Background to Treason - Part V

Background to Treason

A Brief History of U.S. Policy in the Middle East

Part 5: Growing Zionist power in the Postwar Era [1]

From the January 1984 issue of National Vanguard

By Dr. William Pierce

If the Second World War was a watershed in the history of the rise and fall of Western civilization and of the race which created that civilization, it was an even more decisive event in the history of the race which has done its best to poison and distort that civilization while sucking sustenance from it.

For the Western people the war was a spiritual death spasm. For the Jews, however, it was the final breaking free from the ghetto. The French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars had breached the walls within which they had been encysted during the rise of the West. The First World War and the Bolshevik Revolution had gained important new beachheads for them and at the same time had broken down most of the remaining barriers to the spread of their toxins throughout the body of their host. The Second World War saw the destruction of the West's last defenses against them, and it was followed by a Jewish metastasis.

In the postwar years the Jews moved from one triumph to another. Their opponents had been killed, publicly discredited, or intimidated into silence; the ideas and values which constituted their ideological and spiritual arsenal had supplanted the native ideas and values of their hosts; no door remained closed to them.

They did suffer one substantial setback, however: their applecart in Russia was very nearly upset, and they lost many of their earlier gains there. Stalin, who had worked intimately with them for more than four decades – first in the overthrow of the old order in Russia and the extermination of the millions who had resisted bolshevization, and then in the battle against Germany – had become, some time before the end of the war, like the Pharaoh who “knew not Joseph.”

ILLEGAL Jewish immigrants from Europe wading ashore in Palestine in 1946: All of them were counted as part of the famous “six million” Jews supposedly done away with by the Germans during the Second World War.

As a matter of fact, Stalin had come to know the Jews too well for their own good. He had seen, even before the start of the war, the total lack of regard which so-called “Russian” Jews had for Russia, “German” Jews had for Germany, etc. He eventually realized that, as an organized, energetic, and self-conscious minority contemptuous of all who did not belong to them and always ready to do anything to advance their own fortunes at the expense of their hosts, the Jews were a potential fifth column inside every country which tolerated their existence.

That was fine when the Comintern could depend on them to undermine the established order throughout the West and serve as the agents of Marxism wherever they lived, outside Russia; but it was not so fine to have such a crew on the loose inside the Soviet Motherland, especially in positions of power – and before the war Jews were vastly overrepresented in the Soviet power structure, including the secret police. Like Pharaoh, Stalin considered it prudent to deal with them before “their falleth out any war” and “they join also unto our enemies and fight against us.”[2]

He began dealing with them in earnest after the defeat of Germany in 1945, and he greatly accelerated his program for the de-Judaization of the Soviet state bureaucracy and the Communist Party hierarchy in 1948, when the Zionists made their move in Palestine and issued an explicit claim on the loyalty of all Jews, wherever in the world they happened to live. Had Stalin not died in 1953, on the eve of a rumored radical purge of all the remaining Jews in positions of influence in the Soviet Union, he might have left a legacy for which all succeeding generations of Russians would have been grateful to him. Even so, he accomplished much in that direction before his death.

The Jews certainly realized the danger, inherent in Zionism, of alarming some of their more perceptive Gentile hosts and provoking a reaction. But in 1948 the voices of caution were overwhelmed by those Jews who correctly saw a Gentile world so thoroughly bamboozled (at least, outside the Soviet Union) and demoralized that they could make their first big grab in the Middle East since the establishment of the Palestine Mandate nearly three decades earlier, without significant interference.

Indeed, although a destabilized Middle East was manifestly contrary to the interests of the United States, Britain, France, and the other Western nations whose economies were dependent on imported Middle Eastern petroleum, by 1948 the Jews had fastened their grip so tightly on the democratic political process in those countries that not only were they able to prevent any significant opposition to their schemes from materializing, but they even managed to extort support, both under the table and above it, from the very governments in the West most threatened by those schemes.

And of course, they could hardly anticipate any opposition from the Soviets, who stood to be the principal beneficiaries of turmoil and instability in the Middle East. It is not surprising, then, that the Soviet Union was the second country to bestow its official blessing on the Jews' enterprise by extending de jure recognition to the group of Zionist leaders who on May 14, 1948, declared themselves the provisional government of the new state of Israel, which they intended to carve out of Palestine.

What begs for an explanation is the fact that the United States, with nothing to gain and everything to lose, was the first country to give diplomatic recognition to the Zionists: while the Soviet Union at least waited a decent interval of three days, U.S. President Harry Truman, with Jewish leaders breathing down his neck, announced the U.S. recognition of Israel in Washington just 11 minutes after its existence was declared in Tel Aviv.

Jewish political influence had been very strong in America before the war, of course, but it was much stronger after 1945. In part the increase was the predictable result of the enormous effort the Jews had put forth during the war years to enlarge and refine their propaganda machine. The world had never before seen such a propaganda campaign as the Jews orchestrated in their war against Hitler: not only the lockstep coordination of press, cinema,[3] and radio – already largely under their control before the war – in generating a Niagara of hate and misrepresentation, but also the infiltration and mobilization of thousands of business, professional, religious, educational, civic, and government organizations and agencies for the same purpose.

All of the Jews who had guided the efforts of the Office of War Information (the Federal government's principal propaganda agency) or the Songwriters War Committee, who had drawn salaries as members of the Arts Council of the Office of Civilian Defense, who had churned out anti-German pulp fiction for the Writer War Board, who had scripted patriotism-means-more-tolerance-for-Jews sermons on behalf of the National Conference of Christians and Jews, who had edited ideologically slanted teachers' guides and classroom reading materials, or who had conducted hundreds of opinion polls[4] to see how the whole propaganda campaign was working didn't go back to their wholesale houses and department stores after the war.

This greatly expanded apparatus for controlling public opinion was only part of the explanation for the increased political influence the Jews wielded, however. Their postwar ace was the “Holocaust”: the supposed extermination of 6,000,000 of their brethren in “gas ovens” (to use their horrifyingly suggestive but deliberately misleading terminology) by Hitler's Jew-hating minions. Everything the Jews had learned about propaganda before and during the war, and the entire apparatus they had built up for generating it, went into a new campaign: the promotion of the “Holocaust” story. This is not the place to examine the details of that story, to attempt to separate the half-truths in it from the outright lies; here we are concerned only with the way in which it was used and the effects it had on governmental policy.[5]

Before the war the Jews had power, which stemmed primarily from their wealth and their control of a large portion of the news and entertainment media. They were able to buy politicians and other allies with their wealth, and they were able to use their media power to promote their allies and intimidate their foes – as well as to move public opinion on various issues in directions suiting Jewish interests. But, by and large, they had no sympathy. Very few Americans liked them, and many were willing to stand up to them publicly.

Automaker Henry Ford had stood up to them in the 1920's, until his fear of their money power became too great. Independent publisher and radio broadcaster Father Charles Coughlin stood up to them as late as 1942. Any politician in an area with an independent newspaper and adequate non-Jewish sources of campaign financing could afford to stand up to them, and many did. While the Jews and their allies in the Congress and the White House were maneuvering the United States into the war against Hitler in 1940 and 1941, dozens of senators and representatives publicly denounced their schemes. Millions of ordinary, non-ideological Americans regarded Jews generally as sinister and unsavory and viewed their growing power with alarm. Jews could be, and often were, criticized – as Jews – by perfectly respectable, conventional citizens.

After the war, and a few years of unremitting “Holocaust” propaganda, the Jews had not only power, but also sympathy. Respectable, conventional citizens – regardless of their actual feelings concerning Jews – were afraid to criticize them, for fear of seeming callous and uncharitable toward a race which had already suffered so much.

JEWISH TERROR bombing of Jerusalem's King David Hotel in 1946 killed 101 Britons and Arabs. Here British soldiers search for their dead in the rubble.

This became even more the case among politicians. To oppose organized Jewry on any issue entailed the risk of being labeled an “anti-Semite.” That may have been a matter of indifference to many politicians before the war, but by the late 1940's it was considered a political kiss of death.

And what could be more “anti-Semitic” than denying the poor, persecuted Jews the right to a country of their own, where they could weep over their brethren who had perished in the gas chambers, worship as they pleased, and bother no one? At least, that's how the controlled media presented the question to the American public, and it had the desired effect. As one widely read “Holocaust” publicist put it, with modest understatement: “The Zionists managed to create a climate of opinion favorable to Zionism among legislators, church dignitaries, and the public in general. The fate of European Jewry aroused sympathy among non-Jews, the efforts of a pioneering community in Palestine appealed to many Americans.”[6]

America was not the only land whose politicians were afflicted in the postwar years by an inability to act in accord with national interests whenever Jewish interests were different. Britain, which had administered the Palestine Mandate since its beginning, experienced the Jewish yoke in an especially humiliating manner.

The Jewish settlers in Palestine had always complained about the way in which the British administrators there carried out their responsibilities. No matter how much the British favored the Jews at the expense of the native Palestinians, it was never enough; the Jews always demanded more and then screamed that the British were “anti-Semitic” if the demands were not satisfied immediately.

A principal source of friction was the refusal of the Jews to abide by the immigration quotas set by the British. The British wanted to minimize the unrest among the Palestinians caused by the growing influx of Jews into their country, but the Jews were determined to achieve a numerical majority in Palestine as soon as possible.

The Irgun, which originally had directed its terrorist activity against the Palestinian population, began blowing up British police stations and shooting isolated British soldiers in the back when the British government took steps to halt illegal Jewish immigration. After the war started, an especially violent Irgun faction, the Stern Gang, devoted itself principally to anti-British activity. While British soldiers were dying in Europe to make Germany safe for the Jews, Jews in Palestine were murdering other British soldiers.

When the war in Europe ended, the Jews expressed their gratitude to the British by greatly stepping up their anti-British terrorism. One of their proudest moments came on July 22, 1946, when Irgun terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which housed the British administrative offices, killing 101 Britons and Arabs. They followed this feat by kidnapping British soldiers, strangling them, and then boobytrapping the corpses.

The British Army was required to keep both hands tied behind its back in its struggle with the Irgun. Each time the British military authorities made a move to take strong action against Jewish terrorists in Palestine, Jews in London would apply pressure to the politicians, and the Army was restrained. This activity was a preview of the crippling restrictions which politicians in Washington would apply to U.S. Combat forces in Vietnam during the Kissinger era. Britain was in a no-win situation.

It did not help British pride to know that the weapons being used against British soldiers in Palestine were supplied largely by Britain's ally, the United States. Even before the end of the war, shipments of U.S. Weapons were being diverted to Palestine from military depots in Europe. The U.S. Office of Strategic Services (O.S.S.), wartime precursor to the Central Intelligence Agency – and riddled with Jews – coordinated this activity, with approval from Washington.

While hundreds of thousands of Jews from war-ravaged Europe – later counted as “Holocaust” victims – were being smuggled into Palestine under the noses of the British authorities, along with thousands of tons of weapons and other military equipment, other Jews were busy in the newly organized United Nations, making preparations for the next major step in the Zionist program: the conversion of their British-administered “homeland” in Palestine, which they still were obliged to share with the native Palestinians, into an independent, all-Jewish nation.

The United States delegation to the United Nations, setting the trend which has not varied since, acted virtually as if it were representing the Jewish Agency (the Zionist coordinating group for the takeover of Palestine) instead of the American people. With the joint backing of the United States and of the Soviet Union and its satellites, a resolution was rammed through the UN General Assembly, over the vigorous protests of all of the Moslem members, on November 29, 1947, calling for the partition of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states.

At that time Jews constituted approximately one-fourth of the population of Palestine but owned only 5.67 per cent of the land.[7] The UN partition resolution, however, called for a Jewish state consisting of 56.47 per cent of the total land area of Palestine. The remainder was to be divided between an Arab state and an international zone comprising Jerusalem and its vicinity.

This outrageously unfair act by the United Nations, an organization formed just two years earlier ostensibly to “maintain international peace and security, … take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and … develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,”[8] laid the basis for five major wars and an unending state of hostility in the Middle East during the next 35 years.

Jews everywhere were jubilant at this coup, and there was dancing in the streets of New York City on the night of November 29. The Moslem nations of the world were momentarily stunned, and then their anger at their betrayal by the United States began expressing itself in anti-American riots and demonstrations in Damascus, Beirut, Baghdad, Cairo, and elsewhere. Fighting between Jews and Palestinians broke out in a number of places in Palestine, with the British caught once again in the middle.

Jews greatly stepped up the smuggling of illegal immigrants and arms into Palestine. Although they were pleased with the partition resolution, which was a big step toward their goal, they had no intention of leaving more than 40 per cent of Palestine to the Palestinians, as specified by the United Nations. Their ultimate goal was a state encompassing not only all of Palestine, but big chunks of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt as well. These territorial demands had been spelled out in 1919 by the Jewish delegation at the Paris Peace Conference.

But the Jews knew that they would have to fight for every additional acre they planned to seize. The Soviet Union and its satellites – especially communist Czechoslovakia – became their principal source of arms in 1947, but Jews in the United States also continued to assist in the smuggling of illegal arms to their brethren in Palestine, confident that if they were caught by the Federal Bureau of Investigation a little organized wailing about the “Holocaust” would probably suffice to get them off – as indeed it did in many cases.[9]

Thus was the stage set for the British evacuation of Palestine in May 1948, the Jewish declaration of the existence of Israel, and the series of wars of territorial expansion which continue to this day. More than any other nation the United States has been the Jews' instrument in imposing their will on the Middle East. It has provided their diplomatic backing, bullying or bribing other nations into compliance – or, at least, non-interference – with Israeli aims; it has given them their weapons, often dangerously depleting American defense stockpiles in the process;[10] and it has financed their wars, which have cost $25 billion in direct U.S. aid since 1948 and several times that figure in indirect aid.

It is appropriate, then, that the United States should pay the price of being chosen to serve the Chosen People in such profligate manner – and that price has been weighty indeed. On the material side there is, for example, the price of the 1973-74 oil embargo imposed on the United States as an Arab response to the U.S. arms airlift to Israel in the 1973 war. That first use of the Arabs' “oil weapon” resulted in a permanent, tenfold increase in the cost of America's imported petroleum. The consequent damage to the U.S. economy during the past decade in trade deficits, inflation, and unemployment has been staggering, and it continues to mount each year.

On the moral side, however, the price has been even greater. One expects hypocrisy from any democratic government, of course, for what greater hypocrisy can there be than the pretense that the masses have the wisdom to govern themselves prudently? But there must be added to this the hypocrisy of pretending to value human rights, while supporting a government which drops cluster bombs on refugee camps, machine-guns demonstrating schoolchildren, and routinely dynamites the homes of the relatives of persons suspected of anti-government activity.

ZIONIST leaders meet in Tel Aviv on May 14, 1948, to declare themselves the government of the new state of Israel, in which every Jew in the world has the automatic right of citizenship – and to which every Jew in the world, regardless of any other citizenship he may hold, owes his first loyalty. Nahum Goldmann, president of the World Zionist Organization, spelled this out: “Diaspora Jewry [i.e., Jews living outside of Israel] must have the courage to proclaim and defend its relationship of partnership and responsibility vis-a-vis Israel. It has to overcome the conscious or subconscious fear of so-called double loyalty. It has to be convinced that it is fully justified in tying up its destiny with Israel's. It has to have courage to reject the idea that Jewish communities owe loyalty only to the states where they live.”

The U.S. Congress withholds support from friendly Latin American governments, even to the extent of permitting them to fall to communist guerrillas, because those governments are suspected of condoning right-wing “death squads,” yet it unhesitatingly grants every request for financial and military aid from a regime which operates the world's most feared, efficient, and wide-ranging death squad, the dreaded Mossad, carrying out assassinations of Palestinians and Palestinian sympathizers as far afield as Norway.

The government of the United States has had, since 1945, a policy of barring from America's shores all “war criminals.” Former President Jimmy Carter professed such horror at the thought that a few aging Germans, Poles, Ukrainians, Latvians, and Lithuanians accused of mistreating or killing Jews during the Second World War may be leading peaceful lives as U.S. citizens that he formed a special agency, the Office of Special Investigations, to track them down and hound them out of the country. President Reagan has made the same profession of horror and has kept the O.S.I. witch-hunters on his payroll. Yet both Presidents have repeatedly welcomed Israel's leaders to America, hugging and shaking hands with men who were professional terrorists and, by any reasonable definition of the word, active war criminals more recently than anyone on the O.S.I.'s list of potential victims. In particular, current Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, Mr. Reagan's guest on more than one occasion, has been a leader of both the Stern Gang terrorists, who perpetrated the massacre of Palestinian women and children at Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948, and of the Mossad death squad, which has an ongoing program of international terrorism today.[11]

Even the moral damage involved in this hypocrisy is dwarfed by the loss of honor attendant on the utterly shameful behavior of America's leaders in the wake of Israel's attempt to sink the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967, however.

Long before 1967 Israel had relied heavily on a uniquely Jewish “dirty tricks” brand of diplomacy in its relations with other nations. Typical of Israel's dirty tricks is the so-called “Lavon affair” (after Pinhas Lavon, who was the Israeli minister of defense at the time). When Gamal Abdel Nasser became Egypt's leader in 1952, he worked hard to establish good relations between Egypt and the United States, and, despite the extremely hostile controlled U.S. media, he had a certain degree of success. Israel, of course, wanted to squelch American friendship with any Arab nation.

In order to generate American hostility toward Egypt, the Israelis recruited Jews with Egyptian citizenship, gave them training in sabotage and assassination techniques, and then instructed them to attack Americans and American installations in Egypt. The attacks would be blamed on Egyptian nationalists by the controlled media in the United States. The scheme worked as intended, with a number of U.S. offices and American-owned businesses in Cairo destroyed by terrorist bombs in 1954, until the Egyptian police uncovered the nest of Jewish saboteurs in December 1954 and arrested many of them. The story of the arrests and the subsequent confessions of the Jews went virtually unreported in the United States. Needless to say, the Israelis were not even reprimanded by the U.S. government; instead of being required to pay reparations, they continued receiving U.S. financial aid without interruption.

U.S.S. LIBERTY after Israeli attack: The survivors counted 821 holes in the hull and superstructure of the riddled ship.

In 1967 the Jews tried the same trick again, but with a new twist. On June 5, 1967, Israel had launched its so-called “Six Day War” against Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, with the aim of grabbing more land from all three Arab nations. The conflict was officially represented to the U.S. government, which had provided the Israelis with most of their weapons, as a “defensive” war.

A U.S. Navy electronic intelligence-gathering ship, the U.S.S. Liberty, was patrolling in international waters off Egypt's Sinai Peninsula during the fighting, however, and the Israelis didn't like the idea of the Americans eavesdropping on their battlefield communications; they knew that it would soon become apparent to anyone listening in that their intentions were anything but defensive. The idea of sinking the ship and then blaming it on the Egyptians was a natural one for the Jews. Consequently, after carefully reconnoitering the Liberty at low altitude to ascertain that the ship was armed only with two .50 caliber machine guns, the Israelis made a surprise attack on the afternoon of June 8 with jet fighter-bombers and torpedo boats.

A bomb, rocket, and torpedo attack on the Liberty was followed up with napalm and the machine-gunning of the ship's life rafts. The Jews intended that there be no American survivors. The Liberty's radio operator was able to get off a call for help to the U.S. Sixth Fleet before the ship's communications equipment was destroyed, however, and the Israelis were forced to break off the attack as U.S. Navy jets streaked to the rescue – but not before 34 Americans had been killed and another 171 wounded.

Once again, the U.S. government and the controlled U.S. media collaborated in a massive cover-up of Israel's treachery, and American taxpayer's money continued to flow into Israel's war chest. President Lyndon Johnson was under such intense pressure from Jews in the United States to keep the lid on news of the U.S.S. Liberty incident that the Liberty's surviving crew members were ordered to maintain strict silence about what had happened to them. Fortunately, several of them have been motivated by a sense of patriotism which goes beyond obedience to an utterly corrupted government, and the story of the attack on the Liberty has been told.[12] The great mass of the American electorate, however, who depend entirely on television and daily newspapers for their information about the world around them, remain as ignorant of that act of perfidy as they do of the Lavon affair.

And the treason continues....

NOTES

1 – This is the fifth and final article in a series on the subject. The first article, beginning with biblical times, appeared in the December 1982 issue.

2 – Exodus 1:10.

3 – In 1941 one American political leader who remained unswayed by the Jewish lobby was Senator Gerald P. Nye (R-ND). While conducting an investigation of subversive propaganda in Hollywood, he spoke out in the Senate: “At least 20 pictures have been produced in the last year all designed to drug the reason of the American people, set aflame their emotions, turn their hatred into a blaze, fill them with fear that Hitler will come over here and capture them, that he will steal their trade....[The movies] have become the most gigantic engines of propaganda in existence to rouse war fever in America and plunge the nation to her destruction.”

4 – A Gallop poll taken in 1942 to determine whom Americans loved and whom they hated must have been disappointing to the Jewish propagandists, after all of their hard work. Although the Japanese ranked 17th, at the bottom of the popularity list, the Germans came in seventh from the top (after the Canadians, English, Dutch, Scandinavians, Irish, and French). “Jewish refugees” ranked tenth.

5 – The Jews have generated an enormous number of books dealing with the “Holocaust.” Some – especially those with scholarly pretensions – are cleverly done, but most are crudely transparent efforts to maintain public sympathy for Jews and Israel in the Gentile world. Not even the “scholarly” books will stand up to critical examination, however.

A fairly typical example is Walter Laqueur's A History of Zionism (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972). Laqueur has genuine credentials as a historian, although nearly all of his professional efforts have gone into promoting the “Holocaust.” Despite his credentials, however, Laqueur's treatment of “Holocaust” statistics is almost incredibly sloppy. On page 559 of his book he writes: “...[T]here had been a lingering belief that the news about genocide had perhaps been exaggerated, that more Jews had survived than originally assumed. By April 1945 there were no longer any doubts. Of more than three million Jews in Poland, fewer than a hundred thousand had survived; of 500,000 German Jews – 12,000.” After reference to “Nazi mass killings” Laqueur sums up his “Holocaust” comments on the next page: “Roughly speaking, out of every seven Jews living in Europe, six had been killed during the war.”

The implication is clear: the Germans had shoved those missing 2.9 million “Polish” and 488,000 “German” Jews into gas chambers.

But Laqueur certainly knows, for example, that of the 499,682 Jews in Germany at the time of the 1933 census, more than two-thirds had voluntarily emigrated before the outbreak of war in 1939. He knows that, because his fellow Jews had published reams of statistics on the prewar emigration from Germany, in such easily accessible places as the annual American Jewish Yearbook. Yet nowhere in A History of Zionism does Laqueur let on that he knows.

6 – Laqueur, op. cit., p. 556

7 – Exact land-ownership figures were available from the British administration, but population figures could be determined only approximately, because of the large influx of illegal Jewish immigrants.

8 – Charter of the United Nations, article 1.

9 – One Jew caught smuggling arms to Palestine from the United States via Mexico who did not get off altogether free was Herman Greenspun. Indicted in 1949 for violation of the Neutrality Act, he was convicted in 1950. But he was later given a full pardon by President John F. Kennedy.

10 – In the 1973 “Yom Kippur War” the Jews were initially in danger of losing to the Arabs, and they could not afford to wait for additional munitions to arrive from the United States via normal channels. They demanded – and received – from President Richard Nixon an emergency airlift of arms from the arsenals of U.S. Army and Air Force units stationed in Europe.

The transfer of these weapons to Israel was without statutory authorization (the Foreign Military Sales Act of 1968 authorized the secretary of defense only to sell surplus or stockpiled weapons to a foreign power, not to give away or sell weapons which already had been allocated to U.S. forces), and NATIONAL VANGUARD Editor William Pierce immediately sought an injunction in the Federal courts to halt the weapons airlift to Israel. While the Nixon administration stalled for time in the courts, the airlift continued on a crash basis.

Eventually the Congress gave an ex post facto authorization to the transfer of the weapons, which had included 140 jet fighter-bombers, 1,200 tanks and other armored vehicles, and thousands of tons of bombs and ammunition. U.S. commanders in Europe were left with combat units stripped bare of armor and weapons, and in some cases it was several years before they were fully combat ready again.

11 – For a brief sketch of Shamir's career – and an account of the Deir Yassin massacre – see page 5 of the October 1983 issue of National Vanguard.

12 – The fullest and most authoritative account of the Israeli attack on the Liberty and the disgraceful reaction by U.S. political leaders and the controlled news media is given by James M. Ennes, Jr., a U.S. Navy officer on the ship during the attack, in his book Assault on the Liberty (Random House, 1979). It is available from the National Alliance.

Background to Treason : Part III

Background to Treason

A Brief History Of U.S. Policy in the Middle East

Part 3: From 1933 to the Second World War[1]

By Dr. William Pierce

The almost simultaneous accession to power, early in 1933, of Adolf Hitler and Franklin Roosevelt is one of the great ironies of history.

Franklin Roosevelt and Joseph Stalin enjoying a laugh at Tehran Conference, 1943

The time called for strong White leadership. The largest White nation on earth was prostrate under the heel of a Jew-inspired and still largely Jew-staffed terror-regime of extraordinary virulence and expansionist propensity.[2] In the 14 years of its existence the Jewish-Bolshevik regime in the Soviet Union had murdered some 20 million Russians and Ukrainians. In 1932-33 alone 5 1/2 million anti-Bolshevik farmers and members of their families were exterminated in an artificial famine; while the commissars and the urban rabble on whom they depended for support dined well, armed Bolshevik gangs confiscated the crops and livestock of farmers who had resisted collectivization and left them to starve.[3]

Adolf Hitler pictured with young girl

From the beginning the Bolsheviks had sated their bloodlust by butchering the best of the Russians: the most intelligent, the most successful, the most resourceful, the most independent, the purest and most valuable racially. They had virtually decapitated the Russian nation, selectively killing off those most likely to oppose their own rule. And they had shown the same tendency wherever they had temporarily gained the upper hand, as in the Marxist regimes of Bela Kun in Hungary and Kurt Eisner in Bavaria.[4]

In the years since the end of the First World War the Jewish hold on the media of popular culture and public opinion, both in America and Europe, had tightened. During the same period the Jews had greatly increased their infiltration of educational institutions and the churches, labor unions and political parties. They were turning all of these institutions to their own purposes, leaving the host society less and less able to deal with its own problems and advance its own ends. And new problems were certainly brewing, not only in the Middle East, but also in Europe. In addition to the growing Bolshevik menace, there were other seeds of conflict which had been sown by the last war and by the disastrous treaty which followed it, and they were beginning to sprout.

A White champion was needed to crush Jewish Bolshevism wherever it had taken root; to extirpate the carriers of the Bolshevik virus; to free the news and entertainment media everywhere from Jewish control; to purge from the White consciousness the spiritual and cultural poison which already had been injected under that control; to raise from the dust the banner of White racial idealism and hold it aloft as a rallying standard for progressive Whites throughout the world; and to deal as ruthlessly as necessary with the vested interests, the mercenaries, and the spiritually corrupted, who would array themselves on the side of the Jews in opposing all of these things.

That was a tall order indeed, but in Germany's new chancellor it was met. In breadth of vision and depth of understanding, in commitment to the task at hand, in ability to accomplish it, and in willingness to be ruthless when necessary, Hitler stood far above every other political leader of the time -- indeed, of any time in the Modern Age. He was the man to free the race and lead it once again to the upward path.

He began in Germany: within months he had cleaned out the Communists, who had been on the verge of taking over the country during the administration of his democratic predecessors. The democrats had been at a loss as to how to cope with the Reds, but Hitler did such a thorough job on them that for the next 12 years the international Communist apparatus considered an undercover assignment to Germany tantamount to a death sentence.

Then he dealt with the Jews -- not by putting them into gas chambers as the popular mythology has it, but by freeing the German press, the German film industry, German radio, and the German educational establishment from their control and influence. The Jews in Germany prior to 1933 had followed their age-old pattern: shunning the manual occupations and creative work generally, they had established a strong beachhead in trade; from there they had begun infiltrating the professions. By 1933 nearly half of the lawyers in Berlin were Jews (1879 Jews out of a total of 3890 lawyers), and disproportions of similar magnitude were being established in the medical and teaching professions.

It was in the professions offering an opportunity to influence public opinion and shift cultural norms that Jews had sought and gained the strongest hold, however. They owned or controlled Germany's largest and most influential newspapers, such as the Berliner Tageblatt, the Vossische Zeitung, and the Frankfurter Zeitung. The Jewish Ullstein publishing conglomerate owned, in addition to the Vossische Zeitung, the Berliner Morgenpost (circulation 607,000), the Berliner Allgemeine Zeitung, B.Z. am Mittag, Das Tempo, the Montagspost, the Gruene Post (circulation 1,042,000), the Berliner Illustrierte Zeitung (circulation 1,603,000), and dozens of other newspapers and magazines.[5]

Hitler changed all of that in a radical way. Within a very short time after he took office, a Jew could no more determine what films Germans would see or what subjects German students would study than an Arab can do the same for Jews in Israel today. Jews in Germany could, of course, continue to write for one another, educate one another, and entertain one another; and they could still engage in those occupations and professions, including merchandising, which did not provide them the means to impose their own spirituality, morality, or ideology on the German people.
Such restrictions were intolerable to the Jews, however. For them it was the whole cake or nothing, and from the day Hitler took office they set their international machinery of disinformation and coercion into motion against the new Germany. One of their first moves was the imposition of an economic boycott. The word went out to Jewish leaders in every country: no German goods could be sold, no German vessels could be used for shipping, and no loans could be made to the German government or to German businessmen. Gentiles who refused to comply with the boycott were themselves to be boycotted.

The initial results were mixed: Germans retaliated by boycotting the large department stores in Germany, which were virtually a Jewish monopoly, taking their trade instead to the smaller shops owned by Germans; German businessmen who were engaged in international trade found that they could get by without foreign loans, if necessary, by turning to barter; and the boycott was far from airtight, with many international businessmen -- including some prominent Jews -- ignoring it altogether and continuing their trade and financial dealings with Germany as before.

To plug the leaks the World Jewish Economic Federation held an International Jewish Boycott Conference in Amsterdam in July 1933. Samuel Untermyer, a wealthy and prominent lawyer long active in Zionist affairs in the United States, presided. An Anti-Nazi League (ANL) was formed to coordinate the economic pressure on Germany, and Untermyer was chosen to head it.[6]

ANL declared a total economic and political war against Germany, and the propaganda tactics it used in that war immediately manifested all of the viciousness and brazenness of which the Jews were capable. The lies about conditions in Germany and the actions of the German government which Untermyer and others began disseminating as early as the summer of 1933, at a time when Jews were free to come and go in Germany, to use their wealth as they wished, or to leave and take it with them, gave a foretaste of the mendacious "gas chamber" propaganda which was to come later.



Untermyer returned to New York on August 6 and announced the Jewish declaration of war against Germany in a radio speech that evening. The complete text of his speech appeared in the New York Times the following day. World Jewry's war against Germany, said Untermyer, is a "holy war... a war that must be waged unremittingly until the black clouds of bigotry, race hatred, and fanaticism that have descended upon what was once Germany, but is now medieval Hitlerland, have been dispersed." Germany, he asserted, had been "converted from a nation of culture into a veritable hell of cruel and savage beasts."

The only Jews who were in any danger in Germany in 1933 were those who were active in Communist subversion or some other criminal activity. Those who minded their own business (admittedly, always a difficult matter for Jews) were not molested, but the Jews who had manned the Communist Party apparat were forced to flee or face the likelihood of concentration camp. But Untermyer was hardly concerned with truth when he spoke of "the slaughter, starvation, and annihilation, by a country that has reverted to barbarism, of its own innocent and defenseless citizens without rhyme, reason, or excuse."

He went on to claim that the Germans were herding the Jews of Germany into "vile concentration camps, starving and torturing them, murdering and beating them without cause and resorting to every other conceivable form of torture, inhuman beyond conception, until suicide has become the only means of escape, and all solely because they are or their remote ancestors were Jews, and all with the avowed object of exterminating them."

SAMUEL UNTERMYER: He has the distinction of being the father of both the Federal Reserve System and of the "Holocaust" myth -- and of issuing world Jewry's declaration of war against National Socialist Germany. His radio speech of August 6, 1933, provided a remarkable insight into the Jewish mentality and gave fair warning to all racially conscious Whites that the survival of the race would require a fight to the death against Jewry and all of those under Jewish influence or control.









Thus was born in Samuel Untermyer's fertile imagination the lie which, with much added embroidery, was to emerge 12 years later as the full-blown "Holocaust" hoax. In his August 6 speech he hinted so clearly at this future invention that one can hardly fail to suspect that the Zionists were already banking on the sympathy to be milked from future claims of six million gassed and cremated Jews:

I have seen and talked with many of these terror-stricken refugees who have had the good fortune to escape over the border, though forced to leave their property behind them, and I want to say to you that nothing that has seeped through to you over the rigid censorship and lying propaganda that are at work to conceal and misrepresent the situation of the Jews in Germany begins to tell a fraction of the frightful story of fiendish torture, cruelty, and persecution that are being inflicted day by day upon these men, women, and children, or the terrors worse than death in which they are living.

When the tale is told, as it will be some day... the world will confront a picture so fearful in its barbarous cruelty that the hell of war and the alleged Belgian atrocities will pale into insignificance as compared to this devilishly, deliberately, and cold-bloodedly planned and already partially executed campaign for the extermination of a proud, gentle, loyal, law-abiding people who love and have shed their blood for their Fatherland, and to whom Germany owes in large part its prosperity and its great scientists, educators, lawyers, physicians, poets, musicians, diplomats, and philosophers, who are the backbone of its past cultural life.[7]

But why dwell longer upon this revolting picture of the ravages wrought by these ingrates and beasts of prey, animated by the loathsome motives of race hatred, bigotry, and envy. For the Jews are the aristocrats of the world. From time immemorial they have been persecuted and have seen their persecutors come and go. They alone have survived. And so will history repeat itself, but that furnishes no reason why we should permit this reversion of a once great nation to the Dark Ages or fail to rescue these 600,000[8] human souls from the tortures of hell, as we can with the aid of our Christian friends, if we have the will to act.

Well, no one has ever accused the Jews of being modest. Clever, yes; avaricious, yes; vindictive, yes; but not modest and not truthful. Nevertheless, Untermyer was quite forthright in stating the Jews' aim. It was to "undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends." He also stated the Jews' demands on "our Christian friends" plainly enough:

Each of you, Jew and Gentile alike, who has not already enlisted in this sacred war should do so now and here. It is not sufficient that you buy no goods made in Germany. You must refuse to deal with any merchant or shopkeeper who sells any German-made goods or who patronizes German ships or shipping. To our shame be it said that there are a few Jews among us, but fortunately only a few, so wanting in dignity and self-respect that they are willing to travel on German ships where they are despised and meet with the just contempt of the servants who wait on them and of their fellow passengers. Their names should be heralded far and wide. They are traitors to their race.

In conclusion, permit me again to thank you for this heartening reception and to assure you that, with your support and that of our millions of non-Jewish friends, we will drive the last nail in the coffin of bigotry and fanaticism that has dared raise its ugly head to slander, belie, and disgrace 20th-century civilization.[9]

Economic warfare is warfare, and a declaration of economic war is a declaration of war. Throughout history a deliberate act or policy by one nation intended to injure the economic welfare of another has been regarded as a casus belli(I), justifying a warlike response as surely as does a territorial invasion. The Jewish boycott policy was certainly deliberate, and it was certainly intended to injure Germany.

As ANAL's propaganda intensified and began to take hold, the boycott became more of a problem for Germany. The German response was remarkably restrained, however. Instead of lashing out at the Jews, Hitler's government increased its effort to blunt the boycott by achieving economic autarchy.

Foreign journalists and writers were also invited to Germany, so that they could, by reporting the truth to their readers back home, counter the lies being spread by Untermyer and company. A few did this. H.G. Wells, for example, reported that Jews were not being mistreated in Germany and that impressions to the contrary in England, the United States, and elsewhere were entirely due to the "incessant propaganda of the world's most charming but incurably nationalistic race."

Several widely read periodicals, such as the National Geographic Magazine, also reported truthfully on conditions in Germany.[10] And, of course, the 1936 Olympic Games, which were held in Berlin, gave tens of thousands of American tourists and sports enthusiasts an opportunity to visit Germany and witness the truth for themselves.

Even some Jews found good in what Hitler was doing in Germany, although they would not praise him openly. They were mostly Zionists of the Jabotinsky stripe, who welcomed the barriers to cultural assimilation and intermarriage erected by the National Socialists. It would be good for their fellow Jews, they said to one another, to follow the German example and assert their own Jewish nationalism proudly and openly, instead of preaching internationalism to the Gentiles while practicing Jewish nationalism quietly among themselves; the Jews could only be accepted as equals when they dropped their deceitful approach to other peoples.

Ultrazionist hero Ze'ev Jabotinsky, born in Russia

The same Zionists also advocated the formation of Jewish gymnastic clubs to encourage physical fitness among young Jews, and they urged Jewish parents to steer their children toward careers in farming or handicrafts instead of the traditional law, trade, or finance. Needless to say, such Jews were a very small minority; most chimed in with Untermyer, spewing hate-inspired slander against all things German.

All Zionists, however, whether Revisionists or in the mainstream, and whether they secretly admired Hitler's policies or not, realized that what was happening in Germany was necessary for the achievement of their goal of a Jewish Palestine. Hitler was making Germany a thoroughly inhospitable country for the Jews, forcing them to set up shop elsewhere. Jewish immigration to Palestine consequently skyrocketed, reaching a new record of 61,854 for the year 1935.

The Jews' duplicity in their prewar anti-German propaganda is perhaps nowhere better revealed than in the fact that while they were wailing about the need to wage war "unremittingly" against "medieval Hitlerland" -- a "sacred war," in fact -- the same Jews were busily committing sacrilege by breaking their own boycott against Germany. From 1933 through 1939 the Zionists secretly promoted a flourishing trade in agricultural equipment between Germany and the Jewish settlements in Palestine. Germany exported manufactured goods to Palestine -- 37 million marks worth in 1937 alone -- and was paid in Jewish gold.[11]

The same duplicity later was reflected in the efforts in 1941, in the midst of the war between Germany and Britain which had been provoked largely by Jews, of Jabotinsky's Revisionists to negotiate an alliance with the Germans against the British forces in Palestine. These efforts, just like the trade between Germany and the Jews in Palestine, were strictly under the table, and they had no effect on the Jewish propaganda effort against Germany. They do illustrate the point, however, that Jewish leaders were playing a much more complex game than was evident to most observers in the 1930's and 1940's. They wanted to destroy Germany, which they regarded as a deadly threat to Jewish ambitions of world rule, but at the same time they welcomed the effects on their fellow Jews of German policies, and they were not averse to secret collaboration with the Germans whenever that seemed to offer some advantage.

For several years the average American was exposed to two contradictory sources of information about Germany. Unfortunately, the readers of the National Geographic Magazine were outnumbered by housewives who read nothing but movie magazines and men who read only the sports sections of their daily newspapers. And everyone listened to the radio and went to the movies, media which were already heavily Jewish in the 1930's.

Since voting was not restricted to citizens who were intelligent and well informed, and since the politicians could count, the Jewish propaganda against Germany very soon was echoed by ambitious Gentile legislators, bureaucrats, and office seekers. Publicity-hungry "celebrities," Jew-worshiping Christian ministers, and leftist academics were not far behind them. All of these were sought out by the Jews and persuaded to lend their names to public statements denouncing Hitler, his government, German policies, and the German people. Thus, the lies and the hatred were given an aura of respectability.

HATE PROPAGANDA for the Second World War was cleverly designed and mass-produced. The Jews had the full backing of the Roosevelt regime and all of the resources of the U.S. government at their disposal in inciting American hatred against the Germans. As soon as Roosevelt managed to get the United States into the war, posters such as these appeared in schools, factories, and offices everywhere. One common theme of Jewish war propaganda was that the Germans rounded up pretty girls in conquered territories and forced them to work in brothels (above, right). Actually, it was America's communist ally, the Soviet Union, which was guilty of such behavior. Another propaganda theme was that the Germans drained the blood from children in captured towns, in order to use it for transfusions in military hospitals -- and then they boiled the children's corpses down into soap.

The Germans, unfortunately, were no match for the Jews in this propaganda war. Not only did the Jews have more powerful media under their control than those accessible to the Germans and their sympathizers, but the Jews were cleverer -- and more brazen -- in appealing to the gullibility of their audience. Whereas most Germans naively assumed that the truth must ultimately prevail and that the reckless extravagance of the Jews' lies would trip them up, the Jews better understood the plebeian mentality of the average American. It was a mentality which was quite capable of absorbing the most improbable lie, if the lie were repeated often and loudly enough. And, once absorbed, the lie would become impervious to reason and to all contrary evidence.

Hitler, at least, was aware of this danger, and he had warned of it in 1925. The common people, he noted, lack the imagination of the Jews, just as they lack the Jews' shamelessness:

Therefore... the masses more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a little one, since they themselves lie in little things, but would be ashamed of lies that were too big. They will never invent a real whopper themselves, and they will not be able to believe in the possibility of such monstrous effrontery and infamous misrepresentation in others. Even when presented with the facts they will doubt and waver and continue to accept parts of the lie. Therefore, something of even the most insolent lie will always remain and stick, a fact which all of the great virtuosos of lying know only too well and of which they make the most treacherous use.

The foremost connoisseurs of this fact regarding the possibilities in the use of falsehood and slander have always been the Jews...."[12]

The Jewish response to this warning was typical. Knowing that not one American in a hundred would have the gumption to find a copy of Mein Kampf and read for himself what Hitler actually had written, they brazenly turned Hitler's words against him, charging that he had boasted in Mein Kampf that he, not the Jews, swayed the masses by telling them the biggest lies possible; therefore, Hitler was an admitted liar, and nothing that he or his sympathizers said was to be believed.

And, just as Hitler had warned, this whopper stuck. Even today one hears half-educated academics prattle knowingly about Hitler being the inventor and advocate of the "big lie" propaganda technique. Opening a copy of Mein Kampf to the place where Hitler warns of the Jewish use of this trick and rubbing such a savant's nose on the page will not cure him of his folly; he has heard Hitler blamed so often that he simply cannot believe, even when presented with the evidence in black and white, that it is all a matter of Jewish deceit.

If Untermyer's lies in August 1933 were outrageous, the lies the Jews and their collaborators subsequently told about Germany, after they had shifted their propaganda machine into high gear, surpassed all previous bounds of mendacity. They did not limit themselves to inventing spurious atrocity stories, spurious statistics, spurious statements attributed to Hitler and other German leaders, which were passed off as "news"; they also played expertly on the average American's emotions and instincts with undisguised fiction. Anti-German novels, anti-German short stories, anti-German stage plays, anti-German comic strips, anti-German nightclub acts, anti-German posters, and anti-German motion pictures were all used effectively. The Jews, as born salesmen, realized instinctively that the opinions and attitudes of most people are formed at a very primitive, sub-rational level, where facts and reason are of little importance, and they made the most of their realization.

Despite their overwhelming propaganda superiority, the Jews continued to worry that their opponents might succeed in getting their act together and begin countering the Jewish influence on American public opinion effectively. To head off such a possibility the Jews did not hesitate to use raw, physical intimidation. In 1938, for example, they had a group of their Gentile stooges lend their names to a statement warning Americans of German descent not to show any signs of sympathy for Hitler's programs in Germany or to help spread National Socialist ideas in the United States.

If pro-German propaganda is tolerated, the statement threatened, "it cannot fail to create a cyst in the body politic of the American people. It will result in setting apart a large group of inhabitants of the United States whose duty it would be to render primary allegiance to the ruler of a foreign power. Friction between this group and the rest of the American people might result in unrest and possible bloodshed."[13]

One can easily imagine the screams of indignant outrage which would be heard from the same people who cooked up this statement, if a group of prominent politicians, academics, and church leaders had offered the far more plausible suggestion that the toleration of Zionist propaganda would induce Jews to render a primary allegiance to a foreign power, Israel, with the possible consequence that the rest of the American people would regard them as traitors and shed their blood.

The Roosevelt government also engaged in physical intimidation to silence the critics of the Jews. The Federal Bureau of Investigation harassed authors, editors, publishers, and lecturers who attempted to warn the American people that the Jews were brewing up a new war for their own ends. J. Edgar Hoover sent out his "black bag" squads to burglarize the homes and offices of law-abiding citizens and to steal their private papers and research materials, all without the slightest worry that the news media would cry "foul!," as they did in the Vietnam era, when the shoe was on the other foot.
After Pearl Harbor three highly publicized mass trials of dissidents were staged in Washington by Roosevelt's Justice Department in order to intimidate other opponents of the Jews' war aims into silence. One of the 28 persons charged in the first of these show trials was Ralph Townsend, an independent newsman from San Francisco who had spent many years in the Far East and was thoroughly familiar with the international political and diplomatic situation. Townsend's "crime" was the publication in January 1939, eight months before the outbreak of the war and nearly three years before America's entry into it, of a 61-page booklet he wrote, The High Cost of Hate.

He had mailed thousands of copies of his booklet to legislators, educators, writers, and other influential persons, and he had sold tens of thousands of copies to the public. In it he argued persuasively that the intense Jewish propaganda campaign being waged against Germany and Japan was intended to provoke a war, that a war was not in the best interests of most Americans, and that the propagandists were liars. Townsend began his booklet thus:

What is behind the campaigns of organized hate in America now?

No nation is attacking the United States. No nation is menacing a single inch of territory over which the American flag flies. Every one of the important nations seems eager for friendly relations with us. Every nation in the world wants to trade with us.

Why, then, are our papers so full of hate toward others? ...

Hatred of others is not natural among average Americans. The campaign to promote American hatred of other nations now is strictly a minority movement. There are among us people who have never become fully American... They are now trying to get America involved in their foreign quarrels.

To gather support for this minority aim they are conducting a tremendous publicity campaign to stir American hatred of nations they want us to fight.

Many of these alien-minded people are important advertisers. Newspaper and magazines depend on advertising revenue. Thus, many editors seek to please them by running hate campaigns against any and all nations which the alien-minded advertisers don't like. They have deceived many sincere, loyal Americans. That is one of the influences -- the main influence -- behind the campaigns of hate and war talk in America now....

A powerful minority in America, well organized and well financed, wants us to fight three nations -- Germany, Italy, and Japan....

Note that the majority of American editors, though they pretend peaceful ideals, are promoting this war hate drive in every way possible. Once enough hate is achieved the rest is easy.

The truth would not serve this war hate objective. Deception is being employed as abundantly now as in 1915-17....

Only two characteristics mark the three nations our papers want us to hate and fight. First, these three nations are strongly anti-red. Second, they manage their own money and resources, free from any international financial bondage....

To state the case briefly, our press hates every nation run strictly by its own people -- where neither international Bolshevism nor international finance is allowed a grip....

Townsend went on to present a clear and persuasive analysis of the motivations of the hatemongers, of the deceptions they were using, and of the harmful and dangerous effects of their hate on the American people. It is easy to understand why the Jews wanted to shut him up.

It was hardly necessary, however, to drag him to Washington in handcuffs and leg irons for a show trial; that was merely a bit of Jewish spite, akin to that manifested these days each time some elderly German who played a role in the last war is hounded to his death. For the sad fact was that, by the time President Roosevelt's anti-Japanese policies had finally provoked the Pearl Harbor attack, the Jews were holding nearly all the cards.

Father Coughlin, the populist priest who regularly opposed Roosevelt and the Jews on his radio broadcasts, continued reaching large numbers of people until ordered by the Pope in 1942 to shut up. But most men who, like Bob Townsend, were attempting to alert the American people and counter the Jews' war propaganda were effectively denied access to the mass media. They distributed pamphlets and leaflets, but the Jews, who controlled most radio broadcasting, virtually all of the cinema, and a substantial majority of the big-city daily press, swamped them.[14]
This Jewish control of the mass news and entertainment media was the most important single factor behind the U.S. entry into the Second World War. The story of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, of the warnings Roosevelt had that the attack was coming, and of the cover up afterward, so that the pretense could be maintained that the attack was a "surprise," has been told elsewhere.[15] So has the story of the diplomatic and economic warfare which the Roosevelt government waged against Japan for five years before Pearl Harbor. All of those things are important -- but the fact remains that Roosevelt could not have gotten away with his anti-Japanese campaign (without which there would have been no Pearl Harbor attack) if there had not been a concurrent propaganda campaign to justify it in the minds of the public.

Not only did the Jews wage a hate-propaganda campaign of unprecedented magnitude in the years 1933-1941, but they simultaneously strengthened and expanded their capability for waging future campaigns. What began with Samuel Untermyer's half-hour tirade of lies over New York radio station WABC on August 6, 1933, had become by December 7, 1941, a non-stop flood of poison into the mind of every American. And the propaganda apparatus which enabled the Jews to send millions of Americans overseas, with hate in their hearts, to kill the Jews' enemies in the years 1942-1945 was the same apparatus which, with the addition of the medium of television, enabled them to paralyze the will of Americans to resist the scrapping of their immigration laws and the racial mongrelization of their society in the postwar years. [15]

_____________________________________________

Next in this series: Capitalizing on the "Holocaust."

NOTES

1 - This is the third article of a series. Originally intended to be complete in two parts, it has expanded as research turned up additional relevant material, and it is now anticipated that it will consist of four articles [actually five] altogether. The first, covering the period from biblical times to the First World War, appeared in the December 1982 issue of National Vanguard, and the second appeared in the March 1983 issue. This segment is from the April, 1983 issue.

2 - In 1933 approximately half of those in the higher leadership strata of the Soviet Union were Jews. (A study done in 1965 by the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress determined the figure for 1939 with more precision: "Before World War II, 41.1 per cent of the deputies to the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R. were Jewish ..." [The Soviet Empire (U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965), p.63.])

3 - This was a "Holocaust" -- a real one -- about which the controlled media remain as silent today as they did then, while they continue to serve up almost daily their Second World War gas-chamber tales about the mythical "six million." The facts are known; Alexander Solzhenitsyn was not the first to write about the genocidal activities of the Bolsheviks or to reveal their Jewish roots and leadership during the 1930's. Yet Christian Priests and Christian politicians and Christian educators collaborate today with the Jewish masters of the controlled media in the promotion of the Jews as a race of martyrs deserving the world's sympathy. Hardly anything else illustrates as well as does this servile and hypocritical collaboration the moral decadence of the present leadership stratum of the West.

4 - Bela Kun (1886-1937) and Kurt Eisner (1867-1919) were both Jews, as were most of their lieutenants. Both seized the opportunity presented by the social and political chaos at the end of the First World War to organize short-lived Communist regimes.

Hungarian patriots rose against Kun in July 1919. He fled to the Soviet Union, while the Hungarians meted out hemp justice to his Jewish accomplices who were unable to get out of the country soon enough. He perished in 1937 in Stalin's first purge of the Soviet Union.

Eisner was executed by a German patriot on February 21, 1919, in Munich, and the German Army subsequently dealt with Eisner's followers in an appropriate way.

5 - Die Juden in Deutschland (Verlag Franz Eher Nachf., 1935).

6 - Samuel Untermyer (1858-1940) made his fortune as an organizer of corporate conglomerates and a manipulator of stocks before 1910. Then he switched sides and became a trustbuster, working closely with anti-business elements in the Congress. He was counsel to the Pujo Committee (1912-1913), a subcommittee of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, and he was responsible for much of the content of its report (issued on February 28, 1913), which paved the way for both a Federal income tax and the setting up of the Federal Reserve System. Untermyer was a strong advocate of both, and his behind-the-scenes efforts during 1913 led to the passage of the Owen-Glass Act on December 23, 1913. Woodrow Wilson later appointed him chairman of a commission to set income-tax and excess-profits-tax rates.

During the 1920's he was president of the Palestine Foundation Fund (for aiding the colonization of Palestine by Jews) and vice-president of the American Jewish Congress. In 1927 Untermyer handled the lawsuit (by Herman Bernstein) against automaker Henry Ford which frightened the latter into ceasing publication of his exposes of Jewish activities and withdrawing and destroying all available copies of his book, The International Jew.

7 - Untermyer refers to the British atrocity propaganda of the First World War. In order to drum up public enthusiasm for the war, British authorities and their helpers in the press invented and circulated outlandish stories of German bestiality. Lindley Fraser, a British economics professor who served as the BBC's chief of psychological warfare during the Second World War, later wrote of the tricks pulled by his predecessors:

"The 'Belgian Atrocities' stories provide a curious and unsavoury chapter in the history of war propaganda.... What is not true, so far as later researches have been able to discover, is that the Germans were guilty of any of the horrifying atrocities freely attributed to them by their enemies and widely believed in Great Britain and among Allies and friendly neutrals. Priests used as clappers in cathedral bells, crucified prisoners of war, children with their hands cut off: these and many other stories were common gossip in the Western world and doubtless helped those people on the Allied side who already hated the Germans to hate them still more.

"Where did such stories originate? Some of them... were deliberately invented; thus shortly after the war a well-known British journalist claimed, with some pride, to have been the author of the story about the chopped-off hands." (Propaganda [Oxford University Press, 1957], pp. 34-35).

Another well-known Briton who invented some of the "Belgian Atrocities" stories was historian Arnold J. Toynbee. He finished writing The German Terror in Belgium (George H. Doran Co., 1917) in March 1917, a few weeks before Woodrow Wilson's call for war. The book was intended for American readers who still needed to be persuaded that the United States should enter the war against Germany.

8 - Untermyer's figure is 20 per cent too large. There were 499,682 Jews living in Germany in 1933, according to the census taken that year. Before the outbreak of the Second World War six years later, Hitler had achieved the peaceful reunification of Austria (191,481 Jews in 1934) and the Sudetenland with Germany, but Jews had been emigrating in large numbers from all German territory, so that in 1939 there were only 240,000 Jews left in the Third Reich (including Austria and the Sudetenland), according to The American Jewish Year Book for 1940-41 (v.42, p.602). One can only wonder whether Untermyer's somewhat inflated figure of 600,000 Jews in Germany in 1933 was later simply inflated again, by a factor of ten, to yield the famous 6,000,000 figure for the number of Jews supposedly done away with by Hitler.

9 - It is interesting to compare Untermyer's lurid claim, in one breath, that the Germans were executing a "campaign for the extermination" of the Jews with his complaint, in the next breath, that some Jews were still in the habit of traveling on German ships and being waited on by German servants. It is true, as Untermyer notes, that Jews traveling on German ships, just as Jews remaining in Germany, were exposed to the "just contempt" of the German people, but as long as they obeyed German laws they were not harmed physically by anyone or persecuted by the authorities.

10 - See, for example, the article "Changing Berlin," in the February 1937 issue of the National Geographic Magazine, which gives a comprehensive, lavishly illustrated, 47-page survey of life in the capital city of National Socialist Germany.

11 - See "The Third Reich and the Transfer Agreement," by David Yisraeli, in the April 1971 issue of Journal of Contemporary History. A description of the related agreement worked out between the German government and Jewish leaders, so that all Jews wishing to leave Germany and settle in Palestine could take their wealth with them, is given in The Zionist Movement (Zionist Organization of America, New York, 1946), by Israel Cohen (pp. 210-211).

12 - Mein Kampf, v. I, chap. 10.

13 - The German Reich and Americans of German Origin, Oxford University Press, 1938. Among the worthies sponsoring this statement was Henry L. Stimson (1867-1950), later to become Roosevelt's secretary of the War Department.

14 - Ralph Townsend told this editor that he had distributed 150,000 copies of The High Cost of Hate before Pearl Harbor. The Jewish-owned Washington Post alone reached that many people each day.

15 - See, for example, The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor, by Robert A. Theobald (Devin-Adair, 1954); and Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath, by John Toland (Doubleday, 1982).

Background to Treason - Part I: From the Exodus to the Balfour Declaration

From National Vanguard (December 1982)

A Brief History of U.S. Policy in the Middle East

By Dr. William Pierce

Part 1 : From the Exodus to the Balfour Declaration

All the turmoil and hatred and killing in the Middle East, some 6,000 miles from home, seems a distant problem to most Americans, who are much more concerned with economic woes or street crime or non-White immigrants. Yet, there is a much closer connection between the problems at home and that distant one than is generally realized. It behooves every responsible and thoughtful American to understand the background of his government's policies and actions in the Middle East, for only when he does can he understand fully what must be done to set things right at home.

The ostensible cause of the present conflict in the Middle East lies in the opposing claims of Jews and Palestinians to the same piece of land, universally called Palestine until 1948 and now referred to variously as Palestine, Israel and the Occupied Territories, or Greater Israel.

Both claims go back some 3,200 years. The Philistines (whence the name Palestine), a presumably Indo-European people, began invading the eastern Mediterranean region from the northwest around the middle of the 13th century B.C.[1]

They established settlements in the coastal plain northeast of the Sinai, from the Gaza Strip to the site of modern Tel Aviv-Jaffa, conquering the native Canaanites in the process. 

In the eighth year of the reign of Ramses III, 1190 B.C., a new wave of Philistines arrived from the northwest and invaded Egypt. After fierce fighting the Egyptians repulsed the invaders (whom they called, along with other invaders from the Aegean, "the Peoples of the Sea"), and the bulk of these Philistines then joined the earlier arrivals in Canaan. There they formed a Palestinian confederation of fortified cities, including Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod, Gath, and Ekron.

ISRAELITES cross the Jordan River into Canaan in the 12th century B.C. to begin conquering and settling the land their descendants claim was promised to them by their tribal god. The Indo-European Philistines were there first, however.

Shortly after the first wave of Philistines had settled in Canaan, a people of altogether different character and origins arrived in the land. They were a band of Semites who also had been expelled from Egypt (with as much loot as they could carry, according to the account in the Book of Exodus), but who had spent several decades in the Sinai peninsula and in Trans-Jordan before entering Canaan. They called themselves Israelites, after an eponymous tribal ancestor (the Biblical Jacob, later renamed Israel, grandson of Abraham). 

The Israelites seized the hill country to the east of the Philistines, exterminating many of the Canaanites already there. They apparently encountered other groups of Semites, related to themselves, who had entered Canaan during or before the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt. According to the Biblical tradition, the ancestors of the Israelites had first crossed the Jordan from the east perhaps 150 years (six generations) prior to the Israelite conquest, but had been essentially seasonal guests of the Canaanites at that time, living in tents and grazing their flocks on whichever side of the Jordan offered the best grass. 

Their ultimate origins were among the nomadic tribes of herdsmen and traders who had been roaming the Arabian peninsula for thousands of years. Beginning about 1200 B.C., however, with the Israelite invasion, these wandering Semites entered into a new, more settled mode of existence. For the next 200 years there was intermittent warfare and continuous hatred between the Philistines of the coastal plain and the Israelites and their kinsmen of the hill country. 

The Philistines were by far the more culturally advanced of the two races, being expert iron smelters and ironsmiths, while their Israelite opponents were still living in the Bronze Age. Unfortunately, however, it is the highly biased Semitic account of the conflict which has come down to us, and it is for that reason that "Philistine" is often used unthinkingly as a term of opprobrium today.

The Philistines were also better warriors than the Israelites, and a Philistine hegemony was soon established over much of the area of Canaan which had been seized by the Israelites. It was not until the reign of King David, in the 10th century, that the Israelites regained their independence and formed a united Jewish state. Even so, however, they were never able to conquer all of the coastal cities; Ashkelon remained under Philistine rule until the Assyrian conquest of the entire region in the eighth century, which also brought an end to Jewish independence. 

There are two salient points worth remembering from this early period. The first is that the Jews of today, even assuming that they are the descendants of the early Israelites (and only the Sephardic Jews, not the Ashkenazim,[2] may even advance a claim to such descent), have no historical precedence over the descendants of the Philistines. The nomadic relatives of the Israelites may have grazed their flocks from time to time in Canaan a century before the Philistines arrived, but the Philistines conquered the land and established permanent settlements there before the Israelites did. 

The second point is that the Philistines, not the Israelites, were our people, and it is, therefore, the Palestinian claim to the land which should carry more weight with us.

We should not conclude from this, however, that the Palestinians of today are closely related to us. Although there are still traces of White ancestry to be found even today among the Palestinians, so many other racial elements have entered the picture in the last 30 centuries that the claim of today's Palestinians to descent from the Philistines is approximately as tenuous as the claim of the Sephardim to descent from the ancient Israelites. 

Both the Jews and the Philistines intermarried to some extent with the native Canaanites, although the highly xenophobic Jews were much more inclined to slaughter them than to marry them. Later there was mixing between Philistines and Jews.

Then the region was overrun by one wave of conquerors after another: Assyrians, Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs, and Turks. The Jews were twice deported en masse from Palestine, first in the eighth century B.C. by the Assyrians and then in the sixth century by the Babylonians.

The Romans had incessant difficulties with the Jews after their conquest of Palestine in the first century B.C., finding them the most subversive and insurrectionary of all their subjects. Finally, in the second century A.D., the Romans deported thousands of Jews and barred Jerusalem and large sections of Palestine to Jewish habitation.

In the seventh century the Arabs, fired by Islamic zeal, conquered Palestine, and still more racial mixing took place. The language of the land became Arabic and its faith Islam.

BLONDE PALESTINIAN (above) is 10-year-old Lara al-Ghoush. The photograph was taken at the 1981 funeral of her parents, who had just been murdered by Lebanese Christians working for the Israelis. The Palestinians, like the Jews, are a racially mixed people, but there are still a number of unmixed Whites among them. After the initial Philistine settlement, there were several further infusions of European blood: from the Romans, who established a colony in Jerusalem in the first century, after expelling the Jews; from the German Crusaders, who founded several kingdoms in Palestine during the Middle Ages; and from later European settlers, who continued to colonize the area as late as the last century, primarily for Christian reasons. 

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Amin al-Husayni (1893-1974), who was both the spiritual and political leader of Palestine's Moslems from 1921 until the mid-1940's, had red-blond hair and blue eyes. A strong opponent of the Zionists, he is shown conferring with Adolf Hitler in Berlin in 1941.

Four centuries later the Seljuk Turks became master of the Middle East. Then European Crusaders seized parts of Palestine from the Turks at the beginning of the 12th century, starting a seesaw struggle which lasted more than two centuries and ended with a Turkish Mamluk victory. Palestine then remained under the rule of one or another brand of Mamluk until early in the 16th century, and after that, until 1917, under the rule of the Ottoman Turks. 

From Roman times until modern times Jews were a tiny minority of the population of Palestine. Turkish census figures show the Jews making up about 3 per cent of the population in the late 1800's.

The middle of the 19th century saw a growing restlessness in the Jews of eastern and central Europe. The Industrial Revolution and all the changes in trade, transportation, and life-styles that came with it had broken up old patterns and created new opportunities, and the Jews began reorganizing themselves to take advantage of these.

They created two new movements: one, preaching internationalism and class warfare was directed primarily toward the Gentiles. It was Communism, and its principal founder was the Jew Karl Marx.

The other, directed toward the Jews only, preached Jewish nationalism and solidarity. It was Zionism, and one of its first proponents was Moses Hess, a close associate and friend of Marx. Hess's book Rome and Jerusalem, published in 1862, was one of the seminal documents of the Zionist movement. 

The Zionists wanted to establish an exclusively Jewish national state, from which they could direct the activities of the Jews spread throughout the Gentile world -- and eventually direct the Gentile world itself. Toward this end groups of Jews from Europe began buying up land in Palestine and establishing Jewish colonies there in the 1870's and 1880's. 

This colonization activity inevitably provoked the fear and resentment of the Palestinians, and in response the Turkish administrators took measures to limit the activities of the Zionists in Palestine. The Jews countered by seeking political allies among the Gentiles in England and Europe and looking for ways to bring pressure against the Turks. 

To coordinate their moves they organized a Zionist Congress, which held its first meeting in August 1897, in Basle, Switzerland. The leading figure at the first Zionist Congress was Theodor Herzl (1860-1904), whose book Der Judenstaat(The Jewish State), published in Vienna the year before, contained a cogent summary of the Zionist position. 

Theodor Herzl

Moses Hess

According to Herzl: "Every nation in whose midst Jews live is, either covertly or openly, anti-Semitic....Anti-Semitism increases day by day and hour by hour among the nations; indeed, it is bound to increase, because the causes of its growth continue to exist and cannot be removed."

He saw this anti-Semitism, which arose naturally wherever the Jewish presence made itself felt, as a blessing, because it kept the Jews conscious of their unique status, prevented their assimilation, and united them in their efforts to overcome their Gentile hosts: "... [T]hus united, we suddenly discover our strength....When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of the revolutionary party; when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse." 

Even before the Zionist Congress met, Herzl had been attempting to persuade the Turks to give the Jews free rein in Palestine. First he tried blackmail, hinting that he and his fellow Jews, by using their influence, could either silence or intensify the agitation against Turkey then being carried on in various European capitals by Armenian expatriates, who had their own grievances.

When the blackmail didn't work, Herzl's thoughts turned to war. He told his fellow Zionists at Basle that they might be able to achieve control of Palestine through a European war, if they played their cards right: "It may be that Turkey will refuse or will be unable to understand us. This will not discourage us. We will seek other means to accomplish our end. The Orient question is now a question of the day. Sooner or later it will bring about a conflict among the nations....The great European war must come. With my watch in hand do I await this terrible moment. After the great European war is ended the peace conference will assemble. We must be ready for that time."[3] 

The other Zionist leaders fell in with Herzl's war plans -- which, it is well to note, were proclaimed to world Jewry 17 years before the actual outbreak of the war. As it turned out, the Jews were able to use the war just as they had hoped: from it they finagled a promise by the government of Great Britain to secure Palestine for them.

This promise, the so-called "Balfour Declaration," has an especially interesting history, for it not only throws light on the crucial period during which the Jews first secured the control over the foreign policy of the United States which they still wield -- that is, the period during which the American people lost their sovereignty, unknowingly yielding to an alien minority in their midst the power to choose which nations would be America's friends and which her foes; to decide when there would be peace and when war, and how each war would be waged, whether to win or lose or draw -- but it also brilliantly illuminates the general modus operandi which the Jews, spread out as they are among many nations, have long used in playing off one nation against another in order to attain their own ends. 

It would hardly be possible to relate here every Zionist move in the 20 years between Herzl's speech to the first Zionist Congress and the British government's offer of Palestine to the Jews, even if all the moves were known. It must suffice, in laying the background, to mention a few key developments which made the Balfour Declaration possible.

First, the years immediately following the first Zionist Congress saw an enormous influx of Jews into the United States. Although U.S. immigration statistics prior to 1899 do not reveal the race or religion of immigrants, we know that in 1897 the total Jewish population of the United States was approximately 800,000 -- and nearly half of those had arrived in the preceding decade. By 1914 the number had more than tripled, to some 2 1/2 million. The majority of the new immigrants came from Russia, where the Zionist movement was especially strong.

This tidal wave of Jewish immigrants made itself felt very soon in the economic and political life of the United States. Jewish ambition and energy, not to mention a predilection for those endeavors yielding quick gain, resulted in a phenomenally rapid growth in the financial power wielded by Jews in the country, and this power was out to immediate use in acquiring a political influence disproportionate to their numbers. Already in 1896, the year before Herzl's speech, the New York Times fell into Jewish hands, with its purchase by Adolph Ochs. Thirteen years before that Joseph Pulitzer, the Jewish father of yellow journalism, had purchased the New York World. And in the years between 1897 and 1917 the Jews continued their acquisitions, building a very strong bridgehead in the news media for furthering their long-range goals.

Just as the Palestinians had reacted to the Jewish colonization of Palestine, so did White Americans react to the Jewish colonization of America. The politicians responded with their typical timidity and ambiguity to White demands for a halt to the flood of Jews. In 1897 the U.S. Congress enacted a law requiring proof of literacy before immigrants could be admitted to the United States. The law would have kept out most of the Jews from Russia and other parts of eastern Europe then pouring into the country, but it never had a chance to accomplish its aim, because President Cleveland vetoed it. 

As the growing Jewish presence became more obnoxious to Americans, the pressure on the reluctant politicians to do something grew. Jewish political influence had also grown apace, however, and the Jews were able to counter every effort at legislation intended to keep them out of the country. President Taft vetoed another immigrant-literacy law early in 1913, just before leaving office, and President Wilson did the same thing in 1914.

The second major development leading to the Zionists' triumph in 1917 was the election of Woodrow Wilson to the Presidency in 1912, and then his reelection in 1916. Wilson was entirely their man. From the time he took office in 1913 until he left it in 1921, he made hardly a decision without consulting his counselor and confidant, Louis Dembitz Brandeis.

Wilson was an ineffectual man, who, after failing to make a career for himself as a lawyer, retreated to the academy, teaching political science first at Bryn Mawr, then at Wesleyan, and finally at Princeton. He was also less than brilliant as an academician, but he possessed a rhetorical flair which he used to promote a hodgepodge of confused, liberal notions, thereby gaining for himself the backing of the liberal element among the Princeton faculty, who eventually boosted him into Princeton presidency. He was never very strong, and he suffered several major breakdowns, even in the relatively sheltered life of a professor.

Louis Brandeis (1856-1941), an enormously wealthy and successful Boston lawyer, was the son of Jewish immigrants from Bohemia. He was also the leader of the Zionist movement in the United States. In 1912 he headed the group which invited Nahum Sokolow, the Zionist leader from Russia, to speak in the United States. In 1914 he organized and became the chairman of the Provisional Executive Committee for General Zionist Affairs. But his Zionist leadership was something kept between himself and his fellow Jewish nationalists.

To the American public and the Democratic Party's politicians he was a very clever advocate of "democracy," who was involved in a number of celebrated legal cases on behalf of labor unions. His left-wing admirers in the press nicknamed him "the people's lawyer."

Wilson had also achieved something of a reputation as a champion of equality and democracy when, as president of Princeton University, he became embroiled in a fight to abolish Princeton's exclusive student eating clubs, which he regarded as elitist and undemocratic. The ruckus caused by Wilson's opposition to the eating clubs brought him to the attention of New Jersey's Democratic Party political bosses, and they chose him as their gubernatorial candidate in 1910. They also introduced him to Brandeis, who took the weak, vain, professorial Wilson firmly in hand and guided him in all political matters (and many private matters as well) thereafter. 

When Wilson became President he immediately offered Brandeis a position in his Cabinet, but the clever Jew chose instead to remain in the background, where his influence over Wilson would not become compromised by public scrutiny. Indeed, Brandeis was very wise in this decision, because when he did accept an appointment to the Supreme Court from Wilson in 1916, there was a great deal of public opposition. 

Nevertheless, Brandeis became the first Jew to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, and he did so without giving up his informal post as counsel to the President and general political "fixer," as recent research has revealed.[4]

The third development which was essential to Zionist aims was the war itself and the impasse it had reached in the autumn of 1916. We dare not become involved in a history of the First World War here, but the main points relevant to our following of the Zionist trail are these: The principal antagonists were Britain and Germany. One of the many countries fighting on the British side was Imperial Russia. One of the several countries on the German side was Turkey. In the west the antagonists were stalemated, facing each other in opposing trenches which stretched across the continent from north to south and unable to gain very much ground on either side without enormous losses. 

The German Verdun campaign of 1916, the longest and bloodiest "battle" in the history of warfare, had failed to achieve any significant advantage for the Germans, and it was to cost them and their French opponents half a million casualties each before it finally petered out. The Franco-British Somme offensive, which followed the ebb of the German offensive at Verdun -- and which cost the British 19,000 dead on the first day -- proved equally inconclusive. 

On the eastern front the Russian Brusilov offensive cost the Czar a million men and left him so weakened that the Germans there-after held the advantage. 

At sea German submarines were claiming an increasing toll on British shipping, and Britain was feeling the strain. The only hope British leaders could see for ending the stalemate was to bring America into the war. Otherwise, to continue the war would bankrupt them; they would be obliged to accept a compromise peace, without achieving their aim of crushing Germany as an industrial-commercial rival. The public sentiment in America was strongly against intervention in the war, and Wilson won reelection in November by campaigning as a pacifist. His campaign slogan was, "He kept us out of war."

Thus was the stage set. Now enter the Zionists.

The Jews had three principal aims: First, to break the Turkish hold on Palestine. Second, to obtain from whichever power replaced Turkey in Palestine the concessions they had been unable to obtain from the Turks. Third, to destroy Russia, an object of special hatred to them. 

Until the fall of 1916 it was the third of these aims which manifested itself most noticeably in the Jews' policy. It is well to remember that it had been Rus warriors, under Sviatoslav the Great, who in 965 had utterly smashed the Khazar Empire, and the Ashkenazic Jews, who made up virtually all of the Zionist leadership, had long memories. Even today Jews celebrate annually their triumphs over enemies thousands of years ago.

Furthermore, a parallel Jewish movement, Bolshevism, had made great strides in Russia, and Jews throughout the world, of whatever persuasion, wanted to see the Russians weakened to the point that the Bolsheviks could seize the nation. It was with this purpose in mind that Jacob Schiff, America's richest Jew, financed Trotsky and his fellow Jewish Bolsheviks to the tune of $25 million. Later, after the downfall of Russia, Schiff opened his coffers to the Zionists. 

Toward the end of 1916, however, it was clear that Russia was in terminal condition. Although she still had vast armies in the field and even vaster reserves of manpower at home, from a strategic viewpoint Russia was whipped, and the Germans were already beginning to withdraw troops from the eastern front in order to bolster their strength in the west.

A good share of the credit for the Russian collapse belonged to the Bolsheviks, who were working furiously to undermine morale in the trenches and in the factories. They spread pacifist and defeatist leaflets among the troops and carried on in Russia's cities much as they did more than 50 years later in America's cities during the Vietnam war. 

Until this point then, it had behooved the Jews to back Germany, and they did. Ultimately, however, their plan called for Germany -- or, at least, Germany's ally Turkey -- to lose. So it was that in October 1916 the Jews made their offer to the British government: We will bring America into the war, if you will take Palestine away from the Turks and give it to us. 

The story of this offer, its acceptance by the British government, and its aftermath has been told in several places and hinted at in many. Not in any of the "approved" history texts dealing with the First World War which are used today in American colleges and universities, of course, or in any "popular" treatments of the war to be found in newsstand paperbacks, but the interested reader can nevertheless find a number of unimpeachable, firsthand accounts, if he is willing to dig a bit in a large library. For example, Malcolm Thomson, the biographer of David Lloyd George, Britain's wartime prime minister, writes on pages 273-274 of David Lloyd George, the Official Biography (London 1949):

...In the autumn of 1916, when the question of strengthening sympathy with the Allied cause was growing acute, an Armenian Jew, James A. Malcolm, who was giving expert help and advice to the Government about Middle Eastern matters, approached [Foreign Office Undersecretary Sir Mark] Sykes and urged that the Allies should capture the sympathies of American Jewry -- at that time tending to favour Germany -- by a declaration of support for the Zionist cause. Sykes saw the possibilities of the suggestion, and laid it before Lord Milner, who took it up with the Cabinet....

...Secret assurances were given to the Zionist leaders through Sykes that the British government would support their cause if the consent of their Allies could be obtained. A message to this effect was sent to Justice Brandeis, the American Zionist, who was a close friend of President Wilson, and the help of leading Zionists in all the Allied countries was mobilized.

Samuel Landman, secretary to Zionist leaders Chaim Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow in 1916, and later general secretary of the World Zionist Organization, narrates the events from firsthand knowledge in his booklet Great Britain, the Jews, and Palestine (London, 1936). On pages 4-5 he writes:

During the critical days of 1916 and of the impending defection of Russia, Jewry, as a whole, was against the Czarist regime and had hopes that Germany, if victorious, would in certain circumstances give them Palestine. Several attempts to bring America into the War on the side of the Allies by influencing influential Jewish opinion were made and had failed. Mr. James A. Malcolm, who was already aware of German pre-war efforts to secure a foothold in Palestine through the Zionist Jews and of the abortive Anglo-French demarches at Washington and New York; and knew that Mr. Woodrow Wilson, for good and sufficient reasons, always attached the greatest possible importance to the advice of a very prominent Zionist (Mr. Justice Brandeis, of the U.S. Supreme Court); and was in close touch with Mr. Greenberg, Editor of the Jewish Chronicle (London); and knew that several important Zionist Jewish leaders had already gravitated to London from the Continent on the qui vive awaiting events; and appreciated and realised the depth and strength of Jewish national aspirations; spontaneously took the initiative, to convince first of all Sir Mark Sykes, Under Secretary to the War Cabinet, and afterwards Monsieur Georges Picot, of the French Embassy in London, and Monsieur Gout of the Quai d'Orsay (Eastern Section), that the best and perhaps the only way (which proved so to be) to induce the American President to come into the War was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jews, by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilise the hitherto unsuspectingly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quocontract basis. Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists, having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret "gentleman's" agreement of 1916 made with the previous knowledge, acquiescence and/or approval of the Arabs and of the British, American, French and other Allied Governments, and not merely a voluntary altruistic and romantic gesture on the part of Great Britain as certain people either through pardonable ignorance assume or unpardonable illwill [sic] would represent or rather misrepresent....

An interesting account of the negotiations carried on in London and Paris, and subsequent developments, has already appeared in the Jewish press and need not be repeated here in detail, except to recall that immediately after the "gentleman's" agreement between Sir Mark Sykes, authorised by the War Cabinet, and the Zionist leaders, cable facilities through the War Office, the Foreign Office and British Embassies, Legations, etc., were given to the latter to communicate the glad tidings to their friends and organisations in America and elsewhere, and the change in official and public opinion as reflected in the American press in favour of joining the Allies in the War, was as gratifying as it was surprisingly rapid.

Landman tells the same story in other places: for example, in a lengthy letter titled "The Origin of the Balfour Declaration" published in the Jewish Chronicle (London, February 7, 1936; page 33).

A much more detailed account of the negotiations between the Jews and the British government in October 1916 is in Two Studies in Virtue (London, 1953), a biography of Sir Mark Sykes by his son, Christopher Sykes, who drew extensively on his father's diaries and letters of the period. A few paragraphs excerpted here from pages 180-188 of that book suggest the essentials:

...One day in October of 1916 a certain Mr. James Malcolm came to visit Mark Sykes....Sykes...[said] that he could see no end to the war. In France there was a military deadlock. At sea the power of the [German] submarine was growing; on land that of the Russian armies failing....A decisive victory, or indeed a victory of any kind, seemed impossible without American participation on an enormous scale, and of that he saw little likelihood....At this Mr. Malcolm took occasion to harangue his friend on the principles which should govern British foreign policy regarding the Jewish world....He proceeded to tell him about Zionism....

Mr. Malcolm...then told Sykes of a very curious and powerful influence which Zionists could exert. One of President Wilson's closest advisers and friends was Justice Louis D. Brandeis, a Jew....It was believed...that Wilson was attached to Brandeis by ties of peculiar hardness....It followed that...a Zionist policy was in truth the way to capture American sympathy [for the Allies]....

... [Malcolm then said:] "The question is, do you want the help of the Jews of the United States? The only way you can get that help is by offering Palestine to the Zionists." ...

... [After the British had agreed to the Zionist terms, the leader of the Zionist delegation, Nahum] Sokolow made a simple request, namely that the Zionist Committee should have facilities for communications abroad. He pointed out that since they were an international body this was especially needful to them, and he suggested that they should be granted governmental privileges, since they could thus attain their object while subjecting themselves to the needs of secrecy and censorship....

The next morning... [Sokolow] got what he asked for: it was agreed that the War Office and the Foreign Office would send Zionist letters and telegrams by way of [British] Embassies....The news was given out to Jewish communities all over the world that in return for certain services the British Government would...satisfy the Jewish longing for Palestine....

A more general account is given by Professor H.W.V. Temperley in his six-volume work, A History of the Peace Conference of Paris (London, 1924). Of the Balfour Declaration he writes (vol. vi, pp. 173-174): "That it is in purpose a definite contract between the British Government and Jewry represented by the Zionists is beyond question. In spirit it is a pledge that in return for services to be rendered by Jewry the British Government would 'use their best endeavours' to assure the execution of a certain definite policy in Palestine."

As Samuel Landman notes above, once the deal had been struck and the word sent out to American Jews, "the change in official and public opinion as reflected in the American press in favor of joining the Allies in the war was...surprisingly rapid." President Wilson, without blushing or skipping a beat, changed his tune from "I kept us out of war" to "We must destroy German militarism in order to make the world safe for democracy."

A detailed examination of the chicanery used by the "American" press and President to coax a reluctant nation into sending its sons off to die in Flanders' fields and a thousand other foreign places, in order that, unknown to them, the Jews could satisfy their side of their deal with the British government, would take us far beyond the scope of this article. The various pretexts used for abandoning neutrality -- such as Germany's submarine blockade of Britain and the so-called "Zimmermann telegram" -- are treated exhaustively in the "approved" textbooks on the war (although they are treated with utmost seriousness rather than as pretexts).

In brief, it was a matter of Wilson's talking peace, even sending his personal factotum, "Colonel" Edward Mandell House, on supposed peace missions to the various belligerents, while actually seizing every opportunity to fan the flames of war. The scheme was to present an appearance to the public of his being forced, much against his will, to go to war in order to defend America's honor. Because the war provided plenty of real opportunities for international "incidents" to occur, especially when Wilson took pains to see that Americans would be in harm's way as often as possible, it was not overly difficult to generate the desired impression in the public mind. 

For example, when a German submarine sank the British ship Laconia on February 25, 1917, with the loss of three Americans who were aboard, Wilson and the press put on a great show of moral outrage at this act of German "barbarism," treating it as an intolerable affront to American sovereignty. It was a matter of exaggerating incidents which could have been ignored -- or avoided altogether -- if Wilson really had wanted to preserve American neutrality. The German submarine blockade of Britain was milked for all it was worth to generate anti-German sentiment among the American people, while the far more ruthless British blockade of Germany was quietly ignored. Wilson connived to assure that the former would yield pretexts for intervention, while he took measures to prevent American ships and citizens from running afoul of the latter. [5] 

In any event, it is clear that Mr. Ochs's investment in the New York Times yielded a handsome dividend to world Jewry, as did Mr. Brandeis' years of patient counsel to the fawningly grateful and ever more dependent Woodrow Wilson. 

The British formalized their intention to satisfy their side of the deal with the Jews by issuing the Balfour Declaration, which was in the form of a letter, dated November 2, 1917, from British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to "Lord" Lionel Rothschild, who was recognized as the leader of the Jewish community in Britain. The brief document merely stated a resolution which had been approved by the British Cabinet: "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." 

The last provision, added at Jewish insistence, reveals the Zionists' intention that Jews everywhere should be uniquely favored by being permitted to enjoy the citizenship, with full rights and privileges, of both the Gentile country in which they happen to reside at the moment and of their "national home" in Israel. 

The reservation about not prejudicing the "civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine" was, under subsequent Jewish pressure, eventually ignored. 

Arthur Balfour

The Balfour Declaration provides an especially interesting example of the hypocritical cant which has characterized the statesmanship of both of the great English-speaking powers during the 20th century. Pious concern for the rights of the non-Jews in Palestine is expressed in a document which, in effect, is a promise by the British government to secure for the Jews land which belonged neither to it nor to the Jews. How did Mr. Balfour imagine that his government could accomplish that dubious feat without prejudicing the rights of the current owners of the land, who were in no mood to give it up willingly? 

One is reminded of the British government's claim in September 1939 that it was declaring war on Germany in order to protect the freedom of its ally Poland, which had been invaded by Germany -- a claim which conveniently overlooked the fact that the Soviet Union had also invaded Poland. In 1945 the same British government, its earlier expression of concern for Polish freedom buried under a bushel of new cant about democracy and peace, obligingly agreed to its ally becoming an unwilling vassal of the Soviet Union.

Nothing, however, can quite match the unabashed brazenness of the hypocrisy Woodrow Wilson displayed in engineering the entry of the United States into the First World War -- unless it was that displayed a generation later by Franklin Roosevelt, when he too talked peace and plotted war, at the behest of the same people Wilson had served.

WILSON'S campaign propaganda for the 1916 election emphasized his stance of non-intervention in the war then raging in Europe. Most of the press and the public were also against intervention. Then, after Wilson's reelection -- and the British-Zionist deal, concluded just a few days before the election -- the press began a "surprisingly rapid" shift toward an interventionist stance. Wilson followed, calling for a declaration of war against Germany just five months after his reelection. Even before that, however, he and Brandeis had been planning war, and it was their secret assurances that the United States would be brought into the war that led British leaders to reject Germany's peace offer of December 12, 1916. If that offer had been accepted, the lives of some three million White soldiers -- including 115,000 Americans -- Which were consumed in 1917 and 1918 would have been spared. Furthermore, the Second World War, which grew out of the unjust conditions imposed on Germany after the Allied victory, would have been avoided. And if Russia could have had peace in December 1916, she probably would have had time to stamp out the Bolshevik virus being spread among her soldiers and workers by the Jews, and Communism would have suffered a setback from which it might never have recovered. All of the grim and bloody consequences of Wilson's switch in foreign policy stem from the Zionist influence in the U.S. news media and politics, which had been built up over the preceding two decades.

Upon reflection, may we not conclude that lying cant is what should be expected of any government which has degenerated to the point that it consists mainly of lawyers? And is not that the kind of government which must inevitably devolve under a system which gives the franchise to the credulous and the gullible?

It is the historians and the teachers, however, who most deserve our scorn. Everyone expects lawyers to lie; word trickery is their stock-in-trade. No lawyer committed to the truth could hope to earn a living. But historical scholars are supposed to be different. They are supposed to be indifferent to popular myths, always seeking the reality which lies beneath the facile explanations of governments and politicians. 

The explanation for the reluctance of modern historians to write about the Zionist role in the First World War is this: in the immediate postwar years, the Zionist responsibility for America's entry into the war was a valid topic for historical investigation and discussion, with even the Zionists freely admitting their actions. After all, America and Britain had won the war, and Germany was down and out. How could the truth hurt anyone?

Then in 1933 Germany, under Adolf Hitler, began getting back on its feet. Suddenly any discussion of the truth about the Zionist role in the last war became "anti-Semitic."

One man who was privy to every detail of that role was David Lloyd George. In 1938 the former British war secretary and prime minister wrote a two-volume book, The Truth about the Peace Treaties. In that book he described the way in which Jews all over the world -- in Germany and Russia as well as in America -- immediately switched from a pro-German to an anti-German stance after the deal between his government and the Zionists was made. He pointed out the fatal consequences this switch had for the German war effort. And on page 1140 he noted: "The Germans themselves know that to be the case, and the Jews in Germany are suffering today for the fidelity with which their brethren in Russia and in America discharged their obligations under the Zionist pledge to the Allies."

Since the Second World War, any criticism of the Jews has been taboo, and even the historical scholars have feared to tread on ground where their discoveries might reveal the Jews in a a bad light. The consequences of this cowardice have been very costly indeed.

_______________________________________________________________

Coming next, Part II: From the Balfour Declaration to the Rosh Hashana Massacre. 

Notes:

1 - The language of the Philistines has not been preserved, except in a few clay tablets bearing a script as yet untranslated but apparently related to the so-called Minoan A script. The preponderance of scholarly opinion is that the Philistine language was Indo-European and that the Philistines themselves entered the Aegean region as a part of the great Phrygian migration from the Indo-European heartland north of the Black Sea in the 13th century B.C. The Dorians, who invaded and conquered the Peloponnesus at that time and whose best known city was Sparta, may have been their traveling companions. 

2 - The Ashkenazim are those Jews whose ancestry lies in eastern Europe. Racially they are partly European, partly Semitic (i.e., of the same racial stock as the Sephardim), and partly Turko-Mongol. Their origin was among the Khazars, a Turko-Mongol tribe which invaded southern Russia from Central Asia in the sixth century A.D. and adopted Judaism en masse in the eighth century. 

The Sephardim are those Jews whose origin was in the Arabian peninsula. During and after Roman times they spread from Palestine throughout the Mediterranean basin, establishing an especially strong presence in the Iberian peninsula during the centuries of the Moorish occupation. 

Some of the Jews expelled from Iberia at the end of the 15th century migrated to the Netherlands and to the New World, while most of them went to northern Africa or various Middle Eastern lands. Jews who had remained in northern Africa or the Middle East since Roman times are sometimes called Oriental Jews to distinguish them from the other Sephardim.

There has been a certain amount of mixing between the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim since the early Middle Ages, primarily through the extensive involvement of both groups in foreign commerce. Thus, both Ashkenazim andSephardim share many genetic traits, despite their diverse origins. See The Genetics of the Jews, by A.E. Mourant, Ada C. Kopec, and Kazimiera Domaniewska-Sobczak (Clarendon Press, 1978).

Most of the Jews of the United States and Europe today are Ashkenazim, while the Sephardim slightly outnumber the former in Israel.

3 - American Jewish News (New York), March 7, 1919. A photographic reproduction of the pertinent sections from that publication and other Zionist documents may be found in Issue No. 48 of NATIONAL VANGUARD.

The reader should note that Herzl uses the expression "the nations," both in this speech and in the excerpt quoted above from his book, as a code phrase: he gives it the same meaning it has in the Old Testament, as in, "...I have this day set thee over the nations...to root out and to pull down and to destroy..." (Jeremiah 1:10) That is, "the nations" means "the goyim."

Harper's Bible Dictionary (Madeleine S. Miller and J. Lane Miller, New York, 1959), has the entry: "nations, a term used by Hebrew writers for non-Israelites, outsiders, Gentiles, heathen."

4 - The Brandeis-Frankfurter Connection: The Secret Political Activities of Two Supreme Court Justices, by Bruce Murphy (Oxford University Press, 1982). Murphy, a political science professor at Pennsylvania State University, discovered an extensive file of correspondence between Brandeis and a Jewish law professor at Harvard University, Felix Frankfurter (1882-1965). From the time of his appointment to the Supreme Court in 1916 until his retirement in 1939, Brandeis paid Frankfurter to serve as his messenger and errand boy, so that Brandeis could secretly maintain all of his political contacts behind the cloak of judicial impartiality.

5 - The chicanery involved in the way Wilson and the press dealt with the blockades the belligerents imposed on one another is revealed especially well in Colin Simpson's excellent and thoroughly documented book The Lusitania (Boston, 1972). That book in turn refers the interested reader to a number of other valuable sources.