p. 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567

Chapter 46
Part 1 The Revolution
Part 2 The Zionist State
Part 3 The Years of Climax

The Climacteric

This book, first written between 1949 and 1952, was rewritten in the years 1953-1956, and its concluding chapter in October and November of 1956.This was a timely moment to sum up the impact of Talmudic Zionism on human affairs, for just fifty years, or one-half of “the Jewish century,” then had passed from the day when it first broke the political surface, after submergence for some 1800 years.[34] (The British Uganda offer, in 1903, was the first public revelation that Western politicians were privily negotiating with “the Jewish power” as an entity. Mr. Balfour's hotel-room reception of Dr. Weizmann in 1906, after the Zionist rejection of Uganda, now may be seen as the second step, and the first step on the fateful road of full involvement in Palestinian Zionism.)

 

In 1956, too, the revolution (which I hold to have been demonstrably Talmudic in our time) was also about fifty years old (from the revolutionary outbreaks following Japan's defeat of Russia in 1905) as a permanent factor in our daily lives (its roots, of course, go back through 1848 to the revolution in France and to Weishaupt, and to the one in England and Cromwell).

 

Finally, 1956 was the year of one more presidential election in America, and this, more openly than any previous one, was held under the paralyzing pressure of Zionism.

 

Therefore if I could so have planned when I began the book in 1949 (I was in no position to make any such timetable) I could not have chosen a better moment than the autumn of 1956 to review the process depicted, its consequences up to this date, and the apparent denouement now near at hand: the climax to which it was all bound to lead.

 

During the writing of the book I have had small expectation, for the reasons I have given, that it would be published when it was ready; at this stage of “the Jewish century” that seems unlikely. If it does not appear now, I believe it will still be valid in five, ten or more years, and I expect it to be published one day or another because I anticipate the collapse, sooner or later, of the virtual law of heresy which has prevented open discussion of “the Jewish question” during the past three decades. Some day the subject will be freely debated again and something of what this book records will then be relevant.

 

Whatever the sequel in that respect, I end the book in October and November of 1956 and when I look around see that all is turning out just as was to be foreseen from the sequence of events related in it. The year has been full of rumours of war, louder and more insistent than any since the end of the Second War in 1945, and they come from the two places whence they were bound to come, given the arrangements made in 1945 by the “top-line politicians” of the

 

493

 

West. They come from Palestine, where the Zionists from Russia were installed by the West, and from Eastern Europe, where the Talmudic revolution was installed by the West. These two movements (I recall again) are the ones which Dr. Weizmann showed taking shape, within the same Jewish households of Russia in the late 19th Century: revolutionary-Communism and revolutionary-Zionism.

 

At two moments during recent years the war-noises made by the politicians of the West were louder than at any others. On each occasion the immediate cause of the outburst was soon lost to sight in the outcry about the particular case of “the Jews,” so that, even before general war began (in both instances it receded) it was presented to the public masses as war which, if it came, would be fought primarily for, on behalf of or in defence of “the Jews” (or “Israel”).

 

I earlier opined that any third general war would be of that nature, because the events of 1917-1945 led inevitably to that conclusion, which has been greatly strengthened by the events of 1953 and 1956. The wars which in 1953 and 1956 seemed to threaten would evidently have been waged by the West in that understanding, this time much more explicitly avowed in advance than on the two previous occasions. By any time when this book may appear the short-memoried “public,” if it has not again been afflicted by general war, may have forgotten the war-crises, or near-war-crises, of 1953 and 1956, so that I will briefly put them on record.

 

In 1953 some Jews appeared among the prisoners in one of the innumerable mock-trials announced (this one was never held) in Moscow. This caused violent uproar among the Western politicians, who again and with one voice cried that “the Jews” were being “exterminated” and “singled out” for “persecution.” The outcry had reached the pitch of warlike menace when Stalin died, the trial was cancelled and the clamour abruptly ceased. To my mind the episode plainly indicated that if the war “against Communism” came about (which Western politicians and newspapers in these years spoke of as an accepted probability) it would be fought, and this time even avowedly, for “the Jews.” The general multitude of enslaved humanity would be left unsuccoured, as in 1945.

 

In July 1956 threats of war again were uttered when Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal. For the first few days of this war-crisis the British Prime Minister justified the menaces to the British people, by the argument that Egypt's action imperilled “the vital British lifeline.” Very soon he switched to the argument (presumably held to be more effective) that “Egypt's next act, if this is allowed to succeed, will be to attack Israel.” The Zionist state then began to figure in the news as the worst sufferer from Egyptian control of the Suez Canal. Ergo, war in the Middle East too, if it came, was to be a war “for the Jews.”

 

Thirdly, 1956 saw a presidential election held, for the seventh time under the direct, and for the third time under the open pressure of the Zionists in New York. The election campaign became a public contest for “the Jewish vote,” with the

 

494

 

rival parties outbidding each other in the promise of arms, money and guarantees to the Zionist state. Both parties, on the brink of war in that part of the world, publicly pledged themselves to the support of “Israel” in any circumstances whatever.

 

These results of the process which I have described from its start were to be expected. The conclusion to be drawn for the future seems inescapable: the millions of the West, through their politicians and their own indifference, are chained to a powder-keg with a sputtering, shortening fuse. The West approaches the climax of its relationship with Zion, publicly begun fifty years ago, and the climax is precisely what was to be foreseen when that servience started.

 

In our century each of the two great wars was followed by numerous books of revelation, in which the origins of the war were scrutinized and found to be different from what the mass, or mob, had been told, and the responsibility elsewhere located. These books have found general acceptance among those who read them, for a mood of enquiry always follows the credulity of wartime. However, they produce no lasting effect and the general mass may be expected to prove no less responsive to high-pressure incitement at the start of another war, for mass-resistance to mass-propaganda is negligible, and the power of propaganda is intoxicating as well as toxic.

 

Whether full public information about the causes of wars would avail against this continuing human instinct (“By a divine instinct, men's minds mistrust ensuing danger”) if it were given before war's outbreak, I cannot surmise; I believe this has never been tried. One modest ambition of this book is to establish that the origins and nature of and responsibility for a war can be shown before it begins, not merely when it has run its course. I believe the body of the book has demonstrated this and that its argument has already been borne out by events.

 

I believe also that the particular events of the years 1953-1956 in the West greatly strengthen its argument and the conclusion drawn, and for that reason devote the remainder of its concluding chapter to a resume of the relevant events of those years; (1) in the area enslaved by the revolution; (2) in and around the Zionist state; and (3) in “the free world” of the West, respectively. They appear to me to add the last word to the tale thus told: Climax, near or at hand.

 

Author's interpolation: The preceding part of this concluding chapter, up to the words, “Climax, near or at hand,” was written on Friday, October 26, 1956. I then went away for the weekend, intending to resume and complete the chapter on Tuesday, October 30, 1956; it was already in rough draft. When I resumed it on that day Israel had invaded Egypt, on Monday, October 29, 1956. Therefore the rest of the chapter is written in the light of the events which followed; these made it much longer than I expected.

495

1.  The Revolution

In the area of the revolution, swollen to enslave half of Europe, the death of Stalin in 1953 was followed by a series of popular uprisings in 1953 and 1956.

 

Both events rejoiced the watching world, for they revived the almost forgotten hope that one day the destructive revolution would destroy itself and that men and nations would again be free. This clear meaning was then confused by the forced intrusion into each of “the Jewish question.” In “the Jewish century” the public masses were prevented from receiving or considering tidings of any great event save in terms of what its effect would be “for the Jews.”

 

Stalin's death (March 6,1953) startled the world because the life of this man, who probably caused the death and enslavement of more human beings than any other in history, had come to seem endless, like the uncoiling of the serpent.[35] The circumstances of his death remain unclear, but the timetable of the events attending it may be significant.

 

On January 15, 1953 the Moscow newspapers announced that nine men were to be tried on charges of conspiring to assassinate seven high Communist notables. Either six or seven of these nine men were Jews (the accounts disagree). The other two or three might never have been born for all the world heard of them, for in the uproar which immediately arose in the West the affair was dubbed that of “the Jewish doctors.”[36]

 

In February, while the clamour in the West continued, diplomats who saw Stalin remarked on his healthy look and good spirits.

 

On March 6 Stalin died. A month later the “Jewish doctors” were released. Six months later Stalin's terrorist chief, Lavrenti Beria, was shot for having arrested them and the charges were denounced as false. Of Stalin's death, a notable American correspondent in Moscow, Mr. Harrison Salisbury, wrote that after it Russia was ruled by a group or junta “more dangerous than Stalin,” consisting of Messrs. Malenkov, Molotov, Bulganin and Kaganovich. To acquire power, he said, the junta might have murdered Stalin, everything pointed to it; “if Stalin just happened to be struck down by a ruptured artery in his brain on March 2, it must be recorded as one of the most fortuitous occurrences in history.”

 

For the West these attendant circumstances and possibilities of Stalin's end

 

496

 

had no interest. The entire period of some nine months, between the Prague trial (and presidential election) and the liquidation of Beria was filled with the uproar in the West about “anti-semitism in Russia.” While the clamour continued (it ceased after “the Jewish doctors” were released and vindicated) things were said which seemed plainly to signify that any Western war against the Communist union would be waged, like the one against Germany, solely on behalf of “the Jews,” or of those who claimed to represent the Jews. In 1953 Sovietized Russia was held up as the new anti-semitic monster, as Germany was held up in 1939 and Czarist Russia in 1914. This all-obscuring issue, to judge by the propagandist hubbub of that period, would again have befogged the battle and deceived the nations.

 

The timing of this campaign is significant and can no longer be explained by the theory of coincidence. In order to give maximum effect to the “pressure-machine” in America, the “Jewish question” has to become acute at the period of any presidential election there. Nowadays it always becomes acute at that precise period in one of its two forms: “anti-semitism” somewhere (this happened in 1912, 1932, 1936, 1940 and 1952) or a peril to “Israel” (this happened in 1948 and 1956). The prediction that, in one of the two forms, it will dominate the Presidential election of 1960 may be made without much risk.

 

Nothing changed in the situation of the Jews in Russia at that time.[37] Some Jews had been included among the defendants in a show-trial at Prague and in one announced, but never held, in Moscow. The thirty-five Communist years had seen innumerable show-trials; the world had become indifferent through familiarity with them. As the terrorist state was based on imprisonment without any trial, the show-trials obviously were only held in order to produce some effect, either on the Sovietized masses or on the outer world. Even the charge of “Zionist conspiracy” was not new; it had been made in some trials of the 1920's, and Communism from the start (as Lenin and Stalin testify) formally outlawed Zionism, just as it provided the Zionists from Russia with the arms to establish “Israel” in 1948.

 

If Stalin went further than was allowed in attacking “Zionism” on this occasion, his death quickly followed. To the end he was obviously not anti-Jewish. Mr. Kaganovich remained at his right hand. A few days before he died Stalin ordered one of the most pompous funerals ever seen in Soviet Moscow to be given to Lev Mechlis, one of the most feared and hated Jewish Commissars of the thirty-five years. Mechlis's coffin was carried by all the surviving grandees of the Bolshevik revolution, who also shared the watch at his lying in state, so that this was plainly a warning to the captive Russian masses, if any still were needed, that “the law against anti-semitism” was still in full force. Immediately after

 

497

 

Mechlis's funeral (Jan. 27, 1953) the “Stalin Peace Prize” was with great public ostentation presented to the apostle of Talmudic vengeance, Mr. Ilya Ehrenburg, whose broadcasts to the Red Armies as they advanced into Europe incited them not to spare “even unborn Fascists.” A few days before he died Stalin prompted the Red Star to state that the struggle against Zionism “had nothing to do with anti-semitism; Zionism is the enemy of the working people all over the world, of Jews no less than Gentiles.”

 

The plight of the Jews, in their fractional minority in Russia, thus had not changed for the better or for worse. They still had “a higher degree of equality in the Soviet Union than any other part of the world” (to quote the derisive answer given, at this period, by a Jewish witness to a Republican Congressman, Mr. Kit Clardy, before a Congressional Committee, Mr. Clardy having asked “Do you not shrink in horror from what Soviet Russia is doing to the Jews?”). They remained a privileged class.

 

The uproar in the West therefore was artificial and had no factual basis, yet it reached a pitch just short of actual warlike threat and might have risen to that note had not Stalin died and “the Jewish doctors” been released (I was never able to discover whether the non-Jewish ones also were liberated). There could only be one reason for it: that Zionism had been attacked, and by 1952-3 opposition to Zionism was deemed by the frontal politicians of the West to be “Hitlerism” and provocation of war. The episode showed that this propaganda of incitement can be unleashed at the touch of a button and be “beamed” in any direction at changing need (not excluding America, in the long run). When this propaganda has been brought to white heat, it is used to extort the “commitments” which are later invoked.

 

The six month period, between nomination-and-election, election-and-inauguration is that in which American presidents now come under this pressure. President Eisenhower in 1952-3 was under the same pressure as President Woodrow Wilson in 1912-3, Mr. Roosevelt in 1938-9, and President Truman in 1947-8. The whole period of his canvass, nomination, election and inauguration was dominated by “the Jewish question” in its two forms, “anti-semitism” here, there or everywhere, and the adventure in Palestine. Immediately after nomination he told a Mr. Maxwell Abbell, President of the United Synagogue of America, “The Jewish people could not have a better friend than me … I grew up believing that Jews was the chosen people and that they gave us the high ethical and moral principles of our civilization” (all Jewish newspapers, September 1952).[38]

 

This was the basic commitment, familiar in our century and always taken to mean much more than the givers comprehend. Immediately after it came the

 

498

 

Prague trial and President Eisenhower, just elected, was evidently pressed for something more specific. In a message to a Jewish Labour Committee in Manhattan (Dec. 21, 1952) he said the Prague trial “was designed to unloose a campaign of rabid anti-semitism throughout Soviet Europe and the satellite nations of Eastern Europe. I am honoured to take my stand with American Jewry … to show the world the indignation all America feels at the outrages perpetrated by the Soviets against the sacred principles of our civilization.”

 

The “outrages” at that moment consisted in the hanging of eleven men, three of them Gentiles, among the millions done to death in the thirty-five Bolshevik years; their fate was not included in these “outrages.” The new president could not have known what “campaign” the trial was “designed to unloose,” and innumerable other trials had received no presidential denunciation. The words implicitly tarred the captives of Communism, too, with the “anti-semitic” brush, for they were termed “satellite nations” and the primary meaning of “satellite” is “An attendant attached to a prince or other powerful person; hence, an obsequious dependent or follower” (Webster's Dictionary). As the commander whose military order, issued in agreement with the Soviet dictator, had ensured their captivity, President Eisenhower's choice of word was strange. It reflected the attitude of those who were able to put “pressure” on all American presidents and governments. To them the enslavement of millions meant nothing; indeed, their power was used to perpetuate it.

 

This state of affairs was reflected, again, in two of the new President's first acts. In seeking election, he had appealed to the strong American aversion to the deed of 1945 by pledging to repudiate the Yalta agreements (the political charter of his own military order halting the Allied advance west of Berlin and thus abandoning Eastern Europe to Communism) in these explicit words:

 

“The Government of the United States, under Republican leadership, will repudiate all commitments contained in secret understandings such as those of Yalta which aid Communist enslavement.” Elected, the new president sent to Congress (20 February 1953) a resolution merely proposing that Congress join him “in rejecting any interpretations or applications … of secret agreements which have been perverted to bring about the subjugation of free people.” By that time he had publicly referred to the enslaved peoples as “satellites.” As the resolution neither “repudiated” nor even referred to “Yalta,” it was disappointing to the party led by President Eisenhower and in the end it was dropped altogether.

 

In its place, the new President transmitted to Congress a resolution condemning “the vicious and inhuman campaigns against the Jews” in the Soviet area. Thus “the enslaved” were deleted altogether and “the Jews” put in their place, an amendment typical of our time. The perspiring State Department succeeded in having this resolution amended to include “other minorities.” The present Jewish “estimates” are that there are in all “about 2,500,000 Jews behind

 

499

 

the Iron Curtain,” where the non-Jewish captives amount to between 300 and 350 millions; these masses, which included whole nations like the Poles, Hungarians, Bulgars and Ukrainians, to say nothing of the smaller ones or even of the Russians themselves, were lumped together in two words “other minorities.” The Senate adopted this resolution (Feb. 27, 1953) by unanimous consent, but this was not deemed enough for proper discipline, so that every American Senator (like the Members of the British House of Commons, at Mr. Eden's behest, during the war) stood up to be counted. A few who were absent hurriedly asked in writing to have their names added to the roll-call.

 

Had the peoples behind “the Iron Curtain” understood the story of these two resolutions, or been allowed to learn of it, they would not have hoped (as they did hope) for any American succour in their national uprisings against the terror in 1956.

 

The President having spoken and acted thus, the uproar waxed. One of the most powerful Zionist leaders of that period (in the line of Justice Brandeis and Rabbi Stephen Wise) was Rabbi Hillel Silver, who during the election had defended Mr. Eisenhower against ex-President Truman's charge of “antisemitism” (now invariably used in presidential elections), and later was invited by the new president to pronounce the “prayer for grace and guidance”at his inauguration. Thus Rabbi Silver may be seen as a man speaking with authority when he announced that if Russia were destroyed, it would be on behalf of the Jews: he “warned Russia that it will be destroyed if it makes a spiritual pact with Hitlerism.” This method of giving the “Hitler” label to any individual threatened with “destruction” later was generally adopted (President Nasser of Egypt being a case in point).

 

The menace was always implicitly the same: “Persecute men if you will, but you will be destroyed if you oppose the Jews.” Mr. Thomas E. Dewey (twice a presidential aspirant and the architect of Mr. Eisenhower's nomination in 1952) outdid Rabbi Silver at the same meeting (Jan. 15, 1953): “Now all are beginning to see it” (“anti-semitism” in Russia) “as the newest and most terrible programme of genocide yet launched … Zionism, as such, has now become a crime and merely being born a Jew is now cause for hanging. Stalin has swallowed the last drop of Hitler's poison, becoming the newest and most vituperative persecutor of Jewry … It seems that Stalin is willing to admit to the whole world that he would like to accomplish for Hitler what Hitler could not do in life.”

 

The extravagance of this campaign astonishes even the experienced observer, in retrospect. For instance, the Montreal Gazette, which by chance I saw in the summer of 1953, editorially stated that “thousands of Jews are being murdered in East Germany”; the Johannesburg Zionist Record three years earlier (July 7, 1950) had stated that the entire Jewish population of Eastern Germany was 4,200 souls, most of whom enjoyed preference for government employ.

 

500

 

The new president's “commitments” became ever firmer, at all events in the minds of those to whom they were addressed. In March 1953, either just before or after Stalin's death, he sent a letter to the Jewish Labour Committee above-cited pledging (the word used in the New York Times; I have not the full text of his message) that America would be “forever vigilant against any resurgence of anti-semitism.” When the recipient committee held its congress at Atlantic City the “Jewish doctors” had been released and the whole rumpus was dying down, so that it was no longer eager to make the letter public and returned it to the sender. The president was insistent on publication and sent it back “with a very tough note bitterly condemning Soviet anti-semitism.”

 

In this world of propagandist fictions the masses of the West were led by their governors from disappointment to disappointment. Who knows whither they would have been led on this occasion, had Stalin not died, the “Jewish doctors” not been released, the finger not been removed from the button of mass-incitement?

 

Stalin died and the machine-made outcry (on both sides of the Atlantic) died with him. What if he had lived and “the Jewish doctors” been tried? When he died the propaganda had already reached eve-of-war pitch; the “new Hitler” had begun “the newest and most terrible programme of genocide yet launched”; “thousands of Jews” were being “murdered” in a place where only hundreds lived: soon these thousands would have become millions, one … two … six millions. The entire holocaust of Lenin's and Stalin's thirty-five years, with its myriads of unknown victims and graves, would have been transformed, by the witchcraft of this propaganda, into one more “anti-Jewish persecution”; indeed, this was done by the shelving of President Eisenhower's “repudiation of Yalta and Communist enslavement” pledge and the substitution for it of a resolution which singled out for “condemnation” the “vicious and inhuman treatment of the Jews” (who continued, behind the Iran Curtain, to wield the terror over those enslaved by Communism). In that cause alone, had war come, another generation of Western youth would have gone to war, thinking their mission was to “destroy Communism.”

 

Stalin died. The West was spared war at that time and stumbled on, behind its Zionised leaders, towards the next disappointment, which was of a different kind. During the ten years that had passed since the ending of the Second War their leaders had made them accustomed to the thought that one day they would have to crush Communism and thus amend the deed of 1945. The sincerity of the Western leaders in this matter was again to be tested in the years 1953 and 1956.

 

In those years the enslaved people themselves began to destroy Communism and to strike, for that liberation which the American president, the military architect of their enslavement, promised them but counselled them not militantly to effect.[39] Stalin's death seemed to have the effect of a thaw on the rigid fear

 

501

 

which gripped these peoples and it set this process of self-liberation in motion. The writer of this book was confounded, in this case, in his expectations. I believed, from observation and experience, that any national uprising was impossible against tanks and automatic weapons, and against the day-to-day methods of the terror (arrest, imprisonment, deportation or death without charge or trial), which seemed to have been perfected during three centuries (that is, through the revolutions in England, France and Russia) to a point where, I thought, only outside succour could make any uprising possible. I had forgotten the infinite resources of the human spirit.

 

The first of these revolts occurred in Sovietized East Berlin on June 17, 1953, when unarmed men and youths attacked Soviet tanks with bands and stones.[40] This example produced an unprecedented result deep inside the Soviet Union itself: a rising at the Vorkuta slave camp in the Arctic Circle, where the prisoners chased the terrorist guards from the camp and held it for a week until secret police troops from Moscow arrived and broke them with machine-gun fire.

 

These two uprisings occurred while the clamour in the West about “anti-semitism behind the Iron Curtain” was still loud. No similar outcry was raised on behalf of the legion of human beings, a hundred times as numerous, whose plight was once more revealed. No threats of war or “destruction” were uttered against the Soviet Union on their account. On the contrary, the politicians and the press of the West urged them to remain quiet and simply to hope for “the liberation” which, by some untold means, one day would come to them from America, which had abandoned them in 1945.

 

Nevertheless, the anguished longing for liberation continued to work in the souls of the peoples and in the sequence to the East Berlin and Vorkuta outbursts came the risings in Poland and Hungary in October, 1956, after I began this concluding chapter. The first was a spontaneous national uprising. The second, ignited by the first, became something which history can scarcely match: a national war of a whole, captive people against the captor's overwhelming might. I believe the passage of time will show this event either to have marked the rebirth of “the West” and the revival of Europe, or the end of Europe as it has been known to mankind for the past thousand years and therewith the end of anything the words, “the West,” have stood for.

 

Whatever the future, one thing was achieved by the October uprisings, and

 

502

 

more especially by the Hungarian uprisings. Never again could the revolution pretend to have even the passive acceptance of its captives. These showed that, under Karl Marx's Communism, they found they had nothing to lose but their chains and would face death rather than endure them.

 

The causes for which both nations rose were the same and were made completely clear. They wanted, in each case, the liberation of the nation through the withdrawal of the Red Army; the liberation of individual men from the terror through the abolition of the secret police and the punishment of the chief terrorists; the restoration of their faith through the release of the head of their church (who in both cases was imprisoned); the release of their political system from the one-party thrall through the return of contending parties and elections.

 

Thus the issue at stake was completely plain: through a little nation on its eastern borders “the West” rose against Asiatic despotism; here was God against godlessness, liberty against slavery, human dignity against human degradation. The issue at the moment turned, and the final decision will turn, on the measure of support which these outpost-nations of the West found in the remainder of the West, which professed kinship and fellowship with them but in the hour of need had abandoned them before.

 

In that quarter, vision of the clear issue at stake was obscured by the intrusion of the all-obscuring side-issue of our century: “the Jewish question.” The tale of the October events in Poland and Hungary is as clear, in itself, as crystal, but was not allowed to become clear to the masses of America and England because of this one aspect, concerning which information has consistently been denied to them since the Bolshevik overthrow of the legitimate regime in Russia in 1917.

 

Three months before the Polish and Hungarian uprisings an article by Mr. C.L. Sulzberger published in the New York Times revived the cry of “Anti-semitism behind the Iron Curtain” which had been raised in 1953. As an instance of this “anti-semitism” the article cited the dismissal of Jakub Berman, “detested party theorist and a Jew,” who was the chief Moscovite terrorist in Poland.

 

In this article lurked the secret of which the Western masses have never been allowed to become aware; Mr. Robert Wilton, who “lost the confidence” of The Times for trying to impart it to that newspaper's readers in 1917-1918, was the first of a long line of correspondents who tried, and failed, during the next thirty-nine years. The masses in Russia, and later in the other countries which were abandoned to Communism, could not rise against the terror without being accused of “anti-semitism,” because the terror was always a Jewish and Talmudic terror, thus identifiable by its acts, and not a Russian, Communist or Soviet terror.

 

In this one thing the ruling power in Moscow, whatever it truly was and is, never departed from the original pattern, and that is the basic fact from which all research into the events of our century must start. The theory of coincidence might conceivably be applied to the 90 percent-Jewish governments which

 

503

 

appeared in Russia, Hungary and Bavaria in 1917-1919; (Even at that time, as I have shown earlier, a Jewish writer described the national abhorrence of the Jewish Bolshevik government in Hungary as “anti-semitism,” an epithet which could only have been escaped by submission to it). But when the Moscow Government installed Jewish governments in the countries abandoned to it in 1945 no doubt remained that this was set and calculated policy, with a considered purpose.

 

I repeat here information, from unchallengeable sources, about the composition of these governments at the very moment in 1952-1953 when Stalin was being called “the new Hitler” and “Russia” was being threatened with “destruction” from New York and Washington if it permitted “any resurgence of anti-semitism”: “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; the man in the street, therefore, has been inclined to equate the party cares with the Jews and to blame the ‘Jewish Communists' for all his troubles” (New Statesman, 1952); “… The strongly Jewish (90 percent in the top echelons) Government of Communist Hungary under Communist Premier Matyas Rakosi, who is himself a Jew” (Time, New York, 1953). “Rumania, together with Hungary, probably has the greatest number of Jews in the administration” (New York Herald-Tribune, 1953). All these, and many similar reports in my files, come from articles reprobating “anti-semitism” in “the satellite countries,” and at this period, when these countries were known to be Jewish-ruled, President Eisenhower made his statement about “a wave of rabid anti-semitism in … the satellite countries of Eastern Europe.”

 

What could these menaces from Washington mean to the captive peoples, other than a warning not to murmur against the wielders of the knout; yet at the same time they were promised “liberation,” and “The Voice of America” and “Radio Free Europe” daily and nightly tormented them with descriptions of their own plight.

 

This was the confusing background to the Polish and Hungarian national uprisings of October 1956, the first sign of which, again, was given by the riots at Poznan, in Poland, in June 1956. Immediately after that Mr. Sulzberger's article about “Anti-semitism behind the Iron Curtain” appeared, complaining that Mr. Jakub Berman had been dismissed and that Marshal Rokossovsky, commander of the Polish army, had dismissed “several hundred Jewish officers.” In August one of the two Deputy Premiers, Mr. Zenon Nowak (the other was a Jew, Mr. Hilary Mine) said the campaign for “democratization”or “liberalization” which was being conducted in the Polish press was being distorted by the introduction of, and the especial prominence given to the case of “the Jews,” He said the nation believed there was “a disproportionate number of Jews in leading party and government positions” and in evidence read a list of their representation in the various ministries. A Professor Kotabinski, replying to and attacking

 

504

 

Mr. Nowak, said the Jews “had become almost a majority in key positions, and preference for their own people in giving out jobs has not been avoided” (New York Times, Oct. 11, 1956).

 

By that time Poland had been for eleven years under Soviet rule and Jewish terror. Little had changed in the picture given by the American Ambassador, Mr. Arthur Bliss Lane, of the years 1945-1947: “Many an arrest by the Security Police was witnessed by members of the American Embassy … . terrifying methods, such as arrests in the middle of the night, and the person arrested generally was not permitted to communicate with the outside world, perhaps for months, perhaps for all time … Even our Jewish sources admitted … the great unpopularity of the Jews in key government positions. These men included Minc, Berman, Olczewski, Radkiewic and Spychalski … there was bitter feeling within the militia against the Jews because the Security police, controlled by Radkiewicz, dominated the militia and the army … Furthermore, both the Security Police and Internal Security Police had among their members many Jews of Russian origin.”

 

Only after eleven years did this Jewish control of the terror begin to weaken. In May 1956 Mr. Jakub Berman (“thought to be Moscow's No. 1 man in the Polish Party,” New York Times, Oct. 21, 1956) resigned as one deputy Premier and early in October 1956, Mr. Hilary Minc (“thought to be Moscow's No. 2 man”) also resigned. (Mr. Nowak, one of the new Deputy Premiers, from the start was assailed as “anti-semitic”).

 

This was the significant background to the national uprising of October 20. Poland, at its first experience of Communist rule, like Russia, Hungary and Bavaria in 1917-1919, had found the terror, on which that rule rested, to be Jewish and was already being attacked for “anti-semitism” in America and England because it tried to throw off the terror. Like all other countries, it was caught in the dilemma caused by “the Jewish question.” The actual situation of such Jews as were not in high position in Poland appears to have been better than that of other sections of the population, to judge from various reports made at this period by visiting rabbis and journalists from America. Incidentally, the total number of Jews in Poland at that time ranges, in published Jewish “estimates,” from “thirty thousand” (New York Times, July 13, 1956) to “about fifty thousand” (New York Times, Aug. 31, 1956), the total population of Poland being given, in current reference works as approximately 25,000,000. Their proportion, therefore, is a small fraction of one percent, and never before this century has a minority of this minuteness, anywhere, claimed to become “almost a majority in key positions” and in showing “preference for their own people in giving out jobs.”

 

The case of Hungary was more significant, for this country after 1945 endured its second experience of Communist rule. It not only found the terror to be Jewish again, but it was wielded by the same men. This deliberate reinstalment of Jewish

 

505

 

terrorists detested by a nation for their deeds of twenty-six years before (the details are given later in this chapter) is the strongest evidence yet provided of the existence in Moscow of a power, controlling the revolution, which deliberately gives its savageries the Talmudic signature, not the Soviet, Communist or Russian one.

 

Against this background, which was not comprehended in “the free world,” the forces of national regeneration gradually worked to throw off the terror. In April 1956 Mr. Vladislav Gomulka (imprisoned from 1951 to 1956 under the Berman-Minc regime as a “deviationist”) was released and became the symbol of the national hope at this instant, for although he was a Communist he was a Pole. He was restored to the Central Committee of the Polish Communist Party on October 19, 1956 and on October 20 did something which might have changed the whole shape of our century, but for the shadow which soon fell across the ensuing events (this time from the other centre of “the Jewish question,” Palestine). He presented the Polish nation with a virtual declaration of independence, attacked “the misrule of the last twelve years,” promised elections and declared that “the Polish people will defend themselves with all means so that we may not be pushed off the road to democratization.”

 

He did this in face of a flying visit from the Moscovite chiefs themselves. Mr. Kruschev was accompanied by generals and threatened the use of the Red Army. He seems to have been utterly discomfited by the bold front offered to him by Mr. Gomulka and, in particular by Mr. Edward Ochab (also an “anti-semite” in Mr. Sulzberger's article) who said, according to report, “If you do not halt your troops immediately, we will walk out of here and break off all contact.” The Polish army was evidently ready to defend the national cause and Mr. Kruschev capitulated. Marshal Rokossovsky disappeared to Moscow[41] and, as the symbol of the nation's rebirth, Cardinal Wyszynski (deprived of his office under the Berman-Minc regime in 1953) was released.

 

Jubilation spread over Poland. The revolution [Communist] had suffered its first major defeat; the faith had been restored (this was the meaning of the Cardinal's liberation); the nation, abandoned by the outer world, had taken a great first step towards its self-liberation.

 

At once the bush-fire spread to Hungary. The great event in Poland was forgotten in the excitement caused by a greater one. All the processes of human nature, time and providence seemed at last to be converging to a good end.

 

In Hungary on October 22, 1956, two days after the Polish declaration of independence, the people gathered in the streets to demand that Mr. Imre Nagy return to the premiership and the Soviet occupation troops be withdrawn. None

 

506

 

of them realized at that moment that they were beginning a national uprising which was to turn into a national war of liberation.

 

The spark came from Poland and the background was the same, with the difference that Hungary was undergoing its second ordeal at the hands of Jewish commissars. The chief object of its fear and detestation at that instant was one Erno Geroe, head of the Hungarian Communist Party and the third of the Jewish terrorists of 1919 sent to Hungary by Moscow to wield the terror there. Thus in this event, not only the accumulated bitterness of the years 1945-1956 exploded, but also the memories of the terror in 1918-1919.

 

Mr. Imre Nagy, like Mr. Gomulka in Poland, became the symbol of the nation's hopes at that moment because he was a “national” Communist. That is to say, he was a Magyar, as Gomulka was a Pole, and not an alien. His part in the historical process, had he been allowed to fulfil it, would probably have been to take the first steps towards the restoration of Hungarian national sovereignty and individual liberty, after which he would have given way to an elected successor. His symbolic popularity at the moment of the national uprising was chiefly due to the fact that he had been forced out of the premiership in 1953, and expelled from the Communist party in 1955, by the hated Matyas Rakosi and Erno Geroe.

 

In Hungary, as in Poland, the nation wanted distinct things, all made clear by the words and deeds of the ensuing days: the restoration of the national faith (symbolized by the release of the Cardinal, imprisoned by the Jewish terrorists), the liberation of the nation (through the withdrawal of the Soviet troops), the abolition of the terrorist secret police and the punishment of the terrorist chiefs. The initial demand for these things, however, was expressed by peaceful demonstration, not by riot or uprising.[42] They became noisy after a violently abusive speech by Geroe, the party leader, who retained that post when the party's central committee installed Mr. Nagy as premier. Geroe then instructed the Soviet troops to enter Budapest and restore order. Encountering demonstrators in Parliament Square, who were gathered to demand Geroe's dismissal, the Soviet tanks and Geroe's terrorist police opened fire, leaving the streets littered with dead and dying men and women (Oct. 24, 1956). This was the

 

507

 

start of the true uprising; the nation unitedly rose against the Soviet troops and the hated terrorist police and within a few days the Communist revolution suffered a defeat which made the one in Poland look like a mere rebuff.

 

The Cardinal was released, Mr. Nagy established himself as premier, the hated Geroe disappeared (to the Crimean Riviera, in company with Rakosi, said one report), the terrorist police were hunted down and their barracks wrecked. The statue of Stalin was thrown down and smashed to pieces; the Hungarian troops everywhere helped the uprising or remained passive; the Soviet troops (who at that moment were mainly Russian) often showed sympathy with the Hungarians and many of their tanks were destroyed. This was the most hopeful moment in Europe's story since 1917, but far away Zionism was moving to rescue the revolution from its discomfiture and in a few days, even hours, all that was gained was to be undone.

 

The background should be briefly sketched here, before the second stage of the Hungarian people's war is described, because the case of Hungary is probably the most significant of all. For some reason the Moscovite power was more determined in this case than any other to identify Jews with the terror, so that the Hungarian experience, more strongly than any, points to continuing Jewish, or Talmudic, control of the revolution itself at its seat of power in Moscow.

 

The 1919 regime in Hungary, which the Magyars themselves threw out after a brief but merciless terror, was Jewish. The presence of one or two non-Jews in the regime did not qualify this, its essential nature. It was the terror of four chief Jewish leaders, supported by a mass of subordinate Jews, namely Bela Kun, Matyas Rakosi, Tibor Szamuely and Erno Geroe, none of whom could be called Hungarians and all of whom were trained for their task in Moscow.

 

After the Second War free elections, for some reason of political expediency, were permitted in Hungary (Nov. 1945). These produced the natural result: a huge majority for the Smallholders Party; the Communists, despite the presence of the Red Army, made a poor showing. Then Matyas Rakosi was sent again to Hungary (Szamuely had committed suicide in 1919; Bela Kun disappeared in some nameless Soviet purge of the 1930's, but in February 1956 his memory was pompously “rehabilitated” at the Twentieth Soviet Congress in Moscow, and this may now be seen as an intimation to the Hungarians of what they had to expect in October 1956).

 

With the help of the terrorist police and the Red Army Rakosi began to destroy other parties and opponents, five of whom (including the renowned Mr. Laszlo Rajk) he and Geroe had hanged in 1949 after the familiar “confessions” of conspiracy with “the imperialist powers” (an allegation which left the imperialist powers as unmoved as they were infuriated by the allegation of “Zionist conspiracy” in 1952). By 1948 Hungary, under Rakosi, was completely Sovietized and terrorized. The chief terrorist this time, under Rakosi himself, was Erno Geroe, also returned to Hungary from Moscow after twenty years; he

 

508

 

staged the trial and ordered the incarceration of Hungary's religious leader, Cardinal Mindszenty[43] (who before he disappeared into durance instructed the nation not to believe any confession imputed to him by his jailers). After that Hungary for several years lay under the terror of two of the men who had crucified it in 1919, and the entire government became “90 percent Jewish in the top echelons.” To Hungarians also, then, the terror was Jewish and Talmudic, not Communist, Soviet or Russian, and it was most deliberately given that nature; the intent of the return of Rakosi and Geroe after the Second War is unmistakable, and their acts were equally unmistakable.

 

In July 1953 Rakosi resigned the premiership and The Times announced that “Mr. Geroe is the only Jew left in the Cabinet, which under Mr. Rakosi was predominantly Jewish.” As Rakosi remained party leader and Geroe was Deputy-Premier, nothing very much changed, and in July 1956, when Rakosi also resigned his party-leadership, he was succeeded in that post by Geroe, with the consequences which were seen in October.

 

Even Geroe seemed to have done his worst at that moment, for after the Hungarian people's victory the Red Army troops were withdrawn (Oct. 28) and two days later (Oct. 30) the Soviet Government broadcast to the world a statement admitting “violations and mistakes which infringed the principles of equality in relations between Socialist states,” offering to discuss “measures … to remove any possibilities of violating the principle of national sovereignty,” and undertaking “to examine the question of the Soviet troops stationed on the territory of Hungary, Rumania and Poland.”

 

Was it a ruse, intended only to lull the peoples while the assassin took respite, or was it a true retreat and enforced admission of error, opening great vistas of conciliation and hope to the peoples?

 

If Israel had not attacked Egypt … if Britain and France had not joined in that attack … if these things had not happened the world would now know the answer to that question. Now it will never know, for the Zionist attack on Egypt, and the British and French participation in it, released the revolution from its dilemma; as if by magic, the eyes of the watching world turned from Hungary to the Middle East and Hungary was forgotten. Vainly did Mr. Nagy broadcast his appeal to the world the very next day, saying that 200,000 men with five thousand tanks were moving into Hungary.

Budapest was pulverized. On November 7 the voice of the last free Hungarian radio faded from the air (Radio Rakoczy at Dunapentele), as the voices of the Poles had faded in 1944 and of the Czechs in 1939, bequeathing their sorrows to

 

509

 

“the West.”

 

“This is our last broadcast. We are being inundated with Soviet tanks and planes.” These words, the Vienna correspondent of the New York Times recorded, “were followed by a loud crashing sound. Then there was silence.”

 

Mr. Nagy took refuge in the Yugoslav Legation, and on leaving it under Soviet safe-conduct was deported some-whither, none knows where. The Cardinal took refuge in the American Embassy. At the end of November the Cuban delegate to the United Nations, a well-informed authority, stated that 65,000 people had been killed in Hungary. More than 100,000 by that time had fled across the frontier into Austria, a small country which upheld the tattered standard of “the West” by taking in all who came, without question. A few thousand of these reached America, where they were received by the U.S. Secretary of the Army, a Mr. Wilbur M. Brucker, who ordered them “to applaud the American flag” and then “to applaud President Eisenhower.”

 

These truly were ten days that shocked the world, and will shock it ever more if the true tale is ever told. They showed that the values which once were symbolized by the two words, “The West,” now were embodied in the captive peoples of Eastern Europe, not in America or England or France.

 

Those countries had their backs turned to the scene in Hungary. They were intent on events in the Middle East. “The Jewish question” in the Middle East intervened to blot out the dawn of hope in Europe again. Once more revolutionary-Communism and revolutionary-Zionism worked as in perfect synchronization, as in October 1917; the acts of each directly benefited the other. The United Nations could not find time to discuss the Hungarian appeal for help before the new terror crushed the appellants and restored approved agents of the revolution to the delegates' places.

 

In Hungary itself the place of the vanished Geroe was taken by yet another commissar of 1919. Mr. Ference Munnich, who had taken prominent part in the Bela Kun regime then, also had returned to Hungary after the Second War with the Red Army. From 1946 to 1949, when Rakosi was clamping down the second terror, Mr. Munnich was Budapest chief of police. Now he became “Deputy Premier, Minister of National Defence and of Public Security” in the government of one Janos Kadar, set up by Moscow. Mr. Kadar also had a record of some independence, and therefore was not likely to be allowed to wield any power. Mr. Munnich, (said the New York Times) was “Moscow's ace in the hole, controlling Mr. Kadar.”

 

In this way the night came down again on Hungary and it had to find what consolation it might in the President's words that his heart went out to it. The time bomb in the Middle East, originally planted there in the very week of the Bolshevik revolution's triumph in Moscow, blew up at the moment of the revolution's fiasco and defeat. This diversion changed the brightest situation for many years into the darkest one. The Soviet Union was left undisturbed in its

 

510

 

work of massacre in Hungary while the great powers of the West began to dispute among themselves about Israel, Egypt and the Suez Canal; all the world turned to watch them, and the Soviet state, with the blood of a European nation on its hands, was able to join in the general anathema of Britain and France when they joined in the Israeli attack.

 

The creation of the Zionist state proved to be even more ill-omened than the other creation of the Talmudic Jews in Russia, the Communist revolution. The second section of this record of the years of climax therefore has to do with events in the Zionist state in the eight years between its creation by terror in 1948 and its attack on Egypt in October 1956.

 

 

2.  The Zionist State

In those years the little state misnamed “Israel” proved to be something unique in history. It was governed, as it was devised, set up and largely peopled, by non-semitic Jews from Russia, of the Chazar breed. Founded on a tribal tradition of antiquity, with which these folk could have no conceivable tie of blood, it developed a savage chauvinism based on the literal application of the Law of the Levites in ancient Judah. Tiny, it had no true life of its own and from the start lived only by the wealth and weapons its powerful supporters in the great Western countries could extort from these. During these years it outdid the most bellicose warlords of history in warlike words and deeds. Ruled by men of the same stock as those who wielded the terror in Poland and Hungary, it daily threatened the seven neighbouring Semitic peoples with the destruction and enslavement prescribed for them in Deuteronomy of the Levites.

 

It did this in the open belief that its power in the Western capitals was sufficient to deter the governments there from ever gainsaying its will, and to command their support in any circumstances. It behaved as if America, in particular, was its colony, and that country's deeds conformed with that idea. Within its borders its laws against conversion and intermarriage were those of the much-cited Hitler; beyond its borders lay a destitute horde of Arabs, driven into the wilderness by it, whose numbers rose through childbirth to nearly a million as the eight years went by. These, and their involuntary hosts, were by repeated raid and massacre reminded that the fate of Deir Yasin yet hung over them too: “utterly destroy, man, woman and child , . . leave nothing alive that breatheth.” The Western countries, its creators, murmured reproof while they sent it money and the wherewithal of the war which they claimed to fear; thus, like Frankenstein, they created the destructive agency which they could not control.

 

Based on fantasy, the little state had no real existence, only the power to spread unease throughout the world, which from the moment of its creation had no moment's true respite from fear. It began to fulfil the words of the ancient

 

511

 

Promise: “This day will I begin to put the dread of thee and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven … who shall be in anguish because of thee.”

 

Left to its own resources, it would have collapsed, as the “Jewish Homeland” of the inter-war years would have collapsed. The urge to leave it once more began to master the urge to enter it, and this despite the power of chauvinism, which for a time will overcome almost any other impulse in those who yield to it. In 1951, already, departures would have out-numbered arrivals save that the “amazing crack” earlier mentioned (New York Herald-Tribune, April 1953) then opened “in the Iron Curtain” (where cracks do not occur unless they are intended; the Communist-revolutionary state evidently had a calculated purpose in replenishing the Zionist-revolutionary state with inhabitants at that time). Nevertheless, in 1952, 13,000 emigrants left and only 24,470 entered, and in 1953 (the last year for which I have figures) emigration exceeded immigration, according to the Jewish Agency. A Dr. Benjamin Avniel, speaking in Jerusalem, said in June that in the first five months 8,500 immigrants had arrived and 25,000 persons had departed.

 

This was the natural development, if “Israel” were left alone, for it had nothing to offer but chauvinism. The picture of conditions in the land is given by Jewish authorities. Mr. Moshe Smilanski (of sixty years experience in Palestine) wrote in the Jewish Review of February, 1952:

 

“When the British mandate came to an end the country was well off. Food warehouses, private and governmental, were full and there were good stacks of raw materials. The country had thirty million pounds in the Bank of England, besides British and American securities to a large amount. The currency in circulation was about thirty million pounds, which had the same value as sterling … The Mandatory Government left us a valuable legacy, the deep harbour in Haifa, two moles in Jaffa and Tel Aviv, railways, many good roads and government buildings, large equipped military and civil airfields, good army barracks and the Haifa refineries. The Arabs who fled left behind about five million dunams of cultivable land, containing orchards, orange graves, olives, grape vines and fruit trees, about 75,000 dwelling houses in the towns, some of them very elegant, about 75,000 shops and factories and much movable property, furniture, carpets, jewellery, etc. All this is wealth, and if we in Israel are sunk in poverty we blame the excessive bureaucratic centralization, the restriction of private enterprise and the promise of a Socialistic regime in our day.”

 

In April 1953 Mr. Hurwitz of the Revisionist Party in Israel told a Jewish audience in Johannesburg of the “degeneration” of the Zionist state. He said he could not blind himself to the alarming position: “Economically the country is on the verge of bankruptcy. Immigration has diminished and in the past few months more people have left the country than have come in. In addition, there are

 

512

 

50,000 unemployed and thousands more working on short time.”

 

These two quotations (I have many others of similar tenor) by Jewish residents may be compared with the picture of life in Israel which the Western masses received from their politicians. A Mr. Clement Davies (leader of that British Liberal Party which had 40l seats in the 1906 House of Commons and six, under his leadership, in that of 1956) before a Jewish audience in Tel Aviv “hailed the progress being made in the Jewish state, which to him seemed to be a miracle of progress along the road to restoring the country to a land flowing with milk and honey” (printed in the same Jewish newspaper as Mr. Hurwitz's remarks). At the same period, the younger Mr. Franklin D. Roosevelt, electioneering in New York (where “the Jewish vote” is held to be decisive) said, “Israel is a pocket of life and hope in the sea of seething Arab peoples. It ‘sells freedom' for the free world more successfully than all the propaganda we could send out from the U.S.A.”

 

Mr. Adlai Stevenson, campaigning for the presidency in 1952, told the Zionist audience that “Israel has welcomed into her midst with open arms and a warm heart all her people seeking refuge from tribulation … America would do well to model her own immigration policies after the generosity of the nation of Israel and we must work to that end” (the only conceivable meaning of this is that the American people should be driven from the United States and the North American Indians be restored to their lands). Another presidential aspirant, a Mr. Stuart Symington, said “Israel is an example of how firmness, courage and constructive action can win through for democratic ideals, instead of abandoning the field to Soviet imperialism” (about that time Israeli state scholars were by governmental decree singing the Red Flag on May Day, while the politicians of Washington and London inveighed against “anti-semitism behind the Iron Curtain”).

 

Against this sustained inversion of truth by the frontal politicians of all parties in America and England, only Jewish protests, as in the preceding decades, were heard (for the reason I previously gave, that non-Jewish writers were effectively prevented from publishing any). Mr. William Zukerman wrote:

 

“The generally accepted theory that the emergence of the state of Israel would serve to unify and cement the Jewish people has turned out to be wrong. On the contrary, the Congress” (the Zionist Congress in Jerusalem, 1951) “has dramatically demonstrated that the creation of a Jewish political state after two thousand years has introduced a new and potent distinction which Jews as a group have not known in centuries and that Israel is likely to separate rather than unite Jews in the future … In some mystical manner Israel is supposed to have a unique jurisdiction over the ten to twelve million Jews who live in every country of the world outside it … It must continue to grow by bringing in Jews from all over the world, no matter how happily they live in their present homes … Jews who have lived there for generations and centuries, must according to this theory

 

513

 

be ‘redeemed' from ‘exile' and brought to Israel through a process of mass immigration … Israeli leaders of all parties, from the extreme Right to the extreme Left, including Premier Ben-Gurion, have begun to demand that American Jews, and particularly Zionists, redeem their pledges to the ancient homeland, leave their American ‘exile,' and settle in Israel, or at least send their children there … The Jerusalem Congress marked officially the end of the glory of American Zionism and the ushering in of a period of intense Middle Eastern nationalism … fashioned after the pattern of the late Vladimir Jabotinsky, who dreamed of a big Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan to take in all the Jews and to become the largest military power in the Near East.”

 

Mr. Lessing J. Rosenwald similarly protested:

 

“We declare our unalterable opposition to all programmes designed to transform Jews into a nationalist bloc with special interests in the foreign state of Israel. The policy laid down by Mr. Ben-Gurion for American Zionism encourages Zionists to intensify their efforts to organize American Jews as a separate political pressure-block in the United States. This programme is designed to transform American Jews into a spiritual and cultural dependency of a foreign state … We believe that ‘Jewish' nationalism is a distortion of our faith, reducing it from universal proportions to the dimensions of a nationalistic cult.”

 

These Jewish protests, as was natural, were prompted by fear of the divisive effect of Zionism on Jews. That was but a fractional aspect of the matter: The real danger of Zionism lay in its power to divide the nations of the world against each other and to bring them into collision, in which catastrophe the great masses of mankind would be involved in the proportion of a hundred or a thousand to every Jew.

 

To depict this obvious possibility was heresy in the 1950's, and the non-Jewish protests remained unpublished while the Jewish ones were ineffective. In 1953 the New York Jewish journal, Commentary, thus was able to announce that the foreseeable catastrophe had been brought another step nearer in the following terms: “Israel's survival and strengthening have become a firm element of United States foreign policy and no electoral result or change will affect this.”

 

Here, once more, is the cryptic reference to a power superior to all presidents, prime ministers and parties to which I earlier drew attention. It is what Mr. Leopold Amery, one of the British Ministers responsible for Palestine in the inter-war period, once said: The policy is set and cannot change. The inner secret of the whole affair is contained in these menacing statements, in which the note of authority and superior knowledge is clear. They are cryptic, but specific and categorical, and express certainty that the West cannot and will not withdraw its hand from the Zionist ambition in any circumstances. Certainty must rest on something firmer than threats, or even the ability, to sway “the Jewish vote” and the public press this way or that. The tone is that of taskmasters who know the

 

514

 

galleyslaves must do their bidding because they are chained and cannot escape. The New York Times, which I judge to speak with authority for “the Jewish power” in the world, has often alluded to this secret compact, or capitulation, or whatever its nature is: for instance, “In essence, the political support the state of Israel has in the United States makes any settlement antagonistic to Israeli interests impossible for a United States administration to contemplate” (1956). If this merely alludes to control of the election-machine, it means that the process of parliamentary government through “free elections” has been completely falsified. In my opinion, that is the case in the West in this century.

 

This state of affairs in the West alone enabled the new state to survive. It was kept alive by infusions of money from America. Commentary (above quoted) stated that by June 1953 total United States Government assistance to Israel amounted to $293,000,000, with a further $200,000,000 in such forms as Export-Import bank loans. The Jerusalem representative of President Truman's “technical aid” programme stated (October, 1952) that Israel received the largest share of any country in the world, in proportion to its population, and more than all the other Middle East states together. The New York Herald-Tribune (March 12, 1953) said the total amount of United States money, including private gifts and loans, amounted to “more than $1,000,000,000 during the first five years of Israel's existence,” which, it added, had thus been “ensured.” On top of all this came the German tribute, extorted by the American Government, of 520,000,000 Israeli pounds annually. I have not been able to find official figures for the cumulative total up to 1956; the Syrian delegate to the United Nations, after one of the Zionist attacks during the year, said that “since 1948 a stream of $1,500,000,000 has been flowing from the United States to Israel in the form of contributions, grants in aid, bonds and loans” (even this figure excluded the German payments and other forms of Western tribute).

 

Nothing like this was ever seen in the world before. A state so financed from abroad can well afford (in the monetary sense) to be belligerent, and the menacing behaviour of the new state was only made possible by this huge inflow of Western, chiefly American money. Assured of this unstinting monetary backing, and of a political support in Washington which could not change, the new state set out on its grandiose ambition: to restore to full force, in the 20th Century of our era, the “New Law” promulgated by the Levites in Deuteronomy in 621 B.C. All that was to come was to be “fulfilment” of it; the Mongolian Chazars were to see that Jehovah kept his compact, as the Levites had published it. And what ensued was in fact an instalment on account of this “fulfilment”; the vision of “the heathen” bringing the treasures of the earth to Jerusalem began to become reality in the form of American money, German tribute and the like.

 

With a purse thus filled, the little state began to pursue the fantasy of entire and literal “fulfilment,” which in the miraculous end is to see all the great ones of the

 

515

 

earth humbled, Zion all-powerful and all the Jews “gathered.” It drew up the charter of this “gathering”: the “nationality law,” which made all Jewish residents in the Zionist state Israelis, and the “law of the return,” which claimed all Jews anywhere in the world for Israel, in both cases whether they wished or not.[44]

 

These were the laws which, like ghosts from vanished ghettoes, alarmed Mr. Zukerman and Mr, Rosenwald. They express the greatest ambition ever proclaimed by any state in history, and the Premier, a Mr. Ben-Gurion from Russia, was explicit about it on many occasions, for instance in his message of June 16, 1951 to the Zionists of America: “A rare opportunity has been given to your organization to pave a way for a unifying and united Zionist movement which will stand at the head of American Jewry in the great era opened to the Jewish people with the establishment of the state and beginning of ingathering of exiles.” Rabbi Hillel Silver, President Eisenhower's close associate, expressed particular gratification that “Mr. Ben-Gurion now accepts the view that main tasks of the Zionist movement, as heretofore, include the full and undiminished programme of Zionism,” In New York in June, 1952 Mr. Ben-Gurion was more explicit: “The Jewish state is not the fulfilment of Zionism … Zionism embraces all Jews everywhere.” Israel's second president, Mr. Ben Zvi, at his inauguration in December 1952, said, “The ingathering of the exiles still remains our central task and we will not retreat … Our historic task will not be accomplished without the assistance of the entire nation in the West and East.”

 

The world would have raised a pandemonium of protest if a Kaiser or a Hitler had said such things. The ambition expressed by such words as “the full and undiminished programme of Zionism” is in fact boundless, for it is the political programme contained, in the guise of a compact with Jehovah, in the Torah; world dominion over “the heathen,” wielded from an empire stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates. The support of Western governments gave reality to what otherwise would be the most absurd pretension in all history.

 

That the politicians of the West comprehended this full meaning of what they did seemed impossible until 1953, when a statement was made that implied full understanding. In May, 1953, Mr. Winston Churchill, then British Prime Minister, was in dispute with the Egyptian premier about the Suez Canal and threatened him, not with British but with Jewish retribution. He spoke, in Parliament, of the Israeli army as “the best in the Levant” and said that “nothing we shall do in the supply of aircraft to this part of the world will be allowed to place Israel at a disadvantage.” Then he added, in words closely akin to those of

 

516

 

Mr. Ben-Gurion and Rabbi Hillel Silver, that he “looked forward to the fulfilment of Zionist aspirations.”

 

Here, in an aside, is probably the largest commitment ever undertaken by a head of government on behalf of an unsuspecting nation. The Israeli parliament at once recorded its gratification at “Mr. Churchill's friendly attitude towards the Israeli government now and towards the Zionist movement throughout its existence.” The public masses in England read the loaded words uncomprehendingly, if at all. They startled many Jews, among them even Mr. A. Abrahams, who as a veteran Revisionist might logically have been pleased (the Revisionists openly pursue the late Mr. Jabotinsky's ambition for “a big Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan to take in all the Jews and to become the largest military power in the Near East”; Mr. William Zukerman).

 

Mr. Abrahams asked wonderingly, with an undernote even of alarm, if Mr. Churchill's words could be genuinely intended, saying, “The Prime Minister is an old student of the Bible; he knows very well that the Zionist aspirations remain unfulfilled until Israel is fully restored within the historic boundaries, the land of the Ten Tribes.”

 

This “aspiration,” of course, cannot be “fulfilled” without universal war, and that is evidently why Mr. Abrahams was taken aback, and made almost aghast. Mr. Churchill's words, if they were considered and deliberately intended, signified support for the grandiose ambition in all its literalness, and the final price of that could only be the extinction of “the West” as it has always been known.[45]

 

The event of October 30, 1956 (though it was ordered by Sir Winston's political heir-designate) seems to show that Mr. Churchill's words of May, 1953, with all they boded for his country, were seriously meant.

 

If the West, as these words implied, was secretly harnessed to the unqualified “fu