p. 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422
The Talmudic Vengeance
Despite the protests of the responsible American Cabinet officers, Messrs. Hull and Stimson, and the professionals in the British Foreign Office, the Second War ended in “a peace of vengeance”; or rather (as vengeance is the denial of, and can never beget peace) in a vengeance which planted the seeds of new war.
The two “premier-dictators” of the West, Messrs. Roosevelt and Churchill, took responsibility for the vengeance, for, despite their later disavowals of it, they both signed the document which was its charter: the Protocol of the Yalta Conference. Under this the Christian West joined with the barbaric East to wreak a barbaric vengeance on Europe. The aim of this chapter is to discover where the original responsibility lay (for the avowal that they acted at the promptings or under the pressure of shadowy others, or in ignorance of what they signed, occurs in the statements of both men; here the ultimate powerlessness of these seemingly all-powerful wartime potentates is shown).
In January 1943 Mr. Roosevelt, at Casablanca, first struck the note of “blind vengeance,” when he “suddenly stated the principle of unconditional surrender” (Mr. Hull). The words, with their Old Testamentary ring, meant that the enemy would not be granted peace at any price whatever, and this was the absolute reversal of all “principles” previously proclaimed by the Western leaders. The responsible American Cabinet member, Mr. Hull, states that he and his department had not been informed of this somersault in policy and that “Mr. Churchill was dumbfounded”; also that the British Foreign Office appealed for the term to be avoided. Mr. Churchill (as he stated after the war in the House of Commons) nevertheless supported the use of the term “but only after it was used by the President without consultation with me.” Mr. Churchill added that “if the British Cabinet had considered these words they would have advised against it” (but for, many years he continued to urge the desirability of “summit” conferences between the Moscovite dictator and the two Western leaders, despite this experience).
Thus at Casablanca in 1943 the decision to wreak vengeance was first taken. This was the background to the “Morgenthau Plan” of September 1944 (obviously first devised in Moscow, then drafted by Mr. Harry Dexter White for his superior, then forwarded by Mr. Morgenthau to Mr. Roosevelt, who with Mr. Churchill initialled it), the spirit of which pervaded the Yalta Conference and its Protocol. Mr. Roosevelt's later expression of astonishment (“he had no idea how he could have initialled this”) and Mr. Churchill's words of regret (“I had not time to examine the Morgenthau Plan in detail … I am sorry I put my initials to it”) are both voided by the fact that both then signed the Yalta document, its child and the charter of vengeance.
By giving their names to it the two Western leaders did greater harm to the West than any it could have suffered by war; what is destroyed by explosive can
be rebuilt, but spiritual values achieved by the efforts of nations during nineteen centuries, once ruined are harder to restore. The East lost nothing because vengeance was its barbaric tradition, partly discarded during the last century of the Czars' rule but re-established in 1917. In the West, the area of Christendom, the case was different.
During the centuries the West had gradually improved the conduct of warfare from the savagery of primitive times to the civilized code which it reached by the end of the reign of Louis XIV. The nations came ever more to accept this overriding code, which outlawed the insensate killing or maltreatment of noncombatants and the plunder of their property, which provided for the immunity of a flag of mercy, and laid down that enemy dead, wounded and prisoners must be cared for as the combatant's own. Out of all this, in time, came an international organization, under the sign of the cross, which took thought and care for every soldier alike, without regard to nationality or rank. Probably this code of civilizing warfare formed the best possible first step towards the abolition of war for which men ultimately hope. The records of war waged under this code are uplifting to study; those of wars which denied it repel.
The wars of the 19th Century in Europe were fought, in increasing measure, under this code, so that their stories show man's effort to dignify himself even in war. This holds good of the Crimean war, and of the three Prussian wars, against Denmark, Austria and Prussia. They were honourably waged and concluded. (The only great Western war of that century in which the picture darkened was the civil one in America, where vengeance was wreaked, after victory, on the defeated party. This would not have happened but for the assassination of President Lincoln, the pacifier and unifier, within a few days of the victory; in the unlit shadows of that crime the same revolutionary conspirators may lurk, who demonstrably have shaped the events of our country).
With that exception, war continued to be waged under this civilizing code throughout the West and wherever the West set its foot. At this century's beginning came the Anglo-Boer War in South Africa. A few extracts from the journal of the Boer Colonel Deneys Reitz, written immediately after the fighting, show how men at war behaved towards each other, under this code, only fifty years ago:
In a British prisoner-of-war camp: “One prisoner asked for an interview with my father. His name was Winston Churchill … he said he was not a combatant but a war-correspondent and asked to be released on that account. My father replied that he was carrying a Mauser pistol when taken and so must remain where he was. Winston Churchill said that all war-correspondents in the Soudan carried weapons for self-protection, and the comparison annoyed my father, who told him the Boers were not in the habit of killing non-combatants …”
After the Boer victory at Spion Kop: “We spent the next hour or two helping the English Red Cross doctors and bearer parties bury their dead and carry away
their wounded …”
After the Boer capture of Dundee: “I saw General Penn Symons, the Commander of the English troops. He was mortally wounded and the nurses told me he could not last out the night. Next morning … I met a bearer-party carrying his body, wrapped in a blanket, and I accompanied them to where they buried him behind the little English chapel ….”
At the Boer siege of Ladysmith: “One of our men was shot through both legs and another pluckily carried him back to the spruit on his shoulders, the English firing all around him, until they realized that he was helping a wounded comrade, after which they let him go in peace and were even sporting enough to allow him to return to us without a shot fired”; “… A huge soldier loomed up in the dark … he lunged at me with his bayonet, but his insecure footing deflected the thrust and brought him stumbling against me. The man was at my mercy now, for I had my carbine against his side, but there came over me an aversion to shooting him down like a dog, so I ordered him to put up his hands instead …”
“I found the soldier whom I had killed and was horrified to see that my bullet had blown half his head away, the explanation being that during one of our patrols I had found a few explosive Mauser cartridges at a deserted trading station and had taken them for shooting game. I kept them in a separate pocket of my bandolier but in my excitement had rammed one of them into the magazine of my rifle without noticing it. I was distressed at my mistake … I would not knowingly have used this type of ammunition. I flung the remainder into the brook …”
After a battle: “The serious casualties were left for the British ambulances to pick up … the English soldiers, officers and men, were unfailingly humane. This was so well known that there was never any hesitation in abandoning a wounded man to the mercy of the troops, in the sure knowledge that he would be taken away and carefully nursed.
“We saw the lights of a train, but General Smuts would not allow us to pile boulders on the metals nor to fire as the engine thundered by, for fear of killing civilians, so we stood aside, catching a glimpse of officers and others seated in the dining-car … all unaware of the men looking at them from the darkness.”
On the way to the Boer surrender: “On board the British battleship Monarch we spent a week in comfort, for officers and men vied with each other in their efforts to welcome us. The British, with all their faults, are a generous nation … throughout the time that we were amongst them there was no word said that could hurt our feelings or offend our pride, although they knew that we were on an errand of defeat.”
This is a picture of civilized men at war. Today's parrot-phrase about “the next war destroying civilization” is empty, because civilization is a state of mind and spirit and cannot be destroyed by explosives, though it can be destroyed by such deeds as the vengeance of 1945. The war depicted by Colonel Reitz was fought
when I was a boy and the code observed by such men as he, on all sides and in war or peace, was the one which Englishmen of my generation were taught to honour.
It was honoured in the First World War. I remember the British treatment of prisoners-of-war and I remember the liberation of British prisoners from German ones in the final advance; the treatment was similar in both. A wounded man had no nationality; he received as good care, if he were a captive, as if he were hit on his own side of the line. Non-combatants and civilian populations were respected; plunder and rape were outlawed.
What, then, caused the sudden abandonment of this civilized code of warfare by the West after the Second World War? The peoples had not changed in the twenty-seven years that had passed, from the Armistice of 1918. They were not more cruel or less kindly than before. They were blinded by a propaganda which hid from them the real nature of their leaders' deeds; and these leaders, by their own words, were prompted by others or did not know what they signed. In that way the vengeance of 1945 was wreaked and civilized men were left to say, with Edmund Burke, “It is gone, that sensibility of principle, that chastity of honour, which felt a stain like a wound.”
The significant prelude came, even before the fighting ceased, with the indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations in a country already defeated but denied the refuge of surrender. The killing of non-combatants was the reproach most loudly raised against Germany, in both wars, by the British and American politicians. On February 10, 1944 the Yalta Conference ended, where Mr. Roosevelt, in private parley with Stalin, had said he was feeling “more bloodthirsty” than before about the Germans. On February 13 and 14 British and American bombers for hours on end rained explosive on Dresden, a city crowded with fugitives, mostly women and children, from the advancing Red armies. The number of people killed, burned and buried that day and night will never be known; estimates vary between 50,000 and 250,000. The war documents so far issued do not disclose who ordered this act, and strict measures were apparently taken to prevent the affair from ever being brought under public discussion.
After that came General Eisenhower's order to halt the Anglo-American advance on the Elbe line, and therewith to abandon Berlin, Vienna and Prague, and all East Europe to the Soviet armies. This was vengeance against friend and foe alike, for it meant the abandonment of half a continent to Asiatic enslavement. It was made more barbaric by the order (the effect of which was earlier shown in an eye-witness's words) to the Allied armies to prevent fugitives from the abandoned area, by force, from escaping to the West; at that point British and American gun-muzzles were turned against many of Hitler's victims,
as well as German women and children. The culminating deed came later when, from the camps where hundreds of thousands of these refugees were gathered, having reached the West earlier or despite the cordon, many were picked out to be driven back to their pursuers.
England had abolished slavery, in its overseas colonies, more than a century before this; in America, President Lincoln had abolished it during the Civil War of 1861-1865. By these acts the wartime leaders of England and America re-introduced slavery in Europe in 1945!
The trials of “war criminals” formed the peaks of the vengeance and the Everest of them all was reached in the Nuremberg trial of the chief Nazi leaders.
The “wicked man” whom the masses had for six years been incited to destroy was not named in the indictment at all, even in absentia, although his deputy Martin Bormann (whose death was no more or less proven than Hitler's) was included. This significant gap at the end of Hitler's career may be as significant as many earlier gaps in what is generally known about him. In these days, when the infiltration of all parties, classes and governments by the agents of the revolution is a known and proven thing, it is of interest that the mass of literature about him ignores his early associations and the strong evidence of his Communist background. The Viennese police dossier of his early days has apparently disappeared. His later Brown Army commander, Captain Roehm, told a Storm Troop leader (who told me) that when the Bavarian troops drove the Bolshevist Government out of Munich in 1919 the unknown Adolf Hitler was taken prisoner with the bodyguard of the Moscow emissary Levine, and saved his skin by turning informer (this might explain why Roehm, the possessor of incriminating knowledge, was killed by Hitler after he came to power). Hitler's own original proposal for the name of the National Socialist party was “the Social Revolutionary Party”; he described himself as “the executor of Marxism” (not its executioner); and he told Hermann Rauschning that he had built his organization on the model of Communism. I met Hitler once or twice and studied him at close quarters for many years, before and after his rise to power; I believe that no genuinely informative work about him and the part he played has yet appeared.
This period was marked by a series of acts which evidently were deliberately devised to give it a nature of mockery especially humiliating to the Christian West; it was as if captives were made to perform clownish tricks for the amusement of their captors. This was shown at Nuremberg when the Soviet judge was selected to read the part of the judgment which condemned the Germans for taking men and women away from their homes and sending them to distant camps where they worked as slave labour. The British, American and French members of the court listened while Western justice, their inheritance and trust, was mocked. At that time, under the Yalta agreement, Germans, Poles and many more were being taken from their homes and sent to slave-camps; behind the Soviet judge
loomed the shadow of the Moscow cellars where men were shot without trial and of the vast Siberian prisonland where, for thirty years then, millions of uncharged and untried human beings wasted in slavery.
So much for the peaks of the vengeance. In the foothills unnumbered smaller deeds were committed which make up the darkest pages in the recent story of the West. It was a reversal to barbarism; where lay the inspiration of it? What directing hand made the Western leaders abet the revolution from the East in a vengeance of the kind practised by savage, primitive tribes? This vengeance was not “the Lord's” in the Christian interpretation. Whose vengeance was it?
Certain symbolic deeds were evidently meant to establish the authorship, or nature, of the vengeance. These crowning acts of symbolism were the reproductions, after nearly thirty years, of the similar acts committed during the revolution in Russia: the Talmudic boast left on the wall of the Romanoffs' death chamber and the canonization of Judas Iscariot. After the Second World War the Nazi leaders were hanged on the Jewish Day of Judgment in 1946, so that their execution was presented to Jewry in the shape of Mordecai's vengeance on Haman and his sons. Then in the Bavarian village of Oberammergau, where the world-famous Passion Play had been performed for three centuries, the players of the chief parts were put on trial for “Nazi activities” before a Communist court. Those who appeared as Jesus and the apostles were all declared guilty; the one performer acquitted was he who took the part of Judas.
These things do not happen by accident, and the vengeance on Germany, like the earlier one on Russia, was in this way given the imprint of a Talmudic vengeance (that is, a vengeance on Christendom, the Talmud being the specifically anti-Christian continuation of the pre-Christian Torah). The vengeful writ ran on both sides of the line which by that time was supposed to be an “Iron Curtain” dividing “the free world” from the enslaved Asiatic one; in this matter of vengeance there was no iron curtain. Nuremberg was in the Western zone; Oberammergau in the Soviet one.
By the choice of the Jewish Day of Judgment for the hanging of the Nazi leaders and German commanders the Western leaders gave the conclusion of the Second War this aspect of a vengeance exacted specifically in the name of “the Jews.” The shape which the trial took showed the purpose of the immense propaganda of falsification conducted during the war, which I have earlier described. “Crimes against Jews” were singled out as a separate count, as if Jews were different from other human beings (and when the judgment was delivered a hundred million human beings in Eastern Europe had been handed over to the general persecution of all men, from which Jews in their proportion suffered in Germany). This particular indictment was made “the crux of the case” against the defendants (Captain Liddell Hart's words) and was based on the assertion that “six million Jews” had been killed (as time went by the word “perished” was substituted for “killed”). An impartial court would at the outset have thrown out
any suit based on this completely unverifiable assertion: At Nuremberg lawyers, who in a private case would have demanded acquittal on the strength of an unproven statement in respect of a decimal point or digit, used this fantastic figure as the basis of their demand for conviction.
I earlier described, with illustrations from Jewish sources, the process by means of which, over the years, the Jews were “singled out” from the mass of Hitler's victims and their number inflated at will from day to day (Hitler's book-bonfire became “the burning of Jewish books”; his concentration camps where ninety percent of the inmates were Germans became concentration camps for Jews; a wartime report about the killing of” 150,000 White Russians, Ukrainians and Jews at Kieff” was changed to “150,000 Jews”; and so on interminably).
The statement about the “six million Jews,” allowed to pass without question by the men on the bench, was the end-product of this process. In six years of war the Germans, Japanese and Italians, using every lethal means, killed 824,928 British, British Commonwealth and American fighting-men, merchant sailors and civilians. Assuming that the Germans killed, say, half of these in Europe, they killed (according to this assertion) fifteen times as many Jews there. To do that, they would have needed such quantities of men, weapons, transports, guards and materials as would have enabled them to win the war many times over.
The figure would not even deserve scrutiny if it had not been used to give the Second War the brand of “a Jewish war” and if that, again, did not foreshadow the shape of any third war. Because of that, it may be examined here.
At no time in history, from antiquity to this day, can the number of Judahites, Judeans or Jews, living at any given time, be determined; for that reason the number afflicted in any calamity also cannot be determined, and there are many more reasons why the number of Jewish victims in the Second World War cannot be fixed. The process of mystification begins in Genesis and continues through the Torah (the seventy people taken by Jacob to Egypt, for instance, apparently increased to two or three million within 150 years). At all periods large, and sometimes huge variations occur in the “estimates,” and only estimates are possible, as the present term, “Jew,” is legally indefinable and statistically elusive.
An eminent Jewish authority, Dr. Hans Kohn, in his article on “the distribution of Jews” in the Encyclopaedia Britannica Book of the Year for 1942, writes:
“In view of the fact that in several of the countries where the largest number of Jews were living in 1941 the census did not contain any questions regarding religion … the exact number of Jews in the world in 1941 could not be ascertained. The definition of persons falling under the classification of ‘Jewish race' is in no way agreed upon … In countries where the census included questions of religious origins, even this religious criterion of Jewish faith is difficult to define exactly.
Thus the assumption which generally varied around the figure of 16 million” (for the entire world) “cannot claim any foundation on exact ‘figures. To this uncertainty about the number of Jews in the world was added in recent years a growing uncertainty about their numerical distribution in the different countries and continents. Probably more than 6,000,000 Jews lived in Poland and the U.S.S.R.”
A weaker basis than that even for “estimates” (not to speak of “statistics”) can hardly be imagined, yet in the ensuing period, when all the additional confusions of war and occupation were piled on this infirm foundation, precise numbers of Jewish casualties were produced day by day, circulated by thousands of assiduous propagandists, and at the end declared to amount to six millions!
Dr. Kohn says that “probably” more than 6,000,000 Jews lived in Poland and U.S.S.R. in 1941. In respect of the U.S.S.R. this might corroborate another Jewish authority (Prof. H.M.T. Loewe), who said in the Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1937 that 2,700,000 Jews then lived there. Similarly, four years earlier (1933) the Jewish journal Opinion had stated that the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. was under 3,000,000; and the Soviet official Encyclopaedia in 1953 stated that “the Jewish population of the Soviet Union in 1939 was 3,020,000.”
This near agreement among four authorities in respect of the period 1933-1941 might lead the reader to think that the number of Jews in one country at least (the U.S.S.R.) was established with reasonable accuracy at a given time. On the contrary, this is a statistical jungle where nothing is ever established. In 1943 the Jewish Commissar Mikhoels said in London (according to the Johannesburg Jewish Times of 1952), “Today we have in the Soviet Union 5,000,000 Jews.” That is two million more than two years before, and if it was true presumably meant that most of the Jews in Poland, after Hitler and Stalin fell out, moved into Soviet territory. However, in the same issue of the Jewish Times a leading Jewish writer, Mr. Joseph Leftwich, stated that the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. in 1952 was 2,500,000, “a loss since 1943 of 2,500,000.” He asked, “where and how did they disappear?”; the answer, in my judgment, is that most of them disappeared into the statistics.
That is not the end of the confusion in this one section of the question. The Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1937 (in giving the above-cited figure of 2,700,000 Jews in Russia on Jewish authority) said they formed about six percent of the total population. The total population was elsewhere given in the same encyclopaedia as 145,000,000 and six percent of that would be 8,700,000!
The encyclopaedias, statistical yearbooks and almanacs are in this one question all at odds with each other and untrustworthy. I could multiply examples (for instance, the Jewish World Congress in 1953 announced that the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. was 1,500,000) but wandering in a maze without an outlet is profitless. All published figures are “estimates” made at the estimators' pleasure, and are without value. A professional accountant might write a book on the efforts of the encyclopaedists to make the post-war figure of
Jewish population in the world conform with the pre-war “estimates,” minus six million. Figures are tricky things: a few examples:
The leading American reference yearbook, the World Almanac, in 1947 gave the 1939 Jewish world-population as 15,688,259. In later editions up to 1952 it increased this prewar estimate (without explanation) by a million, to 16,643,120. It gave the 1950 population as 11,940,000, which, if subtracted from the first figure given for 1939, gives a reduction of nearly four millions (though not of six). However, it based even this “estimate” on another estimate, namely, that in 1950 the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. was 2,000,000. This still left unanswered Mr. Leftwich's question in respect of Commissar Mikhoels's statement, that in 1943 the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. was 5,000,000.
In England Whitaker's Almanac, of similar eminence, struggled with the same problem. In its 1949 and 1950 issues it gave the 1939 “estimated” Jewish world population as 16,838,000 and that of 1949 as 11,385,200, a reduction of nearly 5,500,000. However, the figures given for Jewish population in separate countries added up to 13,120,000 (not 11,385,200). Incidentally, Whitaker's in 1950 gave the Jewish population of the U.S.S.R. as 5,300,000, against the World Almanac's figure for the same year, of 2,000,000.
Both these publications are of the highest repute for painstaking accuracy and the fault is not theirs; in this one matter alone only Jewish “estimates” are available, and for obvious reasons no dependence can be placed on these. I pointed out the discrepancies in a book of 1951 and observed that Whitaker's in 1952 no longer contained these “estimates of Jewish populations”; apparently it had abandoned the statistical quest as hopeless, and was right to do so. Another encyclopaedia in its 1950 edition also dropped the subject.
Finally, the New York Times, which may be described as the world's leading Jewish newspaper (it is Jewish-owned and New York is today primarily a Jewish city) in 1948 published what claimed to be an authoritative statistical article, computing the Jewish population of the world (three years after the war's end) between 15,700,000 and 18,600,000. If either figure was near truth this meant that the Jewish world-population had remained stationary or increased during the war years.
Newspaper articles are soon forgotten (unless some diligent student preserves them) but the great propagandist fabrications are handed on. Thus the historians, those men of precision in other questions, passed on the legend of “mass-extermination” to posterity. At the war's end Professor Arnold J. Toynbee was producing his monumental Study of History and in its eighth volume (1954) said that “the Nazis … reduced the Jewish population of Continental Europe, west of the Soviet Union, from about 6,5 million to about l,5 million by a process of mass-extermination.” He called this “a bare statistical statement” and then added a footnote showing that it was not a statistical statement: “it is not possible to give exact figures based on accurate statistics and it
seemed improbable in 1952 that the necessary information would ever be obtainable.” Professor Toynbee explains that his figure was based on Jewish “calculations, in which there were several possible sources of error.” He concludes that “it might be estimated” that five million Continental Jews had been done to death by the Nazis.
The estimate is historically valueless. The starting-point for consideration of this question is the fact that six million Jews, or anything approaching that number, cannot possibly have been “done to death” or caused to “perish,” for the reasons given at the start of this discussion; the very assertion, made before the Nuremberg court, was an affront to their 825,000 fighting-men, sailors and civilians, killed in all theatres of war, of which only the Western politicians of this century would have been capable.
The number of Jews who were killed or perished will never be known, for the reasons already stated and partly discovered by Professor Toynbee in his footnote to history. The very term “Jew” is indefinable; Jews are often not isolated in statistics; and at no time can the number of living Jews in the world be ascertained with any approach to accuracy. Indeed, any attempt to reach statistical clarity through census or immigration data is attacked as “discrimination” and “anti-semitism.” For instance:
“Immigrants seeking to settle in Australia will from now on not be asked on application forms if they are Jewish, it was made known in Sydney by the executive committee of Australian Jewry, which protested against this practice to the immigration authorities” (the Jewish Times, Johannesburg). In England, “it is impossible, in the absence of official statistics, to do more than make an intelligent guess … the exact number of Jews in Britain remains a mystery” (the Zionist Record, Johannesburg). In America, President Roosevelt was brought under unremitting pressure to abolish the requirement to state “Jewish” on immigration forms, and in 1952 a major campaign was waged by the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee against the McCarran-Walter Act because it sought to restore this requirement. This act was in the event passed over President Truman's veto, but even a rigorous application of the reinstated requirement would not lead to clarification, as applicants, if they wish, may insert “British” or any similar description, instead of “Jewish.”
This state of statistical affairs is now well-nigh universal, so that the whole question is a mystery and has deliberately been made one. None can even guess the number of Jews whose deaths, during the war, were not natural or the result of bombing and the like, but who were done to death by the Nazis. My opinion is that, whatever was the number of Jews in the countries overrun by Hitler, the number of their victims was in roughly that proportion to the total population stricken, Polish, Czech and other. I have found this to be the opinion of all persons known to me who survived the concentration camps and occupations. Having suffered themselves, their feeling for Jewish victims was as strong as fo
r all others, but they could not understand why the one case of the Jews was singled out and the number of Jewish victims monstrously exaggerated.
The reason, hidden from them, became clear with the hangings on the Jewish Day of Judgment, for this symbolic act set the pattern for the entire conduct of the occupation, on both sides of the line, in its early years, and even for the future conduct of Western foreign policy far outside the bounds of Europe. The Talmudic vengeance was the start of a new era in the history of the West, during which all national considerations were to be subordinated to the cause of Jewish nationhood, as represented by the Talmudists from Russia.
I have a description, from a person who was present, of the manner in which the Nuremberg judgment came to be delivered on September 30 and October l, 1946 (between the Jewish New Year, September 26, and the Jewish Day of Atonement, October 5), and was executed immediately after midnight in the morning of October 16, Hoshana Rabba, the day when the Jewish god, after an interval during which he considers his verdict on every single human being, and may still pardon sinners, delivers his final judgment. This description says, .” . . all thought the judgment would be delivered sooner than it was, and a number of trifling circumstances delayed it, till the date was fixed somewhere round September 15 … Then X, one of the member judges, objected to the literary form of part of the judgment … it was roughly calculated how long it would take to recast it and to recopy the recasting; and the date was fixed by this.”
I have deleted the name of the member judge. As a result of this delay for literary improvement the judgment fell midway through the holiest ten days of the Jewish Year and was executed on the day of Jehovah's vengeance. I had foretold some such denouement, in a book published during the war, after Mr. Anthony Eden, on 17 December 1942 in the House of Commons, had made a “Declaration” about the Jews, in which he implicitly limited to the Jews the threat that “Those responsible for these crimes shall not escape retribution.” Mr. Roosevelt, in America, had made a declaration of similar implication.
The Nuremberg trial formed the model for many lesser “war crimes” trials; these have been discussed, from the legal and moral point of view, in the books of Mr. Montgomery Belgion, Mr. F.J.P. Veale and the late Captain Russell Grenfell. A little of the truth about them filtered out in the course of years. In 1949, an American Administration of Justice Review Board, appointed after numerous protests, reported on some of the American military court trials at Dachau, where 297 death sentences had been approved. The report spoke of “mock trials” to which the defendants had been brought hooded, with ropes round their necks, and “tried” before mock-altars with crucifixes and candles; they were subjected to brutal treatment in the effort to extort confessions which then could be produced before the real trial (the prisoners were led to believe that the mock-trial was the genuine one).
The biggest of these trials was the “Malmedy trial” of 1945-1946, at which
forty-three prisoners were sentenced to death. This trial related to the killing of American prisoners by SS. troops near Malmedy in 1944, and bitter feeling against any proved guilty was to be expected from American prosecutors. However, the tormentors of these prisoners were not Americans, as those who remember the admirable bearing of American troops in Germany after the First World War might expect. They were Jews from Austria who had entered the United States just before the Second War and, under Mr. Roosevelt's regime, had quickly been taken into the American army and American uniform. A genuine American who was present at these mock-trials (a veteran court reporter) stated that he left the service of the War Crimes Branch in disgust after witnessing the “brutal sadism” practised by one of the inquisitors. Then the chief American prosecutor in this trial, a colonel, admitted to a Senate subcommittee that he had known about the mock-trials; he thought they were proper if the trial court itself was informed of the method used to obtain the defendants' confessions, and said the prisoners should have known that the black-mass trial was a false one because they were not assigned defence counsel.
A Judicial Commission was sent to investigate and reported in 1949 that the confessions “admittedly” had been obtained by “the use of mock trials in which one or more persons attired as American officers pretended to preside as judges and others attired in American uniforms pretended to be the prosecutor and defender of the accused.” In consequence some of the death sentences were commuted. The chairman of this commission, Justice Gordon Simpson of Texas, told the Senate Subcommittee that the trial procedures followed were “not American” (they certainly were not British) and had been agreed “at the London Four-Power Conference that fixed the terms of the war crimes trials,” so that responsibility, once more, goes back to the politicians of London and Washington and the groups which exercised pressure on them. Justice Simpson also testified that the American Army “could not find enough qualified Americans” for these war crimes trials, in which the good name of the West was involved, “and therefore had to draw on some of the German refugees.”
This aspect of the trials was further illuminated by an event of January 1953, when two men were arrested by the American military authorities in occupied Vienna on charges of conspiring with a secretary of the Soviet Embassy in Washington to transmit secret American military documents to the Soviet state. They were both Viennese-born Jews who had reached America in 1938 and 1940, at the ages of 16 and 26. In any previous war they would have been kept under observation as “enemy aliens”; under Mr. Roosevelt they had received American army commissions as “friendly aliens.” In 1945 they were made “members of the American prosecution team at the war crimes trials.” When they were arrested as Communist agents and spies a high official of the American Military Government in Vienna said, “This ties in with information showing that too many of the Americans employed at Nuremberg were either Communists or were
being used by Communists.” He added that “the American prosecution staff at Nuremberg went off in hundreds of directions when the trials were over, many into the American State Department or the United Nations.”
At this time the further disclosure was made that in 1949 Mr. John J. McCloy (an American High Commissioner particularly feared by the Germans during the war-crimes trials period) had been given legal briefs “showing that serious errors in translation from German and other languages into English were introduced into evidence; these errors, in some cases, were made by persons whose Communist ties have since been proved by loyalty checks.” This material has never been made public, but if it should ever be used in an impartial investigation of the trials grave embarrassment for the Western leaders would be caused. At the war's end Communists were everywhere in control of the Nazi concentration camps (as will be shown later in this chapter); in the manner above described they became prosecutors and judges of the very crimes which they had committed!
On both sides of the line vengeance was wreaked in the same spirit. Mongolian soldiers from the East, as they entered Germany, were incited by the recorded voice of Ilya Ehrenburg, from Moscow, to fall in particular on pregnant women; what else could the rabid injunction mean, not to spare “even unborn Fascists.” An American woman living in Berlin, Mrs. Frances Faviell, described her horror when she read the diary kept by her housekeeper, Lotte, and its description of “the raping of Lotte and thousands of women, even old women of 65, by the filthy Mongol troops, not once but time after time, women with their children clinging to their skirts …” The diary recorded “every date and detail, written by the light of Lotte's torch, the murders of those who had tried to protect the old women, the apology of the Russian officer who had found the bodies … his explanation to Lotte that the troops had been given forty-eight hours Plunderfreiheit … It was one of the most horrible documents I had ever read and I felt icy cold as I put it down.” Plunderfreiheit; loot-liberty! This was the human result of the political arrangement made, to the drinking of forty-five toasts, at Yalta.
On the Western side of the line the same vengeance continued. In August 1947 a British M.P., Mr. Nigel Birch, found nearly four thousand Germans still in one concentration camp, held indefinitely without charge or trial. He reported that the first question put to them, if they ultimately came to trial, was always the same: “Did you know the Jews were being persecuted?” The story continued in that vein; no other persecution mattered (and at that time legions of human beings had been driven back to the Soviet terror which they tried to escape).
The British and American Governments left the Germans in no doubt as to the nature of the vengeance they were exacting. One of the first acts of the Allied High Commissioners was to enact a law “against anti-semitism.” Thus they extended into the West the law which identified the nature of the first Bolshevist administration in Russia, the “law against anti-semitism” introduced on July 27,
1918. Under this British-American edict Germans were being imprisoned and their property confiscated ten years later, in 1955; and in 1956 a Jew from Austria, by that time domiciled in England and a naturalized British subject, brought action against a German under a Western German law (inherited from the Allied High Commissioners) which made it an offence “to utter anti-semitic remarks or be unduly prejudiced against Jews.”
These laws prevent public discussion, but cannot suppress thought. Their object, plainly, was to suppress all public enquiry about the nature of the regime, west of the “Iron Curtain” as east of it. The effect was to give carte blanche to Plunderfreiheit in the Anglo-American zone, too. For instance, the Anglo-American law against anti-semitism explicitly made a criminal offence of public discussion of the following affair, which I quote in the words of the Jewish Herald of Johannesburg:
“Philip Auerbach was a man of extraordinarily strong character, courageous in the extreme, burning with Jewish pride and lit up with a sense of hate of German Nazism … He was ruthless and merciless in the days when the American forces were still haters of Germany and were still ready to do his bidding, to co-operate with him in relieving the Germans of their loot, giving him a virtual carte-blanche for signing documents, for searching, causing arrests and striking terror … In those days when Philip Auerbach appeared at the head of immense Jewish demonstrations in Germany after the war, the high-ranking American officers usually accompanied him, thereby indicating his authority. With the Jewish flag at the head of these demonstrations, Auerbach would take the salute, the band playing Hatikvah and the tens of thousands of D.P.'s joining in what was a constant political offensive for opening the gates of Palestine before the restoration of the state … No one will ever be able to estimate the value in money of assets of all kinds, equipment, clothing, furniture, motor-cars and every variety of commodity which Auerbach helped out of Germany … He wielded a power in Germany only second to that of the military authorities.”
The man described was a private person, and was able to use the armed forces of America for his looting. His crimes were so flagrant that in time Jewish organizations dissociated themselves from him (he robbed Jews and Gentiles impartially), though on grounds of expediency more than morals. Seven years later (1952), when West German political support for “the free world” was becoming important again, he was arrested on charges “embracing interminable lists of goods which had been carried out of Germany by forged documents, possibly involving also Jewish officers in the American Army and Jewish welfare organizations.”
In 1952 the West German government was being forced to pay “reparations” to the new Zionist state and a full public disclosure of Auerbach's looting activities, conducted with American Army support, would have been embarrassing. Therefore the above-quoted charge was dropped, “no doubt
because of repercussions of a political character,” as the Jewish Herald remarked. Had it been maintained even a bogus case for the payment of German tribute to Zionists from Russia in Palestine would have been hard to make plausible. Consequently Auerbach was tried (with a rabbi) merely on minor counts of embezzling some $700,000 of funds, blackmail, accepting bribes and forging returns. He received thirty months imprisonment and later committed suicide.
The American and British press published brief, unintelligible reports of this affair, with the insinuation that it denoted the revival of “anti-semitism” in Germany. This was the echo of the tone taken in the Jewish press, which after Auerbach's suicide asked “On whose head this blood?,” and the like; the suggestion that any conviction of any Jewish defendant on any charge, whether guilty or innocent, was a sign of “anti-semitism” was by then general. The Jewish Herald, for instance, considered the charges morally iniquitous because they related to a period when “normal regulations were disregarded by everyone, above all by Jews, who justifiably ignored German considerations of right and wrong.” The principles ignored were not German but universal in Christian communities, or had been theretofore. The only protest against these falsifications, seen by me, came from a Jewish correspondent of the New York Daily News, who by chance had suffered from Auerbach's crimes; had it come from a German victim, or an American or British eyewitness, I believe no Western newspaper would have printed it.
The Western masses knew nothing of these happenings in British-American-occupied Germany at the time, and might not have objected violently if they had known, for at that period they were still under the influence of wartime propaganda, particularly in the matter of the Nazi concentration camps. They seemed to me completely to have forgotten that the concentration camp was originally a Communist idea, copied by Hitler, and that the further the Red armies were allowed into Europe the more certain its perpetuation became. Their feelings were inflamed by the horrifying news-reel pictures, shown to them on a million screens as the Allied armies entered Germany, of piles of emaciated corpses stacked like firewood in these camps.
I was a member of those audiences and heard the comments around me with misgiving. Wartime propaganda is the most insidious poison known to man, and I believe these picture-goers of 1945, deprived of truthful information for years, had lost all ability, perhaps all desire to judge what they saw. I think most of them thought the human remains they saw were those of Jews, for this was the suggestion hammered into their minds by the press day by day. They constantly read of “Nazi gas chambers for Jews … Nazi crematoria for Jews,” and few of them in later years troubled to read the stories of inmates and find out who these victims truly were. One instance: a German woman who spent five years in Ravensbruck camp (Frau Margaret Bubers Newmann) says the first victims were the sick or afflicted, or those incapable of work, and the next ones were “the
inferior races,” among whom the Poles were placed first, and the Czechs, Balts, Hungarians and others next.
Thus the piles of dead received as little true compassion as the living who were driven back by the Western Allies into the concentration-camp area, and today it may be only a matter of historical interest, pertaining to such a book as this, to show that the “Nazi” concentration camps, at the time when the Anglo-American armies entered Germany, were predominantly under Communist control, that Jews were among the tormentors, and that anti-Communism was a surer qualification for the death-chamber than anti-Hitlerism!
Ten years ago this statement (which I substantiate below) would have been sunk by mere weight of derision, if it could have been published at all. Today enough has been revealed about the Illuminist Communist method of infiltrating every class, party, church, organization and institution for some people at least to await the proof with open mind; or so I suppose. Lenin's dictum was that all wars must in their course be turned into revolutionary wars, which means that the members of the conspiracy must fight for the success of the revolution, not for their country's victory. The capture of the concentration camps was more helpful to this strategy than anything else could have been, because the camps were full of people who, if they survived, would have fought Communism, as they fought Hitlerism, to the death. The world has never understood this aspect of the resistance to Hitler, because it never understood Hitler himself. Those who have persisted with this book may see the deep significance of his words to Hermann Rauschning: “I got illumination and ideas from the Freemasons that I could never have obtained from other sources” (almost exactly Adam Weishaupt's words) .” . . I have learnt a great deal from Marxism … The whole of National Socialism is based on it.”
The Communists, in their capture of the concentration camps, were aided by the policy of unconditional support of the revolution which the Western leaders pursued; it gave them power and prestige among the captives which they used for their own ends. I was appalled when a young British officer, parachuted into Yugoslavia, described to me the drops of containers filled with golden sovereigns (which a British subject may not legally possess) to Tito. The same thing happened in Greece. Major W. Stanley Moss, dropped into Greek Macedonia as a British commando-leader and liaison officer, found the Communists usurping control of the guerillas by means of the golden rain that dropped on them and says, “When the Great Day came” (victory in Europe) “the world was amazed at the wealth of gold which the Communists found at their disposal. None of the money came from Russia; it was presented to the Communists by the Allies. For years money had been poured into the country for the maintenance of guerilla forces and the general pursuance of the war, but the Communists had used only a small proportion of it in the fight against the Germans. We knew long before the
event of the turn the future would take … and yet we were unable to do anything to prevent it.” (Major Moss makes one factual misstatement; “the world” was never “amazed at the wealth of gold” which the Allies had dropped on the Communists, because the world was never informed of it).
The picture was the same in every occupied country. Wing-Commander Yeo-Thomas, sent secretly into France to study the methods and organization of the French resistance movement, vainly warned London: “The avowed aim of the Communist Party was the mass uprising of Frenchmen on D-Day … to dominate all others after liberation. Meanwhile B.B.C. broadcasters jeered at Frenchmen who feared the ‘Communist bogey.'” The consequences of this were described by Mr. Sisley Huddleston in 1952; during the “liberation” of France the Communists killed in cold blood more than a hundred thousand anti-Communists.
In these circumstances it was inevitable that the Communists should come to power in the “Nazi” concentration camps too, so that the Western masses, when they saw the pictures of these camps being “liberated” in fact beheld something which their armies were to make permanent in Europe east of the Elbe line. The truth came out in 1948 but if one in a million of the people who saw those pictures knows of it I shall be surprised.
In that year the revolutionary chieftain in Yugoslavia, the pseudonymous “Marshal Tito,” was at odds with the rulers in the Kremlin. This was dangerous for a Communist and he may have thought to protect himself, better than by armed bodyguards, by making public something of what he knew, calculating that Moscow might then leave him alone rather than provoke further revelations. The trial he staged was reported in Yugoslavia and ignored in the West. He had thirteen of his Communist intimates shot (senior governmental and party officials) for taking part in the mass-murder of captives at the most infamous camp of all, Dachau.
Truth outs in the strangest ways, though in our age of press-control it does not out very far. In this case the releasing instrument was an elderly Austrian general, Wilhelm Spielfried, who emerged alive from Dachau. He wanted the world to know what had transpired there, and in the confusion attending the breakup of the camp (on the arrival of Western troops) he extracted from the commandant's office a Gestapo card-index recording the people done to death, and the manner, signed by the Gestapo agent responsible in each case. Among these agents were
several of “Marshal Tito's” leading collaborators. In time General Spielfried gained publication for this small section of his material; the remainder still awaits a publisher bold enough to print it.
“Tito” (one Joseph Brosz) had himself been a Kremlin agent from 1934 on. By putting his nearest collaborators on public trial (at Ljubljana on April 20, 1948) he poised the sword of further disclosures over the Kremlin domes. The accused men included Oskar Juranitsch (Secretary General in Tito's Foreign Ministry); Branko Dil (Inspector General of Yugoslav Economy); Stane Oswald (a senior official, with ministerial rank, in the Ministry of Industry); Janko Pufler (head of Tito's State Chemical Trust); Milan Stepischnik (head of Tito's State Metallurgical Institute); Karl Barle (an official with ministerial rank); Professors Boris Kreintz and Miro Koschir of the University of Ljubljana; and other Communist notables. All were former members of the International Brigade in Spain, and agents of the MVD (Soviet secret police).
All made the customary confessions; the defence they advanced is of prior interest. They justified themselves simply by claiming that they had never killed or injured a Communist: “I never endangered one of ours; I never did anything to a party-comrade.” They said they invariably chose for death anyone who could be classified as a Conservative, Liberal, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Jew or Gipsy, provided that the victim was not a Communist.
This collaboration in the concentration camps between Hitler's Gestapo and its prototype, Stalin's MVD,31] came about in the following way. “Anti-Fascist Committees” were formed in the camps. If Hitler and his Gestapo had been genuine in their professions, these committees would obviously have furnished the first victims of the gas-chambers. Instead, they were accepted as representing the camp inmates and were given privileged status, then agreeing to take part in the killings. This was the perfect way of ensuring that anti-Communists should be few in post-war Germany.
In this manner the piles of corpses grew, which the outer world later beheld on screens in darkened rooms. This pictorial journalism fulfilled to the letter Mr. G.K. Chesterton's dictum of many years earlier: “Journalism is a false picture of the world, thrown upon a lighted screen in a darkened room so that the real world is not seen.”
The Communist Juranitsch, the chief accused, said, “Yes, I killed hundreds and thousands of people, and took part in the ‘scientific experiments'; that was my task in Dachau.” Dil explained that his work had been to experiment with “blood-stilling preparations; he had shot the subjects pointblank in the chest for the purpose. Pufler described the injection of selected inmates with malaria bacilli for the purposes of observation, stating that “they died like flies, and we reported to the doctor or SS. officer the results.” These confessions were not false. They were corroborated and could not be denied, for the reports made were the ones abstracted by General Spielfried from the commandant's office. Pufler explained how these Communist trusties of the Gestapo hid their collaboration from other inmates; when they themselves reappeared from the laboratories and crematoria they told some invented story of a trick or miracle to explain their escape; as none of the victims ever returned, they could not be challenged.
These men ended against a wall, but not for their crimes. They were discarded like pawns by their master in his game against the Kremlin. They had strictly obeyed the master-tenet of the revolution (“all wars are revolutionary wars”) by using the opportunity given to them to destroy political opponents, and not “the enemy.” They did, in another form, what the rulers in Moscow did when they massacred the 15,000 Polish officers in Katyn Forest; they attacked the nation-states and laid the foundations for the all-obliterating revolution.
The revelations of the Ljubljana trial have received corroboration, in various points, from many books of survivors from the concentration camps. Mr. Odo Nansen, son of the famous Norwegian explorer, wrote of his experience in the Sachsenhausen camp, eighteen months before the war ended:
It's extraordinary how the Communists have managed things here; they have all the power in camp next to the SS., and they attract all the other Communists, from other countries, and place them in key positions … Many of the Norwegian prisoners here have turned Communist. Besides all the immediate advantages it offers, most likely they expect Russia to be the big noise after the war, and then I suppose they think it may be handy to have one's colour right. Last night I was talking to our Blockaeltester, a Communist. When he and his mates came into power, there would be not merely retaliation but even more brutality and greater cruelty than the SS. uses to us. I could make no headway with my humanism against that icy block of hate and vengefulness, that hardboiled, hidebound focussing on a new dictatorship.”
Wing Commander Yeo-Thomas, who was parachuted into France to help the French resistance, was captured and taken to Buchenwald. He was told on arrival by a British officer already there: “Don't let on that you are officers, and if any of you held any executive position in peacetime keep it to yourselves. The internal administration of the camp is in the hands of Communists …Buchenwald is the worst camp in Germany; your chances of survival are practically nil.” Wing Commander Yeo-Thomas says, “The three chief internal
administrators of the camp, called Lageraeltester, were Communists.” Under the supervision of these men, “prisoners were inoculated with typhus and other germs and their reactions, almost always ending in death, under the various vaccines, studied.” Only three of this officer's group of thirty-seven captives survived, the others being hanged on hooks in the crematorium wall and slowly strangled to death. The three survivors “had to fear their fellow-prisoners almost as much as they had formerly feared the Germans; for the Communists, if they learned that officers had managed to cheat the gallows, would certainly denounce them.”
Communists ran these camps, tortured and murdered the victims. If there was any difference between them and the Gestapo jailers it was only that they were more villainous, because they denounced and killed men who were supposed to be their comrades in battle against a common foe. As the Eastern Jews, in particular, play so large a part in Communism, Jews logically appear among the persons implicated in these deeds. That is not in itself surprising at all, for Jews, like all other men, are good and bad, cruel or humane; but it was kept hidden from the public masses, who received a picture of torture-camps inhabited almost entirely by Jews, tormented by depraved “Nazi” captors. In fact, the Jews formed a small proportion of the entire camp-population; the tormentors in the last three years of the war were largely Communists, whose motives have been shown; and among these tormentors were Jews.
My files include a number of reports from Jewish newspapers of “trials” of Jews denounced by former Jewish inmates of the Auschwitz, Vlanow, Muhldorf and other camps.
I have given the word “trials” in inverted commas in this case, for a good reason. These “trials,” with one exception, were held before rabbinical courts, in Western countries and before magistrates' courts in Tel Aviv. They were treated as Jewish affairs, of no concern to other mankind, and if any sentences were passed they were not recorded in any journal seen by me, though the deeds charged resembled those of the Ljubljana trial. The implication was plainly that, if any such deeds were committed, they had to be judged under the Jewish law, if at all, and that Gentile law had no writ. (This indeed appears nowadays to be the governing assumption since Zionism recreated the “Jewish nation” and it is reflected in a report published in the Zionist Record during 1950, which stated that the function of the “chief Public Relations Office of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry” was to “screen from public view the misdemeanours of individual Jews who commit some minor or major indiscretion.” The screening here mentioned goes on at all times and in all countries of the West).
At Tel Aviv a Jewish doctor and two Jewish women were accused by Jewish witnesses of administering lethal injections to prisoners at Auschwitz, mutilating sexual organs, carrying out “scientific experiments,” sending victims to the death chambers. In another case at Tel Aviv in 1951 a Jewish doctor (then employed in
the Tel Aviv municipal hospital) was accused by several Jewish witnesses of brutal acts committed at Vlanow camp, where he had acted as “assistant to the German camp commandant.” A Jewish woman witness said he had beaten her unconscious and when she recovered she found her three sons, aged 12, 15 and 18, shot dead; a fortnight earlier, she said, she had seen the accused give order to the Ukrainian camp police to take away thirty prisoners, including her husband, who were then shot. The bare heads of these two cases were reported but, as I say, if any result was published it escaped my research,
In New York a Jewish board of three members (the composition laid down by the Levitical Law) heard charges by a Jew against a synagogue official whom he accused of killing an inmate at Muhldorf, where he was a block warden. The report stated that the board would send its findings “to the Jewish community” in the accused's town “without recommendations or sanctions,” which meant that, if he were a “war criminal,” he would be left to his congregation to deal with. In all these cases it was implicit that only charges of maltreating other Jews came under consideration, and that if the persons accused had committed similar acts against non-Jewish captives these would not have formed part of the case.
Of a different kind but the same basic nature was a case heard before an Israeli district court in 1954-1955. A Jew from Hungary distributed a pamphlet alleging that one Dr. Israel Kastner, a high Israeli Government official and a leading candidate (at the 1955 election) of the government majority-party, in Hungary during the war had collaborated with the Nazis, prepared the ground for the murder of Jews, saved a Nazi war criminal from punishment, and so on. Dr. Kastner brought suit for criminal libel against his accuser, and the Israeli judge after nine months handed down a judgment stating that the charges had been substantiated. This judgment said that Dr. Kastner was a collaborator “in the fullest sense of the word” and had “sold his soul to the devil,” and the Israeli Premier at that time, Mr. Moshe Sharett, commented, “A man is justified in taking any action, even in selling his soul to the devil, in order to save Jews” (the accusation was that he betrayed Jews to the Nazis). The Government then announced that it would appeal the judgment, through its Attorney General, and I could never learn what transpired, if anything.
Thus, while much was heard of “war criminals” and their trials, these Jewish “war criminals” appeared only before Jewish tribunals and if they were punished, the world was not told. I know of only one case (others may have escaped my notice) where such Jews were included in a “war criminals trial.” The Jewish Telegraph Agency (May 8, 1946) reported, “The verdict in the trial of 23 guards at the Breendouck concentration camp at Antwerp, one of the lesser-known Nazi hells, was announced here yesterday. Among the guards are 3 Jews, Walter Obler, Leo Schmandt and Sally Lewin. Obler and Lewin have been sentenced to death and Schmandt to 15 years imprisonment.”
Mr, Joseph Leftwich, in his discussion of “anti-Semitism” with Mr. A.K.
Chesterton, asked of this trial, “What does it prove? That the human beast is found everywhere, and that Jews are no more immune than any other human group.” That is correct but beside the point of this argument, which is that the mass-mind, during the Second War, was given the false picture of a solely Jewish persecution conducted by non-Jews and that events in the world in this century are consistently so misrepresented, to the general misfortune.
The chapter of Hitler's Jewish helpers was not a small one. Lord Templewood, British Ambassador to Spain during the war, says, “For month after month General Franco” (himself of Jewish origin) “allowed the Spanish press to act as the loudest possible speaker for German propaganda. None of the well established papers were permitted any liberty of action. Each alike had to re-echo his master's voice. In this case the master was a very sinister Eastern Jew, Lazare by name … In Vienna he faithfully served Hitler as a fanatical propagandist in support of the Anschluss. Since then he had become an important figure in the Nazi world … From the German Embassy, where he had more authority than the Ambassador himself, he daily directed not only the general course of the Spanish press, but even the actual words of the news and articles. His subordinates had their desks in the Spanish offices and not a word reached the Spanish public that had not been subject to his sinister approval. By a cunning mixture of brutal dictation and unabashed corruption, he succeeded in making the Spanish papers even more venomous than the papers actually published in Germany.”
I knew this Lazare, a conspirator of the suave, smiling and debonair type, and through him first became aware of the Jewish element among Hitler's higher initiates. When I met Lazare, in 1937, he was “Press Secretary” of the Austrian Legation in the Rumanian capital, Bucharest. Austria, then my headquarters, was living in daily fear of the Nazi invasion which came in 1938, and its official representatives abroad were by all presumed to be staunch Austrians and stout anti-Nazis; in the case of Jews this appeared to be doubly sure. I was struck first by the fact that impoverished little Austria could even afford the luxury of a “Press Secretary” in a Balkan capital and next by Lazare's lavish style of life and entertainment. I assumed that, like many men on this fringe of diplomatic life (“press secretaryships” in the Balkans were somewhat dubious) he was “doing well on the side,” which in Bucharest was not unusual.
He was; though not through the deals in furs or carpets which I vaguely suspected. His affluence, as events soon showed, came from a political source, the Nazi one. When Hitler marched into Austria the newspapermen of the world were summoned to a press conference at the historic Ballhausplatz to hear the Nazi version of this event. The door opened to admit the spokesman of the new regime, Hitler's “Press Chief” in captive Austria, the apologist (or propagandist) for the annexation. It was Herr Lazare, the “Austrian” (he was born a Turkish subject). He saw me at once and a quick smile flashed from the brazen face of
guilt; waving his hand gaily to me, he said “Hullo, Mr. Reed, nice to meet you again.” Then he explained the Fuehrer's benevolent motives for the invasion, and its beneficent effects for Germany, Austria and mankind,”
The reader may see that “the real world” is very different from “the false picture” which the masses receive, especially in wartime, when such men as this control the flow of information into the mass-mind.
Against this background, the vengeance raged and reached its Talmudic climax in two symbolical movements of people, one eastward and one westward. From the “free world” escaped fugitives were driven back by the Allied armies into Communist slavery; from the Communist area (where a man may not even leave his town without police permission) a great mass of Eastern Jews freely emerged and was ushered, beneath an Allied umbrella, through Europe towards Palestine. This two-way process gave the vengeance its final stamp of identity and may be studied in the following quotations:
The Saturday Evening Post of April 11, 1953, said, “With this shameful agreement” (Yalta) “as their authority Soviet MVD agents strode through the displaced-persons camps after the war and put the finger on thousands who had managed to escape the Soviet tyranny. These miserable victims were herded into boxcars and driven back to death, torture or the slow murder of the Siberian mines and forests. Many killed themselves on the way. Also under a Yalta agreement, the Soviet was permitted to use German prisoners in forced labour in ‘reparations account.' For such inhumanities there is no excuse.”
Miss Kathryn Hulme, a Californian, was deputy director (1945-1951) of a refugee camp at Wildflecken in Bavaria, administered by the organization known as UNRRA (United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration). She writes in her book, “Londa” (a colleague) “had been assigned for a time to a southern camp when its Russian refugees, mainly prisoners of war, had been sent back to Russia under terms of the Yalta Agreement. She told us how the Russian prisoners of war had slashed their wrists, stripped naked and hanged themselves. Even after every destructive object was taken from them they still found ways to suicide. She could never understand how Stalin had sold his idea to Roosevelt and Churchill that there had been no Russian prisoners of war taken by the Germans, only deserters.”
Now the opposite side of the picture: the treatment given to one group of people “singled out” from the entire mass of Hitler's victims and Stalin's captives. Miss Hulme says, “… and then the Jews came. We had never had a Jewish camp in our northern area … The Jews numbered less than one-fifth of our Zone's total DP [displaced person, ed.] population but they were such an articulate minority that if you only read the newspapers to learn about Occupation affairs, you gained the impression that they were the whole of the DP problem … You had to handle them with kid gloves, it was said, especially when transferring them from one camp to another, and heaven help the IRO worker who left a loop of barbed wire
visible in any camp to which they were to be transferred. They were classified ‘persecutees,' the only DP's except medical cases who got a special food ration because of a non-worker status …There was a small German community set down on the highway that divided the two halves of the camp. The Jewish delegates … said this was the most dangerous feature of all; the IRO must agree to arm their Jewish police to protect their people from these Germans living in their midst … That nearly every German in that village would be cheerfully in the employ of the Jews within a fortnight after their arrival never even entered my head as I soothingly promised to plead for authorization to arm a DP police … The Jewish DP police were in woolly green tunics, with the Star of David on their caps … Nothing had been left to chance or last-minute improvization … Their welfare office was hung with martial posters depicting young Jewish girls in trenches hurling grenades at Arabs. The Jewish DP police practised marksmanship with the carbines we had secured for them as ‘defence' against the Germans who were now gainfully employed in the heavy manual labour of the camp. The Jewish workshops swung into swift production of fine woollen greatcoats and stout leather shoes heavily hob-nobbed for rough terrain. We could only guess that this too was all for Israel and, through some mysterious channels, was ultimately delivered there; we never saw any of our Jewish DP's wearing the useful clothing … Over all the ferment and frenzy flapped a flag we had never seen before, pale blue stripes on a white ground with the Star of David.”
Miss Hulme describes the Jewish camp: “We showed off the big camp which we were making ready for them like rental agents proud of an accommodation that was without doubt the handsomest DP housing in all Bavaria … The rabbis shook their heads; it didn't seem to be good enough.” She explains that the American DP Act, subsequently passed, was full of traps which debarred the ordinary DP; “only the Jews, who could claim and prove persecution in any Eastern European country in which they had set foot, could get out of that trap.” She records that American semi-governmental or officially supported organizations supplied the machinery and other workshops, the materials, and the “special food reinforcements” which were given only to Jews.
The means by which this privileged class was established in the camps of misery were described by Lieut.-Col. Judah Nadich in the South African Jewish Times (February 4, 1949). Rabbi Nadich was “Jewish adviser to General Eisenhower with the U.S. forces in Europe, and worked closely with him in matters relating to DP and other Jewish problems.” He says, “To Eisenhower's credit it should be said that when the appalling conditions in the DP camps were brought to his attention” (in 1945) “he moved quickly to improve conditions. Important directives were issued, increasing the food ration for the persecuted, as distinct from other DP's; special camps were set up for Jews; Jewish DP's living outside camps were given preferential treatment; an adviser on Jewish affairs was
appointed and full co-operation was granted to the Joint Distribution Committee and later to the Jewish Agency. Few if any of these conditions were granted by Montgomery in the British zone, and a constant stream of Jewish DP's flowed into the American zone. Eisenhower made frequent visits to the camps for inspection purposes and his personal visits lifted the morale of the DP's and served to remind officers on lower levels of the attitude of their Commander-in-Chief. Officers at fault were censured, including one of the highest ranking generals.”
General Eisenhower's “attitude,” according to this authoritative account, was that the Jews were to be treated as a privileged class. If he accepted the advice of his Jewish adviser this was natural, for Rabbi Nadich, as will be seen, claimed that the few Jews among every hundred DP's were the only “persecuted” and in this were “distinct from other DP's.” The statement reveals the function of that now established figure of our times, the Jewish adviser.
Thus by 1945 only “the persecution of Jews” remained of Hitler's all-embracing “persecution of political opponents” begun in 1933. Propaganda had eliminated all but this one small section; the last quotation shows, why Miss Hulme, from her DP camp, wrote that “if you only read the newspapers … . you gained the impression that the Jews were the whole of the DP problem.” While the huge mass of sufferers was forgotten or driven back to the persecution from which some had escaped, this one group, under the protection and escort of the West, was clothed, supplied, equipped, armed and conducted towards its invasion of a small country in Arabia.
The Asiatic East supplied these invaders; the Christian West convoyed them. In this undertaking there was no difference at all between “the free world” and the enslaved world behind “the Iron Curtain”; on the contrary, there was identity of purpose and synchronization in its execution. A directing intelligence was obviously at work which cared nothing for nation-states and frontiers, for wartime friend or wartime foe, or for any of the “principles” so often proclaimed by the premier-dictators. The West shared the vengeance with the East, but the pattern was set by the East, and it was the same pattern that had showed in Russia in 1917, in the Protocols of 1905 and in the revolutions of 1848. Therefore the authors of the vengeance of 1945 must be sought in the revolutionary area, and for this reason the nature of the revolution in 1945 may be examined, to discover whether it, and its leadership, had changed from 1917 (when it was ninety percent Jewish) and 1848 (when Disraeli said it was led by Jews).
Research into the events of the three decades 1917 -1945 leads to the conclusion that by 1945 the revolution had for a hundred years been a Jewish-controlled revolution, for that space of time having passed since Disraeli first identified the nature of the leadership. I use the words “Jewish-controlled revolution” to denote a movement under the direction of the Talmudic rabbinate in the East, not a movement generally supported by Jews; as I have repeatedly
shown, the staunchest opposition came from those Western Jews who were furthest from the reach of the Talmudic directorate. The distinction is that which the careful student must make between “National Socialism” and “Germans,” between “Communism” and “Russians.”
In the sense of that definition, the revolution, in my judgment, continued through the thirty years that followed 1917 to be Jewish. The Jewish nature of the first Bolshevist governments and of their deeds was earlier shown. The same characteristics appeared in the two short-lived offshoot governments which the Bolshevists set up in 1919, in Bavaria and Hungary. In both cases the terrorists were, in the main, imported into these countries in the guise of returning “prisoners of war,” and had been trained as Communist agitators in Russia. In Germany the Communist movement then was headed by the “Spartacus League” (“Spartacus” was Adam Weishaupt's code-name), the leaders of which were nearly all Jews: Rosa Luxembourg, Leo Jogiches (from Poland), Paul Lévi, Eugene Levine (from Russia), and Karl Liebknecht. Thus the Bolshevist Government of Bavaria (which counted one Adolf Hitler among its soldiers) logically proved to be headed by Jews: Kurt Eisner, Ernst Toller and Eugene Levine.
In Hungary the chief terrorist leaders were all Jews trained in Russia: Matyas Rakosi, Bela Kun, Erno Geroe and Tibor Szamuely. The ostentatiously anti-Christian acts of this regime again showed its underlying purpose. Of this government the historian of the Communist International, Herr F. Borkenau, says, “Most of the Bolshevik and left Socialist leaders and a considerable percentage of their executive staff had been Jews … anti-semitism was therefore the natural form of reaction against Bolshevism.” In this typical passage the reader may see that “reaction against Bolshevism” is classified as “anti-semitism”; clearly the epithet could only be escaped by not “reacting against Bolshevism.”
The following ten years were inactive ones and the matter can next be tested in Spain, where the revolution made its bid in 1931. It was directed by emissaries from Moscow, many of them Jews, and this accounted for the disillusionment of many ardent republicans, Spanish and foreign; for instance, many of the clergy and Catholic laity voted for the republic, then finding that the reforming impulse, once more, was perverted into an attack on the Christian faith, as such. Churches, monasteries and any building carrying the Cross were destroyed, priests and nuns murdered; the specific mark of identification again appeared, seen in similar acts in Bavaria, Hungary, Russia, France and England.
Fatherhood of the attack on Christianity in Spain was formally proclaimed by the official organ of the Komintern: “the flames ascending from the burning churches and monasteries of Spain have shown the true character of the Spanish revolution”; the pedigree was traced through one more generation. Ecclesiastical property was confiscated, but the Spanish masses were not enriched thereby; the
gold reserve of the Bank of Spain (about 700 million dollars) was transferred to Moscow by the last Republican premier, one Juan Negrin (as related by General Walter Krivitsky). The revulsion of those Spaniards who had hoped to set up a constitutional republic, and found themselves under an alien, anti-Christian tyranny, was inflamed by the murder of the monarchist leader, Calva Sotelo, in 1936, and in the sequence Spain “spewed out” the revolution (as every country has done where the Red Army, with its “political commissars,” could not enter to establish it).
Leading Zionist and anti-Zionist Jews in America alike, implicitly or explicitly, attributed Jewish authorship to the revolution in Spain. Mr. Justice Brandeis, at the time when efforts were being made to reach an accommodation with Hitler in the question of the Jews, strongly opposed them and imperiously told Rabbi Stephen Wise: “Let Germany share the fate of Spain.” Mr. Bernard J. Brown wrote, “… the Jews were as responsible for the establishment of a republic in Spain and the overthrow of the authority of the church in that country as in any other country where freedom reigns.”
During these two decades (that is, the period between the First and Second Wars) Jewish heads became ever fewer among the row that dotted the Kremlin wall on great occasions (when, alone, the imprisoned Russian masses saw their rulers; even the tumultuous cheers came from disks played through loudspeakers). Jews appeared, too, in the dock at great show trials, or disappeared from the political scene without explanation. No substantial diminution in Jewish control or direction of the revolution seems to have occurred during that period, to judge by the following figures:
In 1920 official Bolshevik statements showed that 545 members of the chief ruling bodies included 447 Jews. In 1933 the American Jewish journal Opinion stated that Jews occupied almost all important ambassadorial posts and that in White Russia 61 percent of all officials were Jews; it also stated that the Jewish percentage of the population (then given as 158,400,000) was “less than 2 percent.” If this was true it meant that Russia at that time contained less than 3,000,000 Jews. In 1933 the Jewish Chronicle stated that one-third of the Jews in Russia had become officials. If this was the case, they plainly formed the new governing class.
At that time the nature of the teaching had not been modified at all. The Commissar for Public Instruction, Lunatscharsky, was one of the few Russians in high office but he spoke like a Talmudist: “We hate Christianity and Christians; even the best of them must be looked upon as our worst neighbours. They preach the love of our neighbours and mercy, which is contrary to our principles. Down with the love of our neighbour; what we want is hatred. We must learn how to hate and it is only then that we shall conquer the world.” This is but one specimen of an entire literature of that period, and the only original source for such ideas, known to me, is the Talmud, which itself is the continuation of an ancient, savage, pre-
Christian idea, and contains such precepts as “You are human beings but the nations of the earth are not human beings but beasts.” Presumably Lunatscharsky qualified by such orations for his choice as Ambassador to Spain during the revolutionary attempt there.
In 1935 I went to Moscow for the London Times, accompanying Mr. Anthony Eden. He was the first British Minister to visit the revolutionary capital. The Times had previously refused to send a correspondent, so that I was its first representative to appear there after Mr. Robert Wilton, whose story I earlier told. The fifteen-year vacuum had been filled by a correspondent residing in Riga, Latvia, Mr. R.O.G. Urch, who was the object of constant defamation behind the scenes. I knew of this but, being callow in these affairs, did not then understand its significance.
I was at once struck by something I had never met in any other country. My first report said that Mr. Eden drove from the station through streets lined with “drab and silent crowds” and a Jewish censor demanded excision of these words. At first I thought this merely fatuous (I asked if he wished me to say that the throng was composed of top-hatted bourgeois) but in following days I saw more and in my book of 1938 wrote:
“The censorship department, and that means the whole machine for controlling the game and muzzling the foreign press, was entirely staffed by Jews, and this was a thing that puzzled me more than anything else in Moscow. There seemed not to be a single non-Jewish official in the whole outfit … I was told that the proportion of Jews in the government was small, but in this one department that I got to know intimately they seemed to have a monopoly, and I asked myself, where were the Russians? The answer seemed to be that they were in the drab, silent crowds which I had seen but which must not be heard of.”
I soon learned from older hands that “the proportion of Jews in the government” was in effect not small but that they retained a large measure of control, if they were not predominantly in control. I was unable to meet any Russians in Moscow, this was the other side of the same unique experience. I had never before beheld a ruling caste so completely segregated from the slave-mass.
At the time of this visit to Moscow I had no cause to look for a predominance of Jews; the thing forced itself on my notice. I had hardly begun to think about “the Jewish question” in 1935. The impression I have recorded above was the first one of a trained observer who had never before seen Moscow or Russia. I find it confirmed by an equally experienced man who lived there for twelve years, from 1922 to 1934. Mr. William Henry Chamberlain's book remains today authoritative about that period. He wrote, “Considerable number of Jews have made careers in the Soviet bureaucracy. Of perhaps a dozen officials whom I knew in the Press Department or the Commissariat for Foreign Affairs I recall only one who was not a Jew. Indeed, the predominance of Jews in this Commissariat at the time of my stay in Russia was almost ludicrous; the Russians
were mainly represented by the grizzled doorkeeper and the unkempt old women who carried around tea. One also found many Jews in the Gay-Pay-Oo,” (Secret Police) “in the Communist International and in departments connected with trade and finance.”
Mr. Chamberlain reaches a different conclusion from mine about the original cause of this effect. He says, “After I left Russia I sometimes received letters inquiring as to ‘what the Jews were doing under the Soviet regime,' implying that the Jews were acting as a solid compact body and that the whole Revolution was a Jewish conspiracy. There is not the slightest historical warrant for such an assumption … No theory that the Jews as a racial bloc worked for the triumph of Bolshevism will stand serious historical analysis.”
Two things are confused in this dictum: the directing force of Jewry and the entire body of people called “Jews.” Neither the Germans nor the Russians, as “a racial bloc,” worked for “the triumph” of National Socialism or Communism, but each got it. Masses and mobs never consciously “work for” the triumph of anything; they are pushed around by whatever highly-organized group obtains power over them. The “solid compact body” of workers never “works for” a general strike, but general strikes are proclaimed in their name. This book has shown throughout that the staunchest opposition to Zionism, for instance, came from Jews, but today the “racial bloc” has had Zionism thrust on it like a straitjacket. In my opinion the directing force of the revolution was from 1848 onward demonstrably that of the Talmudic rabbinate in the East, and in that sense “the revolution” was “a Jewish conspiracy.”
In Moscow in 1935 I came to know some of the Jewish oligarchs. One was the portly Maxim Litvinoff, a most typical figure of the Romanisches Café or the Café Royal, become a grandee of the revolution. Another was Oumansky, a smooth, smiling and deadly young man who came (I think) from Rumania but could not have been more un-Russian if he had been born in Africa. I felt as if I travelled through Russia (like Lenin towards it) in a sealed train.
In 1937 the state of affairs, I believe, had not much changed. Mr. A. Stolypine (whose father, the last of the persevering emancipators, had been assassinated in 1911) wrote that the substitution of Russians or others for Jews “on the highest rungs of the Soviet official ladder” was patently a tactical move and that the Jews “still have in their hands the principle levers of control; the day they are obliged to give them up the Marxist edifice will collapse like a house of cards.” He enumerated the high offices still occupied by Jews and in particular pointed out that the key-positions of real control, through terror, all remained in Jewish hands. These were the concentration and slave-labour camps (controlled by a Jewish triumvirate; they contained perhaps seven million Russians); the prisons (all Soviet prisoners were governed by a Jewish commissar); the entire news-publication-and-distribution machinery, including the censorship; and the essentially Talmudic system of “political commissars,” through which the armed
forces were kept under terrorist discipline.
In 1938 a Mr. Butenko, who held a lower-rank post in the Soviet diplomatic service, fled to Italy rather than obey an order of recall from Bucharest to Moscow. He stated in the Giornale d'ltalia that the new ruling class in his country was almost exclusively Jewish. Particularly in the Ukraine, the entire administration and all industry were in such hands, and this was a policy deliberately followed by Moscow.
Thus the identity of the managers of the revolution did not change substantially between 1917 and 1939; they withdrew from most of the frontal places but retained the true “levers of control.” Then the fog of war came down and the next point in time at which the matter may be tested is the closing period and aftermath of the Second War, 1945 and the following years.
Before the Second War even began the “war aims” of the revolution were publicly stated by Stalin at the Third Komintern Congress in Moscow in May 1938:
“The revival of revolutionary action on any scale sufficiently vast will not be possible unless we succeed in utilizing the existing disagreements between the capitalistic countries, so as to precipitate them against each other into armed conflict … All war truly generalized should terminate automatically by revolution. The essential work of our party comrades in foreign countries consists, then, in facilitating the provocation of such a conflict.”
The reader will observe that this is the sole statement of “war aims” which was undeviatingly pursued through the ensuing conflict, successfully “provoked” by the Hitler-Stalin pact. The Western leaders, by defaulting on their own earlier-declared “war aims” and abandoning half of Europe to the revolution, ensured the accomplishment of the “war aims” above stated in that area.
What “managers,” then, did the revolution impose on the Eastern European countries thus left prey to it in 1945? Here once more the opportunity offers to test the identity of the directing force behind the revolution. The choice was free; the revolution had no need to impose Jewish governments on the dozen countries abandoned to it unless this was its deliberate policy.
In communized Poland the United States Ambassador, Mr. Arthur Bliss Lane, saw and recorded the prevalence of Jews, many of them alien, in the key-posts of terrorism. Major Tufton Beamish, a Member of the British Parliament, wrote, “Many of the most powerful Communists in Eastern Europe are Jews … I have been surprised and shocked to discover the large proportion of Jews to be found in the ranks of the Secret Police forces.”
To communized Hungary the terrorist of 1919 Matyas Rakosi (born Roth, in Yugoslavia) returned as Premier in 1945, and on this occasion had the Red Army to keep him in that office. Eight years later (1953) the Associated Press reported that “90 percent of the high officials in the Hungarian Communist regime are Jews, including Premier Matyas Rakosi”; the London Times in that year said
Mr. Rakosi's cabinet was “predominantly Jewish”; Time magazine of New York spoke of “the strongly Jewish (90 percent in the top echelons) government of Communist Premier Matyas Rakosi, who is himself a Jew.” In Hungary, as in the other communized countries, the specific attack on Christianity began at once with the imprisonment of high ecclesiastics. The case which attracted most attention in the outer world was that of the Hungarian Cardinal Mindszenty, imprisoned on charges of treason. The Source of this deed was indicated by a statement addressed to the Jews of the world in 1949 by “the Central Board of Jews in Hungary, the Hungarian Zionist Organizatian and the Hungarian Section of the World Jewish Congress” which said, “It is with great relief that the Hungarian Jews received the news of Cardinal Mindszenty's arrest. With this action the Hungarian Government has sent the head of a pogrom-clique … to his well deserved place.”
Of communized Czechoslovakia the London New Statesman (a trustworthy authority in such questions) wrote seven years after the war's end, “In Czechoslovakia, as elsewhere in Central and South-Eastern Europe, both the party intellectuals and the key men in the secret police are largely Jewish in origin.” Of Rumania the New York Herald-Tribune reported in 1953, eight years after the war's end, “Rumania, together with Hungary, has probably the greatest number of Jews in the administratin.”
In Rumania the terror raged under Ana Pauker, a Jewess, whose father, a rabbi, and brother were in Israel. This is an interesting case of the dissension in a Jewish family described by Dr. Weizmann in his account of his boyhood in Russia, where Jewish households were split between “revolutionary” Communism” and “revolutianary-Zionism,” and only in that question. Mrs. Pauker used her office to enable her father to leave Rumania for Israel, although (as her brother said) “it is party policy to keep the Jews in Rumania.”
The part played by, and evidently given with considered intention to women in the revolution, since the days of the beldames who knitted around the guillotine, is of particular interest to the student who cares to trace comparisons between the methods of the revolution and the customs of savage African tribes. In communized East Germany the reign of terror was presided over by one Frau Hilde Benjamin, who was first made vice-president of the Supreme Court there and then Minister of Justice. “Red Hilde” is frequently described as a Jewess in the press and her atrocious regime is beyond dispute, even the London Times having gone so far as to call her “the dreaded Frau Benjamin.” In two years nearly 200,000 East Germans were convicted under her direction for “political crimes” and she presided over several Soviet-model “show trials” of people charged with such offences as belonging to the sect of Jehovah's Witnesses.
Communized Eastern Germany contained 17,313,700 people according to the 1946 census, and among these are only between 2,000 and 4,000 Jews, if Jewish “estimates” are correct. Of this tiny minority the Johannesburg Zionist Record in
1950 reported that “life in the Eastern Zone has brought changes for the better. Not a few of them today occupy high positions in the Government and Administration, positions which no Jew had ever before held in Germany and which, despite all talk of democracy, they cannot even today hold in Western Germany. Several Jews hold important posts in the Ministries of Information, Industry and Justice. The Supreme Judge in the Eastern sector of Berlin is a Jew, and so are several senior judges in the provinces outside Berlin. In the press, too, as well as in the theatre, quite a considerable number of Jews have been given responsible positions.”
Even four thousand Jews presumably could not occupy all those high places and the same journal in another issue said, “When the Russian occupation authorities were established shortly after the end of the war, there were many Jews occupying key positions and holding high ranks in the Soviet administration. They included Jews who had lived in Russia … and who came to Germany and Austria in the ranks of the Red Army, and Jews from areas annexed by Russia in the last ten years, the Baltic states Latvia and Lithuania.”
This brings the story nearly down to our present day and what remains will be discussed in a concluding chapter. When the revolution spread outward into the area abandoned to it by the West in 1945 the history of 1917-1918 in Russia was repeated. A Talmudic vengeance was wreaked and Jewish governments were with obvious intent set up everywhere. There was no great change in that state of affairs, either real or apparent, for another eight years. What was done reaffirmed once more the nature of the revolution and of its directing force and Talmudic purpose.