League of Nations – katana17

Book – The Myth of German Villainy – Part 03 – The Jewish Factor in the War

admin — Tue, 04 Oct 2016 21:12:34 +0000

[Part 03]

[Benton Bradberry’s 2012 book, “The Myth of German Villainy” is a superb, must-read, revisionist look at how the German people have been systematically, relentlessly and most importantly, unjustly vilified as the arch criminal of the 20th century. Bradberry sets out, coolly and calmly as befits a former US-Navy officer and pilot, to show why and how the German people have been falsely accused of massive crimes and that their chief accuser and tormenter, organized jewry is in fact the real party guilty of monstrous crimes against Germans and the rest of the world.

In Part 03, organized jewry’s key role in prolonging and turning the war into a global conflict by getting America to declare war on Germany is described. Organized jewry allow the British to turn down peace offers from Germany when they promise to get the US involved provided they receive a British promise (the Balfour Declaration) of an eventual Jewish homeland in Palestine. Prominent American jews instruct their puppet, President Woodrow Wilson to achieve this goal, with Congress declaring war on April 6, 1917.

At the Paris Peace Conference the dominating jewish influence, both official and behind the scenes, is detailed, with organized organized jewry achieving its three principle aims: the creation of the League of Nations as the first step toward world government; the recognition of Jewish “minority rights” in Eastern Europe; and the creation of a British Mandate in Arab Palestine.

Lastly, the history of the thorough jewish infiltration of British aristocracy through marriage, usually of jewesses with landed gentry in financial difficulties, is described — KATANA.]

NOTE: The author has very generously given me permission to reproduce the material here — KATANA.

The Myth of

German Villainy

by

Benton L. Bradberry

[Clicking on a link in the Contents here will take you to that Part, in a separate post]

[Part 01]

Preface

Chapter 1 – The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Germany’s Positive Image Changes Overnight

[Part 02]

Chapter 2 – Aftermath of the War in Germany

The Versailles Treaty

Effect of the Treaty on the German Economy

Was the War Guilt Clause Fair?

Did Germany Really Start the War?

[Part 03]

Chapter 3 – The Jewish Factor in the War

Introduction

Jews at the Paris Peace Conference

Jews in Britain

[Part 04]

Chapter 4 – The Russian Revolution of 1917

Bolsheviks Take Control

Jews and the Russian Revolution

Origin of East European Jews

Reason for the Russian Pogroms Against the Jews

Jews Leave Russia for America

Financing the 1917 Revolution

Jews in the Government of Bolshevik Russia

[Part 05]

Chapter 5 – The Red Terror

Creation of the Gulag

Bolsheviks Kill the Czar

Jews as a Hostile Elite

The Ukrainian Famine (Holodomor)

[Part 06]

Chapter 6 – The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Jews in the Hungarian Revolution

Miklos Horthy Saves Hungary

Jews in the German Revolution

The Spartacist Uprising in Berlin

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Italy

Jewish Bolsheviks Attempt to Take Spain — The Spanish Civil War

Czechoslovakia in Danger of Communist Takeover

The Comintern’s Aim? World Domination!

[Part 07]

Chapter 7 – The Nation of Israel

History of the Expulsion of Jews

[Part 08]

Chapter 8 – Jews in Weimar Germany

Jews Undermine German Culture

[Part 09]

Chapter 9 – Hitler & National Socialists Rise to Power

The 25 Points of the National Socialist Party

[Part 10]

Chapter 10 – National Socialism vs. Communism

National Socialism

Jews Plan Marxist Utopia

[Part 11]

Chapter 11 – Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Text of Untermeyer’s Speech in New York

The Jewish Persecution Myth

Effect of Boycott on the German Economy

Jewish Exaggerations are Contradicted by Many

[Part 12]

Chapter 12 – The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

The Nuremberg Laws – 1935

The Zionist Movement

[Part 13]

Chapter 13 – Life in Germany Under Hitler

Night of the Long Knives

1934 Annual Nazi Rally at Nuremberg

Hitler Revives the German Economy

Hitler Becomes the Most Popular Leader in the World

[Part 14]

Chapter 14 – Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory

Chapter 15 – The 1936 Olympics

[Part 15]

Chapter 16 – “Anschluss”. The Unification of Austria and Germany

Austrian Economy Revived

Austria’s Jews

[Part 16]

Chapter 17 – Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

[Part 17]

Chapter 18 – War with Poland

The Polish Problem

Hitler’s Proposal to Poland

Kristallnacht

German-Polish Talks Continue

Jews Influence both Roosevelt and Churchill

British and American Political Leaders Under Jewish Influence

Roosevelt’s Contribution to Hostilities

Lord Halifax Beats the War Drums

Germany Occupies Bohemia and Moravia

Roosevelt Pushes for War

Anti-war Movement Becomes Active

Poles Murder German Nationals Within the Corridor

[Part 18]

Chapter 19 – The Phony War

Russo-Finnish War

The Norway/Denmark Campaign

German Invasion of Denmark and Norway

Churchill Takes Chamberlain’s Place as Prime Minister

[Part 19]

Chapter 20 – Germany invades France Through the Low Countries

The Phony War Ends.

Churchill the War Lover

The Fall of France

Hitler Makes Peace Offer to Britain

[Part 20]

Chapter 21 – The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

[Part 21]

Chapter 22 – Germany as Victim

Rape and Slaughter

Jewish Vengeance

The Jewish Brigade

[Part 22]

Chapter 23 – Winners and Losers

Bibliography

Chapter 3 The Jewish Factor in the War

Introduction

top

On December 12, 1916, two and a half years into the war, Germany made a peace offer to the Allies to end the war on a status quo ante basis. That is, no one wins and no one loses, and no one pays reparations; everyone just stops fighting and goes back home. Germany had never wanted the war in the first place. By that time in the course of the war, Germany seemed on the verge of victory. Germany’s submarine force had effectively stopped the supply convoys coming from America to Britain, creating critical shortages of all war materiel in Britain. France had already lost 600,000 men in the battles of Verdun and the Somme, and French soldiers were beginning to mutiny. The Italian army had collapsed completely and Russian soldiers were deserting in droves and returning home. Germany appeared to be winning on both fronts. But the slaughter had been too great and the British and the French were unwilling to stop fighting short of a victory. The only way to justify the carnage and the horrific loss of life was to fight on until victory could be obtained. Moreover, as explained in the previous chapter, Britain had entered the war to destroy Germany as an industrial and commercial rival, and that remained her goal. British leaders were determined to find a way to break the stalemate and win the war, and they knew that the one sure way of doing so was to bring America in on their side. A relentless effort was already under way to bring that about, but so far, without success.

Zionist Jews and the British government had already been finagling behind the scenes over a Jewish homeland in Palestine. In October, 1916, two months prior to the German peace offer, a group of Zionist Jews led by Chaim Weizmann (later the first president of Israel) had met with British leaders with a proposition. If Britain would guarantee the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine after the war, the Jews would use their influence through powerful Jews in America to bring America into the war on the side of Britain and the Allies, which would assure an Allied victory. These Jews were so confident of their power and influence that they virtually guaranteed that they would be able to achieve this.

Sir Arthur Balfour

Chaim Weizmann

At that time, Palestine was under the control of the Ottoman Empire, which was allied to Germany. If Germany were to win the war, the Ottoman Empire would have remained intact with no possibility of a Jewish homeland there, but if the Allies were to win the war, then Britain would control Palestine and be in position to hand it over to the Jews. (Whether or not Britain had the right to give other people’s land to the Jews is another issue.)

With the offer of the Zionists Jews to bring America into the war in hand, Britain rejected Germany’s peace offer and decided to take the Zionists up on their proposition. The British promised the Jews that if they could, indeed, bring America into the war, that Palestine would be theirs. The Zionist Jews went to work immediately.

[Add. Image — Thomas Woodrow Wilson (1856 – 1924) served as the 28th President of the United States from 1913 to 1921.]

The tiny group of elites who ran the United States, including President Wilson and his administration, all resided on the East Coast, and all were enthusiastic Anglophiles and already predisposed to enter the war on the side of mother England. They only needed a push and a pretext, which could easily be manufactured. But the great heartland of America, which included millions of ethnic Germans, wanted nothing to do with the war. The job at hand, then, was to bring public opinion around from opposing entry into the war to supporting it. That would be achieved through propaganda. The British had already been waging a very sophisticated anti-German propaganda campaign of their own in America since the war first began, and had had considerable success in turning American public opinion against Germany, but they by no means yet had a majority.

The Jews were very powerful in America. In addition to owning most of the big banking firms, they also owned most of the newspapers, and they owned Hollywood. They controlled all the means of running an effective propaganda campaign. Because of their wealth and their willingness to support the campaigns of politicians, they also had enormous political influence and would have little trouble in persuading politicians to see things their way.

Jewish motivations in international affairs were complicated at the time, which requires a bit of explaining. Jews, then as now, lived as minorities in numerous other “host” countries, without a state of their own, but all considered themselves to be a part of the “International Nation of Israel,” a single nation, encompassing all Jews everywhere.

What happens to Jews in one corner of the world is a concern of Jews worldwide. As a nation of its own, International Jewry has “national interests,” and one of their national interests at that time was the eventual destruction of the Czarist regime in Russia. Jews in Russia had long been restricted and suppressed by one Czarist regime after another, to the extent that millions of Jews had left Russian controlled areas for other European countries, but mainly to America. Czarist Russia was the avowed enemy of the International Jewish nation, and since Germany was at war with Russia, International Jewry tended to support Germany in the war on the principle that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” At the same time, they restricted their support of all kinds to Britain and France because Britain and France were allied with Russia. Jacob Schiff, the German Born head of the Kuhn, Loeb bank in New York, and the most influential figure of his day in American Jewish life, wrote in “The Menorah Journal” of April, 1915:

“It is well known that I am a German sympathizer…England has been contaminated by her alliance with Russia…am quite convinced that in Germany anti-Semitism is a thing of the past.”

Schiff’s pro-Germany sympathies were shared by Jews everywhere, particularly by Zionist Jews.

Nevertheless, after the Zionists saw their chance of obtaining Palestine as a Jewish homeland by switching their support to Britain, International Jewry switched sides overnight, and Germany then became their avowed enemy. They not only withdrew their financial support, they also began a vicious propaganda attack against Germany. American and British Jews joined the British government’s already intense anti-German propaganda campaign. All the Jewish owned newspapers and other publications, as well as Jewish owned Hollywood, joined in the attack. The Germans who had so recently been the Jews favored nationality, suddenly became brutal, knuckle dragging, baby killing “Huns” in the International Jewish press. International Jewish bankers cut off financial support to Germany and began to pour their money into France and Britain instead. Even Jewish banks in Germany refused further financing of the German war effort.

Prior to the war, Germany had been a hospitable country for Jews. Due to the absence of any kind of restrictions on them, Jews became very powerful in Germany, and through their dominance of banking and finance, they were able to control much of Germany’s industrial power. Once Palestine had been promised to the Jews by Britain, even German Jews were no longer willing to support the German war effort. Instead, they became something of an Allied “fifth column” inside Germany, betraying the country they lived in. Jewish newspapers in Germany began to criticize and condemn the war. Jewish labor leaders in Germany began to agitate for strikes and work stoppages, and Jewish Communist leaders began to agitate for revolution. This combined effort of Jewish groups in undermining war production and in creating unrest among the German people proved very detrimental to Germany’s war effort. The Jews had taken the British bribe, and proved once again that their primary interest in all events is, “what is good for Jews,” and that their loyalty is first and foremost to the international Nation of Israel.

Immediately after the British promise of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, American Jews began pressuring the Wilson administration to enter the war against Germany. President Woodrow Wilson was highly malleable in the hands of the Jews, as his political career had been a product of Jewish financial and media support and he remained closely associated with Jews throughout his political career. Even his non-Jewish right hand man, “Colonel” Edward Mandell House, had been closely associated with Jews prior to his association with Wilson. House had been employed as an agent for the Jewish House of Rothschild, negotiating U.S. cotton purchases for them before he linked up with Wilson.

[Add. Image — Edward Mandell House (1858 – 1938) was a powerful American diplomat, politician, and presidential advisor, commonly known by the courtesy title Colonel House, although he had no military experience. He was a highly influential back-stage politician in Texas before becoming a key supporter of the presidential bid of Woodrow Wilson in 1912. He did not hold office but was Wilson’s chief advisor on European politics and diplomacy during World War I (1914–18) and at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919.]

Wilson’s campaign for governor of New Jersey was financed by a group of Jewish bankers and financiers, including Jacob Schiff, president of the Kuhn, Loeb Bank, Paul Warburg, brother-in-law to Schiff and Wilson appointee to the Federal Reserve Board; and by Henry Morgenthau, Sr., a financier and Wilson appointee as ambassador to the Ottoman Empire.

[Image — These powerful American Jews financed, and therefore controlled President Woodrow Wilson’s political career. They used that influence to pressure Wilson into entering the war against Germany.]

These same Jews, as well as others, financed his run for the presidency. Other Jews who influenced Wilson included the first Jewish Supreme Court Justice, Louis Brandies, whom Wilson had appointed; Barnard Baruch, the wealthy and powerful financier; Rabbi Stephen Wise, founder of the Federation of American Zionists in 1897, who later became Wilson’s most trusted advisor; and Felix Frankfurter, a crypto communist, who was later appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR. These Jews virtually controlled Wilson because they had been responsible for his career. All of them applied relentless pressure on Wilson to enter the war against Germany, which, as previously mentioned, he was already predisposed to do. Meanwhile, the Jewish information and entertainment media had completely converted American public opinion from opposition to the war to virtually demanding it. Wilson, himself, made the decision that America would enter the war and he then went before Congress and persuaded Congress to declare war on Germany.

On April 6, 1917, less than six months after the meeting between Weizmann and the British leaders during which these Zionist Jews promised to bring America into the war, the United States Congress declared war on Germany.

[Add. image (click to enlarge) — The Chicago Daily Tribune headline announces that the U.S. is at war with Germany.]

On November 2, 1917, as a quid pro quo, the British government issued the Balfour Declaration in the form of a letter from the British government to Zionist, Baron Walter Rothschild, promising Palestine to the Jews as a national homeland.

[Add. image (click to enlarge)— The “Balfour Declaration” written by Arthur Balfour to Lord Rothschild and dated, November 2nd, 1917.]

The war ended on November 11, 1918 after an armistice was signed, based on President Wilson’s “Fourteen Points.” If the Peace Conference which met in Paris to work out the peace treaty after the war had kept its word and used Wilson’s Fourteen Points as the basis for the treaty, all would have been different, but as outlined in the previous chapter, that is not what happened. The Peace Conference ignored Wilson’s Fourteen Points – which would have guaranteed a just peace for all sides. Germany was blamed for the war and a harsh, punitive treaty was drawn up which turned out to be anything but a just peace. It was destructive and demoralizing for the German people. The treaty was presented to Germany as a diktat which Germany was forced to sign under duress. The German people were astounded when they learned of the contents of the treaty. They were outraged and wanted someone to blame for it. Their wrath became focused on the Jews.

Thus, the “stab-in-the-back” theory was established blaming communists and Jews for the loss of the war, as well as for the harsh peace treaty. There was enough truth in these allegations for it to be widely believed. International Jewry did, in fact, take sides against Germany in exchange for the promise of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, which only the British were in position to grant. Jews also poured money into the British and French war effort and used their international banking influence to cut off financing to Germany. Moreover, many of these Jews were German Jews who wound up undermining their own country.

Jews at the Paris Peace Conference

top

The extent of Jewish influence at the Paris Peace Conference after the war is not very well known today, but, the fact is that Jews flocked there from all over the globe. They came from Russia, Eastern Europe, France, and particularly from the United States and Britain. From Britain came Lord Walter Rothschild, Lionel de Rothschilld, Chaim Weizmann, Lucien Wolfe, Moses Montefiore, Nachum Sokolove, Julius Kahn, Professor Sylvain Levi, and M. Bigar, among others.

From the United States came Rabbi Stephen Wise, Felix Frankfurter, Oscar Strauss, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, Walter Lippman, the historian Simon Dubnow, Harry Friedenwald, Jacob de Haas, Mary Fels, Louis Robison, Bernard Flexner, and Judge Julian Mack of Philadelphia, among others. Ten additional Jews came as members of the American Jewish Congress, formed in 1918 specifically for the Paris Peace Conference.

From France came a group of Jews representing the Alliance Israelite Universelle, a Paris based international Jewish organization founded in 1860 to safeguard the human rights of Jews around the world.

Representing the American banking interests was the Jewish banker Paul Warburg, Chairman of the Federal Reserve. His brother Max Warburg, head of the German banking firm of Warburg and Company, was there, along with other German Jews, as a representative of German banking interests (but not representing Germany, per se, only Germany’s Jewish banking interests). These groups were joined by large numbers of Jews from Bolshevik Russia, Poland and Ukraine. Though they ostensibly represented several different countries, all the Jewish delegates congregated together as one group, first and foremost to secure the interests of International Jewry. The interests of the various countries they represented were only secondary, and of a much lower priority, if considered at all.

Astonishingly, each of the Allied leaders at the peace talks had a Jew as his primary advisor. President Wilson had Bernard Baruch. France’s Clemenceau’ had Jeroboam Rothschild, aka Georges Mandel. Britain’s David Lloyd George had Sir Phillip Sassoon. Italy’s representative at the talks, Prime Minister Vittorio Emanuele Orlando, was himself half Jewish, and self identified as a Jew.

All of these Jews were comprehensively involved at every level in the numerous decisions which had to be made by the Conference, particularly those pertaining to their own interests. Jewish interests were given an inexplicably high priority in the final drafting of the peace settlement known as the Versailles Treaty. The Jews had a number of interests which they vigorously pursued, but they were especially determined to have the following three requirements included in the final treaty:

(1) A League of Nations as the first step toward world government;

(2) the recognition of Jewish “minority rights” in Eastern Europe and;

(3) the creation of a British Mandate in Arab Palestine as the necessary first step toward an eventual Jewish state there.

They accomplished all three.

It seems remarkable that Jewish interests could have so predominated at the conclusion of a war in which Jews had not participated as a separate corporate entity. And yet, there they were, at war’s end, having come from countries on both sides of the conflict, fully participating in the Peace Conference, and securing for themselves a major share of the spoils. Jewish power has never been more overtly demonstrated. They achieved everything they had set out to obtain.

Jews in Britain

top

The Jews have long been powerful in Britain. So powerful that the British social critic Hilaire Belloc, in his book, The Jews, 1922, described the British Empire as a partnership between Jewish finance and the British aristocracy. Britain was the financial capital of the world, and the Rothschilds dominated British finance. Belloc goes on to say that:

“… the Jews, in spite of their small numbers, color every English institution, especially the Universities and the House of Commons…through their control of the politicians by Jewish finance…” (The same can be said of the United States today.)

[Add. image — Hilaire Belloc and his book, “The Jews”, 1922.]

In his book, Tales of the British Aristocracy, 1956, L. G. Pine claims that the British Aristocracy is thoroughly mixed with Jewish blood. In fact, Pine says, the British aristocracy is about half Jewish. Ancient estates fell on hard times after the Industrial Revolution as the shift of financial power slipped away from agriculture and the great landed estates and went over to manufacturing.

[Add. image — L. G. Pine and his book, “Tales of the British Aristocracy”, 1956]

Jews controlled the money in Britain and even financed the British government through the Rothschild controlled Bank of England, and they financed British industry. Down-and-out gentry with ancient titles and large estates, but no money, began marrying the daughters of rich Jews, so the marriage of Jewish finance and British aristocracy took place literally. Pine gives as an example the marriage of the 5th Earl of Roseberry who married the only daughter and heiress of Baron Mayer de Rothschild, head of the Bank of England. Roseberry went on to become Prime Minister in 1894. Roseberry’s Rothschild wife:

“… stayed in the Jewish religion but her children were educated as Christians… The alliances between Jewish ladies and British lords are mostly of this type, the wife providing large sums…while the aristocrat has the title and ancient estate. The children are able to look back upon a varied bag of ancestors.”

Other wealthy and powerful Jewish families who penetrated into British aristocracy included the Sassoons, the Cassels, the Montefories, the Montagues, and the Goldsmids, among others. These Jews were the money men behind important politicians and political leaders on the make, especially so in the case of Winston Churchill. Churchill had no money, yet, he lived like an oriental pasha, thanks to a group of wealthy Jewish backers known among themselves as “The Focus.” This group backed Churchill throughout his entire career, and were particularly instrumental in making him Prime Minister. All of these wealthy Jews were socially intertwined with the most powerful men of Britain, including the King, himself. Cassel’s daughter married Lord Louis Mountbatten, a member of the Royal family. Cassel was related to the Rothschilds, the preeminent Jewish family in Europe. Thus, the marriage of a Cassel to a Mountbatten tied the Rothschilds to the Royal family by marriage.

Before the First World War, much of the British aristocracy was Jewish, and the rest was thoroughly mixed with Jewish blood. Britain even had a Jewish Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli; who wrote:

“The Jews have made themselves so closely connected with the British peerage that the two classes are unlikely to suffer loss which is not mutual.”

[Add. Image — Benjamin Disraeli (1804 – 1881) was a Jewish politician who became Prime Minister of the United Kingdom for the so-called Conservative Party; he was also a literary figure. Starting from comparatively humble origins, he served in government for three decades, twice as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.]

Thus, the Jews had a powerful influence upon every aspect of British policy, including entry into World War One against Germany.

_______________________

[END of Part 03]

PDF Notes

* Total words = 4,514

* Total pages = 27

*Total images = 11

*Note: Images not in original book are indicated as “Add. image” (Additional image).

*Text in [square brackets] is not part of the original book.

*Special thanks to reader “mblaine” for providing the text for this book.

======================================

Click to download a PDF of this post (2.3 MB).

The Myth of Germany Villainy – Part 03

Click on a link to go to another part:

[Click images to enlarge]

Part 01 — Cover text; About the Author; Preface; Chapter 1: The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Part 02 — Chapter 2: Aftermath of the War in Germany

Part 03 — Chapter 3: The Jewish Factor in the War

Part 04 — Chapter 4: The Russian Revolution of 1917

Part 05 — Chapter 5: The Red Terror

Part 06 — Chapter 6: The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads Throughout Europe

Part 07 — Chapter 7: The Nation of Israel

Part 08 — Chapter 8: Jews in Weimar Germany

Part 09 — Chapter 9: Hitler and National Socialists Rise to Power

Part 10 — Chapter 10: National Socialism vs Communism

Part 11 — Chapter 11: Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Part 12 — Chapter 12: The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

Part 13 — Chapter 13: Life in Germany Under Hitler

Part 14 — Chapter 14 & 15: Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory; The 1936 Olympics

Part 15 — Chapter 16: “Anschluss” The Unification of Austria and Germany

Part 16 – Chapter 17: Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

Part 17 – Chapter 18: War with Poland

Part 18 – Chapter 19: The Phony War

Part 19 – Chapter 20: Germany invades France – The Phony War Ends

Part 20 – Chapter 21: The Allied Goal? Destruction of Germany!

Part 21 – Chapter 22: Germany as Victim

Part 22 (last) – Chapter 23: Winners and Losers

_____________________

Version History

Version 5: Mar 13, 2021 – Added new Go2 Cover images (3).

Version 4: Jul 8, 2020 — Added new Contents with links.

Version 3: Jan 14, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 2: Oct 8, 2016 — Expanded Table of Contents

Version 1: Oct 5, 2016 — Created post.

The Myth of German Villainy: Author Ben Bradberry Interview — TRANSCRIPT

Admin — Sat, 09 Jan 2016 13:49:51 +0000

[Very informative interview by Jim Rizoli with Benton Bradberry and the story behind his excellent book that exposes the lies behind our “official” understanding of the events of the 20th century whereby Germany is most wrongly portrayed as the “evil villain“. The truth is the very opposite — KATANA.]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc-l5AYu6fg

Click on the above link to watch the video.

NOTE: Commenter mblaineo (see comments section) submitted the full text of the transcript.

I applaud him for his efforts in doing his bit to help bring truth to the public about recent history that is suppressed by our enemies.

“The Myth of Germany Villainy“

Author Ben Bradberry Interviewed

by

Jim Rizoli

January 6, 2016.

Ben Bradberry, who wrote The Myth Of German Villainy, is interviewed by League of Extraordinary Revisionists Co-Founder, Jim Rizoli.

_______________________

Neither Kaiser Wilhelm nor Adolf Hitler wanted war. Both WWI and WWII were thrust upon Germany by the Allied powers. Germany’s great sin was emerging too late as a consolidated nation-state and upsetting the long established balance of power scheme in Europe. The already established great powers, Britain, France and Russia, joined together in 1914 to destroy this new rival. When Germany rose phoenix-like from the ashes of WWI to again become a great power, they finished. the job with World War II. The deliberate destruction of Germany during the Second World-War can only be compared.to the Roman destruction of ancient Carthage, and it was done for the same reason — to destroy a commercial rival. The “official” history of World Wars I & II, the story we learned in school, is a myth.

As the title “The Myth of German Villainy” indicates, this book is about the mischaracterization of Germany as history’s ultimate “villain“. The “official” story of Western Civilization in the twentieth century casts Germany as the disturber of the peace in Europe, and the cause of both World War I and World War II, though the facts don’t bear that out.

During both wars, fantastic atrocity stories were invented by Allied propaganda to create hatred of the German people for the purpose of bringing public opinion around to support the wars. The “Holocaust” propaganda which emerged after World War II further solidified this image of Germany as history’s ultimate villain. But how true is this “official” story? Was Germany really history’s ultimate villain? In this book, the author paints a different picture. He explains that Germany was not the perpetrator of World War I nor World War II, but instead, was the victim of Allied aggression in both wars. The instability wrought by World War I made the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia possible, which brought world Communism into existence. Hitler and Germany recognized world Communism, with its base in the Soviet Union, as an existential threat to Western, Christian Civilization, and he dedicated himself and Germany to a death struggle against it. Far from being the disturber of European peace, Germany served as a bulwark which prevented Communist revolution from sweeping over Europe. The pity was that the United States and Britain did not see Communist Russia in the same light, ultimately with disastrous consequences for Western Civilization. The author believes that Britain and the United States joined the wrong side in the war.

About the Author

Benton L. Bradberry served as an officer and aviator in the U.S. Navy from 1955 to 1977, from near the beginning of the Cold War to near its end. His generation was inundated with anti-German propaganda and “Holocaust” lore. Then, in his role as a naval officer and pilot, he was immersed in anti-Communist propaganda and the war psychosis of the Cold War era. He has had a life-long fascination with the history of this period and has read deeply into all aspects of it. He also saw much of Europe during his Navy years and has travelled widely in Europe since. A natural skeptic, he long ago began to doubt that the “propaganda” told the whole story. He has spent years researching “the other side of the story” and has now written a book about it. The author is a graduate of the Naval Post Graduate School in Monterey, California with a degree in Political Science and International Relations.

TRANSCRIPT

(69:33 minutes)

[00:00]

Jim Rizoli (JR): Hi everyone! I’m Jim Rizoli, this is Rizoli TV, and today we have a special guest, Benton Bradberry. And the reason why I wanted to have him on today is because he wrote a book, “The Myth of German Villainy,” and there’s the book right there if you can see it. And out of all the books I’ve read, I read a lot of books, and I thought that this was probably the best book I’ve ever read dealing with the whole picture of Germany from the beginning all the way up till now. I’ve never read a better book than this, and I’ve been telling a lot of people about the book. So Benton, do you want me to address you as Ben or Benton?

Benton Bradberry (BB): Ben. Ben is fine.

JR: Okay, so Ben is the way we’re going to address you then, that’s fine. And Ben, maybe you can tell us a little bit about where you live, and then we’ll get into some aspects about the writing of your book. So where do you live?

BB: Yeah, I live in Jacksonville, Florida. And I was born in 1937 in Oak Grove, Louisiana, which is a little cotton town on the southern tip of the Mississippi Delta, and I grew up in West Monroe, Louisiana. Now, you’ve probably heard of that, as small a place as it is, because that’s where the Duck Dynasty lives.

JR: Oh, is it, okay. Well, I’ve never watched them, so I don’t really know.

BB: Okay. So anyway, I grew up in the Duck Dynasty culture in West Monroe, Louisiana, out in the country. And we were very poor growing up, we had ten kids in the family, I had a twin brother. My dad was an auto mechanic, my mother stayed at home and, … Well, she had 10 kids so she could hardly do anything else. And when I graduated from high school my twin brother and I joined the Navy, which was the, … There were no prospects for us in West Monroe, Louisiana, which was the best thing that ever happened to me. And I scored pretty high on the basic battery test when I went in, so I was sent through a series of Navy schools and wound up as a radar operator on a big Super Constellation four-engine plane. That’s the one used in the airlines. And it was equipped with long-range radar, and we were deployed up to our Argentia, Newfoundland. And we flew a loop all the way down to the Azores islands and back about every other day, it took 16 hours to go. And we were guarding against being bombed by Russian bombers, which, looking back is absurd, but at that time we were told to believe it.

[Image – click to enlarge] Argentia Naval Air Station, Newfoundland in the late 1940s.

[Image – click to enlarge] A Super Constellation four engine aircraft.

[Image – click to enlarge] Sixteen hour flights in a Super Constellation from Newfoundland to the Azores islands and back.

Anyway, we only lasted a couple years because those planes were rendered obsolete by long-range, land-based, over-the-horizon radar. So they decommissioned our squadron and I went down to the Hurricane Hunter squadron here in Jacksonville and spent a year and a half in that chasing hurricanes. And the officers I worked for thought I was a pretty bright kid and so they arranged for me to go over to Pensacola, Florida to enter the flight training program. And I spent two years in flight training and came out as a helicopter pilot, flew fixed wing also, but wound up in a helicopter squadron in Norfolk, Virginia, which was anti-submarine, anti-Russian submarine. And we were at sea about two-thirds of the time, and then back at home base about a third of the time. And we drilled and practiced, drilled and practiced on how to detect and destroy Russian submarines.

[Image – click to enlarge] WV-3 Hurricane Hunter at NAS Jacksonville in 1950s

JR: Wow. Oh, gee, that’s interesting. So what happened after that?

BB: Well, then I went out to the, … Well, several places. I went down to training command in Pensacola as a trainer, as an instructor pilot. Later on I went out to Vietnam and was a helicopter pilot out there.

JR: Wow! wow.

BB: Won an Air Medal and some other medals and so forth. And from there I went to Navy post-graduate school. Now mind you, I was only a high school graduate at that point, and I was lucky to get in the Navy post-graduate school and I graduated with a degree in Political Science and International Relations with honors, by the way. And then went back to the fleet for another tour, and then I retired. And in Jacksonville is where the Navy turned me out, so that’s how I happen to be here.

[Image] The Air Medal is a military decoration of the United States Military. The medal was created in 1942 and is awarded for meritorious achievement while participating in aerial flight.

JR: So how long were you in from beginning to end?

BB: Twenty-one years.

JR: Wow. So you retired from the Navy?

BB: From the Navy, yeah.

JR: Okay, wow!

BB: I was in from 1955 to 1977.

JR: Wow. So, after your retirement what did you do for work?

BB: Well, I planned ahead a little bit, and my wife and I got real estate licenses and we went to work for a large real estate company here with about 300 or so sales people. And within a year my wife was the top salesman and I was number nine.

JR: Wow.

[05:00]

BB: So we were good sales people, and so we opened our own business, real estate business, and rose up to be the third ranking real estate business in Jacksonville. And we got divorced. I guess too much togetherness after all that separation in the Navy, got divorced and sold the business, which was kind of stupid. I took the property management division out, built it up to be the second largest property management business in Jacksonville. A few years later I opened a dental business, of all things — I’m no dentist!

JR: Ah, no kidding.

BB: And so now we have been in that business for 26 years.

JR: So you’re a dentist?

BB: I’m not a dentist, I just do the business side of it and we have dentists that, …

JR: Oh, okay, okay. Are you married now?

BB: Yes, I went out to Ukraine about 21 years ago, 22 years ago, with a doctor friend of mine and we went to tour the regional hospital he wanted to, in Kiev, Ukraine. Our tour guide for the hospital was a young beautiful gynecologist named Morika, and I married her.

JR: Okay, so she’s the blonde woman. She’s blonde, right?

BB: Yeah. And she came back here. We’ve been married 21 years.

JR: Oh, wow.

BB: And she and I run the business together.

JR: Okay, so you run a dental, … Some sort of dental business type thing?

BB: A dental business.

JR: Okay. Wow.

BB: And how I happen to write these books is that the business after all those years pretty much runs itself. We have talented people in every job. And my job, … I have an office upstairs and a computer and a lot of time on my hands as everything, … All the wheels are turning, so I wrote two books.

JR: Okay. What was the other book you wrote then?

BB: The other one was a memoir, autobiography, called “Putting on Airs,” [1] and it was about my military service and all the traveling around the world I’ve done, and that kind of thing. But anyway, we’ve been very prosperous and life, thank god, and I still work and we still own the business.

[Image] Puttin’ On Airs: Making it Against the Odds The Story of My Life

JR: Okay. All right, so now let’s talk about this book here. Because I’ve never read any book like it. This is a very unique book. How did you get into the topic with this book?

[NOTE: Some dialogue regarding problems with the audio is not included here.]

BB: I’ve been a serial reader, one book after another, since I was a child. And I’ve read hundreds of books, and this, … Events of the 20th century, World War I, World War II, even back in the Franco-Prussian war of the previous century, have been an interest of mine. I’ve got a degree in International Relations and Political Science. And you said, this is the first comprehensive book you’ve read that starts from the beginning and goes through, …

JR: Well, yeah.

BB: Yeah. And that is interesting, because reading these books about these events in the 20th century, they’re treated, World War I, the Hungarian Revolution, the Spanish Civil War, World War II are all treated as separate and distinct entities without very much reference to the other events.

And it began to occur to me that these were not distinct individual isolated events at all but were a pattern that began in 19, … or even 1870-71 with the Franco-Prussian war, I would say it even began there, and bring it all the way even to the present day, are all a string of related events. And so I felt that that needed to be treated that way, to start from the beginning and take it all the way through World War II.

JR: Okay. Now, if you could just sum up your book, if you had to kind of sum it up what would you… like if you had to say to someone, “Here’s what my book is about.”

BB: Yeah, the main theme of the book is the mischaracterization of the Germans as a people and the German nation. They’ve been totally mischaracterized. They’ve been made out to be, by relentless propaganda beginning with World War I and even going on today if you tune into the History Channel [aka, “Hitler Channel”] you see it even now, this relentless anti-German propaganda painting these people as somehow uniquely different from everybody else, they were predisposed to violence, predisposed to war, and pre-disposed of following a dictator, blindly following him. Oh, this is my phone, let me…

[10:10]

JR: Okay. I can edit this out so don’t worry. If something happens then just up and start up again and I edit that out, so don’t worry about that.

BB: Yeah. And anyway, where was I?

JR: Well, about how the German people have been villainized.

BB: They’ve been characterized as, … Anyway, as I said, I read a lot. And I started to read books written by Germans, Germans soldiers. One I remember was “The Deutschland Division,” written by an enlisted man, and talked about the invasion of Russia and going into Belarus, he talked about his fellow soldiers and about his officer that was over him who was captain that he highly admired and all this.

And I said, these people are the same as we are. Soldiers in the Army, they’re fighting for their country. And soon you begin to realize that there is nothing unique about the Germans, except if you want to say that they’re unique, they’re uniquely civilized and cultured and capable as a people. And when I started to realize that it put a whole new twist on the, … I began to see that the way the Germans are portrayed, were and are portrayed, is pure, … The result of propaganda, pure and simple.

JR: Right. Now, I know you get into…

BB: Oh yeah, let me just say that the second theme is the role International Jewry, the Jews, played during this 20th century, and it was central. It’s taboo to make too much about that today, they’ll attack you if you do, but they had an inordinate control over events during this period. They surrounded the leaders of the Allied countries and virtually dictated what our foreign policy was. And even the occupation was dictated by the Jews, in terms of the occupation and in terms of the surrender and everything.

JR: Right. Now, what interested me about this, and that’s why I really liked the book, was you explained that in the beginning Britain and France actually made a move on Germany because, … It was jealousy, I mean, because of their economic prosperity.

BB: Yeah. Well, more than just jealousy. Germany, as you know, became a consolidated nation state in 1871 after the Franco-Prussian war. Otto von Bismarck after the war managed to pull all… Germany was just a geographic expression before that for Central Europe, all the little German entities in central Europe that spoke German, and there were about 230 of them or something like that, little private estates, monarchies, principalities and so on. And Bismarck managed to bring all these together and create the modern German state.

And after doing so they began to grow exponentially. And industry, they took the lead in technological development, chemistry, everything. And they began to out produce Britain in manufacturing, and even take some of Britain’s markets away. And Britain has always, they’ve always been the superpower… I mean for a couple hundred years the superpower of the world, and they’ve always had a sharp eye on the continent of Europe and they never permitted any consolidation of power which would compete with the British Empire, and Germany was a competitor. [See “Vampire of the Continent”*]

And they began to scheme about how Germany could be cut down to size, and so Britain had that reason to go to war with Germany, they wanted to destroy Germany’s economic power because it rivaled that of the British Empire.

* [“Vampire of the Continent”, published in 1916 as an English translation of a German book will be posted here at a later date.]

Now, France had declared war on Prussia, and the Franco-Prussian war of 1870, I won’t get into why, but they lost the war. And they had to pay reparations, and Germany took the two provinces of Alsace and Lorraine and made them part of Germany. Now, they were a majority German-speaking ethnic German population anyway which had previously been taken away from Germany by Louis XIV, I think it was. So they had a cause and a justification for it. But France during all of this, … After that, they focused on and obsessed over and eventual war against Germany to get their colonies back and also to salvage their honor. They taught in their military academies, politicians talked about it all the time. So France was seething for the opportunity to get into a war with Germany.

[15:07]

Russia now had wanted a warm water outlet from the Black Sea through the, … Istanbul, the strait there. What’s it called? I forget. [Bosporus Strait] But unfortunately that was controlled by the Ottoman Empire which was an ally of Germany, and Germany had a fleet there in Istanbul. So Russia wanted to go to war against Germany so they could claim the city of Istanbul and control the strait for an outlet from the Black Sea.

So you had all these three countries together that wanted war with Germany and would obtain something from war with Germany. Germany did not want a war with anybody, they were doing fantastically well without a war. And so the pot was boiling and all that was needed was a trigger to cause this war to explode, and that trigger was provided when the Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophia went down to Bosnia and were shot, murdered by this guy Princip, what, Gavrili I think his name was. [Princip Gavrilo]

JR: Now, Ben, what about the, … I was reading that there was a train line that was going from up top there all the way down to Turkey or somewhere that they were making a beef about too, the British. They weren’t happy that the Germans were putting a train line. Did you ever read about that?

BB: I have read about it but I don’t know much about it, I don’t remember much about it, but I think that was a, … All those were factors.

JR: Well, right, they were trying to open up trade with those countries, you know, where Turkey was and everything, from Germany all the way down. And I forgot the name of the train line. [Berlin to Bagdad Railway]

[Image – click to enlarge] Map of the proposed Berlin to Bagdad railway.

BB: Germany was also building a fleet to compete with the great Royal Navy, and that was another factor.

JR: Okay.

BB: So all of these were factors that Great Britain began to feel that they were being threatened by the growth of Germany. And I think also Great Britain at the time felt themselves to be in the ascendancy [descendancy], they weren’t growing anymore, and they were watching across the channel as Germany was in the ascendancy, and they felt that they had to do something before they didn’t have the power to.

JR: But now, as this war went on, World War I, weren’t Germany winning, weren’t they winning against them?

BB: Yes. I think in 1916, what, about November, something like that, they made a peace offer.

JR: Right.

BB: Germany did. And Germany was, … It appeared they were winning on all fronts, especially on the Eastern front, but they were winning on the Western front too. And they made a peace offer, and Britain turned them down. They didn’t want, … I guess they felt they’d invested too much and they had to win as justification for the cost and so forth. After all, they went to work to destroy Germany, not to have peace with Germany. And so they turned it down.

And about that time a group of Jews, I think Chaim Weizmann was the leader of them, that kind of represented world Jewry went to Arthur Balfour, I think he was the Foreign Minister, and made a presentation. They said, we safely can bring America into the war on Britain’s side if you’ll just give us Palestine as a home for the Jewish people after the war is over.

[Image – click to enlarge] Arthur Balfour

They signed the Balfour Declaration* and the Jews got busy, all the Jews that surrounded Wilson, these powerful Jews like [Bernard] Baruch, … I can’t remember the names of the others without looking them up. [Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, Stephen Wise] But anyway, they were very wealthy Jews and they were responsible for Wilson’s success in politics, they made him President as a matter of fact, and so they had control over him.

*[See post: Background to Treason: The Balfour Declaration]

JR: Right, yeah. I heard they actually blackmailed him, actually.

BB: That was another factor, yeah. I’ve read that, I’m not definite about how much of that to believe. How much of that was actually a factor, but maybe it was.

JR: Yeah, yeah.

BB: But then six months after the Jews had went to Wilson, we declared war on Germany. Now, here’s an interesting aside. The Jews actually favored Germany before this and refused even to lend money to Britain and so forth, because the Jews hated Tsarist Russia. Because the Jews in Tsarist Russia were suppressed, and they had a program, international program of one day bringing the Tsar down. And they didn’t like Britain because Britain was allied with Russia, and Germany was against Russia so they liked Germany. But after they made this agreement, this Balfour Declaration agreement for Palestine, they switch sides overnight and threw all their international effort in with the Allies, finance and everything. And they cut off German finance and began to create revolutionary trouble in Germany at the same time.

[20:15]

JR: Right, right. Now, the thing that I read that really did for Germany was the blockades, isn’t that true?

BB: Yeah, that was instigated by Churchill. That’s where he’s just emerged there as a young man, a warmongering S.O.B [Son of a Bitch]. And they had a total blockade around Germany. I forget exactly when it started, but it was devastating. It caused the deaths of almost a million German people, starvation blockade, and women, children, old people mostly, but several million people their health was ruined as result of this.

After, … Okay, the Germans had made the peace offer, a status quo ante peace offer, “Let’s all go back home, nobody wins, nobody loses, let’s stop the war.” That was in 1916. Britain said no, and when the United States came in on Britain’s side, well, Germany simply could not stand up against this overwhelming combination of forces.

And so they had an armistice on November the 11th, 1918. And it was an armistice, they were supposed to stop fighting until they could work out a peace agreement, but the Allies treated it as a German surrender. And they got together in Paris at the Versailles Palace in 1919 and worked out this peace agreement which wound up as the Versailles Treaty. And they called the Germans, … They still had this blockade. For seven months after the war was over they maintained this starvation blockade, which was immoral and inhuman actually. And they called the Germans in and says, “Okay, sign here.” And they read it over and they were appalled, because the treaty held them responsible for starting the war, which they did not do, and held them responsible for all the death and destruction caused by the war. And they finally imposed reparations, some $35 billion in money at that time — I guess it’s in the trillions in modern currency — mainly paid to France and some to Belgium.

Now, this Versailles Treaty virtually enslaved Germany. It got their troops down, the number of people in their military, down to 100,000. Not enough to defend the country certainly, not even enough to maintain peace in the country. They took their merchant fleet entirely and divided it amongst themselves — the Allies did, not the United States, but France and Britain did it. They took large chunks of Germany and gave it to other countries, along with the German people living in those regions. Memel went to Lithuania, Silesia and part of East Prussia went to Poland, the Polish corridor cut Germany in two with East Prussia completely separated from Germany.

The Sudetenland, which was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, had 3.8 million Germans living there, lived there for hundreds of years, and they were the most prosperous people in the region, wanted very much to join Germany, wouldn’t allow it. Austria was cut off, I think they had about 7 million people, something like that, as a little rump state, completely unviable economically. They wanted to join Germany, the Treaty wouldn’t allow it.

And so the point of the Treaty, … I mean the purpose of the war was to knock Germany down as a competitor. And the purpose of the Treaty was to hold Germany down so they never would rise up and become a superpower again. So that’s what, …They took most of their coal mines, their richest farmlands. And finally they had to sign the Treaty because the people were starving, thousands a week were starving to death. And so they signed the Treaty but they didn’t agree with it, they said this is under duress.

JR: Right. So now maybe you can tell us a little bit how Germany brought themselves up by the bootstraps from this, and we can get into, maybe, Hitler coming onto the scene too, I suppose.

BB: Okay. Well, the reparations that France demanded caused a runaway inflation. Germany didn’t have the means of paying the reparations, but France demanded it and threatened to invade the country if they didn’t pay it, so Germany resorted to printing money to pay it, which caused the runaway inflation and destroyed the German economy. A few years later that was followed by depression, which was far worse in Germany than it was in the United States. And people were starving to death, something like 250,000 Germans in three years time committed suicide out of total despair. Thirty percent, … We had twenty, what, one or two percent unemployment in America at the time? They had thirty percent.

[25:00]

And so the people were demoralized, as I said, they were committing suicide, they were starving to death. And Hitler comes along and becomes Chancellor. I mean, it’s a long process, becomes Chancellor. And he became Chancellor, he campaigned to become Chancellor on the promise that he was going to take, … The Jews virtually controlled the country, to at least the extent that Jews control the United States today. They controlled every institution. And Hitler promised to take these institutions away from the Jews and give them back over to the German people.

Now here I’ll show you just one thing, how the Jews profited from this inflation. The Jews had access to international currencies, and they had pawnshops. The Germans had to sell everything they owned, and the Jews owned all the pawnshops, and so they wound up making big money off the Germans who ruined themselves. Not only that, they had to sell their land, their farmland, their homes, their buildings and so forth. And the Jews with international currency came in and bought it, and by the end of the inflation the Jews in Germany owned half of the real property in Germany.

JR: Wow.

BB: That’s one percent of the population.

JR: Right, right.

BB: And the German people knew all about this, understood what happened, and they were seething with resentment. So that’s part of the anti-Semitism that developed in Germany.

JR: Right, right.

BB: Hitler comes along and becomes, … He’s promising he’s going to take, … you know, hand over this property back to the German people who owned it. International Jewry, right after Hitler became Chancellor, declared war on Germany. Now, most people don’t know anything about this, but it was big in the papers at the time, and they made big speeches and announcements encouraging worldwide Jewry, … Now, these people are very powerful in finance, shipping, and they controlled the media, so they controlled public opinion. And they declared total war against Germany.

JR: Now, that was 1939, right? Or, …

BB: Before. ‘33. ‘33.

JR: Oh, okay. Because I thought ‘33 is when the, …

BB: That’s when Hitler became Chancellor, and within weeks after he became Chancellor international Jewry declared total war against Germany.

[Image – click to enlarge] Organized Jewry declares “war” on Germany on Friday, March 24, 1933.

JR: Okay, fine.

BB: Boycotts, cut off credit, wouldn’t permit German goods in Jewish-owned shipping lines, and so forth.

JR: You’re right. Okay, yup.

BB: Now, so here’s what Hitler did. Hitler was a very smart man. And of course he surrounded himself with smart people too, Hjalmar Schacht [Reichsbank President and Minister of Economics] and others. But the central banks all over the Western world are owned by Jews. — I mean, let’s be frank about it. It was then, it is now. — And the Jews owned the central bank in Germany. And how the central banks work is that they produce the currency for a nation and they lend it to the government at interest. So Hitler says, “We don’t need them.” So he came up with a new currency, the Reichsmark [actually introduced 1924] , and it was printed by the government, no interest, no debt.

Well, he went further, he established the barter, … Since you couldn’t have any, … Credit was cut off for international trade, he established the barter system, where they would, for example, trade a shipload of German coal for a shipload of Argentine wheat. And they had a system of keeping track of relative values and so forth. He established the principle, the policy of autarky, which is an economic term meaning economic self-sufficiency. He said anything that can be manufactured in Germany, will be manufactured in Germany regardless of the cost. And he imposed tariffs, a tariff wall which would protect it from outside trade. So that revived German industry.

Let’s see, what else did he do? He started an infrastructure renewal. He built the autobahn, which was, … Our own autobahn system, the interstate highway system, Eisenhower started that based on the German autobahn. He had the Volkswagen car built, and used Henry Ford as an advisor on how to do it and mass produce it and so forth. And this was a cheap car, family car — Volkswagen means “people’s car.”

[Image] The autobahn road system.

So within a couple of years the unemployment rate was cut down by about two-thirds. Within five years they had a labor shortage. Within five years they had the highest standard of living in the world in Germany. In a very short period of time. They had the highest incidence of private ownership of cars. More people owned a family car there than anywhere else. They created the “Strength through Joy” — is that what they called it? — program. [Kraft durch Freude, KdF] They eliminated the labor unions, because the labor unions were trying to suck the blood out of the industries, and established a government labor board which established wages and so forth. “Peace Through Joy”, or something, I forget what it is now. Robert Ley, Dr. Robert Ley was put in charge of it. They built ocean liners to take German workers on tours abroad, and they did all kinds of theater and stuff like that to enrich the lives of the German people. So they magically transformed Germany from this desperate impoverished people to a happy, prosperous, most prosperous people in the world. And Hitler and the “Nazis” — they didn’t call themselves Nazis, …

[Image] Dr. Robert Ley.

[30:10]

JR: Right, National Socialists.

BB: … National Socialists were highly praised by leaders all over the world.

And the German people, … You know, you get the impression reading the propaganda that this was an oppressive regime, and they were locking everybody up. That’s not true at all. The German people were happy and they loved Adolf Hitler.

JR: Oh sure, yeah.

BB: Now, the propaganda, because the Jews controlled the media throughout the West, the people who were suffering — if you can call it that, but not really that much — were the Jews, who are 9/10 ths of one percent of the population, 500,000 Jews in a country of 65 million people.

Now, the Jews invented Communism. Communism and Judaism is one and the same thing. They were constantly inciting revolution, they were inciting, … The Jews also controlled the labor movement. They were inciting riots and strikes and so forth, and just causing trouble all around, and they were relentlessly trying to take over the German government and make a Soviet Socialist Republic like they had done in Russia. So Hitler had Dachau built and he locked all these people up. Not because they were Jews necessarily — not even actually — but because they were Communists and labor troublemakers. And it turned out that almost all of them were Jews. And the international Jewish press screamed bloody murder over this, and further vilified Germany.

JR: Right. So now maybe you could tell us about, … see, a lot of people think that Hitler had a policy that he wanted to kill them all, extermination. But his real policy was emigration, right? He wanted to get them out?

BB: Exactly! Yeah, exactly. They had the Nuremberg laws, where they restricted, … You know, the Jews really were inordinately powerful in Germany. The majority of the professors and universities were Jews, the majority of the lawyers, doctors, and they filled up the government, and they controlled everything. So Hitler decided that he was going to, you know, reduce their power. And so, what was the question you asked me, I’m sorry?

JR: Well, I’m getting into the Transfer Agreement, that’s what I’m getting into.

BB: Oh, that’s right, yes. And he wanted, … Yeah, he wanted these people out of Germany. What Hitler wanted to do was have a homogeneous population of German-speaking Germans, he was a National Socialist. National means having a homogeneous German people, and Socialist was to take care of all of them and create the quality and this kind of stuff.

So, to do that he wanted, … The Jews keep bringing up the gypsies, so they’re not alone, I think, but he wanted to get the gypsies out — they were almost insignificant — but he wanted the Jews to emigrate out of Germany. And so they had an agreement with the people down in Israel, Palestine at the time, …

JR: The Zionists, the Zionists.

BB: … Transfer Agreement, to enable these Jews to, … They opened a bank in Palestine, which was a branch of a bank in Germany so they could transfer money back and forth, and they permitted these Jews to transfer their wealth down to Palestine. If they’d move down there they could transfer their money. And it’s a lie that these people were stripped of all their wealth. They weren’t. And so the object was to get them to emigrate out of the country, and by 1939, … they had 500,000 Jews in Germany in 1933, but in 1939 they had 190,000. And they annexed Austria also, and they had 180,000 Jews, and by 1939 they had 40,000. So most of them had emigrated peacefully. [Not to Palestine, however, but to America and other European countries.]

[35:00]

JR: Right. All right, so now we have a little situation here. The Zionists, as far as I understand it, they’re the ones that wanted their own people out of there too, to send to Palestine, right?

BB: Yeah. Okay, you’re breaking up again, but I heard what you said.

JR: Okay.

BB: Zionism was a movement that was started by Theodore Herzl back in the late 1800s, and because the Jews were discriminated against — they brought it on themselves, but because they were — he thought the Jews should have a homeland of their own. They had been before, that spread all around the country [world] with small Jewish minorities living amongst Gentile host populations, … And Theodore Herzl started the Zionist movement and a lot of other people joined in, because they thought the Jews should have a homeland of their own and that would solve all this discrimination problem. So they decided that Palestine was going to be it, the Balfour Declaration gave it to the Jews. And so in order to make this thing work, they had to [have] Jews all over Europe and America and so forth, and the Middle East, emigrate down to Palestine and become Jewish citizens.

Now, a lot of Jews didn’t want to do that because they liked it just fine where they were. And so Hitler and the “Nazis,” if you will, worked in cooperation with these people down in Palestine to have these Jews emigrate down. And they let them have their wealth and encouraged them to go down, but leave voluntarily. And a lot of them did.

JR: Now, what happened to stop that though? In other words, it stopped, right? So, …

BB: It stopped. The British stepped in and said:

“Wait a minute, this is causing trouble with our Arab friends down here. This is going to be a disaster.”

Of course they were appreciative, because it has turned into a disaster. And they stopped it, and so then when the war began everything was on hold as far as Palestine.

JR: So now, what did Hitler have to do with these Jews now? I mean, you talked about Dachau, but that was political prisoners. So now the other Jews who didn’t go, what happened there with them?

BB: Well, International Jewry, … To look at it from the German’s perspective, I mean, the official story now is that these Jews for no reason whatsoever were discriminated against and harassed and persecuted and so forth, just because they were Jews. That’s not quite true.

International Jewry was still in a war, a declared war on Germany, and the Jews that lived in the Diaspora, as it’s called, these small populations all around other countries, were part of the international Jewish nation, considered themselves part of the international, … the international Jewish leaders considered them all. So these “German” people living inside Germany were in a declared war against the country they lived in, for all practical purposes, and they made a lot of trouble, revolutionary trouble. So that’s why when the war started they started to lock them up in concentration camps.

But you know, it’s interesting. The story is that they had this program, a German government program of rounding up all — all — of Europe’s Jews and putting them in concentration camps and then exterminating them. My wife and I went out to Dachau several years ago, ten years ago, something like that, and we got a taxi driver to take us out to Dachau in Munich. And the taxi driver, he had a big Mercedes and happened to be an engineer, he happened to be Jewish also, he was an engineer and he used his car part time to take tourists to make extra money. So we were talking about events as we drove out, and he said his mother spent the war years in Munich. And I said:

“Wait a minute, I thought, …”

— This was all part of my process of developing my ideas today. — I said:

“Wait a minute, I thought they rounded up all the Jews to put them in concentration camps?”

He said:

“Well, not all of them.”

So, …

JR: Yeah. Well, I mean, I’ve heard that Hitler actually had German Jewish soldiers, …

BB: Yeah.

JR: … that were, … I mean, that [over talk] .

BB: Field Marshall Milch. Let’s see, what did he do? Part of the military-industrial complex that he controlled, he was a Jew. And there were others.

JR: Right. Yeah, I know there was a book written on that, “Hitler’s Willing Soldiers,” or something like that. A hundred and fifty thousand [over talk] .

[40:00]

BB: Yeah, exactly. The assimilated Jews had no problem. It was the ones who identified as communists and as brothers of the Bolsheviks and the Soviet Union who constituted a fifth column or a Trojan horse inside Germany, that they worried about.

JR: Right, right, okay. And they had just reasons to corral them all up, right, and do that?

BB: I’m sorry, you’re breaking up?

JR: They had reason to do that. The Germans had just reason to do that.

BB: They had just cause to do it. Of course they did. They’d have been stupid not to have isolated these people who were devoted to undermining the country that they lived in on behalf of international Jewry whose headquarters were in Moscow.

JR: Right, right. Maybe now you could talk to us a little bit about the “Holocaust”, how that came into play here.

[Image – click to enlarge] Maps of the camps.

BB: Yeah. Let me tell you a little story, I’ve told this before. The first book I read, like I was a brand new ensign, that’s like a second lieutenant in the Army, a brand new ensign in a Navy squadron, a pilot, and somebody had bought a book called “Treblinka.” And I forget the author of it now [Jean-Francois Steiner (1966)], [2], but it was passed around, a number of us read it. I read it and I was appalled. This was what went on, written by a Jew about what went on in the Treblinka concentration camp. One little thing the Nazi guards did that stands out that I remember is that they would line Jews up in a row, one behind the other, and they would shoot the Jew in the chest in the front with a bullet to see how many bodies it would pass through. Then they would change calibers, a larger caliber, and another line of Jews, to see how many bodies it would pass through. And they did this for sport. And I was a little skeptical of that even then; now it sounds absurd. It turns out this guy, …

Anyway, this was the first “Holocaust” book I ever read, and I was so, … it was like seeing a bloody auto accident, you can’t look away and yet it’s repellent at the same time. And I read everything I could get my hands on about the “Holocaust” after that, picture books, everything. And swallowed it — I had no countervailing arguments — but began to feel that it was exaggerated, you know, that a lot of these things, wait a minute, that’s implausible. And not only that, you’d see picture books:

“Wait a minute, I just saw this picture and another book, it had a different caption.”

And then I started to wonder, we have thousands and thousands and thousands of pictures of the camps and the war, but never a picture of a gas chamber, never a picture of dead bodies being pulled out of a gas chamber. They show a bunch of fully dressed people, women, children with a Star of David on their shirt, by train where they just got unloaded, and the caption would say:

“These people are on their way to the gas chamber.”

Well, they could have been on their way to lunch, you know.

JR: Right.

BB: But so you start to be skeptical eventually. Now, I was skeptical, and I went out to Poland in 1989 with a, … Or met a friend out in Lodz, he had a distant relative out there and I stayed with him for a while. I went to Warsaw and looked at all, … traveled all around to find these sites, I’d been reading all about it and I wanted to see what it looked like firsthand. Went to Warsaw ghetto and not much of it left. Then I wound up down in Kraków near Auschwitz, and I wanted to go out to Auschwitz.

And I asked the maître d’ if he could connect me with a taxi driver or a tour guide if you knew something about this. So I met this guy and he’s Polish history professor. And that’s not unusual, by the way, we had a history professor in Istanbul as a tour guide also. But I asked him why he did that, he said he could make $400 a month as a tour guide and he could make $100 a month is a history professor, so that’s why he did it.

He took me all around the sites in Kraków, Hans Frank’s office, he was the Gauleiter of that area. The last day we went out to Auschwitz. Now, it turned out the professor was born in Auschwitz — in Oswiecim, that’s the Polish name of the town — and they lived in a little house, he and his family, right outside of the wire of Dachau. And you can see everything there. He took me there, …

JR: Now, do you mean Auschwitz? You’re talking about Auschwitz.

BB: Auschwitz, I’m sorry.

JR: Okay, all right.

BB: But it’s surrounded by farmland. — No Dachau, Dachau. — I don’t mean Dachau, I mean Birkenau.

JR: Oh, Birkenau.

BB: Birkenau, yeah.

JR: Right.

[Image – click to enlarge] Auschwitz Camp Complex.

BB: Okay, they’re surrounded by farmland with houses all around it, and you’ve got a big fence around the compound, and you can stand outside and see everything. There’s no wall, nothing is blocked, you can see everything. Now, this guy was in his mid to late 60s and had been a teenager during the war, this was 1989. And so we went out to his house where he’d lived, and I’m standing there looking into this compound with all the barracks buildings and what remains of it. And I said:

“Well, how did you feel standing out here watching all this brutality and murder going on inside?”

And he smiled, and he said:

“Oh, those are just stories. Nothing of the kind happened here.” He said, “This was a well organized, well run labor camp.”

I said:

“What about the gas chamber?”

He said:

“There was no gas chamber.”

And that’s the first time I’d heard that. And, “Hmm, no gas chamber?”

So then we went inside. He said what he saw as a boy was columns of workers that would line up outside the front gate and they’d be controlled by two or three armed guards and they would walk off to the factories that circled Oswiecim. War fact[ories], … producing war material.

[46:00]

JR: Sure, yeah.

BB: And they’d go out in the morning and come back in the evening. If they were going some distance they had trucks that picked them up and took them out, brought them back. Anyway, we went inside and took the official tour, this was in ’89 and there weren’t a lot of tourist at that time, there are floods of them now I understand. But we walked around and followed the official tour guide and he explained all the horrific things that happened. Here’s a bin of women’s hair. Supposedly they kept the Jews’ hair off so they could sell it to a mattress company to make mattresses. And they had shoes, a bin of shoes and all that. And he pulled me aside:

“Okay, they cut their hair off for lice control, because, … to control typhus. They have bins of shoes because they gave them a new uniform and new shoes.” Okay.

JR: Yeah.

BB: And on and on. And every place we stopped he pulled me aside and told me what the real story was. Then after the tour, … Anyway, they took us to the gas chambers. He said:

“This was no gas chamber.”

This was a bomb shelter or something.

JR: Sure, yeah.

BB: So he took me around and showed me this Olympic-sized swimming pool they had. I went to both Auschwitz and Birkenau, and I forget which, … where the swimming pool was exactly.

JR: Auschwitz I. Auschwitz I has the swimming pool.

[Image] Auschwitz swimming pool available to inmates.

BB: I think it’s Auschwitz I that has the swimming pool, yeah.

JR: Yeah.

BB: And there was a theater where the inmates were allowed to go. They had an orchestra composed of inmates, they had a soccer field, all of this stuff. A hospital. He said:

“They weren’t slaughtering people here.”

And after that, since then, I don’t believe a word of the Holocaust.

JR: I know. Well, that’s my expertise, that’s what I’ve been getting into myself.

BB: I noticed, yeah.

JR: Yeah. Okay, so now why do you think the Jews are so adamant about that “Holocaust” claim?

BB: Well, I think they’ve profited enormously by it. It was a justification for the creation of the State of Israel. Harry Truman recognized them, the argument was the Jewish people had to have a place to avoid this happening to them again. They have gotten enormous reparations from Germany, something like, … I don’t know how many billions they’ve gotten [About 100 billion]. Even 70 years after the war is over, you’ve got half a million Jews that are on lifetime pensions from the German government, living mainly in America and Israel as Holocaust survivors.

JR: Right.

BB: Oh yeah, another thing, they put that number on their arm. Why in the world did they do that? You start to ask the question:

“Why would these Germans bring all of these Jews in on a train, tattoo a number on their arm, cut their hair off, send them to shower, give them a new uniform, if they were going to exterminate them?”

JR: Yeah, right. Now, the other thing I find too about the “Holocaust” myth is that they actually had to protect the Allies, or make it look like the Allies were innocent, and make the Germans look like they were the bad guys. So everything the Allies did wrong was covered up by the “Holocaust”.

BB: Yeah, it was justified.

JR: Yeah.

BB: The end of the war was total chaos for Germany. I say that in the book, that 8 million Germans died during the war, and 13 million died after the war was over, as a result of the abuse and slaughter and starvation and all that happened to the Germans after the war. And we justified this somehow because they had carried out this “Holocaust”.

JR: Right.

[50:00]

BB: And the Nuremberg trials afterwards, the “Holocaust” was the central theme. And it justified executing a lot of Germany’s leaders.

JR: Right. How many Jews do you think died at the most, what you think?

BB: It’s certainly less than a million. The 6 million was just plucked out of the air. The 6 million is an iconic number that’s gone back to the beginning of the century, and they’ve used, … They’ve stated it numerous, numerous times, that 6 million Jews are in danger of dying, you know, over and over and over again. And sure enough, when the war was over 6 million died. The number is absolutely meaningless. They modified the number that died at Auschwitz down from 4 million down to 1 million, yet they didn’t reduce the total number. So the 6 million is just an iconic number. I’ve read that not more than 65,000 Jews died, up to less than a million, so certainly, …

JR: That’s what I get out of it.

BB: But that’s got to be compared to 55 million died, all totaled. What’s so special about the Jewish number? So when 55 million people died in Europe as a result of the war, and 1 million or 6 million, whichever.

JR: Well, look at the Germans, how many Germans died. Right, you said 20-something, 20 million Germans died.

BB: Yeah, they expelled 15 million of them from East Europe, Poland, Prussia, East Prussia, and Hungary, everywhere else, and pushed them into Europe, and 3 million of them it’s estimated died from brutality, outright murder, exposure, everything. And they were brutal to these German populations living, … still living in the Sudetenland, for example, the Czechs were just brutal to these people, mass murder.

JR: Right, right. Let me ask you this, in regards to you writing this book. Have you had any flack, any problems? Because again, this book, I mean, it really just exposes the Jews, it exposes the lies, you know, everything that we’ve been talking about here. Have you had any repercussions on this?

BB: Nothing personal, yet. I’m surprised I haven’t. A couple of people around here in Jacksonville who, you know, have commented it’s anti-Semitic, they read it. But the reviews, some of the reviews, for Amazon Books for example I’ve got about 125 that I think up to this point and almost all of them give it five stars, except for the Jews who give it one star.

JR: Right, I know, that’s always going to happen. Yeah. Well, that’s how you know you’re doing good. You know you doing good. [laughter] Yeah, I’m just very surprised that nothing’s happened to you. Because I get a lot of flack in what I’m doing.

BB: Oh, of course.

JR: And I mean, I don’t have, … I’m retired, so I don’t worry about working anymore, but when I was working they did affect my business, so I’m glad I retired. But they came after me like gang busters. I mean they just came after me unbelievably.

BB: Yeah. You’re breaking up again. Anyway, let’s go back and look at the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia.

JR: Okay.

BB: I’ve read a lot about that over the years, and I kept seeing these Jewish names pop up, obvious Jewish names pop up. They never identified the Bolsheviks as Jews, but there were a lot of Jewish names in there. And you kind of get the idea, wait a minute, there’s an awful lot of Jews involved in this. And then I started to go back and read, … I read one by Wilton — Robert Wilton, is that it? I think he was a reporter for a London newspaper and he’d been there throughout the war, and it was called the, … something about the death of the royal family. [“The Last Days of the Romanovs”] And he’s the one that laid it right out there, and it was kind of an addendum to the book, in the end. And he said that, … he named all the names.

[Image – click to enlarge] The Romanovs. From left to right: Olga, Maria,Nicholas II, Alexandra, Anastasia, Alexei, and Tatiana. Pictured at Livadia Palace in 1913.

And so I copied and pasted that in my book to show all the names. The reason I did it was you can throw numbers out there, but it’s a lot more impressive to have the names of all these individuals and put what their ethnicity is. But there was something like 555 or something like that. Of the top 550 people in the Bolshevik government, that controlled the Bolshevik government, 437 of them were Jews. And even the ones that were not Jews, a large number of them were married to Jewish spouses, Jewish wives.

And almost none of them were Russian, there were Polish, Georgian or Latvian, or whatever. The ones that were not Jews. I mean, there were almost no Russians in the Bolshevik government. They took control, this was a coup d’état, this Russian Revolution with Trotsky and Lenin was a coup d’état, a Jewish coup d’état of the Russian state. Nobody says that today, and the history books don’t say that it all.

JR: Right.

BB: They ruled over Russia as an alien force, and they lorded it over them. And they hated the Russian people because they’d been discriminated against and there was, … International Jewry hated Russia and it was on the top of their agenda to one day bring down the Russian government. Well, the war had weakened it sufficiently that now they were able to do it. And they killed the Tsar too, by the way, and his family, all Jews who did that.

[56:00]

JR: Right, right. Now, Benton, do you have any other books you’re working on now, or what?

BB: No, I’m trying to think of something. I’ve thought about writing something about the occupation of Germany and what happened during the occupation, I may do that.

JR: Yeah. Have you ever heard of the book “Hellstorm”?

BB: I read it, yeah.

JR: Oh, you read it. Yeah, because he talked about what happened when the Russians came in and all that.

BB: Mm hmm.

JR: Well, you know what I’d like to see you do, I’d like to see you go out on tour. [laughter]

BB: Well, I’ve been afraid of that, I’m afraid that tomatoes might be thrown at me or something, but, …

JR: Well, no. I mean, you’d have to started off really well, you know. I’d like to see that. I mean, it would be a great tour if you did that.

BB: If I retire I might do that.

JR: Yeah, that part would be good.

BB: I’m 78, and so they can’t do much to me at my age. I have a twin brother too, you know.

JR: You have what?

BB: I have a twin brother.

JR: Yeah, I know, you mentioned that at the beginning. Interesting. Well, I think that pretty much covers this, unless you have anything else you’d like to say about your plans, what you plan to do with the book or anything like that. Any plans?

BB: It’s done better than I expected. I didn’t write it to make money or anything. I wrote it because I had gotten to the point where I said:

“Somebody needs to put all this together.”

And because, you know, over the years reading one book after another after another, and especially reading the other side of the story written by Germans and so on, the dots begin to emerge, and you start putting them together and pretty soon it’s just crystal-clear, you see what happened.

JR: Right.

BB: And the Spanish Civil War, for example. I always thought, … I read Ernest Hemingway’s book, [“For Whom the Bell Tolls”] , I read half a dozen books on the Spanish Civil War, and in all cases they have these Jewish names on the Socialist side. And the American, … what’d they call it, the American group that went over there, I can’t think of it right now. [Lincoln Battalion] Anyway, a group of Americans that went over, their leader was a guy named [Milton] Wolff, who was a Jew. And the guy who was the head of the, … you know, the people who had been in the war back here, …

[Image] Milton Wolff (October 7, 1915 – January 14, 2008) better known as Milt Wolff, was a communist Jew subversive from the United States who acted as a terrorist in the Spanish Civil War, in his role as the last commander of the Lincoln Battalion of XV International Brigade. [3]

JR: Veterans you mean?

BB: Yeah, I’m trying to say the veterans of the Spanish American, … Civil War, …

JR: Yeah, yeah.

BB: … was a Jew. And I’m thinking, you know, you read all this stuff and you say:

“Wait a minute, there’s more to this than appears.”

JR: Yeah. Well, the whole slave trade was run by Jews.

BB: Yeah. But there is a common thread running through here that involves Jews.

JR: Right.

BB: And pretty soon you say, well, Judaism and Communism is the same thing. And when the Russians imposed, … I mean the Jews imposed their power over Russia they set about to kill scores of millions of Russians. They did it deliberately in the most bestial fashion you can imagine. They’ve been settling scores, and they were wiping out whole groups, the bourgeoisie, you know, which included I guess the aristocracy and the estate owners and the possessing classes, they set out to kill those people.

For example, they would leave, … They had this Cheka. I forget, … it’s an acronym, I forget exactly what it stands for. [Chrezvychainaya Komissiya – Extraordinary Commission (to combat Counter-Revolution)] But 75% of the members, the agents of this Cheka, were Jews. Of the 95% percent who were not Jews almost none were Russians, they were these Georgians, Poles and so forth, and a great number of those had Jewish wives. So this was a Jewish entity. They created the Comintern, the Communist International, for the purpose of exporting their revolution to Europe and bringing down existing regimes and replacing them with Jewish-controlled Soviet republics.

[60:10]

JR: Right, right. What do you think about the United States, do you think it’s controlled by the Jews?

BB: Yeah, yeah. You know, I was just reading, … I’m reading a book now about Allen Dulles than the CIA, I forget the name of it, but I’m halfway through it, and it’s talking about the origins of the CIA, the people from the Ivy League schools, you know, kind of the upper class in America. They’re the ones who joined the ISS [OSS – Office of Strategic Services] I think it was in World War II, which after the war became the CIA. He’s naming all these people, and it’s the American White Anglo-Saxon Protestant upper crust that runs the State Department at that time and the CIA. They were Arabists, they were called Arabists, they had an affinity for the Arab, … A close relationship with the Arabs, which was destroyed when Israel became a state in 1948.

[Image] Allen Dulles on the cover of Time, Aug. 3, 1953.

And then I was amazed at how, as this author was describing who ran the country in the 50s, White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, we have transitioned over, … They’ve been all totally displaced by Jews.

The Jews run every institution and every department of our government. The Neocons, neoconservatives. I don’t know if you know the origin of them, but they came out of the Trotskyite wing of the Communist Party. And they hate Russia. Why do they hate Russia? Because they hated Stalin. And they hate Russia now. It’s back to the same old, … Reverting right back to the pre-revolutionary years when the international Jews hated Russia, and now they’ve evolved right back to it. They controlled Russia from 1919 until shortly after World War II when Stalin began to turn against them and purge them, and then they started to leave Russia — after looting it, by the way.

[Image – click to enlarge] Just a few of the jewish Neocons.

And now the center, … That was the center of Jewish power, was the Soviet Union. And now the center of Jewish power is in Israel and America, about 6 million Jews in Israel, 6 million in America, who work together today, closely together, to bleed America for the benefit of Israel.

We send billions of dollars to Israel. American people don’t approve of that. But these Neocons that have positions of power and control in this country, funnel billions of dollars, the latest technology, everything, into Israel. They’ve got one of the most powerful armed forces in the world, in tiny Israel, with the latest technology. They got their nuclear weapons from us, I mean the technology to build them. They’ve got about 400 nuclear weapons. And Israel and American Neocons together control our foreign policy.

JR: That’s right. Now, would you say that it doesn’t make any difference who the President is, right?

BB: I don’t think so. Donald Trump MIGHT, but I’m not sure, make a difference.

But there is the Deep State, they call it, which pulls all the strings. So Obama wants to close Guantánamo Bay, for example. But he hasn’t done it yet. Why? Because it doesn’t have the power to do it. The real power are the people who make, … You know, that make the decisions and so forth. But, it’s incredible the extent to which our country is controlled by Israel and the Neocons in this country working together.

JR: Yeah. And it doesn’t look too promising, does it?

BB: No. And they’re the ones behind this multiculturalism.

JR: Right.

BB: I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of Kevin MacDonald.

JR: Oh sure, yeah! I read his stuff, yeah.

BB: I’ve read his stuff. He explains how they’ve done behind the scenes, you know, using front men, Gentile front men like Teddy Kennedy to pass the last immigration act in 1965, which opened up doors to these floods of Third World non-White, non-Christian people.

And they did it deliberately to undermine the White majority. And they got away with it because of this anti-Nazi propaganda, this racism they said. I don’t see anything wrong with nationalism. I think nationalism is the natural way that peoples ought to be organized, organize themselves. But he wanted a homogeneous German population, and the Jews have made that out to be sinful.

JR: Right. Yet if you go to Israel today, they don’t allow any of this there!

BB: That’s exactly right.

[65:00]

JR: A bunch of hypocrites. Unbelievable. Wow! Well Benton, this is really great, I think we covered from A to Z here quite a bit. Hopefully if you ever do get a chance to write another book I’m definitely going to be reading that. I’ve been telling everybody about your book.

BB: Thanks so much.

JR: Every place I go I say it’s the best book I’ve ever read to give me the whole story. Now I understand what happened with World War I, how World War II was just an extension of World War I.

[Image – click to enlarge] Béla Kun, a jew, was the leader of the Hungarian Revolution of 1919.

BB: Well, they tried to bring revolution to Europe, and they did overthrow Hungary for a time under Bela Kun. He had a 100% Jewish administration, and they raised bloody hell with, … Launched a war of terror against the Hungarian people. Admiral Horthy with the Hungarian, … I mean with the Romanian army came in and threw them out and saved, … But it caused intense anti-Semitism in Hungary as a result of that, what they did.

They came into Germany and for a time. They had the Soviet Socialist Republic of Bavaria, until the Freikorps came in and kicked them out. And then there was the Spartacus revolt, … Revolution in Berlin with Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht, Jews, leading it. And then they tried the same thing in Italy, and Mussolini saved Italy from the Jewish Bolsheviks.

[Image – click to enlarge] Revolutionary jews, Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht.

JR: Yeah, right. And he’s a bad guy now.

BB: Yeah, he’s a bad guy now. And then Franco was also a bad guy, but not as bad as Mussolini. He saved Spain from the Jewish communist take over. Hitler saved Czechoslovakia. And it’s one of the things, this absurd thing about appeasement today. Even John McCain uses it all the time, you know, ridiculing somebody because they want to appease somebody. Appeasement was actually successful. Britain and France, they were the warmongers, wanted to make war against Germany for annexing the Sudetenland, which had 3.8 million Germans who wanted to join Germany. No reason why they shouldn’t have.

[Image – click to enlarge] Map of the Partition of Czechoslovakia, 1938 – 1939

But then that led, … Then Czechoslovakia kind of fell apart, along ethnic lines with groups rejoining their original country, and that left Bohemia and Moravia where Prague is, the head of that, that’s where the Czechs are. That was the only thing that remained of Czechoslovakia. They had 180,000 Jews, most of which were communists and ready, … In direct communication with the Comintern in Moscow. Ready to turn Moravia and Bohemia into a communist state right in the heart of Europe. It would have been a disaster if that had happened.

And Hitler wouldn’t let it happen, and so he made it a protectorate, so that the communists wouldn’t take it over. He saved central Europe from the communist takeover. And yet, that’s used today as an example of how appeasement doesn’t work:

“Look, we made this agreement, appeasement, and then he went in and made it a protectorate.”

But he did it for a reason that we all ought to thank him for, he kept the communists out of Central Europe.

JR: Yeah. Well, Churchill, I believe it was Churchill who said:

“We slaughtered the wrong pig.”

BB: Yeah.

JR: Didn’t he say that? I thought that’s what he said. Well, that’s what I heard he said anyway, whether he said it are not. Well, Benton, I really want to thank you for this time together, you did a great job.

BB: Oh, thank you.

JR: And this video is probably going to get you more books [sold].

BB: Well, my sales doubled as a result of your promoting it, so thank you very much.

JR: I’m telling you, all the programs, because I’m on programs and interviews, and I’ve always brought it up, and every book that I talk about the top five books, this is probably, … I would think this is number one, honestly. And then I get into the Holocaust books. But if you want to understand everything exactly from the beginning, this is the book to get, so I recommend it. Anyway, I want to thank you for being on my show today, and I will get this video to you when it’s done and I’ll show it to you, you can watch it. And I’m going to put it up on YouTube at some point.

BB: Okay. All right. I enjoyed it, thanks so much for having me.

JR: Okay Ben, you take care now. God bless, bye now.

BB: Bye bye.

[69:33]

END

Footnotes

[1] Puttin’ On Airs: Making it Against the Odds The Story of My Life

From Amazon Description

Horatio Alger wrote wildly popular dime novels in the mid to late 1800s about poor boys making good. The theme was always the same; that through honesty, hard work, strong determination,and perseverance, the American Dream could be realized regardless of his beginnings in life.

“Puttin’ on Airs” is the author’s own story of himself as a poor boy who made good against the odds, a story which could have been written by Horatio Alger. The author describes his life growing up in rural Louisiana as one of ten children of uneducated parents, under conditions of spirit crushing poverty. He escaped this life by joining the Navy at age 17. Within 5 years time he became an officer and aviator and went on to complete a 21 year Navy career. In time he obtained a university degree (with honors), the only member of his family to even attend college. Only 2 of the 10 children even graduated from high school, himself and a sister.

“Join the Navy and see the world,” the recruiting poster said, and see the world, he did. He has been on 6 continents and in over 40 countries. He was also on the front line of the Cold War from near its beginning to near its end, which included a year in Viet Nam as a helicopter pilot. As a helicopter pilot, he also helped retrieve the astronauts from the sea after their return to earth.

With the same determination and grit that propelled him in his Navy career, he entered private business after retiring from the Navy, which has made him a wealthy man. This well written book should be an inspiration to anyone who enjoys a good rags to riches story.

[2] From an Amazon reviewer of “Treblinka”

(Source: http://www.amazon.com/Treblinka-Jean-Francois-Steiner/dp/0452011248)

1.0 out of 5 stars Nazi sado-porn

By HolocaustHistory channel on March 3, 2013

Format: Paperback

Treblinka was first identified as a site of killing with gas in a story published July 11, 1942 in the Polish newspaper Dziennik Polski (The Polish Daily). This story read, in part, “In the area of Lublin on the night of 23-24 March [1942] the Jewish population was deported. […] 26,000 were sent to camps in Bełżec and Tremblinka […] Reportedly in Bełźec and Tremblinka the killing is going on with the help of poisonous gas.”

Treblinka “death camp” opened on July 23, 1942 — making it hard to understand how people were gassed there in March 1942!

In any event, the atrocity stories being spread about Treblinka soon changed, and reported that killings went on in “steam chambers” at Treblinka; the steam chamber story was “proven” at the Nuremberg trials. Because people really weren’t sure what a steam chamber was supposed to be, and because the gas chamber story had been widely spread about other German camps, the story then changed back to gas chambers. A few postwar reports described the Treblinka gas chambers, most notably Rachel Auerbach’s “In the Fields of Treblinka,” which claimed that at Treblinka blood “was found to be a first-class combustion material.” [Blood is mostly water, and is certainly not a “combustion material” at all!]

After 1948, however, Treblinka disappeared from the pages of written history until 1966, when it was resurrected by this novel, published by the French Jew Jean-François Steiner and ghost-written by Gilles Perrault. It is based on the (extremely limited) written record, as well as interviews with former Treblinka prisoners, and caused something of a scandal as some of those former prisoners thought they had been unfairly portrayed as “collaborators.”

Steiner’s novel is extremely crude, belongs to the genre of sadistic pornography, and lacks all value for the serious student. One amusing episode describes the killing of the Ukranian guard dubbed “Ivan the terrible” in the Treblinka uprising. The same former Treblinka prisoners who told Steiner that “Ivan the terrible” had been killed in the revolt later identified John Demjanjuk as that very same Ivan; he was deported to Israel, put on trial, and sentenced to death, although years later evidence surfaced which forced the Israeli supreme court to overturn the conviction, thereby calling the former Treblinka prisoners liars.

For those who actually wish to study Treblinka rather than amuse themselves with trashy novels, there is no better source than Treblinka: Extermination Camp or Transit Camp? (Holocaust Handbook).

[3] Milton Wolff (October 7, 1915 – January 14, 2008) better known as Milt Wolff, was a communist Jew subversive from the United States who acted as a terrorist in the Spanish Civil War, in his role as the last commander of the Lincoln Battalion of XV International Brigade. Later in his life, as well as his continuing communist activities, he was also involved in Europhobic agitations in an attempt to undermine European Americans in the United States and the Boer people in South Africa. He died in Berkeley, California on January 14, 2008 at age 92.

Source: http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Milton_Wolff

_________________________

Click on a link to go to each part of Ben Bradberry’s book, “The Myth Of German Villainy”:

Part 01 — Cover text; About the Author; Preface; Chapter 1: The Myth of Germany as an Evil Nation

Part 02 — Chapter 2: Aftermath of the War in Germany

Part 03 — Chapter 3: The Jewish Factor in the War

Part 04 — Chapter 4: The Russian revolution of 1917

Part 05 — Chapter 5: The Red Terror

Part 06 — Chapter 6: The Bolshevik Revolution Spreads throughout Europe

Part 07 — Chapter 7: The Nation of Israel

Part 08 — Chapter 8: Jews in Weimar Germany

Part 09 — Chapter 9: Hitler and National Socialists Rise to Power

Part 10 — Chapter 10: National Socialism vs Communism

Part 11 — Chapter 11: Jews Declare War on Nazi Germany

Part 12 — Chapter 12: The Nazis and the Zionists Actually Work Together for Jewish Emigration out of Germany

Part 13 — Chapter 13: Life in Germany Under Hitler

Part 14 — Chapter 14 & 15: Hitler Begins Reclamation of German Territory; The 1936 Olympics

Part 15 — Chapter 16: “Anschluss” The Unification of Austria and Germany

Part 16 – Chapter 17: Germany Annexes the Sudetenland

Part 17 – Chapter 18: War with Poland

Part 18 – Chapter 19: The Phony War

======================================

Click to download a PDF of this post (3.0 MB):

Jim Rizoli – Ben Bradberry Interview – The Myth of Germany Villainy – 2016 — TRANSCRIPT

Version History

Version 15: Apr 9, 2020 — Improved formatting.

Version 14: Jan 6, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version.

Version 13: Aug 29, 2017 — Added links to each part of Ben Bradberry’s book, “The Myth Of German Villainy”.

Version 12: Dec 29, 2016 — Improved formatting.

Version 11: Jan 23, 2016 — Fixed some typos.

Version 10: Jan 21, 2016 — Added PDF of transcript.

Version 9: Jan 20, 2016 — Added 10 minutes of transcript (submitted by commenter, mblaineo). Total = 70 min. Added images. Draft of TRANSCRIPT now complete.

Version 8: Jan 19, 2016 — Added 15 minutes of transcript (submitted by commenter, mblaineo). Total = 60 min. Added images.

Version 7: Jan 17, 2016 — Added 15 minutes of transcript (submitted by commenter, mblaineo). Total = 45 min. Added maps.

Version 6: Jan 16, 2016 — Added more images; added Footnotes; fixed some typos.

Version 5: Jan 15, 2016 — Added 15 minutes of transcript (submitted by commenter, mblaineo). Total = 30 min.

Version 4: Jan 14, 2016 — Added 15 minutes of transcript (submitted by commenter, mblaineo). Total = 15 min. NOTE: Commenter mblaineo has actually submitted the full text of the transcript to me. I applaud him for his efforts in doing his bit to help bring truth to the public about recent history that is suppressed by our enemies.

Version 3: Jan 13, 2016 — Updated the time slots with, [IN PROGRESS [MBLAINEO].

Version 2: Jan 10, 2016 — Added “About the Author”; cover.

Version 1: Posted Jan 9, 2016

Zion’s Trojan Horse: Part 7 (last) — Anti-Gentilism; Chance or Design; About the Author

admin — Wed, 15 Jul 2015 12:53:56 +0000

[How Organized Jewry has taken control of the US government and subverted it as part of its goal of achieving world domination — KATANA]

[Click to enlarge]

Zion’s Trojan Horse

By Senator Jack B. Tenney

Part 7

ZION’S TROJAN HORSE

A TENNEY REPORT

On World Zionism

By Senator Jack B. Tenney

Introduction by Col. John Beaty

Published by:

Sons of Liberty P.O. Box 449

Arabi, LA 70032

Printed In the United States of America

INTRODUCTION By Col. JOHN BEATY ………………………………. 175

Part I

THE WANDERING JEW …………………………………………………. 177

In Dispersion From the Beginning …………………………………… 177

The Chosen People ………………………………………………………… 180

Part II

THE TERRIBLE POWER OF THE PURSE ………………………. 188

Jacob Henry Schiff ………………………………………………………… 189

The Rothschilds …………………………………………………………….. 190

The Warburgs ………………………………………………………………… 192

Part III

PRELUDE TO CONQUEST ………………………………………………. 193

The World Zionist Organization ……………………………………….. 193

Toward World Government …………………………………………….. 195

Part IV

THE REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAT ……………………………….197

The Jewish Socialist Federation of America ……………………….. 197

The Socialist International …………………………………………………. 202

The National Workmen’s Committee …………………………………. 204

Part V

JEWISH REVOLUTION ………………………………………………….. 205

Part VI

“WE ARE ONE PEOPLE” ………………………………………………….. 211

“Unity of Mind and Purpose” ……………………………………………. 211

The Copenhagen Manifesto ………………………………………………. 214

Part VII

THE JEWISH NATION ………………………………………………………. 215

The International Jew at Versailles …………………………………….. 215

The Versailles Treaty ………………………………………………………….. 217

Second Meeting of the American Jewish Congress ………………. 218

Part VIII

CONQUEST OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITIES ……………………… 219

Groundwork for World Government ……………………………………. 219

First World Jewish Conference ……………………………………………. 221

The Constituent Session of the World Jewish Congress …….. 224

Mobilization of World Jewry ……………………………………………….. 226

Part IX

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS ……………………………………………… 228

Part X

AGITATION FOR WORLD WAR II …………………………………….. 236

Part XI

ANTI-GENTILISM …………………………………………………………….. 239

Part XII

CHANCE OR DESIGN? …………………………………………………….,. 246

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

INDEX [see PDF]

[Page 175]

INTRODUCTION

By CoL. JOHN BEATY, author of

The Iron Curtain Over America

To be of major significance, a book on the current world scene must meet three requirements:

(1) It must be the work of a person who has been in an exceptional position for breaking through censorship and learning the truth;

(2) it must be full and complete and written fearlessly, with no effort to hide or gloss over the evil deeds of any faction or minority; and

(3) it must be written by one who is skilled in the writer’s art.

ZION’S TROJAN HORSE, by Jack Tenney, possesses the triple qualification.

(1) Ten years of arduous work in the California Senate as Chairman of the Committee on Un-American Activities has given Senator Tenney a great body of information on vital facts to which newspaper columnists and other political writers, and even academic historians, have no means of access. The reason is obvious. In his strategic position, Senator Tenney not only had opportunities denied to others for uncovering secret data; he even had the power to force the disclosure of much information which would under no circumstances have become known to a writer who was not in a similar position of government authority.

(2) An author’s incumbency in high office or in a strategic position does not, however, guarantee that his book is of major importance. Too many such personages have written books to throw a smoke screen over their own surrenders to political expediency or to alien pressure. Other authors have written books which purport to cover the history of the past half century or to deal with the foreign policy of the United States of America and yet, from fear of an alien minority, make no reference whatever to Middle East, Israel, Jews, Judaism, Khazars, or Zionism! These books name names, but never the names of such history-making Jews as, for example, the Rothschilds, Chaim Weizman, Samuel Untermeyer, Stephen A. Wise, and Louis D. Brandeis — much less the names of those Jews prominent in more recent times in atomic espionage; in the U. S. executive departments, especially Treasury and State; and above all, in the personal staffs of the last three Presidents of the United States.

Books that leave out such topics and such names are worse than useless. They are dangerous. They teach the reader to place the blame for the world’s perilous condition upon people of his own creed and kind, and not where it belongs — upon scheming alien manipulators. Such books present a picture as much distorted from the truth as would be presented by a history of the U. S. Revolutionary War which made no reference to taxation without representation, the Declaration of Independence, and the Continental Congress; and made no mention of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, or other men prominent at the time in influencing public opinion.

[Page 176]

But how, the reader may ask, can one tell without reading it whether a book by a seemingly authoritative author gives a full coverage of its subject? Fortunately, there is an easy test. Consult the index of each book which has attracted your attention. Make your own comparison, and back the book of your choice. The merest glance at the index of ZION’S TROJAN HORSE will show its full and fearless coverage of all phases of its vital subject.

(3) Whatever a man’s former position of authority and however full his coverage of his subject, he cannot have maximum effectiveness unless he writes well. Senator Tenney writes with a confidence and a zeal which the reader immediately senses and shares. Imbued by the emotion of the author, the reader is swept forward through the mass of details which fill the years between Karl Marx and the present. He is both fascinated and terrified by the climactic story of the growth of two tremendous forces, Communism and Zionism, so closely related in their objectives. The reader sees with the horror which can be induced only by superb literary writing how the aims of these two forces, Communism and Zionism, are alike hostile to America as a nation and to the Christian civilization of which our nation is the finest flower. The reader shares the author’s indignation at the subtle way in which Communism and Zionism have played Christian nations against each other in bloody conflict, and is appalled at the combination of subtle infiltration, brazen bullying, and everlasting propaganda with which these two alien forces have ridden rough-shod over the world and have demanded and secured in this country rights and privileges which involve the destruction of America and the degradation of the Christian West.

In Paradise Lost John Milton wrote the epic of the fall of man, a fall which was engineered by an alien intruder into the Garden. In ZION’S TROJAN HORSE, Jack Tenney has written of the fall of American man, and of American women, too, under the blandishments, the bribes, and the intimidation of alien intruders into our garden-spot, America. To read this great book is to arm yourself with knowledge. With your increased knowledge you will feel increased confidence and have a new power to go forth and defend your country, your ideals, and your faith.

DALLAS, TEXAS

DECEMBER 4, 1953

[Page 177]

XI

Anti-Gentilism

Karl Marx’s attack upon religion as “the opium of the people” was not so much an attack upon all religions as it was a war against Christianity. Like most intellectual revolutionary Jews, Marx was no more an adherent of Judaism than he was of Christianity. Ethnically, however, he was a Jew. In substance Marx reminded the Jews that they must not demand equality with Christians; they must seek the total destruction of Christianity. Marx believed that the Jew has within himself the privilege of being a Jew. It was his contention that the Jew, as a Jew, has rights that the Christian does not have.

“Why does the Jew demand rights that he does not have and that Christians enjoy?” he asked.

He reasoned that the Jew, in demanding emancipation from the Christian State, demands that the Christian State abandon its religious prejudice.

And he, the Jew, does he abandon his own religious prejudices?

Has he then the right to demand of another that he relinquish his religion? Marx concludes that as long as the State remains Christian; as long as Jew remains Jew, both are equally incapable, the one to give emancipation, and the other to receive it.

Thundering in the columns of “Deutsch·Franzosishe Jahr bucher”, Marx demanded:

“Upon what title do you Jews ground your claim for emancipation? On your religion? It is the mortal foe of the State (Christian) religion.”

The Marxian philosophy does not tolerate compromise.

What then is the Marxian solution?

Concluding that as long as States are Christian and the religion of the Jews is the mortal foe of the state religion, Marx proceeds to lay down the formula for the destruction of Christianity; — the establishment of atheism.

“The most rigid form of opposition between the Jew and the Christian,” he avers, “is the religious opposition. How does one get rid of an opposition? By making it impossible. And how make impossible a religious opposition? By suppressing religion.”

[Page 240]

Marx was willing to concede that the Jew had been emancipated In his day, but in a Jewish manner. He believed that the Jew had been emancipated in precise measure as the Christians had become Jews. He knew that the Jew, “who was merely tolerated in Vienna,” determined by his sole financial power the future of all Europe; that the Jew, who might be without rights in the smallest of the German states, decided the future of Europe. He believed that the Jew had made himself the master of the financial market through the medium of gold which had become a world power, and through the “practical Jewish spirit” which had become the spirit in practice of the Christian people. But, to Marx, this type of emancipation was not enough. Real emancipation, in the Marxist sense, could only be achieved by the total destruction of Christianity.

A tidal wave of atheism rolled across Europe in the wake of Marxism, inundating the low places in Christendom; — surged across the seas to America; rising higher and higher to wash against the walls of colleges and universities, — even to the pulpits of churches that had withstood fire and sword. As the muddy waters churned and seethed the flags of proud States went down to be lost in the flotsam and filth of the flood. Where the waters receded there appeared great scars of erosion on the face of the earth; — scars that reflected the dwindling dignity of man and his vanishing freedoms.

The apostles of Marx had succeeded better than they knew.

Religious faith and value appeared to be crumbling under the lashing waves of the flood. Eternal truths fled before the raucous shouts and taunts of sensual multitudes, and a long, black night descended over the earth.

Out of the chaos of the Nineteenth Century arose the powers of Communism and Zionism. Each made its appearance in Russia at almost the same moment; — springing full-grown ideologically from the minds of the same ethnic group. One movement announced that it sought world power and intended to take it through revolutionary action. The other group announced its purpose to acquire territory that did not belong to it and demanded exceptional powers and privileges everywhere else in the world. In 1918 both groups attained world significance: Zionism in the Balfour Declaration, and Communism in the Russian November revolution. When the confusion of World War I had passed away only Communism and Zionism could claim victories; the Soviet Union in Russia for the Communists, and the beachhead in Palestine for the Zionists, and both movements appeared to be under the same management.

[Page 241]

Through the years both powers supported, promoted and protected each other. Both emphasized “anti-Semitism” in their propaganda programs, extending it, where advantageous, to include other “minority groups” in the area of their advance. Nationalism everywhere was the perpetual target of the day, yet both movements preached a chauvinistic nationalism never before known. Both planted agents in the governments of the world and manipulated compliant officials to their will. Where expedient they waved the flag and declared that “Communism is Twentieth Century Americanism” and that allegiance to Israel is “American patriotism”.

Both advocated “one worldism” and the surrender of the sovereignties of nations to the super-government they intend to create and are determined to control. Both are anti-Christian; both are anti-Republic. Each extol the virtues of democracy while practicing totalitarianism. Both denounce “racism” and “nordic superiority” while professing to be the elite of the world and the Chosen People. Adherents of each group considers themselves strangers sojourning in the land of their birth or residence, surrounded by hostile people. They are convinced that they must bend these foes to their will, utterly exterminate them, or be destroyed themselves.

“Anti-Semitism” is largely a myth. It is a “brain-washing” word in the same category with the term “red-baiters” of the thirties.

A slight bit of research and a little analysis reveals that it is a machiavellian device for ideological warfare, — and that it is used solely for that purpose. The average curious investigator will find few individuals — if in fact he can find one — who has antipathy for hatred’s sake of the Semites of the world. The modern use and intended implication becomes clear when it is known that the word “Semite” was originally employed by J. G. Eichhorn at the close of the Eighteenth Century to designate the “sons of Shem” which included the Babylonians, Assyrians, Aramaeans, Phoenicians and various other peoples of Southeastern Asia. Today the term is much more properly applied to Arabs than to Jews. Paradoxically the most anti-Semitic person in the world is the non-Semitic Khazar Jew because this Jew covets the Semitic Arab’s land and possessions.

In fact, the greatest anti-Semitic act of the ages was the driving out by the new State of Israel of nearly a million Arab people who are even today hungry and homeless in the desert, — an act of bloody rapine performed by non-Semitic Khazars.

Anti-Semitism, then, is an important propaganda term, designedly provocative both in attack and defense. Its most modern and effective use originated in Russia after the successful Bolshevik revolution. The laws enacted against “anti-Semitism” by the Soviets sought to silence criticism of the Jewish leadership of the Bolshevist government, and the term was used solely in its ethnic meaning. Since then Communists and organized Jewry have employed the term everywhere, seeking, not the protection of the Jewish people, but protection against criticism of organized Jewry’s political activities and objectives. The opprobrium is as ruthlessly thrown — and with equal venom — at Jew as well as Gentile, — whenever a Jew presumes to criticize the policies of self-appointed “officials” of Jewish organizations who boldly claim the right to speak for him. Anti-Semitism is, literally speaking, non-existent except in the attitude of Khazar Jews toward the Arabs.

[Page 242]

Herzl declared that the Jews are what the Ghetto made them.

He either believed that the Ghetto was forced on the Jews or neglected to say that the Ghetto was strictly a Jewish institution.

The fact is that Jewish leadership fought for, established, and resisted the abolition of, the Ghetto. Without elaboration or explanation Herzl accepted anti-Semitism in its literal sense, although apparently recognizing the obvious fact that there were Jews who might not exactly be considered “excellent men.” Despairing of solving “the Jewish question” in a sensible and rational manner he strengthened his Zionist scheme by concluding that;

“the nations in whose midst Jews live, are all either covertly or openly anti-Semitic.”

The proposition that some people are possessed of an in grained, unreasonable dislike or hatred of other people, or of a particular people, philosophy, or religion or what-not, is a comparatively recent weapon in ideological warfare. “Attitudes” do not just happen; they are the result of some situation, — the effect — and not the origin —of a chain of experiences. The child with the burned finger does not suddenly develop an “attitude” against fire, — he has experienced its effect. To assert that there has never been universal dislike and distrust of the Jews would be denying or ignoring the records of history. It is a fact that historians do not magnify or underscore, but a phenomenon that organized Jewry perpetuates and emphasizes. According to Jewish propaganda no other people have been so universally despised, excoriated and persecuted. To ask the Jewish propagandist for the causes of this universal hatred, this excoriation, this cruel treatment, is to be branded, without further hearing, an incurable “Nazi”, a “Fascist” and an “anti-Semite.” The tacit assumption — which must be the “attitude” of all concerned if they are to escape vicious condemnation — is that the Jews are the most innocent, the purest, the most lovable and the most virtuous of all mankind; that their oppressors — Christians for the greater part — are the most brutal, the most evil, the most heartless and the most degenerated of all the people on the earth.

To accept this assumption as true is to be hopelessly stupid.

[Page 243]

No people are wholly bad or wholly good. Both the good and the bad reputations of a given people are traceable, in large measure, to the good-will, the ambitions, the intrigues and the characteristics of their leaders. Thus a Napoleon may earn a bad reputation for the French; a George III a bad name for the English; and a Hitler a Mussolini and a Stalin an evil character for the respective peoples of the countries they rule. But in between, before, and after, there are other leaders who exemplify the virtues of the people they represent, so that they are known as generous, forgiving, humane and compassionate where on other occasions they had appeared grasping, vengeful, inhuman and ruthless. But, thunders organized Zionism, wherever the Jew sojourned, there he was hated, robbed and persecuted. Nation after nation opened their arms to wandering Jews time and time again only to officially expel them when they had an opportunity to get acquainted with them. According to organized Jewry’s account there were no exceptions recorded on history’s pages; — no instance where “they lived happily ever after.” Only periods of sinister calms while the Christian persecutors recovered their breath and energies for new and more frightful atrocities against them.

What must an honest and impartial student of such a story reasonably conclude? That the Christians are, and always have been, a brutalized and unregenerated lot? That the Jew has always been an innocent victim, without evil, without provocation and without fault? Only an idiot or a partisan might so conclude.

Reason dictates that no man or group of men may claim perfection.

To assert that everyone is out of step but Jim is to be either completely blind to Jim’s shortcomings or a bigoted liar. Reason therefore dictates that the Jewish assertion of universal hatred of the Jews was either deserved or that the assertion is untrue.

People have always reacted in much the same way as they do today. There isn’t much evidence at hand to prove that they are much better or much worse in our time than they have been through the ages. Kindness, decency, and courtesy have always been contagious and good-will always created good-will. If there has been universal dislike and distrust of the Jews then it is necessary to look for the cause. It is unreasonable to believe that the Jews themselves, merely because they are Jews, were the cause.

The answer must be found in the character of Jewish leadership.

The cry of “religious persecution” began to sound hollow a long time ago. It was used in the beginning as the term “racism” is employed today, and for the same purpose. It was designed to amalgamate Jewish interest with dissonant Christian sects for the advancement of Jewish ambitions. Wherever it has been possible it has been organized Jewry that has engaged in “religious persecution.” While there have been, are, and undoubtedly will continue to be, doctrinal disagreements within the Christian churches none of these disputes attack the basis of Christianity itself. One need only turn to the “Jewish Year Books” and scan the list of “Christological manifestations” under attack by organized Jewry to get a picture of religious persecution in the United States. (See Zion’s Fifth Column). Both the Catholic and Protestant respects the followers of Judaism. Only organized Jewry appears to hate Christianity. Its long record of strenuous effort to eradicate every vestige of Christian expression from everyday life in America is easily discovered.

[Page 244]

Herzl was quick to point out that;

“modern anti-Semitism is not to be confounded with the religious persecution of the Jews of former times.”

He did not believe that the question was social. To the founder of Zionism “anti-Semitism” was a “national” question, because the Jews “are a people — one people.”

Jewish writers and Gentile apologists have offered self-serving “reasons” for anti-Semitism. Jewish writers, without attempting to refute the charges, appear to be the first to explain Jewish persecution on the ground that Jews were “falsely alleged” to constitute a “race” bent upon exploiting the Gentile populations among whom they lived. A second theory of more recent invention is the “scapegoat” theme. In the same manner that Marxists reason fascism to be the product of expiring capitalism, some Jewish writers profess to explain anti-Semitism as a product of “decaying social systems.” In some instances the reasoning is identical. The “decaying social order” through its “bankrupt leadership” incites the mobs to pogroms against the Jews to deflect the wrath of the impoverished away from the “landlords”; calls for Jewish persecution so that “exploited workers” may direct their violence against the “innocent Israelites” instead of the “voracious employers and officials.” It should be apparent that this explanation is without rhyme or reason. It is pure invention without historical documentation; a gross insult to Christendom thinly veiled in psychological speculation.

What, then, is the basis for alleged anti-Semitism?

The answer is that anti-Semitism is non-existent. It is a term of Communist and Zionist invention to shield anti-Gentilism.

“The Jews are a distinct nationality” declared Justice Louis D. Brandeis of the Supreme Court of the United States. Said Theodor Herzl:

“I will give you my definition of a nation; and you can add the adjective ‘ Jewish.’ A Nation is, in my mind, an historical group of men of recognizable cohesion held together by a common enemy. Then, if you add to that the word ‘ Jewish ‘ you have what I understand to be the Jewish Nation.”

“Anti-Semitism”, therefore, may be said to be paint on Zion’s Trojan Horse.

[Page 245]

The “common enemy” of the Jewish Nation, on Herzl’s authority, is Christianity. The leaders of Jewry through the ages looked upon Christians everywhere through the eyes of Simon ben Yohai and their ingrained attitude was perpetually anti-Gentile and anti-Christian. Such an attitude drilled into the hearts and the minds of succeeding generations of Jews must necessarily be reflected in their daily contacts and dealings with the despised enemy; must necessarily chafe and inflame the concealed resentment smoldering in the breasts of every one of them. To be the elite, the Chosen people, — the People of the Covenant, and yet to be compelled to seek haven and refuge in the lands of the “mortal foe” must be humiliating and frustrating beyond endurance.

To outwit, to trick, to maneuver and manipulate the enemy becomes an outlet for suppressed hatred. When their guiles are discovered and the wrath of the deceived fall upon their heads they cry out that they are the victims of “religious persecution” and “anti-Semitism.”

Among the many illustrations of this characteristic of Jewish leadership may be mentioned the Jewish Socialist Bund uprising in Odessa, Russia in 1905. The reign of terror was insolent, anti-National, violent and bloody. Rich Jewish merchants financed the purchase of arms which were distributed among several thousands of the younger men. Mobs of these armed Jews paraded the streets carrying the red flag. Believing they had succeeded in the revolt they proclaimed the South Russian Republic. The Municipal Council of Odessa formed itself into a Committee of Public Safety and issued a series of decrees in the presence of delegations from the Bund. Desiring to cripple the armed power, the Jews demanded the withdrawal of the regular military forces, the disarming of the police and the establishment of a citizenship-militia. When the counter-revolution came and the Bundists were hunted down and arrested the cry of “anti-Semitism” led many in other lands to believe that Czarist Russia had again embarked upon a cruel pogrom against the Jews.

There may have been and there probably were instances of unfounded abuse of the Jews. To believe otherwise is to be as bigoted as organized Jewry. History records many injustices to many people, the least of which, incidentally, were the Jews. But, unless Christianity is willing to assume the role organized Jewry has written for it — that of a brutal, inhuman, unreasoning mass of sadistic tyrants and despots — the alleged universal distrust and dislike of the Jews must have been merited. And — in case this may be quoted out of context — let it be remembered that it is organized Jewry who poses the universal Jewish persecution postulate.

[Page 248]

The crux of the subject of “anti-Semitism” is to be found in the Nazi-like concept of race-purity and race-superiority; in the obsession that the Jew, regardless of his country, his station in life, the shade of his belief or lack of belief, his political orientation, or any other consideration, is a member of a distinct and special nationality.

“To deny Jewish nationality,” asserts one Jewish authority, “you must deny the existence of the Jew.”

Leon Simon declared that:

“Judaism has no message of salvation for the individual soul, as Christianity has; all its ideas are bound up with the existence of the Jewish nation.”

And Moses Hess, “the Communist Rabbi,” wrote that;

“every Jew is, whether he wishes it or not, solidly united with the entire nation.”

Is this not the basic center of Hitler’s dream of the Third Reich; — the ingathering of the “blood-brothers” — the protection and liberation of German “minorities”? Did Hitler demand or claim more for the German people than Simon, Herzl, Hess and Brandeis demanded and claimed for the Jews? The answer to this may be that Hitler was modest by comparison.

The result of such philosophy — and the subject might be extended ad infinitum — is the creation of a monolithic concept of race-superiority that defies every effort of good-will for the establishment of the brotherhood of man.

XII

CHANCE OR DESIGN?

As we look back over the history of the last hundred years a number of events stand out in bold relief against the tumult and the shouting. Important among these events are the rise of Marxism, the rise of political Zionism, the frenzied mobilization of world Jewry, the Balfour Declaration, the triumph. of Communism in Russia: World War I, the League of Nations, the Great Depression, World War II, the United Nations and the invasion and the conquest of Palestine. There were many other events, of course, but none with such sweeping continuity and importance; none of such magnitude in world shaking consequence.

Were these events the disconnected results of the muddled minds that purported to direct the destiny of nations?

Were they merely the accidental sum totals of mistaken calculations?

Were they the chance results of a careless throw of dice from the trembling hands of an insane Destiny?

Are they connected in such a manner as to indicate the result of clever planning?

Does each event follow in natural sequence and in logical order?

We believe that each event is a logical step in a predetermined schedule; each incident a link in a chain carefully designed and forged; each catastrophe a check-mark on a time-table to world conquest.

We venture the opinion that there remains but two further important events for the successful culmination of a well laid plan, —World War III and World Government.

[Page 247]

It should be made clear in this analysis that world Jewry: although it may be the means, is as much a victim in this scheme of things as are the Gentiles. And although world Jewry may be the means, compliant Gentile officialdom is the instrument.

Marxism may be said to be a devise for de-Christianizing Christendom; a chisel for dividing Nations and fragmentizing its citizenry. It is, in addition, an atheistic philosophy for brutalizing humanity, a doctrine of hate, of violence and bloodshed. Its battle cry of “brotherhood” and “equality” are deceptive slogans for class hatred and slavery.

Wherever Marxism has marched, brother has hated brother; its trail has been marked by mountains of dead and rivers of blood. The internationalism it preaches is designed to smother patriotism so that its victims will not resist conquest; its “classless society” is a world of slaves and masters. Through the years from the “Communist Manifesto” in 1848 its sinister doctrines have been preached wherever men might listen. Its oriental devices have been refined and perfected, and its trickery is practiced by cunning men throughout the world. Its doctrines have been carried by Jewish emigrants into the crowded places of the Diaspora where Jewish Socialist Bund branches nourished them and injected their virus into the blood-streams of other nations. Its inhuman philosophy bears the mark of Cain. Its gross materialism has stripped the world of its values and ushered in the Age of Delusion.

Its divisive technique is an important part in a plan, — perhaps the plan itself.

As the years marched by, Marx’s disciple, Moses Hess, would preach of Utopia in Zion, and another Marxist, Ferdinand Lassalle, would mobilize the proletariat for political power. A Pinsker and a Ginzberg would sing of Zion and ultimately a Herzl would proclaim the Jewish State. World Jewry would mobilize and a first World War would wring a declaration for a “Jewish Homeland in Palestine” from an English Balfour, — persuaded to barter an innocent people for dubious Jewish assistance in a great conflict. A Jewish chemist with first hand knowledge of the chemical wealth of an ancient body of water (the Dead Sea) would negotiate the deal and ultimately become the first president of the betrayed land.

With the passing of time a blood-red dawn would suddenly break over Holy Russia. Exiled refugees would return from New York’s East side to attack Russia’s new Republic, while stabbing her bleeding armies in the back. Fires of revolt would sweep over the doomed nation. Jewish bankers would supply finances for Bolshevik armies led by a Jew from the Ukraine, and, in the end freedom would perish and the Russian revolution would succeed.

[Page 248]

Jews with no official status whatever would descend on Paris when World War I had ended to demand a League of Nations and the inclusion of its own “minority” clauses in peace treaties imposed upon the lands carved out of nations broken by war. The unsuspecting Peace Conference officials would comply; the Jewish clauses would be imposed, and the League of Nations would come into being.

In the years of its decline the League of Nations would become a disappointment to organized Jewry and its ultimate failure would be attributed by Jewish leaders to the “narrow patriotism” of the American people who blocked United States’ participation.

Its failure would be part of a plan that failed, but it would not be the failure of the plan. As the years rolled along there would come great prosperity.

An alien Jew from Germany would have reorganized the banking system of the United States to more closely conform to the banking institutions controlled and operated by his Jewish brethren in Europe. He would presume to rewrite the banking laws of his adopted country and ultimately sit in an important position on the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States. Financial panic would follow prosperity and a hungry people would turn to any Pied Piper with a plan for sustenance. Communism would become fashionable and its agents would find influential places at the shoulders of the rulers of the world. Agents of Zionism and Communism would become Iagos to the nations’ Othellos and World War II would be in the making.

World War II! As we now contemplate it in its proper perspective it seems to fill an important gap in the picture that is taking shape in our jig-saw puzzle. Was this world conflagration the natural, reasonable and logical outgrowth of the conflict of national interests? Is there anything significant in the first phase of the war (September 1939 to May 1940) which was called “phony”; the long months when the English and French faced the armies of Germany and did nothing much about it? During the thirty-five days of the Polish campaign and for about eight months thereafter, the quiet of the western front was unbroken. Could it be possible that this strange, passive inactivity on the part of hostile powers had some connection with the tramp of Soviet boots into Poland, Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania? What part did the Communist Parties of the world play in the “sitzkrieg” that marked the pastoral peace of the western front? What mysterious force caused the National Committee of the Communist Party of the United States to declare in October 1939 that “this war… is not a war against fascism, not a war to protect small nations from aggression…” and to declare just as emphatically in July of 1941 “down with the criminal war of German fascism against the Soviet Union”? Did it make sense in the beginning? In the middle, or in the end?

[Page 249]

These are a few of the many questions that no one has satisfactorily answered. Perhaps they cannot be answered in the course of conventional inquiry. They scarce may be asked without provoking disapproval. The question-marks loom larger in perspective and inquiring minds must necessarily seek answers behind the iron curtain of censorship and secrecy — even into the dark recesses of diplomatic intrigue where no confidential documents are filed.

To speak of Yalta and Potsdam is to provoke another torrent of questions. The betrayal of Poland and China and other loyal allies; Korea and the defeat of American arms under United Nations direction; — all these things — and many more — cry out for explanation and clarification. Whatever is said, — no matter how well said — no matter how cleverly composed-the eternal question-mark remains. Is it because no one dares ask about the unknown quantity; the missing “x” in the equation?

Ambitious men have been known to deliberately provoke war in order to advance their own interests. History calmly records their steps of provocation; frankly traces the design of their deadly maneuvers. They were usually men who headed petty principalities although there were others who headed great States.

In every case they gambled their own necks and fortunes on the outcome of the conflict and often shared the fate of the most humble of their people in the disaster of the conflagration they kindled.

History does not speak kindly of such men.

That it is possible to promote and instigate wars is plainly obvious. Is it possible, on the other hand, for third parties to instigate war? Is it possible that men may be capable of adroitly promoting antagonisms between nations and cleverly maneuvering them into hostile positions from which they are unable to extricate themselves without resort to armed conflict? The answer, on the record of history, must be in the affirmative. It is neither fantastic nor incredible. War is but the natural continuation of frustrated diplomacy and the bayonet is easily substituted for the umbrella.

And it is not improbable that wars have been instigated by third parties. Quite a number of historical instances may be found. In each case the conspirator must desire the ultimate weakness of the warring powers and he must have an interest in the aftermath of war. He must necessarily have the confidence of the leaders of both sides of the conflict; either personally or through trusted agents. He must be powerful in his own way, machiavelian in his methods, and ruthless in the execution of his plan.

[Page 250]

Is it possible for an international organization to deliberately maneuver nations into a world war? The answer again must be in the affirmative. What type of organization would be capable of succeeding in such an action? Only an organization devoid of any allegiance whatever to any nation and whose objectives exclude the interests of the organized states of the world. Its particular interests and objectives must be served in some manner by the devastating aftermath of war. It must have exhausted its efforts in the fields of propaganda and diplomacy. Such an organization must be Jed by men who are international in thought and action.

They must be men who are incurably hostile to the world and who are convinced that the world is hostile to them and all they represent. They must, of necessity, believe themselves superior to all others and have an abiding faith that their objectives are sacred. They must be convinced that the end thoroughly justifies the means. They must be possessed of unlimited funds and supported by innumerable loyal agents. They must have access to the ears of the mighty and their agents must have the confidence of the powerful in every important post throughout the world. They must be able to manipulate the mysteries of finance and control the minds and actions of people everywhere. They must be in control of the means of communication and dominate the propaganda media throughout the world.

And, finally, they must have a well conceived plan that allows for errors and failures; a plan that reckons the possibility of road-blocks and delays, but charts the methods of demolition where possible and the shortest detours where other devices fail. They must be men who are endowed with oriental patience as well as oriental cunning; men who might spend a life-time picking a lock so that their successors might enter the door.

[Page 251]

————————— END —————————

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Jack B. Tenney was born in St. Louis, Missouri, April 1, 1898. At the age of 10 he came to Los Angeles, California and graduated from the public schools here. He served with the American Expeditionary Forces in France in the Adjutant General’s Department until May, 1919, and was stationed at Headquarters Western Department, United States Army, San Francisco, until October 2, 1919.

Senator Tenney is a talented musician, with piano and organ his favorite instruments. His “Mexicali Rose” is still a popularly known selection. In 1935 he extended his versatile talents to the practice of law In the State of California. He was admitted to practice law in. the Federal courts In 1936, and to the Supreme Court of the United States in 1945.

Elected to the California Legislature as Assemblyman from the 46th Assembly District, Los Angeles County, in 1936, he was re-elected in the primaries in 1938 and 1940. Seeking the Senate seat, a four-year term, he won in the 1942 and 1946 primaries. In 1950, he received both nominations. Republican and Democratic. In the primary and received 1,126,157 votes in the General Election in November.

Serving as Chairman of the Senate Fact-finding Committee on Un-American Activities In California, 1941-1949, he was constantly the target of forces that sought to destroy the documented work of the committee. The printed reports of the Committee have been generally accepted for their accumulation of accurate information.

— THE PUBLISHER.

INDEX

[See PDF]

_______________________________________

Version History & Notes

Version 1: Published Jul 16, 2015

__________________

Notes

* The original text was part of a larger work, hence the page numbering starting from p. 175.

* Images not in the original document.

* Footnotes are not in the original document.

* Cover page is a modified version of the original.

__________________

Knowledge is Power in Our Struggle for Racial Survival

(Information that should be shared with as many of our people as possible — do your part to counter Jewish control of the mainstream media — pass it on and spread the word) … Val Koinen at

KOINEN’S CORNER

======================================

Go to >> Zion’s Trojan Horse: Part 1 — Introduction; The Wandering Jew

Go to >> Zion’s Trojan Horse: Part 2 — Terrible Power of the Purse; Prelude to Conquest

Go to >> Zion’s Trojan Horse: Part 3 — The Revolutionary Proletariat ; Jewish Revolution

Go to >> Zion’s Trojan Horse: Part 4 — We Are One People ; The Jewish Nation

Go to >> Zion’s Trojan Horse: Part 5 — Conquest of the Jewish Communities

Go to >> Zion’s Trojan Horse: Part 6 — The League of Nations; Agitation for World War II

Go to >> Zion’s Trojan Horse: Part 7 (last) — Anti-Gentilism; Chance or Design; About the Author

PDF of all Parts. Click to view or download (4.0 MB). >> ZION’S TROJAN HORSE – All Parts

PDF of this post. Click to view or download (0.6 MB). >> ZION’S TROJAN HORSE – Part 7

Version History

Version 3: Jul 26, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDFs for katana17.com/wp/ version. Improved formatting.

Version 2: Jul 17, 2015 — Added PDF of complete book.

Version 1: Published Jul 16, 2015.

Zion’s Trojan Horse: Part 6 — The League of Nations; Agitation for World War II

admin — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 22:58:03 +0000

[How Organized Jewry has taken control of the US government and subverted it as part of its goal of achieving world domination — KATANA]

[Click to enlarge]

Zion’s Trojan Horse

By Senator Jack B. Tenney

Part 6

ZION’S TROJAN HORSE

A TENNEY REPORT

On World Zionism

By Senator Jack B. Tenney

Introduction by Col. John Beaty

Published by:

Sons of Liberty P.O. Box 449

Arabi, LA 70032

Printed In the United States of America

INTRODUCTION By Col. JOHN BEATY ………………………………. 175

Part I

THE WANDERING JEW …………………………………………………. 177

In Dispersion From the Beginning …………………………………… 177

The Chosen People ………………………………………………………… 180

Part II

THE TERRIBLE POWER OF THE PURSE ………………………. 188

Jacob Henry Schiff ………………………………………………………… 189

The Rothschilds …………………………………………………………….. 190

The Warburgs ………………………………………………………………… 192

Part III

PRELUDE TO CONQUEST ………………………………………………. 193

The World Zionist Organization ……………………………………….. 193

Toward World Government …………………………………………….. 195

Part IV

THE REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAT ……………………………….197

The Jewish Socialist Federation of America ……………………….. 197

The Socialist International …………………………………………………. 202

The National Workmen’s Committee …………………………………. 204

Part V

JEWISH REVOLUTION ………………………………………………….. 205

Part VI

“WE ARE ONE PEOPLE” ………………………………………………….. 211

“Unity of Mind and Purpose” ……………………………………………. 211

The Copenhagen Manifesto ………………………………………………. 214

Part VII

THE JEWISH NATION ………………………………………………………. 215

The International Jew at Versailles …………………………………….. 215

The Versailles Treaty ………………………………………………………….. 217

Second Meeting of the American Jewish Congress ………………. 218

Part VIII

CONQUEST OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITIES ……………………… 219

Groundwork for World Government ……………………………………. 219

First World Jewish Conference ……………………………………………. 221

The Constituent Session of the World Jewish Congress …….. 224

Mobilization of World Jewry ……………………………………………….. 226

Part IX

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS ……………………………………………… 228

Part X

AGITATION FOR WORLD WAR II …………………………………….. 236

Part XI

ANTI-GENTILISM …………………………………………………………….. 239

Part XII

CHANCE OR DESIGN? …………………………………………………….,. 246

[Page 175]

INTRODUCTION

By CoL. JOHN BEATY, author of

The Iron Curtain Over America

To be of major significance, a book on the current world scene must meet three requirements:

(1) It must be the work of a person who has been in an exceptional position for breaking through censorship and learning the truth;

(2) it must be full and complete and written fearlessly, with no effort to hide or gloss over the evil deeds of any faction or minority; and

(3) it must be written by one who is skilled in the writer’s art.

ZION’S TROJAN HORSE, by Jack Tenney, possesses the triple qualification.

[Page 176]

DALLAS, TEXAS

DECEMBER 4, 1953

[Page 177]

IX

The League of Nations

The League of Nations may be said to have been founded by President Woodrow Wilson, although the idea was not original with him. Senator Henry Cabot Lodge, speaking at Washington, D. C., In May of 1916 before the League to Enforce Peace was more emphatic in his endorsement of the plan than was Wilson. Said Lodge:

“I do not believe that when Washington warned us against entangling alliances he meant for one moment that we should not join with other civilized nations of the world if a method could be found to diminish war and encourage peace.”

Said President Wilson:

“We are participants, whether we would or not, in the life of the world … every people has a right to choose the sovereignty under which they shall live … the small states of the world have a right to enjoy the same respect for their sovereignty and for their territorial integrity that the great and powerful nations expect and insist upon … the world has a right to be free from every disturbance of its peace that has its origin In aggression and disregard of the rights of peoples and nations … I say that the United States is willing to become a partner in any feasible association of nations formed in order to realize these objects and make them secure against violation.”

The League to Enforce Peace was supported and ultimately supplanted by other organizations whose sponsorship more definitely reflected the current left-wing, socialist and collective viewpoint. As has already been shown, the leading organizations of Jewry throughout the world were already on record for, and actually promoting, an international federation. The League of Free Nations Associations, although further to the left than the League to Enforce Peace, worked with the latter group, and was one of the first to endorse the League of Nations Covenant. The League of Free Nations Associations became the New York Foreign Policy Association after the war and oriented its activities toward the ultimate consummation of its original purposes.

[Page 229]

That ultimate world government is one of the objectives of socialism was clearly revealed in the activities of the Fabian Society of England for the League of Nations Covenant. The Fabians worked closely with the League of Nations Society In propagandizing for an international organization. A League of Nations Society was also created in France.

The League of Nations Society was organized in London in May of 1915. It was the outgrowth of a series of meetings instigated by the Fabians. W. H. Dickinson, M. P., became the organization’s first chairman. He had been prominently identified with the World Alliance for International Friendship Through the Churches. In March of 1916 Theodore Marburg, who founded the League to Enforce Peace in the United States June 17, 1915, addressed the League of Nations Society and declared:

“that the objects of the League to Enforce Peace and the League of Nations Society were almost the same.”

By November 1916 the League of Nations Society boasted of 300 members.

In July of 1917 Lord Parmoor was a Vice-President of the Society. Noll Buxton, M. P., G. Lowes Dickinson, and L. S. Woolf were members of the Executive Committee.

In July of 1918 a letter of invitation to join a League of Free Nations Association was circulated. Among those who signed the invitation were Professor Gilbert Murray and H. G. Wells.

By November of that year the League of Free Nations Association and the League of Nations Society merged into a new organization -the League of Nations Union. On the first General Council of the Union were:

Lord Robert Cecil;

Professor Gilbert Murray;

J. H. Thomas;

J. R. Clynes;

H. N. Brailsford;

J. M. Kenworthy;

J. C. Wedgwood;

Miss Maud Royden;

and R. H. Tawney.

(Brailsford, in 1921, wrote a Preface to Trotsky’s “The Defense of Terrorism!’) ‘The Outline of History”, by H. G. Wells — “written with the advice and editorial help of Mr. Ernest Barker… and Professor Gilbert Murray” — made its first appearance in semi-monthly parts.

Its purpose is clearly evident now. In addition to its mental orientation toward atheism, socialism and internationalism, it attempts to lay the ground-work for a super-world government.

Douglas Reed describes Wells as;

“a disbeliever and sedentary pamphleteer in whose mind inconsequent ideas scurried about from first reaction to second thought and later afterthought like riotous mob that surges forwards to destroy, reels backward at the word ‘police’, and then scatters and scuttles through the byways, throwing a random stone from aimless rage.”

Although he was ultimately to declare that he saw “the world as a jaded world devoid of recuperative power”, Wells envisioned the “world state” in his Outline of History as an inevitable historical development. “It will be based,” he declared;

“upon a common world religion, very much simplified and universalized and better understood. This will not be-Christianity nor Islam nor Buddhism nor any such specialized form of religion…”

[Page 230]

Whatever else may be said of Well’s contribution to the “world-super-state” idea, his “Outline of History” became an important adjunct to the propaganda machine designed for the destruction of patriotism in Great Britain and the United States.

The League of Nations Union was supported in 1920 by donations. Major David Davies, M. P., made the largest contribution 14,737 pounds. Barons E. B. d’Erlanger ana F. A. d’Erlanger, and N. M. Rothschild and sons donated 3,000 pounds each. Other contributors were the Government of the Peruvian Republic, 1,000 pounds; F. Eckstein, 500 pounds; Sir M. Samuel, 210 pounds; Sir Carl Meyer, 210 pounds; and the Zionist Organization, 210 pounds.

Thus, socialists, pro-communists and Zionists, together with their stooges and innocents, promoted the League of Nations and laid the foundation for world government. One world war could not quite accomplish the ultimate objective. It is extremely doubtful that World War II achieved it.

World War III?

“The events of August, 1914,” wrote H. G. Wells, “seem to have taken President Wilson, like the rest of his fellow-countrymen, by surprise. We find him cabling an offer of his services as a mediator on August 3rd. Then, for a time, he and America watched the conflict. At first neither the American people nor their President seem to have had a very clear or profound understanding of that long-gathered catastrophe. Their tradition for a century had been to disregard the problems of the Old World, and it was not to be lightly changed… President Wilson and the American people were dragged into the war by this supreme folly (unrestricted submarine warfare of the Germans). And also they were dragged into a reluctant attempt to define their relations to Old World politics in some other terms than those of mere aloofness. Their thoughts and temper changed very rapidly…”

President Wilson declared that a durable peace must be “peace without victory.” Within a few days (April 6, 1917) Congress, at his direction, declared war on Germany. The President announced that it was a “war to end war” and that its purpose was to “make the world safe for democracy.” History is only now underscoring the tragic asininity of this double-talk. Peace and victory came November 11, 1918 and Wilson rushed to Paris and proceeded to lose both.

[Page 231]

Marxism not only advocates the necessity for the destruction of religion in its quest for power but Marxists everywhere similarly work for the abolition of nationalism. “Religion” and “patriotism” are the outer ramparts of Christian civilization, and they must first be destroyed if the forces of Marxism are to conquer and dominate the world. Because patriotism and nationalism are the natural and logical result of the integrated family unit Marxism strikes also at the family. It too must be destroyed and its component parts reduced to the common collectivity. It does not stop, even here.

The dignity of man, his initiative, his individuality-all must be leveled to the common denominator.

Propagandists of the Socialist and Communist persuasion subtly attack “mother”, “home”, “heaven”, “the flag”, “fatherland”, and “patriotism.” These cherished and respected terms, together with the sacred things they represent, are made to appear ridiculous and “reactionary”; — obsolete remnants of tribalism perpetuated by sinister men who wish to plunge the world into frequent bloodbaths for the purpose of making money. To these propagandists the “elaborate inculcation” of these concepts into the minds of people constitute the process of “manufacturing” patriots. Such patriots, from the Marxian viewpoint, are “provincial”, mentally “immature” and “reactionary”. To organized Jewry patriotism is equivalent to nationalism; nationalism equivalent to fascism, — and fascism means “anti-Semitism.” This Jewish concept, of course, applies only to Gentile patriotism and has no references to Jewish nationalism.

Some “scientific” critics of patriotism advance the theory that nationalism is a form of overdeveloped “ethnocentrism” (regarding one’s own race as the chief interest and the center of culture) a Greek combining form that tends to give the entire subject a bad odor. By diagnosing the natural phenomenon as “ethnocentrism” the propagandist is enabled to elaborate upon the “malady” without fear of contradiction because he has thereby removed the subject from the realm of the simple and the knowable into the sphere of the pseudo-scientific and the conjecturaL He may therefore say that ethnocentrism is characterized by unreasonable antipathy and hostility toward all those who are not members of a given nation, and that such words as “alien” and “stranger” are synonymous to “enemy” in the mind of the ethnocentrist.

Most of the critics of patriotism are in agreement that nationalism is chiefly a menace to the Socialists, Communists, the Jews and other aliens who represent a disruptive element within a given country. Although they do not so frankly state it, the meaning is clear. The principle that all beleaguered individuals and groups tend to protect themselves when under harassment or attack — preservation is the first law of nature — is forgotten and brushed aside.

[Page 232]

Both the Socialists and the Communists boldly proclaim their intention to destroy the freedom of the individual, to confiscate his property and regiment his life. Organized Jewry, either as an ally of the Marxists or as an independent nation within a nation, insists on maintaining an independent status with or without dual citizenship. The resultant resentment on the part of those who resist Communist and Jewish objectives is labeled “fascism” — which, of course, it is not. Nations have been acting very much the same in these respects ever since the beginning of recorded history.

These apostles of collectivity go much further In their incessant attacks upon the resistive powers of those they have marked for destruction. They preach that advocates of military preparedness and strong foreign policy are the “extreme nationalists” and the potential “Nazis” and “Fascists.” If the mental reflexes of a nation may be thoroughly conditioned in accord with this “line” — it will fail to resist when attacked and perish without lifting a finger in its own defense. If a nation’s leaders can be made to believe that fear of Communism is “collective paranoia”, and preparedness against the Soviet Union is “military megalomania” then the destruction of Western Christian Civilization may be achieved without too much physical exertion on the part of its enemies.

These defamers of patriotism apparently find nothing wrong with the individuals and groups — the Socialists and Communists who have publicly proclaimed their intention to destroy all nations — except the Soviet Union. To threaten the lives, property and freedoms of men everywhere appears to be a high virtue when practiced by Communists; to insist on remaining a nation within the nations of the world; to invade and steal a country; — these things appear to be idealistic when advocated and accomplished by organized Jewry and Zionists.

President Wilson’s “self-determination” and “political independence” for all nations are planks in the Wilsonian platform for world government that have been somewhat embarrassing to the propagandists of internationalism. To attack these fundamental principles of the Wilson formula is to endanger the prestige that Wilson represents in the drive for world power. If nations may reserve the right of self-determination and political independence — and these rights are protected by the concerted power of nations — it is quite obvious that world domination by any single group is impossible. So, with or without Wilson, “self determination” and “political independence” must be treated as sinister symptoms of “ethnocentrism” and thrown in the ash-can with “mother”, “home”, “heaven”, “flag” and “country.” When Wilson spoke of the “rights of small nations” he believed in the principle.

[Page 233]

That he either had his tongue in his cheek, indulging in psychological warfare, or was exhibiting latent “fascist” tendencies is untenable. But, as all of these principles constitute formidable obstacles along the Marxist advance to world power the proponents of internationalism are determined to obliterate them from the minds of men.

Irrendentism may be said to be another road-block to the ideological conquest of the world. It is a word that is little used.

It refers to the principles, policy, or practice of a party, or of persons, who seek to reincorporate within their national boundary territory of which their nation has been deprived. It is, according to the “brain-washers”, another form of extreme nationalism unless applied to Zionism (although the definition does not cover the facts as they apply to Palestine). Like all other forms of nationalism, Irrendentism is conveniently considered a world peace disturbing nuisance (except in certain obvious cases, — the Soviet Union and Zionism) and it therefore is listed by the internationalists with the other “obnoxious” characteristics of nationalism.

Homogeneity — same character, like nature or kind — is another symptom of paranoia of the nationalistic mind according to the Marxist proponent of “one worldism”. The demand for homogeneity on the part of the people of a given country is always depicted as a persecution of minorities because of race, language or religion. The internationalist never recognizes the factors of allegiance, political assimilation or national solidarity, — except as they are manifestations of his own philosophy. The antagonistic, hostile activities of foreign-born anarchists, Socialists, Communists and Zionists, all working against the interest of the country of their adoption or refuge are not considered unusual, ungrateful or worthy of comment by Marxian propagandists. In countries such as the United States and Great Britain, where the discordant and unassimilable elements of the world have found freedom and hospitality, the cry against homogeneity has been greatest. It is not enough, of course, that these refugees find haven and freedom. They must of necessity continue to create the frictions that caused their expulsion from their native lands. It is not enough for them to become Englishmen and Americans with the freedom to exercise their particular religious beliefs; it is not enough to enjoy the rights of citizenship; they must destroy the homogeneous instincts of the majority so that their own minority homogeneity may pass unnoticed.

The United States has, in truth, been the melting pot of the world. It has successfully assimilated most of the nations of Europe.

[Page 234]

The homogeneity that emerged was not so much of language, race, religion and culture as it was of a new and unique concept of freedom. The United States generously opened its arms to the oppressed of the world and most of those who came gratefully merged into the American pattern. Only the hordes of Khazar Jews, with their twin philosophies of Marxism and Zionism, have refused to assimilate. On the one hand they have insisted on being a separate people; a fragmentized nation in dispersion, and on the other hand they have sought to refashion the religion, the traditions and the customs of the land of their exile. Their members predominate among the revolutionary and subversive forces at work within the country and their names are always listed where treason and traitors are exposed. They seek, through every medium of propaganda, the universal acceptance of heterogeneity so that their failure to assimilate may pass unnoticed in the resultant dissonance.

The Comite des Delegations Juives aupres de la Conference de Paix sought to insure heterogeneity within nations through “minority” treaties between the new States carved out of Europe at the “Peace table” and the Allied Powers, and enforced by the international machinery of the League of Nations. The. first of these “minority treaties” was imposed upon Poland. Czechoslovakia was next (September 10, 1919), with Jugoslavia (September 10, 1919), Rumania (December 9, 1919), and Greece (August 10, 1920) following. The Treaty of St. German with Austria (September 10, 1919), the Treaty of Neuilly with Bulgaria (November 27, 1919), and Treaty of Lausanne with Turkey (July 24, 1923) contain clauses modeled upon the Polish treaty for the establishment of the principles of heterogeneity. Albania and the Baltic States were ultimately forced into line. Fifteen States in all were compelled to protect the indigestible elements within their frontiers, thus crippling their national development and insuring violent eruptions beyond the power of any international organization to control.

Under the provisions of these treaties the “minorities” were placed under the protection of the League of Nations as subjects of “international concern.” The Permanent Court of International Justice was given jurisdiction of disputes arising out of alleged infractions of the minority provisions.

When President Wilson arrived in Paris in January of 1919 he declared that the League is “the central object of our meeting” and, in spite of the attitudes of Lloyd George and Clemenceau he insisted that the Peace Conference take up the League of Nations proposal before considering political and territorial matters. Wilson headed a commission of nineteen which was able to present a tentative draft of the Covenant to the Conference on February 14.

President Wilson called it “a guarantee of peace.” On April 28, 1919 the document, with some revisions, was adopted unanimously by the Conference. The League of Nations was given official status on January 10, 1920.

[Page 235]

One of the functions of the League of Nations (later to become an integral part of United Nations’ philosophy for the emergence of a super-world government) was the promotion of “international cooperation” in the fields of world health, labor, transportation, communications, finances, etc. Although the Covenant did not provide for or authorize their creation, the Council established commissions to deal with these objectives. The Economic and Financial Organization, Organization for Communications and Transit, International Office of Public Health (established at Paris) and the International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation were among the important permanent bodies created. The International Committee on Intellectual Cooperation coordinated the work of such sub-groups as the International Research Council, the Institute of International Law, the International Academic Union, etc. An International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation was established in Paris in 1924. The International Cinematographic Institute, together with innumerable committees of one kind or another, ultimately became known as the Intellectual Cooperation Organization.

Among others, the Advisory Commission on the Traffic in Opium and other Dangerous Drugs and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Traffic in Women and Children may be mentioned as salutary efforts on the part of the League to deal with international evils.

The International Labor Organization was the result of Article 23 of the Covenant of the League. Its primary purpose was the promotion of uniform labor legislation throughout the world. Its efforts, as might have been expected, were futile. The United States became a member by Presidential proclamation August 20, 1934. Isador Lubin was the first United States Government representative. The International Labor Organization was destined to survive the League fiasco and become an affiliate of the United Nations.

Although the Bank for International Settlements was not strictly a League of Nations organization its role in the over-all development of internationalism is important. It was created in 1930 to act as trustee and agent for the creditor governments in the collection and allocation of indemnity payments. Its stock of one hundred million dollars was underwritten by banks in Great Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Japan, Belgium and the United States. The United States Federal Reserve Banks were not permitted to participate.

By the end of 1938 the failure of the League of Nations was almost complete. Of the sixty-two nations that had once constituted its membership only forty-nine remained. With the close of 1940 it had ceased to exist. It had gone the way of its predecessors, the Holy Alliance, the Concert of Europe and the Permanent Court of Arbitration. It failed because humanity had not been reduced to its common denominator and because its machinery had not been designed for physical persuasion. “Mother”, “home”, “the flag”, “heaven” and “country” were yet too deeply rooted in the minds and hearts of the people. Another and, perhaps yet another, world catastrophe would be necessary before such “reactionary” concepts would be blasted from the breasts of human beings.

[Page 236]

X

AGITATION FOR WORLD WAR II

Meanwhile organized Jewry’s campaign within the nations of the world and its continuous use of the rostrum in the Palace of the League of Nations at Geneva brought the world closer to new disaster. The internal affairs of German Upper Silesia were under attack in 1936 and 1937 and the conflict was sharpened considerably by Poland’s declaration that she would no longer be bound by the “minority treaty.”

The question of ten thousand Jews in the Free City of Danzig was the basis for considerable agitation before the League of Nations. The special status for the small Jewish population was a continuous sore spot. The imposition of special privileges led to natural resentment on the part of the people of Danzig, which was immediately attended by vigorous condemnation on the part of world Jewry. Resentment gave way to frustration and excesses.

The Government attempted to throw off the chains of the treaty.

Although the activities of the representatives of world Jewry before the League of Nations accomplished little or nothing for the Jews of Danzig the resultant publicity was grist in the mill for organized Jewry’s campaign against Germany throughout the nations of the world.

Meanwhile most of the Jews in the free city of Danzig had departed.

The annexation of Austria on March 11, 1938 was the signal for an appeal by the World Jewish Congress to the League of Nations for protection of that country’s one hundred and ninety two thousand Jews. Similar appeals were made from time to time both in behalf of the Jews of Austria and of Czechoslovakia. Hitler’s concern for his blood-brothers in the Sudetenland — similarly duplicated by organized Jewry’s concern for its own blood-brethern was a coincidence that appeared to pass unnoticed.

[Page 237]

Poland — which contained the greatest Jewish population finally became the principal issue. The World Jewish Congress initiated a series of public demonstrations designed to arouse indignation throughout the world. A conference on the Polish Jewish question was organized by the American Jewish Congress in New York City January 31, 1937. Two thousand three hundred and ninety-six delegates representing eight hundred and thirty-five Jewish organizations attended. A similar conference was held in London on April 6, 1937 under the auspices of the British Section of the World Jewish Congress. Its one hundred delegates purported to speak for the religious, fraternal, Zionist and labor organization of British Jewry. The Canadian Jewish Congress staged a series of protest demonstrations during the same month. On June 1, 1937 the Federation des Societes Juives de France convoked a protest meeting in Paris. An “emergency conference” was called in New York City on June 10, 1937 attended by two thousand four hundred and sixty-two delegates from eight hundred and seventy organizations. A delegation of two hundred headed by Dr. Stephen S. Wise was dispatched to Washington with a memorandum addressed to the State Department. Why two hundred delegates were necessary is better guessed than explained. The memorandum recited the oppression of the Jews in Poland. Its presentation by Dr. Wise to Secretary of State Cordell Hull on July 12, 1937 was dramatized by a public declaration protesting the treatment of the Jews in Poland signed by one hundred and fourteen non-Jews in the fields of “religion, science, literature, and education.”

The World Jewish Congress stepped up its clamor during succeeding months. The Socialists, the Communists and left-wing groups added their voices. At the initiative of the Congress, meetings and demonstrations swept across the world. Declarations, manifestos, and petitions cluttered the streets and the desks of public officials. In Belgium seventy university professors, writers and social leaders, addressed statements of solidarity and protest to the Conseil des Associations Juives.

A protest, signed by twenty five French authors and college professors, supplemented a similar protested by the League of the Rights of Man. Resolutions, statements, protests and declarations multiplied through the wizardry of the World Jewish Congress: — a resolution from the Polish League of Peace and Freedom in Warsaw; a statement from the International League for Academic Freedom; a protest from the Institute of International Education; a declaration from the American Student Union; a resolution from the American Federation of Teachers, and others too numerous to mention.

In answer, Poland, in 1938, adopted a law providing that persons who had been abroad for a period of five continuous years would be deprived of their Polish citizenship and forbidden to return to Poland. Jews, among others, who had been absent from Poland more than five years were interned in a camp at Zbaszyn when they attempted to re-enter the country. The World Jewish Congress immediately intervened with the Polish Ambassadors in Paris and Washington. Dr. M. L, Perlzweig was dispatched to Warsaw to take the matter up with the Polish government. World War II intervened and German troops invaded Poland before Dr. Perlzweig was able to get down to cases with the officials of the government.

[Page 238]

The World Jewish Congress used the efforts of the Rumanian government to throw off the shackles of Versailles to the best advantage along with its other activities. The Congress actually boasts of its successful efforts in “the early overthrow” of one of the Rumanian governments by stating that “it is no mere conjecture” that the “efforts of the World Jewish Congress were responsible.” As Rumania struggled with the handcuffs of the “minority” clauses of the treaty, organized Jewry capitalized on the “persecution of the Jews” within the country.

In January of 1938 the Prime Minister of Rumania declared that four waves of immigration had brought between 250,000 to 500,000 Jews into the country and the Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that Rumanian Jews were not entitled to a special status over other citizens. A Royal Decree of January 22, 1938 ordered the revision of the citizenship status of all Jews in Rumania.

The World Jewish Congress invoked the provisions of the “minority” treaty clauses before the League of Nations and dispatched strong protests to the French and British Foreign Ministers. Dr. Perlzweig in London, Marc Jarblum in Paris, and Dr. Kubowitzki in Brussels descended on the Foreign Offices of the respective governments. Dr. Wise was in constant communication with the White House in Washington. The Rumanian government was compelled to resign on February 10, 1938.

In May of 1938 the Hungarian government proposed to limit the number of Jewish employees in all branches of economy to twenty percent of the population. The WJC intervened. In Iraq, Uruguay and in all parts of the world where Jews resided the World Jewish Congress proceeded to tell their respective governments that their Jewish citizens were a peculiar people with very special and exceptional rights. There was no cessation in the outcry; no relaxation of the drums of war.

In the beginning organized Jewry had declared war on the central governments of Europe and had sought to impose its will on their people through treaty provisions and the machinery of the League of Nations. In the end they made their war a world war and involved most of the civilized nations in the conflagration.

In the end few would remember what it was. all about, how it started and why. No one would be certain who led the demonstrations, signed the declarations, made the protests and passed the resolutions. Men would march and men would die; battles would be fought that would take the names of nations and oceans; there would be sacrifice, tears, blood and sweat. But, when it was over the people of the world would not really remember very much about it. Some might recall that it had been frightful in the sacrifice of Christian blood and staggering in the waste of Gentile wealth.

Some might slowly learn that there had been no real victory and that the promised peace was to be as chimerical as had been the “war to end war” and the struggle to “make the world safe for democracy.”

[Page 239]

_______________________________________

Version History & Notes

Version 1: Published Jul 14, 2015

__________________

Notes

* The original text was part of a larger work, hence the page numbering starting from p. 175.

* Images not in the original document.

* Footnotes are not in the original document.

* Cover page is a modified version of the original.

__________________

Knowledge is Power in Our Struggle for Racial Survival

(Information that should be shared with as many of our people as possible — do your part to counter Jewish control of the mainstream media — pass it on and spread the word) … Val Koinen at

KOINEN’S CORNER

======================================

Go to >> Zion’s Trojan Horse: Part 1 — Introduction; The Wandering Jew

Go to >> Zion’s Trojan Horse: Part 2 — Terrible Power of the Purse; Prelude to Conquest

Go to >> Zion’s Trojan Horse: Part 3 — The Revolutionary Proletariat ; Jewish Revolution

Go to >> Zion’s Trojan Horse: Part 4 — We Are One People ; The Jewish Nation

Go to >> Zion’s Trojan Horse: Part 5 — Conquest of the Jewish Communities

Go to >> Zion’s Trojan Horse: Part 6 — The League of Nations; Agitation for World War II

Go to >> Zion’s Trojan Horse: Part 7 (last) — Anti-Gentilism; Chance or Design; About the Author

PDF of this post. Click to view or download (0.6 MB). >>ZION’S TROJAN HORSE – Part 6

Version History

Version 2: Jul 26, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version. Improved formatting.

Version 1: Published Jul 14, 2015

Zion’s Trojan Horse: Part 5 — Conquest of the Other Jewish Communities

admin — Sat, 11 Jul 2015 22:20:51 +0000

[How Organized Jewry has taken control of the US government and subverted it as part of its goal of achieving world domination — KATANA]

[Click to enlarge]

Zion’s Trojan Horse

By Senator Jack B. Tenney

Part 5

ZION’S TROJAN HORSE

A TENNEY REPORT

On World Zionism

By Senator Jack B. Tenney

Introduction by Col. John Beaty

Published by:

Sons of Liberty P.O. Box 449

Arabi, LA 70032

Printed In the United States of America

INTRODUCTION By Col. JOHN BEATY ………………………………. 175

Part I

THE WANDERING JEW …………………………………………………. 177

In Dispersion From the Beginning …………………………………… 177

The Chosen People ………………………………………………………… 180

Part II

THE TERRIBLE POWER OF THE PURSE ………………………. 188

Jacob Henry Schiff ………………………………………………………… 189

The Rothschilds …………………………………………………………….. 190

The Warburgs ………………………………………………………………… 192

Part III

PRELUDE TO CONQUEST ………………………………………………. 193

The World Zionist Organization ……………………………………….. 193

Toward World Government …………………………………………….. 195

Part IV

THE REVOLUTIONARY PROLETARIAT ……………………………….197

The Jewish Socialist Federation of America ……………………….. 197

The Socialist International …………………………………………………. 202

The National Workmen’s Committee …………………………………. 204

Part V

JEWISH REVOLUTION ………………………………………………….. 205

Part VI

“WE ARE ONE PEOPLE” ………………………………………………….. 211

“Unity of Mind and Purpose” ……………………………………………. 211

The Copenhagen Manifesto ………………………………………………. 214

Part VII

THE JEWISH NATION ………………………………………………………. 215

The International Jew at Versailles …………………………………….. 215

The Versailles Treaty ………………………………………………………….. 217

Second Meeting of the American Jewish Congress ………………. 218

Part VIII

CONQUEST OF THE JEWISH COMMUNITIES ……………………… 219

Groundwork for World Government ……………………………………. 219

First World Jewish Conference ……………………………………………. 221

The Constituent Session of the World Jewish Congress …….. 224

Mobilization of World Jewry ……………………………………………….. 226

Part IX

THE LEAGUE OF NATIONS ……………………………………………… 228

Part X

AGITATION FOR WORLD WAR II …………………………………….. 236

Part XI

ANTI-GENTILISM …………………………………………………………….. 239

Part XII

CHANCE OR DESIGN? …………………………………………………….,. 246

[Page 175]

INTRODUCTION

By CoL. JOHN BEATY, author of

The Iron Curtain Over America

To be of major significance, a book on the current world scene must meet three requirements:

(1) It must be the work of a person who has been in an exceptional position for breaking through censorship and learning the truth;

(2) it must be full and complete and written fearlessly, with no effort to hide or gloss over the evil deeds of any faction or minority; and

(3) it must be written by one who is skilled in the writer’s art.

ZION’S TROJAN HORSE, by Jack Tenney, possesses the triple qualification.

[Page 176]

DALLAS, TEXAS

DECEMBER 4, 1953

[Page 177]

VIII

Conquest of the Jewish Communities

Groundwork for World Government

The success of Comite des Delegations Juives in putting over a major portion of organized Jewry’s program on the legitimate representatives of the Peace Conference encouraged the perpetuation of the Committee. An ad hoc organization in the beginning it now became permanent, dropping “aupres de la Conference de la Paix” from its title. Leo Motzkin became the leading figure in the post Conference activities of the Committee.

[Image] Leo Motzkin

Its real purpose appears to have been political. It exerted itself in the League of Nations as other Jewish organizations were to do at a later day in the United Nations. It purported to speak for Jews everywhere. Many of its leaders were active in the Interparliamentary Union, the International Congresses of Minorities and the International Union of League of Nations Associations. Among these individuals were:

Leo Motzkin;

Max Laserson;

Dr. Emil Margulies;

Dr. Jacob Robinson;

Rabbi Z. P. Chajes;

Meir Dizengoff;

Nathan Feinberg;

Dr. Oscar Karbach;

and Dr. Benzion Mossinson.

[Page 220]

In 1920 the Comite des Delegations Juives proposed that the Conference for a Permanent American Jewish Congress create a Council of Jewish Delegations (Vaad Haaratzoth) to be composed of delegates of national congresses or similar bodies. Dr. Leo Motzkin came to the United States in 1923 and on May 13 he addressed the Executive Committee of the American Jewish Congress, advocating the creation of a World Conference of Jews.

On August 3 and 4, 1926 a conference was held in London attended by:

Dr. Stephen S. Wise;

Abraham Goldberg;

Louis Lipsky;

Marvin Lowenthall;

Mrs. Archibald Silverman (all of the American Jewish Congress);

Dr. Leo Motzkin;

N. Tsatskis (for the Comite des Delegations Juives);

Dr. Isaac Gruenbaum;

Dr. Osias Thon;

Dr. Jerzy Rosenblatt (members of the Polish Parliament);

Dr. Leon Ringel;

Chief Rabbi Isaac Rubinstein (members of the Polish Senate);

Chief Rabbi Zvi Peretz Chajes (Austria);

and Dr. Shemariah Levin representing Palestine.

The purpose of the Conference was the discovery of ways and means for strengthening the Comite des Delegations Juives. Its main accomplishment was the calling of a general conference in August, 1927. Invitations were signed by Judge Julian W. Mack, Stephen S. Wise, Nahum Sokolow and Dr. Leo Motzkin on behalf of the American Jewish Congress and the Comite des Delegations Juives.

The American Jewish Committee, the Joint Foreign Committee of England, the Alliance Israelite Universelle and the Hilfsverein der Deutschen Juden did not participate, but the sixty-five Jews from thirteen countries representing forty three organizations, met at Zurich August 17 to 19, 1927.

It became known to Jewry as the Zurich Conference on the Rights of Jewish Minorities. The American delegation included Stephen S. Wise, Judge Gustave Hartman, Judge Hugo Pam and Max B. Steuer. A glaring example of the paradoxical situation in which the delegates found themselves (had there been anyone about with courage enough to have pointed it out) is indicated by the fact that of the delegates demanding “minority rights” six were members of the Polish Sejm (Parliament); one was a Polish Senator; one a member of the Latvian Parliament and two were members of the Judiciary of the United States. The Jews of Hungary and Turkey had renounced “minority rights”, indicating their desire to be Hungarian and Turkish citizens, and had remained home — as did the Jews of Great Britain, Holland, Belgium and Italy. The World Zionist Organization, however, put its stamp of approval on the Conference by sending the President of its Executive, Nahum Sokolow.

[Page 221]

Out of the Zurich Conference came the Council on the Rights of Jewish Minorities. Its headquarters was established at Geneva in the shadow of the League of Nations. Its first Executive included:

Nahum Sokolow;

Z. P. Chajes;

Simon Dubnow;

Isaac Gruenbaum;

Leo Motzkim;

Stephen S. Wise;

H. Farbstein:

I. Jefroykin;

Emil Margulies;

Leon Reich;

and Jacob Robinson.

With the adjournment of the Seventeenth Zionist Congress (Basle, Switzerland, 1931) Stephen S. Wise called a meeting attended by leading Jews in the movement. A provisional committee was set up consisting of:

Dr. Wise;

Bernard S. Deutsch;

Isaac Gruenbaum;

Oscar Cohn;

Leo Motzkin;

Dr. M. Nurok;

and Z. Tygel.

The Tenth Annual Session of the American Jewish Congress approved the decisions of the Geneva group and went on record for a conference in Geneva on August 14, 1932. Dr. Nahum Goldmann was requested by the American Jewish Congress to organize for the Geneva affair.

He traveled throughout Europe on this mission mobilizing organized Jewry everywhere. On July 4, 1932 the annual convention of the Zionist Organization of America pledged its support to the forthcoming world conference.

First World Jewish Conference

Ninety-four delegates from seventeen countries met in Geneva August 14 to 17, 1932. The convention became known as the First World Jewish Conference. Leo Motzkin keynoted the organization’s main purpose by pointing out that the creation of the League of Nations was important for the Jews. He saw a growing repudiation of the principles the Jews had successfully maneuvered into the Peace Treaties at Versailles and called for an immediate mobilization of the Jews all over the world for their support.

Dr. Goldmann gave notice that it was the purpose of the World Jewish Conference to wrest Jews from their respective citizenships and to ghettoize them as a nation apart.

“It is to establish the permanent address of the Jewish people; amidst the fragmentation and atomization of Jewish life and of the Jewish community, it is to establish a real, legitimate, collective representation of Jewry which will be entitled to speak in the name of the sixteen million Jews to the nations and governments of the world, as well as to the Jews themselves.”

To which purpose Joseph Sprinzak of the Vaad Leumi added:

“Palestine needs a strong, efficient Jewish community in the Diaspora, and the Diaspora needs a powerful Jewish center in Palestine.”

Dr. Wise, Dr. Goldmann, I. Jefroykin, Dr. Nurok and B. Zuckerman were elected to the Executive Committee of the Conference.

[Page 222]

Meanwhile the Comite des Delegations Juives continued its agitations before the League of Nations. One of the provisions successfully introduced into the treaties at the Peace Conference provided that the nationals of certain countries might by-pass their own countries and appeal directly to the Council of the League of Nations — a provision now vigorously urged by organized Jewry in such proposed United Nations treaties as the Genocide Convention and the Declaration on Human Rights. Many of the posts in the League of Nations — as in the United Nations today — were held by Jews as nationals of various countries; — an anomalous situation in view of the declaration of Jewry through its international organizations that Jews were something apart — a Nation, in and of themselves, in dispersion. The Council of the League of Nations, therefore, was hardly a dispassionate or neutral body for the consideration of the petitions presented to it by individual Jews and Jewish organizations such as the Comite des Delegations Jttives and the American Jewish Congress.

Nevertheless the Council took jurisdiction of petitions signed by Jews alleging that they had lost positions because they happened to be Jews. One such petition was signed by a Franz Bernheim, a resident of Upper Silesia. Because of Jewish allies in the League of Nations organized Jewry was able to inflate alleged cases of “discrimination” into national magnitude and launch, via the sounding board at Geneva, a flood of racial agitation and propaganda. The Bernheim case proved an excuse for an exploration of discrimination against the Jews in Germany and the League of Nations issued a report June 6, 1933 that Keller, the German representative, was unable to accept, declaring that he was in doubt as to whether it came within the League’s jurisdiction. Whatever the merits or demerits of the League’s action, it would appear that organized Jewry could not have selected a more subtle method for stirring up anti-Semitism in Germany.

The Second Preparatory World Jewish Conference met in Geneva September 5 through September 8, 1933. Its principal purpose appears to have been an effort to arouse the world against Germany. Its most important accomplishment was the organization of a “moral and economic boycott” against Hitler’s Third Reich. It went on record against the Jews having economic or other dealings with Germany. It recognized the alleged persecution of German Jews as an established fact and demanded that it be recognized as “an international problem” by the League of Nations. It called for;

“an international solution for the international problems of Jewish emigration created by the policy of repression, and (for)… the machinery necessary for the systematic organization of a wholesale Jewish immigration into Palestine”;

all of which led some observers to believe that organized world Jewry exploited and antagonized the German Government for the purpose of stimulating the Jewish invasion of Palestine.

[Page 223]

The Comintern (Communist Third International) had been the original instigator of a boycott against Germany. Declared the Comintern in October, 1933:

“… the anti-fascist workers are rallying to the support of the heroic struggle of the German workers. In France, in Spain, in Belgium, in Sweden, in Denmark and in Holland, Communist and Social-Democratic workers are boycotting the ships sailing under the swastika flag.”

The attitude of the Comintern leaders, however, was that the boycott of fascist Germany should also include all other nations (except, of course, the Soviet Union.)

“Nothing,” it thundered, “but a simultaneous struggle against one’s own and against German fascism can be of any avail…” — and the italics are the Comintern’s.

The third and last Preparatory World Jewish Conference convened in Geneva on August 20, 1934. Dr. Nahum Goldmann had succeeded Leo Motzkin as President in December 1933. The problem of Germany was foremost in the minds of the delegates. Dr. Stephen S. Wise declared that:

“World Jewry, not Germany Jewry, is under attack!”

The conference affirmed its desire to organize a World Jewish Congress, —

“a permanent body representing Jews all over the world, whose task it will be, in the name of the whole of Jewry, to defend the common interests, and to protect the rights of Jewish communities wherever they may be threatened.”

It further affirmed the strictly international political role that the World Jewish Congress was to assume by declaring that;

“internal policies of the Jewish communities in the various countries or… questions of internal Jewish life in those countries” and “all questions of a religious character” were to be excluded from the “competence of the World Jewish Congress organs.”

The League of Nations was criticized for the “narrow basis” on which it was attempting to solve the problem of Jewish refugees from Germany.

On September 13, 1934 Poland’s Foreign Minister Josef Beck announced to the Fifteenth Assembly of the League of Nations that Poland would refuse to further abide by the provisions on “minority rights” imposed on Poland by the Versailles Treaty until the adoption of a “general and uniform system” for all nations.

“Pending the introduction of a general and uniform system for the protection of minorities,” the Foreign Minister declared, “my Government is compelled to refuse, as from today, all cooperation with the international organisations in the matter of supervision of the application by Poland by the system of minority protection. I need hardly say that the decision of the Polish Government is in no sense directed against the interests of the minorities. Those interests are and will remain protected by the fundamental laws of Poland, which secure to minorities of language, race and religion free development and equality of treatment.”

[Page 224]

The Executive Committee of the Third World Jewish Conference concerned itself with the 4,000 Jews in the Saar where a plebiscite was to be held in January, 1935 to determine whether the population favored German, French or continued League of Nations rule. The League appointed a Committee of Three who met in Rome to determine the terms and conditions of the plebiscite.

Acting for the Comite des Delegations Juives, Dr. Goldman and Dr. Marc Vichniak are alleged to have been able to persuade the Committee of Three to work for an agreement providing a period of grace to permit the Saar Jews to liquidate their assets and to emigrate in an orderly manner in the event that the plebiscite favored Germany. In any event the Saar Agreement met these requirements and both the French and German governments accepted the stipulations. On January 13, 1935, ninety-one percent of the Saar population voted to unite with the Third Reich. Although Germany attempted to induce the Jews to remain, the terms of the agreement were kept and the majority of Jews left the Saar before the expiration of the deadline.

The Constituent Session of the World Jewish Congress

During February, 1936 the Comite des Delegations Juives and the Executive Committee for the World Jewish Congress met in Paris and resolved to call the World Jewish Congress in August in Geneva, Switzerland. On June 13 and 14 more than a thousand delegates assembled in Washington, D. C., purporting to represent ninety-nine Jewish communities in thirty-two States. Fifty-two delegates and sixty-four alternates to the forthcoming Congress were elected.

Significantly enough the First World Jewish Congress opened its session August 8, 1936 in the Batiment Electoral, the building which had housed the Assembly of the League of Nations before it had moved to its own premises. Representatives of various governments, observers representing the Secretariats of the League of Nations and the International Labor Office, and representatives of certain governmental delegations to the League of Nations, attended. The Secretary General of the Nausen International Office for Refugees and the High Commissioner for Refugees were present.

Two hundred and eighty delegates were accredited purporting to represent the Jews of:

Algeria;

Argentina;

Austria;

Belgium;

Brazil;

Bulgaria;

Canada;

Chile;

Columbia;

Czechoslovakia;

Danzig;

Egypt;

Estonia;

Finland;

France;

Greece;

Italy;

Latvia;

Lithuania;

Lybia;

Morocco;

Palestine;

Peru;

Poland;

Portugal;

Rumania;

Spain;

Switzerland;

Tunisia;

United Kingdom;

the United States;

and Yugoslavia.

[Page 225]

Dr. Stephen S. Wise, as President of the Comite des Delegations Juives and the Executive Committee for a World Jewish Congress called the first session to order. In his opening “Keynote” address Dr. Wise declared that;

“no Jew should be excluded from the World Jewish Congress because of political or economic views,”

thus announcing that the communistic-revolutionary Jews were as welcome as the Rothschilds and the Schiffs.

“The World Jewish Congress,” elaborated the Rabbi, “must be wide and catholic enough to include all Jews who would, as Jews, have part with their fellow Jews in facing and seeking to solve the problems of their common Jewish life.”

Dr. Wise’s address stressed the “essential oneness” of Jewish problems and declared that “there is an underlying unity” among all Jews; that Jews “are a people”; that they are neither a church nor a creed, but a “Jewish totality, including all of us.”

Said Dr. Nahum Goldmann:

“The greater part of what the year 1919 created is now shattered. The march from the predatory practices of states to the great International Court of Justice cannot be accomplished in a few years. In order to bring it to a positive conclusion, there is need for one thing: to outgrow the concept of the sovereign state.” (bold added.)

Dr. Roman Zylbersztajn of Poland said that;

“there must be created a network of economic organizations which will represent the various Jewish communities and coordinate the efforts to improve and strengthen the economic position of the Jewish masses.”

Dr. A. Leon Kubowitzki of Belgium, in discussing “the organization of the Jewish collectivity,” declared;

“there is still no negotiorum gester for the every day Galuth questions of our scattered people,” and that “only the Jewish people can be the instrument of Jewish liberation.” He called for welding the “isolated and dispersed Jewish communities” into a “conscious and organized whole.” The sphere of the World Jewish Congress, he announced, “comprises all Jewish political, economic, and social questions,” and “the all-embracing Kehillah should be the central cell of our organizations.”

Dr. Kubowitzki called for at least four departments within the Congress, — a recommendation that appears to have been predetermined and adopted. He named these departments, Political, Social and Economic, Organization, Information and Propaganda and Finance. The Organization, Information and Propaganda Departments will be charged, explained Dr. Kukowitzki, with establishing;

“a network of channels for regular, confidential and reliable information”;

Dr. S. Margoshes of the United States reported that many circles (in the United States);

“which formerly were not accessible to Judophobism now manifest anti-Semitic leanings.”

A. Bagnari, representing the Jews of the United Kingdom, told the delegates that:

“Fascism and anti-Semitism are synonymous and that neither can be separated from the other.”

[Page 226]

Dr. M. Cotic of Rumania said that the attempt in Rumania to treat the Jews as a “national minority” on the basis of the existing minority treaties was being officially declared to be an interference in the domestic affairs of the country and a violation of her rights as a sovereign state.

Judge Julian W. Mack was elected Honorary President and Dr. Stephen S. Wise was elected Chairman of the Executive Committee.

Dr. Nahum Goldmann was elected Chairman of the Administrative Committee and Louis Lipsky, Chairman of the Central Council.

Dr. Wise and Dr. Goldmann delivered the closing addresses, both characterizing the First Congress;

“as a turning point in Jewish life; beginning of a new era.”

Judge Julian W. Mack declared that he was leaving the Congress;

“with the confidence that we have laid a deep and sure foundation; that on that foundation we have to erect a structure that will represent all Jewry, in which all Jewry will ultimately be included.”

Mobilization of World Jewry

The rapid sweep of organizational activity by the World Jewish Congress and its agents is a remarkable episode in the history of international conspiracy and intrigue. While German “tourist penetration” and Communist infiltration are notable feats in the field of international power politics, the technique in each instance involved secrecy. The planing of Jewish Nationalist cadres in the hearts of the countries of the world by the WJC, however, was done openly.

The perfected technique utilized the Trojan Horse ruse plus the psychological postulate that boldness allays suspicion.

While anxious observers scanned ominous signs of war beyond their frontiers they had little time to note the frenzied organizational activities of a small segment of their citizens for independent nationalism. In the indignation aroused by the ruthless march of Hitler’s National Socialism few might accurately analyze and compare the identical trend in a group of its own citizens, particularly when that group allegedly based its needs for independent action on the same fears that gripped its would-be critics. When a few courageous voices were raised above the general tumult to protest, they were quickly silenced by cries of “anti-Semitism” and “Nazi.”

Offices of the World Jewish Congress were immediately established in Paris, Geneva and New York. Paris became the main office. Dr. N. Goldmann and M. Jarblum were in charge of “Political Affairs”; B. Zuckerman headed “Organizational Affairs”; Professor George Bernhard became Director of “Economic Affairs” with Dr. E. Knopfmacher as Research Associate, and Mrs. Kate Knopfmacher was designated Executive Secretary of the Paris office. A branch office of the Political Department was ultimately established in London under the direction of Dr. M. L. Perlzweig.

[Page 227]

Within a year World Jewish Congress agents had organized thirty-four affiliates in twenty-seven countries on five continents.

Committees for WJC were established in:

Algeria;

Australia;

Austria;

Aden;

British Arabia;

Cairo and Port Said, Egypt;

France;

Greece;

Bombay, Cochin, and Calcutta, India;

Latvia;

Lithuania;

Poland;

and Rumania.

The Delegacion de Associaciones Israelitas Argentinas for Argentina;

Brussels Council of Jewish Associations (later the Council of Jewish Associations of Belgium) for Belgium;

the Consistoire Central des Israelites for Bulgaria;

the Canadian Jewish Congress for Canada;

the Jewish Party of C.S.R. for Czechoslovakia;

Juudi Knltnuroalistra for Estonia;

the Jewish Community of Helsingfors for Finland;

a British Section established November 26, 1936 by a conference of three hundred and fifty organizations for Great Britain;

the Unione delle Comunita Israelitiche Italiane for Italy;

Vaad Leumi for Palestine;

the Lisbon Jewish Community for Portugal;

the Jewish Community of Madrid for Spain;

the Schweizer Israelitische Gemeindebund for Switzerland;

the American Jewish Congress for the United States;

and the Union of Jewish Communities for Yugoslavia, summed up the World Jewish Congress affiliates during its first year’s activities.

Before the outbreak of war the official Dutch Federation of Synagogues (Permanente Commissie tot de Algemeene Zaken van het Nederlandsch-Jsraelietische Kerkgenootschap) of Holland, the Comite Central Israelita of Mexico, and the Committees of Luxembourg and New Zealand had affiliated.

The Zionist-Trojan Horse had found sanctuary in thirty-one countries of the world. Under the pretext of “Jewish defense” the World Jewish Congress launched its assault. While continuing its activities within the League of Nations and its “use of influential individuals and their connections” the WJC stepped up its propaganda;

“backed by the political and economic potentialities of the Jewish masses rallying behind the Congress in all lands and continents” for the “mobilization of public opinion.”

On March 15, 1937, marking Hitler’s fourth year in power, the American Jewish Congress and the Jewish Labor Committee jointly organized and sponsored a mass demonstration in Madison Square Garden in New York City. More than twenty-five thousand persons attended. “Moulders of public opinion,” such as General Hugh S. Johnson, Fiorello H. La Guardia, John L. Lewis, Dr. Stephen S. Wise and B. Vladeck were rounded up by the joint sponsors for “opinion moulding.” Following the line already laid down by the World Jewish Congress the speakers emphasized;

“the menace which Hitler constituted to the peace of the world.”

Intensification of the boycott against Germany and the banning of credits to the Third Reich were prearranged proposals adopted by the meeting.

[Page 228]

On November 7, 1938 Ernest von Rath, German diplomat, was murdered in Paris by a Jewish youth named Herschel Grynszpan.

German reaction was immediate and drastic. WJC affiliates demonstrated throughout the world involving many non-Jews in their protests. On March 31, 1939 Hitler attacked world Jewry in a Reichstag speech, charging that the Jews threatened the peace of the world.

_______________________________________

Version History & Notes

Version 1: Published Jul 12, 2015

__________________

Notes

* The original text was part of a larger work, hence the page numbering starting from p. 175.

* Images not in the original document.

* Footnotes are not in the original document.

* Cover page is a modified version of the original.

__________________

Knowledge is Power in Our Struggle for Racial Survival

(Information that should be shared with as many of our people as possible — do your part to counter Jewish control of the mainstream media — pass it on and spread the word) … Val Koinen at

KOINEN’S CORNER

======================================

Go to >> Zion’s Trojan Horse: Part 1 — Introduction; The Wandering Jew

Go to >> Zion’s Trojan Horse: Part 2 — Terrible Power of the Purse; Prelude to Conquest

Go to >> Zion’s Trojan Horse: Part 3 — The Revolutionary Proletariat ; Jewish Revolution

Go to >> Zion’s Trojan Horse: Part 4 — We Are One People ; The Jewish Nation

Go to >> Zion’s Trojan Horse: Part 5 — Conquest of the Jewish Communities

Go to >> Zion’s Trojan Horse: Part 6 — The League of Nations; Agitation for World War II

Go to >> Zion’s Trojan Horse: Part 7 (last) — Anti-Gentilism; Chance or Design; About the Author

PDF of this postt. Click to view or download (0.7 MB). >> ZION’S TROJAN HORSE – Part 5 Ver 2

Version History

Version 3: Jul 26, 2020 — Re-uploaded images and PDF for katana17.com/wp/ version. Improved formatting.

Version 2: Jul 12, 2015 — Added image; updated cover page.

Version 1: Published Jul 12, 2015

The Case for Germany – Part 6 – The Dance of Death: Our Future Policy Towards Germany

admin — Fri, 26 Sep 2014 01:12:47 +0000

[Part 6]

“I am deeply stirred by the word which Ulrich Hutten wrote the last time he seized his pen: — Germany.”

ADOLF HITLER

January 30th, 1937

The Case for Germany

A Study of Modern Germany

by

A. P. Laurie

M. A. Cantab., D. Sc., LL. D. Edin., F. C. S., F. R. S. E.

With a Preface by Admiral Sir Barry Domvile

K. B. E., C. B., C. M. G.

Berlin W 15

Internationaler Verlag

1939

FIRST EDITION ………… JUNE 1939

SECOND EDITION ……. JULY 1939

PRINTED IN GERMANY

DEDICATION

It is with admiration and gratitude for the great work he has done for the German people that I dedicate this book to the Fuhrer.

A. P. L.

TO THE READER

There are two sides to every question. You have read one side in our Press for six years.

This book gives the other side.

A. P. L.

PREFACE

It is a great pleasure to me to introduce the public to Dr. Laurie’s valuable book on modern Germany. He is best known to the world as a brilliant scientist, but he has found time in the intervals of his work to pursue with ardour the task upon which every sensible member of the British and German races should be engaged — namely the establishment of good relations and a better understanding between these two great nations.

Dr Laurie knows full well that this friendship is the keystone to peace in Europe — nay, in the whole world.

He is one of the small group who founded the Association known as “The Link”, whose sole aim is to get Britons and Germans to know and understand one another better. He is one of the most zealous workers in this good cause in the country.

He writes of the National Socialist movement with knowledge and great sympathy.

The particular value of this book lies in the fact that it is written by a foreigner, who cannot be accused of patriotic excess in his interpretation of the great work done by Herr Hitler and his associates. I recommend this volume with confidence to all people who are genuinely impressed with the desire to understand one of the greatest — and most bloodless — revolutions in history.

BARRY DOMVILE

Robin’s Tree

8th May 1939.

“As we advance in our social knowledge, we shall endeavour to make our governments paternal as well as judicial; that is, to establish such laws and authorities as may at once direct us in our occupations, protect us against our follies, and visit us in our distresses; a government which shall repress dishonesty, as now it punishes theft; which shall show how the discipline of the masses may be brought to aid the toils of peace, as the discipline of the masses has hitherto knit the sinews of battle; a government which shall have its soldiers of the ploughshare as well as its soldiers of the sword, and which shall distribute more proudly its golden crosses of industry — golden as the glow of the harvest — than it now grants its bronze crosses of honour — bronzed with the crimson of blood.”

RUSKIN. Political Economy of Art.

“All front fighters fought side by side and went through an inferno. They are all comparable to the heroes of the ancient world. It was the manhood of the nations in their prime who fought and experienced the horrors of modern war.

In another war the flower of the nations’ men and women will have to fight. Europe will be destroyed if the best in all of the nations are wiped out. A new conflict will exceed even the ghastly tragedies of the Great War.

I believe that those who rattle the sabres have not participated in war. I know that war veterans speak and think differently.

They energetically desire to prevent another conflict. I hope that the men who are standing before me can contribute to preserve the peace of the world — a peace of honour and equality for all.

Let us not talk of prestige as between the victors and the defeated. This is my one request: Forget what has divided the nations before and remember that history has advanced.”

Field Marshal GOERING addressing the British

and German war veterans.

CHAPTER ……………………………………………………………. PAGE

Dedication

To the Reader

Preface

Field Marshall Goering’s Address

I. DER FUHRER ……………………………………………………….. 11

II. THE BELEAGUERED CITY ……………………………………. 21

III. NATIONAL SOCIALISM ……………………………………… 25

IV. THE NAZI RALLYS AT NUREMBERG ……………………. 34

V. THE FOREIGN POLICY OF GERMANY ……………………. 41

VI. ENGLAND AND GERMANY ………………………………….. 49

VII. MARCH 7th, A MOST IMPORTANT DATE …………… 54

VIII. THE REAL ENEMY OF EUROPE ……………………….. 58

IX. COMMUNISM VERSUS NATIONAL SOCIALISM …… 62

X. THE UNION OF THE GERMAN PEOPLE …………………. 68

XI. ACTS OF “AGGRESSION” BY GERMANY ……………… 79

XII. THE DANCE OF DEATH ……………………………………… 85

XIII. OUR FUTURE POLICY TOWARDS GERMANY ……. 93

XIV. THE HITLER YOUTH MOVEMENT ……………………… 100

XV. THE WINTER HELP ORGANIZATION ………………….. 104

XVI. NATIONAL SOCIALISM AND THE PROTESTANT

CHURCH ……………………………………………………………………… 109

XVII. ECONOMICS …………………………………………………….. 118

XVIII. THE FOUR YEARS PLAN …………………………………… 138

XIX. THE GERMAN COLONIES …………………………………. 141

XX. THE LABOUR FRONT ………………………………………….. 146

XXI. AGRICULTURE …………………………………………………. 155

XXII. MUNICH AND AFTER ………………………………………… 167

Chapter Twelve

THE DANCE OF DEATH

We have recently developed a habit of holding public meetings to denounce the sins of our neighbours. On such occasions violent and exaggerated statements are made and the whole audience worked up to a condition of glorious indignation and intense moral satisfaction with themselves thanking God as the Pharisee in the Temple, that they are not as this Publican. I cannot find in the scriptures that Our Lord tells us to meet together to confess the sins of our brothers, instead of confessing our own sins, and we are especially warned not to pass judgment. We, like the village gossip, always assume the worst. What effect are such meetings likely to have in the countries which are denounced? We have recently had some experience owing to the German press having at last taken to hitting back, digging out some black passages in our past history, and describing them with the gross exaggeration customary in political propaganda. These attacks in the German press have produced a feeling of intense indignation here. We may criticise our own sins, but are not going to have any damned foreigner doing it for us. It is none of his business, we say. Curiously enough the Germans have just the same feeling about things we say about them, and so the piling up of ill feeling is growing on both sides every day.

It is generally admitted by serious students to-day that the war of 1914 had no legitimate cause, if any cause for war can be regarded as legitimate. There have been in the past economic wars, dynastic wars, religious wars and wars for the conquest of territory, but in 1914 the nations of Europe had no quarrel with each other, and the whole world was prospering and increasing in trade.

[Page 86]

It is true that we were very jealous of the rapid increase of the German export trade, and suspicious of the Fleet they were building although it was much less than half the size of our own, but I doubt if any merchant feeling the pinch of German competition in the world market would have regarded that competition as a justifiable reason for war.

The quarrel between Austria and Serbia could have been settled by reasonable negotiation between Austria and Russia without disturbing the rest of Europe. The only outcome of the war has been that millions of lives were thrown away, and a distracted Europe and an impoverished world left as the only tangible result.

Looking back on those years before the war, I realise that an insidious propaganda against Germany had been carried on for a long time, — why or by whom or with what intent I do not know, — which was gradually poisoning our minds. It is true Germany had the most powerful land army in the world, that the German Emperor had the gift of saying boastful and irritating things, and that there was a pan-German society which amused itself by drawing imaginary maps of a German European Empire. There had also been some trouble over the Agadir incident, when the German Emperor woke up to find that we had presented France with the whole of Morocco which did not belong to us; but there was no justification for saying that Germany meditated wars of conquest, and as an actual fact the German foreign office was in dread of the power of Russia.

What were the facts? Since the war of 1870, for which France and Germany were equally to blame, up to 1914 Germany had been at peace with all the world. We on the other hand had been constantly at war. We had invaded and conquered Egypt, we had made war on the Boers, we had fought in Africa and on the frontiers of India, and had annexed Burma. The gates of the temple of Janus had never been closed; yet we were firmly convinced that we were a peaceful non-aggressive people, and Germany an aggressive military nation.

[Page 87]

Now that no serious student of the events leading up to 1914 that the German government was to blame any more than any other European government including our own, this legend about an aggressive Germany is obviously false; yet it is still believed by many people in this country, and we are told that Hitler is the successor of the Kaiser, and aims at the military conquest of Europe. The last war was psychological, it had no basis on realities, and if there is another war in Europe it will also be psychological.

In the old days of mercenary armies in Europe, two kings might quarrel and let loose their armies on each other without troubling to consult the people, whose first knowledge that war had been declared was when soldiers of both sides began looting their farms. To-day, now that we have conscript armies, it is necessary for the government before it can declare war to rouse the peoples of two countries to such a hatred of each other, that decent Englishmen and decent Germans get out their rifles and try to kill each other. This is done by means of propaganda.

There are of course powerful interests in every country to whom war means big profits and who may be secretly engaged in financing. propaganda and, as I have shown elsewhere, the Socialists and Communists in Europe to-day are exerting every effort to set the four western powers at war; but this is not sufficient to explain the rapid spread of an infection over a country producing all the symptoms of mental rabies. The Press have no scruples about stimulating this mental intoxication if it sells a few more copies of the paper, and do not hesitate about publishing shocking lies, and using the poster to. excite the public.

The most serious danger to Peace is the utter want of any feeling of responsibility on the part of the British, French and American Press and wireless. Let me take a recent example.

The annexation of Bohemia and Moravia, by the German government, and the joining of Memel to the Reich, has caused considerable excitement in this country. It is therefore a time when those responsible for news should do their best to calm and not excite public imagination. The B.B.C. sent out a message that the German government had told the Lithuanian government that if they did not hand over Memel, German planes would bomb the capital of Lithuania, and that while the Lithuanian parliament was meeting, German bombing planes flew backwards and forwards overhead.

[Page 88]

There are poisons known to medicine which are called cumulative poisons. One drop will do no harm, but it remains in the body waiting for the next drop and the next and the next, until sufficient of the poison has accumulated to produce illness and death. The same is true of poisons to the mind. We read in the Press a lie about Germany, next day we read part of a speech denouncing Germany, on the Sunday we hear a sermon in which Germany is attacked. We pick up a magazine lying on the club table and there is an article abusing Germany. And so day by day and week by week and month by month this cumulative poison collects in our minds until the day comes when it produces a mental fever in which all sense of proportion is lost and we are controlled by the horrible delusion that it is our duty to go out and kill.

An interesting example of this occurred in the House of Commons the other day. The leader of the Labour party and the leader of the Liberal party, both accused Franco of having dropped from his planes chocolate boxes containing infernal machines to blow children to pieces. There is a well known morbid disease known as persecution mania which often results in the sufferer committing murder. Both these men have reached this dangerous mental condition. They will not have to commit the murder themselves, but will send other men out to kill and to be killed.

When once war has been declared, the governments of both sides take charge of the propaganda machine and pour out lies about the people on the other side in order to keep hatred at a killing point. Many will remember that during the first year of the war, it was decided by both sides on the French front to have a truce at Christmas with the result that the German and English soldiers got so friendly that if the higher command had not stopped it at once, they would have refused to go on killing each other. I remember the first time I visited France during the war. I went to the camouflage factory and was astounded to find that our officers liked the Germans and only began to use bad language when the Portuguese were mentioned. The hatred of the German which was felt in Great Britain did not extend to the fighting line. As I watched Chinese labourers, French peasant girls, German prisoners and English soldiers all working happily together I wondered what we were fighting about.

[Page 89]

It is also necessary, in order to keep the war fever at its height, to invent a slogan. Our slogan was that we were fighting to save democracy, — the victory of the allies having resulted in the abolition of parliament and the setting up of dictators in nearly every country in Europe.

I have during my life seen the nations of Europe hurled at each other’s throats in a meaningless slaughter by means of lying propaganda, and when I see the same thing going on to-day in an aggravated form, I confess I am very much afraid. The German people who have been carrying through a revolution against enormous odds, have doubtless done many things of which we cannot approve, but these things have not only been exaggerated out of all proportion, but have been successfully used to rouse the most dangerous and bloodthirsty of all human emotions, — moral indignation, and the church has been pressed into service in order to bring us nearer to war. Everywhere the gospel of hate is being preached in the Press and from the pulpit. We are told by those preaching this gospel that they have no hostility to the German people but only to the German government, the wicked Hitler and the dreadful Nazis. If that is true, surely the right way to go about it is to persuade the German people that our view and not their view is right. Surely a hatred of Hitler is not a reason for killing millions of Germans, and incidentally killing millions of Englishmen in the process. If war is declared against Germany, every German whatever his private opinions will line up behind Hitler to defend his fatherland, and after a furious and bloody war, nothing will have been settled and Europe ruined.

We are told that Hitler is going to do this and is going to do that; let us at any rate wait and see if he does do any of these things before we dream of plunging into war.

[Page 90]

The danger of the situation in this country is that good well-meaning people have got trapped by this propaganda and are beginning to think that the killing of Germans is a righteous and Christian act. If these people would go to Germany and visit some of the little German towns and wander about among the decent kindly people and say to themselves when they see a German workman returning to his home, “I am going to kill that man”, and a German mother sitting in a public garden with her children, “I am going to make her a widow, and I am going to drop bombs upon this town and set it blazing in flames with the tortured people dying in agony in the ruins”, all this in the name of the Christian religion, I believe they would go away shuddering at committing such devilry in the name of Christ.

When savage tribes wish to make war upon another tribe, they work their young men up to the killing point by means of war dances which produce the necessary mental intoxication. Our method to-day is more elaborate, but the object and the outcome is the same. The dance of death is getting wilder and wilder in this country, until nothing will satisfy us except a holocaust of blood.

It is obvious that the war propaganda in this country and in America, cannot be kept going without a large expenditure, and the investment of capital in buying up politicians, managing governments, and controlling the British and American Press. It is impossible to find out who really owns the big British dailies behind the scenes, but it is evident that most of them dare not publish anything but anti-German news. Probably the only really free press in England today, are the local weekly newspapers.

Those who handle large sums of money are the International financiers, who do not spend money for ideological reasons, but only to make more money. It was not till I read the story of the political activities of the great Jewish banking firm Kuhn Loeb and Co, and the way in which they controlled American Presidents, and financed the Japanese war against Russia, that I realised the connection between war and high finance, which is the polite name for money lending on a big scale.

[Page 91]

We cannot imagine our dear old orthodox British banks indulging in such unorthodox practices, but they pick up the crumbs which fall from the masters table. The profits are made in handling big loans, the general public finally holding the baby. Since the war, by means of propaganda, the American public have been persuaded to invest large sums in loans to bankrupt South American States, every penny of which has been lost, the financiers making their profit and clearing out.

We had a ramp in the cotton industry, organised by the “City”, which robbed the Lancashire workers of their savings and ruined the industry.

The richest field for plunder for the international financier, is war and rumours of war. Owing to the present bad temper among European nations, some five thousand millions, if we include the U.S.A., is being spent on armaments, with no control on profits here or in America, and most of the money is being borrowed, while war means the borrowing of huge sums by the government at high rates of interest. It is obvious then, that while war ruins nations, it is the best way in which high finance can make enormous profits, the burden of interest being born by future tax payers.

In the second place, as long as Germany and Italy are under their present governments, they will not touch foreign loans, and Germany by her method of internal economy and trading has eliminated the international financier, and those who make profits by playing with foreign exchanges. That is doubtless why the government is being forced by the “City” to start a trade war with Germany. If the economic methods devised by Germany are successful, and spread to other nations, and if Hitler succeeds in his policy of establishing permanent peace in Europe, the high financier will cease to be able to exist. It is therefore their main interest today to plunge the four powers into war, in order to destroy Germany and Italy. Having failed in September to start Europe fighting over a time table, they are now trying to bring in the U.S.A., which has already begun a trade war against Germany. It would be interesting to know the real origin of Roosevelt’s outburst about defending “Christianity, democracy and international good faith”. Who pulled the strings and sat grinning in his bank parlour in New York?

[Page 92]

The organisation of mass propaganda here and in the U.S.A., by financial groups, means the end of democracy, which is based on the free expression of opinion and putting both sides before the people. Not only is the Press and the B.B.C. controlled, but the House of Commons itself is being intimidated, as the Members of Parliament fear their constituents whose minds have been poisoned by mass propaganda. There are many Members of Parliament opposed to our hostility to Germany, but they are afraid to speak in the House.

In fact, we have reached the extraordinary position in this “free and democratic” country, that the only place where a fearless discussion is possible and takes place, is in the House of Lords, where the members separated by their exalted position from the tyranny of machine-made democratic opinion, can speak freely what they believe, and excellent speeches are made opposing our hostility to Germany.

Freedom of speech, a high level of intelligence, and a genuine desire for the public good, apart from the low motives of political life, has deserted the House of Commons, and taken refuge in the House of Lords.

Once their propaganda has been successful, the governments of democratic countries have to yield as our Government has yielded to the outcry about the annexation of Bohemia and Moravia. Only Hitler and Mussolini are strong enough to say No and will keep the peace unless we and France compel them to draw the sword. Unfortunately in this country the “City” pulls the strings, and while our young men will be fighting and dying under the delusion that they were defending Christianity and democracy, they would really be fighting to rake profits for the international financiers.

The vultures of finance gorge on war and rumours of war, and millions of lives are sacrificed to fill their money chests.

[Page 93]

Chapter Thirteen

OUR FUTURE POLICY

TOWARDS GERMANY

The Peace Pact having been signed with Germany, and the German people in Central Europe having accomplished their union under one Reich, with the exception of one minor area, Danzig, the question before the people of this country is what is to be our policy towards Germany in the future.

We must agree that it has not been a wise policy in the past. While on the one hand admitting that the conditions forced on them by the Treaty of Versailles were unfair and would have to be revised, on the other hand instead of arranging with them that the revisal be done by agreement, we have protested against every step they took in this direction. Why could we not have done what we did in the case of Turkey in agreeing to the fortification of the Dardanelles? — a matter much more vital to us than anything happening in Central Europe. Either we could have adopted the policy of the Opposition, said No, and been prepared to back our No with war if necessary, or we could have agreed to the revisal by mutual consent.

Mr. Chamberlain in arranging for a conference of the four Powers to settle the Sudeten German problem, has adopted the policy which we should have adopted from the beginning. The Sudeten German question differed from anything that had happened before, as up to that time Germany had been engaged in internal re-organization and in completing, by the union — with Austria, the policy begun by Bismarck, — a policy which was entirely their own affair. The problem of Sudeten Germany was the first to involve the interests of another state, and was further complicated by the alliance between CzechoSlovakia and France. Germany was therefore quite right in accepting the offer to settle the matter by agreement according to the promise made by Hitler in his speech of March 7th 1936.

[Page 94]

Mr. Chamberlain having initiated this new policy of consultation among the four Powers on any point of disagreement, it is all the more necessary to define our attitude towards Germany.

In order to be able to do this, we must begin by considering what are the vital necessities of the German people, and whether there is any reason why we should oppose them. In considering this question we must put on one side our democratic sentiments, and our disapproval of some of the things the German Government have done within their own country, and look into the question on a purely business basis from the point of view of our Imperial interests.

To deal first with the needs of the German people. There are 80 million Germans living on a small area in Europe with a comparatively poor soil, who cannot like the French obtain all the food they want from the fertile soil of their own country. It is therefore evident that they must either be satisfied with a very low standard of comfort and an underfed population, or develop external trade, or undertake military conquest of new territory.

In spite of the alarm of the Opposition, we may dismiss the idea that Germany is meditating ventures of military conquest. Such a policy must result in ruin and disaster, and though partly successful would not improve her economic position. Even if Hitler is the military filibuster which the Opposition foolishly imagine him to be, we may take it for granted that the average German citizen would rather trade than fight. The days of military conquest and subjugation of other nations in Europe are over, as there is no genuine economic advantage to be obtained from it. This is clearly perceived by the German people and in course of time will doubtless be understood by our own politicians who in this matter are mentally behind the times.

[Page 95]

The only alternative therefore is extended trade, and Germany is making every effort she can to carry out this policy. While trading with any and every nation, she has looked round the world to see whether there is any region open to her which is economically undeveloped and which would supply her with the raw materials she requires. Putting on one side for a time her claim for colonies, and realising the importance of doing nothing to arouse the jealousy and suspicion of Great Britain, she has agreed to a strict limitation of her fleet, and is looking for a development of trade on land areas.

If we look at the map of Europe, we shall recognise that the. obvious direction for her trade expansion is in the countries situated on the Danube and beyond that the Balkans and Turkey, along the lines of the old overland trade route from Asia to Europe. She has already developed a considerable trade with the states on the Danube and with the Balkan states, and is projecting a great canal taking ships up to 1500 tons to connect the Rhine with the Danube.

There can be no question that there are great possibilities of development in these economically backward countries, and that Germany will be of the greatest assistance to them, enabling them to take advantage of modern scientific methods of production.

Although she has been compelled by her economic position to enter into special trade agreements, she is not attempting to claim any monopoly and if she is successful in developing these countries economically, we shall reap some of the benefits. Surely with our world trade and vast Empire, we can allow Germany to cultivate this garden lying at her door. Doubtless these countries will be included in the German “sphere of influence”, whatever that may mean. I cannot see that this is any business of ours, as no vital interests of the British Empire can be affected by the development of trade in the central parts of Europe. It is the right of every nation to adopt the form of government they prefer, and we have no more right to try and compel nations to adopt our political theories by acts of war than the Roman Catholic Church has the right to crush Protestantism by promoting war in Europe. We are a business people engaged in world trade and, avoiding all ideologies, we must look at the whole question from a purely business point of view. To repeat the famous phrase of Bismarck with a difference. — The whole of the Balkans is not worth the life of one British soldier. Surely possessing the world and the fatness thereof, we need not grudge her this line of development.

[Page 96]

There are rumours that the Soviet is breaking up and that the next great national movement is going to be in the Ukraine which formed an independent republic after the war and was afterwards massacred into submission by the Soviet. The Ukrainians in Poland who have been badly treated by the Poles are demanding Home Rule, and the Ukrainians in CzechoSlovakia are evidently in a restless condition. The Ukraine includes the black soil wheat area of Russia on the Dneiper, and could supply unlimited wheat to Germany in return for manufactured goods and will naturally enter into close relations with Germany who will be her natural protectors against the Soviet. Therefore if once an independent Ukraine republic was established and entered into friendly relations with Germany, we should be glad that the essential needs of Germany for raw materials had been satisfied. To quote Hitler:

“A nation which is satisfied and well fed is more likely to keep the peace than a nation which is dissatisfied and hungry.”

Ah, our Opposition will reply, but Germany will be exercising throughout all these regions that vague and mysterious thing called a sphere of influence. As long as they are exercising a sphere of influence results in these nations being contented and well supplied with goods, and therefore secures the peace of Europe, why should we object, and oppose these natural developments which are inevitable because they are based upon the facts of geography. The answer is there is no alternative plan except to make war on the German people and reduce them to such desperate impoverishment and slaughter of so many of their youth, that they are again brought to their condition after the thirty years war and will require a century to recover. Mr. Lloyd George says we can crush them like an eggshell. He would find the eggshell made of tempered steel.

I have searched the pages of Hansard containing the speeches of the Opposition in the recent debate on a vote of censure against the Government’s foreign policy, with a view to finding out what is their alternative policy to the one advocated by Mr. Chamberlain. This alternative policy was given by Mr. Dalton and is worthy of quotation in full.

[Page 97]

“There is once more a possibility, it may not last much longer. There is still one more chance for British diplomacy to bring together into an effective combination all those nations in the East of Europe who are threatened by this German push to the East. They are still there a potential combination, the Soviet Union, Poland, Rumania, Yugo-Slavia, Turkey and Greece. They are all members of the League of Nations, to which we and France still belong. You have still there a potential formidable force if it could be welded together for peace and for organised resistance to further endeavours to dislocate Europe.”

It is unfortunate that men in the responsible position of leaders of the Labour party should be so ignorant of the real situation in Europe to-day. Germany far from dislocating Europe is consolidating Europe by helping to adjust the injustices caused by the peace treaties, and has no intention of threatening any of these countries with aggression. France who has signed a peace pact with Germany and is anxious to develop her trade relations with her, would not support the Labour policy, and the Soviet is too busy with internal affairs and with Japan, to indulge in the venture of a European war at the call of our Labour party. When Mr. Dalton’s delegate called on the governments of Poland, Rumania, Yugo-Slavia, Turkey and Greece, they would receive his proposals with astonishment, and tell him that they were much too busy making profitable trade agreements with Germany.

Mr. Dalton had great hopes of the new Prime Minister of Hungary. If he had listened over the wireless the other day he would have heard the Prime Minister saying that the closest bonds of friendship united Hungary to Germany and Italy, because they would be for ever grateful to them for enabling them to recover their stolen territories from Czecho-Slovakia.

Our policy in Europe in the past has been called securing “the balance of power” which meant that if ever we thought one nation in Europe was getting more powerful than the other nations we made it our business to promote war against that nation, and to support war when it came with our money bags, our fleet and expeditionary forces.

[Page 98]

This policy is openly advocated by Mr. Ramsay Muir who glories in the days of Marlborough and Wellington, and wishes to see them come back again. There can be no question that this policy of the past has cost Europe millions of lives on a hundred battle-fields. We not only promoted wars but when war had once begun supported its continuance with our money bags until the war to quote Mr. Lloyd George was “fought to a finish”, with the result that it ended probably in an unjust treaty which opened the door to future wars.

Can anyone doubt now that if we had adopted Lord Lansdowne’s policy in 1917, and made peace with Germany then, we should have saved all the dangers and difficulties of the last twenty years.

To my mind the policy of the Balance of Power is a damnable policy. We have been in the past the evil genius of Europe. It is surely evident that if the policy of the Opposition was adopted, and could be successfully carried out, blocking Germany’s natural trade expansion in the Danube basin and in the Balkans, the German people confined to a limited area with no hope of commercial development, would be compelled to fight in order to live. The choice therefore is between Mr. Chamberlain’s policy of allowing Germany a free area for commercial expansion, or war — a war in which Germany would be fighting for her life.

The maddest of all nightmares from which the Opposition suffer, is that Germany would attempt a military conquest of the Ukraine. Either she would have to march six hundred miles across Polish territory, to which Poland would naturally object, or if she marched through Czecho-Slovakia would find herself lost in the Carpathian mountains, with no railways or roads, and would still have to violate either Rumanian or Polish territory. The one thing that would save the Soviet, if it is true that it is breaking up, would be an external attack.

The difficulty that Germany and Italy find in dealing with democracies, is that they have no continuity of foreign policy, and therefore States with a stable form of government and a continuity of foreign policy have to be very cautious in their approach to France and Great Britain. France, where the members of the Cabinet are paid their salaries weekly, and Great Britain, where the old policy of continuity of foreign Policy has been abandoned for the pursuit of opposite policies by the Government and the Opposition.

[Page 99]

Since the peace pact with Germany was signed, there has been an outburst of attack on Germany, which started before the new decrees against the Jews, in the Press, by politicians, and from the pulpit, and Germany is naturally anxiously watching to see whether the next election will return the parties of the Left to power, who would denounce the treaty with Italy, and seek for some pretext to declare war on her.

In every capital in Europe, the triumph of the parties of the Left in this country at the next election, would be taken as the red signal for war.

[Page 100]

======================================

PDF of Part 1. Click to download (0.3 MB). >> The Case for Germany – Part 1

PDF of Part 2. Click to download (0.3 MB). >> The Case for Germany – Part 2

PDF of Part 3. Click to download (0.3 MB). >> The Case for Germany – Part 3

PDF of Part 4. Click to download (0.3 MB). >> The Case for Germany – Part 4

PDF of Part 5. Click to download (0.3 MB). >> The Case for Germany – Part 5

PDF of this post. Click to download (0.3 MB). >> The Case for Germany – Part 6

Version History

Version 1: Published Sep 26, 2014

The Case for Germany – Part 5 – Union of the German People; Acts of “Aggression” by Germany

admin — Wed, 24 Sep 2014 01:11:42 +0000

[Part 5]

“I am deeply stirred by the word which Ulrich Hutten wrote the last time he seized his pen: — Germany.”

ADOLF HITLER

January 30th, 1937

The Case for Germany

A Study of Modern Germany

by

A. P. Laurie

M. A. Cantab., D. Sc., LL. D. Edin., F. C. S., F. R. S. E.

With a Preface by Admiral Sir Barry Domvile

K. B. E., C. B., C. M. G.

Berlin W 15

Internationaler Verlag

1939

FIRST EDITION ………… JUNE 1939

SECOND EDITION ……. JULY 1939

PRINTED IN GERMANY

DEDICATION

It is with admiration and gratitude for the great work he has done for the German people that I dedicate this book to the Fuhrer.

A. P. L.

TO THE READER

There are two sides to every question. You have read one side in our Press for six years.

This book gives the other side.

A. P. L.

PREFACE

Dr Laurie knows full well that this friendship is the keystone to peace in Europe — nay, in the whole world.

He writes of the National Socialist movement with knowledge and great sympathy.

BARRY DOMVILE

Robin’s Tree

8th May 1939.

RUSKIN. Political Economy of Art.

I believe that those who rattle the sabres have not participated in war. I know that war veterans speak and think differently.

They energetically desire to prevent another conflict. I hope that the men who are standing before me can contribute to preserve the peace of the world — a peace of honour and equality for all.

Let us not talk of prestige as between the victors and the defeated. This is my one request: Forget what has divided the nations before and remember that history has advanced.”

Field Marshal GOERING addressing the British

and German war veterans.

CHAPTER ……………………………………………………………. PAGE

Dedication

To the Reader

Preface

Field Marshall Goering’s Address

I. DER FUHRER ……………………………………………………….. 11

II. THE BELEAGUERED CITY ……………………………………. 21

III. NATIONAL SOCIALISM ……………………………………… 25

IV. THE NAZI RALLYS AT NUREMBERG ……………………. 34

V. THE FOREIGN POLICY OF GERMANY ……………………. 41

VI. ENGLAND AND GERMANY ………………………………….. 49

VII. MARCH 7th, A MOST IMPORTANT DATE …………… 54

VIII. THE REAL ENEMY OF EUROPE ……………………….. 58

IX. COMMUNISM VERSUS NATIONAL SOCIALISM …… 62

X. THE UNION OF THE GERMAN PEOPLE …………………. 68

XI. ACTS OF “AGGRESSION” BY GERMANY ……………… 79

XII. THE DANCE OF DEATH ……………………………………… 85

XIII. OUR FUTURE POLICY TOWARDS GERMANY ……. 93

XIV. THE HITLER YOUTH MOVEMENT ……………………… 100

XV. THE WINTER HELP ORGANIZATION ………………….. 104

XVI. NATIONAL SOCIALISM AND THE PROTESTANT

CHURCH ……………………………………………………………………… 109

XVII. ECONOMICS …………………………………………………….. 118

XVIII. THE FOUR YEARS PLAN …………………………………… 138

XIX. THE GERMAN COLONIES …………………………………. 141

XX. THE LABOUR FRONT ………………………………………….. 146

XXI. AGRICULTURE …………………………………………………. 155

XXII. MUNICH AND AFTER ………………………………………… 167

Chapter Ten

THE UNION OF THE GERMAN PEOPLE

OF AUSTRIA AND THE SUDETEN

GERMANS WITH THE GERMAN

PEOPLE OF THE REICH

Further, it has become self-evident to me that those frontier districts between Czechoslovakia and Germany where the Sudeten population is in an important majority should be given full right of self-determination at once. If some cession is inevitable, as I believe it to be, it is as well that it should be done promptly and without procrastination. There is real danger, even a danger of civil war, in the continuance of a state of uncertainty. Consequently there are very real reasons for a policy of immediate and drastic action. Any kind of plebiscite or referendum would, I believe, be a sheer formality in respect of these predominantly German areas. A very large majority of their inhabitants desire amalgamation with Germany. The inevitable delay involved in taking a plebiscite vote would only serve to excite popular feelings, with perhaps most dangerous results. I consider, therefore, that these frontier districts should at once be transferred from Czechoslovakia to Germany, and, further, that measures for their peaceful transfer, including the provision of safeguards for the population during the transfer period, should be arranged forthwith by agreement between the two Governments.

(Vide: Runciman Report No. 7, 1938)

The rise of the Austrian people in rebellion against Schuschnigg in a few hours, the fall of Schuschnigg from power, the telegram from Dr. Seyss-Inquart, the head of the new government, to Hitler to send troops to preserve order, the triumphant march of the soldiers of the Reich into Austria, received with acclamations of joy by the Austrian people, and the progress of Hitler through the country received with such scenes of enthusiastic welcome as are unparalleled in history, took the people of this country completely by surprise. They had been carefully educated in the belief that the “independence” of Austria, that is their separation from Germany, was the wish of the Austrian people.

[Page 69]

The facts that the Austrian Parliament in 1918-19 passed a unanimous vote in favour of union with the Reich, and that Dollfuss finding that if he held an election the vote would be in favour of the Anschluss, had abolished parliament and made himself a dictator, that Schuschnigg his successor had never dared to hold an election, that 40,000 Austrians were in exile across the frontier and thousands in prison without trial, and that Schuschnigg only held power by an armed police with the forces of the allies behind him, made no impression on the people of this country, deceived by a skillful propaganda. Many still believe that Hitler has seized Austria by force of arms against the wishes of the Austrian people. It is a new feature in the history of invasions, for the guns of the invaders to be decorated with wreaths of flowers by the invaded.

In order to get a correct understanding of the real attitude of the great mass of Austrian people, it is necessary to go back to what happened when the war was ended. The quarrel between Austria and Germany which ended in the battle of Sadowa in 1866, was really a quarrel between the two dynasties, the Hohenzollerns and the Habsburgs for supreme power over the German speaking peoples. By the defeat of Austria the Hohenzollerns became supreme, and in 1879 an alliance was formed between the two countries by Bismarck, which led to Germany supporting Austria in her quarrel with Serbia in 1914. During four years Germans of the Reich and Austrian Germans had fought side by side. The long struggle against almost the world whole and the humiliation of defeat which they both suffered welded them together into one people.

On the fall of the Habsburg dynasty, the German Austrians formed a Council of State, and on the 9th of November 1918, this Council of State sent a message to Chancellor Max von Baden of the German Reich:

“In this hour of great historical crisis the German-Austrian Council of State sends to the German people its fraternal greetings and the warmest wishes for its future. The German-Austrian Council of State expresses the hope that the German people in Austria will have a part in the election of representatives of the Constitutive National Assembly which is to decide the future political order of the German nation.”

[Page 70]

On November 12th 1918, the Provisional Assembly for German Austria passed the following law:

“German Austria is a part of the German Republic. Special laws are to regulate the participation of German Austria in the legislation and administration of the German Republic, as well as the extent of the validity of laws and institutions of the German Republic as applied to German Austria.”

On November 30th 1918, the Reich government passed the following decree:

“If the German National Assembly resolves that Austria in accordance with her wish is to be admitted to the German Reich, then the German-Austrian deputies shall join the Assembly as members with equal rights.”

On February 4th 1919, President Dr. Dinghofer addressed the German-Austrian National Assembly as follows:

“Most honourable National Assembly. The day after tomorrow on February 6th, the newly elected Constitutive National Assembly of the German Republic in Weimar meets for the first time. The conditions whereby we participate in the same as rightful members have not yet been reached and indeed not yet created. Nevertheless we cannot ignore this great and significant event. The idea of Greater Germany is not dead for us Germans in these provinces, and never, never was it dead.

Like a star glowing out of the darkness the joyous hope of the realization of our longing dream beckons us: in all the sorrow and all the care that now surround us there glows the hope of lasting reunion with our old Motherland. With the greatest enthusiasm we therefore greet our brothers yonder in the Reich.

We acclaim them with joy. The German people inseparably united in its entirety, no longer separated by boundary-posts, no longer separated by the jealousy of rulers, shall and must become our homeland again.”

[Page 71]

In his opening speech at the first session of the German National Assembly at Weimar on February 6th 1919, the people’s deputy, Friedrich Ebert spoke as follows:

“… We also cannot forego the union of the whole German nation in one Reich. Our German Austrian brothers have already declared themselves part of the Greater-German Republic at their National Assembly on November 12th. Now the German Austrian National Assembly has once again amid the greatest enthusiasm sent its greetings and expressed the hope that our National Assembly and theirs will succeed in re-establishing the link that was broken by force in 1866. German Austria must, they say, be united with the motherland for all time.”

At Weimar on 21st February 1919, the following motion was made by the deputies Lobe, Grober, Haase (Berlin), Von Payer, Dr. Count von Posadowsky-Wehner and Dr. Stresemann:

“May the National Assembly resolve: The National Assembly notes with lively satisfaction the resolutions by which the representatives of German Austria have declared their membership of the German people as a whole. It affirms to its German Austrian brothers that the Germans of the Reich and of Austria constitute an indivisible unit, transcending former state boundaries, and expresses the confident hope that through the negotiations to be entered upon by the governments this inner unity will soon find in settled political forms an expression that will be recognized by all the Powers of the World.”

This motion was supported by all parties in the Assembly.

This movement for union between the Germans of Austria and the Germans of the Reich put the three democracies of Great Britain, France and the United States in a somewhat embarrassing position. They had promised self determination to the peoples of Europe, and both Germany and Austria had elected democratic governments and these democratic governments had unanimously decided to unite. On the other hand, the allies had decided that for strategic reasons this union between Germany and Austria must be prevented, and an “Independent” Austria created. Accordingly on the 29th of December 1918, the French foreign minister M. Pichon made the following statement:

[Page 72]

“There remains the question of German-Austria. It is serious but is should not alarm us. We have means of solving it so that it will not bring our enemies the compensations and resources that they hope from it. In settling the new status of Germany and of the ruins of Austria it will be contingent on the Allied Powers to take measures which will decisively reduce the power of Germany to fit proportions and thus deprive her of the chance of indemnifying herself with the Austrian races remaining outside Czecho-Slovakia, Poland and Yugo-Slavia, for what she will irrevocably have lost in any case by sanctioning our victory. This victory must therefore in the first place be transformed into all its just consequences and into the application of the rights which it gives us over the vanquished, to remove the possibility of these again endangering the security and freedom of the world.”

Article 80 of the Treaty of Versailles was as follows:

“Germany acknowledges and will respect strictly the independence of Austria, within the frontiers which may be fixed in a treaty between that State and the Principal Allied and Associated Powers; she agrees that this independence shall be inalienable, except with the consent of the Council of the League of Nations”, which meant referring it to the Greek Kalends.

The German delegates signed this clause, but made the following protest:

“In Article 80 is demanded the permanent recognition of Austrian independence within the boundaries laid down by the Peace Treaty of the Allied and Associated Governments with Germany. Germany never has had, and never will have the intention of altering the German-Austrian frontier by force.

But should the population of Austria, whose history and culture have been closely linked with its kindred German country for thousands of years, wish to re-established with Germany the connection that was only dissolved recently by a military decision, then Germany cannot pledge herself to oppose the wish of her German brothers in Austria, since the right of self-determination of peoples must apply generally and not solely to the detriment of Germany. Any other procedure would be in contradiction to the principles laid down in the Congress speech of President Wilson on February 11th, 1918.”

In drawing up the constitution of the German Reich, another attempt was made to keep the door open for union with Austria.

The following two clauses were introduced: Article 2.

“The territory of the Reich consists of the territories of the German countries. Other territories can be admitted to the Reich by law if their population desires it in accordance with the right of self-determination.”

[Page 73]

Article 61, par. 2.

“After union with the German Reich, German Austria shall receive the right of participating in the Reich Council with the number of votes corresponding with her population. Until such time the representatives of German Austria shall have an advisory vote.”

On September 2nd 1919, the following note was sent by President Clemenceau to the President of the German Reich.

“The Allied and Associated Powers have taken note of the German constitution of August 11th 1919. They confirm that the conditions of Paragraph 2 of Article 61 constitute a formal violation of Article 80 of the Peace Treaty signed at Versailles on June 28th, 1919.

It is a double violation

1. Article 61, in stipulating the admission of Austria to the Reichsrat, likens this Republic to the German provinces which constitute the German Empire; this is incompatible with the observance of Austria’s independence.

2. In allowing and regulating the participation of Austria in the Reichsrat, Article 61 creates a political bond and a common political action between Germany and Austria, in complete contradiction to the independence of the latter.

The Allied and Associated Powers therefore, having reminded the German Government that Article 178 of the German Constitution declares that the ‘conditions of the Treaty of Versailles cannot be affected by the constitution’ summon the German Government to take the proper steps to annul this violation forthwith, by declaring Article 61, paragraph 2, void.

With the reservation as to further measures in the event of refusal, and indeed on the basis of the Treaty (namely, Article 429), the Allied and Associated Powers inform the German Government that this violation of its obligations in an essential point will oblige the Powers to extend their occupation immediately on the right bank of the Rhine, if their just demand be not complied with within 14 days of the date of this note.”

[Page 74]

The clause was withdrawn.

Since then the agitation for the Anschluss has never ceased, and has grown in intensity as Germany under Hitler once more became a free nation.

After the abortive rising and the deplorable assassination of Dollfuss, the movement in favour of the Anschluss was savagely suppressed.

Staying in Salzburg at the time, we saw young peasants from the hills being marched in as prisoners. The Castle was full of prisoners and several were shot without trial although they had not been near Vienna and could have had nothing to do with the assassination.

When Schuschnigg broke all his promises to Hitler, and announced his travesty of a plebiscite, the Austrian pot boiled over. There was no register of voters, no arrangements to protect the secrecy of the ballot, and only one voting card with “Independent Austria, Heil Schuschnigg, Ja” printed on it. Anyone wishing to vote No, had to cut out a card of the same size, write on it No and hand it openly to Schuschnigg officials who were the only people allowed at the polling stations, with the probability of arrest and imprisonment.

On the 11th of March the following telegram was sent by Dr. Seyss-Inquart to Hitler:

“The provisional Government of Austria which, after the resignation of the Schuschnigg government, consider it their duty to restore calm and order in Austria, direct to the German Government the urgent request to support them in their duty and to help them in preventing bloodshed. To this end they ask the German Government to send German troops as soon as possible.”

After the receipt of this telegram, German troops marched in and the Anschluss was accomplished without the loss of a single life.

The Sudeten Germans

At the time when I am finishing this book, the governments of Europe have solved the vexed problems of the Sudeten Germans, and the Hungarians forcibly included in CzechoSlovakia, — another inheritance from the peace treaties.

[Page 75]

Czecho-Slovakia contains Germans, Slovaks, Hungarians, Poles, Rumanians, Ruthenians and Czechs, and over all these alien people bundled together by the framers of the peace treaties into one nation, the Czechs have a small majority which has enabled them under the outward form of democracy to keep supreme power in their own hands. Lord Balfour declared when the State of Czecho-Slovakia was brought into existence, that these new European States were built up on the principle of little nations on the victorious side seizing the territories of a country that was defeated, and holding them on a cut-throat basis which cannot be defended. None of these various races love one another, but all are agreed on a hatred of Czech domination, and both the Germans and the Slovaks have petitioned the League for freedom and independence.

There can be no question that the Sudeten Germans have suffered cruelly under Czech rule. The glass industry has been allowed to fall into decay, they are denied equality of political rights, they have great difficulty in getting employment, and a large number are slowly dying of starvation. The statistics as to disease from malnutrition among the German children are appalling. Until recently thousands have been imprisoned without trial.

Their terrible condition has naturally excited the greatest indignation among their German brothers in the Reich, and Hitler’s task has been to prevent any rash act on either side of the frontier which might lead to war.

The reason why all Europe was so interested in CzechoSlovakia is because Bohemia now part of Czecho-Slovakia, surrounded by mountains, is the natural citadel of central Europe. It is for this reason that the treaty between the Czechs and the Soviet was so dangerous. If Bohemia were in possession of the Soviet army, they could accomplish that Asiatic conquest of Europe which has so nearly happened more than once in the past. The treaty has now been denounced and the door for an inroad into Europe of Asiatic hordes under the flag of the hammer and the sickle, bolted and barred.

[Page 76]

When the Sudeten German question came to a head, and the pot long simmering boiled over, Hitler had to deal with a very complex situation. The German people were difficult to restrain, the Sudeten Germans were in rebellion and the Communist party in Czecho-Slovakia hoped to use the trouble to promote a European war, while it was impossible to trust Benes who had made so many promises he had never kept in the past.

While a party in Czecho-Slovakia wished to provoke an armed intervention by France, Hitler was doing his best to avoid the necessity. He had only to send an armed force from Austria into Slovakia, and promise independence to all the minorities and home rule to the Slovaks, for Czecho-Slovakia to fall to pieces, a result which the Communists were prepared to face if only France could be persuaded to intervene, — an intervention which Hitler had to do everything he could to prevent.

The Runciman report in favour of the cession of the Sudeten German area to Germany without delay, cleared the air, and when Hitler proposed this solution to Chamberlain at their first meeting, Chamberlain was able to persuade his Cabinet, Daladier and Benes to accept this solution.

Between Chamberlain’s first and second visit to see Hitler, certain incidents had taken place in Czecho-Slovakia which were not reported by our Press, but were witnessed by a friend of mine who was on the spot at the time. My friend entered Prague on September 20th, and found the Czechs very depressed at the thought of giving up the Sudeten German territory. That evening a wireless message was sent out by the Prague station, that Churchill had overthrown Chamberlain, become Prime Minister, and flown to Paris to arrange for war with Germany. Next day Prague was seething with excitement, and bills were posted in the town comparing the, military strength of Germany with the military strength of Great Britain, France, the USSR and the USA. The Prime Minister resigned and M. Hodza became Prime Minister.

In the meantime my friend had motored on to Eger. He arrived on the Wednesday afternoon, and found that the handing over of the Sudeten German area having been agreed to, the Czech government had allowed the Germans to take over the management of the town which was decorated everywhere with the German flag, and the people rejoicing in the streets. The Czech police were arranging to leave the town in the most peaceable manner.

[Page 77]

On the Thursday morning M. Hodza became Prime Minister, and on the Thursday afternoon, a telegram was received from the new government that the Czechs were again going to take over the town. There was a hasty hiding away of flags and decorations, and in the evening the Czech troops marched into a silent town with deserted streets, everyone hiding behind closed doors.

My friend motored on the frontier, and found bridges being blown up and machine gun emplacements being erected. It was evident that Benes had made up his mind for one last gamble for war, and that the message sent out by the new government that they adhered to the handing over of the Sudeten German area, was merely intended to put off time.

All these facts were of course known to Hitler, and caused him to draw up his ultimatum for immediate entry.

His proposal that Czech troops should retire and the German troops advance into the area was the only plan to prevent bloodshed between the Czech and German population. Runciman had already stated that it was necessary to act quickly to prevent civil war, and it is difficult to understand why Chamberlain rejected a plan which was unanimously adopted by the four powers a week later.

The ultimatum drawn up by Hitler might have been written in a more conciliatory manner, but the map accompanying it agreed closely with the map already prepared, and with the territory ultimately given up, and no difficulty was found in adhering to the time table he had originally drawn up. The flight of some of the Czechs from the Sudeten German area was quite unnecessary, as was proved by the quiet occupation of the area by the German troops without any disturbance of the existing population. The fact is that the Continental peasant from long and bitter experience over many centuries, whenever he hears of the approach of an army packs up his household goods and bolts.

During the interview with Chamberlain, Hitler for the first time threatened to use force and enter the Sudeten area even though opposed by Czech troops if it was not ceded at once. It seems to me inconceivable that we would have plunged Europe into war because Hitler insisted on an immediate occupation of territory which had already been ceded to him, millions of lives being sacrificed over a dispute about a time table.

[Page 78]

Hitler had pledged himself in his speech on March 7th 1936, that all adjustments of territory between Germany and other nations should be made by agreement and has carried out his pledge, though he seemed to come near to breaking it. It is probable that at the last moment Benes would have yielded as he could only trust the Czechs in his army, the whole Sudeten German population would have risen behind his troops, and Czech-Slovakia would have fallen to pieces though no German soldier had advanced beyond the Sudeten German area.

It is significant of the condition to which the German population had been reduced, that Hitler said that on his entry he had seen for the first time people weeping for joy and that the first thing the German troops had to do was to bring in large quantities of bread for the starving people.

Extract from Czech Schoolbook

“Who loves the Czechs — Hail to him! Long life to him!”

“Who loves the Russians — Hail to him! Long life to him!”

“Who loves the Serbs — Hail to him! Long life to him!”

“Who loves the Slovenes — Hail to him! Long life to him!”

“Who loves the Hungarians — Strike him down!”

“Who loves the Germans — Strike him down!”

[Page 79]

Chapter Eleven

ACTS OF “AGGRESSION” BY GERMANY

In order to get a true perspective towards what has taken place in Central Europe during the last five years, it is necessary to grasp the fact that what we have been witnessing is a rebellion of the German peoples in Central Europe against the peace treaties.

Hitler has been the leader, and the Nazi movement the spear head, but the rebellion was not confined to Germany, but included the German population of Austria and the Sudeten German area.

The allies had made an “Independent” state of Austria in spite of the unanimous vote of the first Austrian parliament for union with the Reich, and had handed over the Sudeten Germans to the Czechs in spite of their protests, for purely strategic reasons.

Dollfuss in order to maintain Austria as an independent state had to abolish the Austrian parliament, and rule as an absolute dictator, and Schuschnigg had to continue this policy. The Nazi movement progressed at first more rapidly in Austria than in Germany.

Once we have grasped the central fact that we have been witnessing a rebellion of the German peoples, all that has happened in the last five years falls into place and becomes intelligible.

Having risen in rebellion against the articles in the peace treaties which applied to them, they have re-armed, have occupied with troops their own frontiers, and have taken over the administration of their own rivers, railways and canals.

In addition the German people of Austria have joined with the German people of the Reich under one government.

[Page 80]

All these acts have taken place within territory inhabited by and belonging to the German people, and have in no way interfered with the rights of any other nation. In addition, with the consent of the three powers and of the government of CzechoSlovakia, the Sudeten German area has been joined to the Reich.

This addition to German territory was advised by our commissioner Lord Runciman, and has been described by Sir John Simon as an act of justice.

We are told by the enemies of Germany in this country that these acts of the German people were aggressive, violent and illegal acts, and we must proceed to examine these three accusations.

An act of aggression involves interference with other nations. It is not regarded by us as an aggressive act on our part to spend vast sums on munitions, or if we chose to do so to introduce conscription. If the Union between England and Scotland was taking place to-day, it could not be described by other nations as an act of aggression on our part. As all these re-adjustments made by German peoples took place in territory which contained an almost totally German population, we must give a verdict of not guilty when they are accused of acts of aggression.

The second accusation is that the German people have acted in a violent manner. As all these changes have been accomplished in a perfectly orderly way amid the rejoicing consent of the populations concerned, and without the loss of a single life, the charge of violence falls to the ground. There are people in this country who talk of the “invasion” of Austria. An “invasion” in which the people of the “invaded” country decorate the guns of the “invader” is something new in history.

The third accusation of having acted in an illegal manner is made under two heads. They are accused of breaking international law by tearing up the Treaty of Versailles, and also of acting against the protests of the League of Nations.

Let us begin by examining the first accusation. It has long been the custom among civilized nations who have been at war, after an armistice has been declared, for the delegates of both nations to meet in conference and draw up a treaty together.

Such a treaty is regarded as binding on both parties until owing to changing circumstances one party or the other denounces the treaty and a new treaty is drawn up. It has also always been understood that no act of war takes place after the armistice has been signed.

[Page 81]

The allies when engaged in drawing up the Treaty of Versailles, departed from both these customs which have been recognised by all civilized nations. The Treaty of Versailles was drawn up by the allies without the German delegates being admitted. They were then called in and graciously allowed to suggest certain modifications which were promptly rejected, and told to sign. They signed under protest, and said that the German people would never regard the treaty as binding. The second departure from civilized practice was the continuance after the armistice had been signed of the blockade which was starving the German people. The signature of the German delegates was made the condition for raising the blockade.

A treaty between two nations is of the nature of a contract between two men, and both parties are expected to carry it out. But if one of the parties after signing the contract can convince the judge that he signed it by compulsion with a pistol held to his head, no court would uphold the contract.

In the case of the entry into the neutral zone of the German troops, there is a plausible case against Germany. Her defence is that France, by making a treaty with the Soviet directed against Germany, had already torn up the Treaty of Locarno, and was fully warned of the view that would be taken of this act in Germany. Even if the verdict goes against Germany, and she did commit an illegal act, the crime of occupying your own territory with your own troops cannot be regarded as a very serious one.

The other accusation is that Germany acted in an illegal manner in. defying the protests of the League of Nations. The victorious powers decided to set up a perpetual committee which they invited other nations to join, and which they called the League of Nations. Germany was excluded at the beginning and the USA. washed their hands of the whole affair. The main object of the League was to keep the peace treaties inviolate, but it also took on other international duties. Those joining it signed a covenant promising not to make war on each other, but to refer matters of dispute to the League, and in certain articles the League took power to use force through its members against any nation which it had named as an aggressor.

[Page 82]

The League arrogated to itself a legal status which would not be recognised in international law. It had no more authority over other nations than any other alliance of the powers. The members of the League were of course bound by the terms of their contract while they remained members but if they chose to leave the League, the League had no jurisdiction over them and protests passed by the League had no more legal status than if they had been passed by a Mothers Meeting.

International law has grown up slowly through certain customs being finally accepted by all nations, and it is possible that if a League of Nations had been formed at some time before the war when the whole world was at peace, and had in the first instance been a voluntary body with no compulsory powers, it might in time have been recognised by all nations that its decisions were binding; but a League set up by the victors after a war to enforce the maintenance of a status quo which was intolerable to the conquered nations, was doomed to failure. We must therefore return a verdict of not guilty under the second accusation of illegal action.

The German peoples have only claimed and taken such rights as are granted to all nations, and have carried out their programme among themselves and within their own territory with the exception of the union of the Sudeten German area to the Reich which was done with the consent of the other three powers. Such action is neither aggressive, violent nor illegal, and in no way injures the interests of external powers.

Another accusation made against Germany that she uses the threat of force while the League and the Democracies confine themselves to sweet reasonableness and would never use a potential force to get their own way. They blame Hitler for having re-armed Germany. Surely that is an absurd accusation when France at the time he re-armed had an army of five hundred thousand men on a peace footing, and the Soviet an army of one million three hundred thousand men.

[Page 83]

Hitler has only once threatened to use force, when he stated that after a certain date he would if necessary force his way into the territory already assigned to him.

The fact is that in the present crude and barbaric conditions of the relations between nations, every nation has to be “well heeled” before going into a conference.

The allies used potential force to compel the Germans to sign the Treaty of Versailles and to prevent the union of Austria with Germany, and the League refused all concessions to Germany, and ignored the appeals of minorities in Czecho-Slovakia, because behind the League was the army of France.

It is now generally agreed that the Versailles Treaty was most unjust to Germany, but if Germany had not defied the League and begun to re-arm, she would to-day be in the position she was in 1932. Concessions are not made by one nation to another nation because they are just, but because it is dangerous to refuse.

It is true that Chamberlain agreed to the cession of the Sudeten German area because he thought it was just and right, and there are instances in our history when we have acted even to our own detriment on the merits of a case; but I know of no instance of such an action by any other nation except ourselves.

The whole conception of the League as a super state was built on a foundation of force, and the complaint of the parties of the Left in this country is not that the League was built on a foundation of force, but that when the time for action came the whole machine broke down, the various members of the League refusing to fight. In reply to a statement that we had forty nations behind us over the Abyssinian question, Chamberlain said, “Yes, they are behind us but not by our side”.

It is only fair to say that the Opposition claim that the mere threat by the League would be sufficient if it was properly organised for military action; but there always is the danger that the other side will call your bluff. A revolver charged with blank cartridges is a dangerous weapon when going into a quarrel.

[Page 84]

We are re-arming to-day not because Great Britain or the Empire is in the slightest danger from attack, but because we want to go into any discussion with any other power as “well heeled” as they are.

When Hitler says “the army is Germany”, has not that lesson been taught him by all that has happened since the Armistice was signed? If after the signing of the Armistice the army of Germany though in retreat had still been in being, the Treaty of Versailles would have been a very different document. Would France have entered the Ruhr if there had been the German army to oppose her? An unarmed nation will get no justice from the other nations.

Hitler says “the army is Germany”. Is it not equally true that our navy is the British Empire? We have built the Empire by force, we hold it by force, and we will defend it by force, and we possess it intact to-day because our navy is far stronger the the navy of any other Power.

“Ah”, my critic will reply, “the League, the Allies, France and Great Britain only use force in a just and righteous cause. All other nations and more especially Germany and Italy use it in an unrighteous cause”, which reminds me of a story told me by my father. When he was a boy Scotland was under the tyranny of a rigid Sabbatarianism. One day he was scolded for having laughed on the Sabbath day. He retorted that he had heard the minister laugh on the Sabbath. “Ah”, was the reply, “but that was a Holy smile”.

[Page 85]

======================================

PDF of Part 1. Click to download (0.3 MB). >> The Case for Germany – Part 1

PDF of Part 2. Click to download (0.3 MB). >> The Case for Germany – Part 2

PDF of Part 3. Click to download (0.3 MB). >> The Case for Germany – Part 3

PDF of Part 4. Click to download (0.3 MB). >> The Case for Germany – Part 4

PDF of this post. Click to download (0.3 MB). >> The Case for Germany – Part 5

Version History

Version 1: Published Sep 24, 2014

League of Nations – katana17

Book – The Myth of German Villainy – Part 03 – The Jewish Factor in the War

[Part 03]

The Myth of

German Villainy

by

Benton L. Bradberry

Contents

Chapter 3

The Jewish Factor in the War

Introduction

Jews at the Paris Peace Conference

Jews in Britain

[END of Part 03]

PDF Notes

_____________________

Version History

The Myth of German Villainy: Author Ben Bradberry Interview — TRANSCRIPT

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lc-l5AYu6fg

“The Myth of Germany Villainy“

Author Ben Bradberry Interviewed

by

Jim Rizoli

January 6, 2016.

About the Author

TRANSCRIPT

END

Footnotes

Version History

Zion’s Trojan Horse: Part 7 (last) — Anti-Gentilism; Chance or Design; About the Author

Zion’s Trojan Horse

By Senator Jack B. Tenney

Part 7

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

XI

Anti-Gentilism

XII

CHANCE OR DESIGN?

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

INDEX

Version History

Zion’s Trojan Horse: Part 6 — The League of Nations; Agitation for World War II

Zion’s Trojan Horse

By Senator Jack B. Tenney

Part 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

IX

The League of Nations

X

AGITATION FOR WORLD WAR II

Version History

Zion’s Trojan Horse: Part 5 — Conquest of the Other Jewish Communities

Zion’s Trojan Horse

By Senator Jack B. Tenney

Part 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

VIII

Conquest of the Jewish Communities

Groundwork for World Government

First World Jewish Conference

The Constituent Session of the World Jewish Congress

Mobilization of World Jewry

Version History

The Case for Germany – Part 6 – The Dance of Death: Our Future Policy Towards Germany

[Part 6]

The Case for Germany

A Study of Modern Germany

by

A. P. Laurie

DEDICATION

TO THE READER

PREFACE

CONTENTS

Chapter Twelve

THE DANCE OF DEATH

Chapter Thirteen

OUR FUTURE POLICY