Archive for April, 2010

A Brief History of Forensic Examinations of Auschwitz
Germar Rudolf
Source: Archives, Institute for Historical Review

“Auschwitz” has come to symbolize the greatest crime in human history. The significance of the alleged murder of a million or more persons, most of them Jewish, by gassing at the German concentration camp of that name has elicited endless discussion among philosophers, theologians, and litterateurs as well as jurists and historians, and evoked numberless platitudes from journalists and politicians. The focus of this article, however, is on the following questions:

1. Should the alleged monstrous crime be subject to careful scrutiny by means of thorough forensic analysis?
2. What forensic examinations of the purported crimes scenes at Auschwitz have been conducted thus far, and with what findings? How are we to assess the results?

The Moral Obligation of Forensic Examination

In late spring 1993, the Max Planck Institute in Stuttgart issued an internal memorandum informing its employees that a doctoral candidate there had been dismissed for research he had done on Auschwitz. The institute explained that in view of the horror of the National Socialists’ crimes against the Jews, it was morally repugnant to discuss the specific manner in which the victims had been killed, or to try to determine the precise number of the dead. That one of the world’s leading scientific research institutes stated to its personnel that to determine accurate quantities is not only unethical, but reprehensible, and cause for dismissal, is not without its own irony.

Does it really matter just how many Jews lost their lives in the German sphere of influence during the Second World War? Is it so important, after so many years, to attempt painstakingly to investigate just how they died? After all, it is surely morally correct that even one victim is one too many; and nobody seriously denies that many Jews died.

To affirm these things, however, is not to raise a valid objection — moral or otherwise — to the scientific investigation of a crime held to be unique and unparalleled in the history of mankind. Even a crime that is alleged to be uniquely reprehensible must be open to a procedure that is standard for any other crime: namely, that it can be — must be — subject to a detailed material investigation. Further: whoever postulates that a crime, alleged or actual, is unique must be prepared for a uniquely thorough investigation of the alleged crime before its uniqueness is accepted as fact.

If, on the other hand, someone sought to shield so allegedly unparalleled a crime from investigation by erecting a taboo of moral outrage, the creators of that taboo would, at least morally, themselves commit a singular offense: imputing an unparalleled guilt, beyond any critique and defense, to an entire people, the Germans. To demonstrate just what kind of double standard is being applied to “the Holocaust” (the definition of which usually includes the purposeful annihilation of millions of Jews by the Third Reich), let us note the international reaction to several recent examples of “crimes against humanity.” After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, numerous mass graves, containing hundreds of thousands of victims of the Soviets, were discovered and investigated. Not only was the number of victims determined, but in many cases the specific cause of death as well. In the same regions where many of these mass graves were found, one million or more Jews are said to have been shot by the Einsatzgruppen: yet no such grave has ever been reported found, let alone dug up and investigated, in the more than half a century during which these areas have been controlled by the USSR and its successor states.

During the conflict in Kosovo in 1999, rumors about mass killings by Serbs spread around the world. After the fighting was over, an international forensic commission arrived in Kosovo, searching, excavating, and forensically investigating mass graves. These graves proved to be not only fewer than the Serbs’ Albanian opponents had alleged, but to contain small fractions of the numbers of victims claimed.

Did the Allies attempt, during the war and in the years immediately following, to find and to investigate mass graves of persons said to have been victims of the Germans? So far as is known, only once: at Katyn. But the findings of the Soviet forensic commission, which blamed the mass murder of several thousand Polish officers buried there on the Germans, are today generally considered a fabrication. The report of the international forensic commission invited by the Germans in 1943, on the other hand, which found that the Soviets had carried out this mass murder, is today considered accurate even by the Russian government.
A Definition of Forensic Science

Forensic science is generally seen as a supporting science of criminology. Its aim is to collect and to identify physical remnants of a crime, and from these to draw conclusions about the victim(s), the perpetrator(s), the weapon(s), and the time and location of the crime, as well as how it was committed, if at all. This science is relatively new, and entered the courtrooms only in 1902, when fingerprint evidence was accepted, in an English court, for the first time. The 1998 CD-ROM Encyclopaedia Britannica writes of forensic science:

A broad range of scientific techniques is available to law enforcement agencies attempting to identify suspects or to establish beyond doubt the connection between a suspect and the crime in question. Examples include the analysis of bloodstains and traces of other body fluids (such as semen or spittle) that may indicate some of the characteristics of the offender. Fibres can be analyzed by microscopy or chemical analysis to show, for instance, that fibres found on the victim or at the scene of the crime are similar to those in the clothing of the suspect. Hair samples, and particularly skin cells attached to hair roots, can be compared chemically and genetically to those of the suspect. Many inorganic substances, such as glass, paper, and paint, can yield considerable information under microscopic or chemical analysis. Examination of a document in question may reveal it to be a forgery, on the evidence that the paper on which it is written was manufactured by a technique not available at the time to which it allegedly dates. The refractive index of even small particles of glass may be measured to show that a given item or fragment of glass was part of a particular batch manufactured at a particular time and place.

Hence, forensic research is exactly what revisionists, starting with Robert Faurisson, have called the search for material evidence. The revisionists’ demand for such material evidence is entirely consistent with the normal practice of modern law enforcement. And, as is generally acknowledged, forensic evidence is more conclusive than eyewitness testimony or documentary evidence.
Forensic Science and Auschwitz
The 1946 Krakow Auschwitz Trial

In 1945, the Krakow Institute for Forensic Research (Instytut Ekspertyz Sadowych) prepared a report on a forensic investigation of Auschwitz that was submitted in evidence in the 1946 Auschwitz trial in Krakow, Poland.[see note] This expert report should be treated with caution, because forensic examinations and judicial procedures under the Communists have been anything but trustworthy, and Poland was in 1945 a Stalinist satellite. One need only point to the example of Katyn, the Soviet account of which was fully endorsed by Poland’s Communist regime.[see note]

The Krakow forensic investigators took hair, presumably cut from inmates, and hair clasps from bags found by the Soviets in Auschwitz. Tested for cyanide residues, both hair and clasps showed positive results. Additionally, a zinc-plated metal cover was tested for cyanide and found to have a positive result as well. The Krakow Institute claims that this metal cover once shielded the exhaust duct of a supposed homicidal “gas chamber” at Birkenau.

The tests conducted by the institute were qualitative, not quantitative, analyses. In other words, they could only determine whether or not cyanide was present, not how much of it was there.

As to whether or not homicidal gassing with hydrogen cyanide took place in Auschwitz, these analyses are worthless, for three reasons:

1. There is no way of determining the origin and history of the hair and hair clasps obtained from bags in Auschwitz. Assuming that the analytic results are correct, from a chemical point of view the following can be noted: A positive test for cyanide in human hair proves only that the hair has been exposed to HCN (hydrogen cyanide). But that result does not suffice to establish that the persons from whom the hair came were killed by cyanide. It is a good deal more likely that the hair had already been cut when it was exposed to the gas: in German as well as Allied camps, it was standard to cut off prisoners’ hair for hygienic reasons. When hair over a certain length was later recycled,[see note] it had to be deloused beforehand (often with Zyklon B, the active ingredient of which is hydrogen cyanide). Hence, positive cyanide results from loose hair do not prove human gassings.
2. We face a similar problem with the zinc-plated covers allegedly used to cover the ventilation ducts of the supposed “gas chambers”: their exact origin and history is unknown. It would have been much preferable for the Krakow Institute to have analyzed samples from the walls of the alleged “gas chambers” instead of obtaining samples from pieces of metal:
1. Whereas the origin and history of these metal covers was uncertain, the origin and (at least partly) the history of the walls of the morgues allegedly used as “gas chambers” was known.
2. In contrast to cement and concrete, zinc-plated metal covers prevent the formation of stable iron cyanide compounds.[see note] The developing zinc cyanide compounds are relatively unstable and must be expected to vanish in a short period of time.[see note]
3. The tendency of porous wall material in moist underground rooms to accumulate and to bind hydrogen cyanide, physically as well as chemically, is hundreds of times higher than that of sheet metal.
4. As a matter of fact, the letter accompanying the samples sent to the Krakow Institute actually mentions that a mortar sample allegedly taken from a so-called “gas chamber” is enclosed as well and should also be tested for cyanide. However, for unknown reasons, the Krakow Institute did not mention this mortar sample in its report, perhaps because it did not show any positive result.
3. There is no evidence that either analysis has been successfully reproduced.

The 1964-1966 Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial

Several expert reports were prepared during the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial, the best known being those of the Munich Institut für Zeitgeschichte (Institute for Contemporary History).[see note] However, none of these reports was forensic in nature. They addressed legal, historical, or psychological topics. Throughout this mammoth trial, neither the court, nor the prosecution,[see note]. nor the defense[see note] ever suggested that material traces of the alleged crime be secured and investigated. The prosecution had at its disposal numerous statements by eyewitnesses and confessions by perpetrators, and it considered this material entirely sufficient to establish beyond doubt the existence of a program to exterminate Jews in Auschwitz and elsewhere during the Third Reich.[see note] The abundance of such evidence has since been used to argue that the lack of documentary and material evidence was irrelevant.[see note] That no material evidence was presented during the Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial was freely conceded by the court in its ruling:

The court lacked almost all possibilities of discovery available in a normal murder trial to create a true picture of the actual event at the time of the murder. It lacked the bodies of the victims, autopsy records, expert reports on the cause of death and the time of death; it lacked any trace of the murderers, murder weapons, etc. An examination of the eyewitness testimony was only possible in rare cases. Where the slightest doubt existed or the possibility of confusion could not be excluded with certainty, the court did not evaluate the testimony of witnesses[.]
The 1972 Vienna Auschwitz Trial

Between January 18 and March 10, 1972, two architects responsible for the design and construction of the crematoria in Auschwitz-Birkenau, Walter Dejaco and Fritz Ertl, were put on trial in Vienna, Austria.[see note] During the trial, an expert report on the possible interpretation of the blueprints of the alleged gas chambers of the Auschwitz and Birkenau crematoria was presented to the court. The report concluded that the rooms in question could not have been gas chambers, nor could they have been converted into gas chambers.[see note] Thanks to this first methodologically sound expert report on Auschwitz, the defendants were acquitted.
In Search of Mass Graves

In 1966 the Auschwitz State Museum commissioned the Polish company Hydrokop to drill into the soil of the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp and to analyze the samples. It is not known whether this research was done in the context of the Frankfurt Auschwitz trial. The results, however, vanished into the museum’s archives: they have never been released, which by itself is revealing enough. Years later, however, several pages from this report were photocopied and sent to the German revisionist publisher Udo Walendy, who published them with commentary in an issue of his periodical.[see note] Traces of bones and hair allegedly found at several places might indicate mass graves. The few pages published by Walendy, however, do not reveal whether these findings led to an excavation or a subsequent forensic study of the traces. It is not even evident whether the bone and hair samples collected are human or animal remains.
Faurisson Pulls the Trigger

It took a professor of French literature to inform the world that determining whether mass murder took place at Auschwitz is a matter for forensic evidence. Robert Faurisson, professor of French, and an analyst of documents, texts, and witness statements at the University of Lyon 2, began to doubt the standard historical version of the Holocaust after much critical study of the eyewitness testimony and intensive scrutiny of documents said to support the claim of mass murder. Faurisson first asserted the thesis that “there was not a single gas chamber under Adolf Hitler” in 1978.[see note] Thereafter he buttressed his position with numerous physical, chemical, topographic, architectonic, documentary, and historical arguments. He described the existence of the homicidal gas chambers as “radically impossible.”[see note] At the end of 1978 Le Monde, the leading French newspaper, afforded Professor Faurisson the opportunity to present his thesis in an article.[see note]

It took almost a decade, however, for the first expert to accept Faurisson’s challenge and to prepare the first forensic report on the alleged homicidal “gas chambers” in Auschwitz: Fred Leuchter’s now famous report of 1988.[see note] The background and history of the Leuchter Report are well known to readers of the Journal of Historical Review and need not be repeated here.[see note] Suffice it to say that the Leuchter Report was a pioneer work that initiated a series of publications, the scope of which broadened more and more into various fields of forensic science[see note] and soon encompassed many interdisciplinary studies of material and documentary evidence.[see note]
Reaction of the Jan Sehn Institute

The reaction of the Krakow Institute which had carried out the faulty 1945 investigation — by 1988 named after the Communist judge who presided during the Polish Auschwitz and Rudolf Höss trials — to the Leuchter Report has caused much confusion in revisionist circles. To this day, many believe that in 1990 four investigators from this institute corroborated the Leuchter Report,[see note] but this is quite incorrect. Clearing up the misunderstanding requires that the post-Leuchter findings of the Krakow Institute be treated in some detail.
A Short Chemical Introduction

To expose the errors of the Krakow investigators requires presenting a little basic chemistry — so basic that equations have been omitted. First of all, until 1979, Zyklon B was the German trademark for a pesticide based on hydrogen cyanide (HCN). As every student of chemistry knows, hydrogen cyanide forms salts, often simply referred to as cyanides. Like hydrogen cyanide itself, these salts are usually highly poisonous. There is one group of cyanides, however, which are not poisonous at all. The best known representatives of this group are the iron cyanides, especially so-called Prussian blue, a pigment discovered in Prussia a few centuries ago. Every college student of chemistry knows Prussian blue, for one of the more important things a chemist must learn is how to dispose of poisonous cyanide salts without endangering life (including one’s own). One simply makes Prussian blue out of it by adding certain iron compounds. Then it can be poured down the sink in good conscience, for Prussian blue is extremely stable and releases no cyanide into the environment.

Understanding the controversy surrounding the Leuchter Report is much easier if one keeps in mind that when hydrogen cyanide and certain iron compounds come together, they form Prussian blue. That is exactly the phenomenon that one can observe when entering the Zyklon B delousing facilities that were used across Europe during the Third Reich. A few of them, for example in the Auschwitz, Birkenau, Majdanek, and Stutthof concentration camps, are still intact today. All these facilities have one thing in common: their walls are permeated with Prussian blue. Not just the inner surfaces, but the mortar between the bricks, and even the outside walls of these delousing chambers abound in iron cyanides, exhibiting a patchy blue coloration. Nothing of the sort can be observed in the alleged homicidal “gas chambers” of Auschwitz and Birkenau.[see note]

The iron compounds needed to form Prussian blue are an integral part of all building materials: bricks, sand, and cement always contain a certain amount of rust (iron oxide, usually between 1 and 4 percent). That is what gives bricks their red, or ocher, color and what makes most sands ocher, too.

Now, let’s examine the way in which the investigators from the Jan Sehn Institute approached the problem of analyzing and interpreting samples from Auschwitz.
A Lack of Understanding

The team from the forensic institute, Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech Gubala, and Jerzy Labedz, claims not to have understood how it was possible for Prussian blue to have formed in walls as a result of their being exposed to hydrogen cyanide gas: “It is difficult to imagine the chemical reactions and physicochemical processes that could have led to the formation of Prussian blue in that place.”[see note]

There is no shame in not understanding. Actually, this is the beginning of every science: the cognition of not understanding. In pre-scientific ages, humans tended to find mystical or religious answers to unsolved questions; modern scientists approach problems they don’t understand, and sometimes can scarcely imagine, as challenges to investigate, in order to understand. This quest for knowledge is the chief driving force of modern humanity. Should we not expect, then, that the Krakow researchers would next have attempted to learn whether Prussian blue can be formed in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide and, if so, how?
More Lack of Understanding

In 1991 Dr. Markiewicz wrote, via a mutual acquaintance, that he was unable to understand how Prussian blue could possibly form in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide. He thought that quite unlikely, and suggested that its presence might stem from a different source, for example from Prussian blue wall paint used to give the interior walls of the delousing chambers a fanciful, patchy blue coloration. (What for?, one is tempted to ask.[see note]) I suggested that he look at the outer surfaces of the walls, which are exposed to environmental influences, and which were partly patchy blue as well. Their color cannot be explained by paint, but only by cyanide compounds spreading to the outside walls over the years, and being converted to Prussian blue. He replied that these blue patches were hard to explain, and first it had to be established that they were indeed Prussian blue.[see note] So there were even more questions to be answered before these scientists could conduct their analysis.
Disregard of Key Questions

At length, the Polish investigators published an article on their findings, in 1994.[see note] Surprisingly, perusing their article reveals that they did nothing to establish whether or not Prussian blue can form in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide. Nothing indicates that they did basic research on the behavior of cyanide compounds under conditions similar to those in brickwork. Nor did they do anything to establish whether or not the blue patches on the external walls of the delousing chambers were caused by Prussian blue. Should you wonder why, just be patient: it gets even worse.
Ignoring Peer Opinions

Had the researchers found a scientific source which stated in a reliable way that Prussian blue cannot develop in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide, that would have made things easy for them, by rendering any new research obsolete. On the other hand, if they had discovered literature claiming in a scientific way that the formation of Prussian blue in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide was possible, the scientific method would have compelled them to do either of two things: to abandon their position that Prussian blue cannot form thus, or to refute the opposing position by proving that it cannot form. That is what the scientific process is all about: verification or refutation of theses postulated by peers. Ignoring peer opinions is a strong indicator of unscientific behavior.

In fact, the Krakow researchers quoted one book that deals intensively with the question of Prussian blue formation.[see note] On consulting it, however, one quickly realizes that it proves the exact opposite of Markiewicz’s thesis. The work demonstrates in detail how, and under which circumstances, walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide can indeed form Prussian blue, and that this was not only possible but very likely, at least in the Auschwitz delousing chambers.

Do the Krakow researchers claim that this book shows the opposite? Not at all. In fact, they cite it not to refer the reader to its chemical arguments, but, instead, merely as an example of scientific studies these authors from the Jan Sehn Institute intend to combat with their report. All arguments advanced in the book are simply ignored, while the work is stigmatized as an example of “undesirable science.” Let it be recalled that Dr. Markiewicz is a professor, meaning: he professes to adhere to the ideals of science and the scientific method!
Excluding the Unwanted

The authors of the Krakow study ignored all arguments proving them wrong, although they were certainly aware of them, as they quoted them. They made no attempt to prove or to disprove their own claims. They did nothing to understand what they claimed not to have understood.

Was there a reason for their strange conduct?

The answer is very simple: The researchers wanted to exclude Prussian blue and similar iron cyanide compounds from their analyses. Excluding these compounds can only be justified on the assumption that Prussian blue in the walls of the delousing chambers must have a different origin, e.g. from paint. As the Krakow investigators wrote in their 1994 article:

We decided therefore to determine the cyanide ions using a method that does not induce the breakdown of the composed ferrum cyanide complex (this is the blue under discussion) [.]

What does this mean?

In fact, the exclusion of Prussian blue from analytical detection must result in much lower cyanide traces for the delousing chambers, as non-iron cyanide compounds are not very stable and would therefore hardly be present after fifty years. The same is true for every room ever exposed to hydrogen cyanide. In fact, values close to the detection level must be expected. These are generally so unreliable that a proper interpretation is close to impossible. It can therefore be expected that the analysis of samples tested with such a method would deliver similar results for nearly every sampling of material that is many years old. Such an analysis would make it practically impossible to distinguish between rooms massively exposed to hydrogen cyanide and those which were not: all would have a cyanide residue of close to zero.

Comparison of the order of magnitude of analyses results of different samples.

I believe that is exactly what the researchers from the Jan Sehn Institute wanted to achieve: values for both the delousing chambers and the alleged homicidal “gas chambers” with similar levels of cyanide residues. This would allow them to state: “The same amount of cyanides, hence the same amount of gassing activity: thus, humans were gassed in the crematoria cellars. Thus, Leuchter is refuted.”

The analyses results of the Krakow report showed just that, and its authors drew the requisite conclusions.

If we examine the analyses results of samples taken by different people, and obtained with different methods of analysis, it is evident that Markiewicz and his co-workers fudged their results by adjusting their method to deliver what they wanted.

If that doesn’t smell like scientific fraud, well … we aren’t through with the Krakow report yet.
Suppressing Unwanted Results

In 1991, a document leaked out of the Jan Sehn Institute in Krakow into the hands of the revisionists, and was eventually published in their periodicals.[see note] It showed that Dr. Markiewicz and his co-workers had prepared a first report as early as 1990. This report was never published. Its results were discomfiting: although the researchers were already employing their deceptive analytical method, only one of the five samples taken from alleged homicidal gas chambers resulted in an extremely small amount of cyanide (0.024 mg/kg); the rest had no detectable cyanide. On the other hand, samples taken from a delousing chamber showed values up to 20 times higher (0.036-0.588 mg/kg). These results seemed to confirm Leuchter’s findings. Hence, in their 1994 paper, the Krakow investigators suppressed any information about their initial results. Normally, researchers guilty of such unethical conduct are expelled from the scientific community.

Today, most revisionists are aware of the findings revealed in 1991, but not of the later ones published in 1994 that seem to refute Leuchter.
Krakow Guidelines: Not Scientific Truth, but a Political Agenda

In a subsequent correspondence with the Krakow researchers, I asked for a scientific explanation of their method of analysis. I gave them irrefutable proof that Prussian blue can be formed in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide gas, citing a recent case documented in expert literature.[see note] The authors of the Krakow report were unable to give a scientific reason for their deliberate failure to test for Prussian blue and refused to admit that they had made a mistake.[see note]

Finally, in their article as well as in a letter to me, the Krakow researchers stated that the purpose of their paper was to refute the “Holocaust deniers” and to prevent the whitewashing of Hitler and National Socialism. In other words, their purpose was not the search for truth, but to serve a political end.

To summarize the extremely unscientific and politically biased approach of Markiewicz and his co-workers:

1. The most important task of a scientist is to try to understand what hasn’t been understood. The investigators from the Jan Sehn Institute for Forensic Research in Krakow did just the opposite: they chose to ignore and to exclude what they didn’t understand (the formation of Prussian blue in walls exposed to hydrogen cyanide).
2. The next important task of a scientist is to discuss other scientists’ attempts to understand something. The Krakow team did just the opposite: they chose to ignore and to exclude from discussion all that might let them (and others) understand how Prussian blue can be formed.
3. These choices allowed them to employ methods that would produce the results desired.
4. They suppressed whichever results didn’t fit their purposes.
5. Finally, they admitted that the purpose of their research was not to seek truth, but to contribute to the continued disrepute of the long defunct Adolf Hitler.

Therefore, I publicly called, and continue to call, these researchers scientific frauds. There is only one place for their research findings: the garbage. Neither Markiewicz nor his co-workers have ever responded to my accusations. Dr. Markiewicz, who was an expert in technical testing, not a chemist, died in 1997; the remaining two authors have continued to remain silent.
A German Corroboration of Leuchter

In early 1990, a few months after beginning work on my Ph.D. at the Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research in Stuttgart, Germany, I started investigations to verify the chemical claims made in the Leuchter Report: namely, that long-term stable cyanide compounds were still to be expected in the alleged homicidal gas chambers, if the mass gassings with Zyklon B took place in them as claimed by witnesses. Initially I was interested only in finding out whether the resulting compound — iron blue or Prussian blue — is stable enough to survive forty-five years of exposure to harsh environmental conditions. After this was confirmed, I mailed the results to some twenty people I thought might be interested in these results. Subsequently I got in contact with several engineers and lawyers, the former willing to help me in doing forensic research, and the latter primarily interested in using the results for their clients. I made two trips to Auschwitz and did eighteen months of further research until, in January 1992, the first, 72-page long version of the so-called Rudolf Report was distributed to opinion leaders in Germany. Briefly summarized, it corroborates Leuchter’s claim that, for several technical and chemical reasons, the mass gassing attested to by witnesses could not have occurred. My report was subsequently updated and enhanced, and finally published in July 1993 as a 120-page paperback booklet.[see note] Dutch and French versions appeared in 1995 and 1996, but an English version has never been printed. (A short 16-page summary published in summer 1993 is often mistakenly assumed to be a full version of my report.) An updated and enhanced version is currently in preparation; publication is planned for later this year.[see note]

Because I can’t be the judge of my own work, I will not discuss my own research here. Scientific discussion of my report began with a German book, consisting mainly of unfounded attacks, in 1995.[see note] The first serious critique to date, unfortunately riddled with ad hominem attacks, has appeared only on the Internet.[see note] Its author, Richard Green, is, like me, a chemist with a Ph.D. thesis in physical chemistry. He has made some far-reaching concessions in his critique:

1. In order to kill humans as quickly as attested to by the witnesses, hydrogen cyanide in concentrations similar to those used for delousing procedures is required. Leuchter was frequently attacked by his opponents on the basis that much less poison would have been required to kill humans than to kill lice. Although this is generally true, it does not apply to a scenario in which many hundreds of humans are supposed to have died from this poison within a few minutes.
2. Iron blue (Prussian blue) can indeed be the result of exposing walls to hydrogen cyanide, and, when found in the delousing facilities in Auschwitz and elsewhere, HCN is most likely the cause.

The latter concession obviously destroys the reputation of the Krakow researchers (and their supporters), who summarily declared that the vast amount of iron blue in the walls of delousing facilities must have a different origin, which in turn “allowed” them to exclude it from analysis. Green, however, is undisturbed by this, and still claims that their results ought to be taken as standard by everybody. To my question of why the Krakow investigators had not responded to my inquiries as to their obviously unscientific behavior, Green responded as follows:

Rudolf complains that Markiewicz et al. have not responded to his queries. Why should they do so? What credibility does Rudolf have, that demands they answer his every objection no matter how ill-founded?

Other Forensic Approaches

Chemistry is obviously not the only science to be consulted when it comes to solving the mysteries of Auschwitz. Engineers, architects, physicians, geologists, and other experts can contribute to this, too. Nor does their work stop with trying to decipher the hidden messages of material traces on site. Original wartime documents on the facilities and events in Auschwitz require the expertise of engineers, architects, physicians, and geologists as well. When it comes to reconstructing the infrastructure of the camp, down to the function and purpose of every building and every room, the technical modes of operation and capacities of its installations, the extent and modernity of the treatment in its hospitals, the effect of the water table of the swamps, most of which can be determined by analyzing the tens of thousands of documents that have been found or released during the last decade, the historian alone simply cannot do the job, nor can I as a chemist.
‘No Holes? No “Holocau$t”‘!

Ditlieb Felderer was the first to deal intensively with the question of whether or not there were holes in the roof of the alleged homicidal “gas chambers,” although he seems not to have published anything about it. Leuchter touched on this topic only superficially in his report. It was this question, rather than whether or not there were still any chemical residues of the poison gas allegedly used, which made me most curious to go to Auschwitz, to search for these holes by myself. On August 16, 1991, while standing on the collapsed roof of the alleged “gas chamber” of crematorium II in Birkenau, I lost my faith in the “Holocaust,” because I could find no holes that deserved the name. This I described in detail in my report. In 1994, Robert Faurisson made the famous quip that subtitles this section. Yet it was not until 2000, during David Irving’s libel case against Deborah Lipstadt, that the world took notice of the revisionist allegation that no holes can be found in this roof.

Charles Provan has since written an Internet article in which he claims to have refuted this revisionist finding. He did, indeed, find holes in the roof of the morgue of crematorium II.[see note] But are they the same holes used fifty-five years ago to introduce Zyklon B into the “gas chamber,” as claimed by the witnesses? Or are they merely results of the collapsing roof being pierced by the concrete supporting pillars? I am convinced that the latter is the case. My conviction doesn’t matter, however. What matters are facts. But how are we to establish facts in such a case?

According to Robert Van Pelt:

In the twenty-five hundred square feet of this one room more people lost their lives than in any other place on this planet. Five hundred thousand people were killed. If you would draw a map of human suffering, if you create a geography of atrocities, this would be the absolute centre.[see note]

Now, let us consider a somewhat different, but still tragic case. We all know what happens after an airplane crash: hundreds of experts swarm out to retrieve the debris of the accident, in order to assemble it all like a gigantic, three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. The purpose is to determine the cause of the accident in order to prevent it from happening again. No expense is spared.

Would it not be appropriate to do the same with the morgues of crematoriums II and III in Birkenau? To assemble a staff of hundreds of historians, engineers, architects, and archaeologists to exactingly retrieve all the debris of these rooms and to reassemble them, like piecing together a huge puzzle, in order to determine what they really looked like fifty-five years ago? Would it not be logical to attempt to determine what vestiges we have to expect when looking for holes, before ecstatically jumping to conclusions at the mere sight of a crack in the concrete?

During the last few years, I have heard, to my horror, of people walking up to these rooms and breaking off reinforcement bars protruding from cracks or holes,[see note] or taking shovels and clearing the roof of debris in order to look for holes.[see note] What would a paleontologist say of someone who wanted to use a shovel to excavate the skeleton of a Tyrannosaurus rex? Sometimes one has cause to wonder: Where have all the homo sapiens gone? When will people begin to think and act about the Holocaust like wise human beings?

The question of whether or not there were holes in the roof of crematorium II is not a trivial one. If there were none, then it would have been impossible to introduce Zyklon B into the alleged “gas chamber” in the manner claimed by the witnesses — discrediting all those witnesses. Because eyewitness accounts are the sole pillar on which the Holocaust rests, this would sooner or later lead to the collapse of the entire Holocaust story. This, in turn, is no trivial matter. The international order established by the victorious powers after the Second World War rests mainly on the “given” of the Holocaust. The Holocaust is used to control Germany (and hence Europe), to suppress national movements, and to maintain American dominance — to say nothing of the power leftist and internationalist movements derive from it, and the use to which Jewish and Zionist groups put it.

Who, then, wants to know the truth? Wouldn’t it be easier to blow up the Auschwitz crematoria and remove the debris once and for all, and be content with the witness accounts?

If revisionist researchers don’t do the work of establishing what really took place in Auschwitz, nobody will. Considering our limited means and the legal restrictions placed on us, it might be only realistic to conclude that nobody ever will. Thus all we can do right now is to meticulously map and document the material remains as they are today, from top to bottom, and hope that eventually reason will prevail.
Criminal Traces?

The discovery in German wartime documents of ambivalent words for which a sinister meaning can be interpreted is quite common in mainstream historiography on the Holocaust. Jean-Claude Pressac is not the first to have done so, but he is perhaps the most determined, taking it well beyond the bizarre.[see note] The revisionist responses have been thorough and, for the exterminationists, devastating.[see note] Revisionist interpretations have been based, on the one hand, on thorough knowledge of the documents dealing with Auschwitz — including Allied air photos — as well as their context, and on expert knowledge in various fields of engineering and architecture on the other.
Exculpatory Traces!

That approach, applied to a great number of documents on Auschwitz, has yielded another, even more important result that sheds revealing light on the history of the Auschwitz camp system. Samuel Crowell has unearthed material on air raid shelters built by the SS to protect inmates from Allied air raids. Hans Lamker and Hans Nowak have shown in detail how the SS installed modern (and highly) expensive microwave delousing facilities to protect the lives of inmates.[see note] Together with Michael Gärtner and Werner Rademacher, they are currently working on a comprehensive history of the Auschwitz camp, equipped with all means necessary to ensure the survival of tens of thousands of prisoners: hospitals, dentists, kitchens, laundries, butchers, as well as recreation facilities like sport fields and gardens. Together with the fact that the overall costs of erecting this camp complex were on the order of magnitude of some five hundred million dollars, these facilities clearly contradict an intention by the German authorities to use this camp as an extermination center. There are cheaper ways of killing humans than to spend 500 dollars per capita.[see note]
The Future of Auschwitz Forensics

Since the dawn of science, scientists have sought the perpetuum mobile. They seem never to have noticed that they had found it at the beginning of their search: science itself. So it can be expected that forensic research about Auschwitz will never cease, especially if one considers the controversial and highly ideological implications of any potential findings. The direction and methods of research, however, are clearly being set by the pioneers in this field, the revisionists, who lack neither the imagination nor the curiosity to discover whether the mass gassing claims of the Holocaust are true, whatever their use for political or financial purposes. The Auschwitz camp system will, as before, be at the very focus of it all.

To name one recent instance, in early 2000 the Australian engineer Richard Krege employed ground penetrating radar in order to locate (or not to locate) mass graves in the vicinity of alleged German extermination camps. A preliminary study was published in my German language revisionist quarterly in early 2000.[see note] Krege has promised more thorough investigations, together with a proper introduction into this geological method of determining disturbances in the soil beneath our feet. His work is going to break new ground, as Leuchter’s work did thirteen years ago. No doubt he will not be the last pioneer to challenge reigning dogmas and taboos.

As they do for all alleged crimes in the historical past, the forensic sciences hold the key to the riddles of Auschwitz. No group with the power to conduct, or else to demand, forensic research on the necessary scale seems willing to do so: on the contrary. Those in power have no stake in changing our view of Auschwitz, and consequently of the Holocaust, and forensic research is liable to do exactly that. Instead, authorities the world over persecute and prosecute those who advocate or attempt such research. This may slow us down, but it will not stop us.

When revisionist researchers achieve a sudden breakthrough through forensic research, they are countered not merely with slander and persecution, but also with academic forgery and professorial deceit, of which the Krakow forensic report is so evident an example. How desperate must they be, the keepers of the flame of the Holocaust legend, to resort to such methods? By guarding the purported graves and “gas chamber” ruins of Auschwitz from scientific inquiry, they risk the burial of their own reputations, and the ruin of the Auschwitz myth.

1. Published in German by the Dokumentationszentrum des Österreichischen Widerstandes (Documentation Center of the Austrian Resistance) and the Austrian Federal Ministry for Education and Culture, in Amoklauf gegen die Wirklichkeit (Vienna, 1991), pp. 36-40; the original is in the Auschwitz State Museum.
2. See F. Kadell, Die Katyn Lüge (Münich: Herbig, 1991).
3. Letter from the SS Wirtschafts- und Verwaltungs- hauptamt, Oranienburg, to concentration camp commanders, August 6,1942, IMT Document 511-USSR, cited in: Der Prozess gegen die Hauptkriegsverbrecher vor dem Internationalen Militärgerichtshof (Nuremberg, 1949), pp. 553f. The letter ordered the recycling of prisoners’ hair twenty centimeters or more in length.
4. Zinc prevents the formation of rust, which is required to form long-term stable iron cyanides.
5. Like earth alkaline cyanides, zinc cyanides are slowly decomposed by humidity.
6. H. Buchheim et al., Anatomie des SS-Staates (Freiburg: Walter, 1964).
7. Throughout his writings, Adalbert Rückerl, one of the most prominent German prosecutors in “Holocaust cases,” dispenses with any mention of material evidence. Instead, he declares documentary evidence the best and most important form of evidence, even in the absence of material evidence for the authenticity and correctness of the documents themselves (in J. Weber, P. Steinbach, eds., Vergangenheitsbewältigung durch Strafverfahren? [Munich: Olzog,1984] p. 77). Rückerl reports that it is practically impossible to find a suspect guilty solely on documentary evidence, so that, especially given the increasing time span separating alleged crimes from trial, it is almost always necessary to fall back on eyewitness testimony, even though its unreliability is clear, particularly in trials of so-called “National Socialist violent crimes” (A. Rückerl, NS-Verbrechen vor Gericht [Heidelberg: C. F. Müller, 1984], p. 249; Rückerl, Nationalsozialistische Vernichtungslager im Spiegel deutscher Strafprozesse [Munich: dtv, 1978], p. 34; Rückerl, NS-Prozesse [Karlsruhe: C. F. Müller, 1972], pp. 27, 29, 31.).
8. Such total naiveté, combined with legal incompetence, on behalf of the defense is best exemplified in Hans Laternser, Die andere Seite im Auschwitzprozess 1963/65 (Stuttgart: Seewald,1966).
9. The most prominent advocate of this thesis is Professor Nolte, in his book Streitpunkte (Berlin: Propyläen, 1993), pp. 290, 293, 297.
10. For example, the verdict of the Schwurgericht (jury court) of Frankfurt am Main stated that there was no evidence as to the crime, its victims, the murder weapon, nor even the perpetrators themselves; Ref. 50/4 Ks 2/63; cf. I. Sagel-Grande, H. H. Fuchs, C. F. Rüter, eds., Justiz und NS-Verbrechen, vol. 21 (Amsterdam: University Press,1979), p. 434.
11. Ref. 20 Vr 6575/72 (Hv56/72); this reference number is different from the one Robert Van Pelt quotes in his report: The Pelt Report, Irving vs. Lipstadt (Queen’s Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, David John Cawdell Irving ./. [1] Penguin Books Limited, [2] Deborah E. Lipstadt, Ref. 1996 I. No. 113; p. 135 n. 59: 20 Vr 3806/64 and 27 C Vr 3806/64).
12. Personal communication from the expert, who must, for the time being, remain anonymous. See Michael Gärtner, “Vor 25 Jahren: Ein anderer Auschwitzprozess,” Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung (VffG)1, no. 1(1997), pp. 24f. (vho.org/VffG/1997/1/Gaertner1.html)
13. Udo Walendy, Historische Tatsachen 60 (Vlotho: Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung, 1993), pp. 7-10.
14. Cf. Mémoire en défense (Paris: La Vieille Taupe, 1980); Serge Thion, ed., Vérité historique ou vérité politique? (Paris: La Vieille Taupe, 1980) (online: aaargh.vho.org/fran/histo/SF1.html); R. Faurisson, Écrits révisionnistes, 4 vols., published by author,Vichy,1999; see also Faurisson, Es gab keine Gaskammern (Witten: Deutscher Arbeitskreis Witten, 1978).
15. R. Faurisson, “Le camere a gas non sono mai esistite,” Storia illustrata 261 (1979), pp. 15-35 (online: aaargh.vho.org/fran/archFaur/RF7908xx2.html); cf. Faurisson, “The Mechanics of Gassing,” The Journal of Historical Review (JHR) 1, no. 1 (spring 1980), pp. 23ff. (online: aaargh.vho.org/engl/FaurisArch/RF80spring.html); Faurisson, “The Gas Chambers of Auschwitz Appear to Be Physically Inconceivable,” JHR 2, no. 4 (winter 1981), pp. 311ff. (online: vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/2/4/Faurisson312-317.html)
16. “‘Le problème des chambres à gaz’ ou ‘la rumeur d’Auschwitz,'” Le Monde, December 29, 1978, p. 8; see also “The ‘problem of the gas chambers,” JHR 1, no. 2 (summer 1980), pp. 103-114 (online: ihr.org/jhr/v01/v01p103_Faurisson.html).
17. F. A. Leuchter, An Engineering Report on the Alleged Execution Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek, Poland, Samisdat Publishers Ltd., Toronto 1988 (ihr.org/books/leuchter/leuchter.toc.html).
18. For Leuchter’s own statement, cf. “Witch Hunt in Boston,” JHR 10, no. 4 (winter 1990), pp. 453-460; “The Leuchter Report: The How and the Why,” JHR 9, no. 2 (summer 1988), pp. 133-139.
19. To name only a few of the more prominent early publications: J.-C. Pressac, Jour J, December 12, 1988, i-x; Pressac in: S. Shapiro, ed., Truth Prevails: Demolishing Holocaust Denial: The End of the Leuchter Report, (NY: Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, 1990); W. Schuster, “Technische Unmöglichkeiten bei Pressac,” Deutschland in Geschichte und Gegenwart (DGG) 39, no. 2 (1991), pp. 9-13 (vho.org./D/DGG/Schuster39_2); Paul Grubach, “The Leuchter Report Vindicated: A Response to Jean-Claude Pressac’s Critique,” JHR 12, no. 2 (summer 1992), pp. 248ff. (codoh.com/gcgv/gc426v12.html); Helmut Auerbach, Institut für Zeitgeschichte, letter to Bundesprüfstelle, München, Oct. 10, 1989; Auerbach, November 1989, both published in U. Walendy, Historische Tatsache 42 (Vlotho: Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung, 1990), pp. 32 and 34; see my technical appraisal of Auerbach’s writings in Henri Roques, Günter Annthon, Der Fall Günter Deckert (Weinheim: DAGD/Germania Verlag, 1995), pp. 431-435 (vho.org/D/Deckert/C2.html); W. Wegner, “Keine Massenvergasungen in Auschwitz? Zur Kritik des Leuchter-Gutachtens,” in U. Backes, E. Jesse, R. Zitelmann, eds., Die Schatten der Vergangenheit (Frankfurt: Propyläen, 1990), pp. 450-476 (vho.org/D/dsdv/Wegner.html, with interpolated critique by the present writer); on this cf. W. Häberle, “Zu Wegners Kritik am Leuchter-Gutachten,” DGG 39, no. 2 (1991), pp. 13-17 (online: vho.org/D/DGG/Haeberle39_2.html); J. Bailer, “Der Leuchter-Bericht aus der Sicht eines Chemikers,” in Amoklauf gegen die Wirklichkeit, pp. 47-52; cf. E. Gauss (alias G. Rudolf), Vorlesungen über Zeitgeschichte (Tübingen: Grabert, 1993), pp. 290-293; Gauss, “Chemische Wissenschaft zur Gaskammerfrage,” DGG 41, no. 2 (1993), pp. 16-24 (online: vho.org./D/DGG/Gauss41_2); J. Bailer, in B. Bailer-Galanda, W. Benz, W. Neugebauer, eds., Wahrheit und Auschwitzlüge (Vienna: Deuticke, 1995), pp. 112-118; cf. my critique “Zur Kritik an ‘Wahrheit und Auschwitzlüge,'” in Herbert Verbeke, ed., Kardinalfragen zur Zeitgeschichte (Berchem: Vrij Historisch Onderzoek, 1996), pp. 91-108 (vho.org/D/Kardinal/Wahrheit.html); English: “Critique of ‘Truth and the Auschwitz-Lie'” (online: http://vho.org/GB/Books/cq/critique.html); G. Wellers, “Der Leuchter-Bericht über die Gaskammern von Auschwitz,” Dachauer Hefte 7, no. 7 (November 1991), pp. 230-241.
20. Most notably the works of the Italian historian Carlo Mattogno, the American historian Samuel Crowell, and a group of South German engineers and architects comprising Michael Gärtner, Hans Lamker, Hans Jürgen Nowak, Werner Rademacher, Gottfried Sänger. For a comprehensive list of their works, enter their names in the search tool of the revisionist online database at http://www.vho.org/i/a.html.
21. J. Markiewicz, W. Gubala, J. Labedz, B. Trzcinska, Prof. Dr. Jan Sehn Institute for Forensic Research, Department for Forensic Toxicology, Krakow, September 24, 1990; partly published in DGG 39, no. 2 (1991), pp. 18f. (vho.org/D/DGG/IDN39_2.html); English: “An Official Polish Report on the Auschwitz ‘Gas Chambers,'” JHR 11, no. 2 (summer 1991), pp. 207-216 (vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/11/2/ IHR207-216.html).
22. It is a bit different in Majdanek and Stutthof, where rooms that unquestionably served as delousing facilities are claimed to have served as homicidal gas chambers as well. Thus we cannot make the same observation for them as for Auschwitz. However, because the prevailing opinion generally claims that high iron cyanide residues cannot be the results of homicidal gassings — for fallacious reasons unable to be discussed here — it is generally accepted by all sides in this controversy that the blue staining generally originates in the use of these rooms as delousing facilities.
23. Jan Markiewicz, Wojciech Gubala, Jerzy Labedz, “A Study of the Cyanide Compounds Content in the Walls of the Gas Chambers in the Former Auschwitz and Birkenau Concentration Camps,” Z Zagadnien Nauk Sadowych / Problems of Forensic Science 30 (1994), pp. 17-27 (online: www2.ca.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/orgs/polish/institute-for-forensic-research/post-leuchter.report).
24. There are no wall paints that contain Prussian blue, because Prussian blue decomposes on fresh plaster (it is unstable in alkaline environments). Thus, nobody could have painted these walls with Prussian blue.
25. Prof. Dr. Jan Sehn Institute for Forensic Research, Dept. for Forensic Toxicology, Krakow, letter to W. Wegner, undated (winter 1991/92), signature illegible, but probably Dr. Markiewicz himself, unpublished, partly quoted in: Rüdiger Kammerer, Armin Solms, eds., Das Rudolf Gutachten: Gutachten über die Bildung und Nachweisbarkeit von Cyanidverbindungen in den “Gaskammern” von Auschwitz (London: Cromwell Press, 1993) (vho.org/D/rga/krakau.html).
26. E. Gauss (alias G. Rudolf), Vorlesungen über Zeitgeschichte (Tübingen: Grabert, 1993); on the chemistry involved here, cf. pp. 163ff., 290-294 (vho.org/D/vuez/v3.html#v3_4 and ~/v5.html#v5_5).
27. G. Rudolf, Das Rudolf Gutachten, 2nd ed. (Hastings, Eng.: Castle Hill Publishers, 2001).
28. A construction damage case occurred in 1976 in Bavaria (Meeder-Wiesenfeld), when a recently plastered church was fumigated with Zyklon B. After several months the plaster was covered with blue patches formed by Prussian blue. See Günter Zimmermann, ed., Bauschäden Sammlung, vol. 4 (Stuttgart: Forum-Verlag, 1981), pp. 120f.; reprint in Ernst Gauss (alias G. Rudolf), ed., Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte (Tübingen: Grabert, 1994, pp. 401ff.; (codoh.com/inter/intgrgauss.html; English: vho.org/GB/Books/dth/fndwood.html). Furthermore, every one of the delousing facilities of the former concentration camps in eastern Europe that is still standing today has developed enormous amounts of Prussian blue throughout the walls, cf. my report, note 25 above (vho.org/D/rga/prob9_22.html and following pages); Jürgen Graf, Carlo Mattogno, KL Majdanek: Eine historische und technische Studie (Hastings, Eng: Castle Hill Publishers, 1998) (vho.org/D/Majdanek/MR.html); Jürgen Graf, Carlo Mattogno, Das Konzentrationslager Stutthof und seine Funktion in der nationalsozialistischen Judenpolitik (Hastings, Eng: Castle Hill Publishers, 1999) (vho.org/D/Stutthof/index.html).
29. G. Rudolf, “Leuchter-Gegengutachten: Ein Wissenschaftlicher Betrug?,” DGG 43, no. 1 (1995), pp. 22-26 (vho.org/D/Kardinal/Leuchter.html; Engl.: vho.org/GB/Books/cq/leuchter.html); G. Rudolf and J. Markiewicz, W. Gubala, J. Labedz, “Briefwechsel,” Sleipnir 1, no. 3 (1995), pp. 29-33; reprinted in Verbeke, ed., Kardinalfragen zur Zeitgeschichte, pp. 86-90 (online: as above).
30. Kammerer, Solms, eds., Das Rudolf Gutachten (vho.org/D/rga/). For background, history, and consequences of my report, see W. Schlesiger, Der Fall Rudolf (London: Cromwell, 1994) (online: vho.org/D/dfr/Fall.html); English: The Rudolf Case (vho.org/GB/Books/trc); and Verbeke, ed., Kardinalfragen zur Zeitgeschichte (vho.org/D/Kardinal/); English: Cardinal Questions about Contemporary History (vho.org/GB/Books/cq/); cf. “Hunting Germar Rudolf,” vho.org/Authors/RudolfCase.html.
31. This large-format, 350 pp. hardcover book may be ordered for $30.at http://www.tadp.org or by writing to Theses & Dissertations Press, PO Box 64, Capshaw, AL 35742.
32. J. Bailer, in B. Bailer-Galanda, W. Benz, W. Neugebauer, eds., op. cit. (see note 19 above); see my answer to this, “Zur Kritik an ‘Wahrheit und Auschwitzlüge'”/”Critique of Truth and the Auschwitz-Lie,” in Herbert Verbeke, ed., Kardinalfragen zur Zeitgeschichte. Even less sophisticated: B. Clair, “Revisionistische Gutachten,” VffG 1, no. 2 (1997), pp. 102-104 (vho.org/VffG/1997/2/Clair2.html); my answer: “Zur Kritik am Rudolf Gutachten,” ibid., pp. 104-108 (vho.org/VffG/1997/2/RudGut2.html); further, La Vieille Taupe/Pierre Guillaume, “Rudolf Gutachten: ‘Psychopathologisch und Gefährlich’: Über die Psychopathologie einer Erklärung,” VffG 1, no. 4 (1997), pp. 224f. (vho.org/VffG/1997/4/Guillaume4.html). Robert Van Pelt did not discuss my report, but preferred to repeat and aggravate Pressac’s errors: op. cit. (see note 11 above); cf. G. Rudolf, “Gutachter und Urteilsschelte,” VffG 4, no. 1 (2000), pp. 33-50 (vho.org/VffG/2000/1/Rudolf33-50.html); more exhaustively, in English, vho.org/GB/c/GR/RudolfOnVanPelt.html and …/CritiqueGray.html.
33. Richard J. Green, “The Chemistry of Auschwitz,” May 10, 1998, holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/, und “Leuchter, Rudolf and the Iron Blues,” March 25, 1998, holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/blue/, with considerable proselytizing “anti-fascist” bias. A detailed description of the deficiencies of the paper appeared in “Das Rudolf Gutachten in der Kritik, Teil 2,” VffG 3, no. 1 (1999), pp. 77-82 (vho.org/VffG/1999/1/RudDas3.html); English.: “Some Considerations about the ‘Gas Chambers’ of Auschwitz and Birkenau,” vho.org/GB/Contributions/Green.html; for the response see: Richard J. Green, Jamie McCarthy, “Chemistry is Not the Science,” May 2,1999, holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/chemistry/not-the-science/. About 50 percent of the article consists of political accusations and vilification. For a response, see G. Rudolf, “Character Assassin,” online: vho.org/GB/Contributions/CharacterAssassins.html.
34. Charles D. Provan, “No Holes? No Holocaust?: A Study of the Holes in the Roof of Leichenkeller I of Krematorium 2 at Birkenau” (www.revisingrevisionism.com)
35. Van Pelt’s testimony in Errol Morris’s documentary film Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.
36. As did at least one revisionist, in spring 1996, on the roof of morgue 1 of crematorium II.
37. As did an engineer named Barford; his colleagues are assisting in the conservation and restoration of the camp for the Auschwitz Museum administration. He informed David Irving of this.
38. Jean-Claude Pressac, Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers (NY: Beate Klarsfeld Foundation, 1989); Les Crématoires d’Auschwitz: la Machinerie du meurtre de masse (Paris: CNRS, 1993).
39. For criticisms of Pressac’s first book, see R. Faurisson, JHR 11, no. 1 (spring 1991), p. 25ff.; JHR 11, no. 2 (1991), p. 133ff. (French: http://www.lebensraum.org/english/04.adobe.faurisson/pressac.pdf); F. A. Leuchter, The Fourth Leuchter Report (Toronto: Samisdat, 1991) (www.zundelsite.org/english/leuchter/report4/leuchter4.toc.html); for a criticism of Pressac’s second book see: Herbert Verbeke, ed., Auschwitz: Nackte Fakten (Berchem: VHO, 1995), pp. 101-162 (online: vho.org/D/anf/; English: Auschwitz: Plain Facts, vho.org/GB/Books/anf; for a criticism of the principles underlying Pressac’s methodology, see G. Rudolf, “Gutachten über die Frage der Wissenschaftlichkeit der Bücher Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers und Les Crématoires d’Auschwitz. la Machinerie du meurtre de masse von Jean-Claude Pressac,” in Schlesiger, Der Fall Rudolf (vho.org/D/dfr/Fall.html#Gutachten); English: see vho.org/GB/Books/trc#expert-report; see also Pierre Guillaume’s criticism, De la misère intellectuelle en milieu universitaire, B.p. 9805, 75224 Paris cedex 05, 1995 (aaargh.vho.org/fran/archVT/vt9309xx1.html). See also S. Crowell’s various writings and Mattogno’s responses to them, referenced at http://www.vho.org/i/a.html, as well as the upcoming English version of my report, which will include a summary of this topic.
40. H. Nowak, “Kurzwellen-Entlausungsanlagen in Auschwitz,” VffG 2, no. 2 (1998), pp. 87-105; English version in Gauss, ed., Dissecting the Holocaust (Capshaw, AL: Theses & Dissertations Press, 2000), pp. 311-324; H. Lamker, “Die Kurzwellen-Entlausungsanlagen in Auschwitz, Teil 2,” VffG 2, no. 4 (1998), pp. 261-273; see also Mark Weber, “High Frequency Delousing Facilities at Auschwitz,” JHR 18, no. 3 (May-June 1999), pp. 4-12.
41. W. Rademacher, M. Gärtner, “Berichte zum KL Auschwitz,” VffG 4, no. 3-4 (2000), pp. 330-344.
42. R. Krege, “Vernichtungslager Treblinka — archäologisch betrachtet,” VffG 4, no. 1 (2000), pp. 62-64.

About the author

Germar Rudolf had completed his doctoral dissertation in chemistry while working at the renowned Max Planck Institute in Stuttgart, when publication of his forensic study of the alleged gas chambers of Auschwitz caused university authorities to forbid him from completing the doctorate. In 1995 Rudolf was sentenced to fourteen months in jail for authoring the Rudolf Report; in the same year all available copies of Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte, a collection of up-to-date research on the Holocaust problem, were seized and destroyed by court order (the English-language version, Dissecting the Holocaust, can be purchased from IHR). Rudolf edits the revisionist quarterly Vierteljahreshefte für freie Geschichtsforschung, and is currently seeking political asylum in the United States. He has submitted a lengthy affidavit in support of David Irving’s appeal of the adverse ruling in the Lipstadt trial.

Read Full Post »

Germany Must Perish!
by Theodore N. Kaufman
Newark, N.J., Argyle press
Copyright 1941
Library of Congress Call No.: DD222.K3

Introductory Note
by Mark Weber
Source: Archives, Institute for Historical Review

Theodore N. Kaufman, the author of Germany Must Perish, was a Manhattan-born Jewish businessman who was also chairman of a group that called itself the “American Federation for Peace.” The first edition of this slim volume was published in 1940 or early 1941. A second, 96-page edition, which sold for 25 cents, was published in 1941 by Argyle Press of Newark, New Jersey. Both editions were issued when the United States was still officially neutral, that is, before the Pearl Harbor attack of December 7, 1941, that brought the U.S. openly into World War II.

Kaufman’s fervent proposal for the systematic sterilization of the entire German population was given respectful attention in the American press, including reviews in a number of newspapers. A review in the weekly Time magazine, March 24, 1941, called Kaufman’s plan a “sensational idea.”

Germany’s propaganda chief, Joseph Goebbels, seized with delight on the book. “This Jew [Kaufman] has done a disservice to the enemy,” Goebbels privately commented. “If he had composed the book at my behest he couldn’t have done a better job.”

At his direction the German press played up Kaufman’s call for genocide. A front page article about the book in the Berlin daily Der Angriff, July 23, 1941, appeared under headlines that called it a “Diabolical Plan for the Extermination of the German People” and a work of “Old Testament Hatred.” Extracts also appeared, for example, in the nationally-circulated weekly paper Das Reich, August 3, 1941.

A plan similar to Kaufman’s was issued during the war years by a prominent American anthropologist. In an article headlined “Breed War Strain Out of Germans” in the New York daily newspaper P.M., January 4, 1943, Ernest Hooton laid out an “outbreeding” plan that would “destroy German nationalism and aggressive ideology while retaining and perpetuating desirable German biological and sociological capacities.” (See also: Benjamin Colby, ‘Twas a Famous Victory, 1974, p. 131.)

The Harvard University professor’s proposal called for genetically transforming the German nation by encouraging mating of German women with non-German men, who would be brought into the country in large numbers, and of German men, forcibly held outside of Germany, with non-German women. Ten to twelve million German men would be assigned to forced labor under Allied supervision in countries outside of Germany to rebuild their economies. “The objects of this measure,” wrote Dr. Hooton, “include reduction of the birthrate of ‘pure’ Germans, neutralization of German aggressiveness by outbreeding and denationalization of indoctrinated individuals.”

This plan, Hooton estimated, would require at least 20 years to be implemented. “During this period,” he went on, “encourage also the immigration and settlement in the German states of non-German nationals, especially males.”

In the decades since the end of World War II, something of the spirit of the genocidal Kaufman and Hooton plans seems manifest in Germany’s population and immigration policies. Since the nation’s defeat in 1945, the German birth rate has fallen to below the replacement level, millions of racially and culturally alien migrants have been welcomed as settlers in Germany, the number of children of mixed ethnicity has sharply increased, and the ethnic-cultural character of much of the country has been drastically altered, especially in the larger cities.

This dynamic volume outlines a comprehensive plan for the extinction of the German nation and the total eradication from the earth, of all her people. Also contained herein is a map illustrating the possible territorial dissection of Germany and the apportionment of her lands.

To all those men and women who would rather die fighting for freedom, than remain alive as slaves;

To all those men and women who, unafraid, speak out the truth as they conceive it to be the truth;

To all those men and women who, inspired by the efforts, hopes and aspirations of mankind place its needs before their own;

This book is humbly dedicated.
Special Note to Reader

Germany Must Perish presents a plan for the structure of a permanent and lasting peace among civilized nations. It bases its thesis on the eventual defeat of Germany by the British Empire and its Allies, without the assistance of the United States.

However, should circumstances decree that the American public cast its ballot in favor of war as a measure of self-defense (and it is the fervent prayer of the author that this may never happen) it would become paramount that the lives of our native sons not be sacrificed in vain as were their fathers’ lives a generation ago.

If our soldiers must go forth to kill or die in battle, at least let them be given not alone a Slogan but a Solemn Purpose and a Sacred Promise.

Let that Purpose be an Enduring Peace!

And, this time, that Promise must be kept!
1. About This Book

Today’s war is not a war against Adolf Hitler.

Nor is it a war against the Nazis.

It is a war of peoples against peoples; of civilized peoples envisioning Light, against uncivilized barbarians who cherish Darkness.

Of the peoples of those nations who would surge forward hopefully into a new and better phase of life, pitted against the peoples of a nation who would travel backward enthusiastically into the dark ages. It is a struggle between the German nation and humanity.

Hitler is no more to be blamed for this German war than was the Kaiser for the last one. Nor Bismarck before the Kaiser. These men did not originate or wage Germany’s wars against the world. They were merely the mirrors reflecting centuries-old inbred lust of the German nation for conquest and mass murder.

This war is being waged by the German People. It is they who are responsible. It is they who must be made to pay for the war. otherwise, there will always be a German war against the world. And with such a sword forever hanging overhead the civilized nations of the world, no matter how great their hopes, how strenuous their efforts, will never succeed in creating that firm and solid foun- dation of permanent peace which they must first establish if ever they intend to start the building of a better world.

For not only must their be no more German wars in fact; there must not even remain the slightest possibility of one ever again occurring. A final halt to German aggression, not a temporary cessation, must be the goal of the present struggle.

This does not mean an armed mastery over Germany, or a peace with political or territorial adjustments, or a hope based on a defeated and repentant nation. Such settlements are not sufficiently conclusive guarantees of no more German aggressions.

This time Germany has forced a TOTAL WAR upon the world.

As a result, she must be prepared to pay a TOTAL PENALTY.

And there is one, and only one, such Total Penalty: Germany must perish forever!

In fact — not in fancy!

Daily the truth is being impressed upon us by observation, and upon others less fortunate, by bombs, that the German doctrine of force is not one based upon either political expediency or economic necessity. The personal war-lust of those who lead the German people is but a component part of the war-lust which exists as a whole in the German masses. German leaders are not isolated from the will of the German people because apart from this will they could not come into being or exist at all. Their personal inspiration, the motivation, even the acquiescence to their deeds are one and all drawn by German leaders from the very depths of the German national soul.

Far too often the claim has been made that the present German drive toward world-dominion is only street gangsterism practiced on an organized national scale, deriving principally from the lowest classes, the dregs of Germany. Such a claim is not sustained by facts, for the same lust, the same brute force which the Germans display today under the rule of the so-called “low class Nazis,” they also displayed in 1914, at a time when the “highest classes” and the “noblest specimens” capable of being produced by the German nation, the Junkers, ruled that land. And a vast number of Germany’s intellectuals, another German “high-class,” sat as members in the German Reichstag!

No! The problem of Germanism must not again be passed along to the next generation. The world must never again be stretched and tortured on the German rack. Ours is the problem; ours the solution. The world has learned, with a knowledge born of tragedies too numerous, too horrible to record, that regardless of what leader or class rules Germany, war will be waged against it by that country, because the force which compels it to action is an in- separable part of the mass-soul of that nation. True, that soul, at one time, might have been otherwise fash- ioned.

But that time was in the civilizing cycle of a thousand years ago. Now it is too late.

We know that. Our men of 1917 did not. They had no precedent on which to base their experience. We have not that excuse today. Their futile sacrifices and their empty efforts must today dictate our own actions and decisions. We are paying today for the lack of experience of the last generation in dealing with the peoples of the German nation. When and if the time comes for us to take similar decision and action we must not repeat their mistake. The cost is far too great; not alone for us, but for all future generations.

We must bring ourselves to realize that no leader can govern Germany at all unless, in some manner, he embodies the spirit and expresses the war-soul existent in the majority of her peoples. “Majority” is used advisedly for in speaking of the masses which compose a nation it must be impartially conceded that some fraction of the mass must perforce vary from it. Consequently no unfair contention is here being made that everyone in Germany is guilty of its heinous offenses against the world. In fact we shall, in pursuing our point, favor Germany by allowing that as much as 20% of her population is entirely guiltless of complicity in her crimes, as well as being foreign to any share of her war-soul. We therefore grant, for argument’s sake, that some 15,000,000 Germans are absolutely innocent.

BUT — shall Poles, Czechs, Slovaks, Austrians, Norwegians, Dutch, Belgians, Frenchmen, Greeks, Englishmen, Irishmen, Scotsmen, Canadians, Australians and Americans — for we too may ultimately feel the spike of the German boot — shall all these peoples, numbering some 300,000,000 of the most civilized, most enlightened on earth suffer constantly and face unnatural death every generation so that some small part of Germany’s populace may continue to exist? Are those 15,000,000 Germans so valuable, so indispensable to mankind that 300,000,000 guiltless men, women and children shall fight a war with Germany every time she so decrees? Shall perpetual struggle against the German be the only future facing civilized peoples? Why breed children while Germany breeds war?

Are not the Dutch a sober and thrifty people? Are not the French cultured? Are not the Czechs industrious? Are not the Poles deeply attached to land, family and God? Are not the Scandinavians a decent people? Are not the Greeks brave and fearless? Are not the English, Irish, Scotch and American freedom-loving and progressive people? And in very simple arithmetic are not these 300,000,000 more than 15,000,000 Germans?

If Democracy as Americans know it is majority rule in a national sense, it must be so in an international sense as well. The greatest good for the greatest number is Democracy’s rule of thumb; to fight for world Democracy is to secure the rights of the majority of democratic peoples against the incursions made upon them by any autocratic minority.

If this is not so, why conscript a vast army for Democracy’s defense? Why train American soldiers to murder a hypothetical enemy of Democracy, when the Will which spawned this enemy waxes and grows with each successive blood-bath?

In 1917 American soldiers, as those of every other major nation, were forced to murder by the millions. What for?

Suppose we are forced again to kill? For wars are won only by such killing, not by dying. Again what for? Another sell-out? Is selling-out our soldiers to become a national habit? For quite patently, to fight once more in democratic defense against Germany with any goal in view save that country’s extinction constitutes, even though it loses the war, a German victory. To fight, to win, and not this time to end Germanism forever by exterminating completely those people who spread its doctrine die to herald the outbreak of another German war within a generation.

Let us then beware, for it is not illogical to assume that some day the soldier, if constantly martialed and regimented against his will, may emerge from underneath the time-worn cloak of “duty” and come, like labor, capital and civilian to demand his “rights.” It must not be unreasonable to conjecture that a soldier must have rights too, as well as duties. Certainly, a man forced against his instinct to kill has rights; perhaps not the rights of wages and hours, nor the rights of profits, not the right of untrammeled speech against his superiors, which in a military sense spells catastrophe. No, none of these; just a few simple rights — three of which would appear his in- contestable duty to demand: one, that he be adequately supplied with the proper arms in sufficient quantities so that there be a maximum of speed attached to his “killing,” — secondly, that he be not betrayed by fifth-columnists who must, in wartime, be summarily dispatched, by imprisonment or execution, and lastly, of the primmest importance, that he receive a definite avowal by his government guaranteeing him once and for all time that this whole ghastly, horrible business of killing the Germans is at an end; that his son may know peace without having to kill for it.

If such a guarantee be not vouchsafed him before his struggle, or be not upheld after his struggle, as it was not the last time, (though the Generals knew, among them our own Peshing, that Germany at that time should have been unalterably snuffed out) may he not then take such action in his own hand? Granting labor has the right to strike when its rights are violated, granting that capital withhold itself from circulation when it feels its usage unprofitable, granting that the civilian feels tyrannized when his civil liberties are jeopardized, what course may the soldier not take once he realized he has been cheated, once too often, out of that for which he killed?

When the day of reckoning with Germany comes, as come it will, there will be only one obvious answer. No statesmen or politician or leader responsible for post-war settlements will have the right to indulge in the personal luxury of false sentiment and specious sanctimony and declare that Germany, misled by her leaders, shall deserve the right of resurrection! He will not be permitted this time to forget so easily the bomb-blasted, earth-entombed millions of women and children who lived through a hell on earth; the bullet-ridden, tank-crushed bodies of soldiers; the many countries whose energies were sapped and resources drained. And most of all, he will not be permitted to disregard the unselfish sacrifices made by the common people so that the beast that is Germany shall never roam on earth again!

It is a definite obligation which the world owes to those who struggled and died against the German yesterday, and to those who are fighting him again today, as it is the bounden duty of the present generation to those yet unborn, to make certain that the vicious fangs of the German serpent shall never strike again. And since the venom of those fangs derives its fatal poison not from within the body, but from the war-soul of the German, nothing else would assure humanity safety and security but that that war-soul be forever expunged, and the diseased carcass which harbors it forever removed from this world. There is no longer any alternative:

Germany Must Perish!

This war, with its harrowing miseries, its indescribable German devastations, its unutterable German atrocities, is born of the war-soul of those barbarians of whom Machiavelli, writing over four hundred years ago, observed:

German towns are at little or no expense in any thing, but in laying up military stores and making good their fortifications … on holidays instead of other diversion, the Germans are taught the use of weapons.

History repeats itself.

We can remove a tiger from his natural environment, his lair in the jungle, and with patience so tame him that eventually he will respond to our caress, feed from our hand and perform at our command. The more acquiescent he becomes in response to this outward conditioning, the more deceived are we in believing that his jungle days have been forgotten. This is a fatal deception. For in- evitably there comes a time when the tiger-soul within the tiger drives him again to the use of gang and claw. In that inexorable response to that irresistible soul-force, the tiger reverts once again to jungle lore. He becomes, again, a killer.

And so it is with the people of Germany. They may respond for a while to civilizing forces; they may seemingly adopt the superficial mannerisms and exterior behaviorism of civilized peoples but all the while there remains ever present within them that war-soul which eventually drives then, as it does the tiger, to kill. And no amount of conditionism, or reasoning, or civilizing — past, present or future — will ever be able to change this basic nature. For if no impress has been made upon this war-soul over a period of some two thousand years it is to be expected that of a sudden, on the morrow, this miracle will occur?

This analogous linking of the people of Germany with savage breast is no vulgar comparison. I feel no more personal hatred for these people than I might feel for a herd of wild animals or a cluster of poisonous reptiles. One does not hate those whose soul can exude no spiritual warmth; one pities then. If the German people wish to live by themselves, in darkness, it would be strictly their own affair. But when they make constant attempts to enshroud the souls of other people in those fetid wrappings which cloak their own, it becomes time to remove them from the realm of civilized mankind among which they can have no place, or right to existence.

We need not condemn the Germans. They stand self- condemned. For it suffices us to read and hear those words written and spoken only by Germans; to endure sufferings and dislocations caused solely by the German people in pursuit of their megalomaniacal ideals and demonic aspirations to realize that it is the Germans themselves who decree, almost demand, their ostracism from their follow-man. They have lost the wish to be human beings. They are but beasts; they must be dealt with as such.

This is an objective viewpoint, carefully considered and factually sustained. It is the view taken of them in this book.

Naturally there are men in the world, our own country included, who think otherwise and who would deal differently with the German menace. It is the custom of such men to take, what they term, a “sensible” view of the problems and progress of humanity. These men would rely upon fate to fashion the future. They would, in effect, permit the Germans to conquer and enslave the world by explaining, in terms whose degree of vociferousness is dependent upon the extent of their own personal motive of gain, that German world-dominion cannot last forever; that at some future date Germany would ultimately lose its iron grip upon the world and then enslaved mankind would come to free itself again. Or, if neither collusion nor surrender seems palatable to their listeners, they would suggest a compromise with the Germans, the so-called “Negotiated Peace.”

These are soulless postulates. They can originate only in men whose hearts and souls are still held captive by the marine life of their origin; human species of spineless jellyfish floundering about in the waters of yesteryear. These are men of the past forever living in that past. Men who, being incapable of mastering their own intellectual and spiritual primitivism, seek to drag others down with them to the murky depths and stygian blackness which surround their own pitiful existence.

These are the men, indeed, who witnessing the actual enslavement of such civilized and humane people as the Austrians, Czechs, Poles, French, Dutch, Norwegian and Belgians would all too willingly close their eyes and simulate disbelief in that which is stark and dread reality. These are men who with fatalism as their creed come intellectually to be anesthetized by it; who, proclaiming fate an ally, have become its most pathetic servants. Fortunately, such men are not yet in the majority nor will they be unless Germany can harness, employ or bribe enough of them to spread the German netherworld doctrines throughout the earth. But even as a minority the danger which these “appeasers” represent in none the less real and they must be harshly dealt with. For by such actions as they may take under the cloak of “unquestioned patriotism” it is apparent that they would not do so unless, within their own soul there existed some part complementary to the war-soul of the German. Those other appeasers whose integrity is doubtful and patriotism questionable — those who advocate the principles of Germanism — are downright traitors to their country. And when, as and if a government can not or refuses to treat them as such, may it not come in time to depend upon the people, whose lives and liberty are at stake, to do so!

I have no desire that this work be considered as a means of encouraging war for this or any other nation.

As a human being I deplore war; as a civilized member of a civilized nation I hate it.

I hate war not alone for the sufferings, misery, tragedy and senseless waste which follows in its path, but even more because I consider it to be the still-unsevered umbilical cord which binds the moral and spiritual embryo of man to the physical womb of the beast-instinct. And I know that so long as that cord remains uncut social evolution and human progress must rest forever upon an impermanent and insecure basis. And too, that so long as war persists there will never come into being that world peace out of which, some day, a world confederation of nations will be born. For it is such a confederation which is the ultimate aim and absolute inevitability of the human race.

Peace! Hardly a man, woman or child lives who has not heard the word! Throughout the ages it has been a subject of more discussion and debate than any other single problem of mankind. In the halls of government great orators have loudly extolled its virtues. The great prophets of every religion on earth have preached its gospel and catalogued its benefits to world humanity. And in all the world we find that peace is the common denominator which binds together the people of all nations, of all color and races, in common thought and prayer.

Why then, after passing through thousands of years of such great desire and yearning have we failed to find peace? Why is it that after such a prolonged period of time not one single practical and enduring step has been taken toward its absolute realization? Certainly no one man or group of men shall be born tomorrow who shall exceed in knowledge and excel in ability all those great men who have written, spoken and preached about peace over the long past. What shall we do then? Throw up our hands and give up? Shall we have done with peace by exclaiming that it dose not exist because it cannot? That is an unobtainable abstract?

I do not believe that it is any such thing. I sincerely believe that peace on earth can come to exist as a permanent condition of living. But believing in it as I do, I would not expect it to arrive, on some fine morning, knock on my door, and suddenly announce its presence! No, it will never come of itself!

I believe that peace can be produced, not merely conceived. But never so long as war persists.

Then why does war still exist?

Simply because it has not been made impossible for it to be waged.

There is only one way to abolish war: impose a penalty of such dire magnitude and frightful consequence upon aggressor peoples as to render it virtually impossible for any nation to start a war.

War must be fought not with weapons of ever-increasing destructiveness but with penalties infinitely more frightful and hazardous than war itself.

This book sincerely believes that it has found such a penalty; and by its imposition upon the people of Germany, this book believes that not only would a great scourge be removed from the world, but a great good born to it.

Note: The majority of authors dealing with Germanism have treated that subject purely as a product of modern times — born after the last world war — and since developed solely by Hitler and his Nazis. The reader, in pursuing the subsequent chapters on Germanism, will find out for himself just how mistaken these authors are in their viewpoints. And since the German quotations and German writings are so contemporaneously apropos — though they were all written prior to the last world war — I have thought it advisable, lest they be considered “fabricated,” to append a bibliography to this volume.
2. Background of Germanism

Germans are an execrable people! They think and dream of nothing but chicanery. Their great joy consists in fault-finding, shrieking and threats. They brandish arms which are like barbed clubs; from their mouths instead of ordinary human speech, issue the rumbling of artillery and the clash of steel; their life is one of perpetual explosion. The German does not live on the heights; he avoids light, and from his hiding place he picks to pieces treaties, exercises his malign influence on newspaper articles, pores over maps, measures angles, and traces with gloating eagerness the lines of frontiers. To love their country is for them to despise, flout and insult every other country. They are capable of little else but cheating and lying, even to themselves. They meddle in everyone else’s affairs, poking their nose into matters that do not concern them, criticizing everything, bossing everything, lowering and distorting everything. What a pity that twenty-three centuries after Socrates and Plato, two thousand years after Christ, the voice of men like these should still be heard in the world, worse still that they should be listened to, and worst of all that any one should believe them! Country for them is an isolated organism and they admit it is possible for them to live and breathe in an atmosphere of haughty contempt for their neighbors. They conceive their country as a permanent element of dissolution like a devouring and insatiable monster, a beast of prey, whose one function is to plunder. All that it does not possess it has been robbed of. The universe belongs to it by right. Whoever attempts to escape from its tyranny is a rebel. This jingo country, this bloodthirsty fetish of which they are the champions, they endow, with the capriciousness of potentates, when it suits their purpose, with every marvelous and charming attribute. Whoever does not at once agree with their extravagances is a barbarism. You must love their country in full armor, with dervish-like celebrations and howls, eyes shut and body trembling with ecstasy; a deaf ear must be turned to the rest of the world on its failings. Everything that is not It must be hated. Hate is sacred. Love and hate are in connection with your country two terms proceeding from one condition of mind. For them Industrial progress is not a happy sign of national prosperity but a means of domination. Geography is not the science of the earth, but a mere revelation of the boundaries between which are elaborated strategical schemes of conquest. Every neighbor is of necessity a jealous one, and the enemy who is vigilant is jealous too. The world is populated by hyenas crouching on the plots of earth from which they ought to be dislodged.

The German has decided that his race has been elected by God to order the modern world. Anyone who resists him will be an arrogant usurper, who ought to be crushed. The German professes to want peace, but it must be his own sort of peace, after the pattern of the Persian satrap’s who, out of love for peace and concord, throws everyone to the lions who dares dispute him. His voice is raucous and resounding; he does not argue but makes sweeping assertions and lays down the law. As the first sign of resistance he grows crimson in the face, and has resource to thunder and lightning. He holds forth on the authority of a sacred categorical imperative which stands in the stead of truth and order; he respects nothing and no one. Should he find himself confronted by the law, he says that it needs reforming. Ministers are mere clerks to be used as pawns in his manoeuvering. He is exacting and cantankerous; whoever undertakes to shout with him never shouts loud enough. To give in to him means becoming enlisted as his civil agent. He is an agitator and swashbuckler. He dips his pen in gall and he sets in motion with his antics the marionettes which appeal to the nation and may come to conquer it. The fundamental superiority of the German race, the necessity of expanding German prestige in all quarters of the globe, of protecting the German wherever he may be found, no matter what he may be, because he bears within him a residuum of the race; that is what the educators of youth coming down the years in disciplined array like battalions crossing the manoeuver fields, have never ceased to drum into the popular understanding and the flame of victory rising to the sky will be the signal for it to boil over. (note 1)

A vivid portrait of a Nazi? Emphatically so, and yet, though thirty years have past since it was first written, we can easily discern, in the character of the German of that remote period, every single trait which characterized the German madmen of today. Yesterday they may have been called Pan-Germans; today Nazis; tomorrow perhaps Supergerman. Time cannot change the infernal breed, whatever its label. Time merely enlarges the field in which the German can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, practice those monstrous acts which his fevered, war-intoxicated brain dictates, and his vile instincts and barbaric, savage soul prompts. If today the urge of his war-soul can prompt the German to murder innocent hostages imagine, if you can, how that same soul will express itself through the thousandfold-more-fanatic German of tomorrow?

To most people the fantastic “progress” of the Nazi has seemed as meteoric and unexpected as an unheralded bolt of lightning suddenly discharged from the heavens. Others hold tenaciously, with dangerous deception, to the opinion that the Nazi came into power only as a result of the German-termed “inequities” of the Versailles treaty, and that the beliefs and aims of the Nazi were, and are, merely the result of a contemporary but transient political and economic upheaval in Germany. Such opinions gave birth to the most outstanding criminal misconception of the Nazi and his party; that after those so-called injustices to Germany were remedied, the Nazi would vanish from the scene by his own accord, or the German people would rise up in revolt against him.

Such misconceptions of his origin, structure and purpose were eagerly fostered and disseminated by the Nazis themselves. We know how belief in them has already led a dozen nations to their doom, and yet not so long ago a prominent member of our congress arose and declared that the German idea of world-dominion was a fantasy, and advised Americans to dismiss the avowed aims of the Nazis a fabulous myths! (note 2) Such utterances are not only born of incredible stupidity but, if not downright traitorous, are extremely dangerous, for they tend to blind people to those stark realities which they must face, firmly and honestly, if they are ever to successfully combat them. Too, such beliefs tend to diffuse among our people that same indifference, lethargy and irresponsibility which permeated the peoples of those nations which, one by one, fell victim to the German peril. These nations found that the German peril was not a myth; the sufferings of their people are the best description of the German character, methods, and final aims.

By thus helping to create the impression of his transiency of character and purpose, and by promoting propaganda proclaiming his ever-imminent downfall, the Nazi knew full well that those nations would incorrectly gauge the strength and deprecate the durability of his party and, what was and is infinitely more important, would fail to correctly interpret the growth and aims of the Nazi as being compatible to, and not at variance with, the German character; a bud whose nourishment is drawn not from an isolated branch but from the very roots of the German soul.

For it must be patent by now that while all the Germans may not approve of the means being employed by the Nazis in achieving German-world-dominion, they are practically unanimous in agreeing that that goal must, now or in the future, be definitely achieved by Germany. Were the German nations to win this war, not one German would hesitate laying claim to a share in the loot. But, losing the war, they intend to be ready to disclaim, individually, the actions taken by then collectively, under their “government.” Thus they intend to escape, once again, punishment for their crimes. Yet defeat will on no account erase their desire to conquer and rule the world. There is only one way to frustrate such a desire: the goal of world-dominion must be removed from the reach of the German and the only way to accomplish that is to remove the German from the world!

Therefore, it is most essential that we realize as an irreconcilable fact the truth that the Nazis are not beings existing apart from the German people. They are the German people! For to the German, Nazi or not, the Mailed Fist is stimulating and meaningful as symbol of all the aims and aspirations of his nation as the Statue of Liberty is to the American. Make no mistake about it; world- dominion is not a mirage to the German; it never was, and so long as Germany exists as a nation, it never will be. A belief to the contrary, if too-long sustained, may well result in the world’s enslavement by the German.

As fantastic and as cyclonic as Nazi “accomplishments” might seem, it is still more fantastic to note as a fact that in the entire annals of history no doctrine ever existed which has all its major beliefs so clearly defined, its methods so concisely detailed, and its aims so vividly, comprehensively, and boldly stated beforehand. It is in every respect a deliberate, ruthlessly calculated plot to rule the world or, failing that, to annihilate it! And so long as the German nation exists it intends, in one form or another, now or later, to bring about just such a catastrophe.

The unfortunate neglect displayed by the various governments in preparing for the cataclysmic events brought about by the German Nazis becomes all the more startling and tragic when we examine records existing by the thousands and emanating solely from unbiased German sources, some written as far back as fifty years ago, clearly indicating the precise course of procedure to be some day adopted by the German in his march to world- conquest. These documents are not pedantic treaties expressing theories or extravaganzas dealing in fables or fancies. They are substantial, sober outpourings from the very soul of Germandom. And as such they define lucidly its structure, and interpret frankly its yearnings.

Moreover, these records are so exact in their theme and comprehensive in their scope that the Nazis have adopted and embraced them almost ad verbatim. In searching through these original papers one is struck by the realization that Mein Kampf is nothing more than a clumsily-written hodge-podge collection of the writings, opinions and teachings contained in those records and ex- pounded by Germans years before Adolf Schickelgruber war born! As we shall see later, even Hitler’s much-publicized mystic prophecies, and his time-tables of conquests are merely reprints of those published, too, long before his time.

If Hitler was able to make such rapid strides in resurrecting again the monstrosity that is Germanism, it was only because the German people, long before his birth, had already become completely instilled with each and every principle and precept, with every yearning and desire which he himself, later, came merely to express and advocate. The poisonous wine of destruction has long before been distilled; Hitler is merely the agent decanting the poisonous fluid from its bottle, which is the German war-soul, into the jug that is world humanity. In detailing those ingredients which combine to constitute the toxic formula of Germanism the author shall quote, wherever confirmation of his statements may be deemed advisable, principally from German sources. For after all no one can explain the German so well as he himself. He has made no secret of his character, his ambitions and his intentions. By his acts he has himself bared his heart and soul; by his words, by his own hand he will someday come to dig his own grave.

It is not to be wondered at that the nations of the Western world regard the avowed program of the German for world conquest and dominion with a great deal of amazement and incredulity. For such an idea is entirely alien to those basic principles and instincts of the western civilization which, painfully and gradually, arose out of the chaos of the past thousands of years. Such civilized nations regard individual rights, the sacredness of human life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as the virtues of mankind and itself, the individual States, as guarantor of those rights. And though, at one time or another during their existence nations may have sought political and economic adjustments, even territorial aggrandizement through force of arms, it must be noted that no Western nation has ever made such a religion of war, such idolatry or armaments, and such a cult of mass murder and destruction as has Germany and her peoples.

According to her own writers, teachers and statesmen Germany has but one great reason for existing; that of achieving world-dominion! Since that is its highest aim, therefore, Germany constantly claims that it has every right to make free and liberal use of chicanery, deceit, intolerance, lust, persecution and oppression, in order to achieve that goal. Consequently such a perverted nation , such a State of human negation, views its vice as being the only true virtue in life, whereas to the Germans the virtues as they are known and may be practiced by the rest of the world are merely vices due to the latter’s decay and degeneration! (note 3) As though there exists anywhere in the world a nation which can boast of degeneration in the same degree as Germany!

The primary reason which stirs German lust for world- dominion was best summarized by a German professor who declared that since Germany will never be able to understand the world, the latter must be conquered and reformed so that it will be able to conform to German thought! (note 4)

It is just such mass megalomania, crass egoism intellectual aberrancy which stirred the demented brain of the German of yesterday to foment his wars; which animates the insane Nazi today in continuing those wars and which will, if the schizophrenic Teutons continue to exist, direct the policies and actions of any party in control of Germany in the future. For, to reiterate, the German idea of world- dominion and enslavement of its peoples is no political belief: it is a fierce and burning gospel of hate and intolerance, of murder and destruction and the unloosing of a sadistic blood lust. It is, in every literal sense, a savage and pagan religion which incites its worshippers first to a barbaric frenzy and then prompts them to vent their animal ferocity in the practice of every horrible, ruthless and unmentionable atrocity upon innocent men, women and children. Such are the true Germanic virtues! And the world will feel their sting so long as they continue to tolerate Germany and her peoples on the earth, for those Germanic traits are the same as those which, emanating from the German soul, animated the Germanic tribes of yore. We have but to examine the development of those tribes to perceive just to what extent within the German soul, the German ideal of world conquest and dominion really lies.

The German slave-holding tribes were noted for their unnaturally passionate love of war and destruction. Seeck, a noted German historian, writes with pride that the Germans of ancient days were notorious for their villainy and treachery and “their faithlessness became almost proverbial with the Romans,” (note 5) who found that the Germans were adept at breaking a pact or a peace whenever it best suited them to so do.

Lamprecht, another German historian, recounts that even among themselves the Germans held no pledge valid! (note 6) Is it so much to be wondered at then that a nation whose people distrust one another, would hesitate at double-crossing any of its fellow nations?

Those ancient Germanic tribes, like the peoples of modern Germany, were unable to assimilate and accept the humane ideals, civilized aims and social aspirations of their neighbors as constituting the desirable, natural goal of life. “Warlike, as then, have the Germans ever remained!” (note 7)

We can understand, therefore, why to a German peace is not an objective but merely an interlude to be used by him to prepare for a war in which he can assuage the thirst for mass murder which burns in his soul. The German has absolutely no regard for life; there is no such expression in his language as “sacredness of human life.”

It would be impossible, even between the covers of a thousand volumes, to list and describe the demonic brutalities practiced by the Germans upon innocent peoples, and though records of the last war are replete with numerous actual incidents illustrating the innate cruelty and viciousness of the Germans we have but to refer to one recent occurrence, the sinking of the British vessel “Lancastria” to realize just how and why the German earns his reputation for such cruelty and viciousness.

For assuredly, after sinking a vessel, the aviators of no other Western nation would have deliberately and coldbloodedly dropped incendiary bombs on the oil-covered waters which surrounded the ship in order to roast alive the desperate women and children struggling below. But the German aviators did not hesitate to do so; it must have been with a perverted gleam in their mad eye that they boiled those women and children alive in oil! This from a “modern” and self-styled “cultured” nation! A nation whose press heralded such cannibalism as an illustrious example of German courage and heroism!

Such is the “Master-Race” of the world!
3. Organized Germanism

Germanism — the theory of a master race of Germans destined to enslave a weak world by force and brutality — had been an unvoiced doctrine of German belief since tribal days until the latter part of the last century when it reached its maturity by becoming fashioned into a vast and well-organized movement. Its astounding and ambitious program amalgamated all the major doctrines and beliefs of such German teachers, writers, statesmen and philosophers as Kant, Nietzsche, Hegel, von Bernhardi, Rohrbach, Treitschke and Spengler. And because the doctrine which it preached touched upon the very roots of the German soul, and embraced the fundamental tenets of the German intellect, the movement met with immediate and tremendously popular response. In fact its program was so popular with the Germans that within ten years after its inception its malignant dogma was already spread throughout the entire world.

In 1886 a Dr. Karl Peters convened a General German Congress in Berlin during the course of which all German national associations therein represented were merged into one group, a so-called German League. (note 13) Its program at first was vague and indefinite, and so much strife grew to exist among the various groups composing the League, that its dissolution seemed imminent until 1891 when Professor Ernst Hasse, a deputy in the Reichstag from Leipzig, became its president and took its management into his own hands.

The first step of Professor Hasse was to broadcast a widespread plea for help, appealing, as he said, “to the traditions of the German soul.” His appeal met with such a favorable response that the League grew by leaps and bounds until it was not long before it was able to publish and maintain its own newspaper. In 1894 it changed its name to the Pan-German League (note 8 ) and proceeded to lay down an entire program of action relative to world-conquest and domination by Germany. This program of action for achieving such a goal was so replete with details, and its plan of procedure so comprehensive that it was adopted, almost unchanged, by the Nazis. For its motto the League used the words of the Great Elector: “Remember you are a German!”

During the interval in which the Pan-German League was organized, a German professor, Heinrich von Treitschke was being hailed throughout Germany as a new prophet. For years he had been spreading the fiery message of Germanism; it was a rabid admixture of war, hate, anti-Christism and destruction. It was the preaching of such doctrines which today has earned for Treitschke the great “honor” of being recognized by the Germans as the apostle of their ideology.

Heinrich von Treitschke was born in Dresden in 1834. After graduating from various German universities and spending some time in aimless drifting, he suddenly became consumed with the tortuous idea of a German unity founded by the sword. Feeling that the best method, in his day, of spreading such a belief was through teaching, he turned eagerly to that profession. His continual in- sistence on spreading Prussianism and its doctrine of the “mailed-fist rule” finally enabled him to settle in Berlin where he became established as a popular historian and publicist.

Treitschke was a war-monger and a “might makes right” advocate of the first rank. Possessing a natural gift of eloquence he held his students spellbound during his lectures on “conquer at all costs” for, according to his interpretation of Germany’s development and history, it had to pursue such a course in order to spread itself beyond its boundaries. At first he set Europe as the area of Germany’s “Lebenstraum” but, after the success of the German army in 1870 he enlarged and expanded upon his original declaration by stating that the world was Germany’s to conquer and dominate; that through foisting war upon the world the German nation was destined to become the “super-state” of the universe, and to hold its people in thraldom. These teachings so appealed to the German character that Treitschke, like Hitler, soon captured the intellectuals as well as the masses of his day. His doctrines were spread throughout Germany by his many pupils until, eventually, practically every educated German of that day fell under his influence. Conceivably, he could not have inspired such a profound belief in such monstrous doctrines unless, in substance, they embraced aims and ideas already very definitely existing as inherent in the German character and innate in his soul. Many of those beliefs explain much of Germany’s present actions.

According to Treitschke (note 9) the individual has no right of his own, but exists only for the State which has the exclusive right to use him as it wills. There is no other force except the will of the State, and war is the only and best way in which that will might be employed by it. A Germany so constituted can recognize no earthly power and “might makes right” only when a German wields the sword! There is no such thing to the German as “sacredness of human life” and war is sublime to him because in it he can “murder without passion.” War is the best way in which Germany can enforce its will upon its neighbors, as well as being “the only cure for diseased nations.”

Treitschke then treats with various methods to be employed by Germany in order to conquer and dominate the world.

“Germany,” he writes, “must make it a duty to employ traitors in the enemy state for its own interest,” even though, he adds, “every good German subject is a latent, and when opportunity arises, an active spy.”

Lying and deceit are encouraged as being a foundation stone for German policy and as for treaties and the like Treitschke advises that they are mere scraps of paper and urges that “they can and must be denounced by Germany whenever the promise they hold become unprofitable to her.” In such a case a treaty becomes automatically obsolete and “German honor” demands that it be broken! There is, he continues, no such thing as international law and order, no covenants between nations. As for justice, there is no such thing except at the point of a German sword.

All of Treitschke’s teachings as well as the most pointed and precise interpretation ever made of the German ego is best summarized in a declaration in which he maintained that Germany could never have peace with the world because to the German mode of thought it “is a foreign world, which cannot be reformed, but can only be overthrown.” Thus the ideal of Germany becomes allied to the “rule of evil” in a common German effort to annihilate civilization!

The Pan-German League combined Treitschke’s various doctrines into a program of action and issued, among its statutes, four main principles which lay down broadly its chief objectives. (note 10) They were:

1. To watch over and support all German national movements in all countries where Germans have to sustain a struggle in support of Germanism with the object of embracing and uniting all Germans on the globe.

2. To promote an active German policy in interests in Europe and across the seas and especially to further all colonial movements for practical purposes.

3. To treat and solve all questions bearing upon the bringing up of children and higher education in the Germanic sense.

4. To quicken patriotic self-consciousness of Germans, and to offer opposition to all movements antagonistic to national development.

In further explanation of the above statutes the League issued a manifesto declaring that “the fate of the Germans in Austria cannot be a matter of indifference to Germany; it cannot be a matter of indifference whether the Saxons or Swabians in Hungary are Magyarized, or the Germans in Switzerland or the Flemish in Belgium are Gallicized. Germans must actively support all movements in those countries in support of Germanism. Germanism across the seas must be preserved and fostered by every possible means.” (note 12)

We already know how well the German has heeded and obeyed such advice.

By 1900 there were some fifty various associations in existence all subservient to the Pan-German League. Ramified in character but identical in aim these groups, which ranged from military and naval cliques to sports leagues and banking institutions, were all fervidly pledged to preserve and foster Germanism in foreign lands. Politically too, the League gained considerable prestige. In 1903 no less than forty-three members of the Reichstag had already been initiated as members.

Branches of the League sprang up in major cities of the world. Of the two in the United States one was located in New York, the other in Texas. With the spread of its propaganda, the League scattered a large number of secret agents throughout the world for the purpose of supplying it with confidential reports relating to the gospel of Germanism. These agents were the forerunners of the present day fifth-columnists; it was their work which started to compilation of the notorious German “scrap-book” in which that government listed all its enemies, and enemies to the idea of a German-dominated world. To a nation such as Germany blackmail pales in insignificance to its other crimes. And so, with every pass- ing hour, the members of the German League continued with their nefarious work which, teaching and enforcing the great common German ideal of world-enslavement, quickly became an integral part of the average German life and dreams. By 1905, the tenets of the Pangerman were already known to all. The initial work had been done. The vicious virus of Germanism had been injected into the life stream of the public, and the Germans awaited the epidemic which they felt must sooner or later infest the world.

As a matter of fact, the work and program as well as the propaganda which they spread had reached such a pitch that as far back as 1895 various German writers were already busy prophesying how and when the ideologic goal of German world-dominion would be attained! These prophets were by no means few in number; there exists a large number of serious works by German authors in which the destiny of their country is elaborately worked out in full detail and the deification of Germanism as a world religion depicted.

From one such prophecy, written in 1900, we learn that “things about the year 1950 have begun to cause great uneasiness. All Germans have been united, Holland enters the German union; in Belgium the Flemings grow in power and because the French element causes increasing trouble, Germany is obliged to intervene. If France objects to a total absorption (of Belgium by Germany) then the French Walloon territory falls to France the Flemish portion to Germany. Maybe the French fight, in which case all Belgium will be annexed and incorporated in the German World Empire.” The author then goes on to discuss, rather vaguely, the case of Rance, Switzerland, and the Balkans, after which he cautions the Germans “by all means avoid a war with Russia, if possible.” He completed the prophesy by stating that “in the year 1950 Great World Germany will possess a population of two hundred millions. Everybody is happy because all the Germans are now united and are ruling the world!” (note 14)

This prophesy did not, by any means, appear fantastic to the German of that day. Actually it was considered as altogether too conservative because more radical leaders had set the establishment of the “German World” at a much earlier date than 1950. Writing in 1895 one ambitious German predicted that Der Tag would arrive sometime in 1915. Here is a summary of his augury:

Around about 1915 the whole world starts trembling. Two great States take action in self-defense, America and Russia. America proclaims aloud the doctrine of “Pan-America.” Russia concludes customs treaties with Turkey, Persia and China. Great Britain, Pan-America and the Pan-Slavonic Russian Colossus threaten to overwhelm the sixteen states of Europe. At this juncture Germany intervenes and rising to the occasion, sets to work to prepare army and navy for the coming struggle.

Then follows a description of the war and a few miscellaneous vagaries after which the writer continues:

The Junkers roll in money. Meanwhile Pan-America has become a source of great uneasiness to Germany for Germanism is threatened in South America. The United States, declining to give way, the German, Italian and French navies mobilize and set sail for America. The American navy is destroyed. On land the German troops made short work of the American mercenaries. Under the brilliant leadership of the German Leader, the Germans were everywhere victorious. On sea the German ships, guns and men showed their great superiority over the English who were regularly defeated. German discipline, courage and skill made the German navy invincible. The British navy was destroyed. Invaded, the English offered but a half-hearted resistance. The German and Italian soldiers seized London. England and America were defeated. Peace was concluded. (note 15)

Concerning the terms of such a peace, the writer declared that:

…Germany took Mexico, Guatemala, British Honduras, all Brazil south of the Amazon, Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru and northern Chile. France took Brazil north of the Amazon, British Guiana, Venezuela, Columbia and Ecuador. Italy took what was left of South America, including the Argentine. The West Indies were divided between Germany and France. Gibraltar was restored to Spain, Malta given to Italy, Cyprus to Turkey. The English had to pay an enormous war indemnity. There was great discontent in England because the entire British navy was held by the Germans as a guarantee of payment. All England’s Suez Canal shares were confiscated and distributed among the victorious powers. The Kimberley diamond mines were seized by Germany and all English and American capital invested in Brazil and South America was transferred to German hands. The Cable lines were taken by Germany and all English and American colonists were ordered to leave South America within a year, never to be permitted to settle in any country on that continent again.

Thus England and America are humbled and the rule of the German Mailed-Fist secured! Maps, circulated soon after this prophesy was made public, illustrate the division of South America; the northern half and Central America being portrayed thereon as German colonies.

Still another writer, predicting a war somewhat similar to the one mentioned above finished his prophesy by stating that “after completely humbling England, the time had arrived for Germany to settle with the United States, but upon German mobilization United States yielded to all her demands without striking a blow!” (note 16)

Though many of these “prophecies” vary in detail the reader is aware of the one outstanding fact which pervades them all; that the deification of Germanism cannot be accomplished without the fall and humiliation of both England and the United States. This was declared to be a fact by Dr. Paul Semassa, a German Professor who, in 1902, stated that Germany must be prepared to combat the Britons and Americans; after defeating these last of the free peoples, Germany could then rule the world in any way she pleased!

In 1904 one observer, taking serious note of all such German prophecies and desires wrote an envisioned analysis in which he forewarned that “the doctrine of Germanism may quite well become a national ideal and kindle a very dangerous spirit. For Anglo-Saxondom the lesson it teaches is obvious. Readiness is all. Let England and the United States be prepared at all times successfully to meet the Teutonic onrush if ever it should come.” (note 17)
4. Germanism Abroad
I. United States

The task of spreading the heathenish cult of Germanism in foreign lands was delegated to the General School Association, an organization maintained by the Pan-German League. Beginning its operations in 1881 that association, existing today as the notorious German Ausland Organization (AO), was the first to prepare the ground and develop and test the tactics which are being used today by all German fifth-columnists.

Of all the countries in which he spread his evil doctrine, it was only in the United States that the German had any doubts about the successful retention and development of Germanism. So much so, in fact, that Professor Hasse, in one of his speeches before the German Reichstag declared that the “grave of Germanism lies in America” and the spade which will dig that grave is the Monroe Doctrine. But not all exponents of Germanism, however, felt so forlornly about their chances of successfully propagating Germanism in this country, and they made many early attempts to reorganize and strengthen their movements here.

In effect, the Germans did not achieve any notable success in their work. The Americans of German origin or descent either had no interest in preserving his German identity in contradistinction to his pride in being labeled an “American” or else, because he had fled his native land precisely on account of such malignant beliefs and persecutions, he retained no desire or inclination to see those evils flourish in a land of freedom which he had come to adopt as his own.

German fury, stirred to fever-pitch heights by the apoplectic rantings of German leaders expressed itself against the United States many times. The first of these crises occurred at the time of the Spanish-American war when Germany tried to raise a coalition of nations to oppose our stand. Next it was Germany’s plan to effect a European Customs Union against the United States, a step which was immediately followed by attempts first to annex Samoa and then to break the force of the Monroe Doctrine by testing it in Venezuela. All these attempts failed principally because of England’s refusal to act in collusion with Germany against an independent United States, as well as England’s firm acceptance and advocacy of the Monroe Doctrine as a major and permanent policy of our country.

Chagrined at her failures to impress her will upon the United States Germany decided to try new tactics. She adopted a policy of “taking it easy”; a policy which she hated because it was one antagonistic to her natural ideals of arrogance, brute force and aggression, and contrary to the spirit of her war-soul. Such inherent hatred of Germany to adhere to a sane course of international procedure which takes into account human rights and decencies, was well summarized by one of her most able and popular political writers, Dr. Paul Rohrbach who exclaimed:

Does any one think that Germany likes saying nice things to the United States, or that they are the outpourings of a loving heart? She only says them because Germany must eradicate the suspicions with which Americans regard her policy. (note 18)

Because of their common language and their humanistic philosophies the Germans regarded both England and the United States as dire enemies of his Super-state and, therefore, his main function as a trouble-maker in the latter country expressed itself in attempts to drive a wedge between it and England. Part of his hatred for England was directed toward it for its “not feeling ashamed” to openly recognize the Monroe Doctrine. Again and again reference to the Doctrine creeps up in connection with the origin and development of Germanism in the United States.

In 1903 Johannes Volert declared that “the Monroe Doctrine is indefensible. It is direct impertinence, and all the more so as America is lacking the means to enforce its application.” (note 19)

This perpetual opposition of Germany to the Monroe Doctrine as well as its continual defiance of it was best delineated in an article printed at the beginning of this century by the Journal of Commerce in answer to the German claim that the Monroe Doctrine was “an empty pretension.” The purport of that message is so fraught with vigor and truth, its every word so fresh and alive and currently apropos, that it deserves quotation here in full.

The last German professor (Mommsen) to fall foul of the Monroe Doctrine seems to show the usual Teutonic incapacity to understand what it means. He assumes that this “empty pretension” on the part of the United States is to control the destiny of the South American nations, and to keep Europeans out of them. He cannot see that the United States seeks no predominance, but only objects to European predominance. The German mind fails to see that our policy is to leave South American countries independent, to develop on their own lines; and all we ask of Europe is that it shall leave them independent, and not undertake to appropriate their territory or suppress their sovereignty. The United States wishes South America to do its own controlling.

Failing constantly in their attempts to drive a wedge between the two English-speaking countries Germans were instructed by their headquarters to try to create a force of their own with which to combat Americans. In reviewing this angle of attack, Professor Hasse stated that the only way in which he could envision a future for Germanism in the United States was for the Germans to “so organize and educate the German element in that country that political power will finally fall into its lap.” And in order to do so, the professor advises that “Germans must abandon all attempts to take sides on Democratic and Republican matters, and form themselves into a national political party.” Another professor, Muensterberg, agreed with Hasse by adding that the Germans should build a State within a State, in the United States. Still another German writer added that the best way for the Germans to form a political party of their own was to infect the American, especially those of Irish extraction, with the German virus of Anglophobia. The recommendation was also made that the Germans appoint a confidential agent in Washington who might keep in touch with the (American) government and influence it!(note 20)

All these wild notions of Germanism produced a great deal of agitation in this country but the German was not able to maintain that any real progress had been made by his movement in the United States. It is only since the rise of present Germany and its “exported agitators” as well as hired spies and bribed sycophants that the nightmare of Germanism has been forced through coercion and terror down the throats of a slight handful of Americans of German descent.
II. South America

German designs in South America, particularly towards Brazil, as well as the underhanded methods they employed in trying to further her interests there have never been kept entirely secret. Long before the advent of the present German government, Germans had always covetously regarded South America as a land which someday would belong to them. That to pursue such a course might bring them face to face with the power of the United States was an eventuality they foresaw and for which they prepared. They felt no uncertainty as to their ultimate success against the United States; in scores of books prominent German authors have time and again made the forecast that the United States would, through fear, yield to the Germans without striking a blow or else, would capitulate in a short war. In any event the Germans were instructed to be prepared for that day, for that day must come for the German.

Such warnings, persistently expressed by German writers, teachers, and statesmen were fully clarified in the statement of Professor Schulz-Gaevernitz to the effect that:

The more Germany is condemned to an attitude of passive resistance towards the United States, the more emphatically must she defend her interests in Central and South America. For this purpose we need a fleet capable not only of coping with the miserable forces of the South American states, but powerful enough to cause Americans to think twice before making any at- tempt to apply the Monroe Doctrine in South America. (note 21)

German colonists to South America were encouraged to preserve their nationality, their language, their German ways of life, and their interest in their “mother country.” Thus there came to exist, especially in Brazil, states within states. The methods the Germans used in Brazil were those applied in strict accordance with the principles expounded by Dr. Kapff in his brochure on the “German Schools.” In that work is found the cautionary advice that “Germans in South Brazil had better become Brazilian citizens as that is the quickest and surest way to obtain political power.” Dr. Kapff also forewarns his countrymen that:

…the danger of Germanism in South America comes from North America, and it is not only a question of commercial interest. Is Germany to stand idly by if America sets about the task of Americanizing that continent? Germany cannot; she must proclaim, urbi et orbi, that she is determined to maintain her rights in South America. And Brazil holds out the most buoyant hope for the German and the spread of Germanism.

Dr. Kapff’s declarations were amplified by Professor Gustav Schmoller who emphatically asserted that “at all costs a German country must grow up in the twentieth century in Brazil,” (note 22) for in South America Germans will found a new Germany, “which shall prove a blessing to the old country, and stand as a model to the whole world!” (note 23)

Dr. Paul Rohrbach’s explanation of German intentions in Brazil were even more arrogantly expressed. He stated that:

… although the United States may possibly prevent the acquirement of South American territory by Germany it cannot prevent the creation of a state within a state, and that when the Germans have finally accomplished that deed, they would rule the roost in Brazil and rule over the inferior peoples of that country.

But propaganda must be made in Germany to popularize the idea, and every good German must assist in the work because a promising future for Germany lies in her South American colonies, and to attain those ends Germans must work quietly, jointly and firmly — underground.

Professor Wolf, coinciding with that view expressed his opinion that “South America for the German, is the land of the future, for that land holds greater promise for the Germans than Europe or Africa.”

Hence, we find that hand in hand with her march toward world-dominion Germany has always deemed it her mission to establish, by force or by trickery, great South American colonies. As she does today, Germany has always laughed at any actual resistance from the Untied States, consistently declaring our country to be nothing more than, to use the words of a German, “a heterogeneous melange of crass egoistic Jingoists having no pure racial blood to build upon” and therefore a land and a people to be easily vanquished, at any time, by the great German supermen.

Germany tried often to suit her words with action. Prince Solms-Braunfels made a real effort to found a German colony in Texas as an American outpost of Germanism and, though he failed, the idea which prompted his action always persisted in the German mind as a possibility fraught with great promise of eventual fulfillment.

The Pan-German League heeded the advice of its leaders to labor in partial silence in South America and so kept unusual secrecy about their work on that continent. Little by little they sought to honeycomb those parts of South America which seemed favorable to Germanism by establishing branch leagues and to reticulate those regions with confidential agents who carried on their work disguised as travelers, teachers or diplomatic agents. From time to time they reported their progress to the Central Association in Germany. The startling disclosure was only recently made that the German consulates too, had given their aid, serving as hypodermics through which the malignant bacilli of Germanism was being syringed into the blood stream of the South American peoples.

In his work on Chile, Dr. Unfold advised German settlers in South America “to send their children to Germany to be educated in a fitting German spirit” and that then they should be sent back to propagate and disseminate the animus of the German war-soul. “The time will assuredly come,” he encouraged, “when Germany, during the confusion caused by some international conflagration, will have the opportunity to acquire colonial territory in South America.” (note 11)

Records and facts, whose truths are every minuet being sustained by current events, make it obvious that German policies in South America, her aims and methods too, have all been, for a long time, clearly, persistently and publicly pronounced by her leaders. To the German his aims in South America are merely some additional “must items” on a long list of German-planned depredations against humanity and civilization.

Here, quoted ad verbatim, are the words of one observer of German ambitions in South America who, writing his analysis almost two score years ago, declared:

Whether Germany’s aim in South America is obtainable without friction is something which the future alone can decide. The future of South America must depend largely upon the Monroe Doctrine and the navy which is behind it. There will come a time, not so remote in the future, when the economic penetration of Brazil and other South American states by the Germans may lead to political supremacy which, if questioned, must be abandoned or contended for. Con- ceivably, the issue may be a fighting one. Though Germans rave against the Monroe Doctrine as an empty pretention, that doctrine nevertheless is destined to bar Germany’s way. Already there are unmistakable signs that Americans have become cognizant of such German aims and ambitions in South America. On the creation of a great American fleet, as on the solidarity of England and the United States, the fate of South America depends. If America is to cry “Hands off!” they must have the power to support the words. (note 17)

III. Europe

True Germanism, being as it is a purely primitive paganism with some modern “refinements” finds that it can express itself best by committing truly barbaric and bestial acts of violence against innocent civilized peoples. Thus, if Germanism were ever to prevail upon this earth, we can be sure that every step would be taken — though few indeed are these steps which the Germans have not already taken! — to reawaken every dormant animal instinct and vicious trait in man.

Thus it has been a chief aim of the German to eradicate each and every one of the three principal religions from the earth. However, the German was practical enough to realize that he could not successfully combat all these religions at one time with any hope of emerging supreme. But since their extinction was absolutely necessary to the propagation of the German dogma of hate and destruction, the Germans conceived their now infamous and oft-tried trick of pitting first the believers in one religion against those of another until, at a single coup, they could deliver the final knock-out blow against the single remaining adversary. It was in Austria that they first tested the efficiency of their scheme, a test which, at that time, actually constituted organized high treason against that country.

Germanism had its birth in Austria as an organized movement founded and headed by an Austrian statesman, one Schoenerer, in 1878. Its activity was rather limited in scope until 1898 when Schoenerer joined with Hasse; from that time on the Pan-German League in Berlin became the head of the movement in Austria, and it proceeded at once to establish permanent bases of operation in that country.

First a plan of attack was decided upon. Hasse and Schoenerer agreed that if Germany was ever to rule over Austria the latter country must first be forced to break with Rome (Roman Catholicism). In order to achieve this objective the leaders decided upon a roundabout course of action. They therefore first created an artificially stimulated pseudo-religious revivalist movement having anti-Semitism as its primary and immediate purpose.

The German Hasse found some renegade, so-called Catholics (though such men were no more Catholics in spirit than those men of any religion who, hiding behind a pulpit of a church, rail against God and preach hatred and intolerance) members of the leading Catholic Party, who agree to act as leaders of such a movement. It was not long thereafter that a frightful wave of anti-Semitic persecution began to sweep over Austria, continuing unabated in intensity, until Schoenerer and Hasse felt that a sufficiently high degree of agitation and terrorism had been reached. Thereupon they turned their efforts against the Catholic Party and in turn, started a rabid anti-Catholic, “free-from-Rome” movement of their own, Schoenerer declaring that “the chains which tie us to a Church hostile to Germanism must be broken!” The “No Popery” and anti-Catholic agitation was stimulated by Hasse and Schoenerer through their introduction into Austria of numerous pseudo-evangelical, free-booter German clergymen who were liberally paid, with money and liquor, to rail against the Catholics.

Though the complete success of this plan was not achieved, it did have a salutary effect; that of establishing and proving the audacity and ruthless aggressiveness of the German.

Notwithstanding the fierce resistance which met them and their ideas in Bohemia, the Germans were able to organize various ancillary associations of their League, as well as to maintain their own press in that country. They were further aided in their work by the importation of German clergymen, agitators and school-masters all of whom played leading roles in the struggle to spread Germanism throughout that brave land of free thought.

The vile work of the Germans was not easy; they were met with a bold and determined resistance. The Czechs fought the demented Germans with that fierce and patriotic intensity characteristic of their old hero, Hus, whose famous motto, “Nothing German!” became their rallying call and slogan. In fact so strong was the Czech resistance to Germanism that by 1900 leading Germans were ready to declare that the fate of their movement lay in Bohemia, and depended on the outcome of their strug- gle in that country.

Besides attempting to spread their doctrines, the Germans did everything possible to interfere with the establishment of the Czech language in Bohemia.

It is to the redounding credit of Czecho-Slovakia, that even before it had became a nation it had already fought alone against German dominion; left to its own devices, it would have never have suffered surrender.

A decade before the last world war it was noted as a fact that the one State which Germany dreaded was Russia; the two States which she would have liked to see at odds with each other were Britain and the United States, and the one State she would really have liked to absorb was Holland, a free and democratic country which hated Germanism and all its narrow spiritual and political principles. Nevertheless, the German pursued his work in that country with that fanatic stubbornness so imbedded in his character.

In 1898 a General Dutch League was formed in Holland primarily for the purpose of spreading the Dutch language in South Africa. Not meeting success they appealed to the Pan-German League for aid and found themselves, shortly thereafter, to be entirely supported by that German organization. With their aptitude for “pro- tecting” and “adopting” countries, the members of the League early regarded Holland as an essential and integral part of Germany and declared that if they were not able to secure Holland by “peaceful persuasion,” they must do so by force.

In 1901 a German writer stated that in case of war “Germany could not be expected to regard the Dutch ports as neutral and refrain from making use of them.” (note 25) Writing in the Deutsche Zeitschrift in 1901, Kurt von Strautz declared that “It is impossible that outposts of Germanism like the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, and Austria remain permanently outside the boundaries of Germany.”

At the same time another German asserted that Germany would do well to secure possession of the Dutch colonies so as to acquire naval bases and additional overseas trade routes, while another suggested that the Dutch colonies were threatened by England, the United States and Japan, and therefore must be “protected” by Germany!

Though the League did manage to succeed in stirring up a great deal of mischief and agitation in Holland, Germanism was unable to achieve any marked success in that land so noted for its great intellectual freedom, a freedom which did not exist even among the highest class of Germans who, at the time, were labeling the Dutch, “Low Germans.” (note 26)

The Dutch wished to remain Dutch. They felt too strong and independent in their own freedom to need or desire the gangster-like protection of the brutish, uncivilized German.

Belgium has never been considered as anything but a negligible factor in German plans for world-dominion. The German felt that because of its size Belgium could easily, and at any time, be forced to bow to the German will. However, he did not neglect Belgium entirely and, as a matter of fact, he even adopted somewhat different tactics from those which he employed in other lands.

Instead of trying his utmost to sponsor the use of the German language in Belgium, the German believed that his success in that country would depend upon his ability to popularize Flemish language in contradistinction to French. By thus creating a sense of Flemish nationality in Belgium the German hoped to prevent the spread of French influence and so drive a wedge between France and Belgium.

However, the German was regarded with great suspicion by the Belgian populace and therefore he was forced to carry on most of his work through underground channels. He failed to make much headway. But this failure did not dim his hopes for future realization. In fact he was so certain that the seeds being planted would some day result in fruition that, back in 1901 he had already, with habitual high-and-mighty German arrogance, renamed Belgium German “West Mark.”

As with Belgium, the German felt his task in Denmark to be such an easy one that he did not even bother to use any “finesse” in his attempts to saturate the Danish people with his Germanism, and so, instead of trying to at least render the idea “palatable” to the Danes, he aimed at ramming it down their throats.

Nothing came of such attempts. The Danes might be invaded by German arms; they would never fall victim to what the German calls “Ideals.” For the Danes are an independent, civilized people with no inclination to be dragged back a thousand years to savage barbarism.

The work of the German League in Switzerland was impeded by its own tactless and stupid blunders. The propagators of Germanism, past and present, have always failed in estimating the local or national patriotism of any peoples by completely undervaluing it.

When, therefore, the German early and loudly proclaimed that Switzerland was merely an annex of Germany; that it had no culture and could maintain no freedom of its own, he was met with the most intense antagonism on the part of the majority of Swiss.

The Swiss have always burned with the desire to remain forever free, neutral and independent and everywhere the German was met with the firm declaration that “We Swiss are no Germans!”

And what more vivid testimony to that fact can be offered than the moral to be gleaned from the story of William Tell, and admitted German Classic written by a German author!

Of all countries in continental Europe, the German has always been the least liked in Norway and Sweden, and though from time to time pro-German voices were raised, the German League enjoyed little success there.

Instead of Germans it was Norwegians and Swedes of a “German character” who paid allegiance to the German ideal and in tracing the work of such traitors it is not to be wondered at, now, that the Germans were able to find a Quisling in Norway.

Professor Samassa, stating that the future struggle for existence would be between Germans on the one side and Britons and Americans on the other remarked that “Sweden will converge towards Germany the more Germany grows in power, and it is therefore a German interest to preserve the independence of Sweden. In such a way this outland will eventually be absorbed by Germany.” (note 27)
5. ‘Blessed Are the War Makers’
The German Soul

“Ye Have Heard how in old times it was said, Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth; but I say unto you, blessed are the valiant, for they shall make the earth their throne. And ye have heard man say, blessed are the poor in spirit; but I say unto you, blessed are the great in soul and the free in spirit, for they shall enter into Valhalla. And ye have heard men say, Blessed are the peacemakers; but I say unto you, Blessed are the warmakers, for they shall be called, if not the children of Jahve, the children of Odin, who is greater than Jahve.”

Thus out of the Bible of Germanism cometh the German Sermon on the Mount, as interpreted by Friedrich Nietzsche, prophet of the Superior Soul, by whose Apostolic sword millions of people in the past year have been cut down, bleeding to earth.

But the world even then was blind. It looked on saber-rattling Prussianism not a continuance of the German war-soul developed throughout the ages, but simply as a transient period of political history. For had not the spirit of Christ, in the image of Love and Brotherhood, walked the earth for nineteen centuries, softening men’s hearts and tempering men’s souls? Could civilized man fall heir to such a spirit and not pay heed? In Germany great cathedrals housed the Cross, but though others did not, German thinkers knew they housed but a great emptiness of soul. For they well knew that the German gods of pagan days were not dead; that they but slept; that even in their slumber they were still charged with a fire inflaming the barbaric instincts of those people.

Heinrich Heine, in 1834, had this to say of Christ in Germany:

Christianity — and this is its fairest merit — subdued to a certain extent the brutal warrior ardor of the Germans, but it could not entirely quench it; and when the Cross, that restraining talisman, falls to pieces, then will break forth again the ferocity of the old combat- ants, the frantic Berserker rage whereof Northern poets have said and sung so much. The talisman has become rotten, and the day will come when it will pitifully crumble to dust. The old stone gods will then arise from the forgotten rains, and wipe from their eyes the dust of centuries, and Thor with his giant hammer will arise again, and he will shatter the Gothic cathedrals…when ye hear the tramping of feet and the clashing of arms, ye neighbors children, be on your guard…it might fare ill with you… Smile not at the fantasy of one who foresees in the region of reality the same outburst of revolution that has taken place in the region of the intellect. The thought precedes the deed as the lightning with thunder. German thunder is of true German character: it is not very nimble, but rumbles along somewhat slowly. But come it will, and when ye hear a crashing such as never before has been heard in the world’s history, then know that at last the German thunderbolt has fallen. At this commotion the eagles will drop dead from the skies and the lions in the farthest wastes of Africa will bite their tails and creep into their royal lairs. There will be played in Germany a drama compared to which the French Revolution will seem but an innocent idyll. At present everything is quiet; and though here and there some few men create a little stir, do not imagine these are to be the real actors in the piece. They are only little curs chasing one another round the arena…till the appointed hour when the troop of gladiators appear to fight for life and death. And the hour will come.

German intellect, German culture, German emotion, industry, economics, politics, in fact all things German, are each but a tiny rivulet feeding with its water the mighty rushing stream which is the German war-soul. The war-soul itself is thus become a mighty torrent against which no dike can be built sufficiently high or sufficiently strong to stem its onrush. Our problem then is not the course-altering or damming up of any of the rivulets but in contending with and in subduing that power which they have produced, the power of the German war-soul.

Let us hold in abeyance for the moment the question of the all too obvious sufferings which the German war-soul has inflicted upon the world, and examine it objectively from the standpoint of its justification as regards world benefits. In short, is the war-soul of Germany and its spread of Germanism worth more to civilization than its cost in human life and freedom? Will the world derive more from its perpetuation than from its extinction?

The answer requires no guesswork on our part. Once again Nietzsche in is role of spiritual Baedeker of Germanism leaves no vestige of doubt concerning German blessings. Following are random excerpts from his Ecce Homo:

Where Germany spreads the corrupts culture … Every great crime against culture committed during the last four hundred years lies on the German conscience … The Germans incurred the responsibility for everything that exists today — the sickliness and stupidity that opposes culture, the neurosis called Nationalism, from which Europe suffers…the Germans have robbed Europe itself of meaning and intelligence and have led it into a blind ally … In the history of knowledge Germans are represented only by doubtful names, they have produced only “unconscious swindlers.” “German intellect” is bad air, a psychological uncleanliness that has now become instinctive — an uncleanliness which in every word and gesture betrays the German. And if a man is not clean how can he be deep? You can never fathom their (the German) depths, they have none; and that ends it … The German soul is small and base.

There is nothing to add to these words. The myth of German intellect and culture explodes under the hand of their outstanding product. German-proclaimed culture is not worth its, or any, cost.

However, is there yet some fine point about the Germans that we do not understand? Over a generation ago, the late American historian, Charles Francis Adams, disturbed by this very question, undertook to examine it:

Suspecting in my own case (that I did not think like a German) I have of late confined my reading on this topic almost exclusively to German sources. I have been taking a course on Nietzsche and Treitschke, as also in the German “Denkschrift,” illumined by excerpts from the German papers in this country and the official utterances of Chancellor von Bethmann-Hollweg. The result has been most disastrous. It has utterly destroyed my capacity for judicial consideration. I can only say that if what I find in those sources is a capacity to think Germanically, I would rather cease thinking at all. It is the absolute negation of everything which in the past tended to the elevation of mankind, and the installation in place thereof of a system of thorough dishonesty, emphasized by brutal stupidity. There is a low cunning about it, too, which is to me in the last degree repulsive.

Germanism was born ages ago, its growth has been proceeding for centuries, and it has now reached an advanced stage of flowering. Hitler is but a bud indicative of what kind of “flower” when it comes to full bloom, the world may expect to see!

Because she made no effort thousands of years ago, to become civilized as did her neighbors, Germany today is an outsider among all civilized nations. The processes which it has taken other nations thousands of years to absorb, cannot be suddenly absorbed by Germany overnight. Consequently, the continued existence of Germany among them becomes increasingly inimical to the best interests of civilized nations.

The deliberate and perverse distortions of what should have been a sane and normal course of development — as in other nations — now gives to Germany and her people a capacity unexcelled by any other peoples on earth, for fostering and propagating every indecent and inhuman precept of life. And as she seeks to distribute her own poisonous brew she has herself become so intoxicated by its ingredients that she can no longer escape the ever- constant desire, the urgent compulsion and the burning lust which it incites in her to extinguish any and all signs of good which she sees developed or practiced in other lands. Thus in self-justification Germany would excuse her own unnatural and perverse life by polluting others with her malignant infection. Germany is now well beyond all saving. The world had best look to its own preservation and welfare, lest some of those German poisons run through her system also and come to destroy it!

With each succeeding world war which she plans, plots and starts Germany comes ever closer and closer to her goal of world-dominion. At the present time Hitler, who has merely striven to remedy mistakes which previous German leaders made in attempts at world-subjection, may bring the German people very close to realizing their goal. And Hitler is not the last of the Führers!

How much misery, suffering, death and destruction are needed before it becomes apparent to the world that any compromise with Germanism will, of itself, be a certain guarantee that soon thereafter, Germany must again embark upon her unholy crusade to dominate it. How many more chances will be vouchsafed it to beat back Germany? Suppose there comes a time when Germany can not be halted? Dare we risk waiting? One never knows the exact hour one is scheduled to die; can we, with any more certitude and assurance tell which opportunity shall be our last? It may well be that this is our last chance. Suppose we pass it by; look ahead. Next time, the so-called elder generation of Germany will be the Hitler-trained youth of today, and this elder generation, now mothers and fathers, will already have instilled and encouraged their children with the idea of world-dominion. Thus the next Fuhrer may come to lead a nation of born fanatics! As a consequence of this there may come to be welded a machine so gigantic in proportions, so overwhelming in destructive power, that it may well overcome every possible obstacle in its path. For assuredly the German youth of the next generation — today schooled in Fuhrer schools — will find a leader, as past generations of German youth have always found a leader, to incarnate and personify the body and soul of that nation and dominate its collective Will.

A leader who will feed that German body and soul the only food upon which it can subsist: War!
6. A Middle Road?

With Germanism shown thus to be the very soul of conquest and world-dominion, may we not then pose this question: Is it possible for the world, in any manner, to find some compromise that will allow both it and Germany to exist side by side in peace and justice? In concrete terms, were peace declared tomorrow to Germany’s apparent satisfaction, could this nation born and bred on blood, be expected to be appeased for more than the immediate future?

We should like to hope so; but the history of that nation cuts the hope out of our heart.

The majority of people claim that Hitler alone stands between war and peace. But is it Hitler alone who smashed Austria, Czecho-Slovakia, Holland, Poland, Norway, Belgium and France and the Balkan countries? Is it Hitler alone who tortures and oppresses these people?

But for argument’s sake, let us assume that Hitler is no more and the world is seeking a just basis for peace with Germany. We quickly discover that the Germany of our dreams is not the Germany of dread reality.

For, in the first place, there is no longer living in Germany that so-called “older generation” with whom reasonable talk might be made. This woeful handful is gone and forgotten and in its stead stands that brown-shirted legion singing that glorious Horst-Wessel paean: Today Europe, tomorrow all the World! Enlightened reason with perverted chanters of a world-dirge composed by a drunkard, written in a brothel and dedicated to a pimp?

What then of a democratic Germany?

Democracy for a nation that has destroyed a mighty people of some thirty million Poles with the epithet “such a servant race has no existence”? Democracy for a people who believe only in superiority, not equality?

Well then, break Germany up into small autonomous states?


That Pan-Germanism which has received blind allegiance in Berlin of every German irrespective of his remoteness or his nationality could not overnight endure such an arbitrary and weak barrier to its dreams.

Let us carve up the world and give Germany a share which the world and she will agree is her just due?

Germany already has given us her answer:

“Germany does not want a share of anything. She wants, she demands, all or nothing.”

Re-educate the younger generation?

Even were such a vast program put into operation it is highly doubtful whether it would be worth the effort, or achieve its objective. The soul is a greater and infinitely more powerful force than the brain. And the martial characteristics of the German are linked indelibly with his spirit and have become an integral part of his soul. Some day that war-soul would again come to dominate his brain.

A final solution: Let Germany be policed forever by an international armed force?

Even is such a huge undertaking were feasible life itself would not have it so. As war begets war, suppression begets rebellion. Undreamed horrors would unfold.

Thus we find that there is no middle course; no act of mediation, no compromise to be compounded, no political or economic sharing to be considered. There is, in fine, no other solution except one: That Germany must perish forever from this earth!

And, fortunately, as we shall now come to see, that is no longer impossible of accomplishment.
7. Death to Germany

When an Individual commits premeditated murder, he must be prepared to forfeit his own life in consequence. When a nation commits premeditated murder upon its fellow nations, it must be prepared to forfeit its own national life.

On that point the laws of man and God are explicit:

“An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, and a life for a life.”

But what is the law of man or God to Germany? Nothing.

She recognizes only German law; so be it.

It must then be German law, if such a law there be, which decrees her penalty — the penalty of death.

And there is such a German law which decrees that death to her:

As in all human affairs, there must also be in every system of punishment a last limit, a ne plus ultra that no punishment can overstep. Thus even from the point of view of pure theory the necessity of the depth-penalty is postulated; it is, as the ultimate punishment on earth, the indispensable keystone of every ordered system of criminal law. No apparent reasons which are alleged against it can withstand any serious criticism. The State, which has the right to sacrifice for its own protection the flower of its youth, is to feel so nice a regard for the life of a murderer? We much rather allow to the State the right to make away with men who are undoubtedly injurious to the common weal. That the powers that be must bear the sword is an expression which runs deep in the blood of the honest man; if this truth is to be banished out of the world, great wrong is done to the simple moral feeling of the people. The ultimate problems of the moral life are to be solved in the domain of the practical, not of the theoretical, reason. The conscience of every earnest man demands that blood be atoned by blood, and the common man must simply grow doubtful of the existence of justice on earth, of this last and highest punishment is not inflicted. The State makes itself ridiculous and contemptible if it cannot finally dispose of a criminal. There must be a limit for mercy and indulgence, as for the law, a last limit at which the State says: “This is the end, humanity is not longer possible here.” It must be possible to inflict at last a punishment beyond which there is nothing, and that is the punishment of death. (Heinrich von Treitschke.)

Let German Will be done!

There remains now but to determine the best way, the most practical and expeditious manner in which the ultimate penalty must be levied upon the German nation. Quite naturally, massacre and wholesale execution must be ruled out. In addition to being impractical when applied to a population of some seventy million, such methods are inconsistent with the moral obligations and ethical practices of civilization. There remains then but one mode of ridding the world forces of Germanism — and that is to stem the source from which issue those war-lusted souls, by preventing the people of Germany from ever again reproducing their kind. This modern method, known to science as Eugenic Sterilization, is at once practical, humane and thorough. Sterilization has become a byword of science, as the best means of ridding the human race of its misfits: the degenerate, the insane, the hereditary criminal.

Sterilization is not to be confused with castration. It is a safe and simple operation, quite harmless and painless, neither mutilating nor unsexing the patient. Its effects are most often less distressing than vaccination and not more serious than a tooth extraction. Too, the operation is extremely rapid requiring no more than ten minutes to complete. The patient may resume his work immediately afterwards. Even in the case of the female the operation, though taking longer to perform, is as safe and simple. Performed thousands of times, no records indicate cases of complication or death. When one realizes that such health measures as vaccination and serum treatments are considered as direct benefits to the community, certainly sterilization of the German people cannot but be considered a great health measure promoted by humanity to immunize itself forever against the virus of Germanism.

The population of Germany, excluding conquered and annexed territories, is about 70,000,000, almost equally divided between male and female. To achieve the purpose of German extinction it would be necessary to only sterilize some 48,000,000 — a figure which excludes, because of their limited power to procreate, males over 60 years of age, and females over 45.

Concerning the males subject to sterilization the army groups, as organized units, would be the easiest and quickest to deal with. Taking 20,000 surgeons as an arbitrary number and on the assumption that each will perform a minimum of 25 operations daily, it would take no more than one month, at the maximum, to complete their sterilization. Naturally the more doctors available, and many more than the 20,000 we mention would be available considering all the nations to be drawn upon, the less time would be required. The balance of the male civilian population of Germany could be treated within three months. Inasmuch as sterilization of women needs somewhat more time, it may be computed that the entire female population of Germany could be sterilized within a period of three years or less. Complete sterilization of both sexes, and not only one, is to be considered necessary in view of the present German doctrine that so much as one drop of true German blood constitutes a German.

Of course, after complete sterilization, there will cease to be a birth rate in Germany. At the normal death rate of 2 per cent per annum, German life will diminish at the rate of 1,500,000 yearly. Accordingly in the span of two generations that which cost millions of lives and centuries of useless effort, namely, the elimination of Germanism and its carriers, will have been an accomplished fact. By virtue of its loss of self-perpetuation German Will will have atrophied and German power reduced to negligible importance.

Reviewing the foregoing case of sterilization we find that several factors resulting from it firmly establish its advocacy.

Firstly, no physical pain will be imposed upon the inhabitants of Germany through its application, a decidedly more humane treatment than they will have deserved. As a matter of fact it is not inconceivable that after Germany’s defeat, the long-suffering peoples of Europe may demand a far less humane revenge than that of mere sterilization.

Secondly, execution of the plan would in no way disorganize the present population nor would it cause any sudden mass upheavals and dislocations. The consequent gradual disappearance of the Germans from Europe will leave no more negative effect upon that continent than did the gradual disappearance of the Indians upon this.

Here again, a German attests to this point, Spengler’s famous: “A nation or an individual may die and leave no gap!”

A detailed program of the manner in which the outraged victims of Germanic onslaught might make certain that Germany leave no gap might be put hypothetically:

Germany has lost its war. She sues for peace. The imperative demands of the victor people that Germany must perish forever makes it obligatory for the leaders to select mass sterilization of the Germans as the best means of wiping them out permanently. They proceed to:

1. Immediately and completely disarm the German army and have all armaments removed from German territory.
2. Place all German utility and heavy industrial plants under heavy guard, and replace German workers by those of Allied nationality.
3. Segregate the German army into groups, concentrate them in severely restricted areas, and summarily sterilize them.
4. Organize the civilian population, both male and female, within territorial sectors, and effect their sterilization.
5. Divide the German army (after its sterilization has been completed) into labor battalions, and allocate their services toward the rebuilding of those cities which they ruined.
6. Partition Germany and apportion its lands. The accompanying map gives some idea of possible land adjustments which might be made in connection with Germany’s extinction.
7. Restrict all German civilian travel beyond established borders until all sterilization has been completed.
8. Compel the German population of the apportioned territories to learn the language of its area, and within one year to cease the publication of all books, newspapers and notices in the German language, as well as to restrict German-language broadcasts and discontinue the maintenance of German-language schools.
9. Make one exception to an otherwise severely strict enforcement of total sterilization, by exempting from such treatment only those Germans whose relatives, being citizens of various victor nations, assume financial responsibility for their actions.

Thus, into an oblivion which she would have visited upon the world, exists Germany.
8. ‘Lest We Forget …’

Perhaps in the Future …

United States has entered the war. The struggle is long and bitter but at last the Allies forge ahead. Their armies surround Germany.

Germany realizes that she has lost again. She dose not want invasions. She fears the vengeance long overdue her. So she sues for peace. Comes the Armistice!

And immediately thereafter, as once before, Germany finds that the words “Humanity” — which she has debased; “Justice” — which she has distorted; and “God” whom she has profaned, have an irresistible sales appeal to Allied Statesmen.

Germany puts her propaganda machine to work.

Soon men in the victor nations are urging:

“Peace with Honor!” — “Justice without Rancor!” — “God and Mercy!”, and all those other weak, sticky phrases which befuddle the weary minds and exhausted emotions of the long-suffering people of the war-decimated democracies.

Forgotten in the sudden lush of a peace that is no peace, are all the brave sons who were sacrificed to the monster Germany: forgotten is the plight of the countries whose resources were drained, and whose energies were sapped in stemming the Teutonic onslaught. Forgotten, too, is the duty owed to generations yet to be born. Forgotten, as in 1918, is the day of the coming of the next German leader.

Yes: all forgotten because the Allies cannot resist such an appeal. And so, even though a hundred years and a hundred instances have shown the hypocrisy of a German promise, the Allies fall once again its victim.

They forget that the struggle they waged was not a sport’s contest: that their adversary was a beast, not a human being! And so, filled to overflowing with the infectious germ of sentiment, they stretch out their hand to their fallen opponent and help him arise.

They pat him on the back with a hearty “No hard feelings, old man!” and, happy that the war is now over and done with, return to their homes.

Believing, sincerely, that German war will not come again.

Believing that somehow, in some inexplicable manner, Germany has accepted Christ.

A decade passes. A decade of hard work and many sacrifices.

A decade of much sweat and little pleasure.

But the democratic peoples do not mind. They are building a better world for their children.

So they think.

Meanwhile Germany grows strong and robust.

Her army is larger and more powerful than ever before; she has developed new weapons whose frightfulness surpass all imagination. She had found a new leader. And her war-souled people are bent once again upon conquering the world.

Once more the earth trembles beneath the march of the German boot.

Like a cobra Germany is poised:

She strikes!

The people of the civilized nations are stunned.

They exclaim, “But it cannot be again!”

But it is.

And this time it is Too Late!

For Germany wins. She is mistress of the world.

…and so a thousand years of peace was sold to the Devil for a moment’s respite! And only because men tried to placate the body, instead of expunging forever the bestial war-soul, of the German!

The sun now shivers as it rises upon a Dark world.

For slaves to the German are children once free.

Civilization is no more. Perversity is raged rampant.

Even the moon shudders as it wanes in a frightening chill.

This is, finally, “Deutschland Ueber Alles.”

Shall it be so?

Our choice lies still before us:

False sentiment or courageous decision —

Which shall it be?

1. The Great Enigma: Bourdon.
2. Senator Ernest Lundeen: “Six Men and War” — July 11, 1940.
3. Thus Spake Zarathusra: Friedrich Nietzsche.
4. Die Politik: Heinrich von Treitschke.
5. Geschichte des Untergangs der Antiken Welt: O. Seeck.
6. Deutsche Geschichte: Lamprecht.
7. Unsere Muttersprache: Prof. D. Weise.
8. Alldeutsche Blätter: 1894.
9. Same as number 4.
10. Pan-German League: Wertheimer.
11. Das Deutschtum in Chile, Munish, 1899.
12. Zwecke and Ziele des alldeutschen Verbandes: Adolf Lehr.
13. Geschichte des alldeutchen Verbandes: Otto Bouhard.
14. Grossdeutschland und Mitteleuropa um das Jahr 1950.
15. Germania Triumpahns: von einem Grossdeutschen, Berlin, 1895.
16. Die Abrechnung mit En gland: Karl Eisenhart.
17. Pan-Germanic Doctrine: Austin Harrison.
18. Deutschland unter den Weltvölkern: Dr. Paul Rohrbach.
19. Alldeutsche Blätter, January 17, 1903.
20. Das Deutschtum in den Vereinigten Staaten: Dr. Julius Goebel, 1904.
21. Die Nation, March 5, 1898.
22. Handels und Machtpolitik.
23. Ein kritische Stunde in der Entwicklungsgeschichte unseres Volkes: Henry F.Suksdorf.
24. “Das Deutschtum im Auslande”: article, Dr. Alfred Funke, April 1903.
25. Grenzboten — July 25, 1901.
26. Die alldeutsche Begregung und die Niederland: Fritz Bley, 1897.

© 2005 Institute for Historical Review

Read Full Post »

Behind the Balfour Declaration
Britain’s Great War Pledge To Lord Rothschild

By Robert John
Source: Institute for Historical Review

To Benjamin H. Freedman, who committed himself to finding and telling the facts about Zionism and Communism. and encouraged others to do the same. The son of one of the founders of the American Jewish Committee, which for many years was anti-Zionist, Ben Freedman founded the League for Peace with Justice in Palestine in 1946. He gave me copies of materials on the Balfour Declaration which I might never have found on my own and encouraged my own research. (He died in April 1984.)

The Institute for Historical Review is providing means for the better understanding of the events of our time.

Attempts to review historical records impartially often reveal that blame, culpability, or dishonor are not to be attached wholly to one side in the conflicts of the last hundred years. To seek to untangle fact from propaganda is a worthy study, for it increases understanding of how we got where we are and it should help people resist exploitation by powerful and destructive interests in the present and future, by exposing their working in the past.

May I recommend to the Nobel Prize Committee that when the influence of this organization’s historical review and search for truth has prevailed the societies of its contributors — say about 5 years or less from now — that they consider the IHR for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Regrettably, some of the company in that award would be hard to bear!

The Balfour Declaration may be the most extraordinary document produced by any Government in world history. It took the form of a letter from the Government of His Britannic Majesty King George the Fifth, the Government of the largest empire the world has even known, on which — once upon a time — the sun never set; a letter to an international financier of the banking house of Rothschild who had been made a peer of the realm.

Arthur Koestler wrote that in the letter “one nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third.” More than that, the country was still part of the Empire of a fourth, namely Turkey.

It read:

Foreign Office, November 2nd,1917

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you on behalf of His Majesty’s Government the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations, which has been submitted to and approved by the Cabinet:

“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”

I should be grateful if you would bring this Declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,

Arthur James Balfour.[1]

It was decided by Lord Allenby that the “Declaration” should not then be published in Palestine where his forces were still south of the Gaza-Beersheba line. This was not done until after the establishment of the Civil Administration in 1920.

Then why was the “Declaration” made a year before the end of what was called The Great War?

“The people” were told at the time that it was given as a return for a debt of gratitude which they were supposed to owe to the Zionist leader (and first President of Israel), Chaim Weizman, a Russian-born immigrant to Britain from Germany who was said to have invented a process of fermentation of horse chestnuts into scarce acetone for production of high explosives by the Ministry of Munitions.

This horse chestnut propaganda production was not dislodged from the mass mind by the short bursts of another story which was used officially between the World Wars.

So let us dig into the records and bury the chestnuts forever.

To know where to explore we must stand back from the event and look over some parts of the relevant historical background. The terrain is extensive and the mud deep, so I shall try to proceed by pointing out markers.
Herzl on the Jewish Problem

Support for a “national home” for the Jews in Palestine from the government of the greatest empire in the world was in part a fulfillment of the efforts and scheming of Theodore Herzl (1860-1904), descendant of Sephardim (on his rich father’s side) who had published Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) in Vienna in l896. It outlined the factors which he believed had created a universal Jewish problem, and offered a program to regulate it through the exodus of unhappy and unwanted Jews to an autonomous territory of their own in a national-socialist setting.

Herzl offered a focus for a Zionist movement founded in Odessa in 1881, which spread rapidly through the Jewish communities of Russia, and small branches which had sprung up in Germany, England and elsewhere. Though “Zion” referred to a geographical location, it functioned as a utopian conception in the myths of traditionalists, modernists and Zionists alike. It was the reverse of everything rejected in the actual Jewish situation in the “Dispersion,” whether oppression or assimilation.

In his diary Herzl describes submitting his draft proposals to the Rothschild Family Council, noting: “I bring to the Rothschilds and the big Jews their historical mission. I shall welcome all men of goodwill — we must be united — and crush all those of bad.” [2]

He read his manuscript “Addressed to the Rothschilds” to a friend, Meyer-Cohn, who said,

Up till now I have believed that we are not a nation — but more than a nation. I believed that we have the historic mission of being the exponents of universalism among the nations and therefore were more than a people identified with a specific land.

Herzl replied:

Nothing prevents us from being and remaining the exponents of a united humanity, when we have a country of our own. To fulfill this mission we do not have to remain literally planted among the nations who hate and despite us. If, in our present circumstances, we wanted to bring about the unity of mankind independent of national boundaries, we would have to combat the ideal of patriotism. The latter, however, will prove stronger than we for innumerable years to come.” [2a]

In this era, there were a number of Christians and Messianic groups who looked for a Jewish “return.” One of these was the Protestant chaplain at the British Embassy in Vienna, who had published a book in 1882: The Restoration of the Jews to Palestine According to the Prophets. Through him, Herzl obtained an audience of the Grand Duke of Baden, and as they waited for their appointment to go to the castle, Herzl said to Chaplain Hechler, ”When I go to Jerusalem I shall take you with me.”

The Duke gave Herzl’s proposal his consideration, and agreed to Herzl’s request that he might refer to it in his meetings outside of Baden. He then used this to open his way to higher levels of power.

Through intermediaries, he endeavoured to ingratiate himself with the Sultan of Turkey by activities designed to reduce the agitation by émigré Armenian committees in London and Brussels for Turkish reforms and cessation of oppression [A] and started a press campaign to calm public opinion in London on the Armenian question. But when offered money for Palestine, the Sultan replied that his people had won their Empire with blood, and owned it. ”The Jews may spend their millions. When my Empire is divided, perhaps they will get Palestine for nothing. But only our corpse can be divided. I will never consent to vivisection. ” [2b]

Herzl met the Papal Nunclo in Vienna and promised the exclusion of Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth from the Jewish state. He started a Zionist newspaper, Die Welt, and was delighted to hear from the United States that a group of rabbis headed by Dr. Gustave Gottheil favored a Zionist movement. All this, and more, in a few months.

It was Herzl who created the first Zionist Congress at Basel, Switzerland, 29-31 August 1897, [B] There were 197 “delegates”; some were orthodox, some nationalist, liberal, atheist, culturalist, anarchist, socialist and some capitalist.

”We want to lay the foundation stone of the house which is to shelter the Jewish nation,” and ”Zionism seeks to obtain for the Jewish people a publicly recognized, legally secured homeland in Palestine.” declared Herzl. And his anti-assimilationist dictum that “Zionism is a return to the Jewish fold even before it is a return to the Jewish land,” was an expression of his own experience which was extended into the official platform of Zionisn as the aim of “strengthening the Jewish national sentiment and national consciousness.” [3]

Another leading figure who addressed the Congress was Max Nordau, a Hungarian Jewish physician and author, who delivered a polemic against assimilated Jews. “For the first time the Jewish problem was presented forcefully before a European forum,” wrote Weizmann. But the Russian Jews thought Herzl was patronizing them as Askenazim. They found his “western dignity did not sit well with our Russian-Jewish realism; and without wanting to, we could not help irritating him.” [4]

As a result of the Congress, the “Basic Protocol,” keystone of the world Zionist movement, was adopted as follows:

Zionism strives to create for the Jewish people a home in Palestine secured by public law. The Congress contemplates the following means to the attainment of this end:

1. The promotion on suitable lines of the colonization of Palestine by Jewish agricultural and industrial workers.

2. The organization and binding together of the whole of Jewry by means of appropriate institutions, local and international, in accordance with the laws of each country.

3. The strengthening and fostering of Jewish national sentiment and consciousness.

4. Preparatory steps towards obtaining Government consent where necessary to the attainment of the aim of Zionism.[5]

The British Chovevei-Zion Association declined an invitation to be represented at the Congress, and the Executive Committee of the Association of Rabbis in Germany protested that:

1. The efforts of so-called Zionists to found a Jewish national state in Palestine contradict the messianic promise of Judaism as contained in the Holy Writ and in later religious sources.

2. Judaism obligates its adherents to serve with all devotion the Fatherland to which they belong, and to further its national interests with all their heart and with all their strength.

3. However, those noble aims directed toward the colonization of Palestine by Jewish peasants and farmers are not in contradiction to these obligations, because they have no relation whatsoever to the founding of a national state.[6]

In conversation with a delegate at the First Congress, Litman Rosenthal, Herzl said,

It may be that Turkey will refuse or be unable to understand us. This will not discourage us. We will seek other means to accomplish our end. The Orient question is now the question of the day. Sooner or later it will bring about a conflict among the nations. A European war is imminent. . The great European War must come. With my watch in hand do I await this terrible moment. After the great European war is ended the Peace Conference will assemble. We must be ready for that time. We will assuredly be called to this great conference of the nations and we must prove to them the urgent importance of a Zionist solution to the Jewish Question. We must prove to them that the problem of the Orient and Palestine is one with the problem of the Jews — both must be solved together. We must prove to them that the Jewish problem is a world problem and that a world problem must be solved by the world. And the solution must be the return of Palestine to the Jewish people.[American Jewish News, 7 March 1919]

A few months later, in a message to a Jewish conference in London, Herzl wrote “the first moment I entered the Movement my eyes were directed towards England because I saw that by reason of the general situation of things there it was the Archimedean point where the lever could be applied.” Herzl showed his desire for some foothold in England, and also perhaps his respect for London as the world’s financial center, by causing the Jewish Colonial Trust, which was to be the main financial instrument of his Movement, to be incorporated in 1899 as an English company.

Herzl was indefatigable. He offered the Sultan of Turkey help in re-organizing his financial affairs in return for assistance in Jewish settlement in Palestine.[7] To the Kaiser, who visited Palestine in 1888 and again in 1898, [C] he promised support for furthering German interests in the Near East; a similar offer was made to King Edward VII of England; and he personally promised the Pope to respect the holy places of Christendom in return for Vatican support.[D] But only from the Czar did he receive, through the Minister of the Interior, a pledge of “moral and material assistance with respect to the measures taken by the movement which would lead to a diminution of the Jewish population in Russia.” [8]

He reported his work to the Sixth Zionist Congress at Basle on 23 August 1903, but stated, “Zion is not and can never be. It is merely an expedient for colonization purposes, but, be it well understood, an expedient founded on a national and political basis.” [9]

When pressed for Jewish colonization in Palestine, the Turkish Sublime Porte offered a charter for any other Turkish territory [with acceptance by the settlers of Ottoman citizenship] which Herzl refused.[11] The British Establishment, aware of Herzl’s activities through his appearance before the Royal Commission on Alien Immigration, [E] and powerful press organs such as the Daily Chronicle and Pall Mall Gazette which were demanding a conference of the Powers to consider the Zionist program, [12] somewhat characteristically, had shown a willingness to negotiate about a Jewish colony in the Egyptian territory of El-‘Arish on the Turco-Egyptian frontier in the Sinai Peninsula. But the Egyptian Government objected to making Nile water available for irrigation; the Turkish Government, through its Commissioner in Cairo, objected; and the British Agent in Cairo, Lord Cromer, finally advised the scheme’s rejection.[13]

Meanwhile, returning from a visit to British East Africa in the Spring of 1903, Prime Minister Joseph Chamberlain put to Herzl the idea of a Jewish settlement in what was soon to become the Colony of Kenya, but through a misunderstanding Herzl believed that Uganda was intended, and it was referred to as the “Uganda scheme.” Of the part of the conversation on the El-‘Arish proposal, Herzl wrote in his diary that he had told Chamberlain that eventually we shall gain our aims “not from the goodwill but from the jealously of the Powers.” [14] With the failure of the El-‘Arish proposal, Herzl authorized the preparation of a draft scheme for settlement in East Africa. This was prepared by the legal firm of Lloyd George, Roberts and Company, on the instructions of Herzl’s go-between with the British Government, Leopold Greenberg.[15]

Herzl urged acceptance of the “Uganda scheme,” favoring it as a temporary refuge, but he was opposed from all sides, and died suddenly of heart failure on 3 July 1904. Herzl’s death rid the Zionists of an “alien,” and he was replaced by David Wolffsohn (the Litvak [F]).[16]

The “Uganda proposal” split the Zionist movement. Some who favored it formed the Jewish Territorial Organization, under the leadership of Israel Zangwill (1864-1926). For these territorialists, the renunciation of “Zion” was not generally felt as an ideological sacrifice; instead they contended that not mystical claims to “historic attachment” but present conditions should determine the location of a Jewish national homeland.[17]

In Turkey, the “Young Turk” (Committee of Union and Progress) revolution of 1908 was ostensibly a popular movement opposed to foreign influence. However, Jews and crypto-Jews known as Dunmeh had played a leading part in the Revolution.[19]

The Zionists opened a branch of the Anglo-Palestine Bank in the Turkish capital, and the bank became the headquarters of their work in the Ottoman Empire. Victor Jacobson [G] was brought from Beirut, “ostensibly to represent the Anglo-Palestine Company, but really to make Zionist propaganda among the Turkish Jews.” [20] His contacts included both political parties, discussions with Arab members of Parliament from Syria and Palestine, and a general approach to young Ottoman intellectuals through a newspaper issued by the Zionist office.[21] In Turkey, as in Germany, “Their own native Jews were resentful of the attempt to segregate them as Jews and were opposed to the intrusion of Jewish nationalism in their domestic affairs.” Though several periodicals in French “were subvened” by the Zionist-front office under Dr. Victor Jacobson, [22] (the first Zionist who aspired to be not a Zionist leader but a “career” diplomat,) and although he built up good political connections through social contacts, “always avoiding the sharpness of a direct issue, and waiting in patient oriental fashion for the insidious seed of propaganda to fructify,” [23] yet some of those engaged in the work, notably Vladimir (Zev) Jabotinsky (1880-1940), came to despair of success so long as the Ottoman Empire controlled Palestine. They henceforth pinned their hopes on its collapse.[24]

At the Tenth Zionist Congress in 1911, David Wolffsohn, who had succeeded Herzl, said in his presidential address that what the Zionists wanted was not a Jewish state but a homeland, [26] while Max Nordau denounced the “infamous traducers,” who alleged that “the Zionists … wanted to worm their way into Turkey in order to seize Palestine . It is our duty to convince (the Turks) that … they possess in the whole world no more generous and self-sacrificing friends than the Zionists.” [H] [27]

The mild sympathy which the Young Turks had shown for Zionism was replaced by suspicion as growing national unrest threatened the Ottoman Empire, especially in the Balkans. Zionist policy then shifted to the Arabs, so that they might think of Zionism as a possible make-weight against the Turks. But Zionists soon observed that their reception by Arab leaders grew warmer as the Arabs were disappointed in their hopes of gaining concessions from the Turks, but cooled swiftly when these hopes revived. The more than 60 Arab parliamentary delegates in Constantinople and the newly active Arabic press kept up “a drumfire of complaints” against Jewish immigration, land purchase and settlement in Palestine.[28]

“After many years of striving, the conviction was forced upon us that we stood before a blank wall, which it was impossible for us to surmount by ordinary political means,” said Weizmann of the last pre-war Zionist Congress. But the strength of the national will forged for itself two main roads towards its goal — the gradual extension and strengthening of our Yishuv (Hebrew: literally, “settlement,” a collective name for the Jewish settlers) in Palestine and the spreading of the Zionist idea throughout the length and breadth of Jewry.[29]

The Turks were doing all they could to keep Jews out of Palestine. But this barrier was covertly surmounted, partly due to the venality of Turkish officials, [30] (as delicately put in a Zionist report — “it was always possible to get round the individual official with a little artifice”); [32] and partly to the diligence of the Russian consuls in Palestine in protecting Russian Jews and saving them from expulsion.[33]

But if Zionism were to succeed in its ambitions, Ottoman rule of Palestine must end. Arab independence could be prevented by the intervention of England and France, Germany or Russia. The Eastern Jews hated Czarist Russia. With the entente cordiale in existence, it was to be Germany or England, with the odds slightly in Britain’s favor in potential support of the Zionist aim in Palestine, as well as in military power.[I] On the other hand, Zionism was attracting some German and Austrian Jews with important financial interests and had to take into account strong Jewish anti-Zionist opinion in England.

But before Zionism had finally reckoned it could gain no special consideration in Palestine from Turkey, the correspondent of The Times was able to report in a message published 14 April 1911, of the Zionist organ Jeune Turc’s [J] “violent hostility to England” and “its germanophile enthusiasm,” and to the propaganda carried on among Turkish Jews by “German Zionist agents.” When the policy line altered, this impression in England had to be erased.[34] The concern of the majority of rich English Jews was not allayed by articles in the Jewish Chronicle, edited by Leopold Greenberg, pointing out that in the Basle program there was “not a word of any autonomous Jewish state,” [35] and in Die Welt, the official organ of the Movement, the article by Nahum Sokolow, then the General Secretary of the Zionist Organization, in which he protested that there was no truth in the allegation that Zionism aimed at the establishment of an independent Jewish State.[36] Even at the 11th Congress in 1913, Otto Warburg, speaking as chairman of the Zionist Executive, gave assurances of loyalty to Turkey, adding that in colonizing Palestine and developing its resources, Zionists would be making a valuable contribution to the progress of the Turkish Empire.[37]
[A] A letter entered in Herzl’s diary on 15 May 1896 states that the head of the Armenian movement in London is Avetis Nazarhek, “and he directs the paper Huntchak (The Bell). He will be spoken to.”
[B] On either side of the main doorway of the hall hung white banners with two blue stripes, and over the doorway was placed a six-pointed “Shield of David.” It was the invention of David Wolffsohn, who employed the colors of the traditional Jewish prayer shawl. Fifty years later, the combined emblems became the flag of the Zionist state. The “Shield of David” is of Assyrian origin: previously a decorative motif or magical emblem. It appeared on the heraldic flag of the Jews in Prague in 1527.
[C] On the latter trip he was accompanied by his Empress. Their yacht, the Hohenzollern, put in at Haifa, and they were escorted to Jerusalem by 2,000 Turkish soldiers.
[D] Pope Pius X told him that the Church could not support the return of “infidel Jews” to the Holy Land.[10]
[E] In 1880, there were about 60,000 Jews in England. Between 1881 and 1905, there was an immigration of some 100,000 Eastern Jews. Though cut by the Aliens Bill of the Balfour Government, which became law in the summer of 1905, immigration continued so that by 1914 there was a Jewish population in England of some 300,000. A leader of the fight against the Aliens Bill and against tightening up naturalization regulations in 1903-1904 was Winston S. Churchill.[18]
[F] The Eastern Jews referred to each other as “Litvaks” (Lithuania), “Galizianers” (Galicia), “Polaks,” “Hungarians,” and geographical regions of their ancestral origin, e.g., “Pinskers”; never by the term Jew.
[G] (1869 — 1935). Born in the Crimea, and nurtured in the atmosphere of assimilation and revolutionary agitation in Russia, Jacobson had organized clubs and written about Zionism in Russian Jewish newspapers. After the First World War, the era of the direct and indirect bribe and the contact man gave way to one in which the interests of nationalities, represented by diplomat-attorneys, had to be met, wrote Lipsky: “In this new world into which Jacobson was thrown, he laboured with the delicacy and concentration of an artist . . working persistently and with vision to build up an interest in the cause. He had to win sympathy as well as conviction.” [25]
[H] In the Zionist Congress of 1911, (22 years before Hitler came to power, and three years before World War I), Nordau said, “How dare the smooth talkers, the clever official blabbers, open their mouths and boast of progress … Here they hold jubilant peace conferences in which they talk against war… But the same righteous governments, who are so nobly, industriously active to establish the eternal peace, are preparing, by their own confession, complete annihilation for six million people, and there is nobody, except the doomed themselves, to raise his voice in protest although this is a worse crime than any war … ” [31]
[I] Approximate annual expenditure for military purposes by the European Powers in the first years of the century were: France — £38,400,000; Germany — £38,000,000; Italy — £15,000,000; Russia — £43,000,000; United States — £38,300,000; Great Britain — £69,000,000 at pre-1914 values of sterling.
[J] Its business manager was a German Jew, Sam Hochberg. Among invited contributors was the immensely wealthy Russian Jew Alexander Helphand who, as “Parvus,” was later to suggest to the German left-wing parties that Lenin and his associates be sent to Russia in 1917 to demoralize still further the beaten Russian armies.
The Great War

Until mid-1914, the surface of European diplomatic relations was placid, reflecting successfully negotiated settlements of colonial and other questions. But certain British journalists were charged by their contemporaries “that they deliberately set out to poison Anglo-German relations and to create by their scaremongering such a climate of public opinion that war between the two Great Powers became inevitable.” (The Scaremongers: The Advocacy of War and Rearmament 1896-1914, A. J. A. Morris, Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984)

Were they paid or pure? Every anti-German diatribe in British newspapers added to German government concern as to whether it was part of a policy instigated or condoned by Downing Street. Further, there were groups in every major European country which could see only in war the possible means to further their interests or to thwart the ambitions of their rivals. This is why the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir-apparent to the Austro-Hungarian throne, on 28 June in Sarajevo, soon set Europe crackling with fire, a fire which naturally spread through the lines of communications to colonial territories as far away as China.

On 28 July, Austria declared war on Serbia. Germany sent an ultimatum to Russia threatening hostilities if orders for total mobilization of the Russian army and navy were not countermanded.

A telegram dated 29 July 1914 from the Czar Nicholas to the Emperor Wilhelm, proposing that the Austro-Serbian dispute should be referred to the Hague Tribunal, remained unanswered. At the same time Germany sent a message to France asking if she would remain neutral; but France, which had absorbed issue after issue of Russian railroad bonds in addition to other problems, was unequivocal in supporting Russia. Amid mounting tension and frontier violations, Germany declared war on Russia and France.

The French Chief-of-Staff, General Joseph Joffre, was prepared to march into Belgium if the Germans first violated its neutrality [38] which had been guaranteed by Britain, France, Prussia, Austria and Russia. German troops crossed the Belgian frontier (on 4 August at 8 a.m.) and the United Kingdom declared war on Germany.
First Pledge

Lord Kitchener, who had left London at 11:30 on the morning of 3 August to return to Egypt after leave, was stopped at Dover and put in charge of the War Office.[39] At the first meeting of the War Council he warned his colleagues of a long struggle which would be won not at sea but on land, for which Britain would have to raise an army of millions of men and maintain them in the field for several years.[40] When the defense of Egypt was discussed at the meeting, Winston Churchill suggested that the ideal method of defending Egypt was to attack the Gallipoli Peninsula which, if successful, would give Britain control of the Dardenelles. But this operation was very difficult, and required a large force. He preferred the alternative of a feint at Gallipoli, and a landing at Haifa or some other point on the Syrian coast.

In Turkey, the Sultan had taken the title of Khalif-al-IsIam, or supreme religious leader of Moslems everywhere, and emissaries were dispatched to Arab chiefs with instructions that in the event of Turkey being involved in the European hostilities, they were to declare a jihad, or Moslem holy war. A psychological and physical force which Kitchener of Khartoum, the avenger of General Gordon’s death, understood very well.

Kitchener planned to draw the sting of the jihad, which could affect British-Indian forces and rule in the East, by promoting an Arab revolt to be led by Hussein, who had been allowed by the Turks to assume his hereditary dignity as Sherif of Mecca and titular ruler of the Hejaz. Kitchener cabled on 13 October 1914 to his son, Abdullah, in Mecca, saying that if the Arab nation assisted England in this war, England would guarantee that no internal intervention took place in Arabia, and would give the Arabs every assistance against external aggression.

A series of letters passed between Sherif Hussein and the British Government through Sir Henry McMahon, High Commissioner for Egypt, designed to secure Arab support for the British in the Great War. One dated 24 October 1915 committed HMG to the inclusion of Palestine within the boundaries of Arab independence after the war, but excluded the area now known as Lebanon. This is clearly recognized in a secret “Memorandum on British Commitments to King Hussein” prepared for the inner group at the Peace Conference in 1919. (See Appendix) I found a copy in 1964 among the papers of the late Professor Wm. Westermann, who had been adviser on Turkish affairs to the American Delegation to the Peace Conference.
The Second Pledge

As the major ally, France’s claim to preference in parts of Syria could not be ignored. The British Foreign Minister, Sir Edward Grey, told the French Ambassador in London, Mr. Paul Gambon, on 21 October 1915, of the exchanges of correspondence with Sherif Hussein, and suggested that the two governments arrive at an understanding with their Russian ally on their future interests in the Ottoman Empire.

M. Picot was appointed French representative with Sir Mark Sykes, now Secretary of the British War Cabinet, to define the interests of their countries and to go to Russia to include that country’s views in their agreement.

In the subsequent secret discussions with Foreign Secretary Sazonov, Russia was accorded the occupation of Constantinople, both shores of the Bosporus and some parts of “Turkish” Armenia.[A] France claimed Lebanon and Syria eastwards to Mosul. Palestine did in fact have inhabitants and shrines of the Greek and Russian Orthodox and Armenian churches, and Russia at first claimed a right to the area as their protector. This was countered by Sykes-Picot and the claim was withdrawn to the extent that Russia, in consultation with the other Allies, would only participate in deciding a form of international administration for Palestine.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement was incompatible with the pledges made to the Arabs. When the Turks gave Hussein details of the Agreement after the Russian revolution, he confined his action to a formal repudiation.

Like the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, the Tripartite Agreement made no mention of concessions to Zionism in the future disposition of Palestine, or even mention of the word “Jew.” However it is now known that before the departure of Sykes [B] for Petrograd on 27 February 1916 for discussions with Sazonov, he was approached with a plan by Herbert Samuel, who had a seat in the Cabinet as President of the Local Government Board and was strongly sympathetic to Herzl’s Zionism.[41]

The plan put forward by Samuel was in the form of a memorandum which Sykes thought prudent to commit to memory and destroy, Commenting on it, Sykes wrote to Samuel suggesting that if Belgium should assume the administration of Palestine it might be more acceptable to France as an alternative to the international administration which she wanted and the Zionists did not.[42] Of boundaries marked on a map attached to the memorandum he wrote, “By excluding Hebron and the East of the Jordan there is less to discuss with the Moslems, as the Mosque of Omar then becomes the only matter of vital importance to discuss with them and further does away with any contact with the bedouins, who never cross the river except on business. I imagine that the principal object of Zionism is the realization of the ideal of an existing center of nationality rather than boundaries or extent of territory. The moment I return I will let you know how things stand at Pd.” [43]

However, in conversations both with Sykes and the French ambassador, Sazonov was careful not to commit himself as to the extent of the Russian interest in Palestine, but made it clear that Russia would have to insist that not only the holy places, but all towns and localities in which there were religious establishments belonging to the Orthodox Church, should be placed under international administration, with a guarantee for free access to the Mediterranean.[44]

Czarist Russia would not agree to a Zionist formula for Palestine; but its days were numbered.

A) This new offer to Russia of a direct outlet into the Mediterranean is a measure of the great importance attached by Britain and France to continued and wholehearted Russian participation in the war. British policy from the end of the Napoleonic wars had been directed against Russia’s efforts to extend its conquests to the Golden Horn and the Mediterranean (threatening Egypt and the way to India). For this reason, Britain and France had formed an alliance and fought the Crimean War (1854-56), which ended in the Black Sea being declared neutral; no warships could enter it nor could arsenals be built on its shores.

But Russian concern for the capture of Constantinople was more than economic and strategic. It was not unusual for priests to declare that the Russian people had a sacred duty to drive out the “infidel” Turk and raise the orthodox cross on the dome of Santa Sophia.

In 1877, the Russian armies again moved towards Constantinople with the excuse of avenging cruelties practiced on Christians. Again England frustrated these designs and the aggression ended with the Congress of Berlin, and British occupation of Cyprus.

B) Sir Mark Sykes, Secretary of the British War Cabinet, sent to Russia to negotiate the Tripartite (Sykes-Picot) Agreement for the Partition of the Ottoman Empire. M. Picot was the French representative in the negotiations. Neither Hussein nor Sir Henry McMahon were made aware of these secret discussions. Among other things, the agreement called for parts of Palestine to be placed under “an international administration.”
The Third Pledge

In 1914, the central office of the Zionist Organization and the seat of its directorate, the Zionist Executive, were in Berlin. It already had adherents in most Eastern Jewish communities, including all the countries at war, though its main strength was in Russia and Austria-Hungary.[45] Some important institutions, namely, the Jewish Colonial Trust, the Anglo-Palestine Company and the Jewish National Fund, were incorporated in England. Of the Executive, two members (Otto Warburg [A] and Arthur Hantke) were German citizens, three (Yechiel Tschlenow, Nahum Sokolow and Victor Jacobson) were Russians and one (Shmarya Levin) had recently exchanged his Russian for Austro-Hungarian nationality. The 25 members of the General Council included 12 from Germany and Austria-Hungary, 7 from Russia…Chaim Weizmann and Leopold Kessler) from England, and one each from Belgium, France, Holland and Rumania.[46]

Some prominent German Zionists associated themselves with a newly founded organization known as the Komitee fur den Osten, whose aims were: “To place at the disposal of the German Government the special knowledge of the founders and their relations with the Jews in Eastern Europe and in America, so as to contribute to the overthrow of Czarist Russia and to secure the national autonomy of the Jews.” [47]

Influential Zionists outside the Central Powers were disturbed by the activities of the K.f.d.O. and anxious for the Zionist movement not to be compromised. Weizmann’s advice was that the central office be moved from Berlin and that the conduct of Zionist affairs during the war should he entrusted to a provisional executive committee for general Zionist affairs in the United States.

At a conference in New York on 30 August 1914, this committee was set up under the chairmanship of Louis D. Brandeis, with the British-born Dr. Richard Gottheil and Jacob de Haas, Rabbi Stephen Wise and Felix Frankfurter, among his principal lieutenants. For Shmarya Levin, the representative of the Zionist Executive in the United States, and Dr. Judah Magnes, to whom the alliance of England and France with Russia seemed “unholy,” Russian czarism was the enemy against which their force should be pitted.[48] But on 1 October 1914 Gottheil, first President of the Zionist Organization of America, wrote from the Department of Semitic Languages, Columbia University, to Brandeis in Boston enclosing a memorandum on what the organization planned to seek from the belligerents, with respect to the Russian Jews:

We have got to be prepared to work under the Government of any one of the Powers … shall be glad to have any suggestion from you in regard to this memorandum, and shall be glad to know if it meets with your approval. I recognize that I ought not to have put it out without first consulting you; but the exigencies of the situation demanded immediate action. We ought to be fully prepared to take advantage of any occasion that offers itself.[49]

In a speech on 9 November, four days after Britain’s declaration of war on Turkey, Prime Minister Asquith said that the traditional eastern policy had been abandoned and the dismemberment of the Turkish Empire had become a war aim. “It is the Ottoman Government,” he declared, “and not we who have rung the death knell of Ottoman dominion not only in Europe but in Asia.” [50] The statement followed a discussion of the subject at a Cabinet meeting earlier that day, at which we know, from Herbert Samuel’s memoirs, that Lloyd George, who had been retained as legal counsel by the Zionists some years before, [51] “referred to the ultimate destiny of Palestine.” In a talk with Samuel after the meeting, Lloyd George assured him that “he was very keen to see a Jewish state established in Palestine.”

On the same day, Samuel developed the Zionist position more fully in a conversation with the Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey. He spoke of Zionist aspirations for the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish state, and of the importance of its geographical position to the British Empire. Such a state, he said, ”could not be large enough to defend itself.” and it would therefore be essential that it should be by constitution, neutral. Grey asked whether Syria as a whole must necessarily go with Palestine, and Samuel replied that this was not only unnecessary but inadvisable, since it would bring in a large and unassimilable Arab population. ”It would,” he said be a great advantage if the remainder of Syria were annexed by France, as it would be far better for the state to have a European Power as a neighbor than the Turk. ” [52]

In January 1915 Samuel produced a Zionist memorandum on Palestine after discussions with Weizmann and Lloyd George. It contained arguments in favor of combining British annexation of Palestine with British support for Zionist aspirations, and ended with objections to any other solution.[53] Samuel circulated it to his colleagues in the Cabinet. Lloyd George was already a Zionist ”partisan”; Lord Haldane, to whom Weizmann had had access, wrote expressing a friendly interest; [54] though privately expressing Zionist sympathies, the Marquess of Crewe presumably did not express any views in the Cabinet on the memorandum; [55] Zionism had a strong sentimental attraction for Grey[56] but his colleagues, including his cousin Edwin Montagu, did not give him much encouragement. Prime Minister Asquith wrote: “I confess that I am not attracted by the proposed addition to our responsibilities, but it is a curious illustration of Dissy’s favorite maxim that race is everything to find this almost lyrical outburst proceeding from the well-ordered and methodical brain of H.S.” [57]

After further conversations with Lloyd George and Grey.[58] Samuel circulated a revised text to the Cabinet in the middle of March 1915.

It is not known if the memorandum was formally considered by the Cabinet, but Asquith wrote in his diary on 13 March 1915 of Samuel’s “dithyrambic memorandum” of which Lloyd George was ”the only other partisan. ” [59] Certainly, at this time, Zionist claims and aspirations were secondary to British policy towards Russia and the Arabs.

Britain, France and Germany attached considerable importance to the attitudes of Jewry towards them because money and credit were needed for the war. The international banking houses of Lazard Frères, Eugene Mayer, J. & W. Seligman, Speyer Brothers and M.M. Warburg, were all conducting major operations in the United States, as were the Rothschilds through the New York banking house of Kuhn, Loeb & Co.[B] Apart from their goodwill. the votes of America’s Jewish community of 3,000,000 were important to the issue of that country’s intervention or non-intervention in the war, and the provision of military supplies. The great majority represented the one-third of the Jews of Eastern Europe. including Russia, who had left their homelands and come to America between 1880 and 1914. Many detested Czarist Russia and wished to see it destroyed. Of these Jews, not more than 12,000 were enrolled members of the Zionist Organization.[60]

The goodwill of Jewry, and especially America’s Jews, was assessed by both sides in the war as being very important. The once-poor Eastern European Jews had achieved a dominant position in New York’s garment industry. and had become a significant political force. In 1914 they sent a Russian-born socialist to the Congress of the United States. They produced dozens of Yiddish periodicals; they patronized numerous Yiddish theatres and music halls; their sons and daughters were filling the metropolitan colleges and universities.[61]

From the beginning of the war, the German Ambassador in Washington. Count Bernstorff, was provided. by the Komitee fuer den Osten, with an adviser on Jewish Affairs (Isaac Straus); and when the head of the Zionist Agency in Constantinople appealed, in the winter of 1914, to the German Embassy to do what it could to relieve the pressure on the Jews in Palestine, it was reinforced by a similar appeal to Berlin from Bernstorff.[62] In November 1914, therefore, the German Embassy in Constantinople received instructions to recommend that the Turks sanction the re-opening of the Anglo-Palestine Company’s Bank — a key Zionist institution. In December the Embassy made representations which prevented a projected mass deportation of Jews of Russian nationality.[63] In February 1915 German influence helped to save a number of Jews in Palestine from imprisonment or expulsion, and “a dozen or twenty times” the Germans intervened with the Turks at the request of the Zionist office in Turkey, “thus saving and protecting the Yishuv.” [65] The German representations reinforced those of the American Ambassador in Turkey (Henry Morgenthau).[C] [66] Moreover, both the German consulates in Palestine and the head of the German military mission there frequently exerted their influence on behalf of the Jews.[67]

German respect for Jewish goodwill enabled the Constantinople Zionist Agency from December 1914 to use the German diplomatic courier service and telegraphic code for communicating with Berlin and Palestine.[68] On 5 June 1915 Victor Jacobson was received at the German Foreign Office by the Under-Secretary of State (von Zimmerman) and regular contact commenced between the Berlin Zionist Executive (Warburg, Hantke and Jacobson) and the German Foreign Office.[69]

Zionist propagandists in Germany elaborated and publicized the idea that Turkey could become a German satellite and its Empire in Asia made wide open to German enterprise; support for “a revival of Jewish life in Palestine” would form a bastion of German influence in that part of the world.[70] This was followed by solicitation of the German Foreign Office to notify the German consuls in Palestine of the German Government’s friendly interest in Zionism. Such a course was favored by von Neurath [D] when asked by Berlin for his views in October, and in November of 1915, the text for such a document was agreed upon and circulated after the approval of the German Chancellor (Bethmann-Hollweg). It was cautiously and vaguely worded so as not to upset Turkish susceptibilities, stating to the Palestine consuls that the German Government looked favorably on “Jewish activities designed to promote the economic and cultural progress of the Jews in Turkey, and also on the immigration and settlement of Jews from other countries.” [71]

The Zionists felt that an important advance toward a firm German commitment to their aims had been made, but when the Berlin Zionist Executive pressed for a public assurance of sympathy and support, the Government told them to wait until the end of the war, when a victorious Germany would demonstrate its goodwill.[72]

When Zionist leaders in Germany met Jemal Pasha, by arrangement with the Foreign Office, during his visit to Berlin in the summer of 1917, they were told that the existing Jewish population would be treated fairly but that no further Jewish immigrants would he allowed. Jews could settle anywhere else but not in Palestine. The Turkish Government, Jemal Pasha declared, wanted no new nationality problems, nor was it prepared to antagonize the Palestinian Arabs, “who formed the majority of the population and were to a man opposed to Zionism.” [73]

A few weeks after the interview, the Berlin Zionists’ pressure was further weakened by the uncovering by Turkish Intelligence of a Zionist spy ring working for General Allenby’s Intelligence section under an Aaron Aaronssohn. “It is no wonder that the Germans, tempted as they may have been by its advantages, shrank from committing themselves to a pro-Zionist declaration.” [74]

It was fortunate for Zionism that the American Jews as a whole showed no enthusiasm for the Allied cause, wrote Stein, political secretary of the Zionist Organization from 1920 to 1929, “If they had all along been reliable friends, there would have been no need to pay them any special attention.” [75]

In 1914 the French Government had sponsored a visit to the United States by Professor Sylvain Levy and the Grand Rabbi of France with the object of influencing Jewish opinion in their favor, but without success. A year later, it tried to reply to disturbing reports from its embassy in Washington about the sympathies of American Jews [76] by sending a Jew of Hungarian origin (Professor Victor Basch) to the United States in November 1915.[77]

Ostensibly he represented the Ministry of Public Instruction, but his real mission was to influence American Jews through contact with their leaders.[78] Though armed with a message to American Jewry from Prime Minister Briand, he encountered an insuperable obstacle — the Russian alliance. “For Russia there is universal hatred and distrust … We are reproached with one thing only, the persecution of the Russian Jews, which we tolerate — a toleration which makes us accomplices … It is certain that any measures in favor of Jewish emancipation would be equivalent to a great battle lost by Germany.” [79] Basch had to report to French President Poincare the failure of his mission.[80]

At the same time that Basch had been dispatched to the United States, the French Government approved the setting up of a “Comité de propagande Francais aupres des Juifs neutres,” and Jacques Bigart, the Secretary of the Alliance Israelite, accepted a secretaryship of the Comité. Bigart suggested to Lucien Wolf, of the Jewish Conjoint Foreign Committee in London, that a similar committee be set up there. Wolf consulted the Foreign Office and was invited by Lord Robert Cecil to provide a full statement of his views.[81]

In December 1915 Wolf submitted a memorandum in which he analyzed the characteristics of the Jewish population of the United States and reached the conclusion that “the situation, though unsatisfactory, is far from unpromising.” Though disclaiming Zionism, be wrote that “In America, the Zionist organizations have lately captured Jewish opinion.” If a statement of sympathy with their aspirations were made, “I am confident they would sweep the whole of American Jewry into enthusiastic allegiance to their cause.” [82]

Early in 1916 a further memorandum was submitted to the British Foreign Office as a formal communication from the Jewish Conjoint Foreign Committee. This stated that “the London (Conjoint) and Paris Committees formed to influence Jewish opinion in neutral countries in a sense favorable to the Allies” had agreed to make representations to their respective Governments. First, the Russian Government should be urged to ease the position of their Jews by immediate concessions for national-cultural autonomy secondly, “in view of the great organized strength of the Zionists in the United States,” (in fact out of the three million Jews in the U.S. less than 12,000 had enrolled as Zionists in 1913), [83] the Allied Powers should give assurances to the Jews of facilities in Palestine for immigration and colonization, liberal local self-government for Jewish colonists, the establishment of a Jewish university, and for the recognition of Hebrew as one of the vernaculars of the land — in the event of their victory.[84]

On 9 March 1916 the Zionists were informed by the Foreign Office that “your suggested formula is receiving (Sir Edward Grey’s) careful and sympathetic attention, but it is necessary for H.M.G. to consult their Allies on the subject.” [85] A confidential memorandum was accordingly addressed to the Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs in Petrograd, to ascertain his views, though its paternity, seeing that Asquith was still Prime Minister, “remains to be discovered.” [86] No direct reply was received, but in a note addressed to the British and French ambassadors four days later, Sazonov obliquely assented, subject to guarantees for the Orthodox Church and its establishments, to raise no objection to the settlement of Jewish colonists in Palestine.[87]

Nothing came of these proposals. On 4 July the Foreign Office informed the Conjoint Committee that an official announcement of support was inopportune.[88] They must be considered alongside the Sykes-Picot Agreement being negotiated at this time, and the virtual completion of the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence by 10 March 1916, with the hope that an Arab revolt and other measures would bring victory near.

But 1916 was a disastrous year for the Allies. “In the story of the war” wrote Lloyd George,

the end of 1916 found the fortunes of the Allies at their lowest ebb. In the offensives on the western front we had lost three men for every two of the Germans we had put out of action. Over 300,000 British troops were being immobilized for lack of initiative or equipment or both by the Turks in Egypt and Mesopotamia, and for the same reason nearly 400,000 Allied soldiers were for all purposes interned in the malarial plains around Salonika.[89]

The voluntary system of enlistment was abolished, and a mass conscript army of continental pattern was adopted, something which had never before occurred in British history.[E] [90] German submarine activity in the Atlantic was formidable; nearly 11/2 million tons of merchant shipping had been sunk in 1916 alone. As for paying for the war, the Allies at first had used the huge American debts in Europe to pay for war supplies, but by 1916 the resources of J.P. Morgan and Company, the Allies’ financial and purchasing agents in the United States, were said to be nearly exhausted by increased Allied demands for American credit.[91] There was rebellion in Ireland. Lord Robert Cecil stated to the British Cabinet: “France is within measurable distance of exhaustion. The political outlook of Italy is menacing. Her finance is tottering. In Russia, there is great discouragement. She has long been on the verge of revolution. Even her man-power seems coming near its limits. ” [94]

Secretary of State Kitchener was gone — drowned when the cruiser Hampshire sank on 5 June 1916 off the Orkneys when he was on his way to Archangel and Petrograd to nip the revolution in the bud. He had a better knowledge of the Middle East than anyone else in the Cabinet. The circumstances suggest espionage and treachery. Walter Page, the U.S. Ambassador in London, entered in his diary: “There was a hope and feeling that he (Lord Kitchener) might not come back… as I make out.”

There was a stalemate on all fronts. In Britain, France and Germany, hardly a family numbered all its sons among the living. But the British public — and the French, and the German — were not allowed to know the numbers of the dead and wounded. By restricting war correspondents, the American people were not allowed to know the truth either.

The figures that are known are a recital of horrors.[E]

In these circumstances, a European tradition of negotiated peace in scores of wars, might have led to peace at the end of 1916 or early 1917.

Into this gloomy winter of 1916 walked a new figure. He was James Malcolm, [F] an Oxford educated Armenian [G] who, at the beginning of 1916, with the sanction of the British and Russian Governments, had been appointed by the Armenian Patriarch a member of the Armenian National Delegation to take charge of Armenian interests during and after the war. In this official capacity, and as adviser to the British Government on Eastern affairs, [95] he had frequent contacts with the Cabinet Office, the Foreign Office, the War Office and the French and other Allied embassies in London, and made visits to Paris for consultations with his colleagues and leading French officials. He was passionately devoted to an Allied victory which he hoped would guarantee the national freedom of the Armenians then under Turkish and Russian rule.

Sir Mark Sykes, with whom he was on terms of family friendship, told him that the Cabinet was looking anxiously for United States intervention in the war on the side of the Allies, but when asked what progress was being made in that direction, Sykes shook his head glumly, “Precious little,” he replied.

James Malcolm now suggested to Mark Sykes that the reason why previous overtures to American Jewry to support the Allies had received no attention was because the approach had been made to the wrong people. It was to the Zionist Jews that the British and French Governments should address their parleys.

“You are going the wrong way about it,” said Mr. Malcolm. “You can win the sympathy of certain politically-minded Jews everywhere, and especially in the United States, in one way only, and that is, by offering to try and secure Palestine for them.” [96]

What really weighed most heavily now with Sykes were the terms of the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement. He told Malcolm that to offer to secure Palestine for the Jews was impossible. “Malcolm insisted that there was no other way and urged a Cabinet discussion. A day or two later, Sykes told him that the matter had been mentioned to Lord Milner who had asked for further information. Malcolm pointed out the influence of Judge Brandeis of the American Supreme Court, and his strong Zionist sympathies.” [97]

In the United States, the President’s adviser, Louis D. Brandeis, a leading advocate of Zionism, had been inducted as Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on 5 June 1916. That Wilson was vulnerable was evident, in that as early as 1911, he had made known his profound interest in the Zionist idea and in Jewry.[98]

Malcolm described Wilson as being “attached to Brandeis by ties of peculiar hardness,” a cryptic reference to the story that Wilson had been blackmailed for $40,000 for some hot love letters he had written to his neighbor’s wife when he was President of Princeton. He did not have the money, and the go-between, Samuel Untermeyer, of the law firm of Guggenheim, Untermeyer & Marshall, said he would provide it if Wilson would appoint to the next vacancy on the Supreme Court a nominee selected by Mr. Untermeyer. The money was paid, the letters returned, and Brandeis had been the nominee.

Wilson had written to the Senate, where opposition to the nominee was strong: “I have known him. I have tested him by seeking his advice upon some of the most difficult and perplexing public questions about which it was necessary for me to form a judgment When Brandeis had been approved by the Senate, Wilson wrote to Henry Morgenthau: “I never signed any commission with such satisfaction.” “Relief” might have been a more appropriate word.

The fact that endorsement of Wilson’s nominee by the Senate Judiciary Committee had only been made “after hearings of unprecedented length” [99] was not important. Brandeis had the President’s ear; he was “formally concerned with the Department of State.” [100] This was the significant development, said Malcolm, which compelled a new approach to the Zionists by offering them the key to Palestine.

The British Ambassador to the United States (Sir Cecil Spring-Rice) had written from Washington in January 1914 that “a deputation came down from New York and in two days ‘fixed’ the two Houses so that the President had to renounce the idea of making a new treaty with Russia.” [101] In November 1914 he had written to the British Foreign Secretary of the German Jewish bankers who were extending credits to the German Government and were getting hold of the principal New York papers” thereby “bringing them over as much as they dare to the German side and “toiling in a solid phalanx to compass our destruction.” [102]

This anti-Russian sentiment was part of a deep concern for the well-being of Russian and Polish Jews. Brandeis wrote to his brother from Washington on 8 December 1914: “… You cannot possibly conceive the horrible sufferings of the Jews in Poland and adjacent countries. These changes of control from German to Russian and Polish anti-semitism are bringing miseries as great as the Jews ever suffered in all their exiles.” [H] [103]

In a speech to the Russian Duma on 9 February (27 January Gregorian) 1915, Foreign Minister Sazonov denied the calumnious stories which, he said, were circulated by Germany, of accounts of alleged pogroms against the Jews and of wholesale murders of Jews by the Russian armies. “If the Jewish Population suffered in the war zone, that circumstance unfortunately was inevitably associated with war, and the same conditions applied in equal measure to all people living within the region of military activity.” He added to the rebuttal with accounts of hardship in areas of German military action in Poland, Belgium and Serbia.[104]

It is noteworthy that the chairman of the non-Zionist American Jewish Committee responded to an appeal by the Brandeis group that all American Jews should organize to emphasize Zionist aims in Palestine before the Great Powers in any negotiations during or at the end of the war, by dissociating his community from the suggestion that Jews of other nationalities were to be accorded special status. He said that “the very thought of the mass of the Jews of America having a voice in the matter of deciding the welfare of the Jews in the world made him shrink in horror.”[107]

The new approach to the Zionist movement by Mark Sykes with James Malcolm as preliminary interlocutor took the form of a series of meetings at Chaim Weizmann’s London house, with the knowledge and approval of the Secretary of the War Cabinet, Sir Maurice Hankey.

A Programme for a New Administration of Palestine in Accordance with the Aspirations of the Zionist Movement was issued by the English Political Committee of the Zionist Organization in October 1916, and submitted to the British Foreign Office as a basis for discussion in order to give an official character to the informal house-talks. It included the following:

(1) The Jewish Chartered Company is to have power to exercise the right of pre-emption over Crown and other lands and to acquire for its own use all or any concessions which may at any time be granted by the suzerain government or governments.

(2) The present population, being too small, too poor and too little trained to make rapid progress, requires the introduction of a new and progressive element in the population. (But the rights of minority nationalities were to be protected).

Other Points were, (3) recognition of separate Jewish nationality in Palestine; participation of the Palestine Jewish population in local self-government; (5) Jewish autonomy in purely Jewish affairs; (6) official recognition and legalization of existing Jewish institutions for colonization in Palestine.[108]

This Programme does not appear to have reached Cabinet level at the time it was issued, probably because of Asquith’s known lack of sympathy, but as recorded by Samuel Landman, the Zionist Organization was given official British facilities for its international correspondence.[109]

Lloyd George, an earnest and powerful demagogue, was now prepared to oust Asquith, his chief, by a coup de main. With the death of Kitchener in the summer of 1916, he had passed from Munitions to the War Office and he saw the top of the parliamentary tree within his grasp. In this maneuver he was powerfully aided by the newspaper proprietor Northcliffe, [I] who turned all his publications from The Times downwards to depreciate Asquith, and by the newspaper-owing M.P., Max Aitken (later Lord Beaverbrook).

With public sympathy well prepared, Lloyd George demanded virtual control of war policy. It was intended that Asquith should refuse. He did. Lloyd George resigned. Asquith also resigned to facilitate the reconstruction of the Government. The King then sent for the Conservative leader, Bonar Law, who, as prearranged, advised him to offer the premiership to Lloyd George.[110]

Asquith and Grey were out; Lloyd George and Balfour were in. With Lloyd George as Prime Minister from December 1916, Zionist relations with the British Government developed fast. Lloyd George had been legal counsel for the Zionists, and while Minister of Munitions, had had assistance from the Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann; the new Foreign Minister, Arthur Balfour, was already known for his Zionist sympathies.

The Zionists were undermining the wall between them and their Palestine objective which they had found impossible “to surmount by ordinary political means” prior to the war.[111] Herzl’s suggestion that they would get Palestine “not from the goodwill but from the jealousy of the Powers,” [112] was being made to come true.

The Zionists moved resolutely to exploit the new situation now that the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary were their firm supporters.

Landman, in his Secret History of the Balfour Declaration, wrote:

Through General McDonogh, Director of Military Operations, who was won over by Fitzmaurice (formerly Dragoman of the British Embassy in Constantinople and a friend of James Malcolm), Dr. Weizmann was able, about this time, to secure from the Government the services of half a dozen younger Zionists for active work on behalf of Zionism. At the time, conscription was in force, and only those who were engaged on work of national importance could be released from active service at the Front. I remember Dr. Weizmann writing a letter to General McDonogh and invoking his assistance in obtaining the exemption from active service of Leon Simon, (who later rose to high rank in the Civil Service as Sir Leon Simon, C.B.), Harry Sacher, (on the editorial staff of the Manchester Guardian), Simon Marks, [J] Yamson Tolkowsky and myself. At Dr. Weizmann’s request I was transferred from the War Office (M.I.9), where I was then working, to the Ministry of Propaganda, which was under Lord Northcliffe, and later to the Zionist office, where I commenced work about December 1916. Simon Marks actually arrived at the Office in khaki, and immediately set about the task of organizing the office which, as will be easily understood, had to maintain constant communications with Zionists in most countries.

From that time onwards for several years, Zionism was considered an ally of the British Government, and every help and assistance was forthcoming from each government department. Passport or travel difficulties did not exist when a man was recommended by our office. For instance. a certificate signed by me was accepted by the Home Office at that time as evidence that an Ottoman Jew was to be treated as a friendly alien and not as an enemy, which was the case with the Turkish subjects.

1. Jacob Schiff, German-born senior partner in Kuhn, Loeb & Co. 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.[64] The Jewish Encyclopedia for 1906 states that “Schiff’s firm subscribed for and floated the large Japanese war loan in 1904-05” (for the Russo-Japanese war). “in recognition of which the Mikado conferred on Schiff the second order of the Sacred Treasure of Japan.”
Partners with Schiff were Felix M. Warburg and his brother Paul who had come to New York in 1902 from Hamburg, and organized the Federal Reserve System.
2. An award for Morgenthau’s heavy financial support for Wilson’s presidential campaign.
3. Later, Foreign Minister (1932-38) and Protector of Bohemia (1939-43).
4. Russian nationals resident in the United Kingdom (nearly all of them Jews), not having become British subjects, some 25,000 of military age, still escaped military service.[92] This prompted Jabotinsky and Weizmann to urge the formation of a special brigade for Russian Jews, but the idea not favorably received by the Government, and the Zionists joined non-Zionists in an effort to persuade Russian Jews of military age to volunteer as individuals for service in the British army. The response was negligible, and in July 1917 the Military Service (Conventions with Allies) Act was given Royal assent. Men of military age were invited to serve in the British army or risk deportation to Russia. However, the Russian revolution prevented its unhindered application.[93]
5. Half a million Frenchmen were lost in the first four months of war, 1 million lost by the end of 1915, and 5 million by 1918. Who can imagine that the Allies lost 600,000 men in one battle, the Somme, and the British more officers in the first few months than all wars of the previous hundred years put together?
At Stalingrad, in the Second World War, the Wehrmacht had 230,000 men in the field. The German losses at Verdun alone were 325,000 killed or wounded.
By this time a soldier in one of the better divisions could count on a maximum of three months’ service without being killed or wounded, and the life expectancy for an officer at the front was down to five months in an ordinary regiment and six weeks in a crack one.
6. See his Origins of the Balfour Declaration: Dr. Weizmann’s Contribution .
7. Born in Persia, where his family had settled before Elizabethan days. He was sent to school in England in 1881, being placed in the care of a friend and agent of his family, Sir Albert (Abdullah) Sassoon. Early in 1915, he founded the Russia Society in London among the British public as a means of improving relations between the two countries. Unlike the Zionists, he had no animus towards Czarist Russia.
8. A reference to the 1914 invasion of Austria and East Prussia by the Russians with such vigor that many people believed that the “Russian steamroller” would soon reach Berlin and end the war. Only the diversion of whole army divisions from the Western to the Eastern Front under the command of General von Hindenburg saved Berlin, and in turn saved Paris.
There was a direct effort by certain groups to support anti-Imperial activities in Russia from the United States, [105][106] but Brandeis was apparently not implicated.
9. Northcliffe was small-minded enough to have Lloyd George called to the telephone, in front of friends, to demonstrate the politician’s need of the Press.
10. Associated with Israel M. Sieff, another of Weizmann’s inner circle, in the business which later became Marks & Spencer, Ltd. Sieff was appointed an economic consultant to the U.S. Administration (OPA) in March 1924. As subsequent supporters, with Lord Melchett, of “Political and Economic Planning” (PEP), they exercised considerable influence on British inter-war policy.

The Declaration, 1917

The informal committee of Zionists and Mark Sykes as representative of the British Government, met on 7 February 1917 at the house of Moses Gaster, [A] the Chief Rabbi of the Sephardic (Spanish and Portuguese) congregations in England. Gaster opened the meeting with a statement that stressed Zionist support for British strategic interests in Palestine which were to be an integral part of any agreement between them. As these interests might be considered paramount to British statesmen, support for Zionist aims there, Caster said, was fully justified. Zionism was irrevocably opposed to any internationalization proposals, even an Anglo-French condominium.[113]

Herbert Samuel followed with an expression of the hope that Jews in Palestine would receive full national status, which would be shared by Jews in the Diaspora. The question of conflict of nationality was not mentioned and a succeeding speaker, Harry Sacher, suggested that the sharing should not involve the political implications of citizenship.[114] Weizmann spoke of the necessity for unrestricted immigration. It is clear that the content of each speech was thoroughly prepared before the meeting.

Sykes outlined the obstacles: the inevitable Russian objections, the opposition of the Arabs, and strongly pressed French claims to all Syria, including Palestine.[115] James de Rothschild and Nahum Sokolow, the international Zionist leader, also spoke.

1. The meeting ended with a summary of Zionist objectives:
2. International recognition of Jewish right to Palestine;
3. Juridical nationhood for the Jewish community in Palestine:
4. The creation of a Jewish chartered company in Palestine with rights to acquire land:
5. Union and one administration for Palestine; and
6. Extra-territorial status for the holy places.[117]

The first three points are Zionist, the last two were designed to placate England and Russia, respectively [118] and probably Italy and the Vatican. Sokolow was chosen to act as Zionist representative, to negotiate with Sir Mark Sykes.

The Zionists were, of course, coordinating their activities internationally. On the same day as the meeting in London, Rabbi Stephen Wise in the United States wrote to Brandeis: “I sent the memorandum to Colonel House covering our question, and he writes: ‘I hope the dream you have may soon become a reality.” [118a]

The reports reaching England of impending dissolution of the Russian state practically removed the need for Russian endorsement of Zionist aims, but made French and Italian acceptance even more urgent. This at any rate was the belief of Sykes, Balfour, Lloyd George and Winston Churchill, who, as claimed in their subsequent statements, were convinced that proclaimed Allied support for Zionist aims would especially influence the United States. Events in Russia made the cooperation of Jewish groups with the Allies much easier. At a mass meeting in March 1917 to celebrate the revolution which had then taken place, Rabbi Stephen Wise, who had succeeded Brandeis as chairman of the American Provisional Zionist Committee after Brandeis’s appointment to the Supreme Court, said: “I believe that of all the achievements of my people, none has been nobler than the part the sons and daughters of Israel have taken in the great movement which has culminated in free Russia.” [119]

Negotiations for a series of loans totalling $190,000,000 by the United States to the Provisional Government in Russia of Alexander Kerensky were begun on the advice of the U.S. ambassador to Russia, David R. Francis, who noted in his telegram to Secretary of State Lansing, “financial aid now from America would be a master-stroke. Confidential. Immeasurably important to the Jews that revolution succeed… ” [120]

On 22 March 1917 Jacob H. Schiff of Kuhn, Loch & Co., wrote to Mortimer Schiff, “We should be somewhat careful not to appear as overzealous but you might cable Cassel because of recent action of Germany (the declaration of unlimited U-boat warfare) and developments in Russia we shall no longer abstain from Allied Governments financing when opportunity offers.”

He also sent a congratulatory cable to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the first Provisional Government, referring to the previous government as “the merciless persecutors of my co-religionists.”

In the same month, Leiber Davidovich Bronstein, alias Leon Trotsky, a Russian-born U.S. immigrant, had left the Bronx, New York, for Russia, with a contingent of followers, while V.I. Ulyanov (Lenin) and a party of about thirty were moving across Germany from Switzerland, through Scandinavia to Russia. Some evidence exists that Schiff and other sponsors like Helphand financed these revolutionaries.

In March 1917, President Wilson denounced as “a little group of willful men,” the non-interventionists who filibustered an Administration-sponsored bill that would have empowered Wilson to wage an undeclared naval war against Germany. The opposition to Wilson was led by Senators La Follette and Norris.

On 5 April, the day before the United States Congress adopted a resolution of war, Schiff had been informed by Baron Gunzburg of the actual signing of the decrees removing all restrictions on the Jews in Russia.

At a special session of Congress on 2 April 1917, President Wilson referred to American merchant ships taking supplies to the Allies which had been sunk during the previous month by German submarines (operating a counter-blockade; the British and French fleets having blockaded the Central Powers from the beginning of the war); and then told Congress that “wonderful and heartening things have been happening within the last few weeks in Russia.”

He asked for a declaration of war with a mission:

for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own governments, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world itself at last free.

To such a task we can dedicate our lives and our fortunes, everything that we are and everything that we have, with the pride of those who know that the day has come when America is privileged to spend her blood and her might for the principles that gave her birth and happiness and the peace that she has treasured. God helping her, she can do no other. (emphasis supplied)

That night crowds filled the streets, marching, shouting, singing Dixie” or “The Star Spangled Banner.” Wilson turned to his secretary, Tumulty: “Think what that means, the applause. My message tonight was a message of death, How strange to applaud that!”

So, within six months of Malcolm’s specific suggestion to Sykes, the United States of America, guided by Woodrow Wilson, was on the side of the Allies in the Great War.

Was Wilson guided by Brandeis away from neutrality — to war?

In London, the War Cabinet led by Lloyd George lost no time committing British forces first to the capture of Jerusalem, and then to the total expulsion of the Turks from Palestine. The attack on Egypt, launched on 26 March 1917, attempting to take Gaza, ended in failure. By the end of April a second attack on Gaza had been driven back and it had become clear that there was no prospect of a quick success on this Front.

From Cairo, where he had gone hoping to follow the Army into Jerusalem with Weizmann, Sykes telegraphed to the Foreign Office that, if the Egyptian Expeditionary Force was not reinforced then it would be necessary “to drop all Zionist projects … Zionists in London and U.S.A. should be warned of this through M. Sokolow… ” [120a]

Three weeks later, Sykes was told that reinforcements were coming from Salonika. The War Cabinet also decided to replace the Force’s commander with General Allenby.

Sykes was the official negotiator for the whole project of assisting the Zionists. He acted immediately after the meeting at Gaster’s house by asking his friend M. Picot to meet Nahum Sokolow at the French Embassy in London in an attempt to induce the French to give way on the question of British suzerainty in Palestine.[121] James Malcolm was then asked to go alone to Paris to arrange an interview for Sokolow directly with the French Foreign Minister. Sokolow had been previously unsuccessful in obtaining the support of French Jewry for a meeting with the Minister; since the richest and most influential Jews in the United States and England, with the notable exception of the Rothschilds, who could have arranged such a meeting, were opposed to the political implications of Zionism. In Paris, the powerful Alliance Israélite Universelle had made every effort to dissuade him from his mission.[122] Not that the Zionists had no supporters in France other than Edmond de Rothschild, [B] but the Ministry of Foreign Affairs had no reason to entangle itself with them.[123] Now James Malcolm opened the door directly to them as he had done in London.

Sykes joined Malcolm and Sokolow in Paris. Sykes and Malcolm, apart from the consideration of Zionism and future American support for the war, were concerned with the possibility of an Arab-Jewish-Armenian entente which, through amity between Islamic, Jewish and Christian peoples, would bring peace, stability and a bright new future for the inhabitants of this area where Europe, Asia Minor and Africa meet. Sokolow went along for the diplomatic ride, but in a letter to Weizmann (20 April 1917) he wrote: “I regard the idea as quite fantastic. It is difficult to reach an understanding with the Arabs, but we will have to try. There are no conflicts between Jews and Armenians because there are no common interests whatever.” [C] [124]

Several conversations were held with Picot, including one on 9 April when other officials included Jules Cambon, the Secretary-General of the Foreign Ministry, and the Minister’s Chef de Cabinet, Exactly what assurances were given to Sokolow is uncertain, but he wrote to Weizmann “that they accept in principle the recognition of Jewish nationality in terms of a national home, local autonomy, etc.” [125] And to Brandeis and Tschlenow, he telegraphed through French official channels: “… Have full confidence Allied victory will realise our Palestine Zionist aspirations.” [126]

Sokolow set off for Rome and the Vatican. “There, thanks to the introductions of Fitzmaurice on the one hand and the help of Baron Sidney Sonnino [D] on the other,” a Papal audience and interviews with the leading Foreign Office officials were quickly arranged.[127]

When Sokolow returned to Paris, he requested and received a letter from the Foreign Minister dated 4 June 1917, supporting the Zionist cause in general terms. He hastily wrote two telegrams which he gave to M. Picot for dispatch by official diplomatic channels. One was addressed to Louis D. Brandeis in the United States. It read: “Now you can move. We have the formal assurance of the French Government.” [E] [128]

“After many years, ‘ wrote M. Picot, “I am still moved by the thanks he poured out to me as he gave me the two telegrams … do not say that it was the cause of the great upsurge of enthusiasm which occurred in the United States, but I say that Judge Brandeis, to whom this telegram was addressed, was certainly one of the elements determining the decision of President Wilson.” [129]

But Wilson had declared war one month before!

It is natural that M. Picot should want to believe that he had played a significant part in bringing America into the war and therefore helping his country’s victory. The evidence certainly supports his having a part in helping a Zionist victory.

Their objective was in sight, but had still to be taken and held.

Although the United States was now a belligerent, no declaration of support had been made for the Zionist program for Palestine, either by Britain or the United States, and some of the richest and most powerful Jews in both countries were opposed to it.

The exception among these Jewish merchant princes was, of course, the House of Rothschild. From London on 25 April 1917, James de Rothschild cabled to Brandeis that Balfour was coming to the United States, and urged American Jewry to support “a Jewish Palestine under British Protection,,, as well as to press their government to do so. He advised Brandeis to meet Balfour.[134] The meeting took place at a White House luncheon, “You are one of the Americans I wanted to meet,” said the British Foreign Secretary.[135] Brandeis cabled Louis de Rothschild: “Have had a satisfactory talk with Mr. Balfour, also with Our President. This is not for Publication. ” [136]

On the other hand, a letter dated 17 May 1917 appeared in The Times (London) signed by the President of the Jewish Board of Deputies and the President of the Anglo-Jewish Association (Alexander and Montefiore, both men of wealth and eminence) stating their approval of Jewish settlement in Palestine as a source of inspiration for all Jews, but adding that they could not favor the Zionist’s political scheme. Jews, they believed, were a religious community and they opposed the creation of “a secular Jewish nationality recruited on some loose and obscure principle of race and ethnological peculiarity.” They particularly took exception to Zionist Pressure for a Jewish chartered company invested with political and economic privileges in which Jews alone would participate, Since this was incompatible with the desires of world Jewry for equal rights wherever they lived.[137]

A controversy then ensued in the British press, in Jewish associations and in the corridors of government, between the Zionist and non-Zionist Jews. In this, Weizmann really had less weight, but he mobilized the more forceful team. The Chief Rabbi dissociated himself from the non-Zionist statement and charged that the Alexander-Montefiore letter did not represent the views of their organizations.[138] Lord Rothschild wrote: “We Zionists cannot see how the establishment of an autonomous Jewish State under the aegis of one of the Allied Powers could be subversive to the loyalty of Jews to countries of which they were citizens. In the letter you have published, the question is also raised of a chartered company.” He continued: “We Zionists have always felt that if Palestine is to be colonized by the Jews, some machinery must be set up to receive the immigrants, settle them on the land and develop the land, and to be generally a directing agency. I can only again emphasize that we Zionists have no wish for privileges at the expense of other nationalities, but only desire to be allowed to work out our destinies side by side with other nationalities in an autonomous state under the suzerainty of one of the Allied Powers.” [139] This letter stressed the colonialist aspect of Zionism, but detracted from the strong statist declaration of Weizmann. The Zionist body in Palestine was to be of a more organizational character for the Jewish community.

Perhaps feeling that his statement bad been a little too strong for liberal acceptance, Weizmann also joined this correspondence in the Times. Writing as President of the English Zionist Federation, he first claimed that,

it is strictly a question of fact that the Jews are a nationality. An overwhelming majority of them had always had the conviction that they were a nationality, which has been shared by non-Jews in all countries.”

The letter continued:

The Zionists are not demanding in Palestine monopolies or exclusive privileges, nor are they asking that any part of Palestine should he administered by a chartered company to the detriment of others. It always was and remains a cardinal principle of Zionism as a democratic movement that all races and sects in Palestine should enjoy full justice and liberty, and Zionists are confident that the new suzerain whom they hope Palestine will acquire as a result of the war will, in its administration of the country, be guided by the same principle.[140] (emphasis supplied)

The competition for the attention of the British public and British Jewry by the Zionists and their Jewish opponents continued in the press and in their various special meetings. A manifesto of solidarity with the opinions of Alexander and Montefiore was sent to The Times on 1 June 1917; and in the same month at Buffalo, N.Y., the President of the Annual Convention of the Central Conference of American Rabbis added his weight against Jewish nationalism: “I am not here to quarrel with Zionism. Mine is only the intention to declare that we, as rabbis, who are consecrated to the service of the Lord … have no place in a movement in which Jews band together on racial or national grounds, and for a political State or even for a legally-assured Home.” [141]

But while the controversy continued, the Zionists worked hard to produce a draft document which could form a declaration acceptable to the Allies, particularly Britain and the United States, and which would be in the nature of a charter of international status for their aims in Palestine. This was treated as a matter of urgency, as Weizmann believed it would remove the support from non-Zionist Jews [142] and ensure against the uncertainties inseparable from the war.

On 13 June 1917 Weizmann wrote Sir Ronald Graham at the Foreign Office that “it appears desirable from every point of view that the British Government should give expression to its sympathy and support of the Zionist claims on Pales tine. In fact, it need only confirm the view which eminent and representative members of the Government have many times expressed to us … ” [143] This was timed to coincide with a minute of the same date of one of Balfour’s advisers in which it was suggested that the time had arrived “when we might meet the wishes of the Zionists and give them an assurance that H.M.G. are in general sympathy with their aspirations. ” [144] To which Balfour remarked, “Personally, I should still prefer to associate the U.S.A. in the Protectorate, should we succeed in securing it.” [145]

The Zionists also had to counter tentative British and American plans to seek a separate peace with Turkey. When Weizmann, for the Zionists, together with Malcolm, for the Armenians, went on 10 June to the Foreign Office to protest such a plan, Weizmann broadly suggested that the Zionist leaders in Germany were being courted by the German Government, and he mentioned, to improve credibility, that approaches were made to them through the medium of a Dr. Lepsius.

The truth, probably, is that the Berlin Zionist Executive was initiating renewed contact with the German Government so as to give weight to the pleading of their counterparts in London that the risk of German competition could not be left out of account. Lepsius was actually a leading Evangelical divine, well known for his championship of the Armenians, who were then being massacred in Turkey. When Leonard Stein examined the papers of the Berlin Executive after the war, his name was not to be found, and Mr. Lichtheim of the Executive had no recollection of any overtures by Lepsius.[146]

In the U.S., in July 1917, a special mission consisting of Henry Morgenthau, Sr., and Justice Brandeis’s nephew, Felix Frankfurter, was charged by President Wilson to proceed to Turkey, against which the United States did not declare war, to sound out the possibility of peace negotiations between Turkey and the Allies. In this, Wilson may have been particularly motivated by his passion to stop the massacres of Armenian and Greek Christians which were then taking place in Turkey and for whom he expressed immense solicitude On many occasions. Weizmann, however, accompanied by the French Zionist M. Weyl, forewarned, proceeded to intercept them at Gibraltar and persuaded them to return home.[147] During 1917 and 1918 more Christians were massacred in Turkey. Had Morgenthau and Frankfurter carried out their mission successfully, maybe this would have been avoided.

This account appears in William Yale’s book The Near East: A Modern History. He was a Special Agent of the State Department in the Near East during the First World War. When I had dinner with him on 12 May 1970 at the Biltmore Hotel in New York, I asked him if Weizmann had told him how the special mission had been aborted. He replied that Weizmann said that the Governor of Gibraltar had held a special banquet in their honor, but at the end all the British officials withdrew discretely, leaving the four Jews alone. “Then,” said Weizmann, “we fixed it.”

The same evening, he told me something which he said he had never told anyone else, and which was in his secret papers which were only to be opened after his death. He later wrote to me, after he had read The Palestine Diary, saying that he would like me to deal with those papers.

One of Yale’s assignments was to follow Wilson’s preference for having private talks with key personalities capable of influencing the course of events. He did this with Lloyd George, General Allenby and Col. T.E. Lawrence, for example. Yale said he had a talk with Weizmann “somewhere in the Mediterranean in 1919,” and asked him what might happen if the British did not support a national home for the Jews in Palestine. Weizmann thumped his fist on the table and the teacups jumped, “If they don’t,” he said, “we’ll smash the British Empire as we smashed the Russian Empire.”

Brandeis was in Washington during the summer of 1917 and conferred with Secretary of State Robert S. Lansing from time to time on Turkish-American relations and the treatment of Jews in Palestine.[148] He busied himself in particular with drafts of what later became the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate for Palestine, and in obtaining American approval for them.[149] A considerable number of drafts were made in London and transmitted to the United States, through War Office channels, for the use of the American Zionist Political Committee. Some were detailed, but the British Government did not want to commit itself to more than a general statement of principles.

On 18 July, such a statement, approved in the United States, was forwarded by Lord Rothschild to Lord Balfour. It read as follows:

His Majesty’s Government, after considering the aims of the Zionist Organization, accepts the principle of recognizing Palestine as the National Home [E] of the Jewish people and the right of the Jewish people to build up its national life in Palestine under a protectorate to be established at the conclusion of peace following the successful issue of war.

His Majesty’s Government regards as essential for the realization of this principle the grant of internal autonomy to the Jewish nationality in Palestine, freedom of immigration for Jews, and the establishment of a Jewish national colonization corporation for the resettlement and economic development of the country.

The conditions and forms of the internal autonomy and a charter for the Jewish national colonizing corporation should, in the view of His Majesty’s Government, be elaborated in detail, and determined with the representatives of the Zionist Organization.[150]

It seems possible that Balfour would have issued this declaration but strong representatives against it were made directly to the Cabinet by Lucien Wolf, Claude Montefiore Sir Mathew Nathan, Secretary of State for India Edwin Montagu, [F] and other non-Zionist Jews. It was significant they believed that “anti-semites are always very sympathetic to Zionism,” and though they would welcome the establishment in Palestine of a center of Jewish culture, some — like Philip Magnes — feared that a political declaration would antagonize other sections of the population in Palestine, and might result in the Turks dealing with the Jews as they had dealt with the Armenians.[154] The Jewish opposition was too important to ignore, and the preparation of a new draft was commenced. At about this time, Northcliffe and Reading [G] visited Washington and had a discussion with Brandeis at which they undoubtedly discussed Zionism.[155]

Multiple pressures at key points led Lord Robert Cecil to telegraph to Col. E.M. House on 3 September 1917: “We are being pressed here for a declaration of sympathy with the Zionist movement and I should be very grateful if you felt able to ascertain unofficially if the President favours such a declaration. ” [156] House, who had performed services relating to Federal Reserve and currency legislation for Jacob W. Schiff and Paul Warburg, [157] and was Wilson’s closet adviser, relayed the message, but a week later Cecil was still without a reply.

On 11 September the Foreign Office had ready for dispatch the following message for Sir William Wiseman, [H] head of the British Military Intelligence Service in the United States: “Has Colonel House been able to ascertain whether the President favours sympathy with Zionist aspirations as asked in my telegram of September 3rd? We should be most grateful for an early reply as September 17th is the Jewish New Year and announcement of sympathy by or on that date would have excellent effect.” But before it was sent, a telegram from Colonel House dated 11 September reached the Foreign Office.

Wilson had been approached as requested and had expressed the opinion that “the time was not opportune for any definite statement further, perhaps, than one of sympathy, provided it can be made without conveying any real commitment.” Presumably, a formal declaration would presuppose the expulsion of the Turks from Palestine, but the United States was not at war with Turkey, and a declaration implying annexation would exclude an early and separate peace with that country.[158]

In a widely publicized speech in Cincinnati on 21 May 1916, after temporarily relinquishing his appointment as Ambassador to Turkey in favor of a Jewish colleague, Henry Morgenthau had announced that he had recently suggested to the Turkish Government that Turkey should sell Palestine to the Zionists after the war. The proposal, he said, had been well received, but its publication caused anger in Turkey.[159]

Weizmann was “greatly astonished” at this news, especially as he had “wired to Brandeis requesting him to use his influence in our favour … But up to now I have heard nothing from Brandeis.” [161]

On 19 September Weizmann cabled to Brandeis:

Following text declaration has been approved by Foreign Office and Prime Minister and submitted to War Cabinet:

1. H.M. Government accepts the principle that Palestine should be reconstituted as the national home of the Jewish people.
2. H.M. Government will use its best endeavours to secure the achievement of the object and will discuss the necessary methods and means with the Zionist Organization.[162]

Weizmann suggested that non-Zionist opposition should be forestalled, and in this it would “greatly help if President Wilson and yourself support the text. Matter most urgent.” [163] He followed this up with a telegram to two leading New York Zionists, asking them to “see Brandeis and Frankfurter to immediately discuss my last two telegrams with them,” adding that it might be necessary for him to come to the United States himself.[164]

Brandeis saw House on 23 September and drafted a message, sent the following day through the British War Office. It advised that presidential support would be facilitated if the French and Italians made inquiry about the White House attitude, but he followed this the same day with another cable stating that from previous talks with the President and in the opinion of his close advisers. he could safely say that Wilson would be in complete sympathy.[165]

Thus Brandeis had either persuaded Wilson that there was nothing in the draft (Rothschild) declaration of 19 September which could be interpreted as “conveying any real commitment,” which is difficult to believe, or he had induced the President to change his mind about the kind of declaration, he could approve or was sure he and House could do so.[166]

On 7 February 1917, Stephen Wise had written to Brandeis: “I sent the memorandum to Colonel House covering our question, and he writes, ‘I hope the dream you have may soon become a reality.” [167] In October, after seeing House together with Wise, de Haas reported to Brandeis: ”He has told us that he was as interested in our success as ourselves.” To Wilson, House stated that “The Jews from every tribe descended in force, and they seem determined to break in with a jimmy, if they are not let in.” [168] A new draft declaration had been prepared; Wilson had to support it.

On 9 October 1917, Weizmann cabled again to Brandeis from London of difficulties from the “assimilants” Opposition: “They have found an excellent champion … in Mr. Edwin Montagu who is a member of the Government and has certainly made use of his position to injure the Zionist cause. ” [169]

Weizmann also telegraphed to Brandeis a new (Milner-Amery) formula. The same draft was cabled by Balfour to House in Washington on 14 October:

His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish race and will use its best endeavours to facilitate achievement of this object; it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of the existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed in any other country by such Jews who are fully contented with their existing nationality and citizenship.[170]

It was reinforced by a telegram from the U.S. Embassy in London direct to President Wilson (by-passing the State Department), stating that the “question of a message of sympathy with the (Zionist) movement” was being reconsidered by the British Cabinet “in view of reports that (the) German Government are making great efforts to capture (the) Zionist movement.” [171]

Brandeis and his associates found the draft unsatisfactory in two particulars. They disliked that part of the draft’s second safeguard clause which read, “by such Jews who are fully contented with their existing nationality and citizenship,” and substituted “the rights and civil political status enjoyed by Jews in any country. In addition, Brandeis apparently proposed the change of “Jewish race” to “Jewish people.” [172] Jacob de Haas, then Executive Secretary of the Provisional Zionist Committee, has written that the pressure to issue the declaration was coming from the English Zionist leaders: “they apparently needed it to stabilize their position against local anti-Zionism. If American Zionists were anxious about it, Washington would act.” De Haas continues:

Then one morning Baron Furness, one of England’s unostentatious representatives, brought to 44 East 23rd Street, at that time headquarters of the Zionist Organization, the final draft ready for issue. The language of the declaration accepted by the English Zionists based as it was on the theory of discontent was unacceptable to me. I informed Justice Brandeis of my views, called in Dr. Schmarya Levin and proceeded to change the text. Then with Dr. Wise, I hurried to Colonel House. By this time he had come to speak of Zionism as “our cause.” Quietly he perused my proposed change, discussed its wisdom and promised to call President Wilson on his private wire and urge the change. He cabled to the British Cabinet. Next day he informed me that the President had approved. I had business that week-end in Boston and it was over the long distance wire that my secretary in New York read to me the final form as repeated by cable from London. It was the text as I had altered it.[173]

“It seems clear,” wrote Stein, “that .it was not without some prompting by House that Wilson eventually authorized a favourable reply to the British enquiry.” Sir William Wiseman, “who was persona grata both with the President and with House, was relied upon by the Foreign Office for dealing with the declaration at the American end. Sir William’s recollection is that Colonel House was influential in bringing the matter to the President’s attention and persuading him to approve the formula.” [174]

On 16 October 1917, after a conference with House, Wiseman telegraphed to Balfour’s private secretary: ”Colonel House put the formula before the President who approves of it but asks that no mention of his approval shall be made when His Majesty’s Government makes formula public, as he had arranged the American Jews shall then ask him for approval, which he will publicly give here.”[175]

The Balfour Declaration, as stated, was issued on 2 November 1917. Its text, seemingly so simple, had been prepared by some the craftiest of the craft of legal drafting. Leaflets containing its message were dropped by air on Germany and Austria and on the Jewish belt from Poland to the Baltic Sea.

Seven months had passed since America entered the war. It was an epochal triumph for Zionism, and some believe, for the Jews.

On the other hand, two months before the declaration, Sokolow had written of a marked falling off in “le philo-sémitisme d’autrefois,” ascribed by some to the impression that the Russian Jews were the mainspring of Bolshevism; and on the day it was issued, The Jewish Chronicle complained of “the antisemitic campaign which a section of the press in this country, indifferent to the national interests, is sedulously conducting.” [176] There only remained certain courtesies to be effected. On November 1917, Weizmann wrote a letter of thanks to Brandeis:

“… I need hardly say how we all rejoice in this great event and how grateful we all feel to you for the valuable and efficient help which you have lent to the cause in the critical hour … Once more, dear Mr. Brandeis, I beg to tender to you our heartiest congratulations not only on my own behalf but also on behalf of our friends here — and may this epoch-making be a beginning of great work for our sorely tried people and also of mankind.” [177]

The other principal Allied governments were approached with requests for similar pronouncements. The French simply supported the British Government in a short paragraph on 9 February 1918. Italian support was contained in a note dated 9 May 1918 to Mr, Sokolow by their ambassador in London in which he stressed the religious divisions of communities, grouping “a Jewish national centre” with existing religious communities.”

On 31 August 1918, President Wilson wrote to Rabbi Wise “to express the satisfaction I have felt in the progress of the Zionist movement . . since … Great Britain’s approval of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” Brandeis joined in Zionist delight at the President’s endorsement and wrote: “Since the President’s letter, anti-Zionism is pretty near disloyalty and non-Zionism is slackening.” [178] Non-Zionist Jews now had a hard time if they wanted to disseminate their views; if they could not support Zionism they were asked at least to remain silent.

On 30 June 1922, the following resolution was adopted by the United States Congress:

Favouring the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people;

Resolved by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. That the United States of America favours the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which should prejudice the civil and religious rights of Christians and all other non-Jewish communities in Palestine, and that the holy places and religious buildings and sites in Palestine shall be adequately protected.[J]

All people tend to see the world and its events in terms of their own experience, ideas and prejudices. This is natural. It is a fact used by master politicians and manipulators of opinion who form their appeals accordingly. The case of the Balfour Declaration is a fascinating example of a scheme presenting a multiplicity of images according to the facet of mind on which it reflected.

There were critics of the Balfour Declaration, although among the cacophony of many events competing for attention, few but its beneficiaries concentrated on the significance of what was being offered. One was the Jewish leader and statesman Mr. Edwin Montagu, who had no desire that Jews should be regarded as a separate race and a distinct nationality.[181] The other was Lord Curzon, who became Foreign Secretary at the end of October 1918. He prepared a memorandum dated 26 October 1917, on the penultimate and final drafts of the Balfour Declaration and related documents, and circulated it in the Cabinet. It was titled “The Future of Palestine.” Here are some extracts:

I am not concerned to discuss the question in dispute between the Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews . I am only concerned in the more immediately practical questions:

(a) What is the meaning of the phrase “a national home for the Jewish race in Palestine,” and what is the nature of the obligation that we shall assume if we accept this as a principle of British policy?

(b) If such a policy be pursued what are the chances of its successful realisation?

If I seek guidance from the latest collection of circulated papers (The Zionist Movement, G.-164) I find a fundamental disagreement among the authorities quoted there as to the scope and nature of their aim.

A “national home for the Jewish race or people” would seem, if the words are to bear their ordinary meaning, to imply a place where the Jews can be reassembled as a nation, and where they will enjoy the privileges of an independent national existence. Such is clearly the conception of those who, like Sir Alfred Mond, speak of the creation in Palestine of “an autonomous Jewish State,” words which appear to contemplate a State, i.e., a political entity, composed of Jews, governed by Jews, and administered mainly in the interests of Jews…

The same conception appears to underlie several other of the phrases employed in these papers, e.g., when we are told that Palestine is to become “a home for the Jewish nation,” “a national home for the Jewish race,” “a Jewish Palestine,” and when we read of “the resettlement of Palestine as a national centre,” and “the restoration of Palestine to the Jewish people,” all these phrases are variants of the same idea, viz., the re-creation of Palestine as it was before the days of the dispersion.

On the other hand, Lord Rothschild, when he speaks of Palestine as “a home where the Jews could speak their own language, have their own education, their own civilization, and religious institutions under the protection of Allied governments,” seems to postulate a much less definite form of political existence, one, indeed, which is quite compatible with the existence of an alien (so long as it is not Turkish) government…

Now what is the capacity as regards population of Palestine within any reasonable period of time? Under the Turks there is no such place or country as Palestine, because it is divided up between the sanjak of Jerusalem and the vilayets of Syria and Beirut. But let us assume that in speaking of Palestine in the present context we mean the old scriptural Palestine, extending from Dan to Beersheba, i.e., from Banias to Bir es-Sabi… . an area of less than 10,000 square miles. What is to become of the people of this country, assuming the Turk to be expelled, and the inhabitants not to have been exterminated by the war? There are over a half a million of these, Syrian Arabs — a mixed community with Arab, Hebrew, Canaanite, Greek, Egyptian, and possibly Crusaders’ blood. They and their forefathers have occupied the country for the best part of 1,500 years. They own the soil, which belongs either to individual landowners or to village communities. They profess the Mohammadan faith. They will not be content either to be expropriated for Jewish immigrants, or to act merely as hewers of wood and drawers of water to the latter.

1. Born in Rumania in 1856, his imposing presence and scholarship combined with “an oracular manner suggesting that he had access to mysteries hidden from others, had made him an important figure at Zionist Congresses and on Zionist platforms in England and abroad.” It was calculated that Sykes would be impressed by his personality and background.[116]
2. These included the socialist leader, Jules Cuesde, who had joined Viviani’s National Government as Minister of State; Gustave Herve: the publicist and future Minister de Monzie; and others.
3. Privately, Sokolow resented Malcolm as “a stranger in the center of our work,” who was “endowed with an esprit of a goyish kind. ” [130]
4. Of Jewish extraction.[131]
5. The French note represented a defeat for the “Syrian Party” in the government who believed in French dominion over the entire area. This was not only due to the strong representations of Sykes on behalf of his Government, but was assisted by those of Baron Edmond de Rothschild, [132] who prevailed upon the Alliance Israélite to back the Zionist cause.
The result of the no less successful conversations in Rome and the Vatican were cabled to the Zionist Organization over British controlled lines.[133]
6. The use of the term “National Home” was a continuation of the euphemism deliberately adopted since the first Zionist Congress, when the term “Heimstaette” was used instead of any of the possible German words signifying “state.” At that time, its purpose was to avoid provoking the hostility of non-Zionist Jews.[151]
The author or inventor of the term ”Heimstaette” was Max Nordau who coined it ”to deceive by its mildness ” until such time as ”there was no reason to dissimulate our real aim.” [152]
The Arabic translation of ”National Home” ignores the intended subtlety, and the words employed: watan, qawm, and sha’b, are much stronger in meaning than an abstract notion of government.[153]
7. (1879-1924). His father, the first Lord Swaythling, and Herbert Samuel’s father were brothers.
8. Rufus Isaacs, a Jewish lawyer, who had quickly risen to fame in his profession, and then in politics. This was a period when elevations to the peerage for political and financial assistance to the party in power were so numerous that the whole system of British peerage was weakened. In 1916, Isaacs was a viscount; in 1917 an earl.
9. Joined Kuhn, Loeb & Co. in 1921. and was responsible for their liaison with London banks, and was “in charge of financing several large enterprises.” [160]
10. This was introduced by Mr. Hamilton Fish. His interpretation of his action was clarified thirty-eight years later, when the World Zionists held their 25th Congress in Jerusalem. David Ben Gurion, as Prime Minister of Israel, in his address to the gathering stated: “every religious Jew has daily violated the precepts of Judaism by remaining in the diaspora”; and, citing the authority of the Jewish sages, said: “Whoever dwells outside the land of Israel is considered to have no god.” He added: “Judaism is in danger of death by strangulation. In the free and prosperous countries it faces the kiss of death, a slow and imperceptible decline into the abyss of assimilation.” [179]

Mr. Hamilton Fish replied: “As author of the first Zionist Resolution patterned on the Balfour Resolution, I denounce and repudiate the Ben Gurion statements as irreconcilable with my Resolution as adopted by Congress, and if they represent the Government of Israel and public opinion there, then I shall disavow publicly my support of my own Resolution, as I do not want to be associated with such un-American doctrines.”[180]
Wilson and the War

If the contract with Jewry was to bring the United States into the Great War in exchange for the promise of Palestine, did they in fact deliver, through Brandeis or anyone else?

For the German-Jewish princes of the purse in the United States, the evidence points more to the Russian revolution being the factor of most weight in determining their attitude.

Was it the resumption of Germany’s submarine blockade, the sinking of the Laconia, the Zimmerman telegram, which really influenced Wilson for war? Was it the Zionist counsel of Brandeis? In a careful study, Prof. Alex M. Arnett showed in 1937 that Wilson had decided to put the United States into the war on the side of the Allies many months before the resumption of U-boat warfare by Germany, which was promoted as a sufficient reason.[182]

In the propaganda battle for American public opinion between Britain and Germany, the former had the advantage of language, and the fact that on 5 August 1914 they had cut the international undersea cables linking Germany and the United States, thus eliminating quick communication between those two countries and giving British “news” the edge in forming public opinion.

The success of British propaganda methods were acknowledged by a German soldier of the time when he dictated his memoirs, Mein Kampf, in 1925: “In England propaganda was regarded as a weapon of the first order, whereas with us it represented the last hope of a livelihood for our unemployed politicians and a snug job for shirkers of the modest heroic type. Taken all in all, its results were negative.”

British propaganda portrayed the war as one of just defense against a barbarian aggressor akin to the hordes of Genghis Khan, who were rapers of nuns, mutilators of children, led by the Kaiser — pictured as a beast in human form, a lunatic, deformed monster, modern Judas, and criminal monarch.

Stories that German soldiers cut off the hands of Belgian children and crucified prisoners and perpetrated and all sorts of other atrocities said to have been practiced in Belgium, were circulated as widely as possible. The story about their making glycerine and soap from corpses did not appear until the end of April 1917, when new stories were created by American propagandists. One, a book called Christine, by “Alice Cholmondeley,” a collection of letters purporting to have been written by a teenage girl music student to her mother in Britain until her death in 1914, mingled a damning catalogue of alleged German character faults with emotional feelings for her fictitious mother and music. Propaganda experts rated it highly.[183]

The head of the American section of the British propaganda bureau, Sir Gilbert Parker, was able to report on his Success in the issue of his secret American Press Review for 11 October 1916 before the Presidential election: ”This week supplies satisfactory evidence of the permeation of the American Press by British influence.”

Men of British ancestry still dominated the powerful infrastructure of the economy, filled top Positions in the State Department in the influential Eastern universities, in the communications and cultural media. Britain and France were more identified with democracy and freedom, and the Central Powers with imperial militaristic autocracy. From Oyster Bay, former President Theodore Roosevelt, recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, performed high-pitched war dances of words in support of belligerency.

But at the Democratic convention, and in the subsequent campaign, it was William Jennings Bryan and his allied orators who created the theme and slogan: “He kept us out of war.”

Bryan had resigned as Secretary of State in June 1915 because he believed Wilson was jeopardizing American neutrality and showing partiality towards England. In his last interview, he told Wilson bitterly, “Colonel House has been Secretary of State, not I, and I have never had your full confidence.”

House, a secretive and subtle flatterer who had performed services relating to the Federal Reserve Bank and currency legislation for Jacob W. Schiff and Paul Warburg, was perceived by Wilson as the “friend who so thoroughly understands me,” “my second personality….my independent self, His thoughts and mine are one.”

Bryan had wanted to go on a peace mission to Europe at the beginning of 1915, but the President sent House instead. House had actually sailed on the British ship Lusitania and as it approached the Irish coast on 5 February, the captain ordered the American flag to be raised.

The Intimate Papers of Colonel House record that on the morning of 7 May 1915, he and the British Foreign Secretary Grey drove to Kew. “We spoke of the probability of an ocean liner being sunk,” recorded House, “and I told him if this were done, a flame of indignation would sweep across America, which would in itself probably carry us into the war.” An hour later, House was with King George in Buckingham Palace. “We fell to talking, strangely enough,” the Colonel wrote that night, ”of the probability of Germany sinking a trans-Atlantic liner… ” He said, “Suppose they should sink the Lusitania with American passengers on board… ”

That evening House dined at the American Embassy. A dispatch came in, stating that at two in the afternoon a German submarine had torpedoed and sunk the Lusitania off the southern coast of Ireland. 1,200 lives were lost, including 128 Americans. It took 60 years for the truth about its cargo to be confirmed; that it had carried munitions which exploded when the torpedo hit. But Secretary of State Bryan remarked to his wife, “I wonder if that ship carried munitions of war… . If she did carry them, it puts a different face on the whole matter! England has been using our citizens to protect her ammunition.”

In a telegram to President Wilson from England on 9 May 1915, House said he believed an immediate demand should made to Germany for assurance against a similar incident.

I should inform her that our Government expected to take measures … to ensure the safety of American citizens.

If war follows, it will not be a new war, but an endeavor to end more speedily an old one. Our intervention will save, rather than increase loss of life. We can no longer be neutral spectators .

In another telegram on 25 May, he noted that he had received from Ambassador Gerard a cable that Germany is in no need of food. “This does away with their contention that the starving of Germany justified their submarine policy.”

The next day, House lunched with Sir Edward Grey and read him all the telegrams that had passed between the President, Gerard and himself since last they had met. And he wrote on 30 May 1915, “I have concluded that war with Germany is inevitable, and this afternoon at six o’clock I decided to go home on the S.S. St. Paul on Saturday. I sent a cable to the President to this effect.” After his arrival in the United States, he wrote to the President from Rosslyn, Long Island, on 16 June 1915, a long letter which included the paragraph:

I need not tell you that if the Allies fail to win, it must necessarily mean a reversal of our entire policy.

I think we shall find ourselves drifting into war with Germany … Regrettable as this would be, there would be compensations. The war would be more speedily ended, and we would be in a strong position to aid the other great democracies in turning the world into the right paths. It is something that we have to face with fortitude, being consoled by the thought that no matter what sacrifices we make, the end will justify them. Affectionately yours, E.M. House.

Are these references related to Zionism or Palestine? I think not. Perhaps the clue is that immediately after the election of Wilson, House had anonymously published a political romance entitled Philip Dru: Administrator. Dru leads a revolt and becomes a dictator in Washington, where he formulates a new American constitution and brings about an international grouping or league of Powers.

Let us look to the other side of the water again in 1916, a year later.

About a month before Malcolm’s meeting with Sir Mark Sykes, Lloyd George gave an interview to the President of the United Press Association of America, in which he said “that Britain had only now got into her stride in her war effort, and was justifiably suspicious of any suggestion that President Wilson should choose this moment to ‘butt in’ with a proposal to stop the war before we could achieve victory.”

“The whole world … must know that there can be no outside interference at this stage. Britain asked no intervention when she was unprepared to fight. She will tolerate none now that she is prepared, until the Prussian military despotism is broken beyond repair… . The motto of the Allies was ‘Never Again!’ ” And this made worthwhile the sacrifices so far as well as those needed to end the war with victory.[184]

Grey wrote to him on the 29th of September that he was apprehensive about the effect “of the warning to Wilson in your interview… . It has always been my view that until the Allies were sure of victory the door should be kept open for Wilson’s mediation.”

But the following month, at one of the formal regular meetings with the Chief of the Imperial Staff, when Lloyd George received the familiar answers as to the course of the war — the German losses were greater than the Allies, that the Germans were gradually being worn down, and their morale shaken by constant defeat and retreat — he asked Sir Wm. Robertson for his views as “to how this sanguinary conflict was to be brought to a successful end … He just mumbled something about ‘attrition’.”

Lloyd George then asked for a formal memorandum on the subject. This was not encouraging, and said that an end could not be expected “before the summer of 1918. How long it may go on afterwards I cannot even guess.”

The facts were far from rosy, but were the hopes of Great Britain really hanging upon American entry into the war? There were two other possible courses.

One was suggested by the Marquess of Landsdowne, a member of the Cabinet and a statesman of considerable standing as the author of the Entente Cordiale in 1904. It was contained in a Memorandum Respecting a Peace Settlement, circulated to the Cabinet with the consent of the Prime Minister. Landsdowne suggested doubts as to the possibility of victory within a reasonable space of time.

What does the prolongation of the war mean? Our own casualties already amount to over 1,100,000. We have had 15,000 officers killed, not including those who are missing. There is no reason to suppose that, as the force at the front in the different theatres of war increases, the casualties will increase at a lower rate. We are slowly but surely killing off the best of the male population of these islands. The figures representing the casualties of our Allies are not before me. The total must be appalling.[185]

The other members of the Cabinet and the Chief of Staff repudiated peace without victory.

The other course was that adopted: to thrust more men and money into the holocaust (defined as a wholesale sacrifice or destruction). What would now be called political and military summit meetings were held in France to plan for it. They commenced on 15 November 1916.

In the political presentations, the only reference to America seems to have been offered by Lloyd George:

The difficulties we have experienced in making payment for our purchases abroad must be as present to the minds of French statesmen as to ourselves. Our dependence upon America is growing for food, raw material and munitions. We are rapidly exhausting the securities negotiable in America. If victory shone on our banners, our difficulties would disappear.[Asquith deleted the next sentence, which read] Success means credit: financiers never hesitate to lend to a prosperous concern: but business which is lumbering along amidst great difficulties and which is making no headway in spite of enormous expenditure will find the banks gradually closing their books against it.

This reference to Allied problems in getting more credit from the bankers in the United States, who were predominantly German-Jewish, elucidates Schiff’s agreement to arrange credit for Britain through the Jewish banker Cassel — they were not waiting for a Balfour Declaration, they were waiting for the Russian Revolution!

On the military side, there was general agreement at the summit conference that what was needed was a ”knock-out blow,” and it was decided that the 1917 plan of campaign would be an offensive on all fronts, including Palestine, with the Western Front as the principal one.

On 7 December the Asquith government fell and Lloyd George, who was pledged to a more vigorous prosecution of the war, took over the Government. Five days later, Germany and her allies put forward notes in which they stated their willingness to consider peace by compromise and negotiations.

The first of the battles opened on 9 April 1917, heralded by a bombardment of 2,700,000 shells. Another attack was launched by the French nine days later, these resulting in about a million dead and wounded on both sides. The French Army mutinied, and General Petain was put in charge.

At this time the two events which were to twist the world into a new shape were occurring, the Russian Revolution and American entry into the war.

French Government wanted to defer all offensive operations until American assistance became available, but the generals thought otherwise. Maj.-Gen. J.F.C. Fuller, whom I have met, one of the few bright military-political minds in this century, tells us that Haig “had set his heart on a decisive battle in Flanders, and so obsessed was he by it that he believed that he could beat the Germans single-handed, and before the Americans came in.” [186] I do not think that people who did not live in the great days of the British Empire can have a sense of the hubris of a Haig, unless one gets it from classical literature. Perhaps today it would be found in the head of the World Bank, from whom we taxpayers, like the common soldiers of that time, are so far removed! There was actually resentment in the England of my boyhood about Americans claiming to have played any significant part in fighting the Great War.

The outcome of the grandiosity of the generals and politicians was the costly Flanders campaign of the summer and autumn. On 7th June it was opened by the limited and successful Battle of Messines, which was preceded by a seventeen days’ bombardment of 3,500,000 shells, and initiated by the explosion of nineteen mines packed with a million pounds of high explosives.

On 31st July it was followed by the Third Battle of Ypres, for which the largest force of artillery ever seen in British history was assembled. In all, the preliminary bombardment lasted nineteen days, and during it 4,300,000 shells, some 107,000 tons in weight were hurled onto the prospective low lying battlefield. Its entire surface was upheaved; all drains, dikes, culverts and roads were destroyed, and an almost uncrossable swamp created, in which the infantry wallowed for three and a half months. When, on 10th November, the battle ended, the Germans had been pushed back a maximum depth of five miles on a frontage of ten miles, at a cost of a little under 200,000 men to themselves, and, at the lowest estimate, of 300,000 to their enemy.

Thus ended the last of the great artillery battles of attrition on the Western Front, and when in retrospect they are looked on, it becomes understandable why the politicians were so eager to escape them.

The Great War was like a greatly magnified version of the mutual destruction of noble men in the Niebelungenlied. Set against each other by the vanity and lack of vision of their rulers, the more they fought the more there was to avenge until death delivered them from their need. “At the going down of the sun and in the morning,” we should learn their lesson.
Britain’s Obligation?

In a memorandum marked in his own handwriting “Private & Confidential” to Lord Peel and other members of the Royal Commission on Palestine in 1936, James Malcolm wrote:

I have always been convinced that until the Jewish question was more or less satisfactorily settled there could be no real or permanent peace in the world, and that the solution lay in Palestine. This was one of the two main considerations which impelled me, in the autumn of 1916, to initiate the negotiations which led eventually to the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate for Palestine. The other, of course, was to bring America into the War.

For generations Jews and Gentiles alike have assumed in error that the cause of Anti-Semitism was in the main religious. Indeed, the Jews in the hope of obtaining relief from intolerance, engaged in the intensive and subversive propagation of materialistic doctrines productive of ”Liberalism,” Socialism, and Irreligion, resulting in de-Christianisation. On the other hand, the more materialistic the Gentiles became, the more aware they were subconsciously made of the cause of Anti-Semitism, which at bottom was, and remains to this day, primarily an economic one. A French writer — Vicomte de Poncins — has remarked that in some respects Anti-Semitism is largely a form of self-defence against Jewish economic aggression. In my opinion, however. neither the Jews nor the Gentiles bear the sole responsibility for this.

As I have already said, I had a part in initiating the negotiations in the early autumn of 1916 between the British and French Governments and the Zionist leaders, which led to the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate for Palestine.

The first object, of course, was to enlist the very considerable and necessary influence of the Jews, and especially of the Zionist or Nationalist Jews. to help us bring America into the War at the most critical period of the hostilities. This was publicly acknowledged by Mr. Lloyd George during a recent debate in the House of Commons.

Our second object was to enable and induce Jews all the world over to envisage constructive work as their proper field, and to take their minds off destructive and subversive schemes which, owing to their general Sense of insecurity and homelessness. even in the periods preceding the French Revolution, had provoked so much trouble and unrest in various countries, until their ever-increasing violence culminated in the Third International and the Russian Communist Revolution. But to achieve this end it was necessary to promise them Palestine in consideration of their help, as already explained, and not as a mere humanitarian experiment or enterprise, as represented in certain quarters.

It is no wonder that Weizmann did not refer to Malcolm in his autobiography, and Sokolow privately resented Malcolm “as a stranger in the center of our work,” who was “endowed with an esprit of a goyish kind. ” [187]

It is also worth noting that on page seven of his memorandum Malcolm quoted General Ludendorff, former Quartermaster General of the German Army, and perhaps at least remembered for heading an unsuccessful coup in Munich in 1923, as saying that the Balfour Declaration was “the cleverest thing done by the Allies in the way of propaganda and that he wished Germany had thought of it first.”

On the other hand, might it not have provided some cold comfort for Ludendorff to believe that the Zionist Jews were a major factor in the outcome of the war — if that is what he is implying?

Malcolm’s belief in the Balfour Declaration as a means of bringing the United States into the war was confirmed by Samuel Landman, secretary to the Zionist leaders Weizmann and Sokolow, and later secretary of the World Zionist Organization. As

the only way (which proved so to be) to induce the American President to come into the war was to secure the cooperation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilize the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis. Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret “gentlemens’ ” agreement of 1916, made with the previous knowledge, acquiescence, and or approval of the Arabs, and of the British, and of the French and other Allied governments, and not merely a voluntary, altruistic and romantic gesture on the part of Great Britain as certain people either through pardonable ignorance assume or unpardonable ill-will would represent or rather misrepresent …[188]

Speaking in the House of Commons on 4 July 1922, Winston Churchill asked rhetorically,

Are we to keep our pledge to the Zionists made in 1917…? Pledges and promises were made during the war, and they were made, not only on the merits, though I think the merits are considerable. They were made because it was considered they would be of value to us in our struggle to win the war. It was considered that the support which the Jews could give us all over the world, and particularly in the United States, and also in Russia, would be a definite palpable advantage. I was not responsible at that time for the giving of those pledges, nor for the conduct of the war of which they were, when given, an integral part. But like other members I supported the policy of the War Cabinet. Like other members, I accepted and was proud to accept a share in those great transactions, which left us with terrible losses, with formidable obligations, but nevertheless with unchallengeable victory.

However, Hansard notes, one member, Mr. Gwynne, plaintively complained that “the House has not yet had an opportunity of discussing it.”

Writing to The Times on 2 November 1949, Malcolm Thomson, the official biographer of Lloyd George, noted that this was the thirty-second anniversary of the Balfour Declaration and it seemed a

suitable occasion for stating briefly certain facts about its origin which have recently been incorrectly recorded.

When writing the official biography of Lloyd George, I was able to study the original documents bearing on this question. From these it was clear that although certain members of the Cabinets of 1916 and 1917 sympathized with Zionist aspirations, the efforts of Zionist leaders to win any promise of support from the British Government had proved quite ineffectual, and the secret Sykes-Picot agreement with the French for partition of spheres of interest in the Middle East seemed to doom Zionist aims. A change of attitude was, however, brought about through the initiative of Mr. James A. Malcolm, who pressed on Sir Mark Sykes, then Under-Secretary to the War Cabinet, the thesis that an allied offer to restore Palestine to the Jews would swing over from the German to the allied side the very powerful influence of American Jews, including Judge Brandeis, the friend and adviser of President Wilson. Sykes was interested, and at his request Malcolm introduced him to Dr. Weizmann and the other Zionist leaders, and negotiations were opened which culminated in the Balfour Declaration.

These facts have at one time or another been mentioned in various books and articles, and are set out by Dr. Adolf Boehm in his monumental history of Zionism, “Die Zionistische Bewegung,” Vol. 1, p.656. It therefore surprised me to find in Dr. Weizmann’s autobiography, “Trial and Error,” that he makes no mention of Mr. Malcolm’s crucially important intervention, and even attributes his own introduction to Sir Mark Sykes to the late Dr. Caster. As future historians might not unnaturally suppose Dr. Weizmann’s account to be authentic, I have communicated with Mr. Malcolm, who not only confirms the account I have given, but holds a letter written to him by Dr. Weizmann on March 5, 1941, saying: “You will be interested to hear that some time ago I had occasion to write to Mr. Lloyd George about your useful and timely initiative in 1916 to bring about the negotiations between myself and my Zionist colleagues and Sir Mark Sykes and others about Palestine and Zionist support of the allied cause in America and elsewhere.”

No doubt a complexity of motives lay behind the Balfour Declaration, including strategic and diplomatic considerations and, on the part of Balfour, Lloyd George, and Smuts, a genuine sympathy with Zionist aims. But the determining factor was the intervention of Mr Malcolm with his scheme for engaging by some such concession the support of American Zionists for the allied cause in the first world war.

Yours, & c.,


According to Lloyd George’s Memoirs of the Peace Conference, where, as planned many years before, the Zionists were strongly represented,

There is no better proof of the value of the Balfour Declaration as a military move than the fact that Germany entered into negotiations with Turkey in an endeavor to provide an alternative scheme which would appeal to Zionists. A German-Jewish Society, the V.J.O.D., [A] was formed, and in January 1918, Talaat, the Turkish Grand Vizier, at the instigation of the Germans, gave vague promises of legislation by means of which “all justifiable wishes of the Jews in Palestine would be able to meet their fulfillment.”

Another most cogent reason for the adoption by the Allies of the policy of the Declaration lay in the state of Russia herself. Russian Jews had been secretly active on behalf of the Central Powers from the first; they had become the chief agents of German pacifist propaganda in Russia; by 1917 they had done much in preparing for that general disintegration of Russian society, later recognised as the Revolution. It was believed that if Great Britain declared for the fulfillment of Zionist aspirations in Palestine under her own pledge, one effect would be to bring Russian Jewry to the cause of the Entente.

It was believed, also, that such a declaration would have a potent influence upon world Jewry outside Russia, and secure for the Entente the aid of Jewish financial interests. In America, their aid in this respect would have a special value when the Allies had almost exhausted the gold and marketable securities available for American purchases. Such were the chief considerations which, in 1917, impelled the British Government towards making a contract with Jewry.[189]

As for getting the support of Russian Jewry, Trotsky’s aims were to overthrow the Provisional Government and turn the imperialist war into a war of international revolution. In November 1917 the first aim was accomplished. Military factors primarily influenced Lenin to sign the peace treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918.

The Zionist sympathizers Churchill and George seemed never to lose an opportunity to tell the British people that they had an obligation to support the Zionists.

But what had the Zionists done for Britain?

Where was the documentation?

“Measured by British interests alone,” wrote the Oxford historian Elizabeth Monroe in 1963, the Balfour Declaration “was one of the greatest mistakes in our imperial history!”

The Zionists had the Herzlian tradition — shall we call it — of Promises, “promises.” Considerable credit for the diplomacy which brought into existence the Jewish national home must go to Weizmann. A British official who came into contact with him summarized his diplomatic method in the following words:

When (the First World War) began, his cause was hardly known to the principal statesman of the victors. It had many enemies, and some of the most formidable were amongst the most highly placed of his own people … He once told me that 2,000 interviews had gone into the making of the Balfour Declaration. With unerring skill he adapted his arguments to the special circumstances of each statesman. To the British and Americans he could use biblical language and awake a deep emotional undertone; to other nationalities he more often talked in terms of interest. Mr. Lloyd George was told that Palestine was a little mountainous country not unlike Wales; with Lord Balfour the philosophical background of Zionism could be surveyed; for Lord Cecil the problem was placed in the setting of a new world organization; while to Lord Milner the extension of imperial power could be vividly portrayed. To me, who dealt with these matters as a junior officer of the General Staff, he brought from many sources all the evidences that could be obtained of the importance of a Jewish national home to the strategical position of the British Empire, but he always indicated by a hundred shades and inflections of the voice that he believed that I could also appreciate better than my superiors other more subtle and recondite arguments.[190]

A) Vereinigung Jüdischer Organisationen in Deutschland zur Wahrung der Rechte des Osten. (Alliance of the Jewish Organizations of Germany for the Safeguarding of the Rights of the East.)
Triumph and Tragedy

Herzl correctly predicted a great war between the Great Powers. His followers organized to be ready for that time to further their ambitions through exploiting the rivalry of the Great Powers. They had a vested interest in promoting that war and in its continuance until Palestine was wrested from Turkey by British soldiers.

They prepared for the Peace Conference at Versailles although they had no belligerent standing, but they had the weight of the Rothschilds, Bernard Baruch, Felix Frankfurter, and others, which made room for them.

In the Introduction to The Palestine Diary I wrote,

The establishment in 1948 of a “Jewish state” in Palestine was a phenomenal achievement. In fifty years from the Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland, in 1897 — attended by a small number of Jews who represented little more than themselves — the Zionist idea had captivated the vast majority of world Jewry, and enlisted in particular Britain, America and the United Nations to intervene in Palestine in its support.

In 1983, seventy-five years after the Balfour Declaration and nearly ninety years after the first Zionist Congress in Switzerland a meeting was held there of the International Conference on the Question of Palestine — but the conferees were not Jews — they were Palestinians — two million are in exile — displaced by Jews!

Where is the meaning for us?

On a day-to-day level, we can look in our newspapers for Zionist tactics of influence and leverage which we can document they have used successfully in the past.

Then there is a long-term strategy, From the mass of material in a century of history and in our complex society of today I see the underlying effect of two themes, They influence the lives of every one of us, and will continue to do so unless a change is made.

We can see them clearly in their early formulation, before they had been fed as valid data into the information processing and software systems of our society, with the result that most of the answers we get are wrong!

They are found in the conversation of Herzl and Meyer-Cohn in 1895. The sets of ideas are those associated with Jewish nationalism and racism on the Right [191] — racism being defined by Sir Andrew Huxley P.R.S. as the belief in the subjugation of one race by another, and on the other hand the concept of “universalism.”

Acceptance of this input from the Right into our computations has resulted in the transfer of some $50 billion from our pockets into theirs.[192] In 1983, budgeted American tax money, labeled “aid,” alone amounts to $625 for every man, woman and child in Israel.[193] It results in our acceptance of concentration camps for Palestinians containing thousands of people without a squeak from the so-called “international community” in acceptance of their assassination, torture, deportation, closing of their schools and colleges, even of their massacre.[194] The lives of American troops — men and women, are committed to supporting these crimes.[195] Criticism is called “antisemitism,” a word which computes as “unemployable social outcast.”

Jewish nationalism and Israeli policy planned the present destabilization of Lebanon in 1955.[196] This is part of larger schemes to fragment and enfeeble possible challenges to their supremacy in the Middle East.[197]

On the other hand we have “universalism.” This, I believe was the factor motivating Woodrow Wilson through House in his telegram of 30 May 1916 and letter of 16 June 1915 to the President, to which I have referred. “The League of Nations,” the United Nations Organization, are its printouts. Just as House was a coefficient of the international bankers, so the United Nations and the international bankers have been part of the coefficient whereby over $400 billion of the earnings of workers in countries where universalism is a significant force, has been transferred to the peoples of Asia, Africa, South America and Communist countries; money needed for our capital investment.

People should ask: How is it that, with such multiplication of industrial power and resources, our peoples’ standard of living and possibilities to have and support children have not multiplied accordingly? Why do so many of our women have to work? Why does no public figure — politician, labor leader — dare to ask — and raise the roof?

Universalism and Marxism compete superficially for first place as finalists in western culture distortion. Both promote its ethnic dilution, but deny us the reality of racial differences. Against our individuality and our nationalism, they and the global capitalists and their corporations unite as transnationals to reduce all but themselves to a common consumer market of blurred boundaries and one color. They would like one law — which they would make; one armed force — which they would control. Universalism would impose — not a global peace, but a global tyranny!

Universalism has come up with “interdependence,” an expression used as a cover for the expropriation of our earnings as foreign aid in various forms; it has anesthetized the sense of self-defense of our countries so that those who have tried to stop their colonization by people from exploding populations of Africa, Asia and Latin America have been made to feel that they were depriving others of their “human rights.”

In countries where they live other than Israel, Zionists are in the forefront of opposition to restrictions on immigration. Note that even in 1903 a leader of the fight against the Alien’s Bill and against tightening up naturalization regulations in Britain was the pro-Zionist Winston S. Churchill, and the super-Zionist Herzl appeared before the Royal Commission on Alien Immigration to oppose any restriction.

And yet, my Arab friends born in Jerusalem are cast out and cannot return.

“If,” said Herzl, “we wanted to bring about the unity of mankind independent of national boundaries, we would have to combat the ideal of patriotism. The latter, however, will prove stronger than we for innumerable years to come.

In a hundred years they have almost won that struggle.

In a conversation with Joseph Chamberlain in 1903, Theodore Herzl was asked how the Jewish colony would survive in the distant future. Herzl said, “We shall play the role of a small buffer state. We shall attain this not through the goodwill but from the jealousy of the Powers.”

This is the game that Israel plays today, obtaining its military supplies, its high technology, and its billions of dollars from the pay packets of American workers, using the rivalry of the USSR and the U.S.A.

We should not allow ourselves to be made pawns in the games of others.


Political Intelligence Department,

Foreign Office.

Special 3.

Memorandum on British Commitments to King Husein

(Page 9) With regard to Palestine, His Majesty’s Government are committed by Sir H. McMahon’s letter to the Sherif on the 24th October, 1915, to its inclusion in the boundaries of Arab independence. But they have stated their policy regarding the Palestinian Holy Places and Zionist colonisation in their message to him of the 4th January, 1918:

“That so far as Palestine is concerned, we are determined that no people shall be subjected to another, but that in view of the fact:

“(a.) That there are in Palestine shrines, Wakfs, and Holy Places, sacred in some cases to Moslems alone, to Jews alone, to Christians alone, and in others to two or all three, and inasmuch as these places are of interest to vast masses of people outside Palestine and Arabia, there must be a special regime to deal with these places approved of by the world.

“(b.) That as regards the Mosque of Omar, it shall be considered as a Moslem concern alone, and shall not be subjected directly or indirectly to any non-Moslem authority.

“That since the Jewish opinion of the world is in favour of a return of Jews to Palestine, and inasmuch as this opinion must remain a constant factor, and further, as His Majesty’s Government view with favour the realisation of this aspiration. His Majesty’s Government are determined that in so far as is compatible with the freedom of the existing population, both economic and political, no obstacle should be put in the way of the realisation of this ideal.”

This message was delivered personally to King Husein by Commander Hogarth, and the latter reported on his reception of it as follows:

“The King would not accept an independent Jewish State in Palestine, nor was I instructed to warn him that such a State was contemplated by Great Britain. He probably knows nothing of the actual or possible economy of Palestine, and his ready assent to Jewish settlement there is not worth very much. But I think he appreciates the financial advantage of Arab co-operation with the Jews.”

[1] A Survey of Palestine, 1945-1946, H.M.S.O., vol. I, p.1.
[2] Lowenthal, The Diaries of Theodor Herzl. pp.35.
[2a] Ibid., p.63.
[2b] Ibid., pp. 128-129, 132, 152, 176.
[3] Ibid., p.215.
[4] Weizmann, Trial and Error, p.45-46.
[5] Stein, Leonard, Zionism, (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubaer and Ca., 1932). p.62.
[6] Bela. Alex., Theodor Herzl (tr. Maurice Samuel). (Philadelphia: Jewish Palestine Society), pp. 304-305; Halpern. The Ideal of a Jewish State, p.144.
[7] Ibid,. For financial details. see pp. 262-264.
[8] Lowenthal, The Diaries of Theodor Herzl, p.398.
[9] Lewisohn, Ludwig, Theodor Herzl. (New York: World. 1955). pp. 335-341.
[10] Bela. Theodor Herzl, p.490.
[11] Ibid., pp. 361ff. 378f.
[12] Ziff, William B., The Rape of Palestine. (New York: Longmans & Green, 1938), p. 43.
[13] British Foreign Office to Herzl, 19 lane 1903, Zionist Archives, Jerusalem.
[14] Tagebuecher, vol.111, pp, 412-413 (24 April 1903), Berlin 1922.
[15] Stein. Leonard, The Balfour Declaration. (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1916),
[16] Lipsky, Louis, A Gallery of Zionist Profiles, (New York: Farrar, Straus & Cudahy, 1956), p.37.
[17] Halpern, The Idea of a Jewish State, pp. 154-155.
[18] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.78.
[19] Ibid., p. 35.
[20] Lipsky, A Gallery of Zionist Profiles, p.94.
[21] Alsberg, F.A., Ha-Sh’ela ha-Aravit, vol. I, Shivat Zion, IV, pp. 161-209. Quoted by Halpern in The Idea of a Jewish State, p.267.
[22] Lipsky, A Gallery of Zionist Profiles, p.36.
[23] Ibid., p. 98.
[24] Halpern, The Idea of a Jewish State, p.267.
[25] Lipsky, A Gallery of Zionist Profiles, pp.95.98.
[26] Protocols of the 10th Zionist Congress, p.11.
[27] Lipsky, A Gallery of Zionist Profiles, p.26.
[28] Halpern. The Idea of a Jewish State, p. 267.
[29] Report of the 12th Zionist Congress (London: Central Office of the Organization. 1922) pp. 13ff.
[30] Bela, A., Return to the Soil. (Jerusalem: Zionist Organization. 1952) p.27.
[31] Hecht, Ben, Perfidy, (New York: Julian Messner, Inc., 1961), p.254.
[32] Reports submitted by the Executive of the Zionist Organization to the 12th Zionist Congress, London, 1921, Palestine Report. p.7.
[33] Hyamson, A.M., The Near East, 31 Oct. 1913, (London, 1917), p.68.
[34] Ibid., pp.39-40.
[35] Jewish Chronicle, 16 October 1908.
[36] Die Welt, 22 January 1909.
[37] Protocols of the 11th Zionist Congress, p.6.
[38] Joffre, Joseph J.C., The Memoirs of Marshal Joffre, (London and New York: Harper & Brothers, 1932), Vol.1, pp.38-39.
[39] Chamberlain, Austen, Down the Years, (London: Cassell & Co., 1935), p.104.
[40] Churchill, Winston L.S., The World Crisis, 1911-1918, (London: T. Butterworth, 1931), Vol.1, p.234.
[41] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, pp.104-105.
[42] Ibid., p.109.
[43] Ibid., pp.233-234.
[44] Adamov, E., Ed., Die Europaeische Maechte und die Tuerkei Waehrend des Weltkriegs-Die Aufteilung der Asiatischen Tuerkei. Translation from Russian (Dresden, 1932), No.91.
[45] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.97.
[46] For details see 1921 Reports submitted by the Executive Committee of the Zionist Organization to the Twelfth Zionist Congress, London, 1921.
[47] Letter from Max Bodheimer to Otto Warburg, 22 November 1914 Jerusalem: Zionist Archives), quoted in Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.98, n.8.
[48] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, pp.197-198.
[49] Gottheil to Louis 0. Brandeis, 1 October 1914 (unpublished).
[50] London: The Times, 10 November 1914.
[51] Letter from Greenberg to Herzl, 4 July 1903, quoted in Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.28. This seems to indicate Lloyd George’s first contact with the Zionist movement: ‘Lloyd George, as you know, is an M.P.; he, therefore, knows the ropes of these things and can be helpful to us.’
[52] Samuel, Viscount Herbert, Memoirs, (London: Cresset Press, 1945), pp 139ff.
[53] Letter from Samuel to Weizmann, 11 January 1915, quoted in Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.109, fo. 24; also Samuel, Memoirs, p.144.
[54] Samuel, Memoirs, p.143. In a letter of 20 November 1912 to the Zionist Executive, Weizmann mentioned Haldane as one of the important persons to whom he thought he could gain access: Zionist Archives.
[55] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.111, fn. 33; Crewe’s mother-in-law was the Countess of Rosebery, daughter of Baron Mayer de Rothschild, see p.112, fn. 34.
[56] Samuel, Memoirs, p.141.
[57] Oxford and Asquith, Earl, Memories and Reflections, (London: Cassell, 1928), Vol. II , p. 59.
[58] Samuel, Memoirs, pp.143-144.
[59] Oxford and Asquith, Memories and Reflections, Vol. II, p. 65.
[60] Ibid., p. 188; Reports submitted by the Executive Committee of the Zionist Organization to the Twelfth Zionist Congress, London 1921. ‘Organization Report.’ p. 113, gives a much smaller figure.
[61] Rischin, Moses, The Promised City: New York’s Jews, 1870-1914, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1962).
[62] German Foreign Office Documents at London Record Office, Washington to Berlin K 692/K 176709-10, and K 692/K 17611-12-Berlin to Washington, 1 November 1914. ‘Some time ago we already strongly advised Turkey, on account of international Jewry, to protect Jews of every nationality, and we are now reverting to the matter once again.’
[63] German Foreign Office Documents, K 692/K 176723 and 176745.
[64] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.201.
[65] Richard Lichtheim to Leonard Stein, 12 February 1952, The Balfour Declaration, p.209, fn. 9.
[66] Report dated 8 March 1915, Papers of Nahum Sokolow, Quoted in Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.210, fn. 10.
[67] Palestine Report to 1921 Zionist Congress, p. 34.
[68] Lichtheim, Richard, Memoirs, published in Hebrew version as She’ar Yashoov, (Tel Aviv: Newman, 1953), Chapter XV.
[69] Ibid., Chapter XVIII.
[70] The Times of history of the War; Vol. XIV, pp. 320-321; Stein, The Balfour Declaration, pp. 212-213; e.g., Preussicher Jahrbuecher, August-September 1915, article by Kurt Blumenfeld.
[71] Lichtheim, Memoirs, Chapter XVIII; Stein, The Balfour Declaration, pp. 213-214, fns. 21.22.
[72] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.214, fn. 23.
[73] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, pp. 536-537; Note of the interview in memorandum 28 August 1917, Zionist Archives.
[74] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.537. Even in 1959, Aaronssohn’s superior, Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen. wrote: “I am not at liberty to divulge any of his exploits as it would publicize methods better kept secret”- Middle East Diary 1917-1956 (New York: Yoseloff, 1960) p.5.
[75] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.217.
[76] Conjoint Foreign Committee 1916/210, 5 April 1916; Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.218.
[77] Hatikvah (Antwerp), December 1927, contains article by Basch.
[78] Conjoint Foreign Committee, 1915/340.
[79] Ibid., 1916/183ff; Translated in Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.219.
[80] Poincare, R., Au Service de la France, (Paris: Plon, 1926), Vol. VIII, p.220,15 May 1916.
[81] Conjoint Foreign Committee, 1916/110, 124; Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p 220.
[82] Conjoint Foreign Committee, 1916/11ff; Stein, The Balfour Declaration, pp. 220-221.
[83] Die Welt, 1913, No. 35, p. 1146; Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 67.
[84] Conjoint Foreign Committee, 1916/130ff, 18 February 1916; Stein. The Balfour Declaration, p. 221.
[85] Conjoint Foreign Committee, 1916/206; Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 223.
[86] Stein. The Balfour Declaration, p.225.
[87] Adamov, E., Ed., Die Europoeische Maechte und die Tuerkei Waehrend des Weltkriegs-Die Aufteilung der Asiatischen Tuerkei. Translation from Russian (Dresden, 1932), No.80.
[88] Conjoint Foreign Committee, 1916/387.
[89] Lloyd George, War Memoirs, 1915-1916, p.434.
[90] Falls, Cyril, The Great War, (New York; Putnam, 1959), p.180.
[91] Yale, William, The Near East: A Modern History, (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. 1958) p. 263.
[92] Caster (Moses) Papers, quoted in Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.285, fn.
[93] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, pp. 488-490.
[94] Lloyd George, War Memoirs, 1915-1916, p.276.
[95] Landman, S., in World Jewry, Balfour Declaration: Secret Facts Revealed, (London: Independent Weekly Journal, 1935), Vol.2, No.43, 22 February 1935.
[96] Landman, Balfour Declaration: Secret Facts Revealed, Vol. 2, No 43, 22 February 1935; also, Malcolm, Origins of the Balfour Declaration: Dr. Weizmann’s Contribution, pp. 2-3.
[97] Landman, Balfour Declaration: Secret Facts Revealed, Vol. 2, No 43, 22 February 1935; also, Link, A.S., Wilson, The New Freedom, (Princeton: University Press. 1956) pp. 10ff, 13ff.
[98] Ziff, The Rape of Palestine, p. 58.
[99] Mason, Alphoos T.M., Brandeis, A Free Man’s Life, (New York: Viking Press, 1956), p. 451.
[100] Ibid., p. 452.
[101] Gwynn, Stephen, Ed., Letters and Friendships of Sir Cecil Spring Rice, (London: Constable, 1929), Vol. II, pp. 200-201.
[102] Yale, The Near East, p.268.
[103] Mason, Brandeis, A Free Man’s Life, p. 448.
[104] The Times Documentary History of the War, London, 1917, Vol. IX, Part 3, p. 303.
[105] National Archives. Department of State, Decimal File 1910-1929, No. 881.4018/325.
[106] Jewish Advocate, 13 August 1915.
[107] Boston Post, 4 October 1915.
[108] The ESCO (Ethel Silverman Cohn) Foundation of Palestine. Inc., Palestine: A Study of Jewish, Arab and British Policies, (New Haven: Yale University Press 1947), Vol. I, pp.87-89.
[109] Sykes, Two Studies in Virtue, p.187.
[110] Somervell, D.C., British Politics Since 1900, (New York: Oxford University Press 1950), p. 113.
[111] Report of the Twelfth Zionist Congress (London: Central Office of the Zionist Organization, 1922), p. 13ff.
[112] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 25.
[113] Antonius, The Arab Awakening, p. 263.
[114] Taylor. Alan, Prelude to Israel, (New York: Philosophical Library, 1959), p. 19.
[115] The ESCO Foundation, Palestine: A Study of Jewish, Arab and British Policies, Vol. I, pp. 92-93
[116] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, pp. 286-287.
[117] The ESCO Foundation, Palestine: A Study of Jewish, Arab and British Policies, Vol. I, pp. 94.
[118] Taylor. Alan, Prelude to Israel, p. 20.
[118a] Stein, p 509 citing Brandeis’ papers.
[119] New York Times 24 March 1917.
[120] United States: State Department Document 861.00/288, 19 March 1917.
[120a] 120a. Stein, p 332 fn.
[121] Sykes, Two Studies in Virtue, p. 196.
[122] Jeffries, Palestine: The Reality, p. 140. Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 396, fn. 10.
[123] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, pp. 396-397.
[124] Ibid., p. 394 fn 3.
[125] Letter from Sokolow to Weizmann, quoted in The Balfour Declaration, p. 400, fn. 27.
[126] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.400. fn. 29.
[127] Landman, S., in World Jewry, Balfour Declaration: Scent Facts Revealed (London: Independent Weekly Journal 1935), 1 March 1935.
[128] Les Origines de la Déclaration Balfour, Question d’Israel, (Paris, 1939), Vol. 17, p. 680 (Translation)
[129] Ibid.
[130] Translation from Russian in Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 395.
[131] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 414.
[132] Sykes, Two Studies in Virtue, p. 211.
[133] Jeffries, Palestine: The Reality, p. 141.
[134] Mason, Brandeis, A Free Man’s Life, p.452.
[135] Dugdale, Blanche E.C., Arthur James Balfour, (London, Hutchinson, 1936), Vol, II. p. 231.
[136] Mason, Brandeis, A Free Man’s Life, pp. 452-453.
[137] The Times, (London), 24 May 1917.
[138] Ibid., 28 May 1917.
[139] Jeffries, Palestine: The Reality, p. 148.
[140] Ibid., p 149.
[141] Ibid., p 153.
[142] Weizmann, Trial and Error, p. 179.
[143] Stein, p. 462.
[144] Ibid.
[145] Ibid.
[146] Ibid., pp 463-64.
[147] Yale, The Near East: A Modern History, p. 241 Also article by William Yale in World Politics, (New Haven: April 1949), Vol. I, No.3, pp. 308-320 on ‘Ambassador Morgenthau’s Special Mission of 1917’; Stein, The Balfour Declaration, pp. 352-360.
[148] Mason, Brandeis, A Free Man’s Life, p. 453.
[149] Ibid., p 453.
[150] Jeffries, Palestine: The Reality, pp. 163-164.
[151] De Haas, Jacob, Theodor Herzl: A Biographical Study, (Chicago: University Press, 1027), Vol. I, pp. 194 et seq
[152] Sykes, Two Studies in Virtue: On the basis of Nordan’s manuscript, ‘The Prosperity of His Servant.’ p 160 fn 1.
[153] Sadaqu Najib, Qadiyet Falastin, (Beirut: 1946) pp. 19, 31.
[154] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 526.
[155] Mason, Brandeis, A Free Man’s Life, p.673.
[156] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 504, fn. 5.
[157] Seymour, Charles (ed. by), The Intimate Papers of Col. House, (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1926), pp. 161, 174.
[158] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, pp. 504-505, fn. 5, 7.
[159] The Jewish Chronicle, 26 May 1916. In a personal communication, Prof. W. Yale notes that the Cairo publisher Dr. Faris Nimr told him that Morgenthau had talked with the Khedive, Abbas Hilmi, in 1914, regarding a role in promoting the cession of Palestine to Egypt.
[160] New York Times, Obituary, 18 June, 1962.
[161] Chaim Weizmann Papers in Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 506.
[162] Mason, Brandeis, A Free Man’s Life, p. 453.
[163] Ibid., p.453. Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.506.
[164] Brandeis to de Haas and Lewin-Epstein. 20 September 1917, Brandeis Papers, in Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 506.
[165] Ibid., Brandeis to House, 24 September 1917.
[166] Stein, The Balfour Declaration, pp. 507-508.
[167] The Brandeis Papers in Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p.509.
[168] The Wilson Papers in Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 509.
[169] Mason, Brandeis, A Free Man’s Life, p.453.
[170] Ibid.
[171] Adler. ‘The Palestine Question in the Wilson Era,’ pp. 305-306. Quoted in Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 528.
[172] See ‘The Zionist-Israel Juridical claims to constitute “The Jewish people” nationality entity and to confer membership in it: Appraisal in public international law.’ W.T. Mallinson, Jr., George Washington Law Review, Vol. 32, No.5, (June 1964). pp. 983-1075, particularly p. 1015.
[173] The New Palestine published by the Zionist Organization of America, 28 October 1927, pp. 321, 343.
[174] William Wiseman to Leonard Stein, 7 November 1952: in Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 529.
[175] In a dispatch dated 19 May 1919 from Balfour to Curzon, ‘The correspondence with Sir William Wiseman in October 1917’ is mentioned as evidence of endorsement of the Balfour Declaration. Document on British Foreign Policy, First Series, Vol. IV, No.196, fn. 4, p.281.
[176] Stein, pp. 561-62.
[177] Mason, Brandeis, A Free Man’s Life, p.454.
[178] Ibid., p.455.
[179] New York Times, 8 January 1961, 53:6.
[180] Ibid., 14 January 1961, 22:5.
[181] Lloyd George, Memoirs of the Peace Conference, Vol. II, p. 732.
[182] Claude Kitchen and the Wilson War Policies, 1937, reprinted 1971, Russel.
[183] Knightley, Phillip, The First Casualty, (N.Y.: Harcourt Brace, 1975), p. 122.
[184] War Memoirs of David Lloyd George, (Boston: Little, Brown, 1933), pp. 280-3.
[185] War Memoirs, p.291.
[186] The Conduct of War, J.F.C. Fuller, (New Brunswick: Rutgers, 1961), p.171
[187] Translation from the Russian in Stein, The Balfour Declaration, p. 395.
[188] Great Britain, the Jews and Palestine, (London, 1936), pp. 4-5, New Zionist Press.
[189] George, Memoirs of the Peace Conference, p. 726.
[190] Taylor, Prelude to Israel, p.24.
[191] Example: resigning Israeli Chief of Staff, Gen. Rafael Eytan, following the invasion of Lebanon, likened the Palestinians to “cockroaches.”
[192] The U.S. General Accounting Office figure for military and economic aid to Israel from 1948 through 1982 was $24 billion. To this must be added the tax-free contributions to Israeli organizations, loss on investment of funds in Israeli bonds by American cities such as New York, by labor unions, and other entities. To the add the costs of transfer of American technology to Israel. Since 1982, IJ.S. annual taxpayer levies for Israel have been increased by Congress. so that the cost of Israel for the United States could easily climb to well in excess of $100 billion over the next decade.
[193] New York Times, 10 July 1983.
[194] I recall distinctly how our soldiers fired their weapons at the elderly, at women and children, all on order of their commanders. I witnessed the pleas and cries of small children after their mothers were brutally killed in front of them by our soldiers. Some of the soldiers even fired phosphorus canisters into Ein El-Helweh shelters, where hundreds of civilians had taken refuge. None of them survived.” Account by Lt. Eytan Kleibneuf in Haolam Hazeh, Israel, 7 July 1982. Kleibneuf is a member of Mi’jan Michael Kibbutz and member of Mapam’s United Kibbutzim Movement, and a reserve officer in the Israel infantry forces.
The West German weekly Stern, 24 August 1982, carried an article by Austria’s Jewish Chancellor, Bruno Kreisky, stating that Israel had committed “gigantic crimes” in its invasion of Lebanon. “Israel stands morally naked. Its leaders have shown their true face,” he concluded.
During Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, the U.S. Jewish Press carried a regular column by Rabbi Meir Kahane advocating the killing of Palestinians of all ages. This he wrote, was G-d’s will as expressed in the Torah. Not to do so, opposed that will. This is the Holy War (herem) which God “commanded” the Hebrews to wage against the Canaanites for the possession of the Promised Land. The Old Testament repeatedly refers to the terror that the herem would produce and to Israel’s obligation to destroy all persons with their property who remain in the land, lest they become slaves or corrupting influences. The Hebrew word herem designates a sacred sphere where ordinary standards do not apply, and in a military context … herem is a total war of annihilation without limits against men, women, animals and property. For a discussion of the herem and its revival by the Zealots as reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls, see de Vaux, R., Ancient Israel, New York: McGraw-Hill. 1972, pp.258-267.
In psychological terms, the defense for indulgence in the horror of herem is projection -projection of ideas of herem as being held by others, or indulging in behavior which invites the ”Group-Fantasy of Martyrdom.” See Journal of Psychohistory, Vol.6, No.2, Fall 1978, H.F. Stein, “The Psychodynamic Paradox of Survival Through Persecution,” pp.151-210.
[195] Within three weeks of the presentation of this lecture at the IHR conference, 241 U.S. Marines and 58 French servicemen were killed in Beirut on 23 October 1983.
[196] Israel’s Sacred Terrorism by Livia Rokach. Belmont 1980: Assoc. of Arab-Amer. Grads. Amer. Grads. Contains the Memoirs of Moshe Sharett 1953-57, Israel’s first Foreign Minister and second Prime Minister.
[197] “A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties,” by Oded Yinon, a former officer in the Israeli Foreign Ministry. In Kivunim (Directions), the Hebrew-language journal of the Department of Information of the World Zionist Organization, February 1982. “The dissolution of Syria and Iraq … into ethnically or religious unique areas such as in Lebanon, is Israel’s primary target on the eastern front in the long run, while the dissolution of the military power of those states serves as the short term target,” the presentation reads in part.
From The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1985-6 (Vol. 6, No. 4). This paper was first presented by the author at the Fifth IHR Conference, 1983. It was also the basis for the booklet, Behind the Balfour Declaration: The Hidden Origin of Today’s Mideast Crisis, published by the Institute for Historical Review in 1988.

About the Author

Robert John — foreign affairs analyst, diplomatic historian, author and psychiatrist — was educated in England . He graduated from University of London King’s College, and then studied at the Middle Temple , Inns of Court, in London . He was the author, with Sami Hadawi, of The Palestine Diary: British, American and United Nations Intervention, 1914-1948. This detailed two-volume work, first published in 1970, includes a foreword by British historian Arnold Toynbee. Robert John died on June 4, 2007, age 86.

Read Full Post »

“Peaceful Primitives”?
We’ve deluded ourselves into believing in the myth of the noble and peaceful primitive
Mark Steyn

Nicholas Wade’s Before The Dawn is one of those books full of eye-catching details. For example, did you know the Inuit have the largest brains of any modern humans? Something to do with the cold climate. Presumably, if this global warming hooey ever takes off, their brains will be shrinking with the ice caps.

But the passage that really stopped me short was this:

“Both Keeley and LeBlanc believe that for a variety of reasons anthropologists and their fellow archaeologists have seriously underreported the prevalence of warfare among primitive societies. . . . ‘I realized that archaeologists of the postwar period had artificially “pacified the past” and shared a pervasive bias against the possibility of prehistoric warfare,’ says Keeley.”

That’s Lawrence Keeley, a professor at the University of Illinois. And the phrase that stuck was that bit about artificially pacifying the past. We’ve grown used to the biases of popular culture. If a British officer meets a native — African, Indian, whatever — in any movie, play or novel of the last 30 years, the Englishman will be a sneering supercilious sadist and the native will be a dignified man of peace in perfect harmony with his environment in whose tribal language there is not even a word for “war” or “killing” or “weapons of mass destruction.” A few years ago, I asked Tim Rice, who’d just written the lyrics for Disney’s Aladdin and The Lion King, why he wasn’t doing Pocahontas. “Well, the minute they mentioned it,” he said, “I knew the Brits would be the bad guys. I felt it was my patriotic duty to decline.” Sure enough, when the film came out, John Smith and his men were the bringers of environmental devastation to the New World. “They prowl the earth like ravenous wolves,” warns the medicine man, whereas Chief Powhatan wants everyone to be “guided to a place of peace.” Fortunately, Captain Smith comes to learn from Pocahontas how to “paint with all the colours of the wind.”

In reality, Pocahontas’s fellow Algonquin Indians were preyed on by the Iroquois, “who took captives home to torture them before death,” observes Nicholas Wade en passant. The Iroquois? Surely not. Only a year or two back, the ethnic grievance lobby managed to persuade Congress to pass a resolution that the United States Constitution was modelled on the principles of the Iroquois Confederation — which would have been news to the dead white males who wrote it. With Disney movies, one assumes it’s just the modishness of showbiz ignoramuses and whatever multiculti theorists they’ve put on the payroll as consultants. But professor Keeley and Steven LeBlanc of Harvard disclose almost as an aside that, in fact, their scientific colleagues were equally invested in the notion of the noble primitive living in peace with nature and his fellow man, even though no such creature appears to have existed. “Most archaeologists,” says LeBlanc, “ignored the fortifications around Mayan cities and viewed the Mayan elite as peaceful priests. But over the last 20 years Mayan records have been deciphered. Contrary to archaeologists’ wishful thinking, they show the allegedly peaceful elite was heavily into war, conquest and the sanguinary sacrifice of beaten opponents…. The large number of copper and bronze axes found in Late Neolithic and Bronze Age burials were held to be not battle axes but a form of money.”

And on, and on. Do you remember that fabulously preserved 5,000-year-old man [“Ötzi”] they found in a glacier in 1991? He had one of those copper axes the experts assured us were an early unit of currency. Unfortunately for this theory, he had it hafted in a manner that suggested he wasn’t asking, “Can you break a twenty?” “He also had with him,” notes professor Keeley, “a dagger, a bow, and some arrows; presumably these were his small change.” Nonetheless, anthropologists concluded that he was a shepherd who had fallen asleep and frozen peacefully to death in a snowstorm. Then the X-ray results came back and showed he had an arrowhead in him [sound familiar?].

Not for the first time, the experts turn out to be playing what children call “Opposite Land.” There’s more truth in Cole Porter’s couplet from Find Me A Primitive Man:

I don’t mean the kind that belongs to a club, but the kind that has a club that belongs to him.

Although Porter was the kind that belongs to a club, the second line accurately conveys his own taste. He’d have been very annoyed if Mister Primitive had turned out to be some mellow colours-of-your-windiness hippy-dippy type.

Lawrence Keeley calculates that 87 per cent of primitive societies were at war more than once per year, and some 65 per cent of them were fighting continuously. “Had the same casualty rate been suffered by the population of the twentieth century,” writes Wade, “its war deaths would have totaled two billion people.” Two billion! In other words, we’re the aberration: after 50,000 years of continuous human slaughter — we’re the nancy-boy peacenik crowd. “The common impression that primitive peoples, by comparison, were peaceful and their occasional fighting of no serious consequence is incorrect. Warfare between pre-state societies was incessant, merciless, and conducted with the general purpose, often achieved, of annihilating the opponent.”

Why then, against all the evidence, do we venerate the primitive to the point of pretending a bunch of torturing marauders devised the separation of powers in the U.S. Constitution? We do it for the same reason we indulge behaviour like that at Caledonia, Ont. We want to believe that the yard, the cul-de-sac, the morning commute, the mall are merely the bland veneer of our lives, and that underneath we are still that noble primitive living in harmony with the great spirits of the forest and the mountain. The reality is that “civilization” — [that is, Judeo-Christian civilization] — worked very hard to stamp out the primitive within us…

I was interested to read Wade’s book after a month in which men raised in suburban Ontario were charged with a terrorist plot that included plans to behead the Prime Minister, and the actual heads of three decapitated police officers were found in the Tijuana River. The Mexican drug gangs weren’t Muslim last time I checked, but evidently decapitation isn’t just for jihadists [real or imagined] anymore: if you want to get ahead, get a head. A couple of years back, I came across a column in The East African by Charles Onyango-Obbo musing on the return of cannibalism to the Dark Continent. Ugandan-backed rebels in the Congo (four million dead but, as they haven’t found a way to pin it on Bush, nobody cares) had been making victims’ relatives eat the body parts of their loved ones. You’ll recall that, when Samuel Doe was toppled as Liberia’s leader, he was served a last meal of his own ears. His killers kept his genitals for themselves, under the belief that if you eat a man’s reproductive organ you acquire his powers. I wonder sometimes if we’re not heading toward a long night of re-primitivization. In his shrewd book Civilization And Its Enemies, Lee Harris writes:

“Forgetfulness occurs when those who have been long inured to civilized order can no longer remember a time in which they had to wonder whether their crops would grow to maturity without being stolen or their children sold into slavery by a victorious foe. . . . That, before 9/11, was what had happened to us. The very concept of the enemy had been banished from our moral and political vocabulary.” [Consider, however, the manner in which our instinct for battle has ultimately been turned against our vital interests…]

It’s worse than Harris thinks. We’re not merely “forgetful.” We’ve constructed a fantasy past in which primitive societies lived in peace and security with nary a fear that their crops would be stolen or their children enslaved. War has been the natural condition of mankind for thousands of years, and our civilization is a very fragile exception to that. What does it say about us that so many of our elites believe exactly the opposite — that we are a monstrous, violent deviation from our primitive pacifist ancestors? It’s never a good idea to put reality up for grabs. You can bet your highest-denomination axe on that.
Primitive as Authentic
By Spengler

Two billion war deaths would have occurred in the 20th century if modern societies suffered the same casualty rate as primitive peoples, according to anthropologist Lawrence H Keeley, who calculates that two-thirds of them were at war continuously, typically losing half of a percent of its population to war each year. [1]

This and other noteworthy prehistoric facts can be found in Nicholas Wade’s Before the Dawn, a survey of genetic, linguistic and archeological research on early man. [2] Primitive peoples, it appears, were warlike and short-lived, not at all the cuddly children of nature depicted by popular culture and politically-correct academic studies. The author writes on science for the New York Times and too often wades in where angels fear to tread. [3] A complete evaluation is beyond my capacity, but there is no gainsaying his representation of prehistoric violence.

That raises the question: Why, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, does popular culture portray primitives as peace-loving folk living in harmony with nature, as opposed to rapacious and brutal civilization? Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel, which attributes civilization to mere geographical accident, made a best-seller out of a mendacious apology for the failure of primitive societies. Wade reports research that refutes Diamond on a dozen counts, but his book will never reach the vast audience that takes comfort in Diamond’s pulp science.

Why is it that the modern public revels in a demonstrably false portrait of primitive life? Hollywood grinds out stories of wise and worthy native Americans, African tribesmen, Brazilian rainforest people and Australian Aborigines, not because Hollywood studio executives hired the wrong sort of anthropologist, but because an uninformed public pays for them, the same public whose middle-brow contingent reads Jared Diamond.

Nonetheless the overwhelming consensus in popular culture holds that primitive peoples enjoy [note: present tense] a quality – call it authenticity – that moderns lack, and that by rolling in their muck, some of this authenticity will stick to us.


Native Americans, Eskimos, New Guinea Highlanders as well as African tribes slaughtered one another with skill and vigor, frequently winning their first encounters with modern armed forces. “Even in the harshest possible environments [such as northwestern Alaska] where it was struggle enough just to stay alive, primitive societies still pursued the more overriding goal of killing one another,” Wade notes.

A quarter of the language groups in New Guinea, home to 1,200 of the world’s 6,000 languages, were exterminated by warfare during every preceding century, according to one estimate Wade cites. In primitive warfare “casualty rates were enormous, not the least because they did not take prisoners. That policy was compatible with their usual strategic goal: to exterminate the opponent’s society. Captured warriors were killed on the spot, except in the case of the Iroquois, who took captives home to torture them before death, and certain tribes in Colombia, who liked to fatten prisoners before eating them.”


However badly civilized peoples may have behaved, [the 150 million or so who died in WWII] seems modest compared with the 2 billion or so who would have died if the casualty rates of primitive peoples had applied to the West.

1. Lawrence H Keeley, War Before Civilization, Oxford University Press, 1996.
2. Before the Dawn, by Nicholas Wade. Penguin: New York 2006.
3. Most irritating is Wade’s repetititon of the standard academic anthropologist’s attempt to explain away religion as a natural phenomenon.

Read Full Post »

Establishment Exploits OKC Bombing Victims To Push Extremist Threat Propaganda
Paul Joseph Watson
Monday, April 19, 2010

Bill Clinton, the Southern Poverty Law Center and almost the entire corporate media are not letting a good opportunity go to waste today – by dancing on the graves of 168 victims and exploiting the 15th anniversary of the false flag Oklahoma City Bombing to demonize their political enemies, the Internet, and anyone who dares to express dissent against the federal government.

The propaganda putsch coincides with FBI head Robert Mueller stating that right-wing extremist groups and anti-government militias now represent as big a terror threat as Al-Qaeda, as the whole apparatus of the war on terror is shifted to target Americans increasingly angry at the egregious corruption in government and the global economy as their standard of living plummets and their pension funds are under threat of seizure.

It also dovetails President Obama’s hyping last week of the threat posed by individuals acquiring nuclear weapons, a claim top nuclear experts like Henry Sokolski have derided as overstated and not based on any new intelligence.

Obama’s warning arrives shortly after FEMA was forced to scale back a simulated nuclear bomb attack by terrorists in Las Vegas that was set to involve 10,000 emergency responders, U.S. troops and officials in role playing exercises.

Former President Bill Clinton told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer on Friday that he is worried rising anger at the federal government could lead to another OKC bombing, implying that people who use the Internet to express dissent will be to blame for the violence.

Clinton’s exploitation of the Oklahoma City bombing anniversary is being parroted across the establishment media as if it’s just a year or two since the attack on the Alfred P. Murrah building. Clearly, such intense coverage of an incident that took place fifteen years ago is being done to keep the heat on the millions of Americans who distrust the federal government in the continuing effort to portray them as domestic terrorists.

A key facet of this PR campaign is to reinforce the official story behind the Oklahoma City Bombing, that the attack was carried out by right-wing anti-government extremists and a similar tragedy could strike again unless the Internet is censored and Constitutionalists, tea party members, libertarians and anyone who expresses dissent are harassed and have their free speech revoked.

The top story on the SPLC’s website today also invokes the OKC bombing as a lesson through which to refocus attention on “right-wing extremists”.

“April 19 marks the 15th anniversary of the bombing of a federal building in Oklahoma City – the worst single act of domestic terrorism in our nation’s history and a grim reminder of the fruits of right-wing radicalism. The anniversary comes as the anti-government militia movement is experiencing a resurgence,” states the SPLC website.

There can be little doubt that the American people are being manipulated to accept the inevitability that right-wing militias and lone wolf extremists are preparing another attack, and that the culprit for the violence will be talk radio, the Internet, and the widespread dissent now being displayed against the federal government.

Don’t be surprised if the feds activate their networks of paid provocateurs and stooges to stage yet another false flag attack that will be used to silence the free speech of the government’s most prominent critics. [“If you want to identify the real rulers of any society, simply ask yourself this question: Who is it that I cannot criticize?” -Kevin Alfred Strom]

As part of this propaganda effort, MSNBC will today air “The McVeigh Tapes: Confessions of an American Terrorist,” where viewers will hear for the first time Timothy McVeigh admitting that he carried out the attack. What they won’t hear is McVeigh admitting, as he explained in a letter to his sister prior to the attack, that he was working at the behest of the federal government when he detonated the bomb that tore apart the Alfred P. Murrah building.

“In a Oct. 20 letter, McVeigh wrote his sister that he and nine other soldiers had been taken to a private intelligence briefing at Fort Bragg, where they were told they could be required to participate in government-sanctioned assassinations and government-sponsored drug trafficking,” reported the New York Times on July 1 1998.

In reality, as anyone who has done five minutes research into the OKC bombing will understand, the official story crumbles on the merest hint of casual examination.

While the media, the SPLC, the ADL and similar organizations are happy to play the Timothy McVeigh card over and over again, they are less enthusiastic to mention the fact that McVeigh planned his deadly assault on the Alfred P. Murrah building under the intimate direction of a high-level FBI official, according to McVeigh’s co-conspirator Terry Nichols, a claim voluminously backed up by a plethora of evidence that has been presented in court on several occasions.

The SPLC fear-mongering machine has long claimed the patriot movement is associated with white supremacists and militias and may engage in violence. In fact, there is plenty of evidence that the SPLC itself has “enabled” the miniscule […] white supremacist movement in order to magnify the ludicrous threat they claim these fringe groups pose.

In 2004, a declassified FBI memo obtained by an Oklahoma newspaper revealed that the SPLC had operatives inside the Identity settlement in Elohim City, Oklahoma. “References to an informant working for the SPLC at Elohim City on the eve of the Oklahoma City bombing raises serious questions as to what the SPLC might know about McVeigh’s activities during the final hours before the fuse was lit in Oklahoma City – but which the SPLC has failed to disclose publicly,” the Daily Gazette reported.

Fifteen years after the Oklahoma City Bombing, the establishment is using the same tactics in an effort to make history repeat itself, by obsessing about the supposed extremist threat, which is clearly part of an attempt to prod and provocateur any potential nutcases out there into convincing themselves to become the next Timothy McVeigh, if not merely a prelude to the government itself using patsies to carry out an attack as they did with McVeigh.

The salacious media storm surrounding “Jihad Jane” and the Hutaree militia is completely unjustified from an objective perspective and indeed, had these stories occurred when Bush was in office they wouldn’t have received one tenth of the attention.

No matter whether such terror plots are genuine or contrived, they only get press coverage when they complement the targeting of whichever group the establishment is trying to demonize at that particular time.

Consider the case of Joel Henry Hinrichs III, a young white man who killed himself on October 1, 2005 when he detonated a suicide bomb on the University of Oklahoma (OU) main campus just 200 yards west of Oklahoma Memorial Stadium, where 84,501 spectators were attending a football game.

This happened a few months after the 7/7 London bombings, which were blamed on radicalized Muslim terrorists. Merely because the media at that time was obsessed with demonizing Muslims as terrorists, the story received next to no attention. Imagine if a white American were to blow himself up in Oklahoma in 2010, do you think the media would be interested? The establishment only plays up terror plots when they feed into the agenda they are pursuing, which is a pretty big clue as to who is behind provocateuring such incidents in the first place.

While hyping the deadly threat posed by violent right-wing extremists, the government itself is paying people to pose as right-wing extremists and make violent threats.

Remember, it was the feds, paid for with your tax dollars, who directed phony right-wing radio host Hal Turner to make death threats against federal judges in Illinois and lawmakers in Connecticut.

The supposed white supremacist worked for the agency from 2002 until 2007. “His job was basically to publish information which would cause other parties to act in a manner which would lead to their arrest,” Michael Orozco told the Associated Press.

Read Full Post »

Israel’s Declining Fertility Tied to Depleted Uranium Exposure
Tim King
April 14, 2010
Source: Salem-News.com

With the latest news, Israel may soon lose the need to create and seek out enemies; with a little help from the U.S. they did this to themselves.

(TEL AVIV / SALEM) – Israel’s population is facing a dire threat: a drastic depopulation, from the use of weapons that leave behind Depleted Uranium (DU). Depleted Uranium leads to the word Omnicidal, as DU kills everything in the food chain, everywhere the wind blows. Experts say the dramatic drop in Israel’s sperm count could eliminate their ability to reproduce.

Research by an Israeli doctor shows a significant drop in sperm count level and sperm motility among young Israeli soldiers in recent years. Sperm motility is the ability of sperm to move properly toward an egg.

It is attributed to the inhalation of DU aerosolized nano-particles; the dirty results of extra powerful weapons used by Israel and the U.S.

All of that military might as it turns out, could set the stage for a massive Israeli act of population suicide.

Round used by Israel during their 2006 attack on Hezbollah positions in Lebanon. Photo: Dexter Phoenix

A study by Dr. Ronit Haimov-Kokhman released in November, showed a 40-percent decline in the concentration of sperm cells in Israeli sperm donors from 2004 to 2008, compared to samples taken between 1995 and 1999.

Sperm banks in Israel are now reportedly turning away as many as two-thirds of potential donors, due to the low-quality sperm. In the past, around one-third of the potential donors were turned away.

According to Ofri Ilani’s article in Haaretz, Study: Quality of Israeli sperm down 40% in past decade:

“The research confirmed that in 10 years, the average concentration of sperm among donors declined from 106 million cells per cubic centimeter to 67 million per cubic centimeter. The rate of sperm motility has also declined: from 79 to 67 percent, although the profile of donors did not change over that period; they are still young, healthy and do not smoke.”[1]

Israeli tank. Photo: Dexter Phoenix

Haimov-Kokhman says the problem is not entirely unique; the quality of sperm has also declined in a number of Western countries. But in Israel he says, it has been particularly rapid.

“If we keep going at this rate, a decline of 3 million cubic centimeters of sperm cells per year, we’ll reach an average of 20 million in 2030. The World Health Organization defines this as fertility impairment.”

Questionitnow.com said this about the reported thousands of tons of nuclear waste in the form of armor piercing rounds, referred to as “depleted uranium” or “DU”, in the invasion of Iraq:

“The United States and Britain have gravely endangered not only the Iraqis and their own troops, but the entire world. In the first invasion, at least 320 tons of DU were exploded into Iraq, at least 1500 tons were blasted in the second illegal invasion.”[2]

They cite Professor Malcolm Hopper of the University of Sunderland in the U.K., whose extensive studies of health effects on British and U.S. soldiers who served in the Gulf War, shows as many as 21,000 U.S. Gulf War veterans have died, “due not just to DU exposure but to the astounding amounts of organophosphate (OP) poisoning from various toxins (or supposedly anti-toxins) given to the troops as ‘preventive’ medicine.”

This human and environmental disaster was reviewed by Bob Nichols, a correspondent with SFBayView who specializes in nuclear issues with an emphasis on the atmospheric contamination from Depleted Uranium. In the article PTSD, Infertility and Other Consequences of War, he discusses how Israel is likely to be depopulated soon[3].

Oregon National Guard soldiers patrol a building in Kabul, Afghanistan, that was destroyed by U.S. bombs. Everyone who served in these countries or visited them, was potentially subjected to DU contamination. Photo by Tim King.

“Israel falls within the region that has been dosed with depleted uranium [DU] [various kinds of munitions] in the West Asian theatre of war. DU kills people at genetic level.” A report by Dr. Ronit Haimov-Kokhman, which was debated in the Knesset, is cited in the report by Ofri Ilani.

Arun Shrivastava, a writer with the Centre for Research on Globalization, says this has been known for some time.

“Admiral Bhagwat and I made our presentations at GNDU, Amritsar, in April 2008, social workers among the audience came up and narrated some events that actually provide hard enough evidence of DU contamination the entire North-western India. There was a significant presence of top officers from the Indian Army.”

He says they are keenly aware of this silent weapon. “The security forces know what the American and NATO soldiers have done to South and West Asians.”

According to Shrivastava, contamination of the total Indian population stands at over 300 million; the total West and South Asian population affected stands at least 900 million, possibly more than a billion.

“None of these would complete their normal life. None of us will. This entire region will be depopulated which is what the PTBs have in mind and they have set in motion processes that can’t be stopped. No way,” Shrivastava said.

There is little question that this information has tremendous significance for the people of Palestine and Gaza, although these unfortunate people might end up the same way as the Israelis.

Dexter Phoenix also snapped this image of the rounds Israel’s military doesn’t want photographed.

Reports from other West Asian countries are identical, Shrivastava says, “Both US and NATO forces have committed genocide right in Asia. Our civilizations may never be the same, may not be viable.”

It is important to note how overlooked this significant world problem truly is, and how indicting it turns out to be. Shrivastava says it is also important to remember that the DU is a result of military activity that is illegal under international law.

“Please note that the use of WMD is war crime. There are cases pending under ICCA against three US Presidents and two British PMs and their entire cabinet. DU weapons are WMDs; they are weapons of indiscriminate destruction and environmental contamination….IN PERPETUITY.”

As Nichols states in his article, uranium oxide gas weapons are called “genocidal weapons.”

“They maim and kill millions of people, their animals and their land. The actual targets by the U.S. Expeditionary Forces are the populations of Central Asia and the Middle East, about a billion people.”

He reminds us that more than a million American servicemembers, thousands of contractors, and others, like journalists, have had their boots on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan over the past several years, not to mention the thousands of people from other nations.

“The medical disability rate is over 60 percent and ‘PTSD’ is a common diagnosis. Soldiers from the United Kingdom, Germany and Italy report similar medical problems as well.”

According to figures cited in his article, a milligram (mg) of uranium oxide poison gas is roughly equal in size to one of the periods at the end of these sentences. When this is absorbed by Marines and soldiers, through their skin, no limit exists in regard to their exposure. It could range from to one milligram to a thousand.

Rosalie Bertell, Ph.D., GNSH said, “Each tiny milligram shoots about 1,251,000 powerful radioactive bullets a day with a range of about 20 cells of the human body for thousands or even billions of years.”

Dr. Bertell currently serves on a number of Pentagon radiation committees; she has been in this role for decades.

The worst part is that all of it has taken place under protest by activists, scientists, and defense experts. There has been no doubt in the minds of those who know, but their words have gone unheeded. Orders to use these internationally illegal weapons are made by presidential order in U.S. war zones.

Serious information at a serious time in history. It would truly be ironic if Israel’s military machine, so ruthlessly applied over the years on the Arab people, would render the population without the ability to reproduce.


[1] Study: Quality of Israeli sperm down 40% in past decade – By Ofri Ilani

[2] Weapons of Mass Destruction

[3] PTSD, infertility and other consequences of war – by Bob Nichols

Other relevant links:

CIA World Factbook

The Biology of Human Longevity: Inflammation, Nutrition, and Aging in the Evolution of Lifespans (Hardcover) Amazon.com

Tim King is a former U.S. Marine with twenty years of experience on the west coast as a television news producer, photojournalist, reporter and assignment editor. In addition to his role as a war correspondent, this Los Angeles native serves as Salem-News.com’s Executive News Editor. Tim spent the winter of 2006/07 covering the war in Afghanistan, and he was in Iraq over the summer of 2008, reporting from the war while embedded with both the U.S. Army and the Marines.

Tim holds numerous awards for reporting, photography, writing and editing, including the Oregon AP Award for Spot News Photographer of the Year (2004), first place Electronic Media Award in Spot News, Las Vegas, (1998), Oregon AP Cooperation Award (1991); and several others including the 2005 Red Cross Good Neighborhood Award for reporting. Serving the community in very real terms, Salem-News.com is the nation’s only truly independent high traffic news Website. You can send Tim an email at this address: newsroom@salem-news.com

Read Full Post »

Israel is Developing ‘Ethnic Bomb’ for Growing Biological Weapons Arsenal
Mark Weber
Source: Archives, Institute for Historical Review

Israel is working on an “ethnically targeted” biological weapon that would kill or harm Arabs but not Jews, according to Israeli military and western intelligence sources cited in a front-page report in the London Sunday Times, November 15, 1998 (“Israel Planning ‘Ethnic’ Bomb as Saddam Caves In,” by Uzi Mahnaimi and Marie Colvin).

In developing this “ethno-bomb,” the British paper went on, Israeli scientists are trying to exploit medical advances by identifying distinctive genes carried by some Arabs, and then create a genetically modified bacterium or virus. The goal is to use the ability of viruses and certain bacteria to alter the DNA inside the host’s living cells. The scientists are trying to engineer deadly microorganisms that attack only those bearing the distinctive genes.

The secret Israel program is based at the Institute for Biological Research in Nes Tsiona, a small town southeast of Tel Aviv, the main research facility for Israel’s clandestine arsenal of chemical and biological weapons.

A scientist there said the task is very complicated because both Arabs and Jews are of Semitic origin. But he added: “They have, however, succeeded in pinpointing a particular characteristic in the genetic profile of certain Arab communities, particularly the Iraqi people.” Diseases could be spread by spraying organisms into the air or putting them in water supplies.

Some experts have commented that while an ethnically targeted weapon is theoretically feasible, the practical aspects of creating one are enormous. All the same, a confidential Pentagon report warned last year that biological agents could be genetically engineered to produce new lethal weapons.

US Defense Secretary William Cohen revealed that he had received reports of countries working to create “certain types of pathogens that would be ethnic-specific.” A senior western intelligence source confirmed that Israel is one of the countries Cohen had in mind, the Sunday Times report added.

Reliable Record

The Sunday Times report is all the more credible given the prestigious paper’s past record of reliable reporting. In a detailed front-page report published on June 19, 1977, the Sunday Times first revealed to the world that Israeli authorities had been torturing Palestinian prisoners, that this torture was “widespread and systematic,” and that it “appears to be sanctioned at some level as deliberate policy.” At the time Israeli officials and Jewish-Zionist leaders in the United States protested the Sunday Times revelations, and denied the charge. Later, though, Israeli torture of prisoners was independently verified by Amnesty International, and others.

Another recent Sunday Times article revealed that Israeli jets have been equipped to carry chemical and biological weapons. “There is hardly a single known or unknown form of chemical or biological weapons … which is not manufactured at the [Nes Tsiona] Institute,” a biologist who is a former Israeli intelligence official told the newspaper. And the Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot, citing a foreign report, has told readers that hundreds of bottles of deadly anthrax toxin are stored at the Institute.

The “ethnic bomb” claims have been given further credence in Foreign Report, an authoritative Jane’s publication that closely monitors security and military matters. It cites unnamed South African sources as saying that Israeli scientists, in trying to develop an “ethnic bullet” against Arabs, have made use of similar biological studies conducted by South African scientists during the Apartheid era (and later revealed in testimony before that country’s “Truth and Reconciliation Commission”). Foreign Report also says that Israelis have gained insights into the Arab genetic make-up by conducting research on “Jews of Arab origin, especially Iraqis.”

The British Medical Association has become so concerned about the lethal potential of genetically-based biological weapons that it has opened an investigation. Dr. Vivienne Nathanson, who organized the research, said: “With an ethnically targeted weapon, you could even hit groups within a population. The history of warfare, in which many conflicts have an ethnic factor, shows how dangerous this could be.”

A spokesman for Britain’s biological defense establishment confirms that such weapons are theoretically possible. “We have reached a point now where there is an obvious need for an international convention to control biological weapons,” he said.

The Anti-Defamation League lost no time denouncing the Sunday Times “ethnic bomb” report. Abraham Foxman, national director of the influential Jewish-Zionist organization, called it “irresponsible and dangerous.” The ADL official went on: “This sensational story is reminiscent of the age-old anti-Semitic blood libel myth of Jews deviously targeting non-Jews with poison.” Question: How would Foxman know that this report is not true? Do high-level Israeli officials routinely inform the ADL of the Zionist government’s top-secret military programs? [And would Foxman, of all people, openly confess anyhow?]

A senior Israeli government official similarly rejected the Sunday Times report, saying “this is the kind of story that does not deserve denial.” Such Israeli declarations are virtually worthless, however, considering that the Zionist state refuses officially to acknowledge that it has nuclear weapons, a fact that even authoritative American sources have confirmed.

‘Human Guinea Pigs’

Victor Ostrovsky, a former case officer of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, recalled in his book The Other Side of Deception how he first learned of the Zionist state’s secret weapons center:

It was Uri who enlightened me regarding the Nes Zionna [Tsiona] facility. It was, he said, an ABC warfare laboratory — ABC standing for atomic, biological and chemical. It was where our top epidemiological scientists were developing various doomsday machines. Because we were so vulnerable and would not have a second chance should there be an all-out war in which this type of weapon would be needed, there was no room for error. The [captured] Palestinian infiltrators came in handy in this regard. As human guinea pigs, they could make sure the weapons the scientists were developing worked properly and could verify how fast they worked and make them even more efficient.

As most of the world recognizes, United States policy toward countries that develop nuclear, chemical and biological weapons is sanctimonious and brazenly hypocritical.

Recently, for example, the US government sharply condemned India and Pakistan for testing nuclear weapons. Of course, the only country ever to have actually used nuclear weapons is the United States. In August 1945, American forces instantly killed tens of thousands of Japanese civilians with atomic bombs, first in Hiroshima and then in Nagasaki — even though America’s most competent military leaders held that there was no military need to use the horrific weapon. (Read: “Was Hiroshima Necessary?”).

To prevent the government of Iraq from developing “weapons of mass destruction” (to use the currently fashionable phrase), the United States regularly bombs the hapless Arab country, and enforces an economic embargo that (according to authoritative estimates) has already claimed the lives of more than 200,000 Iraqi children (or, for an update on casualties, go HERE).

For decades, though, America’s political and intellectual leaders — reflecting their obsequious subservience to Jewish-Zionist interests — have condoned Israel’s growing arsenal of sophisticated nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
This information was current in 1998, whether it was granted any attention in the mainstream media United States or not. In my world, though, there is no such thing as “old news” when it comes to explosive information. It remains valid. It remains relevant. Much of the world likely never heard a word about Israel’s development of ethno-biological weapons (or its anthrax supply), or those who had heard likely shrugged it off in the course of the last 12 years. Well, I want you to remember. If you care anything about the future, I want you to preserve the past. -W.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »