search

Franklin Scandal Omaha

pictorial index

sitemap home

Samuel Untermyer

nfu

 

9/11 Truth, JFK assassination, Holocaust revision & ISIS interactive spreadsheet

9/11, JFK, Holocaust ISIS Timeline

Germanness and Jewishness: Samuel Untermyer, Felix Warburg, and National Socialism, 1914–1938 Gregory Kupsky

 
 

Samuel Untermyer

Fake Holocaust Rumors

excerpts from Francis Neilson's 'The Makers of War'

Wilson blackmail to involve US in WWI

untermyer

Benjamin Freedman's Hidden Tyranny ... establishes that Treaty of Versailles was overwhelmingly controlled by Jews.

Untermyer speech 1933 and rebuttal

Heddesheimer The First Holocaust pdf

 

Untermyer: "Just over 100 years ago Disraeli pointed out that strange people had power to direct the actions of gov- ernments. Sidonia, one of the characrers in his novel, says: "So you see, my dear Coningsby, the world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes." Untermyer was so much behind the scenes that he stood in the prompt entrance and rang up the curtain on the tragedy which, six years later, was to embroil the nations of the world in utter disaster. His campaign was really started in April, 1933, when it was launched unofficially at a meeting to dedicate a memorial theater as part of the Hebrew University in Palestine. ... It took a few weeks, however, to work up the propaganda to fever heat, and it was not until he made his radio speech in August that some people in America realized that Untermyer seemed bent upon provoking a war. He tried to whip up the general interest by telling of the "fiendish torture, cruelty and persecution that are being inflicted day by day upon these men, women and children," and saying that when their full story was known it would present 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, cold-bloodedly planned and already partially executed campaign for the extermination of a proud, gentle, loyal, law-abiding people."

 

9-11

 

 

Excerpts from Francis Neilson's The Makers of War

p3
Many times since the summer of 1945, when I finished
writing Tb: Tragedy of Europa, my American and British
friends have asked me to give them, in short compass,
in ideas about the economic and political disturbances
which caused the nations to destroy Europe. This was
no eas task for a man of my age, because my mind was
so fulr of the lon histo of the troubles that it was
difficult to select tie chie?features of the terrible drama
and give adequate account of them in brief space.

In putting together this synopsis of the Ipo itical and
diplomatic «tors of each crisis, I have se ected matter
overlooked by many academic historians. Moreover,
with some of the writers who treat of the First World
War and the consequences of the Treaty of Versailles, I
notice a tendency to ignore many underlying causes that
contributed to the strife. Diflicult as it is to stand aloof
and forget one's nationality and loyalty to a govern-
ment or its chief minister, this must be done if the stu-
dent is to form a clear idea about the causes of wars.

In future, the investigator in this branch of the art
of historical literature must conduct his work in a man-
ner as cold blooded as that of a biochemist in his labora-
tory. National prejudices and party loyalties ought to
have no place in the task that has to be done. Indeed, it
will be necessary for the students (and I think chiefly of
them) to pursue the line of inquiry laid down by Lord
Acton in his Inaugural Lecture at Cambridge University.
The fact is the dominant of research, and the student
must not be afraid of tracin it to its lair.

This was finished in Fefiruary, 1950, before anyone
dreamed of a war in Korea. What has taken place in
the world since Hitler invaded Poland is not within
p4
its comfass. The volume is brought to a close with the
end of iplomatic negotiations in September, 1939. It is
intentionally provocative and, as a London ublisher
says, a forceful work. The purpose of the author is to
rouse students out of their nationalistic attitude to these
wars and, if they be interested in the matter at all, to
force them to a deeper investigation of the events sur-
veyed in this book, so that they may learn for them-
selves the influences and directions of men behind the
scenes who insrigate the crises that force governments
to choose war rather than the humiliation of confessing
they have blundered.

August 1, 1950
p5
Foreword
I. Britain's Role in the Boer War . . . . . . . 1
II. The Era of Secret Diplomacy. . . . . . . . 11
III. War Patriotism and Propaganda. . . . . . . 17
IV. The Search for Political Truth . . . . . . . 24
V. Diplomatic Prelude to World War I . . . . . 38
VI. Behind the Scenes . . . . . . . . . . . 51
VII. The Interlude . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
VIII. Outstanding Problems in Europe . . _ . . . 70
IX. German Rearmament . . . . . . _ . . . 77
X. Who Makes Wars? . . . . . . . . . . 90
XI. Totalitarian Experiments . . . . . . . . 104
XII. Democracy . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
XIII. Muddled Statesmanship . . . . . . . . . 12}
XIV. Churchill's Delusions . . . . . _ . . . . I31
XV. The Rise of Mussolini . . . . . , . . 138
XVI. The Press and Lying . . . . . . . . . . I46
XVII. The School of Nonsense . . . . . . . . . 156
XVIII. The Anublm: . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
XIX. The Czechoslovak Minorities . . . . . . 178
XX. The Pledge to Poland . . . . 7 . . . . I96
XXI. The Pursuit of Peace . . . . , . . . . . 213
Bibliography . . . . . . . _ . . . . 227
Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233

p7
Bntam’s Role m the Boer War
N BAR THE CENTER or THE MAZE AT HAMPTON COURT TWO
men met. One inquired: “How do we get out of this
mess?” The other asked, "How did we get into it?" The
first man re lied, "That's easy. We walked into it."

Looking back upon the condition of Europe after the
Franco-German War, I think most men of my age would
say that we did nor walk into the European mess; we
ambled into it, thoughtlessly. Few people took any
interest in what are called foreign affairs. Millions who
cast their votes at elections were ignorant of the osten-
sible policies of their governments; business men were
concerned chiefly in the financial and commercial success
of their undertakings. During the latter years of Eng-
land's policy of "splendid isolation,” the foreign poli-
cies of the principa powers of the world did not work
out so bad y, but when British and French interests
clashed in northern Africa, something sinister took place
which led to animosities that became deep-seated. The
interests of Great Britain in Egypt, of France and of
Spain in Morocco, and of Italy in Tripoli suddenly ap-
peared to be fraught with the dangers of war.

Underlying these disrurbances of foreign policy there
were many movements which the ublic knew little or
norhing about. These were fostereg by concessionaires,
great business combinations that planned to exploit the
territories of so-called backward people. In every case
it meant aggression, by “peaceful penetration," if pos-
sible; and as fricrion increased, it meant also greater
expenditure upon armies and navies.

p8
Britain's Role in the Boer War 3

When politicians are in control, as they are today,
there are a hundred and one underlying motives that
must be considered seriously if their proclaimed policies
are to be estimated at their true value. For example, to
what extent is a war scare necessary to keep men busy,
who are employed in making munitions and other sup-
plies for armies and navies? Another motive to be ques-
tioned is the desire of the politicians to keep the electors
in as good fettle as possible, so that they will not vote
for the opposition.

Bureaucracy today is a vested interest-the most pow-

erful the world has ever known. In other respects, it
is a job-making industry; every additional man or wom-
an emplloyed in its offices is an additional vote for the
hirer. moreover, the system of taxation of wealth bol-
sters the paper-making industry-paper money, paper
bonds, restrictve forms, red tape, and in America, the
spoils traffic. The American Comptroller QfIaxes de-
clared that something like $50,000,000,000 of the cost
of World War II went in graft.
Therefore, it is surely high time taxpayers should
wake up and take some interest in their political for-
tunes. They should get a few facts, think them over,
and set their minds sternly a ainst the plausible non-
sense poured out sickeningly by governing politicians.
Electors ought to question them, and refuse to be put
off by evasive replies; make them stick to the point.

Your English forefathers did all this. Do you think
that meek and easygoing men could have won the
Reform of 1832, wrung from Peel the abolition of the
Corn Laws, brought about the extension of the franchise
in 1867? It is a simple matter to trace the benefits that
accrued to the British people, owing to the efforts of
common men during the greater part of the last century.
No one was hurt; not even the landlords who thrived
on the high price of corn. You will gain grist for your
thinking mil by learning how the men of the forties
and fifties earned benefits for themselves-benefits they

p9
4 The Makers of War

thought you would enjoy and which would lead to
better conditions, if you had the nous to know about
them.

Now let us see how we got into the maze of European

politics. We rambled into it fifty years ago, and we give
been trying, without success, to find a way out of it
since the end of World War I. The historian, J. A.
Froude, tells us in Cream that South Africa had long
been a territory that attracted exploiters with no pas-
toral ambitions such as the Boer farmers were content
to further in their settlement at Cape Colony. History
now records how they were driven north to the Trans-
vaal and the Orange Free State.

As the commitments of the British Government be-
came more widespread and fraught with greater dangers
to European peace, the continental powers watched with
increasing anxiety her imperial policies and her growing
military and naval needs for supporting them. The sta-
tistics of army and navy exgilnditure of the powers from
the time of the last Boer ar are most enlightening.

The insane armament race be an about 1897. Taking the
ten-year period from 1887, (great Britain increased her
expenditure by more than £9,000,000; France by
£2,000,000; Russia by £2,000,000; and Germany by
more than £2,000,000.

The visit of the French fleet to Kronsradt in 1892 and
the return visit of the Russian fleet to Toulon in 1893
undoubtedly did much to provoke the armament race.
Of course, there was another side to this, and that was
the slackness of trade in the dockyards and the war
scares that were fostered to make it easier to get the
money from the taxpayers.

All the great naval powers were interested to some
extent in the schemes 0 the principal munitions makers
whose international organizations were influentially
powerful. The directors of the Harvey United Steel
Company Ltd. represented the interests of Britain, Ger-
many, France, Italy, and had connections in the United

p10
States. The Steel Manufacturers Nickel Syndicate (ac-
cording to the certificate of the directors’ names, taken
from Somerset House) comprised five companies from
Great Britain, three from France, two from Germany,
one from Italy, and one from Austria.

No clearer evidence of what the race for armaments
really meant to the peace of the world can be found than
that in a White Paper issued in 1905 by the British
Government, which shows the naval expenditure of the
great powers. Taking the year 1890 as a starting lpoint,
it covers a fourteen-year period up to and inc uding
1904. Great Britain increased her expenditure by
£3,000,000; France by more than £4,000,000; Russia
by nearly £8,000,000;German by more than £6,000,000;
and the United States jumped, from £4,600,000 to more
than £20,000,000.

There is another line of approach that must be taken
into consideration for a proper understanding of the
influences that aggravated the powers and affected the
race for armaments. For a long period Great Britain
had enjoyed the maritime carrying service of the world.
She was act only Mistress of the Seas so far as the navy
was concerned; she was also mistress of them in trade
and commerce. She had nothing to fear from France or
Italy as competitors. But when Germany began to build
her own ships and challen England's supremacy in
the passenger and cargo tradge of the world, she realized
that her position was endangered and something had
to be done about it.

This should not be overlooked in a search for the
causes of the jealousies and frictions that arose amon
the powers fifty years ago. It was not so much the build-
ing of the German navy that caused anxiet in Great
Britain as the growth of the maritime fleets of the North
German Lloyd and the Hamburg-American lines.

The pressure of hard facts increased in many competi-
tive fiellds. For a time, the Kaiser Wilhelm der (52:50
was the largest and fastest ship on the Atlantic; and

p11
she was followed in 1900 by the Deutchland, which
crossed from Cherbourg in five and a half days. About
the time that McKinley was elected President of the
United States, America launched two passenger vessels
-the St. Paul and the St. Louir-as a challenge to
British monopoly of the Atlantic traffic.

The high-tariff legislation of the McKinley adminis-
tration was another blow to her supremacy. The organi-
zation of the United States Steel Trust meant fewer
imports of steel from Great Britain. Germany, too, was
nor slow to expand her Steel industries, and the Ruhr
and the Saar sprang into prominence as fierce competitors
of the heavy industries of France and England.

Great Britain had been caught napping. The smug,
complacent British manufacturers, depending largely
upon the export trade, woke up a bit too late. When they
realized that the engineering, the electrical, the dyeing,
the optical, and other highly technical industries were
competing for the markets of the world, they discov-
ered that science had been called in by their rivals to
invent new machinery, cultivate new methods of pro-
duction, and make great savings in costs. There were
many other important adjuncts, such as German com-
mercial travelers speaking fluently the language of the
countries they visited for orders.

When the South African War began in 1899, the or-
dinary expenditure of the British Government amounted
to {343,687,000 and the national debt stood at £638,-
920,000. The income tax fifty years ago was 6d. in the
f” and those with incomes of less than £700 a year were
exempt. The laborer's shilling (when he had a chance to
earn it) was worth 12d. for necessaries. However, he
paid indirect taxes upon tea, tobacco, wines and spirits.
till, it must be remembered that Charles Booth's in-
vestigations into the conditions of the poor revealed
the terrible fact that one-third of the population was
living upon the poverty line.

p12
Nevertheless, Britain had to fight a war in South
Africa for the gold and diamond merchants. The excuse
given to the electors for destroying the Boer Republic
was quite different. Joseph Chamberlain and his sup-
porters said the reason or the conflict was that the
Kruger Government would not give a vote to the
Uitlanders. These were "the greatest gang of circus-
followers, pop merchants, and other ne'er-do-wells ever
collected in a single area."

The military correspondent of the Newcastle Cbrcmicle,
in a letter which appeared December 5, 1899, reported
as follows: It must be a great relief to the military commander in
Natal to know that the 30,000 or 40,000 Uitlanders of
Johannesburg had left that city before the Outbreak of hos-
tilities. Otherwise we should have had Cornishmen and Jew
boys from "the golden city" whining and imploring our
generals to come and save them. Nothing can exceed the
contempt of the real Englishman for this veritable scum of the
earth. t makes our blood boil to think that the pick of the
British army is engaged in mortal combat to make things
easy for the sharpers and swindlers who fatten on the illicit
profits of the gold industry.

The mass of the British people never knew the truth
of this disgraceful business until long after the war was
over. Captain March Phillips, in Wit Rimington, tells us:
As for the Uitlanders and their grievances, I would act
ride a yard or fire a shot to right all the rievances that were
ever invented. The mass of itlanders fie. the miners and
working men of the Rand) had no grievances. I know what I
am talking about, for I have lived and worked among them.
I have seen English newspapers passed from one to anorher,
and roars of laughter rouse by the 'Times' telegrams about
thesz frecious grievances. We used to read the London papers
to )7 out what our grievance: were; and very frequently they
would be due to causes of which he had never even heard.
One of the few books that gives a true account of the
last Boer War was published in America, in 1902, and

p13
it was written by Michael Davitt. It is called The Boer
Fight for Freedom and is dedicated to the memory of
General Philip Botha. Now that we have the third
volume of the History of The Timer, we know something
of the real conspirators and what their object was.

The plot of Joseph Chamberlain, Cecil Rhodes, and
Sir Alfred Milner, together with the long directory of
names of those who did not fight but gathered the spoil,
is revealed in many works that have appeared since the
war terminated. But Chamberlain was not always an
enemy of the Boer. Indeed, at one time he spoke as a
friend. At Birmingham, on June 7, 1881, he said:
They (the Boers) left their homes in Natal as the English
Puritans left England for the United States, and they founded
a little republic of their own in the heart of Africa. In 1852
we made a treaty with them, and we agreed to respect and
guarantee their independence; and I say under these circum-
stances, is it possible we could maintain a forcible annexation
of the country, without incurring the accusation of having
been guilty, I Will not say of national folly, but I say of na-
tional crime?

It was a national crime in 1881! Eighteen years later
it was an imperial duty. Well might Lloyd George say
after the First World War: Wars are precipitated by motives
which the statesmen responsible for them dare not assert.
A public discussion would drag these motives in their nudity
into the open, where they would die of exposure to the
withering contempt of humanity.

What thinking man would now challenge that state-
ment? But how many, fifty years ago, realized that the
influences that brought about the Boer War were re-
sponsible for a complete change in England's foreign
policy? Long after the republics were destroyed, critics
egan to realize that, so far as Great Britain was con-
cerned, the struggle was indicative of a grave decline
of what went by the name of her moral viewpoint, and

p14
that the Colonial Office had lost what little competency
it had.

Some writers whose articles appeared in the monthly
and quarterly reviews asked searching queStions about
Great Britain's industrial strength and her ability to
meet the competition of mass production in the United
States and the high technica development Germany
had made. However, the threat of competitors east
and west had not then been felt by British manufacturers.
Indeed, during the controversies raised by Chamberlain's
campaign for colonial preference, the statisticians
proved that under free trade the country was holding
er own and that her export trade seemed to be secure.
The politicians did not take a long view, but American
and German critics who visited England did not hesitate
to say that it was time Great Britain woke up to the
fan that her methods of production were old-fashioned.

A series of articles appeared in The Time: during World
War II under the title "Foreign Policy in Transition,"
and the writer summed up the position in clear-cut,
telling sentences:

In the 1890's the conditions which had given Britain
an overwhelming and unquestioned supremacy in the world
for three-quarters of a century were gradually passing away.
The volume of British steel roduction was overtaken both in
Germany and in the UnitedP States; and this significant land-
mark was in part cause, in part symptom, in part result, of a
wider range of phenomena-the inevitable decline of British
preeminence, due largely to Britain's long industrial start
over the rest of the world, in technical eflicxency, in scientific
research, and in industrial organization. Industry was enter-
ing a new phase of large-scale produCtion; and in this phase
Britain, hampered by increasingly obsolete traditions and
obsolete physical assets, no longer tool: the lead. Political
repercussmns soon made themselves felt. The South African
at was widely interpreted as a symptom of faltering British
supremacy.

The last sentence is significant, but its meaning was
not plainly interpreted until many years after the con-

p15
flict. Indeed, it may be said that most of the chief
bankers and the greatest industrialists were satisfied
with the general conditions of commerce. The trade
unions and their members showed little knowledge of
what was taking place in the world. They were chiefly
concerned in promoting greater membership and raising
nominal wage.

p16
II
The Era of Secret Dtplomacy

THE SOUTH AFRICAN WAR LEFT BRITAIN WITHOUT A
friend in Europe-indeed, in the world. Her political
leaders began to realize that her days of "splendid iso-
lation" were over and she had to seek alliances, public
and secret, as lprops to support her decline. The reason
she turned to France was that their interests conflicted
in Africa. To put the matter in a nutshell, Great Britain
wanted France out of Egypt, and France wanted a free
hand in Morocco. It was Foreign policy at its lowest ebb.

The Entente Cordiale was a diplomatic tour de force. Some
Frenchmen went so far as to say that it was sheer huck-
stering, and the business transacted at Algeciras in 1906
revealed a state of affairs that made decent men squirm
when they knew the facts. For the signatories of that
Treaty to pledge themselves to maintain the integrity
of the dominion of the Sultan and, at the same time, for
Great Britain to agree secretly to the artition of
Morocco by France and Spain was about as discreditable
a proceeding as diplomacy has been guilty of.

In studying the expenditures of the great powers upon
navies after the year 1904, those of France and Russia
should be added to the British. The White Papers and
Blue Books of that year show that Britain, France and
Russia together spent about {357,000,000 and that Ger-
many spent £ll,659,000. Russia and France were bound
by secret military and naval treaties, and Great Britain,

linking her fortunes with France, was committed as
their ally. The secret conversations between the British
and French military staffs began at this time.

p17
The taxpayer who footed the bill for the South
African-War (fought to ain diamonds and old for the
Wernhers, the Beits, the garnatos, and their Friends) had
learned nothing from the past and was, therefore, to-
tally i norant of what was in store for him after the
Act onglgeciras was signed. It is true that he com-
plained about the rising expenditure and protested
strenuously against Joseph Chamberlain's proposals for
colonial preference, which, to the working man, meant
a tax on bread. Some members of Parliament, anxious
about European affairs, did their best in the Commons
to learn from Grey what was really taking place. How-
ever, they did not succeed in getting the truth out of
him. When awkward quesrions were put to the Minister
of Foreign Affairs, he sometimes replied that "it was
nor in the public interest to give the information."

The ink was scarcely dry on the signatures appended
to the Algeciras Treaty when France and Spain went
into Morocco to partition the country. Then came the
cruelest hoax ever perpetrated upon the taxpayers. At
the bidding of the interests represented by the Camité du
Maroc, a French military force was sent to Fez where, it
was said, a whole European French colony had sud-
denly been discovered living in anguish. A tale of horror
was built up by the press servitors of the Comité, and
the French papers Le amp: and Le Marin outdid their
previous performances in deception and mendacity.
Francis de Pressensé, the most distinguished of the
French publicists, tells the story of this "errand of
mercy":

Already while the expedition was on its way, light began
to pierce. Those redoubtable rebels who were threatening
Fez had disa‘ppleared like the dew in the morning. Barely did
a few raging horsemen fire off a shot or two before turning
round ang riding away at a furious gallop. A too disin-
genuous, or too truthful, correspondent gave the show away.

The expeditionary force complains, he gravely records, of the
absence of the enemy; the approaching harvest season is
keeping all the healthy males in the fieldsl Thus did the

p18
Tln Era of Secret Diplomacy l3
phantom so dextrously conjured by the Com)! is Mam for
the benefit of its aims disappear in a night.

The horror of the light of the colonists in Fez deeply
affected a group of members of Parliament. Major
Archer-Shee asked what steps the government proposed
to take to safeguard British interests and squects in
Fez. He was told that there were ten persons residing
there. The government admitted it had no information
that would give cause for believing there was the slight-
est danger to Europeans. Both Major Archer-Shee and
Mr. Remnant asked whether it was intended to co-
operate with other governments, should it become neces-
sary to send a large orce to pacify Morocco.

John Dillon desired to know to what extent Britain
was committed to “this ill-omened and cruel expedi-
tion," and he told the House that the afl'air was not up
for the purpose of creating a scare. He questioned Grey
about the expedition and inquired “whether the British
Government had in any way approved or made itself
responsible for this attack on the independence of
Morocco.” Grey replied:

His Majesty's Government have been informed by the
French Government of the measures which are being adopted
for the succour of Europeans in Fez, and they understand that
information has also been given to Other Governments. The
acrion taken by France is not intended to alter the political
status of Morocco, and His Majesty’s Government cannot
see why any objection should be taken to it.

There were men in the House who took the trouble
to read French newspapers, who knew this reply con-
tained some complicated lies. In the first place, the
French Government did not know at the beginning of
the enterprise anything about the rescue of the Euro-
peans in Fez. Pressensé says: “The Government knew
nothing, willed nothing of itself.”

The second lie is about the political status of Morocco.
If Grey did not know of the secret treaties for the par-

p19
titioni'of the country, he was wholly unfitted to be
Foreign Minister, for Lord Lansdowne gave his consent
to the partition of the country before the Algeciras
Conference took place. In November, 1911, after this
crisis, the Paris papers got hold of the secret articles
and published the British consent to the partition of the
country between France and Spain.

The story, as it was known to independent French
publiciSts, is told fully in Edmund Morel's book,
Morocco in Diplomacy. Felicien Challaye in La Revue do
Moi: in January, 1912, said:

Honesty would in Morocco. and the Congo have been the
besr of po iCies. France committed lamenta le errors when,
for the satisfaction of private interests, she violated in
Morocco the Au of Algeciras, and in the Congo the Act of
Berlin. . . . Under what influences have been committed these
violations of the Act of Algeciras? Incontestably through the
influence of private interests.

The private interests! Or, as they were afterwards
called, "the international gang." Governments did their
bidding. Still, in justice to some of the ministers who
were not in the inner cabinets, it should be said that
perhaps they had no more knowledge of what was goingl
on than private members of the legislatures. Frenc an
English newspapers, in the spring of 1911, published
lists of some of the powerful interests that were bleeding
the taxpayers. One of these international combinations
was the Union do: Miner. Its founders and associates
were manufaCturers, bankers, and politicians of seven
or eight different countries. In the list published by
L'Humanité, we find:

The French "group" included the Cie. des Forges de
Chatillon-Commentry et Neuves Maisons, Schneider et Cie.
Banque frangaise pour le commerce et l'Industrie, Count
Armande, etc.; the German "group" included Krupps, the
Metallurgische Gesellschaft of Frankfurt, the Nationalbank
fur Deutschland of Berlin, etc.; the British "groug; included
A. E. Harris of Harris Dixon, Ltd., London, Mr. nar Law,

p20
M.P., Mr. W. B. Harris, correspondent of the Tim: at Tan-

gier, etc.; the Spanish " group" included the Marquis de Villa-

mejor, and so on.

France and Britain were to pay dearly for the hoax.
After the march on Fez, Germany complained because
she said her interests were ignored. At length, she sent
a small gunboat to Agadir, a place on the west coast of
Africa, which no one had heard of before, and the
clarions rang throughout Europe. The British Govern-
ment took it as a personal offense, although she was
supposed to have no territorial or commercial interests
in Morocco. However, she had to stand by her allies.
In the several houses of legislature, sheer mendacity
became, for a time, the order of the day, and ministers
were in sore plight when questioned about the commit-
ments of the powers and what was expected of them in the
way of military and naval aid if war took place. To add
to the confusion, the bellicose newspapers stirred the fires
of hate, and the warmongers, headed by Lord Roberts,
breathed "fire and brimstone" against Germany.

The generosity of a democracy was never more no-
ticeable than in the period between 1911, when the
Pantber visited Agadir, and the outbreak of war in
August, 1914. In three short years the taxpayers were
persuaded to shed their blood and reduce themselves
almost to poverty in the interesrs of the munitions indus-
tries, the Comité da Mama, and other an s of exploiters.

Durin this time the diplomatic bfimcfiers of Germany
only adcfed fuel to the flames. The belligerent s eeches
of the Kaiser-never directed against Englamf-were
emblazoned in the popular rints. But the generous-
hearted man in the Street had3 no information from his
government as to what was the real cause of the trouble.

acific speeches from platforms in the country had little
or no effect, for the penny papers that catered to the small
gamblers and gave them the latesr news about horses were
the chief source of information for the proletariat.

p21
Home affairs, both in England and in France, were
disrurbing enough without the prospect of a war. In
England there were great strikes, the "mutiny" at the
Curragh, in Ireland, over the question of Home Rule,
the threatened revolt of Ulster under the leadership of
Sir Edward Carson and F. E. Smith, to say nothing of
Mrs. Pankhurst's Amazons on the warpath for votes.
These were troubles enough for any government to con-
tend with. France, too, had her strikes and other internal
troubles. The condition of the army was seriously ques-
tioned, and stories of the jealousies of the generals were
whispered in polite society.

When the Archduke was murdered at Sarajevo, the
ministers of all the powers trembled. And well they
might, for Russia was bound to the interests of Pan-
Slavism in Serbia. AuStria was determined that she
would come to grips with the State that shielded the
miscreants who had committed the crime. When the
news first reached the western capitals of Europe, people
generally were shocked, and sympathy was tendered to
the aged Emperor, Franz Joseph. But in a short time it
was realized in the chancelleries that far-reaching com-
mitments were concerned in the matter. When the Aus-
trian note was presented to Serbia, the diplomatists saw
in it the seeds of war and that all the principal powers
might be drawn into the confliCt.

When Germany sided with Austria, Great Britain
sided with France and Russia. The Italian Government
did not reveal its hand until later, after bargaining for a
bribe to desert the Triple Alliance. Then the passionate
war patriots sharpened their pencils and, in writin
about the intentions of the interested powers, surpassed
all former attempts to delude the peop e. It was an orgy
of mendacit gone raving mad. Although Grey told
the House of}, Commons that Britain's interests in Serbia
were .nil, her commitments to France and Russia, long
hidden from the taxpayers, had to be fulfilled.

p22
War Patriotism and Propaganda
THE WAR PATRIOT AND THE PARTY PATRIOT WERE READY
to send to the gallows anyone who dared to impugn the
actions of men in whose hands the destiny of millions
was held. In the House of Commons members who at-
tempted to protest against the action of the government
were howled down, and such epithets as “the craven
crew” and "dastardly cowards" were thrown at them.
Balfour desig nated their brief speeches as “the very
dregs of the debate."

War patriotism is a madness for which there is no
cure, and he would be a foolish optimist who imagined
he could change the current of events, while a conflict
was in action, by presenting facts to show the govern-
ment had taken a wrong course. Who counts t e cost
when the blood is up? It is one of the great privileges
of democracy to spill it and foot the bill in other people's
quarrels. Another privilege, particularly at the end of
a war, is to form processions of unemployed and to
endure poverty in depressed areas.

It is marvelous what punishment the proletarians
will take. Yet, sometimes they see the errors of their
ways and cast their political idols down. Consistently
they have dealt severely with men who won their wars.
When they do have leisure to review the immediate
past, their political sagacity revives, and when they
go to the poll they show their displeasure. But as soon
as they elect a different lot of statesmen, they seem to
forget and forgive-thinking the old methods will nor
be practiced by the new men. Proletarians are friendly

p23
sort of chaps and do not nurse grudges. The are too
busy looking for jobs, picking a winner, and' striking
for higher prices. There was a time when the mass of
men knew the difference between nominal wage and
real wage. The housewives, when they kept budgets,
knew to a ha'penny how much tax was paid on neces-
saries purchased for the larder. That time has gone.

The main point, however, is that the proletarian will
nor take the trouble to find out what ails him. He will
spend hours, week after week, reading the training
reports of horses, and the chances of his soccer team in
the league championship, but as for spending a little
thought on the amount paid for costly wars and prodigal
governments, one might as well persuade him to read
Locke's Ema] Concerning Human Understanding. Short
memories and the desire for relaxation (which usually
means recreation, because of the monotony of his exist-
ence) are defects that he must remedy for himself. No
one can help him in this respect. He is proof against
counsel and, as generations pass, there is every indication
that he will become the mere plaything of the bureau-
crat and the victim of his own indolence and ignorance.

It was in the winter of 1907-08 that many men became
alarmed at Germany's industrial achievements. At a
meeting held in Caxton Hall, London, Haldane told an
audience about the scientific and technical advances
taking place in several industries. He had recently
visited Germany and returned with information that
was of immediate value. At several gatherin s and in
some illuminating articles in the monthlies, git Chris-
topher Furness reported on what he had seen during his
visit to America. Their warnings went unheeded; per-
haps because, so far as plant was concerned, Great
Britain was set in her ways. There were other indica-
tions that all was not well.

Arthur Balfour was anxious about the future. In the
biography of Henry White, by Allan Nevins, it is
recorded that Secretary Root of the American State

p24
Department inStructed White (who was American Am-
bassador to Italy) to go to London "to ascertain con-
fidentially the views of the British Government as to
the discussion of disarmament at the Hague." This
referred to the conference that was to begin in June,
1907. Nevins says that White's “observations, as he
talked with British public men, gave him a startled
sense that Europe might be approaching a general war."

During this visit, White had several conversations
with Ba four. One was overheard by White's daughter,
who took it down:

BALPOUR (somewhat lightly): "We are probably fools not

to find a reason for declaring war on Germany before she

builds too many ships and takes away our trade.

WHITE: “You are a very high-minded man in private life.

How can you possibly contemplate anything so politically

immoral as provoking a war against a harmless nation which

has as go a right to a navy as you have? If you wish to
compete with German trade, work harder."

BALPOURI “That would mean lowering our standard of
living. Perhaps it would be simpler for us to have a war."

Wan-a: “I am shocked that you of all men should enunci-
ate such principles."

BALPOUR (again lightly): “Is it a question of right or
wrong? Maybe it is just a question of keeping our supremacy.

White also had a talk with the Foreign Minister, and
reported the gist of it to the Secretary of rate [Root].

Not long after this, a reason was found for arming
against Germany, who, in turn, had been armigg against
France and Russia. A naval panic was start on ,the
false information given by Mulliner of the Coventry
Ordnance Company, and the increase of German arma-
ments against er foes east and west was interpreted by
Mr. Balfour and his supporters as preparations for an
attack upon Great Britain. Soon the p atforms of Eng-
land rang out with denunciations at every advance
made by the German navy, and Asquith's Government

p25
was shaken by the storm. The Tories went about howl-
ing:
Eight, Eight, Eight,
We won't have less than Eight.
So we'll smash them flat
If they won't give us that;
We will have Eight.

It was one of the most disgraceful, cooked-up con-
spiracies the British public had known, and the editor
of the Navy League Annual, in dealing with these panics,
said the agitation was “one of the most portentous
pieces of parliamentary humbug ever practiced upon
the electorate." Admiral Fisher, in his book, Memorier,
produces a letter that he wrote to the King, in which he
said:

Now this is the truth: En land has seven "Dreadnau hts"
and three “Dreadnaught” gattle Cruisers . . . ; tOtaI, ten
Dreadnaughts" built and building, while Germany, in
March last [1907], had not begun even one "Dreadnaught."

It is doubtful if, even so late as May last, a German "Dread-

naught" had been commenced.

The damage was done, and from that time prepara-
tions for war were speeded up But the working man
was not wholly convinced, or the Asquith Govern-
ment was returned to power with a severely reduced
majority in two genera elections in 1910, saved by 40
Labor representatives and 82 Irish Nationalists. The
Tories and Liberals made a dead heat of it. In 1906 Sir
Henry Campbell-Bannerman had a majority of 354. The
last election in 1910 gave his arty a majority of 126,
which included Labor and Irish Home Rulers.

The two principal questions put to the electors in
these genera elections were: the taxation of land values
bill for England and Wales, which had been rejected by
the House of Lords, and the Parliament Act. The sinister
problem that haunted the minds of so many leading
men was scarcely discussed. Land, the economic prob-

p26
lem, and the veto of the House of Lords were of im-
mediate concern.

After the Agadir affair, the Prime Minister sent
Churchill to the Admiralty, and soon Asquith Was to
learn from the country what the working men of Eng-
land thought about the move. The Liberals lost by-
eleCtion after by-election until, in 1912, three seats were
held by candidates who placed the taxation of land
values in the forefront of their programs. Still, the
government did not take the hint, which was obvious
to many Liberal organizers and to many of the trade
unionists.

Secretly, the Committee of Imperial Defence carried
forward with great earnesmess the lans for war, pre-
dicted by several “in the know" (lincluding Admiral
Fisher) to begin in 1914. Churchill left no stone unturned
to make the navy as powerful as possible. He was sent
to the Admiralty expressly to prepare for war with Ger-
many, as he told his constituents at Dundee, and he
performed his job as well as mortal man could.

It should be unnecessary here to go into the matter of
the immediate causes of the war, because there are suffi-
cient books written by investigators of the principal
powers, which working men can read. Many of the
severest critics belon to Allied nations. Those of France,
Italy, Belgium, am? the United States have exposed
ruthlessly the stupid pretexts of the statesmen who were
at odds with Germany. No historian of any repute today
believes that Germany Was solely responsible for the
war. It has been said that the men who subscribed to
that sill statement did not believe it themselves. But
one lie breeds anOther, and those who were guilty of
writing the Treaty of Versailles could nor afford to lose
face and appear in sackcloth and ashes.

That treaty, even at the time it was signed by the
Allied ministers and the German plenipotentiaries, was
denounced as a vindictive, war-breeding instrument that
would engulf Europe in anOther confliCt. Robert Lansing,

p27
the American Secretary of State who was in Paris when
the treaty was drawn up, says in his book, The Peace
Negotiations:

The terms of peace were yesterday delivered [May 7, 1919]
to the German plenipotentiaries, and for the first time in
these days of feverish rush of preparation there is time to
consider the Treaty as a complete document.

The impression made by it is one of disappointment, of
regret, and of depression. The terms of peace appear immeas-
urably harsh an humiliating, while many of t em seem to
me impossible of performance.

It must be admitted in honesty that the League is an
instrument of the mighty to check the normal rowth of
national power and national aspirations among time who
have been rendered impotent by defeat.

The League as now constituted will be the prey of greed
and intrigue; and the law of unanimity in the Council, which
may offer a restraint, will be broken or render the organization
powerless. It is called upon to stamp as just what is unjust.
Unfortunately, books written by men like Lansing

find few readers. When a war is over, the ordinary
artisan is busy from morning till night, Striving to

et back to the normal condition of things. No matter
gow great a hero he has appeared to be in the con-
flict, no matter how his exploits have been lauded
by the sensational press while the war raged, he soon
finds he is quite another chap when he gets into mufti
and has to find ways and means of making a living.

The books that would give him some notion of how
he has been used by his statesmen scarcely ever reach
him because, for a certain period, the patriotic papers-
their editors and their reviewers-enter into what seems
like a conspiracy to hide the truth from him. A few
years must pass before it is safe to enlighten Tommy
Atkins or the American doughboy. Those who denounce
the enemy as liars, barbarians, and thieves are slow to
let the truth appear. They connive at the barbarity of
the economic system, which, because of the taxation of

p28
wialalth, is legalized stealing, as many of our economists
te us.

His efforts to save civilization are penalized by tons
of paper money-Bradburys in Britain and "shinplas-
ters" in the United States. The crownin folly of it all
is that he has penalized his progeny for generations
because the paper debt can only be paid from the wealth
produced by labor. Still, his statesmen tell him that he

as won prestige and honor in defeating his fellow-
workers, who were his enemies and threatened to take
the bread out of his month. And so the mad farce goes
on, generation after generation, and the poor are still
poor, and the weight of taxation has reduced the rich
to the status of genteel paupers.

p29
The Search for Political Truth
The Search for Poltttcal Truth
ONE REMARKABLE FEATURE ABOUT THE LEADING pom:-
cians of the west, since 1895, is the contempt they have
shown for the roletariat. If anyone doubts this, all he
has to do is to look back and read the pretexts given to
the electors for going to war. British and European
statesmen knew that the "age of enlightenment" had
not shar ned the minds of the taxpayers. The warmak-
ers befuddled the people with impunity.

The Boer War and World War I provided some his-
torians with fascinating exercises for examining the
advertised reasons for these direful adventures. The
earlier generation had the benefit of the searching meth-
ods of Cobden and Bright about the true causes of wars
of their day. The two Corn Law reformers did not be-
lieve the fire-eating gentlemen who occupied the front
bench; with keen knowledge and incisive eloquence,
they both riddled the flimsy pretexts of Palmerston.

The people, however, backed the Crimean War. It
was popular. Peace-loving democracy could not permit
Russia to take the Holy Places on the Bosphorus. When
that war stopped for a while, Lord Salisbury said Eng-
land had bac ed the wron horse.

No one attempts to expfain the extraordinary change
that has come about since the early seventies of the
last century, when education was hoped to be the means
of improving the mind of the electorate. With the
growrh of schools and the extensions of universities,
there has been noticeable an ominous decline in the
political intelligence of the taxpayers.

p30
Henry Ford said, "History is bunk." The lack of
action on the part of the British and American masses
makes one think that they would agree with him. Yet,
it may be said in their defense that, since the turn of the
century, the hiStories of wars have not been proper sub-
jects for the classrooms. Certainly much that goes by the
name of modern history needs ruthless revision. One
stumbling block to such an effort is that it might not
be patriotic to hold an autopsy on subjects that are nor
fit or decent burial.

The steady stream of books that have come from the
pens of statesmen, editors, generals, and admirals since
the end of the First World War, indicates that publishers
think there is a large reading public desirous of informa-
tion. In America since the close of World War II, some
eighty or ninety books dealing with it have been pub-
lished. Few of these were written by historians. To say
that these works contain startling revelations (some,
indeed, flatly deny the pretexts set out by the chief
ministers of the Allied States) is an ordinary observa-
tion; but to what extent the reading public has digested
the facts and views is quite another matter.

A well-known bookseller remarked that most of the
readers look down a page, but they do not understand
what they read. The statistics of illiteracy in America
and in Britain bear this out. Like the aristocracy of
Disraeli's day, people buy books, but they do not read.
Who on earth cou d keep up with the immense flow of
volumes that pass over the counters of the bookshops?
So we may take it, I presume, that history is not for the
proletariat, notwithstanding the inordinate mass of
opinions upon these matters that come from the presses.

Influential seCtions of men in public positions in
Great Britain and in the United States have already
shown a desire to suppress the truth. In both countries,
skeptical authors who wish to get their views before the
public complain that publishers frown upon manuscripts
which contain views contrary to official opinion. In a

p31
recent review of a British general's work on the war, the
critic lamented pitifully that the author had dealt with
some political questions. In America the reviewers gen-
erally condemned George Morgenstern's Pearl Harbor
because he proved from the documents that it was not
quite the unexpected blow that Roosevelt's admirers
imagined. The guns of many other writers have been
spiked in the same way. Two books that should be
read by every decent-minded person have been ignored
by the reviewers. They are: Montgomery Belgion's
Victorr' Justice and Freda Utley's The High Cort of Ven-
eance. It is heaven help the poor author who has 5 at
long months in striving to expose the delusions offhe
official broadcasters!

It is very difficult to get at the truth of anything
because opinion now is made for peocple. The man who
does his own thinking upon the evi ence he gathers is
looked upon askance. l-liscpatriOtism is doubted; many
feel that his mission is to efend the enemy he fought,
when his only intention is to expose or accuse the enemy
at home.

The search for truth is the task of tasks. Perhaps only
in science is it less difficult than in any other branch of
thought. All true scientists are eager for the truth. In
the political and diplomatic realm it hides its head
under tons of dispatches, speeches of legislators, the
machinations of munitions makers, and millions of col-
umns penned by war-minded editorial writers. The
searcher who goes in quest of political truth should be
honored for the labor that he undertakes, if no other
honor is earned.

It may very well be that the proletariat thinks it is
not necessary to learn now that the gadget age has dis-
pensed with truth. There are so many labor-saving de-
vices that relieve a man from the arduous process of
thought, that he is quite content to let the broadcaster
for the soa manufacturer tell him any nonsense about
the news. I]: is only necessary to look at the front page

p32
The Search for Political Truth
Tb: Search for Political Trtu‘b 27
of the popular papers to understand clearly what the
majority of taxpayers read. Advertisers have admitted
that they must cater to the mind of a child of eight

ears.
y Everything seems to be pre-digested for the intelleCtual
processes of the millions who have been "educated."
It costs billions to graduate them from the schools, and
more billions are wasred upon their delinquencies. The
cost of crime cannOt be eStimated. In 1944, J. Edgar
Hoover, head of the Federal Bureau of Invesrigation,
reported that in the United States one was committed
every 23 seconds. Later he Stated that the nation was
facing a potential army of 6,000,000 criminals-ten
times the number of students in our colleges and uni-
versities.

During the past two years I have followed the corre-
spondence in t e columns of Tbe Time: upon child delin-

uency. I have no doubt that those w o complain of
31c increase are informed persons. Still, no one asks if
this is an asset of saving civilization. After the Boer War,
the head of the New York police system made a study
of the increase in crime in Europe and in America. He
came to the conclusion that the war drills of immature
yOUths were responsible for the appalling conditions.

There are many truths that should be placed before
the public, so that they may have a notion of their
responsibility, but the only way this can be done effec-
tively is to get down to bed rock, or as near it as possible.
So long as the few intellecruals who prOtest against the
present condition of things are content to ignore the
underlying causes of the general distress, they are merely
beating the air. Their present method of admonishing
the people will get them nowhere, and as it is not likely
that Statesmen and relates will appear in sackclorh and
ashes before the mobs, it devolves on intelligent laymen
to undertake the task.

They did not do so badly when they got down to
work a hundred years ago, and surely the men of today

p33
-heirs of the wonders accomplished by their fathers-
should be able to perform a similar feat. Yes, but it takes
great courage. That is one of the chief things that truth
seems to insist upon. Courage is her right-hand partner.
Emerson said, “God will not have His wor made
manifest by cowards." That seems reasonable, even to
an agnosdc. But the man who is afraid of being accused
of apologizing for the enemy is a coward, no matter
what feats he has performed in the slaughter.

Let us consider the glorious wars for a minute or two.
That wizard of wit and preacher of wisdom, Sydney
Smith, in an article for The Edinburgh Review, said: "Alas!
we have been at war thirty-five minutes out of every
hour since the Peace of Utrecht." That was in 1827.

Consider what that means. England spent thirty-five
minutes out of every hour at war, during a period of 113
consecutive years. Lord Acton said, "No Christian
annals are so sanguinary as ours. " Dr. Quincy Wright, in
his volumes called A Study of War produces tables that
show how the peace-loving democracies kept the peace.
From 1800 to 1941 Great Britain fought 34 wars and, in
the same period, France fought 29. Germany (Prussia)
fought 10. Henry Labouchére said: "We are without
exception the reatest robbers and marauders that ever
existed on the Face of the globe. We are worse than other
countries because we are hypocrites also, for we plunder
and always pretend to do so for other people's good."

The Radical member for Northampton knew his book.
Millions in England approved of his relentless exposure
of shams and organized hypocrisy. Doubts may be
raised as to whether men now have stomachs strong
enou h to digest the political and economic nourishment
our fgthers fed on. Is it to be imagined that a Swift, a
Cobbett, or a Hazlitt would be tolerated by our anemic
leaders of o inion who take us from disaster to chaos?
Where woufil a publisher be found today to issue such
critical reviews of State affairs as William Cobbett erte
for the readers of the Weekly Regirter?

p34
The slogans that we have been familiar with during
the last two wars are merely variations of much older
ones. A "war to end war" is by no means new, and we
heard a great deal about "democracy" during the Boer
War when Kru er refused to give a vote to the Uitland-
ers. Since Marlborough's campaigns, Britain has always
been ready to "save civilization" or "Christianity,"
and sometimes both. The working man of today may
be surprised to learn that nearly two hundred years ago
the greatest statesman in England condemned the slogans
of his day, root and branch. The Earl of Chatham sai

We have suffered ourselves to be deceived by names and
sounds-“the balance of power," "the liberty of Europe,"

a common cause," and many more Such expressions, w1t out

any Other meanin than to exhaust our wealth, consume the

profits of our trage and 'load our posterity with intolerable
urdens. None but a nation that had lost all Signs of Virility
would submit to be so treated.

The great slogan of World War II was "the common
cause." It was the rallying cry to get money out of the
taxpayers’ pockets. Now that the war is over, the com-
mon cause is so bedraggled and tousled that no one
thinks it worth while mentioning, and as for “balance
of power," the value of it cannot even be weighed be-
cause America and Great Britain presented Stalin with
the scales.

But how the proletariat could be humbugged about
the balance of power, after three or four generations of
experience of its uncertainty and cost, is difficult to
explain. An alert young student of eighteen who has
read Britain's history during the nineteenth century
would easily find many examples of the scorn that was
poured t}pon it by leading politicians. john Bright called
It “the on] idol," and at Birmingham in 1864 he said:

It rises ucp before me when I think of it as a ghastly phan-

tom which uring one hundred and seventy years, whilst it

has been worshipped in this country, has loaded the nation
with debt and taxes, has sacrificed the lives of hundreds of

p35
thousands of Englishmen, has desolated the homes of millions

of families, and has left us, as the great result of the profli‘gate

expenditure it has caused, a doubled peerage at one end 0 the

social scale, and far more than a doubled pauperism at the

Other.

It is amazing to witness, in war after war, how the
statesmen and diplomatists can bring out the old props
that have done service and, by touching them up with
a little bit of high-falutin g eloquence, find the proletariat
ready to kneel down and worship them.

In trying to drag a little truth from history, it is
interesting to find a close similarity in the slogans of
Statesmen generation after generation. We need a Sydney
Smith or a Jonathan Swift to point these resemblances

out to us. Read this letter that Smith wrote to Lady
Grey, the wife of the Reform Prime Minister of 1832:
For God's sake, do not drag me into anather war! I am
worn down, and worn out, with crusading‘ and defending

Europe, and prorecring mankind: I mm t ink a little of

myse f. I am sorry for the Slpaniards-I am sorry for the

Greeks-I deplore the fate o the Jews; the people of the

Sandwich Islands are groaning under the most detestable

tyranny; Bagdad is oppressed; do not like the present state

of the Delta; Thibet is not comfortable. Am I to fight for all

these people? The world is bursting with sin and sorrow.

Am I to be champion of the Decalogue, and to be eternally

raising fleets and armies to make al men good and happy?

We have just done saving Europe, and I am afraid the conse-

quence will be, that we shall cut each other's throats. No

war, dear Lady Greyl-No eloquence; but apathy, selfishness,
common sense, arit metic! I beseech you, secure Lord Grey's
swords and pistols, as the housekeeper did Don Quixote's
armour. If there is another war, life Will nOt be worth having.

Ma the vengeance of Heaven" overtake all the Legiti-
mates 0? Verona! ut, in the present state of rent and taxes,
they must be left to the vengeance of Heaven. I allow fighting

in such a cause to be a luxury; but the business of a prudent,

sensible man, is to guard against luxury.

There is no such thing as a "just war," or, at least, as a
win war.

p36
A fair sample of the language used by men before
proletarians were "educated." The critical predecessors
of Smith, since the time of George Savile, Marquis of
Halifax, were more severe in their methods of exposing
the delusions of statesmen and their victims. Savile said:
Religion is the foundation of government. Without
it man is an abandoned creature, one of the worst
beasts nature has produced."

Savile “is one of the most brilliant of politicians and
expresses the racy good sense of his age. l-lis maxims of
state policy, so pithy, so modern, strike deep to the
foundations of political practice in all times." So John
Bowle writes in Western Political Thought, a book well
worth close study. Alas, every olitical party in Britain
and in America is in sad need of) a Savile.

Anyone who took the trouble to search the speeches
and letters of the men at the head of affairs since the
days of Queen Anne would be amazed to find that they
used the language we have heard so often since the
Boer War. "The liberties of Europe," "the arrogance
of tyrants," "republican upstarts" were words that fell
trippingly from the tongues of statesmen. The leader of
the enemy was painted in satanic colors, and he and the
proletarians who fought with him had to be chaStised
by the lovers of peace, no matter what it cosr. Some-
times the devil was a Spaniard; at other times he was an
American or a Frenchman; recently he has been Dutch,
then German; the last was an Austrian. When the Third
World War takes place, the devil will be a Caucasian,
if Stalin lives long enough to enter the fray.

Proletarians never seem to get tired of spoof. They
are as ready to take it from their political idol as they
are to take it from Marx or Laski. There is nothing like
a violent chan e for breaking drear monOtony. Life
would be very grab and dull for the much-too-many to
endure a long season of peace. One optimistic psycholo-
gist thinks it would take at least three full generations

p37
of war-less days to eradicate from the race this itch for
belligerent change.

Peace campaigns usually end in war. It was so before
1914; it was so before 1939. President Wilson was so
sure, when he “kept the people out of war," that none
of his advisers could convince him that an American
soldier would fight in Euro . Scarcely three months
had passed after his seconge inauguration before he
changed his mind.

Arthur Balfour crossed the Atlantic with Edward
Holden and had a chat with him. And soon afterward
the American President started a preparedness campaign.
Balfour packed Wilson's peace ideals in his dispatch
box, and on the passage back to Britain, dumped it in
mid-Atlantic.

President Roosevelt never dreamed of sending an
American lad to h ht in Europe. For over two years he
promised the mothers of our youths that they would
remain in America. The public opinion polls before
Pearl Harbor revealed that between 70 and 80 per cent
of the eople questioned were against war. But lon
before Pearl Harbor, Roosevelt was finding ways and
means of getting into the strife. So it goes. It is an
awful thing for proletarians when the liberties of
Europe are in danger, whether a potentate-such as the
Czar of Russia-or an upstart like Napoleon or Hitler
is accused of the intention to destroy them.

Poor old proletarian! He never seems to get tired of
saving something for others. When he wakes up to the
fact that he had better save something for imself,
there may be a change, but it will not last long, if the
history of the chap is to be relied on.

The toral bill for World War II exceeds the financial
imagination of a King Midas. Official sources in Wash-
ington and a survey made by the American University,
also in Washington, put the total military cost of the
war to all belligerents at $1,116,991,463,084 and prop-
erty damage at $230,900,000,000. The same sources esti-

p38
mate the military cost to the principal belligerents as
follows: United States, $330,030,463,084; United King-
dom, $120,000,000,000.

According to Wbitaker': Almanac-k, the national debt
of the United Kingdom in 1913-14 was just under
(300,000,000. After the great wars, it had risen to more
than £25,000,000,000. It has been a pretty costly busi-
ness, and the worst of it is not yet, either for the British
taxpayer or the American.

An article published in Newaeek for December 12,
1949, says:

Nat one American in a hundred realizes that total tax
collections now exceed the wartime peak. And not one in a
thousand knows that hidden taxes-included in the price
of everything he buys-will exceed $700 per family this year.

In fan, the best-kept secret in the country today is the Size of

the tax load.

Small wonder shopkeepers complain of a consumer's
strike against the high cost of commodities! The Joint
Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation reports that
the number of taxpayers enjoying an annual income
under $3,000 a year amounts to 32,875,500. Should that
1ot get tired of subscribing to European aid, what would
the British proletarian do? National bankruptcy is
something he ought to think about, but whether it is
nobler to be a civilized bankrupt than a barbaric torali-
tarian, only a lawyer born and raised in Philadelphia
can tell.

No one seems prepared to face the music, but the
band will play the fortissimo passages of the debt mo-
tive, with tubas and trombones going full blaSt, before
we are many years older.

So long as the workers in Great Britain look to the
government at Westminster to provide them with jobs,
they will live precariously. Later on, rationing will be-
come more and more meager, and restriction ti%1ter.
Already, keen observers who have surveyed the uro-

p39
pean scene return to the United States with doleful
stories. One says that the great problem in Britain is
how the present administration can save the bureaucracy.
The same might be said by an Englishman who has
visited the United States-that Truman’s principal
effort is to save his administration.

No bureaucrat talks of saving the taxpayers, and the
reason is that the workers who provide the funds for
government are not tax conscious. It takes time and
thought to make a study of the cost of government. In
America where commodities are sold freely without
ration tickets, the consumers may strike against high
prices. In Britain the people have to take what they
can get of the necessaries of life. But the Americans
have not yet found out why prices are high and the pur-
chasing power of the dollar is shrinking. It is now
worth about 48¢. It is a baffling business for the rich
and the poor, but there seems to be little hope that the
taxpayers will set to work to learn for themselves why
they are in distress.

The modern man we hear so much about has no time
to work these things out for himself. The movie, the
radio, and television are on the way to destroy thought.
Perhaps the real reason why the people of a hundred
years ago were able to better themselves is because they
were not pestered from morning till night with the dis-
tractions of the machine age. When the artisan in Old-
ham or in Fall River reached home for his dinner, he
had a chance to think things over. He was not worried
about the payment of the next inStallment on some
gadget that did his thinking for him. He had advan-
tages of meditation the modern man knows little or
nothing about. Science was something for the intellec-
tual, and he did nor bother much about it. He never
dreamed of letting broadcasters have a mortgage on his
mind. As for moror cars, buses, or bicycles to give him
a lift for a few miles, he would have scorned them.

p40
Perhaps he knew that walking was an aid to thinking,
as goets and musicians discovered years ago.
efore the gadget age, the average man used his eyes,
and what he saw set his mind to work. His descendant,
who travels in a fast-moving vehicle, has no chance to
see what he saw. The scenery goes by so fast that he
cannot get a proper view of anything of consequence,
and this is a very serious matter. For observation is a
necessary exercise for the eyes. There were few bespec-
tacled people when men walked. Today nearly every
Other person over thirty must have sight aids, and the
number of people whose ears are decorated with tone
amplifiers is increasing steadily. John Hervey, the great
racehorse expert, remarked that the gas-pushers are
breeding a race that will not know how to walk.

What, therefore, can be expected from a dphysically
defective proletariat? And, yet, we are tol that the
health of the British and American people was never
better. Upon what basis is such an assertion made?
Merely that there have been fewer sick peo le. How
comes it, then, that every hospital in the and3 is crying
out for more funds and the State says that the health
of the people is so serious that medicine must be na-
tionalized?

Thinking is a bore; the moron is a very happy
person. I am one," said a lady who was entertaining
the president, the dean, and two or three professors of a
wel -known college. There was no doubt about her
being a moron, but she had to admit that she would
like to know as much as her cook, who attended a night
school twice a week. Thinking is in disrepute, and how
the proletarians are going to save themselves from be-
coming chattel slaves of the State is a mighty (problem.

Short-cuts to knowledge are the bane of e ucation.
Since the State has offered courses on a silver platter,
the vasr majority of youngsters look upon them with dis-
dain. Educationists who are free to express themselves
say that national education is one of the biggest rackets

p41
praCticed by the bureaucracies. It is undoubtedly so in
the United States where illiteracy is fostered by the
credit system. A well-known teacher of French was
asked how many in her class would be able to write or
speak the language when they left the university. She
said, "About one per cent. Most of them are taking it
merely for credits."

The same may be said of other studies. The waste of
time and money is appalling, and the number of new
subjects being introduced in the universities turns the
sorry business into a farce. Some American institutions
of learning provide classes for cosmeticians, morticians,
shoeticians, and dietitians. These are only a few of the
new courses advertised by solemn faculties to attract
reluctant students. Perhaps some instructor of youth
will explain the success of such men as James Brindley,
Sir Richard Arkwright, Sir Humphry Davy, Michael
Faraday, Thomas Edison, and a host of Other inventors
and scientists who had little or no schooling in their
early years. The education that made them eminent they
got for themselves. When one scans the list of American
and British manufacturers who built up great industries
during the last half of the nineteenth century, one is
amazed at what they did on the meager curricula of
the schools of the period.

Since the introduction into our colleges of such
studies as political science, we have had two world
wars and many Others of lesser dimension. Since civics
has been a study for young people, statistics show that
the increase in crime perpetrate by this group staggers
the imagination. How the idealists rec on upon the
products of such a system to deal successfully with the
mighty problems that baffle the politicians is something
no one pretends to explain. Therein, perhaps, lies the
reason why politicians have things a1 their own way
and go from one distressing blunder to another without
compunction.

p42
One of the strangest things today is the cry for more
leisure for recreation which is heard everywhere, al-
though the need for deep refleCtion was never so great.
Of course, the study of essential problems cal s for
work, and with the millions today, work is doing
what you do not like. The only reason why it is r-
formed is because man must feed his belly. The Piaf
has become the god of appetite.

Read Chapter Five-"The Grand Inquisitor"-in
Book V of Tbe Brat/Jen Kammazov. Dostoevsky says:

In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet, and

say to us, "Make us your slaves, but feed us." They will

understand themselves, at last, that freedom and bread enough
for all are inconceivable together, for never, never will they

be able to share between them! They will be convinced, too,

that they can never be free, for they are weak, vicious, worth-

less and rebellious.

Is that what it all comes to? Was the author a prophet
who estimated correCtly the tendencies of the age? The
book was published seventy years ago, and the redic-
tion of the Grand Inquisitor is well-nigh fulfilled). It is
not a nice prospecr for the reflective man who has any
thought for the future of his children.

p43
Diplomatic Prelude to World
War I

THERE IS NO CONFESSIONAL FOR THE POLITICAL SINNER,
probably because it is impossible to imagine a reason
why he should be absolved. And now that hell has
been abolished, he has little fear of the fire dreaded by
those long ago who committed political sins which
seem somewhat insignificant as judged by our present
standards of morality. Perhaps the whitewash tub and a
two-ply brush are all that are necessary to cleanse the
sins of our legislators.

Certainly whitewash has been applied in excess since
the last South African War. But a good deal of it has
peeled off under the burning processes of thorough in-
vestigation, and the acts 0 our idols are now seen in
their nakedness. Nietzsche said that perhaps one of the
greateSt crimes was Stupidity. I-le meant political stu-
pidity. Schiller, too, railed against it: “Against stu-
pidity the very gods themselves contend in vain."

Stupidity in foreign affairs is not easily detected-not
even by a watchful House of Commons or an alert
Congress. It is not until long after the blunder has been
committed, and the damage one, that the sin is brou ht
into the light of day. No one knew the dan ers of3 an
error in diplomacy better than Disraeli, and3 he dealt
with the matter in the House of Commons:

If you make a mistake in your foreign affairs; if you enter

into unwise treaties; if you conduct campaigns upon vicious

principles; if the scope and tendency of your foreign system are

p44
founded upon want of information or false information, or are
framed With no clear idea of what are your objeCts and your
means of obtaining them, there is no majority in the House
of Commons which can long uphold a Government under
such circumstances. A majority under such circumstances
will not make a Government strong, but will make this
House weak.

No one will quarrel with that statement. But the
friends of the men at the head of affairs in Britain,
America, and European countries have naturally sought
to defend them against the severe striCtures of hard-
hearted critics. Hence, the whitewash tub and the two-
ply brush, used so lavishly on behalf of Minisrers of
Foreign Affairs. But in nearly every case these apologiSts
have mistaken the politician for the man. Who could
be more charming, in polite society, than Sir Edward
Grey, Count Berchtold, Raymond Poincaré, or von
Bethmann-Hollweg? They were gentlemen and had hosts
of devoted friends. But as ministers of state, their acts
affected millions of people and brought death and deso-
lation to them.

Their excuses for the conflagration they started in
Au ust, 1914, have been shattered to pieces, and few
students now believe them. The woeful work of secret
diplomacy brought ruin to their countries, and an
examination of the policies that were kept secret from
the public reveals an unbelievable course of crass Stu-
pidity. The lies told to shield their secret policies
entered the ublic mind as truth and bred nothing but
hatred and disaster.

One of the chief reasons why progress in reconstruc-
tion is stalled is that the lies are perpetuated by their
successors who know they are lies. Who expects a
public which has been misinformed to assiSt in the
work of peace, when the hatred they bear one another
is born of a long series of palpable untruths?

There will never be peace in Europe until the lie that
Germany was solely responsible for the First World

p45
War is cleared out of the minds of the people of Britain,
France, and America. The necessity for wipin that
slate clean is obvious to any man who has fofiowed
closely the writin s of present-day publicists. It infeCts
their opinions, ant? it inoculates the minds of those who
will have to bear the brunt of future wars. It poisons
the atmosphere breathed by the delegates to the United
Nations. It is perpetuated in articles written by some
of the new historians, and unfortunately, a few of these
people teach at important seats of learning. The youths
who receive instrucrion from them were mere boys when
the Second World War was fought. It is a dreadful
state of affairs, and the worst of it is, it is fostered by
statesmen and prelates who are baffled daily in the course
of their respeCtive pursuits.

Surely the peace of the world is of more importance
than the reputation of a politician. With the object of
learnin what took place in the chancelleries of the
Allies Eom the time the Austrian Archduke was mur-
dered until Russia and France declared war, it is neces-
sary to review, step by step, the sequence of events.

In taking up this task, students must understand that
there were five editions of the British White Paper con-
taining the diplomatic correspondence prior to the
outbreak of the confliCt. I doubt whether half a dozen
men in the three Allied countries know about the first
edition that was published on August 4th. I have a copy
of it, but I have not heard of any Other person who
possesses one. It was so full of deliberate errors that
after the war orgy in the House of Commons, when
members tore their papers to shreds, the debris was
swept up and burned.

Recently a new light has been thrown upon documents
in the first White Paper, revealing a state of affairs
which is unbelievably Stupid.

In a letter to the writer from a well-known prelate,
who was entertaining Lord Haldane after World War I,
the story is told of “what happened on the evening of

p46
Sunday, August 2, 1914." The following is taken from
the letter:

Lord Haldane saidz.”Grey and I were dining at Queen
Anne's Gate when a man from the Foreign Office came with a
red box. Grey opened it and said, The German: are over :6: Bel-
gian frontier. What are we to do?‘ I said, ‘l..et usfo and tell
Asquith.’ So we wentto Number 10. Asquith sai , 'Give me
five minutes.’ We sat in silence till A. said, 'We must fight.’
We said, 'We hoped you would decide that way.’ " (Italics
mine)

Then, in the prelate's letter, the details are given
about Haldane offering to attend to the mobilization of
the expeditionary force that he had organized. No
example of diplomatic blundering can be found that
shows more clearly how men like Asquith, Grey, and
Haldane are ready to jump to conclusions that are with-
out substance.

In the White Papers published by the government,
there is only one dispatch which informed Grey of an
invasion of foreign territory by the Germans. That is
the one Paul Cambon, the French Ambassador at Lon-
don received from Viviani, the French Minister of For-
eign Affairs, and is desi nated in the first White Paper
as Enclosure 3 in Dispatch No. 105. Whether the English
translation of this dispatch was made at the French
Embassy or at the British Forei n Office is nor clear,
but tbere i: no reference in it to the (germane crowing tbe Bel-
gian frontier. Here is what it says:

The German Army had its advance posts on our frontiers
yesterday (Friday). German patrols twice penetrated onto
our territory.

This is an accurate translation of the first sentence of
the French dispatch, which is as follows:

L'amie allmande a u: aunt-porter .mr no: bomr-frontiirer,
bier vendredi; par deux foi: do: parroiiille: 411mm: one pint"!
mr mm territoire.

p47
Belgium is not mentioned anywhere in this communi-
cation. Why Grey jum d to the conclusion that her
territory had been invale can be explained in only one
way: the British and French preparations for the struggle
were made solely from the viewpoint that if a conflict
took place, Germany would attac Belgium first. Indeed,
Belgium concentrated all her forces on her eastern fron-
tier. This story, told by Haldane, is strange indeed,
because one must infer that Grey did not show him the
dispatch. For Haldane spoke and read French as flu-
ent y as he spoke and read English and German. Grey
knew little or nothing about the Continent of Europe
and was no French scholar.

Not long after the war broke out, suspicion was cast
upon Viviani's dispatch, and when the war terminated,
it was proved by French critics to be a fake. This was
obvious to anyone who read the first White Paper with
caution. The dispatch is dated Paris, July 31, 1914. It
begins b saying: French frontiers were penetrated on
Friday gyesterday). But "yesterday" was Thursday,
July 3oth.

However, there are stranger things than that about
these documents. Turning to Dis atch No. 105, from
Sir Edward Grey to Sir F. Bertie ghe British Ambassa-
dor to France), we find that there were three enclosures:
(1) Grey's letter to Paul Cambon, dated November 22,
1912, concerning the consultations which had been tak-
ing place in recent years between the French and British
naval and military experts; (2) the letter in reply from
Paul Cambon to Grey, dated French Embassy, London,
November 23, 1912; (3) the one referred to above from
Viviani. But how Grey could enclose a letter that left
Paris on Friday, July 31$t, in one that he sent from
London the day before-July 3oth-is incomprehensible.

Worse still, and far more difficult to understand, are
the two letters that passed between Sir Edward Grey
and Paul Cambon. They were Enclosures 1 and 2, which
were sent in Dispatch No. 105 by the British Foreign

p48
Diplomatic Prelude to World War I 43
Minister to his ambassador in Paris, Sir Francis Bertie.
No thorough, hard-headed student of these two letters
has been able to reconcile them with the statements
made in the House of Commons by Sir Edward Grey.

It must be noted that the first one is not from the
French Ambassador, but from the British Minister of
Foreign Affairs, who admits "from time to time in
recent years the French and British naval and military
experts have consulted together." The date of this letter
isff November 22, 1912-sixteen months after the Agadir
a air.

The only reason I can find for the exchan e of these
letters was the need to dispel the anxiety of those "in
the know" in the House of Commons about the state
of affairs aggravated by the Agadir crisis. Several
speeches were made in the country durin November,
1912, which indicated clearly that Sir gdward Grey
was in for a showdown, as the phrase went. Earl Percy,
at Queen's Hall, November 14, 1912, told his audience:

It would require courage to tell the country the truth that
they are living in a "fool's paradise," and that it was not
merely our Army but the army of France which was our pres-
ent defence against German invasion. And it was a base be-
trayal of our obligations nor to be able to support France with

an adequate military force of our own.

Before the House rose, Mr. Amery moved to reduce
the Army estimates, and in his speech he declared that
it was agreed to send a force to assist France. Some
foolish Virgins behind the Treasury bench cried, "No!
No!" Unconscious of sitting in the dark, they resented
every petition made to Grey for light upon the question.
Through that summer and autumn many critics of
Grey's policy expressed themselves upon the necessity
of informing the House and the public of the obligations
implicit in the plans made by the French and British
mi itary and naval staffs.

But the speeches of Grey's critics are net suflicient to
clear up the mystery, which envelops the exchange of

p49
letters at that date. Many have searched for a reason,
and some of the men associated with the Paris branch
of the Union of Democratic Control came to the conclu-
sion that the letters were written for the sole purpose
of helping Grey in his address to the House on August
3, 1914-to assure members that the government's hands
were free.

That is the point that he insists upon in his memoirs.
However, when he read the letters to the House, he
omitted the final sentence in his own letter to Cambon,
which is as follows: "If these measures involved action,
the plans of the General Staffs would at once be taken
into consideration, and the Governments would then
decide what effeCt should be given to them."

But every subterfuge failed to impress those who, for
several years, had opposed the foreign policy of Grey.
Many Conservatives, nearly all Irish Home Rulers, and
about fift Liberal backbenchers proteSted againsr the
secrecy ofy the Foreign Office. Noc a few of these men
knew the government was heading for war. As for
the Cabinet, only Asquith, Grey, and Haldane knew
what the commitments were. Lloyd George says:

There was a reticence and a secrecy which practically ruled

out three-fourths of the Cabinet from the chance of making

any genuine contribution to the momentous questions then
fermenting on the Continent of Europe, which ultimately
ended in an explosion that almOSt shattered the civilisation

of the world.

He states in his War Memoir: that Lord Northcliffe,
at a dinner at Lord Birkenhead's house, told the com-
pany “quite bluntly that the editor of a great London
journal was better informed about what was happening
in the capitals of the world than any cabinet minister.’

The situation on Sunday, August 2nd, was desperate
for the Cabinet. Lloyd George has said that there was
a great difference of opinion, and several of the mem-
bers threatened to resign. Later, Lord Morley and John

p50
Diplomatic Prelude to World War I 45
Burns sent in their resignations. However, a pretext for
war was found in the old so-called Belgian treaties of
1831 and 1839, although it had been determined several
times, particularly in 1887, that
(1) England is under no guarantee whatever except such as is
common to Austria, France, Russia, and Germany; (2) that
guarantee is not specifically of the neutrality of Bel ium at
all; and (3) [it] is given not to Belgium but to the fiether-
lands.
Taking another glance at the questions put to the
government, and the debates in the House 0 Commons
uring the years 1912-13, one sees clearly how Grey
strove to deceive the house, and that all his striving
made the situation worse for him. There is a record of
every question that was put to him on the matter of
Britain 5 commitments to France and Russia. John
Dillon, Joseph King, J. W. Jowett, Lord Hugh Cecil,
and others tried in vain to get from the Foreign Minister
an explicit Statement about the matter. The majority
of the House believed firmly that British military and
naval forces had to go to the aid of France if a war
broke out. Grey neglected every opportunity the ties-
tioners gave him to clarify the situation. Wearied, at
last, by making fruitless efforts to get the information
from the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lord Hugh Cecil
turned to the Prime Minister.
The passafge taken from the official report is worth
quoting in ull:

Lord Hugh Cecil: “The right hon. gentleman [Asquith]
made reference to foreign affairs, and there is one aspect of
them, of not so controversial a charaCter as Others, on which
I should like to say a few words. The ri ht hon. gentleman
and his colleagues are generally believecF-I speak with the
utmost diffidence in regard to allegations which may nor be
well founded-to have entered into an engagement, or, to
speak more accurately, to have given assurances, which in the
contingency of a great European war would involve heavy
military obligations on this country. We do not suspect the

p51
Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary of pursuing anything

but a pacific foreign policy, and we are far from saying that

their policy is in any way an aggressive one; but certainly we
believe, if the stories current are true, the policy, if it is not
to be regarded as an aggressive one, is adventurous.”

The Prime Minister: "Will the noble lord define a little
more definitely what he means?"

Lord Hugh Cecil: "I am only anxious not to use words
which will convey anything but perfectly fair criticism in a
matter of this sort, and any ambiguity in what I have said
is due to the fact that I do not wish to go beyond the necessi-
ties of the case."

The Prime Minister: "1 do not complain.”

Lord Hugh Cecil: "There is a very general belief that this
country is under an obligation, mat a treaty obligation, but
an obligation arising out of an assurance given by the Min-
istry in the course 0 diplomatic negoriations, to send a very
large armed force out of this count? to operate in Europe.
That is the general belief. It woul be very presumptuous
of any one who has not access to all the facts in possession
of the Government-"

The Prime Minister: "I ought to say that it is not true."
There were some who wondered whether Asquith

himself was informed. After the war, I made it my
business to look up the statements made by Haldane,
Colonel Repington, and Colonel Huguet, the French
military attaché at London, and I found that Asquith
was privy to the arrangements consented to by Grey-
to carry on meetings 0 the British and French military
staffs. In his book, Before the War, Haldane says:

Sir Edward Grey consulted the Prime Minister, Sir Henry
Campbell-Bannerman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr.
Asquith, and myself as War Minister, and I was instructed,
in January, 1906, a month after assuming office, to take the
examination of the question in hand.

Why, therefore, should Asquith try to deceive the
House? There were two reasons: one was the fear of a
revolt in the Liberal ranks, if they knew of the arrange-
ment; the other was the fear of France and Russna ob-

p52
Diplomatic Prelude to World War I 47
jecting to a public announcement of the plans then
being made. But in 1912 this t of trouble came to the
boil, and the French at the éiiai d'Orsay became very
uneasy, fearing there would be an explosion. Grey had
to do something to make things easy or his ambassador
at Paris, so he wrote the following letter to him:

MY om Baum,

There would be a row in Parliament here if I had used
words which implied the possibility of a secret engagement
unknown to Parliament al these years committing us to a
European war. But I send you a copy of the question and
answer. I purposely worded the answer so as not to convey
that the engagement of 1904 mi ht not under certain circum-
stances be construed to have farther consequences than its
strict letter.

B. Gan?

It was T. P. Conwell-Evans who discovered this letter
and published it in his book, Foreign Policy from a Back
Ben: . Most of those who have taken the trouble to
look into this discreditable affair agree that there would
have been no war in 1914 if Grey and Asquith had taken
the House into their confidence. Indeed, in 1922, Austen
Chamberlain declared in the Commons:

Suppose that engagement had been made publicly in the
light 0 day. Suppose it had been read before this House and
approved by this lzlbuse, might act the events of those Autumn
days of 1914 have been different? If our obligations had gin
known and definite, it is at least possible, and I think it is
probable, that war would have been avoided in 1914.

Now the Proletarian may ask, "What is the good of
raking up a that old controversy, and how is it going
to help us to make a living?" A pertinent question. The
reply is simple, however. The story is revived because
it has become more and more difficult for you to live in
fife with your neighbors. Ever since 1906, you have

been threatened with war, and today the gigantic debt
that has been incurred makes you as a producer a slave

p53
of the State. The interest on the debt can only be paid
for by the goods that you produce.

Now the military experts in America are preparing
to fight another war. Do you think you can escape the
call when the bugles blow? Do you not realize that when
that moment comes you have little or nothing to say
about it? Your commanders will not ask you whether
you think it is moral to obey their orders; they will
tell you to march and you will have to fight. It is all
in the cards, my friends, so take heed and make your
desires known to your representatives in Congress and
in Parliament, and let them understand you do not
want another war and have no desire to be driven to
the slaughter like sheep. The time to take action is now
-not when the trouble begins.

Do you know that the British army and navy esti-
mates for 1948-49 amounted to more than £400,000,000?
The net estimate of the navy is nearly equal to the sum
the London Government must pay in interest and prin-
cipal upon the post-war loan she got from the United
States. The London financial correspondent of The New
York Timer says:

Under terms of the loan, Britain had the privilege of
drawing on the $3,750,000,000 fund as needed. It was thought
that the credit could stretch comfortably over five years or
more. Events roved otherwise and within three years of the
first advance England had used up the last penny of her
American credit.

This was written on December 25, 1949. Such things
have become more and more serious, and now they are
getting out of hand. The difficulties that lie ahead for
the proletarians are dreadful to contemplate. For they
do not seem to realize that no miracle will take place
to save them.

The importance of resurrecting the "old stufim set out
above should be clear to any thinking man. What has
happened before may happen again. Do you think the

p54
Atlantic Pact is to be relied on in an emergency? What
became of all your other pacts? Was there ever a tighter,
stronger one made than t at which existed before World
War I? And so sanguine were its makers that it would
accomplish its purpose that Lord Esher said in August,
1915:

From the outset of the war I have been thrown into the
company of practically every one of our leading statesmen,
and have found them all wrong in their forecasts without
exception. They genuinely believed in a short war. They
prophesied its conclusion in anything from three to nine
months. They jeered at a less optimistic view, and hardly
one of them but held that before now (August, 1915) the
British Army, accompanied by political plenipotentiaries,
would be marching through Berlin.

Never were men "in the know" so sure of a speedy
victory as your leaders were in the autumn of 1914.
However, when they discovered that it was going to
be a long job, they began to paint the enemy in terrible
colors and invent the yarns that made a reasonable peace
impossible four years later. Germany was to be judged
solely responsible for starting the war; and on the basis
of that stupid notion, the vindictive Treaty of Ver-
sailles was signed at the point of the gun. Every sug-
gestion of revision was rejected by the Allied Govern-
ments, but independent neutral committees investigated
the causes of the war and declared that Germany was
no more responsible than the Allies. Later-after the
trials of the Russian generals-it was found that Russia
began it. England was drawn in at the tail end of the
chariots of France and Russia.

Perhaps no man in the House of Commons desired
peace more than Sir Edward Grey , but every secret
commitment that he had made negated his aim. I do
not agree with those who say that he desired war. After
the demonstration that broke from members who wel-
comed his address on August 3rd, he relapsed into piti-
able dejection; and when the declaration of war was

p55
made a day or so later, he was a sad sight. The strain
that he had been under since the middle of July was so
severe that he never recovered from it.

There it is! The course that he had pursued since he
took office in December, 1905, led to the most terrible
disaster. It nor only culminated in the war, but it de-
stroyed the Liberaly party. Grey's fate reminds one of
William Pitt, and when I think of Sir Edward, I am
reminded of several pages in Macaulay's essay on the
British Prime Minister who waged war against Napo-
leon.

p56
The reason why you have fallen so thoughtlessly
into the toils of war should now be plain to you. You
imadgined that all you had to do as an elector was to
sen a representative to Congress or Parliament and
let him do the political thinking for you. When you
did this, your mind was chiefly occupied with immediate
domestic problems, and no doubt the man you sent to
represent you was ready to deal with them according
to his election pledges. Maybe he was highly qualified
for this purpose, but very likely his knowledge of the
intricacies of foreign affairs amounted to no more than
yours.

In 1920, Herbert Morrison was Secretary of the Lon-
don Labor Party. He felt he had been wrong during
World War I, and he solemnly vowed, "Never again!"
In an article he wrote:

All the governments of all the warring nations deliber-
ately deceived their citizens and their fighting men. They
founded propaganda departments for this special purpose,
paying men out of public funds to deceive their fellows by the
spoken and written word. The government suppressed truth,
newspapers, books, and organizations, and imprisoned good
men an true.

Therefore, he called on all trade unionisrs to say:

Never again shall leaders of labor or their rank and file be
so ill-informed and so lacking in a sense of responsibility as
to accept without critical analysis the statements of govern-
ments {of whatever party) who desire to lead the country
Into war.

p57
Clement Attlee also felt that he had been wrong. In
1920 he was Mayor of Stepney, and confessed, coura-
geously;

When we entered this war we were too credulous-we
believed the Government. We should have been wiser if we
had listened to the Union of Democratic Control, and less
to the other voices. I am proud today, as a man who has
fought in the war, to stand on a Union of Democratic Control
platform with those who always protested against the war
and told us we were deceived. They were right and we were
wrong.

In 1939 these men were politicians. Both were mem-
bers of the House of Commons, but no one heard them
say, "Never again!" Were they too credulous? Did they
know any more about the real causes of World War II
than they did about the causes of its predecessor? Nor a
bit! Yet, they went into it and took their people with
them.

Ask your grandfather about the situation as he found
it before the First World War. Ask him how much his
representative knew in July, 1914, about the onrushing
conflict, the disastrous storm that broke in a few short
weeks over Europe, and caused irretrievable havoc.
Why, on Sunday, August 2nd, when British troops were
moving to the stations of the southern railways, mem-
bers of Parliament in the National Liberal Club, London,
were firmly convinced there would be no war. Yet, two
members of Parliament, who had gone to a Liberal
demonstration at Swindon the day before, Sfent nearly
five hours on that short journey, because 0 the move-
ment of troop trains going to the ports. At four o'clock
on Sunday afternoon, a Friend learned from an Under-
Secretary of State in Downing Street that war was un-
thinkable.

Lloyd George says, in his War Memoirr, that on Sun-
day, August 2nd, the Cabinet was “hopelessly divided
on the subject of Britain entering the war." Further-
more, he tells us: “Even then he met no responsible

p58
minister who was not convinced that, in one way or
another, the calamity of a great European war would
somehow be averted." But the most Startling commen-
tary on the whole thing was his statement:

The world was exceptionally unfortunate in the quality
of its counsellors in this terrible emergency. Had there been
a Bismarck in Germany, or a Palmerston or a Disraeli in
Britain, a Roosevelt in America, or a Clemenceau in authority
in Paris, the catastrophe might, and I believe would, have
been averted; but there was no one of that quality visible on
the bridge, in any great State. Von Beél'lmannJ-Iollweg,
Poincare, Viviani, Berchtold, Sazonow and Grey were all
able, experienced, conscientious and respectable mariners, but
distinctl); lacking in the force, vision, imagination and re-
source which alone could have saved the situation.

If, then, cabinet ministers, other members of Parlia-
ment, and the great mass of the electors in such a crisis
knew so little about the true reason for it, why do peace
societies now organize and pass resolutions against war?
The fact is that there are undercover movements always
at work instigating ministries, editors, clergymen, and
orher influential bodies to further their interests. None
of this work is done directly. Indeed, scarcely anyone
in the groups mentioned above has known how he has
been influenced. Disraeli was one of the few who was
conscious of the extraordinary power of these people
who work in the dark. He makes that farce plain in his
novel, Coningsby.

Bismarck knew them well, but I cannot find a direct
reference of his to their work in Europe. Still there is
on record the conversation he had with Conrad Siem
in 1876, which referred particularly to the American
Civil War. Urbain Gohier published it in his magazine,
La Vieille France, March, 1921. Strangely enough, Lin-
coln knew the real influences at work behind the Civil
War, and when it was over, he said:
As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned
and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the

p59
money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign
by warring upon the prejudices of the people until wealth
is aggregated in the hands of a few and the Republic is de-
stroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of
my country than ever before, even in the midst of the war.

But how is the elector to know what goes on behind
the scenes? When he has a job, he works eight or ten
hours a day, and when he reaches home, his mind turns
not to study, but to recreation. Even if he knew a bit
about essential things, he would feel he could not live
in a world of skepticism from morning till night, doubt-
ing the men in his government and distrusting his rep-
resentative in Congress or Parliament. He might very
well point out that the great pundits and learned jour-
nalists who write books on political history and supply
his newspapers with editorials know no more about it
than he does.

The proletarian may ask what chance he has to edu-
cate himself upon these subjects. The only reply that
can be made is that he had better take time off to study
a bit, so that when the opportunity occurs, he will be
better equipped to make his protest. This he must do
for himself . No college, no university, will help him
to improve his mind in that way. No one in a university,
during the past fifty years to my knowledge, has touched
upon this question. The professors seem to be removed
from actuality, and when a crisis arises in international
affairs, they are swept like the proletarians into the
maeIstrom.

Yet, it is possible for an intelligent man to get some
light upon these matters. After the First World War
was over, a libel action was brought against the Paris
newspaper, L'Humanite’, and at the trial the evidence
revealed some startling facts. A Rhodes Scholar, C. K.
Streit, was so impressed by the revelations that he
wrote a remarkable study of the operations of the Comité
de: Forge: and kindred associations in Germany, which
he called The Asmuz'n: of tbe People. It was afterwards

p60
published under the title, Wbere Iron ir, Tbere i: :6:
Fatherland. When the pamphlet was circulated in New
York, many working men read it and learned more
about the real interests of munitions makers than any
historian dared to publish.

Shortly after the pamphlet was issued, anOther trade
depression set in. Men were out of work, larders were
empty, and time had to be given to that most discourag-
ing pursuit of all-looking for a job. That knocked the
bortom out of interest in historical treatises. The facts
revealed by Streit were summed up by Senator Gaudin
de Villaine, a Conservative member of the French Par-
liament:

I formally accuse the big cosmopolitan banks, at least the
owners of mining rights, to have conceived, prepared, and
let loose this horrible tragedy with the monstrous thought
of world stock-jabbing. I accuse these same money powers to
have, before and since the war, betrayed the interests of
France.

I cannot remember reading in a single work by an
academic historian, who dealt with the First World
War, a reference to the facts given from the documents
by Mr. Streit.

The speeches of ministers of State and the dis atches
of diplomatists to their Ministers of Foreign Affairs by
no means tell the whole story. One has only to read the
Monypenny and Buckle Life of Disraeli and check its
account of events of that period with Moritz Busch’s
Our Chancellor and Bismarck, Some Secret Page: of his-
tory to discover how different interpretations of foreign
policy conflict and cannot be reconciled. It is a pity that
someone has not endowed a chair of modern history
at a university for the sole purpose of dealing specifically
with foreign policy and the powers that have influenced
it since Waterloo.

In such a course some light might be thrown upon
the sinister influences that make for war. After the

p61
panic of 1908, there was only one man of prominence
who had the courage to speak his mind upon this matter.
Lord Welby, who was once the head of the British
Treasury, said:

We are in the hands of an organization of crooks. They
are politicians, generals, manufacturers of armaments, and
journalists. All of them are anxious for unlimited expendi-
ture, and go on inventing scares to terrify the public and to
terrify Ministers of the Crown.

He was in a position to gather the facts and know
what he was talking about.

In the United States in the past few years there have
been scores of articles written upon atomic warfare and
the probability of another confliCt. Long books, too,
have been published on these subjects. The student
gleans from all this literature that many of the readers
are anxious about the future and wish to know what
should be done to avert war and the use of the bomb.
No satisfactory reply comes from the authors who spill
so much ink. There has been no enthusiasm for the
Atlantic Pact. Most people who know anything about
it shrug their shoulders and say, “Just another treaty."
Some of the curious ask, "Are we to fight Russia be-
cause she is spreading Communist propaganda or be-
cause, in Germany, she is west of the er, where the
secret treaty of the Allies, of the First World War,
promised she should stand?"

No one attempts to make a direct reply to this, and
I do not see how one can be given. The long speeches
delivered by delegates at the United Nations meetings
at Lake Success do not enlighten the people, and there
is a feeling that time and money are being wasted there
just as they were at that great temple of peace in Geneva
-the hall of the League of Nations.

The pretext of defending Belgium in the First World
War was ridiculed when it was announced. The Spectator
said frankly that Britain was pledged to go to war,

p62
Behind the 5mm 57
whether the Germans invaded Belgium or not. And
Leo Maxse, the belligerent editor of The National Review,
said it was to salve the consciences of the timid Liberals
in the Cabinet that the pretext of defending Belgium
was found. Many similar statements were made before
the war was six months old.

It was a commercial war, planned chiefly by Delcassé
(the French Foreign Minister), Sazonov (the Russian
Foreign Minister), and Izvolsky (Russian Ambassador
to France in 1914). As for Great Britain, John Maynard
Keynes points out in his book, The Economic Comequence:
of the Peace, that “England had destroyed, as in each
preceding century, a trade rival.”

Underlying all the frictions and animosities of the
powers interested in northern Africa were the gangs of
concessionaires associated with the Comité du Maroc and
the international combinations of the heavy industries
-the makers of munitions. The exploitation of the
natural resources of backward peoples, the search for
new markets, the development of railways and harbors,
and Other imperialistic schemes were the aims of rival
powers, but few representatives of the parliaments of the
great States knew anything about the real causes until
it was over. Delcassé had been on the war path before
the conference at Algeciras in 1906. According to Le
Gauloir, on July 12, 1905, he said:

Of what importance would the yonng navy of Germany
be in the event of war in which England, I tell you, would
assuredly be with us against Germany? What would become of
Germany's ports or her trade, or her mercantile marine? They
would be annihilated. That is what would be the significance
of the visit, prepared and calculated, of the British Squadron
to Brest, while the return visit of the French squadron to
Portsmouth will complete the demonstration. The entente
between the two countries and the coalition of their navies,
constitutes such a formidable machine of naval war that
neither Germany, nor any other Power, would dare to face
such an overwhelming force at sea.

p63
The only man in the French Chamber of Deputies
who knew what Delcassé and his associates were up
to was Jaurés who, so it is alleged, exposed the whole
thing to Prime Minister Rouvier. When the war broke
out in August, 1914, Jaurés was shot. He had to be
murdered, for he knew too much. But he was not the
only one who knew that it was a trade war that had
been provoked by exploiters using the backstairs of the
chancelleries.

When Woodrow Wilson returned to America for the
last time, he was an enlightened man. He had seen all
his great ideals scattered like chaff; he had even lost
faith in the Covenant. In an address at St. Louis, Sep-
tember, 1919, he said:

Why, my fellow-citizens, is there an man here, or any
woman-let me say , is there any child {ere-who does not
know that the seed, of war in the modern world is industrial
and commercial rivalry? . . . This war, in its inception, was a
commercial and industrial war. It was not a political war.
At St. Paul, in the same month, he said:

The German bankers and the German merchants and the
German manufacrurers did not want this war. They were
making conquest of the world without it, and they knew it
would spoil their plans.

It did more than “spoil the plans" of the German
bankers and manufacturers. It quite upset those of the
British and American proletarians, for it saddled them
with an enormous debt and mortgaged the labor of their
heirs for generations to come. Within ten years both
countries suffered two of the severest depressions the
modern world has known. The dole had to be given to
British working men to keep them quiet, and in America
after the crash of 1929, the dole was used as a Demo-
cratic ballot ticket, and the grafters made billions out
of the schemes launched by Roosevelt to give the im-
poverished work. It was a wonderful war, and "the

p64
glory and prestige earned by the men who survived the
fighting were not worth a patch on a laborer's blue
jeans."

In cutting down a trade rival, Great Britain discov-
ered she had not only wounded herself as an exporter
but that she had raised up competitors who would
make financial and commercial life a burden for her.
So shortsighted were the men who thought the First
World War would be short and sharp and that every-
thing would be "hunky-dory" when Germany was
licked! So far as trade was concerned, British statesmen
snapped at the shadow and dropped the bone. Keynes,
in his book, reminds us:

The statistics of the economic interdépendence of Germany
and her neighbors are overwhelming. Germany was the best
customer of Russia, Norway, Holland, Belgium, Switzerland,
Italy, and Austria-Hungary; she was the second best Customer
of Great Britain, Sweden, and Denmark; and the third best cus-
tomer of France. She was the largest source of supply to Rus-
sia, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, olland, Switzer and, Italy,
Austria-Hunga?’, Roumania, and Bulgaria; and the second
largest source 0 supply to Great Britain, Belgium, and France.

In our own case we sent more exports to Germany than
to any other country in the world except India, and we bought
more from her than from any other country in the world
except the United States.

A rather cruel wit, during the Peace Conference at
Paris, observed that the men at the head of affairs in
Europe had never run a bank or manufactured an article
for sale. In Britain there were two lawyers, a solicitor,
and a fisherman on the Treasury bench, and Mr. Balfour
as the leader of the opposition. How were they to know
that the destruction of Germany as a trade rival would
injure every country in Europe?

The Treaty of Versailles was a catastrophe from which
Great Britain has never recovered. France-because of
her millions of peasant proprietors-was hurt least of
all by it. About a hundred years before, a far more able

p65
set of men than Great Britain boasted in 1914 had waged
a war against Napoleon. When it was over, the London
New: told its readers:

The situation of this country at the successful close of a
long war is singular, and worthy of observation. It is a fan
that peace, instead of having brought us security, retrench-
ment, relief from burdens, or extended commerce, to enable
us to bear them, has left us all the expenses of war, without
gaining to us the friendship of the very powers for whom we
undertook it. Of all the countries, that one against which we
fought has come out of the contest with the least harm; and
that which set all the rest in metion has suffered in the high-
est degree.

Where are Britain's friends today? Outside the Com-
monwealth they would be hard to find, for you cannot
call a money-lender a friend, particularly when there
is no chance whatever of repayin the debt you owe
him. There is more suspicion and fear today than there
has been at any time in the history of the world. And
unfortunately, no statesman has the stature necessary
for attempting to dispel the suspicions and fears that
hang like a dreadful pall upon us all. After Napoleon
was sent to St. Helena, it took forty years for the Con-
tinent to recover. Several European countries were
shaken by revolution, and blood-stained ways were
paved for the coming of Marx.

Put your thinking caps on and commune with your-
selves! You will never get out of the mess until you
know how you got into it. You are like the folks lost
in the maze. And, yet, we read week after week that
there are optimists who imagine everything will turn
out all right if we have patience. The language used
by these peo le to impress the mob differs little from
that written by their predecessors after the First World
War.

The cold-blooded pessimist who is dealing with facts
is a kill-joy and is liked no better now than he was
then. Optimism is the luxury of the thoughtless, and it

p66
is no intention of mine to deprive him of the slightest
moiety of it. Still it must be remarked that there were
no pessimists among the gentlemen who were responsible
for either war. And those who said that civilization
was beyond saving in 1914 might point out that there
was less chance of saving it in 1939.

Anyway, suppose we grant that you saved it: what
are you going to do with it? You can't eat it; you can't
wear it, and I should be the last to advise anybody to
smell it. Why, even the great men in Parliament, in
Congress, at Lake Success do not know what in the
dickens to do with it now they have their laps full of
it. The scientists, too, are confounded by it and confess
it is a far more difficult problem to understand than Ein-
stein’s latest mathematical formula embracing gravita-
tion and the electromagnetic field. At the recent meeting
of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, a learned professor read a paper in which he
declared: "The primary task of every society is to __c_i_vil-
ize the thousand: of young barbarians born into it each
day."

There we are! That gentleman hit the nail squarely
on the head. We have to stop breeding barbarians, and
the best way to impress our enemies that we mean busi-
ness is to set the example. If, as we are told, the totali-
tarian countries would educate the young dpeople to
conduct themselves according to the rules lai down by
their dietators, there seems to be no reason why the
peace-loving countries should be unable to civilize their

barbarians. In the past we thou ht that education would
make men use their faculties gr their own good. Phi-
losophers believed that reason was the peculiar endow-
ment of man and distinguished him mm the brute.
Something has gone wrong, however, with reason in
politics and socnal affairs. Perhaps men have been so

usy they have had no time to use it, and it has gone.
rusty and will act work. Whatever the explanation be
for the lack of it, our own critics, the pessimists, the

p67
kill-joys, do not hesitate to say that it is scarcely notice-
able in the things we do.

Years ago, John Watson, the behaviorist, told us that
we had only to hear men speak and see them act to
know they did not think. And Herbert Spencer wrote,
july 17, 1898:

Now that the white savages of Europe are over-running
the dark savages everywhere-now that the European nations
are vying wit one another in political burglaries-now that
we have entered upon an era of social cannibalism, in which
the strong nations are devouring the weaker-now that
national interests, national prestige, pluck, and so forth are
alone thouiht of, and equity has utterly dropped out of
thought, while rectitude is scorned as unctuous, It is useless
to resist the wave of barbarism. There is a bad time coming,
and civilised mankind will (morally) be uncivilised before
civilisation can again advance.

When the division bell rings and the tellers have
made the count, the Speaker will say, "The pessimists
have it."

p68
VII
The Interlude

Some of you, if prompted, will remember the maze of
of entanglements into which the peace-lovin statesmen
of the Allies rambled after they tried to put tie punitive
clauses of the Treaty of Versailles into practice. You
may recollect the joy-riding that took place from spa
to spa, and the complexities of finance and debt that
Owen Young and Charles Dawes attempted to solve. I
shall not carry your feelings by telling you all I know
about that discreditable business. All I shall say is that
one of the experts in the Dawes entourage told me, when
he returned to America, that the business was a no less
mess. Later efforts of the American experts confirmed
that gentleman's conviction.

When we consider what German politicians passed
through in the rigmaroles conducted by Allied states-
men, we can only imagine that their minds must have
been like whirling dervishes from morning till night.
They tried as best they could to bring some order out
of the chaos into which domestic affairs had fallen, but
nearl every action was blunted by the thousand and
one directions, restrictions, and prohibitions laid down
in the treaty.

I spent some months in Germany in 1921, and on
almost every hand I was told that the treaty was ruin-
ing Central Europe. The last time I saw Walther Rathe-
nau-a few weeks before he was murdered-he said that
the Ebert Government was incapable and that the
Economic Committee (over which Rathenau presided)
could have been of some praCtical use at home and better

p69
64 The Maker: of War

prepared to deal with the Allies, if it were free to do so.
had a long chat with him on how the financial and

commercial disorder of Central Europe affected British
trade. Returning to London, I told some of my friends-
oliticians and business men-of what I had learned,
but I might as well have made my remarks to a hitching
post. The men I conversed with were full of the propa-
anda yarns, and most of them thought that Germany
deserved her fate. They were blind to the fact that Eng-
lish business had been severely injured by the disruption
of trade in Central Europe. In Germany the Social
Democrats held the Kaiser and his associates responsible
for the war. Georg Bernhard, the editor of the wrist-be
Zeitung, with whom I had had several interviews, de-
clined to have anything to do with a petition for revision
of the treaty. His last words to me were: “We are now
on top and we intend to stay there."

The men who thought as he did were many and had
great influence in the eichstag. The British and Ameri-
can Ambassadors in Berlin saw the trouble clearly, but
they were powerless to bring the governments at home
to their senses. The chief reason for that was the obdur-
ate attitude of the French. When men in London and
Paris were told that their countries could not solve their
debt problems unless Central Europe was put to work
again, they suspected the informer of being a pro-Ger-
man. Never was there a clearer example of indolent
stupidity. Anyone who thought about the best interests
of Britain, but was not in accord with the popular no-
tions, was looked upon as a traitor.

Wherever I went in Europe, from Vienna to Bordeaux,
I was shocked to find the only people who had any sense
were those who had no influence whatever. This refers
to the natives of the countries I visited. That summer,
Berlin was taken over by Americans who were having
the time of their lives buying old masters, royal jewelry,
tapestries, furniture, and other objects of art thrown

p70
Tb: Irmrlnde 65
upon the market by collectors who saw the mark
dwindling in value day after day and nothing but pov-
erty staring them in the face.

My other visits to Germany before the rise of Hitler
were in 1925 and 1928. Perhaps the political nous that
I inherit acted clairvoyantly, and I could see that a
desperate change was taking ]place. I warned my friends
in ondon ant? Paris but fai ed to convince them that
something should be done to avert anorher war.

One of the most significant thin s I noticed, month
after month, was the hiking horfes of youths, from
sixteen to twenty-one, moving from village to village.
In the year 1925 I must have seen from thirty to forty
of these bands on the road or in a small town cleanin
up. All were dressed in shorts and wore heavy hobnailed
shoes-both girls and boys. They carried knapsacks
and staffs. They lived from hand to mouth, but a more
cheerful lot of wayfarers one could not wish to meet.
There was always someone in the group who could speak
English fluently, and willingly he or she would chat
about their condition and life in the open.

I spoke to my friends in Munich about these hikers,
but t ey knew little or nothing about them. I was told
there was not much of that taking place in Bavaria.
There had been few changes there. The people, how-
ever, were poor, and many of my old friends connected
with the opera, the theater, and painting were gone.
Twenty years had passed since my first visit there to
see the opening of the new Festspielhaus. Strange to
say, nobody spoke much of political disturbances, but
some told me Marxism was making rapid strides among
the poorer people. I realized that was to be expected,
for the repressions of the Treaty of Versailles and the
stupidity of Allied statesmen were creating the mobs
that would be easily infected with the virus of Marx.

I have not been able to explain to myself or to anyone
else why I knew so little about the Hitler movement in
the years between November, 1923, when his followers

p71
were shor in the courtyard of the War Office in Munich,
and the time while he was writing in prison the first
volume of Mein Kampf. There had been so many revolts
after the close of the war that perhaps I thought the
Munich revolution was just one more like those that
had petered out in Berlin. I do nor remember hearing
much about Hitler then; certainly norhing of a nature
that would rivet my attention.

Three years after his first volume was published, I
thought so little of the remarks of my friends in Germany
about it that I was not prompted to inquire for a trans-
lation. Truth to tell, I dld not read it in its entirety until
the only unexpurgated version in English was produced
in the United States, in 1939. Translations of the work
began to appear after 1933, but very soon it was rumored
that these were not complete. I read a copy of one of
them, but when a German-American friend told me it
was not a reliable translation, I put it aside. It was a
version of the work to be read as the editor of it desired.

However, there was so much bitter controversy
against what had appeared that I thought I had better
defer judgment unti I could study the whole book.
Nevertheless, I do remember I was amazed to find it
praised extravagantly by one section of readers and

itterly denounced by another. Then people who had
nor read it, but had seen some of the controversies about
it published in the newspapers, began to make transla-
tions of their own, and as collaborators they inserted
statements which became current in the gossip about
the work.

When the unex urgated edition appeared in English,
the inventions oiP those who had not read the former
editions had too long a start to be overtaken b Ludwig
Lore's excellent translation; and to this day these
stories linger in the minds of the majority of British and
American people. The translator of the unexpurgated
version has been roundly condemned by unprejudiced
students for his preface. It undoubtedly shows on which

p72
side of the fence he stands. As a Jew, he naturally resents
Hitler's idea of a superior race, and that disposition
colors a great many of his fulminations in the preface.
But this must be said to his credit: nowhere in the book
itself does he attempt to direct the mind of the reader,
either in a parenthetical passa e or in a footnote. He
leaves his translation free of editorial comment.

As a matter of record, however, it was not any part
of the doctrine expl§essed in Mein Kampf that stirred the
statesmen of the estern Allies to action. It was the
success of Hitler’s experiment in Germany. Indeed, it
was not a statesman who began the crusade against
Hitler; it was a New York lawyer who had never con-
tested a seat for Congress.

I fully appreciate the difficulties one must encounter
in making an attempt to put known facts in their order
and present a view of the case that is contrary to popular
notion. I remember what happened to such attempts in
Britain, in the United States, and in France after the
First World War. Like a formidable redoubt stand those
who have been hoodwinked by propaganda. They take
pride in maintaining their delusions and frown upon
anyone who would de rive them of them. Members of
legislatures told me after World War I that they did
not wish to go into the matter of the causes of the war
or who was to blame for it. I met in Italy, in 1925, two
peers who had been members of the House of Commons,
who could not bear to hear the matter referred to.

But the greatest obStacle one has to surmount is the
reviewer who must consider the editorial policy of his
paper. Perhaps I have known more of these people
intimately than any man who is not a practical journal-
ist. I pity many of them who do nor 1i e the job of giv-
ing scant notice to works which privately they consider
worthy of serious study. But theopress is the press, and
the chief thing to be considered is the effect that fair
criticism of such works will have upon advertisers. No
paper can afford to set up the backs o the men who make

p73
publication possible. There have been some few in-
stances of newspaper proprietors overriding their ob-
jections, but in the main the prosperity of a newspaper
depends upon those who advertise.

Some papers Cpermit popular columniSts to print what
is in their min s without fear of resentment from their
advertisers. They serve a useful purpose, and very often
information comes to light that would have no chance
whatever of appearing in a book review or in an edi-
torial.

Here it should be clearly understood that the propa-
ganda given out under the official stamp during a war
sinks in at a time of severe distress, an it is very dif-
ficult indeed to eradicate it when the conflict ends. The
person who is nor susceptible to the deleterious effect
of such propaganda must have a tough spirit and a clear
head.

He has a hard road to travel during a war. The patriOts
look upon him with disfavor, and if he should make a
remark that questions the wisdom of the affair, some-
body is sure to think that he is in the pay of the enemy.
Men have been lodged in prison without charge for
consorting with people who were under suspicion. Men
who have had the courage to voice their opinions from
the platform have been ounded by the riffrafl‘ of free-
lance journalism. It is not necessary to recall the names
of the men who, with the consent of the governments,
suffered persecution at the hands of persons who were
well paid for the job of smearing them. The smear
campaign in America was one of the most disgraceful
proceedings of World War II.

Now that the fighting is over for a while, these ani-
mosities should be forgotten and attention should be

aid to the problem of how anather war is to be averted.
{lever was it so difficult to know what to do to keep
the peace as it is at this time. One reason for this is that
the mass of people do nor take the trouble to learn what
caused the Other war. So long as they look to their

p74
politicians for guidance, they will be left in the dark.

hat means they will have to find out for themselves.

However, few will be inclined to make an effort to learn
how they have been humbugged.

Somehow war-time myths sink deeper into the con-
sciousness of a man than any that gain currency. They
are poured into his mind day after day during the con-
flict, when he is torally unfitted, mentally and spiritu-
ally, to question them. Upon these myths his judgment
is formed, and to ive them 11 is like deserting an old
friend who has aided him in distress. This may be the
reason why it is so easy, generation after generation, for
politicians to revive the old slogans and capture the
intelligence of the people. Nevertheless, it is incumbent
upon us at this time to examine closely the myths of the
last war and expose the methods by which they were
implanted in the minds of the people.

p75
AFTER THE RESUMPTION or THE OLD WARS, INTERRUP'I‘BD
in November, 1918, statesmen of all parties seemed to
enter into competition for a prize to be given to the one
who would be first to warn the people that it was to
begin again. There were warnings enough, but the poli-
ticians had been misinformed to a man, and they ignored
all those "croaking" prophets who, after the Treaty of
Versailles, predicted another great conflict. They had
had about twelve years, in and out of office, to rectify
the injustices which many of them admitted were ob-
vious in the treaty. Nothing was done, and often annoy-
ance was shown by those at the head of the Allied
Governments when suggestions of a pracrical nature
were made to relieve the deepening distress of Central
Europe.

However, all were agreed upon the necessity of de-
fending themselves against unarmed Germany. Church-
ill, in the House of Commons, May 13, 1932, reminded
the government about his remarks the year before, con-
cerning the disarmament discussions at Geneva:

They have been a positive cause of friction and ill-will,
and have given an undue advertisement to naval and military
affairs. They have concentrated the attention of Governments
in all countries, many of them without the slightest reason for
mutual apprehension or dispute, upon all sorts of hypotheti-
cal wars which certainly will never take place.

A statesman out of office is a very different rson
from one in office. When he is on the opposition Eznch,

p76
Outstanding Problem: in Europe 71
he has a feeling of freedom and enjoys a lack of ad-
ministrative responsibility. The same man holding a
Cabinet position is quite another person, for he is not
free-not by any means; and so long as he remains there,
he is bound, hand and fOOt, by the policy of the govern-
ment of which he is a member.

Should a taxpayer care to understand this difference,
he might take up a book of speeches put together by
Churchill's son, Randolph, an there he will find this
astonishing difference which I have pointed out before
NotwithStanding his attitude taken in 1931-eighteen
months before Hitler assumed control in Germany-
Churchill was busy enough tilting at the MacDonald
disarmament plan, criticizing severely the air defenses,
and sometimes touching upon an injustice of the Treaty
of Versailles. In the debate on the adjournment, April
13, 1933, he said:

M213! people would like to see, or would have liked to
see a lit e while ago-I was one of them-the question of
the Polish Corridor adjusted. For my part, I should certainly
have considered that to be one of the greatest practical objec-
tives of European peace-seeking diplomacy. . . . (Wbile Eng-
land Slept)

I find no reference, in his speeches delivered while he
was in office, to the Polish Corridor or to any of the
Other stupid arrangements the treaty imposed on a de-
feated foe. A long book could be written upon the differ-
ence between Mr. Churchill in office and out of office.
But it would be an easy matter, if one had leisure, to
take any of the statesmen of our time and show that the
political mind is built on shifting sands. The warning
of the hour is often submerged by the calm incoming
sea of the morrow. Everything depends upon how the
domestic tide is running.

There were warnings-very definite ones- based on
firsthand information, which went practically unnoticed
for years. I do not refer to the so-called “croakings” of

p77
the revisionists that were heard on every hand for five
years after the treaty was signed at the point of a gun.
I have perhaps a dozen books written nor by sratesmen
but by men eminently fitted to investigate the political
and economic conditions of Europe before Hitler became
Fri/2m. Here I shall deal with only one. It is called
Tbunder Over Europe, and its writer is Colonel E. Alex-
ander Powell, an American soldier, who before the war
saw more of all the countries of Europe than anyone
who has recorded his impressions.

The work was published in the United States in
April, 1931. To what extent it was read, I do not know,
nor do I know if an English edition was issued. Even
today, it is an amazing document, and as a warning to
the governments of what was likely to take place if
practical measures were nor instituted to heal the sores
of Europe, there is nothing to be compared with it. The
author takes in hand nearly all the important crises in
each country, which statesmen of the riod were
afraid to examine. So conscious were they olxthe gravity
of their own stupidities that they had nor the courage
to admit them and face the consequences. British states-
men, in dealing with Hitler's entry into the Rhineland,
conveniently overlooked Poincaré's invasion of the
Ruhr. Colonel Powell describes the consequence of that
reckless blunder in a short paragraph:

Then came the invasion of the Ruhr. To that adventure,
engineered by the vindictive and relentless Poincare, might
aptly be applied the cynical words of Talleyrand: "It was
worse than a crime; it was a mistake." It gained nothin for
France; it did much to alienate English sympathy; it alf but
completed the wreck of Germany; and it set back the hands
of Franco-German understanding by many years.

I think Powell was the firsc man to take the Nazi
movement seriousl . l-lis chapter on it is prophetic,
and his estimate ofy Hitler and the task that faced him
is correct. The chapter is full of warning, and it must

p78
Outrtdnding Problem: in Europe 73
have been written quite two years before Hitler won
his victory at the polls. It appeared in print at a time
when the comic cartoonists and the silly penmen were
giving an utterly false impression to the people about
the man who, in eight years, was to turn the world up-
side down. Powell said: “The inescapable faCt remains
that the Nazis must be reckoned with whether the
reSt of the world likes it or not."

As I shall have something to say about Germany re-
arming, it is appropriate that I should refer to the respec-
tive figures of forces and equipment of France and Ger-
many, taken from Tbe Statesman': Year-Book for 1930. In
some very instructive passages upon the attitude of the
average German, Powell says that in voting for the
Nazi party, he did so because it was "the only way
open to him to register his dissatisfacrion with the
prevailing disorder of things." He then goes on to say
that this average German

refuses to believe that the French stand in perpetual fear of

another German onslaught. Fully aware of the defenseless and

enfeebled condition of his own country and the overwhelming
military strength of France, the very idea is to him preposter-
ous.
And it must seem equally preposterous to anyone who
compares the military establishments of the two nations.
Franc: Gm»)

Infantry regiments 223 21

Cavalry “ 86 18

Artillery “ 104 7

Tank “ 19 none

Engineer battalions S6 7

Heavy artillery groups 282 none

Aviation squadrons 136 none

Balloon companies 18 none

Tatal peace establishment 541,154 men 99,191 men

“The trouble with France," a distinguished American
soldier remarked to me not long ago, "is that she is suffer-
ing from an inferiority complex."

p79
The ground covered by Powell in his peregrinations
extended from Russia to France and from the Balkans
to the North Sea. In each country visited, he met officials
and diplomatists. He names about a dozen of these men
to whom he was indebted for information. While
statesmen were confined to their bureaus and diplo-
matists inured in the chancelleries, depending upon in-
formation gathered secondhand, Powell was coming
face to face in the separate States with the acrual con-
tingencies of their policies. In the foreword, he de-
nounces forthrightly the system that makes for friction
and animosity:

The most discouraging‘feature of the whole business is the
moral cowardice and lac of vision of the European states-
men, who, with a few notable exceptions, are only politicians,
and of mediocre intelleCtual caliber at that. They are cowards
because they are afraid of public opinion. That is, they are
afraid of losing votes. They have neither the unselfishness nor
the moral courage to avert war by backing down.

What Europe needs, and needs desperately, is a political
housecleaning. She should sweep out her hidebound diplomats
and (professional politicians and replace them with experi-
ence , hard-headed business men who recognize the value of
compromise, who know how to give and take, who think
that maintaining the balance of power is not nearly so impor-
tant as balancing the budget. " otes be damned!" such men
would say. “Let's get together and work Out an arrangement
which will be reasonabl fair to everyone concerned. ' That
would end the danger of), war overnight.

80 long as the diplomatic system exists, there will
be trouble. In private, this has been admitted b the
diplomatists themselves. One has only to read, Dr.
Moritz Busch's books on Bismarck to realize that his
master had norhing but contempt for them. Disraeli,
too, was not backward in expressing himself severely
upon their shortcomings. Someone said, after the First
World War, that if consuls could take the place of
diplomatists, most of the differences that cause war
could be settled over a cup of tea. This I believe to be

p80
true. A round table of business men of the various States
concerned in the crisis would be an effective way of
bringing them face to face and putting a stop to the
dispatching business.

One thing is certain now-there is no way of checking
the information sent by ambassadors to their Foreign
Ministers. The colored books of the First World War,
when carefully analyzed, revealed an almost unbeliev-
able abundance of downright mendacity. Dispatches
were mutilated-some of them faked-others omitted;
secret treaties unearthed; and when the Bolsheviks
published the versions they found in the Russian ar-
chives, a conspiracy was revealed which made a dreadful
smell.

The agitation for open diplomacy, which followed
the Treaty of Versailles, petered out unfortunately, and
those in the various countries who had worked to give
the people accurate information became immersed in
the domestic political broils of their own States. An
excellent organization in Britain dissolved when most
of the men who had been working along non-party
lines joined the Socialist party. Herbert Morrison and
Clement Attlee, among dozens of others, lamented that
they had been misinformed, and newspaper editors
admitted they had lied to their readers because the
country was in danger and the morale of the people
had to be sustained.

Was there ever a more ignominious example of the
danger of this system than the one of Woodrow Wilson
admitting before the Senate that he knew nothing of
the secret treaties? In October, 1939, Vandenberg, re-
ferring to World War I, told the Senate:

Before we ever fired a shot, the spoils of our joint Vietory
had. been. Ere-pledged in sordid, secret treaties concerning
which next er our people nor even our Congress knew a Single
thing. It was a “shel -game" in more than one meaning of
that phrase.

p81
Abolish diplomatists and appoint consuls, business
men, and they will be intereste chiefly in the balance
of revenue in the tax ayers' pockets and not the balance
of power. But it will) take an informed public to brin
about such a change. So long as taxpayers are satisfied
with the present syStem, they will be sacrificed on the
battlefield, and those who survive will have to pay the
cost and be glad to get a ration ticket for a meal.

p82
IX
German Rearmament

Mn. CHURCHILL wnorn A LETTER TO HIMSELF oN MAY 1,
1936, which will be found in his book, Step by Step. This
is entitled, "How Germany is Arming,” and in it he
says: "I give my warnings, as I have given some before.
I do not deal in vague statements. I offer facts and figures
which I believe to be true."

He then asks the question: "How much is the Hitler
regime spending upon armaments?" His reply to his own
question is: "I declared several months ago that Ger-
many spent upwards of [$00,000,000 sterling on warlike
preparation in the calendar year 1935 alone."

Now it must be remembered that this letter was not
made public in America until the war began. The preface
to the book is dated by the author May 21, 1939. When
it was read by intelligent persons, it caused some con-
sternation because the ordinary expenditure of the
United Kingdom for the year 1934-35 amounted to
£688,879,000.

When I read this letter, a few days after it was pub-
lished, I searched in vain for the declaration he said
he had made “several months ago." I could not find
it in any of his speeches. How, within two short years,
a bankrupt country like Germany could find such a
sum of money to spend on "warlike preparation" was
a miracle unknown in the world of wild finance.

Now by the time that he published these letters to
himself, he had had ample leisure to check his figures.
Had he been careful enough to do this, he would have

p83
discovered from many sources that the money was not
spent on "warlike preparation." In the re rt he took
from the Bulletin of the Reicbskredit Gerelllfgmft, issued
at the end of 1935, it is stated that the expenditure was
for buildings, equi ment and Stores, less amounts spent
on residential buildings. There is nothing to justify the
assumption that the whole, or even half, of this sum
was spent upon armaments.

Toward the end of this letter, he gives the German
imports, since 1932, of raw materials used for the making
of munitions, and he says:

All this has gone into makin the mosr destructive war
weapons and war arrangements that have ever been known;
and there are four or five millions of aetive, intelligent, valiant
Germans engaged in these processes, working, as General
Goering has to (1 us, night and day.

It must be remembered that this was written to him-
self, and doubtless the information he gave to himself
convinced him that Germany, laboriously emer ing
from bankruptcy, was dead set on another war. Perhaps
that was the reason why he bad ered Prime Minister
Baldwin and other men in his Cabinet about the state
of the British military, ,naval and air forces, without
any reference at all to the armaments of France and the
Little Entente. Curiously enough, seventeen months
later, when Germany had more cause to arm than she
had in 1935, Churchill wrote to himself: "I declare my
belief that a major war is not imminent, and I still be-
lieve there is a good chance of no major war taking
place again in our time."

A taxpayer wishing to understand the vagaries of the
mind of a statesman should not miss reading the letters
in Step by Step. It is a difficult job trying to follow Mr.
Churchill's in-and-out reasoning and to reconcile his
assumptions with the knowledge we now possess. He
runs the gamut of contradiction, and as a political
hisrorian of events since World War I, his presentation

p84
German Rear-mama": 79
of facts and his errors of judgment have already been
severely criticized. Of course, now-long after these
events-we can quote facts and figures from unprejudiced
investigators which flatly contradict many of the state-
ments in Churchill's books and speeches.

Let us take a volume published in 1937, about two
years before the war began, written by a man who made
it his special business to live in Germany from Novem-
ber, 1935 to March, 1937. This work is The Home that
Hitler Built, written by Professor Stephen H. Roberts
of the University of Sydney, Australia. He tells us in
the preface:

Owing to a fortunate conjunction of cirCumstances, I was
afforded unusual facilities in Germany. The Nazi authorities
did everything possible to aid my investigations, although
they knew from the outset that my attitude was one of objec-
tive criticism. Indeed, they had even filed copies of all my
articles and summaries of my wireless and other talks on
Germany over a period of years. Despite this, no request of
mine was too much for them, and the only refusal I encount-
ered in the whole of Germany was in being denied access to
their collecrion of banned literature.

Roberts declares himself to be a democratic individual-
ist, and there is no doubt that his skepticism of the ap-
parent success of the Nazi movement was unshaken dur-
ing the period when he visited Germany. And yet, he
is eminently fair in showing gratitude to the people who
gave him the opportunity to further his quests. He
says:

I must also pay tribute to the ordinary people of Germany
who made my investigations such a great pleasure. Although
we morored many thousands of miles through every German
province but one, and although we showed what must often
have been a disconcerting persistence in trying to find out
what tinker and worker, professor and farmer thought, we
met not the slightest discourtesy and found everywhere a
striking eagerness for friendship with Great Britain.

p85
It is interesting to read the information presented by
Professor Roberts on the position of Hitler's army at
the time when Mr. Churchill said Germany had spent
£800,000,000 sterling on "making the most destructive
war weapons and war arrangements that have ever been
known." Roberts tells us that von Seekt did not want
a national levy of men, that he preferred a relatively
small professional army. The idea of expanding the
army to 600,000 men in 1935 caused dissatisfaCtion
among the General Staff. Perhaps this marks the begin-
ning of the troubles that arose between Hitler and some
of his generals. The situation described by Roberts at
that time is so unlike anything Churchill had in mind
that I must quote two paragraphs:

Their [the General StaE's] problem was a difficult one-
to change a specialized army of 100,000 men enlisted for
twelve years into a national force of 600,000 conscripts forced
to serve for a year or two. The necessary cadm cou d nor be
built up in a moment, and, even when the organization was
provided, there was a shortage of everythitélg-arms, equip-
ment, officers, barracks. The greatest di culty was the
shortage of instructors, especia ly in the new aerial and
mechanized units. At one stage, aeroplanes were lying idle
for lack of trained pilots, because, despite Goring's efforts,
Germany had been so poverty-stricken for years that there
were few civilian pilots on whom to draw.

It became obvious, then, that it would take years to (give
practical effect to the law of March 16th. The thirty-six ivi-
sions did not exist even on paper when Hitler issued his
decree on May let, and it was not until the misty morning of
November 7t , 1933. almost eight months after Hitler's rst
announcement, that the first conscripts were called up and the
new Nazi war-flag hoisted for the first time.

This statement from an unprejudiced observer can
scarcely be reconciled with Churchill's notions of what
was taking (place. But suppose there were some truth in
what he sai . It might be asked: “Why was she arming?”
You can examine Churchill's speeches and writings
under a microscope, and you w: 1 not find a sentence

p86
devoted to the reasons why Germany was preparing to
defend herself. Think of the war preparations of her
neighbors!

Here are figures taken from the League of Nations
Armament: Year Book for the year 1936: the total German
war strength was 3,650,000; the Little Entente, including
Rumania, Poland, Jugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia-all
pledged by treaty-amounted to 7,000,000 men; to this
enormous war Strength of the Little Entente should be
added 6,900,000 for France.

Professor Roberts tells us that "France and Czecho-
slovakia, feeling themselves threatened by Germany's
new foreign policy, signed pacts with Russia (May 2nd
and 16th, 1935)." This meant that Germany was com-
pletely encircled. Of course, it is not quite polite to ask
why Germany should not arm while the Little Entente,
along with Russia, was arming to the teeth.

Another question that may be resented by the thought-
less is: Why should not Hitler break treaties when the
Allies did so? Why anyone should expecc Hitler to sub-
mit like a plaster saint to the provisions of the Treaty of
Versailles and its injustices has never been explained.
He did not roam the Elysian fields; he lived in a political
world, and knew what others had done and were doing.

The taxpayer who really desires information about
the events prior to the outbreak of war should seek it in
as many sources as are open to him. The day is gone when
the war patriot can sniff, snort, and then denounce a
man for quOting from anything but his own official
record. There are now open to the inquirer hundreds of
books dealing with the years 1932-1939, if the taxpayer
has the desire to look at them. Professor Roberts' work
should be Studied closely because it was written by an
eyewitness. Another one by an eyewitness is Hitler

flGerman} by Cesare Santoro, a forei n press correspondent
who made a rolonged stay in Germany. In speaking
of himself ancl> his colleagues in Berlin, he says:

p87
The present international situation, which is so compli-
cated and uncertain and full of perils, imposes on every jour-
nalist who is conscious of his mission the duty of devOting his
whole strength to the work of mutual enlightenment, of re-
moving as at as possible all cause of friCtion based on mis-
understanding between nations. It is his duty to encourage
mutual comprehension founded on the notion of a real inter-
national community.

Unlike Professor Roberts, the democratic individual-
ist, Santoro seems to me to be in sympathy with the
domestic aims of Hitler. His name leads one to think
he might have been an Italian Fascist. No matter what
his political opinions were, his book is filled with
essential information. The first edition appeared in Ber-
lin, in 1937, and I daresay a translation of it never
reached the English masses. But one was issued in
America in 1939-too late to have any effecr.

Historically this book is invaluable. The statistics
alone are worth preserving. To read the story of the
reconstruction of the Wehrmacht (the torality of Ger-
many's fighting forces) is most enlightening, to say the
least. I have looked in vain in Other works to find a
statement as clear and as reliable as the one provided
by Santoro. Many will be surprised to learn the follow-
ing:

A few days after the announcement of Germany's with-
drawal from the League of Nations in October, 1933. the
Reich Government proposed in a Memorandum that Germany
should be authorised to maintain an Army of 300,000 men.
On the basis of a British Memorandum of January 22, 1934,
which was presented simultaneously in Berlin, Paris, Rome,
Brussels, an Warsaw, direCt neiotiations in view of an agree-
ment concerning armaments too place repeatedly. Tb: Brititb
Memorandum welcomed Hitler's prepaid: on the ground tbat thy
not only dealt witb technical qurttt'om of disarmament, but alto
witb tbc quertiort of political guarantee: agairut aggrm't'ort.

But already on March 17, the French Government, in its
reply to the British Memorandum, expressed a number of
reservations regarding Germany's proposal. A reread not: of

p88
German Rear-moment 83
the French Government of April 17 declared further negotiation: on
the :ubject to be eereleu. (Italics mine)

There are books enough to enlighten men who wish
to be enlightened, and in my library there must be fully
a dozen written by British authors during the six years
before the war began, which contain information never
touched upon in the debates in the House of Commons,
or mentioned in Mr. Churchill's letters to himself. There
is no reason now why anyone who wishes to know
should remain in ignorance of the chief causes of the
war.

In America, a staff study, made under the direction of
Major-General C. F. Robinson, was published in Octo-
ber, 1947. In reviewing this work, Hanson W. Baldwin,
the military correspondent of The New York Times, said
in that paper, on May 8, 1948:

German industry and German aircraft production facili-
ties-contrary to official and popular impression-were nor
by any means fully mobilized for war w en Hitler invaded
Poland in 1939, according to a comprehensive official study
and report prepared for the Secretary of the Army.

The work is called, "Foreign Logistical Organiza-
tions and Method." It is an astonishing analysis of the
British and German production of war machines:

The report reveals that in 1938 Germany produced only
3,340 com at aircraft, or 5,235 aircraft of all types, including
trainers and non-combat types. In 1939, when Britain was pro-
ducing 8,000 military aircraft of all types, combat and non-
combat, Germany produced only 4,733 combat planes, or
8,295 of all airplane types, including civil aircraft.

The report is far too long to be dealt with adequately
here, but it will certainly surprise a good many people
to learn that

Germany was not prepared in 1939-contrary to demo-
cratic assumption-for a long war or for total war; her eco-

see pdf file for remainder of Neilson's book


THE HIDDEN TYRANNY, Benjamin Freedman

THE HIDDEN TYRANNY
The Issue that Dwarfs All Other Issues

By Benjamin Freedman, Jewish Conspirator Emeritus

 Seven U.S. Presidents -- Masters of Deception -- Jewish Pawns

The names of Presidents Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F.Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon will certainly be found one day inscribed in big red letters in the official annals of the rise and fall of the United states. These seven masters of deception incurred their guilt by debasing their solemn oaths of office on behalf of undisclosed domestic and foreign principals without any apparent qualms or misgivings, to enhance their political fortunes totally oblivious of the threat to United States security and survival. These seven masters of deception knowingly and willingly in effect and in fact "poisoned the wells" of security and survival for the United States. Without any evident scruples, they individually betrayed the sacred traditions enshrined in the letter and spirit of their oaths of office, that precious heritage bequeathed to each of these seven masters of deception as successors to that high office exalted by the immortalized first president of the United States, the venerated George Washington. The disclosures which follow here are now revealed for the first time anywhere. They now expose for the first time to the grass roots population of the United States the secret un-American, non- American and anti-American strategy to which these seven masters of deception knowingly subscribed. The uninhibited practice of that strategy by these seven masters of deception is primarily responsible for desperate predicament in which the United States today finds itself in the Middle East. Very early in their political careers, these seven masters of deception by their determination acquired their proficient skill in detecting on which side their political bread was buttered. Their remarkable perfection in that skill provides the answer to why these seven masters of deception went so far and so fast in so few years in the political world in which they moved. Throughout their political careers these seven masters of deception demonstrated that political shrewdness invariably identified with the immoral dogma of 20th century politicians who preach and practice "any means justifies all ends." Accordingly, future grass roots populations of the United States will one day find inscribed in the history of the rise and fall of the United States the verdict that the "means" today advocated by these seven masters of deception were primarily responsible for the "end" of the United States. It is today a well recognized fact of life in political circles in the United States that the censorship exercised today by Zionists over the media for mass information constitutes a virtual monopoly. It is likewise today a well recognized fact of life in political circles in the United States since President Wilson won his first election in 1912 as president of the United States, that elections in the United States are seldom won or lost today based upon the candidates' qualification for office. Elections in the United States since 1912 are won or lost on the battlefields of the media for mass information by character assassination. Zionist ownership of media for mass information, or by Zionist control exercised by some devious corporate device in effect and in fact censors the news and editorial policies of as the leading daily and Sunday newspapers, all the weekly and monthly news magazines, all leading radio and television stations and networks, the entire motion picture industry, the entire entertainment world and the entire book publishing industry, in effect and in fact the entire complex of media for mass information in the United States, truly a brainwashing monopoly.

 

Talmudist Jews Control News and editorial Policies of Mass Media

As a result of that condition in the United States, for approximately the past fifty years the grass root population of the United States has only read, heard and seen what passed Zionist censorship and best served Zionist objectives, instead of reading, hearing and seeing what best served the interests of the grass roots population of the United States. The Zionist-ruled media for mass information in the United States never informed the grass roots population of the United States how and why President Woodrow Wilson lied the United States into the desperate predicament in which the United States today finds itself in the Middle East. In their consideration recently of the alleged theft of the so-called Pentagon Papers, the United States Supreme Court declared "the public has a right to know the truth." The Supreme Court should have said "the public has a right to know the WHOLE truth." The reason half-truths often are more harmful than lies. The United States declared war against Germany on April 6, 1917. On April 2,1917 President Wilson addressed both houses of Congress and pleaded with them to declare war against Germany. President Wilson's appeal to Congress to declare war against Germany in effect and in fact was primarily President Wilson's liquidation of his obligation to his blackmailers. The following incontestible facts confirm that conclusion beyond all question of any doubt. President Wilson's hand trembled as he read his address. The members of Congress present had no reason to suspect why President Wilson's hand trembled. By the time the grass roots population finish reading this, they will know the reason President Wilson's hand trembled as he read his message to Congress. By the time President Wilson finished reading his appeal to Congress, many of his listeners were in tears but not for the reason the grass roots population of the United States today will be in tears when they finish reading this manuscript. When President Wilson asked Congress to declare war against Germany, President Wilson was in effect and in fact conspiring to pay the debt he obligated himself to pay to the Zionists. Congress only declared war against Germany because President Wilson informed Congress that a German submarine had sunk the S.S. Sussex in the English Channel in violation of international law and that United States citizens aboard the S.S. Sussex had perished with the ship. After General Pershing's troops were fighting in Europe, the hoax was exposed. The alleged sinking of the S.S. Sussex was used as the "pretext" to justify a declaration of war against Germany by the United States. The S.S. Sussex had not been sunk and no United States citizens had lost their lives. The United States was now at war in Europe as Great Britain's ally. That is what Great Britain and the Talmudists ("Jews") of the world conspired to achieve in their crooked diplomatic underworld. The discovery of the hoax by the British Navy shocked many honorable Englishmen. A large segment of the British public were shocked to learn the S.S. Sussex had not been sunk. The S.S. Sussex was available for anyone to visit who might care to do so to see the S.S. Sussex for themselves with their own eyes. In that war the United States mobilized 4,734,991 men to serve in the armed forces, of whom 115,516 were killed and 202,002 were either injured or maimed for life. The Right Honorable Francis Neilson, a member of Parliament, wrote a book in England called Makers of War (pp. 149150). Mr. Neilson's book created such a sensation that Mr. Neilson was compelled to resign his seat in Parliament. Things became so intolerable for Mr. Neilson in Great Britain as a Result of the exposures in his book that he was compelled for his personal safety to flee from his home in Great Britain and to make his home in the United States. In Mr. Neilson's book Makers of War (pp. 149-150), he discloses many unsuspected and undisclosed reasons for the outbreak of World War I in Europe in August 1914. With reference to the alleged sinking of the S.S. Sussex in the English Channel, Mr. Neilson emphasizes: "/n America, Woodrow Wilson, desperate to find a pretext to enter the war, found it at last in the 'sinking' of the Sussex in mid-channel. Someone invented a yarn that American lives had been lost. With thus excuse he went to Congress for a declaration of war. Afterwards, the Navy found that the Sussex had not been sunk, and that no lives had been lost. " This author crossed the English Channel many times on the S.S. Sussex. The alleged sinking of the S.S. Sussex was the figment of an over-worked Zionist imagination. The alleged sinking of the S.S. Sussex was conceived in the imagination of a Zionist to facilitate the purpose planned and successfully executed.

 

President Wilson Blackmailed

Shortly after President Wilson's first inauguration, he received a visitor in the White House by the name of Mr. Samuel Untermeyer. Mr. Untermeyer was a prominent New York City attorney who contributed generously to the National Democratic Committee that installed President Wilson in the White House in Washington in the 1912 election. Mr. Untermeyer was a very welcome guest and President Wilson was very glad to welcome him to the White House. They had met before during the campaign. Mr. Untermeyer surprised President Wilson when he finally stated what brought hum to the White House. Mr. Untermeyer informed President Wilson that he had been retained to bring a breach of promise action against President Wilson. Mr. Untermeyer informed President Wilson that his client was willing to accept $40,000.00 in lieu of commencing the breach of promise action. Mr. Untermeyer's client was the former wife of a Professor at Princeton University at the same time President Wilson was a professor at Princeton University. Mr. Untermeyer produced a packet of letters from his pocket, written by President Wilson to his colleague's wife when they were neighbors at Princeton University. These letters established the illicit relationship which had existed between President Wilson and the wife of his colleague neighbor. He had written many endearing letters to her, many of which she never destroyed. President Wilson acknowledged his authorship of the letters after examining a few of them. President Wilson left Princeton University to become the Governor of New Jersey, In 1912 he was elected to his first term as president of the United States. In the interim, President Wilson's former sweetheart had divorced her husband and married again. Her second husband resident in Washington with a grown son who was in the employ of one of the leading banks in Washington. Mr. Untermeyer explained to President Wilson that his former sweetheart was very fond of her husband's son. He explained that this son was in financial trouble and suddenly needed $40,000.00, as he told the story, to liquidate a pressing liability to the bank for which he worked. The details are not relevant here except that the son needed the $40,000.00 badly and quickly. President Wilson's former sweetheart thought that Wilson was the logical prospect for that $40,000,00 to help her husband's son. Mr. Untermeyer visited President Wilson at the White House to break the news to him about the breach of promise action being considered. Wilson expressed himself as very fortunate that his former sweetheart went to Mr. Untermeyer to seek his assistance. The publicity could have proven very embarrassing to President Wilson if his former sweetheart had instead consulted a Republican attorney. President Wilson quickly set Mr. Untermeyer's mind at rest by informing him that he did not have $40.000.00 available for any purpose. Mr. Untermeyer suggested that President Wilson should think the matter over and said he would return in a few days to discuss the matter further. Mr. Untermeyer used the next few days in Washington looking into the credibility of the son's story about his pressing need for $40,000.00 to liquidate a pressing liability. He learned that the son's story was not misrepresented in any way to his mother by her son. Mr. Untermeyer returned to President Wilson a few days later as they had agreed. President Wilson did not hesitate to inform Mr. Untermeyer that he did not have the $40,000.00 to pay his blackmailer. President Wilson appeared irritated. Mr. Untermeyer considered the matter a few Moments and then volunteered a solution to President Wilson for his problem. Mr, Untermeyer volunteered to give President Wilson's former sweetheart the $40,000.00 out of his own pocket on one condition: that Wilson promise Untermeyer to appoint to the first vacancy on the United States Supreme Court a nominee to be recommended to Wilson by Untermeyer. Without further talk, President Wilson accepted Mr. Untermeyer's generous offer and Mr. Untermeyer promptly paid the $40,000.00 in currency to President Wilson 's former sweetheart. The contemplated breach of promise suit was never heard of after that. Mr. Untermeyer retained in his possession permanently the packet of letters to insure against any similar attempt at some future time. President Wilson was most grateful to Mr. Untermeyer for everything he was doing to solve problem. Mr. Untermeyer was a man of great wealth . The law firm in New York of which he was the leading partner, Messrs. Guggenheim, Untermeyer and Marshall, is still today one of the nations most prominent and most prosperous law firms. Mr. Untermeyer organized the Bethlehalem Steel Company for his friend, Mr. Charles M. Schwab, who resigned from the United States Steel Company to form his company in competition with it.

 

Justice Brandeis--The Pay Off

As anyone might reasonable suspect, Mr. Untermeyer must have had something in mind when he agreed to pay President Wilson's former sweetheart $40,000.00 out of his own pocket. He paid the money out of his own pocket in the hope that it might bring to pass a dream close to his heart--a Talmudist ("Jew") on the United States Supreme Court on which none had ever served. The day soon arrived when President Wilson was presented with the necessity of appointing a new member of the United States Supreme Court. Mr. Untermeyer recommended Louis Dembitz Brandeis for the vacancy, who was immediately appointed by Wilson. President Wilson and Justice Brandeis became unusually intimate friends. Justice Brandeis knew the circumstances of his appointment to the Supreme Court by President Wilson. In l9l4 Justice Brandeis was the most prominent and most politically influential of all Zionists in the United States. As a Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Brandeis was in a better position than ever before to be of service to Talmudists ("Jews") both at home and abroad. The first opportunity to perform a great service for his Zionist followers soon became available to Brandeis. Justice Brandeis volunteered his opinion to President Wilson that the sinking of the S.S. Sussex by a German submarine in the English Channel with the loss of lives of United States citizens justified the declaration of war against Germany by the United States. Relying to a great extent upon the legal opinion of Justice Brandeis, President Wilson addressed both houses of Congress on April 2, l9l7. He appealed to Congress to declare war against Germany and they did on April 7, l9l7. After the October l9l6 agreement was concluded between the British War Cabinet and the World Zionist Organization, the Talmudists throughout the world were hopeful that an international incident would soon occur to Justify a declaration of war against Germany by the United States. The declaration of war against Germany by the United States guaranteed the Talmudists throughout the world that Palestine was to be turned over to them upon the defeat of Germany. The defeat of Germany was certain if the United States could be railroaded into the war in Europe as Great Britain's ally. Prior to the October 1916 London Agreement, Talmudists throughout the world were pro-German. The German Emancipation Edict of 1822 guaranteed Talmudists in Germany all civil rights enjoyed by Germans. Every country in Europe had quotas for Talmudists. The quota systems had existed for centuries in all European countries. Under the quota system in European countries, Talmudists were Limited in all activities to a small percentage of the Christian population of the country. The quota systems applied to all occupations. After the Emancipation Edict In 1822, Germany was the only country in Europe which did not place restrictions on Talmudists under a quota system limiting their civil rights. Talmudists throughout the world were informed by cable from London about the October 1916 London Agreement. That information transformed them from pro-German to pro-British. Great Britain placed at the disposal of Talmudists in London their secret codes and worldwide cable facilities to inform Talmudists throughout the world about Great Britain's pledge to turn over Palestine to them as compensation for railroading the United States into the war in Europe as Great Britain s ally in their war against Germany. Talmudists enlisted in great numbers in October 1916 in Great Britain's Department of Defense. Their purpose was to facilitate transforming Talmudists throughout the world from pro-German to pro-British. After the London Agreement was concluded, Great Britain left no stone unturned to impress Talmudists in London with the necessity of immediately notifymg Talmudists throughout the world about Great Britain's pledge to turn over Palestine to them for their future sovereign Zionist state. Guided by the recommendation of Justice Brandeis that the sinking of the S.S. Sussex justified a declaration of war under international law against Germany by the United States, President Wilson addressed a joint session of both houses of Congress on April 2, 1917. In that address President Wilson pleaded with Congress to declare war against Germany. Congress met on April 6. 1917. and declared war against Germany without justification. On April 6, 1917, President Wilson and Justice Brandeis knew something the grass roots population of the United States did not know--they knew full particulars about the October 1916 London Agreement. They also knew the declaration of war against Germany by the United States activated this agreement and that Talmudists of the world would not have to wait long for Palestine, their sovereign Zionist state, if their plan worked. On this same day, Wilson and Brandeis knew something else the grass roots population of the United States did not know--they knew that the declaration of war by the United States against Germany discharged President Wilson from his obligation to his blackmailers. Wilson's declaration of war was to satisfy his commitment to his blackmailers. There was seldom any address made to Congress that stirred the people of the United States, and the world, as did President Wilson's April 2, 1917, plea to Congress to declare war against Germany. Wilson was aware when he addressed Congress that Germany had not committed any act against the United States which justified a declaration of war by the United States against Germany under international law. This author at that time knew President Wilson was informed to that effect before he made his plea to Congress.

 

Prime Minister Lloyd George - A Zionist Tool

There were great numbers of Talmudists in the United States who questioned the reality of the October 1916 London Agreement. They found it extremely difficult to believe that Great Britain would promise to turn over Palestine to them as compensation for railroading the United States into the war in Europe as Great Britain's ally. These Talmudists could not believe that Great Britain would promise anything to anyone that Great Britain did not own as compensation. That appeared inconceivable to Talmudists familiar with Great Britain's reputation for respect of property rights under their laws. To overcome doubts that existed in the minds of Talmudists in the United States, Prime Minister Lloyd George immediately sent Mr. Josiah Wedgewood to the United States. Mr. Wedgewood was one of the most respected and dedicated members of Parliament. Prime Minister Lloyd George, a rabid well-known Zionist, was unexpectedly appointed Prime Minister on December 4, 1916. He rushed Mr. Wedgewood to the United States on December 5, 1916, under pressure by Talmudists in London. The prime minister whom Lloyd George succeeded was unsympathetic Toward Zionist objectives. He was replaced at that time because Zionists could not rule him. Great Britain was helpless in October 1916. It was seriously considering surrender to Germany. Germany had made several peace offers to Great Britain earlier to discontinue the war. Mr. Lloyd George considered Mr. Wedgewood's hasty trip to the United States vital to Great Britain's survival. Mr. Wedgewood went to the United States with documented evidence proving the reality of the October 1916 London Agreement with the Talmudists.

 

Colonel House - a Conspiring Enigma

Mr. Wedgewood arrived in the United States on December 23, 1916. Upon his arrival he was met at the pier by Colonel Edward Mandel House, President Wilson's closest personal friend and most trusted adviser. Col. House in early life negotiated cotton purchases in the United States for Rothschild interests in Great Britain. Col. House did not claim or disclaim his Talmudist ancestry to this author. He had arranged with Mr. Wedgewood to live in his apartment on 54th Street during his stay in the United States. Col. House quickly made arrangements for the meeting at which Mr. Wedgewood was to prove the reality of the October 1916 London Agreement. The meeting was to be held on Sunday afternoon, December 25, l916, at the old Hotel Savoy at 59th Street and Fifth Avenue in New Yolk City. There were fifty-one invited Talmudists present there when Col. House introduced Mr. Wedgewood to the audience. Mr. Wedgewood then presided. Mr. Wedgewood presented evidence there that left no doubt in the minds of the fifty-one Talmudists present about the reality of the October 1916 London Agreement. On behalf of Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Wedgewood further vouched for the reality of Great Britain pledge that Palestine would be turned over to Talmudists of the world by Great Britain upon the defeat of Germany as compensation for railroading the United States into the war in Europe as Great Britain's ally. After concluding the October 1916 London Agreement, Talmudists in England were invited by Great Britain to take an increasingly active participation in Great Britain's Department of Defense for the duration of the war. The Talmudists who accepted the invitation were trained as experts in the use of Great Britain's codes and Great Britain's worldwide diplomatic cable facilities. The available data in Great Britain's archives for World War I will dispel all existing doubt whether the information cabled to Washington from London alleging the sinking of the S.S. Sussex and the loss of United States lives was the invention of Talmudists in London in Great Britain's Department of Defense to facilitate and expediate railroading the United States into the war in Europe as Great Britain's ally. The hoax was discovered by the British Navy. It was also confirmed by other equally reliable sources for information on the subject by qualified united States experts. The reality of the October l9l6 London Agreement was known to the Germans shortly after it was concluded, in fact, on the same day. Germany thereafter exercised great care both on land and on sea not to commit any act which, under international law, could provide the United States with justification to declare war against Germany. German military and naval commanders leaned over backwards in their effort not to provide the United States with that justification and they were successful. In the crisis in October 1916, Germans had reason to feel if the war in Europe continued a few more months without the entrance of the United States into the war, that Great Britain would be compelled to surrender to Germany by circumstances beyond Great Britain's power to control. Germany made another peace offer to Great Britain in October 1916. Great Britain this time welcomed the offer but it was also declined like several previous peace offers. In referring to the declaration of war against Germany by the United States, Sir Winston Churchill said in an interview with a prominent editor, published in Scribner's Commentator in 1936, that he "could never understand why he put us in in 1917," referring to President Wilson. In that interview Sir Winston Churchill stated further: ''America should have minded her own business and stayed out of the World War. If you hadn't entered the war the Allies would have made peace with Germany in the spring of 1917. Had we made peace there would have been no collapse of Russia followed by Communism, no breakdown in Italy followed by Fascism, and Germany would not have signed the Versailles Treaty, which has enthroned Nazism in Germany. If America had stayed out of the war, all of these 'isms' wouldn't be sweeping the continent of Europe and breaking down parliamentary government, and if England made peace early in 1917, it would have saved over one million British, French, American and other lives. Germany's peace offer to Great Britain asked for neither indemnities nor reparations. Germany offered to restore the territorial status and the political independence of every country with whom Great Britain was at war, as they existed in August l9l4 when the war in Europe started. Germany demanded no benefits.

 

Talmudist Jews Select America 's Ally for First World War

Germany's October 1916 peace offer was on the table before the British War Cabinet; it needed only one signature to end the war. Great Britain would have quickly accepted Germany's peace offer if the World Zionist Organization had not Interfered. The British War Cabinet was then taking their instructions from Talmudists in London. When the British War Cabinet decided to accept Germany's peace offer, the World Zionist Organization offered to railroad the United States into the war in Europe as Great Britain's ally if Great Britain promised the Talmudists of the world Palestine as compensation after Germany's defeat with the United States as an ally. Talmudist pressure in London and New York prevailed. President Wilson had little choice in the matter, it seemed. He was the captive of circumstances in his early life that could not be altered. His April 2, 1917, address to Congress was about to decide the fate of the world. Congress, without hesitation, declared war against Germany for him. The Germans attributed their crushing defeat in World War I to the entry of the United States into the war in Europe as Great Britain's ally. Germany considered the October 1916 London Agreement a stab in the back by Talmudists of the world. In view of the Emancipation Edict in Germany in 1822, Germans regarded the London Agreement as a double-cross by Talmudists in Germany. Quota systems then existed in all other countries in Europe. There was no quota system in Germany after the Emancipation Edict of 1822 for Talmudists.

 

Talmudist Jews Promote Germans Victory, Then Stab them in the Back

The Kaiser provided the World Zionist Organization with the offices for their world headquarters in Berlin. He, his family and government officials were constantly extending assistance to Theodore Herzl. Germany extended opportunities to Talmudists not available in other European countries. The Kaiser himself arranged the personal beeting between the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire and Theodore Herzl. Bleichroeder & Company in Berlin were the private bankers of the Kaiser's family for generations. They were Talmudists. Warburg & Company of Hamburg were the world's largest merchant bankers. They were Talmudists. The head of the German General Electric Company, then the world's largest industrial enterpnse, was a Talmudist. The head of the Hamburg- American and North German Lloyd steamship companies, the two largest steamship companies in the world, second only to the Cunard Line, was a Talmudist. Countless prominent German industrialists, bankers and merchants were Talmudists The attitude of Germans towards Talmudists in Germany and throughout the world worsened much after the October 1916 stab in the back by Talmudists. Mr. Samuel Landman, the secretary of the World Zionist Organization in London from 1917 to 1922, wrote in his Great Britain, the Jews and Palestine, published in London in 1936, on page six: "The fact that it was Jewish help that brought the U.S.A. into the war on the side of the Allies has rankled ever since in German- - especially Nazi--minds and has contributed in no small measure to the prominence which anti-Semitism occupied in the Nazi programme." The sentiments of prominent German leaders were expressed in the Jewish Daily Bulletin of New York City on October 30, 1934, in an article reprinted on page three from the Jewish Telegraphic Agency dispatch from Berlin which stated: "The New Germany persists toward the complete extermination of the Jew because it was Jews who instigated the United States to enter the World War, accomplishing the defeat of Germany, and who later caused the inflation in Germany, Herr Richard Kunze, a leading Nazi Parliament figure, declared at a mass meeting in Magdeburg yesterday." Talmudists throughout the world made bad matters worse on August 7, 1933, when they declared their "holy war" to destroy the German nation "by destroying their export trade upon which their very existence depends." Under the leadership of Mr. Samuel Untermeyer, Talmudists of the world declared a world boycott on all German goods and services. They asked their "Christian friends" to join their worldwide boycott of German goods and services. Mr. Samuel Untermeyer arranged for the "International Boycott Conference" in Amsterdam in July 1933. There he was elected the president of the "World Jewish Economic Federation." Talmudists throughout the world had tried in vain since 1919 to silence German resentment against them for railroading the United States into the war in Europe without justification or provocation by the United States as Great Britain's ally. Talmudists were held responsible for Germany's defeat and for every disadvantage that resulted from that defeat. The New York Times of August 7, 1933, published the Talmudists' declaration of their "holy war" against Germany in a three-column report of Mr. Untermeyer's address to the nation from the Columbia Broadcasting Company's studio on the night of his arrival home from Europe. Mr. Untermeyer, among other things, stated: "...holy war...in which we are embarked..it is a war which must be waged unremittingly...the Jews are the aristocrats of the world... the economic boycott against all German goods, shipping and services...boycott is our only really effective weapon...bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends...we shall force them to learn...it is not sufficient that you buy no goods in Germany...you must refuse to deal with any merchant or shopkeeper who sells any German-made goods...we will drive the last nail in the coffin... " That statement was made on August 7, 1933, when not a hair on the head of a Talmudist in Germany had been touched. Germany was plunged into a depression difficult to describe in a few words, Germany's export business suddenly ending as if by magic. Talmudists hoped that way to stop Germans from continuing to talk about why they lost the war. Talmudists in Germany were finding it difficult to live that down. Germans then felt the way Sir Winston Churchill in 1936 expressed himself about the entry of the United States into World War I in 1917.

 

Zionist Worldwide Boycott Against German Merchandise Creates Domestic Crisis

The eminent Rabbi Maurice L. Perlman, head of the British Section of the World Jewish Congress, stated to a Canadian audience as reported by The Toronto Evening Telegram of February 26, 1940, that: "The World Jewish Congress has been at war with Germany for seven years. " Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon delivered an address on December 20, 1951, as reported in The National Jewish Post of Indianapolis of December 28, 1951, in which he stated: "One of the major causes for our going to war against Hitler was the persecution of the Jews in Germany. " Dr. Donald C. Blaisdell, professor of government at the College of the City of New York, published an important document entitled American Policy for the near East in a publication called Issues published in New York, the official organ of the American Council for Judaism, in the fall issue in 1959, in which Dr. Blaisdell stated: "No minority of Irish. of German, of Polish, Italian, or Greek extraction has been able to manipulate policy to its advantage as have the Zionist leaders of American Jews. Nor does there appear to be any politically feasible means by which the American government can place the claims of its important clientele in proper perspective. Like American Jews who are presumed to be members of Israel 's American clientele are never allowed to forget it, so the American government, Congress and Executive branch alike, is never permitted to free itself from the pressure, propaganda and power emanating from the same Zionist sources. " This author has been in a position since 1912 to witness what was going on behind the scenes. This author served on the National Democratic Committee in the 1912 campaign that elected President Wilson to his first term. No doors have been closed to this author since then. This author was ushered into this world in 1890 by Dr. Simon Baruch, the father of Mr. Bemard M. Baruch. Mr. Bemard Baruch was a good friend of this author's family and would very often consult this author on this situation.

 

Franklin Roosevelt Manipulated by Talmudic Jews

President Franklin D. Roosevelt was a captive of the Talmudists from the time he went to Albany as govemor of the state of New York. President Roosevelt was long beholden to the Talmudists. The story of how President Roosevelt lied the United States into the desperate predicament in which the United States today finds itself in the Middle East is not a long story. It is the story of how President Roosevelt railroaded the United States into the Second World War: Germany and Poland had agreed upon a formula giving Germany access across the Danzig Corridor. President Wilson, in 1919, created the Danzig Corrjdor which separated Gemmany into two halves. In order to keep Germany weak, at the instigation of Talmudists at theVersialles Peace Conference, President Wilson cut Germany into two halves, separated by a strip of German territory granted to Poland which divided Germany into two halves. Crossing the Danzig Corridor from western Germany to eastern Germany or vice versa was like traveling from one country to another. The inconveniences, the delays and the annoyances to Germany and Poland had finally worked out their acceptable arrangement that eliminated a majority of German objections to the Danzig Corridor. Germany and Poland reached a basis that would serve to prevent Germany's resort to more aggressive action. Adolf Hitler was the head of the German government at the time. Talmudists throughout the world opposed the peaceful adjustment between Germany and Poland of the Danzig Corridor situation. Unrestricted access of traffic between the western half and the eastern half of Germany would soon make Germany again the most powerful country in the world. Talmudists throughout the world dreaded the thought. In spite of the difficulties placed in the way of reaching a solution for the Danzig Corridor problem, Germany and Poland finally agreed upon a formula. Preparations were being made to consummate their understanding in a treaty. Both Germany and Poland were satisfied the formula agreed upon served both governments. Shortly before the agreement with Germany was to be signed, Poland secretly signed a treaty with Great Britain dated August 25, l939. Great Britain agreed in that treaty to hasten the military assistance of Poland "with all the support and assistance in its power" if Poland were attacked by Germany. With that assurance from Great Britain, Poland broke off negotiations with Germany. Germany did not understand the reason for Poland's sudden change of mind and decided to proceed with the terms of the arrangement agreed upon with Poland. That was the start of World War II. Great Britain knowingly deceived Poland when Great Britain actually promised military assistance to Poland if Poland were attacked by Germany. Great Britain could not come to Poland's assistance and Great Britain knew it when Great Britain's offer of military assistance to Poland was made. Poland fell into Great Britain's trap and discontinued negotiations with the Germans. Poland's unexplained discontinuance of negotiations with Germany to complete the Danzig Corridor agreement resulted in Germany's troops moving into the Danzig Corridor without an agreement with Poland. Great Britain knew exactly what would take place in that event, that it would mean the beginning or World War II. The rest is history. Talmudists of the world welcomed a war against Germeny in l939 to somehow crush the Nazi government as the Talmudists of the world crushed Germany in World War I in 1917 by railroading the United States into the war in Europe as Great Britain's ally. President Roosevelt tried his hardest in 1939 to railroad The United States into the war in Europe to accommodate Talmudists in the United States. Germany learned by experience in World War I that the entry of the United States into thc war in Europe in 1939 could prove equally disastrous to Germany if the United States were raiiroaded into war in Europe as Great Bntain's ally. Germany exercised extraordinary caution not to provide the United States with justification under internationai law to declare war against Germany. That situation presented President Roosevelt with a problem. President Roosevelt decided if it were impossible for him to get into the war in Europe through the front door that he would railroad the United States into the war in Europe through the back door. Through the back door meant through Japan. Presidcnt Roosevelt finally did railroad the United States into the war in Europe through the back door, through Japan.

 

Secretary of Defense Stimson During World War II Makes Startling Revelation

Germany and Japan had a treaty under which if either Germany or Japan were attacked by a third powcr, the country which was not attacked by the third power automaticaily is at war with that third power. President Roosevelt planned to provoke Japan so Japan would attack the United States. Japan in December 1941 attacked Pearl Harbor. The United States immediately declared war against Japan and automatically was at war with Germany. The personal diary of the Hon. Mr. Henry L. Stimson and all his papers are in Yale University Lihrary. Mr. Stimson each day entered in his personal diary in his own handwriting the important events in his life that day. Mr. Stimson was President Roosevelt's secretary of defense. Mr. Stimson's diary was introduced as evidence in the United States Senate investigation of the Pearl Harbor attack by Japan over the strong objections of friends of President Roosevelt. Mr. Stimson entered in his diary on November 25, 1941, two weeks before Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, that at a meeting with President Roosevelt and his cabinet that morning at the White House, President Roosevelt told those present that he wished to be at war against Japan but that he "did not want it to appear that the United States fired the first shot."

 

Zionist Conspirators Provoke Pearl Harbor Incident

President Roosevelt knowingly provoked Japan to attack the United States. President Roosevelt advised Japan they could purchase no more steel scrap or oil from the United States. Japan was in the midst of a war against China. Without scrap steel and without oil Japan would be unable to continue that war. Japan was totally dependent upon the United States for both steel scrap and oil. Professor Charles Callan Tansill, professor of diplomatic history at Georgetown University in Washington, wrote a classic work he called Back Door to War, published by Henry Regnery of Chicago in 1952. Professor Tansill spent five years after the war in the confidential files of the State Department doing research there on World War II. Professor Tansill's book has 652 pages all filled with alarming authenticated facts little known to the public during the war. In a scholarly detailed manner easily understood, Professor Tansill supplies facts which are incontrovertible proof showing how President Roosevelt railroaded the United States into World War II in Europe. President Roosevelt's desire to please Talmudists among his friends, influenced his better judgment. He overlooked that he was president of all the people of the United States. President Roosevelt realized if he expected political support by Talmudists in the United States to continue he must find some way to railroad the United States into the war then in progress in Europe against Germany. Surely nobody can any longer question that railroading the United States into World War II was President Roosevelts contribution to the desperate predicament in which the United States today funds itself in the Middle East. President Harry S. Truman made his great contribution to the desperate predicament in which the United States today funds itself in the Middle East when he recognized as a sovereign state an armed uprising in Palestine by 800,000 armed aliens transplanted into Palestine in a conspiracy organized by Talmudists throughout the world. President Truman in 1946 suffered from a pathological obsession that he must be elected president of the United States in 1948 on his own account. Mr. Clarke M. Clifford, Secretary of War under President Lyndon B. Johnson, deserves a great deal of credit for the recognition of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948, by the United States. Mr. Eliahu Epstein, the United States representative of the Jewish Agency in Washington in 1948, told the story in his three- page article in the Jewish Chronicle of London in its 10th anniversary issue of June 1958 celebrating the 10th anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel. Mr. Clifford undoubtedly was anxious to help because President Truman had confided in his close friends that he wished to recognize the Zionist state in the "first hour of its birth" as he did. The State of Israel was officially "proclaimed" in Tel Aviv at midnight on May 14, l948. President Truman recognized the birth of the State of Isreal eleven minutes after midnight. President Truman finally advised this author that he did not wish to carry on the discussion of the Zionist question with him any further. He wrote to this author that he had turned over the entire Palestine question to "the Hon. David Niles." Talmudists were willing to carry out their part of their bargain with President Truman after he recognized the State of Israel. Although the odds in President Truman's election in 1948 were 20 to 1 against his election, President Truman romped home the winner over Governor Dewey assisted by the invisible and invincible Zionist political steam-roller that always elects their candidates. President Truman not only used the power and prestige of the United States to compel the United Nations to admit the State of Israel as a peace-loving nation, the regime of an armed uprising in Palestine by transplanted aliens, but he made billions of United States taxpayers dollars available to Talmudists to make the State of Israel powerful. When the day to vote for the admission of the State of Iseral arrived they were short two votes. The plan was about to collapse. In the emergency, Mr Charles H. Silver engaged Cardinal Spellman to make two trips to South America to change their votes in the United Nations against the admission of the State of Israel into the United Nation to vote in favor of the admission of the State of Israel into the United Nations as a member. The newspapers around the world on June 11, 1964, published Mr. Silver's "confession" of a "secret I have kept for fifteen years." The "secret" Cardinal Spellman kept with Mr. Silver was that Cardinal Spellman was sent to South America by Mr. Silver on behalf of the Talmudists in New York to "persuade" the South American countries to change their votes against admitting the State of Israel to the United Nations to vote in favor of admitting the State of Israel to the United Nations as a member. This author was a close personal friend of Cardinal Spellman for twenty-five years. Cardinal Spellman "confessed" to this author several years ago that he felt he had committed an irreparable sin by conspiring with the Talmudists in the United States to elect the State of Israel a member of the United Nations. In the midst of that bloody fighting in the Middle East in June 1967, Cardinal Spellman told this author when alone with him in his study that he felt personally responsible for all the lives lost in the 1967 invasion of the United Arab Republic and Syria by the State of Isreal.

 

H.J. 117 a Talmudic Creation-Eisenhower Steps in Line

The story of how President Dwight D. Eisenhower lied the United States into the desperate predicament in which the United States today finds itself in the Middle East is not a complicated story. Talmudists m the United States pressured President Eisenhower into sponsoring Joint Resolution by Congress of H J Res. 117, on January 5, 1950, which was then refined by Congress to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. President Eisenhower knew less about what he was doing than a new born babe. It was pitiful for this author to witness a great general being figuratively pushed around by Talmudists unfit to shine his shoes. President Eisenhower was always friendly towards this author. This author met President Eisenhower when he was being considered by Mr. Thomas M. Watson, Sr., as a presidential candidate on the Democratic ticket. Mr. Watson was the founder of the International Business Machines Company. He told this author at that time that he believed General Eisenhower as a Civilian would make a great president. As president of the United States, General Eisenhower was faithful to these Talmudist supporters whose friendship he first cultivated in Europe during his political activities in Germany after the end of World War 11. Talmudists curried his favor after World War 11. They knew that as president of the United States, General Eisenhower in their hands would be like clay in the hands of the potter. In 1956 it appeared that Middle East countries were undergoing changes in their governments. The Zionist illegal occupation of Palestine still existed. Populations in Middle East countries were growing restless. Talmudists recognized something must be done to silence the unrest. President Eisenhower then obliged the Talmudists. Lebanon is the heart of Middle East political activity. To nip action in the bud, by native populations aiming to assert their independence from domination by Talmudists, Talmudists arranged with President Eisenhower to occupy Lebanon with fourteen thousand (14,000) troops and to station the Sixth Fleet off the coast To make it legal, Talmudists had Congress pass a Joint resolution like the Tonkin Bay Resolution passed by Congress to legalize the war in Vietnam.

 

President Eisenhower Performs Fulfillment of Zionist Demands in Middle East

President Eisenhower occupied Lebanon with fourteen thousand (14,000) United States troops and stationed the sixth Fleet off the Lebanon coast. President Eisenhower was warning the Middle East nations not to attempt to regain Palestine from the Zionists in illegal possession of Palestine. President Eisenhower must have had a consortium of the smartest Talmudists the state defense and justice departments prepare that joint resolution. The intent of that unclear language is to conceal the purpose of the joint Resolution not to explain its purpose. The purpose was to have a joint resolution in record that would permit President Eisenhower to use the United States armed forces and navy to aid and abet the Zionist thieves to hold onto their stolen loot without any necessity to ask Congress to declare war. Every word President Eisenhower uttered to defend the crooks in occupation of Palestine was a lie which contributed to the desperate predicament in which the United States today finds itself in the Middle East. Talmudists in the United States were able to camouflage their illegal aggression in the Middle East behind the glamour of President Eisenhower's record as a great soldier. The story of how President John F. Kennedy lied the United States into the desperate predicament in which the United States today finds itself in the Middle East is very distressing. President Kennedy's future was uncertain after digressing on August 25, l960, from the straight and narrow path he had followed all his life. President Kennedy could not escape the consequences of his betrayal of the high principles to which he aimed to dedicate his life. President Kennedy surrendered to the lure of Talmudists who pledged to put him in the White House as the president of the United States. On August 23 1960, in the United States Senate office building in Washington President Kennedy, at that time a senator, gave this author a copy of the address he was to deliver in New York City on August 25, 1960. In the copy of that address he stated among other things: "Israel...three weeks ago I said in a public statement 'Israel is here to stay...my flat prediction that Israel is here to stay...will endure and flourish...a special obligation on the Democratic Party...it was President Truman who first recognized the new State of Israel and gave it status in world affairs...may I and...my hope and my pledge to continue the democratic tradition...if the Democratic platform is to have any meaning...the White House must take the lead...American intervention.. will not now be easy...I propose that we make it crystal clear...we will act promptly and decisively...I propose that we make it clear...our guarantee that we will act with whatever force and speed are necessary..the risk of war..." President (Senator) Kennedy was giving Talmudists his pledge that as the president of the United States he would send sons, husbands and brothers of the grass roots population of the United States to fight in Palestine under the flag of the United States in a war in Palestine to help crooks hold onto stolen loot, to aid and abet thieves retain possession of their stolen plunder. This author met President Kennedy for the first time in his father's office at 230 Park Avenue, in New York City, on the day after he was elected for the first time as a Congressman in November l946. This author was in a conference with Ambassador Joseph Kennedy and Judge Landis, an associate of Ambassador Kennedy. In his private office they were consulting this author on the Middle East situation which had recently taken an ugly turn in the United Nations.

 

President John Kennedy Pledges Zionists He Will Act in Their Favor Even at the Risk of War

Ambassador Kennedy discussed the subject matter for a short while with those present. The Congressman then asked to leave as he was catching a train for Washington. This author invited the Congressman to lunch and he accepted. After lunch Congress Kennedy asked if this author had nothing else to do than ride to Washington with him on the train. This author was willing and rode to Washington with him. From that day in November l946 to August 23, l960, this author saw the Congressman, and the Senator, countless times in his office in Washington and New York City This author was happy to enlighten Senator Kennedy on the Palestine question. Without a doubt there were soon few people in the world who were better informed on this subject than Senator Kennedy. In the fourteen years this author had the honor of enjoying the confidence of President Kennedy he never failed to express his appreciation for this author's interest in his career. President Kennedy also appreciated the friendship this author demonstrated for his father, Ambassador Kennedy. Ambassador Kennedy was blackmailed by President Roosevelt. President Roosevelt told Ambassador Kennedy not to write the book he planned to write. President Roosevelt removed Ambassador Kennedy as Ambassador to the Court of St. James in London for circulating what Neville Chamberlain told Ambassador Kennedy in London in l938.

 

The Senior Kennedy Liquidated Politically by Franklin Roosevelt

for Reporting Talmudic Conspiracy

Ambassador Kennedy reported to Washington in 1938 that Neville Chamberlain told him that the United States and Talmudists throughout the world forced Great Britain into the Second World War. Chamberlain also told Ambassador Kennedy in 1938 that Great Britain had nothing with which to fight Germany, that Great Britain should not risk going to war against Germany. Chamberlain complained to Ambassador Kennedy that United States Ambassador to France William C. Bullit in 1938 was urging President Roosevelt that Germany must be "faced down" in their attitude towards Poland in the Danzig Corridor matter. President Roosevelt recalled Ambassador Kennedy to silence him. Ambassador Kennedy planned to return to the United States to write a book telling what he knew that he thought the grass roots population of the United States should be told. President Roosevelt sent for Ambassador Kennedy upon his return to the United States to come to Washington to see him. President Roosevelt told Ambassador Kennedy that he had heard that he was planning to write a book which he asked him not to do. After Ambassador Kennedy's unpleasant meeting with President Roosevelt in Washington after his recall from London for daring to circulate what Chamberlain had told him about Talmudists, his ambition in life was to see one of his sons in the White House as president of the United States. The story of how President Lyndon Baines Johnson lied the United States into the desperate predicament in which the United States today finds itself in the Middle East is not a long story. It commences with a telephone call to this author in New York from Congressman Ed Gosset in Washington to come there at once. Congressman Gosset represented Amarillo, Texas, in the House of Representatives. Congressman Gosset was alarmed that the Senate Armed Services Committee the day before confirmed the appointment of Anna M. Rosenberg as Assistant Secretary of Defense without a public hearing. The only witness who appeared to testify concerning Anna Rosenberg's fitness to serve as Assistant Secretary of Defense was Ann Rosenberg herself. That by itself aroused suspicion among the country's leaders. Congress Gosset took this author to Senator Johnson's office and explained to him the reason for the visit. Senator Johnson was a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee which had confirmed Anna Rosenberg's appointment the previous day. Senator Johnson was very much interested in learning about Anna Rosenberg's associations with communists. Senator Johnson asked this author if he would assist him in looking into the matter further by producing a communist who knew Anna Rosenberg. Upon this author's return to New York that day, he mentioned Senator Johnson's request to his attorney, Mr. Hallam Richardson. Within a few hours, Mr. Richardson produced Mr. Ralph de Sola, a prominent communist, the head of film photography of documents by communist Organizations in the United States. After Anna Rosenberg's confirmation by the Senate Armed Services Committee was withdrawn, another hearing was held to confirm her second appointment. Anna Rosenberg testified she was born m Hungary and came to the United States in 1912 at the age of eleven years. The second hearing brought out some interesting facts--it confirmed her extended appointment for four years. In this author's meetings with Sen. Johnson, this author had occasion to discuss the Palestine question with him. senator Johnson was very interested in the Palestine question. That subject was of great interest to the Senate Armed Services Committee. The occupation of Palestine by the Zionists concerned the Armed Services Committee.

 

Lyndon Johnson Master-Minded Six Day War

Senator Johnson was vice-president before the death of President Kennedy elevated him. He then became president of the United States. As president of the United States, Johnson was aware of the possibility of armed conflict in the Middle East in which the United States might become involved. President Johnson understood the power Talmudists exerted in the United States and in the United Nations. One of his closest friends in Washington was Mr. Abe Fortas, a prominent Zionist, whom President Johnson appointed to the Supreme Court. President Johnson knew he was violating the letter and spirit of his oath of office as the president of all the people of the United States when he filled the pipe lines of the State of Israel with munitions of war paid for with the money of Christian taxpayers in the United States. President Johnson cannot plead ignorance of the facts. Though a very close mutual friend, this author kept President Johnson constantly informed on developments in the Middle East. President Johnson will be the first to admit he lied the United States into the desperate predicament in which the United States today finds itself in the Middle East if he will glance at the promises, pledges and predictions he made to Talmudists in the United States while he occupied the White House as president of the United States. President Johnson now seeks to justify his generosity with United States taxpayers' money by referring to a "commitment." President Johnson knows that he is in error. The only commitment the taxpayers in the United States recognize is President Johnson's commitment to serve the best interests of the grass roots population of the United States. According to the Pentagon Papers he was not very successful in that respect. President Johnson does not display mature judgment when he squanders billions of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to aid and abet crooks to hold onto their stolen loot, their stolen plunder. President Johnson would feel differently if the Soviet Union financed an invasion of Texas by Mexicans who expelled Texans from their homes with only shirts on their backs to survive in refugee camps in the deserts of Arizona and New Mexico on six cents a day for food provided by the United Nations. Mexicans have a more legitimate claim to the territory called Texas today than the eastern European Talmudists ever had to Palestine. What would President Johnson's attitude have been if the Soviet Union contributed thirty-two billion dollars ($32,000,000,000.00) to go towards entrenching these Mexican invaders in Texas, and then supplying the Mexican invaders with sophisticated military hardware to threaten the other forty-nine United States if they interfered with the illegal possession of Texas by the Mexican invaders in illegal occupation of Texas, without having paid one cent to the lawful landowners for a square foot of Texas. The story how President Nixon lied the United States into the desperate predicament in which the United States today finds itself is of great interest to the grass roots population of the United States every time President Nixon grants the Zionists, in illegal occupation of Palestine, another five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000.00) of United States tnxpayers' money. Is President Nixon serving two masters? President Nixon is as guilty as the other six masters of deception who lied the United States into the desperate predicament in which the United States today finds itself in the Middle East. President Nixon is both an eminent lawyer and President of the United States. President Nixon cannot produce any evidence of a legitimate "commitment" to anyone to support President Nixon's generous use of United States taxpayers' money for financing the permanent possession by thieves of their stolen loot. Does President Nixon mean the "commitment" by political leaders to the Talmudists in the United States who control the media for mass information? President Nixon belittles himself as well as the United States Administration for whom he speaks when he talks about a "commitment" of the United States to underwrite the perpetual possession of the illegal and immoral theft of Palestine by Talmudists. President Nixon's generosity has reached epidemic proportions. Each of the additional five hundred million dollars ($500,000,000.00) of United States taxpayers' money he donates to the so-called State of Israel is that many more nails in the coffin of the United States. These seven masters of deception mock the elementary and equitable principles upon which the United States was founded when they throw hard-earned United States taxpayers' dollars by the billions to criminals in possession of their stolen loot as if it were stage money. Have they no shame or conscience? When there were civil wars recently in the Congo, in Nagana, in Pakistan and other countries in this century, did the United States "recognize" the populations as independent indigenous populations who planned to secede and form their sovereign independent states? Then why recognize transplanted alien invaders financed by Talmudists? If these seven masters of deception reflected the honorable attitude the United States should exhibit, they would not traffic with thieves, murderers, and scoundrels as they are doing with the hooligans from the State of lsrael. The United States refused to "recognize" the independence of Katanga, of Biafra, of East Pakistan, of Quebec and of total Ireland, but they rushed to "recognize" the hooligans of an armed Palestine uprising by transplanted aliens as a legitimate sovereign state. What next?

 

Talmudic Hidden Hand Controls the U.S. Vote in the United Nations

The one hundred and twenty-five other members of the United Nations know that the United States was as crooked as a cork screw to recognize the so-called State of Israel as a lawful representative government of the indigenous population. The other nations of the world all know by this time that Talmudists elect the presidents of the United States and members of Congress. If these Talmudists in the United States were paupers, they could not elect a dog catcher in the United States. How rotten can the political system in the United States get before it drops into the lap of a more honorable nation like a rotten piece of fruit falls from a tree?

 

Rothschild Conspiracy Fulfilled

The so-called State of Israel is positive that the United States must at the request of the State of Israel veto any resolution introduced in the Security Council to expel the so-called State of Israel. Consequently, this so-called State of Israel feels as smug as a bug in a rug regardless of what they do. The Talmudists control the delegation in the United States. Nobody but a fool or an ignoramus doubts that today. The Talmudists always instruct the delegates of the United States how to vote in the Security Council. If a resolution is ever introduced to expel the so-called State of Israel, the United States must veto the resolution. The grass roots population of the United States deserves to know the truth about the Middle East crisis. They will pay with their lives unless they soon acquire a better understanding about why the Middle East crisis exists. The United States finds it convenient to blame everything that goes wrong anywhere in the world on Communism. Communism provides a convenient whipping boy for politicians. The arch villains behind the world's difficulties are the Rothschilds. For the moment, this author will only deal with the Rothschilds interest in the subject matter of this article, the Middle East desperate predicament of the world. This author can speak with confidence on this subject as his knowledge was obtained first hand from members of the Rothschild dynasty in London, New York and elsewhere. The extent of the Rothschild wealth cannot be estimated with any degree of certainty. A conservative guess of the total value of the Rothschild fortunes would be billions of dollars, if that amount can be imagined. The important thing is the major portion of this wealth is in the Far East. The Rothschild interest in Europe, and the Western Hemisphere, are tremendous. However, in comparison to their wealth in the Far East, it is significant. A most vital single thing in the world to the Rothschild dynasty is access to the Far East. Access to the Far East through the Mediterranean is know as Great Britain's lifeline. The Rothschild dynasty had plunged Great Britain into many wars only to preserve their lifeline to the Far East. History tells that story. The Suez Canal was not constructed by the Rothschilds. They did their utmost to prevent its construction. The Suez Canal was constructed by the Frenchman, de Lesseps, and the Khedive of Egypt. The Rothschilds refused to invest one cent of their money in the company which obtained the concession to construct the Suez Canal. The Suez Canal was completed in 1869. It, from the very start, proved a great success. The Rothschilds swindled a forty percent (40%) interest in the Suez Canal Company from the Khedive of Egypt. They found a forty percent (40%) interest insufficient for their purpose as the value of the Suez Canal had been demonstrated after it was in use two years. The Rothschilds decided they must control their lifeline to their fortune in the Far East. Without justification or provocation of any description, the Rothschilds had Great Britain occupy Egypt exactly as a defeated power is occupied by the victor. The British ran the schools, the banks, the railroads, the courts, and Egypt ceased to be Egypt except in name. Naturally, the Suez Canal came under complete control of Great Britain. The original concession for the Suez Canal was for ninety-nine years. The more important the Suez Canal became to the Rothschilds, the more the Rothschilds worried what was going to happen when the ninety-nine year concession for the Suez Canal expired in 1969 and reverted to Egypt as the concession provided. Great Britain spent large fortunes and spilled much blood in many wars to maintain uninterrupted and undisturbed possession of the Suez Canal. The Rothschilds knew that Egypt would be free to grant a new concession for the Suez Canal to a power unfriendly to Great Britain, like France, Germany or Russia, when the concession expired. The Rothschilds feared the consequences should the Suez Canal fall into the hands of an unfriendly power and Great Britain had many powers in mind who could make good use of the Suez Canal politically also against the British Empire.

 

Rothschild Fortune Risked Collapse Without Middle East Controls Under Zionist Supervision

The Rothschild dynasty's fortune and Great Britain's authority would diminish in the Far East if Great Britain no longer controlled the Suez Canal. Looking ahead, the Rothschilds planned their future without the Suez Canal. The First World War ended in l9l8 and the Rothschilds had their plan ready. Their plan was very simple. Under the October 1916 London Agreement, Great Britain planned to turn over Palestine to the Zionists after the war. The eastern European Talmudists had no money. Without money Palestine was a headache to the Zionists. The Rothschilds in London promised the Zionists unlimited financial assistance with which to develop Palestine, but on one condition--that as soon as Palestine was turned over to the Zionists, they apply for admission to the British Empire as a member. The Rothschilds planned to construct a canal in Palestine from Ashkelon on the Mediterranean to Aqaba on the Gulf of Aqaba. They planned to construct a modern steel and concrete canal with two lanes for ships. The canal would be on British territory in perpetuity enjoying the advantages of defense by Great Britain if needed and international recognition as a member of the British Empire. Great Britain occupied Palestine from 1921 to 1948 as the Mandatory of the League of Nations. During that period the British Empire fell apart. By the time the Zionists established a Zionist state in Palestine, the British Empire had fallen apart and no longer existed. Palestine under the Zionists could not apply for admission to the British Empire. There was no British Empire. When the Rothschilds realized what was happening, they were compelled to alter their plans. The Rothschilds were determined that Great Britain must turn over Palestine to the Zionists for a sovereign Zionist state. The idea of a United Nations was then a reality and the Rothschilds planned upon getting the sovereign Zionist state admitted to the United Nations. The United Nations would provide Palestine with the same advantages that the British Empire would have provided once upon a time. If the sovereign Zionist state could be admitted to the United Nations, Palestine's future was assured. Rothschilds did not know what to do. Then in October 1916, the World Zionist Organization entered the picture. When Great Britain was considering surrender to Germany, the World Zionist Organization and the British War Cabinet entered into the October 1916 London Agreement. The Rothschild dynasty was astonished when, on April 6, 1917, the United States declared war against Germany. By July 1917 it appeared that Germany would be defeated after the entry of the United States into the war. The Rothschild dynasty sought out Mr. Chaim Weizmann and cultivated his friendship. The Rothschilds realized that the World Zionist Organization must be recognized. The Rothschilds purchased a Prince Albert frock coat and a silk hat for Chaim Weizmann and treated him as though he was already the head of the government of Palestine, which he eventually became. The Rothschilds renewed their interest in the plan to finance the Zionist movement in Palestine in exchange for the concession to construct their modem canal across Palestine in competition with the Suez Canal. Great Britain was certain to defeat Germany. Great Britain had agreed to turn over Palestine to the Talmudists of the world for railroading the United States into the war in Europe as Great Britain's ally. The only link missing now was the existence in Palestine of an independent sovereign Zionist state. The Rothschilds financed transplanting 600,000 eastern European Talmudists into Palestine and arranged to remove the last of General Allenby's 200,000 British troops from Palestine.

In collaboration with President Truman in the United States the armed 600,000 transplanted alien Talmudists on May 18, 1948, began their expulsion from Palestine of the Christian and Moslem disarmed and defenseless 1,350,000 population and at the same time declared their armed uprising the State of Israel. The Rothschilds were now satisfied. The only unfinished business was to force the Middle East nations to recognize the State of Israel. The Rothschilds commenced their final stage by building the present oil pipeline from Ashkelon on the Mediterranean to Aqaba, along the route of their future modern long-planned steel and concrete two-lane canal. The Middle East situation is the result of the Rothschild efforts to secure permanent and secure access to the Far East. This nonsense about the "repatriation" of "Gods chosen people" to "their promised land" has been revealed the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind. The single purpose of the Rothschilds was to secure permanent and secure access to their vast natural resources in the Far East. This author has had the patience and the time to inform seven presidents of the United States about the underlying reason for the Middle East aggression by the Talmudist throughout the world. These seven masters of deception were all briefed by this author on the reason for the aggression in Palestine. This author spent a small fortune acquainting members of Congress and political and industrial leaders in the United States with all these facts, supplying them with photostat reproductions of documentary evidence to support every statement made by this author. It cries out to heaven that this country and the world has been put to the expense of billions of billions of dollars to see the Rothschilds have secure and permanent access to their unlimited wealth in the Far East. If the Talmudists of the world say they are willing to see another world war fought to establish "God's chosen people" in "their promised land" to rule the world from Palestine, then it is time to tell the grass roots of the United States population what all the excitement is about. This issue must be dragged into the light for the grass roots of the population of the United States to see why they are expected to die in an unnecessary war with a smile on their face.

 
The Jewish Declaration of War
on Nazi Germany

The Economic Boycott of 1933

Article from The Barnes Review, Jan./Feb. 2001, pp. 41-45.
The Barnes Review, 645 Pennsylvania Ave SE, Suite 100, Washington D.C. 20003, USA.
By M. Raphael Johnson, Ph.D., assistant editor of TBR;
published here with kind permission from TBR.
This digitized version © 2002 by The Scriptorium.

jews
Few people know the facts about the singular event that helped spark what ultimately became known as World War II - the international Jewish declaration of war on Germany shortly after Adolf Hitler came to power and well before any official German government sanctions or reprisals against Jews were carried out. The March 24, 1933 issue of The Daily Express of London (shown above) described how Jewish leaders, in combination with powerful international Jewish financial interests, had launched a boycott of Germany for the express purpose of crippling her already precarious economy in the hope of bringing down the new Hitler regime. It was only then that Germany struck back in response. Thus, if truth be told, it was the worldwide Jewish leadership - not the Third Reich - that effectively fired the first shot in the Second World War. Prominent New York attorney Samuel Untermyer (above right) was one of the leading agitators in the war against Germany, describing the Jewish campaign as nothing less than a "holy war." MORE
Long before the Hitler government began restricting the rights of the German Jews, the leaders of the worldwide Jewish community formally declared war on the "New Germany" at a time when the U.S. government and even the Jewish leaders in Germany were urging caution in dealing with the new Hitler regime.

The war by the international Jewish leadership on Germany not only sparked definite reprisals by the German government but also set the stage for a little-known economic and political alliance between the Hitler government and the leaders of the Zionist movement who hoped that the tension between the Germans and the Jews would lead to massive emigration to Palestine. In short, the result was a tactical alliance between the Nazis and the founders of the modern-day state of Israel - a fact that many today would prefer be forgotten.

To this day, it is generally (although incorrectly) believed that when Adolf Hitler was appointed German chancellor in January of 1933, the German government began policies to suppress the Jews of Germany, including rounding up of Jews and putting them in concentration camps and launching campaigns of terror and violence against the domestic Jewish population.

While there were sporadic eruptions of violence against Jews in Germany after Hitler came to power, this was not officially sanctioned or encouraged. And the truth is that anti-Jewish sentiments in Germany (or elsewhere in Europe) were actually nothing new. As all Jewish historians attest with much fervor, anti-Semitic uprisings of various degrees had been ever-present in European history.

In any case, in early 1933, Hitler was not the undisputed leader of Germany, nor did he have full command of the armed forces. Hitler was a major figure in a coalition government, but he was far from being the government himself. That was the result of a process of consolidation which evolved later.

Even Germany's Jewish Central Association, known as the Verein, contested the suggestion (made by some Jewish leaders outside Germany) that the new government was deliberately provoking anti-Jewish uprisings.

The Verein issued a statement that "the responsible government authorities [i.e. the Hitler regime] are unaware of the threatening situation," saying, "we do not believe our German fellow citizens will let themselves be carried away into committing excesses against the Jews."

Despite this, Jewish leaders in the United States and Britain determined on their own that it was necessary to launch a war against the Hitler government. MORE

Samuel Untermyer's speech made on WABC

The following is a transcript of Samuel Untermyer's speech made on WABC, declaring a 'holy war' by the Jews against Germany, and appealing to the masses of non-Jewish humanity to boycott German-made imports and all merchants who have German-made items in their establishments. The entire speech was published in the New York times on the morning following the broadcast (August 7th, 1933) which was mentioned byBenjamin Freedman in his talk before a group of patriots.

A short excerpt from The World's Trouble Makers gives further insight to this speech:

When Hitler had been soundly established, Samuel Untermeyer, a New York Jewish Lawyer, called for war on Germany. The call was made through radio station WABC on 8-7-33. He had just returned from a world conference of Jews at The Hague. In the broadcast, he said he was calling for a "holy war", and described the Jews as "the aristocrats of the world".
This same gentleman was connected with the Foreign Policy Association of New York and the worldwide organisation to move Jews out of Germany, not only into the United States, but to Palestine and other countries.  These activities were tied in with the organisation known as the "International Boycott on German Goods", of which Untermeyer was the head!  

From that time the "Hate Germany" campaign was intensified and made worldwide, with a special Jewish-organised "National Conference of Jews and Christians" assisting!  These are the hate-spreaders, but they never grow tired of praising themselves.  That marked the beginning of the Jewish exodus from Germany. 

We have all, on a world-wide scale, been sold the myth (lie) of the so-called Holocaust... "Six million Jews killed..."  Note Untermyer's mention of the "600,000 souls we must save".  That is from the horse's mouth, in 1933, during the time the Jews were leaving Germany by the thousands.   

The "holocaust" lie has created a great guilt complex in people all over the world who had nothing to do with the murder of even one Jew, never mind the fallacious figure of six million allegedly killed in foreign countries.

The fact that more than 20 million people were killed by Joseph Stalin in the Bolshevist-controlled USSR -- mostly Christians -- is never mentioned; nor are the tens of millions slaughtered by Mao-Tse-Tung in Communist China.  I was told several years ago by an educated and intelligent person that, "That was different.  It was their own people that they killed."    

It's called brain-washing, folks.  Thought control and mind control to the max.  It's okay if a despot puppet-ruler kills "his own people".  But... the holocaust myth of 6 million Jews is a crime/sin with which we must all live forever more. And pay, and pay and pay. It is time for the lying to stop.

Why was Adolf Hitler so vilified?  Because he had created a state money system, non-gold-backed, and had negotiated trade with other nations that didn't use the International Banker's monetary system.  They were bartering!  By-passing the usurers.

Hitler continued, despite the boycott, to further his barter-trading and if enough nations had had the opportunity to participate, it would have been the end of the strangle-hold, the unbridled power in the hands of a few creatures lusting after World Dominion. Money is the name of their deceitful and dangerous game.  Hitler called it "bogus money".

There is much about Hitler we don't know, so this is not intended to be a Hitler- apologist commentary. I am sharing information gleaned from many and varied sources which I believe to be credible, including historian Nesta Webster.

Mrs. Webster, along with other writers, had also written that Hitler had kicked the International Bankers out of Germany. In his speech, Untermyer claims that 'wealthy Jews are financing Hitler'.  Untermyer was intimately connected with the wealthy Jews.  Since they are the masters of lies, perhaps the statement was made to confuse the issue. It remains for the time being an unanswered question for me. 

A thought which has been recurring for weeks now as a result of a recent reading frenzy... a thought and a question:

Given the Political Zionists have controlled the media for a couple of hundred years, why would we believe that everything we've heard/read about Adolf Hitler in the Zionist-controlled media was true?  - Jackie  --

More on Samuel Untermyer in Who Was Cyrus Scofield?

=================================  

 

The New York Times, Monday, August 7, 1933

Text of Untermyer's Address

   Following is the text of Samuel Untermyer's address last night over Station WABC after his return from Europe:

My Friends:

    What a joy and relief and sense of security to be once more on American soil!  The nightmares of horrors through which I have passed in those two weeks in Europe, listening to the heartbreaking tales of refugee victims, beggar description.

     I deeply appreciate your enthusiastic greeting on my arrival today, which I quite understand is addressed not to me personally but to the holy war in the cause of humanity in which we are embarked.  Jews and non-Jews alike, for we are equally concerned that the work of centuries shall not be undone, and that civilization shall not be allowed to die.

     It is 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.   If we will but enlist to a man and persist in our purpose, the bright sun of civilization will again shine upon Germany, and the world will be a safer place in which to dwell.

     As our ship sailed up the bay today past our proud Statue of Liberty, [a gift to the U.S. from the Grand Orient - Illuminati - Lodge of France] I breathed a prayer of gratitude and thanksgiving that this fair land of freedom has escaped the curse that has descended upon benighted Germany, which has thereby been converted from a nation of culture into a veritable hell of cruel and savage beasts.

The World's Concern

     We owe it not only to our persecuted brethren but to the entire world to now strike in self-defense a blow that will free humanity from a repetition of this incredible outrage.  This time the Jews are the victims, next time it may be the Catholics or the Protestants.  If we once admit, as is brazenly insisted by the German Government, that such fiendish persecution of the people of one race or creed is an internal domestic affair and not a world concern, how are we to know whose turn will be next?

     Now or never must all the nations of the earth make common cause against the monstrous claim that 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 is an internal affair against which the rest of the world must stand idly by and not lift a hand in defense.

    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, of the terrors of worse than death in which they are living.

     When the tale is told, as it will be some day if the impotent League of Nations ever sufficiently awakens from its Rip Van Winkle slumbers to the realization of its power and duty to prosecute an investigation into the facts, 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, cold-bloodedly planned and already partially executed campaign for the extermination of a proud, gentle, loyal, law-abiding people -- a 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.

Back to Dark Ages

     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 human souls from the tortures of hell as we can with the aid of our Christian friends, if we have the will to act.

    Protests and pleas from all corners of the earth, from the leaders of all creeds, having proven as vain and unavailing as was the idealistic dream of our martyred President of making the world safe for democracy and of protecting minorities, what then are to be the lines of our defensive campaign against these atrocities, on which we are already actively embarked?  Are we right in our plan?  If so, what steps shall now be prosecuted to attain success?

    Our campaign is twofold -- defensive and constructive.  On the defensive side will be the economic boycott against all German goods, shipping and services.  On the constructive side will be an appeal to the League of Nations to construe and enforce the labor union provisions of the Versailles Treaty and the written promises made by Germany, while the treaty was under negotiation, to protect its minorities, which have been flagrantly violated by its disfranchisement and persecution of the German Jews.

What Boycott Means

   As in the boycott, strange to say a mere handful in number, but powerful in influence, of our thoughtless but doubtless well-intentioned Jews seem obsessed and frightened at the bare mention of the word "boycott".  It signifies and conjures up to them images of force and illegality, such as have on occasions in the past characterized struggles between labor unions and their employers.  As these timid souls are capitalists and employers, the word and all that it implies are hateful to their ears.

     In point of fact, it signifies nothing of the kind. These gentlemen do not know what they are talking or thinking about.  Instead of surrendering to their vague fears and half-baked ideas, our first duty is to educate them as to what is meant by a purely defensive economic boycott, and what we are doing and proposing.  

    Admittedly, the boycott is our only really effective weapon. These gentlemen who are taking counsel of their groundless fears to the exclusion of their reason have done nothing and have no program except to attempt to arouse world opinion, which is and has been from the outset on our side, as it was bound to be because of this brutal, senseless, unprovoked assault upon civilization.

     It is not necessary to belittle or underrate that accomplishment, if their aimless, fruitless endeavors in that direction may be so dignified in recognition of their good intentions, barren of results as they have been.  

    It is sufficient that their efforts have proven unavailing and that the campaign of Schreckligheit not only goes on unabated in the face of unanimous world opinion; but that it is increasing in intensity and that the masses of the German people, misled by government propaganda and suppression of free speech and of the press, are either voluntarily, or through fear of punishment at the hands of their despotic rulers, supporting their government in this hellish campaign.

     What then have these amiable gentlemen accomplished and what do they hope or expect to accomplish in the way of stemming this conflagration of civilization by their "feather-duster" methods? You cannot put out a fire, and especially that kind of a fire, by just looking on until the mad flames, fanned by the wind of hate, have destroyed everything.

    What we are proposing and have already gone far toward doing, is to prosecute a purely defensive economic boycott that will undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends.

"Force Them to Learn"

    They have flaunted and persisted in flaunting and defying world opinion.  

   We propose to and are organizing world opinion to express itself in the only way Germany can be made to understand.  Hitler and his mob will not permit their people to know how they are regarded by the outside world.  We shall force them to learn in the only way open to us.

     Revolting as it is, it would be an interesting study in psychology to analyze the motives, other than fear and cowardice, that have prompted Jewish bankers to lend money to Germany as they are now doing.  It is in part their money that is being used by the Hitler regime in its reckless, wicked campaign of propaganda to make the world anti-Semitic; with that money they have invaded Great Britain, the United States and other countries where they have established newspapers, subsidized agents and otherwise are spending untold millions in spreading their infamous creed.

    The suggestion that they use that money toward paying the honest debts they have repudiated is answered only by contemptuous sneers and silence.   Meantime the infamous campaign goes on unabated with ever increasing intensity to the everlasting disgrace of the Jewish bankers who are helping to finance it and of the weaklings who are doing nothing effective to check it.

     The Hitler regime originated are fiendishly prosecuting their boycott to exterminate the Jews by placarding Jewish shops, warning Germans against dealing with them, by imprisoning Jewish shopkeepers and parading them through the streets by the hundreds under guard of Nazi troops for the sole crime of being Jews, by ejecting them from the learned professions in which many of them had attained eminence, by excluding their children from the schools, their men from the labor unions, closing against them every avenue of livelihood, locking them in 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 their 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.

Appeal to Mankind

     As against this, the foulest boycott in the annals of time, we are appealing to all mankind to enforce a counter-boycott.  That appeal is meeting with the conviction that idealism and justice are still alive.

     There is nothing new in the use of the economic boycott as an instrument of justice.  The covenant of the League of Nations expressly provides in these identical words for its use to bring recalcitrant nations to terms.  President Roosevelt, whose wise statesmanship and vision are the wonder of the civilized world, is invoking it in furtherance of his noble conception for the readjustment of the relations  between capital and labor under the terms of the sweeping Industrial Recovery Act, to the end that labor shall receive a more just share of the wealth it creates.  He is about to enlist the consumers of the country in a national campaign in which they pledge themselves to boycott all manufacturers, jobbers and retailers who fail to subscribe to the codes and to buy only from those who have assented and who are thereby privileged to fly the blue eagle of NRA [National Recovery Act].  What more exalted precedent do our timid friends want?

     With this explanation of our aims, I appeal to the American Jewish Committee, whose public spirit and good intentions I do not for a moment question, but the wisdom of whose judgment I challenge, no longer to hold aloof but to rid themselves of their timid and ill-considered prejudices and join in actively pressing this boycott as our only weapon except the appeal to the League, which I shall discuss at a later time.

     I purposely refrain from including the American Jewish Congress in this appeal because I am satisfied that 95 per cent of their members are already with us and that they are being misrepresented by two or three men now abroad.  Of them I ask that, prior to the meeting to be held this month in Prague by their executive committee, they instruct these false leaders in no uncertain terms as to the stand they must take on this all-important subject and demand that they shall either openly represent their views or resign their offices.  One of them, generally recognized as the kingpin of mischief makers, is junketing around the Continent engaged in his favorite pastime of spreading discord, asserting at one time and place that he favors and supports the boycott and at another that he is opposed or indifferent to it, all dependent on the audience he is addressing; but always directly or indirectly delivering a stab in the dark.

Progress So Far Made

      There is not time now, but I hope and expect in the near future to be able to report to you the steps that have been taken and that are already under way, and the surprising and gratifying progress already made in many countries toward the success of the economic boycott in which we are engaged.  Although considerable progress in that direction has already been made in Great Britain and in the United States, you will be surprised to learn that they are the least advanced and as yet the most inadequately organized of all the countries that were represented at theAmsterdam World Economic Conference, where the boycott was unanimously and enthusiastically approved by formal resolution by a rising vote.

     With us in America the delay has been due in part to lack of funds and the vast territory to be covered, but it is hoped, and expected, that this condition will soon be corrected.  The object-lesson we are determined to teach is so priceless to all humanity that we dare not fall.

    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 upon 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 twentieth century civilization.

The reality of Nazi Germany in 1933
  • 1933 JanIAmTheWitness On January 30, Adolf Hitler becomes Chancellor of Germany. He drives Jews, many of which were Communist out of Governmental positions within Germany. As a result of this, in July, the Jews hold a World Conference in Amsterdam during which they demand that Hitler re-instate every Jew back to his former position.    ...   Hitler refuses and as a result of this, Samuel Untermyer, the Ashkenazi Jew who blackmailed President Wilson, and is now the head of the American delegation and the president of the whole conference, returns to the United States, and makes a speech on radio which was transcribed in the From the New York Times, Monday, August 7, 1933. In the speech he made the following statements, "...the Jews are the aristocrats of the world...Our campaign is...the economic boycott against all German goods, shipping and services...What we are proposing...is to prosecute a purely defensive economic boycott that will undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends... ...Each of you, Jew and Gentile alike...must refuse to deal with any merchant or shopkeeper who sells any German-made goods or who patronizes German ships or shipping."    ...   As two thirds of Germany's food supply had to be imported, and could only be imported with the proceeds of what they exported, if Germany could not export, two thirds of Germany's population would starve, as there would be not enough food for more than one third of the population. As a result of this boycott, Jews throughout America, would protest outside and damage any stores in which they found any products with, "Made in Germany," printed on them, causing stores to have to dump these products or risk bankruptcy.    ...   Once the effects of this boycott began to be felt in Germany, the Germans, who had demonstrated no violence towards the Jews up to this point, simply began boycotting Jewish stores in the same way the Jews had done to stores selling German products in America.    ...   Rothschild financed IBM, supply machines to the Nazis which produce punch cards to help organize and manage the initial identification and social expulsion of Jews, the confiscation of their property and their extermination.    ...
  • 1933 Mar 24 Wintersonnenwende On March 12, 1933 the American Jewish Congress announced a massive protest at Madison Square Gardens for March 27. At that time the commander in chief of the Jewish War Veterans called for an American boycott of German goods. In the meantime, on March 23, 20,000 Jews protested at New York's City Hall as rallies were staged outside the North German Lloyd and Hamburg-American shipping lines and boycotts were mounted against German goods throughout shops and businesses in New York City. ... According to The Daily Express of London of March 24, 1933, the Jews had already launched their boycott against Germany and her elected government. The headline read "Judea Declares War on Germany - Jews of All the World Unite - Boycott of German Goods - Mass Demonstrations." The article described a forthcoming "holy war" and went on to implore Jews everywhere to boycott German goods and engage in mass demonstrations against German economic interests. ... However, note well that the Zionist Association of Germany put out a telegram on the 26th of March rejecting many of the allegations made against the National Socialists as "propaganda," "mendacious" and "sensational." In fact, the Zionist faction had every reason to ensure the permanence of National Socialist ideology in Germany. Klaus Polkehn, writing in the Journal of Palestine Studies ("The Secret Contacts: Zionism and Nazi Germany, 1933-1941"; JPS v. 3/4, spring/summer 1976), claims that the moderate attitude of the Zionists was due to their vested interest in seeing the financial victory of National Socialism to force immigration to Palestine. German ... Despite all this, the leaders of the Jewish community refused to relent. On March 27 there were simultaneous protest rallies at Madison Square Garden, in Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Cleveland and 70 other locations.
  • 1933 Mar Rense The National Socialist Party of Adolf Hitler gained 17,300,000 votes in the election and gained 288 seats in the Reichstag. On 30 January 1933 Hitler was legally appointed Chancellor of the German Reich by President Von Hindenberg. On 24 March 1933 the Reichstag elected by 441 votes to 94 to give full emergency powers to the new Reich Chancellor and the corrupt Weimar Republic ceased to exist.
  • 1933 ConspiracySchool It was Montagu Norman, as Chairman of the Bank of England, who, from 1933 through 1939, met repeatedly with Hjalmar Schacht, Reich Minister of Economics, and a member of the Rhodes Round Table, to plan the overall budget of the Nazi regime with British credit, and guided the strategies of Hitler’s primary supporters, the Rockefellers, Warburgs, and Harrimans.

 

UntermyerGardens Germanness and Jewishness:
Samuel Untermyer, Felix Warburg,
and National Socialism, 1914–1938
Gregory Kupsky


Under other circumstances, inviting a foreign ambassador to speak—and
flying his country’s flag—would be a diplomatic courtesy. But in a crowded
meeting of the United German Societies of New York on September 18, 1933,
the issue was a heated one. The ambassador, Hans Luther, represented Hitler’s
Germany, and the flag in question bore the swastika. Unfortunately for the
opposition, pro-Nazi sympathizers had packed the meeting hall, and the motion
to invite Luther was accepted. In response, the Jewish delegates at the meeting
immediately staged a walkout. Before departing, one of them expressed
the reason for his disgust: “German Jews … have not refused the [German]
flag. The flag has refused them.” In subsequent weeks, Jewish organizations
formally withdrew from the United German Societies, and the split became a
permanent one.1
Historians of early-twentieth-century immigrant history have only recently
begun to explore overlaps between German-American and Jewish-American
narratives.2
Even terminology presents an obstacle, as illustrated by the loaded
term “German Jews.” Does it refer to all Jews from German-speaking Europe,
those who belonged to German-American organizations, or those who adhered
to German traditions? In other cases, the term has been even more subjective,
suggesting affluent, assimilated Jews, the proverbial “old immigrants,” who
looked down on newcomers.3
Indeed, much work can be done to sort through
these connotations and to shed light on the connections between the two
immigrant groups.
In helping to link the stories of Germans and Jews in America, it is helpful
to examine German identity among individuals commonly thought of as
Jewish leaders. Samuel Untermyer and Felix Warburg, Jewish Americans of
German background, make for good case studies, especially in their respective
responses to Nazism. While Untermyer and Warburg pursued starkly different
strategies in reacting to Nazi Germany, there are important similarities in their
stories. Both the American-born Untermyer and the immigrant Warburg had
a demonstrable record of German immigrant nationalism prior to 1933, and
subsequently they acted in the name of a nation that, they argued, had been
hijacked by the Hitler movement. In addition, their centrality in the world of
Jewish philanthropy placed them in the middle of American Jewish debates over
how to combat Nazism. Finally, their stories demonstrate the ongoing—and
increasing—difficulties of traditionally German leadership within the larger
Jewish community in the mid-twentieth century.4
26 • American Jewish Archives Journal
The Jewish-German-American World
As with other immigrant groups, it is easy to oversimplify the JewishAmerican
story. But while scholars have rightly questioned the labeling of
pre- and post-1880 waves of Jewish immigrants as “German” and “eastern
European,” there is no denying that German culture predominated in nineteenth-century
American Jewry. A majority of the 250,000 pre-1880 arrivals
came from German-speaking lands, and many of them felt at home within
German-American organizations.5
Social distinctions persisted between Jewish
and gentile German-Americans, but many nineteenth-century Jewish organizations
operated in the German language. Reform Judaism, which originated in
Germany, also found broad support in the United States.6
At the beginning of the twentieth century, during the Progressive Era,
urban-based reformers sought to apply professional expertise and organizing to
better manage American cities and improve the lives of their inhabitants.7
In this
context, many Jewish organizations hoped to Americanize newcomers, in part to
prevent an antisemitic backlash that could threaten their social positions. By this
time, however, a growing number of eastern European immigrants—a majority
of the 2.5 million post-1880 arrivals—were challenging the older leadership
and its “assimilationist” aspirations.8
These developments had already begun to
strain the German foundations of Jewish organizational life well before Hitler’s
appointment as Reich Chancellor in January 1933.
Within German-American communities, gentile as well as Jewish, the
twentieth century brought a multitude of problems. For decades, “mass culture,”
as exemplified by modern advertising and forms of entertainment that
reached broader portions of the population, had pulled individuals from ethnic
affinities into a larger, more national identity. At the same time, social identities
based on race rather than on countries of origin had sapped the strength of
German ethnic consciousness. Worse yet, a hostile atmosphere during World
War I convinced many Americans of German descent to shed their ethnic
identities.9
To counter these forces, German-American organizations in the
twentieth century pushed for ethnic revitalization. Their efforts culminated
in the First German-American National Congress, held in Philadelphia in
1932, which pledged to re-energize German communities. The rise of Nazism
shattered whatever unity that movement helped to create, however, as German
organizations staked positions ranging from strong support of Hitler to active
protest against him. The divisions were especially sharp between Jewish and
gentile German-Americans, as the example of the New York societies has demonstrated.10
Even avowedly apolitical groups such as the Philadelphia-based Carl
Schurz Memorial Foundation faced rapid declines in Jewish membership and
donations.11 Nazism, like demographic shifts and assimilation, sent shockwaves
through the German-American organizational world.
Germanness and Jewishness: Samuel Untermyer, Felix Warburg, and National Socialism • 27
Samuel Untermyer and Felix Warburg were part of that turbulent world.
Untermyer was an American-born attorney who placed himself at the head
of the effort to fight Nazism through an international boycott. Warburg, an
immigrant tied to the European and American banking worlds, pursued a
much more cautious strategy in response to the Third Reich. Despite their
different trajectories, both stories reflect important trends in American ethnic
life, particularly among Jews.
Samuel Untermyer as a German-American
Untermyer was prominent in New York politics and philanthropy in the
interwar period. Born in Virginia in 1858, Untermyer started a highly successful
law firm in New York City with his half-brother, Randolph Guggenheimer.
Untermyer also became active in the Democratic Party, supporting antitrust
and regulatory efforts by both Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt. He
sometimes felt spurned by the Democratic Party, however, since he never received
a national political appointment.12
Untermyer’s frustration with the Democratic Party was one reason why
he increasingly shifted his attention toward Jewish organizations. In the early
1920s Untermyer established himself as a philanthropist and a key member of
several important Jewish groups. In the wake of World War I, he supported the
international relief efforts of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee
(JDC), as well as various Jewish charities within the United States. Also in
the early 1920s, he served as the president of the Keren Hayesod, or Palestine
Foundation Fund. The American-born Untermyer considered himself a cultural,
rather than political, Zionist. As an Americanized German Jew, he helped the
Keren Hayesod collect donations from a larger spectrum of the American Jewish
community, especially those who shied from political Zionism. Beyond this
work, a vast array of Jewish societies valued Untermyer’s financial and public
support.13
It is also significant, if often overlooked, that Untermyer identified himself
as a German-American. Both he and his wife, Minnie Carl of St. Louis, had
been raised in immigrant households, and his in-laws boasted of their friendship
with the late senator and German-American hero, Carl Schurz.14 Untermyer
supported the German Theater in New York and was a member of Freundschaft,
an ethnic fraternity in the city. In 1916 he served on the memorial committee for
the late Herman Ridder, publisher of the New Yorker Staats-Zeitung, the nation’s
largest German-language daily. He vacationed in Imperial Germany, often
patronizing German ocean liners. These activities indicate that Germanness
was no small part of his identity, and one can infer from his active participation
that other German-American leaders regarded him as a peer.15
Untermyer’s business connections to Germany often blended with his
affinities for that country, even during the period of American neutrality in
28 • American Jewish Archives Journal
World War I. Prior to 1914, his law firm had represented a number of GermanAmerican
brewing companies. After the outbreak of the war, Untermyer joined
other German-Americans in regarding British and French propaganda with
suspicion.16 While his wife, Minnie, coordinated efforts to buy milk for German
babies, Samuel consulted with German investors in the United States and even
attempted to broker a deal to put the New York Sun into the hands of German
propagandists. In these efforts, Untermyer left a record of interactions with
George Sylvester Viereck, a virulently pro-German writer and paid German
propagandist. He also met with Heinrich Albert, a Reich diplomat who was
publicly exposed as a coordinator of German espionage in the United States.
While the Sun deal fell apart, it created suspicions about Untermyer’s loyalty
once the United States entered the war. A lack of hard evidence ultimately
enabled him to dodge the accusations, however.17 Untermyer enthusiastically
supported the American war effort after April 1917, another move that helped
him to counter questions about his loyalties.18
Untermyer’s advocacy for Germany and German-Americans continued after
the armistice. He considered himself a Wilsonian, but he denounced the “spirit
of conquest and robbery” that had shaped the Versailles Treaty. Viereck—who
would be prosecuted in the 1940s as a Nazi agent—entreated Untermyer in
1914 to finance his Fatherland magazine, which was dedicated to countering
pro-Allied sentiment. While it is unclear whether Untermyer provided monetary
assistance, he did periodically contribute articles decrying anti-German attitudes
after 1919. Untermyer also maintained business interests within Germany. He
owned shares in a German utility company and real estate holdings outside
Berlin. The freezing of these assets by the Nazi government after 1933 later
served as a concrete representation of the severing of Untermyer’s connections
to Germany.19
Felix Warburg as a German-American
Unlike Untermyer, Warburg had grown up in Germany; however, the two
men’s careers bore similarities. The Moritz Warburg family had built up the
M.M. Warburg banking firm in Hamburg, Germany, in the late nineteenth
century. By the time of Mortiz’s death in 1910, three of his sons had gained
prominence in transatlantic business. The eldest, Max, headed the family firm,
sat on the board of the Hamburg-America Steamship Line, and became a
financial adviser to Kaiser Wilhelm II. Paul, a year younger, married Nina Loeb,
connecting him to the Kuhn, Loeb and Company banking firm in New York.
He moved to the United States in 1902 and became a U.S. citizen nine years
later, although he still spent considerable time in Hamburg. Felix, originally
trained in the diamond and pearl business, had moved to the United States
in 1894 and married the daughter of Jacob Schiff, a Manhattan banker and
fellow German-Jewish immigrant. Felix received a Kuhn, Loeb partnership in
Germanness and Jewishness: Samuel Untermyer, Felix Warburg, and National Socialism • 29
1897. He quickly became a New York socialite and an active philanthropist.
Geography now divided the brothers, but they forged links between Kuhn,
Loeb and M.M. Warburg, empowering both companies.20
By 1914, Paul Warburg found his Germanness to be a liability as he
worked to reform the American monetary system. Within a year of his arrival
in New York in 1902, Paul sketched a proposal for a central banking system
that eventually evolved into the Federal Reserve. He served on the Federal
Reserve Board in 1914, despite the fact that he had become a target of nativist
anger. One congressman, for example, opposed his nomination to the Federal
Reserve on the grounds that he was “a Jew, a German, a banker and an alien.”
Although Paul was a naturalized citizen who worked actively to Americanize,
his transatlantic connections were never far from view. Paul helped to direct
the American war economy in 1917 while his older brother Max filled the same
role for the German Reich. Such connections later provided fodder for Nazi
propagandists, who accused the brothers of orchestrating both the start and
the end of the Great War “in the interest of the Jewish race.”21
Felix, three years Paul’s junior, was more outspoken and more active in
social circles. He took U.S. citizenship in 1900, quickly becoming comfortable
in American society. He joined his father-in-law, Jacob Schiff, in reform work
that emphasized Americanization. In turn-of-the-century New York, they
sponsored the Henry Street Settlement and joined the Educational Alliance, an
organization that catered to poor Jews. His charitable work became “so diverse as
to defy easy summary,” as biographer Ron Chernow explains, but a major realm
of activity was international relief. In 1906 he joined Schiff in co-founding the
American Jewish Committee (AJC), an elite philanthropic organization. He also
became the chair of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC),
created in 1914 to provide support for victims of the European war. Warburg’s
reputation as a “democratic aristocrat” helped the JDC to soften animosities
between established and recently arrived Jews. He increasingly devoted his
time to the JDC, and his stature as a philanthropist increased accordingly.22
By 1917, Warburg had also established himself within the German-American
community. He became a member of the Chamber of German-American
Commerce; the German Society of New York, a philanthropic society; and the
Germanistic Society of America, dedicated to preserving German culture in
the United States. Like Untermyer, he demonstrated sympathy for the German
Reich. In 1915 he donated funds anonymously to the Hilfsverein deutscher Frauen
(German Women’s Aid Organization) and other groups that supported German
“war sufferers.” As a partner at Kuhn, Loeb, he helped prevent the company
from issuing a loan to the Allies in 1915, a decision that brought scorn from
pro-Allied elements of the American press and public.23
Following American entry into the war in April 1917, Warburg moved
quickly to support the U.S. war effort. He devoted time and money to the
30 • American Jewish Archives Journal
United Service Organization,
donated his own resources to
the war effort, and ostentatiously
reduced his level of
consumption. In 1918, his
brother Paul gave in to growing
criticism of his German
ancestry, resigning from the
Federal Reserve Board. Upset
by the treatment of Germans
in the United States, both
brothers became active in
the Carl Schurz Memorial
Foundation, dedicated to
preserving German-American
heritage. Felix, meanwhile,
threw himself into the work of
the JDC and added investment
in Palestine to his already massive
record of philanthropy.24
Responses to
National Socialism
Immediately following
Hitler’s accession to power in
January 1933, Jewish organizations
in America sought a
proper response to a regime suffused with antisemitism. By March, a movement
was underway to mount an economic boycott of Nazi Germany. When
the divided American Jewish Congress initially hesitated on the matter, the
Jewish War Veterans assumed leadership of the movement. Soon, however,
the momentum passed to organizations founded specifically to promote the
boycott, foremost among them the American League for the Defense of Jewish
Rights (ALDJR).25 Jewish leaders diverged on the subject, and Untermyer and
Warburg were no exception.
Untermyer actively supported the anti-Nazi movement in America, and he
became the head of the ALDJR. He now openly expressed regret for his own
pro-German sentiments prior to World War I. As he looked back, he recalled
that “German-Jewish advisers” like himself had naively worked for peace, in
contrast to the “Hitler–von Tirpitz type” who drove toward war in both the
1910s and 1930s.26 In another attempt to reconcile his older views with his new
stance, he compared Nazi propaganda to the “British-French war fables” of 1914,
Advertisement for Gala Concert for the Benefit of
German Jewish Relief, 28 September 1933
(Courtesy American Jewish Archives)
Germanness and Jewishness: Samuel Untermyer, Felix Warburg, and National Socialism • 31
referring to the Allied campaigns to
exaggerate and, in some cases, fabricate
German atrocities to steer American
public opinion. Americans would no
longer accept foreign propaganda at
face value. “We … have learned our
lesson in the ways of counteracting that
kind of poison,” Untermyer declared
in 1933.27
His speeches against Nazism also
reflected the sense of betrayal that he
and other Jews of German background
felt in the 1930s, both in Europe
and the United States. Untermyer
cited a long record of Jewish military
service in Germany, as well as Jewish
contributions to culture, science, and
business, all of which were ignored by
“the blind bigotry and fanaticism of
the Hitler platform.”28 Undoubtedly,
many German-American Jews shared
his sentiments, harboring “the strongest
feeling of sympathy toward the
German people” alongside a “corresponding
feeling of revulsion” against
the Nazis. As one who had considered
himself German, Untermyer was the
ideal spokesperson for the ALDJR’s
position that the German people were
unhappy under Hitler and could be
persuaded, through economic pressure,
to remove him from power.29
Untermyer sometimes used his
German background and perspective
to lend credibility to the anti-Nazi
movement. In a May 1933 speech, he shared his thoughts on his “old friend,”
Herman Metz, who represented the I.G. Farben corporation in the United States
and who worked to improve the Nazis’ image abroad. Having talked privately
with Metz, Untermyer declared that “Mr. Metz knows what he has seen with his
own eyes in Germany.” Sadly, he said, Metz’s economic interest compelled him
to defend the Nazis, rather than speak the truth. Citing his personal relationship
with Metz provided Untermyer with a unique means of refuting pro-German
“Violators” List distributed by the
Non-Sectarian Anti-Nazi League of
New Jersey, April 1939
(Courtesy American Jewish Archives)
32 • American Jewish Archives Journal
propaganda. This view of Metz also reinforced Untermyer’s assertions about
the importance of economic pressure.30
Warburg, too, loathed Nazism, but his reaction was notably different than
that of Untermyer. Warburg was a member of the traditional—and stereotypically
“German Jewish”—philanthropic elite. He was a prominent officer of
the AJC, founded in 1906 to aid victims of Russian pogroms. For the affluent
leaders of the committee, philanthropy had long provided a means of steering
Jewish communities and Americanizing newcomers. The committee was so
effective in shaping Jewish community life that one scholar has described it as
a “self-perpetuating oligarchy.”31
Warburg had long favored assimilation but still retained an affinity for his
country of birth. As a result of Nazism, he became ambivalent about GermanAmerican
cultural life. His relationship with the German Society of New York
illustrates this ambivalence. When the charitable organization invited Warburg
to serve on its 150th Anniversary Committee in 1934, he declined, saying that he
could not “join a committee on which I may meet some people whose attitude
toward the present German Government may be more favorable than mine.”
He did, however, maintain his membership in the society.32
Warburg took a quieter, more cautious stance toward Nazi Germany than
did Untermyer. This attitude stemmed, in large part, from his desire not to
draw attention to his relatives in Europe. His brother Max, after all, was trying
to maintain both the family firm and his own physical well-being in Hamburg.
As a result, Felix refused to comment publicly on reports of anti-Jewish violence
in the spring of 1933. In April, when Reichsbank president Hjalmar Schacht
came to the United States, other leaders of the AJC asked Warburg whether
they should meet with the German official. Warburg’s secretary replied that
the committee should do so but that Warburg himself could not be involved,
and his name was to be kept out of any communication. A few years later he
sponsored refugee professors through the Emergency Committee in Aid of
Displaced Foreign Scholars, but only with the understanding that his name
never appear in its records.33
For Warburg and Untermyer, and for their respective organizations, the
campaign to boycott imports from Germany remained a heated issue throughout
the 1930s. Untermyer, president of the ALDJR after May 1933, became the
boycott movement’s most visible spokesperson. The ALDJR saw his status as an
American-born, affluent figure as a way to broaden its appeal, both within and
beyond the United States. The calculation seems to have met some success, as a
federation of pro-boycott groups chose Untermyer to appeal their case before the
League of Nations in the summer of 1933.34 As Untermyer often reiterated, the
boycott was not simply the most effective means of protest, but the only means.
“There is no longer a free press or freedom of speech in Germany,” he explained.
“If world opinion does not reach [the Germans], there is just one way, and
Germanness and Jewishness: Samuel Untermyer, Felix Warburg, and National Socialism • 33
only one.” Economic
pressure would “reach
t he m a s s e s” a nd
force a repudiation
of Nazism.35
Untermyer also
insisted on the boycott
becoming more than
a “Jewish” movement.
He characterized it
as “the spontaneous
uprising of outraged
civilization against
[the] ‘Mad Dog of
Europe.’” Indeed, the
need for broad—especially
gentile—support
convinced Untermyer to change the group’s name to the Non-Sectarian AntiNazi
League to Champion Human Rights (NSANL) in November 1933.36
The movement spread beyond New York, with the Jewish War Veterans and its
women’s auxiliaries helping to disseminate information. The American Jewish
Congress finally joined the boycott in August 1933, although it and the Jewish
Labor Committee eventually created the Joint Boycott Council as a rival to
the NSANL.37 Differences of personality and strategy, including Untermyer’s
autocratic leadership style, fueled divisions, but by 1937 the NSANL’s InterState
Conference received progress reports from chapters in Detroit, Cleveland,
Baltimore, Philadelphia, and other localities.38
The AJC, whose leadership included Warburg, remained a vocal opponent
of the boycott effort, although there is evidence that he initially considered lending
his support. He mused in one letter that the German people might change
their tone if “their pocketbooks [were] attacked by their own foolishness.” But
observing the situation from Germany, where any Nazi retaliation over the
boycott would actually occur, his brother Max disagreed. His impassioned pleas
against confrontation convinced Felix and the AJC to withhold their support.
Meanwhile, the JDC, of which Felix was president, also decided against the
boycott. Comparing itself to the Red Cross, it cited a need to remain apolitical.39
In effect, the AJC, the JDC, and B’nai B’rith became the leading organizations
that opposed, or at least avoided, the boycott.40
The AJC summarized its case against the boycott in August 1933. The group
believed that economic action would provide a pretext for intensified persecution.
It also feared alienating Christians, antagonizing German-Americans,
and fueling global antisemitism. Instead, the committee favored using personal
Samuel Untermyer returning to New York from London,
6 August 1933
(Courtesy American Jewish Archives)
34 • American Jewish Archives Journal
contacts to exert pressure on prominent Reich officials and citizens. One memo
even suggested that, in private conversations with Germans, committee members
cite the boycott as evidence that the Nazis should mitigate their policies. In
this way, it noted, even the reckless boycott movement “may be utilized for a
good purpose.”41
The turbulent relationship between Untermyer and Warburg reflected that
of the organizational world as a whole. The two had not always been amicable—
Untermyer had antagonized the Warburgs in 1912 by investigating the Kuhn,
Loeb firm as part of an alleged “Money Trust”—but in the 1920s they had
found common ground in that both considered themselves non-Zionists in the
political sense. Committed simply to supporting Jewish cultural development
in Palestine, Warburg joined Untermyer’s Keren Hayesod, and Untermyer
supported Warburg’s JDC. Even in the 1930s, Untermyer was at times willing
to acknowledge the Warburg family’s precarious circumstances. “I suppose we
shall continue to differ as to the policy of the boycott,” he wrote Warburg in
1935, “but your position and that of your people in Germany is quite understandable.”
At the same time, however, Untermyer cut off his donations to the
JDC, citing its opposition to the boycott.42
In public, Untermyer attacked the AJC and B’nai B’rith for their inaction.
He undoubtedly had people like Warburg in mind when he railed against those
who opposed his movement:
[W]hen our persecuted, defenseless people are knocked over the head with a
club, … these self-constituted leaders retaliate with a cry of pain and strike
back by shaking a feather-duster in the faces of their tormentors, and pass
eloquent resolutions of protest and appeal, but refuse to use the only effective
weapon at hand, by way of defense.43
In turn, when Untermyer criticized Secretary of State Cordell Hull for
ignoring evidence of Nazi propaganda in America, the AJC publicly denounced
Untermyer as irresponsible.44
The rejection of public action by Warburg and his associates paralleled that
of the United States government. William Dodd, the American ambassador to
Germany until 1938, was an unabashed critic of the Nazis, yet he opposed the
boycott as counterproductive to “the helps [sic] we apply quietly and unofficially.”
Secretary Hull advised President Roosevelt to keep his distance from boycott
leaders to prevent any suspicion that the White House supported their actions.45
Critics of the Warburg family read much into this inaction. Because James
Warburg, Felix’s nephew, was an economic advisor to the Roosevelt administration,
some detractors even concluded that the Warburgs were shaping official
policy on Germany.46 Thus, at the exact same time that the Nazis blamed the
Warburgs for the Versailles Treaty, the Bolshevik Revolution, and other events,
Germanness and Jewishness: Samuel Untermyer, Felix Warburg, and National Socialism • 35
the family came under fire in the United States for being appeasers of Hitler.47
Such was the price of remaining quiet in a noisy, ideologically polarized era.
Despite his cautious public stance, Warburg did commit to a range of
activity to aid German Jews. After hearing an account of persecution in April
1933, he declared:
I am sufficiently enraged, and so are all German Americans, even the Christian
ones, … to take some drastic steps, unfriendly to Germany and seemingly
unfriendly to M.M. [Warburg], in order to get [the Jews] out of the undignified
position in which they find themselves.
To this end, he supported the philanthropic activity of his brother, Max,
who remained in Germany. Max chaired the Hilfsverein der deutschen Juden
(Aid Society for German Jews) and cofounded several other groups to provide
mutual aid within Germany and to sponsor resettlement. These aid organizations
even tried—with negligible results—to lobby Reich officials on behalf of
Jewish communities.48
Responding to criticism of his brother for remaining in Germany, Felix
Warburg insisted that the family was trying to aid those unable to leave. The
JDC aligned itself with such efforts. In a 1933 letter, its fundraising chair
described its goals as “maintaining [German Jewish] institutions, keeping
up their morale and preventing them from falling into panic.” The letter also
defended quiet action. While “one would expect the whole world to rise and
protest,” it said, this was not the case. “Until that time comes, it is the duty of
every Jew to protect, if he cannot protest.”49 Such a statement could only have
incensed boycott leaders.
Within the divided Jewish organizational world, one strategy—refugee
aid—provided some common ground. In March 1934 the JDC’s United Jewish
Appeal campaign in New York, chaired by Warburg, merged the efforts of
the JDC and the American Palestine Campaign. In the following two years it
raised more than four million dollars for resettlement. Untermyer, despite earlier
refusals, donated generously to the JDC in 1938, stipulating that his money
be used only to get people out of Germany. Meanwhile, the JDC, the AJC,
and the American Jewish Congress all collaborated in resettling and educating
German Jewish children. Felix and Max Warburg cofounded the Council for
German Jewry, dedicated to relocating 100,000 German Jewish youth. While
its controversial plan to rescue Jews through economic incentives to the Reich
never got off the ground, the council did help the JDC and other groups to
sponsor exiles.50 The level of cooperation regarding refugees was undoubtedly
welcome in light of other differences among Jewish organizations. Ultimately,
however, not even this work was immune to division.
36 • American Jewish Archives Journal
The Decline of Elite Leadership
Because the United States could not—or would not—absorb many refugees
from Germany, the central question became where to send them. For Warburg
and the JDC, the answer was simple: anywhere. Working with the League of
Nations High Commission for German Refugees, for example, the JDC lobbied
countries throughout the Western Hemisphere to open their borders, with little
success. The most obvious answer, Palestine, became a divisive one, however. In
America, the prospect of a Jewish home in Palestine had generally appealed to
poorer and recently arrived Jews. For those who had already established themselves
in American society—such as prominent members of the AJC—pushing
for a state in Palestine offered more problems than solutions. Many feared that
endorsing Zionism would only raise questions of loyalty. Equally important was
the fact that Zionist groups constituted new rivals to traditional leadership.51
Since the early 1920s, Warburg had supported Jewish development in
Palestine, but he eschewed political Zionism, which he considered antithetical to
his assimilationist views. Ever a believer in the power of philanthropy, Warburg
thought that generous investment alone might repair Arab-Jewish relations.52
In the 1930s, however, calls for a Jewish state increased in response to Nazism.
Zionists consolidated control of both the Jewish Agency for Palestine and
Hebrew University, a favorite charity of Warburg’s. As the unofficial leader of
the non-Zionists, Warburg remained committed to Arab-Jewish coexistence.
Many Zionists, including World Zionist Congress president Chaim Weizmann,
increasingly favored a partition of Palestine. Warburg traveled to Zurich in
August 1937 to plead his case to the Jewish Agency Council, but his opponents’
momentum was too great, and his efforts failed. Warburg died in October 1937,
his plans for compromise in tatters. Warburg’s defeat, along with his death,
symbolized a final phase in the transfer of Jewish-American leadership from
the traditional elite to large, broad-based, and generally Zionist groups. Still,
even Warburg’s critics acknowledged his work on behalf of Jewish communities.
Commenting on the philanthropist’s death, Samuel Untermyer reflected that
Warburg “could always be counted on” for charitable causes.53
Untermyer, already in poor health, curtailed his activism less than a year
after Warburg’s death. It is apparent that, by the late 1930s, he had become
alienated from the NSANL. In addition to differences of personality, not all
boycott leaders agreed with his insistence on nonsectarianism, and the issue
exacerbated existing divisions.54 Already disillusioned by apathy and disunity
in December 1937, Untermyer vented his frustrations in his last major public
address. He wondered aloud why “Americans generally have been so indolent,
callous and short-sighted as to have failed … when they have within easy reach
the means of self-protection for themselves and their brethren in Germany.” He
resigned as president of the NSANL in April 1938. Until his death in March
Germanness and Jewishness: Samuel Untermyer, Felix Warburg, and National Socialism • 37
1940, he fought to have his name removed from NSANL letterhead, a testament
to both his prestige within the boycott movement and his alienation from it.55
Conclusion
There has been a long-running scholarly discussion over the failure of
American Jews to oppose Nazism effectively.56 Historian Gulie Ne’eman Arad
has specifically noted the ambivalence of Jewish German-Americans, who
misunderstood the threat of Nazism. According to Arad, their position was a
mixture of ongoing affinity for the German people and a view of the Jewish
people as “eternal,” able to withstand yet another antisemitic regime.57 There is
much in the stories of Untermyer and the Warburgs to support this assertion.
Their identification with Germany, as demonstrated by their actions during
and after World War I, informed their disparate reactions to Nazism. The
American-born Untermyer based his advocacy of a boycott on the belief that
economic pressure would spur the German nation to topple the Hitler regime.
Felix Warburg, whose family in Germany made him leery of open confrontation,
tried to protect German Jews by defusing tensions and, later, by trying to move
them out of harm’s way until the threat passed. Over time, events showed that
both men underestimated the Nazis’ staying power.
The careers of Untermyer and Warburg also reflect the weakening of elite
leadership styles in Jewish organizational life at the same time that Nazi persecution
boosted calls for a Jewish state. Warburg’s attempts to use elite power
to protect Reich Jews, effect peace in Palestine, and unify Jewish communities
brought hostility from other leaders. Untermyer’s leadership style, along with
his commitment to nonsectarianism, similarly fostered infighting. As their
stories help to show, the 1930s and 1940s saw the completion of the effort by
broad-based groups to supplant the older style of philanthropic leadership.58
One must be careful, however, not to undervalue these leaders’ efforts in the
1930s. While the direct financial impact of the boycott is unclear, a study by
Moshe Gottlieb has asserted that damaging the Reich’s economy was but one
goal of the boycott. It severed symbolic ties to Germany, he argues, and helped
to wrest Jewish-American leadership away from cautious elites. Furthermore,
although Untermyer’s efforts did not stop the persecution of Reich Jews, they
helped to bring the violence in Germany into the view of the American public,
exacerbating a diplomatic problem for the Nazis.59
Nor can one dismiss the less confrontational activities undertaken by figures
like Felix Warburg. He broadened the ideological range of support for refugee
relief and Palestine aid, just as Untermyer did for the boycott. In addition, the
efforts of the Warburg-led JDC yielded quantifiable results. In 1934 the JDC’s
United Appeal campaign in New York funded the relocation of 17,000 German
Jews. In 1935 the JDC gave nearly $1 million to relief efforts within the Reich
and spent approximately the same amount on resettlement. Donations to the
38 • American Jewish Archives Journal
JDC for refugee relief increased every year under Warburg’s leadership, reaching
$2,374,062 in 1936. His own timidity and naïveté have brought valid criticism,
but no one could deny the impact of a man who, along with his wife, personally
donated over $13 million to charity.60
An epilogue to the Warburg story shows that ethnic identity grew more
complicated in the late 1930s but that echoes of earlier years remained. A few
months after the November 1938 Kristallnacht pogroms in Germany, Max
Warburg emigrated to the United States, taking Felix’s place on the JDC’s executive
committee. He worked closely with the Carl Schurz Memorial Foundation
to identify refugee scholars in need of aid, and he stressed the need to show
the world “how many Germans … worked for honest democracy.” Felix’s son,
Eddie, served intermittently as JDC chair from 1941 to 1965. National Socialism
convinced him, like many others, of the need for a Jewish state, and in 1940
he reunited the JDC with the Zionists.61 His cousins James (Paul’s son) and
Eric (Max’s son) served in the United States military during World War II. All
three cousins lobbied against a harsh peace settlement at the war’s conclusion,
and Eric even returned to the board of his family’s firm in Hamburg.62 In the
postwar era, at least among the Warburgs, Germanness endured.
Gregory Kupsky is a historian in the World War II section at the Joint POW/MIA
Accounting Command. He holds a bachelor’s degree from Knox College and a master’s
from The University of Tennessee. He received his doctorate in modern U.S. History
from The Ohio State University in March 2010. His dissertation was a study of
German-American organizations’ responses to National Socialism.
Notes
1
“German Societies Meeting Is Disrupted by Row over the Flying of a Nazi Flag,” New York
Times (19 September 1933): 3; “Jews Again Quit German Societies,” New York Times (3 October
1933): 14.
2
See Mark Bauman, “On German American and American Jewish History,” Journal of American
Ethnic History 29, no. 1 (Fall 2009): 67–71.
3
On the definitions of “German Jews,” see Tobias Brinkmann, “Jews, Germans, or Americans?
German-Jewish Immigrants in the Nineteenth-Century United States,” in The Heimat Abroad:
The Boundaries of Germanness, ed. Krista O’Donnell et al. (Ann Arbor, MI: The University of
Michigan Press, 2005), 132–134.
4
Portions of this article draw on chapter one of Gregory Kupsky, “‘The True Spirit of the German
People’: German-Americans and National Socialism, 1919–1955,” doctoral dissertation (The
Ohio State University, 2010).
5
Hasia Diner concedes that the model of two waves, while oversimplified, carries a measure
of validity. In her analysis, which is otherwise rich with statistical evidence, Diner does not
place specific numbers on the Germanness of the 1820–1880 wave. Presumably because of the
problems inherent in trying to quantify a hard-to-define pool of “German Jews,” Diner simply
asserts that the 1820–1880 wave “tended to come heavily” from areas that eventually became
Germany, or where “an urban elite [was] deeply influenced by German culture.” Diner, The
Jews of the United States, 1654 to 2000 (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2004),
79. Elsewhere, Diner has described the German subgroup as a “slim majority” of the pre-1880
Germanness and Jewishness: Samuel Untermyer, Felix Warburg, and National Socialism • 39
migration. Diner, A Time for Gathering: The Second Migration, 1820–1880 (Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press, 2005), 1.
6
Brinkmann, 114, 119; Cornelia Wilhelm, “The Independent Order of True Sisters: Friendship,
Fraternity, and a Model of Modernity for Nineteenth Century American Jewish Womanhood,”
American Jewish Archives Journal 54, no. 1 (2002): 54; Michael Meyer, Response to Modernity: A
History of the Reform Movement in Judaism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), 210–212.
7
A good overview of the Progressive Era is Arthur Link and Richard McCormick, Progressivism
(Arlington Heights, IL: Harlan-Davidson, 1983).
8
Diner, 79; Gerald Sorin, “Mutual Contempt, Mutual Benefit: The Strained Encounter between
German and Eastern European Jews in America, 1880–1920,” American Jewish History 81, no.
1 (Autumn 1993): 34–59.
9
Russell Kazal, Becoming Old Stock: The Paradox of German-American Identity (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 2004), 2. While Peter Connolly-Smith notes that World War I served
as an easy scapegoat for an ethnic decline that actually started decades earlier, one cannot ignore
the sharp decline in the number of German-American organizations and German-language
media immediately before and during the war. Of 552 German newspapers in America in
1910, for example, approximately half remained in 1920. Conolly-Smith, Translating America:
An Immigrant Press Visualizes American Popular Culture, 1895–1918 (Washington, DC: The
Smithsonian Institution, 2004); Frederick Luebke, Bonds of Loyalty: German-Americans and
World War I (Dekalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1974), 271.
10Erster National-Kongress der Amerikaner deutschen Stammes (New York: Deutsch-amerikanische
Konferenz von Gross-New York und Umgebung, 1932). The fragmentation of ethnic German
organizations is the subject of Kupsky, “‘The True Spirit.’”
11Carl Schurz Memorial Foundation Sixth Annual Report, 30 April 1935, National Carl
Schurz Association Papers, Box 44, Folder 2, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
(hereafter cited as NCSA); Wilbur Thomas to Dietrich Gristede, 2 December 1935, Box 2,
Folder 11, NCSA.
12Richard Hawkins, “‘Hitler’s Bitterest Foe’: Samuel Untermyer and the Boycott of Nazi
Germany, 1933–1938,” American Jewish History 93, no. 1 (March 2007): 21–50; Hawkins,
“Samuel Untermyer and the Zionist Project: An Attempt to Reconcile the American ‘Melting
Pot’ with Zionism,” Australian Journal of Jewish Studies 21 (2007): 116; Hawkins, “American
Boomers and the Flotation of Shares in the City of London in the Late Nineteenth Century,”
Business History 49, no. 6 (November 2007): 802–822; correspondence between Untermyer and
Roosevelt, 1929–1930, Papers as Governor of New York, Box 80, Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Library; Untermyer’s secretary to William Julian, 15 July 1920, Samuel Untermyer Papers
(MS-251), Box 2, Folder 1, American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati, OH (hereafter cited as AJA);
Untermyer, “Some of America’s Social and Economic Follies,” 17 February 1931, MS-251, Box
4, Folder 9, AJA; Untermyer statement, 12 March 1933, MS-251, Box 4, Folder 9, AJA.
13Hawkins, “Zionist Project,” 114, 116, 119; Hawkins, “‘Hitler’s Bitterest Foe,’” 22; “The Purim
Association Ball,” New York Times (23 February 1902): 10; Untermyer to Paul Baerwald, 7 May
1920, MS-251, Box 1, Folder 1, AJA. See, for example, the letters in MS-251, Box 3, Folder 4, AJA.
14“Mrs. S. Untermyer Dies at Greystone,” New York Times (17 August 1924): 24.
15Circular from the Executive Komitee für Subvention des deutschen Theaters, May 1914, Felix
Warburg Papers (MS-457), Box 165, Folder 3, AJA; “Freundschaft is in New $500,000 Home,”
New York Times (18 June 1914): 11; “German Squadron in Hudson To-Day,” New York Times
(9 June 1912): 5; “To Honor Ridder’s Memory,” New York Times (17 February 1916): 14.
16Hawkins, “American Boomers,” 804; “Untermyer Points the War’s Lessons,” New York Times
(23 August 1914): 9.
17Untermyer also allegedly bankrolled other troubled papers with pro-German slants. “Milk for
German Babies,” New York Times (13 November 1915): 2; “Fight to Hold Wireless,” New York
Times (4 June 1915): 2; “New Yorkers Deny Disloyal Taint,” New York Times (7 December 1918):
40 • American Jewish Archives Journal
2; “Untermyer Again Defends Loyalty,” New York Times (8 December 1918): 3; “Untermyer
Denies Aiding Propaganda,” New York Times (9 December 1918): 9; “Ousted as Proally,”
Washington Post (12 December 1918): 2; “Untermyer Tells of His Call on Editor,” New York Times
(30 December 1918): 18; “Palmer Retorts to Untermyer,” New York Times (26 January 1921): 3.
18Hawkins, “Zionist Project,” 115; Untermyer to General Crowder, 27 November 1917, MS-
251, Box 1, Folder 4, AJA.
19Untermyer to Frank Cobb, 9 September 1919, MS-251, Box 1, Folder 4, AJA; George Sylvester
Viereck to Samuel Untermyer, 1 August 1914, MS-457, Box 166, Folder 1, AJA; Untermyer,
“Justice for German-Americans,” American Weekly (24 April 1918): 189; “Samuel Untermyer
Shows How Germany Was Wronged at Versailles,” American Monthly (January 1925): 354.
Statement on Untermyer by Jim Larkin, RG 59, Series 1930–1939, Box 4729, Folder 3, National
Archives and Record Administration, College Park, MD (hereafter cited as NARA); Edward
Russell, Randolph Guggenheimer, and Samuel Untermyer to Cordell Hull, 11 June 1938, RG
59, Series 1930–1939, Box 1671, File 362.115, NARA; Guggenheimer and Untermyer to State
Department, 2 July 1940, and Paul Culbertson to Guggenheimer and Untermyer, 16 July 1940,
RG 59, Series 1940–1944, Box 1246, File 362.1143/783, NARA.
20Ron Chernow, The Warburgs: The Twentieth-Century Odyssey of a Remarkable Jewish Family
(New York: Random House, 1993), xvi, 32, 46–48, 53, 69, 85–86, 89–90, 105, 108, 123.
21“Mr. Warburg Urges Government Bank,” New York Times (14 November 1907): 8; Chernow,
86–90, 130–40; Der Stürmer (September 1938), quoted in Chernow, 474; Chernow, 216.
22Chernow, 86, 99–101; JDC Statement on Felix Warburg, January 1917, MS-457, Box 168,
Folder 16, AJA.
23Heinrich Charles to Felix Warburg, 10 June 1914, MS-457, Box 165, Folder 1, AJA; J.P. Meyer
to Warburg, 28 January 1916, MS-457, Box 168, Folder 15, AJA; Franz Boas to Members of
Germanistic Society, 15 November 1920, MS-457, Box 188, Folder 4, AJA; Chernow, 168–169.
24Chernow, 181–182, 186–189, 220, 223–224, 246, 249–252; “Warburg a Victim of War
Prejudice,” American Weekly (18 September 1918): cover. On the Warburgs’ connections to
the Carl Schurz Memorial Foundation, see Guest List, 8 May 1933, Box 1, Folder 3, NCSA;
CSMF By-Laws, Box 1, Folder 10, NCSA; and M. Habrich to Helene Wittmann, 11 February
1932, and Joseph Marks to Wilbur Thomas, 27 July 1932, MS-457, Box 285, Folder 3, AJA.
25“Nazi Foes Here Calmed by Police,” New York Times (20 March 1933): 5; “Boycott Advocated
to Curb Hitlerism,” New York Times (21 March 1933): 10; “Anti-Hitler March to be Led by
O’Brien,” New York Times (5 May 1933): 9; “Jews Here Decree Boycott on Reich,” New York
Times (15 May 1933): 1.
26“Untermyer Scores Congress on Nazis,” New York Times (17 April 1933): 6.
27Untermyer, “Germany’s Medieval Challenge to World Jewry and Civilization,” 7 May 1933,
MS-251, Box 4, Folder 9, AJA. On the “war fables” themselves, see John Horne and Alan Kramer,
German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001).
28Untermyer, “Germany’s Medieval Challenge.”
29Quoted in Hawkins, “‘Hitler’s Bitterest Foe,’” 23.
30Sander Diamond, The Nazi Movement in the United States, 1924–1941 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press, 1974), 109; “Address of Mr. Samuel Untermyer before the American League
for the Defense of Jewish Rights,” 14 May 1933, MS-251, Box 4, Folder 9, AJA.
31Naomi Cohen, “The Transatlantic Connection: The American Jewish Committee and the Joint
Foreign Committee in Defense of German Jews, 1933–1937,” American Jewish History 90, no.
4 (December 2002): 353–384. See also Cohen, Not Free to Desist: A History of the AmericanJewish
Committee, 1906–1966 (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1972).
32J.P. Meyer to Warburg, 5 October 1934; Warburg to Meyer, 8 October 1934; and German
Society of New York to Warburg, 25 January 1934, MS-457, Box 295, Folder 8, AJA.
Germanness and Jewishness: Samuel Untermyer, Felix Warburg, and National Socialism • 41
33Julius Meier to Warburg, 25 March 1933, and James Rosenberg to Meier, 26 March 1933,
MS-457, Box 286, Folder 3, AJA; American Jewish Committee Memo, 28 April 1933, MS-
457, Box 286, Folder 6, AJA; Memo of Conversation between Miss Emanuel and William
Rosenwald, 21 May 1936, and John Whyte to Miss Emanuel, 5 December 1936, MS-457, Box
321, Folder 7, AJA.
34Hawkins, “‘Hitler’s Bitterest Foe,’” 24, 31; Untermyer, “Celebration of the Dedication
Ceremonies Held at the Hebrew University,” 13 April 1933, MS-251, Box 4, Folder 9, AJA.
35Untermyer Statement on the Boycott, 18 September 1933, MS-251, Box 1, Folder 2, AJA.
36Untermyer to George Gordon Battle, 10 April 1935, MS-251, Box 1, Folder 2, AJA; Hawkins,
“‘Hitler’s Bitterest Foe,’” 38.
37Jewish War Veterans Message to Ladies’ Auxiliaries, 10 September 1937, Bertha Corets
Papers (MS-307), Box 1, Folder 2, AJA; List of Auxiliaries That Did Not Respond to Boycott
Questionnaire, undated, Box 1, Folder 5, Ms-307, AJA; Hawkins, “‘Hitler’s Bitterest Foe,’”
27–29, 32.
38Hawkins, “‘Hitler’s Bitterest Foe,’” 39–41; Moshe Gottlieb, American Anti-Nazi Resistance,
1933–1941: An Historical Analysis (New York: Ktav Publishing House, 1981), 226; Minutes of
Inter-State Conference of NSANL, 7 March 1937, MS-307, Box 1, Folder 2, AJA.
39Warburg to Hans Meyer, 3 April 1933, MS-307, Box 285, Folder 14, AJA; Chernow, 372–373;
Warburg to Louis Rittenberg, 8 August 1933, MS-307, Box 288, Folder 8, AJA; Joseph Proskauer
to Committee on Policy, 22 May 1933, and Warburg to Proskauer, 24 May 1933, MS-457, Box
287, Folder 2, AJA; “$2,000,000 Sought to Aid Reich Jews,” New York Times (20 May 1933): 2.
40B’nai B’rith reversed course in 1937, however, and thereafter supported the boycott. Gottlieb,
American Anti-Nazi Resistance, 341.
41Statement, “Shall The Jews Engage in an Official Boycott Against Germany?” 17 August 1933,
MS-457, Box 287, Folder 1, AJA; Memo, “Counter Boycott Propaganda,” undated, MS-457,
Box 286, Folder 8, AJA.
42Hawkins, “Zionist Project,” 121, 132, 134–136, 141; Correspondence between Untermyer
and Warburg, June 1935, MS-457, Box 307, Folder 10, AJA; Untermyer to Jonah Wise, 24
November 1933, MS-457, Box 291, Folder 11, AJA.
43Untermyer, “The Economic Boycott of Germany,” 27 June 1933, MS-251, Box 4, Folder 9, AJA.
44“Untermyer Turns Attack upon Hull,” New York Times (4 November 1933): 8; Hawkins,
“‘Hitler’s Bitterest Foe,’” 25–26; Untermyer to Samuel Dickstein, 3 May 1934, Samuel Dickstein
Papers (MS-8), Box 5, Folder 6, AJA.
45William Dodd to Stephen Wise, 1 August 1933, William Dodd Papers, Box 43, Folder 7,
Library of Congress; Dodd to Leo Wormser, 26 September 1933, William Dodd Papers, Box
43, Folder 6, Library of Congress; Cordell Hull to Louis Howe, 6 September 1933, Papers as
President, Official File, File 198-a, Box 2, Franklin Delano Roosevelt Library.
46The detractors included Rabbi Stephen Wise of the American Jewish Congress. See the public
statement by Felix Warburg, 9 August 1933, Ms-457, Box 285, Folder 14, AJA.
47Chernow, 181, 387–388, 391, 407.
48Warburg to Hans Meyer, 3 April 1933 and 11 April 1933, MS-457, Box 285, Folder 14, AJA;
Chernow, 402–403.
49Concert Program, 28 September 1933, MS-457, Box 291, Folder 10; Jonah Wise Fundraising
Letter, 23 November 1933, and Form Letter, 28 July 1933, MS-457, Box 291, Folder 11, AJA.
50“$3,000,000 Drive On to Help Refugees,” New York Times (23 March 1934): 18; “3,250,000
Sought for Jewish Relief,” New York Times (11February 1935): 36; “$10,000,000 Agency Will
Aid Refugees,” New York Times (22 July 1935): 1; “Jews Split Drives of United Appeal,” New
York Times (30 October 1935): 19; Untermyer to Paul Baerwald, 18 November 1938, MS-251,
Box 2, Folder 1, AJA; “250 Reich Children To Be Brought Here,” New York Times (7 September
42 • American Jewish Archives Journal
1934): 12; “Quakers Aid Vienna Jews,” New York Times (22 April 1938): 12; “To Take More
Refugees,” New York Times (27 May 1939): 6; Gottlieb, American Anti-Nazi Resistance, 277.
51Chernow, 292–296; Address by Felix Warburg in St. Louis, Missouri, 25 January 1936, MS-
457, Box 319, Folder 4, AJA.
52Chernow, 248–251; Rafael Medoff, “Felix Warburg and the Palestinian Arabs: A Reassessment,”
American Jewish Archives Journal 54, no. 1 (2002): 14, 16.
53Chernow, 253, 448–449, 454–456; “Weizmann Drafts Program for Zion,” New York Times
(10 August 1937): 17; “F.M. Warburg Off for Zurich Parley,” New York Times (12 August
1937): 13; “U.S. Non-Zionists Bolt at Zurich,” New York Times (20 August 1937): 1; “Palestine
Parley Asked by Warburg,” New York Times (4 September 1937): 15; “Warburg Career Widely
Extolled,” New York Times (21 October 1937): 18.
54Jeffrey Gurock, America, American Jews, and the Holocaust (New York: Routledge, 1998),
245–246; Gottlieb, “The Anti-Nazi Boycott Movement in the United States: An Ideological
and Sociological Appreciation,” Jewish Social Studies 35, nos. 3/4 (July–October 1973): 226.
55Hawkins, “‘Hitler’s Bitterest Foe,’” 49–50; B. Dubovsky to E.W. Russell, 27 April 1938, and
E.W. Russell to NSANL, 28 April 1938, MS-251, Box 1, Folder 2, AJA; Dubovsky to Untermyer,
13 May 1939, and Untermyer to Dubovsky, 11 May 1939, MS-251, Box 1, Folder 3, AJA.
56A recent, and valuable, summary of the overall historiography is Steven Bayme, “American
Jewish Leadership Confronts the Holocaust: Revisiting Naomi Cohen’s Thesis and the American
Jewish Committee,” American Jewish Archives Journal 61, no. 2 (2009): 163–186.
57Gulie Ne’eman Arad, America, Its Jews, and the Rise of Nazism (Bloomington, IN: Indiana
University Press, 2000), 109–111, 122–123.
58Rafael Medoff, “‘Our Leaders Cannot Be Moved’: A Zionist Emissary’s Reports on American
Jewish Responses to the Holocaust in the Summer of 1943,” American Jewish History 88, no.
1 (March 2000): 115–126. A concise article that makes several references to the fading power
of Jewish elites is Henry Feingold, “Crisis and Response: American Jewish Leadership during
the Roosevelt Years,” Modern Judaism 8, no. 2 (May 1988): 101–118.
59Hawkins, “‘Hitler’s Bitterest Foe,’” 50; Gottlieb, American Anti-Nazi Resistance, 344–349.
60“Felix Warburg,” New York Times (21 October 1937): 22; “$2,374,062 Raised for Jewish
Fund,” New York Times (26 October 1936): 18; “$2,654,500 Is Spent on European Jews,” New
York Times (5 December 1935): 10; “F.M. Warburg Left Estate to Family,” New York Times
(29 October 1937): 17.
61Chernow, 512, 602; Max Warburg to Wilbur Thomas, 14 September 1944, Box 41, Folder
11, NCSA.
62James Warburg, Foreign Policy Begins at Home (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company,
1944), 280–283; James Warburg, Germany: Bridge or Battleground? (New York: Harcourt, Brace
and Company, 1946), 4; Chernow, 525, 537–538, 576–577, 581–582.

 

 

Fake Holocaust Rumors    top    
PROGRESSIVE  REFERENCE CONSERVATIVE*
  • ZionCrimeFactory ...Don Heddesheimer .. The First Holocaust A few other news stories about millions of suffering Jews. In 1937, Samuel Untermeyer called a conference at New York’s Waldorf-Astoria Hotel to report that at least 2,000,000 of the slightly more than 3,000,000 Jews in Poland were virtually starving:135 “An entire nation of more than three million souls is threatened with annihilation.” In 1938, “a depressing picture of 6,000,000 Jews in Central Europe deprived of protection or economic opportunities, slowly dying of starvation, all hope gone” was presented by Jacob Tarshis, known by his radio audience as the Lamplighter, representing the American Joint Distribution Committee:136."
  • BibleBelievers Holohoax Within five minutes, an open-minded, intelligent person could see that the Holocaust is a hoax. ....one reason: The structural integrity of these "gas chambers" is also extremely faulty. These rooms have ordinary doors and windows which are not hermetically sealed! There are large gaps between the floors and doors. If the Germans had attempted to gas anyone in these rooms, they would have died themselves, as the gas would have leaked and contaminated the entire area. Also, no equipment exists to exhaust the air-gas mixture from these buildings. Nothing was made to introduce or distribute the gas throughout the chambers. There are no provisions to prevent condensation of gas on the walls, floors or ceilings. No exhaust stacks have ever existed.ving

Wikipedia Samuel Untermyer (whitewash)

Samuel Untermyer (March 6, 1858 – March 16, 1940, although some sources cite March 2, 1858,[1] and even others, June 6, 1858[2] also known as Samuel Untermeyer[3]) was an American lawyer and civic leader as well as a millionaire. He was born in Lynchburg, Virginia but after the death of his father the rest of the family moved to New York, where he studied law. After admission to the bar, he soon gained fame as a lawyer, focusing on corporate law, and became a staunch advocate of stock market regulations, government ownership of railroads, and various legal reforms. He was also as a civic leader, frequently attending the Democratic National Convention as a delegate. An active Zionist Untermyer was an able advocated for the Zionist liberation movement and was President of the Keren Hayesod, the agency through which the movement was conducted in America. Untermyer was born in Lynchburg, Virginia on March 6, 1858 to Isadore Untermyer and Therese Laudauer, both of whom were German Jews who emigrated to the United States from their native Bavaria. His father, who had been a lieutenant in the Confederate Army, died in 1866, soon after the close of the Civil War. The family then moved to New York. On August 9, 1880 he married Minnie Carl, daughter of Mairelius Carl of New York City. They had three children, Alvin, who served in the 305th Field Artillery in France during the Great War; Irwin, a justice of the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court, and Irene, a philanthropist who married Louis Putnam Myers and, after his death, became the wife of Stanley Richter. Upon the outbreak of World War I, Untermyer, his wife, and two servants were vacationing in Carlsbad, Germany, and returned to the United States aboard the Baltic via London in late August.[5] The gravesite of Samuel Untermeyer in Woodlawn Cemetery Untermeyer died March 16, 1940, in Palm Springs, California. His body was interred at Woodlawn Cemetery, Bronx, New York.[6] His obituary was published in the New York Times (March 17, 1940, pg 1). Untermyer Park[edit] Part of Untermyer Park, the former estate of Samuel Untermyer Untermyer developed elaborate gardens at his 150-acre riverside estate Greystone, in Yonkers, New York, on land adjacent to the Hudson River. Greystone had previously been owned by defeated Presidential candidate Samuel Tilden, and was purchased by Untermyer when Tilden died in 1899. When Untermyer himself died in 1940, his plan had been to donate the whole estate to the Nation, or the State of New York, or at least to the City of Yonkers. Eventually the city of Yonkers agreed to accept part of the estate gardens; this parcel of land was renamed Untermyer Park in his honor.[7] It was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1974.[8] Legal practice[edit] Interior of Samuel Untermyer's tomb at Woodlawn Cemetery, Bronx NY He was educated at the College of the City of New York and received his LL.B. from Columbia Law School in 1878.[1] He was admitted to the bar, and started practice with his half-brother Randolph Guggenheimer in New York city. A younger brother Maurice Untermyer was later admitted, and then in 1895 Louis Marshall joined and the name was changed to Guggenheimer, Untermyer & Marshall, a name it held for 45 years. Between the start of his practice and the end of 1921 he was counsel in many celebrated cases covering almost every phase of corporate, civil, criminal and international law, specifically:[1][9] "I Like a Little Competition" – J.P. Morgan by Art Young. Cartoon relating to one of J.P. Morgan's replies to Untermyer at the Pujo Committee.[10] As counsel for H. Clay Pierce he prevented the Standard Oil Co., after its dissolution in 1910, from dominating the Waters-Pierce Co. In the same year he effected the merger of the Utah Copper Co. with the Boston Consolidated and the Nevada Consolidated Co.'s involving more than $100,000,000. In 1912, as counsel to the Kaliwerke Aschersleben and the Disconte Gesellschaft in the controversy arising out of the control of the potash industry by the German Government, he assisted in reaching a settlement. In 1903 he undertook the first judicial exposure of " high finance " in connection with the failure of the U.S. Shipbuilding Co., organized only a year before as a consolidation of the larger shipbuilding companies in America including that subsequently known as the Bethlehem Steel Co. As a result of the sensational exposures connected with that company, a reorganization was effected under the name of the Bethlehem Steel Co., in which Untermyer became a large shareholder. After this he conducted a number of similar exposures. In 1911 he delivered an address entitled, "Is There a Money Trust?" which led the following year to an investigation by the Committee on Banking and Currency of the U.S. House of Representatives headed by Arsène Pujo. Untermeyer was counsel to the Committee and famously cross-examined J.P. Morgan and other New York bankers. This so-called Pujo Money Trust Investigation resulted in the passage of remedial legislation, including the establishment of the Federal Reserve System. Untermyer for years agitated before Congress and state legislatures such measures as the compulsory regulation of stock exchanges. He for many years conducted agitations and wrote magazine articles dealing with reforms in the criminal laws, the regulation of trusts and combinations and other economic subjects. He was counsel for many reorganization committees, including those of the Seaboard Air Line, the Rock Island railway, the Central Fuel Oil Co., and the Southern Iron and Steel Co. In 1915 he acted as a counsel for the U.S. Government in the suit brought against the Secretary of the Treasury and the Comptroller of the Currency by the Riggs National Bank of Washington, D.C., which charged there was a conspiracy to wreck it; the defendants were cleared. He took an active part in preparing the Federal Reserve Bank law, the Clayton bill, the Federal Trade Commission bill, and other legislation curbing trusts. He was a delegate to the Democratic National Convention in 1904, 1908, 1912, and delegate-at-large for the state of New York in 1916. He was a strong supporter of President Wilson's administration. After America entered the Great War he was adviser to the U.S. Treasury Department regarding the interpretation of the income tax and the excess profits tax laws. He was appointed by President Wilson to serve on the U.S. section of the International High Commission, which sat at Buenos Aires in 1916, for the purpose of framing uniform laws for the PanAmerican countries. Detail of Samuel Untermyer's tomb at Woodlawn Cemetery, Bronx NY In 1920 - He was counsel for the Lockwood Committee, appointed by the state Legislature to investigate an alleged conspiracy among the building trades of New York City. It was charged that labor leaders were using their power by extorting bribes for the prevention of strikes, by preventing independent bids and by forcing building awards to favorites. Many illegal acts were disclosed and numerous convictions secured. Robert P. Brindell, who was at the head of the labor council of the building trades with a membership of 115,000 was prosecuted by Untermyer, who conducted the case in person as a special attorney-general, and convicted of extortion and sentenced to five-to-ten years in state prison. At the end of 1921, when the prosecutions were being continued, more than 600 indictments had been found as a result of the investigation and many more were said to be pending. There were more than 200 convictions including pleas of guilty by employers, labor leaders and others and over $500,000 had been collected in fines. In connection with the exposure of abuses and acts of illegality among the labour unions, all unions in the state were required, under the threat of criminal prosecution and of submitting to incorporation, to amend their constitutions and bylaws by eliminating these abuses; this they all agreed to do. It was shown that in many of the building trades both manufacturers and dealers, often with the collusive aid of labour leaders, had organized to fix prices and prevent competition. Subsequent prosecutions established the fact that these and other unfair practices were an important element in preventing building operations and increasing rental charges for dwelling property. Public opinion, especially in view of the housing shortage, reacted sharply to these revelations, and it was felt that Untermeyer's work in this connection had been performed with admirable public spirit, energy and courage. It was generally believed, moreover, that the evils brought to light by the committee were not confined to New York, and a demand for similar investigations arose in other parts of the country. As special counsel until 1933 in the famous New York City transit suits, he helped maintain the five-cent subway fare. Untermeyer was a staunch advocate of stock market regulations, government ownership of railroads, and various legal reforms.

 

Interactive 9/11, JFK & Holocaust Spreadsheet

Google Custom Search Engine ... Link 9/11 Truth, JFK assassination, Holocaust hoax & ISIS ...... home

No main stream media sites including Wikipedia are searched on this custom search page .... only websites dedicated to exposing the truth about 9/11, JFK assassination and the Holocaust hoax. This may include 'gatekeeper' sites such as 911Truth.org, Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.org, Chomsky etc....by 'gatekeeper' we mean websites who never mention Israel, UK or Saudi Arabia as complicit in the 'inside job' attack. The roots of 9/11 go back to the Jewish Bolshevik revolution, Zionist/Nazi Germany (chronology below), the Holocaust hoax (treachery to spur emigration to Palestine) ... Google restricts results to 10 pages (100 items)

MS Excel Sort & Filter 2000 rows, 12 columns

Yes to 'no planes', Israel nuked the WTC, the Holocaust(timeline below) is a hoax, the Mossad / LBJ assassinated John Kennedy & ISIS=Hitler.

Interactive Spreadsheet - 9/11 Truth, JFK assassination, Holocaust revision & ISIS

 

Nazi Era Timeline
Clinton 9/11 Truth Timeline

 

free hit counter javascript

 

Google Analytics