The Forces For War
Conrad K. Grieb
P. O. Box 144-Station Y
NEW YORK 21, N. Y.
Conrad K. Grieb
New York. N. Y.
All Rights Reserved
To those many Americans who are seeking a firmer factual footing in the mire of misinformation that covers the world today, this study is respectfully dedicated.
“The supreme freedom is the freedom of the people to know the truth. For the peace and prosperity of the world it is more important for the public to know the liberal truth than the reactionary truth. Perhaps some day all of us will be strong enough to stand the real truth.” — Henry A. Wallace, former vice-president of the United States (New York Times, January 7, 1947).
Mr. Wallace, perhaps unintentionally, has said something of great importance in these words. If he really meant it when he said the supreme freedom is the freedom of the people to know the truth, then he must agree that it is vitally important for all possible sides of the truth to be presented to the people. To suppress one truth and let the people know only the other truth — Mr. Wallace admits in the words quoted above there are two truths, the liberal and the reactionary — then, it must seem to every fair-minded person, the people will get only a one-sided truth, and they will never acquire the strength, which Mr. Wallace evidently considers most desirable, to know the real truth.
In the following pages, therefore, the reader will find some uncontestable truths which may prove to be vitally necessary to his understanding of the real truth.
Despite all the propaganda efforts made by the protagonists of the shibboleth of Democracy two world wars in a generation have left the world not better off, but worse. And the propagandists for Democracy cannot change that fact, no matter what they do.
They can place the blame where they will, almost without opposition, because of their monopoly of the public opinion manufacturing agencies. And by constant repetition they can have most of the people believing them.
But here, the author challenges the monopolists of public opinion by examining unpublicized material — unpublicized because this material reveals the UNDER COVER FORCES FOR WAR.
February 1, 1947
“So you see, my dear Coningsby, the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” — Coningsby (page 233, Century Edition, 1903) by Benjamin Disraeli, Earl of Beaconsfield.
(First published in 1844)
1. British-American Rapprochement 1
2. British-German Cleavage 7
3. “Roping in America” — 1917 15
4. Twenty Years Armistice 27
5. “Roping in America” — 1941 49
6. Other Influences 73
7. Conclusions 89
No. I President Lincoln and the International Bankers of His Day 91
No. II British Concentration Camps In the Boer War 93
No. III The War in South Africa, by J. A. Hobson 95
No. IV Democracy and Social Instability, by J. Middleton Murry 99
No. V Winston Churchill in India 101
No. VI Winston Churchill on War 101
No VII Walter Rathenau Predicted Germany Today 103
No. VIII Austria Before Hitler, by Dr. Joseph Eberle 104
No. IX Danzig and The Corridor, by W. H. Dawson 106
No. X Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith 107
No. XI Theodore Herzl Confutes Nathan Ohrbach 108
Books For Collateral Reading 117
“One does not need to be endowed with an abnormally vivid imagination in order to foresee that for us to guarantee Germany’s Eastern frontier would be an act of sheer criminal lunacy.” — R. W. Walmsley, London Economist, 14th Nov. 1931 (p. 914).
Sir Walter Layton, M.A., C.B.E., Editor of The Economist, commented on the letter above as follows:
“We are apt to judge, when we look into the East Europe settlement, that its terms are inequitable and they ought not to be perpetuated even if they could be.” (Page 899.)
“Time may dispel many pleasing illusions and destroy many noble dreams but it will never shake my belief that the wound caused by the wholly unlooked for and undesired separation of the Mother from her child is not to bleed forever. Let men say what they will, therefore I say, that surely as the sun in the heavens once shown upon Britain and America united, so surely is it one morning to rise, shine upon, and greet again the united states, the British American Union.” — Andrew Carnegie.
With this thought Andrew Carnegie closed the 1893 edition of his book “Triumphant Democracy.” Significantly, you will look in vain for these concluding words in later editions which omit entirely the last chapter, “The Re-union of Britain and America.”
Force had not succeeded in bringing about the reunion of the mother with her child, so ardently looked forward to by Carnegie. Two military adventures on the Western shore of the Atlantic by Britain had ended in failure.
During the Civil War:
“England and America were brought to the verge of war by the affair ‘Trent’ and later by the building of Confederate vessels in English yards.” 
And then, with the assassination of President Lincoln,  the British policy towards America changed to one of friendliness. It would not be difficult to find authoritative evidence that the reconciliation was actually between American banking institutions and the banking interests in England, rather than between the peoples of the two countries.
 American Political History, Viola Conklin, page 402.@
 See Appendix 1.
Hilaire Belloc in MONARCHY, A STUDY OF LOUIS XIV, writing of the influence of the money power, states in the preface:
“Those who omit it — omit the one thing salient, the one thing omission of which renders their judgment worthless.”
At the turn of the century the policy of reconciliation had so far advanced that Professor Dicey recommended the establishment of a common citizenship.  The Anglo-American League, a society formed in London in the summer of 1898 consisting of representative individuals chosen from all grades of social, political, civil, and commercial life, adopted the following resolutions:
“Considering that the people of the British Empire and of the United States of America are closely allied in blood, inherit the same principles of self-government, recognize the same ideals of freedom and humanity in the guidance of their national policy, and are drawn together by strong common interests in many parts of the world, this meeting is of the opinion that every effort should be made, in the interests of civilization and peace to secure the most cordial and constant co-operation between the two nations.”
That program of “cordial and constant co-operation between the two nations” brought not peace but the most destructive wars of the modern era.
The astute British diplomatists had appraised the growing strength of English-speaking America and sought by every means to involve their former colony, now grown strong, in an imperialist policy so that in times of crisis British and American interests would be so intertwined as to be one.
 The Contemporary Review Advertiser, April, 1897, page 212.
Of Theodore Roosevelt, who had become President when McKinley died by an assassin’s bullet, William Morton Fullerton, correspondent of The Times (London), writes:
“His coming was the arrival of the magician who made America to loom over the top of the sea, and finally to become visible from Madrid, Paris, Berlin and London, and even from China and from the islands of the Pacific.” 
Theodore Roosevelt’s arbitration of the Morocco dispute between the great powers of Europe was a step on the way to participation in European affairs which Fullerton describes as:
“. . . often the blind but consecutive effort to shatter German hegemony, and to establish equilibrium, among the Great Powers.” 
The scholarly John R. Dos Passos, a New York attorney for commercial interests of his day, writes glowingly of the unification of the English-speaking people:
“When the sun disappeared on the last day of the Nineteenth Century it left in the horizon vivid pictures of two unexpected and incomplete events whose influence will penetrate far into the realm of future history and, throw light upon the great records which will be made in this new century. In one picture, the United States of America was seen fighting in the Philippines for the possession of a land which she claimed by double title of conquest and purchase. In the other, the British Empire was battling with the Boers: sending her armies over the seas into Africa, to answer the defiant and goading challenge of that people.”
“Neither the acquisition by the United States of new territories, conquered or purchased, from a weaker power, nor the subjugation of the Boers by England and the enforcement of absolute sovereignty upon their republics are, per se, events of supreme importance to the outside world.”
 Problems of Power, page 24
 page 25.
“The continental powers view with comparative complacency the relinquishment of the sovereignty of Spain over the Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico; and while the subjugation of the Boers, and the metamorphosis of their republics into the colonies of the British Empire, awakens keener interest and criticism, these acts will, nevertheless, pass unchallenged, and eventually be acquiesced in.” [l]
“But the deep significance of these two historic incidents is, that they have brought the English American peoples into such striking prominence that their present and future relations to each other and the aim and scope of their ambition, separately or combined, must become an absorbing topic of international thought and discussion.” (Pages 1-2.) (The Anglo-Saxon Century.)
Dos Passos continues on Page 49:
“The existing feeling among the people calling for a near and closer relationship of the English speaking race is the recognition of this evolution.”
“The belief that steps should be taken to put this feeling into some practical and tangible shape does not emanate from one country, but it comes from both. It springs not from official or diplomatic sources; it is the spontaneous utterance of the people of both countries.”
“The peculiar, isolated fact which brought this question to light, and to the attention of the two nations, was the Spanish -America War. The moral support which England gave to America in that struggle caused it to develop, and brought about its further propagation. England’s position in that war was not manifested in any official or recognized diplomatic manner, but, by some language, intimation, or action known and understood in the courts of Europe, the continental powers were made to understand that she would permit no interference with the United States in the conduct of the war.”
 Jean Carrere, correspondent of Le Temps: writes, “Captain G., an English officer told him at Bloemfontem: ‘It is, however, in order to give gold to some financiers, at present one knows not where sheltered, that the soldiers of Great Britain have come here.’” See Appendices II, III.
This worthy scholar relied on surface indications to reveal the shape of passing events. He did not observe that the surface, aside from revealing the shape of things, also conceals the contents. More alert observers have gone beneath surface observations to give us this more complete understanding of realities:
“A word here as, to the British role in our acquisition of the Philippines is necessary to get a rounded picture of what Bemis (author of Diplomatic History of the U. S.) calls ‘The Greatest Mistake In the History of American Diplomacy.’”
“The British were very much worried that Germany would take over the Philippine Islands. As Germany was becoming a stronger rival of Britain in all parts of the world, this was the last thing the British wanted to happen.”
“Furthermore, the British wanted the United States to take a physical place in the Far East where it might support British policy to keep China open to Western trade, which was predominantly British trade. If the British could manoeuver us into not only an increasing trade stake but actual territory in the Far East, it would be much easier for Britain to obtain American co-operation in helping Britain preserve her Far Eastern stake, which was becoming more and more menaced by Germany and others.” (WHY MEDDLE IN THE ORIENT, Boake Carter and Thomas Healy, p. 61.)
What has been the result?
“. . . while American men fought the Japanese, Imperialism marched on behind. Imperialism raised the British flag on Guadalcanal, after our men took it; Imperialism raised the British flag at Taraw a after our men took it; Imperialism raised the Dutch flag at New Hollandia — after our men took it. Imperialism waits, from Hong Kong to Singapore, to raise its empire-flags — and we at home are told to scrap synthetic rubber plants.” — (AMERICA .. WHICH WAY? p. 35, John Howland Snow.)
In addition to the “vivid pictures of two unexpected and incompleted events” of which Mr. Dos Passos writes “when the sun disappeared on the last day of the Nineteenth Century,” the figures of two famous empire builders, Cecil Rhodes and Andrew Carnegie, silhouetted boldly on the sky-line, cast their shadows across the years to the present time.
Cecil Rhodes, in the first of his several wills, had already visualized a society, which he was later to finance, known as the Rhodes Scholarship Fund. Its purpose was to imbue talented young Americans, fitted for leadership, with ambition to devote their efforts in the fulfillment of Rhodes’ dream of a British-American Union.
The first draft of Rhodes’ will directed that a secret society should be endowed with the following objects:
“The extension of British rule throughout the world .. the colonization by British subjects of all land where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labor and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire.” (Italics ours.- Ed.) 
 Cecil Rhodes, page 50, Basil Williams.
“Fantastic dream? Fantastic as the design appears it already has been largely fulfilled. The Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, all of the islands of the Pacific south of the equator, Candia and Cyprus and most of the continent of Africa are now under British control. It is no fantastic dream. Startling progress has been made towards Anglicizing American colleges, school textbooks, the lecture platform, the pulpit, the press and other channels of public education.” — (The Poisoned Loving Cup, pp. 112-113, Charles Grant Miller.)
The campaign to “rope in America” was in full swing at the turn of the century. Backed by the gigantic private fortunes of two men — the one, a patriotic Englishman who sought the recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire; the other, an American of Scottish birth who remained a British patriot at heart, and longed for the day to greet again the united states, the British -American Union — funds are never lacking to beguile the American people into willingly serving the needs of the Empire with their blood and their fortunes. A recent traveler to England, whose identity must remain unknown, found that America is still regarded in London as the best colony.
“Il est dans mon systeme d’affaibler la Prusse; je veux qu’elle ne soit puissance dans le balance polique de l’Europe.” * — Napoleon at Tilsit in conversation with Tsar Alexander and the King of Prussia.
During the years before the outbreak of the First World War in 1914, Britain allowed it to appear that it was her support France and Russia sought for war against Germany Actually, her diplomatists, with characteristic shrewdness, were using France and Russia in Britain’s traditional Continental Balance of Power Policy.
Colonel E. M. House, President Wilson’s roving diplomat, sent a dispatch to the President dated May 29, 1914:
“Whenever England consents, France and Russia will close in on Germany and Austria.” — (Intimate Papers of Colonel House, Vol. I, p. 249.)
Russia was evidently fearful that consent might not be given. Benckendorff, Russian ambassador in London, in a communication to Sazanov, Russian Foreign Minjster, wrote:
“. . . It is impossible for the Anglo-Russian entente to be maintained if the estrangement between Britain and Germany ceases . . .”
He was alarmed at the increasing proofs of Germany’s efforts to dissipate that estrangement:
“. . . If the entent were confined to certain questions, England will see herself forced to consider German wishes relating to concessions and the partition of spheres of influence — this will, step by step, annul our entente and the Anglo-German understanding will then assume a general character, for such a combination possesses a very fascinating feature for England: the possibility of limiting her armaments.” [l]
* It is part of my system to weaken Prussia; “I mean she shall no longer be a power in the political balance of Europe.” (Quarante-Cinq Annees de Ma Vie:1770-1815, by Princess Radziwill.)
In a confidential report on Feb. 27, 1914, the Russian Ambassador at Berlin wrote to the Russian Foreign Minister as follows:
“According to wholly confidential reports reaching me the growing military strength of Russia is causing even more serious anxiety at Berlin .. No wonder that in view of such considerations, the Germans are straining every nerve to be ready for war with us .. It is my conviction that between the lines printed about Russso-German relations in German newspapers of late one may always read fear of Russia. In conclusion, let me express hope that they are not in error about this at Berlin.”*
In his book, NATIONAL DEFENSE, Kirby Page writes on Page 77:
“The Germans were afraid of ‘encirclement,’ fearful of French revenge and jealousy, alarmed over Pan-Slavism, apprehensive that the British fleet might block the way to the world’s resources and a place in the sun.”
“. . . ‘We must make greater exertions than other Powers,’ exclaimed Bismarck, ‘on account of our geographical position. We lie in the middle of Europe; we can be attacked on all sides. God has put us in a situation in which our neighbors do not allow us to fall into indolence or apathy. The pike in the European fish pond prevent us from becoming carp.’” — (BISMARCK, J. W. Headlem, p. 444.)
 The Secret History of a Great Betrayal, E, D. Morel. Page 23.
*Entente Diplomacy and The World, B. de Siebert, page 711.
“‘The Germany army,’ said Lloyd George in a famous address delivered only a few months before war broke out, ‘is vital not merely to the existence of the German Empire but to the very life and independence of the nation itself, surrounded as Germany is by other nations each of which possesses arms about as powerful as her own . . . She has therefore become alarmed by recent events, and is spending huge sums of money on the expansion of her military resources.’” — (Daily Chronicle, Jan. 1, 1914.)
“On an earlier occasion, in Queen’s Hall, July 28, 1908, Lloyd George said: ‘Look at the position of Germany Her army is to her what our navy is to us — her sole defense against invasion. . . . Here is Germany in the middle of Europe with France and Russia on either side and with a combination of armies greater than hers. Don’t forget that when you wonder why Germany is frightened at alliances and understandings.’”
Kirby Page writes further on page 79:
“‘This Teuton block in the middle of Europe,’ said the British Major-General Malcolm, ‘thrust in between Latin and Slav, presents a horrible problem the position of the Teuton has been that he must always be ready to fight for his life. He must either make himself secure or be obliterated. The result has been to produce a vigorous, aggressive and sometimes unscrupulous race.’” — (INFORMATION ON THE REDUCTION OF ARMAMENTS, p. 11; J. W. Wheeler-Bennett.)
“The use of uncivilized troops by France was a source of terror to many Germans. In 1913 Von Wrochem wrote: ‘France’s colored troops should especially not be underestimated; these black beasts fight like wild things and if once they overflowed our land there would be terrible days.’” — (THE NEUROSIS OF THE NATIONS, p. 138, C. E. Playne.)
The Germans experienced the terrors of black occupation troops after the last war. Now rendered defenseless, they are again experiencing a far worse ordeal at the hands of their democratic liberators. Senator James O. Eastland said in the Senate, June 29, 1945 (Congressional Record, Vol. 91, No. 130, p. 7104.):
“I was informed by generals and high ranking Government officials that in the city of Stuttgart, when the French army moved in, several thousand Christian German girls from good families were rounded up and placed in the subway, and for four or five days they were kept there and criminally assaulted by Senegalese soldiers from Africa. It was one of the most horrible occurences of modern times.”
Early in 1914 Britain’s secret relations with the Entente were still a matter of uncertainty to the other two members, Russia and France The Russian Ambassador in Berlin, reporting to Sazonov, February 13, 1914, remarks that Cambon ( French Ambassador in Berlin) is very much worried by the constant rumor of an improvement in Anglo-German relations, since he agrees that there is a possibility of rapprochement between these two countries in the future. On the occasion of Tirpitz (head of German Admiralty) making a speech in the Reichstag virtually recognizing British naval superiority, Sazonov wired to Beckendorff (Russian Ambassador in London) about this alarming symptom and his uneasiness at the effort of German diplomacy to bring about a rapprochement with England. He wanted to know in what degree machinations of that sort might find a favorable soil in London. — de Siebert Collection No. 770, as outlined by E. D. Morel in SECRET HISTORY OF A GREAT BETRAYAL, page 34.)
There were groups in England strongly opposed to a rapprochement with Germany As early as 1897 the Saturday Review on September 11 wrote an explosive article which included these sentences:
“If Germany were extinguished tomorrow, the day after tomorrow there is not an Englishman in the world who would not be the richer. Germania delenda est.”
Edwin D. Schoonmaker in DEMOCRACY AND WORLD DOMINION, writes on page 69 in regard to this pre-ward period:
“Interesting as all this is in its bearing upon the dire calamity which was soon to engulf the world, the following bit of conversation between a distinguished diplomat, Mr. Henry White, and Mr. Balfour, affords a peculiar insight into the recesses of British foreign policy during this critical period. No one whose reading has covered this interesting period will fall to note that the expressions of this British statesman are typical of similar remarks which crop out. of British political literature during this whole period. To get the full force of this remarkable conversation, It should be remembered that it took place upon the eve of the second Hague Conference for the limitation of armament and that Mr. White, then in Brussels, had been asked by President Theodore Roosevelt to go to London to see Mr. Balfour and secure his cooperation in making the coming conference. a success. If the reader is amazed by the glimpse into the governing mind of Great Britain, he will note that Mr. White was no less amazed.”
“Balfour (somewhat lightly): ‘We are probably fools not to find a reason for declaring war on Germany before she builds too many ships and takes away our trade!’”
“White: ‘You are a very high minded man in private life. How can you possibly contemplate anything so politically immoral as provoking a war against a harmless nation which has as good a right to a navy as you have? If you wish to compete with German trade, work harder.’”
“Balfour: ‘That would mean lowering our standard of living. Perhaps it would be simpler for us to have a war.’”
“White: ‘I am shocked that you of all men should ennunciate such principles.’”
“Balfour (again lightly); ‘Is it a question of right or wrong? Maybe it is just a question ‘Of keeping our supremacy.’” — From HENRY WHITE, THIRTY YEARS OF AMERICAN DIPLOMACY, by Allan Nevins, pp. 257-8.)
Of the years of diplomatic intrigue which led up to 1914, E. D. Morel, former Member of Parliament wrote:
“‘British policy’ was the policy not of Britain, but of the handful of liberal cabinet ministers who, with their accomplices in the world of foreign office and embassy officialdom, journalism and finance, were running the country onto the rocks.” — (Secret History of a Great Betrayal.)
T. St. John Gaffney, American Consul General at Munich at the outbreak of war in 1914, writes:
“For twenty years previous to the war I had been an annual visitor to England, where I had also a large acquaintance with all classes of the people. I was both astonished and amused at the growth of hostility to Germany, and my English friends did not hesitate to declare to me with perfect frankness and customary English bumptuousness that it was necessary to destroy Germany or England would lose her commercial predominance in the world’s market. The question with them was purely one of trade supremacy and with English arrogance they spoke as if they required no allies to accomplish their purpose. I used to laugh at their fears and their boasts and assured them that no spirit of hostility outside trade rivalry prevailed in Germany, but my views were not taken seriously and they one and all declared that in the interest of British trade Germany must be destroyed. Little did I dream at that time of the conspiracy that England had woven to mobilize the world against the Germanic people and how she would succeed in using the blood and treasure of other nations to accomplish her criminal ambition.” — BREAKING THE SILENCE (p. 11).
Russian Foreign Minister Sazanov need have had no fears of a rapprochement between England and Germany early in 1914.
It was not to be.
Roping In America — 1917
“After the war broke out, the American press, under the tutelage of the English, and its financial and political employers attained the nadir of degradation and in succumbing utterly to the wild excesses of the war-mania, became openly criminal.” — (T. St. John Gaffney, in BREAKING THE SILENCE, p. 5.)
British propaganda, never absent among influential, public-opinion forming Americans in times of peace, goes to war for the Empire in 1914. Kirby Page writes of this in NATIONAL DEFENSE (page 126):
“A year after success had crowned the Allied efforts to induce the United States to enter the war, Sir Gilbert Parker in a notable article in Harper’s Magazine, March 1918, shed light on the British technique: ‘Practically since the day war broke out between England and the Central Powers I became responsible for American publicity. I need hardly say that the scope of my department was very extensive and its activity widely ranged. .. I also frequently arranged for important public men in England to act for us by interviews in American newspapers; and among these distinguished people were Mr. Lloyd George, Viscount Grey, Mr. Balfour, Mr. Bonar Law, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Sir Edward Carson, Lord Robert Cecil Mr. Walter Runciman, the Lord Chancellor, Mr. Austen Chamberlain, Lord Cromer, Will Cooks, Lord Curzon, Lord Gladstone, Lord Haldane, Mr. Henry James, Mr. John Redmond, Mr. Selfridge, Mr. Zangwill, Mrs. Humphrey Ward and fully a hundred others.”
“Among other things, we supplied three hundred and sixty newspapers in the smaller States of the United States with an English newspaper, which gave a weekly review and comment of the affairs of the war. We established connection with the man in the street through cinema pictures of the Army and Navy, as well as through interviews, articles, pamphlets, etc. . . . We advised and stimulated many people to write articles; we utilized the services and the assistance of confidential friends. Besides an immense private correspondence with individuals, we had our documents and literature sent to great numbers of private libraries, Y. M. C. A. societies, universities, colleges, historical societies and newspapers.”
The Central Powers had not been so easy to vanquish as the Entente had supposed. The barrage of English propaganda had, as yet, not brought the United States into the war. Again quoting Kirby Page in NATIONAL DEFENSE (p. 135):
“If the Allies had been sure that they could not count upon the eventual support of America, they would in all probability have been compelled to enter into peace negotiations by the end of 1916 or early 1917.”
This supports Churchill’s statement in August, 1936, to William Griffin, editor and publisher of the New York Enquirer, that:
“America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn’t entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the Spring of 1917. Had we made peace then there would have been no collapse in Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany If America had stayed out of the war, all of these ‘isms’ wouldn’t today be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government, and if England had made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American and other lives.”
Returning again to Kirby Page in National Defense:
“John Maynard Keynes says that the inner group at the British Treasury anxiously realized ‘how entirely helpless the task would soon have become without the assistance of the United States Treasury.’”
“Bonar Law, Chancellor of the British Exchequer, said on July 24, 1917, ‘It is an open secret that we had spent so freely of our resources that those available in America had become nearly exhausted when our great Ally entered the struggle.’”
Garet Garret, more recently author of an excellent but not very widely known commentary on the twentieth century American revolution, THE REVOLUTION WAS, wrote in THE BUBBLE THAT BROKE THE WORLD (p. 126):
“In the Spring of 1917 the star of Germanity was overcoming. ‘It cannot be said,’ wrote General Pershing in his final report, ‘that German hopes of a final victory were extravagant, either as viewed at that time or as viewed in the light of history. Financial problems of the Allies were difficult, supplies were becoming exhausted and their armies had suffered tremendous losses. Discouragement existed not only among the civil population but throughout the armies as well.’”
However “hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces” already had been secretly set in operation.
It is timely to state here, that when any group organizes to make its influence felt in either domestic affairs, international affairs, or both, the results of its policies, and of its actions, are subject to historical analysis and criticism. The growth of the Jewish influence in America is beyond the scope of this inquiry. We are concerned, however, with the influence of ORGANIZED WORLD JEWRY on the participation of the United States in the great wars of this century.
Woodrow Wilson was President during the participation of the United States in the First War Between The Nations. Influences bringing about his election are worthy of examination.
Jennings C. Wise in his book, WOODROW WILSON, DISCIPLE OF REVOLUTION, writes:
“Marburg noted the headway ‘Wilson was making and felt that he was well on his way to capture him for the Internationalists. Apparently he agreed with his friend, Rabbbi Stephen S. Wise, that if there was to be a Democratic President, Wilson would be preferable to Bryan. Nor was the wise Rabbi the only member of his race who believed this. The upshot was that, thoroughly alive to the value of the Jewish vote, Wilson agreed to speak in Carnegie Hall on the subject of the Russian treaty and the passport question. This speech was one of the most idealistic he ever made. The Jews were greatly pleased. Within a few days Henry Morgenthau and Abram L. Elkus, both prominent representatives of their race, tendered to McCombs their support of Wilson, with whom it was arranged that Morgenthau should serve as Chairman of Wilson’s campaign committee. [l] It was directly understood among the three that McCombs would urge Morgenthau’s appointment as Secretary of the Treasury and the appointment of Elkus to an important ambassadorial post. (Later, after he had availed himself of Morgenthau’s services, Wilson repudiated this agreement; Morgenthau and Elkus were compelled to divide a four-year ambassadorship to Turkey.)”
“Bernard Baruch also now came out strongly for Wilson. With no experience in ‘big business,’ thus insidiously, gradually, surely, Wilson was being obligated to Jewish financiers, while being committed unknown to McCombs, to the program of the Internationalists.” (Pages 93-94.)
 This might be termed the First Morgenthau Plan.
Such were the “hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces” which were set in operation in 1916. Let us quote directly from the source, a pamphlet published by Samuel Landman, Secretary to the Joint Zionist Council of the United Kingdom in 1912, Joint Editor of the Zionist in 1913-14 and author of pamphlets on History of Zionism and Sionism, Its Organization and Institutions.
In Mr. Landman’s pamphlet, GREAT BRITAIN, THE JEWS AND PALESTINE, published in 1936 by the New Zionist Publications, the following appears on pages 4 and 5: *
“During the critical days of 1916 and of the impending defection of Russia, Jewry, as a whole. was against the Czarist regime and had hopes that Germany, if victorious, would in certain circumstances give them Palestine. Several attempts to bring America into the war on the side of the Allies by influencing Jewish opinion had failed. Mr. James A. Malcolm, who was already aware of German prewar efforts to secure a foothold in Palestine through the Zionist Jews and of the abortive Anglo-French demarches at Washington and New York; and knew that Woodrow Wilson, for good and sufficient reasons, always attached the greatest importance to the advice of a very prominent Zionist (Mr. Justice Brandies of the U. S. Supreme Court); and was in close. touch with Mr. Greenberg, Editor of the Jewish Chronicle (London); and knew that several important Zionist leaders had already gravitated to London from the Continent on the qui vive awaiting events; and appreciated and realized the depth and strength of Jewish National aspirations; spontaneously took the initiative, to convince first of all Sir Mark Sykes, Under Secretary of the War Cabinet, and afterwards Monsier Picot, of the French Embassy in London, and Monsieur Gour of the Quai d’Orsay (Eastern Section), that the best and perhaps the only way (which proved so to be) to induce the American President to come into the War was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palentine, and thus enlist and mobilize the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces (italics ours Ed.) of the Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favor of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis.”
* Also see Jewish Chronicle, December 20, 1935, February 7, and May 8, 1936; and World Jewry, February 22 and March I, 1935.
“Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists, having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret gentlemen’s agreement of 1916 made with the previous knowledge, acquiesence and/or approval of the Arabs and of the British, American, French and other Allied Governments, and not merely a voluntary altruistic and romantic gesture on the part of Great Britain as certain people either through pardonable ignorance or unpardonable ill-will would represent or rather misrepresent. . . .”
“An interesting account of the negotiations carried on in London and Paris and subsequent developments, has already appeared in the Jewish press and need not be repeated here in detail, except to recall that immediately after the ‘gentlemen’s’ agreement between Sir Mark Sykes authorized by the War Cabinet and the Zionist leaders, cable facilities through the War Office, the Foreign Office and the British Embassies, Legations, etc., were given to the latter to communicate the glad tidings to their friends and organizations in America and elsewhere, and the change in official and public opinion as reflected in the American press in favour of joining the Allies in the War, was gratifying as it was surprisingly rapid.”
Apparently this agreement was timed to swing influential support over to Wilson in the election of 1916. Jennings C. Wise writes in his book:
“Another new source of support in 1916 was the sudden and tremendous enthusiasm displayed by Zion — is Jewry for Woodrow Wilson. About this there is perhaps a little mystery. Referring to a pamphlet published in 1936 by Samuel Landman, Solicitor and Secretary of the Zionist organization during the War, which purports to make quite clear the switch in Jewish support from the German to the Allied cause: the initial bias was not simply anti-Russian but pro-German. The reason was that the Zionists had expected to ‘close a deal’ with Germany, for the later possession of Palestine, which they subsequently effected with the Allies.
“Jewish influence had much to do with Wilson’s initial anti-Entente bias. Later, it influenced him in the opposite direction. The Jewish backing he enjoyed in 1916 constitutes strong circumstantial evidence that Wilson had subscribed, at least tentatively, to the British deal with the Zionists. . . .” (page 458.)
To return to the Landman pamphlet, this writer says further:
“. . . the fact that it was Jewish help that brought the U. S. A. into the War on the side of the Allies, has rankled ever since in German — especially Nazi — minds and has contributed in no small measure to the prominence which anti-semitism occupies in the Nazi program.”
Jennings Wise adds in a footnote on page 524:
“. . . the Zionist-Ally deal which may have influenced Wilson against the Germans initially, the actual, much later entrance into the war of the United States was directly provoked by specific German acts having no relation to the Zionist incident.”
It is a matter of historical record that the State Department held Germany to strict accountability on agreed rules of the sea while at the same time overlooking the British violations which the Germans were combatting. Apparently everything was done to force a breach that would publicly justify a declaration of war.
A more extensive study could draw a parallel with the diplomatic chicanery, for it was nothing less than that, during the 1939-41 period. One cannot escape observing the outline of a plan to involve the United States in the policy of world imperialism in which it is still enmeshed.*
The entrance of the United States into the First War Between the Nations was decisive.
We will now examine a number of observations and comments on the making of the peace.
“My views,” writes Robert Lansing, Secretary of State throughout the War, and one of the five American representatives at the Peace Conference, in his book, THE PEACE NEGOTIATIONS, “concerning the Treaty at the time of the conversations with Mr. Bullitt are expressed in a memorandum of May 8, 1919, which is as follows:”
“The terms of peace were yesterday delivered to the German plentipotentaries, and for the first time in these days of feverish rush of preparation there is time to consider the treaty as a complete document.”
“The impression made by it is one of disappointment, of regret, and of depression. The terms of peace appear immeasurably harsh and humiliating, while many of them seem to me impossible of performance.”
“The League of Nations created by the Treaty is relied upon to preserve the artificial structure which has been erected by compromise of conflicting are sown in so many articles and which under normal conditions would soon bear fruit. The League might as well attempt to prevent the growth of plant life in a tropical jungle. War will come sooner or later.”
- Charles A. Beard, American Foreign Policy In the Making, 1932-1940.
- Also see “America Goes to War,” by Charles C. Tanslll.
“It must be admitted in honesty that the League is an instrument of the mighty to check the normal growth of national power and national aspirations among those who have been rendered impotent by defeat. Examine the treaty and you will find peoples delivered against their will into the hands of those whom they hate, while their economic resources are torn from them and given to others. Resentment and bitterness, if not desperation are bound to be the consequences of such provisions. It may be years before these oppressed peoples are able to throw off the yoke, but as the day follows night the time will come when they will make the effort.”
“This war was fought by the United States to destroy forever the conditions which produced it. These conditions have not been destroyed. They have been supplanted by other conditions equally productive of hatred, jealousy and suspicion. In place of the Triple Alliance and the Entente has arisen the Quintuple Alliance which is to rule the world. The victors in this War intend to impose their combined will upon the vanquished and to subordinate all interests to their own.”
“It is true that to please the aroused opinion of mankind and to respond to the idealism of the moralist they have surrounded the new alliance with a halo and called it ‘The League of Nations’ but whatever it may be called or however it may be disguised it is an alliance of the Five Great Military Powers.”
“It is useless to close our eyes to the fact that the power to compel obedience by the exercise of the united strength of ‘The Five’ is a fundamental principle of the League. Justice is secondary. Might is primary.”
“The League as now constituted will be the prey of greed and intrigue; and the law of unanimity in the council, which may offer restraint will be broken or render the organization powerless. It is called upon to stamp as just what is unjust.”
“We have a treaty of peace, but it will not bring permanent peace because it is founded on the shifting sands of self interest.”
“In the view thus expressed I was not alone. A few days after they were written I was in London, where I discussed the treaty with several leading British statesmen. I noted their Opinions thus: ‘the consensus was that the treaty was unwise and unworkable, that it was conceived in intrigue and fashioned in cupidity, and that it would produce rather than prevent wars.’ One of these leaders of political thought in Great Britain said that ‘the only apparent purpose of the League of Nations seems to be to perpetuate the series of unjust provisions which are being imposed.’” (Page 272.)
J. Middleton Murry, an English author of note, writes in a similar vein in THE BETRAYAL OF CHRIST BY THE CHURCHES (page 143):
“Theoretically, the proper form of a democratic peace was adumbrated in the formation of the League of Nations; but this was completely perverted by founding the League on the sacrosanctity of the punitive and vindicitive Peace Treaty. This corruption of the new idea by using the League, of which the most active elements were successor-states created at the expense of the two German Empires, to act as a jailer to a prostrate Germany, was the major political crime of the modern age. For the League of Nations was a necessary idea, if the world was to be made safe for democracy. Either it or some similar form of closer international organization was the rightful consequence of the victory of the democracies. By perverting it into an instrument of domination, they prevented Europe from finding any way forward, and condemned Europe to a final frenzy of nationalist and totalitarian war, in the course of which it is probable that democracy will Perish.”
Dr. Edward J. Dillon concluded the Foreword of his book, THE INSIDE STORY OF THE PEACE CONFERENCE, with these words:
“In the meanwhile the Conference . . . . has transformed Europe into a seething mass of mutually hostile states powerless to face the economic competition of their overseas rivals and has set the very elements of society in flux.”
That was in the year 1919.
Dr. Dillon makes other observations of interest:
“Of all the collectivities whose interests were furthered at the Conference, the Jews had perhaps the most resourceful and certainly the most influential exponents. There were Jews from Palestine, from Poland, Russia, the Ukraine, Rumania, Greece, Britain, Holland and Belgium; but the largest and most brilliant contingent was sent by the United States . . . Western Jews, who championed their Eastern brothers, proceeded to demand a further concession (aside from removing existing disabilities) which many of their co-religionists hastened to disclaim as dangerous — a kind of autonomy which Rumanian, Polish and Russian statesman, as well as many of their Jewish fellow subjects, regarded as tantamount to the creation of a state within a state. Whether this estimate is true or erroneous, the concessions asked for were given, but supplementary treaties insuring the protection of minorities are believed to have little chance of being executed, and may, it is feared, provoke manifestations of elemental passions in the countries in which they are to be applied.” (Page 12.)
Dr. Dillon says the delegates:
“. . . feared that a religious — some would call it racial — bias lay at the root of Mr. Wilson’s policy. It may seem amazing to some readers, but it is none the less a fact that a considerable number of delegates believed the real influences behind the Anglo-Saxon people were Semitic.”
“They confronted the President’s proposal on the subject of religious inequality, and in particular, the odd motive alleged for it, with the measures for the protection of minorities which he subsequently imposed on the lesser states, and which had for their keynote to satisfy the Jewish elements in Eastern Europe. And they concluded that the consequence of expedients framed and enforced in this direction were inspired by Jews, assembled in Paris for the purpose of realizing their carefully thought-out program, which they succeeded in having substantially executed. However right or wrong these delegates may have been it would be a dangerous mistake to ignore their views, seeing that they have since become one of the permanent elements of the situation. The formula into which this policy was thrown by the members of the conference, whose countries it affected, and who regard it as fatal to the peace of Eastern Europe was this: ‘Henceforth the world will be governed by the Anglo-Saxon peoples, who, in turn are swayed by their Jewish elements.’” (Page 497.)
This review of the influences that brought the United States into the First World War began with the United States and the British Empire reaching for world power by a coalescing of interests. It ends with the policies of the two English-speaking countries being influenced by an intensely self-interested race.
On such a scene as this, born of the spirit of liberalism, the Jew, freed from old restrictions imposed by nations who held their national heritage above commercial enterprise, expanded his energies and talents to influence every phase of activity of what can be called the commercially intense nations. Werner Sombart, the German social philosopher and historian, has written:
“The Jewish spirit, after all, largely controls our entire age, for what has been characterized as the spirit of this economic age, is, in fact largely a Jewish spirit. And Karl Marx was certainly right to the extent in which he said that ‘the practical Jewish spirit became the practical spirit of the Christian peoples,’ that ‘the Jews have emancipated themselves to the extent in which Christians have become Jews’ and that ‘the real nature of the Jew has realized itself in the bourgeois society.’” (A NEW SOCIAL PHILOSOPHY, p. 178.)
*See Marxism and Judaism, by Salluste La Revue de Paris, Juillet-Aout, 1928.