THE

JEWISH HAND

IN

THE WORLD WARS

Thomas Dalton, PhD

Castle Hill Publishers

P.O. Box 243, Uckfield, TN22 9AW, UK

May 2019

Thomas Dalton

The Jewish Hand in the World Wars

Uckfield, East Sussex: Castle Hill Publishers

PO Box 243, Uckfield, TN22 9AW, UK

May 2019

ISBN10: 1-59148-041-8

ISBN13: 978-1-59148-041-9

Published by Castle Hill Publishers

Manufactured in the United States of America and in the UK

© 2019 by Thomas Dalton.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise.

Distribution:
Castle Hill Publishers, PO Box 243
Uckfield, TN22 9AW, UK
https://shop.codoh.com

Set in Garamond

Table of Contents

Chapter One: A SHORT HISTORY OF JEWISH INSOLENCE

Ancient Historical Context

From the Christian Era to the Enlightenment

Chapter Two: JEWISH GLOBAL ADVANCE: RUN-UP TO THE FIRST WORLD WAR

Into the 20th Century: Abrogation of the Russia Treaty

Jewish Influence in the 1912 Presidential Election

Chapter Three: WOODROW WILSON AND THE “GREAT WAR”

American Entry

The Russian Revolution(s)

The Balfour Declaration

Chapter Four: PARIS AND BEYOND: THE JEWISH REVOLUTIONS

The Jewish Revolutions

Upheaval in Germany

The Paris Peace Conference and Treaty of Versailles

The Jewish Weimar

Chapter Five: THE INTERWAR PERIOD AND EMERGENCE OF F.D.R.

FDR’s Jewish Ancestry?

“All the President’s Jews”

The Path to War

Chapter Six: THE ONSET OF WAR

“World Jewry”

England Stands Alone

Media Blitz

The Pearl Harbor “Incident”

Funding the War

Chapter Seven: SOME REFLECTIONS ON WW2

Chapter Eight: CLOSING THOUGHTS

Iraq War I to the Present Day

In the End

Appendices

Bibliography

Index

Holocaust Handbooks

Section One: General Overviews of the Holocaust

Section Two: Specific non-Auschwitz Studies

Section Three: Auschwitz Studies

Section Four: Witness Critique

Other Books by Castle Hill Publishers

Chapter One:
A SHORT HISTORY
OF JEWISH INSOLENCE

In the world of Hollywood, few risk confronting the dominant influence of American Jews. One notable exception is actor and director Mel Gibson. His 2004 film The Passion of the Christ was roundly condemned by Jewish groups for its unflattering portrayal of the Jewish authorities of that time. Gibson responded by saying that he was simply giving a literal reading to biblical text. But then in 2006, he was arrested for a minor DUI. During the arrest, he allegedly issued this surprising statement: “The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.” There followed the predictable storm of anti-anti-Semitism, ad hominem attacks, and various other slanders against Gibson’s character. But virtually no one asked the question: Is he right? Or rather this: To what degree could he be right? Clearly Jews can’t be responsible for all the world’s wars, but might they have played a significant role in many wars in history? The Jews? That beleaguered minority in all nations of the world save Israel—could it be that they had a hand in many of the major conflicts in human history? And if so, what lessons can we learn from this?

We can begin to answer these questions by starting with a few indisputable facts. Consider first of all Jewish influence. Jews today have massively disproportionate influence in every nation in which they constitute more than a fraction of the populace, and they have so for millennia. This in itself is an astonishing fact, one that deserves more discussion than I can give here. Present-day Jewish populations are, percentage-wise, quite small. Apart from Israel, the largest Jewish minorities are in the US (1.8%), Canada (1.1%), France (0.74%), Uruguay (0.5%), Australia (0.5%), Hungary (0.48%), and the UK (0.45%).¹ And yet their power and influence far outweighs such figures, most notably in the US, where Jews exercise a remarkable amount of control. That Jews control Hollywood is well-known, but they also hold leading executive positions at all the major American media corporations.² Their influence in US government is likewise dominant, given that Jewish money accounts for 25 to 50% of all federal campaign contributions.³ In terms of sheer financial assets, Jews constitute half of the wealthiest Americans, and may well own or control half of all private wealth in the US—which would mean an astonishing $50 trillion at their disposal.⁴

Given their undeniably disproportionate influence in all nations where they exceed even a fraction of a percent, Jews must be responsible, to some degree, for much of what government does, both good and bad. They love to praise themselves as brilliant managers, economists, and strategists, and they grant themselves endless awards and honors. But one who claims credit for successes also gets blame for the failures. And there are few greater failures in the life of nations than war; the financial and human costs are incalculable. Hence the need for the present study.

Gibson’s charge must be examined, then, with a hard eye to the truth. Nothing less will do justice to the situation. The first step in the process must be a recap of some very relevant history, in order to better understand Jewish motives and actions.

Ancient Historical Context

For literally thousands of years, since the beginning of recorded history, we find a persistent trait among the Jewish people: wherever they settled among other peoples, they made enemies. Jews were trouble-makers, agitators, and war-mongers. They lied and deceived. When they had access to power, they were ruthless. Thanks to their narcissistic religion, they were arrogant and domineering. In sum, they hated other peoples, and were hated by them in turn. On this point the historical record is unambiguous and indisputable.

Furthermore, Jews seem to have held one overriding strategy, a strategy that has served them well in all places and at all times. And it is this: Find people in distress, and profit from their suffering. And then there is the logical corollary: If you can’t find people in distress, put them in distress—and then profit from their suffering. In times of crisis, people do extreme things. Great change presents great opportunities, especially for those with the least noble principles. Shifts in power structures provide an opening for those seeking to increase their power. Normal rules of buying and selling are invalidated, and opportunities for tremendous profits appear. Desperate people will borrow money at extravagant rates, sell goods below true value, buy things on an irrational basis, and generally make rash decisions—optimal conditions for the profiteer. A man or a nation in distress is one ripe for the taking.

This universal strategy is found repeatedly throughout Jewish history, at least as far back as the Book of Genesis. Recall the story of the possibly-fictional Joseph, son of Jacob. Joseph was a Jew who was sold into slavery in Egypt. His reputation as an interpreter of dreams reached the ear of the Pharaoh, who was duly impressed—so much so that he made Joseph the second most powerful man in the land: “You shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command… Behold, I have set you over all the land of Egypt” (Gen 41:40). In anticipation of a coming seven-year famine, Joseph built up a huge surplus of grain. The famine hit, and for two years there was enough grain, and enough money in the land for the people to buy it.

But Joseph had a plan. As the grain was being purchased, he “gathered up all the money… and brought the money into the Pharaoh’s house” (47:14). In effect, he took the currency out of circulation. In due time, “the money was all spent,” and the people began to starve. Joseph then held all the cards. In the third year, he agreed to accept livestock in exchange for grain. By the fourth year, the people had neither money nor animals to give—only themselves and the land on which they lived. “Buy us and our land for food,” they said (47:19). And he did. First he acquired all the land. “As for the people, he made slaves of them from one end of Egypt to the other”—and thus the people were sold into slavery, in their own country. Granted, Joseph did all this on behalf of the Pharaoh, but it was, after all, his plan; to the masses, he was the Jewish face of exploitation. And Joseph himself clearly profited. There was assuredly no starvation for his clan, as they were allowed to live in the “land of Goshen,” the best and most fertile part of Egypt. After bankrupting and enslaving the Egyptian people, Joseph lived quite happily—so the story goes—to the ripe old age of 110.⁵

Not that this tale should be surprising. It was in Biblical times that the Jews first declared themselves to be favorites of God, thereby automatically relegating the rest of humanity to a lowly, second-class status. The Old Testament is replete with self-important references to Jews and their power over others. The Book of Exodus declares them to be “distinct… from all other people that are upon the face of the earth” (33:16); Isaac says to Esau, “Let peoples serve you, and nations bow down to you” (Gen 27:29); Moses tells his fellow Israelites, “you shall rule over many nations… [T]hey shall be afraid of you” (Deut 15:6); and we read in Isaiah, “foreigners shall build up your walls, and the kings shall minister to you… that men may bring you the wealth of nations” (60:10-11); furthermore, and ominously, “you shall eat the wealth of nations” (61:6). Jews clearly viewed all other peoples with disdain, and over time this amounted to a functional misanthropy: a hatred of humanity.

The events of the (alleged) Exodus provide another instance of Jewish militancy. Arriving in Egypt circa 1300 BC, the pharaoh found it necessary to “deal shrewdly” with the Jews (Ex 1:10); “if war befalls us,” he said, “they [might] join our enemies and fight against us.” Hence “the Egyptians were in dread of the people of Israel.” Eventually the pharaoh decided to end the suffering and drove the Jews out of Egypt.

The Old Testament is not historically reliable, but we do have some concrete evidence that Jews of that time were indeed causing trouble for the pharaoh. Among the Amarna Letters, dating to roughly 1350 BC, are nine letters to pharaoh Akhenaten complaining of a certain fellow, Labayu, who was attacking his neighbors in the region of present-day Israel. One local ruler complained that “Labayu has waged war against me… Labayu has no other purpose; he seeks simply the seizure of [my city]”.⁶ Notably, Labayu was acting in collaboration with “the Habiru,” which some scholars have identified with the Hebrews. Paul Johnson (1987: 23) argues that Labayu and his sons were “coreligionists and racial kin” to the expelled Jews of Egypt.

Further objective evidence of Jewish belligerence is found in two carved stone tablets or stele. The first, called the Merneptah Stele, dates to around 1200 BC, and refers to an evidently aggressive but defeated Jewish people. One line in it states: “Israel is laid waste, and his seed is not.” Apparently the Egyptians came into contact with a people called “Israel,” engaged them in war, and defeated them badly. The second engraving, the Tel Dan Stele of 850 BC, refers to a King Hazael and his victory over the warlike “House of David.” Such incidents are at least consistent with Biblical descriptions of massive Jewish slaughter of the Canaanites and allied people. The books of Numbers, Deuteronomy, and Joshua describe multiple incidents in which Jews, under the leadership of Moses and Joshua, destroyed the indigenous people of that region—at the behest of their God.

Later in time, and midway through the Old Testament, we read in the Book of Esther about events that allegedly occurred circa 475 BC. Esther, the Jewish queen of Persian Xerxes, came into conflict with the king’s second-in-command, Haman. In response, Haman “sought to destroy all the Jews” (Esther 3:6). His plot failed, however, and in an atrocious act of vengeance, the Jews “got relief from their enemies, and slew 75,000 of those who hated them” (9:16)—in other words, they killed not only Haman, but they also took the opportunity to dispose of thousands of their opponents. This bloody event is today celebrated as the Jewish holiday Purim.

By 300 BC, Egypt was on the decline, and thus it was taken over by Macedonian general Ptolemy I. Ptolemy needed a mercenary army in the region, and the local Jewish population was a ready supply of manpower. As Emilio Gabba (1984: 635) explains, the general was able to voluntarily conscript some 30,000 “well paid” Jews, who “served to keep the native population at bay.” Thus we see them readily siding with an invading power, against the indigenous people, for money and power. Once again, violence and aggression pays.

Amidst this context, we can certainly understand the words of Greek scholar Hecateus of Abdera. Writing circa 300 BC, he observed that “Moses introduced [to the Jews] a way of life which was, to a certain extent, misanthropic and hostile to foreigners”.⁷ This was an unusual remark, coming from the normally tolerant Greeks. There seems to be no other comparable statement on other peoples of the time. Jews were apparently unique—just as they themselves had claimed. But for the wrong reasons.

A related sentiment comes 50 years later, from the Egyptian high priest Manetho. He writes of the time when Jews invaded Egyptian territory, abusing native peoples “impiously and savagely,” setting their towns and villages on fire, and “mutilating images of the gods without restraint”.⁸ There was clearly something unique in this behavior that caused Manetho to comment as he did. Perhaps it was just such belligerent action that caused Seleucid king Antiochus VII Sidetes to consider, for the first (but not last) time in history, the extermination of the Jews. In the year 134 BC, the king was called on “to destroy the Jews, for they alone among all peoples refused all relations with other races, and saw everyone as their enemy” (Gabba 1984: 645). His counselors cited “the Jews’ hatred of all mankind, sanctioned by their very laws.” A related critique appeared sometime around 75 BC, when the Greek intellectual Apollonius Molon wrote an entire book opposing the Jews—the first in history, in fact. His work Against the Jews contained a number of hostile remarks, including calling them “the very vilest of mankind” and “atheists and misanthropes”.⁹

Less than a decade later, Rome would conquer Judea, bringing the Empire into direct conflict with the small Hebrew tribe. Shortly thereafter, sometime around the year 50 BC, historian Diodorus Siculus wrote his monumental Historical Library. It included a retelling of the Exodus, commenting that “the Jews had made their hatred of mankind into a tradition” (HL 34,1). Diodorus later refers to a plan by Seleucid ruler Antiochus Epiphanes “to wipe out completely the race of Jews, since they alone, of all nations… looked upon all men as their enemies”.¹⁰ Here we have a striking statement; if “they alone, of all nations” hated mankind, then again we have strong evidence of a malicious in-bred Jewish trait—of a vicious animosity toward others that is unlike anything else in the known world. With such an attitude, it’s easy to exploit others, to prod and deceive them into wars, and to profit from their suffering.

The last major commentator of the pre-Christian era was Lysimachus. He offered yet another account of the Exodus, writing that the Jews were instructed by Moses “to show goodwill to no man,” to offer “the worse advice” to others, and to plunder and destroy native temples.¹¹ The persistency of these negative comments is truly remarkable; no other minority merits anything close to such reprimand.

From the Christian Era to the Enlightenment

Into the new millennium, the Jewish reputation for trouble-making and exploitation continued. In the year 41 AD, Roman emperor Claudius issued his third edict, condemning the Jews of Alexandria for abuse of privilege and sowing discord; he charged them with “fomenting a general plague which infests the whole world.” Eight years later he expelled them from Rome. Ever dissatisfied, the Jews revolted in Jerusalem in the years 66-70, and again in 115 and 132. Of that final uprising, Cassius Dio made the following observation—the first clear evidence of Jews causing a major war:¹²

Jews everywhere were showing signs of hostility to the Romans, partly by secret and partly overt acts… [M]any other nations, too, were joining them through eagerness for gain, and the whole earth, one might almost say, was being stirred up over the matter.

The Hebrews were evidently paying foreigners to help them fight their wars; one can see in this a precedent for the later practice of bribing government officials in order to encourage them to declare war on their behalf. Thus it was not without good reason that notable Romans denounced the Jews—among these Seneca (“an accursed race”), Quintilian (“a race which is a curse to others”), and Tacitus (a “disease,” a “pernicious superstition,” and “the basest of peoples”).¹³ Prominent German historian Theodor Mommsen (1856/1871: 643) reaffirmed this view, noting that the Jews of Rome were indeed agents of social disruption and decay:

Also in the ancient world, Judaism was an effective ferment of cosmopolitanism and of national decomposition.

Even before the end of the classical age, Jews took to money-lending, usury, and other shady business practices in Europe. In 387, church leader John Chrysostom condemned them for, among other things, “their plundering, their covetousness, their thefts, their cheating in trade”.¹⁴ By the time of the Fourth Lateran Council of 1215, it was deemed necessary to specifically target exploitative Jewish lending practices:¹⁵

The more the Christians are restrained from the practice of usury, the more are they oppressed in this matter by the treachery of the Jews, so that in a short time they exhaust the resources of the Christians.

Thomas Aquinas was concerned about nobles who allowed Jews to continue their money-lending because they received a share of the profits:¹⁶

“it would be better for [royalty] to compel Jews to work for a living… than to allow them to live in idleness and grow rich by usury.

In 1543, Martin Luther felt compelled to issue a scathing rebuke; among his many concerns was that¹⁷

they are nothing but thieves and robbers who daily eat no morsel and wear no thread of clothing which they have not stolen and pilfered from us by means of their accursed usury.

Into the Enlightenment era, it went from bad to worse. Baron d’Holbach declared that “the Jewish people distinguished themselves only by massacres, unjust wars, cruelties, usurpations, and infamies.” He added that they, “the most unfortunate people that ever existed,… lived continually in the midst of calamities, and were, more than all other nations, the sport of frightful revolutions”.¹⁸ But few critics were harsher than the French litterateur Voltaire. He made dozens of biting remarks over the years, including this observation from 1771: “[the Jews] are, all of them, born with a raging fanaticism in their hearts… I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race”.¹⁹ In this we have perhaps one of the most troubling and prescient warnings in all of history.

German intellectuals held the Jews in equally low regard, and were equally concerned about their detrimental effect on society. The great philosopher Immanuel Kant had this to say:

[The Jews] have, through their usurious spirit since their exile, received the not-unfounded reputation of deceivers. It seems strange to think of a nation of deceivers; but it is just as strange to think of a nation made up of nothing but merchants, which are united for the most part by an old superstition that is recognized by the government under which they live. They do not seek any civil honor, but rather wish to compensate their loss by profitably outwitting the very people among whom they find protection, and even to make profit from their own kind. It cannot be otherwise with a whole nation of merchants, who are nonproductive members of society (for example, the Jews in Poland). … Their condition, sanctioned by ancient precepts and recognized even by us, cannot be altered by us without serious consequences, even though they have made the saying “buyer beware” the supreme principle of morality in their dealings with us. (1798/1979: 101-102)

Once again we see the recurring theme: Jewish deception and exploitation, leading to personal gain—or as I suggested above, ‘profit through distress.’ It was this very quality that led another prominent German philosopher, Georg Hegel, to remark that “the only act Moses reserved for the Israelites was… to borrow with deceit and repay confidence with theft”.²⁰ For Johann Fichte, the threat posed was so great that the only appropriate action was banishment: “To protect ourselves against them, I see no other way than to conquer for them their promised land and see them all there”.²¹

This must suffice as a short historical prelude. We see a consistent trend, over literally thousands of years, in which the Jews deceive, exploit, and even kill, in order to achieve their ends. Despite individual exceptions, and official proclamations notwithstanding, they collectively operate with little evident sense of remorse, pity, fairness, or justice. And even as they may couch events in terms of lofty or humanitarian ideals, Jewish self-interest is the primary driving factor. These are not hasty conclusions, and they are not my conclusions; they are the considered opinion of many of the most brilliant and insightful individuals in our history. And this is but a fraction of such observations.²² I trust that the point is clear: Jews will stop at nothing to achieve their ends—even world war.

Chapter Two:
JEWISH GLOBAL ADVANCE:
RUN-UP TO THE
FIRST WORLD WAR

The long history of Jewish duplicity, deception, belligerence, and naked self-interest has a direct bearing on both world wars, and beyond. Consider, for example, their progressive encroachment upon American government. Beginning in the mid-1800s, we find a number of important milestones. In 1845, the first Jews were elected to both houses of Congress: Lewis Levin (Penn.) to the House and David Yulee (Fla.) to the Senate. By 1887 they had their first elected governor in Washington Bartlett of California. And in 1889, Solomon Hirsch became the first Jewish minister, nominated by President Harrison as ambassador to the Ottoman Empire—which at that time controlled Palestine.

Overseas, trouble was brewing for the Jews in Russia. A gang of anarchists, one or two of whom were Jewish, succeeded in killing Czar Alexander II in 1881. This unleashed a multi-decade series of periodic pogroms, most minor but some killing multiple hundreds of Jews. Further difficulties for them came with the so-called May Laws of 1882, which placed restrictions on Jewish business practice and on areas of residency within the Pale of Settlement in the western portion of the Russian empire.²³ Many Jews fled the Pale; of those heading west, Germany was their first stop.²⁴

Even prior to the 1880s, Jewish influence in Germany was considerable. In the 1840s, both Bruno Bauer and Karl Marx wrote important essays on Die Judenfrage (the Jewish Question). In 1850, composer Richard Wagner complained that Germans found themselves “in the position of fighting for emancipation from the Jews. The Jew is, in fact… more than emancipated. He rules… ”²⁵ By 1878, Wagner had declared that Jewish control of German newspapers was nearly total. A year later Wilhelm Marr decried “the victory of Jewry over Germandom”; he believed it self-evident that “without striking a blow… Jewry today has become the socio-political dictator of Germany”.²⁶

The facts support these views. And with the influx of Russian and Polish Jews in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the situation got demonstrably worse. Sarah Gordon (1984: 10-14) cites the following impressive statistics on German Jews:

Before the First World War, for example, Jews occupied 13 percent of the directorships of joint-stock corporations and 24 percent of the supervisory positions within these corporations. … [D]uring 1904 they comprised 27 percent of all lawyers, 10 percent of all apprenticed lawyers, 5 percent of court clerks, 4 percent of magistrates, and up to 30 percent of all higher ranks of the judiciary. … Jews were [also] overrepresented among university professors and students between 1870 and 1933. For example, in 1909-1910… almost 12 percent of instructors at German universities were Jewish… [I]n 1905-1906 Jewish students comprised 25 percent of the law and medical students… The percentage of Jewish doctors was also quite high, especially in large cities, where they sometimes were a majority. … [I]n Berlin around 1890, 25 percent of all children attending grammar school were Jewish…

For all this, Jews never exceeded 2% of the German population. The public accepted the foreigners with a remarkable degree of tolerance, and more or less allowed them to dominate certain sectors of German society. There were no legal constraints, and violent attacks were rare. But they would come to regret such liberal policies.

The other important factor at that time was the emergence of Zionism. Formally established by Theodor Herzl in 1897, its basic principles were laid out in his book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State). He argued that the Jews would never be free from persecution as long as they were foreigners everywhere, and thus they needed their own state. A number of locations were discussed, but by the time of the first meeting of the World Zionist Organization in 1897, the movement had settled on Palestine. This, however, was problematic because the region at that time was under control of the Ottoman Empire, and was populated primarily by Muslim and Christian Arabs. Somehow, the Zionist Jews would have to wrest control of Palestine away from the Ottoman Turks and then drive out the Arabs. It was a seemingly impossible task.

They immediately understood that this could only be done by force. It would take a condition of global distress—something approaching a world war—for the Zionists to manipulate things to their advantage. Their guiding principle of ‘profit through distress’ could work here, but it would require both internal and external pressure. In states where the Jews had significant population but little official power, they would foment unrest from within. In states where they had influence, they would use the power of their accumulated wealth to dictate national policy. And in states where they had neither population nor influence, they would apply external pressure to enforce compliance to their wishes.

That the Zionists seriously contemplated this two-pronged, internal/external strategy is no mere speculation; we have the word of Herzl himself. He wrote:

When we sink, we become a revolutionary proletariat, the subordinate officers of the revolutionary party; when we rise, there rises also our terrible power of the purse. (1896/1967: 26)

In fact, Herzl apparently predicted the outbreak of global war. One of the original Zionists, Litman Rosenthal, wrote in his diary of 15 December 1914, his recollection of a conversation with Herzl from 1897. Herzl allegedly said,

It may be that Turkey will refuse or be unable to understand us. This will not discourage us. We will seek other means to accomplish our end. The Orient question is now the question of the day. Sooner or later it will bring about a conflict among the nations. A European war is imminent… The great European war must come. With my watch in hand do I await this terrible moment. After the great European war is ended the Peace Conference will assemble. We must be ready for that time. We will assuredly be called to this great conference of the nations and we must prove to them the urgent importance of a Zionist solution to the Jewish Question.

This was Herzl’s so-called “great war prophecy” of 1897. Now, he does not say that the Zionists will cause this war, only that they will “be ready” when it comes, and “will seek other means” than diplomacy to accomplish their end. A striking prediction, if true.²⁷

Strangely, his was not the only such prediction. Prominent Zionist Max Nordau allegedly gave a speech in 1904 articulating a progressive Zionist policy, “like the steps of a ladder,” by which they would obtain their Jewish homeland in Palestine. These steps included “the future world war, [and] the peace conference, where, with the help of England, a free and Jewish Palestine will be created”.²⁸ Nordau’s words were recalled by a British anti-Zionist, Lord Sydenham, in 1921—again, unfortunately, much after the fact, and well after the close of World War One.

In any case, there was clearly a larger plan at work here. Jews would pursue a policy of revolution in states like Russia, in order to bring down the hated Czarist government. To the degree possible, they would seek to undermine the Ottoman Turks as well. And in Germany, the UK, and America, they would use “the terrible power of the purse” to dictate an aggressive war-policy in order to realign the global power structure to their favor. This would have a triple benefit: curtailing rampant anti-Semitism; enhancing Jewish wealth; and ultimately establishing a Jewish state in Palestine, one that could serve as the global center of world Jewry. Revolution and war thus became a top priority.²⁹

Turkey was in fact an early success for the movement. The Sultan’s system of autocratic rule generated some dissatisfaction, and a group of Turkish Jews exploited this to their advantage—resulting in the Turkish Revolution of 1908. As Leonard Stein explains,

the revolution had been organized from Salonica [present-day Thessaloniki], where the Jews, together with the crypto-Jews known as Dönmeh, formed a majority of the population. Salonica Jews and the Dönmeh had taken an important part in the events associated with the revolution and had provided the Committee of Union and Progress with several of its ablest members. (1961: 35)

This group of revolutionaries, today known as the Young Turks, was able to overthrow the Sultan and exert substantial influence on the succeeding ruler. But in the end they were unable to steer the declining empire in a pro-Zionist direction.

Back in the USA, Jewish population was rising even faster than in Germany. In 1880 it had roughly 250,000 Jews (0.5% of US population), but by 1900—just 20 years later—the figure was around 1.5 million (1.9%). A census of 1918 showed this number increasing to an astonishing figure of 3 million (2.9%). Their political influence grew commensurately.

Into the 20th Century: Abrogation of the Russia Treaty

For present purposes, significant American influence began with the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901. He was shot by a Polish radical named Leon Czolgosz, who had been heavily influenced by two Jewish anarchists, Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman. The presidency immediately fell to the vice president, Theodore Roosevelt—who, at age 42, was (and remains) the youngest president in history. His 1898 victory in Cuba over the Spaniards led to widespread publicity, and with the backing of the Jewish community, he won the New York governorship later that same year. Thus he was well-situated to earn the vice presidential nomination in 1900.

A question of interest: Was Roosevelt Jewish? I will examine this issue in detail later with respect to FDR, for whom there is more to say, but in brief, there is considerable circumstantial evidence that all of the Roosevelts were at least partly Jewish. In Theodore’s case, the only explicit indication is a claim by former Michigan governor Chase Osborn. In a letter dated 21 March 1935, Osborn said, “President [Franklin] Roosevelt knows well enough that his ancestors were Jewish. I heard Theodore Roosevelt state twice that his ancestors were Jewish”.³⁰ But Osborn offers no specifics, and I am not aware of any further claims regarding Theodore himself.

We have additional evidence, however, showing that Roosevelt was friendly with American Jews and supported their interests. Having acceded to the office in 1901, he subsequently won the 1904 election. In late 1906 he appointed the first Jew to the presidential cabinet: Oscar Straus, a wealthy New York lawyer and former ambassador to the Ottoman Empire. As Secretary of Labor and Commerce, Straus was in charge of the Bureau of Immigration—at the critical time of accelerating Jewish immigration. We can be sure that his office was particularly amenable to incoming Jews. Roosevelt also received substantial Jewish donations for his campaign, as we will see shortly.

When the next presidential election came around in 1908, Roosevelt declined to run, having effectively served two terms. He preferred instead to nominate his Secretary of War, William Taft—who proceeded to win handily. As it happened, Taft presided just at the time when Jewish power in America had grown to the point where it could effectively dictate US policy. On occasion Taft opposed this intrusion into the federal government, but he eventually caved in, becoming the first US president to knuckle under to the Jewish Lobby. The story is enlightening in its own right, but it also sets the scene for the soon-to-come world war.

From the start Taft was quite willing to work with the Jews. In May 1909, a year after taking office, he became the first president to speak at a synagogue service. In October of that year he reappointed Oscar Straus as ambassador to the Ottomans. In 1912 he became the first to formally meet with a delegation of rabbis, and the first to attend a private family Seder. Then in January 1913, after losing the election to Wilson but before leaving office, Taft was awarded the B’nai B’rith gold medal “in recognition of his service to the Jewish race.” And Jewish immigration continued apace during his tenure. Even for years afterward, Taft continued to speak out on behalf of the Jews, including a public address in support of European Jews in 1917, and a lengthy and highly sympathetic cover article in National Geographic in 1919.³¹

And yet all was not always well between Taft and the Hebrews. One particular event in 1911 not only brought them into direct conflict, but it also marked a watershed moment in US history: the precise day that the US government sold its soul to the Jewish Lobby.

The event in question relates to a then-longstanding treaty between the US and Russia. Established in 1832, the Russo-American Treaty allowed for “reciprocal liberty of commerce and navigation,” and guaranteed mutual freedom of entry for citizens on both sides. It was widely seen by all parties as a valuable and successful international accord. But then, after the Jewish involvement in the assassination of Czar Alexander in 1881, Russia witnessed a steady growth in anti-Jewish pogroms. For example, there was the so-called Kishinev massacre of April 1903; the New York Times reported that “Jews were slaughtered like sheep. The dead number 120… The scenes of horror attending this massacre are beyond description. Babes were literally torn to pieces by the frenzied and blood-thirsty mob” (April 28; p. 6). A slight exaggeration—the actual death toll was 47. A second attack in Kishinev in 1905 left 19 dead; regrettable, but hardly a catastrophe. In early 1910 the NYT ran an article, “Russian Jews in Sad Plight.” Their source said, “The condition of Russian [Jews] is worse today than at any time since the barbarous massacres and pogroms of 1905 and 1906”.³² Then on 18 September 1911, the Russian Prime Minister, Pyotr Stolypin, was shot and killed—by a Jewish assassin, Mordekhai Gershkovich, aka Dmitri Bogrov.³³ (Recall Herzl’s demand for revolutionary action.) This of course brought even harsher recriminations.

The increased Russian crackdown caused many belligerent Jews to flee the country; many eventually came to the US. Russia was more than happy to see them go, and it then effectively closed the door to all Jewish immigration. As Russian foreign minister Sergey Sazonov explained, “Many agitators, revolutionaries, and anarchists who were adherents of the Hebrew religion had emigrated to America during the recent troubles, and it was not to be expected that Russia should encourage the return of these elements”.³⁴ Of course: the Russians were no fools, after all.

For the American Zionists, though, it was intolerable that their coreligionists should be excluded from that country. Thus, as an act of punishment, the Zionists took it upon themselves to initiate the abrogation of this treaty as a means of putting external pressure on the Czarist regime. And, despite the wishes of President Taft and the best interests of America at large, they succeeded. This whole incident, thoroughly documented by Naomi Cohen (1963), is a true milestone of Jewish influence. As she says,

Credit for this act belongs to a small group which had campaigned publicly during 1911 for the abrogation of the treaty. How a mere handful of men succeeded in arousing American public opinion on a relatively obscure issue to a near “wave of hysteria,” how they forced the hand of an antagonistic administration, and what principal aim lay behind their fight for abrogation constitute an absorbing story of pressure politics. (p. 3)

The “mere handful of men” consisted primarily of Jewish lawyer Louis Marshall, the banker Jacob Schiff, and their colleagues at the American Jewish Committee—the ‘AIPAC’ of its day, and still a potent force a century later.³⁵ They had raised the topic of abrogation as early as 1908, but it did not become a top priority until early 1910. They then approached Taft, knowing that he was preparing to run for reelection the following year. As Cohen (p. 9) says, “The quid pro quo was obvious; the Jewish leaders would try to deliver the Jewish vote to Taft.” But he was unsympathetic. Taft knew that, for several reasons, it was not in America’s favor: Our commercial interests, our Far East foreign policy, Russian good will, and our international integrity would all be harmed by abrogation. But the Jews were pressing; in February 1910 they met with Taft, to “give him one last chance” to support their cause. When he again declined, they decided to go around the president, to Congress and to the American people. They knew how to work Congress. As Cohen (p. 13) explains, “the pattern of Jewish petitions to the government… was generally that of secret diplomacy. Wealthy or politically prominent individuals asked favors… but always in the form of discreet pressure and behind-the-scenes bargaining.” Back-door maneuvering was a Jewish forte, but mounting a public campaign was something new.

In January 1911, Marshall “officially opened the public campaign for abrogation.” He immediately appealed not to Jewish interest—though that was the sole motive—but rather to allegedly American interests. “It is not the Jew who is insulted; it is the American people,” he said. As Robert Shogan (2010: 22) puts it, “a key to the [Jewish] strategy was to frame its demand as a plea to protect American interests in general, not just the rights of Jews.” The AJC then embarked on a massive propaganda effort. They enlisted Jewish support in the media; Samuel Strauss and Adolph Ochs (of the New York Times) helped coordinate a series of article and op-eds in several major cities. They made the case “in popular emotional terms,” organized petitions and letter-writing programs, and held dedicated, pro-abrogation rallies—one of which included such luminaries as William Hearst and future president Woodrow Wilson.³⁶ Everything was designed to put maximum pressure on Congress to act.

All the while, Taft remained firm in his opposition. In a private letter he wrote, “I am the President of the whole United States, and the vote of the Jews, important as it is, cannot frighten me in this matter” (p. 21). Secretary of State Philander Knox, and Ambassador to Russia William Rockhill, both strongly supported him. Rockhill was particularly galled; expressing his thoughts, Cohen asks, “were national interests to be subservient to a small group of individuals?” After all, the actual harm was near microscopic: “Only 28 American Jews resided in Russia, and the State Dept knew of only four cases in five years where American Jews were denied admission” (p. 16). And yet this “small group of men” was turning the tide in their favor.

By November of 1911, just 11 months after launching their public campaign, the AJC was confident of victory. Schiff was able to predict easy passage for the resolution. That same month an “unofficial delegation” of Jews met with Taft regarding his pending annual message, and they convinced him that Congressional action was inevitable, and veto-proof. Taft relented, agreeing to sign the resolution when it reached his desk. Wanting no further delay, the AJC pressed for a vote before the end of the year. On December 13 the House approved the measure—by the astounding tally of 301 to 1. A slightly modified version came up for Senate vote on December 19, which passed unanimously. A reconciled bill was approved the next day, and Taft signed it. So it came to be that, on 20 December 1911, the US government sold its soul to the Jewish Lobby. It has yet to win it back.

The importance of this event can scarcely be overestimated. The interests of “a mere handful of men,” acting on behalf of a small American minority, were able to dictate governmental foreign policy, against the express wishes of the president and his staff, and contrary to the larger interests of the nation. It is but scant exaggeration to say that, on that day, American democracy ceased to exist.

The Russians, incidentally, were stunned at this action. They knew of the Jewish hand at work, but could hardly believe that it had the power to carry through on its threat. The NYT again gives a useful report:

In parliamentary circles here [in Russia] the prevailing comment is characterized by astonishment that the American government has responded so readily to the Jewish outcry. The opinion is expressed by members of the Duma that in all probability the Jews will now attempt to force matters further. (20 Dec 1911; p. 2)

Which was true—given that the American Zionists were about to successfully press Wilson and the US into World War One. And within six years, the Russians themselves would have to contend with a Jewish-led Bolshevik revolution that led to mass chaos and death.

Such was the state of things in America and globally at that time. International Jewry had sufficient wealth and influence to steer events at the highest levels, and American Jews (Zionist and otherwise) had come to permeate the government—and American culture generally. The situation so impressed German economist Werner Sombart that he made this observation in 1911: “For what we call Americanism is nothing else than the Jewish spirit distilled”.³⁷ From the perspective of a century hence, this would seem truer than ever.

Jewish Influence in the 1912 Presidential Election

In the end, Taft disappointed many Republicans, and there was a call to bring Roosevelt back. But the party would not oust a sitting president, and so Theodore agreed to run on a third-party ticket. Hence the peculiar status of the 1912 election: it featured Taft running for reelection, Roosevelt running as a third-party candidate, and Woodrow Wilson running as a first-term Democrat. As the history books like to say, we had a former president and a sitting president running against a future president. Wilson, as we know, would win this race, and go on to serve two consecutive terms—covering the lead-up, duration, and aftermath of WWI.

But less well known is this fact: For perhaps the first time in US history, all three major candidates in 1912 had substantial Jewish financial backing. Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent reported on a 1914 Congressional testimony by Paul Warburg, best known as the Jewish “father of the Federal Reserve.” Warburg was the prototypical Jewish banker, long-time partner at Kuhn, Loeb, and Co., and later head of Wells Fargo in New York. At some point during Taft’s presidency, Warburg decided to get financially involved in politics. By the time of the 1912 election, he and his partners at Kuhn, Loeb were funding all three candidates. Warburg’s testimony, before Senator Joseph Bristow (R-Kan.), is revealing:³⁸

JB: “It has been variously reported in the newspapers that you and your partners directly and indirectly contributed very largely to Mr. Wilson’s campaign funds.”

PW: “Well, my partners—there is a very peculiar condition—no; I do not think any one of them contributed largely at all; there may have been moderate contributions. My brother, for instance, contributed to Mr. Taft’s campaign.”…

JB: “I understood you to say that you contributed to Mr. Wilson’s campaign.”

PW: “No; my letter says that I offered to contribute; but it was too late. I came back to this country only a few days before the campaign closed.”

JB: “So that you did not make any contribution?”

PW: “I did not make any contribution; no.”

JB: “Did any members of your firm make contributions to Mr. Wilson’s campaign?”

PW: “I think that is a matter of record. Mr. [Jacob] Schiff contributed. I would not otherwise discuss the contributions of my partners, if it was not a matter of record. I think Mr. Schiff was the only one who contributed in our firm.”

JB: “And you stated that your brother had contributed to Mr. Taft’s campaign, as I understand it?”

PW: “I did. But again, I do not want to go into a discussion of my partners’ affairs, and I shall stick to that pretty strictly, or we will never get through.”

JB: “I understood you also to say that no members of your firm contributed to Mr. Roosevelt’s campaign.”

PW: “I did not say that.”

JB: “Oh! Did any members of the firm do that?”

PW: “My answer would please you probably; but I shall not answer that, but will repeat that I will not discuss my partners’ affairs.”

JB: “Yes. I understood you to say Saturday that you were a Republican, but when Mr. Roosevelt became a candidate, you then became a sympathizer with Mr. Wilson and supported him?”

PW: “Yes.”

JB: “While your brother was supporting Mr. Taft?”

PW: “Yes.”

JB: “And I was interested to know whether any member of your firm supported Mr. Roosevelt.”

PW: “It is a matter of record that there are.”

JB: “That there are some of them who did?”

PW: “Oh, yes”.

In sum: Some unknown members of Kuhn, Loeb donated to Roosevelt; Paul’s brother (Felix) gave to Taft; and Schiff donated to Wilson. Cleverly, Paul Warburg himself admitted to no funding, but we can hardly take him at his word here. In any case, there was a Jewish hand in all three contestants, and they were guaranteed influence with the winner, no matter the outcome. We don’t know the extent of this influence, nor how long it had gone on. To date I have not uncovered evidence of Jewish involvement with Roosevelt’s 1904 election, although his appointment of Straus to the cabinet is typical of the kind of political patronage that follows financial support. And the same with Taft: We don’t know the degree of Jewish support for his initial run in 1908, but support in 1912 suggests that they were reasonably satisfied with his performance.

In any case, Wilson was the victor, and this brought a whole new level of influence to the Jewish Lobby. And at the perfect time: the world was about to be plunged into a global conflagration that presented vast new opportunities for Jews everywhere.

Chapter Three:
WOODROW WILSON
AND THE “GREAT WAR”

If Franklin Roosevelt was “the first great hero of American Jews”,³⁹ then Woodrow Wilson was the first great understudy. As Henry Ford saw it, “Mr. Wilson, while President, was very close to the Jews. His administration, as everyone knows, was predominantly Jewish”.⁴⁰ Wilson seems to have been the first president to have the full and unconditional backing of the Jewish Lobby, including multiple major financial donors. And he was the first to fully reward their support.

It’s worthwhile summarizing the main figures in the Jewish power structure, as of 1912. Herzl died young in 1904, so he was out of the picture. But a “mere handful” of others came to dominate the movement, and the American scene:

– Oscar Straus (age 62), German-born, first Jewish cabinet member under T. Roosevelt, and ambassador to the Ottoman Empire under Taft.

– Jacob Schiff (65), head of the Kuhn, Loeb banking firm.

– Louis Marshall (56), founder of the AJC.

– The Warburg brothers: Paul (44) and Felix (41), German-born bankers. A third brother, Max, stayed in Germany (until 1938).

– Henry Morgenthau, Sr. (56), German-born lawyer, father of the even more influential Henry, Jr.

– Louis Brandeis (56), lawyer, strongly Zionist.

– Samuel Untermyer (54), lawyer.

– Bernard Baruch (42), Wall Street financier.

– Stephen Wise (40), Austrian-born rabbi and fervent Zionist.

– Richard Gottheil (50), British-born rabbi and Zionist.

These, to emphasize, were all Americans. The European side had a different structure, one centered on such figures as Chaim Weizmann and Herbert Samuel in Britain, and Max Nordau in France.

Let me begin with financial backing—which of course has long been the trump card of Jewry. Many of the above individuals were prime supporters of Wilson. John Cooper (2009: 172) remarks that his “big contributors” included the likes of “Henry Morgenthau, Jacob Schiff, and Samuel Untermyer, as well as a newcomer to their ranks, Bernard Baruch.” Such assistance continued throughout Wilson’s tenure; for his 1916 reelection bid, “financiers such as Henry Morgenthau and Bernard Baruch gave generously” (p. 350). As we saw, Schiff’s support was admitted by Warburg in his congressional testimony.

Warburg himself was very evasive, allowing only that his “sympathies went with Mr. Wilson.” Yet we can hardly believe that no money followed. Warburg’s most profound impact was his leading role in the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913, the year Wilson took office. Edwin Seligman (1914: 387) remarks that “it may be stated without fear of contradiction that in its fundamental features the Federal Reserve is the work of Mr. Warburg more than of any other man in the country.” Its basic principles, he said, “were the creation of Mr. Warburg and of Mr. Warburg alone.” In due recognition, Wilson appointed him to the Fed’s first Board of Governors in August 1914.

Morgenthau’s influence began in 1911, when Wilson was still governor of New Jersey. Peter Balakian (2003: 220) notes that it was at this time that the two “bonded,” and that “Morgenthau offered Wilson his ‘unreserved moral and financial support’.” In the run-up to the 1912 Democratic convention, “Morgenthau was giving $5,000 a month to the campaign, and continued to give generously throughout the fall” (221). In fact, says Balakian, only a few of his wealthy Princeton classmates gave more. Geoffrey Ward (1989: 252) confirms this, noting that Morgenthau “had been an important backer of Woodrow Wilson in 1912.” Morgenthau duly received his reward: ambassadorship to Ottoman Turkey, again overseeing Palestine.

Of special importance was Wilson’s association with Louis Brandeis. The two first met back in 1910; Shogan (2010: 64) describes Brandeis’ “friendship with Woodrow Wilson,” noting that he had “worked mightily” for him in the 1912 campaign. In a telling statement, Wilson wrote to his friend after the election, “You were yourself a great part of the victory”.⁴¹ Brandeis would be rewarded by a successful nomination to the Supreme Court in June 1916—the first Jew on the court. He would serve a full 23 years, well beyond Wilson’s lifetime, and, despite his formal ‘neutrality’ as a justice, would play a vital role in both world wars.

But perhaps the most significant of all was Bernard Baruch. A millionaire before he was 30, Baruch catapulted out of nowhere, under obscure conditions, to become a leading influence in the Wilson administration. Already in 1915, in the early years of the European war, he was convinced that America would be involved. In Congressional testimony of February 1920, Baruch stated that, in 1915, he “had been very much disturbed by the unprepared condition of this country.” “I had been thinking about it very seriously, and I thought we would be drawn into the war. … I thought a war was coming long before it did.” Through some still-mysterious process, Baruch was named to the Council of National Defense in early 1916. He then came to control a particular subcommittee, the War Industries Board (WIB), which had extraordinary wartime powers. Baruch single-handedly ran it throughout the war years. His testimony before Sen. Albert Jefferis (R-Neb.) summarizes his role:

AJ: “In what lines did this board of 10 have the powers that you mention? BB: “We had the power of priority, which was the greatest power in the war.” AJ: “In other words, you determined what everybody could have?” BB: “Exactly; there is no question about that. I assumed that responsibility, sir, and that final determination rested within me.” AJ: “What?” BB: “That final determination, as the President said, rested within me; the determination of whether the Army or Navy should have it rested with me; the determination of whether the Railroad Administration could have it, or the Allies, or whether General Allenby should have locomotives, or whether they should be used in Russia, or used in France.” AJ: “You had considerable power?” BB: “Indeed I did, sir.” …

AJ: “And all those different lines, really, ultimately, centered in you, so far as power was concerned?” BB: “Yes, sir, it did. I probably had more power than perhaps any other man did in the war; doubtless that is true”.⁴²

An astonishing fact: a young, unelected Jew with no political experience becomes, in time of crisis, the most powerful man in the US government, after the president himself. And yet all this was just a rehearsal. Baruch would play a similar role in the Second World War under FDR, in his Office of War Mobilization. He was also a friend and confidant of Winston Churchill. No doubt “Barney” Baruch had lots of advice for all parties involved.

American Entry

World War I began in earnest in August of 1914, when Germany crossed into neutral Belgium on its way to France. A series of alliances and treaties triggered a chain reaction in which 10 nations were drawn into the war by the end of that year. Ultimately another 18 would be engaged—though in the case of the US, it would be nearly two and a half years later.

It’s difficult today, with our present eagerness to engage in warfare around the world, to understand the degree to which Americans of that time were so strongly non-interventionist. Neither the public nor the government had any real inclination to get involved in a European war. Publicly, at least, Wilson himself was a pacifist and an isolationist. In a speech of 19 August 1914, just after the outbreak of war, he proclaimed that “every man who really loves America will act and speak in the true spirit of neutrality, which is the spirit of impartiality and fairness and friendliness to all concerned.” We have a duty to be “the one great nation at peace,” and thus “we must be impartial in thought as well as in action”.⁴³

And yet, American governmental policy did not fully adhere to these lofty words. Under international law, the United States, as a neutral party, had the right to conduct commerce with all sides. But of course both Britain and Germany sought to restrict trade with the other. A British naval blockade interrupted or seized a substantial portion of our intended shipments to Germany, reducing trade by more than 90%. And yet Wilson hardly objected. On the other hand, when German submarines attacked or threatened our shipments to England, he reacted in the strongest manner. The end result was a near quadrupling of trade with the Allies between 1914 and 1916. In practical terms, we were supporting the Allied war effort, even as we remained officially neutral. Wilson’s government—and apparently he himself—were decidedly biased against the Germans. Not coincidentally, his Jewish advisors were, to a man, anti-German.

By the time of the 1916 election, war was churning throughout Europe. Still, Wilson promised to remain unengaged; he ran and won on the slogan, “He kept us out of war.” The American people too had little appetite for armed conflict; as Cooper (2009: 381) writes, “Clearly, the president was not feeling a push for war from Congress or the public.” But like so many campaign promises, this one would be discarded soon afterward—in fact, barely one month after his second inauguration.

So: Why did he do it? Why did Wilson change his mind and, on 2 April 1917, issue his famous call to Congress to declare war on Germany? His official answer: German submarines were relentlessly targeting US military, passenger, and cargo ships, and thus we simply had no choice. But this explanation does not withstand scrutiny. Early in the war the Germans were sinking a number of ships that were trafficking with the Allies, but in September 1915, after urgent demands from Wilson, they suspended submarine attacks. This suspension held for an exceptionally long time—through February 1917. And all throughout that time, we and other “neutral” nations were trading with Germany’s enemies, supplying them with material goods, and assisting in a naval blockade. Thus it’s unsurprising that the Germans eventually resumed their attacks, on all ships in the war zone.

In his famous speech to Congress, Wilson said of the lifting of the suspension, “the Imperial German Government… put aside all restraints of law or of humanity, and uses its submarines to sink every vessel [in the war zone].” Sparing no hyperbole, he added, “The present German submarine warfare against commerce is a warfare against mankind. It is a war against all nations.”

But what are the facts? Specifically, how big a threat did Germany pose to the US? In reality, not much of a threat at all. From the time of the outbreak of war (August 1914) until Wilson’s declaration in April 1917, a total of three small military ships were lost—one submarine in 1915, one armored cruiser in 1916, and one protected cruiser in early 1917. Additionally, a total of 12 American merchant steamers (freight ships) were sunk in the same period, but with the loss of only 38 individual lives.⁴⁴ So the US had lost a grand total of 15 ships to that point. Putting this in perspective: Over the course of the entire war, German U-boats sank roughly 6,600 ships in total. Hence the threat to the US was all but inconsequential. Clearly Wilson was thinking in internationalist terms, and someone or something convinced him that realigning the global order was more important than American public opinion; thus his famous and much-derided phrase: “The world must be made safe for democracy.” Yes—but whose democracy?

A few powerful voices opposed Wilson, including Senators Robert La Follette (R-Wisc.) and George Norris (R-Neb.). Both spoke on April 4, just two days after Wilson’s plea for war. La Follette was outraged at the unilateral action taken by the Wilson administration. In a scathing speech, he said:⁴⁵

I am speaking of a profession of democracy that is linked in action with the most brutal and domineering use of autocratic power. Are the people of this country being so well-represented in this war movement that we need to go abroad to give other people control of their governments? Will the President and the supporters of this war bill submit it to a vote of the people before the declaration of war goes into effect? … Who has registered the knowledge or approval of the American people of the course this Congress is called upon to take in declaring war upon Germany? Submit the question to the people, you who support it. You who support it dare not do it, for you know that by a vote of more than ten to one the American people as a body would register their declaration against it.

Norris too had some ideas about the driving forces behind the call to war. He believed that many Americans had been “misled as to the real history and the true facts, by the almost unanimous demand of the great combination of wealth that has a direct financial interest in our participation in the war”.⁴⁶ Wall Street bankers loaned millions to the Allies, and naturally wanted it repaid. And then there were the profits to be made from military hardware and ammunition. These same forces also held sway in the media:

[A] large number of the great newspapers and news agencies of the country have been controlled and enlisted in the greatest propaganda that the world has ever known, to manufacture sentiment in favor of war. … [And now] Congress, urged by the President and backed by the artificial sentiment, is about to declare war and engulf our country in the greatest holocaust that the world has ever known…

Indeed—every war is a ‘holocaust.’ Norris then encapsulated his view with a most striking line: “We are going into war upon the command of gold.” And everyone knew who held the gold.

As pragmatic politicians, Norris and La Follette both realized they had no chance to change the outcome. Any force that could compel abrogation of the Russian treaty and monopolize a presidential election could manufacture Congressional consent for war. Later that same day, the Senate confirmed it, by a vote of 82 to 6. Two days thereafter, the House concurred, 373 to 50. And so America was at war. Troops would be on the ground in Europe within three months.

The Russian Revolution(s)

Political power is a strange thing; it’s one of those rare cases where appearance is reality. If you say you have power, and others say you have power, and if all parties act as if you have power—then you have power. Such is the case with the Jewish Lobby. Simply because, at that time, they had no army, had internal disagreements, and in no country exceeded one or two percent, we cannot conclude that they were mere helpless pawns, manipulated at will by the great powers. And yet today, modern commentators continue to refer to the ‘illusory’ or ‘misperceived’ power of the Jews at that time.⁴⁷ This can now be exposed as a weak attempt to whitewash the Jewish power play. When a small minority can dictate foreign policy, promote global war, and steer the outcome in their favor, then they have substantial power—no matter what anyone says. It was true in 1911; it was true in the 1912 election; and it would be clearly demonstrated once again in the case of the Balfour Declaration of 1917.

But first a quick recap: During Wilson’s first term, Jewish Americans achieved major gains. Paul Warburg’s Federal Reserve Act was passed, and he was named to the Board. Henry Morgenthau, Sr. was nominated ambassador to Turkey, watching over Palestine. Brandeis was named to the Supreme Court. And Baruch became the second most powerful man in the land.

Jews also made important strides elsewhere in America during those four years. Two more Jewish governors were elected—Moses Alexander in Idaho, and Simon Bamburger in Utah. The motion picture business witnessed the beginning of Jewish domination, with Universal Pictures (Carl Laemmle), Paramount (Adolph Zukor, Jesse Lasky, Charles Frohman, and Samuel Goldwyn), Fox Films (William Fox), and the early formation of “Warner” Bros. Pictures—in reality, the four Wonskolaser brothers: Hirsz, Aaron, Szmul, and Itzhak.⁴⁸ This development would prove useful for wartime propaganda. And in the meantime, the Jewish population grew by some 500,000 people.

1917 was the first year of Wilson’s second term. The European war was into its third year, and looking increasingly like a stalemate. With the lifting of the German U-boat suspension and the American declaration, a true world war was in the making. And it was also a time of revolution in Russia. In fact, two revolutions: the worker’s uprising in February that overthrew Czar Nicholas II, and the Bolshevik revolution in October that put the Jewish revolutionaries in power.

The role of the Jews in the Russian revolution(s) is a complicated and interesting story. I haven’t the space here to elaborate, but in brief, the communist movement had a heavy Jewish hand from its inception. Marx, of course, was a German Jew, and his writings inspired an 18-year-old Vladimir Lenin in 1888. Lenin was himself one-quarter Jewish (maternal grandfather: Alexandr Blank). In 1898 Lenin formed a revolutionary group, the Russian Social Democratic Worker’s Party (RSDWP), which was the early precursor to the Soviet Communist Party. Four years later, Lenin was joined by a full-blooded Jew, Leon Trotsky—born Lev Bronstein. Internal dissention led to a schism in 1903, at which time the RSDWP split into Bolshevik (‘majority’) and Menshevik (‘minority’) factions. Both factions were disproportionately Jewish. In addition to Lenin and Trotsky, leading Bolshevik Jews included Grigory Zinoviev, Yakov Sverdlov, Lev Kamenev (aka Rozenfeld), Karl Radek, Leonid Krassin, Alexander Litvinov, and Lazar Kaganovich. Hayim Ben-Sasson (1976: 943) observes that these men, and “others of Jewish origin… were prominent among the leaders of the Russian Bolshevik revolution.” This was public knowledge, even at the time. As the London Times reported in 1919,

One of the most curious features of the Bolshevist movement is the high percentage of non-Russian elements amongst its leaders. Of the 20 or 30 leaders who provide the central machinery of the Bolshevist movement, not less than 75 percent are Jews. … [T]he Jews provide the executive officers. (March 29, p. 10)

The article proceeds to list Trotsky and some 17 other individuals by name. Nora Levin (1988: 13) notes that, at the 1907 RSDWP Congress, there were nearly 100 Jewish delegates, comprising about one third of the total. About 20% of the Mensheviks were Jews, but by 1917 they comprised eight of 17 (47%) of its Central Committee members.⁴⁹

Thus it was that, in the years leading up to the 1917 revolutions, Jews were working internally and externally to overthrow the Czar. Stein (1961: 98) quotes a Zionist memo of 1914, promoting “relations with the Jews in Eastern Europe and in America, so as to contribute to the overthrow of Czarist Russia and to secure the national autonomy of the Jews.” Howard Temperley (1924: 173) noted that, “by 1917, [Russian Jews] had done much in preparation for that general disintegration of Russian national life, later recognized as the revolution.” William Ziff (1938: 56) stated the common view of the time, that “Jewish influence in Russia was supposed to be considerable. Jews were playing a prominent part in the revolution… ”

Surprisingly, even Winston Churchill acknowledged this fact. In 1920 he wrote an infamous essay explaining the difference between the “good” (Zionist) Jews and the “bad” Bolsheviks. This dichotomy, which was nothing less than a “struggle for the soul of the Jewish people,” made it appear almost “as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people” (1920/2002: 24). The Zionists were “national” Jews who only sought a homeland for their beleaguered people. The evil “international Jews,” the Bolsheviks, sought revolution, chaos, and even world domination. It was, said Churchill, a “sinister conspiracy.” He continued:

This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. … It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire. (p. 25)

“There is no need to exaggerate” the Jewish role in the Russian revolution; “It is certainly a very great one. … [T]he majority of the leading figures are Jews.” In the Soviet institutions, “the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing.” But perhaps the worst aspect was the dominant role of Judeo-terrorism. Churchill was clear and explicit:

[T]he prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. … [T]he part played by the [Jews] in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing. (p. 26)

By this time, of course, Churchill was well in the pay of the British Zionists, and he had plenty of motivation to defend their public image.

The Balfour Declaration

The Russian revolutions were significant, but the premier event of 1917 was surely the Balfour Declaration of November 2. This short letter from UK foreign secretary Arthur Balfour to Lionel Rothschild was remarkable: it promised to a “mere handful” of British subjects (and indirectly their coreligionists worldwide) a land that it did not possess, and that was already occupied by someone else. It is enlightening to examine the orthodox account of this event. According to the standard view, it was at this time that Britain was not only mired in the war on the Continent, but also that “British forces were fighting to win Palestine from the Ottoman Empire”.⁵⁰ The Brits wanted it, allegedly, “because of its location near the Suez Canal.” (In fact, of course, Palestine is more than 200 km from the canal, separated by the whole of the Sinai Peninsula.) “The British believed the Balfour Declaration would help gain support of this goal from Jewish leaders in the UK, the United States, and other countries.”

So, here are a few relevant questions: Was control of the canal really the primary objective? Or did the British think that the Jews would help them in their broader war aims? The Jews?—a beleaguered minority everywhere, with no nation, no army, no “real power”? Could they really help the British Empire? And did they in fact help them? And if so, how?

Nothing in the documentation of the time suggests that the canal was anything more than an incidental concern. But there was clearly a larger goal—to enlist the aid of Jews everywhere, in order to help Britain win the war. Jonathan Schneer (2010: 152) notes that, beginning in early 1916, the British sought to “explore seriously some kind of arrangement with ‘world Jewry’ or ‘Great Jewry’.” A diplomatic communiqué of March 13 is explicit:

[T]he most influential part of Jewry in all the countries would very much appreciate an offer of agreement concerning Palestine… [I]t is clear that by utilizing the Zionist idea, important political results can be achieved. Among them will be the conversion, in favour of the Allies, of Jewish elements in the Orient, in the United States, and in other places… The only purpose of [His Majesty’s] Government is to find some arrangement… which might facilitate the conclusion of an agreement ensuring the Jewish support. (in Ziff 1938: 56)

Later that year, an advisor to the British government, James Malcolm, pressed this very point: that, by promising Palestine to the Zionists, they would use their influence around the world—and especially in America—to help bring about overall victory. On the face of it, this was a preposterous suggestion: that the downtrodden Jewish minority, and in particular the even smaller minority of Zionist Jews, could do anything to alter events in a world war.

And yet that quickly became the official view of the British government—particularly so when David Lloyd George became prime minister in December 1916. Lloyd George was, from the Zionist perspective, a nearly ideal leader. He had been working closely with them since 1903.⁵¹ He strongly believed in their near-mythic influence. And he was a devout Christian Zionist, making him an ideological compatriot. Immediately upon assuming office, Lloyd George directed his staff—in particular, Mark Sykes and Lord Arthur Balfour—to negotiate Jewish support. Margaret MacMillan explains:

From [early] 1917, with Lloyd George’s encouragement, Sykes met privately with Weizmann and other Zionists. The final, and perhaps most important, factor in swinging British support behind the Zionists was to make propaganda among Jews, particularly in the United States, which had not yet come into the war, and in Russia… (2003: 416; my emphasis)

And as if the stalled war effort wasn’t motivation enough, rumors were soon flying that the Zionists were also soliciting German support; the Jews, it seems, were willing to sell their services to the highest bidder.⁵² When these rumors reached London, “the British government moved with speed” (ibid). And with speed they did. With Brandeis’ input, a first draft of the brief statement was completed in July. A second draft appeared in mid-October, and by the end of that month Balfour was ready to make public his government’s stance: “from a purely diplomatic and political point of view, it was desirable that some declaration favourable to the aspirations of the Jewish nationalists should now be made. … If we could make a declaration favourable to such an ideal, we should be able to carry on extremely useful propaganda both in Russia and America”.⁵³ Three days later, on 2 November 1917, they did.

The final text was concise and conveniently vague. Balfour’s letter reads, in full:

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

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

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

Notably, a “national home” is not a political state. The letter did not create or promise a State of Israel. But it did open the door for further manipulation that would, of course, eventually lead to an actual state, some three decades later.

But most striking was the implication that the “mere handful” of Zionist Jews in England could actually be a decisive factor in bringing a reluctant US into the global war. If successful, this would dramatically swing the balance of power. And via Wilson’s Jewish advisors—most notably Baruch and Brandeis—they had the ear of the president. But could they do it?

Unquestionably, the Brits thought they could—and that they did. This is such an astonishing manifestation of Jewish power that it is worth reviewing the opinions of several commentators. Speaking on 4 July 1922, Churchill argued for full implementation of the famous Declaration:

Pledges and promises were made during the War… They were made because it was considered they would be of value to us in our struggle to win the War. It was considered that the support which the Jews could give us all over the world, and particularly in the United States, and also in Russia, would be a definite palpable advantage. (in Gilbert 2007: 78-79)

In his monumental, six-volume study of the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, British historian Howard Temperley (1924) made this observation:

It was believed that if Great Britain declared for the fulfillment of Zionist aspirations in Palestine under her own pledge, one effect would be to bring Russian Jewry to the cause of the Entente [= Allies]. It was believed, also, that such a declaration would have a potent influence upon world Jewry in the same way, and secure for the Entente the aid of Jewish financial interests. It was believed, further, that it would greatly influence American opinion in favour of the Allies. Such were the chief considerations which, during the later part of 1916 and the next ten months of 1917, impelled the British Government towards making a contract with Jewry. 1924, vol. 6: 173)

We must bear in mind that the Declaration was issued seven months after US entry into the war. But Temperley is unequivocal: the deal was initiated “during the later part of 1916,” well before Wilson’s decision to go to war. Apparently the deal was this: bring the US into the war, and we will promise you your Jewish homeland. Such was the “contract with Jewry.”

Sensing the importance of the situation, Temperley reiterates the point, to drive it home:

That it is in purpose a definite contract with Jewry is beyond question. … In spirit it is a pledge that, in return for services to be rendered by Jewry, the British Government would ‘use their best endeavours’ to secure… Palestine. The Declaration certainly rallied world Jewry, as a whole, to the side of the Entente… [T]he services of Jewry were not expected in vain, and were… well worth the price which had to be paid. (p. 174)

Britain’s price was low: a spit of land far from the home country. True, there would be Arab resistance, but the Brits were used to that. A much higher price would be paid by Germany and the Central Powers, and by America—who would expend hundreds of millions of dollars, and suffer 116,000 war dead. But such are the consequences of selling out to a ruthless and manipulative minority. We clearly have yet to learn our lesson.

A Zionist insider, Samuel Landman, wrote a detailed and explicit account of these events in 1936. After noting some preliminary attempts in 1916, he remarks on the significance of Malcolm’s involvement. Malcolm knew that Wilson “always attached the greatest possible importance to the advice of a very prominent Zionist, Mr. Justice Brandeis… ” Malcolm was able to convince Sykes and French ambassador Georges Picot that

the best and perhaps the only way… to induce the American President to come into the war was to secure the cooperation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilize the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of the Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo basis. (1936: 4)

Granted, Landman was not an unbiased observer, and he had good reason to exaggerate Zionist influence. But that was not the case with the British Royal Palestine Commission, which issued a report in 1937. At the critical stage of the war, “it was believed that Jewish sympathy or the reverse would make a substantial difference one way or the other to the Allied cause. In particular, Jewish sympathy would confirm the support of American Jewry… ” The report then quotes Lloyd George:

The Zionist leaders gave us a definite promise that, if the Allies committed themselves to… a national home for the Jews in Palestine, they would do their best to rally Jewish sentiment and support throughout the world to the Allied cause. They kept their word. (p. 23)

Two years after this report, in 1939, the British were again contemplating starting a war with Germany. Churchill wrote a memo for his War Cabinet,⁵⁴ reminding them that

it was not for light or sentimental reasons that Lord Balfour and the Government of 1917 made the promises to the Zionists which have been the cause of so much subsequent discussion. The influence of American Jewry was rated then as a factor of the highest importance, and we did not feel ourselves in such a strong position as to be able to treat it with indifference. Now, in the advent of a Presidential election, and when the future is full of measureless uncertainties, I should have thought it was more necessary, even than in November 1917, to conciliate American Jewry and enlist their aid in combating isolationist and indeed anti-British tendencies in the United States.

The implication, of course, was that the British might once again need Jewish help to defeat the Germans. Having been goaded into war in 1939 by Roosevelt and his Jewish advisors, the British were becoming desperate once again to draw in the Americans. As David Irving reports, it was in late 1941 that Weizmann and his fellow British Zionists began “promising to use their influence in Washington to bring the United States into the war” (2001: 73). Irving quotes from an amazingly blunt letter from Weizmann to Churchill, promising to do again in this war what they did in the last:

There is only one big ethnic group [in America] which is willing to stand, to a man, for Great Britain, and a policy of ‘all-out aid’ for her: the five million Jews. From [Treasury] Secretary Morgenthau [Henry, Jr.], Governor [Herbert] Lehman, Justice Frankfurter, down to the simplest Jewish workman or trader… It has been repeatedly acknowledged by British Statesmen that it was the Jews who, in the last war, effectively helped to tip the scales in America in favour of Great Britain. They are keen to do it—and may do it—again. (p. 77)

So here we have Weizmann explicitly naming the influential Jews with the power to bring Roosevelt and the United States into a war in which it, once again, had no compelling interest. The letter was dated 10 September 1941. Churchill did not have to wait long. Within 90 days, America would be at war.

Chapter Four:
PARIS AND BEYOND:
THE JEWISH REVOLUTIONS

Let’s recall the state of affairs upon the advent of American entry into World War One. Woodrow Wilson was shown to be the first American president elected with the full backing of the Jewish lobby, and he responded by granting them leading roles in his administration. Jews were also seen as having decisive influence on Wilson’s decision to declare war in April 1917. On the British side, Lloyd George was a Christian Zionist and ideological compatriot of the Jews, and equally eager to support their aims. Britain leveraged Jewish support through the Balfour Declaration of November 1917, which promised the Zionists a homeland in Palestine; it was their reward for their having brought the US into the conflict some seven months earlier. Such actions can be seen as part of a long-standing historical trend: one of Jewish activists and agitators inciting turmoil and war whenever they stood to benefit. This tendency, which reaches back to the days of the Roman Empire, suggests a callous disregard for the lives and well-being of non-Jewish populations. Where Jewish interests are at stake, it seems, no cost is too great to inflict upon others.

The events surrounding the First World War brought substantial gains to Jews worldwide—in several ways. First, with highly-placed individuals in the Taft and Wilson administrations, the US was very amenable to Jewish immigration; in fact their numbers increased dramatically, from 1.5 million to over 3 million between 1905 and 1920, on the way to 4 million by the mid-1920s. Second was the Balfour Declaration, which promised them Palestine. Granted, nothing was immediately delivered, but even so, it was a major concession by a world power. Third, the world order was changed in their favor: the hated and “anti-Semitic” Czarist rule in Russia was replaced by the Jewish-led Bolshevik movement, the hated and “anti-Semitic” Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany was replaced by the Jewish-friendly Weimar regime, and the Jewish-influenced governments of the US and Great Britain reestablished their global dominance.

Finally, and as always, there was money to be made. Baruch had extraordinary power to direct military spending; we can be sure that his preferred clients benefitted. But perhaps Nebraska senator George Norris said it best. Speaking in opposition to Wilson’s call for a war declaration, Norris exclaimed that Americans were being deceived “by the almost unanimous demand of the great combination of wealth that has a direct financial interest in our participation in the war.” Furthermore, “a large number of great newspapers and news agencies of the country have been controlled and enlisted in the greatest propaganda that the world has ever known, to manufacture sentiment in favor of war.” In summary, “We are going into war upon the command of gold.”⁵⁵ Finance, media, politics, ‘gold’—Jewish interests prospered on many fronts.

But Wilson was evidently unaffected by such matters, or by his pledge to his fellow Americans to “keep us out of war.” His team of Jewish backers and advisors—Baruch, Morgenthau, Schiff, Untermyer, Warburg, Wise, and Brandeis—wanted war, and war they got. The fact that it would cost America $250 billon (current equivalent), and some 116,000 war dead, did not seem to figure into their calculations.

Before proceeding, we must bear something in mind. The historical evidence suggests that Jews are always striving for greater influence and political power, regardless of their treatment. Rich or poor, influential or marginalized, they always seem to demand more—more wealth, more influence, more control. We saw this on both sides of World War I. Russian imperial leaders had long been suspicious of the Jews, and largely banished them to the Pale of Settlement beginning in the 1790s. From the 1880s, Western media issued exaggerated reports of slaughters, pogroms, and assorted massacres among the Russian Jews there, whose numbers were nearly always recorded—astonishingly—as “6 million”.⁵⁶

This naturally generated deep hostility toward the House of Romanov, and the Jews sought its demise. Special animosity was reserved for Czar Nicholas II, who assumed power in 1894. As explained earlier, the American Jewish Lobby led a stunningly successful effort to abrogate the long-standing US-Russia treaty in 1911. The ultimate goal, though, was his overthrow, and thus we can imagine the joy of the global Jewish community at his defeat in March 1917. As we recall from our history, the Czar and his family were then murdered by Jewish Bolsheviks in July of the following year.⁵⁷

It was a somewhat similar story with the German ruler Wilhelm II, who acceded to power in 1888. There, however, Jews were prosperous and enjoyed a relatively high degree of freedom—despite the Kaiser’s evident personal dislike of them.⁵⁸ Previously I cited some impressive statistics by Sarah Gordon regarding their numbers in law, media, business, and academia, all prior to WWI. In the banking sector, they utterly dominated; prominent German-Jewish banking families included the well-known Rothschilds and Warburgs, but also the Mendelssohns, Bleichroeders, Speyers, Oppenheims, Bambergers, Gutmanns, Goldschmidts, and Wassermanns. But despite their wealth and success, Jews had no access to political power, owing to the hereditary monarchy. This, for them, was unacceptable. Thus they had to introduce “democracy”—with all due high-minded values, of course. Only through a democratic system could they exert direct influence on political leadership.

Consequently, as soon as the Czar fell in Russia, calls came out to repeat the success in Germany. On 19 March 1917, four days after the Czar’s ouster, the New York Times reported on Louis Marshall lauding the event, adding that “the revolt against autocracy might be expected to spread to Germany.” Two days later, Jewish speakers at Madison Square Garden “predict[ed] an uprising in Germany.” As the article explains, “[some] predicted that the revolution of the working classes of Russia was the forerunner of similar revolutions the world over. That the next revolution would be in Germany was predicted by a number of the speakers” (March 21). On March 24, Jacob Schiff took credit for helping to finance the Russian revolution. At the same time, Rabbi Stephen Wise put the blame for the pending American entry into World War I on “German militarism,” adding “I would to God it were possible for us to fight side by side with the German people for the overthrow of Hohenzollernism [i.e., Kaiser Wilhelm].”

Strangely enough, Wise got his wish. Within two weeks, America was in the war. And about 18 months later, Wilhelm would suffer defeat and be compelled to abdicate.

The Jewish Revolutions

With the fall of Czar Nicholas in March 1917, and upon the Bolshevik revolution of October that same year, Jewish revolutionaries became particularly active in East and Central Europe. Flush with success in Russia, they hoped to duplicate events in other countries, even as the war continued to rage. Ben-Sasson provides a typically understated account:

The new forces that emerged in many countries… opened up new horizons of activity for Jewish statesmen of liberal-democratic propensities, particularly those with radical-revolutionary views. … Jews were also extremely active in the socialist parties that came to power or attained political importance in many European countries. They were even more prominent in the communist parties that split from the socialists… In short, never before in European history had so many Jews played such an active part in political life and filled such influential roles… (1976: 943)

In other words, Jewish anarchists and militant communists (“new forces”) conducted violent insurrection (“new horizons of activity”) aimed at overthrowing the ruling governments, and installing Jewish-led regimes. Chaim Bermant (1977: 160) confirms this point: “most of the leading revolutionaries who convulsed Europe in the final decades of the last [19th] century and the first decades of [the 20th], stemmed from prosperous Jewish families.” This again is in keeping with the longstanding trend of Jewish rebellion.

Not that any of this was news; major politicians of the time knew it well. Lord Balfour, for example, once remarked to Wilson’s aide Edward House that “nearly all Bolshevism and disturbances of a like nature, are directly traceable to the Jews of the world. They seem determined either to have what they want or to upset present civilization”⁵⁹—a concise and accurate summary.

Consider Hungary, for example. There, a Hungarian Jew named Bela Kun (Kohn) founded and led the local wing of the Russian Communist Party in early 1918—which later became an independent entity. Along with Jewish colleagues Matyas Rakosi (Roth/Rosenfeld) and Otto Korvin (Klein), Kun’s party organized numerous strikes, and conducted violent and subversive attacks against President Károlyi and the ruling Social Democrats. In March 1919 Károlyi resigned, and the SD Party made an alliance of necessity with Kun’s communists, in the hope of leveraging his connections to the Russian Bolsheviks. Kun agreed, on the condition that the government reestablish itself as the “Hungarian Soviet Republic”—which it did.

Kun dominated the new government, filling many top seats with Jews; as Jerry Muller (2010: 153) explains, “Of the government’s 49 commissars, 31 were of Jewish origin”.⁶⁰ He fended off a coup attempt in June, and then conducted what came to be known as the “Red Terror”; this was a paramilitary group, led by Jewish ideologues Georg Lukacs and Tibor Szamuely, that hunted down and killed members of the local opposition. Unfortunately for Kun, ongoing conflicts with neighboring Romania led to an invasion of Hungary, and the promised Russian aid never materialized. Kun and his fellow Jews were driven out in August, just 133 days after taking power.

It was not only Russia and Hungary that had problems. “Jews had a prominent role in Communist parties elsewhere,” explains Bermant (172). In Poland, for example, “about a quarter of party members and about a third of delegates to party congresses were Jews.” The Polish Communists were unable, however, to generate sufficient force to oust the newly-established government of Jozef Pilsudski.

Upheaval in Germany

It was in Germany, though, that the most significant actions occurred, ones that would have a lasting effect. Recall events at the end of World War I. Long a stalemate, the war had essentially become a battle of attrition. American forces on the ground in mid to late 1917 threatened to change things, but for the Germans, the western front generally held up—even to the very end. At no point in time did it ever retreat into German territory. But even though the Germans were able to hold out, their allies could not. Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire surrendered by the end of October 1918. Austria-Hungary yielded in early November. For the Germans, though, the last straw was their problems at home—with the Jews.

The first sign of trouble came in July 1918. A Jewish radical named Yakov Blumkin entered the German embassy in Moscow and assassinated the German ambassador, Wilhelm von Mirbach. (Again we recall Herzl’s demand for revolutionary action.) Upheaval in Germany itself began with a minor naval mutiny in late October and early November 1918, at the ports of Kiel and Wilhelmshaven. A number of sailors, workers, and Jews from the Independent Social Democratic Party (USPD) joined forces to conduct a nonviolent rebellion against the Kaiser. The German rebels simply wanted the war to end, whereas the Jewish rebels sought power; in this sense it was a natural alliance. The “rebellion”—primarily in the form of a general strike—quickly spread, reaching Munich within a matter of days. In an attempt to cut short this action, the majority Social Democrats (SPD) called on the Kaiser to abdicate, at which time they would form a republican government. On November 9, they prevailed; Wilhelm stepped down and a new “German Republic” was proclaimed. It was this new leadership that signed the armistice agreement on November 11, ending the war.

The USPD rebels, however, had their own plans. On the very same day that the German Republic was created, they declared the formation of a “Free Socialist Republic.” This group had an almost entirely Jewish leadership: Rosa Luxemburg, Hugo Haase, Karl Liebknecht (half-Jewish), Leo Jogiches, Karl Radek (Sobelsohn), and Alexander Parvus (Gelfand/Helphand) were the dominant figures. And these were just the activists centered in Berlin. In Munich, other Jewish rebels were conducting a separate, simultaneous revolution, aimed at creating a Bavarian communist state. The leading USPD revolutionary there was a Jewish journalist, Kurt Eisner. On November 7, he demanded the abdication of the local monarch, King Ludwig III. The king fled on the following day, and Eisner declared himself “Minister-President” of a free Bavarian state.

Soon enough, though, Eisner’s luck ran out. On 21 February 1919, he was assassinated by a fellow Jew, Anton Arco-Valley. Within a few weeks, other USPD Jews regained power and established a Bavarian Soviet Republic—the third in Europe, behind Russia and Hungary. Its leader was the Jewish playwright Ernst Toller. Among his group were the noted Jewish anarchists Gustav Landauer and Erich Muehsam.⁶¹ Through sheer incompetency, Toller’s government managed to get usurped by yet another Jewish faction, one led by Eugen Levine and the half-Jew Otto Neurath. Levine attempted to institute a true communist system, including its own “Red Army” modeled on the Russians’. But once again, his success was short-lived. Remnants of the old German army quickly intervened, deposing the communists in early May.

Things did not end well for the Jewish rebels. Levine was captured and executed, as was Landauer. Toller, Muehsam, Radek, Parvus, and Neurath managed to escape. Luxemburg and Liebknecht were shot by German soldiers in January 1919, and Jogiches died under mysterious circumstances in March. Haase was killed by a deranged worker in November of that same year.

The Paris Peace Conference and Treaty of Versailles

The German ‘revolution’ of October/November 1918 and subsequent abdication by Wilhelm spelled the end for Germany. Interim leaders quickly moved to sign a surrender agreement, and so the ‘Great War’ came to an end on 11 November 1918.⁶² Having won the war, Wilson’s Jewish team was anxious to dictate the peace. “As it turned out,” remarks Shogan (2010: 25), “the war would bring benefits to the Zionist cause, in part because of Brandeis’ role as a trusted advisor [to Wilson].” The victorious nations convened in Paris in January 1919, and would run well more than a year before all treaties were resolved and signed. Notably, the American Jewish Congress was there as its own delegation. Shogan adds that “[Stephen] Wise was in Paris, on assignment from President Wilson to head the Zionist delegation to the peace talks.” (One might reasonably ask: Why do Zionists get their own delegation at all?) Louis Marshall was also prominent there among the American Jews.

The Jewish aim was neither a just implementation of peace, nor fair treatment of Germany, but rather to maximize benefit to the various Jewish communities of Europe and the US. “At the beginning of 1919,” says Ben-Sasson (1976: 940), “diplomatic activity in Paris became the main focus of the various attempts to fulfill Jewish aspirations.” Carole Fink (1998: 259) concurs: “In March 1919, pro-Zionist and nationalist Jewish delegations arrived in Paris.” Nearly every victorious nation, it seems, had its own Jewish representatives. Some sought formal and explicit Jewish rights in their own nations, and others worked for recognition of a Jewish national state. Polish Jews were notable beneficiaries; they succeeded in achieving explicit mention in the Polish Treaty for Minority Rights.

Writing during the event, Irish philosopher and journalist Emile Dillon saw it this way:

Of all the collectivities whose interests were furthered at the Conference, the Jews had perhaps the most resourceful and certainly the most influential exponents. There were Jews from Palestine, from Poland, Russia, the Ukraine, Rumania, Greece, Britain, Holland, and Belgium; but the largest and most brilliant contingent was sent by the United States. (1920: 12)

Describing the American side, Fink explains that “the fervent Zionist Julius Mack and the more moderate Louis Marshall quickly overshadowed the leading American anti-nationalists, Henry Morgenthau, Oscar Straus, and Cyrus Adler.”

Though he was predisposed to be sympathetic to the Jewish plight, Dillon nonetheless noted that a “religious” or “racial” bias “lay at the root of Mr. Wilson’s policy” (496). It is a fact, he said, “that a considerable number of delegates believed that the real influences behind the Anglo-Saxon peoples were Semitic.” Summarizing prospects for the future, he remarked on the general conclusion by many at Paris: “Henceforth the world will be governed by the Anglo-Saxon peoples, who, in turn, are swayed by their Jewish elements.”

Among non-Jewish Americans there was a young Herbert Hoover, then-Secretary of the US Food Administration, and of course, future president. He was accompanied by a Jewish assistant, the financier Lewis Strauss, who remarked on his boss’s notable inclination to “champion Jewish rights,” especially in Poland.⁶³ Strauss would later become instrumental in funding early development of the atomic bomb.

Treatment of the Germans at the conference, as is well known, was brutally harsh. They expected, and were promised, that the conference would be a fair settlement of the legitimate war claims of all belligerents—particularly given the complex and convoluted nature of the outbreak of hostilities. (We recall: the Archduke was assassinated by a Serb in June 1914; the Russian army mobilized and massed on the German border in July; a threatened Germany declared war on Russia in August; a Franco-Russian Pact required a simultaneous declaration against France; and Britain declared war on Germany as soon as its army crossed into Belgium.) By the time of the Peace Conference, Wilson and his team had decided that Germany alone was responsible for the war, and thus had to bear the full burden of reparations.⁶⁴ The impossible conditions forced upon them set the stage for the rise of National Socialism and the next great war.

All in all, what emerges from the first war and the subsequent peace conference is a picture of British and American supplication to Jewish interests. Indeed, the prime beneficiaries of the war were Jews, both in America and in Europe generally. For Germany, it was obviously a disastrous event; it suffered some 2 million military deaths along with thousands of indirect civilian losses, crushing financial debts, and witnessed the end of the 900-year reign of the House of Hohenzollern. This was a tragedy for a nation that, according to Sidney Fay (1928: 552), “did not plot a European war, did not want one, and made genuine… efforts to avert one.”

America, which had no legitimate interest in the battles in Europe, was drawn in by Wilson’s compliance with Jewish demands. For his part, Wilson comes across as something of an amoral political schemer. MacMillan (2010: 7) describes his close, “possibly romantic,” relationships with several other women during his first marriage. Theodore Roosevelt viewed him “as insincere and cold-blooded an opportunist as we have ever had in the presidency” (6). To Lloyd George, he was “tactless, obstinate, and vain.” Stephen Kinzer (2015) has a host of critical thoughts on the man. Wilson “perfectly represents the duplicity that lies at the heart of much American foreign policy.” He continues:

Wilson preached peace but crashed recklessly into countries around the world[,] blathering about freedom while acting to crush it. … In foreign affairs, Wilson set the gold standard for American hypocrisy.

In sum, “Wilson’s capacity for mendacity, hypocrisy, and self-delusion” should never be forgotten, says Kinzer. Granted, we all have our faults; but for most of us, they don’t lead to global catastrophe.

The Jewish Weimar

The Treaty of Versailles was signed in June 1919, much to Jewish satisfaction and German chagrin. The initial Jewish revolutionaries had been defeated by this time, but it was far from the end of their influence in Germany. The USPD was reconstituted as the German Communist Party (KPD), under the leadership of Paul Levi. The ruling SPD had meanwhile joined forces with the moderate German Democratic Party (DDP), convening in January 1919 in the city of Weimar to create a constitutional form of government. Jews were front and center in both of these parties: Otto Landesberg, Eduard Bernstein, and Rudolf Hilferding in the SPD, and Walter Rathenau in the DDP; Rathenau was eventually named as German Foreign Minister.⁶⁵ His Jewish colleague, Hugo Preuss, wrote the Weimar constitution. Even some of the native German politicians had Semitic connections; one-time Prime Minister Gustav Stresemann’s wife, Käte Kleefeld, was Jewish.

This extensive Jewish influence was well described by a philo-Semitic and Pulitzer Prize winning American journalist, Edgar Mowrer. Writing in 1933, he noted that

a large number of Jews entered the Social Democratic Party [SPD] which inherited power as a result of the [November] Revolution. Other Jews flocked to the Democratic Party [DDP], a group which certainly overlooked no chance to favor the interests of trade, banking and the stock exchange… (1933: 227)

It’s interesting that then, as now, Jews seem to have covered all the bases: liberal, left-wing Jews dominated the SPD, and capitalist, right-wing Jews dominated the DDP. Thus, no matter which party emerged with control, Jews retained influence. Success, for them, was guaranteed. Mowrer makes precisely this point:

In post-war politics any number of Jews rose to leadership. Both in the Reich and in the Federal States, Jews, particularly Social Democrats, became Cabinet Ministers. In the bureaucracy, the Jews rose rapidly to leading positions, and until about 1930 their number seemed on the increase. … In short, after the Revolution, the Jews came in Germany to play in politics and administration that same considerable part that they had previously won by open competition in business, trade, banking, the Press, the arts, the sciences, and the intellectual and cultural life of the country. (1933: 228)

The new Weimar Republic was duly signed into law in August 1919. Unsurprisingly, it was notably friendly to German Jews, removing all remnants of legal obstructions, and granting them full access to business, academia, and government—the very process that Mowrer described. As Hagit Lavsky (1996: 41) says, “All remaining discrimination was abolished and there were no restrictions on participation in German public life.” The vital role played by Weimar Jews is concisely explained by Walter Laqueur:

Without the Jews there would have been no ‘Weimar culture’—to this extent the claims of the antisemites, who detested that culture, were justified. They were in the forefront of every new daring, revolutionary movement. They were prominent among Expressionist poets, among the novelists of the 1920s, among the theatrical producers and, for a while, among the leading figures of the cinema. They owned the leading liberal newspapers such as the Berliner Tageblatt, the Vossische Zeitung and the Frankfurter Zeitung, and many editors were Jews too. Many leading liberal and avant-garde publishing houses were in Jewish hands (S. Fischer, Kurt Wolff, the Cassirers, Georg Bondi, Erich Reiss, the Malik Verlag). Many leading theatre critics were Jews, and they dominated light entertainment. (1974: 73)

Laqueur, however, neglects to explain that the celebrated “Weimar culture” was perhaps best known for its licentiousness, promiscuity, and general moral depravity.⁶⁶ “They established themselves in the universities, civil service, law, business, banking, and the free professions,” adds Lavsky. “Certain spheres were virtually monopolized by the Jews, and their contribution to journalism, literature, theater, music, the plastic arts, and entertainment was considerable.”

It was this very centrality of Jews to social upheaval, the November Revolution, and the new Weimar Republic that led three German activists and intellectuals—Anton Drexler, Gottfried Feder, and Dietrich Eckart—to found the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (DAP) in January 1919. This would be the forerunner to the National Socialist DAP (NSDAP), or Nazi Party. One of their first recruits was a distraught 30-year-old former soldier, Adolf Hitler.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler describes in painful, personal detail how the young German men went to fight and die on the front lines, even as the Jewish activists and rebels undermined the imperial government back home. Calling them “hoary criminals,” he adds that, all the while, “these perjured criminals were organizing a revolution”.⁶⁷ Upon a medical leave from the front in October 1916, he describes the situation in Munich:⁶⁸

Anger, discontent, complaints—wherever one went! … Government offices were filled with Jews. Almost every clerk was a Jew, and nearly every Jew was a clerk. … In the business world, the situation was even worse. Here the Jewish people had actually become ‘indispensable.’ Like spiders, they were slowly sucking the blood from the pores of the national body. … Thus as early as 1916-17, practically all production was under the control of Jewish finance.

Hitler returned to the front in March 1917 and was struck by a mustard gas attack in October of the following year. The gas severely burned his eyes, sending him to a military hospital for recovery. It was there that he first heard about the Revolution. The Jewish-Marxist “gang of despicable and depraved criminals” had led the overthrow of the Kaiser and were attempting to take direct power themselves. Their revolts would be transitory, but the Jewish-influenced Weimar regime would soon take control of the nation, and this was scarcely any better. It was precisely these events that led Hitler to become politically active.

Chapter Five:
THE INTERWAR PERIOD
AND EMERGENCE OF F.D.R.

1920 was a year of some importance. The Hitler-led NSDAP was formally established in February. That same month, a 46-year-old Winston Churchill penned his infamous article “Zionism versus Bolshevism,” in which he decried the pernicious role of Jewish Marxists such as Trotsky, Kun, Luxemburg, and the American Emma Goldman. And in the US, Henry Ford had just begun his two-year series on the “International Jew.”

The following year, in late 1921, Ford recalled his past efforts to bring a peaceful end to WWI.⁶⁹ During that earlier time, he says, “it was the Jews themselves that convinced me of the direct relation between the international Jew and war.”

[They explained to me] the means by which the Jew controlled the war, how they had the money, how they had cornered all the basic materials needed to fight the war… They said… that the Jews had started the war; that they would continue it as long as they wished, and that until the Jew stopped the war, it could not be stopped. (New York Times, 5 December 1921, p. 33)

This was a recurrent theme in Ford’s “International Jew” series.

Meanwhile across the ocean, the partly-Jewish Vladimir Lenin and his Jewish Bolshevik colleagues established the Soviet Union in December of 1922. The next year, Hitler and others within the NSDAP launched a failed coup attempt in Bavaria, leading to his 12-month imprisonment and consequent writing of Mein Kampf. In early 1924, both Lenin and Woodrow Wilson died within a month of each other.

Little of note occurred during the mid to late 1920s. Jewish immigration into the US continued to expand, with their numbers surpassing 4.3 million by 1927. Jews made further inroads into Hollywood; Marcus Loew acquired MGM studios, the Cohn brothers took over at Columbia Broadcasting System, and David Sarnoff founded RKO Pictures. In the political sphere, the Republican and Christian Zionist Herbert Hoover won the presidential election of 1928. And a relatively unknown Democrat, Franklin D. Roosevelt, won the governorship of New York.

From the start, FDR had close and persistent ties to American Jews—ties that would prove decisive to his actions in the Second World War. His running mate in New York was Herbert Lehman, the son of German Jews. (His Republican opponent, Jewish Attorney General Albert Ottinger, failed to draw as many Jewish votes as FDR did, which says something about the strength of FDR’s connection to that group.) Upon assuming the governorship, Roosevelt “filled a number of key positions from the state’s large Jewish population,” according to Shogan (2010: 5). One of his first major appointments was his longtime friend Henry Morgenthau Jr. to the New York State Agriculture Committee. He also named a former speechwriter, Samuel Rosenman, as “counsel to the governor.” Both would play important roles in his presidency.

Other Jews, though, also had an interest in FDR—notably, Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis and his protégé, Harvard lawyer Felix Frankfurter. Even prior to his gubernatorial win in New York, “Brandeis alerted Frankfurter to his eagerness to connect with the man he believed would someday be the nation’s president” (ibid: 72). And indeed, “for the next four years Brandeis was content to rely on Frankfurter to be his conduit to the governor’s chambers in Albany.”

The same election that put Roosevelt in the governor’s seat placed Hoover in the presidency. As I noted earlier, he had long championed Jewish interests. As president, Hoover did his part for the Hebrews, naming Eugene Meyer as Fed Chairman in 1930, and appointing the second Jewish justice, Benjamin Cardozo, to the Supreme Court in March 1932. But by then the Great Depression was well underway, dooming any chance for reelection.

FDR’s Jewish Ancestry?

Before turning to FDR’s long and historic stint as president, I want to recall a question I raised in chapter two: Was Roosevelt Jewish? I noted that Theodore, his fifth cousin, claimed to be Jewish, according to former Michigan governor Chase Osborn. I have yet to find any independent confirmation of this assertion, though there seems to be no reason why Osborn would lie about such a thing. Both were good Republicans, after all. But more to the point, Osborn would have much to say about FDR.

Franklin himself left many clues to a possible Jewish heritage, beginning as far back as 1914. In a letter to a friend upon the birth of his son Franklin Jr., he wrote that he had considered naming him Isaac—a classic Jewish name, and one shared by both his grandfather and great-great-grandfather. But the family resisted: “this name is not met with enthusiasm, especially as the baby’s nose is slightly Hebraic and the family have visions of Ikey Rosenvelt, though I insist it is very good New Amsterdam Dutch”.⁷⁰ For Shogan this is a sign of latent anti-Semitism, but that seems an unlikely excuse. What true anti-Semite would admit that his newborn son looked Jewish? Or would contemplate a Jewish name? More likely it was an inside joke, of the kind that people might say to family or close friends about a particular ethnic heritage within one’s own background.

Twenty years later, another clue. In 1934, now-president FDR gave a photo of himself and Henry Morgenthau to Henry’s wife. It bore this inscription: “For Elinor from one of two of a kind”.⁷¹ Yes, but two of what kind? Democrats? Americans? Jews? An oddly suggestive remark.

That same year saw the publication of an enlightening interview with Osborn, one that would initiate a prolonged discussion on FDR’s heritage. The 8 February 1934 edition of the St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times carried an interview in which Osborn claimed that the Roosevelts were descended from the Rossacampos, a Jewish family expelled from Spain in 1620. That family spread out into Europe and altered their spelling according to the various places where they took root: Rosenberg, Rosenblum, Rosenthal, and in Holland, Rosenvelt. “The Rosenvelts in north Holland finally became Roosevelt,” claimed Osborn—which in fact seems to be true: the family patriarch, Claes van Rosenvelt, immigrated to the US in 1649. His son Nicholas apparently dropped the ‘van’ and changed the spelling to the familiar form.

A small Michigan publication, Civic Echo, picked up and repeated the story soon thereafter. A year later, Jewish journalist and publisher Philip Slomovitz came across the Echo story, and decided to write directly to FDR to get his opinion. On 7 March 1935 the president responded:

I am grateful to you for your interesting letter of March fourth. I have no idea as to the source of the story which you say came from my old friend, Chase Osborn. … In the dim distant past they [the Roosevelts] may have been Jews or Catholics or Protestants—what I am more interested in is whether they were good citizens and believers in God—I hope they were both. (in Slomovitz 1981: 5)

Once again this is a suspiciously circumspect reply by FDR. For him to say that his relatives “may have been Jews” sounds very much as if he knows this truth, does not want to openly acknowledge it, but cannot quite bring himself to lie about it. Slomovitz planned to publish the reply in his Detroit Jewish Chronicle. Before he could do so, the New York Times got wind of it and carried the text in their issue of March 15—on page 1.

Slomovitz passed this reply on to Osborn, who repeated his original assertion in a return letter of March 21: “President Roosevelt knows well enough that his ancestors were Jewish. I heard Theodore Roosevelt state twice that his ancestors were Jewish. Once was to me when I asked him about it after he had made a pleasing euphemistic statement in a speech to a Jewish gathering” (ibid: 6-7). Osborn is adamant. And it’s important to note that he does not take this Jewish heritage as a slur; in fact, quite the opposite. He is evidently a Christian Zionist (and Republican), and thus views it as a redeeming quality. As such, he would likely not cast the Democrat Franklin in this positive light unless he actually believed it to be true. It seems that he was talking from a factual, if unconfirmed, basis.

If Slomovitz was inclined to doubt Osborn’s claim, another letter would soon fortify his belief. On March 27 he received a note from none other than Rabbi Stephen Wise of New York City. Wise had evidently seen the New York Times story, and wrote to confirm it. In his letter he recounts an “almost literal transcript” given to him by his wife, who had previously attended a luncheon with Roosevelt’s wife Eleanor—who said the following: “Often cousin Alice and I say that all the brains in the Roosevelt family comes [sic] from our Jewish great-grandmother” (ibid: 9). She then allegedly added a name, ‘Esther Levy.’ The Alice in question was the oldest child of Theodore; Eleanor’s father Elliot was his brother. Their common great-grandmother would have been either Margaret Barnhill or Martha Stewart—neither of whom appears to be Jewish, unfortunately. And we have no record of any Esther Levy in the Roosevelt lineage. A bit of a mystery.

The letter then takes a little twist. Eleanor continued: “Whenever mention is made of our Jewish great-grandmother by cousin Alice or myself, Franklin’s mother [Sara Delano] gets very angry and says, ‘You know that is not so. Why do you say it?’” Another puzzling remark, and one that Wise leaves unexplained.

Wise closes the letter with his own assessment: that Roosevelt “knows what I [Wise] have just written to be true, but deems it wiser and more expedient not to make any public mention of it at this time.” The letter, after all, was marked “Strictly private and confidential.” Wise adds that “you [Slomovitz] must not, however, make use of this. I think it is just as well to let the matter die down now.” A strange series of comments, to be sure.

Many years later, a final small clue appeared. From the mid 1920s to mid 1930s, Franklin’s daughter Anna was married to a stockbroker named Curtis Dall. After having two children, they divorced in 1934. Three decades later Dall published a book, FDR: My Exploited Father-in-Law (1968). In it we read this sentence: “As I gathered it, the background of the Franklin Roosevelt family was a composite of English, Dutch, Jewish, and French stock” (98). There is no further elaboration.

In the end, many questions remain, but it seems very likely that the Roosevelts were at least in part Jewish.⁷² Perhaps the larger question is this: Does it matter? I believe it does, on two counts. First is the basic matter of historical accuracy; if we did in fact have a partially Jewish president—or rather two such presidents—the history books ought to reflect this reality. Likely other relevant evidence exists in the vast presidential archives, and an open admission might bring this to light.

Second and more important is the possible effect this may have had on FDR’s actions prior to and during World War II. With even a partial Jewish heritage, he would likely have been more sympathetic to the Jewish cause, more amenable to Jews within his administration, and more likely to sacrifice on behalf of Jewish interests. The evidence shows that all these things actually happened—which is precisely why “Franklin Roosevelt was the first great hero of American Jews” (Shogan 2010: xi). The ‘family connection’ would certainly help to explain such things.

Alternatively, and as is often the case today, it could have been strictly a matter of money—of rewarding those who paved one’s way to the top. But perhaps the strongest case is this: that it was a combination of both. If FDR was predisposed by his heritage to be sympathetic to the Jews, and if they also stepped forward to fund his campaigns and support him in the media, these would then be powerful incentives to reward them within his administration, and to be swayed by their concerns when it came to deploying American military power. I examine that case now.

“All the President’s Jews”

The case for a prominent Jewish hand in World War II could be made, if we could show the following:

an extensive and influential Jewish presence in FDR’s administration,

that the US public did not want war,

that influential American Jews did want war,

that FDR acted surreptitiously on behalf of war,

that Jewish-run US media supported war, and

that the US entered the war under false pretenses.

In fact, all of these are true. I will provide specific data on the first two points, and then address the remaining ones collectively.

Earlier I showed Roosevelt’s dependence on Jewish supporters during his gubernatorial term. When it came time to mount a presidential campaign, his old buddies were there to help. As Myron Scholnick (1990: 193) explains, “A number of wealthy Jewish friends contributed to Roosevelt’s prenomination campaign fund: Henry Morgenthau Jr., Lt. Gov. Lehman, Jesse Straus, [and] Laurence Steinhardt.” Once the primaries were out of the way, “Roosevelt’s campaign was heavily underwritten by Bernard Baruch.”

The first rule in politics is to reward those who finance your path to success. Thus it’s unsurprising that “[FDR’s] administration contained a higher proportion of Jews than any other” (Michael 2005: 178). In the words of Robert Herzstein (1989: 40), “Jews were indeed more prominent than ever before in American history.” So who were these leading figures that were so dominant during the Roosevelt years? At the top of the list were the Big 5, the “President’s Jews” as Shogan says, who had the largest hand in swaying events within the presidency: Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, Henry Morgenthau Jr., Sam Rosenman, and Ben Cohen.

Brandeis was, of course, a sitting Supreme Court justice long before Roosevelt ran for office, having been placed there by his friend Woodrow Wilson in 1916. Even prior to his initial election in 1932, FDR arranged a meeting with Brandeis to discuss policy. According to Shogan (2010), the Justice soon sent Roosevelt “a broad blueprint for the New Deal” (72). Some years later, in 1938, “Brandeis made his first call on FDR on behalf of the Jews” (83). Such involvement in government administration by a Supreme Court justice is unusual, to say the least. Others would call it flagrantly unethical. Justices are supposed to rule on constitutional matters, not make policy. He obviously knew this, and thus generally worked through Jewish intermediaries, like Frankfurter and Cohen, to get his message to the president.

On a day-to-day basis, Frankfurter was particularly important. Even by 1933 he had become “probably FDR’s most influential advisor” (ibid: 105). Incensed at the extent of his power, American general Hugh Johnson called him “the most influential single individual in the United States” (86).⁷³ Frankfurter, he said, “had insinuated his boys into obscure but key positions in every vital department” related to the New Deal. Later, when Europe was on the brink of war, Frankfurter was apparently instrumental in initiating a series of secret correspondences between FDR and Churchill at a very sensitive time—neutral presidents are not supposed to be conducting secret negotiations with leaders of belligerent nations.⁷⁴ Frankfurter, as we know, would be well rewarded by Roosevelt for his efforts, with a nomination to the Supreme Court in January 1939.

Moving down the list: Roosevelt “was as close to Henry Morgenthau… as to any man” (ibid: 32). So close, in fact, that Franklin would make him the second Jew ever to join a presidential cabinet; he was named Secretary of the Treasury in early 1934, serving right through the end of the war.⁷⁵ Henry would later author the notorious “Morgenthau Plan”—a policy for the virtual destruction of postwar Germany. This again was an outrageously out-of-line effort by a treasury secretary, who formally has no business conducting foreign policy. But this evidently did not stop him from trying.

The two youngest members of the Big 5 were Rosenman and Cohen. Though serving as a New York state judge, Rosenman also functioned as “FDR’s chief speechwriter and a leading general advisor” (ibid: 9). Ward (1989: 254) notes that he was “a close aide from 1928 onwards”—that is, even before FDR’s governorship. The lawyer Benjamin Cohen became one of the key drafters of Roosevelt’s vital New Deal legislation, which was his lasting economic legacy. He clearly had the president’s ear; David Nasaw (2012: 358) called him the “unofficial emissary of Justice Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter.”

But more importantly, Cohen was the lead architect and executor of the infamous ‘bases for destroyers’ plan of mid to late 1940. At that time Britain was well into the war, and badly needed military assistance from the US. But as a neutral nation, and by law, it was unable to help. Cohen then concocted a plan by which America would “loan” 50 warships to the UK in exchange for the use of certain global bases that they held. “Employing hairsplitting technicalities and unprovable assertions about national defense, [Cohen’s] memorandum stretched the law, creating a loophole wide enough for fifty warships to steam through on their way to join the Royal Navy,” says Shogan (152). Seeking legal approval for this blatantly illegal action, Roosevelt turned to… Justice Frankfurter. And to no one’s surprise, the Justice conferred his blessing. The Brits, of course, were elated. For the Germans, this was a veritable act of war by the nominally neutral Americans. Most fatefully, it seems to have been decisive in causing Hitler to sign a mutual-defense pact with Japan in October 1940; it was this agreement that would trigger Germany’s declaration of war on the United States following the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Beyond the Big 5, several other Jews played influential roles. Bernard Baruch, another Wilsonian holdover, was a part-time financial advisor and “prominent confidant” of both FDR and Churchill.⁷⁶ Jerome Frank was a close aide, as was David Niles. James Warburg, son of Paul, was an early financial advisor. In May of 1934, Eugene Black was named Fed Chairman, and Jesse Straus was appointed ambassador to France—even as his nephew, Nathan Straus Jr., came to head the US Housing Authority. William Bullitt, a quarter-Jew, was given two critical ambassadorships: first to the Soviet Union, and then, during the war, to France.⁷⁷ Laurence Steinhardt, who had helped so much with campaign funding, was awarded a string of ambassadorships throughout FDR’s tenure. Franklin’s old friend Herbert Lehman was appointed head of the new Office of Foreign Relief and Rehabilitation in 1943. Herbert Feis was an influential economics advisor for the State Department. Abe Fortas served as Undersecretary of the Interior. Charles Wyzanski was solicitor general in the Labor Department. Isador Lubin was head of the Bureau of Labor statistics and also FDR’s chief economic advisor. Mordecai Ezekiel was economics advisor to the Agriculture Secretary. David Lilienthal became chairman of the TVA. Other Jews, like Sidney Hillman and Rose Schneiderman, emerged as important advisors on labor matters.

Even some of FDR’s non-Jewish team members had Semitic connections. Long-time Secretary of State Cordell Hull’s wife, Frances Witz, was Jewish. So too was the spouse of New Deal architect and close confidant Harry Hopkins (Ethel Gross). We can be sure that they were sympathetic to the Jewish cause. All in all, one can well understand the motivation of Roosevelt’s critics, who called his administration the “Jew Deal”.⁷⁸ All this gives definitive evidence of an extensive and influential Jewish presence.

On point #2, it’s uncontroversial that Americans overwhelmingly wanted to avoid the war. In a radio address of 23 April 1941, the leading anti-war advocate, Charles Lindbergh, condemned the course of action “to which more than 80 percent of our citizens are opposed.” In an address the month before, Congressman Hamilton Fish stated that “somewhere between 83 and 90 percent of the people, according to the various Gallop polls, are opposed to our entrance into war unless attacked”.⁷⁹ The data supported such claims. According to surveys conducted in June and July 1940, between 81 and 86% of respondents preferred to “stay out” of a war, if it were to come up for a vote.⁸⁰ Another poll in July 1941 registered a 79% figure.⁸¹ The highest recorded number came somewhat earlier, in a report published in mid 1938; when asked “If another war like the World War [I] develops in Europe, should America take part again?,” fully 95% of the respondents replied “No”.⁸² Such figures generally held up right until Pearl Harbor.

The Path to War

The remaining points (#3-6) become clear, I think, simply by stepping through some key events and observations as they happened chronologically.

As is well known, Jews worldwide confronted Hitler as soon as he assumed power in 1933—witness the infamous “Judea Declares War on Germany” headline in the UK’s Daily Express of 24 March 1933. In a sense, this was understandable. Putting an end to a post-World War I Weimar Republic dominated by Jews, Hitler quickly banished them from positions of power, and placed immediate restrictions on their movement and business practices. In fact, one may infer that this was a key element in Germany’s amazing economic renaissance.

But the Western media did not see it this way. As early as April 1933, the New York Times was reporting on the “economic extermination of Jews in Germany” (April 6). Two months later we read, simply, that “Hitler’s program is one of extermination” (June 29). In August, we are shocked to learn that “600,000 Jews are facing certain extinction” (August 16). Here we can graphically see how the ‘extermination’ myth rapidly evolved, from a simple plan of economic exclusion to an implication of mass murder.⁸³

For the Germans, Western—particularly American—media meant Jewish media. As early as 1934, they viewed it as a potential threat. A communiqué by the German ambassador to the US, Hans Luther, observed that America possessed “the strongest Jewish propaganda machine in the world”.⁸⁴ This comment was made in light of Jewish dominance in Hollywood, and the fact that Jews owned two of the major American newspapers, the New York Times and the Washington Post.⁸⁵ Luther’s impression was held by German leadership throughout the war. Goebbels, for example, wrote the following in his diary entry of 24 April 1942: “Some statistics are given to me on the proportion of Jews in American radio, film, and press. The percentage is truly frightening. Jewry controls 100% of the film business, and between 90 and 95% of press and radio”.⁸⁶

By the mid 1930s, Germany was in the midst of an astounding economic recovery, one that was particularly striking given their ruination after World War I, and the fact that it occurred during the Great Depression. Within just his first four years, Hitler had reduced unemployment from 6 million to 1 million; the jobless rate fell from 43.8% when he took office, to effectively zero by the end of 1938. In just four years, he increased GNP by 37%, and oversaw a 400% increase in auto production. In effect, he single-handedly ended the Depression in Germany. Two more years, and the nation would be a world power of the first rank.

Germany thus emerged as a viable competitor to the traditional global powers. Churchill felt particularly threatened. In a congressional testimony, US General Robert Wood recalled a statement by the British politician from 1936: “Germany is getting too strong. We must smash her.”⁸⁷ This suggests a belligerence on Churchill’s part long before any aggressions by Hitler. As we know: it was the UK that declared war on Germany, not vice versa.

In October 1937, Roosevelt gave his famous ‘quarantine’ speech. Here we find one of the first indications, albeit indirect, that he anticipates a time when the US would come into direct conflict with Germany, and he subtly propagandizes the public in favor of war. The danger of Hitler is exaggerated; neutrality and isolation are disparaged; baseless assertions and cautiously conditional statements are thrown out—and all in the language of peace. Should Hitler prevail, “let no one imagine that America will escape, … that this Western Hemisphere will not be attacked.” “There is no escape through mere isolation or neutrality,” he exclaimed; “international anarchy destroys every foundation for peace.” “We are determined to keep out of war,” said FDR, “yet we cannot insure ourselves against the disastrous effects of war and the dangers of involvement.” Sparing no hyperbole, he added that, if Germany initiates a war, “the storm will rage till every flower of culture is trampled and all human beings are leveled in a vast chaos.” This is difficult to read except as an indication that the path of violent confrontation had already been decided upon, and that the long process had begun to persuade a reluctant public that they must support it.

By this time, Jewish lobbies around the world, but especially in the UK and US, began to press hard for military action to intervene on behalf of their beleaguered coreligionists in Nazi Germany, and to once again overthrow a hated regime—never mind that the Germans may have had some right to self-determination. One of the first clear pieces of evidence of this came in early 1938, from the Polish ambassador to the US, Jerzy Potocki. He reported back to Warsaw on his observations of the American political scene:

The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State Department is becoming ever more powerful... The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent. In their definition of democratic states, the Jews have also created real chaos; they have mixed together the idea of democracy and communism, and have above all raised the banner of burning hatred against Nazism.

This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler which wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean of blood. In conversations with Jewish press representatives, I have repeatedly come up against the inexorable and convinced view that war is inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be subdued by the ‘democratic world.’ (February 9)⁸⁸

Such a view is confirmed in a letter by Senator Hiram Johnson (R-Cal.), written to his son that same year. The pro- and anti-war camps were becoming clear: “all the Jews [are] on one side, wildly enthusiastic for the President, and willing to fight to the last American.” Though sympathetic, Johnson had no interest in fighting a war on their behalf. He and other like-minded politicians wanted to speak out, “but everybody is afraid—I confess I shrink from it—of offending the Jews”.⁸⁹ The situation has hardly changed in 75 years.

For his part, Barney Baruch was certainly itching for a fight. Speaking to General George Marshall, he said “We are going to lick that fellow Hitler. He isn’t going to get away with it”.⁹⁰ One wonders how he would know this, in 1938. Actually, it’s not much of a mystery: Churchill apparently told him so. As Sherwood (1948: 111) recounts, Churchill—then still First Lord of the Admiralty—said this to Baruch: “War is coming very soon. We will be in it and you (the United States) will be in it. You (Baruch) will be running the show over there, but I will be on the sidelines over here.” This is an astonishing claim; how would Churchill know such a thing, in 1938? The Anschluss with Austria had been completed in March that year, and Germany annexed the Sudetenland in October, but the Munich Accord was signed in September, nominally preserving a kind of tenuous peace. So what could have convinced Churchill that war was inevitable, and that the Americans would be running the show? Kristallnacht, perhaps? Was that the last straw, for the global Jewish Lobby?⁹¹

Apparently Lord Beaverbrook thought so. Writing to Frank Gannett in December 1938, he made this striking statement:

The Jews are after [Prime Minister] Chamberlain. He is being terribly harassed by them… All the Jews are against him… They have got a big position in the press here [in the UK]… I am shaken. The Jews may drive us into war [and] their political influence is moving us in that direction. (in Nasaw 2012: 357-358)

Beaverbrook was a prominent and influential media executive and politician, rather like the Rupert Murdoch of his day. He was well positioned to make such a claim.

Chapter Six:
THE ONSET OF WAR

The year 1939 opened with FDR’s State of the Union speech—and more veiled threats. “We have learned that God-fearing democracies of the world… cannot safely be indifferent to international lawlessness anywhere. They cannot forever let pass, without effective protest, acts of aggression against sister nations.” He consequently called for an unprecedented peacetime allocation of $2 billion for national defense. A message to Hitler—and to all those Americans who might oppose intervention in European affairs.

Hitler, incidentally, was giving his own speeches, most infamously to the Reichstag on January 30. It included this memorable warning:

If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation [Vernichtung] of the Jewish race in Europe!

Two quick comments: The German word ‘Vernichtung’ has multiple meanings, and in no way requires the killing of the persons in question. The literal meaning—‘to bring to nothing’—more broadly means to completely remove or eliminate the presence, role, or influence of something. And there are many ways to do this short of murder. But more to the point, Hitler’s alleged program of physical extermination was supposedly a great secret. He cannot possibly have told the world, in the most public of venues, of his ‘secret’ plan to kill all the Jews—in early 1939. Clearly he was referring to their displacement from Europe, and to an elimination of their previously dominant role there. But this was no secret at all—he had been doing that in Germany for some six years already.

Back in Washington, Ambassador Potocki sent two more revealing reports to Warsaw. A short statement on January 9 included this remark:

The American public is subject to an ever more alarming propaganda, which is under Jewish influence and continuously conjures up the specter of the danger of war. Because of this, the Americans have strongly altered their views on foreign policy problems, in comparison with last year.

Three days later came the longest and perhaps most insightful report:⁹²

The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing hatred of Fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews, who control almost 100 percent of radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible—above all religious persecution and concentration camps are exploited—this propaganda is nevertheless extremely effective, since the public here is completely ignorant and knows nothing of the situation in Europe. …

The prevalent hatred against everything which is in any way connected with German Nazism is further kindled by the brutal policy against the Jews in Germany and by the émigré problem. In this action, various Jewish intellectuals participated: for instance, Bernard Baruch; the Governor of New York State, Lehman; the newly appointed judge of the Supreme Court, Felix Frankfurter; Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau; and others who are personal friends of President Roosevelt. They want the President to become the champion of human rights, freedom of religion and speech, and the man who in the future will punish trouble-makers. These groups of people, who occupy the highest positions in the American government and want to pose as representatives of ‘true Americanism’ and ‘defenders of democracy,’ are, in the last analysis, connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.

For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the interests of its race, to portray the President of the United States as the ‘idealist’ champion on human rights was a very clever move. In this manner they have created a dangerous hotbed for hatred and hostility in this hemisphere, and divided the world into two hostile camps. The entire issue is worked out in a masterly manner. Roosevelt has been given the foundation for activating American foreign policy, and simultaneously has been procuring enormous military stocks for the coming war, for which the Jews are striving very consciously.

If Potocki were correct, it would mean that war had effectively been decided upon by the Allied powers. And in fact, that’s exactly what Bullitt said to American journalist Karl von Wiegand: “War in Europe has been decided upon. Poland had an assurance of the support of Britain and France, and would yield to no demands from Germany. America would be in the war after Britain and France entered it”.⁹³ Bullitt obviously had inside access to a well-developed plan, one that was proceeding apace.

Further pro-war sentiments in Britain came from their Jewish Secretary of War, Leslie Hore-Belisha. Appointed by Chamberlain in 1937, he quickly came to be seen as spoiling for a fight with Hitler, one that the British were ill-prepared to take on. British MP Oswald Mosley publicly labeled Hore-Belisha “a Jewish warmonger,” and chief of staff Henry Pownall, writing in his diary in May 1939, called him “an obscure, shallow-brained, charlatan, political Jewboy”.⁹⁴ Also in May, Hore-Belisha succeeded in pushing through the first-ever peacetime military draft in the UK; clearly he was expecting war. Conflicts with Chamberlain’s relatively pacifist staff increased, and Hore-Belisha was finally dismissed in January 1940, just four months into WW2.

“World Jewry”

By mid-year, at least one prominent American military man was willing to speak out publicly on the pernicious Jewish influence. Retired general George Moseley had been an outspoken critic of the Hebrews for many years. By early 1939 he could see the pressure building for a global war against Hitler. At a speech in Philadelphia, Moseley said “The war now proposed is for the purpose of establishing Jewish hegemony throughout the world”.⁹⁵ Later he testified before the House Un-American Activities Committee on June 1, arguing that American Jews who were allied to a global Jewish State should be banned from public office and denied the right to vote, along with the loss of other civil rights. This remarkable speech was described in the New York Times (2 June, p. 8). Moseley’s statement “consisted of the usual recountal of a Jewish hegemony throughout the world,” including an explicit reference to “world Jewry.” In the US, “the super-State’s control was exercised through the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, the Jewish Labor Committee, and B’nai B’rith.” Elaborating on the historical link between Judaism and Bolshevism, Moseley is quoted as saying that “the Jews must bring themselves to the realization that the 120 million people composing this nation are not going to be run by Jews, in whole or in part.” In their wisdom, the members of the committee had Moseley’s statement stricken from the record.

In July 1939, Potocki was back in Warsaw, speaking with a foreign ministry undersecretary named Jan Szembek. In his diary, Szembek recorded Potocki as stating the following: “In the West, there are all kinds of elements openly pushing for war: Jews, big capitalists, arms dealers. Now they are all ready for some excellent business… They want to do business at our expense. They are indifferent to the destruction of our country”.⁹⁶ This is notable, if only as confirmation of the legitimacy of the earlier reports.

Around that same time, the American ambassador to Great Britain began to cause a stir. He was a member of the Boston-area Irish Catholic set, a successful businessman… and father of a future president. Joseph Kennedy contributed to Roosevelt’s 1932 presidential campaign, and was rewarded with the chairmanship of the SEC. He left that office in 1935, and was appointed ambassador to the UK in January 1938.

By mid 1939, Kennedy evidently began to have concerns about the Jewish role in the push toward war—and he began to speak openly to his colleagues in London. Somehow word of this got out to a local periodical, The Week, which found its way over the ocean to Washington DC and into the hands of the Secretary of the Interior, Harold Ickes. Convening with the president in early July, Ickes raised his concern: “This [story] was to the effect that Kennedy was privately telling his English friends in the Cliveden set that the Jews were running the United States and that the President would fall in 1940. It also charged that ‘[Kennedy believes] that the democratic policy of the United States is a Jewish production’.”⁹⁷

Amazingly, the president was unfazed. “It is true,” he said. Ickes provides no further information on the incident, and thus it’s hard to know how to take this blunt response. Was FDR joking? A half-joke? An outright, straight-faced admission? We simply don’t know. What was undoubtedly true, though, was that Kennedy had deep concerns about Jewish influence.

He was not the only diplomat with such worries. A month later, reports Taylor (1961: 267), British ambassador to Germany Neville Henderson told Hitler that “the hostile attitude in Great Britain was the work of Jews and enemies of the Nazis.” Here again we see a parallel action on both sides of the Atlantic, and possibly coordinated. This would be consistent with Baruch’s role as a “prominent confidant” of both Roosevelt and Churchill.

A few weeks later, on September 2, the German army crossed into Poland at 5:45 am. What began as part of a long-standing border conflict between two neighboring countries became, two days later, a European war, when England and France declared war on Germany.⁹⁸

England Stands Alone

On September 3, Roosevelt broadcast another of his many fireside chats to the American public. It contained the usual combination of exaggeration, propaganda, and misrepresentation. “When peace has been broken anywhere,” he said, “the peace of all countries everywhere is in danger.” Even one who strives for neutrality “cannot be asked to close his mind or his conscience.” His ending was again cloaked in the hypocritical language of peace:

I hate war. I say that again and again. I hope the United States will keep out of this war. I believe that it will. And I give you assurance and reassurance that every effort of your government will be directed toward that end. As long as it remains within my power to prevent, there will be no black-out of peace in the United States.

Here Roosevelt clearly reveals himself as a dissembler and a liar. Qualifications, conditionals, half-truths—all evidently designed to manipulate public opinion in favor of war. Jews inside and outside his administration had been pressing for intervention for years; now with actual combat underway, the pressure would rapidly escalate. Roosevelt knew this, but said nothing. After all, he was facing another election the following year, and had to publicly maintain an anti-war stance, or risk losing to the Republicans. But he also had to keep his Jewish financiers happy. The fact that the vast majority of the American people were still strongly against the war apparently had no effect upon him; so much for democracy.

Kennedy could see what was happening. He strongly opposed American entry into the war, both on principle and because he had three sons who would likely be drawn in—and indeed, his eldest son, Joe Jr., would be killed during a bombing run in 1944. Speaking to his colleague Jay Moffat, Kennedy said, “Churchill… wants us there as soon as he can get us there. He is ruthless and scheming”⁹⁹—unsurprising, given that the Brits found themselves in a war that they were ill-prepared to fight. But Churchill knew whom to approach: “He is also in touch with groups in America which have the same idea, notably, certain strong Jewish leaders.”

Not that this was a secret. In chapter three I cited a December 1939 memo to the British cabinet, in which Churchill recalled the vital role played by the Jews back in World War One—to draw in the Americans, against their wishes, against their desires, and against their national interests. “It was not for light or sentimental reasons,” wrote Churchill, that Balfour issued his famous promise of Palestine to the Zionists. “The influence of American Jewry was rated then as a factor of the highest importance… ” “Now,” he added, “I should have thought it was more necessary, even than in November 1917, to conciliate American Jewry and enlist their aid in combating isolationist and indeed anti-British tendencies in the United States”.¹⁰⁰

Here we have an amazingly bald-faced admission. Churchill has utter contempt for the “tendencies” (read: democratic principles) of the Americans. His sole concern is to leverage Jewish power to draw a neutral nation into yet another major war, to save his skin and to aid his Zionist friends.¹⁰¹ Kennedy was naturally appalled—both that Churchill would do such a thing, and that it seemed to be working. “I don’t trust him,” he wrote in his diary; “He always impressed me that he was willing to blow up the American Embassy and say it was the Germans if it would get the United States in”.¹⁰² No doubt that was true—just as FDR would be willing to sacrifice some 2,400 American lives at Pearl Harbor, for precisely that end.

Into 1940, Hitler ran off an impressive string of victories, culminating in the capture of Paris in June. Chamberlain resigned as prime minister, to be replaced by Churchill, who immediately initiated the ‘bases for destroyers’ plan with the US (as explained above). Even so, things were looking grim for the Brits. By late in the year, they were once again, just as in 1917, looking for help from “world Jewry.” In fact they would go so far as to promise to the Jews a “new world order” that would be favorable to their interests. In October, a likely Jewish member of Churchill’s War Cabinet, Arthur Greenwood, sent a message to the American Zionists. “[He] assured the Jews of the United States that when victory was achieved, an effort would be made to found a new world order based on the ideals of ‘justice and peace’.” Greenwood stated that “the conscience of civilized humanity demands that the wrongs suffered by the Jewish people in so many countries should be righted.” After the war, “an opportunity would be given to Jews everywhere” to aid in “rebuilding the world.” Stephen Wise rightly compared it to the Balfour Declaration of 1917, though with “wider and farther reaching implications” because it “dealt with the status of Jews throughout the world”.¹⁰³ All in all, a striking statement by the British, one that betrayed their desperation.

For his part, Roosevelt continued to lie to the American public. His campaign address in Boston on October 30 contained the same deceptive falsehoods of his earlier speeches. “Your government has acquired new naval and air bases in British territory in the Atlantic Ocean”—but no mention of the extralegal 50 destroyers that he gave them in return. He boasted of doubling the size of the army within the past year, and of letting out $8 billion in defense contracts. But do not worry, fellow Americans—“I give you one more assurance. I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars.” An utter lie, and he knew it.

One is perhaps tempted to make excuses for FDR: that he was morally torn, that he could see a larger danger that the public could not see, that he had to lie to us ‘for our own good.’ None of these withstands scrutiny. The ethics of warfare are fairly well established, at least for nominal democracies. They would include, at a minimum: proportionality, mutuality, direct threat, and public support. That is, (a) any aggressions should be responded to only with equivalent force, (b) rules for one party hold for all, (c) force is justified only in the face of a direct and imminent threat, and (d) the public must be given an honest appraisal of the situation, and its wishes respected. Suffice it to say that none of these conditions would hold. One wonders: If the public had known of the ultimate cost—some 420,000 American deaths, and roughly $4.2 trillion (present-day equivalent)—would they have embraced war, even after Pearl Harbor? Or would they perhaps have put FDR and his Jewish supporters on trial, for fraud, treason, and war crimes?

By October, Joe Kennedy had enough; he resigned his post. But he continued to comment on the role of the Jews, both to friends and in his private writings. On December 15, for example, he made this diary entry:

[Justice Frankfurter] is supposed directly and indirectly to influence Roosevelt on foreign policy over [Secretary of State] Hull’s and [Undersecretary of State] Welles’s heads, [and] whose cohort of young lawyers are in practically every government department, all aiding the cause of Jewish refugees getting into America… It looks to me as if the English sympathizers were tying their cause in with the Jews because they figure they’ve got all the influence in US. (in Nasaw 2012: 507)

Jewish population in the US, incidentally, was soon to reach 5 million. Frankfurter’s boys were doing a good job.

As before, Kennedy was not alone in his concern. Another Supreme Court justice, Frank Murphy, confided to him that “it was Frankfurter and Ben Cohen who wrote the Attorney General’s opinion on destroyers and bases.” Kennedy added: “Murphy regards the Jewish influence as most dangerous. He said that after all, [Harry] Hopkins’s wife was a Jew; Hull’s wife is a Jew; and Frankfurter and Cohen and that group are all Jews” (in ibid.). For his part, Welles privately referred to Frankfurter as “dangerous” and “a Jew chiseler.”

One of the most revealing remarks by Kennedy comes from the diary of James Forrestal, who at the time was Secretary of the Navy. In the entry from 27 December 1945, we read this:

Played golf today with Joe Kennedy… . He said Chamberlain’s position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight, and that she could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy’s view: That Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England, if it had not been for Bullitt’s urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war, if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington… . Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war. (Forrestal 1951: 121-122)

So, we must ask: Why was the partly Jewish Bullitt—a mere diplomat—“urging” the president of the United States to face down Hitler? And why were Bullitt and Roosevelt “constantly needling” England and France to fight a war that they themselves did not see as necessary or winnable? And why did these nations succumb to American pressure? And why did Chamberlain ultimately link together America and “the world Jews” as the driving force for war? We need not look very hard to see a Jewish hand at work.

Media Blitz

Jewish-run media was becoming very active by this time. The newspapers, for example, had found much disagreement with Washington on domestic issues, but “Roosevelt’s standing with the press on foreign policy matters was much stronger,” according to Wayne Cole (1983: 478). Apart from the Chicago Tribune and the Hearst papers, most dailies backed intervention. Unsurprisingly, “the more prestigious and influential news publications strongly supported the president.” These included the New York Times, the New York Herald Tribune, the Chicago Daily News, and Time Magazine.

The motion picture industry certainly did its part to get America into war. Given that it took at least a year to get a motion picture from conception to theater, and that efforts to produce pro-war films did not start in earnest until 1937, it was well into 1939 before they began to appear. Early efforts like Confessions of a Nazi Spy and Beasts of Berlin came out that year, and set the stage for a flood of films over the next three years. In 1940, Hollywood released graphic and high-impact films like Escape and Mortal Storm; Hitchcock’s Foreign Correspondent came out that year, as did Chaplin’s The Great Dictator. In May, two major studio heads, Jack and Harry Warner—otherwise known as Itzhak and Hirsz Wonskolaser—wrote to Roosevelt, assuring him that they would “do all in our power within the motion picture industry… to show the American people the worthiness of the cause for which the free peoples of Europe are making such tremendous sacrifices”.¹⁰⁴ It’s nice to see such unselfish, high-minded public service amongst corporate executives.

By early 1941, Jewish filmmakers and producers were working subtle, pro-war themes into many of their films. The anti-war group America First argued that belligerent propaganda was becoming widespread; “films that have nothing to do with the European war are now loaded with lies and ideas which bring about an interventionist reaction” (in Cole: 474). In August of that year—four months before Pearl Harbor—Senator Gerald Nye (R-N.D.) delivered a stinging radio address, arguing that the Hollywood studios “had become the most gigantic engines of propaganda in existence, to rouse the war fever in America and plunge this nation to her destruction” (in ibid: 475). By that time, nearly three dozen major pro-war films had been released.¹⁰⁵

In the end, more than 60 explicitly ‘patriotic,’ pro-war films were produced, along with dozens of ordinary films that incorporated subtle pro-war messages. There were a few classics—Casablanca, Sergeant York, To Be or Not to Be—and many duds. Hitler’s Children and Nazi Agent, for example, won’t be making any Top 10 lists.

In March of 1941, under pressure from the Jewish Lobby, Congress passed the Lend-Lease Act, which allowed shipment of armaments and military supplies to Britain and the other Allied nations. The vote was 260-165 in the House, and 59-30 in the Senate. Public opinion was narrowly in favor of the Act, but only as a defensive measure; a strong majority still wished to stay out of the war. FDR could arm the Allies but not join the fighting.

Roosevelt made a major radio address in May, declaring an “unlimited national emergency.” It was filled with more war hyperbole, most notably regarding the Germans’ alleged striving toward “world domination.” Over and over came the words: “Nazi book of world conquest”; “Hitler’s plan of world domination”; “a Hitler-dominated world”.¹⁰⁶ Suffice to say that no evidence of such a plan has ever come forth.¹⁰⁷ Deploying the most facile, us-or-them language, FDR struggled to persuade reluctant Americans that they should fight and die: “Today the whole world is divided between human slavery and human freedom—between pagan brutality and Christian ideal.” He even hinted at the essentials of his strategy, namely, to provoke an ‘incident’ that would allow him to declare war: “We are placing our armed forces in strategic military position. We will not hesitate to use our armed forces to repel attack.”

In June, convinced of the Bolshevist threat posed by Stalin, Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. In August, the US placed military forces in Iceland, effectively occupying that country. And on 11 September 1941—60 years to the day before that other 9/11—Charles Lindbergh gave his most famous speech, at Des Moines, Iowa. There he called out, for the first time, the three main groups that were driving the US toward war: the British, the Roosevelt administration, and the Jews. Of this latter group, Lindbergh acknowledged their plight under the Nazis, and their hatred of Hitler. But instead of inciting America to war, he said, they should be working to halt it; “for they will be among the first to feel its consequences”—presumably meaning both in Germany and in the US, where anti-Semitism would surely be inflamed. In one of the more notable lines of the speech, he said “[The Jews’] greatest danger in this country lies in their large ownership and influence in our motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our government.” Lindbergh thus ran afoul of the first rule of wartime: Thou shalt never speak the truth.

Indeed: If Jewish influence in “our government” was part of the danger, then naming the “Roosevelt administration” was redundant. The true danger was Jews in media, Jews in Hollywood, and Jews in the government—along with those non-Jews who worked on their behalf. And even to name the British—Churchill and his Zionist backers—was, in effect, to name yet more Jews. On all fronts, it was powerful and influential Jews driving peaceful people toward war, in order to destroy the hated Nazi regime—hated simply because they sought a nation free of Jewish influence.

There is no doubt that Lindbergh was right—that British Jews were pushing the US toward war, and that they were succeeding. In a strange coincidence, just one day before Lindbergh’s Des Moines speech, leading British Zionist Chaim Weizmann delivered his notorious letter to Churchill. I cited it at the end of chapter three, but I repeat it here for emphasis:

There is only one big ethnic group [in America] which is willing to stand, to a man, for Great Britain, and a policy of “all-out aid” for her: the five million Jews. From Secretary Morgenthau, Governor Lehman, Justice Frankfurter, down to the simplest Jewish workman or trader, they are conscious of all that this struggle against Hitler implies. … It has been repeatedly acknowledged by British Statesmen that it was the Jews who, in the last war, effectively helped to tip the scales in America in favour of Great Britain. They are keen to do it—and may do it—again. (in Irving 2001: 77)

A most explicit admission: American Jews, working in conjunction with British Jews, hold the key to war. They are “keen to do it.” Virtually upon command, they can “tip the scales”—again—and drive the Americans into another war that they desperately wanted to avoid.

The Pearl Harbor “Incident”

With American opposition to war still hovering near 80%, FDR and his Jewish team were evidently becoming desperate. Dramatic action was increasingly necessary. At that point, only a direct attack on American soil could alter public opinion. For a good two years, Roosevelt had been harassing the Germans, but they refused to bite. What to do?

History is full of ‘false flag’ operations in which governments or other actors conduct a fake attack, blame the enemy, and then use the event as a pretext for military action. By some accounts, the earliest was in 47 BC, when Julius Caesar arranged and paid for insurgent ‘rebel’ actions in Rome prior to his taking of the city. A more recent instance occurred in 1846, when President James Polk sent an army detachment into a disputed area along the Texas-Mexico border. When the Mexicans responded, he declared it an attack on “American soil,” and promptly began the US-Mexico War. For centuries, military commanders have understood the benefits of false flags; Roosevelt’s team was no different.

Though I cannot elaborate here, there is ample evidence that the Pearl Harbor attack was effectively a false flag event. While obviously not directly conducting the attack, Roosevelt did everything possible to encourage and allow the Japanese to strike—and then to feign shock when it actually happened. Below are the key elements of that story.¹⁰⁸

The earliest explicit indication that some such plan was in the works comes from October 1940, in the so-called McCollum Memorandum. Lt. Commander Arthur McCollum was director of the Office of Naval Intelligence’s Far East Asia section, when he issued a five-page letter to two of his superiors. The memo describes a situation in which a neutral US is surrounded by hostile nations across two oceans, and notes that “Germany and Italy have lately concluded a military alliance with Japan directed against the United States.” This was a mutual-defense pact, such that an attack against Japan would be considered by Germany to be an act of war. This gave FDR two paths to war: attack by Germany, or attack by Japan. Germany was scrupulously eschewing conflict, but perhaps Japan could be engaged.

This was evidently well understood within the military establishment. As McCollum explained, “It is not believed that in the present state of political opinion, the US government is capable of declaring war against Japan without more ado; and it is barely possible that vigorous action on our part might lead the Japanese to modify their attitude”—clever language that essentially means: Japan does not really want war either, but perhaps we could provoke them enough (“more ado”) that they would launch a first strike (“modify their attitude”). McCollum then suggested an eight-point action plan, anticipating conflict with Japan. Item Six includes this: “Keep the main strength of the US fleet now in the Pacific in the vicinity of the Hawaiian Islands.” The memo concludes with this striking sentence: “If by these means Japan could be led to commit an overt act of war, so much the better.” The plan could hardly be clearer.

On 19 August 1941, Churchill told his war cabinet that FDR was doing all he could to provoke an attack by the Axis powers—information which came to light only in 1972. Churchill said:¹⁰⁹

[Roosevelt] was obviously determined that they [the US] should come in. … The president said to me that he would wage war but not declare it, and that he would become more and more provocative. If the Germans did not like it, they could attack American forces. … Everything was being done to force an ‘incident.’ The president has made it clear that he would look for an ‘incident’ which could justify him in opening hostilities.

Further comment is unnecessary.

Lindbergh essentially understood what was going on. In the closing portion of his September 1941 speech, he laid out FDR’s three-part plan: (1) prepare for war in the guise of defense, (2) incrementally involve the US in conflict situations, and (3) “create a series of incidents which would force us into actual conflict.” Near the end of his speech he added that “The war groups have succeeded in the first two of their three major steps into war. … Only the creation of sufficient ‘incidents’ yet remains.” An amazing prognosis, given that the Pearl Harbor attack was just three months away.

On 25 November 1941, 12 days before the attack, Roosevelt held a War Cabinet meeting at the White House. Secretary of War Henry Stimson wrote the following in his diary of that day:¹¹⁰

[Roosevelt] brought up the event that we were likely to be attacked perhaps next Monday [December 1], for the Japanese are notorious for making an attack without warning, and the question was how we should maneuver them into the position of firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves. It was a difficult proposition.

This is Stimson’s infamous “maneuver” remark; once again, it is clear and explicit.

The following day, November 26, Secretary of State Hull presented a letter to the Japanese ambassador, demanding that they withdraw from China and French Indochina (section II, point #3). Though couched in the language of peace, it was effectively an ultimatum, and it was thusly perceived by the Japanese prime minister.

On December 4, the anti-war paper Chicago Daily Tribune ran a huge headline: “FDR’s War Plans!” It detailed a plan for a 10-million-man military force, half of whom would be dedicated to fighting Germany. It even mentioned a specific date—1 July 1943—as the day for the “final supreme effort by American land forces to defeat the mighty German army in Europe.” This turned out to be incredibly accurate; the Allied invasion of Sicily, the first direct assault on European territory, occurred on 9 July 1943. Clearly FDR’s secrets were quickly unraveling.

At 4:00 pm on Saturday, December 6, a decoded Japanese communiqué was delivered to Roosevelt. It indicated that Japan was not going to accept any portion of America’s ultimatum, and that they were compelled to respond to its on-going belligerence. “This means war,” said the president. Commerce Secretary Harry Hopkins was concerned; if war was inevitable, he said, it was too bad that we couldn’t strike first. “No, we can’t do that,” said Roosevelt, hypocritically; “We are a democracy of a peaceful people. We have a good record. We must stand on it”.¹¹¹ Pearl Harbor was not explicitly mentioned, but the president took no action to forewarn any of his commanders in the Pacific theater, thus rendering them defenseless before the oncoming assault.

Eight years after the attack, the president’s administrative assistant, Jonathan Daniels, recalled events of that time. “There was a mass of warning before Pearl Harbor,” he wrote (1949: 490). “As a matter of fact, warning had been clear for many months before Pearl Harbor. The increasing menace had been understood and accepted. Of course, even Senators can now read to precise clarity—to the place and the hour—the warnings we possessed.” At the time, though, Roosevelt was surprised: “Of course, he was surprised. But he had deliberately taken the chance of surprise, as he had won the strategy of successful militant delay. The blow was heavier than he had hoped it would necessarily be.” Indeed—2,400 Americans killed in one day.

Or perhaps it was no “surprise” at all. In 1989, a 90-year-old British naval intelligence officer named Eric Nave came forth with a stunning assertion: that the Brits had detailed foreknowledge of the attack, days before the event. As reported in the Times of London (June 1), Nave’s decoding of Japanese battle commands made “clear their intention to attack several days before the raid took place.” “His revelations challenge the view that the Americans were taken by surprise, and support evidence that Churchill, and probably Roosevelt, allowed the attack to go ahead unchallenged as means to bring America into the Second World War.” Nave added this: “We never had any doubt about Pearl Harbor itself. It should never have happened. We knew days, even a week before.” His account is detailed in his book Betrayal at Pearl Harbor (1991). Nave died in 1993, his story unacknowledged.

Funding the War

Wars are not only deadly; they are expensive. Once American Jews managed to persuade the US to enter the war, the government had to figure out how to pay for it. War bonds were one option, but those would cover perhaps half of the necessary expenditures. Taxes would have to be raised—in particular, income tax. Few people realize that, prior to WW2, Americans paid almost no income tax. Such tax was reserved only for the richest few; Benjamin Ginsberg (2013: 57) states that “prior to the New Deal… only about 3 percent of American adults were subject to tax.” But by 1940, with Roosevelt gearing up for war, more income was needed, and fast.

Who to turn to? Ginsberg tells us: “In the realms of both taxation and bond sales, Jews played major roles.” The Treasury Department was of course run by Morgenthau, and he naturally had a team of Jewish economists and bureaucrats at his disposal: Jacob Viner, Walter Salant, Herbert Stein, and a young Milton Friedman, among others. They determined that voluntary tax payments would be insufficient, so they decided to construct a scheme by which income tax would be involuntarily paid. “A number of Jewish economists… championed the introduction of payroll withholding, or ‘collection at the source’”—a system that remains in place to the present day. By taking the tax from the citizen’s employer every payday, this insured not only mandatory payment but steady revenue year-round. This, combined with a general lowering of the income threshold regarding who had to pay tax, dramatically increased the tax rolls and revenue. The original 1 million or so US taxpayers increased to 3 million in 1940 and 5 million in 1941. Once the US was at war in late 1941, the Jewish economists radically lowered the threshold even more, bringing the number of taxpayers to 40 million in 1942. As a result, revenues soared. In 1940, income tax revenue was just $1 billion, but by 1945 it was at $40 billion.

This might have been justifiable during the war, but any honest government would phase out such extraordinary taxation once the war was over. But not Roosevelt’s (now Truman’s) team. The new withholding tax and lowered thresholds worked so well that they couldn’t quite bring themselves to let it go. It has now grown to the point where income and employee-paid “social security” taxes account for about 65% of US federal revenue, which means that around $2.2 trillion is raised by combined personal income taxes (of the total revenue of some $3.3 trillion annually). This, of course, allows the US to allocate more than $1 trillion per year for total defense and military spending.

Need we ask who the current Secretary of Treasury is? As of this writing, it is Steven Mnuchin. Prior secretaries of the past 10 years were, in reverse order: Adam Szubin, Jacob Lew, Neal Wolin, Tim Geithner, and Stuart Levey. All except Wolin—who served only 30 days—are Jewish.¹¹²

Chapter Seven:
SOME REFLECTIONS ON WW2

Thus came a second ‘great war,’ barely two decades after the end of the previous one. We know its story: rapid German advances to the west and east, the taking of Paris, the horrible winter of 1942/43 at Stalingrad, German retreat, and ultimately defeat in May 1945. This is not to mention the many atrocities in the Far East, culminating in the two atomic bombings of Japan in August 1945. In the end, approximately 60 million people died as a direct result of the war, more than half in just two countries (Soviet Union and China).

How did the Jews fare? On the one hand, millions of them were caught in the central war zones in Europe, and they claim 6 million casualties in the Holocaust (more on this shortly). On the other hand, the nations most favorable to their interests—the United States, the UK, and France—emerged victorious. Jews achieved their long-desired Jewish state in Palestine, when the UN passed resolution 181 in November 1947. And they destroyed the hated Nazi regime. Ultimately, with decisive influence in the victorious nations, especially America, the stage was set for tremendous gains in Jewish wealth and power in the subsequent decades. By 2003, Malaysian president Mahathir Mohamad could state that “Today the Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them”.¹¹³ All in all, not a bad deal.

Regarding World War Two, we return to our original question: Did the Jews cause the war? This in turn leads to other nagging questions: What if Jewish rebels and Weimar reconstructionists had not dominated post-World War I Germany? What if Roosevelt had not been partly Jewish? What if he had not relied upon Jewish money to finance his campaigns? What if Churchill had not been a Zionist? What if Ben Cohen’s ‘bases-for-destroyers’ plan had failed? We obviously can never know these things; but it’s clear that Jews were active and instrumental at several critical junctures on the path to war. And indeed, this is one of the most striking facts: that Jews were so active, at so many points along the way, that we can scarcely avoid attributing to them a large portion of blame for the Second World War.

What about that central figure, Franklin Delano Roosevelt? For the most part, he comes off, rather like Woodrow Wilson, as an amoral, opportunistic, war-mongering dupe. His own Secretary of War, Henry Stimson, wrote that “his mind does not follow easily a consecutive chain of thought, but he is full of stories and incidents, and hops about in his discussions from suggestion to suggestion, and it is very much like chasing a vagrant beam of sunshine around a vacant room”.¹¹⁴ Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously declared him “a second-class intellect” in 1933. His close advisor Frankfurter once wrote, “I know his limitations. Most of them derive, I believe, from a lack of incisive intellect… ”¹¹⁵ British ambassador to the US Sir Ronald Lindsay considered FDR “an amiable and impressionable lightweight,” one who couldn’t keep a secret from the American press.¹¹⁶ Even his own wife Eleanor didn’t know “whether FDR had a hidden center to his personality or only shifting peripheries”.¹¹⁷

His lies were persistent, malicious, and criminal. His more knowledgeable opponents could see through them, even if the public could not. Lindbergh certainly knew the truth, and was appalled at the ability of our executive-in-chief to baldly lie to the people. In late 1944, with hostilities nearing an end, Congresswoman Clare Boothe Luce (R-Con.) loudly and publicly declared that Roosevelt “lied us into war”.¹¹⁸ “The shame of Pearl Harbor,” she added, “was Mr. Roosevelt’s shame.”

In Wilson and FDR we see the beginnings of a long-term trend: Unethical, unprincipled, deceptive American presidents, who are “swayed by their Jewish elements” (Dillon), to lead an unwilling nation into battle against sovereign countries that are deemed to be enemies of the Jews. The pattern continued with Lyndon Johnson, George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump, at a minimum.

Hitler was certainly convinced that Jews were ultimately responsible for the war, and he said so on many occasions. He knew his history, and understood the grave nature of the Jewish threat. This, in part, is why he consistently advocated a removal of Jews from the Reich. Consider the situation he was facing. When Hitler came to power in 1933, there were about 500,000 Jews in Germany, representing 0.75% of the total German population of 67 million. One third of the Jewish total—or about 160,000—resided in Berlin, where they comprised roughly 3.8% of the city. The Jewish presence was thus much greater in the capital than elsewhere in the Reich.

Correspondingly, Jews held dominant positions in Berlin at that time, as they had for decades. At the beginning of chapter two, I cited a number of figures from a recent book by Sarah Gordon. But back in 1940, historian Arthur Bryant also documented an array of relevant statistics. By year, Jews accounted for the following:¹¹⁹

1924: 

nearly 25% of SDP representatives in the Reichstag.

1930: 

1200 of 1474 members of the stock exchange.

1931: 

57% of metal trade,

22% of grain trade,

39% of textile trade,

51% of members of Berlin Chamber of Commerce,

23 of 29 theater directors,

119 of 144 film script writers.

1932:

42% of Berlin doctors,

48% of Berlin lawyers,

15 of 44 law professors,

118 of 265 medical professors.

Such figures are confirmed by other contemporaneous observations. Writing in his diary on 4 July 1933, US ambassador to Germany William Dodd (1941: 10) recalled a comment by former Wilson aide Edward House: “The Jews should not be allowed to dominate economic or intellectual life in Berlin, as they have done for a long time.” Two months later, Dodd himself wrote to a friend that the Germans “had a serious [Jewish] problem but they did not know how to solve it. The Jews held a great many more of the key positions in Germany than their numbers or their talents entitled them to”.¹²⁰ Even Roosevelt, of all people, recognized this problem. In late 1942, he made a comment to a French general regarding

the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore toward the Jews in Germany, namely, that while they represented a single part of the population, over 50% of the lawyers, doctors, school teachers, college professors, etc. in Germany were Jews. (in Michael 2005: 186)

A rough estimate, to be sure, but basically in line with the figures shown above. With such disproportionate dominance, and knowing the dangers posed by Jews, Hitler was clearly justified in acting to remove them from his nation. It would have been irresponsible to do any less.

But the objection comes: What about the Holocaust? Doesn’t that great evil justify the war, no matter the cost? That’s why they call it “the Good War”—because we defeated the monster Hitler and his hated Nazi regime. Wasn’t the war worth it?

This requires some elaboration. What in fact did the Nazis do to the Jews? Their stated aim, from the very beginning, was to push them out of the Reich; in other words, ethnic cleansing. This practice has been widespread among human societies for millennia. It was a practical consequence of the basic human right of self-determination. Today, ethnic cleansing has a negative connotation primarily because of the role of Jewish media and intellectuals—and the support of those non-Jewish leftists who are ideological compatriots. For Jews, ethnic cleansing is an evil; it means the potential end of their social and economic prominence. For the rest of us, it’s merely a matter of national self-defense.¹²¹

Hitler systematically pushed the Jews out of economic and public life. In chapter five I cited the cries of “extermination”—which was none other than this very process of exclusion. But it was a slow process, and far from “total annihilation” as alleged. Even into early 1938, roughly 10% of all practicing lawyers in Germany were Jews. As late as November 1938, they still owned “about one-third of all real estate in Germany”.¹²² According to Goebbels himself, there were still 76,000 Jews in Berlin as late as August 1941. If they were suffering, it clearly wasn’t that bad.

But were the Jews really a threat? Hitler certainly thought they were—on three fronts. First, internally: According to the statistics cited above, Jews were, at a minimum, disproportionately influential; at worst, they monopolized and corrupted certain major sectors of German society. Second, to the west: Jewish-oriented Western “international capitalism,” which lives on interest-loans and thereby draws all borrowers into financial slavery, threatened to further bankrupt Germany as it did in the aftermath of WWI. Third, to the east: Jewish-oriented Bolshevism, as formalized in the Soviet Union, was a mortal threat.¹²³ Hitler was facing Jewish threats left, right, and center; he was fully justified in acting as he did.

It’s a striking and little-known ideological fact that capitalism and Marxism have much in common: both are secular, both are materialist, and both are heavily Jewish. Hitler was right to see that the problem is not capital per se, but rather international, “stock-exchange,” finance capital—that which exists strictly to produce profits rather than to benefit society. National capital, based on productive labor, allows an economy to prosper at the service of the people; international capital, based on speculation and loan-interest, serves only to benefit the rich few—in practice, the rich Jew. Because they are fundamentally strangers wherever they reside, Jews have no true interest in the flourishing of the local nation or culture; they can only work to maximize personal profit. And thanks to their self-appointed sense of superiority—dating back at least to the Old Testament—they have little regard for non-Jewish welfare or suffering. Hence the ruthless, competitive, cutthroat nature of free-market capitalism that so dominates Western life. This in itself is a leading factor in war.

Hitler thought strictly in terms of national interests, national culture, and national values. Thus for him, Jewish capitalism and Jewish Marxism posed equal threats of ‘annihilation.’ Jews had long been waging war against the German people; he was simply fighting back. Hitler’s plan was therefore clear: to cleanse the Reich of Jews, and then to isolate the economy from international finance capitalism. Only this could allow the German people to flourish.

For twelve spectacular years, it succeeded. Hitler took a ruined and demoralized nation, applied the basic principles of National Socialism, and succeeded—beyond what anyone thought possible. From the start, it was Hitler’s success that posed the greatest threat, not his military might. From the Jewish perspective, no anti-Semitic nation must be allowed to prosper; this would set the worst possible example, and could precipitate their decline elsewhere. Therefore Hitler had to be stopped. In the end, and only at the constant prodding of the Jews, it took the collective firepower of much of the industrialized world to bring him down.

Driving out the Jews was an essential aspect of National Socialism, but nothing demanded that they be killed. And in fact we have little evidence that many Jews died prior to the outbreak of war in September 1939. Even the vaunted Kristallnacht ended with only some 100 Jewish deaths. Only with the onset of war did measures against Jews become much harsher, and many began to die. But that was an incidental outcome; the main objective was always simply to purify the Reich.

Goebbels himself stated as much, dozens of times in his own personal diary. In his entry of 25 July 1938, he wrote, “We [he and Hitler] discuss the Jewish Question… The main thing is that the Jews are pushed out. In 10 years they must be removed from Germany.” On 18 December 1941, he said, “The Jews should all be pushed off to the East. We are not very interested in what becomes of them after that.” On 7 March 1942, just as the alleged “death camps” Belzec and Sobibor were beginning to operate,¹²⁴ he wrote:

The Jewish Question must be solved within a pan-European frame. There are 11 million Jews still in Europe. They will have to be concentrated later, to begin with, in the East; possibly an island, such as Madagascar, can be assigned to them after the war.

On 15 March 1943, when all the alleged “death camps” were up and running, he stated to Hitler “once more that I deemed it essential to force the Jews out of the entire Reich as fast as possible. He approved, and ordered me not to cease or pause until no Jew is left anywhere in Germany.” Over and over again, this is all we read: expulsion, evacuation, removal. Not once, over the course of eight long years, do we read in his diaries of gas chambers, death camps, or mass killings—not once. Goebbels had no reason to lie to himself; all that he and Hitler ever wanted was a Germany for the Germans.¹²⁵

What about the alleged 6 million Jews who were killed? Anyone who objectively studies the question realizes that this was a purely symbolic figure, one that had its origin in reactions to the Russian persecutions of the late 1800s. Even if Hitler had actually wanted to kill every Jew in the Reich, it would have been technically impossible in the manner claimed. Gas chambers operating on Zyklon-B or carbon monoxide could not have killed more than a few percent of the alleged numbers, in the time allowed. Furthermore, the body-disposal problem would have been enormous. And clear evidence of mass murder would have remained, when in fact there is virtually none. Such problems pose insurmountable difficulties for the traditional story. In the end, the best rational estimates suggest that something like 500,000 Jews died at the hands of the Nazis—about 10% of the claimed figure, and a mere 1% or less of overall war fatalities.¹²⁶

More surprising still is the fact that not even this many would have died, had England, France, and the US not come into the war, at the behest of the Jews. Hence one of the great ironies of history: the Jews likely caused their own ‘Holocaust.’ If they had simply yielded to public demand in Germany and left the country—a country where they were ethnic strangers—they could have avoided the deaths of several hundred thousand of their number, and a global catastrophe could have been averted. If American and British Zionists could have accepted the fact that a Jew-free nation has a right to exist, there would have been no war. But as I have said, they couldn’t accept this; it would have betrayed their own detrimental influence on the lives of nations. Thus they had to attack. They had no choice. For Jews worldwide, it was a matter of life or death.

Chapter Eight:
CLOSING THOUGHTS

Such is the story of the Jewish hand in the world wars. How do traditional writers and academics deal with these troublesome issues? In short, they deploy a variety of well-worn tactics to avoid addressing the truth. These include:

Red herrings—to distract the reader by moving the discussion in an unproblematic direction;

Ad hominem fallacies—to disparage or demonize critics in an attempt to undermine their position, ideally without addressing the facts of the matters at hand;

Half-truths—to avoid outright lies, but to tell any number of partial truths in order to paint a one-sided view of reality;

The ‘race/religion gambit’—to refer to Jews as a religious category rather than a race; this allows one, for example, to insist that Roosevelt was “a Protestant,” thus conveniently bypassing the question of his ethnic Jewishness;

Implicit assumptions—to treat as obvious, for example, that every Jewish concern is legitimate, that Jews are always the innocent victims, that they deserve special treatment, and that their interests are without question paramount;

Unjustified assertions—to make categorical, baseless claims and then treat them as self-evident truths; and finally, when all else fails,

Silence—to ignore the critics and the more inconvenient facts.

Given all this, it’s nearly impossible to learn the truth. The average person has little ability to sift through the relevant arguments, and so he takes for granted the ‘majority’ view. He furthermore likely has little feeling for the massive degree of Jewish duplicity at work, and thus naively assumes that most of what is put forth is true, or at least mostly true.

Those who study history know better. There is a reason that Seneca called the Jews “an accursed race.” There is a reason that Tacitus decried their legendary “hatred of the human race.” There is a reason that Voltaire described them as “cringing in misfortune, insolent in prosperity”; indeed, that they would “someday become deadly to the human race.” There is a reason that Kant called them “a nation of deceivers.” There is a reason that Mommsen referred to Judaism as “an effective ferment of cosmopolitanism and of national decomposition.” There is a reason that Schopenhauer called them “great masters of lies.” These were not idle remarks. They were based in fact and reality.

The sad truth of this ‘accursed race’ seems to be this: Whenever they exceed a fraction of a percent of a given population, they become a disruptive and degenerate force. A critical mass forms, and then, by some strange and mysterious process, the worst aspects of humanity come to the fore. When they reach two or three percent of a nation, they are able to utterly dominate political, economic, and intellectual discourse. And when they dominate a global superpower—as in the United States today—then all the world must live in fear.

Consider for a moment the major military actions around the world since World War Two, and in particular, the role of the various American presidents. The Korean War of 1950-53 seems to have had little direct Jewish involvement, though it was obviously an outgrowth of hostilities between the Marxist Soviets and Chinese and the American capitalists. By contrast, the Vietnam War, which began in the mid 1950s and wasn’t over until 1975, had some interesting Jewish angles. Though it started under Eisenhower, it was carried on by John F. Kennedy from early 1961. Despite his father’s views on the Hebrew tribe, JFK was quite well-disposed toward them. As Ian Bickerton (1983: 32) writes, “John Kennedy, most historians agree, was a good friend of Israel. Kennedy significantly increased the extent and nature of American commitment to Israel.” Most notable, he adds, was Kennedy’s approval to sell defensive Hawk missiles to that nation in 1962. He also appointed a notorious Jewish war-hawk, Walt Rostow, as his deputy National Security Advisor, and later as Director of Policy Planning; Rostow thus had significant input on American strategy in Vietnam. The precise reasons for JFK’s compliance with Jewish/Israeli interests remain unclear.

But there are some further odd connections between JFK and the Jews. He was allegedly shot in 1963 by Lee Oswald, though many today doubt the official story. Oswald in turn was murdered by Jack Ruby, born Jacob Rubenstein—son of two Polish Jews, and a long-term dealer in drugs, prostitution, and gambling. The Kennedy assassination was most notably captured on the so-called Zapruder film. Abraham Zapruder was a Russian-born Jew who, somehow, happened to be in the right place, at the right time, with camera rolling. Finally, John and Jackie Kennedy had just two children who survived into adulthood: John Jr. and Caroline. John, Jr. was killed in a plane crash in 1999, but his daughter Caroline is still alive and well. In 1986 she married a Ukrainian Jew, Edwin Schlossberg; they have three adult children. Thus, all of JFK’s grandchildren are now half-Jewish. Surely old Joe Kennedy is turning over in his grave.

With Kennedy dead, Lyndon B. Johnson assumed power in November 1963. Johnson had long been a “good friend” of the Jews, as far back as WW2, when he interceded, illegally, to aid Jewish immigration into the US. His aunt, Jessie Johnson Hatcher, was a member of the Zionist Organization of America and exercised considerable influence on him.¹²⁷ In 2008 it was revealed that LBJ had a “personal and often emotional connection to Israel,” and that, during his tenure, the US “became Israel’s chief diplomatic ally and primary arms supplier”.¹²⁸ Johnson’s wife Lady Bird reportedly stated that “Jews had been woven into the warp and woof of all his years”.¹²⁹

As president, LBJ appointed a number of key Jewish advisors. First and foremost was Walt Rostow, the Kennedy carryover, who Johnson promoted to National Security Advisor in 1966, just as Vietnam was heating up. Rostow was perennially advocating greater involvement, increased bombings, and higher body counts. He was, in fact, the “designated hawk-in-chief” for the LBJ administration.¹³⁰ Later that same year, the president added yet another ‘Jewish Rostow’ to the administration—this time Eugene, Walt’s brother, who became Under Secretary for Political Affairs. Then there was Nick Katzenbach, appointed Attorney General in 1965; Larry Levinson, as Deputy Special Counsel; and speechwriter Ben Wattenberg. The Jewish perspective was certainly well-represented.

One explanation for all this Jewish patronage is a possible Jewish heritage for LBJ himself. His mother was born Rebekah Baines, daughter of Joseph Baines and Ruth Huffman. Ruth in turn was the daughter of John Huffman and Mary Perrin. There is evidence to suggest that both John and Mary were Jews, thus making Ruth—Lyndon’s grandmother—ethnically Jewish.¹³¹ This would make Lyndon one-quarter Jewish. If so, he would join the Roosevelts as the only part-Jewish American presidents. And it would certainly help to explain his broad sympathies with the Jews.

In any case, with the two Rostow brothers serving as cover, Johnson pressed ahead with American military engagement in Vietnam. Prior to 1964, US involvement was minimal, and military deaths were less than 200 per year. But from 1965 on, things accelerated. American deaths rose exponentially: 2,000 in 1965, over 6,000 in 1966, and almost 12,000 in 1967. Deaths peaked in 1968, with 16,900 military casualties. But the other parties to the war suffered even more; South Vietnam and it’s non-US allies experienced roughly five times as many deaths as the Americans, and the North Vietnamese and their allies about 10 times as many. The Jewish hand in Vietnam is unmistakable; and once again it led to mass death and pointless suffering.

Iraq War I to the Present Day

It’s no coincidence that virtually all of the major military actions since then, initiated by the United States or NATO, have been against Arab or Muslim nations. Being “swayed by their Jewish elements,” as Dillon aptly put it, these mighty Western powers readily deploy vastly disproportionate and extremely lethal force against largely defenseless indigenous peoples—whose only crime consists in standing up to the Jews. But this again is consistent with history: those who refuse to knuckle under to Jewish demands will suffer their wrath.

The next major global conflict after Vietnam was the first Iraq War, also known as Gulf War I, under George H. W. Bush, in 1990. Bush himself had a love-hate relationship with Jews and Israelis, but the first Gulf War, which gave a severe beating to the hated Saddam Hussein and killed upwards of 50,000 Iraqis, was unquestionably welcomed by the Zionists. Bush also promoted and enforced the infamous Iraq sanctions, which carried on for some 13 years after the war and resulted in substantial incremental deaths, mostly children. Even by 1996, halfway through the sanctions, it was being reported that up to 500,000 children had died;¹³² the figure for the full 13 years remains unknown.

Bill Clinton managed to avoid any major military entanglements during his eight years in office, although the Americans were involved with both the Bosnia and Kosovo conflicts in Europe. But then came George W. Bush and 9/11. The story of Jewish/Israeli involvement in 9/11 and the subsequent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq could fill a book in itself.¹³³ From stories about Israeli agents causing the attacks, to Jewish foreknowledge, to the “dancing Israelis,” to the less-than-expected number of Jewish fatalities in the Twin Towers, to Jewish landowners like Larry Silverstein profiting from insurance payments, to Israel being the prime beneficiary of the attacks—the theories are plentiful. We must also take note of the many Jewish neo-conservatives that had influence in the Bush White House. To a man, they were pressing for war in the Middle East. And war they got. The US attacked Afghanistan on 7 October 2001, less than four weeks after 9/11. As of 2019, American soldiers are still there, killing and dying. Soon after the Afghan invasion, the Jewish war-hawks began pressing to attack Saddam Hussein and Iraq, even though they had no involvement in 9/11. It took them about 18 months to “manufacture consent” (in Chomsky’s words), and soon the nation yielded; America struck Iraq in March 2003. There were dissenting voices, of course. US Representative Jim Moran (D-Va.) inadvertently spoke the truth when he said, “If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this”.¹³⁴ This statement hit so close to home that Colin Powell himself was compelled to refute it.

Once the US launched its post-9/11 attacks, the situation quickly metastasized into a global “war on terror,” which meant that US and allied forces could go anywhere in the world, unilaterally, to kill people that they deemed a threat. Ever obeisant to Jewish interests, Barack Obama was more than happy to prolong the hostilities for the full eight years of his presidency.¹³⁵ This “war” continues to the present day, now more than 17 years after 9/11. ‘Special forces’ and ‘special operations’ are now on-going in, at a minimum, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Libya, and Syria, but they are also active in Niger and other parts of Africa. Killer drone strikes are also continuing in those nations, and are increasing overall under the Trump presidency. In his first two years, Trump authorized a total of some 9,600 strikes (drones and manned aircraft combined), or around 13 per day. Trump, of course, was elected in part because of his willingness to call out “radical Islamic terrorism” by name, so it is to be fully expected that he would accelerate America’s deadly assault on Arabs and Muslims worldwide—which is certainly in the interest of Jews, Israelis, and Zionists everywhere. As in the past, there’s an indelible Jewish hand in this global war on terror.

Looming over all this is a potential military conflict with Iran, something that the Israelis would love to see happen. Iran is the top global threat to Zionism and Jewish interests, and thus it is a prime target for attack. In 2018, Trump pulled the US out of the 2015 Iran nuclear agreement and reinstated sanctions, against the will of his coalition partners. Once again, this action was counter to American interests but clearly aligned with those of Israel. The problem for the Jewish war-hawks is that Iran is a nation of 80 million people, larger than Iraq and Afghanistan combined. Military action against it would be highly dangerous and chaotic, which is likely the only reason that confrontation has been avoided so far. But the future there remains uncertain, especially with a president as volatile as Trump.

In the End

This book has been a study in history. But we must never forget: History is suffused with lessons for the present. What, then, can we conclude from this long and tragic story?

First: Wars are complex events, and all complex events have multiple causes. They are generally the result of an accumulation of tensions and conflicts over several years. It would be all but impossible for any one group, no matter how influential, to precipitate war if the conditions were not already favorable. But a small group can certainly heighten existing tensions, or serve as a trigger, or exacerbate an ongoing conflict.

It would be misleading to say that Jews “caused” the world wars, or the Vietnam War, or the ‘war on terror’—though they certainly had a significant influence in all these events, and arguably a decisive influence. Clearly they are not the sole cause of the wars under review. It’s not as if, were there no Jews at all, fighting around the globe would never have occurred. There were, for example, many non-Jewish belligerents on all sides during World War II, including Lord Halifax in England and Henry Stimson among the Americans. Military men always have an inclination to fight; after all, their very positions and prestige depend upon it. But we can say with confidence that this war was longer, more intense, and more deadly due to Jewish intervention, just as it was for Vietnam, and just as it is for the on-going ‘war on terror.’

Second, consider this: For the past 150 years, we find not a single instance of Jews fighting for peace, justice, reconciliation, or compassion—not one. Rather they are always found on the side of belligerence, war, rebellion, deception, and greed. Why is this? Why don’t the private diaries of prominent people speak of fair-minded, peace-loving Jews opposing war and violence? Why didn’t the potent Jewish lobbies around the world steer governments toward a just resolution of international conflicts? Why didn’t they fight for fair and open public discourse on issues of major importance, and a true democracy of the people? We know the reason: because they stood to gain nothing by doing so. The historical evidence suggests that Jews have been concerned with serving Jewish interests, nothing more. The situation is little different today. At present there are indeed Jews active in peace movements and various social causes, but their activities most often serve to consolidate Jewish gains (in government, finance, media, academia, Palestine), rather than as true movements toward fairness, transparency, and justice.

What shall we do? The path forward is quite narrow, as Hitler understood. If we are to have any hope of minimizing future wars, we must stay the Jewish hand. Jews must be identified, isolated, sanctioned, and removed from positions of power. The non-Jewish majorities of the nations around the world have the ability to do this, but they must be informed, educated, and resolved to the task. Granted, this seems impossible in the present climate, particularly in the West. But we must not forget that, under much worse circumstances, three individual men—Anton Drexler, Gottfried Feder, and Dietrich Eckart—founded a movement that would change history. In two short decades, an uneducated Austrian artist developed an unprecedented vision of national greatness, defeated the potent Jewish Lobby that for so long had ruled his nation, and guided his people to the heights of power. It happened once before. The blueprint still exists. It could happen again.

Appendices

Bibliography

Aigner, Dietrich 1985. “Hitler’s ultimate aims—a programme of world dominion?” in Aspects of the Third Reich (H. Koch, ed.). St. Martin’s Press.

Balakian, Peter 2003. The Burning Tigris. Harper Collins.

Bendersky, Joseph W. 2000. The Jewish Threat. Basic Books.

Ben-Sasson, Hayim 1976. A History of the Jewish People. Harvard University Press.

Bermant, Chaim 1977. The Jews. Times Books.

Bickerton, Ian 1983. “John F. Kennedy, the Jewish community, and Israel.” Australasian Journal of American Studies 2(2): 32-43.

Brecher, Frank W. 1988. “Charles R. Crane’s crusade for the Arabs.” Middle Eastern Studies, 24(1): 42-55.

Breitman, Richard and Lichtman, Allan J. 2013. FDR and the Jews. Belknap.

Bryant, Arthur 1940. Unfinished Victory. Macmillan.

Buchanan, Patrick 2008. Hitler, Churchill, and the Unnecessary War. Crown.

Cecil, Lamar 1996. Wilhelm II (vol. 2). University of North Carolina Press.

Chalberg, John C. (ed.) 1995. Isolationism. Greenhaven Press.

Churchill, Winston 1920/2002. “Zionism versus Bolshevism,” in L. Brenner (ed.), 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis. Barricade Books.

Cohen, Michael J. 1985/2003. Churchill and the Jews. F. Cass.

Cohen, Naomi 1963. “The abrogation of the Russo-American treaty of 1832.” Jewish Social Studies, 25(1).

Cole, Wayne S. 1983. Roosevelt and the Isolationists. University of Nebraska Press.

Cooper, John 1983. The Warrior and the Priest. Belknap.

Cooper, John 2009. Woodrow Wilson. Knopf.

d’Holbach, Paul-Henri Thiry 1770/1813. Ecce Homo! or a Critical Inquiry in the History of Jesus Christ. D. I. Eaton.

Dall, Curtis 1968. FDR: My Exploited Father-in-Law. Action Associates.

Dallek, Robert 1979. Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy. Oxford University Press.

Dalton, Thomas 2015. Debating the Holocaust (2nd ed.). Castle Hill.

Dalton, Thomas 2019. Goebbels on the Jews. Castle Hill.

Dalton, Thomas 2019b. Hitler on the Jews. Castle Hill.

Dalton, Thomas 2019c. Eternal Strangers: A Critical History of Jews and Judaism. Castle Hill.

Daniels, Jonathan 1949. “Pearl Harbor Sunday: The end of an era,” in Leighton (ed.), The Aspirin Age, Simon and Schuster.

Darkmoon, Lasha 2013. “The sexual decadence of Weimar Germany.” http://www.darkmoon.me

Dillon, Emile 1920. The Inside Story of the Peace Conference. Harper and Brothers.

Dodd, William 1941. Ambassador Dodd’s Diary, 1933-1938. Harcourt, Brace.

Doenecke, Justus D. 2000. Storm on the Horizon. Rowman & Littlefield.

Dunn, Susan 2013. 1940: FDR, Willkie, Lindbergh, Hitler. Yale University Press.

Fay, Sidney 1928. The Origins of the World War. Macmillan.

Fink, Carole 1998. “The minorities question,” in Boemeke et al (eds.), The Treaty of Versailles, Cambridge University Press.

Forrestal, James 1951. The Forrestal Diaries. Viking.

Fuller, John F.C. 1957. The Decisive Battles of the Western World (vol. 3). Eyre & Spottiswoode. Reprinted in the United States as A Military History of the Western World (vol. 3), Minerva.

Gabba, Emilio 1984. “The growth of anti-Judaism or the Greek attitude toward the Jews,” in W. Davies and L. Finkelstein (eds.), Cambridge History of Judaism (vol. 2). Cambridge University Press.

Gilbert, Martin 2007. Churchill and the Jews. Holt.

Ginsberg, Benjamin 2013. How the Jews Defeated Hitler. Rowman & Littlefield.

Gordon, Sarah 1984. Hitler, Jews, and the “Jewish Question”. Princeton University Press.

Hegel, Georg 1975. Early Theological Writings. (T. Knox, trans.). University of Pennsylvania Press.

Hertzberg, Arthur 1968. The French Enlightenment and the Jews. Columbia University Press.

Herzl, Theodor 1896/1967. The Jewish State. Pordes.

Herzstein, Robert 1989. Roosevelt and Hitler. J. Wiley.

Hitler, Adolf 2018. Mein Kampf (vol. 1). (T. Dalton, trans.). Clemens & Blair.

Hodgson, Godfrey 2006. Woodrow Wilson’s Right Hand. Yale University Press.

Ickes, Harold L. 1954. The Secret Diary of Harold L. Ickes (vol. 2). Simon and Schuster.

Ingrams, Doreen (ed.) 1972. Palestine Papers: 1917-1922. G. Braziller.

Irving, David 2001. Churchill’s War (vol. 2). Focal Point.

Jackson, Robert H. 2003. That Man: An Insider’s Portrait of Franklin D. Roosevelt. Oxford University Press.

Johnson, Paul 1987. A History of the Jews. Harper.

Kant, Immanuel 1798/1979. Conflict of the Faculties. (M. Gregor, trans.). Abaris.

Kinzer, Stephen 2015. “Wilson perfectly embodies US hypocrisy.” www.politico.com (Dec 6).

Landman, Samuel 1936. Great Britain, the Jews, and Palestine. New Zionist Press.

Laqueur, Walter 1974. Weimar: A Cultural History. Putnam.

Lavsky, Hagit 1996. Before Catastrophe. Wayne State University Press.

Leutze, James 1975. “The secret of the Churchill-Roosevelt correspondence.” Journal of Contemporary History, 10(3).

Levin, Nora 1988. The Jews in the Soviet Union since 1917. NYU Press.

Levy, Richhard S. 1991. Anti-Semitism in the Modern World. D. C. Heath.

Liebreich, Fritz 2005. Britain’s Naval and Political Reaction to the Illegal Immigration of Jews to Palestine, 1945-1948. Routledge.

Lloyd George, D. 1939. Memoirs of the Peace Conference (vol. 2). Yale University Press.

Loewenheim, Francis L. et al. (eds). 1975. Roosevelt and Churchill. Saturday Review Press.

Luther, Martin 1955. Luther’s Works (vol. 47). Fortress Press.

MacMillan, Margaret 2003. Paris 1919. Random House.

Makovsky, Michael 2007. Churchill’s Promised Land. Yale University Press.

Michael, Robert 2005. A Concise History of American Anti-Semitism. Rowman & Littlefield.

Mommsen, Theodor 1854/1957. History of Rome (vol. 4). Free Press.

Moran, William (ed.). 1987/1992. The Amarna Letters. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Morgenstern, George 1947. Pearl Harbor. Devin-Adair.

Morgenthau III, Henry 1991. Mostly Morgenthaus. Ticknor & Fields.

Mowrer, Edgar 1933. Germany Puts the Clock Back. William Morrow.

Muller, Jerry 2010. Capitalism and the Jews. Princeton University Press.

Nasaw, David 2012. The Patriarch. Penguin.

Nave, Eric 1991. Betrayal at Pearl Harbor. Summit.

Poliakov, Léon 1965. The History of Anti-Semitism (vol. 3). Vanguard Press.

Rather, Lelland J. 1990. Reading Wagner. Louisiana State University Press.

Rohl, John C. G. 1987/1994. The Kaiser and his Court. Cambridge University Press.

Ross, Dennis 2015. Doomed to Succeed. Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.

Schneer, Jonathan 2010. The Balfour Declaration. Random House.

Scholnick, Myron 1990. The New Deal and Anti-Semitism in America. Taylor and Francis.

Seligman, Edwin 1914. “Introduction.” Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science in the City of New York, 4(4).

Sherwood, Robert E. 1948. The White House Papers of Harry L. Hopkins (vol. 1). Eyre and Spottiswoode.

Shogan, Robert 2010. Prelude to Catastrophe. Ivan Dee.

Singer, Saul J. 2015. “President Taft and the Jews: A remarkable friendship.” The Jewish Press (23 Dec).

Slomovitz, Philip 1981. Purely Commentary. Wayne State University Press.

Sombart, Werner 1911/1982. The Jews and Modern Capitalism. Transaction.

Stevens, Richard P. (ed.) 1972. Zionism and Palestine before the Mandate. Institute for Palestine Studies.

Stein, Leonard 1961. The Balfour Declaration. Valentine, Mitchell.

Stern, Menahem 1974. Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism (vol. 1). Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

Stinnett, Robert 2001. Day of Deceit. Touchstone.

Szembek, Comte Jean 1952. Journal 1933-1939. Plon.

Taft, William 1919. “The progressive struggle of the Jews for civic equality.” National Geographic 36(1): 1-23.

Taylor, Alan J.P. 1961. Origins of the Second World War. Atheneum.

Temperley, Howard 1924. History of the Peace Conference of Paris (vol. 6). Hodder and Stoughton.

Townley, Susan 1922. Indiscretions of Lady Susan. Appleton.

Trythall, Anthony J. 1981. “The downfall of Leslie Hore-Belisha.” Journal of Contemporary History 16: 391-411.

Vaksberg, Arkady 1994. Stalin against the Jews. Knopf.

Ward, Geoffery 1989. A First Class Temperament. Harper.

Weber, Mark 1983. “President Roosevelt’s campaign to incite war in Europe.” Journal of Historical Review, 4(2).

Wentling, Sonja S. 2012. Herbert Hoover and the Jews. Wyman Institute.

Ziff, William 1938. The Rape of Palestine. Longmans, Green.

Index

Page numbers of entries in footnotes are rendered in italics. Page numbers refer to the printed edition.

— A —

Abramowitz, Raphael: 57

Adler, Cyrus: 83

Agranov, Yakov: 151

Aigner, Dietrich: 111, 133

Akhenaten, pharaoh: 14

Albright, Madeline: 165

Alexander II, Czar: 25, 34

Alexander, Moses: 55

Ament, Suzanne: 163

Antiochus Epiphanes: 17

Antiochus Sidetes: 17

Apollonius Molon: 17

Aquinas, Thomas: 20

Arco-Valley, Anton: 80

— B —

Baines, Joseph: 163

Baines, Rebekah: 163

Balakian, Peter: 47

Balfour Declaration: 60-68

Balfour, Arthur: 55, 60-63, 67, 71, 72, 77, 125, 127

Bamberger, family: 75

Bamburger, Simon: 55

Barnhill, Margaret: 99

Bartlett, Washington: 25

Baruch, Bernard: 46-49, 55, 64, 72, 73, 101, 103, 104, 111, 112, 119, 123

Bauer, Bruno: 26

Beaverbrook, Max Aitken, Lord: 112, 113

Bendersky, Joseph W.: 121

Ben-Sasson, Hayim: 57, 76, 82

Berkman, Alexander: 31

Berman, Matvei: 151

Bermant, Chaim: 77, 78

Bernstein, Eduard: 86

Bickerton, Ian: 161

Black, Eugene: 105

Blank, Alexandr: 56

Bleichroeder, family: 75

Bogrov, Dmitri: 34

Bollyn, Christopher: 165

Bondi, Georg: 87

Boothe, Clare: 147

Brandeis, Louis: 46, 47, 55, 62, 64, 66, 73, 82, 95, 102, 104

Brecher, Frank W.: 149

Breitman, Richard: 147

Breyer, Stephen: 106

Bristow, Joseph: 40

Bronstein, Lev: 57

Bryant, Arthur: 88, 148

Buchanan, Patrick: 133

Bullitt, William: 105, 120, 129, 130

Bush, George H. W.: 147, 164

Bush, George W.: 147, 165, 166

— C —

Cardozo, Benjamin: 95

Cassirer, family: 87

Cassius Dio: 18

Cecil, Lamar: 74

Chalberg, John C.: 50, 53, 73, 106

Chamberlain, Neville: 112, 120, 121, 126, 129, 130

Chaplin, Charlie: 131

Chomsky, Noam: 166

Chrysostom, John: 19

Churchill, Winston: 49, 58, 59, 64-68, 93, 103, 105, 109, 112, 123-127, 134, 137, 140, 146

Claudius, Emperor: 18

Clinton, William: 165, 166

Cohen, Benjamin: 102-104, 129, 146

Cohen, Michael J.: 66, 126

Cohen, Naomi: 35-37

Cohn, Jack & Harry: 94

Cole, Wayne S.: 111, 130, 131

Cooper, John: 46, 47, 51

Czolgosz, Leon: 31

— D —

d’Holbach, Baron Paul-Henri Thiry: 20

Dall, Curtis: 99

Dallek, Robert: 147

Dalton, Thomas: 22, 108, 154, 166

Dan, Fyodor: 57

Daniels, Jonathan: 139

Darkmoon, Lasha: 88

David, House of: 15

Dillon, Emile: 82, 83, 147, 164

Diodorus Siculus: 17

Dodd, William: 149

Doenecke, Justus D.: 109, 126

Drexler, Anton: 88, 169

Dunn, Susan: 131

— E —

Eckart, Dietrich: 88, 169

Eisner, Kurt: 80

Esau, Bible: 14

Esther, Bible: 15

Ezekiel, Mordecai: 105

— F —

Fay, Sidney: 84

Feder, Gottfried: 88, 169

Feis, Herbert: 105

Fichte, Johann G.: 22

Fink, Carole: 82, 83

Fischer, S.: 87

Fish, Hamilton: 106

Ford, Henry: 40, 45, 93, 94

Forrestal, James: 129, 130

Fortas, Abe: 105

Fox, William: 56

Frank, Jerome: 105

Frankfurter, Felix: 67, 95, 102-104, 119, 128, 129, 134, 146

Friedman, Milton: 141

Frohman, Charles: 56

Fuerza, Zander C.: 165

Fuller, John F.C.: 109, 111, 118, 120

— G —

Gabba, Emilio: 16, 17

Gannett, Frank: 112

Geithner, Tim: 142

GermanRevolution: 79-81

Gershkovich, Mordekhai: 34

Gibson, Mel: 9, 11

Gilbert, Martin: 64, 66

Ginsberg, Benjamin: 141

Ginsburg, Ruth B.: 106

Goebbels, Joseph: 108, 150, 153, 154

Goldman, Emma: 31, 58, 93

Goldschmidt, family: 75

Goldwyn, Samuel: 56

Goloshchekin, Shaia: 74, 151

Gordon, Sarah: 26, 75, 148

Gottheil, Richard: 46, 73

Greenblatt, Robert: 10

Gross, Ethel: 106, 129

Gross, Maria: 105

Grynszpan, Herschel: 112

Gutmann, family: 75

— H —

Haase, Hugo: 80, 81

Habsburg, Ferdinand von, Archduke: 84

Halifax, Lord Edward F.L. Wood: 168

Haman, Bible: 15

Hammer, Bonnie: 10

Harrison, William H.: 25

Hazael, King: 15

Hearst, William: 37, 130

Hecateus of Abdera: 16

Hegel, Georg: 21

Henderson, Neville: 123

Hertzberg, Arthur: 20

Herzl, Theodor: 27-29, 35, 45, 79

Herzstein, Robert: 102, 108

Hilferding, Rudolf: 86

Hillman, Sidney: 105

Hirsch, Solomon: 25

Hitchcock, Alfred: 131

Hitler, Adolf: 75, 88, 89, 93, 94, 104, 107-111, 117-123, 126, 129-135, 147-154, 169

Hodgson, Godfrey: 55

Hohenzollern, House of: 76, 84

Holmes, Oliver W.: 146

Holocaust: 149-55, 145

Hoover, Herbert: 83, 94, 95

Hopkins, Harry: 106, 129, 139

Hore-Belisha, Leslie: 120, 121

Horn, Alan: 10

Horowitz, Louisa: 105

Horowitz, Orville: 105

House, Edward: 77, 149

Huffman, John: 163

Huffman, Ruth: 163

Hull, Cordell: 106, 128, 129, 138

Hussein, Saddam: 164, 165

— I —

Ickes, Harold: 122, 123

Iger, Robert: 10

Ingrams, D0reen: 63

Iraq War: 164-66

Irving, David: 67, 111, 135

Isaac, Bible: 14

— J —

Jackson, Robert H.: 138

Jacob, Bible: 12

Jefferis, Albert: 48

Jogiches, Leo: 80, 81

Johnson Hatcher, Jessie: 162

Johnson, Hiram: 111

Johnson, Hugh: 102

Johnson, Lyndon B.: 147, 162, 163

Johnson, Paul: 15

Joseph, Bible: 12, 13

Joshua, Bible: 15

Julius Caesar: 135

— K —

Kagan, Elena: 106

Kaganovich, Lazar: 57, 151

Kamenev, Lev: 57

Kant, Immanuel: 21, 160

Károlyi, Mihály: 77

Katzenbach, Nick: 163

Kennedy, Caroline: 162

Kennedy, Jackie: 162

Kennedy, John F.: 161, 162

Kennedy, John Jr.: 162

Kennedy, Joseph: 122-129, 162

Kennedy, Joseph Jr.: 125

Kerbey, Dycie: 163

Kinzer, Stephen: 85

Kleefeld, Käte: 86

Knox, Philander: 37

Korvin, Otto (Klein): 77

Krassin, Leonid: 57

Kun, Bela: 58, 59, 77, 78, 93

— L —

La Follette, Robert: 52, 54

Labayu: 14, 15

Lack, Andrew: 10

Laemmle, Carl: 56

Landauer, Gustav: 80, 81

Landesberg, Otto: 86

Landman, Samuel: 65, 66

Laqueur, Walter: 87, 88

Lasky, Jesse: 56

Lavsky, Hagit: 87, 88

Lehman, Herbert: 67, 94, 101, 105, 119, 134

Lenin, Vladimir: 56, 57, 94, 151

Leutze, James: 103

Levey, Stuart: 142

Levi, Paul: 85

Levin, Lewis: 25

Levin, Nora: 57

Levine, Eugen: 81

Levinson, Larry: 163

Levy, David: 10

Levy, Esther: 98, 99

Levy, Richhard S.: 26

Lew, Jacob: 142

Lichtman, Allan J.: 147

Liebknecht, Karl: 80, 81

Liebreich, Fritz: 62

Lilienthal, David: 105

Lindbergh, Charles: 106, 133, 134, 138, 147

Lindsay, Ronald: 147

Litvinov, Alexander: 57, 151

Lloyd George, David: 61, 62, 66, 71, 85

Loew, Marcus: 94

Loewenheim, Francis L.: 126

Lubin, Isador: 105

Ludwig III, King of Bavaria: 80

Lukacs, Georg: 78

Luther, Hans: 108

Luther, Martin: 20

Luxemburg, Rosa: 58, 80, 81, 93

Lysimachus: 18

— M —

MacMillan, Margaret: 62, 77, 84, 85

Maisky, Ivan: 151

Makovsky, Michael: 105

Malcolm, James: 61, 65, 66

Manetho, High Priest: 16

Marr, Wilhelm: 26

Marshall, George: 111

Marshall, Louis: 36, 45, 75, 82, 83

Martov, Julius: 57

Marx, Karl: 26, 56, 58

McCollum, Arthur: 136, 137

McKinley, William: 31

Mekhlis, Lev: 151

Mendelssohn, family: 75

Meyer, Eugene: 95, 108

Meyer, Ron: 10

Michael, Robert: 102, 149

Mirbach, Wilhelm von: 79

Mnuchin, Steven: 142

Moffat, Jay: 125

Mohamad, Mahathir: 145

Mommsen, Theodor: 19, 160

Moonves, Leslie: 10

Moran, Jim: 166

Moran, William: 14

Morgenstern, George: 138

Morgenthau, Elinor: 96

Morgenthau, Henry: 46, 47, 55, 67, 73, 83, 95, 96, 101-103, 119, 134, 141

Moseley, George: 121, 122

Moses, Bible: 14-18, 21

Mosley, Oswald: 120

Mowrer, Edgar: 81, 86, 87

Muehsam, Erich: 81

Muller, Jerry: 78

Murdoch, Rupert: 113

Murphy, Frank: 129

— N —

Nasaw, David: 104, 105, 112, 125, 129

Nave, Eric: 140

Neurath, Otto: 81

Nicholas II, Czar: 56, 57, 74-76

Niles, David: 105

Nordau, Max: 29, 46

Norris, George: 52-54, 72

NSDAP: 88, 93, 94

Nye, Gerald: 131

— O —

Obama, Barack: 147, 166

Ochs, Adolph: 37

Oppenheim, family: 75

Osborn, Chase: 32, 95-98

Oswald, Lee: 161

Ottinger, Albert: 94

— P —

Parvus, Alexander: 80, 81

Pearl Harbor attack: 104, 107, 126, 128, 131, 135-140

Perrin, Mary: 163

Picot, Georges: 66

Plepler, Richard: 10

Poliakov, Léon: 22

Polk, James: 135

Potocki, Jerzy: 110, 111, 118-122, 124

Powell, Colin: 166

Pownall, Henry: 120

Preuss, Hugo: 86

Ptolemy I: 16

— Q —

Quintilian: 19

— R —

Radek, Karl: 57, 80, 81, 151

Rakosi, Matyas: 77

Rath, Ernst vom: 112

Rathenau, Walter: 86

Rather, Lelland J.: 26

Redstone, Sumner: 10

Reiss, Erich: 87

Rockhill, William: 37

Rohl, John C. G.: 74

Romanov, House of: 74

Roosevelt, Alice: 98, 99

Roosevelt, Anna: 99

Roosevelt, Eleanor: 98, 99, 147

Roosevelt, Franklin D.: 32, 45, 49, 67, 68, 94-106, 109, 110, 117, 119, 122-142, 146-149, 159, 163

Roosevelt, Franklin Jr.: 96

Roosevelt, Theodore: 31, 32, 39-42, 85, 95, 98, 103, 163

Rosenman, Samuel: 95, 102, 103

Rosenthal, Litman: 28, 29

Rosenvelt, Claes van: 97

Rosenvelt, family: 97

Rosenvelt, Nicholas: 97

Ross, Dennis: 162

Rossacampo, family: 97

Rostow, Eugene: 163

Rostow, Walt: 161, 162, 163

Rothschild, family: 75

Rothschild, Lionel W.: 60, 63

Rozenfeld, Lev: 57

Rubenstein, Jacob: 161

Ruby, Jack: 161

Russian Revolution: 56-59, 74-76

— S —

Salant, Walter: 141

Salomon, family: 105

Samuel, Herbert: 46

Sarnoff, David: 94

Sazonov, Sergey: 35

Schiff, Jacob: 36, 38, 41, 42, 45, 46, 73, 75

Schlossberg, Edwin: 162

Schneer, Jonathan: 55, 61

Schneiderman, Rose: 105

Scholnick, Myron: 101

Schopenhauer, Arthur: 160

Seligman, Edwin: 47

Seneca: 19, 160

September 11 attack: 165-66

Sherwood, Ben: 10

Sherwood, Robert E.: 112

Shogan, Robert: 37, 45, 47, 81, 82, 94, 96, 100-104, 146

Silverstein, Larry: 165

Singer, Saul J.: 35

Slomovitz, Philip: 32, 97-99

Sobelsohn, Karl: 80

Sombart, Werner: 39

Sonnenfeld, Carole: 142

Sosnovsky, Lev: 74

Speyer, family: 75

Stein, Herbert: 141

Stein, Joel: 10

Stein, Leonard: 30, 57, 62

Steinhardt, Laurence: 101, 105

Stern, Menahem: 16-19

Stevens, Richard P.: 29

Stewart, Martha: 99

Stimson, Henry: 138, 146, 168

Stinnett, Robert: 136

Stolypin, Pyotr: 34

Straus Jr., Nathan: 105

Straus, Jesse: 101, 105

Straus, Oscar: 32, 33, 42, 45, 83, 103

Straus, Samuel: 37

Strauss, Lewis: 83

Stresemann, Gustav: 86

Sverdlov, Yakov: 57, 74

Sydenham Clarke, George: 29

Sykes, Mark: 62, 66

Szamuely, Tibor: 78

Szembek, Jan: 122

Szubin, Adam: 142

— T —

Tacitus: 19, 160

Taft, William: 32-42, 45, 72

Taylor, Alan J.P.: 123

Taylor, Claudia Alta (Lady Bird): 162

Temperley, Howard: 58, 64, 65

Toller, Ernst: 80, 81

Townley, Susan: 74

Trilisser, Mikhail: 151

Trotsky, Leon: 56-58, 93, 151

Troy, Gil: 10

Truman, Harry S.: 142

Trump, Donald: 147, 166, 167

Trythall, Anthony J.: 120

— U —

Untermyer, Samuel: 46, 73

usury: 19, 20, 21

— V —

Vainer (Voikov), Pinkus: 74

Vaksberg, Arkady: 34, 74

Vietnam War: 161-164

Viner, Jacob: 141

Voltaire, François-Marie Arouet: 20, 160

— W —

Wagner, Richard: 26

Warburg, family: 75

Warburg, Felix: 42, 46

Warburg, James: 105

Warburg, Max: 46

Warburg, Paul: 40, 42, 46, 47, 55, 73, 105

Ward, Geoffrey: 47, 96, 103

Warner, Harry: 131

Warner, Jack: 131

Wassermann, family: 75

Wattenberg, Ben: 163

Weber, Mark: 111, 118

Weishaupt, Johann Adam: 58

Weizmann, Chaim: 46, 62, 67, 68, 105, 107, 134

Welles, Sumner: 128, 129

Wentling, Sonja S.: 83

Wiegand, Karl von: 120

Wilhelm II, Kaiser: 72-76, 79-81, 89

Wilson, Woodrow: 33, 37-56, 63, 65, 71-73, 77, 81-85, 94, 102, 104, 146, 147, 149

Wise, Stephen: 46, 73, 76, 82, 98, 99, 127

Witz, Frances: 106, 129

Wolf, Simon: 74

Wolff, Kurt: 87

Wolin, Neal: 142

Wonskolaser, Aaron: 56

Wonskolaser, Hirsz: 56, 131

Wonskolaser, Itzhak: 56, 131

Wonskolaser, Szmul: 56

Wood, Robert: 109

Wyzanski, Charles: 105

— X —

Xerxes, King: 15

— Y —

Yagoda, Genrikh: 151

Yulee, David: 25

Yurovsky, Yakov (Yanker): 74

— Z —

Zanuck, Darryl: 56

Zapruder, Abraham: 162

Ziff, William: 58, 61, 62

Zinoviev, Grigory: 57

Zionism, Zionist: 27-31, 35, 39, 46, 55, 57-67, 71, 73, 82, 83, 93, 94, 98, 126, 127, 134, 146, 155, 162, 164, 167

Zucker, Jeff: 10

Zukor, Adolph: 56

Holocaust Handbooks

This ambitious, growing series addresses various aspects of the “Holocaust” of the WWII era. Most of them are based on decades of research from archives all over the world. They are heavily referenced. In contrast to most other works on this issue, the tomes of this series approach its topic with profound academic scrutiny and a critical attitude. Any Holocaust researcher ignoring this series will remain oblivious to some of the most important research in the field. These books are designed to both convince the common reader as well as academics. The following books have appeared so far, or are about to be released. Compare hardcopy and eBook prices at www.findbookprices.com.

Pictured above are all of the scientific studies that comprise the series Holocaust Handbooks published thus far or in preparation. More volumes and new editions are constantly in the works.

ISSN 1529-7748 ∙ All books are 6”×9” paperbacks unless otherwise stated. Discounts are available for the whole set.

Section One: General Overviews of the Holocaust

The First Holocaust. The Surprising Origin of the Six-Million Figure. By Don Heddesheimer. This compact but substantive study documents propaganda spread prior to, during and after the FIRST World War that claimed East European Jewry was on the brink of annihilation. The magic number of suffering and dying Jews was 6 million back then as well. The book details how these Jewish fundraising operations in America raised vast sums in the name of feeding suffering Polish and Russian Jews but actually funneled much of the money to Zionist and Communist groups. 5th edition, 198 pages, b&w illustrations, bibliography, index. (#6)

Lectures on the Holocaust. Controversial Issues Cross Examined. By Germar Rudolf. Between 1992 and 2005 German scholar Germar Rudolf lectured to various audiences about the Holocaust in the light of new findings. Rudolf’s sometimes astounding facts and arguments fell on fertile soil among his listeners, as they were presented in a very sensitive and scholarly way. This book is the literary version of Rudolf’s lectures, enriched with the most recent findings of historiography. Rudolf introduces the most important arguments for his findings, and his audience reacts with supportive, skeptical and also hostile questions. We believe this book is the best introduction into this taboo topic. Third edition, 590 pages, b&w illustrations, bibliography, index. (#15)

Breaking the Spell. The Holocaust, Myth & Reality. By Nicholas Kollerstrom. In 1941, British Intelligence analysts cracked the German “Enigma” code. Hence, in 1942 and 1943, encrypted radio communications between German concentration camps and the Berlin headquarters were decrypted. The intercepted data refutes, the orthodox “Holocaust” narrative. It reveals that the Germans were desperate to reduce the death rate in their labor camps, which was caused by catastrophic typhus epidemics. Dr. Kollerstrom, a science historian, has taken these intercepts and a wide array of mostly unchallenged corroborating evidence to show that “witness statements” supporting the human gas chamber narrative clearly clash with the available scientific data. Kollerstrom concludes that the history of the Nazi “Holocaust” has been written by the victors with ulterior motives. It is distorted, exaggerated and largely wrong. With a foreword by Prof. Dr. James Fetzer. 5th edition, 271 pages, b&w illustrations, bibliography, index. (#31)

Debating the Holocaust. A New Look at Both Sides. By Thomas Dalton. Mainstream historians insist that there cannot be, may not be a debate about the Holocaust. But ignoring it does not make this controversy go away. Traditional scholars admit that there was neither a budget, a plan, nor an order for the Holocaust; that the key camps have all but vanished, and so have any human remains; that material and unequivocal documentary evidence is absent; and that there are serious problems with survivor testimonies. Dalton juxtaposes the traditional Holocaust narrative with revisionist challenges and then analyzes the mainstream’s responses to them. He reveals the weaknesses of both sides, while declaring revisionism the winner of the current state of the debate. 2nd, revised and expanded edition, 332 pages, b&w illustrations, bibliography, index. (#32)

The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. The Case against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry. By Arthur R. Butz. The first writer to analyze the entire Holocaust complex in a precise scientific manner. This book exhibits the overwhelming force of arguments accumulated by the mid-1970s. It continues to be a major historical reference work, frequently cited by prominent personalities. This edition has numerous supplements with new information gathered over the last 35 years. Fourth edition, 524 pages, b&w illustrations, bibliography, index. (#7)

Dissecting the Holocaust. The Growing Critique of ‘Truth’ and ‘Memory.’ Edited by Germar Rudolf. Dissecting the Holocaust applies state-of-the-art scientific technique and classic methods of detection to investigate the alleged murder of millions of Jews by Germans during World War II. In 22 contributions—each of some 30 pages—the 17 authors dissect generally accepted paradigms of the “Holocaust.” It reads as exciting as a crime novel: so many lies, forgeries and deceptions by politicians, historians and scientists are proven. This is the intellectual adventure of the 21st century. Be part of it! Third revised edition. Ca. 630 pages, b&w illustrations, bibliography, index. (#1)

The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry. By Walter N. Sanning. Six Million Jews died in the Holocaust. Sanning did not take that number at face value, but thoroughly explored European population developments and shifts mainly caused by emigration as well as deportations and evacuations conducted by both Nazis and the Soviets, among other things. The book is based mainly on Jewish, Zionist and mainstream sources. It concludes that a sizeable share of the Jews found missing during local censuses after the Second World War, which were so far counted as “Holocaust victims,” had either emigrated (mainly to Israel or the U.S.) or had been deported by Stalin to Siberian labor camps. 2nd, corrected edition, foreword by A.R. Butz, epilogue by Germar Rudolf containing important updates; 224 pages, b&w illustrations, bibliography (#29).

Air Photo Evidence: World War Two Photos of Alleged Mass Murder Sites Analyzed. By John C. Ball. During World War Two both German and Allied reconnaissance aircraft took countless air photos of places of tactical and strategic interest in Europe. These photos are prime evidence for the investigation of the Holocaust. Air photos of locations like Auschwitz, Majdanek, Treblinka, Babi Yar etc. permit an insight into what did or did not happen there. John Ball has unearthed many pertinent photos and has thoroughly analyzed them. This book is full of air photo reproductions and schematic drawings explaining them. According to the author, these images refute many of the atrocity claims made by witnesses in connection with events in the German sphere of influence. 3rd revised and expanded edition. Edited by Germar Rudolf; with a contribution by Carlo Mattogno. 168 pages, 8.5”×11”, b&w illustrations, bibliography, index (#27).

The Leuchter Reports: Critical Edition. By Fred Leuchter, Robert Faurisson and Germar Rudolf. Between 1988 and 1991, U.S. expert on execution technologies Fred Leuchter wrote four detailed reports addressing whether the Third Reich operated homicidal gas chambers. The first report on Auschwitz and Majdanek became world famous. Based on chemical analyses and various technical arguments, Leuchter concluded that the locations investigated “could not have then been, or now be, utilized or seriously considered to function as execution gas chambers.” 4th edition, 252 pages, b&w illustrations. (#16)

The Giant with Feet of Clay: Raul Hilberg and His Standard Work on the “Holocaust.” By Jürgen Graf. Raul Hilberg’s major work The Destruction of European Jewry is an orthodox standard work on the Holocaust. But what evidence does Hilberg provide to back his thesis that there was a German plan to exterminate Jews, carried out mainly in gas chambers? Jürgen Graf applies the methods of critical analysis to Hilberg’s evidence and examines the results in light of modern historiography. The results of Graf’s critical analysis are devastating for Hilberg. 2nd, corrected edition, 139 pages, b&w illustrations, bibliography, index. (#3)

Jewish Emigration from the Third Reich. By Ingrid Weckert. Current historical writings about the Third Reich claim state it was difficult for Jews to flee from Nazi persecution. The truth is that Jewish emigration was welcomed by the German authorities. Emigration was not some kind of wild flight, but rather a lawfully determined and regulated matter. Weckert’s booklet elucidates the emigration process in law and policy. She shows that German and Jewish authorities worked closely together. Jews interested in emigrating received detailed advice and offers of help from both sides. 2nd ed., 130 pages, index. (#12)

Inside the Gas Chambers: The Extermination of Mainstream Holocaust Historiography. By Carlo Mattogno. Neither increased media propaganda or political pressure nor judicial persecution can stifle revisionism. Hence, in early 2011, the Holocaust Orthodoxy published a 400 pp. book (in German) claiming to refute “revisionist propaganda,” trying again to prove “once and for all” that there were homicidal gas chambers at the camps of Dachau, Natzweiler, Sachsenhausen, Mauthausen, Ravensbrück, Neuengamme, Stutthof… you name them. Mattogno shows with his detailed analysis of this work of propaganda that mainstream Holocaust hagiography is beating around the bush rather than addressing revisionist research results. He exposes their myths, distortions and lies. 2nd edition, 280 pages, b&w illustrations, bibliography, index. (#25)

Section Two: Specific non-Auschwitz Studies

Treblinka: Extermination Camp or Transit Camp? By Carlo Mattogno and Jürgen Graf. It is alleged that at Treblinka in East Poland between 700,000 and 3,000,000 persons were murdered in 1942 and 1943. The weapons used were said to have been stationary and/or mobile gas chambers, fast-acting or slow-acting poison gas, unslaked lime, superheated steam, electricity, diesel exhaust fumes etc. Holocaust historians alleged that bodies were piled as high as multi-storied buildings and burned without a trace, using little or no fuel at all. Graf and Mattogno have now analyzed the origins, logic and technical feasibility of the official version of Treblinka. On the basis of numerous documents they reveal Treblinka’s true identity as a mere transit camp. 2nd edition, 372 pages, b&w illustrations, bibliography, index. (#8)

Belzec in Propaganda, Testimonies, Archeological Research and History. By Carlo Mattogno. Witnesses report that between 600,000 and 3 million Jews were murdered in the Belzec camp, located in Poland. Various murder weapons are claimed to have been used: diesel gas; unslaked lime in trains; high voltage; vacuum chambers; etc. The corpses were incinerated on huge pyres without leaving a trace. For those who know the stories about Treblinka this sounds familiar. Thus the author has restricted this study to the aspects which are new compared to Treblinka. In contrast to Treblinka, forensic drillings and excavations were performed at Belzec, the results of which are critically reviewed. 142 pages, b&w illustrations, bibliography, index. (#9)

Sobibor: Holocaust Propaganda and Reality. By Jürgen Graf, Thomas Kues and Carlo Mattogno. Between 25,000 and 2 million Jews are said to have been killed in gas chambers in the Sobibór camp in Poland. The corpses were allegedly buried in mass graves and later incinerated on pyres. This book investigates these claims and shows that they are based on the selective use of contradictory eyewitness testimony. Archeological surveys of the camp in 2000-2001 are analyzed, with fatal results for the extermination camp hypothesis. The book also documents the general National Socialist policy toward Jews, which never included a genocidal “final solution.” 442 pages, b&w illustrations, bibliography, index. (#19)

The “Extermination Camps” of “Aktion Reinhardt”. By Jürgen Graf, Thomas Kues and Carlo Mattogno. In late 2011, several members of the exterminationist Holocaust Controversies blog published a study which claims to refute three of our authors’ monographs on the camps Belzec, Sobibor and Treblinka (see previous three entries). This tome is their point-by-point response, which makes “mincemeat” out of the bloggers’ attempt at refutation. It requires familiarity with the above-mentioned books and constitutes a comprehensive update and expansion of their themes. 2nd edition, two volumes, total of 1396 pages, illustrations, bibliography. (#28)

Chelmno: A Camp in History & Propaganda. By Carlo Mattogno. At Chelmno, huge masses of Jewish prisoners are said to have been gassed in “gas vans” or shot (claims vary from 10,000 to 1.3 million victims). This study covers the subject from every angle, undermining the orthodox claims about the camp with an overwhelmingly effective body of evidence. Eyewitness statements, gas wagons as extermination weapons, forensics reports and excavations, German documents—all come under Mattogno’s scrutiny. Here are the uncensored facts about Chelmno, not the propaganda. 2nd ed., 188 pages, indexed, illustrated, bibliography. (#23)

The Gas Vans: A Critical Investigation. (A perfect companion to the Chelmno book.) By Santiago Alvarez and Pierre Marais. It is alleged that the Nazis used mobile gas chambers to exterminate 700,000 people. Up until 2011, no thorough monograph had appeared on the topic. Santiago Alvarez has remedied the situation. Are witness statements reliable? Are documents genuine? Where are the murder weapons? Could they have operated as claimed? Where are the corpses? Alvarez has scrutinized all known wartime documents, photos and witness statements on this topic, and has examined the claims made by the mainstream. 390 pages, b&w illustrations, bibliography, index. (#26)

The Einsatzgruppen in the Occupied Eastern Territories: Genesis, Missions and Actions. By C. Mattogno. Before invading the Soviet Union, the German authorities set up special units meant to secure the area behind the German front. Orthodox historians claim that these unites called Einsatzgruppen primarily engaged in rounding up and mass-murdering Jews. This study sheds a critical light into this topic by reviewing all the pertinent sources as well as material traces. It reveals on the one hand that original war-time documents do not fully support the orthodox genocidal narrative, and on the other that most post-“liberation” sources such as testimonies and forensic reports are steeped in Soviet atrocity propaganda and thus utterly unreliable. In addition, material traces of the claimed massacres are rare due to an attitude of collusion by governments and Jewish lobby groups. 830 pp., b&w illustrations, bibliography, index. (#39)

Concentration Camp Majdanek. A Historical and Technical Study. By Carlo Mattogno and Jürgen Graf. Little research had been directed toward Concentration Camp Majdanek in central Poland, even though it is claimed that up to a million Jews were murdered there. The only information available is discredited Polish Communist propaganda. This glaring research gap has finally been filled. After exhaustive research of primary sources, Mattogno and Graf created a monumental study which expertly dissects and repudiates the myth of homicidal gas chambers at Majdanek. They also critically investigated the legend of mass executions of Jews in tank trenches (“Operation Harvest Festival”) and prove them groundless. The authors’ investigations lead to unambiguous conclusions about the camp which are radically different from the official theses. Again they have produced a standard and methodical investigative work, which authentic historiography cannot ignore. Third edition, 358 pages, b&w illustrations, bibliography, index. (#5)

Concentration Camp Stutthof and Its Function in National Socialist Jewish Policy. By Carlo Mattogno and Jürgen Graf. The Stutthof camp in Prussia has never before been scientifically investigated by traditional historians, who claim nonetheless that Stutthof served as a ‘makeshift’ extermination camp in 1944. Based mainly on archival resources, this study thoroughly debunks this view and shows that Stutthof was in fact a center for the organization of German forced labor toward the end of World War II. Fourth edition, 170 pages, b&w illustrations, bibliography, index. (#4)

Section Three: Auschwitz Studies

The Making of the Auschwitz Myth: Auschwitz in British Intercepts, Polish Underground Reports and Postwar Testimonies (1941-1947). By Carlo Mattogno. Using messages sent by the Polish underground to London, SS radio messages send to and from Auschwitz that were intercepted and decrypted by the British, and a plethora of witness statements made during the war and in the immediate postwar period, the author shows how exactly the myth of mass murder in Auschwitz gas chambers was created, and how it was turned subsequently into “history” by intellectually corrupt scholars who cherry-picked claims that fit into their agenda and ignored or actively covered up literally thousands of lies of “witnesses” to make their narrative look credible. Ca. 300 pp., b&w illustrations, bibliography, index. (Scheduled for mid-2019; #41)

The Real Case of Auschwitz: Robert van Pelt’s Evidence from the Irving Trial Critically Reviewed. By Carlo Mattogno. Prof. Robert van Pelt is considered one of the best mainstream experts on Auschwitz and has been called upon several times in holocaust court cases. His work is cited by many to prove the holocaust happened as mainstream scholars insist. This book is a scholarly response to Prof. van Pelt—and Jean-Claude Pressac. It shows that their studies are heavily flawed. This is a book of prime political and scholarly importance to those looking for the truth about Auschwitz. 3rd edition, 692 pages, b&w illustrations, glossary, bibliography, index. (#22)

Auschwitz: Plain Facts: A Response to Jean-Claude Pressac. Edited by Germar Rudolf. French pharmacist Jean-Claude Pressac tried to refute revisionist findings with the “technical” method. For this he was praised by the mainstream, and they proclaimed victory over the “revisionists.” In Auschwitz: Plain Facts, Pressac’s works and claims are debunked. 2nd ed., 226 pages, b&w illustrations, glossary bibliography, index. (#14)

Auschwitz: Technique and Operation of the Gas Chambers: An Introduction and Update. By Germar Rudolf. Pressac’s 1989 oversize book of the same title was a trail blazer. Its many document reproductions are still valuable, but after decades of additional research, Pressac’s annotations are outdated. This book summarizes the most pertinent research results on Auschwitz gained during the past 30 years. With many references to Pressac’s epic tome, it serves as an update and correction to it, whether you own an original hard copy of it, read it online, borrow it from a library, purchase a reprint soon on sale, or are just interested in such a summary in general. 144 pages, b&w illustrations, bibliography. (#42)

The Chemistry of Auschwitz: The Technology and Toxicology of Zyklon B and the Gas Chambers – A Crime Scene Investigation. By Germar Rudolf. First, this study subjects the claimed chemical slaughterhouses of Auschwitz to a thorough forensic examination. Next, it analyzes the murder weapon, the poison gas Zyklon B, to determine how this substance operated, and what traces, if any, it might have left where it was employed. The results are convincing to the open-minded, but scandalous to the dogmatic reader. To which side do you belong? 440 pages, more than 120 color and almost 100 b&w illustrations, bibliography, index. (#2)

Auschwitz Lies: Legends, Lies and Prejudices on the Holocaust. By Carlo Mattogno and Germar Rudolf. The fallacious research and alleged “refutation” of Revisionist scholars by French biochemist G. Wellers, Polish Prof. J. Markiewicz, chemist Dr. Richard Green, Profs. Zimmerman, M. Shermer and A. Grobman, as well as researchers Keren, McCarthy and Mazal, are exposed for what they are: blatant and easily exposed political lies created to ostracize dissident historians. In this book, facts beat propaganda once again. Third edition, 404 pages, b&w illustrations, index. (#18)

Auschwitz: The Central Construction Office. By Carlo Mattogno. Based upon mostly unpublished German wartime documents, this study describes the history, organization, tasks and procedures of the Central Construction Office of the Waffen-SS and Auschwitz Police. Despite a huge public interest in the camp, next to nothing was really known about this office, which was responsible for the planning and construction of the Auschwitz camp complex, including the crematories which are said to have contained the “gas chambers.” 2nd ed., 188 pages, b&w illustrations, glossary, index. (#13)

Garrison and Headquarters Orders of the Auschwitz Camp. By C. Mattogno. A large number of all the orders ever issued by the various commanders of the infamous Auschwitz camp have been preserved. They reveal the true nature of the camp with all its daily events. There is not a trace in these orders pointing at anything sinister going on in this camp. Quite to the contrary, many orders are in clear and insurmountable contradiction to claims that prisoners were mass murdered. This is a selection of the most pertinent of these orders together with comments putting them into their proper historical context. (Scheduled for mid-2019; #34)

Special Treatment in Auschwitz: Origin and Meaning of a Term. By Carlo Mattogno. When appearing in German wartime documents, terms like “special treatment,” “special action,” and others have been interpreted as code words for mass murder. But that is not always true. This study focuses on documents about Auschwitz, showing that, while “special” had many different meanings, not a single one meant “execution.” Hence the practice of deciphering an alleged “code language” by assigning homicidal meaning to harmless documents – a key component of mainstream historiography – is untenable. 2nd ed., 166 pages, b&w illustrations, bibliography, index. (#10)

Healthcare at Auschwitz. By Carlo Mattogno. In extension of the above study on Special Treatment in Auschwitz, this study proves the extent to which the German authorities at Auschwitz tried to provide appropriate health care for the inmates. This is frequently described as special measures to improve the inmates’ health and thus ability to work in Germany’s armaments industry. This, after all, was the only thing the Auschwitz authorities were really interested in due to orders from the highest levels of the German government. 398 pages, b&w illustrations, bibliography, index. (#33)

Debunking the Bunkers of Auschwitz: Black Propaganda vs. History. By Carlo Mattogno. The bunkers at Auschwitz are claimed to have been the first homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz specifically equipped for this purpose. With the help of original German wartime files as well as revealing air photos taken by Allied reconnaissance aircraft in 1944, this study shows that these homicidal “bunkers” never existed, how the rumors about them evolved as black propaganda created by resistance groups in the camp, and how this propaganda was transformed into a false reality. 2nd ed., 292 pages, b&w illustrations, bibliography, index. (#11)

Auschwitz: The First Gassing—Rumor and Reality. By Carlo Mattogno. The first gassing in Auschwitz is claimed to have occurred on Sept. 3, 1941, in a basement room. The accounts reporting it are the archetypes for all later gassing accounts. This study analyzes all available sources about this alleged event. It shows that these sources contradict each other in location, date, preparations, victims etc, rendering it impossible to extract a consistent story. Original wartime documents inflict a final blow to this legend and prove without a shadow of a doubt that this legendary event never happened. Third edition, 190 pages, b&w illustrations, bibliography, index. (#20)

Auschwitz: Crematorium I and the Alleged Homicidal Gassings. By Carlo Mattogno. The morgue of Crematorium I in Auschwitz is said to be the first homicidal gas chamber there. This study investigates all statements by witnesses and analyzes hundreds of wartime documents to accurately write a history of that building. Mattogno proves that its morgue was never a homicidal gas chamber, nor could it have worked as such. 2nd ed., 152 pages, b&w illustrations, bibliography, index. (#21)

Auschwitz: Open Air Incinerations. By Carlo Mattogno. Hundreds of thousands of corpses of murder victims are claimed to have been incinerated in deep ditches in the Auschwitz concentration camp. This book examines the many testimonies regarding these incinerations and establishes whether these claims were even possible. Using aerial photographs, physical evidence and wartime documents, the author shows that these claims are fiction. A new Appendix contains 3 papers on groundwater at Auschwitz and cattle mass burnings. A must read. Second edition. 202 pages, b&w illustrations, bibliography, index. (#17)

The Cremation Furnaces of Auschwitz. By Carlo Mattogno & Franco Deana. An exhaustive technical study of the history and technology of cremation in general and of the cremation furnaces of Auschwitz in particular. On a sound and thoroughly documented base of technical literature, extant wartime documents and material traces, Mattogno and Deana can establish the true nature and capacity of the Auschwitz cremation furnaces. They show that these devices were cheaper versions than what was usually produced, and that their capacity to cremate corpses was lower than normal, too. Hence this study reveals that the Auschwitz cremation furnaces were not monstrous super ovens but rather inferior make-shift devices. 3 vols., 1198 pages, b&w and color illustrations (vols 2 & 3), bibliography, index, glossary. (#24)

Curated Lies: The Auschwitz Museum’s Misrepresentations, Distortions and Deceptions. By Carlo Mattogno. Revisionist research results have put the Polish Auschwitz Museum under enormous pressure to answer this challenge. They’ve answered. This book analyzes their answer and reveals the appallingly mendacious attitude of the Auschwitz Museum authorities when presenting documents from their archives. With a contribution by Eric Hunt on the Auschwitz Museum’s misrepresentations of its most valued asset, the “gas chamber” in the Main Camp. 248 pages, b&w illustrations, bibliography, index. (#38)

Deliveries of Coke, Wood and Zyklon B to Auschwitz: Neither Proof Nor Trace for the Holocaust. By Carlo Mattogno. Researchers from the Auschwitz Museum tried to prove the reality of mass extermination by pointing to documents about deliveries of wood and coke as well as Zyklon B to the Auschwitz Camp. If put into the actual historical and technical context, however, these documents proof the exact opposite of what these orthodox researchers claim. Ca. 250 pp. b&w illustrations, bibliography, index. (Scheduled for mid-2019; #40)

Section Four: Witness Critique

Holocaust High Priest: Elie Wiesel, Night, the Memory Cult, and the Rise of Revisionism. By Warren B. Routledge. The first unauthorized biography of Wiesel exposes both his personal deceits and the whole myth of “the six million.” It shows how Zionist control has allowed Wiesel and his fellow extremists to force leaders of many nations, the U.N. and even popes to genuflect before Wiesel as symbolic acts of subordination to World Jewry, while at the same time forcing school children to submit to Holocaust brainwashing. 468 pages, b&w illust., bibliography, index. (#30)

Auschwitz: Eyewitness Reports and Perpetrator Confessions of the Holocaust. By Jürgen Graf. The traditional narrative of what transpired at the infamous Auschwitz camp during WWII rests almost exclusively on witness testimony from former inmates as well as erstwhile camp officials. This study critically scrutinizes the 30 most important of these witness statements by checking them for internal coherence, and by comparing them with one another as well as with other evidence such as wartime documents, air photos, forensic research results, and material traces. The result is devastating for the traditional narrative. Ca. 370 pp. b&w illustrations, bibliography, index. (#36)

Commandant of Auschwitz: Rudolf Höss, His Torture and His Forced Confessions. By Carlo Mattogno & Rudolf Höss. When Rudolf Höss was in charge at Auschwitz, the mass extermination of Jews in gas chambers is said to have been launched and carried out. He confessed this in numerous postwar depositions. Hence Höss’s testimony is the most convincing of all. But what traditional sources usually do not reveal is that Höss was severely tortured to coerce him to “confess,” and that his various statements are not only contradictory but also full of historically and physically impossible, even absurd claims. This study expertly analyzes Höss’s various confessions and lays them all open for everyone to see the ugly truth. (#35)

An Auschwitz Doctor’s Eyewitness Account: The Tall Tales of Dr. Mengele’s Assistant Analyzed. By Miklos Nyiszli & Carlo Mattogno. Nyiszli, a Hungarian physician, ended up at Auschwitz in 1944 as Dr. Mengele’s assistant. After the war he wrote a book and several other writings describing what he claimed to have experienced. To this day some traditional historians take his accounts seriously, while others reject them as grotesque lies and exaggerations. This study presents and analyzes Nyiszli’s writings and skillfully separates truth from fabulous fabrication. 484 pages, b&w illust., bibliography, index. (#37)

For current prices and availability see book finder sites such as www.bookfinder.com, www.addall.com, www.bookfinder4u.com or www.findbookprices.com; learn more at www.HolocaustHandbooks.com
Published by Castle Hill Publishers, PO Box 243, Uckfield, TN22 9AW, UK

Other Books by Castle Hill Publishers

Thomas Dalton, The Holocaust: An Introduction

The Holocaust was perhaps the greatest crime of the 20th century. Six million Jews, we are told, died by gassing, shooting, and deprivation. But: Where did the six million figure come from? How, exactly, did the gas chambers work? Why do we have so little physical evidence from major death camps? Why haven’t we found even a fraction of the six million bodies, or their ashes? Why has there been so much media suppression and governmental censorship on this topic? In a sense, the Holocaust is the greatest murder mystery in history. It is a topic of greatest importance for the present day. Let’s explore the evidence, and see where it leads. 128 pp. pb, 5”×8”, ill., bibl., index

Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz: A Three-Quarter Century of Propaganda: Origins, Development and Decline of the “Gas Chamber” Propaganda Lie

During the war, wild rumors were circulating about Auschwitz: that the Germans were testing new war gases; that inmates were murdered in electrocution chambers, with gas showers or pneumatic hammer systems; that living people were sent on conveyor belts directly into cremation furnaces; that oils, grease and soap were made of the mass-murder victims. Nothing of it was true. When the Soviets captured Auschwitz in early 1945, they reported that 4 million inmates were killed on electrocution conveyor belts discharging their load directly into furnaces. That wasn’t true either. After the war, “witnesses” and “experts” repeated these things and added more fantasies: mass murder with gas bombs, gas chambers made of canvas; carts driving living people into furnaces; that the crematoria of Auschwitz could have cremated 400 million victims… Again, none of it was true. This book gives an overview of the many rumors, myths and lies about Auschwitz which mainstream historians today reject as untrue. It then explains by which ridiculous methods some claims about Auschwitz were accepted as true and turned into “history,” although they are just as untrue. 125 pp. pb, 5”×8”, ill., bibl., index, b&w ill.

Wilhelm Stäglich, Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence

Auschwitz is the epicenter of the Holocaust, where more people are said to have been murdered than anywhere else. At this detention camp the industrialized Nazi mass murder is said to have reached its demonic pinnacle. This narrative is based on a wide range of evidence, the most important of which was presented during two trials: the International Military Tribunal of 1945/46, and the German Auschwitz Trial of 1963-1965 in Frankfurt. The late Wilhelm Stäglich, until the mid-1970s a German judge, has so far been the only legal expert to critically analyze this evidence. His research reveals the incredibly scandalous way in which the Allied victors and later the German judicial authorities bent and broke the law in order to come to politically foregone conclusions. Stäglich also exposes the shockingly superficial way in which historians are dealing with the many incongruities and discrepancies of the historical record. 3rd edition 2015, 422 pp. pb, 6”×9”, b&w ill.

Gerard Menuhin: Tell the Truth & Shame the Devil

A prominent Jew from a famous family says the “Holocaust” is a wartime propaganda myth which has turned into an extortion racket. Far from bearing the sole guilt for starting WWII as alleged at Nuremberg (for which many of the surviving German leaders were hanged) Germany is mostly innocent in this respect and made numerous attempts to avoid and later to end the confrontation. During the 1930s Germany was confronted by a powerful Jewish-dominated world plutocracy out to destroy it… Yes, a prominent Jew says all this. Accept it or reject it, but be sure to read it and judge for yourself! The author is the son of the great American-born violinist Yehudi Menuhin, who, though from a long line of rabbinical ancestors, fiercely criticized the foreign policy of the state of Israel and its repression of the Palestinians in the Holy Land. 4th edition 2017, 432 pp. pb, 6”×9”, b&w ill.

Robert H. Countess, Christian Lindtner, Germar Rudolf (eds.), Exactitude: Festschrift for Prof. Dr. Robert Faurisson

On January 25, 1929, a man was born who probably deserves the title of the most courageous intellectual of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st century: Robert Faurisson. With bravery and steadfastness, he challenged the dark forces of historical and political fraud with his unrelenting exposure of their lies and hoaxes surrounding the orthodox Holocaust narrative. This book describes and celebrates the man, who passed away on October 21, 2018, and his work dedicated to accuracy and marked by insubmission. 146 pp. pb, 6”×9”, b&w ill.

Cyrus Cox, Auschwitz – Forensically Examined

It is amazing what modern forensic crime-scene investigations can find out. This is also true for the Holocaust. There are many big tomes about this, such as Rudolf’s 400+ page book on the Chemistry of Auschwitz, or Mattogno’s 1200-page work on the crematoria of Auschwitz. But who reads those doorstops? Here is a booklet that condenses the most-important findings of Auschwitz forensics into a nutshell, quick and easy to read. In the first section, the forensic investigations conducted so far are reviewed. In the second section, the most-important results of these studies are summarized, making them accessible to everyone. The main arguments focus on two topics. The first centers around the poison allegedly used at Auschwitz for mass murder: Zyklon B. Did it leave any traces in masonry where it was used? Can it be detected to this day? The second topic deals with mass cremations. Did the crematoria of Auschwitz have the claimed huge capacity claimed for them? Do air photos taken during the war confirm witness statements on huge smoking pyres? Find the answers to these questions in this booklet, together with many references to source material and further reading. The third section reports on how the establishment has reacted to these research results. 124 pp. pb., 5”×8”, b&w ill., bibl., index

Steffen Werner, The Second Babylonian Captivity: The Fate of the Jews in Eastern Europe since 1941

“But if they were not murdered, where did the six million deported Jews end up?” This is a standard objection to the revisionist thesis that the Jews were not killed in extermination camps. It demands a well-founded response. While researching an entirely different topic, Steffen Werner accidentally stumbled upon the most-peculiar demographic data of Byelorussia. Years of research subsequently revealed more and more evidence which eventually allowed him to substantiate a breathtaking and sensational proposition: The Third Reich did indeed deport many of the Jews of Europe to Eastern Europe in order to settle them there “in the swamp.” This book, first published in German in 1990, was the first well-founded work showing what really happened to the Jews deported to the East by the National Socialists, how they have fared since, and who, what and where they are “now” (1990). It provides context and purpose for hitherto-obscure and seemingly arbitrary historical events and quite obviates all need for paranormal events such as genocide, gas chambers, and all their attendant horrifics. With a preface by Germar Rudolf with references to more-recent research results in this field of study confirming Werner’s thesis. 190 pp. pb, 6”×9”, b&w ill., bibl., index

Germar Rudolf, Holocaust Skepticism: 20 Questions and Answers about Holocaust Revisionism

This 15-page brochure introduces the novice to the concept of Holocaust revisionism, and answers 20 tough questions, among them: What does Holocaust revisionism claim? Why should I take Holocaust revisionism more seriously than the claim that the earth is flat? How about the testimonies by survivors and confessions by perpetrators? What about the pictures of corpse piles in the camps? Why does it matter how many Jews were killed by the Nazis, since even 1,000 would have been too many? … Glossy full-color brochure. PDF file free of charge available at www.HolocaustHandbooks.com, Option “Promotion”. This item is not copyright-protected. Hence, you can do with it whatever you want: download, post, email, print, multiply, hand out, sell…

15 pp., stapled, 8.5”×11”, full-color throughout

Germar Rudolf, Bungled: “Denying the Holocaust” How Deborah Lipstadt Botched Her Attempt to Demonstrate the Growing Assault on Truth and Memory

With her book Denying the Holocaust, Deborah Lipstadt tried to show the flawed methods and extremist motives of “Holocaust deniers.” This book demonstrates that Dr. Lipstadt clearly has neither understood the principles of science and scholarship, nor has she any clue about the historical topics she is writing about. She misquotes, mistranslates, misrepresents, misinterprets, and makes a plethora of wild claims without backing them up with anything. Rather than dealing thoroughly with factual arguments, Lipstadt’s book is full of ad hominem attacks on her opponents. It is an exercise in anti-intellectual pseudo-scientific arguments, an exhibition of ideological radicalism that rejects anything which contradicts its preset conclusions. F for FAIL. 2nd ed., 224 pp. pb, 5”×8”, bibl., index, b&w ill.

Carolus Magnus, Bungled: “Denying History”. How Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman Botched Their Attempt to Refute Those Who Say the Holocaust Never Happened

Skeptic Magazine editor Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman from the Simon Wiesenthal Center wrote a book in 2000 which they claim is “a thorough and thoughtful answer to all the claims of the Holocaust deniers.” In 2009, a new “updated” edition appeared with the same ambitious goal. In the meantime, revisionists had published some 10,000 pages of archival and forensic research results. Would their updated edition indeed answer all the revisionist claims? In fact, Shermer and Grobman completely ignored the vast amount of recent scholarly studies and piled up a heap of falsifications, contortions, omissions, and fallacious interpretations of the evidence. Finally, what the authors claim to have demolished is not revisionism but a ridiculous parody of it. They ignored the known unreliability of their cherry-picked selection of evidence, utilizing unverified and incestuous sources, and obscuring the massive body of research and all the evidence that dooms their project to failure. F for FAIL. 162 pp. pb, 5”×8”, bibl., index, b&w ill.

Carolus Magnus, Bungled: “Debunking Holocaust Denial Theories”. How James and Lance Morcan Botched Their Attempt to Affirm the Historicity of the Nazi Genocide

The novelists and movie-makers James and Lance Morcan have produced a book “to end [Holocaust] denial once and for all.” To do this, “no stone was left unturned” to verify historical assertions by presenting “a wide array of sources” meant “to shut down the debate deniers wish to create. One by one, the various arguments Holocaust deniers use to try to discredit wartime records are carefully scrutinized and then systematically disproven.” It’s a lie. First, the Morcans completely ignored the vast amount of recent scholarly studies published by revisionists; they didn’t even identify them. Instead, they engaged in shadowboxing, creating some imaginary, bogus “revisionist” scarecrow which they then tore to pieces. In addition, their knowledge even of their own side’s source material was dismal, and the way they backed up their misleading or false claims was pitifully inadequate. F for FAIL. 144 pp. pb, 5”×8”, bibl., index, b&w ill.

Joachim Hoffmann, Stalin’s War of Extermination 1941-1945

A German government historian documents Stalin’s murderous war against the German army and the German people. Based on the author’s lifelong study of German and Russian military records, this book reveals the Red Army’s grisly record of atrocities against soldiers and civilians, as ordered by Stalin. Since the 1920s, Stalin planned to invade Western Europe to initiate the “World Revolution.” He prepared an attack which was unparalleled in history. The Germans noticed Stalin’s aggressive intentions, but they underestimated the strength of the Red Army. What unfolded was the most-cruel war in history. This book shows how Stalin and his Bolshevik henchman used unimaginable violence and atrocities to break any resistance in the Red Army and to force their unwilling soldiers to fight against the Germans. The book explains how Soviet propagandists incited their soldiers to unlimited hatred against everything German, and he gives the reader a short but extremely unpleasant glimpse into what happened when these Soviet soldiers finally reached German soil in 1945: A gigantic wave of looting, arson, rape, torture, and mass murder… 428 pp. pb, 6”×9”, bibl., index, b&w ill.

Udo Walendy, Who Started World War II: Truth for a War-Torn World

For seven decades, mainstream historians have insisted that Germany was the main, if not the sole culprit for unleashing World War II in Europe. In the present book this myth is refuted. There is available to the public today a great number of documents on the foreign policies of the Great Powers before September 1939 as well as a wealth of literature in the form of memoirs of the persons directly involved in the decisions that led to the outbreak of World War II. Together, they made possible Walendy’s present mosaic-like reconstruction of the events before the outbreak of the war in 1939. This book has been published only after an intensive study of sources, taking the greatest care to minimize speculation and inference. The present edition has been translated completely anew from the German original and has been slightly revised. 500 pp. pb, 6”×9”, index, bibl., b&w ill.

Germar Rudolf: Resistance is Obligatory!

In 2005 Rudolf, a peaceful dissident and publisher of revisionist literature, was kidnapped by the U.S. government and deported to Germany. There the local lackey regime staged a show trial against him for his historical writings. Rudolf was not permitted to defend his historical opinions, as the German penal law prohibits this. Yet he defended himself anyway: 7 days long Rudolf held a speech in the court room, during which he proved systematically that only the revisionists are scholarly in their attitude, whereas the Holocaust orthodoxy is merely pseudo-scientific. He then explained in detail why it is everyone’s obligation to resist, without violence, a government which throws peaceful dissident into dungeons. When Rudolf tried to publish his public defence speech as a book from his prison cell, the public prosecutor initiated a new criminal investigation against him. After his probation time ended in 2011, he dared publish this speech anyway… 2nd ed. 2016, 378 pp. pb, 6”×9”, b&w ill.

Germar Rudolf, Hunting Germar Rudolf: Essays on a Modern-Day Witch Hunt

German-born revisionist activist, author and publisher Germar Rudolf describes which events made him convert from a Holocaust believer to a Holocaust skeptic, quickly rising to a leading personality within the revisionist movement. This in turn unleashed a tsunami of persecution against him: loss of his job, denied PhD exam, destruction of his family, driven into exile, slandered by the mass media, literally hunted, caught, put on a show trial where filing motions to introduce evidence is illegal under the threat of further proseuction, and finally locked up in prison for years for nothing else than his peaceful yet controversial scholarly writings. In several essays, Rudolf takes the reader on a journey through an absurd world of government and societal persecution which most of us could never even fathom actually exists.… 304 pp. pb, 6”×9”, bibl., index, b&w ill.

Germar Rudolf, The Day Amazon Murdered History

Amazon is the world’s biggest book retailer. They dominate the U.S. and several foreign markets. Pursuant to the 1998 declaration of Amazon’s founder Jeff Bezos to offer “the good, the bad and the ugly,” customers once could buy every book that was in print and was legal to sell. However, in early 2017, a series of anonymous bomb threats against Jewish community centers occurred in the U.S., fueling a campaign by Jewish groups to coax Amazon into banning revisionist writings, false portraing them as anti-Semitic. On March 6, 2017, Amazon caved in and banned more than 100 books with dissenting viewpoints on the Holocaust. In April 2017, an Israeli Jew was arrested for having placed the fake bomb threats, a paid “service” he had offered for years. But that did not change Amazon’s mind. Its stores remain closed for history books Jewish lobby groups disapprove of. This book accompanies the documentary of the same title. Both reveal how revisionist publications had become so powerfully convincing that the powers that be resorted to what looks like a dirty false-flag operation in order to get these books banned from Amazon… 128 pp. pb, 5”×8”, bibl., b&w ill.

Gerard Menuhin: Lies & Gravy: Landmarks in Human Decay – Two Plays

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, the hallucination of global supremacy was born. Few paid it any attention. After centuries of interference, when the end is in sight, we’re more inclined to take it seriously. But now, we have only a few years of comparative freedom left before serfdom submerges us all. So it’s time to summarize our fall and to name the guilty, or, as some have it, to spot the loony. Sometimes the message is so dire that the only way to get it across is with humor – to act out our predicament and its causes. No amount of expert testimony can match the power of spectacle. Here, at times through the grotesque violence typical of Grand Guignol, at times through the milder but no-less-horrifying conspiracies of men incited by a congenital disorder to fulfill their drive for world domination, are a few of the most-telling stages in their crusade against humanity, and their consequences, as imagined by the author. We wonder whether these two consecutive plays will ever be performed onstage… 112 pp. pb, 5”×8”

Notes

[←1]

 www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

[←2]

 For example: R. Iger, A. Horn, and B. Sherwood (Disney/ABC); P. Plepler, D. Levy, and J. Zucker (Warner/CNN); R. Greenblatt, B. Hammer, A. Lack, and R. Meyer (NBC); S. Redstone (Viacom and CBS); and until recently, L. Moonves (CBS). For a dated but still representative story on the major Hollywood studios, see J. Stein, “How Jewish is Hollywood?” (LA Times, 19 Dec 2008).

[←3]

 See G. Troy, “The Jewish vote,” www.rudermanfoundation.org (Sep 2016).

[←4]

 At least 27 of the 50 richest Americans are Jews (Bloomberg Billionaires Index, accessed August 2018). Among the 35 highest-paid CEOs, at least 19 are Jews. These proportions likely hold throughout the wealth hierarchy. On total private wealth in the US, see www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-net-worth-surpasses-100-trillion-1528387386.

[←5]

 It goes without saying that there is no archeological or historical evidence for the truth of Joseph’s story, or even of his very existence. But even as a work of fiction, it seems to accurately depict the Jewish mindset.

[←6]

 In Moran (1987: 298).

[←7]

 In Gabba (1984: 629).

[←8]

 In Stern (1974: 82-83).

[←9]

 In Stern (1974: 155).

[←10]

 In Stern (1974: 183).

[←11]

 In Stern (1974: 384).

[←12]

 Roman History, 69.13.

[←13]

 For Seneca’s and Quintilian’s comments, see Stern (1974: 431, 513). For Tacitus, see his Annals (XV, 44), and Histories (5.8).

[←14]

 Adversus Judaeos, I.VII.1.

[←15]

 Canon 67.

[←16]

 De Regimine Judaeorum, 81-88.

[←17]

 On the Jews and their Lies, in Luther (1955: 242).

[←18]

 D’Holbach (1770/1813: 26, 28).

[←19]

 In Hertzberg (1968: 300).

[←20]

 Hegel (1975: 190).

[←21]

 In Poliakov (1965, vol. 3: 180).

[←22]

 For a full study, see Eternal Strangers (Dalton, 2019c).

[←23]

 A large area, comprising much of present-day Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine, and Belarus.

[←24]

 In 1891 the New York Times ran the headline: “Russia’s Fierce Assault: Europe amazed at her treatment of Jews.” As the article explains, “Berlin… is overwhelmed by the advance wave of the flying Jews, driven on a day’s notice from their homes and swarming westward… ” (May 31; p. 1).

[←25]

 In Rather (1990: 163).

[←26]

 In Levy (1991: 83-84).

[←27]

 There are a few problems, however. First, the diary is dated some five months after the war actually started; it’s easy to recall a prediction after the fact. Second, Rosenthal’s book My Siberian Diary is nowhere to be found. The entry is recounted in an obscure periodical, “The Jewish Era,” dated January 1919 (p. 128); this was not only after the war was over, but after the Peace Conference had already begun.

[←28]

 In Stevens (1972: 132).

[←29]

 This was true of both Zionist and non-Zionist Jews. It’s worth noting that Zionism was a minority view among American Jews, at least for the first two decades of its existence. Many Jews, being ‘internationalists,’ did not feel the need for a Jewish homeland. And many realized that, should this come to pass, they would be charged with dual loyalty—as they are today. But with the Zionists’ relentless pressure and record of success, they became the dominant view. Today, perhaps 90% of American Jews, for example, are Zionists of one form or another.

[←30]

 In Slomovitz (1981: 6-7).

[←31]

 Taft (1919).

[←32]

 April 11, p. 18. The same article goes on to decry “the systematic, relentless quiet grinding down of a people of more than 6,000,000 souls.” This figure surely strikes a chord—but that’s another story.

[←33]

 To say that Stolypin was no friend of the Jews is an understatement. He once wrote: “It is important that racial characteristics have so drastically set the Jewish people apart from the rest of humanity as to make them totally different creatures who cannot enter into our concept of human nature” (in Vaksberg 1994: 6).

[←34]

 In Singer (2015). Sazonov served from 1910 to 1916.

[←35]

 ‘AIPAC’ stands for American Israel Political Affairs Committee.

[←36]

 Indeed—a “special effort” was made to get the support of Wilson, “whose influence was rising within the Democratic ranks” (p. 32).

[←37]

 Sombart (1911/1982: 44).

[←38]

 In Dearborn Independent (25 June 1921).

[←39]

 Shogan (2010: xi).

[←40]

 Dearborn Independent, 11 June 1921. The entire ‘international Jew’ series ran without a byline, and so for sake of convenience I attribute them to Ford—even though it is unlikely that he wrote the pieces himself.

[←41]

 Cooper (1983: 194).

[←42]

 War Expenditures: Parts 1 to 13. US Government Printing Office (1921: 1814, 1816).

[←43]

 In Chalberg (1995: 46-47).

[←44]

 Other Americans died on foreign-flagged ships—most notoriously, 128 on the Lusitania. But this still pales in comparison to the thousands who would die in a war.

[←45]

 Online at: www.historymatters.gmu.edu. I am not aware of any explicit polling data supporting his claim that 90% of Americans were opposed to entering the war, but it seems to have been a reasonable estimate.

[←46]

 In Chalberg (1995: 71-73).

[←47]

 Schneer (2010: 153) is typical: there was “no such thing” as a powerful Jewish force in world affairs. Any thoughts to the contrary are “based upon a misconception.” Hodgson (2006: 154-155) is another example: “the influence of Zionism [was] considerably exaggerated” by the British government, who believed the international Jews to be “more influential and more Zionist than in fact they were.”

[←48]

 Jews had a near total monopoly on the film business. The only significant non-Jewish movie mogul was Darryl Zanuck, who was a studio head at 20th Century Fox for many years.

[←49]

 Among the leading figures, Ben-Sasson (p. 944) mentions Julius Martov, Fyodor Dan, and Raphael Abramowitz.

[←50]

 Encyclopedias are usually good sources for conventional views. Quotations here come from World Book, 2003 edition, entry on ‘Balfour Declaration.’

[←51]

 See Stein (1961: 28).

[←52]

 See Lloyd George (1939: 725), Ziff (1938: 55), Stein (1961: 528), and Liebreich (2005: 12).

[←53]

 Minutes of the War Cabinet for October 31; see Ingrams (1972: 16).

[←54]

 In Cohen (1985/2003: 195). A shorter version appears in Gilbert (2007: 165).

[←55]

 In Chalberg (1995: 71-73).

[←56]

 The New York Times periodically carried such reports. See, for example: 26 January 1891 (“Rabbi Gottheil says a word on the persecution of the Jews… about six millions persecuted and miserable wretches”), 21 September 1891 (“An indictment of Russia… a total of 6,000,000 is more nearly correct.”), 11 June 1900 (“[In Russia and central Europe] there are 6,000,000 living, bleeding, suffering arguments in favor of Zionism.”), 23 March 1905 (“We Jews in America [sympathize with] our 6,000,000 cringing brothers in Russia”), 25 March 1906 (“Startling reports of the condition and future of Russia’s 6,000,000 Jews… ”). The situation led a former president of B’nai B’rith to a prophetic exclamation: “Simon Wolf asks how long the Russian Holocaust is to continue” (10 November 1905). History does indeed repeat itself.

[←57]

 According to Vaksberg (1994: 37), the Jews leading the execution were Yakov (Yanker) Yurovsky, Shaia Goloshchekin, Lev Sosnovsky, Pinkus Vainer (Voikov), and Yakov Sverdlov.

[←58]

 It seems that he had good reason for this enmity. According to Cecil (1996: 57), Wilhelm “believed that Jews were perversely responsible… for encouraging opposition to his rule.” In a letter to a friend, the Kaiser wrote: “The Hebrew race are my most inveterate enemies at home and abroad; they remain what they are and always were: the forgers of lies and the masterminds governing unrest, revolution, upheaval by spreading infamy with the help of their poisoned, caustic, satyric spirit” (in Rohl 1994: 210). Townley (1922: 45) relates this comment of his: “The Jews are the curse of my country. They keep my people poor and in their clutches. In every small village in Germany sits a dirty Jew, like a spider drawing the people into the web of usury. He lends money to the small farmers on the security of their land, and so gradually acquires control of everything. The Jews are the parasites of my Empire.” He adds that the Jewish question is one of his “great problems,” but one in which “nothing can be done to cope with it.” In 1940, with Hitler moving to clean up Europe, he said this: “The Jews are being thrust out of the nefarious positions in all countries, whom they have driven to hostility for centuries” (in Rohl: 211).

[←59]

 In MacMillan (2003: 414-415).

[←60]

 Muller adds, “The prominence of Jews in the Hungarian Soviet Republic is all the more striking when one considers that the Jews of Hungary were richer than their coreligionists in Eastern Europe… Though only 5% of the population, on the eve of WWI, Jews made up almost half the doctors, lawyers, and journalists in Hungary.” But this is precisely as I have argued: no amount of wealth or social status is sufficient, if Jews lack political power.

[←61]

 Mowrer (1933: 228) confirms these names: “a number of outspoken revolutionary leaders, Rosa Luxemburg in Berlin, Erich Muehsam and Ernst Toller in Munich, were Jews.”

[←62]

 The New York Times of that day ran a gleeful headline: “Berlin Seized by Revolutionists.”

[←63]

 Wentling (2012: 6).

[←64]

 A good, brief account is given in MacMillan (2003: 463-466).

[←65]

 Until his assassination in June 1922.

[←66]

 For one account, see Darkmoon (2013). Also see Bryant (1940: 142-145).

[←67]

 Section 5.7, volume one. See Hitler (2018: 189).

[←68]

 Section 7.4, volume one. See Hitler (2018: 210).

[←69]

 Ford’s so-called “Peace Ship” sailed to Norway in December of 1915, in a failed attempt to negotiate an end to the war.

[←70]

 In Shogan (2010: 51).

[←71]

 In Ward (1989: 253). See also Morgenthau (1991: 169 facer).

[←72]

 Various other extremist writings have also claimed that the Delano family (Franklin’s mother’s side) were Jews. They construct a parallel account to the Rossacampo story, and of dispersion from Spain or Italy. But I find no evidence to verify this claim.

[←73]

 This recalls the similar characterization of Baruch during World War I.

[←74]

 See Leutze (1975: 469-470).

[←75]

 The first Jewish cabinet member, as we recall, was Oscar Straus, selected by Franklin’s cousin Theodore back in 1906.

[←76]

 See Makovsky (2007: 216).

[←77]

 Bullitt’s heritage is somewhat cryptic. His mother, Louisa Horowitz, was apparently at least half-Jewish. Her father, Orville Horowitz, descended from the Salomon family, who were distinctly Jewish. Her mother, Maria Gross, likely had a mixed Jewish heritage. But there is no doubt where his sympathies lay; “Bullitt [is] a friend of ours,” wrote Weizmann in 1938 (in Nasaw 2012: 358).

[←78]

 Though scandalous at the time, such level of Jewish influence is commonplace today—with three of nine Supreme Court justices being Jewish (Kagan, Breyer, Ginsburg), and numerous Cabinet-level appointments and countless subordinate positions, covering the past several US administrations, Republican and Democrat alike.

[←79]

 Both citations from Chalberg (1995: 192-193).

[←80]

 Public Opinion Quarterly, 4(4), December 1940: 714.

[←81]

 Public Opinion Quarterly, 5(4), Winter 1941: 680.

[←82]

 Public Opinion Quarterly, 2(3), July 1938: 388.

[←83]

 By late 1936, the “600,000” had evolved into “6 million.” In the New York Times (Nov. 26) we read this: “Dr. Weizmann dwelt first on the tragedy of at least 6,000,000 ‘superfluous’ Jews in Poland, Germany, and Austria… ” It was even more explicit by early 1938: “Persecuted Jews Seen on Increase… 6,000,000 Victims Noted” (Jan. 9)—this, a full four years before the alleged “death camps” even began operation.

[←84]

 In Herzstein (1989: 33).

[←85]

 The New York Times had long been under Jewish control. The Post was purchased by Eugene Meyer in 1933.

[←86]

 See Dalton (2019) for an elaboration of Goebbels’s views.

[←87]

 Testimony of February 1941, in Doenecke (2000: 440). See also Fuller (1957, vol. 3: 369).

[←88]

 In Weber (1983). This and other reports by Potocki were acquired by the Germans upon capture of Warsaw, and thus there is some skepticism about their authenticity. Weber makes a good case that they are genuine. Aigner (1985: 545) remarks that they “have now generally been accepted as authentic.” David Irving reports that he saw copies of the original in the Hoover Library (http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/General/Potocki/papers.html).

[←89]

 In Cole (1983: 308).

[←90]

 In Fuller (1957: 370).

[←91]

 Traditional references to Kristallnacht often overlook the fact that the event was triggered by a Jewish youth, Herschel Grynszpan, who murdered German Diplomat Ernst vom Rath in Paris on November 9. Kristallnacht followed the next day.

[←92]

 See Weber (1983) and Fuller (1957: 372-374).

[←93]

 In Fuller (1957: 375).

[←94]

 In Trythall (1981: 400). Trythall himself had some less-than-kind words to offer. Calling Hore-Belisha “a clever, ambitious, publicity-seeking Jew” (396), Trythall runs through a list of personal failings: H-B was “not a great intellect,” was “extremely self-centered and had a fine conceit of himself,” had “transparent ambition,” and displayed “an unacceptable assertiveness.” In other words, H-B was the stereotypical Jewish politician, pushing for war while seeking self-aggrandizement.

[←95]

 In Bendersky (2000: 255).

[←96]

 See Szembek (1952: 476), published in French. The first sentence reads as follows: “En Occident, il y a toutes sortes d’elements qui poussent nettement a la guerre: les Juifs, les grands capitalists, les marchands de canons.”

[←97]

 As recorded by Ickes in his personal diary, for July 2. See Ickes (1954: 676).

[←98]

 Obviously there is more to the outbreak of war than I can provide here. In brief, once Poland received a guarantee of military support from England in March of 1939, they became increasingly belligerent toward German minorities on Polish soil, particularly in Danzig. It seems bizarre in hindsight, but many of the Poles (Potocki excepted), with the Brits at their back, were virtually spoiling for a fight with Germany. They believed that a victory would solidify their national standing, and help to ward off the Soviet threat to the east. Instead they succumbed to the German assault in just four weeks.

[←99]

 In Nasaw (2012: 429).

[←100]

 In Cohen (2003: 195).

[←101]

 Churchill himself was a Zionist—a fact that he openly admitted. In a 1942 letter to Roosevelt, Churchill said, “I am strongly wedded to the Zionist policy [in the UK], of which I was one of the authors” (in Loewenheim 1975: 234). Speaking in 1950 on behalf of the creation of Israel, he said that it was “a great event in the history of mankind,” and that he was “proud of his own contribution towards it.” He added that “he had been a Zionist all his life” (in Cohen 2003: 322).

[←102]

 In Doenecke (2000: 198).

[←103]

 “New World Order Pledged to Jews,” New York Times (6 Oct 1940; p. 10).

[←104]

 In Dunn (2013: 48).

[←105]

 Including Beasts of Berlin, Espionage Agent, Arise My Love, British Intelligence, Escape to Glory, Murder in the Air, Waterloo Bridge, All Through the Night, Confirm or Deny, International Squadron, Joan of Paris, Man at Large, Man Hunt, One Night in Lisbon, Paris Calling, So Ends Our Night, Sundown, Underground, and World Premiere.

[←106]

 We can imagine the outcry if a senior member of government had expressed concern over “the Jewish book of world conquest,” “the Jews’ plan of world domination,” or “a Jew-dominated world”—though these things were far more real as threats.

[←107]

 Aigner (1985: 255) comments extensively on “the dearth of hard factual evidence… of Hitler’s plan for world conquest.” Later (p. 544) he offers this statement: “Even during the course of the Second World War, the US State Department was forced to concede that it did not possess any hard evidence.” He then quotes them: “It is impossible to adduce from the writings of Hitler or other Nazi leaders direct statements indicating that they aspire to the domination of the entire world.” Buchanan (2008: 334-340) gives a succinct argument that Hitler had a hard enough time taking even Great Britain, let alone America or “the world.”

[←108]

 For a full account, see Stinnett (2001).

[←109]

 Chicago Tribune (2 Jan 1972; p. A22). See also New York Times (1 Jan 1972; p. 7).

[←110]

 In Jackson (2003: 247). See also Morgenstern (1947: 292).

[←111]

 See New York Times (16 Feb 1946; p. 1).

[←112]

 Geithner’s status is unclear, but his wife Carole Sonnenfeld is certainly Jewish, and we can therefore draw the likely conclusion.

[←113]

 As reported by FoxNews (16 Oct 2003).

[←114]

 In Shogan (2010: 33).

[←115]

 In ibid: 96.

[←116]

 In the words of Dallek (1979: 31).

[←117]

 According to Breitman and Lichtman (2013: 6).

[←118]

 Quoted in the New York Times (14 Oct 1944, p. 9)

[←119]

 Bryant (1940: 139-140).

[←120]

 In Brecher (1988: 47).

[←121]

 Of course, in reality Jews positively endorse ethnic cleansing for their own state; witness their actions in Israel/Palestine. It’s only evil when done to them, not by them.

[←122]

 London Times (22 Nov).

[←123]

 It’s true that by the 1930s, both Lenin and Trotsky were out of power (the former dead, the latter exiled), but many other Jews continued to play leading roles in the USSR, including Kaganovich, Radek, Litvinov, Goloshchekin, Mekhlis, Yagoda, Trilisser, Agranov, Berman, and Maisky. More importantly, fundamental Jewish principles were still embodied in the Stalinist-Marxist system.

[←124]

 On the revisionist view, Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka were transit camps, complete with delousing (‘gassing’) facilities. Jews were shipped there, deloused, and then sent on further east.

[←125]

 For a full discussion, see Dalton (2019). For some corroborating views, see also Hitler on the Jews (Dalton 2019b).

[←126]

 For more on the many problematic issues surrounding the Holocaust, see Dalton (2015).

[←127]

 See Ross (2015: 98).

[←128]

 “LBJ tapes reveal strong link to Israel” (Chicago Tribune, 29 May 2008).

[←129]

 “A friend in deed” (Jerusalem Post, 9 Sep 2008).

[←130]

 “The cold warrior who never apologized” (New York Times, 8 Sep 2017).

[←131]

 Mary’s mother was Dycie Kerbey. John’s mother was Suzanne Ament. Both Kerbey and Ament are names of Jewish origin.

[←132]

 This figure is in dispute, due in part to the notorious difficulty in calculating “incremental deaths,” especially for children. But clearly it’s impossible for a near-total financial and trade embargo to have no effect. In fact the large incremental deaths were all but acknowledged in 1996 by American ambassador to the UN (and full ethnic Jew) Madeline Albright, who said in a televised interview that the price “was worth it.

[←133]

 See, for example, Solving 9-11 by C. Bollyn, and Masters of Deception by Z. Fuerza.

[←134]

 Washington Post (11 Mar 2003).

[←135]

 For more details on Jewish influence with Obama, Clinton, and Bush, see Dalton (2015: 268-276).