Re: Re: a good government
- From: Topaz <mars1933@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 18:45:03 -0600
On Sun, 08 Feb 2009 14:36:31 -0500, Scotius <yodasbud@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Actually, they also banned them from the practice of medicine,
from being veternarians, and other professions. Thus it was easier to
convince the German people that they did nothing worthwhile. When you
ban people from certain professions, especially ones that benefit
other people, or even benefit animals, you can set up that sort of
thing.
Jews are a race of parasites anyway. And Germany should be for
Germans. Jews are an enemy race and should not be in Germany anyway,
or any White country.
...and much of that employment was in the production of war
machinery. I don't suppose it bothers this self-styled economist -
James Buchanan - that once they'd been producing for years, they HAD
TO have a war in order to keep the economy going?
That's pure bull. And it's your Jewish economy that is hopeless:
Here is a quote from a very pro-Jewish book that was first
published in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis
Browne.
"The Jews had become the money lenders of Europe for quite
evident reasons. The Church sternly forbade all Christians to engage
in the pursuit...
"So the Jews became the money lenders of Europe. They developed
a great shrewdness and cunning in the one and only field of
opportunity left open to them. And with their shrewdness and cunning
they developed a certain cruelty and greed. That was natural. The
world was cruel to them, so when the chance was theirs, they were
cruel in return..."
The money system we have today is called the debt-money
system. It is evil and needs to be replaced. The only way money comes
into existence today is when it is borrowed. There is no freely
existing money supply, but only borrowed money that needs to be paid
back to bankers with interest. If all the money that was owed to
bankers was ever paid back there would be no money left in circulation
and this would be a great depression. What makes matters even worse is
that when money is created only the principle of the loan is created.
The money needed to pay the interest is never created. For this reason
it is impossible to pay back the principle plus the interest on all of
the loans that make up our money supply. The extra amount of money
needed to pay the interest was never created and does not exist.
The United States government borrows money from the Federal
Reserve Bank. This bank is not federal but owned by private
stockholders. It is in the business section of the phone book, not the
government section. Other banks also create the money in our money
supply. They are allowed to loan out much more money then they
actually have. Thus they create new money. No one else is allowed to
create money, only bankers have this privilege. All of our money is
debt-money and it is all owed back to bankers, plus the interest.
In the U.S.A. money is created by the Bureau of Engraving and
Printing which is a unit of the treasury, but the orders to print come
from the Federal Reserve Banks. The money is created for and owned by
the banks. And the Federal Reserve Banks are not Federal, in spite of
the name. Privately owned commercial banks own the stock of the
Federal Reserve Banks. The Federal Reserve Banks give the newly
created money to the government in exchange for government bonds. To
simplify: The United States does not make its own money. Bankers
create the money and loan it to the United States with an interest
charge.
The book War Cycles Peace Cycles puts it this way:
"If there is only $10 in existence, and you lend it to someone
under the condition that he repay $11, and if he agrees to this, he
has agreed to the impossible."
The book The Struggle for World Power put it this way:
"The Bank of England... was the first payment institution which
was legally empowered to issue state-authorized paper currency and ,
therefore, the Government itself became its debtor. Thus the State not
only renounced its monopoly on monetary emission, but also agreed to
borrow the privately-created money from the bankers...Not only the
thing being done, but even the very name was a deliberate fraud and
deception to conceal the essence of the deed. To create money out of
nothing is to make valid and effective claim on all goods and services
for no return, which is fraud and theft, made worse by the
circumstances that the money is lent out at interest...it follows that
those who have the power to 'create' out of nothing all the money in
each country and the whole world and lend it as stated, have total
power over all states, parties, firms, radio, press, individuals and
so on. Therefore the power of Parliament in general, and especially
with regard to money, is non-existent, and all the true sovereignty is
in the hands of those private individuals who issue all money"
Did you really believe that Hitler had a reason to invade the
Sudutenland, and then Poland? BS.
Hitler gave the following communication to the British Ambassador:
"Poland's actual provocations have become intolerable. It makes no
difference who is responsible. If the Polish government denies
responsibility, that only goes to show that it no longer itself
possesses any influence of its subordinate military authorities.
In the preceding night there have been a further twenty-one frontier
incidents; on the German side the greatest discipline has been
maintained. The Polish side has provoked all incidents. Furthermore,
commercial aircraft have been shot at. If the Polish Government stated
that it was not responsible, it showed it was no longer capable of
controlling its on people."
This communication was handed and verbally read out to Sir Neville
Chamberlain, British Ambassador, 1.30pm 25th August 1939
By Mark Weber
Much has already been written about Roosevelt's campaign of deception
and outright lies in getting the United States to intervene in the
Second World War prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in
December 1941. Roosevelt's aid to Britain and the Soviet Union in
violation of American neutrality and international law, his acts of
war against Germany in the Atlantic in an effort to provoke a German
declaration of war against the United States, his authorization of a
vast "dirty tricks" campaign against U.S. citizens by British
intelligence agents in violation of the Constitution, and his
provocations and ultimatums against Japan which brought on the attack
against Pearl Harbor -- all this is extensively documented and
reasonably well known.[1]
Not so well known is the story of Roosevelt's enormous responsibility
for the outbreak of the Second World War itself. This essay focuses on
Roosevelt's secret campaign to provoke war in Europe prior to the
outbreak of hostilities in September 1939. It deals particularly with
his efforts to pressure Britain, France and Poland into war against
Germany in 1938 and 1939.
Franklin Roosevelt not only criminally involved America in a war which
had already engulfed Europe. He bears a grave responsibility before
history for the outbreak of the most destructive war of all time.
This paper relies heavily on a little-known collection of secret
Polish documents which fell into German hands when Warsaw was captured
in September 1939.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p135_Weber.html
These documents clearly establish Roosevelt's crucial role in
bringing on the Second World War?
Poland had refused to even negotiate over self-determination for the
German city of Danzig and the ethnic German minority in the so-called
Polish Corridor. Hitler felt compelled to resort to arms when he did
in response to a growing Polish campaign of terror and dispossession
against the one and a half million ethnic Germans under Polish rule.
In my view, if ever a military action was justified, it was the German
campaign against Poland in 1939.
Poland's headstrong refusal to negotiate was made possible because of
a fateful blank check guarantee of military backing from Britain -- a
pledge that ultimately proved completely worthless to the hapless
Poles. Considering the lightning swiftness of the victorious German
campaign, it is difficult to realize today that the Polish government
did not at all fear war with Germany. Poland's leaders foolishly
believed that German might was only an illusion. They were convinced
that their troops would occupy Berlin itself within a few weeks and
add further German territories to an enlarged Polish state. It is also
important to keep in mind that the purely localized conflict between
Germany and Poland was only transformed into a Europe-wide
conflagration by the British and French declarations of war against
Germany?
On 9 February 1938, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, Count Jerzy
Potocki, reported to the Foreign Minister in Warsaw on the Jewish role
in making American foreign policy:
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.'?
Ambassador Potocki's report from Washington of 9 January 1939 dealt in
large part with President Roosevelt's annual address to Congress:
President Roosevelt acts on the assumption that the dictatorial
governments, above all Germany and Japan, only understand a policy of
force. Therefore he has decided to react to any future blows by
matching them. This has been demonstrated by the most recent measures
of the United States.
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.
Of all the documents in this collection, the most revealing is
probably the secret report by Ambassador Potocki of 12 January 1939
which dealt with the domestic situation in the United States. This
report is given here in full:
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?
It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign
which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia
is almost completely excluded. If mentioned at all, it is only in a
friendly manner and things are presented in such a way as if Soviet
Russia were working with the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the
clever propaganda the sympathy of the American public is completely on
the side of Red Spain.
Besides this propaganda, a war psychosis is being artificially
created. The American people are told that peace in Europe is hanging
only by a thread and that war is unavoidable. At the same time the
American people are unequivocally told that in case of a world war,
America must also take an active part in order to defend the slogans
of freedom and democracy in the world?
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. With
regard to domestic policy, it is very convenient to divert public
attention from anti-Semitism, which is constantly growing in the
United States, by talking about the necessity of defending religion
and individual liberty against the onslaught of Fascism.
On 16 January 1939, Polish Ambassador Potocki reported to the Warsaw
Foreign Ministry on another lengthy conversation he had with
Roosevelt's personal envoy, William Bullitt?
1. The vitalizing of foreign policy under the leadership of President
Roosevelt, who severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian
countries.
2. United States preparations for war on sea, land and air will be
carried out at an accelerated pace and will consume the colossal sum
of 1.25 billion dollars.
3. It is the decided opinion of the President that France and Britain
must put an end to any sort of compromise with the totalitarian
countries. They must not get into any discussions aiming at any kind
of territorial changes.
4. They have the moral assurance that the United States will abandon
the policy of isolation and be prepared to intervene actively on the
side of Britain and France in case of war. America is ready to place
its whole wealth of money and raw materials at their disposal.
The Polish Ambassador to Paris, Juliusz (Jules) Lukasiewicz, sent a
top secret report to the Foreign Ministry in Warsaw at the beginning
of February 1939 which outlined U.S. policy towards Europe as
explained to him by William Bullitt:
A week ago, the Ambassador of the United States, William Bullitt
returned to Paris after a three months' leave in America. Meanwhile, I
have had two conversations with him which enable me to inform you of
his views regarding the European situation and to give a survey of
Washington's policy.
The international situation is regarded by official circles as
extremely serious and in constant danger of armed conflict. Those in
authority are of the opinion that if war should break out between
Britain and France on the one hand, and Germany and Italy on the
other, and should Britain and France be defeated, the Germans would
endanger the real interests of the United States on the American
continent. For this reason, one can foresee right from the beginning
the participation of the United States in the war on the side of
France and Britain, naturally some time after the outbreak of the war.
As Ambassador Bullitt expressed it: 'Should war break out we shall
certainly not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall finish
it.'
On 7 March 1939, Ambassador Potocki sent a remarkably lucid and
perceptive report on Roosevelt's foreign policy to his government in
Warsaw. This document was first made public when leading German
newspapers published it in German translation, along with a facsimile
reproduction of the first page of the Polish original, in their
editions of 28 October 1940. The main National Socialist party
newspaper, the Voelkischer Beobachter, published the Ambassador's
report with this observation:
The document itself needs no commentary. We do not know, and it does
not concern us, whether the internal American situation as reported by
the Polish diplomat is correct in every detail. That must be decided
by the American people alone. But in the interest of historical truth
it is important for us to show that the warmongering activities of
American diplomacy, especially in Europe, are once again revealed and
proven by this document. It still remains a secret just who, and for
what motives, have driven American diplomacy to this course. In any
case, the results have been disastrous for both Europe and America.
Europe was plunged into war and America has brought upon itself the
hostility of great nations which normally have no differences with the
American people and, indeed, have not been in conflict but have lived
for generations as friends and want to remain so?
While the Polish documents alone are conclusive proof of Roosevelt's
treacherous campaign to bring about world war, it is fortunate for
posterity that a substantial body of irrefutable complementary
evidence exists which confirms the conspiracy recorded in the
dispatches to Warsaw?
On 19 September 1938 -- that is, a year before the outbreak of war in
Europe -- Roosevelt called Lindsay to a very secret meeting at the
White House. At the beginning of their long conversation, according to
Lindsay's confidential dispatch to London, Roosevelt "emphasized the
necessity of absolute secrecy. Nobody must know I had seen him and he
himself would tell nobody of the interview. I gathered not even the
State Department." The two discussed some secondary matters before
Roosevelt got to the main point of the conference. "This is the very
secret part of his communication and it must not be known to anyone
that he has even breathed a suggestion." The President told the
Ambassador that if news of the conversation was ever made public, it
could mean his impeachment. And no wonder. What Roosevelt proposed was
a cynically brazen but harebrained scheme to violate the U.S.
Constitution and dupe the American people.
The President said that if Britain and France "would find themselves
forced to war" against Germany, the United States would ultimately
also join. But this would require some clever maneuvering. Britain and
France should impose a total blockade against Germany without actually
declaring war and force other states (including neutrals) to abide by
it. This would certainly provoke some kind of German military
response, but it would also free Britain and France from having to
actually declare war. For propaganda purposes, the "blockade must be
based on loftiest humanitarian grounds and on the desire to wage
hostilities with minimum of suffering and the least possible loss of
life and property, and yet bring the enemy to his knees." Roosevelt
conceded that this would involve aerial bombardment, but "bombing from
the air was not the method of hostilities which caused really great
loss of life."
The important point was to "call it defensive measures or anything
plausible but avoid actual declaration of war." That way, Roosevelt
believed he could talk the American people into supporting war against
Germany, including shipments of weapons to Britain and France, by
insisting that the United States was still technically neutral in a
non-declared conflict. "This method of conducting war by blockade
would in his [Roosevelt's] opinion meet with approval of the United
States if its humanitarian purpose were strongly emphasized," Lindsay
reported.[19]
The American Ambassador to Italy, William Phillips, admitted in his
postwar memoirs that the Roosevelt administration was already
committed to going to war on the side of Britain and France in late
1938. "On this and many other occasions," Phillips wrote, "I would
like to have told him [Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister]
frankly that in the event of a European war, the United States would
undoubtedly be involved on the side of the Allies. But in view of my
official position, I could not properly make such a statement without
instructions from Washington, and these I never received."[20]?
The fateful British pledge to Poland of 31 March 1939 to go to war
against Germany in case of a Polish-German conflict would not have
been made without strong pressure from the White House?
In their nationally syndicated column of 14 April 1939, the usually
very well informed Washington journalists Drew Pearson and Robert S.
Allen reported that on 16 March 1939 Roosevelt had "sent a virtual
ultimatum to Chamberlain" demanding that henceforth the British
government strongly oppose Germany. According to Pearson and Allen,
who completely supported Roosevelt's move, "the President warned that
Britain could expect no more support, moral or material through the
sale of airplanes, if the Munich policy continued."[22] Chamberlain
gave in and the next day, 17 March, ended Britain's policy of
cooperation with Germany in a speech at Birmingham bitterly denouncing
Hitler. Two weeks later the British government formally pledged itself
to war in case of German-Polish hostilities?
In a confidential telegram to Washington dated 9 April 1939, Bullitt
reported from Paris on another conversation with Ambassador
Lukasiewicz. He had told the Polish envoy that although U.S. law
prohibited direct financial aid to Poland, it might be possible to
circumvent its provisions. The Roosevelt administration might be able
to supply war planes to Poland indirectly through Britain. "The Polish
Ambassador asked me if it might not be possible for Poland to obtain
financial help and aeroplanes from the United States. I replied that I
believed the Johnson Act would forbid any loans from the United States
to Poland but added that it might be possible for England to purchase
planes for cash in the United States and turn them over to
Poland."[24]
On 25 April 1939, four months before the outbreak of war, Bullitt
called American newspaper columnist Karl von Wiegand, chief European
correspondent of the International News Service, to the U.S. embassy
in Paris and told him: "War in Europe has been decided upon. Poland
has the assurance of the support of Britain and France, and will yield
to no demands from Germany. America will be in the war soon after
Britain and France enter it."[25]
In a lengthy secret conversation at Hyde Park on 28 May 1939,
Roosevelt assured the former President of Czechoslovakia, Dr. Edvard
Benes, that America would actively intervene on the side of Britain
and France in the anticipated European war.[26]
In June 1939, Roosevelt secretly proposed to the British that the
United States should establish "a patrol over the waters of the
Western Atlantic with a view to denying them to the German Navy in the
event of war." The British Foreign Office record of this offer noted
that "although the proposal was vague and woolly and open to certain
objections, we assented informally as the patrol was to be operated in
our interests."[27]
Many years after the war, Georges Bonnet, the French Foreign Minister
in 1939, confirmed Bullitt's role as Roosevelt's deputy in pushing his
country into war. In a letter to Hamilton Fish dated 26 March 1971,
Bonnet wrote: "One thing is certain is that Bullitt in 1939 did
everything he could to make France enter the war."[28] An important
confirmation of the crucial role of Roosevelt and the Jews in pushing
Britain into war comes from the diary of James V. Forrestal, the first
U.S. Secretary of Defense. In his entry for 27 December 1945, he
wrote:
Played golf today with [former Ambassador] Joe Kennedy. I asked him
about his conversations with Roosevelt and [British Prime Minister]
Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. 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 [William] 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. Bullitt, he said,
kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn't fight; Kennedy that
they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says,
stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the
war. In his telephone conversations with Roosevelt in the summer of
1939, the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain's
backside.[29]?
"In the West," the Ambassador told Szembek, "there are all kinds of
elements openly pushing for war: the Jews, the super-capitalists, the
arms dealers. Today they are all ready for a great business, because
they have found a place which can be set on fire: Danzig; and a nation
that is ready to fight: Poland. They want to do business on our backs.
They are indifferent to the destruction of our country. Indeed, since
everything will have to be rebuilt later on, they can profit from that
as well."[30]
On 24 August 1939, just a week before the outbreak of hostilities,
Chamberlain's closest advisor, Sir Horace Wilson, went to Ambassador
Kennedy with an urgent appeal from the British Prime Minister for
President Roosevelt. Regretting that Britain had unequivocally
obligated itself in March to Poland in case of war, Chamberlain now
turned in despair to Roosevelt as a last hope for peace. He wanted the
American President to "put pressure on the Poles" to change course at
this late hour and open negotiations with Germany. By telephone
Kennedy told the State Department that the British "felt that they
could not, given their obligations, do anything of this sort but that
we could." Presented with this extraordinary opportunity to possibly
save the peace of Europe, Roosevelt rejected Chamberlain's desperate
plea out of hand. At that, Kennedy reported, the Prime Minister lost
all hope. "The futility of it all," Chamberlain had told Kennedy, "is
the thing that is frightful. After all, we cannot save the Poles. We
can merely carry on a war of revenge that will mean the destruction of
all Europe."[31]?
But Roosevelt rejected out of hand this chance to save the peace of
Europe. To a close political crony, he called Kennedy's plea "the
silliest message to me that I have ever received." He complained to
Henry Morgenthau that his London Ambassador was nothing but a pain in
the neck: "Joe has been an appeaser and will always be an appeaser ...
If Germany and Italy made a good peace offer tomorrow, Joe would start
working on the King and his friend the Queen and from there on down to
get everybody to accept it."[33]
Infuriated at Kennedy's stubborn efforts to restore peace in Europe or
at least limit the conflict that had broken out, Roosevelt instructed
his Ambassador with a "personal" and "strictly confidential" telegram
on 11 September 1939 that any American peace effort was totally out of
the question. The Roosevelt government, it declared, "sees no
opportunity nor occasion for any peace move to be initiated by the
President of the United States. The people [sic] of the United States
would not support any move for peace initiated by this Government that
would consolidate or make possible a survival of a regime of force and
aggression."[34]
In the months before armed conflict broke out in Europe, perhaps the
most vigorous and prophetic American voice of warning against
President Roosevelt's campaign to incite war was that of Hamilton
Fish, a leading Republican congressman from New York. In a series of
hard-hitting radio speeches, Fish rallied considerable public opinion
against Roosevelt's deceptive war policy. Here are only a few excerpts
from some of those addresses.[35]
On 6 January 1939, Fish told a nationwide radio audience:
The inflammatory and provocative message of the President to Congress
and the world [given two days before] has unnecessarily alarmed the
American people and created, together with a barrage of propaganda
emanating from high New Deal officials, a war hysteria, dangerous to
the peace of America and the world. The only logical conclusion to
such speeches is another war fought overseas by American soldiers.
All the totalitarian nations referred to by President Roosevelt ...
haven't the faintest thought of making war on us or invading Latin
America.
I do not propose to mince words on such an issue, affecting the life,
liberty and happiness of our people. The time has come to call a halt
to the warmongers of the New Deal, backed by war profiteers,
Communists, and hysterical internationalists, who want us to
quarantine the world with American blood and money.
He [Roosevelt] evidently desires to whip up a frenzy of hate and war
psychosis as a red herring to take the minds of our people off their
own unsolved domestic problems. He visualizes hobgoblins and creates
in the public mind a fear of foreign invasions that exists only in his
own imagination.
On 5 March, Fish spoke to the country over the Columbia radio network:
The people of France and Great Britain want peace but our warmongers
are constantly inciting them to disregard the Munich Pact and resort
to the arbitrament of arms. If only we would stop meddling in foreign
lands the old nations of Europe would compose their own quarrels by
arbitration and the processes of peace, but apparently we won't let
them.
Fish addressed the listeners of the National Broadcasting Company
network on 5 April with these words:
The youth of America are again being prepared for another blood bath
in Europe in order to make the world safe for democracy.
If Hitler and the Nazi government regain Memel or Danzig, taken away
from Germany by the Versailles Treaty, and where the population is 90
percent German, why is it necessary to issue threats and denunciations
and incite our people to war? I would not sacrifice the life of one
American soldier for a half dozen Memels or Danzigs. We repudiated the
Versailles Treaty because it was based on greed and hatred, and as
long as its inequalities and injustices exist there are bound to be
wars of liberation.
The sooner certain provisions of the Versailles Treaty are scrapped
the better for the peace of the world.
I believe that if the areas that are distinctly German in population
are restored to Germany, except Alsace-Lorraine and the Tyrol, there
will be no war in western Europe. There may be a war between the Nazis
and the Communists, but if there is that is not our war or that of
Great Britain or France or any of the democracies.
New Deal spokesmen have stirred up war hysteria into a veritable
frenzy. The New Deal propaganda machine is working overtime to prepare
the minds of our people for war, who are already suffering from a bad
case of war jitters.
President Roosevelt is the number one warmonger in America, and is
largely responsible for the fear that pervades the Nation which has
given the stock market and the American people a bad case of the
jitters.
I accuse the administration of instigating war propaganda and hysteria
to cover up the failure and collapse of the New Deal policies, with 12
million unemployed and business confidence destroyed.
I believe we have far more to fear from our enemies from within than
we have from without. All the Communists are united in urging us to go
to war against Germany and Japan for the benefit of Soviet Russia.
Great Britain still expects every American to do her duty, by
preserving the British Empire and her colonies. The war profiteers,
munitions makers and international bankers are all set up for our
participation in a new world war.
On 21 April, Fish again spoke to the country over nationwide radio:
It is the duty of all those Americans who desire to keep out of
foreign entanglements and the rotten mess and war madness of Europe
and Asia to openly expose the war hysteria and propaganda that is
impelling us to armed conflict.
What we need in America is a stop war crusade, before we are forced
into a foreign war by internationalists and interventionists at
Washington, who seem to be more interested in solving world problems
rather than our own.
In his radio address of 26 May, Fish stated:
He [Roosevelt] should remember that the Congress has the sole power to
declare war and formulate the foreign policies of the United States.
The President has no such constitutional power. He is merely the
official organ to carry out the policies determined by the Congress.
Without knowing even who the combatants will be, we are informed
almost daily by the internationalists and interventionists in America
that we must participate in the next world war.
On 8 July 1939, Fish declared over the National Broadcasting Company
radio network:
If we must go to war, let it be in defense of America, but not in
defense of the munitions makers, war profiteers, Communists, to cover
up the failures of the New Deal, or to provide an alibi for a third
term.
It is well for all nations to know that we do not propose to go to war
over Danzig, power politics, foreign colonies, or the imperialistic
wars of Europe or anywhere in the world.
President Roosevelt could have done little to incite war in Europe
without help from powerful allies. Behind him stood the self-serving
international financial and Jewish interests bent on the destruction
of Germany. The principal organization which drummed up public support
for U.S. involvement in the European war prior to the Pearl Harbor
attack was the cleverly named "Committee to Defend America by Aiding
the Allies." President Roosevelt himself initiated its founding, and
top administration officials consulted frequently with Committee
leaders.[36]
Although headed for a time by an elderly small-town Kansas newspaper
publisher, William Allen White, the Committee was actually organized
by powerful financial interests which stood to profit tremendously
from loans to embattled Britain and from shrewd investments in giant
war industries in the United States.
At the end of 1940, West Virginia Senator Rush D. Holt issued a
detailed examination of the Committee which exposed the base interests
behind the idealistic-sounding slogans:
The Committee has powerful connections with banks, insurance
companies, financial investing firms, and industrial concerns. These
in turn exert influence on college presidents and professors, as well
as on newspapers, radio and other means of communication. One of the
powerful influences used by the group is the '400' and social set. The
story is a sordid picture of betrayal of public interest.
The powerful J.P. Morgan interest with its holdings in the British
Empire helped plan the organization and donated its first expense
money.
Some of the important figures active in the Committee were revealed by
Holt: Frederic R. Coudert, a paid war propagandist for the British
government in the U.S. during the First World War; Robert S. Allen of
the Pearson and Allen syndicated column; Henry R. Luce, the
influential publisher of Time, Life, and Fortune magazines; Fiorella
LaGuardia, the fiery half-Jewish Mayor of Now York City; Herbert
Lehman, the Jewish Governor of New York with important financial
holdings in war industries; and Frank Altschul, an officer in the
Jewish investment firm of Lazard Freres with extensive holdings in
munitions and military supply companies.
If the Committee succeeded in getting the U.S. into war, Holt warned,
"American boys will spill their blood for profiteers, politicians and
'paytriots.' If war comes, on the hands of the sponsors of the White
Committee will be blood-the blood of Americans killed in a needless
war."[37]
In March 1941 a list of most of the Committee's financial backers was
made public. It revealed the nature of the forces eager to bring
America into the European war. Powerful international banking
interests were well represented. J.P. Morgan, John W. Morgan, Thomas
W. Lamont and others of the great Morgan banking house were listed.
Other important names from the New York financial world included Mr.
and Mrs. Paul Mellon, Felix M. and James F. Warburg, and J. Malcolm
Forbes. Chicago department store owner and publisher Marshall Field
was a contributor, as was William Averill Harriman, the railroad and
investment millionaire who later served as Roosevelt's ambassador in
Moscow.
Of course, Jewish names made up a substantial portion of the long
list. Hollywood film czar Samuel Goldwyn of Goldwyn Studios was there,
along with David Dubinsky, the head of the International Ladies
Garment Workers Union. The William S. Paley Foundation, which had been
set up by the head of the giant Columbia Broadcasting System,
contributed to the Committee. The name of Mrs. Herbert H. Lehman, wife
of the New York Governor, was also on the list.[38]
Without an understanding of his intimate ties to organized Jewry,
Roosevelt's policies make little sense. As Jewish historian Lucy
Dawidowicz noted: "Roosevelt himself brought into his immediate circle
more Jews than any other President before or after him. Felix
Frankfurter, Bernard M. Baruch and Henry Morgenthau were his close
advisers. Benjamin V. Cohen, Samuel Rosenman and David K. Niles were
his friends and trusted aides."[39] This is perhaps not so remarkable
in light of Roosevelt's reportedly one-eighth Jewish ancestry.[40]
In his diary entry of 1 May 1941, Charles A. Lindbergh, the American
aviator hero and peace leader, nailed the coalition that was pushing
the United States into war:
The pressure for war is high and mounting. The people are opposed to
it, but the Administration seems to have 'the bit in its teeth' and
[is] hell-bent on its way to war. Most of the Jewish interests in the
country are behind war, and they control a huge part of our press and
radio and most of our motion pictures. There are also the
'intellectuals,' and the 'Anglophiles,' and the British agents who are
allowed free rein, the international financial interests, and many
others.[41]
Joseph Kennedy shared Lindbergh's apprehensions about Jewish power.
Before the outbreak of war he privately expressed concerns about "the
Jews who dominate our press" and world Jewry in general, which he
considered a threat to peace and prosperity. Shortly after the
beginning of hostilities, Kennedy lamented "the growing Jewish
influence in the press and in Washington demanding continuance of the
war "[42]
Roosevelt's efforts to get Poland, Britain and France into war against
Germany succeeded all too well. The result was untold death and misery
and destruction. When the fighting began, as Roosevelt had intended
and planned, the Polish and French leaders expected the American
president to at least make good on his assurances of backing in case
of war. But Roosevelt had not reckoned on the depth of peace sentiment
of the vast majority of Americans. So, in addition to deceiving his
own people, Roosevelt also let down those in Europe to whom he had
promised support.
Seldom in American history were the people as united in their views as
they were in late 1939 about staying out of war in Europe. When
hostilities began in September 1939, the Gallup poll showed 94 percent
of the American people against involvement in war. That figure rose to
96.5 percent in December before it began to decline slowly to about 80
percent in the Fall of 1941. (Today, there is hardly an issue that
even 60 or 70 percent of the people agree upon.)[43]
Roosevelt was, of course, quite aware of the intensity of popular
feeling on this issue. That is why he lied repeatedly to the American
people about his love of peace and his determination to keep the U.S.
out of war, while simultaneously doing everything in his power to
plunge Europe and America into war.
In a major 1940 re-election campaign speech, Roosevelt responded to
the growing fears of millions of Americans who suspected that their
President had secretly pledged United States support to Britain in its
war against Germany. These well-founded suspicions were based in part
on the publication in March of the captured Polish documents. The
speech of 23 October 1940 was broadcast from Philadelphia to the
nation on network radio. In the most emphatic language possible,
Roosevelt categorically denied that he had
pledged in some way the participation of the United States in some
foreign war. I give to you and to the people of this country this most
solemn assurance: There is no secret Treaty, no secret understanding
in any shape or form, direct or indirect, with any Government or any
other nation in any part of the world, to involve this nation in any
war or for any other purpose.[44]
We now know, of course, that this pious declaration was just another
one of Roosevelt's many brazen, bald-faced lies to the American
people.
Roosevelt's policies were more than just dishonest-they were criminal.
The Constitution of the United States grants authority only to the
Congress to make war and peace. And Congress had passed several major
laws to specifically insure U.S. neutrality in case of war in Europe.
Roosevelt continually violated his oath as President to uphold the
Constitution. If his secret policies had been known, the public demand
for his impeachment would very probably have been unstoppable.
The Watergate episode has made many Americans deeply conscious of the
fact that their presidents can act criminally. That affair forced
Richard Nixon to resign his presidency, and he is still widely
regarded as a criminal. No schools are named after him and his name
will never receive the respect that normally goes to every American
president. But Nixon's crimes pale into insignificance when compared
to those of Franklin Roosevelt. What were Nixon's lies compared to
those of Roosevelt? What is a burglary cover-up compared to an illegal
and secret campaign to bring about a major war?
Those who defend Roosevelt's record argue that he lied to the American
people for their own good -- that he broke the law for lofty
principles. His deceit is considered permissible because the cause was
noble, while similar deception by presidents Johnson and Nixon, to
name two, is not. This is, of course, a hypocritical double standard.
And the argument doesn't speak very well for the democratic system. It
implies that the people are too dumb to understand their own best
interests. It further suggests that the best form of government is a
kind of benevolent liberal-democratic dictatorship.
Roosevelt's hatred for Hitler was deep, vehement, passionate -- almost
personal. This was due in no small part to an abiding envy and
jealousy rooted in the great contrast between the two men, not only in
their personal characters but also in their records as national
leaders.
Superficially, the public fives of Roosevelt and Hitler were
astonishingly similar. Both assumed the leadership of their respective
countries at the beginning of 1933. They both faced the enormous
challenge of mass unemployment during a catastrophic worldwide
economic depression. Each became a powerful leader in a vast military
alliance during the most destructive war in history. Both men died
while still in office within a few weeks of each other in April 1945,
just before the end of the Second World War in Europe. But the
enormous contrasts in the lives of these two men are even more
remarkable.
Roosevelt was born into one of the wealthiest families in America. His
was a life utterly free of material worry. He took part in the First
World War from an office in Washington as UnderSecretary of the Navy.
Hitler, on the other hand, was born into a modest provinicial family.
As a young man he worked as an impoverished manual laborer. He served
in the First World War as a front line soldier in the hell of the
Western battleground. He was wounded many times and decorated for
bravery.
In spite of his charming manner and soothing rhetoric, Roosevelt
proved unable to master the great challenges facing America. Even
after four years of his presidency, millions remained unemployed,
undernourished and poorly housed in a vast land richly endowed with
all the resources for incomparable prosperity. The New Deal was
plagued with bitter strikes and bloody clashes between labor and
capital. Roosevelt did nothing to solve the country's deep, festering
racial problems which erupted repeatedly in riots and armed conflict.
The story was very different in Germany. Hitler rallied his people
behind a radical program that transformed Germany within a few years
from an economically ruined land on the edge of civil war into
Europe's powerhouse. Germany underwent a social, cultural and economic
rebirth without parallel in history. The contrast between the
personalities of Roosevelt and Hitler was simultaneously a contrast
between two diametrically different social-political systems and
ideologies.
And yet, it would be incorrect to characterize Roosevelt as merely a
cynical politician and front man for powerful alien interests.
Certainly he did not regard himself as an evil man. He sincerely
believed that he was doing the right and noble thing in pressuring
Britain and France into war against Germany. Like Wilson before him,
and others since, Roosevelt felt himself uniquely qualified and called
upon by destiny to reshape the world according to his vision of an
egalitarian, universalist democracy. He was convinced, as so many
American leaders have been, that the world could be saved from itself
by remodeling it after the United States.
Presidents like Wilson and Roosevelt view the world not as a complex
of different nations, races and cultures which must mutually respect
each others' separate collective identities in order to live together
in peace, but rather according to a selfrighteous missionary
perspective that divides the globe into morally good and evil
countries. In that scheme of things, America is the providentially
permanent leader of the forces of righteousness. Luckily, this view
just happens to correspond to the economic and political interests of
those who wield power in the United States.
President Roosevelt's War
In April 1941, Senator Gerald Nye of North Dakota prophetically
predicted that one day the Second World War would be remembered as
Roosevelt's war. "If we are ever involved in this war, it will be
called by future historians by only one title, 'the President's War,'
because every step of his since his Chicago quarantine speech [of 5
October 1937] has been toward war.[45]
The great American historian, Harry Elmer Barnes, believed that war
could probably have been prevented in 1939 if it had not been for
Roosevelt's meddling. "Indeed, there is fairly conclusive evidence
that, but for Mr. Roosevelt's pressure on Britain, France and Poland,
and his commitments to them before September 1939, especially to
Britain, and the irresponsible antics of his agent provocateur,
William C. Bullitt, there would probably have been no world war in
1939, or, perhaps, for many years thereafter."[46] In Revisionism: A
Key to Peace, Barnes wrote:
President Roosevelt had a major responsibility, both direct and
indirect, for the outbreak of war in Europe. He began to exert
pressure on France to stand up to Hitler as early as the German
reoccupation of the Rhineland in March 1936, months before he was
making his strongly isolationist speeches in the campaign of 1936.
This pressure on France, and also England, continued right down to the
coming of the war in September 1939. It gained volume and momentum
after the quarantine speech of October 1937. As the crisis approached
between Munich and the outbreak of war, Roosevelt pressed the Poles to
stand firm against any demands by Germany, and urged the English and
French to back up the Poles unflinchingly.
There is grave doubt that England would have gone to war in September
1939 had it not been for Roosevelt's encouragement and his assurances
that, in the event of war, the United States would enter on the side
of Britain just as soon as he could swing American public opinion
around to support intervention.
Roosevelt had abandoned all semblance of neutrality, even before war
broke out in 1939, and moved as speedily as was safe and feasible in
the face of anti-interventionist American public opinion to involve
this country in the European conflict.[47]
One of the most perceptive verdicts on Franklin Roosevelt's place in
history came from the pen of the great Swedish explorer and author,
Sven Hedin. During the war he wrote:
The question of the way it came to a new world war is not only to be
explained because of the foundation laid by the peace treaties of
1919, or in the suppression of Germany and her allies after the First
World War, or in the continuation of the ancient policies of Great
Britain and France. The decisive push came from the other side of the
Atlantic Ocean.
Roosevelt speaks of democracy and destroys it incessantly. He slanders
as undemocratic and un-American those who admonish him in the name of
peace and the preservation of the American way of life. He has made
democracy into a caricature rather than a model. He talks about
freedom of speech and silences those who don't hold his opinion.
He talks about freedom of religion and makes an alliance with
Bolshevism.
He talks about freedom from want, but cannot provide ten million of
his own people with work, bread or shelter. He talks about freedom
from the fear of war while working for war, not only for his own
people but for the world, by inciting his country against the Axis
powers when it might have united with them, and he thereby drove
millions to their deaths.
This war will go down in history as the war of President
Roosevelt.[48]
Officially orchestrated praise for Roosevelt as a great man of peace
cannot conceal forever his crucial role in pushing Europe into war in
1939.
* * * * *
It is now more than forty years since the events described here took
place. For many they are an irrelevant part of a best-forgotten past.
But the story of how Franklin Roosevelt engineered war in Europe is
very pertinent -- particularly for Americans today. The lessons of the
past have never been more important than in this nuclear age. For
unless at least an aware minority understands how and why wars are
made, we will remain powerless to restrain the warmongers of our own
era.
Notes
1. See, for example: Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and
the Coming of the War 1941 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948);
William Henry Chamberlin, America's Second Crusade (Chicago: Regnery,
1952, 1962); Benjamin Colby, 'Twas a Famous Victory (New Rochelle,
N.Y.: Arlington House, 1979); Frederic R. Sanborn, Design for War (New
York: Devin-Adair, 1951); William Stevenson, A Man Called Intrepid
(New York: Ballantine Books, 1980); Charles C. Tansill, Back Door to
War (Chicago: Regnery, 1952); John Toland, Infamy: Pearl Harbor and
Its Aftermath (New York: Doubleday, 1982).
2. Saul Friedlander, Prelude to Downfall: Hitler and the United
States 1939-1941 (New York: Knopf, 1967), pp. 73-77; U.S., Congress,
House, Special Committee on Investigation of Un-American Activities in
the United States, 1940, Appendix, Part II, pp. 1054-1059.
3. Friedlander, pp. 75-76.
4. New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1.
5. Ibid., p. 4, and 31 March 1940, p. 1.
6. New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1. Baltimore Sun, 30 March
1940, p. 1.
7. A French-language edition was published in 1944 under the
title Comment Roosevelt est Entre en Guerre.
8. Tansill, "The United States and the Road to War in Europe," in
Harry Elmer Barnes (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (Caldwell,
Idaho: Caxton, 1953; reprint eds., New York: Greenwood, 1969 and
Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review [supplemented],
1982), p. 184 (note 292). Tansill also quoted from several of the
documents in his Back Door to War, pp. 450-51.
9. Harry Elmer Barnes, The Court Historians Versus Revisionism
(N.p.: privately printed, 1952), p. 10. This booklet is reprinted in
Barnes, Selected Revisionist Pamphlets (New York: Arno Press & The New
York Times, 1972), and in Barnes, The Barnes Trilogy (Torrance,
Calif.: Institute for Historical Review, 1979).
10. Chamberlin, p. 60.
11. Edward Raczynski, In Allied London (London: Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1963), p. 51.
12. Orville H. Bullitt (ad.), For the President: Personal and
Secret (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. x1v [biographical
foreword]. See also Time, 26 October 1936, p. 24.
13. Current Biography 1940, ed. Maxine Block (New York: H.W.
Wilson, 1940), p. 122 ff.
14. Gisleher Wirsing, Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um
die Weltherrschaft (Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942), p. 224.
15. Bullitt obituary in New York Times, 16 February 1967, p. 44.
16. Jack Alexander, "He Rose From the Rich," Saturday Evening
Post, 11 March 1939, p. 6. (Also see continuation in issue of 18 March
1939.) Bullitt's public views on the European scene and what should be
America's attitude toward it can be found in his Report to the
American People (Boston: Houghton Mifflin [Cambridge: Riverside
Press], 1940), the text of a speech he delivered, with the President's
blessing, under the auspices of the American Philosophical Society in
Independence Hall in Philadelphia shortly after the fall of France.
For sheer, hyperventilated stridency and emotionalist hysterics, this
anti-German polemic could hardly be topped, even given the similar
propensities of many other interventionists in government and the
press in those days.
17. Michael R. Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt (New York: Norton,
1980), pp. 203-04.
18. Robert Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign
Policy 1932-1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 31. See
also pp. 164-65.
19. Dispatch No. 349 of 20 September 1938 by Sir. R. Lindsay,
Documents on British Foreign Policy (ed. Ernest L. Woodward), Third
series, Vol. VII (London, 1954), pp. 627-29. See also: Joseph P. Lash,
Roosevelt and Churchill 1939-1941 (New York: Norton, 1976), pp. 25-27;
Dallek, pp. 164-65; Arnold A. Offner, America and the Ori-, gins of
World War II (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971), p. 61.
20. William Phillips, Ventures in Diplomacy (North Beverly, Mass.:
privately published, 1952), pp. 220-21.
21. Carl Burckhardt, Meine Danziger Mission 1937-1939 (Munich:
Callwey, 1960), p. 225.
22. Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen, "Washington Daily
Merry-Go-Round," Washington Times-Herald, 14 April 1939, p. 16. A
facsimile reprint of this column appears in Conrad Grieb (ed.),
American Manifest Destiny and The Holocausts (New York: Examiner
Books, 1979), pp. 132-33. See also: Wirsing, pp. 238-41.
23. Jay P. Moffat, The Moffat Papers 1919-1943 (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1956), p. 232.
24. U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United
States (Diplomatic Papers), 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956),
p. 122.
25. "Von Wiegand Says-," Chicago Herald-American, 8 October 1944,
p. 2.
26. Edvard Benes, Memoirs of Dr. Eduard Benes (London: George
Allen & Unwin, 1954), pp. 79-80.
27. Lash, p. 64.
28. Hamilton Fish, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin (Now York:
Vantage, 1976; Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review,
1980), p. 62.
29. James V. Forrestal (ads. Walter Millis and E.S. Duffield), The
Forrestal Diaries (New York: Viking, 1951), pp. 121-22. I have been
privately informed by a colleague who has examined the original
manuscript of the Forrestal diaries that many very critical references
to the Jews were deleted from the published version.
30. Jan Szembek, Journal 1933-1939 (Paris: Plan, 1952), pp.
475-76.
31. David E. Koskoff, Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times
(Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), p. 207; Moffat, p. 253;
A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (London: Hamish
Hamilton, 1961; 2nd ed. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Premier [paperback],
1965), p. 262; U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the
United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956), p. 355.
32. Dallek, p. 164.
33. Beschloss, pp. 190-91; Lash, p. 75; Koskoff, pp. 212-13.
34. Hull to Kennedy (No. 905), U.S., Department of State, Foreign
Relations of the United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington:
1956), p. 424.
35. The radio addresses of Hamilton Fish quoted here were
published in the Congressional Record Appendix (Washington) as
follows: (6 January 1939) Vol. 84, Part 11, pp. 52-53; (5 March 1939)
same, pp. 846-47; (5 April 1939) Vol. 84, Part 12, pp. 1342-43; (21
April 1939) same, pp. 1642-43; (26 May 1939) Vol. 84, Part 13, pp.
2288-89; (8 July 1939) same, pp. 3127-28.
36. Wayne S. Cole, Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle Against
American Intervention in World War II (New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1974), pp. 128, 136-39.
37. Congressional Record Appendix (Washington: 1941), (30 December
1940) Vol. 86, Part 18, pp. 7019-25. See also: Appendix, Vol. 86, Part
17, pp. 5808-14.
38. New York Times, 11 March 1941, p. 10.
39. Lucy Dawidowicz, "American Jews and the Holocaust," The New
York Times Magazine, 18 April 1982, p. 102.
40. "FDR 'had a Jewish great-grandmother'" Jewish Chronicle
(London), 5 February 1982, p. 3.
41. Charles A. Lindbergh, The Wartime Journals of Charles A.
Lindbergh (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970), p. 481.
42. Koskoff, pp. 282, 212. The role of the American press in
fomenting hatred against Germany between 1933 and 1939 is a subject
that deserves much more detailed treatment. Charles Tansill provides
some useful information on this in Back Door to War. The essay by
Professor Hans A. Muenster, "Die Kriegsschuld der Presse der USA" in
Kriegsschuld und Presse, published in 1944 by the German
Reichsdozentenfuehrung, is worth consulting.
43. An excellent essay relating and contrasting American public
opinion measurements to Roosevelt's foreign policy moves in 1939-41 is
Harry Elmer Barnes, Was Roosevelt Pushed Into War By Popular Demand in
1941? (N.p.: privately printed, 1951). It is reprinted in Barnes,
Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
44. Lash, p. 240.
45. New York Times, 27 April 1941, p. 19.
46. Harry Elmer Barnes, The Struggle Against the Historical
Blackout, 2nd ed. (N.p.: privately published, ca. 1948), p. 12. See
also the 9th, final revised and enlarged edition (N.p.: privately
published, ca. 1954), p. 34; this booklet is reprinted in Barnes,
Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.
47. Harry Elmer Barnes, "Revisionism: A Key to Peace," Rampart
Journal of Individualist Thought Vol. II, No. 1 (Spring 1966), pp.
29-30. This article was republished in Barnes, Revisionism: A Key to
Peace and Other Essays (San Francisco: Cato Institute [Cato Paper No.
12], 1980).
48. Sven Hedin, Amerika im Kampf der Kontinente (Leipzig: F.A.
Brockhaus, 1943), p. 54.
Bibliography
Listed here are the published editions of the Polish documents, the
most important sources touching on the questions of their authenticity
and content, and essential recent sources on what President Roosevelt
was really-as opposed to publicly-doing and thinking during the
prelude to war. Full citations for all references in the article will
be found in the notes.
Beschloss, Michael R. Kennedy and Roosevelt. New York: Norton, 1980.
Bullitt, Orville H. (ed.). For the President: Personal and Secret.
[Correspondence between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt.]
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.
Germany. Foreign Office Archive Commission. Roosevelts Weg in den
Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten der
Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 1943.
Germany. Foreign Office. The German White Paper. [White Book No. 3.]
New York: Howell, Soskin and Co., 1940.
Germany. Foreign Office. Polnische Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte des
Kriegs. [White Book No. 3.] Berlin: F. Eher, 1940.
Koskoff, David E. Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974.
Lukasiewicz, Juliusz (Waclaw Jedrzejewicz, ed.). Diplomat in Paris
1936-1939. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970.
Wirsing, Giselher. Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um die
Weltherrschaft. Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942.
Germany had a legitimate claim against France, the earlier
government of which had plenty to do with the start of WW I, and
France took unfair reparations from Germany for that war, not because
France was much less culpable in the beginning of it, but because they
lost on the battlefield, and when they won with the allies, they could
do so. So why did Hitler have the Sudutenland and Poland invaded?
Because he needed a war for the economy, and to begin to use what
otherwise would have been useless.
Poland was doing everything it could to provoke war. They were led by
the Jews.
An economic improvement for whom?
For Germans:
By Walter Ruthard
I myself was brought up in a small village in the southwest of
Germany. In 1939, when the war broke out, we left for the less exposed
Odenwald area until the possible danger of a French invasion had
passed. Shortly after that my father was transferred to the Ruhr
region. He as requested work as a foreman for the Mauser arms factory.
The government, true to their claims to be national and socialist,
took their promises seriously and provided young people starting a
family, as well as those who already had children, with affordable
housing. The first child brought a reduction of the mortgage by 25
percent, and when the fourth child arrived the mortgage was no more.
My parents already had four children then and thus were eligible for a
free newly built house from the government.
This was but one of the many programs the government established in
order to improve the quality of life for its citizens..
Then there was the "Kinderlandverschickung" program. It was started
before the war and enabled mothers in need of recreation to spend some
time in rural settings together with their children..
Another very popular social program of the government was "Kraft
durch Freude" (strength through joy). Here deserving workers could
take all-inclusive tours on luxury liners that were built especially
for this purpose. On these ships there was only one class and
everybody was treated the same. They visited the Azores and
Spitsbergen among other places. Those ships were not allowed to dock
in and English port however. The reason was that the British
government did not want it's citizens to see what it also could have
done for them..
The most misinterpreted program in Germany was the so-called
"Lebensborn". It was the exact opposite of what people are made to
believe it was, or should I say, of what people like to believe.. The
Lebensborn was the institution to help unwed mothers who did not know
where to turn for help. They were taken care of during their
pregnancies and afterward as well. This was the Lebensborn, and any
other interpretation is plain hogwash..
My father was able to buy not one but three guns plus two pistols,
together with plenty of ammunition. All it took him was proof that he
was indeed a German citizen without a criminal record. Then in 1945,
when the French "liberated" us, they disarmed him. I know that he was
not the only one to have guns at home, because I saw the many, many
arms that were handed over to the French, and this was in a very small
village..
Then, after the war was over, we had our first experience with a real
democracy. The French introduced it and gave us some shining examples;
one was that the lived off the country and stole everything which
wasn't nailed down..
It was not until many years later that I learned that Hitler held at
least five plebiscites during the first half of his rule. In
democratic Germany, from 1945 until today there has never been a
plebiscite.
There were foreign workers employed in Germany during WWII. I knew
one of them. He worked on a farm and was treated exactly like the son
who was in the army. After the war he stayed on and married the
daughter of the house. He was a prisoner of war from Poland and I
never saw him guarded by any policeman. This is how foreigners were
treated in Germany. They earned the same wages as the Germans, they
took part in the social insurance program, had paid-for holidays
including free train fares, and many came back with friends who also
wanted to work for these "horrible" Germans. Today they are called
slave laborer.
Not everyone was entitled to go on to a university. Only good marks
and above-average performance in schools qualified. But good
performers were promoted with all means available. Today we are much
more democratic; everyone is entitled to a university education and if
the parents are wealthy enough, the son or daughter can study until
they are 35..
Germany was also the country to introduce, in 1933, the first-ever
comprehensive animal protection law. Farm animals had to be kept in
strictly natural environments and no animal factories were allowed. Of
course, no testing of products on animals was permitted, and no kosher
slaughter.
If new industrial facilities were built they had to conform to the
highest standards with adequate lighting and air inside, canteens
where the workers were served nutritious meals at affordable prices,
and beautiful lawns outside: all for the benefit of the workers.. In
national socialist Germany, no child labor was allowed as it still was
in other European countries.
And finally, although I could still go on for a while, I would like to
mention that on express orders from Hitler himself, it was strictly
forbidden to use corporal punishment in the army. He was of the
opinion that in was incompatible with the honor of a German to be
punished by such degrading means.
That was the Germany I grew up in, and I am glad that I did.
Kevin Alfred Strom and his
clique of idiots living in their double wide trailers? Sure, if you
steal something from someone it might benefit you economically, but
your very question there presumes several things. For one, you presume
that a Jew is not a patriotic American, and I suspect you presume many
of the other kinds of things neo nazi types presume about Jews. Why
shouldn't you remove Gentiles like some of the Bush crowd from power?
Bush is a puppet of the Jews and no one like that should have any
power.
The Balfour Declaration was the idea, in writing, that it
would be desirable for Britain to support making a homeland for Jews
in Palestine. The rest is neo nazi political theory of what happened
leading up to that.
Germany and the Jews
The Role of the Jews in WWI and WWII
Speech By: Benjamin H. Freedman
1961
Introductory Note:
Benjamin H. Freedman was born of Jewish parents in 1890. He became a
successful businessman in New York City, and was at one time the
principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized
Jewry after World War II, and spent the remainder of his life and at
least 2.5 million dollars publicizing the facts of Jewish influence on
the United States. Mr. Freedman knew. He had been an insider at the
highest levels of Jewish organizations, and was personally acquainted
with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin
Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, and John F. Kennedy, and many more of the
movers and shakers of his time.
This speech was given in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington,
D.C., on behalf of a newspaper of that time, Common Sense.
Here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have
complete control of our government. For many reasons, too many and too
complex to go into here at this time, the Zionists and their co-
religionists rule these United States as though they were the absolute
monarchs of this country. Now you may say that is a very broad
statement, but let me show you what happened while we were all asleep.
What happened? World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. There are
few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on
one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side
by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.
Within two years Germany had won that war: not only won it nominally,
but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to
the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean. Great
Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, with one
week's food supply -- and after that, starvation. At that time, the
French army had mutinied. They had lost 600,000 of the flower of
French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army
was defecting, they were picking up their toys and going home, they
didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the
Italian army had collapsed.
Not a shot had been fired on German soil. Not one enemy soldier had
crossed the border into Germany. And yet, Germany was offering England
peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the
lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: "Let's call the war
off, and let everything be as it was before the war started." England,
in the summer of 1916 was considering that -- seriously. They had no
choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was
magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being
totally defeated.
While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the
Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and -- I
am going to be brief because it's a long story, but I have all the
documents to prove any statement that I make -- they said: "Look here.
You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to
accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win
this war if the United States will come in as your ally." The United
States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young;
we were rich; we were powerful. They told England: "We will guarantee
to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with
you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the
war." In other words, they made this deal: "We will get the United
States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay is Palestine
after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and
Turkey." Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to
anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland
for any reason whatsoever. It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain,
that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is
known as Palestine should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the
Zionists for bringing the United States into the war. However, they
did make that promise, in October of 1916. And shortly after that -- I
don't know how many here remember it - - the United States, which was
almost totally pro-German, entered the war as Britain's ally.
I say that the United States was almost totally pro-German because the
newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all
the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by
Jews; and they, the Jews, were pro-German. They were pro-German
because many of them had come from Germany, and also they wanted to
see Germany lick the Czar. The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they
didn't want Russia to win this war. These German-Jew bankers, like
Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused
to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood
aside and they said: "As long as France and England are tied up with
Russia, not one cent!" But they poured money into Germany, they fought
beside Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.
Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting
Palestine, went to England and they made this deal. At that time,
everything changed, like a traffic light that changes from red to
green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been
telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having
fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a
sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns.
They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies'
hands. They were no good. Shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war
on Germany.
The Zionists in London had sent cables to the United States, to
Justice Brandeis, saying "Go to work on President Wilson. We're
getting from England what we want. Now you go to work on President
Wilson and get the United States into the war." That's how the United
States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more
right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in
this room. There was absolutely no reason for World War I to be our
war. We were railroaded into -- if I can be vulgar, we were suckered
into -- that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain
Palestine. That is something that the people of the United States have
never been told. They never knew why we went into World War I.
After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they
said: "Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have
something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your
bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war." They didn't know
whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they
started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter,
which was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large
wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour
Declaration.
The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the
Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the
United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that
you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. I
don't think I could make it more emphatic than that.
That is where all the trouble started. The United States got in the
war. The United States crushed Germany. You know what happened. When
the war ended, and the Germans went to Paris for the Paris Peace
Conference in 1919 there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation
representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought
to know. Now what happened? The Jews at that peace conference, when
they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these
nations who claimed a right to a certain part of European territory,
said, "How about Palestine for us?" And they produced, for the first
time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the
Germans, for the first time realized, "Oh, so that was the game!
That's why the United States came into the war." The Germans for the
first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered the
terrific reparations that were slapped onto them, because the Zionists
wanted Palestine and were determined to get it at any cost.
That brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans
realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews
had never been better off in any country in the world than they had
been in Germany. You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times
as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this
country. You had Mr. Balin, who owned the two big steamship lines, the
North German Lloyd's and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr.
Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had
the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers -- the
biggest in the world. The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No
question about that. The Germans felt: "Well, that was quite a
sellout."
It was a sellout that might be compared to this hypothetical
situation: Suppose the United States was at war with the Soviet Union.
And we were winning. And we told the Soviet Union: "Well, let's quit.
We offer you peace terms. Let's forget the whole thing." And all of a
sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And
throwing them into the war brought about our defeat. A crushing
defeat, with reparations the likes of which man's imagination cannot
encompass. Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it
was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the
time we had thought were loyal citizens working with us, were selling
us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China
was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, then, in the
United States against Chinese? I don't think that one of them would
dare show his face on any street. There wouldn't be enough convenient
lampposts to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel.
Well, that's how the Germans felt towards these Jews. They'd been so
nice to them: from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in
Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all
went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated
very nicely. And here they had sold Germany down the river for no
reason at all other than the fact that they wanted Palestine as a
so-called "Jewish commonwealth."
Now Nahum Sokolow, and all the great leaders and great names that you
read about in connection with Zionism today, in 1919, 1920, 1921,
1922, and 1923 wrote in all their papers -- and the press was filled
with their statements -- that the feeling against the Jews in Germany
is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was
brought about by Jewish intercession in bringing the United States
into the war. The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn't that the
Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better
than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer. There was no religious feeling.
There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their
religious belief. It was all political. It was economic. It was
anything but religious. Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went
home and pulled down the shades and said "Shema' Yisroel" or "Our
Father." Nobody cared in Germany any more than they do in the United
States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to
one thing: the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing
defeat.
And World War I had been started against Germany for no reason for
which Germany was responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of
being successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade.
You must remember that Germany at the time of the French Revolution
consisted of 300 small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so
forth. Three hundred separate little political entities. And between
that time, between the times of Napoleon and Bismarck, they were
consolidated into one state. And within 50 years they became one of
the world's great powers. Their navy was rivaling Great Britain's,
they were doing business all over the world, they could under sell
anybody, they could make better products. What happened as a result of
that?
There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia to slap
down Germany. There isn't one historian in the world who can find a
valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the
map politically.
When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat,
they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was
harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown
University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State
Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department
document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew whom Cordell Hull sent to
Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political
prisoners, who wrote back that he found them in very fine condition.
They were in excellent shape, with everybody treated well. And they
were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because
the Jews happened to comprise about 98 per cent of the Communists in
Europe at that time. And there were some priests there, and ministers,
and labor leaders, and Masons, and others who had international
affiliations.
Some background is in order: In 1918-1919 the Communists took over
Bavaria for a few days. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht and a group
of other Jews took over the government for three days. In fact, when
the Kaiser ended the war he fled to Holland because he thought the
Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia and that
he was going to meet the same fate as the Czar. So he fled to Holland
for safety, for security. After the Communist threat in Germany was
quashed, the Jews were still working, trying to get back into their
former status, and the Germans fought them in every way they could
without hurting a single hair on anyone's head. They fought them the
same way that, in this country, the Prohibitionists fought anyone who
was interested in liquor. They didn't fight one another with pistols.
Well, that's the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany. And at
that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans, and there
were only 460,000 Jews. About one half of one per cent of the
population of Germany were Jews. And yet they controlled all the
press, and they controlled most of the economy because they had come
in with cheap money when the mark was devalued and bought up
practically everything.
The Jews tried to keep a lid on this fact. They didn't want the world
to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the
Germans resented that.
The Germans took appropriate action against the Jews. They, shall I
say, discriminated against them wherever they could. They shunned
them. The same way that we would shun the Chinese, or the Negroes, or
the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an
enemy and brought about our defeat.
After a while, the Jews of the world called a meeting in Amsterdam.
Jews from every country in the world attended this meeting in July
1933. And they said to Germany: "You fire Hitler, and you put every
Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist or no
matter what he was. You can't treat us that way. And we, the Jews of
the world, are serving an ultimatum upon you." You can imagine what
the Germans told them. So what did the Jews do?
In 1933, when Germany refused to surrender to the world conference of
Jews in Amsterdam, the conference broke up, and Mr. Samuel Untermyer,
who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the
whole conference, came to the United States and went from the steamer
to the studios of the Columbia Broadcasting System and made a radio
broadcast throughout the United States in which he in effect said,
"The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We are
now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are going
to starve them into surrender. We are going to use a world-wide
boycott against them. That will destroy them because they are
dependent upon their export business." And it is a fact that two
thirds of Germany's food supply had to be imported, and it could only
be imported with the proceeds of what they exported. So if Germany
could not export, two thirds of Germany's population would have to
starve. There was just not enough food for more than one third of the
population. Now in this declaration, which I have here, and which was
printed in the New York Times on August 7, 1933, Mr. Samuel Untermyer
boldly stated that "this economic boycott is our means of
self-defense. President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the
National Recovery Administration," which some of you may remember,
where everybody was to be boycotted unless he followed the rules laid
down by the New Deal, and which was declared unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court of that time. Nevertheless, the Jews of the world
declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you
couldn't find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the
words "made in Germany" on it. In fact, an executive of the Woolworth
Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of
crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted
if anyone came in and found a dish marked "made in Germany," they were
picketed with signs saying "Hitler," "murderer," and so forth,
something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South. At a
store belonging to the R. H. Macy chain, which was controlled by a
family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews, a woman found
stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked "made in Germany."
Well, they were cotton stockings and they may have been there 20
years, since I've been observing women's legs for many years and it's
been a long time since I've seen any cotton stockings on them. I saw
Macy's boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs
saying "murderers," "Hitlerites," and so forth. Now up to that time,
not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There
was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there
was nothing.
Naturally, the Germans said, "Who are these people to declare a
boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and make our
industries come to a standstill? Who are they to do that to us?" They
naturally resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores
owned by Jews. Why should a German go in and give his money to a
storekeeper who was part of a boycott that was going to starve Germany
into surrendering to the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate
who their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was ridiculous.
The boycott continued for some time, but it wasn't until 1938, when a
young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot
a German official, that the Germans really started to get rough with
the Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and
having street fights and so forth.
Now I don't like to use the word "anti-Semitism" because it's
meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I'll have to use
it. The only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews
was that they were responsible for World War I and for this world-wide
boycott. Ultimately they were also responsible for World War II,
because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary
for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was
going to survive. In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew
that the Germans had decided that Europe is going to be Christian or
Communist: there is no in between. And the Germans decided they were
going to keep it Christian if possible. And they started to re-arm. In
November 1933 the United States recognized the Soviet Union. The
Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized that
"Our turn was going to come soon, unless we are strong." The same as
we in this country are saying today, "Our turn is going to come soon,
unless we are strong." Our government is spending 83 or 84 billion
dollars for defense. Defense against whom? Defense against 40,000
little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their
devious ways, took over control of many other countries of the world.
For this country now to be on the verge of a Third World War, from
which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my
imagination. I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of
megatons. A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of
TNT. Our nuclear bombs had a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million
tons of TNT, when they were first developed. Now, the nuclear bombs
that are being developed have a capacity of 200 megatons, and God
knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union have.
What do we face now? If we trigger a world war that may develop into a
nuclear war, humanity is finished. Why might such a war take place? It
will take place as the curtain goes up on Act 3: Act 1 was World War
I, Act 2 was World War II, Act 3 is going to be World War III. The
Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere,
are determined that they are going to again use the United States to
help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their
world government. That is just as true as I am standing here. Not
alone have I read it, but many here have also read it, and it is known
all over the world.
What are we going to do? The life you save may be your son's. Your
boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you don't know it
any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal
with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did
you know it at that time? Not a person in the United States knew it.
You weren't permitted to know it. Who knew it? President Wilson knew
it. Colonel House knew it. Other insiders knew it.
Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was
liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President
Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there. I was
"confidential man" to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the
finance committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the
treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the
head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into
President Wilson's brain the graduated income tax and what has become
the Federal Reserve, and I heard them indoctrinate him with the
Zionist movement. Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as
close as the two fingers on this hand. President Woodrow Wilson was
just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a
newborn baby. That is how they got us into World War I, while we all
slept. They sent our boys over there to be slaughtered. For what? So
the Jews can have Palestine as their "commonwealth." They've fooled
you so much that you don't know whether you're coming or going.
Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, "Gentlemen, any witness
who you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his
testimony." I don't know what state you come from, but in New York
state that is the way a judge addresses a jury. If that witness told
one lie, disregard his testimony.
What are the facts about the Jews? (I call them Jews to you, because
they are known as Jews. I don't call them Jews myself. I refer to them
as so-called Jews, because I know what they are.) The eastern European
Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world's population of those people
who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars. They were a warlike
tribe who lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were so warlike
that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe.
They set up a large Khazar kingdom of 800,000 square miles. At the
time, Russia did not exist, nor did many other European countries. The
Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe -- so big and so
powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars
would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That's how big and powerful they
were.
They were phallic worshippers, which is filthy and I do not want to go
into the details of that now. But that was their religion, as it was
also the religion of many other pagans and barbarians elsewhere in the
world. The Khazar king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his
kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith --
either Christianity, Islam, or what is known today as Judaism, which
is really Talmudism. By spinning a top, and calling out "eeny, meeny,
miney, moe," he picked out so-called Judaism. And that became the
state religion. He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and
Sura and brought up thousands of rabbis, and opened up synagogues and
schools, and his people became what we call Jews. There wasn't one of
them who had an ancestor who ever put a toe in the Holy Land. Not only
in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one
of them! And yet they come to the Christians and ask us to support
their armed insurrections in Palestine by saying, "You want to help
repatriate God's Chosen People to their Promised Land, their ancestral
home, don't you? It's your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys
as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on Sunday, and you kneel
and you worship a Jew, and we're Jews." But they are pagan Khazars who
were converted just the same as the Irish were converted. It is as
ridiculous to call them "people of the Holy Land," as it would be to
call the 54 million Chinese Moslems "Arabs." Mohammed only died in 620
A.D., and since then 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their
religious belief. Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia,
from Mecca and Mohammed's birthplace. Imagine if the 54 million
Chinese decided to call themselves "Arabs." You would say they were
lunatics. Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs
must be crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith a belief
that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia. The same as the Irish. When
the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and
imported to the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants. They hadn't
become a different people. They were the same people, but they had
accepted Christianity as a religious faith.
These Khazars, these pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns, were a
Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe.
Because their king took the Talmudic faith, they had no choice in the
matter. Just the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody
had to be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So the
Khazars became what we call today Jews. Now imagine how silly it was
for the great Christian countries of the world to say, "We're going to
use our power and prestige to repatriate God's Chosen People to their
ancestral homeland, their Promised Land." Could there be a bigger lie
than that? Because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the
radio, the television, the book publishing business, and because they
have the ministers in the pulpit and the politicians on the soapboxes
talking the same language, it is not too surprising that you believe
that lie. You'd believe black is white if you heard it often enough.
You wouldn't call black black anymore -- you'd start to call black
white. And nobody could blame you.
That is one of the great lies of history. It is the foundation of all
the misery that has befallen the world.
Do you know what Jews do on the Day of Atonement, that you think is so
sacred to them? I was one of them. This is not hearsay. I'm not here
to be a rabble-rouser. I'm here to give you facts. When, on the Day of
Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, you stand up for the very first
prayer that you recite. It is the only prayer for which you stand. You
repeat three times a short prayer called the Kol Nidre. In that
prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath,
vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months shall
be null and void. The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be
a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force or
effect. And further, the Talmud teaches that whenever you take an
oath, vow, or pledge, you are to remember the Kol Nidre prayer that
you recited on the Day of Atonement, and you are exempted from
fulfilling them. How much can you depend on their loyalty? You can
depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in
1916. We are going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and
for the same reason.
The above speech was given by Benjamin H. Freedman at the Willard
Hotel in Washington, D. C. in 1961.
Other books and tapes on this subject are available from:
National Vanguard Books <http://www.natall.com/free-speech/ >
Germany and the Jews
The Role of the Jews in WWI and WWII
Speech By: Benjamin H. Freedman
1961
Introductory Note:
Benjamin H. Freedman was born of Jewish parents in 1890. He became a
successful businessman in New York City, and was at one time the
principal owner of the Woodbury Soap Company. He broke with organized
Jewry after World War II, and spent the remainder of his life and at
least 2.5 million dollars publicizing the facts of Jewish influence on
the United States. Mr. Freedman knew. He had been an insider at the
highest levels of Jewish organizations, and was personally acquainted
with Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin
Roosevelt, Joseph Kennedy, and John F. Kennedy, and many more of the
movers and shakers of his time.
This speech was given in 1961 at the Willard Hotel in Washington,
D.C., on behalf of a newspaper of that time, Common Sense.
Here in the United States, the Zionists and their co-religionists have
complete control of our government. For many reasons, too many and too
complex to go into here at this time, the Zionists and their co-
religionists rule these United States as though they were the absolute
monarchs of this country. Now you may say that is a very broad
statement, but let me show you what happened while we were all asleep.
What happened? World War I broke out in the summer of 1914. There are
few people here my age who remember that. Now that war was waged on
one side by Great Britain, France, and Russia; and on the other side
by Germany, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey.
Within two years Germany had won that war: not only won it nominally,
but won it actually. The German submarines, which were a surprise to
the world, had swept all the convoys from the Atlantic Ocean. Great
Britain stood there without ammunition for her soldiers, with one
week's food supply -- and after that, starvation. At that time, the
French army had mutinied. They had lost 600,000 of the flower of
French youth in the defense of Verdun on the Somme. The Russian army
was defecting, they were picking up their toys and going home, they
didn't want to play war anymore, they didn't like the Czar. And the
Italian army had collapsed.
Not a shot had been fired on German soil. Not one enemy soldier had
crossed the border into Germany. And yet, Germany was offering England
peace terms. They offered England a negotiated peace on what the
lawyers call a status quo ante basis. That means: "Let's call the war
off, and let everything be as it was before the war started." England,
in the summer of 1916 was considering that -- seriously. They had no
choice. It was either accepting this negotiated peace that Germany was
magnanimously offering them, or going on with the war and being
totally defeated.
While that was going on, the Zionists in Germany, who represented the
Zionists from Eastern Europe, went to the British War Cabinet and -- I
am going to be brief because it's a long story, but I have all the
documents to prove any statement that I make -- they said: "Look here.
You can yet win this war. You don't have to give up. You don't have to
accept the negotiated peace offered to you now by Germany. You can win
this war if the United States will come in as your ally." The United
States was not in the war at that time. We were fresh; we were young;
we were rich; we were powerful. They told England: "We will guarantee
to bring the United States into the war as your ally, to fight with
you on your side, if you will promise us Palestine after you win the
war." In other words, they made this deal: "We will get the United
States into this war as your ally. The price you must pay is Palestine
after you have won the war and defeated Germany, Austria-Hungary, and
Turkey." Now England had as much right to promise Palestine to
anybody, as the United States would have to promise Japan to Ireland
for any reason whatsoever. It's absolutely absurd that Great Britain,
that never had any connection or any interest or any right in what is
known as Palestine should offer it as coin of the realm to pay the
Zionists for bringing the United States into the war. However, they
did make that promise, in October of 1916. And shortly after that -- I
don't know how many here remember it - - the United States, which was
almost totally pro-German, entered the war as Britain's ally.
I say that the United States was almost totally pro-German because the
newspapers here were controlled by Jews, the bankers were Jews, all
the media of mass communications in this country were controlled by
Jews; and they, the Jews, were pro-German. They were pro-German
because many of them had come from Germany, and also they wanted to
see Germany lick the Czar. The Jews didn't like the Czar, and they
didn't want Russia to win this war. These German-Jew bankers, like
Kuhn Loeb and the other big banking firms in the United States refused
to finance France or England to the extent of one dollar. They stood
aside and they said: "As long as France and England are tied up with
Russia, not one cent!" But they poured money into Germany, they fought
beside Germany against Russia, trying to lick the Czarist regime.
Now those same Jews, when they saw the possibility of getting
Palestine, went to England and they made this deal. At that time,
everything changed, like a traffic light that changes from red to
green. Where the newspapers had been all pro-German, where they'd been
telling the people of the difficulties that Germany was having
fighting Great Britain commercially and in other respects, all of a
sudden the Germans were no good. They were villains. They were Huns.
They were shooting Red Cross nurses. They were cutting off babies'
hands. They were no good. Shortly after that, Mr. Wilson declared war
on Germany.
The Zionists in London had sent cables to the United States, to
Justice Brandeis, saying "Go to work on President Wilson. We're
getting from England what we want. Now you go to work on President
Wilson and get the United States into the war." That's how the United
States got into the war. We had no more interest in it; we had no more
right to be in it than we have to be on the moon tonight instead of in
this room. There was absolutely no reason for World War I to be our
war. We were railroaded into -- if I can be vulgar, we were suckered
into -- that war merely so that the Zionists of the world could obtain
Palestine. That is something that the people of the United States have
never been told. They never knew why we went into World War I.
After we got into the war, the Zionists went to Great Britain and they
said: "Well, we performed our part of the agreement. Let's have
something in writing that shows that you are going to keep your
bargain and give us Palestine after you win the war." They didn't know
whether the war would last another year or another ten years. So they
started to work out a receipt. The receipt took the form of a letter,
which was worded in very cryptic language so that the world at large
wouldn't know what it was all about. And that was called the Balfour
Declaration.
The Balfour Declaration was merely Great Britain's promise to pay the
Zionists what they had agreed upon as a consideration for getting the
United States into the war. So this great Balfour Declaration, that
you hear so much about, is just as phony as a three dollar bill. I
don't think I could make it more emphatic than that.
That is where all the trouble started. The United States got in the
war. The United States crushed Germany. You know what happened. When
the war ended, and the Germans went to Paris for the Paris Peace
Conference in 1919 there were 117 Jews there, as a delegation
representing the Jews, headed by Bernard Baruch. I was there: I ought
to know. Now what happened? The Jews at that peace conference, when
they were cutting up Germany and parceling out Europe to all these
nations who claimed a right to a certain part of European territory,
said, "How about Palestine for us?" And they produced, for the first
time to the knowledge of the Germans, this Balfour Declaration. So the
Germans, for the first time realized, "Oh, so that was the game!
That's why the United States came into the war." The Germans for the
first time realized that they were defeated, they suffered the
terrific reparations that were slapped onto them, because the Zionists
wanted Palestine and were determined to get it at any cost.
That brings us to another very interesting point. When the Germans
realized this, they naturally resented it. Up to that time, the Jews
had never been better off in any country in the world than they had
been in Germany. You had Mr. Rathenau there, who was maybe 100 times
as important in industry and finance as is Bernard Baruch in this
country. You had Mr. Balin, who owned the two big steamship lines, the
North German Lloyd's and the Hamburg-American Lines. You had Mr.
Bleichroder, who was the banker for the Hohenzollern family. You had
the Warburgs in Hamburg, who were the big merchant bankers -- the
biggest in the world. The Jews were doing very well in Germany. No
question about that. The Germans felt: "Well, that was quite a
sellout."
It was a sellout that might be compared to this hypothetical
situation: Suppose the United States was at war with the Soviet Union.
And we were winning. And we told the Soviet Union: "Well, let's quit.
We offer you peace terms. Let's forget the whole thing." And all of a
sudden Red China came into the war as an ally of the Soviet Union. And
throwing them into the war brought about our defeat. A crushing
defeat, with reparations the likes of which man's imagination cannot
encompass. Imagine, then, after that defeat, if we found out that it
was the Chinese in this country, our Chinese citizens, who all the
time we had thought were loyal citizens working with us, were selling
us out to the Soviet Union and that it was through them that Red China
was brought into the war against us. How would we feel, then, in the
United States against Chinese? I don't think that one of them would
dare show his face on any street. There wouldn't be enough convenient
lampposts to take care of them. Imagine how we would feel.
Well, that's how the Germans felt towards these Jews. They'd been so
nice to them: from 1905 on, when the first Communist revolution in
Russia failed, and the Jews had to scramble out of Russia, they all
went to Germany. And Germany gave them refuge. And they were treated
very nicely. And here they had sold Germany down the river for no
reason at all other than the fact that they wanted Palestine as a
so-called "Jewish commonwealth."
Now Nahum Sokolow, and all the great leaders and great names that you
read about in connection with Zionism today, in 1919, 1920, 1921,
1922, and 1923 wrote in all their papers -- and the press was filled
with their statements -- that the feeling against the Jews in Germany
is due to the fact that they realized that this great defeat was
brought about by Jewish intercession in bringing the United States
into the war. The Jews themselves admitted that. It wasn't that the
Germans in 1919 discovered that a glass of Jewish blood tasted better
than Coca-Cola or Muenschner Beer. There was no religious feeling.
There was no sentiment against those people merely on account of their
religious belief. It was all political. It was economic. It was
anything but religious. Nobody cared in Germany whether a Jew went
home and pulled down the shades and said "Shema' Yisroel" or "Our
Father." Nobody cared in Germany any more than they do in the United
States. Now this feeling that developed later in Germany was due to
one thing: the Germans held the Jews responsible for their crushing
defeat.
And World War I had been started against Germany for no reason for
which Germany was responsible. They were guilty of nothing. Only of
being successful. They built up a big navy. They built up world trade.
You must remember that Germany at the time of the French Revolution
consisted of 300 small city-states, principalities, dukedoms, and so
forth. Three hundred separate little political entities. And between
that time, between the times of Napoleon and Bismarck, they were
consolidated into one state. And within 50 years they became one of
the world's great powers. Their navy was rivaling Great Britain's,
they were doing business all over the world, they could under sell
anybody, they could make better products. What happened as a result of
that?
There was a conspiracy between England, France, and Russia to slap
down Germany. There isn't one historian in the world who can find a
valid reason why those three countries decided to wipe Germany off the
map politically.
When Germany realized that the Jews were responsible for her defeat,
they naturally resented it. But not a hair on the head of any Jew was
harmed. Not a single hair. Professor Tansill, of Georgetown
University, who had access to all the secret papers of the State
Department, wrote in his book, and quoted from a State Department
document written by Hugo Schoenfelt, a Jew whom Cordell Hull sent to
Europe in 1933 to investigate the so-called camps of political
prisoners, who wrote back that he found them in very fine condition.
They were in excellent shape, with everybody treated well. And they
were filled with Communists. Well, a lot of them were Jews, because
the Jews happened to comprise about 98 per cent of the Communists in
Europe at that time. And there were some priests there, and ministers,
and labor leaders, and Masons, and others who had international
affiliations.
Some background is in order: In 1918-1919 the Communists took over
Bavaria for a few days. Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht and a group
of other Jews took over the government for three days. In fact, when
the Kaiser ended the war he fled to Holland because he thought the
Communists were going to take over Germany as they did Russia and that
he was going to meet the same fate as the Czar. So he fled to Holland
for safety, for security. After the Communist threat in Germany was
quashed, the Jews were still working, trying to get back into their
former status, and the Germans fought them in every way they could
without hurting a single hair on anyone's head. They fought them the
same way that, in this country, the Prohibitionists fought anyone who
was interested in liquor. They didn't fight one another with pistols.
Well, that's the way they were fighting the Jews in Germany. And at
that time, mind you, there were 80 to 90 million Germans, and there
were only 460,000 Jews. About one half of one per cent of the
population of Germany were Jews. And yet they controlled all the
press, and they controlled most of the economy because they had come
in with cheap money when the mark was devalued and bought up
practically everything.
The Jews tried to keep a lid on this fact. They didn't want the world
to really understand that they had sold out Germany, and that the
Germans resented that.
The Germans took appropriate action against the Jews. They, shall I
say, discriminated against them wherever they could. They shunned
them. The same way that we would shun the Chinese, or the Negroes, or
the Catholics, or anyone in this country who had sold us out to an
enemy and brought about our defeat.
After a while, the Jews of the world called a meeting in Amsterdam.
Jews from every country in the world attended this meeting in July
1933. And they said to Germany: "You fire Hitler, and you put every
Jew back into his former position, whether he was a Communist or no
matter what he was. You can't treat us that way. And we, the Jews of
the world, are serving an ultimatum upon you." You can imagine what
the Germans told them. So what did the Jews do?
In 1933, when Germany refused to surrender to the world conference of
Jews in Amsterdam, the conference broke up, and Mr. Samuel Untermyer,
who was the head of the American delegation and the president of the
whole conference, came to the United States and went from the steamer
to the studios of the Columbia Broadcasting System and made a radio
broadcast throughout the United States in which he in effect said,
"The Jews of the world now declare a Holy War against Germany. We are
now engaged in a sacred conflict against the Germans. And we are going
to starve them into surrender. We are going to use a world-wide
boycott against them. That will destroy them because they are
dependent upon their export business." And it is a fact that two
thirds of Germany's food supply had to be imported, and it could only
be imported with the proceeds of what they exported. So if Germany
could not export, two thirds of Germany's population would have to
starve. There was just not enough food for more than one third of the
population. Now in this declaration, which I have here, and which was
printed in the New York Times on August 7, 1933, Mr. Samuel Untermyer
boldly stated that "this economic boycott is our means of
self-defense. President Roosevelt has advocated its use in the
National Recovery Administration," which some of you may remember,
where everybody was to be boycotted unless he followed the rules laid
down by the New Deal, and which was declared unconstitutional by the
Supreme Court of that time. Nevertheless, the Jews of the world
declared a boycott against Germany, and it was so effective that you
couldn't find one thing in any store anywhere in the world with the
words "made in Germany" on it. In fact, an executive of the Woolworth
Company told me that they had to dump millions of dollars worth of
crockery and dishes into the river; that their stores were boycotted
if anyone came in and found a dish marked "made in Germany," they were
picketed with signs saying "Hitler," "murderer," and so forth,
something like these sit-ins that are taking place in the South. At a
store belonging to the R. H. Macy chain, which was controlled by a
family called Strauss who also happen to be Jews, a woman found
stockings there which came from Chemnitz, marked "made in Germany."
Well, they were cotton stockings and they may have been there 20
years, since I've been observing women's legs for many years and it's
been a long time since I've seen any cotton stockings on them. I saw
Macy's boycotted, with hundreds of people walking around with signs
saying "murderers," "Hitlerites," and so forth. Now up to that time,
not one hair on the head of any Jew had been hurt in Germany. There
was no suffering, there was no starvation, there was no murder, there
was nothing.
Naturally, the Germans said, "Who are these people to declare a
boycott against us and throw all our people out of work, and make our
industries come to a standstill? Who are they to do that to us?" They
naturally resented it. Certainly they painted swastikas on stores
owned by Jews. Why should a German go in and give his money to a
storekeeper who was part of a boycott that was going to starve Germany
into surrendering to the Jews of the world, who were going to dictate
who their premier or chancellor was to be? Well, it was ridiculous.
The boycott continued for some time, but it wasn't until 1938, when a
young Jew from Poland walked into the German embassy in Paris and shot
a German official, that the Germans really started to get rough with
the Jews in Germany. And you found them then breaking windows and
having street fights and so forth.
Now I don't like to use the word "anti-Semitism" because it's
meaningless, but it means something to you still, so I'll have to use
it. The only reason that there was any feeling in Germany against Jews
was that they were responsible for World War I and for this world-wide
boycott. Ultimately they were also responsible for World War II,
because after this thing got out of hand, it was absolutely necessary
for the Jews and Germany to lock horns in a war to see which one was
going to survive. In the meanwhile, I had lived in Germany, and I knew
that the Germans had decided that Europe is going to be Christian or
Communist: there is no in between. And the Germans decided they were
going to keep it Christian if possible. And they started to re-arm. In
November 1933 the United States recognized the Soviet Union. The
Soviet Union was becoming very powerful, and Germany realized that
"Our turn was going to come soon, unless we are strong." The same as
we in this country are saying today, "Our turn is going to come soon,
unless we are strong." Our government is spending 83 or 84 billion
dollars for defense. Defense against whom? Defense against 40,000
little Jews in Moscow that took over Russia, and then, in their
devious ways, took over control of many other countries of the world.
For this country now to be on the verge of a Third World War, from
which we cannot emerge a victor, is something that staggers my
imagination. I know that nuclear bombs are measured in terms of
megatons. A megaton is a term used to describe one million tons of
TNT. Our nuclear bombs had a capacity of 10 megatons, or 10 million
tons of TNT, when they were first developed. Now, the nuclear bombs
that are being developed have a capacity of 200 megatons, and God
knows how many megatons the nuclear bombs of the Soviet Union have.
What do we face now? If we trigger a world war that may develop into a
nuclear war, humanity is finished. Why might such a war take place? It
will take place as the curtain goes up on Act 3: Act 1 was World War
I, Act 2 was World War II, Act 3 is going to be World War III. The
Jews of the world, the Zionists and their co-religionists everywhere,
are determined that they are going to again use the United States to
help them permanently retain Palestine as their foothold for their
world government. That is just as true as I am standing here. Not
alone have I read it, but many here have also read it, and it is known
all over the world.
What are we going to do? The life you save may be your son's. Your
boys may be on their way to that war tonight; and you don't know it
any more than you knew that in 1916 in London the Zionists made a deal
with the British War Cabinet to send your sons to war in Europe. Did
you know it at that time? Not a person in the United States knew it.
You weren't permitted to know it. Who knew it? President Wilson knew
it. Colonel House knew it. Other insiders knew it.
Did I know it? I had a pretty good idea of what was going on: I was
liaison to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., in the 1912 campaign when President
Wilson was elected, and there was talk around the office there. I was
"confidential man" to Henry Morgenthau, Sr., who was chairman of the
finance committee, and I was liaison between him and Rollo Wells, the
treasurer. So I sat in these meetings with President Wilson at the
head of the table, and all the others, and I heard them drum into
President Wilson's brain the graduated income tax and what has become
the Federal Reserve, and I heard them indoctrinate him with the
Zionist movement. Justice Brandeis and President Wilson were just as
close as the two fingers on this hand. President Woodrow Wilson was
just as incompetent when it came to determining what was going on as a
newborn baby. That is how they got us into World War I, while we all
slept. They sent our boys over there to be slaughtered. For what? So
the Jews can have Palestine as their "commonwealth." They've fooled
you so much that you don't know whether you're coming or going.
Now any judge, when he charges a jury, says, "Gentlemen, any witness
who you find has told a single lie, you can disregard all his
testimony." I don't know what state you come from, but in New York
state that is the way a judge addresses a jury. If that witness told
one lie, disregard his testimony.
What are the facts about the Jews? (I call them Jews to you, because
they are known as Jews. I don't call them Jews myself. I refer to them
as so-called Jews, because I know what they are.) The eastern European
Jews, who form 92 per cent of the world's population of those people
who call themselves Jews, were originally Khazars. They were a warlike
tribe who lived deep in the heart of Asia. And they were so warlike
that even the Asiatics drove them out of Asia into eastern Europe.
They set up a large Khazar kingdom of 800,000 square miles. At the
time, Russia did not exist, nor did many other European countries. The
Khazar kingdom was the biggest country in all Europe -- so big and so
powerful that when the other monarchs wanted to go to war, the Khazars
would lend them 40,000 soldiers. That's how big and powerful they
were.
They were phallic worshippers, which is filthy and I do not want to go
into the details of that now. But that was their religion, as it was
also the religion of many other pagans and barbarians elsewhere in the
world. The Khazar king became so disgusted with the degeneracy of his
kingdom that he decided to adopt a so-called monotheistic faith --
either Christianity, Islam, or what is known today as Judaism, which
is really Talmudism. By spinning a top, and calling out "eeny, meeny,
miney, moe," he picked out so-called Judaism. And that became the
state religion. He sent down to the Talmudic schools of Pumbedita and
Sura and brought up thousands of rabbis, and opened up synagogues and
schools, and his people became what we call Jews. There wasn't one of
them who had an ancestor who ever put a toe in the Holy Land. Not only
in Old Testament history, but back to the beginning of time. Not one
of them! And yet they come to the Christians and ask us to support
their armed insurrections in Palestine by saying, "You want to help
repatriate God's Chosen People to their Promised Land, their ancestral
home, don't you? It's your Christian duty. We gave you one of our boys
as your Lord and Savior. You now go to church on Sunday, and you kneel
and you worship a Jew, and we're Jews." But they are pagan Khazars who
were converted just the same as the Irish were converted. It is as
ridiculous to call them "people of the Holy Land," as it would be to
call the 54 million Chinese Moslems "Arabs." Mohammed only died in 620
A.D., and since then 54 million Chinese have accepted Islam as their
religious belief. Now imagine, in China, 2,000 miles away from Arabia,
from Mecca and Mohammed's birthplace. Imagine if the 54 million
Chinese decided to call themselves "Arabs." You would say they were
lunatics. Anyone who believes that those 54 million Chinese are Arabs
must be crazy. All they did was adopt as a religious faith a belief
that had its origin in Mecca, in Arabia. The same as the Irish. When
the Irish became Christians, nobody dumped them in the ocean and
imported to the Holy Land a new crop of inhabitants. They hadn't
become a different people. They were the same people, but they had
accepted Christianity as a religious faith.
These Khazars, these pagans, these Asiatics, these Turko-Finns, were a
Mongoloid race who were forced out of Asia into eastern Europe.
Because their king took the Talmudic faith, they had no choice in the
matter. Just the same as in Spain: If the king was Catholic, everybody
had to be a Catholic. If not, you had to get out of Spain. So the
Khazars became what we call today Jews. Now imagine how silly it was
for the great Christian countries of the world to say, "We're going to
use our power and prestige to repatriate God's Chosen People to their
ancestral homeland, their Promised Land." Could there be a bigger lie
than that? Because they control the newspapers, the magazines, the
radio, the television, the book publishing business, and because they
have the ministers in the pulpit and the politicians on the soapboxes
talking the same language, it is not too surprising that you believe
that lie. You'd believe black is white if you heard it often enough.
You wouldn't call black black anymore -- you'd start to call black
white. And nobody could blame you.
That is one of the great lies of history. It is the foundation of all
the misery that has befallen the world.
Do you know what Jews do on the Day of Atonement, that you think is so
sacred to them? I was one of them. This is not hearsay. I'm not here
to be a rabble-rouser. I'm here to give you facts. When, on the Day of
Atonement, you walk into a synagogue, you stand up for the very first
prayer that you recite. It is the only prayer for which you stand. You
repeat three times a short prayer called the Kol Nidre. In that
prayer, you enter into an agreement with God Almighty that any oath,
vow, or pledge that you may make during the next twelve months shall
be null and void. The oath shall not be an oath; the vow shall not be
a vow; the pledge shall not be a pledge. They shall have no force or
effect. And further, the Talmud teaches that whenever you take an
oath, vow, or pledge, you are to remember the Kol Nidre prayer that
you recited on the Day of Atonement, and you are exempted from
fulfilling them. How much can you depend on their loyalty? You can
depend upon their loyalty as much as the Germans depended upon it in
1916. We are going to suffer the same fate as Germany suffered, and
for the same reason.
The above speech was given by Benjamin H. Freedman at the Willard
Hotel in Washington, D. C. in 1961.
Other books and tapes on this subject are available from:
National Vanguard Books <http://www.natall.com/free-speech/ >
Really? Who boycotted Germany because the World Jewish
Congress "declared war" on Germany? Please do elaborate there.
Americans
In what year was Mein Kampf written?
1925
Hitler was Time's man of the year. Was that once, or twice?
I'm not sure, but I know it was at least once. Yeah, that Jewish owned
press really knows how to villify them, doesn't it?
I bet I could talk to people who could find numerous articles
from that era detailing those atrocities.
The TV made jokes about the anti-Communists all the time.
Really? It wasn't because the British and French were
convinced that Hitler was just biding his time until he thought he had
enough power to win a war against them both before the US could help
out enough? Wow. That's quite a statement from you. It's almost as if
you were there, huh?
The British and the French and the Americans were and are ruled by
the Jews.
For your information, the previous US government of Herbert
Hoover had already been making aggressive noises against the Japanese,
and please do cite which Jews were responsible for pushing the US into
a war with Japan that benefitted the industries in the US that wanted
resources in Southeast Asia. Please do. While you're at it, see if you
can find ONE business of such a type that was owned by a Jew or Jews.
Wow. But wait... you've admitted that the Germans stripped the
Jews of power. If they had no power, how pray tell did they manage to
convince the allies that they were the victims of targeted genocide?
Did they sneak around and build camps and shoot people to put in mass
graves so the allies would think the Germans did it all? How exactly
DID they pull that off?
by Theodore J. O'Keefe
Nothing has been more effective in establishing the authenticity of
the Holocaust story in the minds of Americans than the terrible scenes
US troops discovered when they entered German concentration camps at
the close of World War II.
At Dachau, Buchenwald, Dora, Mauthausen, and other work and detention
camps, horrified US infantrymen encountered heaps of dead and dying
inmates, emaciated and diseased. Survivors told them hair-raising
stories of torture and slaughter, and backed up their claims by
showing the GIs crematory ovens, alleged execution gas chambers,
supposed implements of torture, and even shrunken heads and
lampshades, gloves, and handbags purportedly made from skin flayed
from dead inmates.
US government authorities, mindful that many Americans who remembered
the atrocity stories fed them during World War I still doubted the
Allied propaganda directed against the Hitler regime, resolved to
"document" what the GIs had found in the camps. Prominent newsmen
and politicians were flown in to see the harrowing evidence, while
the US Army Signal Corps filmed and photographed the scenes for
posterity. Famous journalist Edward R. Murrow reported, in tones of
horror, but no longer of disbelief, what he had been told and shown,
and Dachau and
Buchenwald were branded on the hearts and minds of the American
populace as names of infamy unmatched in the sad and bloody history
of this planet.
For Americans, what was "discovered" at the camps -- the dead and the
diseased, the terrible stories of the inmates, all the props of
torture and terror -- became the basis not simply of a transitory
propaganda campaign but of the conviction that, yes, it was true: the
Germans did exterminate six million Jews, most of them in lethal gas
chambers.
What the GIs found was used, by way of films that were mandatory
viewing for the vanquished populace of Germany, to "re-educate" the
German people by destroying their national pride and their will to a
united, independent national state, imposing in their place
overwhelming feelings of collective guilt and political impotence.
And when the testimony, and the verdict, of the Nuremberg Tribunal
incorporated most, if not all, of the horror stories Americans were
told about
Dachau, Buchenwald, and other places captured by the US Army, the
Holocaust could pass for one of the most documented, one of the most
authenticated, one of the most proven historical episodes in the
human record.
A Different Reality
But it is known today that, very soon after the liberation of the
camps, American authorities were aware that the real story of the
camps was quite different from the one in which they were coaching
military public information officers, government spokesmen,
politicians, journalists, and other mouthpieces.
When American and British forces overran western and central Germany
in the spring of 1945, they were followed by troops charged with
discovering and securing any evidence of German war crimes.
Among them was Dr. Charles Larson, one of America's leading forensic
pathologists, who was assigned to the US Army's Judge Advocate
General's Department. As part of a US War Crimes Investigation Team,
Dr. Larson performed autopsies at Dachau and some twenty other German
camps, examining on some days more than 100 corpses. After his grim
work at Dachau, he was
questioned for three days by US Army prosecutors.
Dr. Larson's findings? In an 1980 newspaper interview he said: "What
we've heard is that six million Jews were exterminated. Part of that
is a hoax." And what part was the hoax? Dr. Larson, who told his
biographer that to his knowledge he "was the only forensic pathologist
on duty in the entire European Theater" of Allied military operations,
confirmed that "never was a case of poison gas uncovered."
Typhus, Not Poison Gas
If not by gassing, how did the unfortunate victims at Dachau,
Buchenwald and Bergen-Belsen perish? Were they tortured to death or
deliberately starved? The answers to these questions are known as
well.
As Dr. Larson and other Allied medical men discovered, the chief
cause of death at Dachau, Belsen and the other camps was disease,
above all typhus, an old and terrible scourge of mankind that until
recently flourished in places where populations were crowded together
in circumstances where public health measures were unknown or had
broken down. Such was the case in the overcrowded internment camps in
Germany at war's end, where, despite such measures as systematic
delousing, quarantine of the sick and cremation of the dead, the
virtual
collapse of Germany's food, transport, and public health systems led
to catastrophe.
Perhaps the most authoritative statement of the facts as to typhus and
mortality in the camps has been made by Dr. John E. Gordon, M.D.,
Ph.D., a professor of preventive medicine and epidemiology at the
Harvard University School of Public Health, who was with US forces in
Germany in 1945. Dr. Gordon reported in 1948 that "The outbreaks in
concentration camps and prisons made up the great bulk of typhus
infection encountered in Germany." Dr. Gordon summarized the causes
for the outbreaks as follows:
Germany in the spring months of April and May [1945] was an
astounding sight, a mixture of humanity travelling this way and that,
homeless, often hungry and carrying typhus with them ...Germany was in
chaos. The destruction of whole cities and the path left by advancing
armies produced a disruption of living conditions contributing to the
spread of the disease. Sanitation was low grade, public utilities were
seriously disrupted, food supply and food distribution was poor,
housing was inadequate and order and discipline were everywhere
lacking. Still more important, a shifting of populations was occurring
such as few countries and few times have experienced.
Dr. Gordon's findings are corroborated by Dr. Russell Barton, today a
psychiatrist of international repute, who entered Bergen-Belsen with
British forces as a young medical student in 1945. Barton, who
volunteered to care for the diseased survivors, testified under sworn
oath in a Toronto courtroom in 1985 that "Thousands of prisoners who
died at the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp during World War II
weren't deliberately starved to death but died from a rash of
diseases."
Dr. Barton further testified that on entering the camp he had credited
stories of deliberate starvation but decided such stories were untrue
after inspecting the well equipped kitchens and the meticulously
maintained ledgers, dating back to 1942, of food cooked and dispensed
each day.
Despite noisily publicized claims and widespread popular notions to
the contrary, no researcher has been able to document a German policy
of extermination through starvation in the German camps.
No 'Human Skin' Lampshades
What of the ghoulish stories of concentration camp inmates skinned for
their tattoos, flayed to make lampshades and handbags, or other
artifacts? What of the innumerable "torture racks," "meathooks,"
whipping posts, gallows, and other tools of torment and death that are
reported to have abounded at every German camp? These allegations, and
even more grotesque ones proffered by Soviet prosecutors, found their
way into the record at Nuremberg.
The lampshade and tattooed-skin charges were made against Ilse Koch,
dubbed by journalists the "Bitch of Buchenwald," who was reported to
have furnished her house with objects manufactured from the tanned
hides of luckless inmates.
But General Lucius Clay, military governor of the US zone of occupied
Germany, who reviewed her case in 1948, told his superiors in
Washington: "There is no convincing evidence that she [Ilse Koch]
selected inmates for extermination in order to secure tattooed skins
or that she possessed any articles made of human skin." In an
interview General Clay gave years later, he stated about the material
for the infamous lampshades: "Well, it turned out actually that it was
goat flesh. But
at the trial it was still human flesh. It was almost impossible for
her to have gotten a fair trial." Ilse Koch hanged herself in a German
jail in 1967.
It would be tedious to itemize and refute the thousands of bizarre
claims as to Nazi atrocities. That there were instances of German
cruelty, however, is clear from the testimony of Dr. Konrad Morgen, a
legal investigator attached to the Reich Criminal Police, whose
statements on the witness stand at Nuremberg have never been
challenged by proponents of the Jewish Holocaust story. Dr. Morgen
informed the court that he had been given full authority by Heinrich
Himmler,
commander of Hitler's SS and the dread Gestapo, to enter any German
concentration camp and investigate instances of cruelty and corruption
on the part of camp personnel. As he explained in sworn testimony at
Nuremberg, Dr. Morgen investigated 800 such cases, resulting in more
than 200 convictions. Punishments included the death penalty for the
worst offenders, including Hermann Florstedt, commandant of Lublin
(Majdanek), and Karl Koch (Ilse's husband), commandant of Buchenwald.
While German camp commandants in certain cases did inflict physical
punishment, such acts had to be approved by authorities in Berlin, and
it was required that a camp physician first certify the good health of
the prisoner to be disciplined, and then be on hand at the actual
beating. After all, throughout most of the war the camps were
important centers of industrial activity. The good health and morale
of the prisoners was critical to the German war effort, as is
evidenced in a January 1943 order issued by SS General Richard Glücks,
chief of the office that supervised the
concentration camps. It held the camp commanders "personally
responsible for exhausting every possibility to preserve the physical
strength of the detainees." Camp Survivors: Merely Victims?
US Army investigators, working at Buchenwald and other camps, quickly
ascertained what was common knowledge among veteran inmates: that the
worst offenders, the cruelest denizens of the camps, were not the
guards but the prisoners themselves. Common criminals of the same
stripe as those who populate US prisons today committed many
villainies, particularly when they held positions of authority, and
fanatical Communists, highly organized to combat their many
political enemies among the inmates, eliminated their foes with
Stalinist ruthlessness. Two US Army investigators at Buchenwald, Egon
W. Fleck and Edward A. Tenenbaum, carefully investigated circumstances
in the camp before its liberation. In a detailed report submitted to
their superiors, they revealed, in the words of Alfred Toombs, their
commander, who wrote a preface to the report, "how the prisoners
themselves organized a deadly terror within the Nazi terror."
Fleck and Tenenbaum described the power exercised by criminals and
Communists as follows:
The trusties, who in time became almost exclusively Communist
Germans, had the power of life and death over all other inmates. They
could sentence a man or a group to almost certain death ... The
Communist trusties were directly responsible for a large part of the
brutalities at Buchenwald.
Colonel Donald B. Robinson, chief historian of the American military
government in Germany, summarized the Fleck-Tenenbaum report in an
article published in an American magazine shortly after the war.
Colonel Robinson wrote succinctly of the American investigators'
findings: "It appeared that the prisoners who agreed with the
Communists ate; those who didn't starved to death."
Additional corroboration of inmate brutality has been provided by
Ellis E. Spackman, who, as Chief of Counter-Intelligence Arrests and
Detentions for the US Seventh Army, was involved in the liberation of
Dachau. Spackman, later a professor of history at San Bernardino
Valley College in California, wrote in 1966 that at Dachau "the
prisoners were the actual instruments that inflicted the barbarities
on their fellow prisoners."
'Gas Chambers'
In December 1944 US Army officers Colonel Paul Kirk and Lt. Colonel
Edward J. Gully inspected the German concentration camp at
Struthof-Natzweiler in Alsace. They submitted their findings to their
superiors at the headquarters of the US 6th Army Group, which
subsequently forwarded their report to the US War Crimes Division.
While, significantly, the full text of their report has never been
published, it has been revealed, by a historian supportive of
Holocaust claims, that the two investigators were careful to
characterize equipment exhibited to them by French informants as a
"so-called lethal gas chamber," and to claim it was "allegedly used as
a lethal gas chamber." (Emphasis added)
Both the careful phraseology of the Natzweiler report, and its
effective suppression, stand in stark contrast to the credulity, the
confusion, and the blaring publicity that accompanied official reports
of alleged gas chambers at Dachau. At first, a US Army photo depicting
a GI gazing at a steel door marked with a skull and crossbones and the
German words for: "Caution! Gas! Mortal danger! Don't open!," was
identified as showing the murder weapon.
Later, however, it was evidently decided that the apparatus in
question was merely a standard delousing chamber for clothing, and
another alleged gas chamber, this one cunningly disguised as a shower
room, was exhibited to American congressmen and journalists as the
site where thousands breathed their last. While there exist numerous
reports in the press as to the operation of this second "gas chamber,"
no official report by trained Army investigators has yet surfaced to
reconcile such problems as the function of the shower heads: Were they
"dummies," or did lethal cyanide gas stream through them? (Each theory
has appreciable support in journalistic and
historiographical literature.)
As with Dachau, so with Buchenwald, Bergen-Belsen, and the other camps
liberated by the Allies in western Germany. There was no end of
propaganda about "gas chambers," "gas ovens," and the like, but so far
not a single detailed description of the murder weapon and its
function, not a single report of the kind that is mandatory for the
successful prosecution of any assault or murder case in America at
that time and today, has come to light.
Furthermore, a number of Holocaust authorities have now publicly
decreed that there were no gassings, no extermination camps in Germany
after all. (We are now told that "gassing" and "extermination" camps
were located exclusively in what is now Poland, in areas captured by
the Soviet Red Army and made off-limits to western investigators.)
Dr. Martin Broszat of the Munich-based Institute for Contemporary
History, which is funded by the German government, stated
categorically in a 1960 letter to the German weekly Die Zeit: "Neither
in Dachau nor in Bergen-Belsen nor in Buchenwald were Jews or other
prisoners gassed." Professional "Nazi hunter" Simon Wiesenthal stated
in 1975 and again in 1993 that "there were no
extermination camps on German soil."
Dachau "gas chamber" No. 2, which was once presented to a stunned and
grieving world as a weapon that claimed hundreds of thousands of
lives, is now described in the brochure issued to tourists at the
modern Dachau "memorial site" in these words: "This gas chamber,
camouflaged as a shower room, was not used."
The Propaganda Intensifies
More than 50 years after American troops entered Dachau, Buchenwald
and other German camps, and trained American investigators established
the facts as to what had gone on in them, the government in
Washington, the entertainment media in Hollywood, and the print media
in New York continue to churn out millions of words and images
annually on the horrors of the camps and the infamy of the Holocaust.
Despite the fact that, with the exception of the defeated Confederacy,
no enemy of America has ever so suffered so complete and devastating
defeat as did Germany in 1945, the mass media and the politicians and
bureaucrats behave as if Hitler, his troops, and his concentration
camps continue to exist in an eternal present, and our opinion makers
continue to distort, through ignorance or malice, the facts about the
camps.
Time for the Truth
It is time that the government and the professional historians reveal
the facts about Dachau, Buchenwald and the other camps. It is time
they let the American public know how the inmates died, and how they
didn't die. It is time that the claims of mass murder by gassing are
clarified and investigated in the same manner as any other claims of
murder. It is time that the free ride certain groups have enjoyed as
the result of unchallenged Holocaust claims be terminated, just as it
is time to end the scapegoating of other groups, including Germans,
eastern Europeans, the
Roman Catholic hierarchy, and the wartime leadership of America and
Britain, either for their alleged role in the Holocaust or their
supposed failure to stop it.
Above all, it is time that the citizens of this great Republic have
the facts about the camps, facts they have a right to know, a right
that is fundamental to the exercise of their authority and their will
in the governance of their country. As citizens and as taxpayers,
Americans of all ethnic backgrounds, of all faiths, have a basic right
and an overriding interest in determining the facts of incidents that
are deemed by those in positions of power to be significant in
determining America's foreign and educational policy, as well as its
selection of past events to be memorialized in our
civic life.
Today the alleged facts of the Holocaust are at issue all over the
civilized world. The truth will be decided only by recourse to the
facts, in the public forum: not by concealing the facts, denying the
truth, stonewalling reality. The truth will out, and it is time the
government of this country, and governments and international bodies
throughout the world, make public the evidence of what actually
transpired in the German concentration camps in the years 1933-1945,
so that we may put paid to the lies, without fear or favor, and carry
out the work of reconciliation and renewal that is and must be the
granite foundation of mutual tolerance between peoples and of a peace
based on justice.
Summary
The conclusions of the early US Army investigations as to the truth
about the wartime German concentration camps have since been
corroborated by all subsequent investigators and can be summarized:
1.The harrowing scenes of dead and dying inmates were not the result
of a German policy of "extermination," but rather the result of
epidemics of typhus and other disease brought about largely by the
effects of Allied aerial attacks.
2.Stories of Nazi supercriminals and sadists who turned Jews and
others into handbags and lampshades for their private profit or
amusement were sick lies or diseased fantasies; indeed, the German
authorities punished corruption and cruelty on the part of camp
commanders and guards.
3.On the other hand, portrayals of the newly liberated inmates as
saints and martyrs of Hitlerism were quite often very far from the
truth; indeed, most of the brutalities inflicted on camp detainees
were the work of their fellow prisoners, in contravention of German
policy and German orders.
4.The alleged homicidal showers and gas chambers were used either for
bathing camp inmates or delousing their clothes; the claim that they
were used to murder Jews or other human beings is a contemptible
fabrication. Orthodox historians and professional "Nazi-hunters" have
quietly dropped claims that inmates were gassed at Dachau, Buchenwald
and other camps in Germany. They continue, however, to keep silent
regarding the lies about Dachau and Buchenwald, as well as to evade an
open discussion of the evidence for homicidal gassing at Auschwitz and
the
other camps captured by the Soviets.
Institute For Historical Review
Post Office Box 2739
Newport Beach, California 92659
Why is it that after the war, the former nazis would say
"Hitler was a Jew"? Why didn't they say any such thing (which wasn't
true anyway) when he was winning earlier on? You don't think much, do
you?
You either are a Jew or you have your head up a Jews aft end,
figuratively speaking. The Jews control the media. I don't know which
Hollywood movie you are referring to.
Because the French weren't rabidly anti-Jew and the Germans
were afraid to show the French their core values at that time. Also,
please cite the population statistics you mentioned there.
On the one hand, Kevin Alfred Strom and his ilk support the
efforts to "revise" the history of the Jews during WW II. On the
other, he griped when David Ahenakew (a Canadian native chief) said
that the Jews "owned almost everything in Germany [at that time]", and
that "...that's why Hitler killed six million of those guys". That
ridiculousness landed Mr. Ahenakew in some trouble in Canada, and of
course there was Strom at the radio broadcast booth to gripe on his
behalf.
It seems like neo nazis will settle for either getting people
to believe the holocaust didn't happen, or that it's okay that it did.
It seems that way because it is that way.
Recording history is a scientific process, or at least it's
supposed to be. The losers that populate the neo nazi and holocaust
denial movements start out with a desire to accomplish a goal, and
make their "research" fit in as best they can with that of which they
want to convince others. That isn't science.
http://www.noontidepress.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=35&products_id=357
Filmed on location at the Auschwitz camp site in Poland, this stunning
video by Jewish-American investigator David Cole shows that the "gas
chamber" that has been displayed to hundreds of thousands of tourists
is actually a propaganda prop. Alicia, an official tour guide, assures
David Cole, on camera, that the "gas chamber" in the main camp that is
shown to visitors is in its original, unaltered state. Then Dr.
Franciszek Piper, head curator of the Auschwitz State Museum,
acknowledges to Cole that this "gas chamber" is actually a postwar
creation. This video also tackles other Holocaust claims, including
the "human soap" fable. Shows that fraudulent "proofs" of homicidal
gassings were produced after the end of World War II, and that
visitors to the Auschwitz camp site have been systematically deceived
for decades.
The Jews did not destroy Germany; Hitler did that.
Hitler made Germany great. Germany was destroyed by the Jewish
controlled allies.
If it wasn't for prostitutes, the nazi boys wouldn't have
gotten much of the other type of "action" during WW II.
Here are some quotes published in 1946 by Dr. Austin J. App. He
was an American English professor that was drafted into the army:
"these beloved fellow-liberators of ours are doing well indeed,
They know why one wants Unconditional Surrender and why Americans
cried for a "harsh" peace against the Germans, and they understand the
spirit of the Morgenthau Plan: In Vienna alone they raped 100,000
women, not once but many times, including girls not yet in their
teens, and aged women! So reported the Most Rev. Bernard Griffin,
British Archbishop (now cardinal) after a more or less official tour
to study conditions in Europe (NC Report, Oct. 18, 1945)."
"'We Allies are no monsters,' said Churchill to the Germans in
January, 1945...Since that time the Allies who are no monsters have
raped more Christian women than have literally ever before been raped
in the history of the world. They have put Germany on a 1300-calory
starvation level; they have looted twelve million people of their
homes, goods, food and even clothes and driven them from their
homelands; they have kept or taken one-fourth of their farm land and
their ships and their factories and most of their farm implements and
then told them to live by farming; they have abused and starved to
death more German babies than their ever were Jews in Germany; and
finally they raped and debauched hundreds of thousands of German,
Austrian, and Hungarian girls and women from eight to eighty. They
brought to their death five times as many Germans in one year of peace
as died during five years of war! Yes, Yes, of course, 'We Allies are
no monsters!'"
"Time magazine (Oct. 2, 1945 p.27), describing the mass expulsion
'of at least nine million
Germans...it is a tale of horror, old men starving on the roads, yound
women raped in boxcars.'
And the holy crusaders who are doing this raping have the
shamelessness of trying whole classes of Germans as war criminals!"
" Sylvester C. Michelfelder, a Lutheran Pastor, just returned
from Germany describes in The Christian Century how 'Bands of
irresponsible bandits in Russian or American uniforms pillage and rob
trains. Women and girls are violoated in the sight of everyone. They
are stripped of their clothes.' Yes, the holy reeducators of Germany
are having a wonderful time!"
" In Stuttgart, troops under Eisenhower's command, with whom his
communications were not severed, raped more women in one week in one
city than troops under Hitler's command seem to have raped in four
years in all of France. For such literally seem to be the facts,
however discomforting to decent Americans."
" After four years of German occupation, Frederick C. Crawford,
President of Thompson Products, on January 4, 1945, in a 'Report from
the War Front,' where with others the War Department had taken him on
an inspection tour, said, 'the Germans tried to be careful in their
dealings with the people...We were told that if a citizen attended
strictly to business and took no political or underground action
against the occupying army, he was treated with correctness' (p.5) In
short, wherever Americans have been able to investigate for
themselves, they have found that however ruthless the Germans were
with resisters and saboteurs, they were uncommonly Christian and
decent towards the women of the conquered."
"'Americans look on the German women as loot, just like cameras
and Lugers' (N.Y. World Telegram, January 21, 1945)"
"Some of our own senators have declared this starvation
planned and deliberate. In fact, so determined are our policy makers
to starve the conquered that they have callously prohibited even
private charity. 'For the first time in the history of Christian
nations', writes Bishop Aloisius Muench of Fargo, North Dakota,
'powerful governments are making the exercise of Christian charity
impossible through official regulations' (One World in Charity, Lent,
1946, p.1)"
"Nevertheless, in spite of this deliberately planned or
encouraged, and certainly tolerated debauchery of German and Austrian
women by occupation troops under American command, the American and
the British occupation cannot be compared to the shocking beastliness
of the Russian occupation...we who screamed when the Germans executed
the British-sent murderers of a governor and their concealers at
Lidice, and don't raise a wimper when the Russians violate a million
women and hundreds of nuns!"
There are plenty of people in the US today who argue for the
same thing, and aren't getting it. Oh, and most of them aren't Jews.
Take a look at the people involved sometime and do a little research.
In most cases, not Jews. Sorry.
I don't think people should be thrown in jail for being gay,
but hey... neither do you. The Brownshirts never would have amounted
to more than a dozen or so if they had been thrown in jail for being
gay.
Heinrich Himmler (Reichsfuhrer SS) said in a speech in 1936 on the
subject of homosexuality and execution of Ernst Roehm (which he had
engineered): "Two years ago...when it became necessary, we did not
scruple to strike this plague with death, even within our own ranks."
Himmler closed with these words: "Just as we today have gone back to
the ancient Germanic view on the question of marriage mixing different
races, so too in our judgement of homosexuality, a symptom of
degeneracy which could destroy our race, we must return to the
guiding Nordic principle: extermination of degenerates"
No doubt, although the aim wasn't to "destroy" a nation, nor
were the main carriers of such ideology Jews. Like I said, do a little
research.
That's a crock, and he knew it when he said it.
Article Winston Churchill wrote in 1920:
"This movement amongst the Jews (the Russian Revolution) is not new.
From the days of Spartacus Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and downto Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kuhn (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany)
and Emma Goldman (United States), this world wide conspiracy for the
overthrow of civilization and the reconstruction of society on the
basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible
equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer,
Mrs. Nesta Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part
in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of
every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at
last this band of extraordinary personalities has gripped the Russian
people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the
undisputed masters of that enormous empire. There is no need to
exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the
actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution by these international
and for the most part atheistic Jews. Moreover, the principal
inspiration and driving power comes from Jewish leaders." (ibid)
Lev Trotzky wrote a book called "Stalin: An Appraisal of the Man and
His Influence", Harper Bros., New York and London, 1941, translated by
Charles Malamuth.
In this book he told who the principle members of the October Central
Committee were. This group was the leadership of the Bolshevik Party
during the October Revolution. This is what he wrote:
"In view of the Party's semi-legality the names of persons elected by
secret ballot were not announced at the Congress, with the exception
of the four who had received the largest number of votes. Lenin--133
out of a possible 134, Zinoviev--132, Kamenev--131, Trotzky--131."
Of these four top leaders of the Bolshevik Party the last three were
known Jews. Lenin was thought to be a gentile married to a Jewess. It
was later proven that he was one quarter Jewish, London Jewish
Chronicle April 21, 1995, Lenin: Life and Legacy.
David Francis, the American Ambassador to Russia at the time of the
Revolution, wrote:
"The Bolshevic leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of
whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country
but are internationalists and they are trying to start a world-wide
revolution."
The Director of British Intelligence to the U.S. Secretary of State
wrote this:
"There is now definite evidence that Bolshevism is an international
movement controlled by Jews."
In 1945 the FBI arrested six individuals for stealing 1700 highly
confidential documents from State Department files. This was the
Amerasia case they were:
Philip Jaffe, a Russian Jew who came to the U.S. in 1905. He was at
one time the editor of the communist paper "Labor Defense" and the
ringleader of the group arrested.
Andrew Roth, a Jew.
Mark Gayn, a Jew, changed his name from Julius Ginsberg.
John Service, a gentile.
Emmanuel Larsen, nationality unknown
Kate Mitchel, nationality unknown.
In 1949 the Jewess Judith Coplin was caught passing classified
documents from Justice Department files to a Russian agent.
The highest ranking communist brought to trial in the U.S. was Gerhart
Eisler. He was a Jew. He was the secret boss of the Communist Party
in the U.S. and commuted regularly between the U.S. and Russia.
In 1950 there was the "Hollywood Ten" case. Ten leading film writers
of the Hollywood Film Colony were convicted for contempt of Congress
and sentenced to prison. Nine of the ten were Jews. Six of the ten
were communist party members and the other four were flagrantly
pro-communist.
One of the top new stories of 1949 was the trial of Eugene Dennis and
the Convicted Eleven. This group comprised the National Secretariat of
the American Communist Party. Six were Jews, two gentiles, three
nationality unknown.
Also in 1949 the German-born atomic scientist Klaus Fuchs was
convicted for passing atomic secrets to the Russians. Acting on
information obtained from Fuchs the FBI arrested nine other members of
the ring. All of them were convicted. Eight of the nine were Jews.
Here are some quotes from a very pro-Jewish book that was first
published in 1925. The book is "Stranger than Fiction" by Lewis
Browne.
"But save for such exceptions, the Jews who led or participated in the
heroic efforts to remold the world of the last century, were neither
Reform or Orthodox. Indeed, they were often not professing Jews at
all.
"For instance, there was Heinrich Heine and Ludwig Borne, both
unfaltering champions of freedom. And even more conspicuously, there
was Karl Marx, one of the great prophetic geniuses of modern times.
"Jewish historians rarely mention the name of this man, Karl Marx,
though in his life and spirit he was far truer to the mission of
Israel than most of those who were forever talking of it. He was born
in Germany in 1818, and belonged to an old rabbinic family. He was not
himself reared as a Jew, however, but while still a child was baptized
a Christian by his father. Yet the rebel soul of the Jew flamed in him
throughout his days, for he was always a 'troubler' in Europe."
"Then, of course, there are Ludwig Borne and Heinrich Heine, two men
who by their merciless wit and sarcasm became leaders among the
revolutionary writers. Karl Marx, Ferdinand Lassalle, Johann Jacoby,
Gabriel Riesser, Adolphe Cremieux, Signora Nathan- all these of Jewish
lineage played important roles in the struggle that went throughout
Europe in this period. Wherever the war for human liberty was being
waged, whether in France, Germany, Austria, Hungary, or Italy, there
the Jew was to be found. It was little wonder that the enemies of
social progress, the monarchists and the Churchmen, came to speak of
the whole liberal movement as nothing but a Jewish plot."
The book "Soviet Russia and the Jews" by Gregor Aronson and published
by the American Jewish League Against Communism, quotes Stalin in an
interview in 1931 with the Jewish Telegraph Agency. Stalin said:
"...Communists cannot be anything but outspoken enemies of
Anti-Semitism. We fight anti-Semites by the strongest methods in the
Soviet Union. Active anti-Semites are punished by death under the
law."
The following quotes are taken directly from documents available from
the
U.S. Archives:
State Department document 861.00/1757 sent May 2, 1918 by U.S. consul
general in Moscow, Summers: "Jews prominent in local Soviet
government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population...."
State Department document 861.00/2205 was sent from Vladivostok on
July 5, 1918 by U.S. consul Caldwell: "Fifty percent of Soviet
government in each town consists of Jews of the worst type."
From the Headquarters of the American Expeditionary Forces, Siberia onMarch 1, 1919, comes this telegram from Omsk by Chief of Staff, Capt.
Montgomey Shuyler: "It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the
United States but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since it's
beginning, guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest
type" type."
A second Schuyler telegram, dated June 9, 1919 from Vladivostok,
reports on the make-up of the presiding Soviet government: "...(T)here
were 384 'commissars' including 2 negroes, 13 Russians, 15 Chinamen,
22 Armenians, AND MORE THAN 300 JEWS. Of the latter number, 264 had
come to Russia from the United States since the downfall of the
Imperial Government.
The Netherlands' ambassador in Russia, Oudendyke, confirmed this:
"Unless Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to
spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is
organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one
object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things."
"The Bolshevik revolution in Russia was the work of Jewish brains, of
Jewish dissatisfaction, of Jewish planning, whose goal is to create a
new order in the world. What was performed in so excellent a way in
Russia, thanks to Jewish brains, and because of Jewish dissatisfaction
and by Jewish planning, shall also, through the same Jewish mental an
physical forces, become a reality all over the world." (The American
Hebrew, September 10, 1920
"In the Bolshevik era, 52 percent of the membership of the Soviet
communist party was Jewish, though Jews comprised only 1.8 percent of
the total population." (Stuart Kahan, The Wolf of the Kremlin, p. 81)
Interestingly, one of the first acts by the Bolsheviks was to make
so-called "anti-Semitism" a capital crime. This is confirmed by Stalin
himself:
"National and racial chauvinism is a vestige of the misanthropic
customs characteristic of the period of cannibalism. Anti-semitism, as
an extreme form of racial chauvinism, is the most dangerous vestige of
cannibalism...under USSR law active anti-Semites are liable to the
death penalty." (Stalin, Collected Works, vol. 13, p. 30).
Here is a quote from Mein Kampf:
"Making an effort to overcome my natural reluctance, I tried to read
articles of this nature published in the Marxist Press; but in doing
so my aversion increased all the more. And then I set about learning
something of the people who wrote and published this mischievous
stuff. From the publisher downwards, all of them were Jews. I
recalled to mind the names of the public leaders of Marxism, and then
I realized that most of them belonged to the Chosen Race- the Social
Democratic representatives in the Imperial Cabinet as well as the
secretaries if the Trades Unions and the street agitators. Everywhere
the same sinister picture presented itself. I shall never forget the
row of names- Austerlitz, David, Adler, Ellonbogen, and others. One
fact became quite evident to me. It was that this alien race held in
its hands the leadership of that Social Democratic Party with whose
minor representatives I had been disputing for months past."
Solzhenitsyn named in his book the six top administrators of the
Soviet death camps. All six of them were Jews.
Here is something the National Socialists wrote:
"The Soviet Union was in fact a paradise for one group: the Jews. Even
at times when for foreign policy reasons Jews were less evident in the
government, or when they ruled through straw men, the Jews were always
visible in the middle and lower levels of the administration."
Stalin
probably killed as many or more Jews than Hitler did. The Soviet
Union, as you may know, was taken over by the Stalinists in the late
'20s following the death of Lenin.
I'm wondering how long it will be now before you start posting
that "Stalin was a Jew".
The Jewish Telegraph Agency, on Jan 12, 1931, reported on an
inquiry, which they sent to Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin asking him
to describe the Soviet Union's stand on "anti-Semitism". The JTA
reported that Stalin sent back the following response:
"Anti-Semitism benefits the exploiters for it serves as a lightening
conductor to divert from capitalism the blows of the toilers.
Anti-Semitism is dangerous for the toilers, for it is a false track
which diverts them from the proper road and leads them into the
jungle. Hence, Communists, as consistent internationalists, cannot but
be irreconcilable and bitter enemies of anti-Semitism. In the USSR
anti-Semitism is strictly prosecuted as a phenomenon hostile to the
Soviet system. According to the laws of the USSR active anti-Semites
are punished with death!"
But Stalin cared about Russia and came into conflict with other
Communists (Jewish) who had other motives.
David Francis, the American Ambassador to Russia at the time of the
Revolution, wrote:
"The Bolshevic leaders here, most of whom are Jews and 90 percent
of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other
country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a
world-wide revolution."
So some Jewish communists were executed over disagreements, but it
wasn't because they were Jews:
In Czechoslovakia the Minister of Justice who ordered the execution
of nine Communist Jews was Stefan Reis, recognized by the Jewish
Chronicle, a leading Jewish periodical of England, of 5th May, 1950,
as a Jew himself.
In Rumania, the Jewess Anna Parker was replaced by another Jew, A.
Bughici.
Stalin married a Jewess and his daughter in 1951 also married a Jew.
Stalin's Jews
Sever Plocker-Ynet (Israel)
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/ 1,7340,L-3342999,00.html
We mustn't forget that some of the greatest murderers of modern times
were Jewish... An Israeli student finishes high school without ever
hearing the name Genrikh Yagoda, the greatest Jewish murderer of the
20th Century, the GPU's deputy commander and the founder and commander
of the NKVD. Yagoda diligently implemented Stalin's collectivization
orders and is responsible for the deaths of at least 10 million
people. His Jewish deputies established and managed the Gulag system.
Many Jews sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution and
have blood on their hands for eternity. We'll mention just one more:
Leonid Reichman, head of the NKVD's special department and the
organization's chief interrogator, who was a particularly cruel
sadist.
"Fifteen years after the Bolshevist Revolution was launched to carry
out the Marxist program, the editor of the American Hebrew could
write: "According to such information that the writer could secure
while in Russia a few weeks ago, not one Jewish synagogue has been
torn down, as have hundreds-perhaps thousands of the Greek Catholic
Churches...In Moscow and other large cities one can see Christian
churches in the process of destruction...the Government needs the
location for a large building," (American Hebrew, Nov. 18, 1932, p.
12) Apostate Jews, leading a revolution that was to destroy
religion as the "opiate of the people" had somehow spared the
synagogues of
Russia." ("Democracy and World Dominion," 1939, p.211)
http://www.ihr.org/ http:// www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/
http://www.natvan.com http://www.nsm88.org
http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html
.
- Prev by Date: Re: DemoCRAPs = Obstructionists; America knows!
- Next by Date: Re: Republicans Found the Pork & Cut it Out of the Stimulus Bill -- The Pork Was Your Children's Education
- Previous by thread: Republicans = Obstructionists; America knows!
- Next by thread: Re: Republicans Found the Pork & Cut it Out of the Stimulus Bill -- The Pork Was Your Children's Education
- Index(es):
