily News, News, August 1 ‘The greatest calamity in
history is upon us … At this moment our fate is being sealed by
hands that we know not, by motives alien to our interests, by
influences that if we k new we should certainly repudiate
25 “Those dreadful fields of senseless carnage” ‘It came therefore
to this. While negative assurances had been given to the House of
Commons, positive acts diametrically opposed to these
assurances had been concerted by the War Office and the Admiralty
with the authority of the Foreign Office. All the obligations of an
alliance had been incurred, but incurred by the most dangerous
and subtle methods; incurred in such a way as to leave the Cabinet
free to deny the existence of any formal parchment recording them,
and free to represent its policy at home and abroad as one of
contractual detachment d etachment from the rival Continental
groups. - E.D. Morel, Truth and the War, 1916 War, 1916
26 The Secret Deal with France ‘The final mistake was that when, on
the actual crisis arising, a decision one way o r the other
might and, so far as can be judged, would have averted the
Continental war altogether ... The mischief is that Sir Edward Grey
slipped into a new policy, but without either Army, or treaty,
or warrant of Parliamentary approval ... This country has a
right to know its own obligations and prepare to meet them and
to decide its own destinies. When the most momentous decision of
our whole history had to be taken we were not free to decide.
We entered a war to which we had been committed beforehand in
the dark, and Parliament found itself at two hours’ notice unable,
had it desired, to extricate us from this fearful predicament...
predicament... - The Earl Lorenburn, How Lorenburn, How the War
Came, Came, 1919
27 ‘With a single sentence’ ‘A single sentence and the war in the
West would not have taken place … It is really true that Sir Edward
Grey could have prevented it with a single sentence… History will
one d ay show that the neutrality of Belgium would never have h ave
been violated if Sir Edward Grey had made the declaration which it
would have been quite easy for him to make.’ Rudolf Steiner in
December, 1916, concerning the meeting on August 1, 1914: The Karma
of Untruthfulness
28 Grey, on his meeting with Lichnowsky, 1 August ‘He asked me
whether, if Germany gave ga ve a promise not to violate Belgian
neutrality we would engage to remain neutral. I replied that I could
not say that: our hands h ands were still free, and we were
considering what our attitude should be....I did not think that we
could give a promise on that condition alone. The ambassador pressed
me as to whether I could formulate conditions on which we would
remain neutral. He even suggested that the integrity of France and
her colonies might be guaranteed. I said that I felt obliged to
refuse definitely any promise to remain neutral on similar
terms, and I could only say that we must keep our hands free.’ -
Britain’s ‘Blue Book,’ HMSO, 1926, p.261.
29 A Summary of the August 1 meeting 'Now Prince Lichnowsky, the
German Ambassador Ambassador in London, asked whether England would
agree to remain neutral if Germany refrained from violating
Belgium’s neutrality. Sir Edward Grey refused. Britain wanted to
retain ‘a free hand’ (‘I did not think we could give a promise
of neutrality on that condition alone’). Would he agree if
Germany were to guarantee the integrity of both France and her
colonies? No.’ - Georg Brandes Farbenblinde Brandes Farbenblinde
Neutralität, Zurich Neutralität, Zurich 1916 [15]
30 US President Woodrow Wilson, March 1919 ‘We know for a certainty
that if Germany had h ad thought for a moment that Great Britain
would go in with France and Russia, she would never have undertaken
the enterprise.’
31 Rudolf Steiner, December 1616 Let me merely remark, that certain
things happe ned from which the only sensible conclusion conc lusion
to be drawn later turned out to be the correct one, namely
that behind those who were in a way the puppets there stood in
England a powerful and influential group of people
32 Poster: Remember Belgium
ho pushed matters doggedly towards a war with Germany and through
whom the way as paved for the world war that had always been
prophesied. For of course the way can be paved for what it is
intended should happen. ..it is impossible to avoid realising how
powerful was the group who like an outpost of mighty impulses, stood
behind the puppe ts in the foreground. These latter are of course,
perfectly honest people, yet they are puppets, and now they will
vanish into obscurity. The Karma of Untruthfulness Vol.1, p84.
33 Bernard Shaw on Belgium ‘The violation of Belgian neutrality by
the Ge rmans was the mainstay of our righteousness; and we played it
off on America for much more than it was worth. I guessed that when
the German account of our dealings with Belgium reached the United
states, backed with an array of facsimiles of secret
diplomatic documents discovered by them in Brussels, it would be
found that our own treatment of Belgium was as little compatible
with neutrality as the German invasion. 34 Belgian ‘ Belgian ‘
invasion’ invasion’ 3 August: Germany offered Belgium friendly
neutrality if German troops were offered safe passage.
‘Germany would, by necessity, have to cross Belgium in its defence
against France. Su ch temporary use of a right of way…There were
precedents: during the Boer War, British troops were permitted
passage across neutral Portuguese territory to fight in South
Africa.’ - Hidden History, p. History, p. 326
36 Aftermath: the lies emerge
‘As passions cooled after the war, the gigantic lies created by
Great Britain’s and America’s propaganda were one by one
exposed to the light. ‘The one true and perfectly pe rfectly
authenticated ‘atrocity’ in the World War, and the situation
which produced by far the greatest suffering and death among
the civilian population was the illegal blockade of Germany,
continued for many months after the armistice’. Stewart Ross,
Propaganda Ross, Propaganda for War 2009, pp.24,47 2009, pp.24,47
37 An Ardent Anglophile on the Error that led to War ‘No
sacrifice should have been too great for winning England’s
willingness. We should have renounced colonies and sea power, and
spared English industry our competition. Only an absolutely clear
orientation could lead to such a goal: renunciation of world trade
and an d colonies; renunciation of a German war fleet; concentration
concen tration of all the state’s instruments of power on the land
army. The result to be sure would have been a momentary limitation
but a great and mighty future.’ - Hitler, Mein Hitler, Mein Kampf
(1925)
38 The Engine of Propaganda ‘…Britain’s propaganda machine, an
infernal engine created in war, but impossible to switch off in
peace.’
‘The indelible memory of atrocity stories that had taken place only
in the imaginations of British propaganda agents proved
to be stronger and more persistent than any facts. This curious
discovery, the power of myths over facts, was the real legacy of the
First World War.’ - Richard Milton, Best Milton, Best of Enemies,
2007, p.68.
Part II of ‘How Britain Initiated both World Wars’ *** World War Two
AGAIN WE LOOK AT THE IDEA of who wanted to start a world war. This
might be too disturbing: if it is, we don't want to cause an y
breach of the peace, peace , so we'll just back off and just have a
chat, if anybody finds what I'm going to say now too disturbing:
because, we're all heavily programmed with this - the ultimate
good guy Winston Churchill, Man of the Century, and the ultimate bad
guy Adolf Hitler. I'm not concerned with judgments about who's good
and who's bad here. We're trying to talk about the idea of
wanting a war to start. This is not the history of the war,
it’s the process of initiation. In 1936, Bomber Command comes co mes
into existence and long-range bombers start to be constructed.
Spaight of the Air Ministry explained: "The whole raison d'etre of
Bomber Command was to bomb Germany, should she be our
enemy."[16] [See slide No.1] So if you believe that wars
happen in accordance with the technology that exists, the
manufacturing of these long-range bombers indicates some new
intention - Bomber - Bomber Command by by Max Hastings
says, the Lancasters were "heavy bombers which no other country in
the world could match" and Germany and France had lighter bombers,
primarily for air-support. They didn't build planes with the
intention of bombing cities - whereas British planes could fly high
and drop their bombs, and had a long range. This begins
in 1936. While researching my book [17], I came across quite a lot
of statements by Jews about the fact that a World War was going to
happen, happe n, a war against Germany. We all know that Jews
declared economic warfare against Germany in 1933, and I'm not being
judgmental - what Hitler had written in Mein in Mein Kampf , you can
appreciate that they'd be annoyed. But as well as this, there are
statements that a war is going to come: "Hitler will have no war,
but we will force it on him, not this year but soon" and "We will
trigger a spiritual and material war of all the world against
Germany" and "Our Jewish interests demand the complete destruction
of Germany." [3] You might say that no truer words were ever spoken
in the 20th century – that country’s breeding and
reproduction rate is presently at a low level which cannot possibly
recover, and it may be inevitable now that German culture will fade
away. So it's "a spiritual and material war" that is here
blueprinted, and we may reflect on what happened at Nuremberg, when
monstrous accusation were formulated against Germany, after it had
been pulverised and destroyed. Later on, when war was declared, de
clared, we get statements like these: "Israeli people around the
world declare economic and financial war, holy war against Hitler's
people" and "Even if we Jews are not bodily with you in the
trenches, we are nevertheless with you. This is o ur war, and you
are fighting it for us" - in other words, the Jews are glad to have
the goyim goy im fighting each other one more time. There is a
frightening book by b y a Tory MP Captain Archibald Ramsey calledThe
called The ameless War - which you might find hard to
get - and he was put in jail throughout the war by Churchill, for
his anti-war activity, and he said: “International Judaism has
demonstrated by the course of the 20th century, that it could start
a war” and destroy Germany, by a "spiritual and material war." [5]
That obviously is very politically incorrect view. But if yo u ask,
Who in the 1930s wanted another war, when nearly all the world was
praying desperately that it should not happen? you do find these
sources. After the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was kind of chopp
ed up, the peoples who felt they were German had been separated into
different nations, like a jellyfish chopped up into different bits,
and they were wanting to come together again, the different bits
were wanting to reconnect. At Nuremberg it was declared, that
these were wars of aggression, aggression, when Hitler went into
different countries -they said he invaded Austria, he invaded
Czechoslovakia and he invaded Poland. But, I want to try and put a
different point of view here: these were Germanic people who were
German and wanted to re-join Germany. When the German troops went
into Austria, they were greeted with flowers being thrown in their
path, an d there was no military action, there was rejoicing, and I
believe the same happened when they went into the Sudetenland, which
was a part of Czechoslovakia, that they were greeted by people
who wanted to be part of Germany. Germany had been immensely
successful in the 1930s, with its prodigious economic recovery, and
that became a motive for peoples wanting to be a part of Germany.
There was division around Danzig between people who felt they were
German, in land that had been given to Poland. This became a
terrible provocation which soon led to the war. There was a
policy enunciated at Chatham House, which one could argue was being
pursued by Germany.[8] After WW1, Britain and America had been
talking about the right of determination of small nations,
self-determination, that was a kind of mantra, and the Americans
especially liked it as their formula for dismantling the British
Empire -the right of self-determination of small nations. People
were trying to think of, what wha t had been the point po int of the
first World War? Ah yes, it was Belgium's right of
self-determination. Could that formula also be applied to, say,
Austria, or to German-speaking people in different countries? Let's
hear what was said by Lord Lothian, who addressed Chatham House in
1927: If the principle of self-determination were applied on behalf
of Germany, in the way that it was applied against them, it would
mean the re-entry of Austria into Germany, the union of Sudetenland,
Danzig, and of Memel in and at least certain adjustments of
Poland and Silesia in the Corridor.
The key question here is, did Germans, people who feel they are
German, have a right to gather together into one country? This
was what wha t Hitler called the 'Reich,' the idea of that
togetherness, that would be larger than what was originally defined
as Germany in 1871. Did they have that right - or, would that
threaten other European countries? That is here the question. Let’s
focus especially on what happened to Poland in 1939. Land had been
ripped away from Germany by the Treaty of Versailles at the end of
the war, and given to Poland. What was defined as Poland had at most
50% of native Polish people in it, and they were trying to assert a
national identity, very much by getting rid of people who they felt
were outsiders, ou tsiders, and this was having catastrophic
consequences. The historian A.J.P. Taylor said, "Danzig was the most
justified of German grievances - a city of exclusively German
population, which wished to return to the Reich, and Hitler
himself restrained only with difficulty”.[9] Germany asked:
Can we build a railway and road connecting Germany with Danzig?
Poland did not even reply. Britons were concerned about German
expansion, they said, you're grabbing this and you're grabbing that,
and so the fatal war-guarantee was given to Poland. That led to even
more truculent behavior by Poland, once Chamberlain had given it his
unconditional war-guarantee. In A.J.P. Taylor’s view, there had been
no intention to intention to invade Poland - I think that's
important. [9] Everyone nowadays believes in Hitler's bad faith, but
he said, with the Czechoslovak deal, that was his last demand for
land. He didn't intend to go into Poland. I want to suggest that -
or rather, A.J.P. Taylor is saying that - he wanted Germany
and Poland to remain on good terms. We recall that a non-aggression
pact had been signed in 1934 between Germany and Poland. Here the
philosophy was, that in the last war, there had been mutual defence
agreements all round Europe that had somehow flipped over to become
offensive. Countries signed up to what they said was a defensive
agreement, and it all went horribly wrong. So, Germany and Poland
instead tried to make a non-aggression pact, which was valid for ten
years. It was simply a promise, we will not invade each other.
At that time, the Polish army was much bigger than the German army.
That was allright, until Poland had a change in chancellor cha
ncellor in the mid-thirties, who rejected that and took a totally
different view as we'll see. The land in question grabbed by Poland
had traditionally been German land - militarily-governed by
Poland long after the truce in 1918, to the newly-made state of
Poland. So what was regarded as German aggression and the cause of
WW2 - going into Poland - you could say this was just traditional
German land being taken back. The non-aggression pact that Germany
and Poland made did not allow any reporting of Polish atrocities
against minority Germans. That caused the emigration of a million
Germans. This is a story which you'll ge nerally find missed-out of
history books: the fate of Germans living in what had become
Poland, since the Treaty of Versailles. Late in 1938 Hitler made
this offer to Poland Po land [11], - it would have guaranteed gu
aranteed its boundaries and protected it against Soviet
Russia. It had the German free state of Danzig given a road and rail
connection, as it desired to be a part of Germany. And then - this
is a bit more controversial - a plebiscite would be given to
West Prussia, as to who they wanted to belong to. Poland is
guaranteed an open sea-port, and they would then continue with the
non-aggression pact. Poland didn't respond to that deal at all -
very truculent behavior. My understanding - which you may disagree
with – is that a hundred thousand Germans had to flee to the woods;
or be under shelling from Polish troops from over the borders;
“more than seventy thousand refugees had to be housed in
German refugee camps. The aggression against Germans increased on a
daily basis." [11] It may be hard to believe this, but Poland
was wanting war war with Germany. [14] It published a
map of Europe showing a whole lot of Germany carved out and having
become Poland. This became far worse when in March, 1939,
Chamberlain gave this unconditional war-guarantee to Poland. It had
had a non-aggression pact with Germany, and that was rejected, and
instead there was a war-guarantee: which said that in any war with
Germany, even if Poland starts it, Britain it, Britain would come
in. That was just what Poland wanted because it did want war. Poland
intensified its persecution of the German minority. Speaking German
in public was prosecuted - this is land that had been German,
up until 1918. German-associated newspapers were suppressed, and so
forth. The Germans felt this nullified the agreement which they had
made at Munich in September 1938 for Britain and Germany to work
closely together to maintain the peace. Chamberlain had felt he
wanted to do something, but what was he going to do? Buchanan in his
The Unnecessary War tends tends to regard it as the most
foolish act of statesmanship in British history - the war-guarantee
given to Poland. People just couldn't believe that Britain had done
such a thing. I recommend that book as the best possible analysis of
this catastrophic moment, which precipitated the truculent Polish
behavior. When we look back at the way the war broke out, we may
wonder, could not Germany have just done nothing for a few years? y
ears? After all, Czechoslovakia and Austria, weren’t they enou gh?
Couldn't it have just stayed that way, just left it, left the Danzig
problem, just let everything calm down - couldn't it have just done
nothing? Well, let us suppose there were people who wanted war - if
we suppose that - once that British war-guarantee had been given,
all they had to do was intensify the persecution of Germans in that
part of Poland, until Germany had to do something about it. So, here
is a German view I've got - and it's difficult to get a German view
on the subject, isn't it? You hardly h ardly get books [18]
translated from the German available. I got this from a we
bsite - ‘The British promise to wage war against Germany, if
only Poland would succeed to get Germany into the war, even by
aggression’ - so Poland's rabid incitement against Germany was
escalated, Polish newspapers demand the occupation of Danzig, all of
East Prussia, they advocate Poland should push its border all
the way to the river, maybe annexing Berlin. They felt they'd got
the superior army, and this was kind of truculent behavior, and the
new President of Poland said (1939) “Poland wants war with Germany,
and Germany will not be able to avoid it, even e ven if she wants
to”. That was true enough. Poland seems to have thought that a
cavalry charge could somehow manage against the German tanks. Nobody
quite knew how … yes?
Audience comment: …’Roosevelt was on the phone pho ne continually in
this pre-war period, [19] encouraging the Poles to act
intransigently.’ Yes thank you for that. You will not readily
find that in the history books, for example this one, [The [The
Unnecessary War, Buchanan] excellent though it is, gives no accounts
of the open terror, murder and rape in the months preceding
September ’39. This may be something where one has to get so-called
‘farright’ Revisionist books [i.e., books that will attend to
Germany’s viewpoint] to find a mention. On my understanding that is
why Germany had to do something, had ha d to take some sort of
action. Here’s a British ex-pat giving a testimony[20]:[15]
“Terrorists began murdering civilians in large numbers. On the
nights of August 25th to August 31, that is just days day s before
the war, there are authenticated acts of armed violence against ag
ainst German officials and property. These incidents
took place on the border or inside German territory.”
So, deliberate provocation was going on. “Mobs were assaulting
thousands of men, women and children” – so Germany was I would
suggest coming to the rescue of these Germans who were being done
in. On August 30th, Poland orders total mobilisation – under the
Protocols of the League of Nations, that is equivalent to a
declaration of war [21]. [17] One could argue that it was Poland
that effectively declared war and Germany had to respond. Germany
then goes in, at the beginning of September, to the
pre-Versailles German areas given to Poland. Was that aggression?
I’m saying that there was a reason for Germany having to do this,
and that it was not part of the original plan. They had
originally asked for Danzig to be returned, for a connection to be
made with Danzig. If England had wanted to avoid the war, it could
have leant on Poland, to give some sort of rights to the German
minorities there. And, it could have leant on Poland to agree to a
railway being built. I’d have thought that these were
reasonable demands, that if Anglo-German friendship had been
desired, that could have been done, as far as I can see, to remove
this immediate cause of war. Germany thought that by going in with
the Soviet Union, that would somehow not activate the British
guarantee to Poland – that, with those two going in together,
Britain would not declare d eclare war on both of them. Upon
entering Danzig, the German army are showered are showered with
flowers. Here flowers. Here is a comment from a German commander,
about that reception. “It was like this everywhere – in the
Rhineland, in Vienna, in the Sudeten territories and in Memel – do
you still doubt the mission of the Fuhrer?” [18] That is greatly
missed out from modern accounts, that there was rejoicing amongst
the German people, when a connection was made with the motherland of
Germany. At Nuremberg, these were describe as wars of aggression –
aggression – he’s gone in here, he’s gone in there, but
another way of looking at it, is that there were different
populations who felt they were German wanting to live together and
wanting to be together, and the whole Second World War was
about that not being being permitted. No, that greater
expanse of Europe, of people wanting to be German together, cannot
be permitted. Here is as it were the greater Germany that tried to
come together, [19] and everybody e verybody decided it
could not be allowed. Czechoslovakia was very outrageously occupied.
Hitler went into Prague – that was (I suggest) the terrible,
catastrophic error that he made, o f going into Prague where he had
no business to be. Czechoslovakia (1918-1993) was what we would
nowadays call a failed state. It was coming apart in 1938. It was
patched together in the Treaty of Versailles from divers bits
of Europe that didn’t want to be together. Instead of just saying,
this is is outrageous German aggression, we could say, Sudetenland
wanted to be part of Germany, and likewise the Poles in
Czechoslovakia wanted to be part of Poland. So it kind of broke up.
I may not be defending what the Germans did, of going into
Czechoslovakia. France invaded Germany on September 7th, to eight
kilometres. We’re always told how wicked it is for Germany to have
occupied France, so let’s just point out that France did invade
Germany a week after Britain declared war. I want to look at the
subject of German peace-offers, I think this is relevant to the
question of who was responsible for the war and who wh o
started the war. Possibly the best book on the subject is
Himmler’s Secret War by by Martin Allen – I had ha d
quite a bit to do with investigating this book.[22] It describes the
cascade of German peace-offers peac e-offers that kept appearing,
right through the war [23], and how Churchill first of all forbade
anyone to look at them, and then, towards the end of 1940 the
British black-ops started to use the peace offers, to manipulate Ge
rmany, by making them think they would take them seriously,
while actually they just wanted the appearance of using u sing them
for purposes of deception. Let’s have a quote. Hitler
said, “I’ve always expressed to France my desire to bury forever
our ancient enmity, and bring together these two nations, both
of which have such glorious pasts… I have devoted no less effort to
an achievement of Anglo-German understanding, no more than that, of
Anglo-German friendship. At no time and a t no place have I ever
acted contrary to British interests… Why should this war in the West
be fought ?” ?” [21] Two main German peaceoffers came in October
1939 and July 1940, both dismissed by Britain. Are you surprised if
I say that Hitler always had a deep admiration for Britain, always
wanted friendship with Britain, is that surprising? Hitler’s Mein
Hitler’s Mein Kampf was was totally banned during
the War, because it had a major theme, of the tremendous importance
of goo d relations with Britain. He would watch films of say the
British in India, a nd he would say, there, that’s the master-race,
that’s what the master-race was like. If I may quote Richa rd
Milton’s fine book, Best book, Best of Enemies: Enemies: “The leader
of the resurgent German nation and the Nazi party was a
self-professed Anglophile, whose primary foreign–policy aim was an
alliance with Britain.” [22] This may remind us of the Kaiser
yearning for a deal of friendship that co uld never happen. Let’s
quote from David Irving, his Hitler’s his Hitler’s War. (His War.
(His first book on Dresden had been be en an international
bestseller). He was well-known, respected and liked, and then he did
ten years’ yea rs’ research on Hitler’s on Hitler’s War , using
original sources, from people who know him and so forth, and again
it sold rather well - but Macmillan pulped all his books and he
suddenly found himself ersona non grata. grata. Anyway here’s
a quote from him. Rudolf Hess asked him, ‘“Mein Fuhrer, are your
views about the British still the same?” Hitler gloomily sighed, “If
only the British knew how little I little I ask of them.” How he
liked to leaf through the glossy pages of Tatler, studying the
British aristocracy in their natural habitat! Once he was overheard
to say, “Those are valuable specimens, those are the ones I’m going
to make peace with”’. [23] So he was scheming how to make peace with
Britain, but he never quite made it. Terrific non-stop fantasizing
goes on about Germany having wanted to invade Britain. I see the
magazine History magazine History Today this Today this week has got
a big item on it. The British were being given gas masks etc to
prepare for when this wicked man would come to take over our
country. If I may quote two quite respected sources [24]: Sir Basil
Hart, Revolution Hart, Revolution in Warfare, Warfare, and History
of 2nd World War- There was “a but faintly imagined and conditional
plan to invade Britain in the summer of 1940”. Basically, they just
wanted to get up to Biggin Hill and stop the bombers taking off. I
suggest that any desire to invade Britain was motivated by a desire
to stop those bomber planes taking off, that were incinerating
the cities of Germany. Also, “At no time did this man Hitler pose or
intend a real threat to Britain or to the Empire” - that was David
Irving’s view, that I suggest we should accept. A.J.P. Taylor, the
renowned historian, has well de scribed the Second World War in
which sixty million people died as “Less wanted by nearly everybody
than almost any other war in history.” Was it even less wanted less
wanted than the First World War? We here h ere pose the question,
who wants it to happen, who makes it happen? ha ppen? Once again
Winston Churchill was the First Sea-Lord, the same position as
he held in the First World War. Initially Initially he held that
position, then he became Prime Minister. We listen to his Reasons
for War, as to why there should be another war with Germany. Back
in November 1936 he said: “Germany is becoming too powerful,
we have to crush it”. That’s years before any war breaks out.
David Irving discovered – unhappily for his reputation – that the
group Focus was set up in 1936 by the Chair of the Board of Jewish
Deputies, basically Churchill’s bills. [27] As a membership group,
‘The Anti-Nazi League’, or the Focus, it promoted and
supported Churchill, and its imperative was – quoting David Irving –
“first of all, all, the tune that Churchill had to play was, fight
Germany”. Churchill’s debts from gambling and heavy boozing – and he
had been a hospitalized alcoholic, let’s bear that in mind – all his
bills for brandy would be paid, and his stately home would not be
auctioned off, thanks to this group, The Focus.
Let’s have a few more of Churchill’s Chu rchill’s Reasons for War.
In 1939, “This war is an English war, and its goal is the
destruction of Germany”. What kind of war-aim is that? Normally wars
are fought for some land-purpose, or because you are annoyed, or
somebody has insulted you, or you need some raw materials. But no -
this is a goal which does not permit any negotiation. nego tiation.
Diplomats cannot resolve this, if the guy in charge says the goal is
the destruction d estruction of Germany - this being the mightiest
nation in the centre of Europe, this being the Christian heart of
Europe. The two strongest nations in Europe inevitably are going to
be Britain and Germany, because they have got the iron and coal
underneath the ground. They are inevitably the strongest. Anyone who
wants to foster war between Britain and Germany, can only be wanting
the destruction of Europe, or the undermining and
disintegration of Europe, that’s (I suggest) the only possible
motive. Then Churchill said, “You must understand, this war is not
against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength
of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all.” [28]
What kind of statement is that? I suggest that you will not find in
the utterances of Winston Churchill, any trace of ethics or
morality. This is the Man of the Century and it’s just my
interpretation. Again Churchill: “The war is not just a matter of
elimination of fascism in Germany, but rather about obtaining German
sales markets.” Huh? Then again: “Germany’s unforgiveable crime
before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy from out of the
world trade system and build up an independent exchange system from
which the world finance could not profit any more.” The
ever-glorious eve r-glorious achievement of Nazi Germany in the 1930
s was to manage its own banking system, away from the tentacles of
Rothschild control. It printed its own money at source, that’s why
it had that terrific economic recovery, that no other European
country could match. No other country before or since in Europe
managed that in the 20th century, escaping from the clutches of
international ba nkers. Churchill is seeing that as a Reason for
War. Those are the reasons given by Churchill, which you may or may
not find much sense in.
He gets elected on May 10th ,and on the next day May 11th city
bombing begins. This is the most terrible crime ever conceived by
the mind of man, to ignite cities full of people. How can
anyone be so wicked as to want to do such a thing? It begins
with cities like Hamburg, Duesberg, and these are not reported in
the British newspapers. Let’s hear from an important philosophical
book by Veale, Advance Veale, Advance to Barbarism, the
Development of Total Warfare: “The “The raid on the night of
th May 11 , 1940, was an epoch-making event, since it was the first
deliberate breach of the fundamental rule of civilized warfare, that
hostilities must only be waged against enemycombatant forces.” You
don’t hear a lot about this in official accounts of the war. Floor
comment about German bombing of the Spanish town Guernica in 1930s.
It was less than a hundred deaths, Communists were retreating, I d
on’t think that’s in any way comparable to what’s happening here.
This then continues, with Churchill wanting to provoke Hitler to
return the bombing, and he’s frustrated that it doesn’t happen.
Starting on May 11th, there was a pretence that it was against the
Ruhr’s industrial targets, but actually the planes are flying high,
dropping their bombs whenever they see the lights of a city - it is
city-bombing. AJP Taylor was a brilliant and very successful
historian, who could never ever get to lecture at Oxford University
again, after these words of his were published: “The almost
universal belief that Hitler started the indiscriminate
bombing of civilians, whereas it was started by the directors of
British British strategy, as some of the more honest among them have
boasted.” To what was he alluding? The first carpet-bombing of a
German city was Duesberg on 15th May, followed by Hamburg on the
16th, as not reported reported in British newspapers.
The British people don’t know this is happening, that is my
impression. Churchill defines the point of the war in the House of
Commons on May 13th, as Britain’s new Prime Minister. He says “our
aim, in one word is victory, victory at all costs”. [32] What could
victory mean, over a country coun try that has never ever wanted to
fight Britain, always wanted friendship with Britain? It’s triggered
by Poland, a country that did not then exist, having been swallowed
up by Germany and the Soviet Union, so what would victory mean?
Victory I suggest means what he has earlier defined, viz. the
destruction of Germany. I suggest that is the war-aim that is
implied, when he says victory at all costs. What he here means by
victory, implies that any negotiation is pointless. There’s nothing
to negotiate about, he just wants to smash Germany. I would suggest
that Churchill’s foreign policy is fully expressed in three words,
wreck, smash, destroy. destroy. That’s just a personal impression of
course. He ge ts a thrill out of all this. He’s very good at
organizing. He creates the terrific fantasy - which British people
still believe to this day that a monstrous fiend wanted to invade
this island. Why? Because it wanted world-domination. That is the
‘evil monster’ he was fighting against – which Britons still
believe, to this day. What happened at Dunkirk has, ha s, for the
first time, appeared into a mainstream book [Buchanan, The
Unnecessary War ] – before that it had been be en just a few weirdo
revisionists who believed it.[24] The British army had been totally
routed and was cornered on the beaches of Dunkirk. It was totally at
the mercy of the German troops, who were about to wipe them out, and
then suddenly an order came from the top level, to stop. No, you’re
not allowed to wipe out these British troops? Why not? The generals
didn’t believe it, they said, this must be a mistake. And they
started to close in, then another order came. Then Hitler himself
turned up. [33]
Here was the most terrible row that Hitler had with Rudolf Hess, his
c hief advisor and soul-mate in all of this. Hess said, for God’s
sake go in, you’ve got to wipe them out, it’s the only way, if
you want to win the war. And he said, ‘No, I will not do d o it, I
will not attack these British troops’. Why not? Let’s read what he
said. Here is one report, of an astounded general having
Hitler himself lecturing him. “He, Hitler, astonished us by
speaking with ad miration of the British Empire” – this is at
Dunkirk, right? “Of the n ecessity for its existence, and of the
civilization that Britain had brought into the world. He compared
the British Empire with the Catholic Church.” The two institutions
he admired most in the world were the Catholic Church and the
British Empire, as being forces for stability. The things he ha ted
most were the Bolsheviks and international finance. “He compared the
British Empire with the Catholic Church, they were both essential
elements of stability in the world. All he wanted from Britain, was
that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The
return of Germany’s colonies would be desirable but not essential,
and he would offer to support Britain with troops if she should be
involved in difficulties anywhere.” I believe that the Kaiser did
that too – both Kaiser and Hitler made the offer, that they would be
happy to lend German troops in support, should there be anywhere
that the British Empire needed support. In WW2 Britain had a very
clear choice, of Germany in favour of the British Empire and
supporting it, and praising it and admiring it, whereas America had
a clear policy of breaking up the British Empire because
it wanted its own. That was a very clear choice Britain had, whom to
ally with. Here is another astonished general remembering from
Dunkirk, who had Hitler explaining to him why Brits stranded on the
beach there should not be wiped out, but instead they should all be
allowed to return to England. [34] He cherished the vain and absurd
a bsurd hope that this would lead to some sort of friendship or
acceptance of a deal for ending the war. But Bu t instead, Churchill
just made up his own story about abou t it, and it was more or less
forgotten. Hitler had then explained: “The blood of every single
Englishman is too valuable to be shed … Our two people belong
together racially and traditionally. This is and always has been my
aim.” We are Anglo-Saxons and the Germans are Saxons. How is it
possible that we should be fighting ea ch other? Floor comment –
Speak for yourself, I am Celtic. This is at the end of May when
Churchill has come into power, and has initiated the bombing
of German cities. So this Dunkirk episode happens – I feel
there is a contrast here of o f sanity and madness – with Hitler
saying that Germany and Britain should never fight each other, and
wanting some kind of friendship. What he wa s up against was what we
may call the ‘Phantom Menace,’ the demonised enemy image: here is
the arch-fiend who wants world-domination and so on. We can’t do a
deal, and Germans are so wicked that we’ve just got to bomb their
cities the most unbelievably horrific concept. Here is a chap who
worked for the British Air Ministry. He is explaining – and there
aren’t many books which frankly describe how the RAF started
bombing cities - the “Strategic Bombing Offensive.” [35] Quoting
from his book called Bombing called Bombing Vindicated : “We have
shrunk from th giving our great decision of May 11 the
publicity which it deserved.” He explained that Hitler
had not wanted the mutual bombing to go on: “Again and again the
German official reports applauded the reprisal elements in the
actions o f the Luftwaffe … If you stop bombing us, we’ll stop
bombing you.” To this day, British people do not believe that, do
they? They will admire the heroism of the Battle of Britain and the
Blitz, but will not believe that a peace offer was always on the
table: If you stop bombing b ombing us, we’ll stop bombing you. This
one-sided on e-sided bombing of German cities went on for
three whole months, before the Germans responded. The Luftwaffe
finally bombed London, on September 6th. Peace-leaflets were dropped
over London in June 1940, called “an appeal to reason,” quoting
Hitler that, “I can see no reason why this war must go on” [34]. He
talked about the enemy who “for the second time has declared war
upon us for no reason whatever.” A crucial moment when Churchill
killed the peace offensive in England, Irving said, was July 1940.
Here is a quote from Mein from Mein Kampf showing
showing Hitler’s admiration of Britain, of what he sees as the tough
quality of the British people, whereby they got their empire. [Slide
38]. What we might call David Irving’s thesis, as I’m not aware of
any other historian who has backed this up, has British
city-bombing start on 11th May and that carries on, with massive
massive bombing of Berlin for example in August as a hundred
planes go over and start bombing Berlin, repeatedly, whereas only on
the 6th September does the Luftwaffe come and bomb London. Then East
London goes up in flames, and Churchill finally gets what he wants.
At last he can sit back and enjoy another lovely war! He
leaves London whenever he gets intelligence in advance that the
bombing is going to come. He is perfectly safe, then returns the
next morning and wanders round, greeting people amidst the wreckage
of their homes. They say, Good old Winnie, we knew you’d stand by
us! He has brought on the bombing of London by this manipulation.
Let’s be aware that, as Prime Minister, he can simply ring up Bomber
Command: ‘I want a hundred bombers go over to Berlin’ – he doesn’t
have to go through Parliament or anything. It is staggering and
horrific that a Prime Minister can do that, can more or less get a
war going of his own initiative. On what one might call David
Irving’s thesis, Luftwaffe that drop bombs on London town are
reprimanded, because only military targets are allowed, and
that is a strict policy; whereas by mistake, mistake, on August
24th, some bombers go too far and drop stuff on London - that
mistake enables ena bles the big response, that Churchill wants.
That is Irving’s theme which seems quite likely. This is just
echoing what we have just said, a peace message did come through
from Sweden, Victor Mallett [39] and the War Cabinet gave
instructions to ignore it. What was called the Blitz began on the
6th September, when the Luftwaffe set East Londo n alight. Let me
quote a great g reat modern revisionist Arthur Butz, in The Hoax of
the 20th Century (1976): “The British people were not
permitted to find out that the government could cou ld have stopped
the German raids at any time, merely by stopping the raids on
Germany.” [41] People are thrilled by the suffering, with the Blitz
being regarded as our finest hour, ‘We survived the Blitz.’ One
should rather ask people, Why did you want to have that? What was
the point of bombing Germany so that you could have a
Blitz in London? Was it just so Churchill could
enjoy his war, or was there some other o ther purpose, apart from
devastating cities in Europe?
Image: The Blitz Peace offers were coming though the King of Sweden,
through the Pope, all sorts of people were giving these, all being
ignored. Let me cite one of these, in November 1940. [43] This one
was so good it was quite difficult for the British government to
ignore it: All these countries in in Europe – Norway, Denmark,
Holland, Belgium, France to be independent and free states. The
political independence and national identity of a Polish state to be
restored – remember Poland had been swallowed up. So Germany
would do its bit to restore it, it couldn’t do anything about what
Russia had. Czechoslovakia would not be prevented from developing
her national character” – so if there were bits of
Czechoslovakia that wanted to be together, Germany would not prevent
that. It would like some German colonies restored, and greater
European economic solidarity to be pursued. That was the crux
of this offer that came in November 1940. His book has been very
much attacked and denounced by the British establishment, and Martin
Allen, I surmise he’s been bumped off actually, or he is no
longer around. We tried to contact him, after he came out with this
book and they tried to discredit it, by claiming that letters he
used in the National Archive were forged – I won’t go all that – but
I don’t think he’s around a round anymore.[25] He described this as
“a peace offer so generous that it left most of Britain’s war aims
sounding utterly hollow.” This rather refutes, I suggest, the idea
that Germany sought world-domination. I think that is rather
refuted. Such peace offers being just dismissed may tend to show,
who wanted the war. Two million tons of bombs were dropped in this
ghastly process, reducing to rubble the wonderful cultural heritage
of Europe - by Britain and America. People say, how terrible, what
the Nazis did to Coventry, how wicked! [45] But they never
appreciate the ratio of tonnage of bombs dropped by each
side, a twenty-to-one ratio: twenty-to-one ratio: the tonnage of
bombs dropped on Germany, compared to what they dropped on Britain.
Here’s an analysis of it, showing a mere five percent of total bombs
dropped fell on Britain.
David Irving argued that what happened with the attack on Warsaw was
not comparable to what Britain did with city bombing: then, notice
was given, leaflets were dropped warning the civilian
population, and every effort was made, I think, to resolve the
situation amicably before war broke out. Then a formal
ultimatum was given. Bombardment of a city is allowed under these
conditions under the Hague Conventions. [46] I would say that
Germany fought both wars in accord with the Hague Conventions, which
you can’t say for this country. I’m asking you the question really,
we’ve looked at two different world wars, do you feel there was
anything in common regarding the way they were initiated and the
motives for them? Have I completely distorted things in saying that
Germany didn’t want these wars and was very much the victim? ..
* * * * * **
Slides Used
1 Bomber command 1936: ‘Bomber Command’ comes into existence, a nd
long-range bomber planes start to be constructed. Its purpose was
candidly described by J.M.Spaight of the Air Ministry: ‘The whole
raison d’etre of d’etre of Bomber Command was to bomb Germany should
she be our enemy.’ So, those who wanted war started planning for it.
2 Plans for City Bombing Bombing The Lancasters were ‘heavy bombers
which no other country in the world could match.’ Germany and France
had lighter bombers ‘primarily for air support,’ or ‘tactical air
power.’ Max Hastings, Bomber Hastings, Bomber Command
1979, 1979, 50.
3 Jews Declare War “We Jews are going to bring bring a war on
Germany.” D.A. Brown, National Chairman, United United Jewish
Campaign,1934 “Hitler will have no war (does not want war), but we
will force it on him, not this year, but soon” Emil Ludwig Cohn in
Les in Les Annales, June 1934 ‘We will trigger a spiritual and
material war of all the world against Germany’s ambitions to
become once again a great nation, to recover lost territories and
colonies. But our Jewish interests demand the complete destruction
destruction of Germany.’ - Vladimir Jabotinsky (founder of
terror group, Irgun Zvai Leumi) in Mascha in Mascha Rjetsch,
Rjetsch, January 1934
4 “The Israeli people around the world world declare economic and
financial war against Germany…
holy war against Hitler’s people.” 8 Sept 1939, Jewish 1939, Jewish
Chronicle, Chronicle, declared by Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist
leader “Even if we Jews are not bodily b odily with you in the
trenches, we are nevertheless morally with you. This is OUR WAR, and
you are fighting it for us.” — Les Nouvelles
Litteraires, Litteraires, 10 February 1940
5 Captain Ramsey’s View “International Judaism has
demonstrated by the cou rse of the 20th century that it could cou ld
start war” and destroy Germany by “a spiritual spiritual and
material war.” - Tory MP Captain Archibald Ramsay, The Nameless War
(1952)
Captain Ramsey
7 Chatham House policy, 1927 German policy adhered closely to
the opinions of Lord Lothian in an address in 1927 at Chatham House
said: ”Now, if the principle of self-determination were applied on
behalf of Germany, in the way that it was applied against
them, it would mean the re-entry of Austria into Germany, the
union of Sudetenland, Danzig, and probably Memel with Germany and at
least certain adjustments with Poland in Silesia and in the
Corridor” - Fish, H., FDR: H., FDR: The Other Side of the Coin,
Coin, 1976, p108 6 Germany after Versailles
9 A.J.P. Taylor’s view ... Danzig was the most justified of German
grievances: a city of exclusively German population which manifestly
wished to return to the Reich and which Hitler himself restrained
only with difficulty… The destruction of Poland had been no part of
his original project. On the contrary, he had wished to solve the
question of Danzig so that Germany and Poland could remain on good
terms...” Origin of 2nd WW
8
Polish ‘corridor’
10 Polish border The “Peace Makers” in Versailles granted most
of the German land militarily conquered
by Poland long after the truce in 1918 to the newly made state
of Poland. Under the nonaggression treaty German newspapers were not
allowed to report on Polish atrocities against the minority Germans,
which led to the emigration of a million Germans.
11 Offer to Poland October 1938 • Guarantee of its boundaries, even
to protect it against Soviet Russia. • Return of the German free
State of Danzig, with road & rail connection • Plebiscite to be
given to West Prussia. Poland gets open-sea port • Extend
polish-German non-aggression pact Polish Response: a hundred
thousand Germans h ad to flee to the woods, or, under shelling from
Polish soldiers, over the borders. Between March and August more
than 70.000 refugees had h ad to be housed in German refugee
camps & the aggression against Germans increased on a
daily basis.
12 British War-Guarantee The British war-guarantee of 31 March 1939
gave Poland carte blanche in its dealings with Germany. Poland
intensified its persecutions of the German minority. Abductions beca
me common, speaking German in public was proscribed, German
associations and newspapers were suppressed, the German consul in
Krakow was murdered, etc. This nullified the Munich agreement of
September 1938 for Britain & Germany to work closely together to
avoid war; also the Polish-German-Polish Declaration of
non-aggression (1934).
13 Effect of British war-guarantee The British promised to wage war
against Germany, if only Poland would succeed to get Germany into
the war, even by aggression! This immediately escalated Poland’s
rabid incitement against Germany. Polish newspapers demanded the
occupation of Danzig, all of east Prussia, in fact they
advocated that Poland should push its border all the way to the Oder
River, some again advocated the annexation of Berlin and even
Hamburg William J. Scott, Deutsche Scott, Deutsche Staatszeitung ,
March 20, 2010
14 Poles demand war “Poland wants war with Germany and Germany
will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to.” - Poland’s
President Edward Rydz-Smigly, Daily Rydz-Smigly, Daily Mail , August
6th, 1939.[26] The German minority had been disfranchised in the
1920s, and in the 1930s it was subjected to open terror, murder and
rape, especially in the months preceding September 1939.
15 Polish terror attacks Terrorists begin murdering German civilians
in large numbers. A British ex-Pat named William Joyce describes the
events:
"On the nights of August 25 to August 31 inclusive, there occurred,
besides innumerable attacks on civilians of German blood, 44
perfectly authenticated acts of armed violence ag ainst German
official persons and property. These incidents took place either on
the border or inside German territory. 16 Of all the the crimes of
World War II, one never hears about the wholesale massacres that
occurred in Poland just before the war. Thousands of German men,
women and children were massacred in the most horrendous fashion by
press-enraged mobs. Hitler decided to halt the slaughter and he
rushed to the rescue. Young German boys, when captured by the Poles,
were castrated. - Léon Degrelle Since dawn today, we are shooting
back ... A. Hitler
17 War August 30th: Poland orders total mobilization -
under the Protocols of the League of Nations this is equal to a
declaration of war. Polish troops were numerically stronger
September 1940: Germany reclaimed the pre-Versailles German areas
given to Poland. H’s speech at Danzig harped on o n the sadistic
treatment of Poles to the German minorities: ‘Tens of thousands were
deported, maltreated, killed in the most bestial fashion.’
18 Showered with flowers Danzig, September 1939: ‘It was like
this this everywhere.. in the Rhineland, in Vienna, Vienna, in the
Sudetan territories, territories, and in Memel: do you still doubt
the mission mission of the Fuhrer?’ - Comment by Schmundt, Irving
Hitler’s Irving Hitler’s War p.226 War p.226
20 France invades Germany The French invade Germany on September
7th, 1939, advancing 8 km before stopping.
21 German peace offers Hitler: "I have always expressed to France my
desire to to bury forever our ancient enmity and bring
together these two nations, both of which have such glorious pasts.
....I have devoted no less effort to the achievement of Anglo-German
understanding, no, more than that, of an AngloGerman friendship. At
no time and in no n o place have I ever eve r acted contrary to
British interests...Why should this war in the West be fought?“ 6th
October . Two German peace offers to Britain came in October 1939,
after defeating Poland, and in July 1940, after defeating France,
both spurned. - Captain R. Grenfell, Unconditional Hatred, German
War guilt and the Future of Europe, NY Europe, NY 1954, 201
19 Map of ‘Greater Germany’, 1939
22 Admiration for Britain During and after the war, it was hard to
obtain an English translation of Hitler’s Mein Hitler’s Mein Kampf,
’a Kampf, ’a central theme of which was Hitler’s admiration for and
longing for friendship with Great Britain’ - Captain Arthur Ramsey,
The Nameless War , p. 49 (in jail through the war.) ‘From the
outset, the leader of the resurgent German nation and Nazi party was
a self-confessed Anglophile whose primary foreign policy aim was an
alliance with with Britain.’ - Richard Milton, Best of
Enemies, Enemies, 2007, p.169
23 An Anglophile Early 1940, Rudolf Hess once enquired, ‘Mein
Fuhrer, are your views about the British still the same? Hitler
gloomily sighed, sighed, ‘ If only the British knew how little I
little I ask of them! How he liked to leaf through the glossy pages
of The Tatler, studying the British aristocracy in their natural
habitat! Once he was overheard o verheard to say, ‘Those are
valuable specimens – those are the ones I am going to make peace
with.’ David Irving, Hitler’s Irving, Hitler’s war.
24 Invasion of UK? ‘A but faintly-imagined and conditional German
plan to invade Britain in the summer of 1940’ Sir Basil Liddell
Hart, The Revolution in Warfare, Warfare, 1946, pp.212-222 (see also
his History his History of the nd 1970, pp.93-6) 2
World War 1970, "the discovery.. that at no time did
this man (Hitler) pose or intend a real threat to Britain or the
Empire.” – David Irving, foreword to his book The Warpath (1978)
Warpath (1978)
25 Who wanted another war? The war of 1939 was ‘less wanted by
nearly everybody than almost any other war in history.’ A.J.P.
Taylor
27 A Reason Reason for War "Germany becomes too powerful. We
have to crush it." - Winston Churchill November 1936 speaking to US
- General Robert E. Wood The Churchill pressure group The Focus was
established in 1936 by Sir Waley Cohen (Chair of the Board of
Jewish Deputies) who gave fifty thousand pounds. ‘The purpose was –
the tune that Churchill had to play was – fight Germany’ – David
Irving.
28 Reasons for War – 2 "This war is an English war and its goal is
the destruction of Germany." - Churchill, Autumn 1939
broadcast "You must understand that this war is not against Hitler
or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German
people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of
whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest." -
Churchill (Emrys Hughes in Winston Churchill - His Career in War and
Peace, Peace, page 145)
29 Reasons for War - 3 “The war was not just a matter of elimination
of fascism in Germany, but rather obtaining German sales markets”
Churchill, March March 1946 "Germany’s unforgivable crime before WW2
was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system
and to build up an independent exchange system from which the
worldfinance couldn’t profit anymore." -Churchill, The Second World
War - Bern, 1960.
30 Churchill elected Churchill ousts Chamberlain as Prime Minister
on May 10th 1940, and next day the city-bombing begins. ‘This
raid on the night of May 11 th , 1940, although although in itself
itself trivial, was was an epoch-marking epoch-marking
event since it was the first deliberate breach of the fundamental
rule of civilised warfare that hostilities must only be waged
against enemy combatant forces. Veale Advance Veale Advance to
Barbarism, The Development of Total War ,1970, ,1970, 170 For 12th
May, War Cabinet minutes note on ‘Bombing Policy,’ that the Prime
Minister was ‘no longer bound by our previously-held scruples as to
initiating “unrestricted” air warfare.’
31 City bombing in WW2 ‘ … the almost universal belief that Hitler
started the indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whereas it was
started by the directors of British strategy, as some of the more
honest among them have boasted.’ - A.J.P. Tayler ,
Origins of 2nd World War,1972, War,1972, 16. The first carpet
bombing of a German city was in the night from 15 to 16 May 1940 in
Duisburg; followed by repeated air attacks on German cities -
bombing of Hamburg on May 16th.
32 What was the point? Churchill, May 13th 1940: You ask, what is
our aim? aim? I can answer in one word. word. It is victory,
victory at all costs.’
33 Dunkirk: May 1940 "He (Hitler) then astonished us by speaking
with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its
existence, and of the civilization that Britain had brought into the
world. ....He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church
saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world.
He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should
acknowledge Germany's position on the Continent. The return of
Germany's colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he
would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should
be involved in difficulties anywhere.“ - General Gunther von
Blumentritt, at Dunkirk.
34 At Dunkirk - 2 “The blood of every single Englishman is too
valuable to be shed,” Hitler told his friend Frau Troost. “Our two
people belong together racially and traditionally – this is and
always has be en my aim even if our generals can’t grasp it.” -
Patrick Buchanan,The Buchanan, The Unnecessary War, 2008,
p.326.
35 Strategic Bombing Initiated ‘ Because Because we were doubtful
about abou t the psychological effect of the distortion of the truth
that it was we who started the strategic bombing offensive, we have
shrunk from giving our great decision of May 11th 1940 the publicity
which it deserved. That surely was a mistake.’- J.M. Spaight,
Assist. Sec. to the Air Ministry, Bombing Ministry, Bombing
Vindicated 1944.
36 German desire desire for for peace ‘Hitler assuredly did
not want the mutual bombing to go on. … Again and again the German
official reports applauded the reprisal element in the actions of
the Luftwaffe … ‘If you stop bombing us, we’ll stop bombing
you.’ - Spaight, Bombing Spaight, Bombing Vindicated, 1944 43. 1944
43.
37 Peace offer June 1940 June 1940: Luftwaffe drop "peace
leaflets" over London with "an appeal to "reason". Hitler: ‘I o f
the sacrifices it will claim. can see no reason why this war must go
on. I am grieved to think of I should like to avert them. As
for my own people, I know that millions of German men, young and old
alike, are burning with the desire to settle accounts with the enemy
who for the second time has declared war upon us for no reason
whatever.’ Irving: ‘The crucial moment when he [Churchill] managed
to kill this peace offensive in England was July 1940’
38 Praise for Albion ‘England has always possessed whatever
armament she happened to need. She always fought with the weapons
which success demanded. demanded . She fought with mercenaries as
long as mercenaries sufficed; but she reached down into the precious
blood of the whole nation when only such a sacrifice could bring
victory; but the determination for victory, the tenacity and
ruthless pursuit of this struggle, remained unchanged.’ Hitler, Mein
Hitler, Mein Kampf,1925 39 From 11 May to 6 September July 20:
Prime minister Winston Churchill hears of latest German peace offer
(US-to-Berlin decode) & instructs Lord Halifax to block it. He
then asks Bomber Command if they can do a ‘savage attack upon
Berlin.’ August 24: German planes by mistake hit East Ea st London.
H. issues command that any aircrew that drops bombs on London will
be severely reprimanded, with only the RAF, dockyards, etc. e tc. as
targets. August 26: a hundred heavy bombers sent to hit Berlin
September 4: (after 7 raids) raids) Hitler formulates another peace
offer => Victor Mallet in Stockholm, who replies he is ‘not
allowed’ to hear it. September 6: Luftwaffe bomb London - David
Irving video, ‘Churchill’s War’
40 No peace deal ‘The War Cabinet instructed Mallet to ignore the
message. But it is the clearest indication that Hitler’s words in
Mein Kampf were not mere rhetoric. He believed profoundly that an
Anglo-German alliance was essential and was prepared to go the last
mile to try to conclude such an agreement. Now he was compelled to
realise that there would be no negotiated peace.’ Richard Milton,
Best Milton, Best of Enemies, 2007 Enemies, 2007 p.222.
41 ‘The Blitz’ On 25 August, 81 bombers made night raids over
Berlin, then on 6th September the Luftwaffe replied. Only after six
surprise attacks upon Berlin in the previous fortnight did the Blitz
begin, and thus Germany justifiably called it a reprisal. ‘The
British people were not permitted to find out that the Government
could have stopped the German raids at any time merely by stopping
the raids on Germany.’ -Professor Arthur Butz. The Butz. The
th Hoax of the 20 Century, 1976, Century, 1976, 70
42 Image: The Blitz
43 November 1940 peace offer Via the Pope: • Norway, Denmark,
Holland, Belgium and France to be independent free states,
• the political independence and national na tional identity of a
‘Polish state’ to be restored • Czechoslovakia would ‘not be
prevented from developing her national character’ • Some
German colonies restored, etc. • Greater European economic
solidarity to be pursued ‘A peace offer offer so
generous that it left left most of Britain’s war aims sounding
sounding utterly hollow’ – Martin Allen, Himmler’s Allen,
Himmler’s Secret War, 2005, p.100
44 Two million tons “Many of the most beautiful cities of Europe and
the world were systematically pounded into nothingness, often during
the last weeks of the war, among them: Wuerzburg, Hildesheim,
Darmstadt, Kassel, Nürnberg, Braunschweig.” - Dr Wesserle, Wesserle,
The Journal of Historical Review, 1981, Review,
1981, vol. 2, 381-384.
45 The 1:20 ratio, ratio, tons of bombs Anglo-American strategic
bombers dropped 2690 kilotons of bombs on Europe (1,350kt on
Germany, 590kt France, 370 kt Italy, etc), while Germany dropped 74
kt of bombs including V-1 and V-2 rockets on Britain in WWII: a mere
5%, or one-twentieth as much - Dr Wesserle The Journal of
Historical Review, 1981, Review, 1981, vol. 2, 381-384.
46 Warsaw bombing – a comparison ‘In fact the bombardment of Warsaw
did not begin until September 26, 1939, after all the military
niceties had been observed: warning leaflets dropped o n to the
civilian population, open routes provided for the Polish civilians
to leave before the timed hour of bombardment, a formal ultimatum to
the commandant of the fortress Warsaw to capitulate before the
bombardment began, which was rejected’. Irving, Hitler’s
Irving, Hitler’s War , 1977, 2001, 239
Select Biblio WW1 Barnes, Harry Elmer, The Genesis of the World War
an Introduction to the Problem of War Guilt, 1926
Steiner, Rudolf The Karma of Untruthfulness: Secret Societies, the
Media and Preparations Preparations for the Great War
December December 1916 lectures, 1988,2005. Milton, Richard
Best Richard Best of Enemies Britain and Germany: 100 years of Truth
and Lies 2007 Lies 2007 Ross, Stewart Halsey, Propaganda Halsey,
Propaganda for War, How the United States Was Conditioned to
Fight the Great War of 1914-18, 1914-18, 2009
Docherty, Gerry and MacGregor, Jim Hidden Jim Hidden History The
Secret Origins of the First World World War, 2013.
WW2
Hoggan, David, The Forced War , (online) 1961,1989. Buchanan,
Patrick Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, How Britain lost
its empire and the West lost the world , 2008. Bradberry,
Benton, The Myth of German Villainy 2012. Wallendy, Uno The Truth
for Germany (online), 2012 King, Mark , The Bad War The truth Never
Mentioned about World War 2. 2015.
Postscript: Will of the Warmongers ·
(ww2)
Harry Elmer Barnes (1889-1968) Blasting the Historical
Historical Blackout, 1963: Blackout, 1963:
‘In no country has the historical blackout been more intense and
effective than in Great Britain. Here it has been ingeniously
christened The Iron Curtain of Discreet Silence. Virtually nothing
has been written to reveal the truth about British responsibility
for the Second World War and its disastrous results. The primary and
direct responsibility for the European war, which grew into the
Second World War, was almost solely that of Great Britain and
the British war group, made up of both Conservatives and Labourites.
If Britain had not gratuitously given Poland a blank cheque, which
was not needed in the slightest to assure British security, Poland
surely might not have risked a war with Germany. Nevertheless, there
would still have been no justification for British intervention in
such a war or for the provocation of a European war... The fact is
that the only real offer of security which Poland received in 1938
and 1939 emanated from Hitler. He offered to guarantee the
boundaries laid down in the Versailles Treaty against every other
country. Even the Weimar Republic had not for a moment taken this
into consideration. Whatever one may think of Hitler's government or
foreign policy, no doubt exists on this point; his proposals
to Poland Poland in 1938/39 were reasonable and just and the most
moderate of all which which he made during the six six years of his
efforts to revise the Versailles Treaty by peaceful means… means …
·
Liddell Hart (1895-1969) History of the Second Second World
War, 1970:
‘The precise effect of the Mutual Assistance Pact was to give Poland
a clear signal that aggression and belligerency was tolerable and a
warning to Germany that any retaliation would be met by force…
The last thing Hitler wanted was to produce another great war. His
people, and particularly his generals, were profoundly fearful of
any such risk - the experiences of World War One had scarred their
minds.
·
David Hoggan (1923-1988) The (1923-1988) The Forced War , 1989:
‘The secret British shift to a war policy in October 1938, when
Halifax took over control of British foreign policy from
Chamberlain, was followed by the public proclamation of this new
policy by Chamberlain himself at Birmingham on March 17, 1939. This
culminated, in turn, in the launching of the new "crusade" against
Germany on September 3, 1939
Halifax in London succeeded in imposing a deliberate war policy on
the British Government in 193 8-1939 despite the fact that most of
the leading official British experts on Germany favored a policy of
Anglo-German friendship. Beck in Warsaw adopted a position of
full cooperation cooperation with the war plans of Halifax despite
the the numerous warnings he received received from Poles aghast at
the prospect of witnessing their their country hurtle down the
road road to destruction. Many Many efforts were made by German,
German, French, Italian, Italian, and other European leaders to
avert the catastrophe, but these efforts eventually failed, and the
Halifax war policy, with the secret blessings of President
Roosevelt Roosevelt and Marshal Marshal Stalin, emerged emerged
triumphant. The British Government, after October 1938, repeatedly
evaded acceptance of any of the commitments in the Bohemian area
hich had been suggested at Munich. The British Government, according
to both Chamberlain and Halifax, had no right to be consulted about
the Hitler-Hacha treaty of March 15, 1939, which represented, as
Professor A.J.P. Taylor put it, a conservative solution of the
Bohemia-Moravian Bohemia-Moravian problem. The actual British
foreign policy moves after March 31, 1939, were directed
unrelentingly toward war. Everything possible was done to undermine
several excellent opportunities for a negotiated settlement of the
German-Polish dispute, and for the negotiation of a new Czech
settlement based on international guarantees. Instead of working for
a satisfactory agreement with Germany -- Hitler was willing to be
moderate and reasonable in dealing with both the Polish and the
Czech questions -- Halifax concentrated on intimidating Italy and
bullying France because they both favored peace instead of war. The
Polish Government as advised by Halifax to reject negotiations with
Germany, and Warsaw was constantly assured that British support
would be available for any war. The numerous requests of the German
Government for mediation between Germany and Poland, or for a direct
Anglo-German agreement, were either answered with deceptions or
ignored. A maximum effort was made to present the American leaders
with a distorted picture of the actual situation in Europe. All of
these British moves had their roots in the obsolete, traditional
policy of the balance of power. Nevertheless, there there was
no time before the British declaration declaration of war on
September September 3, 1939, when Hitler would would have opposed a
negotiated solution with Poland. An indication of this was shown by
his favorable response to the Italian conference plan on September
2, 1939, and his willingness at that time to consider an immediate
armistice in Poland. His peace policy failed because the British
Empire decided to challenge Germany before Hitler had completed his
program of arriving at amicable understandings ith his immediate
neighbors The motives of Halifax in 1939 were clearly derived from
the ancient tradition of maintaining British superiority over the
nations of Western and Central Europe. He had never questioned the
role of his kinsman, Sir Edward Grey, in promoting World War I.
Halifax did not propose to tolerate the existence in 1939 of a
German Reich more prosperous and more influential than the
Hohenzollern Empire which had been destroyed in 1918. It was for the
prestige of Great Britain rather than for such mundane
considerations as national security or immediate British interests
that Halifax became a prop onent of war in 1938. The traditional
British aim to dominate policy in Continental Europe was the
underlying reason why the world experienced the horrors of World War
II.’ - p. 288 & Conclusion
·
Jurgen Rieger (1946-09) justice4germans.c (1946-09)
justice4germans.com om,, 2009
‘The four-power Munich agreement, signed in September 1938: an
agreement by all parties that the Sudeten Germans rightfully
belonged "Heim ins Reich" Reich" (back home in the Reich.) In March
March 1939 both the Slovaks and the Ruthenians Ruthenians declared
independence, whereupon the Poles invaded Czechoslovakia and
occupied the Olsa Region, which was populated by Poles. The
Hungarians did the same, occupying the border areas that were
populated by Hungarians.
Since Czechoslovakia had ceased to exist, its President Hacha flew
to Berlin on 15 March 1939 and placed the remainder of his country
under the protection of the Reich. The Reich then formed the
Protectorate of Bohemia and Maeren, which provided for
exclusive Czech administration in all areas except military and
foreign policy. Chamberlain condemned the "German invasion" [entry
of German troops in Prague on 15 March 1939] in his Birmingham
speech of 17 March 1939; and on 31 March 1939 he signed an agreement
with the Polish government in which Great Britain promised to
support Poland in the the event of war. It is irrelevant whether
Poles or Germans attacked the Gleiwitz transmitting transmitting
station (whoever reads the White Book of the German-Polish war will
find countless undisputed murders and assaults committed by the
Poles in the weeks and months preceding 1 September 1939)
"Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid
it, even if it wants to." - Rydz-Smigly, Chief inspector of
the Polish army in a public speech in front of Polish officers (In
June 1939,) The fact that Chamberlain, knowing of the Polish, French
and American desire for war, gave a free hand to Polish war policies
and did not urge Poland to accept the moderate German demands can be
explained only by the fact that he also wanted war on 1
September 1939.
Another indication of this is the fact that in Britain the evening
edition of the newspaper DAILY MAIL for 31 August 1939 was
confiscated. The edition had carried the story of Germany's
proposals concerning the Polish Corridor as well as Poland's [27]
response, which was general mobilization. The newspaper was
compelled to publish a different evening edition. Following 15 March
1939, Roosevelt exerted strong pressure on the British government to
"finally exert opposition" against "Nazi tyranny" or else he would
apply methods of coercion against Great Britain. It is impossible to
determine precisely what threats he made, since their correspondence
is still off-limits to historians (Note: According to the usually
very well informed Washington journalists Drew Pearson and Robert S.
Allen "the President warned that Britain could expect no more
support, moral or material through the sale of airplanes, if the
Munich policy continued.") September 1, 1939: Mussolini proposes a
suspension of ho stilities and the immediate immediate convening of
a Conference of the Big Powers, Poland included, to discuss terms
for a peaceful settlement. Germany, France and Poland immediately
accept Mussolini's proposals. Britain categorically
categorically rejects rejects any negotiations negotiations and
demands withdrawal of German troops from all occupied Polish
territory (30 kilometers deep). Note: Britain does not consult with
Warsaw before making its decision.’
·
Steve F., Background to the Munich Munich Agreement:
‘The dismemberment of Germany following the Great War meant that the
Sudetenland (Bohemia and Moravia), part of Germany for 700 years and
with a population of over 3 million Germans, were moved -- against
their wishes -- out of their h omeland to become part of a
newly-created newly-created country, populated populated mainly by
Czechs and Slovaks, which was to to be called Czecho-Slovakia.
Czecho-Slovakia.
The Sudeten Germans suffered greatly under Czech rule. On March 4th,
1919, public meetings calling for self determination ere brutally
broken up and 52 German civilians were murdered. Lord Rothermere
described Czechoslovakia Czechoslovakia as a 'swindle.'
Conditions imposed upon the Sudeten-Germans were so harsh that
during 1919, 600,000 were forced to leave their settlements
settlements of centuries. Throughout the ensuing y ears, the
Czech President, M. Benes, saw to it that conditions became so
intolerable that even England and France felt it necessary to
concede this injustice of Versailles and agreed to its return to
Germany.
"The worst offence was the subjection of over three million Germans
to Czech rule." -- H.N Brailsford, Leading left wing commentator
The Czech administration which wanted the German territory but not
its population, agreed, but refused to do so and instead began
a reign of terror aimed aimed at driving the German German
population over the borders into Hitler's Germany Germany in a
program that has since been termed ethnic cleansing.
When under the terms of the Versailles Treaty, a large part of
Germany and its German population was awarded to Poland, so
began an anti-German racist racist pogrom resulting in in widespread
murder and mayhem mayhem resulting in over a million million Germans
being being 'ethnically cleansed' from their homelands of centuries.
Hitler's Germany could no longer act as bystanders to the grim
unfolding tragedy. When German troops re-entered their former
territory, the Sudetenland, there was was rejoicing in the streets.’
- CODOH page ‘Hitler’s Peace offers vs Unconditional surrender’,
April 2016, in the WW2 section, quoted with kind permission.
· Udo Walendy Walendy (1927 -) Who Started World War Two? truth for
a war-torn world, 2014. Permission to quote kindly given by Castle
Hill Press. ‘Poland was not going to wait for the outcome of the
Versailles Peace conference that was stretching over many months
and, instead, used the armistice of Germany to occupy the Posen
region and parts of western Prussia … The Versailles Peace
conference accepted from Poland the fait accompli, with the
stipulation, however, that the transfer of territory was made
dependent on the Polish obligation of having to guarantee to the
German and Jewish minorities far-reaching independence and the
preservation of their national culture and traditional way of life’
(p.134) Clearly that did not happen so even under the terms of the
Versailles Treaty the Polish occupation of that land was unlawful.
At Versailles, the British Prime Minister Minister Lloyd George had
remarked: “I tell you once more, we would never have thought
of giving to Poland a province that had not been Polish for
the last 900 years… The proposal of the Polish Commission that we
should place 2,100,000 Germans under the control of a people which
is of a different religion and which has never proved its capacity
for stable self-government throughout its history, must, in my
judgment, lead sooner or later to a new war in the East of
Europe...” Compare this with Woodrow Wilson’s words of 7 April 1919:
“France’s only real interest interest in Poland was to weaken
Germany by giving the Poles areas to which they had no claim.” The
U.S. Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, remarked on 8 May 1919: “Do
examine the treaty and you will find that whole populations, against
their will, were delivered into the power of those ho hated them,
while their economic resources were snatched away and handed over to
others.’ - p.134-6 NK: This unfair Versailles Versailles
treaty was was not the cause of a world war. It was the cause only
of a local local conflict between between Poland and Germany - It
was the British will, that transformed a local European conflict,
here deemed by Lloyd George to have been inevitable, into a world
war – or, such has here been my argument.
[1] See N.K., ‘On the Avoidability of WW1’ Inconvenient
WW1’ Inconvenient History, History, 2011,3, online. [2]
For this letter by US diplomat and presidential advisor Colonel
E.House, concerning the pacific philosophy of the Kaiser, after a
visit he paid in July 1914, see Buchanan, The Unnecessary War ,
p.22. [3] Grey was Britain’s Foreign Secretary 1905-16 and
Poincaré was the President of France 1913-20. [4] Bertrand
Russell, Autobiography, Russell, Autobiography, Vol. Vol. 1,
1967, p.239. [5] ‘Britain and Belgium had been deeply involved
in joint military preparations against Germany for at least eight
years.’ Hidden History, p.325. History, p.325. [6] Harry Elmer
Elmer Barnes, The Genesis of the World War an Introduction to the
Problem of War Guilt , 1926, p.211 (2013 online): pressure
from the Kaiser Kaiser upon Austria for ‘suspension of military
military activities activities and the opening of negotiations
negotiations with Russia’ Russia’ as th starting on 27 July.
[7] Hidden History: History: “Germany was the last of the
continental powers to take that irrevocable step [of mobilization]”
p.321. [8] Loreburn, 1919, pp.16. [9] British documents
on the the origins of the war 1898-1914, Vol 1898-1914, Vol XI, HMSO
1926. [10] Hidden History, History, p.321. [11] Ibid,
p.322. [12] Steiner, Karma Steiner, Karma,, pp.84-5
[13] Ross, p.42. [14] ‘The Bankers secretly devised a
scheme by which their obligations could be met by fiat money
(so-called treasury notes)’ to pay for the war: ‘The decision
decision to use treasury treasury notes to fulfil the bankers’
liabilities liabilities was made as early early as July 25 The first
first treasury th notes were run off the presses …on the following
Tuesday July 28 , at a time when most politicians believed that
Britain would stay out of the war.’ Carroll Quigley in Tragedy and
Hope, a History of the World in Our Time, 1966, Time, 1966, p.317
(Thanks to J.W. for this reference). [15] Quoted in
Steiner, Karma Steiner, Karma of Untruthfulness,
Untruthfulness, p.18. Brandes was Danish. [16] J.M. Spaight,
Bombing Spaight, Bombing Vindicated , 1944, 60; N.K. How N.K. How
Britain Initiated Initiated City Bombing, CODOH. Bombing, CODOH.
[17] N.K., Breaking N.K., Breaking the Spell, the
Holocaust Myth and Reality 2014 Reality 2014 [18] William J.
Scott Deutsche Scott Deutsche Staatszeitung , March 20, 2010
[19] ihr.org, Mark Weber, ‘President Roosevelt's Campaign to
Incite War in Europe, The Secret Polish Documents.’ [20]
http://tomatobubble.com/id570.html William
http://tomatobubble.com/id570.html William Joyce Twilight over
England [21] On mobilisation as legally signifying war,
see Hidden see Hidden History, p.278. History, p.278. [22]
N.K.,, [22] N.K.,, The “Ministry of Truth” at Britain's
National Archives: The Attempt to Discredit Martin Allen,
Inconvenient Allen, Inconvenient History, History, 2014, 6.
[23] ‘… sixteen German peace offers in the first two years of
the Second world War’ – Martin Allen, Himmler’s Allen, Himmler’s
Secret War, the covert peace negotiations of Heinrich Himmler, 2014,
p.55.
[24] But see also the British account of 2001: ‘The miracle’
of Dunkirk’, in Double in Double Standards, The Rudolf Hess
cover-up, cover-up, by Lynn Pickett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior,
pp.116-120. [25] See refs 21,22. [26] th There is a
problem with this widely-quoted remark, that 6 August was a
Sunday: there was no Sunday edition of the Mail. the Mail.
[27] I have not been able to verify this, NK
Table of Contents [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]
[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]
[26] [27]
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
It’s A Trap! The
Wave Of Repercussions As The Middle East Fights “The Last War”
TOPICS:Brandon SmithForeign PolicyHistoryMiddle EastMilitary
OCTOBER 11, 2023
By Brandon Smith
Few people are familiar with a little event around 1200 BC called
the Bronze Age Collapse in the region known as the Levant (now known
as the Middle East). Most folks are taught that history and progress
travel in a straight line and that each generation improves upon the
culture and innovations of previous generations. This delusion is
constructed around a Smithsonian-influenced view of the past. In
reality, history tends to go in a circle, or a spiral, with
innovation leading to ease, ease leading to laziness and corruption,
and corruption leading to weakness and collapse.
Over and over again, humanity reaches for Elysium on Earth only to
be slapped back down. The survivors then build grass huts on top of
the ruins of the old empires and they start over from scratch.
Why does the Bronze Age catastrophe matter? Obviously, because
history tends to rhyme.
The Levant at this time was rich with civilization and trade,
composed of a host of kingdoms that represented the known world
including the Egyptians, Babylonians, Minoans, Mycenaeans, Hittites,
etc. They had vast economic networks, agriculture, industry
and written libraries. The proximity of the kingdoms allowed for
such extensive trade relations that this period is often referred to
by modern historians as the first “globalized economy” (sound
familiar?).
What took centuries to build was destroyed in a single generation by
a series of disasters. A “mega-drought” caused kingdoms without
consistent water resources to lose agricultural production leading
to widespread famine and disease (yes, the climate can and does
change dramatically regardless of human carbon footprint). Trade was
disrupted by internal disputes, and a mysterious invasion of a group
of roaming raiders called the “sea people” is documented as a
primary factor in collapse.
The Sea People attacked numerous kingdoms, but many of them were
also refugees flooding into the region. They disrupted cultures and
economies and dragged a number of empires into the dust. This all
happened in less than 30 years. Sadly, because only the elites of
these civilizations were able to read and write, languages and
historical documentation were lost.
This initiated a dark age which lasted for centuries. Humanity was
set back, essentially to zero, while scratching and surviving among
temples and pyramids of past generations. They must have looked up
at those decaying marvels of architecture from hundreds of years ago
and wondered “What the hell happened to us?”
Not everything perished, of course. The Egyptian dynasties were in
decline, but they managed to hold together far better than their
counterparts across the Levant. However, the event represented
a setback to human knowledge that was detrimental. One might suggest
that if the Bronze Age Collapse never occurred we might be a space
borne species traveling the stars by now.
Then again, maybe these cultures were so corrupt that they needed to
fail so that something better could be built in their place?
Activist Post is Google-Free — We Need Your Support
Contribute Just $1 Per Month at Patreon or SubscribeStar
What does any of this have to do with the state of the Middle East
today? The smart readers out there surely see what I’m getting at.
The intricate relationships and trade mechanisms of the Bronze Age
led to great wealth and prosperity, but they were terribly fragile.
That same interdependency resulted in their demise as they tumbled
like dominoes on top of each other.
The globalization and collectivist war mongering of today is leading
to a similar worldwide implosion. Our irrational ties to foreign
entanglements and economies could very well destroy civilization
again. Consider what are we about to see as the Israel/Palestine war
unfolds…
Multiple Nations Dragged Into The Conflict
If you were wondering what the “October surprise” was going to be,
well, now you know. I will make my position on this situation
clear – I don’t care about either side. I care about innocent
civilians, but other than that the war is irrelevant. I am an
American and I care about America. The same goes for Ukraine and
Russia. Their wars are not our wars, and I am highly suspicious
every time our political leaders try to lure us into choosing a side
when foreigners start shooting each other. To summarize: All
wars are banker wars.
The Israelis enjoy our money but they have a history of proven
elicit operations to lure us into war (USS Liberty, anyone?). The
Palestinians and most of the Muslim world despise the West and
Christianity in general (and I don’t really care who started it, the
fact remains that our cultures are completely incompatible and this
will never change). Just because we happen to find common
ground on fighting back against the insane trans agenda does not
mean I’m willing to accept draconian Sharia Law in my community.
Both sides use tactics that deliberately target civilians. I’m not
talking about collateral damage like we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan,
I’m talking about groups that are consciously and brazenly engaged
in plans for genocide. Bottom line? There are no “good guys” to join
with. It’s a complete sh*t show of ancient tribal nonsense that
Westerners should stay away from.
For those who disagree, ask yourselves this – Are you truly willing
to go pick up a rifle and fly to Israel or Gaza to fight and die for
either side? If so, then go do it and stop demanding others do
it for you. If not, then shut up.
But here’s what’s going to happen: the establishment will seek
to force Americans and Europeans into these wars regardless.
The corporate media and some political leaders are already
suggesting that the recent full-scale attack on Israel was planned
by governments outside of Gaza. Some are accusing Iran, and others
accuse Lebanon. From the extensive amount of footage of the attack
that I have examined, I have no doubt that someone other than the
Palestinians orchestrated the event. The tactics were far too
advanced and far too coordinated; the Palestinians have never been
all that smart when it comes to military strategy.
Who drafted the attack is another question entirely. So far there
are a lot of rumors but no hard evidence leading to any specific
governments. Another big question is, how did the Palestinians
manage to organize all of this and execute the invasion WITHOUT
Israeli intel services knowing about it? Mossad is known to be one
of the most intrusive and pervasive covert agencies in the world,
yet they were caught completely off guard by this unprecedented
attack? I think not.
I’m reminded of the events of 9/11 and the strange series of
intelligence failures that preceded it. I’m also reminded of the
lies, propaganda and the reactionary response which led to two
decades of meaningless war.
I’m going to call it here – in a couple of weeks we will hear
reports that many of the soldiers involved in the incursion were NOT
Palestinian. They will claim some of them are from Iran, Syria,
Lebanon, etc. There will be intel that says Iran was a major backer
of the plan (The Wall Street Journal already claims this is the
case, but they have not provided any compelling proof, yet).
A US carrier strike group is on the way to the region now, and this
is just the beginning. Europeans will be pressured to go to war,
American conservatives in particular will be waterboarded with
propaganda telling us that an “attack on Israel is an attack on the
US.” It will be a lot like the rhetoric Neo-cons and leftists used
during the initial invasion of Ukraine, but multiplied by a
thousand. To be clear, both Biden and Trump have been rattling
sabers and testing the waters of war, so don’t think that we can
avoid this simply by voting.
Multiple Fronts
Israel is going to pound Gaza into gravel, there’s no doubt about
that. A ground invasion will meet far more resistance than the
Israelis seem to expect, but Israel controls the air and Gaza is a
fixed target with limited territory. The problem for them is
not the Palestinians, but the multiple war fronts that will open up
if they do what I think they are about to do (attempted
sanitization). Lebanon, Iran and Syria will all immediately
engage and Israel will not be able to fight them all – Hell, the
Israelis got their asses handed to them by Lebanon alone in 2006.
This will result in inevitable demands for US/EU intervention.
East vs West
Depending on the extent of the Western reaction, the BRICS nations
may be compelled to get involved. This may not be on a kinetic
level, but there is a chance. Russia has strategic security treaties
with Iran and Syria. China has numerous economic interests and
influence in the region as the world’s largest importer/exporter.
These nations might retaliate with the same kind of financial
warfare that the West used against Russia – with China and the BRICS
cutting off the dollar as the world reserve currency. This would add
to the crippling inflation we are already experiencing.
Terror Attacks And False Flags
Declare Your Independence!
Profit outside the rigged system! Protect yourself from tyranny and
economic collapse. Learn to live free and spread peace!
Counter Markets Newsletter - Trends & Strategies for Maximum
Freedom
Claim Your FREE Issue Today!
Enter Your Email Address
Click Here to Download Now
If you thought things might be eerily quiet on the terrorism front
lately, that’s now over. I would be shocked if we made it another
six months without multiple attacks tied back to Islamic groups.
Some of them will be real and some of them will be staged, and
telling which is which will be difficult.
The thing is, wide open borders in the West have made this far more
likely and the establishment knows it. In my opinion they WELCOMED
IT. If they can get at least one crazy Muslim to shoot up a strip
mall or blow up a football stadium, they will have all the leverage
they need to con Americans into another ground war in the Middle
East. Do we need to “fight them over there so we don’t have to
fight them here?” That’s garbage thinking. We should not
be letting them over here in the first place.
Europe in particular is playing with fire. National governments and
the EU have invited tens-of-millions of these people to their
doorsteps and now they face a serious conundrum. There are Sharia
Law communities all over Europe, there are millions of military-age
Muslim men with every opportunity to do great harm. And, there are
millions of woke leftists currently cheering them on, thinking that
this is some form of “decolonization.”
Closure Of The Strait Of Hormuz, Skyrocketing Oil Prices
I have been warning about this scenario for many years; it was only
a matter of time before tensions with Iran gave them a rationale to
close the Strait Of Hormuz and shut down 30% of all oil exports from
the Middle East to the rest of the world. Keep in mind, Europe is
suffering from extensive energy inflation, in part because of the
economic crisis and also because of sanctions against Russia.
Biden has been trying to hide inflation by dumping oil from the
strategic reserves onto the market, but now those reserves are the
lowest they have been since 1983. Conveniently, this happened
right before the strike on Israel. Our reserves are depleted as we
go to war. Oil prices and gasoline prices will explode if Iran is
implicated in the Israel attack. Iran will run a few giant oil
tankers into the Hormuz, sink them, and make the strait impassable
for months. Don’t be surprised of we see $200 per barrel oil next
year, which will translate to around $7 per gallon gas or higher for
much of the US.
A Push For A New Draft
Let’s be honest, current US recruitment numbers are a joke and the
wokification of our military is making it weaker by the month. No
American citizen with a legit warrior mindset or combat aptitude is
going to join that circus freak show voluntarily. The establishment
will try to regale conservatives and patriots with visions of
“fighting the good fight for family and country” but most will not
buy in. With attempts to ignite multiple fronts against Russia,
China and the Middle East, they will start talking about a new draft
system.
My belief is that this will fail miserably and would start a civil
war rather than fill the ranks of the Army or Marines, but they may
have a scheme to deal with this outcome…
Is This The Real Reason Why US Officials Are Encouraging The Migrant
Invasion?
The reality is, America has its own invasion to deal with.
During the Bronze Age Collapse certain empires (like Egypt) survived
using an odd tactic – instead of fighting off the invading hordes of
refugees, nomads and sea people, they HIRED them and inducted them
into important positions within their military. Corrupt
authoritarian rulers ultimately found that they faced more of a
threat from their own starving peasants than they did from the
outsiders, so they joined with them to put down local rebellions.
This might not be as useful in Europe, but in America I wonder if
this was the intention all along; to bring in millions of
military-age foreigners with little sympathy for the existing
culture, then in the midst of collapse and conflict offer them
automatic citizenship and benefits if they join the military. Not on
the small scale the federal government has going today, but on an
enormous scale the likes of which we have never seen.
Maybe the plan was always to leave the gates open and allow illegals
to stroll in so that they could act as a mercenary contingent to
fight in foreign wars or fight against American citizens should
rebellion arise…
Become Bulletproof Online Today With ZERO RISK!
Plan C
The timing of the conflict in Israel is incredibly beneficial to
globalists, and this might explain Israel’s bizarre intel failure.
Just as US and British leaders had prior knowledge of a potential
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 but warned no one because
they WANTED to compel Americans to fight in WWII, the Palestinian
incursion serves a similar purpose.
The covid pandemic and mandates failed to get the desired result of
a global medical tyranny. The war in Ukraine failed to get desired
results as the warhawks’ demands for boots on the ground against
Russia fell apart. Perhaps this is just Plan C?
The establishment seems particularly obsessed with convincing US
conservatives and patriots to participate in the chaos; there are a
number of Neo-cons and even a few supposed liberty media
personalities calling for Americans to answer the call of blood in
Israel. Some have described the coming conflagration as “the war to
end all wars.”
I believe that the real war is yet to truly start, and that is the
war to erase the globalists from existence. They want us to fight
overseas in endless quagmires in the hopes we will die out. And when
we do, there will be no one left to oppose them. It’s a predictable
strategy, but its success is doubtful. Another interesting fact
about the Bronze Age Collapse – the elites were some of the first
groups to be wiped out after the system broke down.
If you would like to support the work that Alt-Market does while
also receiving content on advanced tactics for defeating the
globalist agenda, subscribe to our exclusive newsletter The Wild
Bunch Dispatch. Learn more about it HERE.
The people in Washington are destroying your retirement account!
Slowly but surely, the value of your 401(k) or IRA is being eaten
away thanks to out-of-control inflation. And our elected officials
in D.C. don’t care! In fact, they seem to be accelerating this trend
with new legislation to print trillions of new dollars. And this is
why I recommend Gold IRAs. To see how they work, Get this FREE info
kit from Birch Gold Group about Gold IRAs. (Comes with NO obligation
or strings attached.)
You can contact Brandon Smith at:
[email protected]
You can also follow me at –
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Jewish Hand
in the World Wars, Part 1
UnzReview
THOMAS DALTON • JUNE 1, 2013 • 11,200 WORDS • 333 COMMENTS • REPLY
In 2006, an inebriated Mel Gibson allegedly said this: “The Jews are
responsible for all the wars in the world.” There followed the
predicable storm of anti-anti-Semitism, ad hominem attacks, and
various other slanders against Gibson’s character. But virtually no
one asked the question: Is he right? Or rather this: To what degree
could he be right?
Clearly Jews can’t be responsible for all the world’s wars, but
might they have had a hand in many wars—at least amongst those
countries in which they lived or interacted? Given their undeniable
influence in those nations where they exceed even a fraction of a
percent of the population, Jews must be responsible, to some degree,
for at least some of what government does, both good and bad. Jews
are often praised as brilliant managers, economists, and
strategists, and have been granted seemingly endless awards and
honors. But those given credit for their successes must also receive
blame for their failures. And there are few greater failures in the
lives of nations than war.
To begin to evaluate Gibson’s charge, I will look at the role Jews
played in the two major wars of world history, World Wars I and II.
But first I need to recap some relevant history in order to better
understand the context of Jewish policy and actions during those
calamitous events.
Historical Context
Have Jews played a disproportionate role in war and social
conflict—a role typically not of peacemakers and reconcilers, but of
instigators and profiteers? Let us very briefly review some
historical evidence to answer this charge; it provides relevant
insight into Jewish influences during both world wars.
As far back as the Book of Genesis, we find stories such as that of
Joseph, son of Jacob, sold into slavery in Egypt. Joseph earns the
favor of the Pharaoh and is elevated to a position of power. When a
famine strikes, Joseph develops and implements a brutal policy of
exploitation, leading Egyptian farmers to sell their land, animals,
and ultimately themselves in exchange for food. Joseph himself
survives unscathed, living out his days in “the land of Goshen,”
with a life of luxury and ease—evidently as repayment for a job well
done.[1]
Over time, Jews continued to build a reputation as rabble-rousers
and exploiters. In 41 AD, Roman Emperor Claudius issued his Third
Edict, condemning the Jews of Alexandria for abuse of privilege and
sowing discord; he charged them with “fomenting a general plague
which infests the whole world.” Eight years later he expelled them
from Rome. As a result, the Jews revolted in Jerusalem in the years
66-70, and again in 115 and 132. Of that final uprising, Cassius Dio
made the following observation—the first clear indication of Jews
causing a major war:
Jews everywhere were showing signs of hostility to the Romans,
partly by secret and partly overt acts… [M]any other nations, too,
were joining them through eagerness for gain, and the whole earth,
one might almost say, was being stirred up over the matter.[2]
Thus it was not without reason that notable Romans denounced the
Jews—among these Seneca (“an accursed race”), Quintilian (“a race
which is a curse to others”), and Tacitus (a “disease,” a
“pernicious superstition,” and “the basest of peoples”).[3]
Prominent German historian Theodor Mommsen reaffirmed this view,
noting that the Jews of Rome were indeed agents of social disruption
and decay: “Also in the ancient world, Judaism was an effective
ferment of cosmopolitanism and of national decomposition.”[4]
Throughout the Middle Ages and into the Renaissance, their negative
reputation persisted. John Chrysostom, Thomas Aquinas, and Martin
Luther all condemned Jewish usury—a lending practice often trading
on distress, and a frequent cause of social unrest. In the 1770s,
Baron d’Holbach declared that “the Jewish people distinguished
themselves only by massacres, unjust wars, cruelties, usurpations,
and infamies.” He added that they “lived continually in the midst of
calamities, and were, more than all other nations, the sport of
frightful revolutions.”[5] Voltaire was struck by the danger posed
to humanity by the Hebrew tribe; “I would not be in the least bit
surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the
human race.”[6] Kant called them a “nation of deceivers,” and Hegel
remarked that “the only act Moses reserved for the Israelites was…to
borrow with deceit and repay confidence with theft.”[7]
Thus both empirical evidence and learned opinion suggest that Jews
have, for centuries, had a hand in war, social strife, and economic
distress, and have managed to profit thereby.[8] Being a small and
formally disempowered minority everywhere, it is striking that they
should merit even a mention in such events—or if they did, it should
have been as the exploited, and not the exploiters. And yet they
seem to have demonstrated a consistent ability to turn social unrest
to their advantage. Thus it is not an unreasonable claim that they
might even instigate such unrest, anticipating that they could
achieve desired ends.
Jewish Advance in America and Elsewhere
The long history of Jewish involvement in social conflict has a
direct bearing on both world wars. Consider their progressive
influence in American government. Beginning in the mid-1800s, we
find a number of important milestones. In 1845, the first Jews were
elected to both houses of Congress: Lewis Levin (Pa.) to the House
and David Yulee (Fla.) to the Senate. By 1887 they had their first
elected governor, Washington Bartlett in California. And in 1889,
Solomon Hirsch became the first Jewish minister, nominated by
President Harrison as ambassador to the Ottoman Empire—which at that
time controlled Palestine.
Overseas, trouble was brewing for the Jews in Russia. A gang of
anarchists, one or two of whom were Jewish, succeeded in killing
Czar Alexander II in 1881. This unleashed a multi-decade series of
periodic pogroms, most minor but some killing multiple hundreds of
Jews. Further difficulties for them came with the so-called May Laws
of 1882, which placed restrictions on Jewish business practice and
areas of residency within the “Pale of Settlement” in the western
portion of the Russian empire.[9] Many Jews fled the Pale; of those
heading west, Germany was their first stop.[10]
Even prior to the 1880s, Jewish influence in Germany was
considerable. In the 1840s, both Bruno Bauer and Karl Marx wrote
influential essays on Die Judenfrage (The Jewish Question). In 1850,
composer Richard Wagner complained that Germans found themselves “in
the position of fighting for emancipation from the Jews. The Jew is,
in fact…more than emancipated. He rules…”[11] By 1878, Wagner
declared that Jewish control of German newspapers was nearly total.
A year later Wilhelm Marr decried “the victory of Jewry over
Germandom”; he believed it self-evident that “without striking a
blow…Jewry today has become the socio-political dictator of
Germany.”[12]
The facts support these views. And with the influx of Russian and
Polish Jews in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the situation got
demonstrably worse. Sarah Gordon (1984: 10-14) cites the following
impressive statistics:
Before the First World War, for example, Jews occupied 13 percent of
the directorships of joint-stock corporations and 24 percent of the
supervisory positions within these corporations. … [D]uring 1904
they comprised 27 percent of all lawyers, 10 percent of all
apprenticed lawyers, 5 percent of court clerks, 4 percent of
magistrates, and up to 30 percent of all higher ranks of the
judiciary. … Jews were [also] overrepresented among university
professors and students between 1870 and 1933. For example, in
1909-1910…almost 12 percent of instructors at German universities
were Jewish… [I]n 1905-1906 Jewish students comprised 25 percent of
the law and medical students… The percentage of Jewish doctors was
also quite high, especially in large cities, where they sometimes
were a majority. … [I]n Berlin around 1890, 25 percent of all
children attending grammar school were Jewish…
For all this, Jews never exceeded 2% of the German population. The
public accepted the foreigners with a remarkable degree of
tolerance, and more or less allowed them to dominate certain sectors
of German society. There were no legal constraints, and violent
attacks were rare. But the Germans would come to regret such liberal
policies.
The other important factor at that time was the emergence of
Zionism. Formally established by Theodor Herzl in 1897, its basic
principles were laid out in his book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish
State). He argued that the Jews would never be free from persecution
as long as they were foreigners everywhere, and thus they needed
their own state. A number of locations were discussed, but by the
time of the first meeting of the World Zionist Organization in 1897,
the movement had settled on Palestine. This, however, was
problematic because the region at that time was under control of the
Ottoman Empire, and was populated primarily by Muslim and Christian
Arabs. Somehow, the Zionist Jews would have to wrest control of
Palestine away from the Ottoman Turks and then drive out the Arabs.
It was a seemingly impossible task.
They immediately understood that this could only be done by force.
It would take a condition of global distress—something approaching a
world war—in order for the Zionists to manipulate things to their
advantage. Their guiding principle of ‘profit through distress’
could work here, but it would require both internal and external
pressure. In states where the Jews had significant population but
little official power, they would foment unrest from within. In
states where they had influence, they would use the power of their
accumulated wealth to dictate national policy. And in states where
they had neither population nor influence, they would apply external
pressure to secure support for their purposes.
That the Zionists seriously contemplated this two-pronged,
internal/external strategy is no mere speculation; we have the word
of Herzl himself. He wrote:
When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate
officers of the revolutionary party; when we rise, there rises also
our terrible power of the purse. (1896/1967: 26)
In fact, Herzl apparently predicted the outbreak of global war. One
of the original Zionists, Litman Rosenthal, wrote in his diary of 15
December 1914 his recollection of a conversation with Herzl from
1897. Herzl allegedly said,
It may be that Turkey will refuse or be unable to understand us.
This will not discourage us. We will seek other means to accomplish
our end. The Orient question is now the question of the day. Sooner
or later it will bring about a conflict among the nations. A
European war is imminent… The great European war must come. With my
watch in hand do I await this terrible moment. After the great
European war is ended the Peace Conference will assemble. We must be
ready for that time. We will assuredly be called to this great
conference of the nations and we must prove to them the urgent
importance of a Zionist solution to the Jewish Question.
This was Herzl’s so-called “great war prophecy.” Now, he does not
say that the Zionists will cause this war, only that they will “be
ready” when it comes, and “will seek other means” than diplomacy to
accomplish their end. A striking prediction, if true.[13]
In any case, there was clearly a larger plan at work here. The Jews
would pursue a policy of revolution in states like Russia in order
to bring down hated governments. To the degree possible, they would
seek to undermine the Ottoman Turks as well. And in Germany, the UK,
and America, they would use “the terrible power of the purse” to
dictate an aggressive war-policy in order to realign the global
power structure to their favor. This would have a triple benefit:
curtailing rampant anti-Semitism; enhancing Jewish wealth; and
ultimately establishing a Jewish state in Palestine, one that could
serve as the global center of world Jewry. Revolution and war thus
became a top priority.[14]
Turkey was in fact an early success for the movement. The Sultan’s
system of autocratic rule generated some dissatisfaction, and a
group of Turkish Jews exploited this to their advantage—resulting in
the Turkish Revolution of 1908. As Stein explains,
the revolution had been organized from Salonica [present-day
Thessaloniki], where the Jews, together with the crypto-Jews known
as Dönmeh, formed a majority of the population. Salonica Jews and
the Dönmeh had taken an important part in the events associated with
the revolution and had provided the Committee of Union and Progress
with several of its ablest members. (1961: 35)[15]
This group of revolutionaries, today known as the Young Turks, was
able to overthrow the Sultan and exert substantial influence on the
succeeding ruler. But in the end they were unable to steer the
declining empire in a pro-Zionist direction.
Back in the USA, Jewish population was rising even faster than in
Germany. In 1880 it had roughly 250,000 Jews (0.5%), but by
1900—just 20 years later—the figure was around 1.5 million (1.9%). A
census of 1918 showed this number increasing to an astonishing
figure of 3 million (2.9%). Their political influence grew
commensurately.
For present purposes, significant American influence began with the
assassination of President William McKinley in 1901. He was shot by
a Polish radical named Leon Czolgosz, who had been heavily
influenced by two Jewish anarchists, Emma Goldman and Alexander
Berkman. The presidency immediately fell to the vice president,
Theodore Roosevelt—who, at age 42, was (and remains) the youngest
president in history. His role as an army colonel in the 1898
victory in Cuba over the Spaniards had led to widespread publicity,
and with the backing of the Jewish community, he won the New York
governorship later that same year. Thus he was well situated to earn
the vice presidential nomination in 1900.
A question of interest: Was Roosevelt Jewish? I will examine this
issue in detail later with respect to FDR (as to whom there is more
to say), but in brief, there is considerable circumstantial evidence
that all of the Roosevelts were, at least in part, Jewish. In
Theodore’s case, the only explicit indication is a claim by former
Michigan governor Chase Osborn. In a letter dated 21 March 1935,
Osborn said, “President [Franklin] Roosevelt knows well enough that
his ancestors were Jewish. I heard Theodore Roosevelt state twice
that his ancestors were Jewish.”[16] But Osborn offers no specifics,
and I am not aware of any further claims regarding Theodore himself.
However, there are two other relevant items regarding his Jewish
connections. Having acceded to the office in 1901, he subsequently
won the 1904 election. In late 1906 he appointed the first Jew to
the presidential cabinet: Oscar Straus, a wealthy New York lawyer
and former ambassador to the Ottoman Empire. As Secretary of Labor
and Commerce, Straus was in charge of the Bureau of Immigration—at
the critical time of accelerating Jewish immigration. We can be sure
that his office was particularly amenable to incoming Jews.
The second event occurred in 1912. Roosevelt had declined to run
again in 1908, preferring to nominate his Secretary of War, William
Taft—who proceeded to win handily. Taft, however, disappointed many
Republicans, and there was a call to bring Roosevelt back. But the
party would not oust a sitting president, and so Roosevelt decided
to run on a third-party ticket. Hence the peculiar status of the
1912 election: it featured Taft running for reelection, Roosevelt
running as a third-party candidate, and Woodrow Wilson running as a
first-term Democrat. As the history books like to say, we had a
former president and a sitting president running against a future
president. Wilson, as we know, would win this race, and go on to
serve two consecutive terms—covering the lead-up, duration, and
aftermath of World War I.
Jewish banker Paul Warburg (1868-1932) at the 1st Pan-American
Financial Conference, Washington D.C., May, 1915. By Harris &
Ewing [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Jewish banker Paul Warburg (1868-1932) at the 1st Pan-American
Financial Conference, Washington D.C., May, 1915. By Harris &
Ewing [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
But less well known is this fact: For perhaps the first time in US
history, all three major candidates had substantial Jewish financial
backing. Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independentreported on a 1914
Congressional testimony by Paul Warburg, best known as the Jewish
“father of the Federal Reserve.” Warburg was the prototypical Jewish
banker, long-time partner at Kuhn, Loeb, and Co., and later head of
Wells Fargo in New York. At some point during Taft’s presidency,
Warburg decided to get financially involved in politics. By the time
of the 1912 election, he and his partners at Kuhn, Loeb were funding
all three candidates. Warburg’s testimony, before Senator Joseph
Bristow (R-Kan.), is revealing:
JB: “It has been variously reported in the newspapers that you and
your partners directly and indirectly contributed very largely to
Mr. Wilson’s campaign funds.” PW: “Well, my partners—there is a very
peculiar condition—no; I do not think any one of them contributed
largely at all; there may have been moderate contributions. My
brother, for instance, contributed to Mr. Taft’s campaign.” …
JB: “I understood you to say that you contributed to Mr. Wilson’s
campaign.” PW: “No; my letter says that I offered to contribute; but
it was too late. I came back to this country only a few days before
the campaign closed.” JB: “So that you did not make any
contribution?” PW: “I did not make any contribution; no.” JB: “Did
any members of your firm make contributions to Mr. Wilson’s
campaign?” PW: “I think that is a matter of record. Mr. [Jacob]
Schiff contributed. I would not otherwise discuss the contributions
of my partners, if it was not a matter of record. I think Mr. Schiff
was the only one who contributed in our firm.” JB: “And you stated
that your brother had contributed to Mr. Taft’s campaign, as I
understand it?” PW: “I did. But again, I do not want to go into a
discussion of my partners’ affairs, and I shall stick to that pretty
strictly, or we will never get through.” JB: “I understood you also
to say that no members of your firm contributed to Mr. Roosevelt’s
campaign.” PW: “I did not say that.” JB: “Oh! Did any members of the
firm do that?” PW: “My answer would please you probably; but I shall
not answer that, but will repeat that I will not discuss my
partners’ affairs.” JB: “Yes. I understood you to say Saturday that
you were a Republican, but when Mr. Roosevelt became a candidate,
you then became a sympathizer with Mr. Wilson and supported him?”
PW: “Yes.” JB: “While your brother was supporting Mr. Taft?” PW:
“Yes.” JB: “And I was interested to know whether any member of your
firm supported Mr. Roosevelt.” PW: “It is a matter of record that
there are.” JB: “That there are some of them who did?” PW: “Oh,
yes.”[17]
In sum: some unknown members of Kuhn, Loeb donated to Roosevelt;
Paul’s brother (Felix) gave to Taft; and Schiff donated to Wilson.
Cleverly, Paul Warburg himself admitted to no funding, but we can
hardly take him at his word here. In any case, there was a Jewish
hand in all three contestants, and the Jews were guaranteed
influence with the winner, no matter the outcome. We don’t know the
extent of this influence, nor how long it had gone on. To date I
have not uncovered evidence of Jewish involvement with Roosevelt’s
1904 election, although his appointment of Straus to the cabinet is
typical of the kind of political patronage that follows financial
support. And the same with Taft: We don’t know the degree of Jewish
support for his initial run in 1908, but support in 1912 suggests
that they were reasonably satisfied with his performance.
But Taft turned out to be a mixed bag for the Jews. On the one hand,
Jewish immigration continued apace. And he did appoint Oscar Straus
to the ambassadorship to the Ottoman Empire . However, he was less
inclined to act on the international stage than the Jews had wished.
Of particular concern was the growing problem in Russia, and steady
reports of Jewish pogroms. For example, there was the “Kishinev
massacre” of April 1903; the New York Times reported that “Jews were
slaughtered like sheep. The dead number 120… The scenes of horror
attending this massacre are beyond description. Babes were literally
torn to pieces by the frenzied and blood-thirsty mob” (April 28; p.
6). A slight exaggeration—the actual death toll was 47. A second
attack in Kishinev in 1905 left 19 dead; regrettable, but hardly a
catastrophe. In early 1910 the NYT ran an article, “Russian Jews in
Sad Plight.” Their source said, “The condition of Russian [Jews] is
worse today than at any time since the barbarous massacres and
pogroms of 1905 and 1906.”[18] Then on 18 September 1911, the
Russian Prime Minister, Pyotr Stolypin, was shot and killed—by a
Jewish assassin, Mordekhai Gershkovich, aka Dmitri Bogrov. (The
reader will recall Herzl’s demand for revolutionary action.) This of
course brought even harsher recriminations.
But the last straw, for the American Zionists, was the restriction
on American Jews from entering into Russia. There had been obstacles
in place since the turn of the century, but they became much more
stringent during Taft’s presidency. The Zionists wanted the US
government to take action, but this was forestalled by a
long-standing treaty of 1832, one that guaranteed “reciprocal
liberty of commerce and navigation” and allowed mutual freedom of
entry of citizens on both sides. The Zionists thus took it upon
themselves to initiate the abrogation of this treaty as a means of
putting external pressure on the Czarist regime. And, despite the
wishes of President Taft and the best interests of America at large,
they succeeded. This whole incident, thoroughly documented by Cohen
(1963), is an astounding and watershed event in Jewish influence. As
she says,
Credit for this act belongs to a small group which had campaigned
publicly during 1911 for the abrogation of the treaty. How a mere
handful of men succeeded in arousing American public opinion on a
relatively obscure issue to a near “wave of hysteria,” how they
forced the hand of an antagonistic administration, and what
principal aim lay behind their fight for abrogation constitute an
absorbing story of pressure politics. (p. 3)
The “mere handful of men” consisted primarily of Jewish lawyer Louis
Marshall, the banker Jacob Schiff, and their colleagues at the
American Jewish Committee—the ‘AIPAC’ of its day, and still a potent
force a century later. They had raised the topic of abrogation as
early as 1908, but it did not become a top priority until early
1910. They then approached Taft, knowing that he was preparing to
run for reelection the following year. As Cohen (p. 9) says, “The
quid pro quo was obvious; the Jewish leaders would try to deliver
the Jewish vote to Taft.” But he was unsympathetic. Taft knew that,
for several reasons, it was not in America’s favor: Our commercial
interests, our Far East foreign policy, Russian good will, and our
international integrity would all be harmed by abrogation. But the
Jews were pressing; in February 1910 they met with Taft, to “give
him one last chance” to support their cause. When he again declined,
they decided to go around the president, to Congress and to the
American people. They knew how to work Congress. As Cohen (p. 13)
explains, “the pattern of Jewish petitions to the government…was
generally that of secret diplomacy. Wealthy or politically prominent
individuals asked favors…but always in the form of discreet pressure
and behind-the-scenes bargaining.” But mounting a public campaign
was something new.
In January 1911, Marshall “officially opened the public campaign for
abrogation.” He immediately appealed not to Jewish interest—though
that was the sole motive—but rather to allegedly American interests.
“It is not the Jew who is insulted; it is the American people,” he
said. As Shogan (2010: 22) puts it, “a key to the [Jewish] strategy
was to frame its demand as a plea to protect American interests in
general, not just the rights of Jews.” The AJC then embarked on a
massive propaganda effort. They enlisted Jewish support in the
media; Samuel Strauss and Adolph Ochs (of the New York Times) helped
coordinate a series of articles and op-eds in several major cities.
They made the case “in popular emotional terms,” organized petitions
and letter-writing programs, and held dedicated, pro-abrogation
rallies—one of which included such luminaries as William Hearst and
future president Woodrow Wilson.[19] Everything was designed to put
maximum pressure on Congress to act.
All the while, Taft remained firm in his opposition. In a private
letter he wrote, “I am the President of the whole United States, and
the vote of the Jews, important as it is, cannot frighten me in this
matter” (Cohen, p. 21). Secretary of State Philander Knox, and
Ambassador to Russia William Rockhill, both strongly supported him.
Rockhill was particularly galled; expressing his thoughts, Cohen
asks, “were national interests to be subservient to a small group of
individuals?” After all, the actual harm was near microscopic: “Only
28 American Jews resided in Russia, and the State Dept knew of only
four cases in five years where American Jews were denied admission”
(p. 16). And yet this “small group of men” was turning the tide in
their favor.
By November of 1911, just 11 months after launching their public
campaign, the AJC was confident of victory. Schiff was able to
predict easy passage for the resolution. That same month an
“unofficial delegation” of Jews met with Taft regarding his pending
annual message, and they convinced him that Congressional action was
inevitable, and veto-proof. Taft relented, agreeing to sign the
resolution when it reached his desk. Wanting no further delay, the
AJC pressed for a vote before the end of year. On December 13 the
House approved the measure—by the astounding tally of 301 to 1. A
slightly modified version came up for Senate vote on December 19,
which was passed unanimously. A reconciled bill was approved the
next day, and Taft signed it. So it came to be that, on 20 December
1911, the US government sold its soul to the Jewish Lobby.
The importance of this event can scarcely be overestimated. The
interests of “a mere handful of men,” acting on behalf of a small
American minority, were able to dictate governmental foreign policy,
against the express wishes of the president and his staff, and
contrary to the larger interests of the nation.
The Russians, incidentally, were stunned at this decision. They knew
of the Jewish hand behind it, but could hardly believe that it had
the power to carry through on its threat. The NYT again gives a
useful report:
In parliamentary circles here [in Russia] the prevailing comment is
characterized by astonishment that the American government has
responded so readily to the Jewish outcry. The opinion is expressed
by members of the Duma that in all probability the Jews will now
attempt to force matters further. (20 Dec 1911; p. 2)
Indeed—the Jewish-led Bolshevik revolution was just six years away.
Such was the state of things in America and globally at that time.
International Jewry had sufficient wealth and influence to steer
events at the highest levels, and American Jews (Zionist and
otherwise) had come to permeate the government—and American culture
generally. The situation so impressed German economist Werner
Sombart that in 1911 he made this observation: “For what we call
Americanism is nothing else than the Jewish spirit
distilled.”[20]From the perspective of a century later, this would
seem truer than ever.
Wilson and the “Great War”
All this, then, serves as the context and backdrop for the emergence
of Woodrow Wilson, beginning with the election of 1912. If Franklin
Roosevelt was “the first great hero of American Jews,”[21] then
Wilson was the first great understudy. As Henry Ford saw it, “Mr.
Wilson, while President, was very close to the Jews. His
administration, as everyone knows, was predominantly Jewish.”[22]
Wilson seems to have been the first president to have the full
backing of the Jewish Lobby, including multiple major financial
donors. And he was the first to fully reward their support.
It’s worthwhile summarizing the main figures in the Jewish power
structure, as of 1912. Herzl died young in 1904, so he was out of
the picture. But a “mere handful” of others came to dominate the
movement, and the American scene:
Oscar Straus (age 62), German-born, first Jewish cabinet member
under T. Roosevelt, and later ambassador to the Ottoman Empire under
Taft.
Jacob Schiff (65), head of the Kuhn, Loeb banking firm.
Louis Marshall (56), borderline Zionist, founder of the AJC.
The Warburg brothers: Paul (44) and Felix (41), German-born bankers.
A third brother, Max, stayed in Germany (until 1938).
Henry Morgenthau, Sr. (56), German-born lawyer, father of the even
more influential Henry, Jr.
Louis Brandeis (56), lawyer, strongly Zionist.
Samuel Untermyer (54), lawyer.
Bernard Baruch (42), Wall Street financier.
Stephen Wise (40), Austrian-born rabbi and fervent Zionist.
Richard Gottheil (50), British-born rabbi and Zionist.
These, to emphasize, were all Americans. On the European side there
was a different structure, one centered on such figures as Chaim
Weizmann and Herbert Samuel in Britain, and Max Nordau in France.
Let me begin with financial backing—which of course has long been
the trump card of Jewry. Many of the above individuals were prime
supporters of Wilson. Cooper (2009: 172) remarks that his “big
contributors” included the likes of “Henry Morgenthau, Jacob Schiff,
and Samuel Untermyer, as well as a newcomer to their ranks, Bernard
Baruch.” Such assistance continued throughout Wilson’s tenure; for
his 1916 reelection bid, “financiers such as Henry Morgenthau and
Bernard Baruch gave generously” (ibid: 350). As we saw, Schiff’s
support was admitted by Warburg in his congressional testimony.
Warburg himself was very evasive, allowing only that his “sympathies
went with Mr. Wilson.” Yet we can hardly believe that no money
followed. Warburg’s most profound impact was his leading role in the
creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the year Wilson took
office. Seligman (1914: 387) remarks that “it may be stated without
fear of contradiction that in its fundamental features the Federal
Reserve is the work of Mr. Warburg more than of any other man in the
country.” Its basic principles, he said, “were the creation of Mr.
Warburg and of Mr. Warburg alone.” In due recognition, Wilson
appointed him to the Fed’s first Board of Governors in August 1914.
Morgenthau’s influence began in 1911, when Wilson was still governor
of New Jersey. Balakian (2003: 220) notes that it was at this time
that the two “bonded,” and that “Morgenthau offered Wilson his
‘unreserved moral and financial support’.” In the run-up to the 1912
Democratic convention, “Morgenthau was giving $5,000 a month to the
campaign, and continued to give generously throughout the fall”
(ibid.: 221). In fact, says Balakian, only a few of his wealthy
Princeton classmates gave more. Ward (1989: 252) confirms this,
noting that Morgenthau “had been an important backer of Woodrow
Wilson in 1912.” Morgenthau duly received his reward: ambassadorship
to Ottoman Turkey, again overseeing Palestine.
Of special importance was Wilson’s association with Louis Brandeis.
The two first met back in 1910; Shogan (2010: 64) describes
Brandeis’s “friendship with Woodrow Wilson,” noting that he had
“worked mightily” for him in the 1912 campaign. In a telling
statement, Wilson wrote to his friend after the election, “You were
yourself a great part of the victory.”[23] Brandeis would be
rewarded by a successful nomination to the Supreme Court in June
1916—the first Jew on the court. He would serve a full 23 years,
well beyond Wilson’s lifetime, and, despite his formal ‘neutrality’
as a justice, would play a vital role in both world wars.
But perhaps the most significant of all was Bernard Baruch. A
millionaire before he was 30, Baruch catapulted out of nowhere,
under obscure conditions, to become a leading influence in the
Wilson administration. Already in 1915, in the early years of the
European war, he was convinced that America would be involved. In
Congressional testimony of February 1920, Baruch stated that, in
1915, he “had been very much disturbed by the unprepared condition
of this country.” “I had been thinking about it very seriously, and
I thought we would be drawn into the war. … I thought a war was
coming long before it did.” Through some still-mysterious process,
Baruch was named to the Council of National Defense in early 1916.
He then came to control a particular subcommittee, the War
Industries Board (WIB), which had extraordinary wartime powers.
Baruch single-handedly ran it throughout the war years. His
testimony before Sen. Albert Jefferis (R-Neb.) summarizes his role:
Subscribe to New Columns
AJ: “In what lines did this board of 10 have the powers that you
mention? BB: “We had the power of priority, which was the greatest
power in the war.” AJ: “In other words, you determined what
everybody could have?” BB: “Exactly; there is no question about
that. I assumed that responsibility, sir, and that final
determination rested within me.” AJ: “What?” BB: “That final
determination, as the President said, rested within me; the
determination of whether the Army or Navy should have it rested with
me; the determination of whether the Railroad Administration could
have it, or the Allies, or whether General Allenby should have
locomotives, or whether they should be used in Russia, or used in
France.” AJ: “You had considerable power?” BB: “Indeed I did, sir.”
…
AJ: “And all those different lines, really, ultimately, centered in
you, so far as power was concerned?” BB: “Yes, sir, it did. I
probably had more power than perhaps any other man did in the war;
doubtless that is true.”[24]
An astonishing fact: a young, unelected Jew with no political
experience becomes, in time of crisis, the most powerful man in the
US government, after the president himself. And yet all this was
just a rehearsal. Baruch would play a similar role in the Second
World War under FDR, in his Office of War Mobilization. He was also
a friend and confidant of Winston Churchill. No doubt “Barney”
Baruch had lots of advice for all parties involved.
World War I began in earnest in August of 1914, when the German army
crossed into officially neutral Belgium on its way to France. A
series of alliances and treaties triggered a chain reaction in which
10 nations entered the war by the end of that year. Ultimately
another 18 would be engaged—though in the case of the US, it would
be nearly two and half years later. It’s difficult today, with our
present eagerness to engage in warfare around the world, to
understand the degree to which Americans then were so strongly
anti-interventionist. Neither the public nor the government had any
real inclination to get involved in a European war. Publicly, at
least, Wilson himself was a pacifist and an isolationist. In a
speech of 19 August 1914, just after the outbreak of war, he
proclaimed that “every man who really loves America will act and
speak in the true spirit of neutrality, which is the spirit of
impartiality and fairness and friendliness to all concerned.” We
have a duty to be “the one great nation at peace,” and thus “we must
be impartial in thought as well as in action.”[25]
And yet, American governmental policy did not fully adhere to these
lofty words. Under international law, the United States, as a
neutral party, had the right to conduct commerce with all sides. But
of course both Britain and Germany sought to restrict trade with the
other. A British naval blockade interrupted or seized a substantial
portion of our intended shipments to Germany, reducing trade by more
than 90%. And yet Wilson hardly objected. On the other hand, when
German submarines attacked or threatened our shipments to England,
he reacted in the strongest manner. The end result was a near
quadrupling of trade with the Allies between 1914 and 1916. In
practical terms, we were supporting the Allied war effort, even as
we remained officially neutral. Wilson’s government—if not he
himself—was decidedly biased against the Germans. Not
coincidentally, Wilson’s Jewish advisors were, to a man,
anti-German.
By the time of the 1916 election, war was churning throughout
Europe. Still, Wilson promised to remain unengaged; he ran and won
on the slogan, “He kept us out of war.” The American people too had
little appetite for armed conflict; as Cooper (2009: 381) writes,
“Clearly, the president was not feeling a push for war from Congress
or the public.” But like so many campaign promises, this one would
be discarded soon afterward—in fact, barely one month after his
second inauguration.
So: Why did he do it? Why did Wilson change his mind and, on 2 April
1917, issue his famous call to Congress to declare war on Germany?
His official answer: German submarines were relentlessly targeting
US military, passenger, and cargo ships, and thus we simply had no
choice. But this explanation does not withstand scrutiny. Early in
the war the Germans were sinking a number of ships that were
trafficking with the Allies, but in September 1915, after urgent
demands from Wilson, they suspended submarine attacks. This
suspension held for an exceptionally long time—through February
1917. And all throughout that time, we, and other “neutral” nations,
were trading with Germany’s enemies, supplying them with material
goods, and assisting in a naval blockade. Thus it is unsurprising
that the Germans eventually resumed their attacks, on all ships in
the war zone.
In his famous speech to Congress, Wilson said of the lifting of the
suspension, “the Imperial German Government…put aside all restraints
of law or of humanity, and uses its submarines to sink every vessel
[in the war zone].” Sparing no hyperbole, he added, “The present
German submarine warfare against commerce is a warfare against
mankind. It is a war against all nations.”
But what are the facts? Specifically, how big a threat did Germany
pose to the US? In reality, it was not much of a threat at all. From
the time of the outbreak of war (August 1914) until Wilson’s
declaration in April 1917, a total of three small military ships
were lost—one submarine in 1915, one armored cruiser in 1916, and
one protected cruiser in early 1917. Additionally, a total of 12
American merchant steamers (freight ships) were sunk in the same
period, but with the loss of only 38 individual lives.[26] So the US
had lost a grand total of 15 ships to that point. Putting this in
perspective: Over the course of the entire war, German U-boats sank
roughly 6,600 ships in total. Hence the threat to the US was all but
inconsequential. Clearly Wilson was thinking in internationalist
terms, and someone or something convinced him that realigning the
global order was more important than American public opinion; thus
his famous and much-derided phrase: “The world must be made safe for
democracy.” Yes—but whose democracy?
A few powerful voices opposed Wilson, including Senators Robert La
Follette (R-Wisc.) and George Norris (R-Neb.). Both spoke on April
4, just two days after Wilson’s plea for war. La Follette was
outraged at the unilateral action taken by the Wilson
administration. In a scathing speech, he said:
I am speaking of a profession of democracy that is linked in action
with the most brutal and domineering use of autocratic power. Are
the people of this country being so well-represented in this war
movement that we need to go abroad to give other people control of
their governments? Will the President and the supporters of this war
bill submit it to a vote of the people before the declaration of war
goes into effect? … Who has registered the knowledge or approval of
the American people of the course this Congress is called upon to
take in declaring war upon Germany? Submit the question to the
people, you who support it. You who support it dare not do it, for
you know that by a vote of more than ten to one the American people
as a body would register their declaration against it.[27]
Norris had some ideas about the driving forces behind the call to
war. He believed that many Americans had been “misled as to the real
history and the true facts, by the almost unanimous demand of the
great combination of wealth that has a direct financial interest in
our participation in the war.”[28] Wall Street bankers loaned
millions to the Allies, and naturally wanted it repaid. And then
there were the profits to be made from military hardware and
ammunition. These same forces also held sway in the media:
[A] large number of the great newspapers and news agencies of
the country have been controlled and enlisted in the greatest
propaganda that the world has ever known, to manufacture sentiment
in favor of war. … [And now] Congress, urged by the President and
backed by the artificial sentiment, is about to declare war and
engulf our country in the greatest holocaust that the world has ever
known…
Indeed—every war is a ‘holocaust.’ Norris then encapsulated his view
with a most striking line: “We are going into war upon the command
of gold.” And everyone knew who held the gold.
Norris and La Follette both realized they had no chance to change
the outcome. Any force that could compel abrogation of the Russian
treaty and monopolize a presidential election could manufacture
Congressional consent for war. Later that same day, the Senate
confirmed it, by a vote of 82 to 6. Two days thereafter, the House
concurred, 373 to 50. And so we were at war. American troops would
be on the ground in Europe within three months.
Balfour
Political power is a strange thing; it is one of those rare cases
where appearance is reality. If you say you have power, and others
say you have power, and if all parties act as if you have power—then
you have power. Such is the case with the Jewish Lobby. Simply
because, at that time, they had no army, had internal disagreements,
and in no country exceeded one or two percent of the population, we
cannot conclude that they were mere helpless pawns, manipulated at
will by the great powers. And yet today, modern commentators
continue to refer to the ‘illusory’ or ‘misperceived’ power of the
Jews at that time.[29] This can now be exposed as a weak attempt to
whitewash the Jewish power play. When a small minority can dictate
foreign policy, promote global war, and steer the outcome in their
favor, then they have substantial power—no matter what anyone says.
It was true in 1911; it was true in the 1912 election; and it would
be clearly demonstrated once again in the case of the Balfour
Declaration of 1917.
To recap: During Wilson’s first term, Jewish Americans achieved
major political gains. Paul Warburg’s Federal Reserve Act was
passed, and he was named to the Board. Henry Morgenthau, Sr. was
nominated ambassador to Turkey, watching over Palestine. Brandeis
was named to the Supreme Court. And Baruch became the second most
powerful man in the land.
Jews also made important strides elsewhere in America during those
four years. Two more Jewish governors were elected—Alexander in
Idaho, and Bamburger in Utah. The motion-picture business witnessed
the beginning of Jewish domination, with Universal Pictures (Carl
Laemmle), Paramount (Zukor, Lasky, Frohmans, and Goldwyn), Fox Films
(William Fox), and the early formation of “Warner” Bros. Pictures—in
reality, the four Wonskolaser brothers: Hirsz, Aaron, Szmul, and
Itzhak.[30] This development would prove useful for wartime
propaganda. And the Jewish population grew by some 500,000 people.
1917 was the first year of Wilson’s second term. The European war
was into its third year, and looking increasingly like a stalemate.
With the German resumption of U-boat attacks on shipping to the UK
and the American declaration, a true world war was in hand. And it
was also a time of revolution in Russia. In fact, two revolutions:
the worker’s uprising in February that overthrew Czar Nicholas II,
and the Bolshevik revolution in October that put the Jewish
revolutionaries in power.
Leon Trotsky (1879-1940) born Lev Davidovich Bronstein was a Marxist
revolutionary and the founder and first leader of the Red Army. By
Isaac McBride (Barbarous Soviet Russia) [Public domain], via
Wikimedia Commons
Leon Trotsky (1879-1940) born Lev Davidovich Bronstein was a Marxist
revolutionary and the founder and first leader of the Red Army. By
Isaac McBride (Barbarous Soviet Russia) [Public domain], via
Wikimedia Commons
The role of Jews in the Russian revolution(s) is a complicated and
interesting story. There isn’t space here to elaborate, but in
brief, the communist movement had a heavy Jewish hand from its
inception. Marx, of course, was a German Jew, and his writings
inspired an 18-year-old Vladimir Lenin in 1888. Lenin was himself
one-quarter Jewish (maternal grandfather: Alexandr Blank). In 1898,
Lenin formed a revolutionary group, the Russian Social Democratic
Worker’s Party (RSDWP), which was the early precursor to the Soviet
Communist Party. Four years later, Lenin was joined by a
full-blooded Jew, Leon Trotsky—born Lev Bronstein. Internal
dissension led to a schism in 1903, at which time the RSDWP split
into Bolshevik (‘majority’) and Menshevik (‘minority’) factions.
Both factions were disproportionately Jewish. In addition to Lenin
and Trotsky, leading Bolshevik Jews included Grigory Zinoviev, Yakov
Sverdlov, Lev Kamenev (aka Rozenfeld), Karl Radek, Leonid Krassin,
Alexander Litvinov, and Lazar Kaganovich. Ben-Sasson (1976: 943)
observes that these men, and “others of Jewish origin…were prominent
among the leaders of the Russian Bolshevik revolution.” This was
public knowledge, even at the time. As the London Times reported in
1919,
One of the most curious features of the Bolshevist movement is the
high percentage of non-Russian elements amongst its leaders. Of the
20 or 30 leaders who provide the central machinery of the Bolshevist
movement, not less than 75 percent are Jews. … [T]he Jews provide
the executive officers. (March 29, p. 10)
The article proceeds to list Trotsky and some 17 other individuals
by name. Levin (1988: 13) notes that, at the 1907 RSDWP Congress,
there were nearly 100 Jewish delegates, comprising about one third
of the total. About 20% of the Mensheviks were Jews, but by 1917
they comprised eight of 17 (47%) of its Central Committee
members.[31]
Thus it was that, in the years leading up to the 1917 revolutions,
Jews were working internally and externally to overthrow the Czar.
Stein (1961: 98) quotes a Zionist memo of 1914, promoting “relations
with the Jews in Eastern Europe and in America, so as to contribute
to the overthrow of Czarist Russia and to secure the national
autonomy of the Jews.” Temperley (1924: 173) noted that, “by 1917,
[Russian Jews] had done much in preparation for that general
disintegration of Russian national life, later recognized as the
revolution.” Ziff (1938: 56) stated the common view of the time that
“Jewish influence in Russia was supposed to be considerable. Jews
were playing a prominent part in the revolution…”
Surprisingly, even Winston Churchill acknowledged this fact. In 1920
he wrote an infamous essay explaining the difference between the
“good” (Zionist) Jews and the “bad” Bolsheviks. This dichotomy,
which was nothing less than a “struggle for the soul of the Jewish
people,” made it appear almost “as if the gospel of Christ and the
gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same
people” (1920/2002: 24). The Zionists were “national” Jews who
sought only a homeland for their beleaguered people. The evil
“international Jews,” the Bolsheviks, sought revolution, chaos, and
even world domination. It was, said Churchill, a “sinister
conspiracy.” He continued:
This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of
Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky
(Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany), and Emma
Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the
overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on
the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and
impossible equality, has been steadily growing. … It has been the
mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth
Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities
from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have
gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have
become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.
(p. 25)
“There is no need to exaggerate” the Jewish role in the Russian
revolution; “It is certainly a very great one. … [T]he majority of
the leading figures are Jews.” In the Soviet institutions, “the
predominance of Jews is even more astonishing.” But perhaps the
worst aspect was the dominant role of Judeo-terrorism. Churchill was
clear and explicit:
[T]he prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the
system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for
Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some
notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by
Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in
Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany
(especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to
prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. … [T]he
part played by the [Jews] in proportion to their numbers in the
population is astonishing. (p. 26)
By this time, Churchill had been working on behalf of Zionist Jews
for some 15 years. He had long counted on Jewish political support,
and was rumored to be in the pay of wealthy Zionists.[32]
The Russian revolutions were significant, but the premier event of
1917 was surely the Balfour Declaration of November 2. This short
letter from the United Kingdom’s Foreign Secretary Arthur James
Balfour to Baron Rothschild was remarkable: it promised to a “mere
handful” of British subjects (and indirectly their coreligionists
worldwide) a land that the United Kingdom did not possess, and that
was part of some other empire. It is enlightening to examine the
orthodox account of this event. According to the standard view, it
was at this time that Britain was not only mired in the war on the
Continent, but also that “British forces were fighting to win
Palestine from the Ottoman Empire.”[33] The Brits wanted it “because
of its location near the Suez Canal.” (In fact, of course, Palestine
is more than 200 km from the Canal, separated by the whole of the
Sinai Peninsula.) “The British believed the Balfour Declaration
would help gain support of this goal from Jewish leaders in the UK,
the United States, and other countries.”
So, here are a few relevant questions: Was control of the Canal
really the primary objective? Or did the British think that the Jews
would help them in their broader war aims? The Jews?—a beleaguered
minority everywhere, with no nation, no army, no “real power”? Could
they really help the British Empire? And did they in fact help them?
And if so, how?
Nothing in the documentation of the time suggests that the canal was
anything more than an incidental concern. But there was clearly a
larger goal—to enlist the aid of Jews everywhere, in order to help
Britain win the war. Schneer (2010: 152) notes that, beginning in
early 1916, the British sought to “explore seriously some kind of
arrangement with ‘world Jewry’ or ‘Great Jewry’.” A diplomatic
communiqué of March 13 is explicit:
[T]he most influential part of Jewry in all the countries
would very much appreciate an offer of agreement concerning
Palestine… [I]t is clear that by utilizing the Zionist idea,
important political results can be achieved. Among them will be the
conversion, in favour of the Allies, of Jewish elements in the
Orient, in the United States, and in other places… The only purpose
of [His Majesty’s] Government is to find some arrangement…which
might facilitate the conclusion of an agreement ensuring the Jewish
support. (in Ziff 1938: 56)
Later that year, an advisor to the British government, James
Malcolm, pressed this very point: that, by promising Palestine to
the Zionists, they would use their influence around the world—and
especially in America—to help bring about overall victory. On the
face of it, this was a preposterous suggestion: that the downtrodden
Jewish minority, and in particular the even smaller minority of
Zionist Jews, could do anything to alter events in a world war.
And yet that quickly became the official view of the British
government—particularly so when David Lloyd George became prime
minister in December 1916. Lloyd George was, from the Zionist
perspective, a nearly ideal leader. He had been working with them
since 1903.[34] He strongly believed in their near-mythic influence.
And he was a devout Christian Zionist, making him an ideological
compatriot. Immediately upon assuming office, Lloyd George directed
his staff—in particular, Mark Sykes and Lord Arthur Balfour—to
negotiate Jewish support. MacMillan explains:
From [early] 1917, with Lloyd George’s encouragement, Sykes met
privately with Weizmann and other Zionists. The final, and perhaps
most important, factor in swinging British support behind the
Zionists was to make propaganda among Jews, particularly in the
United States, which had not yet come into the war, and in Russia…
(2003: 416; my italics)
And as if the stalled war wasn’t motivation enough, rumors were soon
flying that the Zionists were also soliciting German support; the
Jews, it seems, were willing to sell their services to the highest
bidder.[35] When these rumors reached London, “the British
government moved with speed” (ibid). And with speed they did. With
Brandeis’s input, a first draft of the brief statement was completed
in July. A second draft appeared in mid-October, and by the end of
that month Balfour was ready to make public his Government’s stance:
“from a purely diplomatic and political point of view, it was
desirable that some declaration favourable to the aspirations of the
Jewish nationalists should now be made. … If we could make a
declaration favourable to such an ideal, we should be able to carry
on extremely useful propaganda both in Russia and America.”[36]
Three days later, they did.
But most striking was the implication that the “mere handful” of
Zionist Jews in England could actually be a decisive factor in
bringing a reluctant US into the global war. If successful, this
would dramatically swing the military balance of power. And via
Wilson’s Jewish advisors—most notably Baruch and Brandeis—they had
the ear of the president. But could they do it?
Unquestionably, the Brits thought they could—and that they did. This
is such an astonishing manifestation of Jewish power that it is
worth reviewing the opinions of several commentators. Speaking after
the war, on 4 July 1922, Churchill argued for full implementation of
the famous Declaration:
Pledges and promises were made during the War… They were made
because it was considered they would be of value to us in our
struggle to win the War. It was considered that the support which
the Jews could give us all over the world, and particularly in the
United States, and also in Russia, would be a definite palpable
advantage. (in Gilbert 2007: 78-79)
In his monumental six-volume study of the 1919 Paris Peace
Conference, British historian Howard Temperley (1924) made this
observation:
It was believed that if Great Britain declared for the fulfillment
of Zionist aspirations in Palestine under her own pledge, one effect
would be to bring Russian Jewry to the cause of the Entente
[Allies]. It was believed, also, that such a declaration would have
a potent influence upon world Jewry in the same way, and secure for
the Entente the aid of Jewish financial interests. It was believed,
further, that it would greatly influence American opinion in favour
of the Allies. Such were the chief considerations which, during the
later part of 1916 and the next ten months of 1917, impelled the
British Government towards making a contract with Jewry. (1924, vol.
6: 173)
We must bear in mind that the Declaration was issued seven months
after US entry into the war. But Temperley is unequivocal: the deal
was concluded “during the later part of 1916,” well before Wilson’s
decision to go to war. Apparently the deal was this: bring the US
into the war, and we will promise you your Jewish homeland. Such was
the “contract with Jewry.”
Sensing the importance, Temperley reiterates the point, to drive it
home: “That it is in purpose a definite contract with Jewry is
beyond question. … In spirit it is a pledge that, in return for
services to be rendered by Jewry, the British Government would ‘use
their best endeavours’ to secure… Palestine.” And in fact, it was a
good deal all around. “The Declaration certainly rallied world
Jewry, as a whole, to the side of the Entente… [T]he services of
Jewry were not expected in vain, and were…well worth the price which
had to be paid” (p. 174). Britain’s price was low: a spit of land
far from the home country. True, there would be Arab resistance, but
the Brits were used to that. A much higher price would be paid by
Germany and the Central Powers, and by America—who would expend
hundreds of millions of dollars, and suffer 116,000 war dead.
A Zionist insider, Samuel Landman, wrote a detailed and explicit
account of these events in 1936. After noting some preliminary
attempts in 1916, he remarks on the significance of Malcolm’s
involvement. Malcolm knew that Wilson “always attached the greatest
possible importance to the advice of a very prominent Zionist, Mr.
Justice Brandeis…” (p. 4). Malcolm was able to convince Sykes and
French ambassador Georges Picot that
the best and perhaps the only way…to induce the American President
to come into the war was to secure the cooperation of Zionist Jews
by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilize the
hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of the Zionist Jews in
America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo
basis.
Granted, Landman was not an unbiased observer, and had good reason
to exaggerate Zionist influence. But that was not the case with the
British Royal Palestine Commission, which issued a report in 1937.
At the critical stage of the war, “it was believed that Jewish
sympathy or the reverse would make a substantial difference one way
or the other to the Allied cause. In particular, Jewish sympathy
would confirm the support of American Jewry…” (p. 23). The report
then quotes Lloyd George:
The Zionist leaders gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies
committed themselves to…a national home for the Jews in Palestine,
they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support
throughout the world to the Allied cause. They kept their word.
Two years after this report, in 1939, the British contemplated
starting a war with Germany. Churchill wrote a memo for his War
Cabinet, reminding them that
it was not for light or sentimental reasons that Lord Balfour and
the Government of 1917 made the promises to the Zionists which have
been the cause of so much subsequent discussion. The influence of
American Jewry was rated then as a factor of the highest importance,
and we did not feel ourselves in such a strong position as to be
able to treat it with indifference. (in Gilbert 2007: 165)
The implication, of course, was that the British might once again
need Jewish help to defeat the Germans. Having been goaded into war
in 1939 by Roosevelt and his Jewish advisors,[37] the British were
becoming desperate once again to draw in the Americans. As David
Irving reports, it was in late 1941 that Weizmann and his fellow
British Zionists began “promising to use their influence in
Washington to bring the United States into the war” (2001: 73).
Irving quotes from an amazingly blunt letter from Weizmann to
Churchill, promising to do again in this war what they did in the
last:
There is only one big ethnic group [in America] which is willing to
stand, to a man, for Great Britain, and a policy of ‘all-out aid’
for her: the five million Jews. From [Treasury] Secretary Morgenthau
[Henry, Jr.], Governor [Herbert] Lehman, Justice Frankfurter, down
to the simplest Jewish workman or trader… It has been repeatedly
acknowledged by British Statesmen that it was the Jews who, in the
last war, effectively helped to tip the scales in America in favour
of Great Britain. They are keen to do it—and may do it—again. (p.
77)
So here we have Weizmann explicitly naming the influential Jews with
the power to bring Roosevelt and the United States into a war in
which it, once again, had no compelling interest. The letter was
dated September 10, 1941. Churchill did not have to wait long.
Within 90 days, America would be at war.
Sources
Balakian, P. 2003. The Burning Tigris. Harper Collins.
Ben-Sasson, H. 1976. A History of the Jewish People. Harvard
University Press.
Chalberg, J. (ed.) 1995. Isolationism. Greenhaven Press.
Churchill, W. 1920/2002. “Zionism versus Bolshevism.” In L. Brenner
(ed.), 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis. Barricade
Books.
Cohen, N. 1963. “The abrogation of the Russo-American treaty of
1832.” Jewish Social Studies, 25(1).
Cooper, J. 1983. The Warrior and the Priest. Belknap.
Cooper, J. 2009. Woodrow Wilson. Knopf.
Dalton, T. 2011a. “Eternal strangers: Anti-Jewish musings throughout
history” (part 1). The Occidental Quarterly, 11(2)
http://toqonline.com/archives/v11n2/TOQv11n2Dalton.pdf.
Dalton, T. 2011b. “Eternal strangers: Anti-Jewish musings throughout
history” (part 2). The Occidental Quarterly, 11(3).
Dalton, T. 2011c. “Eternal strangers: Anti-Jewish musings throughout
history” (part 3). The Occidental Quarterly, 11(4).
Dalton, T. 2012. “Anglo-American perspectives on anti-Semitism.” The
Occidental Quarterly, 12(3).
d’Holbach, P. 1770/1813. Ecce Homo! or a Critical Inquiry in the
History of Jesus Christ. D. I. Eaton.
Gilbert, M. 2007. Churchill and the Jews. Holt.
Gordon, S. 1984. Hitler, Jews, and the “Jewish Question”. Princeton
University Press.
Hegel, G. 1975. Early Theological Writings. (T. Knox, trans.).
University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hertzberg, A. 1968. The French Enlightenment and the Jews. Columbia
University Press.
Herzl, T. 1896/1967. The Jewish State. Pordes.
Hodgson, G. 2006. Woodrow Wilson’s Right Hand. Yale University
Press.
Ingrams, D. (ed.) 1972. Palestine Papers: 1917-1922. G. Braziller.
Irving, D. 2001. Churchill’s War (vol. 2). Focal Point.
Kant, I. 1798/1979. Conflict of the Faculties. (M. Gregor, trans.).
Abaris.
Landman, S. 1936. Great Britain, the Jews, and Palestine. New
Zionist Press.
Levin, N. 1988. The Jews in the Soviet Union since 1917. NYU Press.
Levy, R. 1991. Anti-Semitism in the Modern World. D. C. Heath.
Liebreich, F. 2005. Britain’s Naval and Political Reaction to the
Illegal Immigration of Jews to Palestine, 1945-1948. Routledge.
Lloyd George, D. 1939. Memoirs of the Peace Conference (vol. 2).
Yale University Press.
MacMillan, M. 2003. Paris 1919. Random House.
Makovsky, M. 2007. Churchill’s Promised Land. Yale University Press.
Mommsen, T. 1854/1957. History of Rome (vol. 4). Free Press.
Rather, L. 1990. Reading Wagner. Louisiana State University Press.
Schneer, J. 2010. The Balfour Declaration. Random House.
Seligman, E. 1914. “Introduction.” Proceedings of the Academy of
Political Science in the City of New York, 4(4).
Shogan, R. 2010. Prelude to Catastrophe. Ivan Dee.
Slomovitz, P. 1981. Purely Commentary. Wayne State University Press.
Sombart, W. 1911/1982. The Jews and Modern Capitalism. Transaction.
Stein, L. 1961. The Balfour Declaration. Valentine, Mitchell.
Stern, M. 1974. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (vol.
1). Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
Temperley, H. 1924. History of the Peace Conference of Paris (vol.
6). Hodder and Stoughton.
Ward, G. 1989. A First Class Temperament. Harper.
Weber, M. 1983. “President Roosevelt’s campaign to incite war in
Europe: The secret Polish documents.” Journal of Historical Review,
4.
Ziff, W. 1938. The Rape of Palestine. Longmans, Green.
Notes
[1] It is clear that Joseph was Jewish: His father, Jacob, was
renamed by God as “Israel” (Gen 35:10), and Joseph himself is
repeatedly referred to as a “Hebrew” (e.g. Gen 39:14, 41:12).
[2] Roman History, 69.13.
[3] For Seneca’s and Quintilian’s comments, see Stern (1974), pages
431 and 513. For Tacitus, see his Annals (XV, 44), and Histories
(5.8).
[4] History of Rome, vol. 4, p. 643.
[5] Ecce Homo! (1770/1813: 26, 28)
[6] Cited in Hertzberg (1968: 300).
[7] For Kant, see his Conflict of the Faculties (1798/1979: 101).
Hegel’s quotation is from his Early Theological Writings (1975:
190).
[8] This is just a fraction of the negative observations of Jews
over the centuries. For a more complete study, see my series Dalton
(2011a, 2011b, 2011c, and 2012).
[9] A large area, comprising much of present-day Poland, Lithuania,
Ukraine, and Belarus.
[10] In 1891 the New York Times ran the headline: “Russia’s Fierce
Assault: Europe amazed at her treatment of Jews.” As the article
explained, “Berlin…is overwhelmed by the advance wave of the flying
Jews, driven on a day’s notice from their homes and swarming
westward…” (May 31; p. 1).
Subscribe to New Columns
[11] Cited in Rather (1990: 163).
[12] Cited in Levy (1991: 83-84).
[13] There are a few problems, however. First, the diary is dated
some five months after the war actually started; it’s easy to recall
a prediction after the fact. Second, Rosenthal’s book My Siberian
Diary is nowhere to be found. The entry is recounted in an obscure
periodical, The Jewish Era, dated January 1919 (p. 128); this was
not only after the war was over, but after the Peace Conference had
already begun.
[14] This was true of both Zionist and non-Zionist Jews. It’s worth
noting that Zionism was a minority view among American Jews, at
least for the first two decades of its existence. Many Jews, being
‘internationalists,’ did not feel the need for a Jewish homeland.
And many realized that, should this come to pass, they would be
charged with dual loyalty. But with the Zionists’ relentless
pressure and record of success, they became the dominant view.
[15] For a contemporaneous account, see the London Times, 11 July
1911, p. 5.
[16] Cited in Slomovitz (1981: 6-7).
[17] Cited in Dearborn Independent (25 June 1921).
[18] April 11, p. 18. The same article goes on to decry “the
systematic, relentless quiet grinding down of a people of more than
6,000,000 souls.” This figure surely strikes a chord—but that’s
another story.
[19] Indeed—a “special effort” was made to get the support of
Wilson, “whose influence was rising within the Democratic ranks” (p.
32).
[20] The Jews and Modern Capitalism (1911/1982), p. 44.
[21] Shogan (2010: xi).
[22] Dearborn Independent, 11 June 1921. The entire ‘international
Jew’ series ran without a byline, and so for the sake of convenience
I attribute them to Ford—even though it is virtually certain that he
did not write the pieces himself.
[23] Cooper (1983: 194).
[24] War Expenditures: Parts 1 to 13. US Government Printing Office
(1921: 1814, 1816).
[25] Cited in Chalberg (1995: 46-47).
[26] Other Americans died on foreign-flagged ships—most notoriously,
128 on the Lusitania. But this still pales in comparison to the
thousands who would die in a war.
[27] Online at: www.historymatters.gmu.edu. I am not aware of any
polling data supporting his claim that 90% of Americans were opposed
to entering the war, but it seems to have been a reasonable
estimate.
[28] Cited in Chalberg (1995: 71-73).
[29] Schneer (2010: 153) is typical: there was “no such thing” as a
powerful Jewish force in world affairs. Any thoughts to the contrary
are “based upon a misconception.” Hodgson (2006: 154-155) is another
example: “the influence of Zionism [was] considerably exaggerated”
by the British government, who believed the international Jews to be
“more influential and more Zionist than in fact they were.”
[30] Jews had nearly a total monopoly on the film business. The only
significant non-Jewish movie mogul was Darryl Zanuck, who was a
studio head at 20th Century Fox for many years.
[31] Among the leading figures, Ben-Sasson (p. 944) mentions Julius
Martov, Fyodor Dan, and Raphael Abramowitz.
[32] Churchill’s close connection to British Jews dated back at
least to 1904. Gilbert (2007: 9) explains that “this was the first
but not the last time that Churchill was to be accused by his
political opponents…of being in the pocket, and even in the pay, of
wealthy Jews.” Makovsky (2007) describes Churchill’s father’s
longtime association with “Jewish financial titans,” and notes that
Churchill himself “came to count many of [his father’s] wealthy
Jewish friends as his own” (p. 46).
[33] Encyclopedias are usually good sources for conventional views.
Quotations here come from the World Book, 2003 edition, entry on
‘Balfour Declaration.’
[34] See Stein (1961: 28).
[35] See Lloyd George (1939: 725), Ziff (1938: 55), Stein (1961:
528), and Liebreich (2005: 12).
[36] Minutes of the War Cabinet for October 31; see Ingrams (1972:
16).
[37] As I will explain in Part II, there is ample evidence that this
was true. For a review of some of the relevant sources, see Weber
(1983). In brief, it seems that Roosevelt wanted England and France
to do the early ‘dirty work’ of the war, and then the US would
intervene as needed to conclude the issue.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The Jewish Hand in the World Wars,
Part 2
UnzReview
THOMAS DALTON • JUNE 1, 2014 • 16,800 WORDS • 71 COMMENTS • REPLY
In Part 1 of this article, I provided an account of the Jewish role
in the events leading up to World War One, with an emphasis on their
influence in the UK and United States. Woodrow Wilson was shown to
be the first American president elected with the full backing of the
Jewish lobby, and he responded by placing several Jews into leading
roles in his administration. They were also seen as having decisive
influence at the time of Wilson’s declaration of war in April 1917.
On the British side, Prime Minister David Lloyd George was a
Christian Zionist and ideological compatriot of the Jews, and
equally eager to support their aims. Britain leveraged Jewish
support through the Balfour Declaration of November 1917, which
promised the Zionists a homeland in Palestine; it was their reward
for their having brought the US into the conflict some seven months
earlier.
Such actions were shown to be part of a long-standing historical
trend: one of Jewish activists and agitators inciting turmoil and
even war whenever they stood to benefit. Wars, of course, are not
only events of great death and destruction; they provide tremendous
opportunity for financial profit, and for dramatic shifts in global
power structures. For those in the right position, warfare can yield
significant gains in wealth and influence.
Specifically, the events surrounding the First World War brought
substantial gains to Jews worldwide—in several ways. First, with
highly-placed individuals in the Taft and Wilson administrations,
the US was very amenable to Jewish immigration; in fact their
numbers increased dramatically, from 1.5 million to over 3 million
between 1905 and 1920—on the way to 4 million by the mid-1920s.
Second was the Balfour Declaration, which promised them Palestine.
Granted, nothing was immediately delivered as to Palestine, but even
so, it was a major concession by a world power. Third, the world
order was changed in their favor: the hated and “anti-Semitic”
Czarist rule in Russia was replaced by the Jewish-led Bolshevik
movement, the hated and “anti-Semitic” Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany
was replaced by the Jewish-friendly Weimar regime, and the
Jewish-influenced governments of the US and Great Britain
reestablished their global dominance.
Finally, and as always, there was money to be made. Running the War
Industries Board for Wilson, Jewish Financier Bernard Baruch had
extraordinary power to direct military spending; we can be sure that
his preferred clients benefitted.[1] But perhaps Nebraska Senator
George Norris said it best. Speaking in opposition to Wilson’s call
for a war declaration, Norris exclaimed that Americans were being
deceived “by the almost unanimous demand of the great combination of
wealth that has a direct financial interest in our participation in
the war.” Furthermore, “a large number of great newspapers and news
agencies of the country have been controlled and enlisted in the
greatest propaganda that the world has ever known, to manufacture
sentiment in favor of war.” Summarizing his case, Norris said this:
“We are going into war upon the command of gold.”[2] Finance, media,
‘gold’—Jewish interests prospered on many fronts.
But Wilson was evidently unaffected by such matters, or by his
pledge to his fellow Americans to “keep us out of war.” His team of
Jewish backers and advisors—Baruch, but also Henry Morgenthau Sr.,
Jacob Schiff, Samuel Untermyer, Paul Warburg, Stephen Wise, and
Louis Brandeis—wanted war, and war they got. The fact that it would
cost America $250 billon (current equivalent), and some 116,000 war
dead, did not seem to figure into their calculations.
The main topic of the present essay is World War Two, but its roots
lie in the outcome of the First World War. I therefore continue the
story from that time.
Some Context
Before proceeding, we must bear something in mind. The striving of
Jews for greater influence and political power is to be found on
both of the sides of World War I. Russian imperial leaders had long
been suspicious of the Jews, and largely banished them to the
so-called Pale of Settlement that was established in western Russia
in the 1790s. Beginning in the 1880s, western media issued
exaggerated reports of slaughters, pogroms, and assorted massacres
among the Russian Jews there, whose aggregate numbers of victims
were nearly always recorded—astonishingly—as “6 million.”[3]
This naturally generated deep hostility toward the House of Romanov,
and many Jews sought its demise. Special animosity was reserved for
Czar Nicholas II, who assumed power in 1894. In Part 1, I explained
the stunningly successful effort of the American Jewish lobby to
abrogate the long-standing US-Russia treaty in 1911; this was a
small punishment aimed at the Czar. The ultimate goal, though, was
his overthrow, and thus we can imagine the joy of the global Jewish
community at his fall in March 1917. As we recall, the Czar and his
family were then murdered by Jewish Bolsheviks in July of the
following year.
It was a somewhat similar story with the German ruler Wilhelm II,
who acceded to the throne in 1888. There, however, Jews were
prosperous and enjoyed a relatively high degree of freedom—despite
the Kaiser’s evident personal dislike of them.[4] Previously I cited
some impressive statistics by Sarah Gordon regarding their numbers
in law, media, business, and academia, all prior to World War I. In
the banking sector, they utterly flourished; prominent German-Jewish
banking families included the well-known Rothschilds and Warburgs,
but also the Mendelssohns, Bleichroeders, Speyers, Oppenheims,
Bambergers, Gutmanns, Goldschmidts, and Wassermanns. But despite
their wealth and success, Jews had no access to political power,
owing to the hereditary monarchy. This, for them, was unacceptable.
Thus they had to introduce “democracy”—with all due high-minded
values, of course. Only through a democratic system could they exert
direct influence on political leadership.
Photograph from the archives of the League of Nations shows a
soldier killed in World War I. The war raged for more than four
years, from August 1914 to November 1918, and resulted in the deaths
of more than nine million combatants. As many as seven million
civilians also were killed in the war or died as a consequence of
it.[Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Photograph from the archives of the League of Nations shows a
soldier killed in World War I. The war raged for more than four
years, from August 1914 to November 1918, and resulted in the deaths
of more than nine million combatants. As many as seven million
civilians also were killed in the war or died as a consequence of
it.[Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Consequently, as soon as the Czar fell in Russia, calls came out to
repeat the success in Germany. On 19 March 1917, four days after the
Czar’s ouster, the New York Times reported on Louis Marshall lauding
the event, and adding that “the revolt against autocracy might be
expected to spread to Germany.” Two days later, Jewish speakers at
Madison Square Garden “predict[ed] an uprising in Germany.” As the
article explains, “[some] predicted that the revolution of the
working classes of Russia was the forerunner of similar revolutions
the world over. That the next revolution would be in Germany was
predicted by a number of the speakers” (March 21). On March 24,
Jacob Schiff took credit for helping to finance the Russian
revolution. At the same time, Rabbi Stephen Wise put the blame for
the pending American entry into World War I on “German militarism,”
adding “I would to God it were possible for us to fight side by side
with the German people for the overthrow of Hohenzollernism [i.e.,
Kaiser Wilhelm].”
Strangely enough, Wise got his wish. Within two weeks, America was
in the war. And about 18 months later, Wilhelm would succumb to
uprisings in the ranks of his forces and be compelled to abdicate.
The Paris Peace Conference
Having won the war, Wilson’s Jewish team was anxious to dictate the
peace. “As it turned out,” remarks Robert Shogan (2010: 25), “the
war would bring benefits to the Zionist cause, in part because of
Brandeis’ role as a trusted advisor [to Wilson].” The victorious
nations convened in Paris in January 1919, and the American Jewish
Congress was there as its own delegation. Shogan adds that
“[Stephen] Wise was in Paris, on assignment from President Wilson to
head the Zionist delegation to the peace talks.” (One might
reasonably ask: Why do Zionists get their own delegation at all?)
Louis Marshall was also prominent there among the American Jews.
The Jewish aim was neither a just implementation of peace, nor fair
treatment of Germany, but rather to maximize benefit to the various
Jewish communities of Europe and the US. “At the beginning of 1919,”
says Ben-Sasson (1976: 940), “diplomatic activity in Paris became
the main focus of the various attempts to fulfill Jewish
aspirations.” Fink (1998: 259) concurs: “In March 1919, pro-Zionist
and nationalist Jewish delegations arrived in Paris.” Nearly every
victorious nation, it seems, had its own Jewish representatives.
Some sought formal and explicit Jewish rights in their own nations,
and others worked for recognition of a Jewish national state. Polish
Jews were notable beneficiaries; they succeeded in achieving
explicit mention in the Polish Treaty for Minority Rights.
Writing shortly after the event, Irish philosopher and journalist
Emile Dillon saw it this way:
Of all the collectivities whose interests were furthered at the
Conference, the Jews had perhaps the most resourceful and certainly
the most influential exponents. There were Jews from Palestine, from
Poland, Russia, the Ukraine, Rumania, Greece, Britain, Holland, and
Belgium; but the largest and most brilliant contingent was sent by
the United States. (1920: 12)
Describing the American side, Fink explains that “the fervent
Zionist Julius Mack and the more moderate Louis Marshall quickly
overshadowed the leading American anti-nationalists, Henry
Morgenthau, Oscar Straus, and Cyrus Adler.”
Though he was predisposed to be sympathetic to the Jewish plight,
Dillon nonetheless noted that a “religious” or “racial” bias “lay at
the root of Mr. Wilson’s policy” (496). It is a fact, he said, “that
a considerable number of delegates believed that the real influences
behind the Anglo-Saxon peoples were Semitic.” Summarizing prospects
for the future, he remarked on the general conclusion by many at
Paris: “Henceforth the world will be governed by the Anglo-Saxon
peoples, who, in turn, are swayed by their Jewish elements.”
Among non-Jewish Americans there was a young Herbert Hoover,
then-Secretary of the US Food Administration, and of course, future
president. He was accompanied by a Jewish assistant, the financier
Lewis Strauss, who remarked on his boss’s notable inclination to
“champion Jewish rights,” especially in Poland.[5 ] Strauss would
later become instrumental in funding early development of the atomic
bomb.
Treatment of the Germans at the conference, as is well known, was
brutally harsh. They expected, and were promised, that the
conference would be a fair settlement of the legitimate war claims
of all belligerents—particularly given the complex and convoluted
nature of the outbreak of hostilities. (We recall: the Archduke was
assassinated by a Serb in June 1914; the Russian army mobilized and
massed on the German border in July; a threatened Germany declared
war on Russia in August; a Franco-Russian Pact required a
simultaneous declaration against France; and Britain declared war on
Germany as soon as Germany’s army crossed into Belgium.) By the time
of the Peace Conference, Wilson and his team had decided that
Germany alone was responsible for the war, and thus had to bear the
full burden of reparations.[6 ] The impossible conditions forced
upon them set the stage for the rise of National Socialism and the
next great war.
All in all, what emerges from the first war and the subsequent peace
conference is a picture of British and American supplication to
Jewish interests. Indeed, the prime beneficiaries of the war were
Jews, both in America and in Europe generally. For Germany, it was
obviously a disastrous event; it suffered some 2 million military
deaths along with thousands of indirect civilian losses, crushing
financial debts, and witnessed the end of the 900-year reign of the
House of Hohenzollern. This was a tragedy for a nation that,
according to Fay (1928: 552), “did not plot a European war, did not
want one, and made genuine…efforts to avert one.”
America, which had no legitimate interest in the battles in Europe,
was drawn in by Wilson’s compliance with Jewish demands. For his
part, Wilson comes across as something of an amoral political
schemer. MacMillan (2010: 7) describes his close, “possibly
romantic,” relationships with several other women during his first
marriage. Theodore Roosevelt viewed him “as insincere and
cold-blooded an opportunist as we have ever had in the presidency”
(ibid: 6). To Lloyd-George, he was “tactless, obstinate, and vain.”
Granted, we all have our faults; but for most of us, they do not
lead to national catastrophe.
The Jewish Revolutions
With the fall of Czar Nicholas in March 1917, and upon the Bolshevik
revolution of October that same year, Jewish revolutionaries became
particularly active in East and Central Europe. Flush with success
in Russia, they hoped to duplicate events in other countries.
Ben-Sasson provides a typically understated account:
The new forces that emerged in many countries…opened up new horizons
of activity for Jewish statesmen of liberal-democratic propensities,
particularly those with radical-revolutionary views. … Jews were
also extremely active in the socialist parties that came to power or
attained political importance in many European countries. They were
even more prominent in the communist parties that split from the
socialists… In short, never before in European history had so many
Jews played such an active part in political life and filled such
influential roles… (1976: 943)
In other words, Jewish anarchists and militant communists (“new
forces”) conducted violent insurrection (“new horizons of activity”)
aimed at overthrowing the ruling governments, and installing
Jewish-led regimes. Bermant (1977: 160) confirms this point: “most
of the leading revolutionaries who convulsed Europe in the final
decades of the last [19th] century and the first decades of [the
20th], stemmed from prosperous Jewish families.” This again is in
keeping with the longstanding trend of Jewish rebellion.
Not that any of this was news; major politicians of the time knew it
well. Lord Balfour, for example, once remarked to Wilson’s aide
Edward House that “nearly all Bolshevism and disturbances of a like
nature, are directly traceable to the Jews of the world. They seem
determined either to have what they want or to upset present
civilization.”[7]
Béla Kun, leader of the 1919 Hungarian Revolution
By Hungarian photographer [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Béla Kun, leader of the 1919 Hungarian Revolution
By Hungarian photographer [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Consider Hungary, for example. There, a Hungarian Jew named Béla Kun
(Kohn) founded and led the local wing of the Russian Communist Party
in early 1918 that later became an independent entity. Along with
Jewish colleagues Matyas Rakosi (Roth/Rosenfeld) and Otto Korvin
(Klein), Kun’s party organized numerous strikes and conducted
violent and subversive attacks against President Karolyi and the
ruling Social Democrats. In March 1919 Karolyi resigned, and the SD
Party proposed an alliance of necessity with Kun’s communists, in
the hope of leveraging his connections to the Russian Bolsheviks.
Kun agreed to the proposal, on the condition that the government
reestablish itself as the “Hungarian Soviet Republic,” which it did.
Kun dominated the new government, filling many top seats with Jews;
as Muller (2010: 153) explains, “Of the government’s 49 commissars,
31 were of Jewish origin.”[8] He fended off a coup attempt in June,
and then conducted what came to be known as the “Red Terror”; this
was a paramilitary group, led by Jewish ideologues Georg Lukacs and
Tibor Szamuely, that hunted down and killed members of the local
opposition. Unfortunately for Kun, ongoing conflicts with
neighboring Romania led to an invasion of Hungary, and the promised
Russian aid never materialized. Kun and his fellow Jews were driven
out in August, just 133 days after taking power.
It was not only Russia and Hungary that had problems. “Jews had a
prominent role in Communist parties elsewhere,” explains Bermant
(172). In Poland, for example, “about a quarter of party members and
about a third of delegates to party congresses were Jews.” The
Polish Communists were unable, however, to generate sufficient force
to oust the newly-established government of Józef Piłsudski.
It was in Germany, though, that the most significant actions
occurred, ones that would have a lasting effect. We need to recall
events at the end of World War I. Long a stalemate, the war had
essentially become a battle of attrition. American forces on the
ground in mid to late 1917 threatened to change things, but for the
Germans, the western front generally held up—even to the very end.
At no point in time did it ever retreat into German territory. But
even though the Germans were able to hold out, their allies could
not. Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire surrendered by the end of
October 1918. Austria-Hungary yielded in early November. For the
Germans, though, the last straw was their problems at home—with the
Jews.
Trouble began with a minor naval mutiny in late October and early
November 1918 at the ports of Kiel and Wilhelmshaven. A number of
sailors, workers, and Jews from the Independent Social Democratic
Party (USPD) joined forces to conduct a nonviolent rebellion against
the Kaiser. The German rebels simply wanted the war to end, whereas
the Jewish rebels sought power; in this sense it was a natural
alliance. The “rebellion”—primarily in the form of a general
strike—quickly spread, reaching Munich within a matter of days. In
an attempt to cut short this action, the majority Social Democrats
(SPD) called on the Kaiser to abdicate, at which time they would
form a republican government. On November 9, they prevailed; Wilhelm
stepped down and a new “German Republic” was proclaimed. It was this
new leadership that signed the armistice agreement on November 11,
ending the war.
The USPD rebels, however, had their own plans. On the very same day
that the German Republic was created, they declared the formation of
a “Free Socialist Republic.” This group had an almost entirely
Jewish leadership: Rosa Luxemburg, Hugo Haase, Karl Liebknecht
(half-Jewish), Leo Jogiches, Karl Radek (Sobelsohn), and Alexander
Parvus (Gelfand) were the dominant figures. And these were just the
activists centered in Berlin. In Munich, other Jewish rebels were
conducting a separate, simultaneous revolution, aimed at creating a
Bavarian communist state. The leading USPD revolutionary there was a
Jewish journalist, Kurt Eisner. On November 7, he demanded the
abdication of the local monarch, King Ludwig III. The king fled on
the following day, and Eisner declared himself “Minister-President”
of a free Bavarian state.
Kurt Eisner demanded the abdication of King Ludwig III on November
7, 1918. The King fled on the following day, and Eisner declared
himself “Minister-President” of a free Bavarian state.
Robert Sennecke [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Kurt Eisner demanded the abdication of King Ludwig III on November
7, 1918. The King fled on the following day, and Eisner declared
himself “Minister-President” of a free Bavarian state.
Robert Sennecke [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Soon enough, though, Eisner’s luck ran out. On 21 February 1919, he
was assassinated by a fellow Jew, Anton Arco-Valley. Within a few
weeks, other USPD Jews regained power and established a Bavarian
Soviet Republic—the third in Europe, behind Russia and Hungary. Its
leader was the Jewish playwright Ernst Toller. Among his group were
the noted Jewish anarchists Gustav Landauer and Erich Muehsam.
Through sheer incompetency, Toller’s government managed to get
usurped by yet another Jewish faction, one led by Eugen Levine and
the half-Jew Otto Neurath. Levine attempted to institute a true
communist system, including its own “Red Army” modeled on the
Russians’. But once again, his success was short-lived. Remnants of
the old German army quickly intervened, deposing the communists in
early May.
Things did not end well for the Jewish rebels. Levine was captured
and executed, as was Landauer. Toller, Muehsam, Radek, Parvus, and
Neurath managed to escape. Luxemburg and Liebknecht were shot by
German soldiers in January 1919, and Jogiches died under mysterious
circumstances in March. Haase was killed by a deranged worker in
November of that same year.
But that was far from the end of their influence in Germany. The
USPD was reconstituted as the German Communist Party (KPD), under
the leadership of Paul Levi. The ruling SPD had meanwhile joined
forces with the moderate German Democratic Party (DDP), convening in
January 1919 in the city of Weimar to create a constitutional form
of government. Jews were front and center in both of these parties:
Otto Landesberg, Eduard Bernstein, and Rudolf Hilferding in the SPD,
and Walter Rathenau in the DDP; Rathenau was eventually named as
German Foreign Minister.[9] His Jewish colleague, Hugo Preuss, wrote
the Weimar constitution. This Jewish influence was well described by
a philo-Semitic and Pulitzer-Prize-winning American journalist,
Edgar Mowrer. Writing in 1933, he noted that
a large number of Jews entered the Social Democratic Party [SDP]
which inherited power as a result of the [November] Revolution.
Other Jews flocked to the Democratic Party [DDP], a group which
certainly overlooked no chance to favor the interests of trade,
banking and the stock exchange… (1933: 227)
It is interesting that then, as now, they seem to have covered all
the bases: liberal, left-wing Jews dominated the SPD, and
capitalist, right-wing Jews dominated the DDP. Thus, no matter which
party emerged with control, Jews retained influence. Confirming my
earlier statements, Mowrer added that “a number of outspoken
revolutionary leaders, Rosa Luxemburg in Berlin, Erich Muehsam and
Ernst Toller in Munich, were Jews.” He continued:
In post-war politics any number of Jews rose to leadership. Both in
the Reich and in the Federal States, Jews, particularly Social
Democrats, became Cabinet Ministers. In the bureaucracy, the Jews
rose rapidly to leading positions, and until about 1930 their number
seemed on the increase.
Summing up the situation, he observed that, “in short, after the
Revolution, the Jews came in Germany to play in politics and
administration that same considerable part that they had previously
won by open competition in business, trade, banking, the Press, the
arts, the sciences, and the intellectual and cultural life of the
country” (228).
The new Weimar Republic was duly signed into law in August 1919.
Unsurprisingly, it was notably friendly to German Jews, removing all
remnants of legal obstructions, and granting them full access to
business, academia, and government—the very process that Mowrer
described. As Lavsky (1996: 41) says, “All remaining discrimination
was abolished and there were no restrictions on participation in
German public life.” The vital role played by Weimar Jews is
concisely explained by Walter Laqueur:
Without the Jews there would have been no ‘Weimar culture’—to this
extent the claims of the antisemites, who detested that culture,
were justified. They were in the forefront of every new daring,
revolutionary movement. They were prominent among Expressionist
poets, among the novelists of the 1920s, among the theatrical
producers and, for a while, among the leading figures of the cinema.
They owned the leading liberal newspapers such as the Berliner
Tageblatt, the Vossische Zeitung and the Frankfurter Zeitung, and
many editors were Jews too. Many leading liberal and avant-garde
publishing houses were in Jewish hands (S. Fischer, Kurt Wolff, the
Cassirers, Georg Bondi, Erich Reiss, the Malik Verlag). Many leading
theatre critics were Jews, and they dominated light entertainment.
(1974: 73)
Laqueur, however, does not explain that the celebrated “Weimar
culture” was perhaps best known for its licentiousness, promiscuity,
and general moral depravity.[10] “They established themselves in the
universities, civil service, law, business, banking, and the free
professions,” adds Lavsky. “Certain spheres were virtually
monopolized by the Jews, and their contribution to journalism,
literature, theater, music, the plastic arts, and entertainment was
considerable.”
It was this very centrality of Jews to social upheaval, the November
Revolution, and the new Weimar Republic that led three German
activists and intellectuals—Anton Drexler, Gottfried Feder, and
Dietrich Eckart—to found the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP) in
January 1919. This would be the forerunner to the National Socialist
DAP (NSDAP), or Nazi Party. One of their first recruits was a
distraught 30-year-old former soldier, Adolf Hitler.
In Mein Kampf, Hitler describes in painful, personal detail how the
young German men went to fight and die on the front lines even as
the Jewish activists and rebels undermined the imperial government
back home. Calling them “hoary criminals,” he adds that, all the
while, “these perjured criminals were making preparations for a
revolution” (I.5).[11] Upon a medical leave from the front in
October 1916, he describes the situation in Munich:
Anger, discontent, complaints met one’s ears wherever one went. …
The administrative offices were staffed by Jews. Almost every clerk
was a Jew and every Jew was a clerk. … In the business world the
situation was even worse. Here the Jews had actually become
‘indispensable.’ Like leeches, they were slowly sucking the blood
from the pores of the national body. … Hence as early as 1916-1917
practically all production was under the control of Jewish finance.
(I.7)
Hitler returned to the front in March 1917, and was struck by a
mustard gas attack in October of the following year. The gas
severely burned his eyes, sending him to a military hospital for
recovery. It was there that he first heard about the revolution. The
Jewish-Marxist “gang of despicable and depraved criminals” had led
the overthrow of the Emperor and were attempting to take direct
power themselves. Their revolts would be transitory, but the
Jewish-influenced Weimar regime would soon take control of the
nation, and this was scarcely any better. It was these events that
led Hitler to become politically active.
The Interwar Period and Emergence of FDR
1920 was a year of some importance. The Hitler-led NSDAP was
formally established in February. That same month, a 46-year-old
Winston Churchill penned his infamous article “Zionism versus
Bolshevism,” in which he decried the pernicious role of Jewish
Marxists such as Trotsky, Kun, Luxemburg, and the American Emma
Goldman.[12] And in the US, Henry Ford had just begun his two-year
series on the “International Jew.”
The following year, in late 1921, Ford recalled his past efforts to
bring a peaceful end to WWI.[13] During that earlier time, he says,
“it was the Jews themselves that convinced me of the direct relation
between the international Jew and war.”
[They explained to me] the means by which the Jew controlled the
war, how they had the money, how they had cornered all the basic
materials needed to fight the war… They said…that the Jews had
started the war; that they would continue it as long as they wished,
and that until the Jew stopped the war, it could not be stopped.
(New York Times, 5 December 1921, p. 33)
This was a recurrent theme in Ford’s “International Jew” series.
Meanwhile across the ocean, Lenin (a quarter-Jew) and his Jewish
Bolshevik colleagues established the Soviet Union in December of
1922. The next year, Hitler and others within the NSDAP launched a
failed coup attempt in Bavaria, leading to his 12-month imprisonment
and consequent writing of Mein Kampf. In early 1924, both Lenin and
Woodrow Wilson died within a month of each other.
Little of note occurred during the mid- to late-1920s. Jewish
immigration into the US continued to expand, with their numbers
surpassing 4.3 million by 1927. Jews made further inroads into
Hollywood; Marcus Loew acquired MGM studios, the Cohn brothers took
over at Columbia Broadcasting System, and David Sarnoff founded RKO
Pictures. In the political sphere, the Republican and Christian
Zionist Herbert Hoover won the presidential election of 1928, and a
relatively unknown Democrat, Franklin D. Roosevelt, won the
governorship of New York.
From the start, FDR had close and persistent ties to American
Jews—ties that would prove decisive to his actions in the Second
World War. His running mate in New York was Herbert Lehman, the son
of German Jews. (His Republican opponent, Jewish Attorney General
Albert Ottinger, failed to draw the Jewish vote that FDR did; this
says something about the strength of FDR’s connection to that
group.) Upon assuming the governorship, Roosevelt “filled a number
of key positions from the state’s large Jewish population,”
according to Shogan (2010: 5). One of his first major appointments
was his longtime friend Henry Morgenthau Jr. to the New York State
Agriculture Committee. He also named a former speechwriter, Samuel
Rosenman, as “counsel to the governor.” Both would play important
roles in his presidency.
Franklin D. Roosevelt arm in arm with Henry Morgenthau Jr.
U.S. National Archives and Records Administration [Public domain],
via Wikimedia Commons
Franklin D. Roosevelt arm in arm with Henry Morgenthau Jr.
U.S. National Archives and Records Administration [Public domain],
via Wikimedia Commons
Other Jews, though, also had an interest in FDR—notably, Supreme
Court Justice Louis Brandeis and his protégé, Harvard lawyer Felix
Frankfurter. Even prior to his gubernatorial win in New York,
“Brandeis alerted Frankfurter to his eagerness to connect with the
man he believed would someday be the nation’s president” (ibid: 72).
And indeed, “for the next four years Brandeis was content to rely on
Frankfurter to be his conduit to the governor’s chambers in Albany.”
The same election that put Roosevelt in the governor’s seat placed
Hoover in the presidency. As I noted earlier, he had long championed
Jewish interests. As president, Hoover did his part for the Hebrews,
naming Eugene Meyer Fed Chairman in 1930, and appointing the second
Jewish justice, Benjamin Cardozo, to the Supreme Court in March
1932. But by then the Great Depression was well underway, dooming
any chance for reelection.
FDR’s Jewish Ancestry?
Before turning to FDR’s long and historic stint as president, I want
to recall a question I raised in Part 1 of the present series: Was
Roosevelt Jewish? Previously I noted that his fifth cousin Theodore
claimed to be Jewish, according to former Michigan governor Chase
Osborn. I have yet to find any independent confirmation of this
assertion, though there seems to be no reason why Osborn would lie
about such a thing. Both were good Republicans, after all. But more
to the point, Osborn would have much to say about FDR, as I will
explain momentarily.
Franklin left many clues to a possible Jewish heritage, beginning as
far back as 1914. In a letter to a friend upon the birth of his son
Franklin Jr., he wrote that he had considered naming him Isaac—a
classic Jewish name, and one shared by both his grandfather and
great-great-grandfather. But the family resisted: “this name is not
met with enthusiasm, especially as the baby’s nose is slightly
Hebraic and the family have visions of Ikey Rosenvelt, though I
insist it is very good New Amsterdam Dutch.”[14] For Shogan this is
a sign of latent anti-Semitism, but I find that an unlikely excuse.
What true anti-Semite would admit that his newborn son looked
Jewish? Or would contemplate a Jewish name? More likely it was an
inside joke, of the kind that people might say to family or close
friends about a particular ethnic heritage within one’s own
background.
Twenty years later, another clue. In 1934, now-president FDR gave a
photo of himself and Henry Morgenthau to Henry’s wife. It bore this
inscription: “For Elinor from one of two of a kind.”[15]Yes, but two
of what kind? Democrats? Americans? Jews? An oddly suggestive
remark.
Subscribe to New Columns
That same year saw the publication of an enlightening interview with
Osborn, one that would initiate a prolonged discussion on FDR’s
heritage. The 8 February 1934 edition of the St. Petersburg (Fla.)
Times carried an interview in which Osborn claimed that the
Roosevelts were descended from the Rossacampos, a Jewish family
expelled from Spain in 1620. That family spread out into Europe and
altered their spelling according to the various places where they
took root: Rosenberg, Rosenblum, Rosenthal, and in Holland,
Rosenvelt. “The Rosenvelts in north Holland finally became
Roosevelt,” claimed Osborn—which in fact seems to be true: the
family patriarch, Claes van Rosenvelt, immigrated to the US in 1649.
His son Nicholas apparently dropped the ‘van’ and changed the
spelling to the familiar form.
A small Michigan publication, Civic Echo, picked up and repeated the
story soon thereafter. A year later, Jewish journalist and publisher
Philip Slomovitz came across the Echo story, and decided to write
directly to FDR to get his opinion. On 7 March 1935 the president
responded:
I am grateful to you for your interesting letter of March fourth. I
have no idea as to the source of the story which you say came from
my old friend, Chase Osborn. … In the dim distant past they [the
Roosevelts] may have been Jews or Catholics or Protestants—what I am
more interested in is whether they were good citizens and believers
in God—I hope they were both. (cited in Slomovitz 1981: 5)
Once again this is a suspiciously circumspect reply by FDR. For him
to say that his relatives “may have been Jews” sounds very much as
if he knows this truth, does not want to openly acknowledge it, but
cannot quite bring himself to lie about it.
Slomovitz planned to publish the reply in his Detroit Jewish
Chronicle. Before he could do so, the New York Times got wind of it
and carried the text in their issue of March 15—on page 1.
Slomovitz passed this reply on to Osborn, who repeated his original
assertion in a return letter of March 21: “President Roosevelt knows
well enough that his ancestors were Jewish. I heard Theodore
Roosevelt state twice that his ancestors were Jewish. Once was to me
when I asked him about it after he had made a pleasing euphemistic
statement in a speech to a Jewish gathering” (ibid: 6-7). Osborn is
adamant. And it is important to note that he does not take this
Jewish heritage as a slur; in fact, quite the opposite. He is
evidently a Christian Zionist (and Republican), and thus views it as
a redeeming quality. As such, he would likely not cast the Democrat
Franklin in this positive light unless he actually believed it to be
true. It seems that he was talking from a factual, if unconfirmed,
basis.
If Slomovitz was inclined to doubt Osborn’s claim, another letter
would soon fortify his belief. On March 27 he received a note from
none other than Rabbi Stephen Wise of New York City. Wise had
evidently seen the New York Times story, and wrote to confirm it. In
his letter he recounts an “almost literal transcript” given to him
by his wife, who had previously attended a luncheon with Roosevelt’s
wife Eleanor—who said the following: “Often cousin Alice and I say
that all the brains in the Roosevelt family comes [sic] from our
Jewish great-grandmother” (ibid: 9). She then allegedly added a
name, ‘Esther Levy.’ The Alice in question was the oldest child of
Theodore; Eleanor’s father Elliot was his brother. Their common
great-grandmother would have been either Margaret Barnhill or Martha
Stewart—neither of whom appears to be Jewish, unfortunately. And we
have no record of any Esther Levy in the Roosevelt lineage. A bit of
a mystery.
The letter then takes a little twist. Eleanor continued: “Whenever
mention is made of our Jewish great-grandmother by cousin Alice or
myself, Franklin’s mother [Sara Delano] gets very angry and says,
‘You know that is not so. Why do you say it?’” Another puzzling
remark, and one that Wise leaves unexplained.
Wise closes the letter with his own assessment: that Roosevelt
“knows what I [Wise] have just written to be true, but deems it
wiser and more expedient not to make any public mention of it at
this time.” The letter, after all, was marked “Strictly private and
confidential.” Wise adds that “you [Slomovitz] must not, however,
make use of this. I think it is just as well to let the matter die
down now.” A strange series of comments, to be sure.
Many years later, a final small clue appeared. From the mid-1920s to
mid-1930s, Franklin’s daughter Anna was married to a stockbroker
named Curtis Dall. After having two children, they divorced in 1934.
Three decades later Dall published a book, FDR: My Exploited
Father-in-Law(1968). In it we read this sentence: “As I gathered it,
the background of the Franklin Roosevelt family was a composite of
English, Dutch, Jewish, and French stock” (98). There is no further
elaboration.
In the end, many questions remain, but it seems possible that the
Roosevelts were at least in part Jewish.[16] Perhaps the larger
question is this: Does it matter? I believe it does, on two counts.
First is the basic matter of historical accuracy; if we did in fact
have a partially Jewish president, or rather two such presidents,
the history books ought to reflect this reality. Likely other
relevant evidence exists in the vast presidential archives, and an
open admission might bring this to light.
Second and more important is the effect this may have had on FDR’s
actions prior to and during World War II. With even a partial Jewish
heritage, he may have been more sympathetic to the Jewish cause,
more amenable to Jews within his administration, and more likely to
sacrifice on behalf of Jewish interests. The evidence shows that all
these things actually happened—which is precisely why “Franklin
Roosevelt was the first great hero of American Jews” (Shogan 2010:
xi). The ‘family connection’ would certainly help to explain such
things.
Alternatively, and as is often the case today, it could have been
strictly a matter of money—of rewarding those who paved one’s way to
the top. But perhaps the strongest case is this: that it was a
combination of both. If FDR was predisposed by his heritage to be
sympathetic to the Jews, and they also stepped forward to fund his
campaigns and support him in the media, these would then be powerful
incentives to reward them within his administration, and to be
swayed by their concerns when it came time to deploy American
military power. I examine that case now.
“All the President’s Jews”
The case for a possible Jewish hand in World War II could be made,
if we could show the following:
an extensive and influential Jewish presence in FDR’s
administration,
that the US public did not want war,
that influential American Jews did want war,
that FDR acted surreptitiously on behalf of war,
that Jewish-run US media supported war, and
that the US entered the war under false pretenses.
I will provide specific data on the first two points, and then
address the remaining ones collectively.
Earlier I showed Roosevelt’s dependence on Jewish supporters during
his gubernatorial term. When it came time to mount a presidential
campaign, his old buddies were there to help. As Scholnick (1990:
193) explains, “A number of wealthy Jewish friends contributed to
Roosevelt’s prenomination campaign fund: Henry Morgenthau Jr., Lt.
Gov. Lehman, Jesse Straus, [and] Laurence Steinhardt.” Once the
primaries were out of the way, “Roosevelt’s campaign was heavily
underwritten by Bernard Baruch.”
The first rule in politics is to reward those who finance your path
to success. Thus it is unsurprising that “[FDR’s] administration
contained a higher proportion of Jews than any other” (Michael 2005:
178). In the words of Herzstein (1989: 40), “Jews were indeed more
prominent than ever before in American history.” So who were these
leading figures that were so dominant during the Roosevelt years? At
the top of the list were the Big 5, the “President’s Jews” as Shogan
says, who had the largest hand in swaying events within the
presidency: Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, Henry Morgenthau Jr.,
Sam Rosenman, and Ben Cohen.
Brandeis was of course a sitting Supreme Court justice long before
Roosevelt ran for office, having been placed there by his friend
Woodrow Wilson in 1916. Even prior to his initial election in 1932,
FDR arranged a meeting with Brandeis to discuss policy. According to
Shogan (2010), the Justice soon sent Roosevelt “a broad blueprint
for the New Deal” (72). Some years later, in 1938, “Brandeis made
his first call on FDR on behalf of the Jews” (83). Such involvement
in government administration by a Supreme Court justice is unusual,
to say the least. Others would call it flagrantly unethical.
Justices are supposed to rule on constitutional matters, not make
policy. He obviously knew this, and thus generally worked through
Jewish intermediaries, like Frankfurter and Cohen, to get his
message to the president.
On a day-to-day basis, Frankfurter was particularly important. Even
by 1933 he had become “probably FDR’s most influential advisor”
(ibid: 105). Incensed at the extent of his power, American General
Hugh Johnson called him “the most influential single individual in
the United States” (86).[17] Frankfurter, he said, “had insinuated
his boys into obscure but key positions in every vital department”
related to the New Deal. Later, when Europe was on the brink of war,
Frankfurter was apparently instrumental in initiating a series of
secret correspondences between FDR and Churchill at a very sensitive
time—neutral presidents are not supposed to be conducting secret
negotiations with leaders of belligerent nations.[18] Frankfurter,
as we know, would be well rewarded by Roosevelt for his efforts,
with the nomination to the Supreme Court in January 1939.
Moving down the list: Roosevelt “was as close to Henry Morgenthau…as
to any man” (ibid: 32). So close, in fact, that Franklin would make
him the second Jew ever to join a presidential cabinet; he was named
Secretary of the Treasury in early 1934, serving right through the
end of the war.[19] Henry would later author the notorious
“Morgenthau Plan”—a policy for the virtual destruction of postwar
Germany. This again was an outrageously out-of-line effort by a
treasury secretary, who formally has no business conducting foreign
policy. But this evidently did not stop him from trying.
The two youngest members of the Big 5 were Rosenman and Cohen.
Though serving as a New York state judge, Rosenman also functioned
as “FDR’s chief speechwriter and a leading general advisor” (ibid:
9). Ward (1989: 254) notes that he was “a close aide from 1928
onwards”—that is, even before FDR’s governorship. The lawyer
Benjamin Cohen became one of the key drafters of Roosevelt’s vital
New Deal legislation, which was his lasting economic legacy. He
clearly had the president’s ear; Nasaw (2012: 358) calls him the
“unofficial emissary of Justice Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter.”
But more importantly, Cohen was the lead architect and executor of
the infamous ‘bases for destroyers’ plan of mid- to late-1940. At
that time Britain was well into the war and badly needed military
assistance from the US. But as a neutral nation, and by law, the US
was unable to help. Cohen then concocted a plan by which America
would “loan” 50 warships to the UK in exchange for the use of
certain global bases that they held. “Employing hairsplitting
technicalities and unprovable assertions about national defense,
[Cohen’s] memorandum stretched the law, creating a loophole wide
enough for fifty warships to steam through on their way to join the
Royal Navy,” says Shogan (152). Seeking legal approval for this
blatantly illegal action, Roosevelt turned to…Justice Frankfurter.
And to no one’s surprise, the Justice conferred his blessing. The
Brits, of course, were elated. For the Germans, this was a veritable
act of war by the nominally neutral Americans. Most fatefully, it
seems to have been decisive in causing Hitler to sign a
mutual-defense pact with Japan in October 1940; it was this
agreement that would trigger Germany’s declaration of war on the
United States following the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Beyond the Big 5, several other Jews played influential roles.
Bernard Baruch, another Wilsonian holdover, was a part-time
financial advisor and “prominent confidant” of both FDR and
Churchill.[20] Jerome Frank was a close aide, as was David Niles.
James Warburg, son of Paul, was an early financial advisor. In May
of 1934, Eugene Black was named Fed Chairman, and Jesse Straus was
appointed ambassador to France—even as his nephew, Nathan Straus
Jr., came to head the US Housing Authority. William Bullitt, a
quarter-Jew, was given two critical ambassadorships: first to the
Soviet Union, and then, during the war, to France.[21] Laurence
Steinhardt, who had helped so much with campaign funding, was
awarded a string of ambassadorships throughout FDR’s tenure.
Franklin’s old friend Herbert Lehman was appointed head of the new
Office of Foreign Relief and Rehabilitation in 1943. Herbert Feis
was an influential economics advisor for the State Department. Abe
Fortas served as Undersecretary of the Interior. Charles Wyzanski
was solicitor general in the Labor Department. Mordecai Ezekiel was
economics advisor to the Agriculture Secretary. David Lilienthal
became chairman of the TVA. Other Jews, like Sidney Hillman and Rose
Schneiderman, emerged as important advisors on labor matters.
Even some of FDR’s non-Jewish team members had Semitic connections.
Long-time Secretary of State Cordell Hull’s wife, Frances Witz, was
Jewish. So too was the spouse of New Deal architect and close
confidant Harry Hopkins (Ethel Gross). We can be sure that they were
sympathetic to the Jewish cause. All in all, one can well understand
the motivation of Roosevelt’s critics, who derided his
administration as the “Jew Deal.”[22]
On the second point, it is uncontroversial that Americans
overwhelmingly wanted to avoid the war. In a radio address of 23
April 1941, the leading anti-war advocate, Charles Lindbergh,
condemned the course of action “to which more than 80 percent of our
citizens are opposed.” In an address the month before, Congressman
Hamilton Fish stated that “somewhere between 83 and 90 percent of
the people, according to the various Gallop polls, are opposed to
our entrance into war unless attacked.”[ 23] The data supported such
claims. According to surveys conducted in June and July 1940,
between 81 and 86% of respondents preferred to “stay out” of a war,
if it were to come up for a vote.[24] Another poll in July 1941
registered a 79% figure.[25] The highest recorded number came
somewhat earlier, in a report published in mid-1938; when asked “If
another war like the World War [I] develops in Europe, should
America take part again?,” fully 95% of the respondents replied
“No”.[26] Such figures generally held up right until the attack on
Pearl Harbor.
The Path to War
The remaining points become clear, I think, simply by stepping
through some key events and observations as they happened
chronologically.
As is well known, Jews worldwide confronted Hitler as soon as he
assumed power in 1933—witness the infamous “Judea Declares War on
Germany” headline in the UK’s Daily Express of 24 March 1933. In a
sense, this was understandable. Putting an end to a post-World War I
Weimar Republic dominated by Jews, Hitler quickly banished them from
positions of power, and placed immediate restrictions on their
movement and business activities. In fact, one may speculate that
this was not unrelated to Germany’s amazing economic renaissance.
The UK’s Daily Express of 24 March 1933 runs the infamous headline,
“Judea Declares War on Germany” announcing that Jews worldwide
confronted Hitler as soon as he assumed power.
Source: http://sv.metapedia.org/w/Judea_declares_war_on_Germany
The UK’s Daily Express of 24 March 1933 runs the infamous headline,
“Judea Declares War on Germany” announcing that Jews worldwide
confronted Hitler as soon as he assumed power.
Source: http://sv.metapedia.org/w/Judea_declares_war_on_Germany
But the Western media did not see it this way. As early as April
1933, the New York Times was reporting on the “economic
extermination of Jews in Germany” (April 6). Two months later we
read, simply, that “Hitler’s program is one of extermination” (June
29). In August, we are shocked to learn that “600,000 Jews are
facing certain extinction” (August 16). Here we can graphically see
how the ‘extermination’ myth rapidly evolved, from a plan of
economic exclusion.[27]
For the Germans, Western—particularly American—media meant Jewish
media. As early as 1934, they viewed it as a potential threat. A
communiqué by the German ambassador to the US, Hans Luther, observed
that America possessed “the strongest Jewish propaganda machine in
the world.”[28] This comment was made in light of Jewish dominance
in Hollywood, and the fact that Jews owned two of the major American
newspapers, the New York Times and the Washington Post.[29] Luther’s
impression was held by the German leadership throughout the war.
Goebbels, for example, wrote the following in his diary entry of 24
April 1942: “Some statistics are given to me on the proportion of
Jews in American radio, film, and press. The percentage is truly
frightening. Jewry controls 100% of the film business, and between
90 and 95% of press and radio.”[30]
By the mid-1930s, Germany was in the midst of their astounding
economic recovery, one that was particularly striking given their
ruination after World War I, and that it occurred during the Great
Depression. Within just his first four years, Hitler had reduced
unemployment from 6 million to 1 million; the jobless rate fell from
43.8% when he took office, to effectively zero by the end of 1938.
In just four years, he increased GNP by 37%, and oversaw a 400%
increase in auto production. In effect, he single-handedly ended the
Depression in Germany. Two more years, and the nation would be a
world power of the first rank.
Germany thus emerged as a viable competitor to the traditional
global powers. Churchill felt particularly threatened. In a
congressional testimony, US General Robert Wood recalled a statement
by the British politician from 1936: “Germany is getting too strong.
We must smash her.”[31] This suggests a belligerence on Churchill’s
part long before any aggressions by Hitler. As we know: it was the
UK that declared war on Germany, not vice versa.
In October 1937, Roosevelt gave his famous ‘quarantine’ speech. Here
we find one of the first indications, albeit indirect, that he
anticipates a time when the US would come into direct conflict with
Germany, and he subtly propagandizes the public in favor of war. The
danger of Hitler is exaggerated; neutrality and isolation are
disparaged; baseless assertions and cautiously conditional
statements are thrown out—and all in the language of peace. Should
Hitler prevail, “let no one imagine that America will escape, … that
this Western Hemisphere will not be attacked.” “There is no escape
through mere isolation or neutrality,” he said; “international
anarchy destroys every foundation for peace.” “We are determined to
keep out of war,” said FDR, “yet we cannot insure ourselves against
the disastrous effects of war and the dangers of involvement.”
Sparing no hyperbole, he added that, if Germany initiates a war,
“the storm will rage till every flower of culture is trampled and
all human beings are leveled in a vast chaos.” This is difficult to
read except as an indication that the path of violent confrontation
had already been decided upon, and that the long process had begun
to persuade a reluctant public that they must support it.
By this time, Jewish lobbies around the world, but especially in the
UK and US, began to press hard for military action, to intervene on
behalf of their beleaguered coreligionists in Nazi Germany, and to
once again overthrow a hated regime—never mind that the Germans may
have had some right to self-determination. One of the first clear
pieces of evidence of this came in early 1938, from the Polish
ambassador to the US, Jerzy Potocki. He reported back to Warsaw on
his observations of the American political scene:
The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State
Department is becoming ever more powerful… The Jews are right now
the leaders in creating a war psychosis which would plunge the
entire world into war and bring about general catastrophe. This mood
is becoming more and more apparent. In their definition of
democratic states, the Jews have also created real chaos; they have
mixed together the idea of democracy and communism, and have above
all raised the banner of burning hatred against Nazism.
This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by
every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The
Germans are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of
Hitler which wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of
humanity in an ocean of blood. In conversations with Jewish press
representatives, I have repeatedly come up against the inexorable
and convinced view that war is inevitable. This international Jewry
exploits every means of propaganda to oppose any tendency towards
any kind of consolidation and understanding between nations. In this
way, the conviction is growing steadily but surely in public opinion
here that the Germans and their satellites, in the form of fascism,
are enemies who must be subdued by the ‘democratic world.’ (February
9)[32]
Such a view is confirmed in a letter by Senator Hiram Johnson
(R-Cal.), written to his son that same year. The pro- and anti-war
camps were clear: “all the Jews [are] on one side, wildly
enthusiastic for the President, and willing to fight to the last
American.” Though sympathetic, Johnson had no interest in fighting a
war on their behalf. He and other like-minded politicians wanted to
speak out, “but everybody is afraid—I confess I shrink from it—of
offending the Jews.”[33] The situation has hardly changed in 75
years.
For his part, Bernie Baruch was certainly itching for a fight.
Speaking to General George Marshall, he said “We are going to lick
that fellow Hitler. He isn’t going to get away with it.”[34]One
wonders how he would know this, in 1938. Actually, it’s not much of
a mystery: Churchill apparently told him so. As Sherwood (1948: 111)
recounts, Churchill—then still First Lord of the Admiralty—said this
to Baruch: “War is coming very soon. We will be in it and you (the
United States) will be in it. You (Baruch) will be running the show
over there, but I will be on the sidelines over here.” This is an
astonishing claim; how would Churchill know such a thing, in 1938?
The Anschluss with Austria had been completed in March that year,
and Germany annexed the Sudetenland in October, but the Munich
Accord was signed in September, nominally preserving a kind of
tenuous peace. So what could have convinced Churchill that war was
inevitable, and that the Americans would be running the show?
Kristallnacht, perhaps? Was that the last straw, for the global
Jewish lobby?[35]
Apparently Lord Beaverbrook thought so. Writing to Frank Gannett in
December 1938, he made this striking statement:
The Jews are after [Prime Minister] Chamberlain. He is being
terribly harassed by them… All the Jews are against him… They have
got a big position in the press here [in the UK]… I am shaken. The
Jews may drive us into war [and] their political influence is moving
us in that direction. (cited in Nasaw 2012: 357-358)
Beaverbrook was a prominent and influential media executive and
politician, rather like the Rupert Murdoch of his day. He was well
positioned to make such a claim.
The year 1939 opened with FDR’s State of the Union speech—and more
veiled threats. “We have learned that God-fearing democracies of the
world…cannot safely be indifferent to international lawlessness
anywhere. They cannot forever let pass, without effective protest,
acts of aggression against sister nations.” He consequently called
for an unprecedented peacetime allocation of $2 billion for national
defense. A message to Hitler—and to all those Americans who might
oppose intervention in European affairs.
Hitler, incidentally, was giving his own speeches, most infamously
to the Reichstag on January 30. It included this memorable warning:
If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should
succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the
result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the
victory of Jewry, but the annihilation [Vernichtung] of the Jewish
race in Europe!
Two quick comments: The German word ‘Vernichtung’ has multiple
meanings, and in no way requires the killing of any persons in
question. The literal meaning is “to bring to nothing.” More broadly
it means to completely remove or eliminate the presence, role, or
influence of something. And there are many ways to do this short of
murder. But more to the point, Hitler’s alleged program of physical
extermination was supposedly a great secret. He cannot possibly have
told the world, in the most public of venues, of his ‘secret’ plan
to kill all the Jews—in early 1939. Clearly he was referring to
their displacement from Europe, and to an elimination of their
previously dominant role there. But this was no secret at all—he had
been doing that in Germany for some six years already.
Back in Washington, Ambassador Potocki sent two more revealing
reports to Warsaw. A short statement on January 9 included this:
“The American public is subject to an ever more alarming propaganda,
which is under Jewish influence and continuously conjures up the
specter of the danger of war. Because of this, the Americans have
strongly altered their views on foreign policy problems, in
comparison with last year.” Three days later came the longest and
perhaps most insightful report:
The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a
growing hatred of Fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and
everything connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands
of the Jews, who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and
periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and
presents Germany as black as possible—above all religious
persecution and concentration camps are exploited—this propaganda is
nevertheless extremely effective, since the public here is
completely ignorant and knows nothing of the situation in Europe. …
The prevalent hatred against everything which is in any way
connected with German Nazism is further kindled by the brutal policy
against the Jews in Germany and by the émigré problem. In this
action, various Jewish intellectuals participated: for instance,
Bernard Baruch; the Governor of New York State, Lehman; the newly
appointed judge of the Supreme Court, Felix Frankfurter; Secretary
of the Treasury Morgenthau; and others who are personal friends of
President Roosevelt. They want the President to become the champion
of human rights, freedom of religion and speech, and the man who in
the future will punish trouble-makers. These groups of people, who
occupy the highest positions in the American government and want to
pose as representatives of ‘true Americanism’ and ‘defenders of
democracy,’ are, in the last analysis, connected by unbreakable ties
with international Jewry.
For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the
interests of its race, to portray the President of the United States
as the ‘idealist’ champion on human rights was a very clever move.
In this manner they have created a dangerous hotbed for hatred and
hostility in this hemisphere, and divided the world into two hostile
camps. The entire issue is worked out in a masterly manner.
Roosevelt has been given the foundation for activating American
foreign policy, and simultaneously has been procuring enormous
military stocks for the coming war, for which the Jews are striving
very consciously.[36]
If Potocki were correct, it would mean that war had effectively been
decided upon by the Allied powers. And in fact, that’s exactly what
Bullitt said to American journalist Karl von Wiegand: “War in Europe
has been decided upon. Poland had an assurance of the support of
Britain and France, and would yield to no demands from Germany.
America would be in the war after Britain and France entered
it.”[37] Bullitt obviously had inside access to a well-developed
plan, one that was proceeding apace.
In July, Potocki was back in Warsaw, speaking with a foreign
ministry undersecretary named Jan Szembek. In his diary, Szembek
recorded Potocki as stating the following: “In the West, there are
all kinds of elements openly pushing for war: Jews, big capitalists,
arms dealers. Now they are all ready for some excellent business…
They want to do business at our expense. They are indifferent to the
destruction of our country.”[38] This is notable, if only as
confirmation of the legitimacy of the earlier reports.
Around that same time, the American ambassador to Great Britain
began to cause a stir. He was a member of the Boston-area Irish
Catholic set, a successful businessman…and father of a future
president. Joseph Kennedy contributed to Roosevelt’s 1932
presidential campaign, and was rewarded with the chairmanship of the
SEC. He left that office in 1935, and was appointed ambassador to
the UK in January 1938.
Photo of Joseph Kennedy in New York, 1 November 1940. At the time,
Kennedy was the United States Ambassador to Great Britain.
By Photographer: Larry Gordon [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Photo of Joseph Kennedy in New York, 1 November 1940. At the time,
Kennedy was the United States Ambassador to Great Britain.
By Photographer: Larry Gordon [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
By mid-1939, Kennedy evidently began to have concerns about the
Jewish role in the push toward war—and he began to speak openly to
his colleagues in London. Somehow word of this got out to a local
periodical, The Week, which found its way over the ocean to
Washington D.C. and into the hands of the Secretary of the Interior,
Harold Ickes. Convening with the president in early July, Ickes
raised his concern: “This [story] was to the effect that Kennedy was
privately telling his English friends in the Cliveden set that the
Jews were running the United States and that the President would
fall in 1940. It also charged that ‘[Kennedy believes] that the
democratic policy of the United States is a Jewish production’.”[39]
Amazingly, the president was unfazed. “It is true,” he said. Ickes
provides no further information on the incident, and thus it is hard
to know how to take this blunt response. Was FDR joking? A
half-joke? An outright, straight-faced admission? We simply do not
know. What was undoubtedly true, though, was that Kennedy had deep
concerns about Jewish influence.
He was not the only diplomat with such worries. A month later,
reports Taylor (1961: 267), British ambassador to Germany Nevile
Henderson told Hitler that “the hostile attitude in Great Britain
was the work of Jews and enemies of the Nazis.” Here again we see a
parallel action on both sides of the Atlantic, and possibly
coordinated. This would be consistent with Baruch’s role as a
“prominent confidant” of both Roosevelt and Churchill.
A few weeks later, on September 2, the German army crossed into
Poland. What began as part of a long-standing border conflict
between two neighboring countries became, two days later, a European
war, when England and France declared war on Germany.[40]
England Stands Alone
On September 3, Roosevelt broadcast another of his many fireside
chats to the American public. It contained the usual combination of
exaggeration, propaganda, and misrepresentation. “When peace has
been broken anywhere,” he said, “the peace of all countries
everywhere is in danger.” Even one who strives for neutrality
“cannot be asked to close his mind or his conscience.” His ending
was again cloaked in the hypocritical language of peace:
I hate war. I say that again and again. I hope the United States
will keep out of this war. I believe that it will. And I give you
assurance and reassurance that every effort of your government will
be directed toward that end. As long as it remains within my power
to prevent, there will be no black-out of peace in the United
States.
Here Roosevelt clearly reveals himself as a dissembler and a liar.
Qualifications, conditionals, half-truths—all evidently designed to
manipulate public opinion in favor of war. Jews inside and outside
his administration had been pressing for intervention for years; now
with actual combat underway, the pressure would rapidly escalate.
Roosevelt knew this, but said nothing. After all, he was facing
another election the following year, and had to publicly maintain an
anti-war stance or risk losing to the Republicans. But he also had
to keep his Jewish financiers happy. The fact that the vast majority
of the American people were still strongly against the war
apparently had no effect upon him—so much for democracy.
Kennedy could see what was happening. He strongly opposed American
entry into the war, both on principle and because he had three sons
who would likely be drawn in—and indeed, his eldest son, Joe Jr.,
would be killed during a bombing run in 1944. Speaking to his
colleague Jay Moffat, Kennedy said, “Churchill…wants us there as
soon as he can get us there. He is ruthless and
scheming”[41]—unsurprising, given that the Brits found themselves in
a war that they were ill-prepared to fight. But Churchill knew whom
to go to: “He is also in touch with groups in America which have the
same idea, notably, certain strong Jewish leaders.”
Subscribe to New Columns
Not that this was a secret. In a December 1939 memo to the British
cabinet, Churchill recalled the vital role played by the Jews back
in World War One—to draw in the Americans, against their wishes,
against their desires, and against their national interests. “It was
not for light or sentimental reasons,” wrote Churchill, that Balfour
issued his famous promise of Palestine to the Zionists. “The
influence of American Jewry was rated then as a factor of the
highest importance…” “Now,” he added, “I should have thought it was
more necessary, even than in November 1917, to conciliate American
Jewry and enlist their aid in combating isolationist and indeed
anti-British tendencies in the United States.”[42]
Here we have an amazingly bald-faced admission. Churchill has utter
contempt for the “tendencies” (read: democratic principles) of the
Americans. His sole concern is to leverage Jewish power to draw a
neutral nation into yet another major war, to save his skin and to
aid his Zionist friends.[43] Kennedy was naturally appalled—both
that Churchill would do such a thing, and that it seemed to be
working. “I don’t trust him,” he wrote in his diary; “He always
impressed me that he was willing to blow up the American Embassy and
say it was the Germans if it would get the United States in.”[44] No
doubt that was true—just as FDR would be willing to sacrifice some
2,400 American lives at Pearl Harbor for precisely that end.
Into 1940, Hitler ran off an impressive string of victories,
culminating in the capture of Paris in June. Chamberlain resigned as
prime minister, to be replaced by Churchill, who immediately
initiated the ‘bases for destroyers’ plan with the US (see above).
As the year wore on, Roosevelt continued to lie to the American
public. His campaign address in Boston on October 30 contained the
same deceptive falsehoods of his earlier speeches. “Your government
has acquired new naval and air bases in British territory in the
Atlantic Ocean”—but no mention of the extralegal 50 destroyers that
he gave them in return. He boasted of doubling the size of the army
within the past year, and of letting out $8 billion in defense
contracts. But not to worry, fellow Americans—“I give you one more
assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again and
again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign
wars.” An utter lie, and he knew it.
One is perhaps tempted to make excuses for FDR: that he was morally
torn, that he could see a larger danger that the public could not
see, that he had to lie to us ‘for our own good.’ None of these
withstands scrutiny. The ethics of warfare are fairly well
established, at least for nominal democracies. They would include,
at a minimum: proportionality, mutuality, direct threat, and public
support. That is, (a) any aggressions should be responded to only
with equivalent force, (b) rules for one party hold for all, (c)
force is justified only in the face of a direct and imminent threat,
and (d) the public must be given an honest appraisal of the
situation, and its wishes respected. Suffice it to say that none of
these conditions would hold. One wonders: If the public had known of
the ultimate cost—some 420,000 American deaths, and roughly $4.2
trillion (present-day equivalent)—would they have embraced war, even
after Pearl Harbor? Or would they perhaps have put FDR and his
Jewish supporters on trial, for fraud, treason, and war crimes?
By October, Joe Kennedy had enough; he resigned his post. But he
continued to comment on the role of the Jews, both to friends and in
his private writings. On December 15, for example, he made this
diary entry:
[Justice Frankfurter] is supposed directly and indirectly to
influence Roosevelt on foreign policy over [Secretary of State]
Hull’s and [Undersecretary of State] Welles’s heads, [and] whose
cohort of young lawyers are in practically every government
department, all aiding the cause of Jewish refugees getting into
America… It looks to me as if the English sympathizers were tying
their cause in with the Jews because they figure they’ve got all the
influence in US. (cited in Nasaw 2012: 507)
Jewish population in the US, incidentally, was soon to reach 5
million. Frankfurter’s boys were doing a good job.
As before, Kennedy was not alone in his concern. Another Supreme
Court Justice, Frank Murphy, confided to him that “it was
Frankfurter and Ben Cohen who wrote the Attorney General’s opinion
on destroyers and bases.” Kennedy added: “Murphy regards the Jewish
influence as most dangerous. He said that after all, [Harry]
Hopkins’s wife was a Jew; Hull’s wife is a Jew; and Frankfurter and
Cohen and that group are all Jews.”[45]
For his part, Welles privately referred to Frankfurter as
“dangerous” and “a Jew chiseler.”
One of the most revealing remarks by Kennedy comes from the diary of
James Forrestal, who at the time was Secretary of the Navy. In the
entry from 27 December 1945, we read this:
Played golf today with Joe Kennedy…. He said Chamberlain’s position
in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight, and that
she could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy’s view: That
Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with
England, if it had not been for Bullitt’s urging on Roosevelt in the
summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland;
neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of
war, if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington….
Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had
forced England into the war. (Forrestal 1951: 121-122)
So, we must ask: Why was the partly Jewish Bullitt—a mere
diplomat—“urging” the president of the United States to face down
Hitler? And why were Bullitt and Roosevelt “constantly needling”
England and France to fight a war that they themselves did not see
as necessary or winnable? And why did these nations succumb to
American pressure? And why did Chamberlain ultimately link together
America and “the world Jews” as the driving force for war? We need
not look very hard to see a Jewish hand at work.
Media Blitz
Jewish-run media was becoming very active by this time. The
newspapers, for example, had found much disagreement with Washington
on domestic issues, but “Roosevelt’s standing with the press on
foreign policy matters was much stronger,” according to Cole (1983:
478). Apart from the Chicago Tribune and the Hearst papers, most
dailies backed intervention. Unsurprisingly, “the more prestigious
and influential news publications strongly supported the president.”
These included the New York Times, the New York Herald Tribune, the
Chicago Daily News, and Time Magazine.
The motion picture industry certainly did its part to get America
into war. Given that it took at least a year to get a motion picture
from conception to theater, and that efforts to produce pro-war
films did not start in earnest until 1937, it was well into 1939
before they began to appear. Early efforts like Confessions of a
Nazi Spy and Beasts of Berlin came out that year, and set the stage
for a flood of films over the next three years. In 1940, Hollywood
released graphic and high-impact films like Escape and Mortal Storm;
Hitchcock’s Foreign Correspondent came out that year, as did
Chaplin’s The Great Dictator. In May, two major studio heads, Jack
and Harry Warner—more accurately known as Itzhak and Hirsz
Wonskolaser—wrote to Roosevelt, assuring him that they would “do all
in our power within the motion picture industry…to show the American
people the worthiness of the cause for which the free peoples of
Europe are making such tremendous sacrifices.”[46] It’s nice to see
such unselfish, high-minded public service amongst corporate
executives.
By early 1941, Jewish filmmakers and producers were working subtle,
pro-war themes into many of their films. The anti-war group America
First argued that belligerent propaganda was becoming widespread;
“films that have nothing to do with the European war are now loaded
with lies and ideas which bring about an interventionist reaction”
(in Cole: 474). In August of that year—just one month before Pearl
Harbor—Senator Gerald Nye (R-N. Dak.) delivered a stinging radio
address, arguing that the Hollywood studios “had become the most
gigantic engines of propaganda in existence, to rouse the war fever
in America and plunge this nation to her destruction” (in ibid:
475). By that time, nearly three dozen major pro-war films had been
released.[47]
In the end, more than 60 explicitly ‘patriotic,’ pro-war films were
produced, along with dozens of ordinary films that incorporated
subtle pro-war messages. There were a few classics—Casablanca,
Sergeant York, To Be or Not to Be—and many duds. Hitler’s Children
and Nazi Agent, for example, won’t be making any Top 10 lists.
In March of 1941, under pressure from the Jewish lobby, Congress
passed the Lend-Lease Act; this allowed shipment of armaments and
military supplies to Britain and the other Allied nations. The vote
was 260-165 in the House, and 59-30 in the Senate. Public opinion
was narrowly in favor of the Act, but only as a defensive measure; a
strong majority still wished to stay out of the war. FDR could arm
the Allies but not join the fighting.
Roosevelt made a major radio address in May, declaring an “unlimited
national emergency.” It was filled with more war hyperbole, most
notably regarding the Germans’ alleged striving toward “world
domination.” Over and over came the words: “Nazi book of world
conquest”; “Hitler’s plan of world domination”; “a Hitler-dominated
world.” Suffice to say that no evidence of such a plan has ever come
forth.[48] Deploying the most facile, us-or-them language, FDR
struggled to persuade reluctant Americans that they should fight and
die: “Today the whole world is divided between human slavery and
human freedom—between pagan brutality and Christian ideal.” He even
hinted at the essentials of his strategy, namely, to provoke an
‘incident’ that would allow him to declare war: “We are placing our
armed forces in strategic military position. We will not hesitate to
use our armed forces to repel attack.”
In June, convinced of the Bolshevist threat posed by Stalin, Hitler
invaded the Soviet Union. In August, the US placed military forces
in Iceland, effectively occupying that country. And on 11 September
1941—60 years to the day before that other 9/11—Charles Lindbergh
gave his most famous speech, at Des Moines, Iowa. There he called
out for the first time the three main groups that were driving the
US toward war: the British, the Roosevelt administration, and the
Jews. Of this latter group, Lindbergh acknowledged their plight
under the Nazis, and their hatred of Hitler. But instead of inciting
America to war, they should be working to halt it; “for they will be
among the first to feel its consequences”—presumably meaning both in
Germany and in the US, where anti-Semitism would surely be inflamed.
In one of the more notable lines of the speech, he said that “[The
Jews’] greatest danger in this country lies in their large ownership
and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our
government.” Lindbergh thus ran afoul of the first rule of wartime:
Thou shalt never speak the truth.
Indeed: If Jewish influence in “our government” was part of the
danger, then naming the “Roosevelt administration” was redundant.
The true danger was Jews in media, Jews in Hollywood, and Jews in
the government—along with those non-Jews who worked on their behalf.
And even to name the British—Churchill and his Zionist backers—was,
in effect, to name yet more Jews. On all fronts, it was powerful and
influential Jews driving peaceful people toward war, simply to
destroy the hated Nazi regime.
British Zionist and future President of Israel, Chaim Weizmann vowed
Jewish support for the Second World War. Photo: 26 March 1949
By http://www.flickr.com/people/69061470@N05 [CC-BY-SA-3.0
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia
Commons
British Zionist and future President of Israel, Chaim Weizmann vowed
Jewish support for the Second World War. Photo: 26 March 1949
By http://www.flickr.com/people/69061470@N05 [CC-BY-SA-3.0
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0)], via Wikimedia
Commons
There is no doubt that Lindbergh was right—that British Jews were
pushing the US toward war, and that they were succeeding. In a
strange coincidence, just one day before Lindbergh’s Des Moines
speech, leading British Zionist Chaim Weizmann delivered this
notorious letter to Churchill:
There is only one big ethnic group [in America] which is willing to
stand, to a man, for Great Britain, and a policy of “all-out aid”
for her: the five million Jews. From Secretary Morgenthau, Governor
Lehman, Justice Frankfurter, down to the simplest Jewish workman or
trader, they are conscious of all that this struggle against Hitler
implies.
It has been repeatedly acknowledged by British Statesmen that it was
the Jews who, in the last war, effectively helped to tip the scales
in America in favour of Great Britain. They are keen to do it—and
may do it—again. (cited in Irving 2001: 77)
A most explicit admission: American Jews, working in conjunction
with British Jews, hold the key to war. They are “keen to do it.”
Virtually upon command, they can “tip the scales”—again—and drive
the Americans into another war that they desperately want to avoid.
The Pearl Harbor “Incident”
With American opposition to war still hovering near 80%, FDR and his
Jewish team were evidently becoming desperate. Dramatic action was
increasingly necessary. At that point, only a direct attack on
American soil could alter public opinion. For a good two years,
Roosevelt had been harassing the Germans. But they refused to bite.
What to do?
History is full of “false flag” operations in which governments or
other actors conduct a fake attack, blame the enemy, and then use
the event as a pretext for military action. By some accounts, the
earliest was in 47 BC, when Julius Caesar arranged and paid for
insurgent ‘rebel’ actions in Rome prior to his taking of the city. A
more recent instance occurred in 1846, when President James Polk
sent an army detachment into a disputed area along the Texas-Mexico
border. When the Mexicans responded, he declared it an attack on
“American soil,” and promptly began the US-Mexico War. For
centuries, military commanders have understood the benefits of false
flags; Roosevelt’s team was no different.
Though I cannot elaborate here, there is ample evidence that the
Pearl Harbor attack was effectively a false flag event. While
obviously not directly conducting the attack, Roosevelt did
everything possible to encourage and allow the Japanese to
strike—and then to feign shock when it actually happened. Below are
the key elements of that story.[49]
The earliest explicit indication that some such plan was in the
works comes from October 1940, in the so-called McCollum Memorandum.
Lt. Commander Arthur McCollum was director of the Office of Naval
Intelligence’s Far East Asia section when he issued a five-page
letter to two of his superiors. The memo describes a situation in
which a neutral US is surrounded by hostile nations across two
oceans, and notes that “Germany and Italy have lately concluded a
military alliance with Japan directed against the United States.”
This was a mutual-defense pact, such that an attack against Japan
would be considered by Germany to be an act of war. This gave FDR
two paths to war: attack by Germany, or attack by Japan. Germany was
scrupulously eschewing conflict, but perhaps Japan could be engaged.
This was evidently well understood within the military
establishment. As McCollum explained, “It is not believed that in
the present state of political opinion, the US government is capable
of declaring war against Japan without more ado; and it is barely
possible that vigorous action on our part might lead the Japanese to
modify their attitude”—clever language that essentially means: Japan
does not really want war either, but perhaps we could provoke them
enough (“more ado”) that they would launch a first strike (“modify
their attitude”). McCollum then suggested an eight-point action
plan, anticipating conflict with Japan. Item Six includes this:
“Keep the main strength of the US fleet now in the Pacific in the
vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.” The memo concludes with this
striking sentence: “If by these means Japan could be led to commit
an overt act of war, so much the better.” The plan could hardly be
clearer.
On 19 August 1941, Churchill told his war cabinet that FDR was doing
all he could to provoke an attack by the Axis powers—information
which came to light only in 1972. Churchill said:
[Roosevelt] was obviously determined that they [the US] should come
in. … The president said to me that he would wage war but not
declare it, and that he would become more and more provocative. If
the Germans did not like it, they could attack American forces. …
Everything was being done to force an ‘incident.’ The president has
made it clear that he would look for an ‘incident’ which could
justify him in opening hostilities.[50]
Further comment is unnecessary.
Lindbergh essentially understood what was going on. In his September
1941 speech, he laid out FDR’s three-part plan: (1) prepare for war
in the guise of defense, (2) incrementally involve the US in
conflict situations, and (3) “create a series of incidents which
would force us into actual conflict.” Near the end of his speech he
added that “The war groups have succeeded in the first two of their
three major steps into war. … Only the creation of sufficient
‘incidents’ yet remains.” An amazing prognosis, given that the Pearl
Harbor attack was just three months away.
On 25 November 1941, 12 days before the attack, Roosevelt held a War
Cabinet meeting at the White House. Secretary of War Henry Stimson
wrote the following in his diary of that day:
[Roosevelt] brought up the event that we were likely to be attacked
perhaps next Monday [December 1], for the Japanese are notorious for
making an attack without warning, and the question was how we should
maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without
allowing too much danger to ourselves. It was a difficult
proposition.[51]
This is Stimson’s infamous “maneuver” remark; once again, it is
clear and explicit.
The following day, November 26, Secretary of State Hull presented a
letter to the Japanese ambassador, demanding that they withdraw from
China and French Indochina (section II, point #3). Though couched in
the language of peace, it was effectively an ultimatum, and it was
thusly perceived by the Japanese prime minister.
On December 4, the anti-war paper Chicago Daily Tribune ran a huge
headline: “FDR’s War Plans!” It detailed a plan for a 10-million-man
military force, half of whom would be dedicated to fighting Germany.
It even mentioned a specific date—1 July 1943—as the day for the
“final supreme effort by American land forces to defeat the mighty
German army in Europe.” This was incredibly accurate; the Allied
invasion of Sicily, the first direct assault on European territory,
occurred on 9 July 1943. Clearly FDR’s secrets were quickly
unraveling.
At 4:00 pm on Saturday, December 6, a decoded Japanese communiqué
was delivered to Roosevelt. It indicated that Japan was not going to
accept any portion of America’s ultimatum, and that they were
compelled to respond to its on-going belligerence. “This means war,”
said the president. If war was inevitable, said Harry Hopkins, it
was too bad that we couldn’t strike first. “No, we can’t do that,”
said Roosevelt, hypocritically; “We are a democracy of a peaceful
people. We have a good record. We must stand on it.”[52] Pearl
Harbor was not explicitly mentioned, but the president took no
action to forewarn any of his commanders in the Pacific theater,
thus rendering them defenseless before the oncoming assault.
Eight years after the attack, the president’s administrative
assistant, Jonathan Daniels, recalled events of that time. “There
was a mass of warning before Pearl Harbor,” he wrote (1949: 490).
“As a matter of fact, warning had been clear for many months before
Pearl Harbor. The increasing menace had been understood and
accepted. Of course, even Senators can now read to precise
clarity—to the place and the hour—the warnings we possessed.” At the
time, though, Roosevelt was surprised: “Of course, he was surprised.
But he had deliberately taken the chance of surprise, as he had won
the strategy of successful militant delay. The blow was heavier than
he had hoped it would necessarily be.” Indeed—2,400 Americans killed
in one day.
Or perhaps it was no “surprise” at all. In 1989, a 90-year-old
British naval intelligence officer named Eric Nave came forth with a
stunning assertion: that the Brits had detailed foreknowledge of the
attack, days before the event. As reported in the Times of London
(June 1), Nave’s decoding of Japanese battle commands made “clear
their intention to attack several days before the raid took place.”
“His revelations challenge the view that the Americans were taken by
surprise, and support evidence that Churchill, and probably
Roosevelt, allowed the attack to go ahead unchallenged as means to
bring America into the Second World War.” Nave added this: “We never
had any doubt about Pearl Harbor itself. It should never have
happened. We knew days, even a week before.” His account is detailed
in his book Betrayal at Pearl Harbor (1991). Nave died in 1993.
On 19 August 1941, Churchill told his war cabinet that Roosevelt was
doing all he could to provoke an attack by the Axis powers. Photo:
August 1941.
[Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
On 19 August 1941, Churchill told his war cabinet that Roosevelt was
doing all he could to provoke an attack by the Axis powers. Photo:
August 1941.
[Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons
Some Concluding Thoughts
This essay has been a study in history. But we must never forget:
History is suffused with lessons for the present. What, then, can we
conclude from this long and tragic story?
First: Wars are complex events, and all complex events have multiple
causes. They are generally the result of an accumulation of tensions
and conflicts over several years. It would be all but impossible for
any one group, no matter how influential, to precipitate war if the
conditions were not already favorable. But a small group can
certainly heighten existing tensions, or serve as a trigger, or
exacerbate an ongoing conflict.
It would be misleading to say that Jews “caused” World War I, or the
Russian Revolution, or World War II—though they certainly had a
significant influence on all these events, and arguably a decisive
influence. Clearly they are not the sole cause of the wars under
review. It is not as if, were there no Jews at all, fighting in
Europe would never have occurred. There were, for example, many
non-Jewish belligerents on all sides during World War II, including
Lord Halifax in England, and Stimson among the Americans. Military
men always have an inclination to fight; after all, their very
positions and prestige depend upon it.
Counterfactuals are notoriously difficult to apply to historical
events: What if Jewish rebels and Weimar reconstructionists had not
dominated post-World War I Germany? What if Roosevelt had not relied
upon Jewish money to finance his campaigns? What if Churchill had
not been a Zionist? What if Ben Cohen’s “bases-for-destroyers” plan
had failed? We obviously can never know these things; but it is
clear that Jews were active and instrumental at several critical
junctures on the path to war. And indeed, this is one of the most
striking facts: that Jews were so active, at so many points along
the way, that we can scarcely avoid attributing to them a
significant portion of blame for the world wars and accompanying
revolutions.
Second: FDR comes off, rather like Wilson, as an amoral,
opportunistic, war-mongering dupe. His own Secretary of War, Henry
Stimson, wrote that “his mind does not follow easily a consecutive
chain of thought, but he is full of stories and incidents, and hops
about in his discussions from suggestion to suggestion, and it is
very much like chasing a vagrant beam of sunshine around a vacant
room.”[53] Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously
declared him “a second-class intellect” in 1933. His close advisor
Frankfurter once wrote, “I know his limitations. Most of them
derive, I believe, from a lack of incisive intellect…”[54]
British ambassador to the US Sir Ronald Lindsay considered FDR “an
amiable and impressionable lightweight,” one who could not keep a
secret from the American press.[55] Even his wife Eleanor did not
know “whether FDR had a hidden center to his personality or only
shifting peripheries.”[56]
His lies were persistent, malicious, and criminal. His more
knowledgeable opponents could see through them, even if the public
could not. Lindbergh certainly knew the truth, and was appalled at
the ability of our executive-in-chief to baldly lie to the people.
In late 1944, with hostilities nearing an end, Congresswoman Clare
Boothe Luce (R-Con.) loudly and publicly declared that Roosevelt
“lied us into war.”[57] “The shame of Pearl Harbor,” she added, “was
Mr. Roosevelt’s shame.”
Thus we see something of a long-term trend: Unethical, unprincipled,
deceptive American presidents, who are “swayed by their Jewish
elements” (Dillon), to lead an unwilling nation into battle against
sovereign countries that are deemed to be enemies of the Jews. The
parallels to the past 25 years are striking.
Sources
Ben-Sasson, H. 1976. A History of the Jewish People. Harvard
University Press.
Bermant, C. 1977. The Jews. Times Books.
Beschloss, M. 2002. The Conquerors. Simon and Schuster.
Brecher, F. 1988. “Charles R. Crane’s crusade for the Arabs.” Middle
Eastern Studies, 24(1): 42-55.
Breitman, R. and Lichtman, A. 2013. FDR and the Jews. Belknap.
Bryant, A. 1940. Unfinished Victory. Macmillan.
Buchanan, P. 2008. Hitler, Churchill, and the Unnecessary War.
Crown.
Cecil, L. 1996. Wilhelm II (vol. 2). University of North Carolina
Press.
Chalberg, J. (ed.) 1995. Isolationism. Greenhaven.
Churchill, W. 1920/2002. “Zionism versus Bolshevism.” In L. Brenner
(ed.), 51 Documents, Barricade.
Cohen, M. 1985/2003. Churchill and the Jews. F. Cass.
Cole, W. 1983. Roosevelt and the Isolationists. University of
Nebraska Press.
Dall, C. 1968. FDR: My Exploited Father-in-Law. Action Associates.
Dallek, R. 1979. Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy.
Oxford University Press.
Dalton, T. 2009. Debating the Holocaust. Theses and Dissertations
Press.
Dalton, T. 2010. “Goebbels on the Jews” (part 2). Inconvenient
History, 2(2).
Daniels, J. 1949. “Pearl Harbor Sunday: The end of an era.” In
Leighton (ed.), The Aspirin Age, Simon and Schuster.
Darkmoon, L. 2013. “The sexual decadence of Weimar Germany.”
www.darkmoon.me
Dillon, E. 1920. The Inside Story of the Peace Conference. Harper
and Brothers.
Dodd, W. 1941. Ambassador Dodd’s Diary, 1933-1938. Harcourt, Brace.
Doenecke, J. 2000. Storm on the Horizon. Rowman & Littlefield.
Dunn, S. 2013. 1940: FDR, Willkie, Lindbergh, Hitler. Yale
University Press.
Fay, S. 1928. The Origins of the World War. Macmillan.
Fink, C. 1998. “The minorities question.” In Boemeke et al (eds),
The Treaty of Versailles, Cambridge University Press.
Forrestal, J. 1951. The Forrestal Diaries. Viking.
Fuller, J. 1957. The Decisive Battles of the Western World (vol. 3).
Eyre & Spottiswoode. Reprinted in the United States as A
Military History of the Western World (vol. 3), Minerva.
Gilbert, M. 2007. Churchill and the Jews. Holt.
Grubach, P. 2011. “Churchill, international Jews, and the Holocaust:
A revisionist analysis.” Inconvenient History, 3(1).
Herzstein, R. 1989. Roosevelt and Hitler. J. Wiley.
Ickes, H. 1954. The Secret Diary of Harold L. Ickes (vol. 2). Simon
and Schuster.
Irving, D. 2001. Churchill’s War (vol. 2). Focal Point.
Jackson, R. 2003. That Man: An Insider’s Portrait of Franklin D.
Roosevelt. Oxford University Press.
Katz, S. 1991. “1918 and after: The role of racial anti-Semitism in
the Nazi analysis of the Weimar Republic.” In Gilman and Katz (eds),
Anti-Semitism in Times of Crisis, NYU Press.
Laqueur, W. 1974. Weimar: A Cultural History. Putnam.
Lavsky, H. 1996. Before Catastrophe. Wayne State University Press.
Leutze, J. 1975. “The secret of the Churchill-Roosevelt
correspondence.” Journal of Contemporary History, 10(3).
Loewenheim, F. et al (eds). 1975. Roosevelt and Churchill. Saturday
Review Press.
MacMillan, M. 2003. Paris 1919. Random House.
Makovsky, M. 2007. Churchill’s Promised Land. Yale University Press.
Michael, R. 2005. A Concise History of American Anti-Semitism.
Rowman & Littlefield.
Morgenstern, G. 1947. Pearl Harbor. Devin-Adair.
Morgenthau III, H. 1991. Mostly Morgenthaus. Ticknor & Fields.
Mowrer, E. 1933. Germany Puts the Clock Back. William Morrow.
Muller, J. 2010. Capitalism and the Jews. Princeton University
Press.
Nasaw, D. 2012. The Patriarch. Penguin.
Nave, E. 1991. Betrayal at Pearl Harbor. Summit.
Rohl, J. 1987/1994. The Kaiser and His Court. Cambridge University
Press.
Scholnick, M. 1990. The New Deal and Anti-Semitism in America.
Taylor and Francis.
Sherwood, R. 1948. White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins (vol. 1).
Eyre & Spottiswoode.
Shogan, R. 2010. Prelude to Catastrophe. Ivan Dee.
Slomovitz, P. 1981. Purely Commentary. Wayne State University Press.
Stinnett, R. 2001. Day of Deceit. Touchstone.
Szembek, C. 1952. Journal 1933-1939. Plon.
Taylor, A. 1961. Origins of the Second World War. Atheneum.
Townley, S. 1922. Indiscretions of Lady Susan. Appleton.
Ward, G. 1989. A First-Class Temperament. Harper & Row.
Weber, M. 1983. “President Roosevelt’s campaign to incite war in
Europe.” Journal of Historical Review, 4(2).
Wentling, S. 2012. Herbert Hoover and the Jews. Wyman Institute.
Notes
[1] As Baruch stated to Congress, “I probably had more power than
perhaps any other man did in the war; doubtless that is true.” See
Part 1 for his full testimony.
[2] Cited in Chalberg (1995: 71-73).
[3] The New York Times carried periodic such reports. See, for
example: 26 January 1891 (“Rabbi Gottheil says a word on the
persecution of the Jews…about six millions persecuted and miserable
wretches”), 21 September 1891 (“An indictment of Russia…a total of
6,000,000 is more nearly correct.”), 11 June 1900 (“[In Russia and
central Europe] there are 6,000,000 living, bleeding, suffering
arguments in favor of Zionism.”), 23 March 1905 (“We Jews in America
[sympathize with] our 6,000,000 cringing brothers in Russia”), 25
March 1906 (“Startling reports of the condition and future of
Russia’s 6,000,000 Jews…”). The situation led a former president of
B’nai B’rith to a prophetic exclamation: “Simon Wolf asks how long
the Russian Holocaust is to continue” (10 November 1905). History
does indeed repeat itself.
[4] It seems that he had good reason for this enmity. According to
Cecil (1996: 57), Wilhelm “believed that Jews were perversely
responsible…for encouraging opposition to his rule.” In a letter to
a friend, the Kaiser wrote: “The Hebrew race are my most inveterate
enemies at home and abroad; they remain what they are and always
were: the forgers of lies and the masterminds governing unrest,
revolution, upheaval by spreading infamy with the help of their
poisoned, caustic, satyric spirit” (in Rohl 1994: 210). Townley
(1922: 45) relates this comment of his: “The Jews are the curse of
my country. They keep my people poor and in their clutches. In every
small village in Germany sits a dirty Jew, like a spider drawing the
people into the web of usury. He lends money to the small farmers on
the security of their land, and so gradually acquires control of
everything. The Jews are the parasites of my Empire.” He adds that
the Jewish question is one of his “great problems,” but one in which
“nothing can be done to cope with it.” In 1940, with Hitler moving
to clean up Europe, he said this: “The Jews are being thrust out of
the nefarious positions in all countries, whom they have driven to
hostility for centuries” (in Rohl: 211).
[5] Wentling (2012: 6).
[6] A good, brief account is given in MacMillan (2003: 463-466).
[7] Cited in MacMillan (2003: 414-415).
[8] Muller adds, “The prominence of Jews in the Hungarian Soviet
Republic is all the more striking when one considers that the Jews
of Hungary were richer than their coreligionists in Eastern Europe…
Though only 5% of the population, on the eve of WWI, Jews made up
almost half the doctors, lawyers, and journalists in Hungary.” But
this is precisely as I have said: no amount of wealth or social
status is sufficient, if Jews lack political power.
Subscribe to New Columns
[9] Until his assassination in June 1922.
[10] For one account, see Darkmoon (2013). Also see Bryant (1940:
142-145).
[11] In my notation, (I.5) refers to Volume I, chapter 5. I use the
Murphy translation.
[12] See Part I for an elaboration.
[13] Ford’s so-called “Peace Ship” sailed to Norway in December of
1915, in a failed attempt to negotiate an end to the war.
[14] Cited in Shogan (2010: 51).
[15] Cited in Ward (1989: 253). See also Morgenthau (1991: 169
facer).
[16] Various other extremist writings have also claimed that the
Delano family (Franklin’s mother’s side) were Jews. They construct a
parallel account to the Rossacampo story, and of dispersion from
Spain or Italy. But I find no evidence to verify this claim.
[17] This recalls the similar characterization of Baruch during
World WarI.
[18] See Leutze (1975: 469-470).
[19] The first Jewish cabinet member, as we recall, was Oscar
Straus, selected by Franklin’s cousin Theodore back in 1906.
[20] See Makovsky (2007: 216).
[21] Bullitt’s heritage is somewhat cryptic. His mother, Louisa
Horowitz, was apparently at least half-Jewish. Her father, Orville
Horowitz, descended from the Salomon family, who were distinctly
Jewish. Her mother, Maria Gross, likely had a mixed Jewish heritage.
But there is no doubt where his sympathies lay; “Bullitt [is] a
friend of ours,” wrote Weizmann in 1938 (cited in Nasaw 2012: 358).
[22] Though scandalous at the time, such level of Jewish influence
is commonplace today—with three of nine Supreme Court Justices being
Jewish (Kagan, Breyer, Ginsburg), numerous Cabinet-level
appointments, and countless subordinate positions. Over just the
past three presidential administrations, Jewish and part-Jewish
Cabinet-level office holders include, at a minimum, the following:
M. Albright, L. Aspin, C. Barshefsky, S. Bodman, J. Bolten, A. Card,
M. Chertoff, W. Cohen, R. Emanuel, M. Froman, J. Furman, T.
Geithner, D. Glickman, M. Kantor, J. Kerry, A. Krueger, J. Lew, M.
Markowitz, M. Mukasey, P. Orszag, P. Pritzker, R. Portman, R. Reich,
R. Rubin, S. Schwab, M. Spellings, J. Stiglitz, L. Summers, J.
Yellen, and R. Zoellick. This list does not include others, such as
Samantha Power, who have a Jewish spouse (Cass Sunstein). Nor does
it include Chairmen of the Federal Reserve—a very powerful office,
held by Ben Bernanke and Alan Greenspan during the past several
years, and currently by Janet Yellen.
[23] Both citations from Chalberg (1995: 192-193).
[24] Public Opinion Quarterly, 4(4), December 1940: 714.
[25] Public Opinion Quarterly, 5(4), Winter 1941: 680.
[26] Public Opinion Quarterly, 2(3), July 1938: 388.
[27] By late 1936, the “600,000” had evolved into “6 million.” In
the New York Times (Nov. 26) we read this: “Dr. Weizmann dwelt first
on the tragedy of at least 6,000,000 ‘superfluous’ Jews in Poland,
Germany, and Austria…” It was even more explicit by early 1938:
“Persecuted Jews Seen on Increase…6,000,000 Victims Noted” (Jan.
9)—this, a full four years before the alleged “death camps” even
began operation.
[28] Cited in Herzstein (1989: 33).
[29] The New York Times had long been under Jewish control. The Post
was purchased by Eugene Meyer in 1933.
[30] See Dalton (2010) for an elaboration of Goebbels’s views.
[31] Testimony of February 1941. Cited in Doenecke (2000: 440). See
also Fuller (1957, vol. 3: 369).
[32] Cited in Weber (1983). This and other reports by Potocki were
acquired by the Germans upon capture of Warsaw, and thus there is
some skepticism about their authenticity. Weber makes a good case
that they are genuine. David Irving reports that he saw copies of
the original in the Hoover Library
(http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Potocki/papers.html).
[33] Cited in Cole (1983: 308).
[34] Cited in Fuller (1957: 370).
[35] Traditional references to Kristallnacht often overlook the fact
that the event was triggered by a Jewish youth, Herschel Grynszpan,
who murdered German Diplomat Ernst vom Rath in Paris on November 9.
Kristallnachtfollowed the next day.
[36] See Weber (1983) and Fuller (1957: 372-374).
[37] Cited in Fuller (1957: 375).
[38] See Szembek (1952: 476), published in French. The first
sentence reads as follows: “En Occident, il y a toutes sortes
d’elements qui poussent nettement a la guerre: les Juifs, les grands
capitalists, les marchands de canons.”
[39] As recorded by Ickes in his personal diary, for July 2. See
Ickes (1954: 676).
[40] Obviously there is more detail to the outbreak of war than I
can provide here. In brief, once Poland received a guarantee of
military support from England in March of 1939, they became
increasingly belligerent toward German minorities on Polish soil,
particularly in Danzig. It seems bizarre in hindsight, but many of
the Poles (Potocki excepted), with the Brits at their back, were
virtually spoiling for a fight with Germany. They believed that a
victory would solidify their national standing, and help to ward off
the Soviet threat to the east. Instead, they succumbed to the German
assault in just four weeks.
[41] Cited in Nasaw (2012: 429).
[42] Cited in Cohen (2003: 195).
[43] Churchill himself was a Zionist—a fact that he openly admitted.
In a letter of 1942 to Roosevelt, Churchill said, “I am strongly
wedded to the Zionist policy [in the UK], of which I was one of the
authors” (in Loewenheim 1975: 234). Speaking in 1950 on behalf of
the creation of Israel, he said that it was “a great event in the
history of mankind,” and that he was “proud of his own contribution
towards it.” He added that “he had been a Zionist all his life” (in
Cohen 2003: 322).
[44] Cited in Doenecke (2000: 198).
[45] Cited in ibid.
[46] Cited in Dunn (2013: 48).
[47] Including Beasts of Berlin, Espionage Agent, Arise My Love,
British Intelligence, Escape to Glory, Murder in the Air, Waterloo
Bridge, All Through the Night, Confirm or Deny, International
Squadron, Joan of Paris, Man at Large, Man Hunt, One Night in
Lisbon, Paris Calling, So Ends Our Night, Sundown, Underground, and
World Premiere.
[48] Buchanan (2008: 334-340) gives a succinct argument that Hitler
had a hard enough time taking even Great Britain, let alone America
or “the world.”
[49] For a full account, see Stinnett’s book Day of Deceit (2001).
[50] Chicago Tribune (2 January 1972; p. A22). See also New York
Times (1 January 1972; p. 7).
[51] Cited in Jackson (2003: 247). See also Morgenstern (1947: 292).
[52] See New York Times (16 February 1946; p. 1).
[53] Cited in Shogan (2010: 33).
[54] In ibid: 96.
[55] In the words of Dallek (1979: 31).
[56] According to Breitman and Lichtman (2013: 6).
[57] Quoted in the New York Times (14 October 1944, p. 9)
(Republished from Inconvenient History by permission of author or
representative)