Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Allied War Crimes’ Category

Photobucket
A New Openness to Discussing Allied War Crimes in WWII
By Klaus Wiegrefe
Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan
Source: http://www.spiegel.de/

D-Day may have been the beginning of the end of Germany’s campaign of horror during World War II. But a new book by British historian Antony Beevor makes it clear that the “greatest generation” wasn’t above committing a few [?] war crimes of its own.

It was the first crime William E. Jones had ever committed, which was probably why he could still remember it well so many years later. He and other soldiers in the 4th Infantry Division had captured a small hill. “It was pretty rough,” Jones later wrote, describing the bloody battle.

At some point, the GIs lost all self-control. As Jones wrote: “(The Germans) were baffled and they were crazy. There were quite a few of them still in their foxholes. Then I saw quite a few of them shot right in the foxholes. We didn’t take prisoners and there was nothing to do but kill them, and we did, and I had never shot one like that. Even our lieutenant did and some of the non coms (non-commissioned officers).”

The dead will most likely never be identified by name, but one thing is clear: The victims of this war crime were German soldiers killed in Normandy in the summer of 1944.

At daybreak on June 6, the Americans, British and their allies launched “Operation Overlord,” the biggest amphibious landing of all time. During the operation, Allied and German troops fought each other in one of the fiercest battles of World War II, first on the beaches and then in the countryside of Normandy. When it was over, more than 250,000 soldiers and civilians had been killed or wounded, and Normandy itself was ravaged.

The Only Good German Is a Dead German

There is no shortage of books on the Battle of Normandy, which also goes by the name of D-Day. And the same can be said about films, such as Steven Spielberg’s award-winning film “Saving Private Ryan,” which was a global success. Indeed, it would almost seem that everything that could be said about the battle has been said.

Still, that didn’t deter British historian and best-selling author Antony Beevor from taking another stab at the material. While conducting research for his newest book, “D-Day: The Battle for Normandy,” Beevor stumbled upon something that is currently a matter of much debate among experts. If some of these scholars are correct, Allied soldiers committed war crimes in Normandy to a much greater extent than was previously realized.

Beevor extensively quotes reports and memoirs of those who took part in the invasion, many of whom state that American, British and Canadian troops killed German POWs and wounded soldiers. They also reportedly used soldiers belonging to the German Wehrmacht or Waffen SS as human shields and forced them to walk through minefields.

For example, one recounts the tale of a private named Smith, who was fighting with the 79th US Infantry Division. Smith allegedly discovered a room full of wounded Germans in a fortification while he was drunk on Calvados, a local apple brandy. According to the official report: “Declaring to all and sundry that the only good German was a dead one, Smith made good Germans out of several of them before he could be stopped.”

In another account, Staff Sergeant Lester Zick reportedly encountered an American soldier on a white horse who was herding 11 prisoners in front of him. He called out to Zick and his men and told them that the prisoners were all Poles, except for two Germans. Then, according to Zick, the soldier took out his pistol “and shot both of them in the back of the head. And we just stood there.”

Beevor also quotes John Troy, a soldier with the 8th Infantry Division, who writes of finding the body of an American officer the Germans had tied up and killed because he had been caught carrying a captured German P-38 pistol. Troy describes his reaction in the following way: “When I saw that, I said no souvenirs for me. But, of course, we did it too when we caught (Germans) with American cigarettes on them, or American wristwatches they had on their arms.”

Rage and Violence

The issue of war crimes is an incredibly sensitive one. But, in this case, the evidence is overwhelming.

Given the high number of casualties they suffered, Allied paratroopers were particularly determined to exact bloody revenge. Near one village, Audouville-la-Hubert, they massacred 30 captured Wehrmacht soldiers in a single killing spree.

On the beaches, soldiers in an engineering brigade had to protect German prisoners from enraged paratroopers from the 101st Airborne Division, who shouted: “Turn those prisoners over to us. Turn them over to us. We know what to do to them.”

When the same LSTs (landing ship tanks) were used to evacuate both German POWs and Allied wounded, the wounded attacked the Germans, and it was only through the intervention of a pharmacist’s mate that nothing more serious happened.

A New Approach to Writing History

Beevor frequently quotes from personal memoirs of Allied soldiers that have been available to historians for years. But could it be that they were ignored by them until now because they didn’t support the image of the “greatest generation,” the term that Americans have liked to use to describe their victorious soldiers from 1945? It would seem that no shadows were to be cast on the war that gave the Americans, in particular, the moral right to have a say in shaping Europe’s postwar future as well as creating the practical conditions for it to do so.

Still, that approach has recently been revised. In his 2007 book “The Day of Battle: The War in Sicily and Italy, 1934-1944” Pulitzer Prize-winning author Rick Atkinson described various war crimes committed by the Allies. And now we have the same thing with Normandy.

Beevor primarily attributes the Allied crimes to the epic ferocity of the battles. The Germans themselves called it a “dirty bush war,” a reference to the bushes and hedgerows, ranging in height between one and three meters (three and ten feet), used to demarcate the fields in Normandy’s bocage landscape.

Indeed, Normandy’s terrain is ideally suited for ambushes and booby traps. For example, German units stretched thin steel cables across roads at head level, so that when an American Jeep came roaring down the road, its driver and passengers would be decapitated. They also attached hand grenades to the dog tags of dead GIs, so that anyone who tried to remove the dog tags was blown up. Likewise, it is an established fact that German soldiers, and particularly those in the Waffen SS, shot prisoners. [According to the same people who’ve authored our established narrative, naturally.]

Allied Behavior Doesn’t Forgive Germany ‘s

The artillery fire from both sides and the Allied bombing attacks transformed Normandy into a moonscape. Beevor writes about soldiers who huddled in the craters screaming and weeping, while others walked around as if in a trance picking flowers in the midst of explosions. Indeed, American physicians reported 30,000 cases of combat neurosis among their troops alone.

In a letter to his family in Minnesota, a US infantryman wrote that he had never hated anything quite as much, adding: “And it’s not because of some blustery speech of a brass hat.”

But such “blustery speeches” did exist. According to the findings of German historian Peter Lieb, many Canadian and American units were given orders on D-Day to take no prisoners. If true, that might help explain the mystery of how only 66 of the 130 Germans the Americans took prisoner on Omaha Beach made it to collecting points for the captured on the beach.

It is also conspicuous that the Allies rarely captured members of the Waffen SS. Was it because the members of this organization — with its Totenkopf (death’s head) insignia — had sworn allegiance to Hitler until death and often fought to the last man? Or did the Allied propaganda about the SS have its desired effect on soldiers? “Many of them probably deserved to be shot in any case and know it,” a British XXX Corps report bluntly stated.

[And more with the disclaimers… This is Der Spiegel, after all.] Of course, for German apologists, this new information shouldn’t be something to make them feel better about their own side’s behavior. In fact, although the extent of Allied war crimes may have been greater than previously known, it cannot be compared with the scope of German crimes against civilians. For example, shooting innocent hostages was part of the German strategy for fighting the French partisans who struck out after D-Day. Up to 16,000 French citizens — men, women and children — fell victim to the terror of the Wehrmacht and the SS.

Read Full Post »

Photobucket
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 »

Photobucket

Source: Institute for Historical Review

Dr. Sunic provides an overview of the brutal “ethnic cleansing” of Germans in the aftermath of World War Two, in which some twelve million people, mostly women, children and elderly, were forcibly expelled from centuries-old homelands in eastern and central Europe. Of these, some two million were killed or otherwise perished. In this address at an IHR meeting, March 6, 2010, the European-American scholar contrasts the way in which this massive genocide is all but ignored in the US media, whereas Jewish “victimology” has become a central feature of our society’s “civic religion.”

Please listen to the informative audio file HERE.

Read Full Post »

Photobucket

Topic of German Expulsion Still Taboo
Source: http://news.therecord.com/news/article/687051
By Brent Davis

WATERLOO — It’s a dark chapter in world history that many know nothing about, that others refuse to acknowledge.

It concerns the expulsion of millions of Germans living in Eastern Europe after the Second World War, from such places as Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia and eastern areas of Germany.

It’s estimated that as many as 15 million people may have been forced from their homes, a move in part condoned by the Allied leaders in the Potsdam Agreement, which authorized the return of Germans in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary back to Germany.

Those transfers were to be conducted in “an orderly and humane manner,” according to the agreement signed by British, American and Soviet leaders. It would prove to be anything but.

While casualty estimates vary, many historians — including Alfred de Zayas, whose books Nemesis at Potsdam and A Terrible Revenge were among the first English works to chronicle the tragedy — believe that two million Germans died as a result.

De Zayas, a lawyer and human rights expert who spent 25 years with the United Nations, says it deserves to be recognized alongside such failures of humanity as the Armenian genocide and ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia.

“We would be ashamed of ourselves if we realized the magnitude of the crimes,” said de Zayas, who will speak tonight at the University of Waterloo.

“The subject matter belongs in the schools,” he said in an interview. “It should be taught in genocide courses, courses that deal with crimes against humanity.”

And although the Cuban-born de Zayas — now a professor at the Geneva School of Diplomacy & International Relations — said he “broke the taboo” by writing about the expulsion, it’s a topic that still remains off-limits to many.

They’ve got a problem with the concept of Germans as victims,” [clearly, it doesn’t mesh too well with the established narrative — that is, Allied/Zionist hate propaganda — of the last sixty-odd years] he said. “I don’t have a problem … I came to it because I thought it was an important subject.”

He says he’s been asked whether he’s anti-Semitic or a Holocaust denier, and he quickly dismisses those assertions. [Consider the clear insinuation behind this line of questioning for a moment, please: if you sympathize with the Germans who were forcefully expelled from their homes — many of whom were civilian women and children, and millions of whom were, in fact, brutalized, raped, and murdered — you must either be an “anti-Semite” or a “Holocaust denier.” Never mind the fact that anyone (Semitic or otherwise) who speaks out against Zionist aggression or territorial expansion (in blatant violation of international law) is denounced today an “anti-Semite.” Keep in mind that the Zionists have called people like Rachel Corrie, Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, and former president Jimmy Carter “anti-Semitic,” and that even Jewish dissident professors like Norman Finkelstein and Noam Chomsky have not been spared. Never mind the fact that many of Israel’s harshest critics are rather Semitic Palestinians, while many Israelis on the receiving end of that deserved criticism are not even technically Semites themselves. Never mind the fact that even serious mainstream Holocaust scholars have steadily revised their figures downward from the farcical “six million” and dismantled some of the more reckless and indefensible claims (human soap, lampshades made of flesh, and shrunken heads, to name just a few) which resulted in the execution of many who were, in all truth, innocent, though deemed guilty, at the Nuremberg show-trial. And never mind the fact that even the most influential so-called “Holocaust deniers” are far from denying what others refer to as “The Holocaust”; they do, however, contest the established narrative of the victors — f. ex., the inflated numbers involved, whether there was ever an official order for the liquidation of Europe’s Jewish population, as well as the questionable method of execution via delousing agent Zyklon B in non-existent gas-chambers. Clearly, the suffering of Jews, real or imaged, is supposed to trump the suffering of all others, and debate-derailing words like “anti-Semite” and “Holocaust denier” are supposed to keep free-thinkers around the world in check.]

“If I only deal with one category of victims, and deliberately ignore the experience of other victims, I am essentially taking away the human dignity of the other,” he said. “I would essentially be saying ‘my corpses are prettier than your corpses.’”

De Zayas will speak tonight at 7:30 p.m. at UW’s Arts Lecture Hall. Tickets are $12, and $10 for students and seniors.

bdavis@therecord.com

Read Full Post »

Of Einstein, I will say this… I admire his loyalty to his tribe, and I agree with his anti-assimilationist stance. However, this is as far as I go (“in neutral”). I wholeheartedly detest the fraud for his intellectual dishonesty, his artificial and overrated status as an original thinker, a “rare genius,” or one of the premier minds of the 20th century, and his two-faced, treacherous, backstabbing nature when it came to his scientific contemporaries and, more specifically, toward his German host. He even admits, in no uncertain terms, that his hatred for all that is German predated the National Socialist rise to power. But, as is often the case, those who so fervently denounce intolerance often manage, as thoroughly illustrated below, to simultaneously thrive and prosper from it. This was acknowledged by prominent Zionists of the early 20th century; “anti-Semitism” was for them, a useful tool for a variety of reasons. And when the tides turn and this tribe acquires sufficient power, they prove again and again to be more ruthless, by far, than the powers they formerly so convincingly condemned. “Chandala revenge,” par excellence. -W.

Photobucket

Deconstructing Einstein
Source, Christopher Jon Bjerknes
Ed: W.

Albert Einstein was a racist Zionist. He believed that anti-Semitism was good for the Jewish “race” because it promoted segregation and separated Jews from the, to use his word, “Goyim” (a derogatory term for Gentiles, meaning cattle or property).

Einstein stated,

“I am neither a German citizen, nor is there in me anything that can be described as ‘Jewish faith.’ But I am happy to belong to the Jewish people, even though I don’t regard them as the Chosen People. Why don’t we just let the Goy keep his anti-Semitism, while we preserve our love for the likes of us?” -Albert Einstein, quoted in A. Foelsing, English translation by E. Osers, Albert Einstein, a Biography, Viking, New York, (1997), p. 494; which cites speech to the Central-Verein Deutscher Staatsbuerger Juedischen Glaubens, in Berlin on 5 April 1920, in D. Reichenstein, Albert Einstein. Sein Lebensbild und seine Weltanschauung, Berlin, (1932). This letter from Einstein to the Central Association of German Citizens of the Jewish Faith of 5 April 1920 is reproduced in The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 9, Document 368, Princeton University Press, (2004).

Einstein also stated,

“The way I see it, the fact of the Jews’ racial peculiarity will necessarily influence their social relations with non-Jews. The conclusions which—in my opinion—the Jews should draw is to become more aware of their peculiarity in their social way of life and to recognize their own cultural contributions. First of all, they would have to show a certain noble reservedness and not be so eager to mix socially—of which others want little or nothing. On the other hand, anti-Semitism in Germany also has consequences that, from a Jewish point of view, should be welcomed. I believe German Jewry owes its continued existence to anti-Semitism.” -Albert Einstein, A. Engel translator, “How I became a Zionist”, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 7, Document 57, Princeton University Press, (2002), pp. 234-235, at 235.

Einstein stated,

“Anti-Semitism will be a psychological phenomenon as long as Jews come in contact with non-Jews—what harm can there be in that? Perhaps it is due to anti-Semitism that we survive as a race: at least that is what I believe.”—Albert Einstein, English translation by A. Engel, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 7, Document 37, Princeton University Press, (2002), p. 159.

Einstein was not an original thinker. In fact, Einstein was an habitual and psychopathic plagiarist. His views on “race” and segregation were first iterated by such prominent Jews as Spinoza and Theodor Herzl. They were cliches among racist Zionists.

In 1896, racist Zionist Theodor Herzl wrote his widely read book The Jewish State,

“Great exertions will not be necessary to spur on the movement. Anti-Semites provide the requisite impetus. They need only do what they did before, and then they will create a love of emigration where it did not previously exist, and strengthen it where it existed before. I imagine that Governments will, either voluntarily or under pressure from the Anti-Semites, pay certain attention to this scheme; and they may perhaps actually receive it here and there with a sympathy which they will also show to the Society of Jews.”— T. Herzl, A Jewish State: An Attempt at a Modern Solution of the Jewish Question, The Maccabaean Publishing Co., New York, (1904), pp. 68, 93.

Einstein stated in 1938,

“Just what is a Jew?

The formation of groups has an invigorating effect in all spheres of human striving, perhaps mostly due to the struggle between the convictions and aims represented by the different groups. The Jews, too, form such a group with a definite character of its own, and anti-Semitism is nothing but the antagonistic attitude produced in the non-Jews by the Jewish group. This is a normal social reaction. But for the political abuse resulting from it, it might never have been designated by a special name.

What are the characteristics of the Jewish group? What, in the first place, is a Jew? There are no quick answers to this question. The most obvious answer would be the following: A Jew is a person professing the Jewish faith. The superficial character of this answer is easily recognized by means of a simple parallel. Let us ask the question: What is a snail? An answer similar in kind to the one given above might be: A snail is an animal inhabiting a snail shell. This answer is not altogether incorrect; nor, to be sure, is it exhaustive; for the snail shell happens to be but one of the material products of the snail. Similarly, the Jewish faith is but one of the characteristic products of the Jewish community. It is, furthermore, known that a snail can shed its shell without thereby ceasing to be a snail. The Jew who abandons his faith (in the formal sense of the word) is in a similar position. He remains a Jew.

OPPRESSION IS A STIMULUS

Perhaps even more than on its own tradition, the Jewish group has thrived on oppression and on the antagonism it has forever met in the world. Here undoubtedly lies one of the main reasons for its continued existence through so many thousands of years.” -A. Einstein, “Why do They Hate the Jews?”, Collier’s, Volume 102, (26 November 1938); reprinted in Ideas and Opinions, Crown, New York, (1954), pp. 191-198, at 194, 196. Einstein expressed himself in a similar way to Peter A. Bucky, P. A. Bucky, Einstein, and A. G. Weakland, The Private Albert Einstein, Andrews and McMeel, Kansas City, (1992), p. 87.

Albert Einstein was parroting racist political Zionist leader Theodor Herzl, who wrote in his book The Jewish State,

“Oppression and persecution cannot exterminate us. No nation on earth has survived such struggles and sufferings as we have gone through. Jew-baiting has merely stripped off our weaklings; the strong among us were invariably true to their race when persecution broke out against them. This attitude was most clearly apparent in the period immediately following the emancipation of the Jews. Later on, those who rose to a higher degree of intelligence and to a better worldly position lost their communal feeling to a very great extent. Wherever our political well-being has lasted for any length of time, we have assimilated with our surroundings. I think this is not discreditable. Hence, the statesman who would wish to see a Jewish strain in his nation would have to provide for the duration of our political well-being; and even Bismarck could not do that. The Governments of all countries scourged by Anti-Semitism will serve their own interests in assisting us to obtain the sovereignty we want. Great exertions will not be necessary to spur on the movement. Anti-Semites provide the requisite impetus. They need only do what they did before, and then they will create a love of emigration where it did not previously exist, and strengthen it where it existed before. I imagine that Governments will, either voluntarily or under pressure from the Anti-Semites, pay certain attention to this scheme; and they may perhaps actually receive it here and there with a sympathy which they will also show to the Society of Jews.” -T. Herzl, A Jewish State: An Attempt at a Modern Solution of the Jewish Question, The Maccabaean Publishing Co., New York, (1904), pp. 5-6, 25, 68, 93.

In 1938, Einstein stated in his essay “Our Debt to Zionism”,

“Rarely since the conquest of Jerusalem by Titus has the Jewish community experienced a period of greater oppression than prevails at the present time. Yet we shall survive this period too, no matter how much sorrow, no matter how heavy a loss in life it may bring. A community like ours, which is a community purely by reason of tradition, can only be strengthened by pressure from without.” -A. Einstein, “Our Debt to Zionism”, Out of My Later Years, Carol Publishing Group, New York, (1995), pp. 262-264, at 262.

Theodor Herzl wrote,

“What would you say, for example, if I did not deny there are good aspects of anti-Semitism? I say that anti-Semitism will educate the Jews. In fifty years, if we still have the same social order, it will have brought forth a fine and presentable generation of Jews, endowed with a delicate, extremely sensitive feeling for honor and the like.” -Theodor Herzl, as quoted by Amos Elon, Herzl, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, (1975), pp. 114-115.

Herzl also stated,

“In the beginning we shall be supported by anti-Semites through a recrudescence* of persecution (for I am convinced that they do not expect success and will want to exploit their ‘conquest.’)”—T. Herzl, English translation by H. Zohn, R. Patai, Editor, The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, Volume 1, Herzl Press, New York, (1960), p. 56.

Herzl believed,

“The anti-Semites will become our most dependable friends, the anti-Semitic countries our allies.”—T. Herzl, English translation by H. Zohn, R. Patai, Editor, The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, Volume 1, Herzl Press, New York, (1960), p. 84.

Herzl declared the virtue and justice, in his racist mind, of anti-Semitism,

“[W]e want to let respectable anti-Semites participate in our project. Present-day anti-Semitism can only in a very few places be taken for the old religious intolerance. For the most part it is a movement among civilized nations whereby they try to exorcise a ghost from out of their own past. The anti-Semites will have carried the day. Let them have this satisfaction, for we too shall be happy. They will have turned out to be right because they are right. They could not have let themselves be subjugated by us in the army, in government, in all of commerce, as thanks for generously having let us out of the ghetto. Let us never forget this magnanimous deed of the civilized nations. Thus, anti-Semitism, too, probably contains the divine Will to Good, because it forces us to close ranks, unites us through pressure, and through our unity will make us free.”— T. Herzl, English translation by H. Zohn, R. Patai, Editor, The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, Volume 1, Herzl Press, New York, (1960), pp. 143, 171, 182, 231.

In 1897, Herzl told the First Zionist Congress,

“The feeling of communion, of which we have been so bitterly accused, had commenced to weaken when anti-Semitism attacked us. Anti-Semitism has restored it. We have, so to speak, gone home. Zionism is the return home of Judaism even before the return to the land of the Jews.”—”The Zionist Congress: Full Report of the Proceedings”, The Jewish Chronicle, (3 September 1897), pp. 10-15, at 11.

Racist Zionist Max Nordau wrote in 1905,

“Anti-Semitism has also taught many educated Jews the way back to their people.”—M. Nordau and G. Gottheil, Zionism and Anti-Semitism, Fox, Duffield & Company, (1905), p. 19.

Like Herzl, Einstein stated that Jews exercised undue influence in Germany. Einstein wrote in the Juedische Rundschau, on 21 June 1921, on pages 351-352,

“This phenomenon [i. e. anti-Semitism] in Germany is due to several causes. Partly it originates in the fact that the Jews there exercise an influence over the intellectual life of the German people altogether out of proportion to their number. While, in my opinion, the economic position of the German Jews is very much overrated, the influence of Jews on the Press, in literature, and in science in Germany is very marked, as must be apparent to even the most superficial observer. This accounts for the fact that there are many anti-Semites there who are not really anti-Semitic in the sense of being Jew-haters, and who are honest in their arguments. They regard Jews as of a nationality different from the German, and therefore are alarmed at the increasing Jewish influence on their national entity. But in Germany the judgment of my theory depended on the party politics of the Press.”—A. Einstein, “Jewish Nationalism and Anti-Semitism”, The Jewish Chronicle, (17 June 1921), p. 16.

Einstein’s Jewish racism made him disloyal to Germany and treacherous. On 8 July 1901, Einstein wrote,

“There is no exaggeration in what you said about the German professors. I have got to know another sad specimen of this kind — one of the foremost physicists of Germany.”—A. Einstein to J. Winteler, English translation by A. Beck, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 1, Document 115, Princeton University Press, (1987), pp. 176-177, at 177.

Einstein wrote sometime after 1 January 1914,

“A free, unprejudiced look is not at all characteristic of the (adult) Germans (blinders!).”—A. Einstein, English translation by A. Beck, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 5, Document 499, Princeton University Press, (1995), pp. 373-374, at 374.

After the First World War, Einstein and some of his friends alluded to much earlier conversations with Einstein, where he had correctly predicted the eventual outcome of the war. In his diaries, Romain Rolland recorded his conversations with Einstein in Switzerland at their meeting of 16 September 1915,

“What I hear from [Einstein] is not exactly encouraging, for it shows the impossibility of arriving at a lasting peace with Germany without first totally crushing it. Einstein says the situation looks to him far less favorable than a few months back. The victories over Russia have reawakened German arrogance and appetite. The word ‘greedy’ seems to Einstein best to characterize Germany. Einstein does not expect any renewal of Germany out of itself; it lacks the energy for it, and the boldness for initiative. He hopes for a victory of the Allies, which would smash the power of Prussia and the dynasty. . . . Einstein and Zangger dream of a divided Germany—on the one side Southern Germany and Austria, on the other side Prussia. We speak of the deliberate blindness and the lack of psychology in the Germans.”—R. Romain, La Conscience de l’Europe, Volume 1, pp. 696ff. English translation from A. Foelsing, Albert Einstein: A Biography, Viking, New York, (1997), pp. 365-367. See also: Letter from A. Einstein to R. Romain of 15 September 1915, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 8, Document 118, Princeton University Press, (1998); and Letter from A. Einstein to R. Romain of 22 August 1917, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 8, Document 374, Princeton University Press, (1998).

Jews often sought to Balkanize nations so as to weaken the power of any faction within a nation and to create perpetual agitation between the nations which could be exploited for profit and other Jewish gains. For example, the Rothschilds created the American Civil War and profited from the debts it generated. They hoped to divide America into two nations and to pit these against one another. They were successful. Jews had long been pitting North German Protestants against South German and Austrian Catholics. Jews were the motivating force behind the Kulturkampf. After creating these divisions and promoting perpetual agitations amongst neighbors, Jewry could then fund one side against the other to destroy it whenever Jewry decided to wreck a given nation.

Einstein’s dreams during the First World War remind one of the “Carthaginian Peace” of the Henry Morgenthau, Jr. plan for the destruction of Germany following the Second World War. Morgenthau worked with Lord Cherwell (Frederick Alexander Lindemann), Churchill’s friend and advisor, who planned to bomb German civilian populations into submission. Lindemann studied under Einstein’s friend, Walther Nernst, who worked with Fritz Haber, a Jewish developer of poisonous gas. James Bacque argues that the Allies, under the direction of General Eisenhower, starved hundreds of thousands, if not millions of German prisoners of war to death. [J. Bacque, Other Losses: An Investigation into the Mass Deaths of German Prisoners at the Hands of the French and Americans after World War II, Stoddart,Toronto, (1989).]

Einstein often spoke in genocidal and racist terms against Germany, and for the Jews and England, and he betrayed Germany before, during and after the war. Einstein’s Jewish treachery and that of other such Jewish traitors as Georg Bernhard, Theodor Wolff and Maximilian Harden, who “stabbed Germany in the back” during and after World War I, [briefly] contributed funding to Hitler’s political ascent.

Einstein wrote to Paul Ehrenfest on 22 March 1919,

“[The Allied Powers] whose victory during the war I had felt would be by far the lesser evil are now proving to be only slightly the lesser evil. I get most joy from the emergence of the Jewish state in Palestine. It does seem to me that our kinfolk really are more sympathetic (at least less brutal) than these horrid Europeans. Perhaps things can only improve if only the Chinese are left, who refer to all Europeans with the collective noun ‘bandits.'”—Letter from A. Einstein to Paul Ehrenfest of 22 March 1919, English translation by A. Hentschel, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 9, Document 10, Princeton Univsersity Press, (2004), pp. 9-10, at 10.

While responsible people were trying to preserve some sanity in the turbulent period following World War I, racist Zionists including Albert Einstein sought to validate and encourage anti-Semitism. The Dreyfus Affair taught them that anti-Semitism had a powerful effect to unite Jews around the world.

Why, exactly? The Zionists were afraid that the “Jewish race” was disappearing through assimilation. They wanted to use anti-Semitism to force the segregation of Jews from Gentiles and to unite Jews, and thereby preserve the Jewish race. They hoped that if they could fund a strong leader’s ascent to power—as Zionists had done in the past, they could use him to herd up the Jews of Europe and force these Jews into Palestine against their will. This would also help the Zionists to inspire distrust of, and contempt for, Gentile government, while giving the Zionists the moral high-ground in international affairs, despite the fact that the Zionists were secretly behind the atrocities.

Albert Einstein wrote to Max Born on 9 November 1919. In this letter, Einstein encouraged anti-Semitism and advocated segregation (one must wonder what role Albert’s increasing racism played in his divorce from Mileva Maric, who was a Gentile Serb whom Einstein’s mother hated),

“Antisemitism must be seen as a real thing, based on true hereditary qualities, even if for us Jews it is often unpleasant. I could well imagine that I myself would choose a Jew as my companion, given the choice. On the other hand I would consider it reasonable for the Jews themselves to collect the money to support Jewish research workers outside the universities and to provide them with teaching opportunities.”—M. Born, The Born-Einstein Letters, Walker and Company, New York, (1971), p. 16.

In 1933, the Zionists publicly declared their [temporal strategic] alliance with the Nazis. They wrote in the Juedische Rundshau on 13 June 1933,

“Zionism recognizes the existence of the Jewish question and wants to solve it in a generous and constructive manner. For this purpose, it wants to enlist the aid of all peoples; those who are friendly to the Jews as well as those who are hostile to them, since according to its conception, this is not a question of sentimentality, but one dealing with a real problem in whose solution all peoples are interested.”—English translation in: K. Polkehn, “The Secret Contacts: Zionism and Nazi Germany, 1933-1941”, Journal of Palestine Studies, Volume 5, Number 3/4, (Spring-Summer, 1976), pp. 54-82, at 59.

On 21 June 1933, the Zionists issued a [short-lived] declaration of their position with respect to the Nazi regime, in which they expressed a belief in the legitimacy of the Nazis’ racist belief system and condemned anti-Fascist forces. [See: L. S. Dawidowicz, “The Zionist Federation of Germany Addresses the New German State”, A Holocaust Reader, Behrman House, Inc., West Orange, New Jersey, (1976), pp. 150-155. See also: H. Tramer, Editor, S. Moses, In zwei Welten: Siegfried Moses zum fuenfundsiebzigsten Geburtstag, Verlag Bitaon, Tel-Aviv, (1962), pp. 118.ff; cited in K. Polkehn, “The Secret Contacts: Zionism and Nazi Germany, 1933-1941”, Journal of Palestine Studies, Volume 5, Number 3/4, (Spring-Summer, 1976), pp. 54-82, at 59.]

Einstein’s close friend and collaborator Michele Besso wrote that it might have been Albert Einstein’s racism and bigotry which caused him to separate from his first wife Mileva Maric in 1914. Besso wrote to Einstein on 17 January 1928,

“[. . .]perhaps it is due in part to me, with my defense of Judaism and the Jewish family, that your family life took the turn that it did, and that I had to bring Mileva from Berlin to Zurich[.]”—English translation quoted from J. Stachel, “Einstein’s Jewish Identity”, Einstein from ‘B’ to ‘Z’, Birkhaeuser, Boston, Basel, Berlin, (2002), pp. 57-83, at 78. Stachel cites M. Besso, A. Einstein, Correspondance, 1903-1955, Hermann, Paris, (1972), p. 238.

The hypocrisy of racist Zionists often manifested itself. Einstein was but one of many racist Zionist Jews who was married, at least for a time, to a Gentile of European descent. As another example, consider the fact that racist Zionist Moses Hess was married to a Christian Gentile prostitute named Sybille Pritsch.

Einstein may have been affected by his mother’s early racist opposition to his relationship with Maric. Another factor in the Einsteins’ divorce was, of course, Albert’s incestuous relationship with his cousin Else Einstein, and his desire to bed her daughters, as well as Albert’s general promiscuity—some believe he was a syphilitic whore monger.

Albert Einstein opposed his sister Maja’s marriage to the Gentile Paul Winteler on racist grounds and thought that they should divorce. Albert Einstein wrote to Michele Besso on 12 December 1919 and stated that,

“No mixed marriages are any good (Anna says: oh!)”—Letter from A. Einstein to M. Besso of 12 December 1919, English translation by A. Hentschel, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 9, Document 207, Princeton University Press, (2004), pp. 178-179, at 179.

Besso was married to a Gentile, Anna Besso-Winteler. Denis Brian wrote,

“When asked what he thought of Jews marrying non-Jews, which, of course, had been the case with him and Mileva, [Albert Einstein] replied with a laugh, ‘It’s dangerous, but then all marriages are dangerous.'”—D. Brian, The Unexpected Einstein: The Real Man Behind the Icon, Wiley, Hoboken, New Jersey, (2005), p. 42.

On 3 April 1920, Einstein wrote, criticizing assimilationist Jews,

And this is precisely what he does not want to reveal in his confession. He talks about religious faith instead of tribal affiliation, of ‘Mosaic’ instead of ‘Jewish,’ because the latter term, which is much more familiar to him, would emphasize affiliation to his tribe.“—A. Einstein, English translation by A. Engel, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 7, Document 34, Princeton University Press, (2002), pp. 153-155, at 153.

After declaring that Jewish children segregate due to natural forces and that they are “different from other children”, Einstein continued his 3 April 1920 statement,

“With adults it is quite similar as with children. Due to race and temperament as well as traditions (which are only to a small extent of religious origin) they form a community more or less separate from non-Jews. It is this basic community of race and tradition that I have in mind when I speak of ‘Jewish nationality.’ In my opinion, aversion to Jews is simply based upon the fact that Jews and non-Jews are different. Where feelings are sufficiently vivid there is no shortage of reasons; and the feeling of aversion toward people of a foreign race with whom one has, more or less, to share daily life will emerge by necessity.”—A. Einstein, English translation by A. Engel, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 7, Document 34, Princeton University Press, (2002), pp. 153-155, at 153-154.

Einstein made similar comments in a document dated sometime “after 3 April 1920”. Einstein was in agreement with Philipp Lenard that a “Jewish heritage” (read for “heritage”, “racial instinct”) could be seen in intellectual works published by Jews. Einstein stated,

“The psychological root of anti-Semitism lies in the fact that the Jews are a group of people unto themselves. Their Jewishness is visible in their physical appearance, and one notices their Jewish heritage in their intellectual works, and one can sense that there are among them deep connections in their disposition and numerous possibilities of communicating that are based on the same way of thinking and of feeling. The Jewish child is already aware of these differences as soon as it starts school. Jewish children feel the resentment that grows out of an instinctive suspicion of their strangeness that naturally is often met with a closing of the ranks. [Jews] are the target of instinctive resentment because they are of a different tribe than the majority of the population.”—A. Einstein, English translation by A. Engel, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 7, Document 35, Princeton University Press, (2002), pp. 156-157.

Albert Einstein often referred to Jews as “tribesmen” and Jewry as the “tribe”. Fellow German Jew Fritz Haber was outraged at Albert Einstein’s racist treachery and disloyalty. Einstein confirmed that he was disloyal and a racist, and was obligated,

“[. . .] to step in for my persecuted and morally depressed fellow tribesmen, as far as this lies within my power[.]”—A. Einstein quoted in: H. Gutfreund, “Albert Einstein and the Hebrew University”, J. Renn, Editor, Albert Einstein Chief Engineer of the Universe: One Hundred Authors for Einstein, Wiley-VCH, Berlin, (2005), pp. 314-318, at 316.

Einstein bore no such loyalty to Germans, who had fed him and made him famous. In fact, Einstein wanted to exterminate Gentile Germans.

In a draft letter of 3 April 1920, Einstein wrote that children are conscious of “racial characteristics” and that this alleged “racial” gulf between children results in conflicts, which instill a sense of foreigness in the persecuted child (original text directly below):

“Unter den Kindern war besonders in der Volksschule der Antisemitismus lebendig. Er gruendete ich auf die den Kindern merkwuerdig bewussten Rassenmerkmale und auf Eindruecke im Religionsunterricht. Thaetliche Angriffe und Beschimpfungen auf dem Schulwege waren haeufig, aber meist nicht gar zu boesartig. Sie genuegten immerhin, um ein lebhaftes Gefuehl des Fremdseins schon im Kinde zu befestigen.”—Letter from A. Einstein to P. Nathan of 3 April 1920, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 9, Document 366, Princeton University Press, (2004), p. 492. Also: The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 1, Princeton University Press, (1987), p. lx, note 44.

Like Adolf Stoecker before him, [See: P. W. Massing, Rehearsal for Destruction: A Study of Political Anti-Semitism in Imperial Germany, Howard Fertig, New York, (1967), pp. 278-294.] Albert Einstein advocated the segregation of Jewish students. Peter A. Bucky quoted Albert Einstein,

“I think that Jewish students should have their own student societies. One way that it won’t be solved is for Jewish people to take on Christian fashions and manners. In this way, it is entirely possible to be a civilized person, a good citizen, and at the same time be a faithful Jew who loves his race and honors his fathers.”—P. A. Bucky, Einstein, and A. G. Weakland, The Private Albert Einstein, Andrews and McMeel, Kansas City, (1992), p. 88.

Einstein also (reasonably) stated,

“We must be conscious of our alien race and draw the logical conclusions from it. We must have our own students’ societies and adopt an attitude of courteous but consistent reserve to the Gentiles. [***] It is possible to be a faithful Jew who loves his race and honours his fathers.”—A. Einstein, The World As I See It, Citadel, New York, (1993), pp. 107-108.

Einstein had a reputation as a rabid anti-assimilationist. He was an ardent Jewish segregationist. Here again Einstein merely parroted the racist anti-assmilationism of his Zionist predecessors, like Solomon Schechter, who dreaded assimilation more than pogroms—and one notes that Zionists encouraged pogroms in order to discourage assimilation.

Others repeated Theodor Herzl’s theme, that Jews could not assimilate, because the presence of Jews in a host nation ultimately led to anti-Semitism due to Jewish parasitism—according to Herzl. Hilaire Belloc was a strong advocate of the view that Jews should not integrate. Belloc published a book on the subject entitled The Jews in 1922, and expressed similar convictions in G. K.’s Weekly in the 1930’s. Belloc wrote biographies of men who had fallen under the influence of Zionists, like Oliver Cromwell and Napoleon. Belloc, however, was strongly opposed to Nazism. Douglas Reed took a similar Zionist stance on the alleged unassimilability of Jews in the late 1930’s, though he later opposed Zionism. [See: D. Reed, Disgrace Abounding, Jonathan Cape, London, (1939).]

Racist Zionist Solomon Schecter stated, in harmony with numerous political Zionists, though in opposition to the vast majority of Jews,

“It is this kind of assimilation [the death of a “race” through integration], with the terrible consequences indicated, that I dread most; even more than pogroms.”—S. Schechter, Zionism: A Statement, Federation of American Zionists, New York, (1906); reprinted in the relevant part in A. Hertzberg, The Zionist Idea, Harper Torchbooks, New York, (1959), p. 507.

On 15 March 1921, Kurt Blumenfeld wrote to Chaim Weizmann,

“Einstein is interested in our cause most strongly because of his revulsion from assimilatory Jewry.”—J. Stachel, Einstein from ‘B’ to ‘Z’, Birkhaeuser, Boston, (2002), p. 79, note 41.

Einstein stated in 1921,

“To deny the Jew’s nationality in the Diaspora is, indeed, deplorable. If one adopts the point of view of confining Jewish ethnical nationalism to Palestine, then one, to all intents and purposes, denies the existence of a Jewish people. In that case one should have the courage to carry through, in the quickest and most complete manner, entire assimilation. We live in a time of intense and perhaps exaggerated nationalism. But my Zionism does not exclude in me cosmopolitan views. I believe in the actuality of Jewish nationality, and I believe that every Jew has duties towards his coreligionists. [T]he principal point is that Zionism must tend to strengthen the dignity and self-respect of the Jews in the Diaspora. I have always been annoyed by the undignified assimilationist cravings and strivings which I have observed in so many of my friends.”—A. Einstein, “Jewish Nationalism and Anti-Semitism”, The Jewish Chronicle, (17 June 1921), p. 16.

In 1921, Einstein declared, referring to Eastern European Jews,

“These men and women retain a healthy national feeling; it has not yet been destroyed by the process of atomisation and dispersion.”—J. Stachel, “Einstein’s Jewish Identity”, Einstein from ‘B’ to ‘Z’, Birkhaeuser, Boston, (2002), p. 65. Stachel cites, About Zionism: Speeches and Letters, Macmillan, New York, (1931), pp. 48-49. For Zionist Ha-Am’s use of the image of atomisation and dispersion, see: A. Hertzberg, The Zionist Idea, Harper Torchbooks, New York, (1959), p. 276.

On 1 July 1921, Einstein was quoted in the Juedische Rundshau on page 371,

“Let us take brief look at the development of German Jews over the last hundred years. With few exceptions, one hundred years ago our forefathers still lived in the Ghetto. They were poor and separated from the Gentiles by a wall of religious tradition, secular lifestyles and statutory confinement and were confined in their spiritual development to their own literature, only relatively weakly influenced by the forceful progress which intellectual life in Europe had undergone in the Renaissance. However, these little noticed, modestly living people had one thing over us: Every one of them belonged with all his heart to a community, into which he was incorporated, in which he felt a worthwhile member, in which nothing was asked of him which conflicted with his normal processes of thought. Our forefathers of that era were pretty pathetic both bodily and spiritually, but—in social relations—in an enviable state of mental equilibrium. Then came emancipation. It offered undreamt of opportunities for advancement. The isolated individual quickly found their way into the upper financial and social circles of society. They eagerly absorbed the great achievements of art and science which the Occidentals had created. They contributed to the development with passionate affection, and themselves made contributions of lasting value. They thereby took on the lifestyle of the Gentile world, turning away from their religious and social traditions in growing masses—took on Gentile customs, manners and mentality. It appeared as if they were being completely dissolved into the numerically superior, politically and culturally better organized host peoples, such that no trace of them would be left after a few generations. The complete eradication of the Jewish nationality in Middle and Western Europe appeared to be inevitable. However, it didn’t turn out that way. It appears that racially distinct nations have instincts which work against interbreeding. The adaptation of the Jews to the European peoples among whom they have lived in language, customs and indeed even partially in religious practices was unable to eliminate all feelings of foreignness which exist between Jews and their European host peoples. In short, this spontaneous feeling of foreignness is ultimately due to a loss of energy. For this reason, not even well-meant arguments can eradicate it. Nationalities do not want to be mixed together, rather they want to go their own separate ways. A state of peace can only be achieved by mutual tolerance and respect.”

Einstein stated that Jews should not participate in the German Government,

“I regretted the fact that [Rathenau] became a Minister. In view of the attitude which large numbers of the educated classes in Germany assume towards the Jews, I have always thought that their natural conduct in public should be one of proud reserve.”—R. W. Clarck, Einstein, the Life and Times, World Publishing Company, USA, (1971), p. 292. Clarck refers to: Neue Rundschau, Volume 33, Part 2, pp. 815-816.

Einstein merely parroted the Zionist Party line. Werner E. Mosse wrote,

“While the leaders of the CV saw it as their special duty to represent the interests of the German Jews in the active political struggle, Zionism stood for. . . systematic Jewish non-participation in German public life. It rejected as a matter of principle any participation in the struggle led by the CV.”—W. E. Mosse, “Die Niedergang der deutschen Republik und die Juden”, The Crucial Year 1932, p. 38; English translation in: K. Polkehn, “The Secret Contacts: Zionism and Nazi Germany, 1933-1941”, Journal of Palestine Studies, Volume 5, Number 3/4, (Spring-Summer, 1976), pp. 54-82, at 56-57.

In 1925, Einstein wrote in the official Zionist organ Juedische Rundschau,

“By study of their past, by a better understanding of the spirit [Geist] that accords with their race, they must learn to know anew the mission that they are capable of fulfilling. What one must be thankful to Zionism for is the fact that it is the only movement that has given many Jews a justified pride, that it has once again given a despairing race the necessary faith, if I may so express myself, given new flesh to an exhausted people.”—English translation by John Stachel in J. Stachel, “Einstein’s Jewish Identity”, Einstein from ‘B’ to ‘Z’, Birkhaeuser, Boston, (2002), p. 67. Stachel cites, “Botschaft”, Juedische Rundschau, Volume 30, (1925), p. 129; French translation, La Revue Juive, Volume 1, (1925), pp. 14-16.

On 12 October 1929, Albert Einstein wrote to the Manchester Guardian,

“In the re-establishment of the Jewish nation in the ancient home of the race, where Jewish spiritual values could again be developed in a Jewish atmosphere, the most enlightened representatives of Jewish individuality see the essential preliminary to the regeneration of the race and the setting free of its spiritual creativeness.”—J. Stachel, “Einstein’s Jewish Identity”, Einstein from ‘B’ to ‘Z’, Birkhaeuser, Boston, (2002), p. 65. Stachel cites, About Zionism: Speeches and Letters, Macmillan, New York, (1931), pp. 78-79.

Einstein’s overt racism eventually waned, but he continued to express his segregationist philosophy in the same terms as the anti-Semites, as well as his belief that Jews “thrived on” and owed their “continued existence” to anti-Semitism. Einstein stated in December of 1930 to an American audience,

“There is something indefinable which holds the Jews together. Race does not make much for solidarity. Here in America you have many races, and yet you have the solidarity. Race is not the cause of the Jews’ solidarity, nor is their religion. It is something else—which is indefinable.”—A. Einstein quoted in “Einstein on Arrival Braves Limelight for Only 15 Minutes”, The New York Times, (12 December 1930), pp. 1, 16, at 16.

Einstein’s confusing (i.e., conflicting) public statement perhaps resulted from his desire to promote multi-culturalism in America, which had the benefit of freeing up Jewish immigration to the United States. [See: E. A. Ross, The Old World in the New: The Significance of past and Present Immigration to the American People, Century Company, New York, (1914), p. 144.] Einstein was also likely parroting, or trying to parrot, a fellow anti-assimilationist political Zionist whose pamphlet was well known in America, Solomon Schechter and his Zionism: A Statement, Federation of American Zionists, New York, (1906), in which Schechter states, among other things,

“Zionism is an ideal, and as such is indefinable.”—Reprinted in the relevant part in A. Hertzberg, The Zionist Idea, Harper Torchbooks, New York, (1959), p. 505.

Einstein avowed, circa 3 April 1920, that,

“If what anti-Semites claim were true, then indeed there would be nothing weaker, more wretched, and unfit for life, than the German people”—A. Einstein [and indeed, he promoted their destruction], English translation by A. Engel, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 7, Document 35, Princeton University Press, (2002), pp. 156-157.

Einstein often avowed that the anti-Semites’ beliefs were true, and, hence, Einstein wished the Germans dead. When discussing the meaning of life, Einstein spoke to Peter A. Bucky about persons and creatures who “[do] not deserve to be in our world” and are “hardly fit for life.” [P. A. Bucky, Einstein, and A. G. Weakland, The Private Albert Einstein, Andrews and McMeel, Kansas City, (1992), p. 111.]

Einstein’s language reflects that of his enemy’s “Euthanasia-Programme”. After disloyally siding with Germany’s enemies in the First World War (while residing in Germany himself), after intentionally provoking Germans into increased anti-Semitism, which he thought was good for Jews, and after defaming German Nobel Prize laureates in the international press to the point where they felt obliged to join Hitler’s cause in Europe, Einstein sponsored the production of terrible weapons to mass murder Germans, whom he had hated all of his life, in the famous letter to President Roosevelt that Einstein signed urging Roosevelt to begin the development of atomic bombs. [Cf. A. Unsoeld, “Albert Einstein — Ein Jahr danach”, Physikalische Blaetter, Volume 36, (1980), pp.337-339; and Volume 37, Number 7, (1981), p. 229.]

Einstein callously asserted that the use of atomic bombs on civilian populations was “morally justified”.

I quote Einstein,

“It should not be forgotten that the atomic bomb was made in this country as a preventive measure; it was to head off its use by the Germans, if they discovered it. The bombing of civilian centers was initiated by the Germans [edit: false] and adopted by the Japanese. To it the Allies responded in kind—as it turned out, with greater effectiveness—and they were morally justified in doing so.”—A. Einstein, “Atomic War or Peace”, Atlantic Monthly, (November, 1945, and November 1947); as reprinted in: A. Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, Crown, New York, (1954), p. 125.

Einstein advocated genocidal collective punishment,

“The Germans as an entire people are responsible for these mass murders and must be punished as a people if there is justice in the world and if the consciousness of collective responsibility in the nations is not to perish from the earth entirely.”—A. Einstein, “To the Heroes of the Battle of the Warsaw Ghetto”, Bulletin of the Society of Polish Jews, New York, (1944), reprinted in Ideas and Opinions, Crown, New York, (1954), pp. 212-213.

Einstein also stated,

“It is possible either to destroy the German people or keep them suppressed; it is not possible to educate them to think and act along democratic lines in the foreseeable future.”—A. Einstein, quoted in O. Nathan and H. Norton, Einstein on Peace, Avenel Books, New York, (1981), p. 331.

Albrecht Foelsing has assembled a compilation of post-WW II quotations from Einstein, which evince Einstein’s lifelong habit of stereotyping people based on their ethnicity. Einstein expressed his hatred to Max Born,

“With the Germans having murdered my Jewish brethren in Europe, I do not wish to have anything more to do with Germans, not even with a relatively harmless Academy. The crimes of the Germans are really the most hideous that the history of the so-called civilized nations has to show. [It was] evident that a proud Jew no longer wishes to be connected with any kind of German official event or institution. After the mass murder committed by the Germans against my Jewish brethren I do not wish any publications of mine to appear in Germany.”—A. Einstein quoted in A. Foelsing, Albert Einstein: A Biography, Viking, New York, (1997), pp. 727-728.

Einstein wrote to Born on 15 September 1950 that his views towards Germans predated the Nazi period,

“I have not changed my attitude to the Germans, which, by the way, dates not just from the Nazi period. All human beings are more or less the same from birth. The Germans, however, have a far more dangerous tradition than any of the other so-called civilized nations. The present behavior of these other nations towards the Germans merely proves to me how little human beings learn even from their most painful experiences.”—A. Einstein quoted in M. Born, The Born-Einstein Letters, Walker and Company, New York, (1971), p. 189.

On learning that Born would return to Germany, Einstein wrote on 12 October 1953,

“If anyone can be held responsible for the fact that you are migrating back to the land of the mass-murderers of our kinsmen, it is certainly your adopted fatherland — universally notorious for its parsimony.”—A. Einstein quoted in M. Born, The Born-Einstein Letters, Walker and Company, New York, (1971), p. 199.

Einstein’s statements and those of other like-minded racist Zionists threw fuel on the fire, which was initially kindled and maintained by crypto-Jews. The Einsteinian Zionist promotion of anti-Semitism (and his condemnation of anti-Semitism once it has, in part, helped to fulfill the agenda of his people) is reflective of the spirit and tone enunciated in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Number 9, which states,

“Nowadays, if any States raise a protest against us, it is only pro forma at our discretion, and by our direction, for their anti-Semitism is indispensable to us, for the management of our lesser brethren.”—L. Fry, Waters Flowing Eastward: The War Against the Kingship of Christ, TBR Books, Washington, D. C., (2000), p. 137.

More on Einstein’s racism can be found in the book The Manufacture and Sale of Saint Einstein which is available for free online at: http://www.jewishracism.com/SaintEinstein.htm
——————————————————
Albert Einstein: was he a thief, a liar and a plagiarist?

ALBERT EINSTEIN is held up as “a rare genius,” who drastically changed the field of theoretical physics. However, using the technique known as ‘The Often-Repeated Lie=Truth,’ he has been made an idol to young people, and his very name has become synonymous with genius.

THE TRUTH, HOWEVER, IS VERY DIFFERENT. Einstein was an inept and moronic person, who could not even tie his own shoelaces; he contributed NOTHING ORIGINAL to the field of quantum mechanics, nor any other science. On the contrary — he stole the ideas of others, and the Jew-controlled media made him a ‘hero.’

When we actually examine the life of Albert Einstein, we find that his only ‘brilliance’ was in his ability to PLAGIARIZE and STEAL OTHER PEOPLE’S IDEAS, PASSING THEM OFF AS HIS OWN. Einstein’s education, or lack thereof, is an important part of this story.

The Encyclopedia Britannica says of Einstein’s early education that he “showed little scholastic ability.” It also says that at the age of 15, “with poor grades in history, geography, and languages, he left school with no diploma.” Einstein himself wrote in a school paper of his “lack of imagination and practical ability.” In 1895, Einstein failed a simple entrance exam to an engineering school in Zurich.

This exam consisted mainly of mathematical problems, and Einstein showed himself to be mathematically inept in this exam. He then entered a lesser school hoping to use it as a stepping stone to the engineering school he could not get into, but after graduating in 1900, he still could not get a position at the engineering school!

Unable to go to the school as he had wanted, he got a job (with the help of a friend) at the patent office in Bern. He was to be a technical expert third class, which meant that he was not competent to hold a higher qualified position. Even after publishing his so-called ground-breaking papers of 1905 and after working in the patent office for six years, he was only elevated to a second class standing. Remember, the work he was doing at the patent office, for which he was only rated third class, was not quantum mechanics or theoretical physics, but was reviewing technical documents for patents of every day things; yet he was barely qualified.

He would work at the patent office until 1909, all the while continuously trying to get a position at a university, but without success. All of these facts are true, but now begins the myth.

Supposedly, while working a full time job, without the aid of university colleagues, a staff of graduate students, a laboratory, or any of the things normally associated with an academic setting, Einstein in his spare time wrote four ground-breaking essays in the field of theoretical physics and quantum mechanics that were published in 1905.

Many people have recognized the impossibility of such a feat, including Einstein himself, and therefore Einstein has led people to believe that many of these ideas came to him in his sleep, out of the blue, because indeed that is the only logical explanation of how an admittedly inept moron could have written such documents at the age of 26 without any real education. THE TRUTH IS: HE STOLE THE IDEAS AND PLAGIARIZED THE PAPERS.

Therefore, we will look at each of these ideas and discover the source of each. It should be remembered that these ideas are presented by Einstein’s worshipers as totally new and completely different, each of which would change the landscape of science. These four papers dealt with the following four ideas, respectively:

1. The foundation of the photon theory of light;
2. The equivalence of energy and mass;
3. The explanation of Brownian motion in liquids;
4. The special theory of relativity.

Let us first look at the last of these theories, the theory of relativity. This is perhaps the most famous idea falsely attributed to Einstein. Specifically, this 1905 paper dealt with what Einstein called the Special Theory of Relativity (the General Theory would come in 1915).

This theory contradicted the traditional Newtonian mechanics and was based upon two premises:

1. In the absence of acceleration, the laws of nature are the same for all observers; and
2. Since the speed of light is independent of the motion of its source, then the time interval between two events is longer for an observer in whose frame of reference the events occur at different places than for an observer in whose frame of reference the events occur in the same place.

This is basically the idea that time passes more slowly as one’s velocity approaches the speed of light, relative to slower velocities where time would pass faster.

This theory has been validated by modern experiments and is the basis for modern physics. But these two premises are far from being originally Einstein’s. FIRST OF ALL, THE IDEA THAT THE SPEED OF LIGHT WAS A CONSTANT AND WAS INDEPENDENT OF THE MOTION OF ITS SOURCE WAS NOT EINSTEIN’S AT ALL, BUT WAS PROPOSED BY THE SCOTTISH SCIENTIST JAMES MAXWELL in 1878.

Maxwell studied the phenomenon of light extensively and first proposed that it was electromagnetic in nature.

James Maxwell wrote an article to this effect for the 1878 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. His ideas prompted much debate, and by 1887, as a result of his work and the ensuing debate, the scientific community, particularly Lorentz, Michelson, and Morley reached the conclusion that the velocity of light was independent of the velocity of the observer. Thus, this piece of the Special Theory of Relativity was known 27 years before Einstein wrote his paper.

This debate over the nature of light also led Michelson and Morley to conduct an important experiment, the results of which could not be explained by Newtonian mechanics. They observed a phenomenon caused by relativity but they did not understand relativity.

They had attempted to detect the motion of the earth through ether, which was a medium thought to be necessary for the propagation of light. In response to this problem, in 1880, the Irish physicist George Fitzgerald, who had also first proposed a mechanism for producing radio waves, wrote a paper which stated that the results of the Michelson Morley experiment could be explained if, “. . . the length of material bodies change, according as they are moving through the either or across it by an amount depending on the square of the ratio of their velocities to that of light.”

THIS IS THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY, 13 YEARS BEFORE EINSTEIN’S PAPER!

FURTHER . . . IN 1892, HENDRIK LORENTZ, of the Netherlands, proposed the same solution and began to greatly expand the idea. All throughout the 1890’s, both Lorentz and Fitzgerald worked on these ideas and wrote articles strangely similar to Einstein’s Special Theory detailing what is now known as the Lorentz-Fitzgerald Contraction.

In 1898, the Irishman Joseph Larmor wrote down equations explaining the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction and its relativistic consequences, 7 years before Einstein’s paper. By 1904, “Lorentz transformations,” the series of equations explaining relativity, were published by Lorentz. They describe the increase of mass, the shortening of length, and the time dilation of a body moving at speeds close to the velocity of light. In short, by 1904, everything in “Einstein’s paper” regarding the Special Theory of Relativity had already been published.

The Frenchman Poincaré‚ had, in 1898, written a paper unifying many of these ideas. He stated seven years before Einstein’s paper: “. . . we have no direct intuition about the equality of two time intervals. The simultaneity of two events or the order of their succession, as well as the equality of two time intervals, must be defined in such a way that the statements of the natural laws be as simple as possible.”

Professor Umberto Bartocci, a mathematical historian, of the University of Perugia claims that Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published the equation E=mc^2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903. Einstein allegedly used De Pretto’s insight in a major paper published in 1905, but De Pretto was never acclaimed.

De Pretto had stumbled on the equation, but not the theory of relativity, while speculating about ether in the life of the universe, said Prof Bartocci. It was republished in 1904 by Veneto’s Royal Science Institute, but the equation’s significance was not understood.

According to Professor Bartocci, a Swiss Italian named Michele Besso alerted Einstein to the research and in 1905 Einstein published his own work. It took years for his breakthrough to be grasped. When the penny finally dropped, De Pretto’s contribution was overlooked while Einstein went on to become the century’s most famous scientist. De Pretto died in 1921.

“De Pretto did not discover relativity but there is no doubt that he was the first to use the equation. That is hugely significant. I also believe, though it’s impossible to prove, that Einstein used De Pretto’s research,” said Professor Bartocci, who has written a book on the subject. ( The Guardian Unlimited).

Anyone who has read Einstein’s 1905 paper will immediately recognize the similarity and the lack of originality on the part of Einstein.

Thus, we see that the only thing original about the paper was the term ‘Special Theory of Relativity.’ EVERYTHING ELSE WAS PLAGIARIZED. Over the next few years, Poincaré‚ became one of the most important lecturers and writers regarding relativity, but he never, in any of his papers or speeches, mentioned Albert Einstein.

Thus while Poincaré‚ was busy bringing the rest of the academic world up to speed regarding relativity, Einstein was still working in the patent office in Bern and no one in the academic community thought it necessary to give much credence or mention to Einstein’s work. Most of these early physicists knew that he was a fraud.

This brings us to the explanation of Brownian motion, the subject of another of Einstein’s 1905 papers. Brownian motion describes the irregular motion of a body arising from the thermal energy of the molecules of the material in which the body is immersed. The movement had first been observed by the Scottish botanist Robert Brown in 1827.

The explanation of this phenomenon has to do with the Kinetic Theory of Matter, and it was the American Josiah Gibbs and the Austrian Ludwig Boltzmann who first explained this occurrence, not Albert Einstein. In fact, the mathematical equation describing the motion contains the famous Boltzmann constant, k. Between these two men, they had explained by the 1890s everything in Einstein’s 1905 paper regarding Brownian motion.

The subject of the equivalence of mass and energy was contained in a third paper published by Einstein in 1905. This concept is expressed by the famous equation E=mc2. Einstein’s biographers categorize this as “his most famous and most spectacular conclusion.” Even though this idea is an obvious conclusion of Einstein’s earlier relativity paper, it was not included in that paper but was published as an afterthought later in the year. Still, the idea of energy-mass equivalence was not original with Einstein.

That there was an equivalence between mass and energy had been shown in the laboratory in the 1890s by both J. J. Thomsom of Cambridge and by W. Kaufmann in Göttingen. In 1900, Poincaré‚ had shown that there was a mass relationship for all forms of energy, not just electromagnetic energy. Yet, the most probable source of Einstein’s plagiarism was Friedrich Hasenöhrl, one of the most brilliant, yet unappreciated physicists of the era.

Hasenöhrl was the teacher of many of the German scientists who would later become famous for a variety of topics. He had worked on the idea of the equivalence of mass and energy for many years and had published a paper on the topic in 1904 in the very same journal which Einstein would publish his plagiarized version in 1905. For his brilliant work in this area, Hasenöhrl had received in 1904 a prize from the prestigious Vienna Academy of Sciences.

Furthermore, the mathematical relationship of mass and energy was a simple deduction from the already well-known equations of Scottish physicist James Maxwell. Scientists long understood that the mathematical relationship expressed by the equation E=mc2 was the logical result of Maxwell’s work, they just did not believe it.

THUS, THE EXPERIMENTS OF THOMSON, KAUFMANN, AND FINALLY, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, HASENÖRHL, CONFIRMED MAXWELL’S WORK. IT IS LUDICROUS TO BELIEVE THAT EINSTEIN DEVELOPED THIS POSTULATE, particularly in light of the fact that Einstein did not have the laboratory necessary to conduct the appropriate experiments.

In this same plagiarized article of Einstein’s, he suggested to the scientific community, “Perhaps it will prove possible to test this theory using bodies whose energy content is variable to a high degree (e.g., salts of radium).”

This remark demonstrates how little Einstein understood about science, for this was truly an outlandish remark. By saying this, Einstein showed that he really did not understand basic scientific principles, and that he was writing about a topic that he did not understand. In fact, in response to this article, J. Precht remarked that such an experiment “lies beyond the realm of possible experience.”

The last subject dealt with in Einstein’s 1905 papers was the foundation of the photon theory of light. Einstein wrote about the photoelectric effect. The photoelectric effect is the release of electrons from certain metals or semiconductors by the action of light. This area of research is particularly important to the Einstein myth because it was for this topic that he UNJUSTLY received his 1922 Nobel Prize.

But AGAIN IT IS NOT EINSTEIN, BUT WILHELM WIEN AND MAX PLANCK WHO DESERVE THE CREDIT. The main point of Einstein’s paper, and the point for which he is given credit, is that light is emitted and absorbed in finite packets called quanta. This was the explanation for the photoelectric effect. The photoelectric effect had been explained by Heinrich Hertz in 1888. Hertz and others, including Philipp Lenard, worked on understanding this phenomenon.

Lenard was the first to show that the energy of the electrons released in the photoelectric effect was not governed by the intensity of the light but by the frequency of the light. This was an important breakthrough.

Wien and Planck were colleagues and they were the fathers of modern day quantum theory. By 1900, Max Planck, based upon his and Wien’s work, had shown that radiated energy was absorbed and emitted in finite units called quanta. The only difference in his work of 1900 and Einstein’s work of 1905 was that Einstein limited himself to talking about one particular type of energy — light energy. But the principles and equations governing the process in general had been deduced by Planck in 1900. Einstein himself admitted that the obvious conclusion of Planck’s work was that light also existed in discrete packets of energy. Thus, nothing in this paper of Einstein’s was original.

After the 1905 papers of Einstein were published, the scientific community took little notice and Einstein continued his job at the patent office until 1909 when it was arranged by World Jewry for him to take a position at a school.

Still, it was not until a 1919 A Jewish newspaper headline that he gained any notoriety. With Einstein’s academic appointment in 1909, he was placed in a position where he could begin to use other people’s work as his own more openly.

He engaged many of his students to look for ways to prove the theories he had supposedly developed, or ways to apply those theories, and then he could present the research as his own or at least take partial credit.

In this vein, in 1912, he began to try and express his gravitational research in terms of a new, recently developed calculus, which was conducive to understanding relativity. This was the beginning of his General Theory of Relativity, which he would publish in 1915.

BUT THE MATHEMATICAL WORK WAS NOT DONE BY EINSTEIN — HE WAS INCAPABLE OF IT. Instead, it was performed by the mathematician Marcel Grossmann, who in turn used the mathematical principles developed by Berhard Riemann, who was the first to develop a sound non-Euclidean geometry, which is the basis of all mathematics used to describe relativity.

The General Theory of Relativity applied the principles of relativity to the universe; that is, to the gravitational pull of planets and their orbits, and the general principle that light rays bend as they pass by a massive object. Einstein published an initial paper in 1913 based upon the work which Grossmann did, adapting the math of Riemann to Relativity. But this paper was filled with errors and the conclusions were incorrect.

It appears that Grossmann was not intelligent enough to figure it out for Einstein. So Einstein was forced to look elsewhere to plagiarize his General Theory. Einstein published his correct General Theory of Relativity in 1915, and said prior to its publication that he, “completely succeeded in convincing Hilbert and Klein.” He is referring to David Hilbert, perhaps the most brilliant mathematician of the 20th century, and Felix Klein, another mathematician who had been instrumental in the development of the area of calculus that Grossmann had used to develop the General Theory of Relativity for Einstein.

Einstein’s statement regarding the two men would lead the reader to believe that Einstein had changed Hilbert’s and Klein’s opinions regarding General Relativity, and that he had influenced them in their thinking.

However, the exact opposite is true. EINSTEIN STOLE THE MAJORITY OF HIS GENERAL RELATIVITY WORK FROM THESE TWO MEN, THE REST BEING TAKEN FROM GROSSMANN. HILBERT SUBMITTED FOR PUBLICATION, A WEEK BEFORE EINSTEIN COMPLETED HIS WORK, A PAPER WHICH CONTAINED THE CORRECT FIELD EQUATIONS, OF GENERAL RELATIVITY.

What this means is that Hilbert wrote basically the exact same paper, with the same conclusions, before Einstein did. Einstein would have had an opportunity to know of Hilbert’s work all along, because there were friends of his working for Hilbert. Yet, even this was not necessary, for Einstein had seen Hilbert’s paper in advance of publishing his own. Both of these papers were, before being printed, delivered in the form of a lecture.

Einstein presented his paper on November 25, 1915 in Berlin and Hilbert had presented his paper on November 20 in Göttingen. On November 18, Hilbert received a letter from Einstein thanking him for sending him a draft of the treatise Hilbert was to deliver on the 20th. So, in fact, Hilbert had sent a copy of his work at least two weeks in advance to Einstein before either of the two men delivered their lectures, but Einstein did not send Hilbert an advance copy of his.

Therefore, THIS SERVES AS INCONTROVERTIBLE PROOF THAT EINSTEIN QUICKLY PLAGIARIZED THE WORK AND THEN PRESENTED IT, HOPING TO BEAT HILBERT TO THE PUNCH. Also, at the same time, Einstein publicly began to belittle Hilbert, even though in the previous summer he had praised him in an effort to get him to share his work with him. Hilbert made the mistake of sending Einstein this draft copy, but he still managed to deliver his work first.

Not only did Hilbert publish his work first, but it was of much higher quality than Einstein’s. It is known today that there are many problems with assumptions made in Einstein’s General Theory paper. We know today that Hilbert was much closer to the truth. Hilbert’s paper is the forerunner of the unified field theory of gravitation and electromagnetism and of the work of Erwin Schrödinger, whose work is the basis of all modern day quantum mechanics.

That the group of men discussed so far were the actual originators of the ideas claimed by Einstein was known by the scientific community all along. In 1940, a group of German physicists meeting in Austria declared that “before Einstein, Aryan scientists like Lorentz, Hasenöhrl, Poincaré, etc., had created the foundations of the theory of relativity.” However the Jewish media did not promote the work of these men. The Jewish media did not promote the work of David Hilbert, but promoted, instead, the work of the Jew Albert Einstein.

As we mentioned earlier, this General Theory, as postulated by Hilbert first and in plagiarized form by Einstein second, stated that light rays should bend when they pass by a massive object. In 1919, during the eclipse of the Sun, light from distant stars passing close to the Sun was observed to bend according to the theory. This evidence supported the General Theory of Relativity, and the Jew-controlled media immediately seized upon the opportunity to prop up Einstein as a hero, at the expense of the true genius, David Hilbert.

On November 7th, 1919, the London Times ran an article, the headline of which proclaimed, “Revolution in science — New theory of the Universe — Newtonian ideas overthrown.” This was the beginning of the force-feeding of the Einstein myth to the masses. In the following years, Einstein’s earlier 1905 papers were propagandized and Einstein was heralded as the originator of all the ideas he had stolen. Because of this push by the Jewish media, in 1922, EINSTEIN RECEIVED THE NOBEL PRIZE FOR THE WORK HE HAD STOLEN IN 1905 REGARDING THE PHOTOELECTRIC EFFECT.

The establishment of the Einstein farce between 1919 and 1922 was an important coup for world Zionism and Jewry. As soon as Einstein had been established as an idol to the popular masses of England and America, his image was promoted as the rare genius that he is erroneously believed to be today.

As such, he immediately began his work as a tool for World Zionism. The masses bought into the idea that if someone was so brilliant as to change our fundamental understanding of the universe, then certainly we ought to listen to his opinions regarding political and social issues.

This is exactly what World Jewry wanted to establish in its ongoing effort of social engineering. They certainly did not want someone like David Hilbert to be recognized as rare genius. After all, this physicist had come from a strong German, Christian background. His grandfather’s two middle names were ‘Fürchtegott Leberecht’ or ‘Fear God, Live Right.’ In August of 1934, the day before a vote was to be taken regarding installing Adolf Hitler as President of the Reich, Hilbert signed a proclamation in support of Adolf Hitler, along with other leading German scientists, that was published in the German newspapers. So, the Jews certainly did not want David Hilbert receiving the credit he deserved.

The Jews did not want Max Planck receiving the credit he deserved, either. This German’s grandfather and great-grandfather had been important German theologians, and during World War II he would stay in Germany throughout the war, supporting his fatherland the best he could.

The Jews certainly did not want the up-and-coming Erwin Schrödinger to be heralded as a genius to the masses. This Austrian physicist would go on to teach at Adolf Hitler University in Austria, and he wrote a public letter expressing his support for the Third Reich. This Austrian’s work on the unified field theory was a forerunner of modern physics, even though it had been criticized by Einstein, who apparently could not understand it.

The Jews did not want to have Werner Heisenberg promoted as a rare genius, even though he would go on to solidify quantum theory and contribute to it greatly, as well as develop his famous uncertainty principle, in addition to describing the modern atom and nucleus and the binding energies that are essential to modern chemistry.

NO, THE JEWS DID NOT WANT HEISENBERG PROMOTED AS A GENIUS BECAUSE HE WOULD GO ON TO HEAD GERMAN ATOMIC RESEARCH AND SERVE PRISON TIME AFTER THE WAR FOR HIS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE THIRD REICH.

No, the Jews did not want to give credit to a number of deserving Germans, Austrians, Irishmen, Frenchmen, Scotsmen, Englishmen, and even Americans who had contributed to the body of knowledge and evidence from which Einstein plagiarized and stole his work.

Instead, they needed to erect Einstein as their golden calf, even though he repeatedly and often embarrassed himself with his nonfactual or nearsighted comments regarding the work he had supposedly done. For example, in 1934, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette ran a front page article in which Einstein gave an “emphatic denial” regarding the idea of practical applications for the “energy of the atom.” The article says, “But the ‘energy of the atom’ is something else again. If you believe that man will someday be able to harness this boundless energy-to drive a great steamship across the ocean on a pint of water, for instance – then, according to Einstein, you are wrong”

Again, Einstein clearly did not understand the branch of physics he had supposedly founded, though elsewhere in the world at the time theoretical research was underway that would lead to the atomic bomb and nuclear energy.

But after Einstein was promoted as a god in 1919, he made no real attempts to plagiarize any other work. Rather, he began his real purpose – evangelizing for the cause of Zionism and World Jewry. Though he did publish other articles after this time, all of them were co-authored by at least one other person, and in each instance, Einstein had little if anything to do with the research that led to the articles; he was merely recruited by the co-authors in order to lend credence to their work. Thus freed of the pretense of academia, Einstein began his assault for World Zionism.

In 1921, Einstein made his first visit to the United States on a fund-raising tour for the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and to promote Zionism. In April of 1922, Einstein used his status to gain membership in a Commission of the League of Nations. In February of 1923, Einstein visited Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. In June of 1923, he became a founding member of the Association of Friends of the New Russia. In 1926, Einstein took a break from his Communist and Zionist activities to again embarrass himself scientifically by criticizing the work of Schrödinger and Heisenberg. Following a brief illness, he resumed his Zionist agenda, wanting an independent Israel and at the same time a World Government.

In the 1930s he actively campaigns against all forms of war, although he would reverse this position during World War II when he advocated war against Germany and for the creation of the atomic bomb, which he earlier thought was impossible to build. In 1939 and 1940, Einstein, at the request of other Jews, wrote two letters to Roosevelt urging an American program to develop an atomic bomb to be used on Germany – not Japan. Einstein would have no part in the actual construction of the bomb, theoretical or practical, because he lacked the skills for either.

In December of 1946, Einstein rekindled his efforts for a World Government, with Israel apparently being the only autonomous nation. This push continued through the rest of the 1940s. In 1952, Einstein, who had been instrumental in the creation of the State of Israel, both politically and economically, was offered the presidency of Israel. He declined. In 1953, he spent his time attacking the McCarthy Committee, and he supported Communist Jews such as Robert Oppenheimer. He encouraged civil disobedience in response to the McCarthy trials. Finally, on April 18, 1955, this Jewish demagogue died.

Dead, the Jews no longer had to worry about Einstein making unintelligent statements. His death was just the beginning of his usage and exploitation by World Jewry. The Jewish-controlled media continued to promote the myth of this super-Jew long after his death, and as more and more of the men who knew better died off, the Jews were more and more able to aggrandize his myth and lie more boldly. This brazen lying has culminated in the Jew-controlled Time Magazine naming Einstein “Person of the Century”.

Einstein was given this title in spite of the clear-cut choice for the “Person of the Century,” Adolf Hitler. Hitler was indeed named “Man of the Year” while he was still living by Time Magazine, and according to a December 27, 1999, article in the USA Today, Einstein was chosen over Adolf Hitler because of the perceived “nasty public relations fallout” that would accompany that choice; yet in internet polling by Time, Hitler finished third and was the top serious candidate. Still the issue of Time Magazine dedicated to Einstein, which has articles by men with names like Isaacson, Golden, Stein, Rudenstine, and Rosenblatt, is interesting to read. For one, they found it necessary to include an article rationalizing why they did not pick the obvious choice, Adolf Hitler. But more interesting is the article by Stephen Hawking which purports to be a history of the theory of relativity. In it, Hawking admits many things in this article, such as the fact that Hilbert published the General Theory of Relativity before Einstein and that FitzGerald and Lorentz deduced the concept of relativity long before Einstein. Hawking also writes:

“Einstein was deeply disturbed by the work of Werner Heisenberg in Copenhagen, Paul Dirac in Cambridge and Erwin Schrödinger in Zurich, who developed a new picture of reality called quantum mechanics. Einstein was horrified by this. Most scientists, however, accepted the validity of the new quantum laws because they showed excellent agreement with observations. They are the basis of modern developments in chemistry, molecular biology and electronics and the foundation of the technology that has transformed the world in the past half-century”.

This is all very true, yet the same magazine credits Einstein with all of the modern developments that Hawking technically attributed to others, even through Einstein was so foolish as to be vehemently against the most important idea of modern science, just as he opposed Schrödinger’s work in unified field theory which was far ahead of its time. The same magazine admits that “success eluded” Einstein in the field of explaining the contradictions between relativity and quantum mechanics. Today, these contradictions are explained by the unified field theory, but Einstein, who proved himself to be one of the least intelligent of 20th century scientists, refused to believe in either quantum theory or the unified field theory.

To name Einstein as “The Person of the Century” is one of the most ludicrous and absurd lies of all time, yet it has been successfully pulled off by Isaacson, Golden, Stein, Rudenstine, and Rosenblatt and the Jewish owners of Time Magazine. If the Jews at Time wanted to give the title to an inventor or scientist, then the most obvious choice would have been men like Hilbert, Planck, or Heisenberg. If they wanted to give it to the scientist who most fundamentally changed the lands 20th century science, then the obvious choice would be William Shockley. This Nobel prize winning scientist invented the transistor, which is the basis of all modern electronic devices and computers, everything from modern cars and telephones, VCRs and watches, to the amazing computers which have allowed incomprehensible advances in all fields of science. Without the transistor, all forms of science today would be basically in the same place that they were in the late 1940s.

However, the Jews cannot allow the due credit to go to William Shockley because he spent the majority of his scientific career demonstrating the genetic and mental inferiority of non-whites and arguing for their sterilization. His scientific, genetic views led the Jews to financially destroy Shockley who founded Shockley Semiconductor the first company in Silicon Valley, his hometown, to develop computer chips. The Jews hired away his entire staff and used them to start Fairchild semiconductor in 1957 (co-founded by the “Traitorous Eight”: Julius Blank, Victor Grinich, Jean Hoerni, Gene Kleiner, Jay Last, Gordon Moore, Robert Noyce and Sheldon Roberts. Robert Noyce and Gordon Moore left Fairchild in 1968 to found Intelco. Many other Fairchild employees later the company – later called Intel.

No, the Jews could not let any of the truly great geniuses of our time be recognized, not Henry Ford, not the great German scientists who helped the National Socialists in Germany, not Charles Lindbergh, who was sympathetic to National Socialist causes, and certainly not William Shockley, one of the most brilliant physicists and geneticists of our time. Instead, the Jews propped up the Zionist, Communist Albert Einstein, who detested everything European-derived.

After World War II, Einstein demonstrated his hatred of the White Race and of the Germans in particular in the following statements. He was asked what he thought about Germany and about re-educating the Germans after the war and said:

“The nation has been on the decline mentally and morally since 1870. Behind the Nazi party stands the German people, who elected Hitler after he had in his book and in his speeches made his shameful intentions clear beyond the possibility of misunderstanding. The Germans can be killed or constrained after the war, but they cannot be re-educated to a democratic way of thinking and acting”.

Einstein here is advocating the murder of Germans, because he feels that this is the only way that they can be reformed. He is right about one thing, the Germans did knowingly support the cause of National Socialism, but what Einstein is attacking is Christianity, because it was Christianity that led the German people to overwhelmingly support National Socialism in its rise to power. It was the German Christian Faith Movement and the Christian Social Party of men like Karl Lueger that led the German people to their understanding of Jews. The Jew Daniel Goldhagen has recently shown the Christian basis of early National Socialism in his book, Hitler’s Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, and the book Why The Jews? by Prager and Telushkin similarly proves the Christian origins of what the Jews call ‘anti-Semitism.’ Einstein understood this and Einstein, like all Jews, detested Christianity. So what Einstein was really advocating was the killing and constraining of all true Christians, not just Germans Christians. This is the true purpose and intent of Zionism and the demagogue Einstein was merely a tool of World Zionism and Jewry towards this end.

Zionistic Jews understand that true, primitive Christianity is the mortal enemy of mongrel Judaism. This is why the Jews, like Einstein, hated Nazi Germany so much, for National Socialist Germany advocated primitive, positive Christianity in the 24th point of its Party Platform.

Lewis L. Strauss, the Zionist Chairman of the US Atomic Commission, must have had in mind storing the world stock of A and H bombs in the once-neutral State of Israel (also chosen for the United Nations’ permanent headquarters) for safekeeping to ‘satisfy Russian demands,’ when, as reported in the London Jewish Chronicle of 11th December, 1953, he ‘assisted’ President Eisenhower in writing the speech in which Eisenhower told the UN General Assembly that the USA would be prepared to ease international tension by handing over her Atom and Hydrogen weapons to UNO. Eisenhower does not hesitate to accept the advice of Strauss, although this Zionist financier is senior partner in the New York International Banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Co. which in 1917, under the direction of Jacob Schiff, then the acknowledged leader of world Jewry, financed the Bolshevist revolutionary Trotsky to the extent of 20 million dollars.

Albert Einstein, the Zionist scientist, (described by Pravda as one of the ten best friends of the Soviet Union in the United States) was also thinking along the same lines when he persuaded Roosevelt (Redfield) to authorize research into nuclear fission, and recommended the employment of other Zionist scientists, who were later to pass the result of their research to the Soviet Union.

Robert Oppenheimer, the chief Einstein appointee, now in disgrace for Communist sympathies, and holding up production of the hydrogen bombs until Russia came into possession of its secrets: Pontecorvo, the entire host of Zionist scientists and agents working for Communism in the notorious spy rings of America, Canada, Australia and Great Britain: all have obviously been striving to bring about the present situation.

It is this overriding ambition which drives Zionists, even the most wealthy, to support Communism, either openly or secretly, only to bring the world to a point where it would seem it must accept their long envisaged ‘peace plan.’ “One of the major reasons for my visit to the United States,” said the mayor of Jerusalem, according to the South African Jewish Times of 14th March, 1952, “is to interest Americans in the beautification of Jerusalem, the Capital of the World, no less than the Capital of Israel.”

It has been decided as described above. Why has so little been heard about it? For the simple reason that IT HAS BEEN DECIDED. The matter will not be thrown open for Gentile discussion in the popular press UNTIL the Nations are browbeaten to the point that they are ready to acknowledge the Zionists’ “International Super-Government” in a state of total subservience.

(Note: On November 21, 1954, Czecho-Slovakia called upon the Western Powers to delay signing the Paris Agreement regarding the re-armament of West Germany, until they had discussed with the Russian bloc an agreement which might eventually result in a United States of Europe. A ‘United States of Europe’ was the aim of Trotsky stated in Bolshevism and World Peace, published in 1918. “The task of the proletariat is to create a still more powerful fatherland with a far greater power of resistance – the Republican United States of Europe, as the foundation of the United States of the World”).

Jews have been heavily overrepresented among the ranks of theoretical physicists. This conclusion remains true even though Einstein, the leading figure among Jewish physicists, was a strongly motivated Zionist (Fölsing 1997, 494505), opposed assimilation as a contemptible form of mimicry (p. 490), preferred to mix with other Jews whom he referred to as his tribal companions (p. 489), embraced the uncritical support for the Bolshevik regime in Russia typical of so many Jews during the 1920s and 1930s, including persistent apology for the Moscow show trials in the 1930s (pp. 6445), and switched from a high-minded pacifism during World War I, when Jewish interests were not at stake, to advocating the construction of atomic bombs to defeat Hitler. From his teenage years he disliked the Germans and in later life criticized Jewish colleagues for converting to Christianity and acting like Prussians. He especially disliked Prussians, who were the elite ethnic group in Germany. Reviewing his life at age 73, Einstein declared his ethnic affiliation in no uncertain terms: ‘My relationship with Jewry had become my strongest human tie once I achieved complete clarity about our precarious position among the nations’ (in Fölsing 1997, 488). According to Fölsing, Einstein had begun developing this clarity from an early age, but did not openly acknowledge it until much later, a form of self-deception: As a young man with bourgeois-liberal views and a belief in enlightenment, he had refused to acknowledge it until much later, a form of self-deception: As a young man with bourgeois-liberal views and a belief in enlightenment, he had refused to acknowledge [his Jewish identity] (in Fölsing 1997, 488).

Fire from the Sky
By One Who Knows
(www.subversiveelement.com/firefromsky29.html)

Albert Einstein is a good example of another deception and hoax involved with the atomic bomb program. When many people think of the atomic bomb they think of Einstein. He was presented as the world’s greatest scientist, and a hero of the atomic bomb program. Upon closer inspection, you will find that his major contributions were his use of his influence to obtain President Roosevelt’s support for the bomb and he was the one personally responsible for bringing the major Communist atomic spy Klaus Fuchs into the Program. The Russians know nothing about the atomic bomb until Fuchs brought it to their attention in 1942. (*Heisenberg’s War,* p. 524).

Thanks to Fuchs, (and to a massive amount of Secret material illegally shipped through Lend-Lease) they were able to explode their own bomb in 1949. Einstein was a communist cell member with Fuchs. Fuchs was the top scientist on the Manhattan Project and he gave the atomic secrets to the Soviets. (Jordan, George Recey, *From Major Jordan’s Diaries,* Harcourt, Brace and Co., New York, 1952.)

We are taught that Einstein is the author of the Theory of Relativity, yet evidence has come for the proving that the real author was Mileva Maric, Einstein’s first wife.

Einstein had a reputation at the Swiss Polytechnic Institute in Zurich of being a man with poor work habits and was often reprimanded for laziness during all his school years, including the University. He developed a romance with classmate Mileva who helped him with his math. His autobiography says “In my work participated a Serbian student Mileva Maric who I married later.” She had an illegitimate daughter in 1902, which they gave up for adoption. They got married in 1903, separated in 1912 and divorced in 1919. This is when Einstein married his cousin Elsa. The original manuscript of the *The Theory of Relativity* submitted for publication had Maric’s name on it as co-author.

For more proof, see the article “Theory of Relativity – Who is its Real Author?” by Dr. Rastko Maglic and J. W. McGinnis, President, International Tesla Society, in the Jul/Aug 1994 issue of *Extraordinary Science* magazine, which contains references for further documentation.

Einstein was a hoax and fraud saddled on the scientific community to prevent them from learning too much and to promote Jews as being superior, sort of Nazism in reverse.

Einstein’s famous equation “E=MC squared” is WRONG, or at best only partially correct. His definition of energy is WRONG, his definition of mass is WRONG, C is defined as the top speed possible for anything, then it is squared, which would be even faster and thus contradicts the definition. Light is described as a constant, which is WRONG as defined. In a higher understanding, light does not move, our perception of the speed of light is WRONG.

Those who REALLY understand, and who can prove it by creating matter out of “nothing” for instance, say that the original WHITE LIGHT is invisible and still. Read books by Walter Russell for more information.

Einstein was a Zionist with membership in at least 16 Communist front organizations such as Friends of the Soviet. Einstein was head of the Jewish Black Book Committee, which was listed as a Communist front in the 1947 House Un-American Activities Committee Report.

The correct science being discovered and revealed by such as Nikola Tesla, Walter Russell, Tom Bearden, Andrija Puharich, etc., was suppressed to prevent humanity from achieving energy independence (and thus political and military independence) from the Rockefeller/Rothschild oil/nuclear energy barons. This same technology leads to understanding of good health, and thus independence from the drug/medical crowd, who happen to be the same oil crowd crooks.

Read Full Post »

Read between the lines here. -W.

Photobucket

[Excerpts from] REVENGE IS SOUR (1945)
George Orwell, war correspondent

Whenever I read phrases like ‘war guilt trials’, ‘punishment of war criminals’ and so forth, there comes back into my mind the memory of something I saw in a prisoner-of-war camp in South Germany, earlier this year.

Another correspondent and myself were being shown round the camp by a little Viennese Jew who had been enlisted in the branch of the American army which deals with the interrogation of prisoners. He was an alert, fair-haired, rather good-looking youth of about twenty-five, and politically so much more knowledgeable than the average American officer that it was a pleasure to be with him. The camp was on an airfield, and, after we had been round the cages, our guide led us to a hangar where various prisoners who were in a different category from the others were being ‘screened’.

Up at one end of the hangar about a dozen men were lying in a row on the concrete floor. These, it was explained, were S.S. officers who had been segregated from the other prisoners. Among them was a man in dingy civilian clothes who was lying with his arm across his face and apparently asleep. He had strange and horribly deformed feet. The two of them were quite symmetrical, but they were clubbed out into an extraordinary globular shape which made them more like a horse’s hoof than anything human. As we approached the group, the little Jew seemed to be working himself up into a state of excitement.

‘That’s the real swine!’ he said, and suddenly he lashed out with his heavy army boot and caught the prostrate man a fearful kick right on the bulge of one of his deformed feet.

‘Get up, you swine!’ he shouted as the man started out of sleep, and then repeated something of the kind in German. The prisoner scrambled to his feet and stood clumsily to attention. With the same air of working himself up into a fury—indeed he was almost dancing up and down as he spoke—the Jew told us the prisoner’s history. He was a ‘real’ Nazi: his party number indicated that he had been a member since the very early days, and he had held a post corresponding to a General in the political branch of the S.S. It could be taken as quite certain that he had had charge of concentration camps and had presided over tortures and hangings. In short, he represented everything that we had been fighting against during the past five years.

Meanwhile, I was studying his appearance. Quite apart from the scrubby, unfed, unshaven look that a newly captured man generally has, he was a disgusting specimen. But he did not look brutal or in any way frightening: merely neurotic and, in a low way, intellectual. His pale, shifty eyes were deformed by powerful spectacles. He could have been an unfrocked clergyman, an actor ruined by drink, or a spiritualist medium. I have seen very similar people in London common lodging houses, and also in the Reading Room of the British Museum. Quite obviously he was mentally unbalanced—indeed, only doubtfully sane, though at this moment sufficiently in his right mind to be frightened of getting another kick. And yet everything that the Jew was telling me of his history could have been true, and probably was true! So the Nazi torturer of one’s imagination, the monstrous figure against whom one had struggled for so many years, dwindled to this pitiful wretch, whose obvious need was not for punishment, but for some kind of psychological treatment.

Later, there were further humiliations. Another S.S. officer, a large brawny man, was ordered to strip to the waist and show the blood group number tattooed on his under-arm; another was forced to explain to us how he had lied about being a member of the S.S. and attempted to pass himself off as an ordinary soldier of the Wehrmacht. I wondered whether the Jew was getting any real kick out of this new-found power that he was exercising. I concluded that he wasn’t really enjoying it, and that he was merely—like a man in a brothel, or a boy smoking his first cigar, or a tourist traipsing round a picture gallery—TELLING himself that he was enjoying it, and behaving as he had planned to behave in the days he was helpless.

It is absurd to blame any German or Austrian Jew for getting his own back on the Nazis. Heaven knows what scores this particular man may have had to wipe out; very likely his whole family had been murdered; and after all, even a wanton kick to a prisoner is a very tiny thing compared with the outrages committed by the Hitler régime. But what this scene, and much else that I saw in Germany, brought home to me was that the whole idea of revenge and punishment is a childish daydream. Properly speaking, there is no such thing as revenge. Revenge is an act which you want to commit when you are powerless and because you are powerless: as soon as the sense of impotence is removed, the desire evaporates also.

Who would not have jumped for joy, in 1940, at the thought of seeing S.S. officers kicked and humiliated? But when the thing becomes possible, it is merely pathetic and disgusting. It is said that when Mussolini’s corpse was exhibited in public, an old woman drew a revolver and fired five shots into it, exclaiming, ‘Those are for my five sons!’ It is the kind of story that the newspapers make up, but it might be true. I wonder how much satisfaction she got out of those five shots, which, doubtless, she had dreamed years earlier of firing. The condition of her being able to get close enough to Mussolini to shoot at him was that he should be a corpse.

In so far as the big public in this country is responsible for the monstrous peace settlement now being forced on Germany, it is because of a failure to see in advance that punishing an enemy brings no satisfaction. We acquiesce in crimes like the expulsion of all Germans from East Prussia—crimes which in some cases we could not prevent but might at least have protested against—because the Germans had angered and frightened us, and therefore we were certain that when they were down we should feel no pity for them. We persist in these policies, or let others persist in them on our behalf, because of a vague feeling that, having set out to punish Germany, we ought to go ahead and do it. Actually there is little acute hatred of Germany left in this country, and even less, I should expect to find, in the army of occupation. Only the minority of sadists, who must have their ‘atrocities’ from one source or another, take a keen interest in the hunting-down of war criminals and quislings. If you asked the average man what crime Goering, Ribbentrop, and the rest are to be charged with at their trial, he cannot tell you. Somehow the punishment of these monsters ceases to seem attractive when it becomes possible: indeed, once under lock and key, they almost cease to be monsters.

Unfortunately, there is often a need of some concrete incident before one can discover the real state of one’s feelings. Here is another memory from Germany. A few hours after Stuttgart was captured by the French army, a Belgian journalist and myself entered the town, which was still in some disorder. The Belgian had been broadcasting throughout the war for the European Service of the BBC, and, like nearly all Frenchmen or Belgians, he had a very much tougher attitude towards ‘the Boche’ than an Englishman or an American would have. All the main bridges into town had been blown up, and we had to enter by a small footbridge which the Germans had evidently mad efforts to defend. A dead German soldier was lying supine at the foot of the steps. His face was a waxy yellow. On his breast someone had laid a bunch of the lilac which was blooming everywhere.

The Belgian averted his face as we went past. When we were well over the bridge he confided to me that this was the first time he had seen a dead man. I suppose he was thirty five years old, and for four years he had been doing war propaganda over the radio. For several days after this, his attitude was quite different from what it had been earlier. He looked with disgust at the bomb-wrecked town and the humiliation the Germans were undergoing, and even on one occasion intervened to prevent a particularly bad bit of looting. When he left, he gave the residue of the coffee we had brought with us to the Germans on whom we were billeted. A week earlier he would probably have been scandalized at the idea of giving coffee to a ‘Boche’. But his feelings, he told me, had undergone a change at the sight of ce pauvre mort beside the bridge: it had suddenly brought home to him the meaning of war. And yet, if we had happened to enter the town by another route, he might have been spared the experience of seeing one corpse out of the—perhaps—twenty million that the war has produced.

Read Full Post »

Photobucket

In ‘Eisenhower’s Death Camps’: A U.S. Prison Guard Remembers
Martin Brech
Source: Archives, Institute for Historical Review

In October 1944, at age eighteen, I was drafted into the U.S. army. Largely because of the “Battle of the Bulge,” my training was cut short, my furlough was halved, and I was sent overseas immediately. Upon arrival in Le Havre, France, we were quickly loaded into box cars and shipped to the front. When we got there, I was suffering increasingly severe symptoms of mononucleosis, and was sent to a hospital in Belgium. Since mononucleosis was then known as the “kissing disease,” I mailed a letter of thanks to my girlfriend.

By the time I left the hospital, the outfit I had trained with in Spartanburg, South Carolina, was deep inside Germany, so, despite my protests, I was placed in a “repo depot” (replacement depot). I lost interest in the units to which I was assigned, and don’t recall all of them: non-combat units were ridiculed at that time. My separation qualification record states I was mostly with Company C, 14th Infantry Regiment, during my seventeen-month stay in Germany, but I remember being transferred to other outfits also.

In late March or early April 1945, I was sent to guard a POW camp near Andernach along the Rhine. I had four years of high school German, so I was able to talk to the prisoners, although this was forbidden. Gradually, however, I was used as an interpreter and asked to ferret out members of the S.S. (I found none.)

In Andernach about 50,000 prisoners of all ages were held in an open field surrounded by barbed wire. The women were kept in a separate enclosure that I did not see until later. The men I guarded had no shelter and no blankets. Many had no coats. They slept in the mud, wet and cold, with inadequate slit trenches for excrement. It was a cold, wet spring, and their misery from exposure alone was evident.

Even more shocking was to see the prisoners throwing grass and weeds into a tin can containing a thin soup. They told me they did this to help ease their hunger pains. Quickly they grew emaciated. Dysentery raged, and soon they were sleeping in their own excrement, too weak and crowded to reach the slit trenches. Many were begging for food, sickening and dying before our eyes. We had ample food and supplies, but did nothing to help them, including no medical assistance.

Outraged, I protested to my officers and was met with hostility or bland indifference. When pressed, they explained they were under strict orders from “higher up.” No officer would dare do this to 50,000 men if he felt that it was “out of line,” leaving him open to charges. Realizing my protests were useless, I asked a friend working in the kitchen if he could slip me some extra food for the prisoners. He too said they were under strict orders to severely ration the prisoners’ food, and that these orders came from “higher up.” But he said they had more food than they knew what to do with, and would sneak me some.

When I threw this food over the barbed wire to the prisoners, I was caught and threatened with imprisonment. I repeated the “offense,” and one officer angrily threatened to shoot me. I assumed this was a bluff until I encountered a captain on a hill above the Rhine shooting down at a group of German civilian women with his .45 caliber pistol. When I asked, “Why?,” he mumbled, “Target practice,” and fired until his pistol was empty. I saw the women running for cover, but, at that distance, couldn’t tell if any had been hit. [Sounds strangely familiar. I wonder where Spielberg got some of his colorful exaggerations if not from such Allied examples?]

This is when I realized I was dealing with cold-blooded killers. They considered the Germans subhuman and worthy of extermination; another expression of the downward spiral. Articles in the G.I. newspaper, Stars and Stripes, played up the German concentration camps, complete with photos of emaciated bodies. This amplified our self-righteous cruelty, and made it easier to imitate behavior we were supposed to oppose. Also, I think, soldiers not exposed to combat were trying to prove how tough they were by taking it out on the prisoners and civilians.

These prisoners, I found out, were mostly farmers and workingmen, as simple and ignorant as many of our own troops. As time went on, more of them lapsed into a zombie-like state of listlessness, while others tried to escape in a demented or suicidal fashion, running through open fields in broad daylight towards the Rhine to quench their thirst. They were mowed down.

Some prisoners were as eager for cigarettes as for food, saying they took the edge off their hunger. Accordingly, enterprising G.I. “Yankee traders” were acquiring hordes of watches and rings in exchange for handfuls of cigarettes or less. When I began throwing cartons of cigarettes to the prisoners to ruin this trade, I was threatened by rank-and-file G.I.s, too.

The only bright spot in this gloomy picture came one night when I was put on the “graveyard shift,” from two to four a.m. Actually, there was a graveyard on the uphill side of this enclosure, not many yards away. My superiors had forgotten to give me a flashlight and I hadn’t bothered to ask for one, disgusted as I was with the whole situation by that time. It was a fairly bright night and I soon became aware of a prisoner crawling under the wires towards the graveyard. We were supposed to shoot escapees on sight, so I started to get up from the ground to warn him to get back. Suddenly I noticed another prisoner crawling from the graveyard back to the enclosure. They were risking their lives to get to the graveyard for something. I had to investigate.

When I entered the gloom of this shrubby, tree-shaded cemetery, I felt completely vulnerable, but curiosity kept me moving. Despite my caution, I tripped over the legs of someone in a prone position. Whipping my rifle around while stumbling and trying to regain composure of mind and body, I soon was relieved I hadn’t reflexively fired. The figure sat up. Gradually, I could see the beautiful but terror-stricken face of a woman with a picnic basket nearby. German civilians were not allowed to feed, nor even come near the prisoners, so I quickly assured her I approved of what she was doing, not to be afraid, and that I would leave the graveyard to get out of the way.

I did so immediately and sat down, leaning against a tree at the edge of the cemetery to be inconspicuous and not frighten the prisoners. I imagined then, and still do now, what it would be like to meet a beautiful woman with a picnic basket under those conditions as a prisoner. I have never forgotten her face.

Eventually, more prisoners crawled back to the enclosure. I saw they were dragging food to their comrades, and could only admire their courage and devotion.

On May 8, V.E. Day [1945], I decided to celebrate with some prisoners I was guarding who were baking bread the other prisoners occasionally received. This group had all the bread they could eat, and shared the jovial mood generated by the end of the war. We all thought we were going home soon, a pathetic hope on their part. We were in what was to become the French zone [of occupation], where I soon would witness the brutality of the French soldiers when we transferred our prisoners to them for their slave labor camps.

On this day, however, we were happy.

As a gesture of friendliness, I emptied my rifle and stood it in the corner, even allowing them to play with it at their request. This thoroughly “broke the ice,” and soon we were singing songs we taught each other, or that I had learned in high school German class (“Du, du, liegst mir im Herzen”). Out of gratitude, they baked me a special small loaf of sweet bread, the only possible present they had left to offer. I stuffed it in my “Eisenhower jacket,” and snuck it back to my barracks, eating it when I had privacy. I have never tasted more delicious bread, nor felt a deeper sense of communion while eating it.

Shortly afterwards, some of our weak and sickly prisoners were marched off by French soldiers to their camp. We were riding on a truck behind this column. Temporarily, it slowed down and dropped back, perhaps because the driver was as shocked as I was. Whenever a German prisoner staggered or dropped back, he was hit on the head with a club and killed. The bodies were rolled to the side of the road to be picked up by another truck. For many, this quick death might have been preferable to slow starvation in our “killing fields.”

When I finally saw the German women held in a separate enclosure, I asked why we were holding them prisoner. I was told they were “camp followers,” selected as breeding stock for the S.S. to create a superior-race. I spoke to some, and must say I never met a more spirited or attractive group of women. I certainly didn’t think they deserved imprisonment.

More and more I was used as an interpreter, and was able to prevent some particularly unfortunate arrests. One somewhat amusing incident involved an old farmer who was being dragged away by several M.P.s. I was told he had a “fancy Nazi medal,” which they showed me. Fortunately, I had a chart identifying such medals. He’d been awarded it for having five children! Perhaps his wife was somewhat relieved to get him “off her back,” but I didn’t think one of our death camps was a fair punishment for his contribution to Germany. The M.P.s agreed and released him to continue his “dirty work.”

Famine began to spread among the German civilians also. It was a common sight to see German women up to their elbows in our garbage cans looking for something edible — that is, if they weren’t chased away.

When I interviewed mayors of small towns and villages, I was told that their supply of food had been taken away by “displaced persons” (foreigners who had worked in Germany), who packed the food on trucks and drove away. When I reported this, the response was a shrug. I never saw any Red Cross at the camp or helping civilians [contrast this with my previous bulletin concerning the ICRC aiding the Jewish detainees], although their coffee and doughnut stands were available everywhere else for us. In the meantime, the Germans had to rely on the sharing of hidden stores until the next harvest.

Hunger made German women more “available,” but despite this, rape was prevalent and often accompanied by additional violence. In particular I remember an eighteen-year old woman who had the side of her faced smashed with a rifle butt, and was then raped by two G.I.s. Even the French complained that the rapes, looting and drunken destructiveness on the part of our troops was excessive. In Le Havre, we’d been given booklets warning us that the German soldiers had maintained a high standard of behavior with French civilians who were peaceful, and that we should do the same. In this we failed miserably.

“So what?” some would say. “The enemy’s atrocities were worse than ours.” It is true that I experienced only the end of the war, when we were already the victors. The German opportunity for atrocities had faded, while ours was at hand. But two wrongs don’t make a right. Rather than copying [or one-upping] our enemy’s crimes, we should aim once and for all to break the cycle of hatred and vengeance that has plagued human history. This is why I am speaking out now, 45 years after the crime. We can seldom prevent individual war crimes, but we can, if enough of us speak out, influence government policy. We can reject government propaganda that depicts our enemies as subhuman and encourages the kind of outrages I witnessed. We can protest the bombing of civilian targets, which still goes on today. And we can refuse ever to condone our government’s murder of unarmed and defeated prisoners of war.

I realize it’s difficult for the average citizen to admit witnessing a crime of this magnitude, especially if implicated himself. Even G.I.s sympathetic to the victims were afraid to complain and get into trouble, they told me. And the danger has not ceased. Since I spoke out a few weeks ago, I have received threatening calls and had my mailbox smashed. But its been worth it. Writing about these atrocities has been a catharsis of feelings suppressed too long, a liberation, that perhaps will remind other witnesses that “the truth will make us free, have no fear.” We may even learn a supreme lesson from all this: only love can conquer all.

Martin Brech lives in Mahopac, New York. When he wrote this memoir essay in 1990, he was an Adjunct Professor of Philosophy and Religion at Mercy College in Dobbs Ferry, New York. Brech holds a master’s degree in theology from Columbia University, and is a Unitarian-Universalist minister.

This essay was published in The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1990 (Vol. 10, No. 2), pp. 161-166. (Revised, updated: Nov. 2008)

For Further Reading

James Bacque, Crimes and Mercies: The Fate of German Civilians Under Allied Occupation, 1944-1950 (Toronto: Little, Brown and Co., 1997)

James Bacque, Other Losses: An investigation into the mass deaths of German prisoners at the hands of the French and Americans after World War II (Toronto: Stoddart, 1989)

Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, Nemesis at Postsdam (Lincoln, Neb.: 1990)

Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, A Terrible Revenge: The Ethnic Cleansing of the Eastern European Germans, 1944-1950 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1994)

John Dietrich, The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy (New York: Algora, 2002)

Ralph Franklin Keeling, Gruesome Harvest: The Allies’ Postwar War Against the German People (IHR, 1992). Originally published in Chicago in 1947.

Giles MacDonogh, After the Reich: The Brutal History of the Allied Occupation (New York: Basic Books, 2007)

John Sack, An Eye for an Eye: The Story of Jews Who Sought Revenge for the Holocaust (2000)

Mark Weber, “New Book Details Mass Killings and Brutal Mistreatment of Germans at the End of World War Two” (Summer 2007)
( http://www.ihr.org/other/afterthereich072007.html )
———————————————-
New Book Details Mass Killings and Brutal Mistreatment of Germans at the End of World War Two
By Mark Weber
Source: Archives, Institute for Historical Review

Germany’s defeat in May 1945, and the end of World War II in Europe, did not bring an end to death and suffering for the vanquished German people. Instead the victorious Allies ushered in a horrible new era that, in many ways, was worse than the destruction wrought by war.

In a sobering and courageous new book, After the Reich: The Brutal History of Allied Occupation, British historian Giles MacDonogh details how the ruined and prostrate Reich (including Austria) was systematically raped and robbed, and how many Germans who survived the war were either killed in cold blood or deliberately left to die of disease, cold, malnutrition or starvation.

Many people take the view that, given the wartime misdeeds of the Nazis, some degree of vengeful violence against the defeated Germans was inevitable and perhaps justified. A common response to reports of Allied atrocities is to say that the Germans “deserved what they got.” But as MacDonogh establishes, the appalling cruelties inflicted on the totally prostrate German people went far beyond that.

His best estimate is that some three million Germans, military and civilians, died unnecessarily after the official end of hostilities.

A million of these were men who were being held as prisoners of war, most of whom died in Soviet captivity. (Of the 90,000 Germans who surrendered at Stalingrad, for example, only 5,000 ever returned to their homeland.) Less well known is the story of the many thousands of German prisoners who died in American and British captivity, most infamously in horrid holding camps along the Rhine river, with no shelter and very little food. Others, more fortunate, toiled as slave labor in Allied countries, often for years.

Most of the two million German civilians who perished after the end of the war were women, children and elderly — victims of disease, cold, hunger, suicide, and mass murder.

Apart from the wide-scale rape of millions of German girls and women in the Soviet occupation zones, perhaps the most shocking outrage recorded by MacDonogh is the slaughter of a quarter of a million Sudeten Germans by their vengeful Czech compatriots. The wretched survivors of this ethnic cleansing were pitched across the border, never to return to their homes. There were similar scenes of death and dispossession in Pomerania, Silesia and East Prussia as the age-old German communities of those provinces were likewise brutally expunged.

We are ceaselessly reminded by mainstream historians of the Third Reich’s wartime concentration camps. But few Americans are aware that such infamous camps as Dachau, Buchenwald, Sachsenhausen and Auschwitz stayed in business after the end of the war, only now packed with German captives, many of whom perished miserably.

The vengeful plan by US Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau to turn defeated Germany into an impoverished “pastoral” country, stripped of modern industry, is recounted by MacDonogh, as well as other genocidal schemes to starve, sterilize or deport the population of what was left of the bombed-out cities.

It wasn’t an awakening of humanitarian concern that prompted a change in American and British attitudes toward the defeated Germans. The shift in postwar policy was based on fear of Soviet Russian expansion, and prompted a calculated appeal to the German public to support the new anti-Soviet stance of the US and Britain.

MacDonogh’s important book is an antidote to the simplistic but enduring propaganda portrait of World War II as a clash between Good and Evil, and debunks the widely accepted image of benevolent Allied treatment of defeated Germany.

This 615-page volume is much more than a gruesome chronicle of death and human suffering. Enhanced with moving anecdotes, it also provides historical context and perspective. It is probably the best work available in English on this shameful chapter of twentieth century history.

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »