Der Stürmer

The official blog of the site "Der Stürmer" – http://der-stuermer.org

Month: September, 2015

Julius Streicher’s Political Testament

My Affirmation

Julius Streicher-2a

Motto: „Confused by the parties’ favor and hatred, his historical image varied throughout history

Friedrich Schiller.

The stupidity, maliciousness and cowardice of certain contemporaries had believed that they could, and had to, degrade and misinterpret, according to content and form, my twenty-five year enlightenment work, which I have performed in word and text. Most of these critics have not formed their judgment through their own knowledge, rather through an obliging babbling of the opinion of another. These notes, in the most difficult time of the German folk, are dedicated for reflection to these questionable contemporaries and judges and all those who want to know it.

Mondorf in Luxemburg, House of the Internees
Summer 1945
Julius Streicher

Call of Destiny

I was a village lad of five years of age when, for the first time, I heard the word ‘‘Jew”. I heard it from the mouth of my mother. She had selected, ordered and paid in advance for fabric for a suit for my father from a peddler according to a sample shown. When then the shipment had arrived, the fabric was not of the color and quality of the sample. My mother felt deceived and we children cried with her.

When I then went to school and in religion class heard from the mouth of the priest about the martyrdom of the savior of Christiandom, I was filled with horror by the report that the Jews, in light of the blood-drenched savior, had felt no pity and were not satisfied with the torture of the prisoner, and even demanded crucifixion, even though the Roman governor Pilatus could refute the accusation that Jesus, with his struggle against the Jewish Pharisees, had violated criminal law. In that religion class, a first suspicion came into my life that the essence of the Jew was a peculiar one.

In the year 1909, I was called from my Bavarian-Swabian home town to the municipal elementary school in Nuremberg as teacher. At that time, the struggle for the liberation from clerical school education raged with special intensity, and since the teachers believed that had found a parliamentarian aide in the democratic party, it was a quite natural development that I, as a representative of the young teachers, wanted to speak in the democratic party.

I had soon overcome my inner reluctance and now stood for the first time in my life at a political speaker’s pulpit. I spoke what I felt, spoke as an inner voice commanded me to speak. When I finished my speech, applause arose that made my cheeks turn red. A portion of the audience had not joined this applause. They stared at me with oddly questioning eyes. They had not been young lawyers. Most of them looked different than those who applauded. When I later went home at late night hour pondering, the blue-eyed deputy of the Cohn Banking House put his hand on my shoulder and said with his life wisdom: „Streicher, let me tell you something. I work in a Jewish business. I have learned to remain silent in moments when my German heart would have gladly spoken, and I often speak in moments in which I would gladly remain silent. The Jews are indeed small in number, but they are great in the power that they have achieved economically and politically, and this power is dangerous. You, my dear Streicher, are still young and ambitious and speak your mind. But always remember what I have told you: The Jew’s are a power and this power is dangerous, very dangerous!”

In the following time, I often had to remember this wise warning man, and today, too, I must do that again in the house of the internees in Mondorf in Luxemburg.

Already soon after the start of the First World War, voices became loud that the mass of Jews obligated to military service keep their lives safe away’ from the front in the ear, but even more in war economy offices in the homeland. The order issued by the war minister in the year 1916 to the army offices for the military participation of the Jews according to number and nature, had to be rescinded, because Jewry informed the imperial government that the execution of that order would endanger the signing of the war loan. When I had thought over those events in the middle of the First World War, the childish suspicion of the existence of a Jewish question was replaced by a serious, important knowledge.

This first knowledge of the existence of a Jewish question was increased by new experiences. Already in the summer of 1918, new rumors of the imminent arrival of a political storm came from behind the front again and again, which would put a quick end to the First World War. The slogans that accompanied those rumors were the same ones, with which the enemy propaganda filled the leaflets dropped over the German trenches. German war morale, German thinking, was supposed to be brought to a final collapse. Who the secret promoters of the subversion propaganda on this side and on that side of the front were, soon became clear to me, when on the first day of the armistice, on the trenches that had now become safe, a soldier soviet with red armband and a French sergeant shook hands smiling. Both were Jews. The will of one spirit had stabbed German war morale in the back, which later had spoken from the mouth of a Jurgen Troller, of an Erich Muehsam and of a Kurt Eisner that treason against the fatherland is heroism and Germany’s defeat was his life’s work. Without having known this, the army that had remained undefeated in the battles of the World War, agitated by the cruelty of the armistice dictate and under the supervision of red soldier soviets, marched back into the shame of a betrayed homeland.

When the bloody, great crime of the revolution was past, a dull desperation fell like a huge shroud upon German mood and a deep yearning for a strong, again ordering hand filled the hearts of those who still dared to hope. More than a decade was to pass before this hope found its fulfillment like a miracle.

I, too, had returned from the First World War into this new Germany, of which the Marxist upstarts had predicted it would be a Reich full of beauty and dignity. I, too, had turned away with disgust from the event and had believed I should wait off to the side until some rescuing miracle happened. Like before the war, I lived the task of my profession as teacher and educator of German youth. But in my leisure hours, I went into rural solitude with paint and brush in order to again find the God who had created the historical greatness of the German past.

Then a voice shouted into me: You are a part of your folk and will remain that even in moments in which you believe you can no longer have any hope. You can only continue to live, if your folk continue to live, and you will perish, if you as well do not help to overcome the abyss! That was the first call of fate to me.

Is there a race question?

A coincidence led me on a December evening in the year 1918 to the inn „Kulturverein” in Nuremberg, in whose large hall a group of citizens gathered weekly. The engineer Karl Maerz, a man of the noblest character and great prestige, was the speaker. From his mouth, I heard presentations of the Jewish question that led the realization already growing within me to more and more clarification. I began to also read enlightening publications and books. When in the process I encountered the judgements that the great men of antiquity, of the Middle Ages and of the modern era had passed about the essence of Jewry and its working in the life of folks, I was deeply pleased by the discovery made and just as shocked, because I now learned that for 4,000 years there should have existed a world enemy, who managed, down to the present, camouflaged under the mask of „God’s folk”, to practice his misdeeds. The door to the final realization, however, was opened by the affirmation of the Jew Israel, who due to his services as English Minister-President was raised to the nobility as Lord Beaconsfield. In his book „Endymion”, he affirms: „The race question is the key to world history”.

So here comes from the mouth of one of the greatest men of Jewry the statement that a race question exists and that the knowledge of this question is able to clear up the often so mysterious course of world events. With this key, the constructive and destructive forces in world events should, in an examination, are made visible for those readers of my notes who are not yet even in the vestibule of knowledge.

What does one understand by race? Science answers:

„A larger life community of human beings, who in their physical form and their intellectual-psychological nature resemble each other and who pass on their physical traits and intellectual-psychological traits to their offspring through heredity, one calls race.”

Science has proven a half dozen human races, the most creative and thus most valuable, however, is the Nordic race. Science designates as Nordic race those nobly formed, tall grown, long-skull, blonde-haired, blue-eyed and light-skinned human beings, equipped with the intellectual-psychological gift of courage in the face of death, perseverance, truthfulness, loyalty, conscientiousness and formative energy. It is that blood community of human beings who survived the selection process (the physically and intellectually-psychologically incapable perished) of the Northern European Ice Age ending 12,000 years ago. This Nordic race, with its close to God spirit of humanity, created immortal values. It invented the cultivation of grain from wild growing grasses, the breeding of domestic animals, it invented the plough, the utilization of ore and revealed in its creative energy the divine calling to be the chosen race for leadership. From this Nordic race, in gray prehistory ever more peasant treks wandered down toward the south and into the southeast in order to seek new land and again become settled. If, in the following period, the high cultures of India, Persia and Asia Minor blossomed, and a Greece and Rome could arise, whose creations, in their beauty and might, even in their ruins, still radiate blissfully into the present, then this is owed to the creator will and the formative energy of the Nordic race.

Folk and race are not the same thing. While a race represents a blood community of physically and intellectually- psychologically similar human beings, a folk is a community of non-equals. In a folk, there are large and small people, long- skulls and round-skulls, some with light, yellowish and brownish skin, people with blonde, brown and black hair and blue, brown and black eyes. Likewise, their intellectual-psychological nature is diverse. Over the course of millennia, the descendants of the Nordic race have almost disappeared in Europe’s southern folks in a colored racial admixture, while in the folks of Northern Europe they still remain in substantial number, so in Germany, too.

If the Germans are even today called „Germans” by the other folks, this is a memory of the time in which Germanic man, as descendant of the Nordic race, was still the last great blood wellspring from which the other folks again and again received new creator blood.

It was Germanic blood that created for the English folk the physically so nobly formed and psychologically so intrepid, in the pursuit of its goals so tenacious and persevering human type, which invariably had to become the creator of the greatest empire of the modern era. And if it was possible that in North America, in just a few centuries, a New World grew up of such mighty formative energy and greatness, then this, too, was the deed of human beings of Nordic form and Nordic soul.

It is ancient peasant wisdom: The value of domestic animals remains preserved as long as the high breeding of the animals remains preserved. But their performance diminishes and their appearance, too, if a highly breed race is crossed with races of poor performance. That is how it is with human races, too. As long as the Nordic race propagated itself in its own blood, its physical, noble form remained preserved. But the psychological essence and hence the formative energy of the spirit as well was passed on in the offspring. But at the moment when Nordic man began to mix his blood with other races, Nordic form and Nordic essence was lost in his offspring. It is a law of nature: The high preserves itself only in the high, the sacred only in the sacred. If the barrier of this law of nature is crossed, if the races begin to mix, then the unique value of the high and valuable sinks in the swamp of the low and worthless.

It was the devil who brought to the legendary first human beings, Adam and Eva, the belief that man could be the same as God; because they believed the devilish insinuations, they lost their paradise. It was also the devil who put the doctrine of human equality into the world. At the moment that the first mixing of Nordic human beings with the blood of other races began, the first sin against blood happened, and original sin was born. Psychological discord and dissatisfaction, and hence misfortune, spread among human beings.

Thus the secret is no longer a secret, now we know it: Through the mixing of the blood of the Nordic race with the blood of colored human races, the Nordic creator soul, along with the Nordic noble form of body, perished in the racial swamp of the south and of Asia Minor. With the disappearance of human beings of Nordic race from those lands, their cultural creations as well invariably had to come to an end. If hence the cultures of antiquity have been passed down to our time only as ruins, then this is testimony to the racial drama that played out millennia ago: The decline of the Nordic race.

Madison Grant, the great seer in the United States of America, proclaimed in his „Decline of the Great Race”, which appeared in the year 1913, that in North America’s melting pot as well, in which the Nordic race has begun to also mate with people of colored race, creative man of Nordic race sinks inescapably into the racial swamp and with this sinking the great light is extinguished that people of Nordic race have brought into the world.

Israel Lord Beaconfield is hence right, when he says there is a race question and that, only with knowledge of it, can one light the dark that makes world history in many an event that seems incomprehensible to us.

The World Destroyer

The Jewish folk has emerged from the racial chaos of the Near East, where Nordic man, on his search for new land, encountered yellow, brown and black people and mixed his blood with these colored people. The Jewish scholar Otto Weininger affirms this in his work „Breed and Character” [„Geschlecht und Charakter”]. He writes:

„The admixture of Mongolian blood gave many Jews a yellowish skin color and the admixture of Negro blood created a long Jews the often encountered puffy lips and curly hair.”

There exists no folk, in which the plentitude of admixture is so manifest as in the folk of the Jews. The Jewish folk has absorbed blood elements of all races, to a large degree, the blood of the Nordic race as well. In every blood mixture, a mixture of intellectual-psychological values also takes place. The diversity of Jewish blood created the physical and intellectual- psychological racial type that we call Jew. But the diversity of Jewish blood also determined the uncommon path that Jewry began to take, when it elevated its „selection” to divine law and hence created that isolation that secures for the Jewish folk its preservation as folk and race down to the present day. The sacred scripture of the Jews, the Old Testament, provides information about this. In the book of Moses, chapter 17, is it reported the Jewish God Jehovah made a pact with the patriarch of the Jewish folk, Abraham, which was simultaneously supposed to be a pact for all of Jewry for eternity. The pact declaration goes like this:

„I want to establish a pact between myself and your seed and it should be an eternal pact!”

Since the pact was supposed to be made for eternity and be indissoluble, an equally permanent sign of the pact was decreed:

„Everything that is male among you, should be circumcised on the foreskin. That should be a sign of the pact between myself and you.”

There may be no doubt that only the circumcised were supposed to be recognized as pact members. It stands written:

„And whoever is not circumcised on the foreskin of the flesh, his soul should be exterminated.”

With this determination of divine selection, Jewry created for itself a camouflage that contributed to an extraordinary degree to the tolerance of Jewry by Christendom, and at certain times even caused it to defend Jewish interests.

A folk that declares itself to be God’s chosen folk must also set itself a life goal that is uncommon. In the first book of Moses, chapter 15, Jehovah speaks to Abraham:

„I want to bless your seed and multiply it like the stars in the sky and like the sand at the sea. Your seed should possess the gates to the world!”

The gates to the world! With this promise from its god Jehovah, the creation of a Jewish world domination was made a commandment for Jewry.

After the Jews, after an almost 500 year stay in Egypt, had to leave again, they sought to make the land of Canaan useful to them. It was land that had been made so fruitful by peasants, who had come from the north, that it could be said of it that, in this land, milk and honey flowed.

The gratitude that the Jews showed their host land before their departure from Egypt is reported in the second book of Moses, chapter 12:

„All first-horn from the first, sons of the Pharaoh to the first son of the prisoner in prison and the son of the maid in the mill were murdered, there was no house, in which there was not a dead person.”

The leader from Egypt had been Moses. He had not neglected to cause the folk to bring along the gold and silver treasure of the Egyptians. Already in that time, there was a sub-humanity in the folks and it kept to the Jews. It stands written:

”And with them also came much rabble folk [Pöbelvolk] from Egypt and sheep and cattle.”

This „rabble folk” was then the one that gave its blood for the Jews during the invasion of the Promised Land.

The Jewish god Jehovah took over the leadership of the war council for the conquest of the land of Canaan. In the fourth book of Moses, chapter 33, it stands written:

„And the Lord (Jehovah) talked with Moses in the domains of the Moabiter on the Jordan and spoke: When you have crossed the Jordan into the land of Canaan, you should expel all inhabitants and destroy all their altars and shrines on the heights, so that you take the land and reside in it. You should divide the land through lottery among your families.”

In the fifth book of Moses, chapter 20, Jehovah becomes even clearer:

„When you arrive in front of a city, you should offer it peace. If they reply peacefully, all the folk that is found therein should be made tributary and subordinate to you. If a city does not want to peacefully negotiate with you, then besiege it. And when the Lord, your God, puts it in your hand, you should slay with the sword everything male within it, you should let nothing live that has breath,”

And the Jews acted as their god had them told through Moses. In the fourth book of Moses, chapter 31, it stands written:

„And the children of Israel took the women of the Midianiter prisoner and their children, all their livestock, all their property and goods they robbed, and burned with fire all the cities and all the villages, and took all the booty and everything that could to taken, people and livestock.”

The Jewish Field-Marshal Moses, however, was not satisfied with that, for it stands written:

„And Moses became angry at the leaders of the army and spoke to them: Why did you let all the women live: So strangle now everything that is male among the children, all the women who have known and slept with men; but all the children who are female and have not known men, let them live for yourselves!!!”.

Two questions arise: Can a god who has made a pact only with the Jewish folk and who commanded this folk the most horrible plundering and extermination of other folks simultaneously also be the god of the Christians, who through his priests has charity preached?

Second: if „war criminals” are supposed to have ever existed, where must their teacher be sought then?

In the fifth book of Moses, chapter 11, Jehovah gives the Jews the promise:

„All places that the soles of your feet step upon, should be yours, from the desert and the mountain of Lebanon and from the waters of the Euphrates to the evening sea, should be your borders. Nobody will be able to resist you.”

That is also what came about. Nobody resisted the methods of Jewish warfare. Blossoming lands, high cultures of antiquity were destroyed and with them the folks who had created them. The race question is the key to the knowledge of that event.

When the Romans had begun to fight their battles on Greek soil, the worm of decay had already finished its work in the folk of the Greeks. Whoever of the descendants of the courageous and creative Nordic in this land had not found his end in the fraternal wars of the tribes or in the Persian wars, had for a long time already only propagated himself in children who had stemmed from women of lesser blood. The noble, in its proportions so beautiful Greek body, and the close to God spirit residing inside it, had become a rarity. Greece had become the playground of mixed-breeds and Jews, from whose intellectual- psychological baseness its beauty invariably had to perish.

But the folk of the Romans as well had already for a long time found itself in a state of dissolution. In it, too, fraternal wars and especially the war of annihilation against Carthage had caused Nordic man a blood loss from which Rome could no longer recover. The following expansion deep into Africa and Asia could no longer hide the inevitableness of the coming decline. Knowledge of the involvement that the Jews had in the decline of the Nordic folk of the Romans is affirmed by the great German historian Theodor Mommsen in his „Roman History”, the Jews in the Roman folk were „a ferment of decomposition”.

When then the promised lands on the Mediterranean had become unpromising, the Jewish gaze was directed toward the virgin north land, the land of Germanic man. Already in the first Roman colonies on the Rhine and Danube. German ethnic groups had come into contact with Jews, who, especially as suppliers of blonde human wares deep into Asia and Africa, had managed to make huge profits. But only rising Christianity finally opened to the Jewish folk the gates to the Reich of Germanic man. Germanic man’s will to resistance, arising out of instinct, was now held down by church doctrine that the Jews were God’s chosen folk and thus the bringer of salvation for mankind. Whoever trespasses against the Jews, trespasses against the commandment of charity and hence against God.

But it could not be avoided that Germanic man, tormented by Jewish interest usury, again and again arose in bloody resistance and brought about those expulsions of the Jews that even today are presented by Jew and Jew gnomes as a „dark” Middle Ages. If already back at that time, Europe’s Germanized folks were not able to free themselves forever from Jewish exploitation and physical and psychological poisoning, that was due to the rulers of that time, to the nobles, kings and emperors, whose tax collectors, advisers and personal physicians the Jews had managed to become.

The Jews still resided in the self-chosen ghettos and they still had not yet achieved what they had sought without interruption: The abolition of the Jew laws that branded them as what they were in reality, folk-alien and blood-alien. Only force, the overthrow of the state, could finally open the path for them for the rise into the state’s key positions. So it came to that first great overthrow of state in Europe, to the French Revolution. Jewish historians rightfully brag about the French Revolution as one of their greatest works. The French Revolution brought the Jews not just civil equality in France, it also had as a result the revolutions of the years 1848/49, through which was brought to a fall in Europe’s other great states the last protection laws, which had been established against the penetration of the Jews into state life. The knowledge that the French Revolution served Jewish interests was written by Goethe in his „annual market of Plunderweilern”:

„The clever folk sees a path open,

As long as order exists, it has nothing to hope for. ”

After the Jewish folk had now managed to achieve equal rights in the folks, it went about adding political power to its money power. Divide et impera („Divide and conquer”). The folks were divided into pro-nationalist and anti-nationalists, into conservatives and liberals, into denominations and free- thinking parties. In each party, the Jews made themselves wirepullers and beneficiaries. Where it proved necessary, the Jews camouflaged themselves through baptismal certificate of whatever denomination. The Jew thereby created for himself in each folk parliamentarian majorities, such as he needed at any given Lime for his political purposes. These majorities did not notice in whose service they gave their votes. But the Jew Karl Marx created the mightiest weapon for the Jewish folk through the organization of the red International of the proletariat. In the belief of thereby freeing itself from world capitalism, the international proletariat, as assault troop of the revolutions, without realizing it, again and again served the global interests of its own executioners.

But if a folk still possesses forces that cannot be beaten down from inside, then it is the blood loss of war with the following revolution that now comes into use. Dr. Jonak von Freyenwald collected in his book „Jewish Affirmations” over a thousand utterances of leading Jews, in which is admitted with brutal frankness that the First World War was not just a huge business enterprise of international high finance, rather also a means through which the German folk, still resisting the Jewish demand for world domination, was supposed to be put into a condition of impotence.

The resistance, to which the Jews see themselves exposed in all folks, is called „anti-Semitism”. Jews and Jew comrades have claimed that „anti-Semitism” is a malicious invention of German National Socialists. The Jewish leader Theodor Herzl provides the answer to thus. In his published „Diary”, he writes:

„Anti-Semitism exists everywhere that Jews in greater number come together with non-Jews. But it is brought by Jews into the lands, in which there is still no anti-Semitism. ”

With this affirmation, Theodor Herzl admits the existence of a Jewish question and he thereby also admits that the resistance resulting in the folks must be sought in the nature of the Jew. Such a realization caused him to call the Zionist movement to life with the goal: creation of a national home for all of Jewry.

The Struggle Begins

With such mental equipment of knowledge and realization, I now entered the struggle. If the German folk was to regain self- determination of its folkish and national life, then this folk had to recognize the enemy who plunged it into misfortune, and it had to realize that the energy for its rebirth, and hence the energy for its release from the chains that the enemy had put on it from inside and outside, could only come from itself.

„Come all!” So screamed the blood-red posters again and again from the advertising pillars and building walls into the „mass human being”. And they all came. The Herkules- Velodrom, the assembly-building of the Marxist organized workers, was filled with people from the factory, with men and women, with old and young. A delegate of the makers of the November Revolution spoke, of whom each knew that the power they had achieved would only last for as long as it was possible to keep the proletariat in the faith. In the faith that the revolution had really brought the people in the factory freedom from capitalist servitude. Among the thousands of unknown people, I, too, sat as an unknown. They were the worn out phrases such as one could read them day after day in the Marxist press. It was a wild agitation against everything nationalist and an obscene praise of treason against the fatherland by the International. One noted of the speaker that he himself did not believe what he said, and hence he left the hearts of the listeners cold and without movement. And hence the applause, too, that was given him at the conclusion, was cold and forced.

I reported for the „discussion”. Many thousands of questioning eyes were directed at me as I climbed up to the red curtained platform and began to speak. I no longer know what I had said. But I will never forget the storm of applause that raged around me and accompanied me out into the peace of a star saturated January night of the year 1919.

Eight days later. Again the call „to all“ and again applause for the speaker, a summoned clapping by a few proletarian hands. And again my report for discussion. „A Mr. Streicher has again appeared to speak. Should we let him speak?“ Shouts: „Let him speak!” And I spoke again. But hardly had the first words left my mouth, when shouts of protest came from the foremost chairs: „Stop! He is a provocateur! He is an enemy of the workers! Out with him!” And, spat upon and cursed by the agitated „mass human being”, I left the building reflective, in which eight days earlier I had been cheered.

But it had gotten around in the factories and inns: Here is somebody, who does not give in. One threw him out of the meeting hall, because he said the workers had been deceived, they run around, without them noticing it, on the nose-ring of capitalism, and capitalism is the Jews. He is not all so wrong about that.”

And he came again, this „one”. When the red chairman again wanted to stop me from speaking, hundreds shouted in protest: „Vote! Vote!” There was a vote. The majority voted for free discussion. Since that moment, I could now, week after week, present my political position, even if only for a few minutes, in the assemblies of the social democrats, of the independents, of the communists and Spartacists, again and again interrupted by applause. The first seed had sprouted!

Meanwhile, the treaty had been signed in Versailles, the instrument of hatred and of revenge that was supposed to cause straight-jacket and enslavement to the German folk for time eternal and hence national and folkish decline. Now my day had come! Blood-red posters screamed into the hall:

„Come all, 300 people, who know each other and who are in a mysterious manner connected to each other, rule the economic fate of the world! So affirms the Great Jew Walter Rathenau! Come to the Herkules-Velodrom! Julius Streicher will reveal the secret to you, he will tell you who the men are who enslave the sleeping people of all folks! ”

And they came, they all came. Already two hours before the beginning of the assembly, the Herkules-Veldrom was overfilled with the curious. Tens of thousands no longer found admittance and filled the broad square and the street over to the main train station. Police on foot and mounted were present in order to maintain order. I was in a very good mood as I walked through all this and then, encouraged by shouts, stepped into the Herkules-Velodrom as speaker of the first public assembly organized by myself. And I spoke. I spoke freely. „Continue to speak! Continue to speak!” I spoke until the midnight hours, and when I had ended and, bathed in sweat, had to let a storm of cheering pour over me, a silent prayer rose from my heart up to heaven. I felt it: now the path was open to the heart of the seduced, to the heart of the people in the factory, to the heart of the folk. A breech had been made in the building that the Jew Karl Marx had erected in the brains of the sleeping people.

The second mass assembly I called was broken up by a band of terrorists bribed with beer and cigarettes. My speech ended in a bloody meeting hall battle.

Meanwhile, a group of men had already formed around me, who were ready to risk their life to protect me from the terror of political criminality. When, in the third assembly I organized, paid terrorists again sought to disrupt it, they were sprayed out the doors and windows with ready water hoses. This cold shower had as a result that an assembly organized by me was never again disrupted.

The leaseholder of the Herkules-Velodrom, however, had let himself be intimidated. He denied me the hall for future assemblies. But that also had a good side. I now spoke in the large hall of the „Kultur-Verein”. People dared to venture there, who considered themselves too fine to appear in the meeting hall building of the „proletarians” and subject themselves there to bodily danger. They were people who called themselves „burghers”. They now received weekly injections (in a manner bearable for them), with the result that now at the regular drinking tables of the „better” people, too, it was discussed, whether it might not be good to now and then listen to the preacher of the new.

Not a week passed, in which I did not speak in a public Friday assembly or at the discussion evenings of those who had become loyal followers. So soon, a following of many thousands of men and women had grown. The most public and active among them had already organized themselves as a following through registration in the membership lists. They called themselves „German National-Socialist Workers Party”. Ail honestly productive German were supposed to belong to it, regardless of whatever rank and occupation and regardless of whatever religious denomination.

The Stürmer

The bourgeois daily press took no notice of the folk movement that had developed in Nuremberg. It feared business damage through the loss of advertising from Jewish businessmen.

That the Marxist press also remained silent about it, was self-evident. But soon voices arose in the Marxist camp that protested against it that one did not resist the emerging danger. The silent treatment was now replaced by ugly personal degradation and by ridicule of my speeches. But in the process, the Marxist press achieved the opposite of what it wanted to achieve. It awakened the curiosity of its readers and they came, ever more numerous, to my assemblies in order to compare what was written by the red press with what was spoken by me. So Jewish-Marxist hatred became propaganda for those whom it wanted to harm.

In order to nonetheless have an opportunity to have a public effect through a press organ as well, in the year 1920 I created my first weekly newspaper, „Deutscher Sozialist” [„German Socialist”]. I was the sole contributor of the content. This substantial increase of work was performed by me in addition to my professional activity as teacher and speaker of the movement. Often I only had a few morning hours to rest. A simple life style and growing joy in what has created made what was considered impossible possible. My own inexperience in newspapers and the indecency of somebody entrusted with publication work had as a result that my first newspaper founding collapsed after an existence of a little over a year. The same fate befell the „Deutscher Volkswille” [„German Folk Will”] created in the year 1921.

In the spring of 1923, I baptized the weekly newspaper „Der Stürmer” [„The Charger”]. It had the good luck to serve my enlightenment struggle as sharp and very successful weapon up into the year 1945, hence almost 25 years. There were times when the „Stürmer” special editions, prepared by my co-worker Karl Holz, who has meanwhile fallen at the site of our struggle, went out into the world in press runs of up to four million. The „Stürmer” had found the path to the heart of the German folk like no other paper of its kind had managed. The folk itself had become co-worker through the supply of material and through again and again inspiring assistance through distribution of the fighting newspaper. Suddenly, German men and women stood on the street corners of German cities and offered the „Stürmer” for sale. Many of them were spat upon by terrorist and crippled by beatings. Two of them died as a result of their injuries.

When the first issue of the „Stürmer” was supposed to appear, the newspaper women refused to put my fighting newspaper on their newspaper stands out of fear of terror. There was a young girl who found a solution. She went from cafe to cafe and – perhaps for the sake of the girl – the new paper being offered sold briskly. Since the sale took place without commercial permit, the police went after the brave little sales girl and gave her a small fine. But the „Stürmer” had been introduced to the public by a blonde, blue-eyed girl. Furthermore, Jews themselves became propagandists: They bought up issues of the „Stürmer” that were especially painful to them in masses.

Before the „Stürmer” developed into what it had then later become, there were still many pressing concerns. One time the debt with the printer had grown to RM 17,000. Collapse threatened. Then help came through an event that in the folk one calls „miracle”. On a postcard written by a woman’s hand without name, I was summoned at a certain afternoon hour to the zoo gate. Curiosity made me obey the mysterious summons. A girl with two blonde pigtails hanging down the side came up to me and handed me a thick letter. She responded to my question about her name and the source with an obliging smile. When I opened the letter in the editorial office – it was a small room in the print shop – twenty thousand mark banknotes were lying on the table in front of me. The „Stürmer” had escaped its distress. After the rise to power, I repeated asked in public assemblies for the kind donor to step forward so that I could perhaps help him or bring him some joy. That helper, remaining unknown, and the little messenger of back then, are remembered with gratitude in the house of the internees in Mondorf.

In the year 1935, my publisher back then, W. H., died in a Nuremberg hospital. I had not concluded any written contract with him, and now that he was dead, his widow declared the „Stürmer” as her property. In order not to have to go to court and not put into question the continued publication of the fighting newspaper, I bought back my property for RM 45,000. A Nuremberg businessman had put the money at my disposal in exchange for a statement of liabilities.

The „Stürmer” soon had an effect far beyond Germany and it is typical that my fighting newspaper also found imitation there, both in the form of the content as well as in the form, in the manner, in which it presented itself. „Stürmer” weeklies emerged in Denmark, North America, South America, South Africa, India, Japan and Mandschuko.

When the „Stürmer” is discussed, that man must also be remembered, who with his talented drawing pencil proved himself a valuable co-worker. „Fips” is inseparable from the „Stürmer”. His life path is as unusual as the moment that led him to the „Stürmer”. As the son of a Nuremberg factory worker, he joined the navy as a volunteer of the World War at the age of 16. As „Red” sailor, he was pulled into the revolution at the end of the war. On an adventurous route, he then reached Triest. After he had earned the necessary means in a brewery there, he traveled to Argentina, where he supervised the Indians in a vast region, who had to watch the cattle herds of the owner, a wealthy Jew in Buenos Aires. In this broad isolation of a foreign land, he practiced drawing with a pencil. Then he traveled over to the big city and earned his first pennies as born artist with caricatures for the press there. Yearning then drove him back to Germany with his wife and two children. The social democratic newspaper „Frankische Tagespost” had assigned him to mock me, the accused in a court case, in his drawing. But when he could now, for the first time, see the man with his own eyes and hear him with his own ears, whom his red bosses hated, he had the drawing turned over to me through the court usher. My opponent, the democratic mayor, was portrayed as skeleton with hanging head. The Jewish court official Süssheim standing in front of him gazed at him full of pity and said: „Embarrassed down to the bones.” The „Stürmer” issue with this drawing was confiscated, which had as a result that the next press run increased many fold. Since then, „Fips” drew for the „Stürmer” up to spring 1945. Whether he was also taken into custody as a „war criminal”, is unknown to me at this moment.

I had never had the desire to be understood by members of a so-called „intelligentsia“ in my „Stürmer” work and to be praised by them in my public speeches. In my enlightenment work, I wanted to seize the working man in his mass, pull him along and win his heart. The man of the workday is simple in his thinking and great in his feeling. He wants one to talk to him like he himself talks and wishes to speak: Open, honest, without ambush! I also trained my co-workers in the „Stürmer” and in the party for such a manner speaking and writing. One of my best helpers had been Ernst Hiemer, who has now also been shown the honor of being imprisoned.

Where there is light, there is also shadow, and where there is planing, shavings also fall. It would have been unnatural, if the „Stürmer” had not also made mistakes. Only people who are themselves without inner life and would have been unable to perform a 25 year long „Stürmer” work, cling pettily to this or that mistake and in the detail like to ignore the big picture. These critics do not notice at all how they themselves thereby provide testimony to pettiness and wretchedness.

The greatest recognition for my work has come from the mouth of the enemy. After my arrest, a Jewish police officer said: „You set an entire world ablaze with your ‘Stürmer’.”

Adolf Hitler Speaks!

„Have you already heard Adolf Hitler speak?” I had been asked again and again for some time. And when this happened again, it seemed to me as if fate had again directed a call at me.

It was on a winter day in the year 1922. I sat there again in a public assembly as an unknown among unknown. I sat in a mass assembly in the meeting hall of the „Bürgerbraus” on Rosenheimerstrasse in Munich, A tremendous tension of anticipation was lying over the mighty assembly hall.

Suddenly, the call came from outside: „Hitler is coming!”, as if struck by the ray of a mysterious force, many thousands of men and women rose from their seats, raised up their right arm as blessing, and like the shout of a primal force, the cry „Heil Hitler” roared again and again toward the man approaching. With effort, those accompanying him cleared a path for him through the pushing masses of people.

When he now stood at the pulpit and, with a face glistening with joy, gazed across the raging enthusiasm, I felt that there must be something special about this Adolf Hitler! The storm of enthusiasm had been replaced by an oddly expectant silence.

Now he spoke. At first, slowly and hardly any emphasis, but then ever faster and more forceful, and finally escalating to great strength. What was said, was the revelation of a deep knowledge of the cause that plunged the German folk into its misfortune, and it was the revelation of a deep belief in God, which from the strength of German spirit and of German heart will break the chains of slavery, when the time has come. It was a tremendous wealth of thoughts that came from his mouth in a more than three-hour speech, clothed in the beauty of talented speech.

Each felt it: This man speaks from a divine calling, he speaks as delegate of heaven in a moment in which hell opened up to devour everything.

And all had understood him, with the brain and with the heart, the men and also the women. He had spoken for all, for the whole German folk. It had been the last hour before midnight, when his speech ended with the solemn admonishment: „Workers of mind and of fist! Join hands in a German folk community of heart and of deed!”

„We assemble to pray before God the Just!” [„Wir treten zum Beten vor Gott den Gerechten!”] Never before had I heard this song sung so ardently pleading and so full of faith and hope, and never before had the singing of the „Deutschland- Lied” [German National Anthem] moved me so deeply, as it happened in that mass rally, in which, for the first time, I saw Adolf Hitler and heard him speak. I felt it: in this moment, fate had called me for the second time! I rushed through the cheering masses to the podium and now stood in front of him: „Mr. Hitler! I am Julius Streicher! At this hour I know it: I can only be a helper, but you are the Führer! I hereby hand over to you the folk movement created by me in Franconia.”

Questioning, he gazed at me from the blue depth of his eyes. There were long seconds. But then, he took my hands with great warmth: „Streicher, I thank you!”

So fate had called me the second time. But this time it was the greatest call in my life.

The Nurembergers are stubborn people and hence they had only been Bavarians, because one made them that with white- blue border posts. Because they say that no human being can be perfect, they also did not believe in the infallibility of the Pope. Martin Luther found an especially friendly welcome among them, and when it came down to deciding, they did not join the Catholic Flabsburgs, rather the Protestant Swede Gustav Adolf.

They also never kept their orientation a secret, when Napoleon Bonaparte put Germany in chains and his regents harassed the folk. It was the Nuremberg book dealer Friedrich Palm who published the book „Germany in Its Lowest Debasement”, and then had to suffer a martyr’s death for his courage of conviction in Braunau am Inn, where Adolf Hitler was born 85 years later.

The Franks were more than a little amazed, when they then learned what had played out in Munich. Many said I had betrayed Franks to the Jesuits, and others asked whether I thought anything good would come from a born Austrian. But the 150% Nurembergers scolded that it should have been the other way around, not the Nurembergers should have had to go to Munich, rather the Munich people to Nuremberg.

So Hitler’s reception in the first public assembly in Nuremberg was not yet overly pleasing. The distrust against the „cloaked Jesuit” Adolf Hitler, who supposedly received his orders straight from the Vatican, soon had to make room, however, for the conviction that this here was no „Austrian”, no „Vatican man”, also no „provocateur in the hire of big capitalism”, rather a man from the folk, who had his heart in the right place and with his clear head knew what he wanted. So Adolf Hitler’s first appearance in Nuremberg had been a great success: Nuremberg and Munich had joined together with their hearts! The bridge to Northern Germany was erected!

Everywhere in Germany, an awakening now began. Workers of the mind and of the fist become preachers, men who never in their life would have thought of one day daring to speak in public. A wonderful energy emanated from the name Adolf Hitler, so that even those who had never seen the man Adolf Hitler now became his disciples. It is a movement of the hearts that encompasses all and even makes the women loyal, inspiration helpers. But the youth joins the brown front and, with laughing eyes, radiates the good fortune that begins to evolve for the German folk.

Terrible, oppressive mood weighed down on Germany at that time. From outside, a pitiless enemy, who had allegedly concluded „peace” with Germany in the year 1919, scorned, and, in the interior of the dismembered Reich, the devil rampaged. Germany had been made tributary by the „hand of Judah”. Its work on the field and in the factory was still only for payment of the tribute to the victor and slave-master. But how gladly would the German folk have worked again, if it just had an opportunity for it. The machines were silent, because raw materials were lacking, and where they existed, work was not allowed, because the wire-pullers of mass strikes wanted it so. From outside, the blockade disrupted import, and what the German field produced, did not suffice for all. Babies grabbed in vain for the mother’s breast, it was empty. Many hundreds of thousands of men, women and children died from malnutrition, they died from starvation.

The dollar had been elevated to king. The German mark fell, fell from one day to the next. „Proletarians” had become millionaires over-night, and finally, for what one could yesterday still purchase for I million, one today had to pay one billion and already tomorrow I trillion. The devil had put on his fool’s cap. And the driven, the agitated, did not know how to recognize this devil.

Unwashed, with tattered clothes and dark faces, the tormented ’’mass human being” moved through the streets and sought his tormentor, but did not find him. A tremendous sultriness was lying over Germany. One said it to the other and all repeated it after the other: „things can’t go on like this, something must come, and soon already, better an end with horror than horror without end.” But those who had begun to believe again looked with hope at Munich with the fearful question: „Have things gone far enough, can he already dare what must be dared sooner or later?”

Hitler’s Rescue Attempt

It was a dismal, moist, cold, foggy day, when I drove in a friend’s automobile to Munich in order to participate. The date was November 8, 1923. Adolf Hitler had just fired an alarm shot in the meeting hall of the „Bürgerbräukeller”, where a satiated, bourgeois world had gathered in order to listen to State Commissar von Kahr under the protection of a large police contingent. Unhindered, he walked through the shocked-to- death assembly and now proclaimed, in clear words born by deep seriousness and deep determination, the beginning of the „national revolution”.

It laid over the assembly like a redemption, when Mr. von Kahr put his hand in Adolf Hitler’s hand and assured his assistance. His Police Minister did the same thing. The assembly dissolved itself and lost itself in the November night. But Mr. von Kahr still sat for a long time at the table in the next room together with General von Ludendorff and Adolf Hitler, and when he then departed to his automobile after giving his word of honor, I felt a stab in my heart: „Hitler! Did you see the gaze of his dark eyes? He is a perjurer, he is a traitor!”

We had separated, and when I entered the room again around midnight, in which the general and the corporal front the World War conferred, I saw the concern on their faces. And then the reports rushed in. When Hitler had returned in the second hour after midnight from his reconnaissance trip into the city, it had become a certainty. The word of honor had been broken, the desired deed betrayed! The orders, signed by Mr. Kahr, went through the police stations and barracks.

Around the third hour after midnight, I delivered an address to the soldiers of the war school, standing ready for the beginning of the „national revolution” under their commander Robert Wagner. Youthful enthusiasm was in their faces when I had ended. Adolf Hitler had listened from a balcony, and when his gaze struck me, a deep pain laid itself upon my heart.

When the first, still faint morning light of November 9, 1923 came through the windows of the „Bürgerbräukeller”, I made the suggestion to Hitler to still try it through whipping up the masses. He dictated an order into the machine, which turned over to me the propaganda now to be made. In good spirits, a column of trucks occupied with SA people then drove into the city. At the square in front of the Marxist newspaper „Münchener Post”, I delivered my first address: „The national revolution races through the land. Now there are no longer any parties, there are still just Germans. Workers of the mind and of the fist! Shake hands! Break the chains of slavery in which the world capitalism of the Jews and their helpers have brought us! Germany Awake!”

The unexpected happened: The thousands who stood on the red square sang the Deutschland-Lied with us.

The workers rushed in from the construction sites, the employees from the business houses, and whoever crossed the path, did not go any farther, each wanted to know, each wanted to hear. It was an uplifting feeling to experience how the folk went about standing by those who wanted to deliver the death blow to the shame and the misery.

It was the twelfth hour of midday, when I had ended my speech on the broad space in front of the Feldherrnhalle amidst tens of thousands of cheering people. A ray of sunlight had just broken through the dark wall of clouds and made a red-brown dove flying from the Theatiner Church even redder: It came from my mouth like a premonition: „See the dove up there! It is as if its blood-red garb proclaims the difficulty of the coming moment.”

An hour later, the swastika flag that had stood next to me during my speech was lying in the blood of those who had carried it. It became the „blood flag” of the movement.

When we now rushed to the „Bürgerbräukeller” at high speed, the thousands who wanted to set off on the march into the city already stood ready. I went back to the fourth row. As we approached the Ludwigsbrticke, I hurried to the point of the procession. The police, who had shouldered their rifles, were overpowered. Well, I remained at the point of the procession. Behind me was the blood flag and in the first row next to it were Erich Ludendorff and Adolf Hitler. It was an almost solemn pace that we marched.

On both sides of the street, people stood congested like walls. Men with serious, questioning gaze and women with babies on their arms. Many had raised their right arm in greeting. One saw tears of joy and also tears of surmising knowledge that somewhere death waited for this or that one of us. But the boys and girls who stood closest to us shouted with all their might: „Heil Hitler”, „Heil Ludendorff’ and „Germany Awake!”

Many citizens looked down from the windows without inner movement. For them, this procession was an event of which one takes note, being curious, just to then return to the daily routine. Flags with swastika on white disk and red background hung from many windows: Hitler flags!

When the column had turned onto the Max-Joseph-Platz and then marched on with gaze to the Ludwigstrasse, everybody knew that one now needed a stout heart: From the residence to the Feldherrnhalle, a gray human wall of police soldiers, with rifles made ready to fire, blocked the exit to the Ludwigstrasse! We saw the danger and now there was no longer any going back. We were drawn as if by the mysterious force of a tremendous magnet and an inner voice commanded: Onward! Onward!

With revolver in hand, I had jumped toward the wall: „Do not shoot! Behind us are Hitler and Ludendorff!” Then the first salvo already blasted into the street. 16 dead were lying on the pavement. The dead of the „Eternal Watch”! The swastika flag that had proceeded them has received its consecration in their blood.

The rifles fell silent and when the last shout of „murderers” had faded, a horrible silence fell over the street.

Adolf Hitler sat upright in his vehicle, holding his dislocated left arm with the hand of his right arm, but next to him, stretched out on a stretcher, was a bleeding child. He thus left the square from whose blood the monument at the Feldherrnhalle should one day arise: „And you have nonetheless triumphed!”

Already in the night of the same day, I was arrested by detectives in the train on the trip to Nuremberg and locked up in a medieval dungeon. Many thousands of people had gathered on the train station square in Nuremberg, and when I mounted the prisoner vehicle, the shout did not want to end: „Streicher Heil! Heil Streicher!”

As I paced back and forth during the long hours of not being able to rest in my prison cell, I suddenly saw in a dark corner, written with red pencil, the words: „Have sun in the heart, whether storms or snows!” I would have gladly shaken the hand of this donor of encouragement. The old defiance of laughing endurance had again arisen within me. And when then, in addition, from some neighboring cell, the song, sung with a woman’s voice, „Where the Alp roses glow”, reached my isolation, I would have gladly given to this singer the red roses, which true love had given me through the cold hands of a prison guard.

„You are free! I have orders to tell you that you must immediately, without arousing commotion, go home!” I had already envisioned myself as „traitor” with a long prison sentence and now this surprise! Like a bird that is long unaccustomed to freedom, I first sought to come to my senses. But then I hurried up the stone steps, out into the night of November 10, 1923. Suddenly the shout: „Heil Streicher!” Already after a few seconds, I stood in the middle of happily stirred women and men. And already at the next moment, I stood on a table, up there in the infamous meeting hall of the „Beckengarten”. „Hitler lives! The blood has not flowed in vain!” Then I hurried home to the children and their mother.

Just as I was sitting at lunch, the telephone rang: „The streets are full of people, they shout your name again and again!” I could no longer hold myself back, jumped into the automobile and drove into the city, past the posters, upon which martial law was announced. And down from the automobile, I spoke to the masses pushing their way through the Konigstrasse. It would have taken just one word, and the storm would have broken loose. That was November 11, 1923.

In Landsberg

I fled out of the city. When I came together with like-minded people for a secret conference, I was betrayed, arrested and taken to Landsberg. Here I was a cell neighbor of party comrades Amann and Major Hühnlein and many more.

Because I had shouted ”Heil Hitler” through the peephole of a cell, in which I had been housed during the first period of Adolf Hitler’s imprisonment, I was punished with loss of the stroll in the prison courtyard. The director did not understand how an educated person could make himself guilty of such a lack of discipline.

The government in Munich urged the prison doctor to declare Adolf Hitler mentally ill. The doctor refused, was sent into retirement and then died as a decent person. Hitler has repeatedly remembered this prison doctor and spoken of him with great respect. In prison, Adolf Hitler wrote his great affirmation: „Mein Kampf’.

Destruction of Existence and Slandering of Honor

The party had been dissolved since November 9 and public recruitment for it banned. So it was a happy surprise, when in spring of 1924 the election as delegate to the Bavarian Landtag [Provincial Parliament] brought me the opportunity, under protection of immunity, to be able to proclaim my National Socialist conviction from the platform of the parliament. In this house, I felt like a pike in a pond of carp that had grown fat.

Among the social democratic delegates, there was a, racially quite fine looking, one who possessed the courage to attack me while leaving the parliament building. When, after the National Socialist rise to power in the year 1933, he had become unemployed, I made sure that he was again given his office of director of tourism in Nuremberg.

The Jew Alberti-Sittenfeld wrote in the year 1883 in the magazine „Gesellschaft” [‘‘Society”]:

„Whoever dares to take up the struggle against the Jews, they will take away the basis of his existence and combat him with bestial brutality and with the vilest means so for long until his nerves fail him and he gives up the struggle.”

I had to learn quite soon that he had stated the truth. In the Bavarian Landtag, a majority of all colors and views came together against me; they revoked my immunity so that the government could discipline me through removal from office. I was then sentenced by the disciplinary court, which itself stood under compulsion, to dismissal from my post as teacher. The justification for the verdict had been very decent.

Again and again, I was indicted by the state prosecutor for „blasphemy and religious misdemeanors”. The Jews had managed to be granted the protection paragraph of the Christian denominations, and so it was possible to interpret my struggle against the Jewish race as religious misdemeanor. At first, there were fines, then jail sentences, which I received.

There were many judges who were visibly pained by being compelled by the paragraphs to condemn me. In many verdicts, the purity of my political struggle was acknowledged.

In one of my bigger trials, which I had to endure, my opponent had been, at the time back then, a very prominent, and in the democracy, very valued personality. According to Munich pattern, my opponent had in a handwritten letter to the state prosecutor demanded one should, through official medical decree, declare me mentally ill. It is owed to a minor official that the devilish plan became known to me in time. I alarmed the public in a leaflet and thwarted my enemies’ plan. But after the rise to power, I proposed for the state prosecutor, who had called me „very dangerous” in that trial and thus aimed for the famous paragraph 52, promotion to Court President in Bamberg.

When creation of the gold mark had replaced inflation, one believed on the Jewish side that the material distress, in which I found myself, would exhaust me. Through intermediaries, to whom large sums had been assured, one offered me several hundred thousand gold marks and a villa in Switzerland, if I would disavow my struggle. I was happy to see my struggle, already in its beginning, valued so highly.

When the bribery attempts remained unsuccessful, the means of slandering of honor came into action. A bribed unemployed man testified in a libel trial that I had had intimate relations with his divorced wife. The wife could proof that she had first become acquainted with me in the courtroom. The slanderer was convicted.

When I sat in prison again, my lawyer handed me a leaflet that went through the city and claimed that, during the First World War, I had raped a French teacher and the author of this report had seen it himself. During the libel proceedings, the leaflet author repeated his claim under oath. He had probably reckoned that the French woman allegedly raped by me could not be located after such a long time and produced as witness. The state prosecutor approved my request for initiation of a case for perjury. During her examination, the already quite old French woman could proclaim that she had never in her life spoken to me. The slanderer was arrested. Betrayed by his cohorts denied their Judas reward, it came out. The perjuring slanderer had received RM 30! Precisely twenty silver coins, just like Judas Iscariot had once been paid out! But the newspapers, which had played up and spread the slander across all of Germany, refrained from taking note of the criminal’s conviction. Whose interests these newspapers served was clearly visible from this behavior.

In still another way, one had tried to get at my nerves. A representative of Jewry had betrayed to a presumed confidant in the Nuremberg police department that one had tried in vain to tempt me, on my assembly trips through Germany, into the net of a paid Esther.

The leaflets, in which I was again and again accused of illicit love, reach into the dozens. Finally, one still tried to brand me „child molester” and „homosexual”.

The defamation actions were probably the most difficult thing that I had to bear in my 25 year long enlightenment struggle. It was a big surprise for my opponents that my nerves did not fail and I again and again urged my co-workers: The struggle goes on!

Now the very last means was supposed to be put to use: Murder! A kind providence allowed me to survive such attempts at annihilation as well, be it, that in the year 1921, on an assembly trip through the occupied region, I was supposed to be thrown from the train, be it in meeting hall battles or at moments when, late at night, I stepped to the door of the apartment building on whose 5th floor I resided. All the bullets meant for me missed.

But the defamation campaigns against me had a good side, they were a propaganda that filled my assembly buildings even where one had not expected it, and brought people to me as listeners who could be torn from their lethargy only by curiosity.

The Struggle Goes On

The judges were deeply moved, when Adolf Hitler had called to them to free the co-defendants, he took sole responsibility for everything that happened, full responsibility. After nine months, he, too, left Landsberg prison „on probation”.

In Munich, he was still banned from speaking, hence he came to Nuremberg. There was indescribable jubilation, which received him and accompanied him out of the city again. When the rally in front of the hotel „Deutscher Hof’ did not want to end and the Deutschland-Lied resounded up to him again and again, he was deeply moved. Again and again, he opened the window and greeted gratefully. When he then gave me his hand, he said: „There is only one Nuremberg.”

The invasion by the French had brought great agitation to all of Germany. Reports of atrocities by white and black soldier rabble increased day by day. The best of the German youth rushed over to the tormented region. Volunteers from the First World War and those who, due to their youth, could not be one. But above all stood the name Leo Schlageter. He died a hero’s death, fallen by French bullets, on the heath near Düsseldorf. Under the protection of French soldier rabble, Jewish communist leaders, in secret agreement with Marxist government officials in Berlin, organized a rebellion against the unoccupied portion of the Reich. German Freikorps beat it down.

But in unoccupied Germany as well, the fire of rebellion ignited anew again and again. Mass strike followed mass strike. Unemployment reached huge dimensions. An army of eight million was counted. The buildings where they collected their welfare were overfilled. Curses and imprecations threatened those who wanted to help, but could not help.

In the 1880’s, an anti-Semitic movement had arisen in Germany that was much talked about. In order to harm it in the public eye, three Jews set fire to a synagogue and a certain press blamed this desecration on the evil Jew-haters. But it was a shot in the foot. Jews were identified as the culprits and given severe sentences.

Because on the Jewish side one knew how sensitive the public reacts to crime that is committed against religion, cemetery desecration was invented and reported continuously. Hardly a week passed in which overturned gravestones were not reported and „swastika guys” [„Hakenkreuzler”] suspected as culprits. The „swastika guys” were free game for the system police back then, and, given their eagerness to serve the Jews, they would have known how to find „Nazi” people, if such could be proven to be the culprits. Here, too, it was not difficult to recognize where the „cemetery desecrators” were to be sought and could have been found.

A social democratic worker in a town in Franconia – driven by his conscience – reported to a party dignitary after 1933 that the „cemetery desecration”, blamed by the red newspaper on the National Socialists, had been carried out on Jewish orders. One hence sought by such low methods in the period of struggle to degrade the ever more strongly rising National Socialist movement through sensitive publicity.

Mass marches on the streets! Mass rallies on public grounds! Here the red flag of rebellion, there the flag with the swastika! Here the communist, there the National Socialist. Horst Wessel is murdered in Berlin by a red gang led by the Jewess Kuhn! The „Horst Wessel” Song, song by millions of hopeful Germans, raises to the heavens! The parties have increased to half a hundred! Election follows election! Everything remains the same!

Reich Party Day 1927 in Nuremberg. The city of the Reich Days of old imperial glory has become the ceremonial site of the National Socialists. The hope of the devout grows, the hatred of the seduced, however, is boundless. Germans against Germans. The number of the murdered and crippled is large and gets ever larger. Lord God in heaven, where have you remained?

The Nuremberg Law

Every folk has the right and the duty to give itself laws that is recognizes as necessary for its preservation. The Jewish leader Moses, at the beginning of the war that made the promised land of Canaan booty for the Jews, had given the law:

„You shall not give your daughters to the folks of the land that yon enter, and your sons should not make the daughters of foreign folks their wives.”

This law of Moses thus forbade the mixing of Jewish blood with the blood of foreign folks and thereby secured the continued propagation of the Jewish gene pool and the preservation of the typically Jewish physical and intellectual-psychological unique kind for time eternal. This law is hence a protection law for the preservation of the Jewish race.

After Canaan’s conquest, the Jewish race protection law given by Moses was no longer respected by many Jews. They had made the daughters of the subjugated folks their wives and bred children with them. In these offspring, the specifically Jewish element of the physical and intellectual-psychological essence threatened to disappear more and more. Here it was now the Jewish priest Esra, who renewed Moses’ law and thereby saved the Jewish race from dissolution. As the Book of Esra reports in chapters 9 and 10, the Jewish priest Esra convened a folk assembly, in which the violation of the laws was scorned as a serious offense and as a trespass against God:

„Since I heard such a thing, I was distraught. I spread out my hands and spoke: My God, I am ashamed and am reluctant to lift my eyes up to you, my God; for our offense has gotten the belter of us and our guilt is as great as the sky.”

Sechanja made himself the speaker of the folk assembly:

’’Indeed, we have sinned, we want to expel all women and the children from them!”

After Esra had taken their oath from them, „that they should act according to these words”, the greatest mass expulsion of all time began:

All non-Jewish women married to Jews, along with the children who had resulted from these marriages, were expelled from the Jewish folk community!

It is not known whether at that time there were Allied governments who declared that mass expulsion of women and children inhumane and engaged themselves for the expellees through summoning all their means of power.

But Esra is rightfully celebrated by Jewry as one of its greatest priests and leaders. Through the renewal of the race protection law created by Moses, he saved Jewry from ruination. The Egyptians, Persians, Greeks and Romans still only belong to history, because they did not restrict the mixing of their blood with other races. But the Jewish folk has outlived them, it lives still today, and in the 20th century, it is in the process of winning it greatest victory: World domination!

What the laws of Moses and their renewal through Esra was, and today still is, for the Jews, that is what the „Nuremberg Law” should become for the German folk. It is that law that was passed in the year 1935 by the German Reichstag and carries the designation: „Law for the protection of German blood and German honor”. „The Nuremberg Law” should be for the German folk what the law of Moses and Esra was, and today still is, or the Jews: A protection for its preservation. It should prevent that German virginity is still subjected to dishonoring by folk-aliens and German blood still mixes with Jewish. The „Nuremberg Law” was hence not an attack against another folk or another race, rather exclusively a law for the protection of the continued existence of the German folk. The „Nuremberg Law” will one day be extolled by history as the most significant work of legislation of the 20th century, and with it, its creator Adolf Hitler.

Although the Jews are careful to preserve the protection law given them by Moses and renewed by Esra, they are the ones who combat the „Nuremberg Law” passed for the protection of the German folk as an attack against Jewry and hence as a crime against „democratic freedom”. That the Jews have demanded, and also achieved, the abolition of the „Nuremberg Law” from the Allied governments, reveals how great their influence in world events has already become.

War and War Guilt

The Second World War has swept over Europe. The Führer is dead. The Greater German Reich has been smashed. German cities lie in ruins. The German folk has been surrendered to the interest slavery of its enemy. As in the First, so in the Second World War, too, English, American and Russian soldiers have been the executors. But who is the real victor of this war? Is it the folks from whom those soldiers had come?

The takeover of the government by the Führer in 1933 was for World Jewry the signal to attack. The World Jewish press agitated for the global boycott against Germany. Germany’s reply was the 24 hour boycott of Jewish businesses on April 1, 1933. No Jew lost his life in the process, and no Jewish business building was damaged. The counter-boycott, ordered by the party leadership and carried out under my leadership, was supposed to warn World Jewry against challenging National Socialist Germany.

Since that time, malicious attacks against National Socialist Germany have appeared in the world press again and again. It was unmistakable that with that propaganda in the world, carried out without interruption, the view was supposed to be bred that the existence of a National Socialist Germany meant a danger for the other folks. The Jewish writer Emil Ludwig, who emigrated to France, spoke especially clearly about Jewish wishes and intentions in the magazine „Les Annales”:

„Hitler does not want war, but he will be forced to it.”

The Polish ambassador in the USA, Count Potocky, wrote at a time when in Europe nobody thought a Second World War would come or must come, to his government in Warsaw that he had gained the impression that influential Jews in Washington would work toward a new world war. (See the German White Book.)

The report of the Polish Ambassador Potocky, whom nobody can reproach with bias against World Jewry and who also was no friend of National Socialist Germany, would alone suffice to be able to thoroughly answer the question of war guilt. The guilt for the Second World War, too, was born at the moment when god Jehovah, through the mouth of Field Marshal Moses, gave the Jewish folk the instructions:

„You should devour all the folks!”

With the defeat of National Socialist Germany in the Second World War, World Jewry has won the greatest victory in its history.

The Führer

The Führer is not dead! He lives on in the creation of his spirit close to God. It will outlast the lives of those who were damned by fate to not understand the Führer while he still lived. They will sink into the grave and become forgotten. The spirit of the Führer, however, will continue to work into time and became the savior for his enslaved folk and for a seduced mankind.

Concluding Comment

A Jewish prison director told me that it pleases him that, even in the situation in which I find myself, I stand upright for my cause. What, by that Jewish prison official, who in his testimony of respect, without wanting to, proclaimed his own decent attitude, produced amazement, is for me self-evident. I would be a dog if, at the moment I find myself in the power of the enemy, I would disavow what I have known as my conviction for over 25 years. This conviction is in agreement with the demand of the Zionist leader Theodor Herzl:

„As long as Jews are compelled to live together with other folks, anti-Semitism as well continues to exist. The world peace desired by the folks will only then be able to become a fact, if World Jewry, too, has received a national homeland.”

Mondorf, August 3, 1945
House of Internees
Julius Streicher

 

Advertisements

Characterizations of the Jews

„You will only find in the Jews an ignorant and barbarous people, who for a long time have joined the most sordid avarice to the most detestable superstition and to the most invincible hatred of all peoples which tolerate and enrich them.“ („Juif,“ Dictionnaire Philosophique)

„I know that there are some Jews in the English colonies. These marranos go wherever there is money to be made…But whether these circumcised who sell old clothes claim that they are of the tribe of Naphtali or Issachar is not of the slightest importance. They are, simply, the biggest scoundrels who have ever dirtied the face of the earth.“ (Letter to Jean-Baptiste Nicolas de Lisle de Sales, December 15, 1773. Correspondance. 86:166)

„They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not someday become deadly to the human race.“ (Lettres de Memmius a Ciceron, 1771)

„The customs of the Jews are base and abominable and owe their persistence to their depravity. Jews are extremely loyal to one another, always ready to show compassion, but towards every other people they feel only hate and enimity. As a race (the Jews are not a race, because they have mingled with the other races to the point that they are only a people, not a race), they are prone to lust; among themselves nothing is unlawful.“ (Roman Historian Tacitus).

„The Jews cannot be a part of a real national unity.“ (A Program for the Jews and Humanity, Harry Waton, p. 201).

„Wherever the Jew is found he is a problem, a source of unhappiness to himself and to those around him. Ever since he has been scattered in your midst he has had to maintain a continuous struggle for the conservation of his identity.“ (Maurice Samuel, You Gentiles, p.10)

„What virtues and what vices brought upon the Jew this universal enmity? Why was he in turn equally maltreated and hated by the Alexandrians and the Romans, by the Persians and the Arabs, by the Turks and by the Christian nation? Because everywhere and up to the present day the Jew was an unsociable being.

Why was he unsociable? Because he was exclusive, and his exclusiveness was at the same time political and religious or in other words, he kept to his political, religious cult and his law…This faith in their predestination, in their election, enveloped in the Jews an immense pride; they came to look upon non-Jews with contempt and often hatred, when patriotic reasons were added to theological ones.“ (L’AntisÇmitisme, (1894) Bernard Lazare; LÇon de Poncins, The Secret Powers behind Revolution, (1929)).

Then, concerning the persecution theme and host-alien relationship, Roth wrote: „Have not Jews been admitted from time immemorial, freely, kindly, almost happily by every nation at whose gate they have knocked for admittance…Have the Jews ever had to petition a country for admission – the first time? Read for yourself the story of the progress of Jewry through Europe and America. Wherever they come they are welcomed, permitted to settle down, and join in the general business of the community. But one by one the industries of the country close to them because of unfair practices (by the Jews towards Christians) until it no longer being possible to hold in check the wrath of a betrayed people, there is violence and, inevitably, an ignominious ejection of the whole race from the land. There is not a single instance when the Jews have not fully deserved the bitter fruit of the fury of their persecutors…Jewish history has been tragic to the Jews and no less tragic to the neighboring nations who have suffered them. Our major vice of old, as of today, is parasitism. We are a people of vultures living on the labor (of the host nation) and the good nature of the rest of the world…We come to the nations pretending to escape persecution, we the most deadly persecutors in all the wretched annals of man.“ (Jews Must Live, Samuel Roth)

„The Jew is the instrument of Christian destruction. Look at them carefully in all their glory, playing God with other people’s money. The robber barons of old, at least, left something in their wake; a coal mine; a railroad; a bank. But the Jew leaves nothing. The Jew creates nothing, he builds nothing, he runs nothing. In their wake lies nothing but a blizzard of paper, to cover the pain. If he said, ‘I know how to run your business better than you.’ That would be something worth talking about. But he’s not saying that. He’s saying ‘I’m going to kill you (your business) because at this moment in time, you are worth more dead than alive” (Quotations from the Movie, The Liquidator)

„The Jew is necessarily anti-Christian, by definition, in being a Jew, just as he is anti-Mohammedan, just as he is opposed to every principle which is not his own.

Now that the Jew has entered into society, he has become a source of disorder, and, like the mole, he is busily engaged in undermining the ancient foundations upon which rests the Christian State. And this accounts for the decline of nations, and their intellectual and moral decadence; they are like a human body which suffers from the intrusion of some foreign element which it cannot assimilate and the presence of which brings on convulsions and lasting disease. By his very presence the Jew acts as a solvent; he produces disorders, he destroys, he brings on the most fearful catastrophes.

The admission of the Jew into the body of the nations has proved fatal to them; they are doomed for having received him…The entrance of the Jew into society marked the destruction of the State, meaning by State, the Christian State.“ (Benard Lazare, Antisemitism, Its History and Causes, pages 318-320 and 328).

„It is not only this fervent ‘Passionalism’ which conditions the attitude of the Jews in the political and social order…They always experience the need to seek unity. Because of that they are sentimentally led to reject in a more or less absolute fashion all which is contradictory to this unity. For them, what is differentiation is an attack on the principle of unity; injustice and inequality are differentiations. They must be rejected or lessened…This is explained the Socialist and Communist tendencies of which they are reproached…It is in what is called business that the Jewish soul, by utilitarianism with which he is so strongly impregnated, finds a liberal career: commerce, trade, banks, finance, and industries. It is this same characteristic which in all times and in all places has brought upon the traditional Jew sarcasms and reprobation, often enough, let us recognize it, justified.“ (Nomades, Kadmi Cohen, (1929)).

„The perfect Semite (Jews are not Semites but are Khazars, descended from Japheth) is positive and impassioned. The two elements exercise a reciprocal influence, each moderating what is too excessive and therefore unlikely to live in the other, creating a being apart who easily arrives at domination, for nothing can stop such a man…It is the eternal opposition of Shylock and Jessica. It is the illogical and monstrous mixture of the rarest qualities with the most abject defects, mixture of irresistible force and of irremediable weakness.“ (Nomades, Kadmi Cohen, (1929), The Trail of the Serpent, Inquire Within, Miss Stoddard, p. 117).

„There is no race in the world more enigmatic, more fatal, and, therefore, more interesting than the Jews. Every writer who, like yourself, is oppressed by the aspect of the present and embarrassed by his anxieties for the future must try to elucidate the Jewish question and its bearing upon our age. For the question of the Jews and their influence on the world, past and present, cuts to the root of all things.“ (World Significance of the Russian Revolution, 1920, George Pitt-Rivers, by the Jew, Dr. Oscar Levy, The Trail of the Serpent, Inquire Within, Miss Stoddard, p. 91).

„The Jews cannot be classed as a ‘race’ per se, they are an ethnic group. ‘…the Jews form an ethnic group; that like all ethnic groups they have their own racial elements distributed in their own proportions; like all or most ethnic groups they have their ‘look,’ a part of their cultural heritage that both preserves and expresses their cultural solidarity…they have developed a special racial sub-type and a special pattern of facial and bodily expression.“ (Carleton S. Coon, The Races of Europe, The MacMillian Co., N.Y. (1939), p. 442).

„Take the particular trick of false names. It seems to us particularly odious. We think when we show our contempt for those who use this subterfuge that we are giving them no more than they deserve. It is a meanness which we associate with criminals and vagabonds; a piece of crawling and sneaking…Men whose race is universally known, will unblushingly adopt a false name as a mask, and after a year or two pretend to treat it as an insult if their original and true name be used in its place.“ (Hilaire Belloc, The Jew, pp. 100, 102).

„The fact is that the Jews were known only as destroyers in ancient history, not creators. They have developed no science, have produced no art, have built no great cities, and alone have no talent for the finer things of civilized life. The Jews claim to be the torchbearers of civilization, but thorough their parasitic habits have deteriorated or destroyed every nation in which they have existed in large numbers.“ (Charles A. Weisman, Who is Esau-Edom?, p. 28).

„The Jews are more subject to diseases of the nervous system than the other races and peoples among which they dwell. Hysteria and neurasthenia appear to be most frequent. Some physicians of large experience among the Jews have even gone so far as to state that most of them are neurasthenic and hysterical.“ (The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. IX, (1905), p. 225).

„Idiocy and imbecility are found comparatively more often among Jews than among non-Jews…The Mongolian type of idiocy is also very frequently observed among Jews…Among the Jews the proportion of insane has been observed to be very large…Jews are more liable to acute psychoses of early age than are non-Jews.“ (The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. VI, (1904), p. 556, 603-04).

„We [Jews] are like an elephant, we don’t forget.“ (Thomas Dine, American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee)

„We Jews are an unusual people. We fight over anything.“ (Philip Klutznick, past president of B’nai B’rith, They Dare to Speak Out, p. 276)

„You are right! This reproach of yours, which I feel for certain is at the bottom of your anti-Semitism, is only too well justified; upon this common ground I am quite willing to shake hands with you and defend you against any accusation of promoting Race Hatred…We [Jews] have erred, my friend, we have most grievously erred. And if there is any truth in our error, 3,000, 2,000 maybe 100 years ago, there is nothing now but falseness and madness, a madness which will produce even greater misery and wider anarchy. I confess it to you openly and sincerely and with sorrow…We who have posed as the saviors of the world…We are nothing but the world’ seducers, it’s destroyers, it’s incinderaries, it’s executioners…we who promised to lead you to heaven, have finally succeeded in leading you to a new hell…There has been no progress, least of all moral progress…and it is our morality which prohibits all progress, and what is worse — it stands in the way of every future and natural reconstruction in this ruined world of ours…I look at this world, and shudder at its ghastliness: I shudder all the ore, as I know the spiritual authors of all this ghastliness…“ (The World Significance of the Russian Revolution, by George Lane-Fox Pitt-Rivers, July 1920)

„There is little resemblance between the mystical and undecided Slav, the violent but tradition living Magyar, and the heavy deliberate German. And yet Bolshevism wove the same web over them all, by the same means and with the same tokens. The national temperament of the three races does not the least reveal itself in the terrible conceptions which have been accomplished, in complete agreement, by men of the same mentality in Moscow, Buda Pesth, and Munich.

>From the very beginning of the dissolution in Russia, Kerensky was on the spot, then came Trotsky, on watch, in the shadow of Lenin. When Hungary was fainting, weak from loss of blood, Kunfi, Jaszi and Pogany were waiting behind Karolyi, and behind them came Bela Hun and his Staff. And when Bavaria tottered Kurt Eisner was ready to produce the first act of the revolution. In the second act it was Max Lieven (Levy) who proclaimed the Dictatorship of the Proletariat at Munich, a further edition of Russian and Hungarian Bolshevism.

So great are the specific differences between the three races that the mysterious similarity of these events cannot be due to any analogy between them, but only to the work of a fourth race living amongst the others but unmingled with them.

Among modern nations with their short memories, the Jewish people…Whether despised or feared it remains an eternal stranger. it comes without invitation and remains even when driven out. It is scattered and yet coherent. It takes up its abode in the very body of the nations. It creates laws beyond and above the laws. It denies the idea of a homeland but it possesses its own homeland which it carries along with it and establishes wherever it goes. It denies the god of other peoples and everywhere rebuilds the temple. It complains of its isolation, and by mysterious channels it links together the parts of the infinite New Jerusalem which covers the whole universe. It has connections and ties everywhere, which explains how capital and the Press, concentrated in its hands, conserve the same designs in every country of the world, and the interests of the race which are identical in Ruthenian villages and in the City of New York; if it extols someone he is glorified all over the world, and if it wishes to ruin someone the work of destruction is carried out as if directed by a single hand.

The orders come from the depths of Mysterious Darkness. That which the Jew jeers at and destroys among other peoples, it fanatically preserves in the bosom of Judaism. If it teaches revolt and anarchy to others, it in itself shows admirable obedience to its invisible guides.

In the time of the Turkish revolution, a Jew said proudly to my father: ‘It is we who are making it, we, the Young Turks, the Jews.’ During the Portuguese revolution, I heard the Marquis de Vasconcellos, Portuguese ambassador at Rome, say ‘The Jews and the Free Masons are directing the revolution in Lisbon.’ Today when the greater part of Europe is given up to the revolution, they are everywhere leading the movement, according to a single plan. How did they succeed in concealing this plan which embraced the whole world and which was not the work of a few months or even years? They used as a screen men of each country, blind, frivolous, venal, forward, or stupid, and who knew nothing. And thus they worked in security, these redoubtable organizers, these sons of an ancient race which knows how to keep a secret. And that is why none of them has betrayed the others.“ (Cecile De Tormay, Le livre proscrit, p. 135; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, pp. 141-143)

„They [Jews] were always malcontents. I do not mean to suggest by that they have been simply fault-finders and systematic opponents of all government, but the state of things did not satisfy them; they were perpetually restless, in the expectation of a better state which they never found realized. Their ideal as not one of those which is satisfied with hope, they had not placed it high enough for that, they could not lull their ambition with dreams and visions. They believed in their right to demand immediate satisfactions instead of distant promises. From this has sprung the constant agitation of the Jews.

The causes which brought about the birth of this agitation, which maintained and perpetuated it in the soul of some modern Jews, are not external causes such as the effective tyranny of a prince, of a people, or of a harsh code; they are internal causes, that is to say, which adhere to the very essence of the Hebraic spirit. In the idea of God which the Jews imagined, in their conception of life and of death, we must seek for the reasons of these feelings of revolt with which they are animated.“ (B. Lazare, L’Antisemitism, p. 306; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, 185-186)

„There is in the destiny of the race, as in the Semitic character a fixity, a stability, an immortality which impress the mind. One might attempt to explain this fixity by the absence of mixed marriages, but where could one find the cause of this repulsion for the woman or man stranger to the race? Why this negative duration? There is consanguinity between the Gaul described by Julius Caesar and the modern Frenchman, between the German of Tacitus and the German of today. A considerable distance has been traversed between that chapter of the ‘Commentaries’ and the plays of Moliere. But if the first is the bud the second is the full bloom.

Life, movement, dissimilarities appear in the development of characters, and their contemporary form is only the maturity of an organism which was young several centuries ago, and which, in several centuries will reach old age and disappear.

There is nothing of this among the Semites [here a Jew is admitting that the Jews are not Semites]. Like the consonants of their [again he makes allusion to the fact that the Jews are not Semites] language they appear from the dawn of their race with a clearly defined character, in spare and needy forms, neither able to grow larger nor smaller, like a diamond which can score other substances but is too hard to be marked by any.“ (Kadmi Cohen, Nomades, pp. 115-116; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, 188)

„The passionate enthusiasm could take them far, up to the end: it could decide the disappearance of the race by a succession of deadly follies…But this intoxication had its antidote, and this disorder of the mind found its corrective in the conception and practice of a positive utilitarianism…The frenzy of the abstractions does not exclude the arithmetic of interest. Sometimes straying in Heaven the Jew does not, nevertheless, lose his belief in the Earth, in his possessions and his profits. Quite the contrary! Utilitarianism is the other pole of the Jewish soul. All, let us say, in the Jew is speculation, both of ideas and of business; and in this last respect, what a lusty hymn has he not sung to the glorification of worldly interests! The names of Trotsky and of Rothschild mark the extent of the oscillations of the Jewish mind; these two limits contain the whole of society, the whole of civilization of the 20th century.“ (Kadmi Cohen, pp. 88, 156; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon de Poncins, pp. 194-195)

„From the ethical standpoint two kinds of Jews are usually distinguished; the Portuguese branch and the German [Khazar; Chazar] branch (Sephardim and Askenazim).

But from the psychological standpoint there are only two kinds: the Hassidim and the Mithnagdim. In the Hassidim we recognize the Zealots. They are the mystics, the cabalists, the demoniancs, the enthusiasts, the disinterested, the poets, the orators, the frantic, the heedless, the visionaries, the sensualists. They are the Mediterranean people, they are the Catholics of Judaism, of the Catholicism of the best period. They are the Prophets who held forth like Isaiah about the time when the wolf will lie down with the lamb, when swords will be turned into plough shares for the plough of Halevy, who sang: ‘May my right hand wither if I forget thee O Jerusalem! May my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth if I pronounce not thy name,’ and who in enthusiastic delirium upon landing in Palestine kissed the native soil and disdained the approach of the barbarian whose lance transfixed him. They are the thousands and thousands of unfortunates, Jews of the Ghettos, who during the Crusades, massacred one another and allowed themselves to be massacred…

The Mithnadgim, are the Utilitarians, the Protestants of Judaism, the Nordics. Cold, calculating, egoistic, positive, they have on their extreme flank vulgar elements, greedy for gain without scruples, determined to succeed by hook or by crook, without pity.

>From the banker, the collected business man, even to the huckster and the usurer, to Gobseck and Shylock, they comprise all the vulgar herd of beings with hard hearts and grasping hands, who gamble and speculate on the misery, both of individuals and nations. As soon as a misfortune occurs they wish to profit by it; as soon as a scarcity is known they monopolize the available goods. Famine is for them an opportunity for gain. And it is they, when the anti-Semitic wave sweeps forward, who invoke the great principle of the solidarity due to the bearers of the Torch…This distinction between the two elements, the two opposite extremes of the soul has always been.“ (Dadmi Cohen, p. 129-130; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon de Poncins, 195-195)

„The Jews are a despicable race of cunning dealers, a race that never desires honor, home and country. That they ever could have been valiant warriors and honest peasants does not appear credible to us, for the disposition of a nation does not alter so quickly. A ministry in which the Jew is supreme, a household in which a Jew has the key to the wardrobe and the management of the finances, a department or a commissary where the Jew does the main business, a university where the Jew acts as brokers and money lenders to students are like the Pontinian Marshes that cannot be drained in which, after the old saying, the vultures eat their cadaver and from its rottenness the insects and worms suck their food.“ (Johann Gottfried Herder, German Author).

Oscar Levy, a well-known Jewish author, in the introduction to his book: „The World Significance of the Communist Revolution,“ said: „We Jews have erred…we have most grievously erred: and if there was truth in our error 3,000, nay 100 years ago, there is nothing now but falseness and madness, a madness that will produce an even greater misery and an even wider anarchy. I confess it to you openly and sincerely, and with a sorrow whose depth and pain, as the ancient Psalmist and only he could moan into this burning universe of ours. We who have boasted and posted as the saviors of this world, we have been nothing but it’s seducers, it’s destroyers, it’s incendiaries, it’s executioners. We who have promised to lead the world into heaven have only succeeded in leading you into a new hell. There has been no progress, least of all moral progress. And it is just our (Jewish) morality which has prohibited all real progress, and, what is worse, which even stands in the way of all future and natural reconstruction in this ruined world of ours. I look at this world, and I shudder at its ghastliness; I shudder all the more as I know the Spiritual Authors of this Ghastliness.“

The Jewish author Samuel Roth, in his book „Jews Must Live,“ page 12, says: „The scroll of my life spread before me, and reading it in the glare of a new, savage light, it became a terrible testimony against my people (Jews). The hostility of my parents…my father’s fraudulent piety and his impatience with my mother which virtually killed her. The ease with which my Jewish friends sold me out to my detractors. The Jewish machinations which three times sent me to prison. The conscienceless lying of that clique of Jewish journalists who built up libel about my name. The thousand incidents, too minor to be even mentioned. I had never entrusted a Jew with a secret which he did not instantly sell cheap to my enemies. What was wrong with these people who accepted help from me? Was it only an accident, that they were Jews?

Please believe me, I tried to put aside this terrible vision of mine. But the Jews themselves would not let me. Day by day, with cruel, merciless claws, they dug into my flesh and tore aside the last veils of allusion. With subtle scheming and heartless seizing which is the whole of the Jews fearful leverage of trade, they drove me from law office to law office, and from court to court, until I found myself in the court of bankruptcy. It became so that I could not see a Jew approaching me without my heart rising up within me to mutter. ‘There goes another Jew, stalking his prey!’ Disraeli set the Jewish fashion of saying that every country has the sort of Jews it deserves. It may also be that the Jews have only the sort of enemies they deserve too.“

NESTA WEBSTER, In World Revolution, The Plot against Civilazation, page 163: „Since the earliest times it is as the exploiter that the Jew has been known amongst his fellow men of all races and creeds. Moreover, he has persistently shown himself ungrateful… The Jews have always formed a rebellious element in every state.“

ERNEST RENAN, French historian: „The Jews are not merely a different religious community, but – and this is the most important factor – ethnically an altogether different race. The European felt instinctively that the Jew is a stranger, who immigrated from Asia. The so-called prejudice is natural sentiment. Civilization will overcome antipathy against the Israelite who merely professes another religion, but never against the racially different Jew…In Eastern Europe the Jew is the cancer slowly eating into the flesh of other nations. Exploitation of the people is his only aim. Selfishness and a lack of personal courage are his chief characteristics; self-sacrifice and patriotism are altogether foreign to him.“

GOLDWIN SMITH, Professor of Modern History at Oxford, wrote in Nineteenth Century, October 1881: „The Jew alone regard his race as superior to humanity, and looks forward not to its ultimate union with other races, but to its triumph over them all and to its final ascendancy under the leadership of a tribal Messiah.“

H.L. MENCKEN: 20th century American writer: „The Jews could be put down very plausibly as the most unpleasant race ever heard of. As commonly encountered they lack any of the qualities that mark the civilized man: courage, dignity, incorruptibility, ease, confidence. They have vanity without pride, voluptuousness without taste, and learning without wisdom. Their fortitude, such as it is, is wasted upon puerile objects, and their charity is mainly a form of display.“ (Treatise on the Gods)

This craving for bouquets by Jews is a symptom of racial degeneration. The Jews are worse than my own people. Those Jews who still want to be the chosen race (chosen by the late Lord Balfour) can go to Palestine and stew in their own juice. The rest had better stop being Jews and start being human beings. (Literary Digest, October 12, 1932)

„Liberalism, in the case of the Jew, means internationalism. If you listen to Jews discuss Jews, you will find they are mone-minded, very sharp in practice. The Jews lack the fine integrity which at last is endorsed, and to a certain degree followed, by lawyers of other nationalities. The Jew has been in Germany for a thousand years, and he is still a Jew. He has been in America for all of 200 years, and he has not faded into a pure American by any means – and he will not. (Letter to Hutchins Hapgood, The Nation magazine, April 17, 1935)“

SAND, GEORGE (Amantine Dupin Dudevant). 19th century French novelist: „I saw in ‘the wandering Jew’ the personification of the Jewish people, exiled in the Middle Ages. Nevertheless, they are once again extremely rich, owing to their unfailing rude greediness and their indefatigable activity. With their hard-heartedness that they extend toward people of other faiths and races they are at the point of making themselves kings of the world. This people can thank its obstinacy that France will be Judized within fifty years. Already some wise Jews prophesy this frankly.“ (Letter to Victor Lorie, 1857).

Who Taught America to Torture?

How America is following the lead of Israel and Jewish extremists on torture.

Caricatures from “Der Stürmer” – translated in English and colourized!

The Year 1938 – Part 2

03.March-1938-11

03.March-1938-12

03.March-1938-13

03.March-1938-14

03.March-1938-15

03.March-1938-16

03.March-1938-17

03.March-1938-18

03.March-1938-19

04.Arpil-1938-01

 

Poisonous Doctrines

by Dr. William Pierce

Today let’s begin by talking about individualism and individualists. I’m using those words in a special sense. In this broadcast, when I say “individualist” I mean a person who habitually fails to consider or to give proper weight to the group context in which he belongs when viewing the world, formulating ideas, and reaching decisions; and who in evaluating other people fails to put them into the group context to which they belong, instead focusing narrowly only on the individual at hand.

I also will use the word “individualist” to designate a person who makes an ideology out of his individualism. In this sense an individualist is a person who believes that it is good, moral, admirable, proper, and so on, to disregard group contexts; and immoral, unpatriotic, reprehensible, and wicked not to disregard them. Actually it’s impossible to avoid group contexts, and the ideological individualist himself divides people into two groups: namely, individualists, who, like himself, are good people; and “collectivists,” who, like me, are bad people, akin to communists.

I’ve spoken with you in earlier broadcasts about the ideology of individualism, and today I want to focus more on some of the practical implications of the attitude. I’ll tell you first what prompted my choice of this subject today: Two weeks ago I said some unkind things about lawyers, judges, and our judicial system, and in response to that broadcast I received a couple of indignant letters from lawyers who told me that I was both unfair and inaccurate in my negative characterization of lawyers. Not all lawyers are soulless, money-grubbing crooks, they told me. Some lawyers are decent, honest, patriotic people, they told me. Some lawyers agree with me about most things, and it is foolish to alienate them by calling all lawyers crooks. I need their support, and I will lose it if I continue to insult them.

Well, I can’t really disagree with that. I personally know a few lawyers who aren’t crooks, and I certainly do want to retain their support. Looking at my broadcast of two weeks ago from an individualist viewpoint, it was both unfair and inaccurate. The individualist would say that I paint things with too broad a brush. I should say that some lawyers are crooks, and then the individualist will agree with me. Of course, the essence of my message two weeks ago was not that some lawyers are crooks; it was that the judicial system is corrupt. The system designed by lawyers and staffed by lawyers for the purpose of making and interpreting the laws is corrupt. The fact that every lawyer is in some sense a part of that system does not mean that every lawyer is corrupt. A few lawyers who are in the system are fighting against the system. I didn’t say that two weeks ago, because I wanted to keep my message simple and direct. I didn’t want to distract my listeners from the main thrust of the message with qualifications and quibbles. It’s an important message, and I wanted it to make the strongest possible impression on my listeners. I deliberately paint with a broad stroke.

Here’s another example of the way in which people looking at things from an individualist viewpoint misunderstand my message. I am often critical of the Christian churches, of their subservient collaboration with the Jews, of their encouragement of miscegenation and their other racially destructive policies. And some Christians who agree with my positions on the Jews and on race take offense at my comments regarding the overall role of Christianity in our society today, and they tell me, “Hey! I’m offended. All Christians aren’t race-mixers and collaborators with the Jews.” And of course, I understand that. I understand that there are many individual Christians who are good people, Christians who don’t run with the Jews, but what I was talking about was the overall role of Christianity and the Christian churches in our society, and that role today is destructive.

Another example: I often talk about the feminization of our society and the feminization of our young men, and I make it quite clear that I don’t approve of these things. This offends some women, who take what I say personally. An expression I used in one broadcast that offended several of my women listeners enough for them to send me indignant letters of protest was the phrase “college girls of both sexes.” The implication was that college girls are not to be taken more seriously than feminized college boys. At another time I stated that permitting women to vote was a terrible mistake, and again I received letters from women who indignantly told me that they vote more responsibly than many men they know. Well, I’m sure they do, but I was talking about the overall effect of women’s votes, and that has been very damaging to our society.

Of course, women as a rule take everything personally, and so I explain individually to those who protest that I do take women seriously, that I value and respect them, and that I love them — but that I also understand that despite all of the fascinating individual differences among them, all of them are profoundly different from men.

When I receive protests from lawyers and from male Christians, however, I see the individualist fallacy at work. Men should not look at the world as individualists. They should understand that it is not only natural and proper but necessary to judge other men according to the group of which they are a part. Just as people have individual characteristics, they also have collective characteristics, and to ignore the latter from fear of being considered a racist or a sexist or an anti-Semite or a homophobe is the worst sort of folly. When one is in a war one doesn’t judge the soldiers on the other side as individuals. One doesn’t hold one’s fire because the fellow in the enemy’s uniform who is charging with a rifle in his hands may really have wanted to be a conscientious objector instead of a combat infantryman. If he’s in the enemy’s uniform, one shoots at him.

We understand, of course, that not all Blacks are muggers or gang-bangers or armed robbers or HIV-infected rapists, just as we understand that not every Jew is a predator who is actively scheming to destroy our people after he has sucked us dry. When I look at a Black I may see a criminal or a welfare bum, or I may see an honest, hard-working person, but in either case I see a Black, and I understand what his race is doing to my race collectively. Even if an individual Black with whom I am dealing is friendly, intelligent, and moral, I would be a fool to expect him to join me in a campaign to put an end to what his race is doing to my race and my civilization collectively.

I sometimes am obliged to deal with Jews: much more often than with Blacks, in fact, because Jews collectively have arrogated to themselves so many positions of control and influence in our society. And I am able to distinguish among individual Jews. I see that many Jews with whom I deal are tricky and deceitful, but there are some who are straightforward and sincere, I believe. Many are really hateful, but occasionally I meet one who is almost likable. Yet I never forget what Jews collectively, as a whole, are doing and have done to my people collectively.

We must understand that we are in a planet-wide race-war, and the survival of our race depends on our winning this war. We won’t win by wasting our time trying to figure out who the friendly Blacks are and who the hostile ones are. We won’t win by refusing to talk about what the Jewish media bosses and the powerful Jewish organizations are doing to our people from fear that we may be unjustly casting suspicion on Jews who are simply minding their own business. We must deal with them collectively, and when the crunch comes that’s certainly the way they will deal with us.

In fact, that’s pretty much the way they already deal with us. When those gangs of Blacks were running wild through the Mardi Gras crowd in Seattle a couple of weeks ago, savagely attacking White people, they didn’t try to figure out which Whites were racists and which ones were diversity-loving, race-mixing liberals. Their cry was, “Let’s get a Whitey! We gonna kick some White ass tonight,” and they attacked any White target of opportunity they encountered.

The national media have successfully kept most of the country from hearing about the Fat Tuesday race riot in Seattle, and on that subject I have a few more thoughts to share with you. For one thing, I’ve been able to gather a little more information about what happened that night. Not only was there a series of vicious beatings and robberies of White men and women by gangs of rampaging Blacks, there also was a series of sexual assaults. The controlled media were even more eager to keep these covered up than the beatings and robberies, but the news is leaking out — in Seattle, at least.

It was very similar to what happened in New York’s Central Park last year, when a gang of Blacks and Puerto Ricans grabbed White women who were walking in the park, ripped their clothes off, squeezed their breasts, pushed fingers into their vaginas, and otherwise abused and humiliated them. Just as in New York, in Seattle it was very definitely racial, often with both Black males and Black females collaborating in the sexual abuse of White women, and it was very definitely hostile: the same Black gangs who were sexually abusing White women were viciously beating White women and White men. When it happened in Central Park the news got out; primarily, I think, because a couple of very loud Jewish feminists were among those abused. In Seattle it’s been covered up. But now it is coming out, after a fashion. I’ll read just one line from a March 12 article in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer about just one woman who was being held down and abused on Fat Tuesday while a news reporter filmed the scene: “At one point there are 19 hands — black, Asian, Hispanic — on her body.”

Now I want to talk with you more about something I touched on at the beginning of last week’s broadcast, and that’s the behavior of the White people in Seattle’s Mardi Gras crowd both before and during the riot. I should begin by saying that it wasn’t the way the local media and the Seattle police claimed it was, with hooligans of both races fighting it out. Whites did not attack Blacks. It was entirely Blacks attacking Whites. I have had a chance now to study videotape footage of the riot, and the one-sided nature of the racial attacks is quite clear.

What also is quite clear, however, is that many Whites in the crowd were acting like Blacks, and virtually all of the Whites were acting like lemmings. First, the Whites acting like Blacks: “wiggers” they are generally called, for an obvious reason. There were many young White men in the crowd wearing the backward baseball caps and baggy shorts that are the trademark uniform of the wigger. Pathetic souls that they are, they have been robbed of any natural sense of racial identity and racial community by this utterly sick and depraved society in which we live. And I mean deliberately robbed, with malice aforethought.

The Jewish media — and the public schools — have played especially reprehensible roles in this destructive, genocidal work. Everything that in healthier times helped give our young people a sense of collective racial identity and racial pride has been repudiated in the schools. The teaching of history and literature has become a joke. The Jews and the feminists and the egalitarians have ripped the guts out of everything in the schools that used to have White racial content. The multiculturalist ideologues think this is wonderful because it prepares our children to be world citizens in the New World Order of multiculturalism and diversity. For the multiculturalists it’s a religion. But the conservative Republicans who have made an ideology out of individualism think it’s fine too: at least, it’s not collectivism; it’s not racism.

But having a sense of collective identity, a sense of who we are and what group we belong to is what’s natural. We evolved with a need for this sense of collective identity. That’s the way we survived in the past. And so when the schools and the media rob the more lemming-like kids of their sense of identity, they look for a replacement. And the schools — and especially the Jewish media — have a ready-made replacement for them. They find it on Sumner Redstone’s MTV. They find it in Black History Month, where they are told that everyone of worth, from the ancient Egyptian pharaohs to the inventors of the helicopter and television, were Blacks. They find it in the glorification by the media of Black basketball players and other Black sports figures. They find it in the almost inescapable presence of Black music promoted by the media. And they are made to understand that if they wear a Confederate flag patch on their shirts they’ll be expelled from school. But it’s OK to wear a Malcolm X T-shirt to commemorate a Black hero who wrote about how much he wanted to kill Whites. And so we have wiggers imitating Blacks in clothing styles, in speech patterns, in musical taste, and in behavior. That’s why when we look at the video footage of Seattle’s Fat Tuesday riot we can see young White men acting like Blacks, smashing windows, vandalizing cars, sometimes fighting with normal Whites, pawing girls, and behaving in a generally animalistic way.

Then there are the rest of the Whites, the approximately normal Whites. Two things are notable about them. First, they weren’t expecting the Blacks to misbehave; they were completely surprised when the Blacks began attacking them. And second, they didn’t fight back. With the notable exception of 20-year-old Kris Kime, who was murdered by the Blacks for behaving the way a White man should behave, they didn’t even try to protect their own women. They just stood around and gaped at what was happening. To me these two things are far more disturbing than what the Blacks did.

So why were the more-or-less normal Whites surprised when the Blacks began behaving like Blacks? Why weren’t they expecting that? Haven’t we had enough experience with Black behavior in America yet?

And, of course, the answer to that is that the normal Whites are just as much lemmings as the wiggers. The wiggers just show it in a more degenerate fashion. The wiggers are usually the lower-IQ lemmings — the lower-class, more impressionable lemmings. But the normal lemmings, most of them less than 30 years old, have been conditioned all their lives, just like the wiggers, by the Jewish media, by the schools, by the government, and by the Christian churches to believe that Blacks are the same as Whites, except a little darker. Really, most young Americans believe that, and they’re surprised every time reality conflicts with their belief. Every day I receive letters from distressed young lemmings who have heard one of my broadcasts or visited my Web site. They whine at me, “Why can’t you see that we’re all the same? Don’t you understand that the only difference between us and Blacks is skin color? Don’t you know that the only race is the human race? The scientists have proved it!”

And really, they all sound pretty much alike. They have had these lies drilled into their heads, and they parrot them back at me. And some of these lemmings are reasonably bright, educated people. They really believe that scientists have proved that there is no difference between Blacks and Whites. And, I am sorry to say, some scientists have contributed to this false belief, either because they are lemmings themselves and want to show that they are Politically Correct, or because they hope to improve their chances of getting another government research grant. Some of the scientists associated with the human genome project, for example, have been quoted by the media as saying that the mapping of the human genome supports the notion that racial differences are insignificant. There is only a fraction of a percent difference between the genomes for Whites and for Blacks they say. The genomes for the various races are far more similar than they are different.

What they don’t say, of course, is that there is only a fraction of a per cent difference between the genome for White people and that for chimpanzees. In fact, there is only a very small percentage difference among the genomes for all the species of mammals. Most of the mammalian genome, whether it is for a White person or a rat or a Negro or a dog, contains instructions for how to synthesize hair and skin and nails and bone and milk and teeth and nerve tissue and so on. Nearly all of the mammalian genome is taken up with these instructions that are pretty much the same for all mammals. Only a tiny fraction of the mammalian genome is different for each species. But that tiny fraction of the mammalian genome that specifies whether the hair and skin and bone and other tissues will become a White person or a rat or a Negro or a dog is important. The differences, small though they may seem compared to the similarities, are significant. Except to lemmings, of course, who really don’t get it.

White women baring their breasts in the presence of Black males is an indication of just how lemming- like the normal Whites are. Even back in Christian times, when the Mardi Gras festival was a much more significant thing than it is today, there was a sexual flavor to much of the revelry. But if a woman bared her breasts in a village Mardi Gras festival in those times, 200 or 300 years ago, say, there were only Whites present, only members of her own tribe, her own racial family, and she could reasonably expect that she would not be sexually assaulted. There’s an enormous difference between that and exposing herself to non-Whites. But lemmings have been conditioned not to understand that. And so they really were surprised when the Blacks in the crowd began behaving like Blacks.

It is not only the lie that we are all the same, that there are no significant differences between us and Blacks, that made the Whites in Seattle such easy victims for the Blacks. It also is the abominable doctrine of the ideological individualists that it is immoral to judge people collectively, the racially destructive doctrine that it is immoral to deal with rioting Blacks collectively. The individualists have preached that we should look only at individuals committing crimes against other individuals, and we should shut our eyes to the fact of Blacks committing crimes collectively against Whites. The individualists have preached that for Whites even to notice what Blacks collectively are doing to Whites collectively, whether in a Mardi Gras festival or in our public schools or anywhere else is wicked; it is racist. It is wicked to notice what the collective Black presence in our society is doing to our society, to our civilization. We must judge each Black individually; we must not organize a White posse and begin cracking Black skulls when we see Backs collectively rampaging against our fellow Whites, the way they did in Seattle.

These liberal doctrines are poisonous, racially destructive doctrines, both the doctrine of equality and the doctrine of individualism. Of course, there’s more to it: there is the general softness, the generally feminized condition, of young White males these days. And there was the presence of the wiggers in the crowd, blurring the distinction between Whites and Blacks. Altogether, as a race we are in pretty sorry shape. It’s really dangerous, and we need to do something about it. Get in touch with me, and I’ll tell you what you and I together can do.

The Hossbach ‘Protocol’: The Destruction of a Legend

A Review

By Mark Weber

Published: 1983-10-01

Source: http://codoh.com/library/document/2057/

Hitler, we’re told over and over again, set out to conquer the world, or at least Europe. At the great postwar Nuremberg Tribunal the victorious Allies sought to prove that Hitler and his “henchmen” had engaged in a sinister “Conspiracy to Wage Aggresive War.” The most important piece of evidence produced to sustain this charge was and is a document known as the “Hossbach Protocol” or “Hossbach Memorandum.”

On 5 November 1937, Hitler called a few high officials together for a conference in the Reich Chancellery in Berlin: War Minister Werner von Blomberg, Army Commander Werner von Fritsch, Navy Commander Erich Raeder, Air Force Commander Hermann Goering, and Foreign Minister Konstantin von Neurath. Also present was Hitler’s Army adjutant, Colonel Count Friedrich Hossbach.

Five days later, Hossbach wrote up an unauthorized record of the meeting based on memory. He did not take notes during the conference. Hossbach claimed after the war that he twice asked Hitler to read the memorandum, but the Chancellor replied that he had no time. Apparently none of the other participants even knew of the existence of the Colonel’s conference record. Nor did they consider the meeting particularly important.

A few months after the conference, Hossbach was transferred to another position. His manuscript was filed away with many other papers and forgotten. In 1943 German general staff officer Colonel Count Kirchbach found the manuscript while going through the file and made a copy for himself. Kirchbach left the Hossbach original in the file and gave his copy to his brother-inlaw, Victor von Martin, for safe keeping. Shortly after the end of the war, Martin turned over this copy to the Allied occupation authorities, who used it to produce a substantially altered version for use as incriminating evidence at Nuremberg. Sentences such as those quoting Hitler as saying that “The German question can only be solved by force” were invented and inserted. But over all, the document presented at Nuremberg is less than half the length of the original Hossbach manuscript. Both the original written by Hossbach and the Kirchbach/Martin copy have completely (and conveniently) disappeared.

According to the Hossbach document presented at Nuremberg and widely quoted ever since, Hitler told those present that his remarks were to be regarded as a “final testament” in case of his death. The most incriminating section quotes Hitler as saying that the armed forces would have to act by 1943-45 at the latest to secure the “living space” (“Lebensraum”) Germany needed. However, if France became weakened by internal crisis before that time, Germany should take action against Czechia (Bohemia and Moravia). Or if France became so embroiled in war (probably with Italy) that she could not take action against Germany, then Germany should seize Czechia and Austria simultaneously. Hitler’s alleged references to German “living space” refer only to Austria and Czechia.

When Hitler came to power in 1933, Germany was militarily at the mercy of hostile foreign states. Rearmament had begun slowly, and in early 1937, because of a raw materials shortage, the three armed service branches had to cut back. A furious dispute broke out between the branches for the remaining allocation.

Contrary to what the Hossbach protocol suggests, Hitler called the conference of 5 November 1937 partially to reconcile the squabbling heads of the military branches and partially to revive the German rearmament program. Foreign policy was only a subsidiary issue. Hitler sought to justify the need for rebuilding German armed strength by presenting several exaggerated and hypothetical foreign crisis cases which would require military action, none of which ever occurred. Hitler announced no new course in German foreign policy, much less a plan for aggressive war.

At Nuremberg Goering testified that Hitler told him privately just before the conference that the main purpose in calling the meeting was “to put pressure on General von Fritsch, since he (Hitler) was dissatisfied with the rearmament of the army.” Raeder confirmed Goering’s statement.

Like some other aristocratic and traditionalist conservatives, Hossbach became a bitter opponent of Hitler and the National Socialist regime. He was an intimate friend of General Ludwig Beck, who was executed in 1944 for his leading role in the conspiracy which tried to assassinate Hitler and overthrow the government. Despite his postwar denial, it is virtually certain that Hossbach prepared his slanted version of the conference at Beck’s urging for possible use in discrediting the Hitler regime following a coup d’etat. Hossbach was also close to Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, head of military intelligence, and General Ziehlberg, both of whom were also executed for their roles in the 1944 assassination plot. Even in early 1938 Hossbach, Beck and Canaris were in favor of a coup to forcibly overthrow Hitler.

The Hossbach memorandum is frequently cited in popular historical works as conclusive proof of Hitler’s plans for aggressive war. A good example is William Shirer’s best-selling but unreliable Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which alleged that the protocol recorded “the decisive turning point in the life of the Third Reich.” At this critical conference, Shirer wrote, “… the die was cast. Hitler had communicated his irrevocable decision to go to war. To the handful of men who would have to direct it there could no longer by any doubt.” Like many other Germanophobe publicists, Shirer deceptively cites the Hossbach memorandum as a reliable record. He even distorts the actual wartime importance of the conference participants. Of the five top officials present, three (Blomberg, Fritsch, Neurath) lost their high positions within months of the meeting. Raeder was replaced as Navy Commander in January 1943. Only Goering was really close to Hitler.

The important role of the fraudulent Hossbach protocol at the Nuremberg Tribunal is another damning confirmation of the illegitimate, show-trial character of this most extravagant judicial undertaking in history. On the basis of the protocol, which became Nuremberg document 386-PS, the Tribunal indictment declared: “An influential group of the Nazi conspirators met together with Hitler on 5 November 1937 to discuss the situation. Once again it was emphasized that Germany must have living space in Central Europe. They recognized that such a conquest would probably meet resistance that would have to be beaten down with force, and that their decision would probably lead to a general war.” U.S. prosecutor Sidney Alderman told the Tribunal that the memorandum (“one of the most striking and revealing of all the captured documents”) removed any remaining doubts about the guilt of the German leaders for their crimes against peace. It was also the basis for the conclusion of the Nuremberg judges that the German “Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War” began at the conference of 5 November 1937. The document was crucial in condemning Goering, Neurath and Raeder for their roles in the “criminal conspiracy.” The spurious Hossbach protocol is all too typical of the kind of evidence used by the victorious Allies at Nuremberg to legitimize their judicial imprisonment and murder of defeated Germany’s leaders.

There is now no doubt that the Hossbach protocol is worthless as a historical document. After the war both Hossbach and Kirchbach declared that the U.S. prosecution version is quite different than the document manuscript they recalled. Hossbach also testified at Nuremberg that he could not confirm that the prosecution version corresponded completely with the manuscript he wrote in 1937. And in his memoirs, he admitted that in any case, Hitler did not outline any kind of “war plan” at the meeting. At Nuremberg, Goering, Raeder, Blomberg and Neurath all denounced the Hossbach protocol as a gross misrepresentation of the conference. (Fritsch was dead.) The protocol deals only with the first half of the meeting, thereby distorting its true character. The memorandum concludes with the simple sentence: “The second half of the conference dealt with material armaments questions.” No details are given. In 1968 Victor von Martin characterized the memorandum with these words: “The protocol presented at the Nuremberg court was put together in such a way as to totally change the meaning [of the original] and can therefore be characterized only as a crude forgery.”

When he wrote his path-breaking study, The Origins of the Second World War, A.J.P. Taylor accepted the Hossbach memorandum as a faithful record of the meeting of 5 November 1937. However, in a supplementary “Second Thoughts” added to later editions, the renowned British historian admitted that he had initially been “taken in” by the “legend” of the document. The allegedly significant conference was actually “a maneuver in domestic affairs.” The protocol itself, Taylor noted, “contains no directives for action beyond a wish for increased armaments.” He ruefully observed that “those who believe in political trials may go on quoting the Hossbach memorandum.” H.W. Koch, a Lecturer at the University of York (England), further dismantled the legend in a 1968 article which concluded that the infamous protocol would be “inadmissible in any other court except the Nuremberg tribunal.”

Dankwart Kluge has made a valuable contribution to our understanding of the origins of the Second World War. His study will stand for many years as the most authoritative dissection of a great documentary fraud. This attractive work includes the complete text of the Hossbach protocol as an appendix, four photos, and a comprehensive bibliography. The author was born in 1944 in Breslau (Wroclaw), Silesia. Since 1974 he has worked as an attorney in West Berlin. Kluge has done an admirable job of assembling his material, which is drawn not only from all the available published and documentary sources, but also from numerous private interviews and correspondence with key witnesses. Kluge argues his case compellingly, although the narrative style is somewhat weak. This important study leaves no doubt that the highly touted protocol is actually a forged revision of an uncertified copy of an unauthorized original, which has disappeared. Harry Elmer Barnes, to whom the work is dedicated, would have welcomed it heartily.

– Mark Weber

The Leo Frank Case

Compiled by Charles Pou

Source: http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-leaders-frank-leo-frank-case.html

Leo Frank

Biographical Notes

Leo Frank was born April 17, 1884 in Cuero, Texas to Rudolph and Rae Frank. Within a few months, the family moved to Brooklyn, where Leo grew up. He graduated from Cornell University in 1906, earning a degree in mechanical engineering. In December of 1907, Frank went to Europe for a nine-month apprenticeship in pencil manufacturing. In August of 1908 he moved to Atlanta to assume the supervision of the National Pencil Factory. Two years later, in October 1910, Frank married Lucille Selig of Atlanta. The couple lived with Lucille’s parents. By the year 1913 the Jewish community in Atlanta was the largest in the South; Leo Frank was serving as president of the Atlanta chapter of B’nai B’rith, while maintaining his position as supervisor of the National Pencil Factory. At the time of Mary Phagan’s murder, he was twenty-nine years old and had supervised the factory for almost five years.

Mary Phagan was born on June 1, 1900 to John and Frances Phagan in Marietta, Ga. Her father died when she was young; her mother eventually re-married to J.W. Coleman. They resided briefly in Alabama before moving back to Marietta. Mary Phagan was employed by the National Pencil Factory to operate a machine which placed metal tips on pencils. Mary had been temporarily laid off in April of 1913, because a shipment of metal to make the tips was late in arriving. She was due $1.20 in wages, which she went to collect on Confederate Memorial Day, April 26, 1913.

Chronology

Murder, Investigation, Arrest, Indictment – April 26-May 25, 1913
Pre-Trial Reports – May 26-July 27, 1913
Trial, July 28-August 26, 1913
Appeals, Commutation, Lynching
Pardon
Links to other Leo Frank sites and Printed Sources
Murder, Investigation, Arrest, Indictment

April 26, 1913 – Mary Phagan, an employee of the National Pencil Factory in Atlanta, was murdered sometime after picking up her wages from the factory.

April 27, 1913 – Arthur Mullinax, an ex-street car driver, and Newt Lee, the night watchman at the National Pencil factory, were both arrested on suspicion of being implicated in the murder of Mary Phagan. Lee was African American and was the man who discovered her body soaked with blood, with two scrawled notes lying nearby. Mullinax had frequently driven Phagan to and from work; he was arrested because a witness claimed to have seen the two together Saturday, with Phagan appearing to be dazed or drugged. Both men declared their innocence.

April 28, 1913 – two more men were arrested on suspicion of being involved with the murder of Mary Phagan. One was John Gantt, a former bookkeeper at the National Pencil Factory, who had openly admired Phagan. He was arrested in Marietta with a packed suitcase, waiting to board a train. The second man arrested was an unnamed African American. The Atlanta Constitution published an appeal, along with a reward of $1000, for anyone who had seen Mary Phagan after noon on April 26 to come forward. Meanwhile police had to disperse a white mob threatening to lynch Newt Lee, the night watchman who had discovered Phagan’s body and was also under suspicion. In a side note to the investigation, the superintendent of the National Pencil Factory was questioned perfunctorily in the case, then expressed his unhappiness with the investigation’s progress, so he personally brought in a Pinkerton’s detective to aid in the investigation. This was the first mention of the superintendent, Leo Frank, in the information released to the public.

April 29, 1913 – Mary Phagan was buried; her mother was overcome with grief several times during the ceremonies. Most of the suspicion continued to fall on Newt Lee, though Leo Frank was brought in again for more detailed questioning. After his interrogation, Frank questioned Lee himself. A bloody shirt had been found in Lee’s home; he claimed it was his own blood from an injury. The reward for information leading to the conviction of the murderer was raised to $2200 – $1000 from the Atlanta Constitution, $1000 from the city of Atlanta, and $200 from the state. One of the detectives released the following statement: “We have sufficient evidence to convict the murderers of Mary Phagan. More arrests will be made before daybreak. The mystery is cleared.” No names were mentioned.

April 30, 1913 – at an inquest into the death of Mary Phagan, more suspicion began to fall on Leo Frank. George Epps, a fifteen year old friend of Mary Phagan, testified that Phagan was afraid of Frank because he had flirted and made advances toward her. Newt Lee testified that Frank was nervous the day of the murder and had telephoned to see if everything was OK at the factory – not his usual practice. But two mechanics who had worked on the top floor of the factory that morning disputed Lee’s story, saying Frank had acted normally.

May 1, 1913 – Arthur Mullinax and John Gantt were released, no longer suspects in the murder of Mary Phagan. Newt Lee and Leo Frank were still being held. Although the local media did not know (or at least did not report) it, another employee of the National Pencil Factory was arrested around 2:00 the afternoon of May 1. Jim Conley, a sweeper at the factory, was discovered trying to rinse out a soiled shirt in the basement. Upon further examination, the stains turned out to be blood.

May 2, 1913 – In talks with an Atlanta Constitution reporter, both Newt Lee and Leo Frank strongly insisted they were innocent of Mary Phagan’s murder; Frank was confident his name would be cleared in the process of the investigation.

May 3, 1913 – Detectives investigating Mary Phagan’s murder had a new problem; two impostors posing as Pinkerton detectives had interviewed George Epps (Phagan’s friend who had reported she was afraid of Leo Frank) and Phagan’s mother.

May 5, 1913 – Lemmie Quinn, foreman of Mary Phagan’s work area at the National Pencil Factory, testified he saw Leo Frank the Saturday of the murder and that all was perfectly normal. Furthermore he knew Frank well and was certain that he was not guilty of the murder. But detectives accused him of accepting a bribe from Frank to make those statements, an accusation Quinn firmly denied. Meanwhile several witnesses had come forward to say they had seen a girl resembling Phagan at the Confederate Memorial Day parade that Saturday afternoon; she appeared to be drugged. So the decision was made to exhume Phagan’s body and search her stomach for signs of drugs.

May 6, 1913 – a second exhumation of Mary Phagan’s body took place, this time to look for fingerprints; a fingerprint expert had been called in to help with the case.

May 7, 1913 – the blood on Newt Lee’s shirt was determined to be not more than a month old. The wife of one of the mechanics who had testified on April 30 said she visited her husband at the factory that day and saw a “strange Negro” boarding the elevator as she left around 1:00 PM. Detectives on the case said someone was planting false evidence and trying to block the investigation.

May 8, 1913 – a coroner’s jury ordered Newt Lee and Leo Frank to be held under the charge of murder of MaryPhagan. Several women and girls had come forward to say Frank had made improper advances to them in the past. Whiledetectives still expressed confidence in solving the case, they also admitted all the evidence they had up to that point wascircumstantial.

May 9, 1913 – Fourteen year old Monteen Stover said she had arrived at the National Pencil Factory around 12:05 PM (roughly the same time as Mary Phagan had arrived) and that Leo Frank was not in his office. This contradicted Frank’s testimony that he had been in his office the entire time in which it was thought Phagan had been murdered. Another woman reported that she was walking outside the factory around 4:30 PM when she heard three piercing screams come from the basement of the building.

May 10, 1913 – the Atlanta Constitution reported that Robert House, an ex-policeman, had said he once caught Leo Frank and a young girl in the woods at Druid Hills park engaging in immoral acts. According to House, Frank had pleaded with him not to report the incident. This story was later proven to be false.

May 11, 1913 – officials of the National Pencil Factory told Pinkerton detectives to find the murderer of Mary Phagan, no matter who it might be, this despite Leo Frank having brought in the Pinkerton detective in the first place. A mysterious “girl in red” was rumored to have said, in a Marietta grocery store, that she was with Phagan on the day of the murder. After scouring the neighborhood and not finding the girl, detectives concluded the story was a hoax.

May 12, 1913 – an Atlanta Constitution reporter in Brooklyn interviewed Mrs. Rudolph Frank, Leo Frank’s mother. She said “My son is entirely innocent, but it is a terrible thing that even a shadow of suspicion should fall upon him. I am sure of his innocence and am confident that he will be proven not guilty of this terrible crime.”

May 13, 1913 -detectives investigating the murder of Mary Phagan were reported to be on the verge of making a new arrest “which would throw an entirely new light upon the case.” Meanwhile rumors were swirling about the notes found near the body of Mary Phagan; samples of her handwriting had been collected and handwriting experts brought in.

May 14, 1913 – an identification slip had been found in Mary Phagan’s pocketbook. It read “My name is Mary Phagan. I live at 146 Lindsey Street, near Bellwood and Asby Streets.” Hugh Dorsey, the solicitor working the case, theorized that Phagan did this either because she had been threatened with violence previously or that she had a premonition of her death.

May 15, 1913 – the Atlanta Constitution began a fund raising drive to bring William J. Burns, America’s most famous and successful detective, into the Mary Phagan investigation. Burns was in Europe, but was rumored to interested in the case.

May 16, 1913 – investigators in the Mary Phagan murder case searched the National Pencil Factory looking for scraps of rope or twine. Hugh Dorsey, solicitor in the case, said the knot tied around Mary Phagan’s neck was intricate and inexplicable – it must have been tied by a professional. Over $1500 had already been raised to bring William J. Burns into the case; Thomas Felder, the attorney responsible for bring in the Burns Agency, said: “We will catch the guilty man and we won’t be long about it. I am confident of success. Mary Phagan’s murder will be cleared in less than a month.”

May 17, 1913 – rumors continued to abound that more arrests were imminent in the Mary Phagan murder case. Also, there were public breaches and conflicts forming between the detectives on the case and the solicitor’s staff. Atlanta’s police chief said he had documentary evidence which would convict Mary Phagan’s murderer, but refused to release it to the public.

May 18, 1913 – Thomas Felder claimed to have turned a new piece of evidence in the Mary Phagan case, but it was not revealed to the public. The Atlanta Constitution also reported that Atlanta police were questioning a new suspect in the case and had asked him for handwriting samples. The new suspect was James Connolly (sic), a sweeper at the factory, who had been arrested “several days earlier” (actually on May 1) when he was discovered rinsing a soiled shirt at the pencil factory. The stains on the shirt turned out to be blood. Jim Conley would turn out to be the prosecution’s lead witness in its case against Leo Frank; Conley was also the man who had actually committed the murder, according to Alonzo Mann, a thirteen year old employee of the factory. Mann, in a story he did not tell until 1982, claimed he saw Conley carrying Phagan’s body at the factory that day; Conley threatened Mann with death if he ever was to report what he had seen. Mann’s mother advised him to keep quiet, which he did for almost seventy years.

May 19, 1913 – an investigator from the William J. Burns agency arrived in Atlanta to assist in the investigation of Mary Phagan’s murder. New rumors stated up (as they did almost daily), this one that a telephone operator had heard two men discussing their involvement in the murder. Like most rumors surrounding this case, this one turned out to be false.

May 20, 1913 – P.A. Flak, a fingerprint expert from New York, visited the Mary Phagan crime scene with solicitor Hugh Dorsey. Later, Flak took fingerprints from both Newt Lee and Leo Frank. C.W. Toble, the investigator from the Burns Detective Agency, said he was convinced Newt Lee was innocent of the crime.

May 21, 1913 – Solicitor Hugh Dorsey announced that he would go before the grand jury on May 23rd and ask for indictments against both Newt Lee and Leo Frank, but that the evidence presented would concentrate on Frank.

May 22, 1913 – a new controversy arose in the Mary Phagan murder investigation. Phagan’s step father signed an affidavit accusing Thomas Felder, the attorney responsible for bringing the Burns Detective Agency into the case, of approaching him about allowing Felder to prosecute the case. Detectives presented transcripts of dictograph recordings in which Felder had offered them $1000 for access to the case evidence.

May 23, 1913 – a grand jury took only ten minutes to hand down a murder indictment against Leo Frank; no action wastaken or requested against Newt Lee.

May 25, 1913 – details of Hugh Dorsey’s presentation to the grand jury in the Leo Frank case were beginning to emerge. No bill of indictment had been handed down against Newt Lee; all the evidence presented was aimed at Frank. Neither of the statements given by Frank or Lee were mentioned. Jim Conley had not been called to testify, nor had the notes found near Phagan’s body been presented. The undertaker who embalmed Phagan’s body said there was evidence of sexual assault, but the county physician said there was not sufficient evidence to make such a claim. Meanwhile, Newt Lee’s attorney requested that he be kept in custody, for fear the murderer of Mary Phagan would try to influence his testimony.

Pre-Trial Reports

May 26, 1913 – despite intense questioning by detectives, Jim Conley stuck to his story that he wrote the notes found near the body of Mary Phagan, but at the order of Leo Frank.There was little doubt that he did write the notes, but police continued to investigate the circumstances under which they were written.

May 27, 1913 – the detective from the Burns Agency, called in to help the investigation into Mary Phagan’s murder, withdrew from the case, citing continued fighting among the police, mayor’s office, solicitor’s office, and the attorney who had brought him into the case. On another note, Mrs Arthur White, who had testified on May 7 that she saw a “strange Negro” lurking near the elevator of the National Pencil Factory around 1:00 PM after visiting her husband, identified the man she saw as Jim Conley.

May 28, 1913 – Samples of the handwriting of Leo Frank, Newt Lee, and Jim Conley were released, along with a portion of one of the notes found near Mary Phagan’s body. Jim Conley had admittedly written the notes, but on this day he changed his story dramatically. Previously he had claimed Frank asked him to write the notes on Friday, the day preceding the murder. Now he claimed he wrote them on Frank’s order after the murder. He added Frank had asked him to watch at the bottom of the stairs

leading to Frank’s office, but he (Conley) had fallen asleep until he heard Frank whistle. When he went to Frank’s office Frankwas shaking so badly he had to hold onto Conley for support. Then, according to Conley, Frank had asked him to write the notesand muttered the ominous phrase “Why should I hang?”

May 29, 1913 – officials of the National Pencil Factory claimed they believed Jim Conley was the true murderer of Mary Phagan. Atlanta detectives said they believed Conley’s story, though admitting it had changed several times and still had many inconsistencies.

May 30, 1913 – police took Jim Conley to the National Pencil Factory, where he went over every detail of his story of the day of the murder, including how he and Leo Frank had together loaded Mary Phagan’s body onto the elevator and brought it to the basement. Though no one realized it at the time, there was a major flaw in Conley’s story.He had told detectives he had defecated into the elevator shaft earlier that Saturday morning. But when police first investigating the murder took the elevator down the pile of feces left by Conley had been “fresh,” that is unmashed. If Conley and Frank had indeed taken the elevator down with Phagan’s body, the feces would already have been flattened. The police and Frank’sattorneys failed to notice this glaring mistake in Conley’s testimony.

May 31, 1913 – Jim Conley was interviewed for two hours by solicitor Hugh Dorsey, preparing to prosecute Leo Frank for the murder of Mary Phagan. Conley was then returned to police headquarters where he would be readily available for further questioning; despite the police believing Frank was guilty of the murder, they were still concerned over the “flaws and rough places” in Conley’s story.

June 2, 1913 – the Atlanta Journal reported that Leo Frank’s defense would insist the elevator in the National Pencil Factorywas not moved on the day of the murder (April 26) and that the murder happened on the first floor, not the second as surmised by detectives; the blood found on the second floor likely came from workers who frequently cut themselves on the machinery there. Furthermore, the defense would argue that Jim Conley alone committed the murder.This was what actually happened, according to Alonzo Mann’s story told in 1982. There was evidence that the elevator had not been moved (see May 30 entry);though the police and defense attorneys apparently overlooked it. Meanwhile, Minola McKnight, the African-American cook for LeoFrank’s family, was brought in for questioning. At first she corroborated Frank’s story concerning the times he arrived home forlunch and then returned to the factory the day of the murder. She was agitated, believing her estranged husband had been telling lies to the police to get her in trouble. She said both she and Frank were innocent.

June 3, 1913 – Minola McKnight, after spending the night in jail and after intense questioning, signed a statement saying Leo frank was very nervous and drinking heavily the night after the murder of Mary Phagan. She said she overheard Frank’s wife say he made her sleep on the rug and kept asking for his pistol so he could shoot himself. Frank had told her “It is mighty bad, Minola. I might have to go to jail about this girl, and I don’t know anything about it.” Finally she said her wages had been raised as a “tip to keep quiet.”

June 4, 1913 – Leo Frank’s wife released a statement insisting her husband was innocent of the murder of Mary Phagan, and accused solicitor Hugh Dorsey of “torturing” witnesses to give false incriminating evidence against Frank. She said, in part, “the action of the solicitor general in arresting and imprisoning our family cook because she would not voluntarily make a falsestatement against my innocent husband, brings a limit to patience.”

June 5, 1913 – responding to the statement of Lucille Frank the previous day, solicitor Hugh Dorsey released his own statement denying any wrongdoing in arresting and questioning witnesses in the Mary Phagan murder case.

June 7, 1913 – Lucille Frank renewed her charges that solicitor Hugh Dorsey was using third degree questioning tactics to gain false evidence against her husband in the murder of Mary Phagan. Frank said their cook, Minola McKnight, had been arrested illegally because she was not a suspect in any crime. The Atlanta Journal also reported that no indictment would be sought against Jim Conley until Frank’s trial was completed. If Frank was found guilty, then Conley might escape prosecution (he eventually received a one-year sentence); if Frank were acquitted, then first degree murder charges would be filed against Conley. Investigators on the case had discovered several cases of violence in Conley’s background, including shooting at his wife and threatening a former employer with a gun.

June 9, 1913 – the Atlanta Journal reported that the prosecution’s case against Leo Frank in the murder of Mary Phagan was complete and that no further questioning of Jim Conley was anticipated before the trial. But R.P. Barrett, a foreman at the National Pencil Factory, was quoted as saying he and “practically all” the factory’s employees believed Conley was the guilty party.

June 10, 1913 – Luther Z. Rosser, Leo Frank’s defense attorney in the Mary Phagan murder case, publicly accused the police chief had “banked his sense and reputation as both a man and politician on Frank’s guilt.” He added that if the police had approached the investigation with an open mind, Jim Conley would have already told the whole truth.

June 11, 1913 – Solicitor Hugh Dorsey requested that Jim Conley be released from custody, but his petition was refused by Judge L.S Roan. Dorsey submitted the request because Roan had indicated that Conley should be moved to the Fulton County Jail (popularly known as The Tower) instead of being held at Atlanta police headquarters. At headquarters both Dorsey and detectives on the case had ready access to Conley, who had changed his story several times. At The Tower, access to Conley would be much more difficult.

June 13, 1913 – after a brief hearing Judge L.S. Roan released Jim Conley from custody. He was immediately re-arrested as a material witness to the Mary Phagan murder case and would be kept at Atlanta police headquarters, where detectives and solicitor Hugh Dorsey wanted him – so they could easily interview him whenever needed.

June 21, 1913 – Prominent Atlanta attorney Reuben Arnold announced that he had joined Leo Frank’s defense team. In his statement Arnold said he had reviewed all the evidence and was convinced of Frank’s innocence, adding that he would not agree to represent him otherwise. While Arnold did not directly accuse Jim Conley of the murder of Mary Phagan, he did say Conley’s story had no credence in regards to Frank then added: “I do not believe that any white man committed this crime.”

June 22, 1913 – solicitor Hugh Dorsey announced that Leo Frank’s trial would begin June 30. The trial was later delayed until July 28.

June 24, 1913 – Georgia senator Hoke Smith denied rumors he had been approached about and was considering aiding in Leo Frank’s defense. The rumors spread after defense attorney Luther Rosser and National Pencil Company president Ike Haas stopped in Washington, D.C. en route to New York.

June 28, 1913 – John M. Slaton was inaugurated as governor of Georgia.

July 18, 1913 – Amidst persistent rumors that the Pinkerton detectives involved in the Mary Phagan murder case had changed their minds and now believed Jim Conley was the guilty party, a grand jury meeting was called to consider indicting Conley. Harry Scott, the Pinkerton detective heading the investigation for his form, was denied access to interview Conley. Hugh Dorsey, the solicitor general prosecuting the case against Leo Frank, spoke out strongly against indicting Conley.

July 19, 1913 – Leo Frank’s attorneys publicly condemned Hugh Dorsey for his stand against indicting Jim Conley for the murder of Mary Phagan.

July 21, 1913 – a grand jury postponed indicting Jim Conley for the murder of Mary Phagan – at least until Leo Frank’s trial was completed. This decision was reached after a one and one-half hour presentation before the grand jury by prosecutor Hugh Dorsey. Judge L.S. Roan, set to hear the case, said he would consider postponing the trial if the weather remained so hot; the temperature had reached 99 degrees the previous day.

July 23, 1913 – Jim Conley and Newt Lee were brought together by Hugh Dorsey and staff to go over their testimonies for the Leo Frank trial, set to begin July 28.

July 24, 1913 – a group of 144 men were selected, from which the jury in the Leo Frank trial would be drawn.

July 26, 1913 – both groups of attorneys were making their final preparations for the trial of Leo Frank, set to begin July 28. Other attorneys questioned agreed this would be the “greatest legal battle of Southern history.”

July 27, 1913 – Judge L.S. Roan, would had been ill the previous week, announced he was fine and would call the Leo Frank trial beginning at 9:00 the following morning.

Trial

July 28, 1913 – trial of Leo Frank began. A jury was quickly selected and seated. The first witness called was Mrs. J.W. Coleman, mother of Mary Phagan. She managed to stay collected during most of her testimony, but finally broke down in tears when asked to identify the clothes her daughter had worn on the day she was murdered. Next on the stand was George Epps, a thirteen year old boy who also worked at the National Pencil Factory. He had ridden the streetcar with Phagan the morning of April 26th, and the two had agreed to meet for an ice cream and to watch the Confederate Memorial Day Parade at 1:00 that afternoon. When Mary didn’t show, Epps went to a baseball game. The final witness on this day was Newt Lee, the night watchman who discovered Mary Phagan’s body and telephoned police. He testified for over two hours, telling the same story he had told police, that he noticed the body when he went into the basement to the restroom. He also told of Leo Frank being nervous because of the presence of John Gantt, who had been recently dismissed from the factory. That night, Frank called Lee to ask if everything was alright, an unusual practice for him.

July 29, 1913 – this was the second day of the trial of Leo Frank. Newt Lee, the night watchman who discovered Mary Phagan’s body, concluded his testimony by repeating his story for the defense. Altogether Lee spent four hours and forty-five minutes on the stand. The next witness was police Sgt. L.S. Dobbs, who took Lee’s phone call and rushed to the factory. He said he found the body in the basement, face down, with a cord tied tightly around the neck, and a pair of women’s underpants tied loosely around the neck. The back of the head was covered in blood. He also found two notes, her shoes, and a trail where the body was dragged to its location. Detective John Starnes then took the stand. He had called Leo Frank to inform him of the murder, and said Frank appeared extremely nervous when he arrived at the factory. The highlight of the day was strong verbal clashes between solicitor Hugh Dorsey (prosecuting the case) and defense attorney Luther Rosser over Rosser’s attempts to discredit the testimony of Starnes.

July 30, 1913 – this was the third day of the Leo Frank trial, and a good day for the defense. Detective John Black, who had obtained most of the evidence against Leo Frank, seemed confused and openly admitted being “mixed-up” over portions of his testimony. He contradicted himself numerous times and said he could not remember significant details of the case. Finally, he even admitted that he couldn’t be sure of what he had testified to previously. The defense was jubilant after his testimony. Others testified on this day as well; W.W. (Boots) Rogers testified that Leo Frank never saw Mary Phagan’s body at the undertaker’s; Frank had said he did. Grace Hicks, another factory employee, recalled how she was called to identify the body. She also said she had worked at the factory for five years and had only spoken to Leo Frank three times. Finally John Gantt, whom Frank had discharged from the factory for a shortage in a pay envelope, testified that he simply returned to the factory April 26th to retrieve a pair of shoes he had left there. The first three days of the trial were noted for standing room only crowds, with many gathered outside to hear news, as well as sweltering heat, with temperatures in the upper 90s. The temperature remained extremely hot throughout the trial.

July 31, 1913 – this was the fourth day in the trial of Leo Frank. R.B. Barrett, a machinist at the factory, provided new information when he said he had found Mary Phagan’s empty pay envelope and bloodstains near a machine on the factory’s second floor. Heretofore, no mention had been made of the missing pay envelope. The main witness of the day was Harry Scott, Pinkerton detective in charge of their investigation of the case. He angered both sides during his testimony. He said Frank did not appear nervous on the Monday following the murder (it was Frank who brought Scott into the case), but was uneasy after his arrest. This angered solicitor Hugh Dorsey, who argued that Scott had told him previously Frank was nervous at the factory on Monday. Scott then angered defense attorneys when he asserted one of them had asked him to forward all police evidence to the defense. Also testifying was former factory employee Monteen Stover, who said she had arrived at the factory at 12:05 PM to receive her pay, had waited in Frank’s office for him for five minutes, then left. This contradicted Frank’s statement that he had been in his office the entire time in which the murder took place.

August 1, 1913 – this was the fifth day of the trial of Leo Frank. Dr. Roy Harris, secretary of the State Board of Health who had examined Mary Phagan’s body, said she had died within an hour of eating her last meal of cabbage and bread, meaning she died sometime in the hour between twelve and one o’clock. He also said the head wounds were caused by a human fist. After suffering a fainting spell, Dr. Harris had to leave the stand before completing his testimony. Assistant factory superintendent N.V. Darley said Frank was nervous the day of the murder, but that this wasn’t unusual for him (Frank). Darley said he had seen Frank talking to Gantt and assumed this accounted for his nervousness. Darley’s testimony was marked by more bitter clashes between prosecutor Dorsey and defense attorney Rosser. Maggie White, wife of one of the machinists working at the factory April 26th, testified she went to the factory twice that day to visit her husband. She had seen Leo Frank both times, the second time around 12:30 in his office. He had his back turned to her and was startled when she walked in, but then told her it was fine to go see her husband. She left shortly before 1:00 and saw a Negro hiding behind some boxes on the first floor.

August 2, 1913 – this was the sixth day of the trial of Leo Frank, and it almost ended in a mistrial on this day. Judge L.S. Roaninadvertently help up a newspaper with lurid headline printed in red where the jury could see it. Defense attorneys objected immediately and discussed calling for a mistrial, but agreed to continue after Judge Roan instructed the jury to disregard anything they may had seen in the newspaper. A few minor witnesses were then called. Dr. J.W. Hurt, county physician who had also examined Mary Phagan’s body, said there was some evidence suggesting she may have been “outraged” (sexually assaulted), there was not enough evidence to conclude this. Another factory employee and friend of Mary Phagan, Helen Ferguson, testified she had gone to the factory Friday night to get Mary’s pay envelope, but Leo Frank had told her Mary would pick it up herself on Saturday.

August 3, 1913 – this was a Sunday and a break in the trial of Leo Frank. Frank was visited by numerous friends and relatives in prison. Prison officials said Frank was showing little evidence of stress from the trial.

August 4, 1913 – this was the seventh, and pivotal, day in the trial of Leo Frank. Jim Conley, a sweeper at the factory, was called to testify and presented a gruesome, graphic, and sometimes revolting tale. In fact his testimony was so lurid that Judge Roan ordered all women and children cleared from the courtroom.Conley testified he had “watched out” for Frank on several occasions, while he entertained young women in his office. Some of his descriptions of what he saw intimated that Frank was a sexual deviant. On the morning of April 26th, Conley said Frank had asked him to “watch out” for him while he “chatted” with Mary Phagan. Later, Frank had whistled for Conley to come to his office. Frank was so nervous he had to lean on Conley for support. He then supposedly told Conley that Phagan had refused him and he had struck her and left her in the machine room. When Conley was sent to get her, he said he found her lying on the floor, dead, with arms outstretched. Conley said Frank told him to wrap up the body and put it in the basement. Conley tried to do so, but said he could not lift the body. So Frank had helped him get it on the elevator, which they then took to the basement, where Conley dragged the body into a corner. They then returned to Frank’s office, where Frank indicated there would be money waiting for Conley if he “kept his mouth shut.” Here Conley said Frank uttered the ominous phrase “Why should I hang?” Frank then had Conley write the notes found near the body, apparently in an attempt to incriminate Newt Lee. Upon severe cross examination, Conley admitted he had lied to the police about this case previously; he had given several different stories after his May 1 arrest when he was seen washing out a bloody shirt in the factory. Conley also admitted he had been arrested numerous times. The defense was able to confuse Conley on some details of his story, but he held to the main points.

August 5, 1913 – this was the eighth day of the trial of Leo Frank. Jim Conley was cross-examined mercilessly by Frank’s defense attorneys for seven hours. While Conley was confused on some minor details, and admitted lying to police originally, and to having been arrested numerous times, he still held to his story of the previous day. Defense attorney Luther Rosser was unable to break any of the main points of Conley’s story. When the day ended Conley was still on the stand, while defense attorneys argued that his testimony of having been a lookout for Frank on earlier occasions should be stricken from the record as irrelevant to the case.

August 6, 1913 – this was the ninth day of the trial of Leo Frank. Judge L.S. Roan ruled that testimony that Jim Conley had acted as a lookout for Leo Frank was admissible. Applause broke out in the courtroom; Frank’s attorneys immediately contended that any further such actions would be cause for a mistrial; Judge roan threatened to clear the courtroom if order was not maintained. Luther Rosser again questioned Jim Conley, again failing to break his story. Conley spent 16 hours total on the witness stand. Dr. Roy Harris, secretary of the State Board of Health who had had his testimony interrupted by illness, resumed his testimony. He insisted Mary Phagan was killed shortly after eating her last meal of cabbage and bread, and that she had died from strangulation, not from the blows to her head.

August 7, 1913 – the tenth day of the Leo Frank trial. C.B. Dalton, a railroad carpenter, testified he had met with several women in the basement of the National Pencil Factory while Jim Conley watched out for him, and that he had seen numerous women come to the factory to visit Frank. After stating that the financial records of the National Pencil Factory showed there were two-hundred dollars (the amount Jim Conley said Frank had showed him) on the premises the day of the murder, solicitor Hugh Dorsey rested the state’s case. The defense called Dr. Roy Childs, who disputed the testimony of Dr. Roy Harris – saying cabbage was a very slow food to digest, implying that the murder could have been committed hours after Phagan had eaten. Pinkerton detective Harry Scott was recalled to the stand to testify on how Jim Conley had lied several times to investigators during the course of the murder investigation.

August 8, 1913 – the eleventh day in the Leo Frank trial. The defense had civil engineer T. H. Willett draw a diagram of the National Pencil Factory, showing how the murder could have been committed on the first floor without the knowledge of anyone (including Leo Frank) working on the second floor. Daisy Hopkins, one of the women C.B. Dalton had claimed he met for immoral purposes at the factory, denied having ever met Dalton or Leo Frank. Two street car conductors testified Mary Phagan had ridden alone the morning of her murder, contradicting the testimony of George Epps. Assistant factory manager N.V. Darley said he believed Conley and Dalton were lying about trysts in the basement; he worked most Saturdays and would have known of such actions. Factory timekeeper E.F. Holloway said he worked every Saturday and had never seen Conley and Frank interact, and that he had never seen a woman other than Frank’s wife in his office.

August 9, 1913 – the twelfth day in the Leo Frank trial. Herbert Schiff, personal assistant to Leo Frank, said he worked most Saturdays and had never seen any women in Frank’s office except his wife. He added that he had never seen C.B. Dalton either. He firmly believed he would have seen more if the story Jim Conley told were true. Schiff then identified a financial expenditure sheet on which Frank had been working the day of the murder, asserting it would take two-three hours to complete, leaving no time for the murder and movement of the body as described by Conley. He then testified Conley had been extremely nervous the Monday following the murder, and had said he would “give a million dollars if he had a white man’s skin.”

August 11, 1913 – the thirteenth day in the trial of Leo Frank. The defense called several medical experts to contradict the testimony of Dr. Roy Harris, secretary of the State Board of Health who had examined Mary Phagan’s corpse. The defense witnesses said Harris was merely guessing at the time of death and that Phagan had been sexually violated; there was insufficient evidence to substantiate either claim. Herbert Schiff, an assistant to Frank, again asserted that the financial work done by Frank on the day of the murder was time consuming; it could have easily taken 31/2 hours to complete. Sciff also testified that Jim Conley was a very unreliable worker and other employees had complained about him numerous times.

August 12, 1913 – the fourteenth day in the trial of Leo Frank. The defense called twenty-two character witnesses to the stand, including Frank’s in-laws. They all testified that he was a man of good character and was very busy the day of the murder, showing no nervousness. When solicitor Hugh Dorsey asked one of the witnesses, a boy who worked for Frank, if Frank had ever made improper advances to him, a bitter argument ensued between the opposing attorneys. Another female employee of the factory, Magnolia Kennedy, contradicted the earlier testimony of Helen Ferguson – who had claimed she tried to pick up Mary Phagan’s pay on Friday (the day before the murder), but that Frank had told her Mary would pick it up herself on the next day. Kennedy claimed she was behind Ferguson in the line to receive her pay, and that Ferguson had neither asked about Phagan’s pay or talked to Frank. Other witnesses testified to the shady character of C.B. Dalton, who had claimed to have used the basement of the factory as a meeting place with women and of using Jim Conley as a lookout.

Lost among all this controversy was the brief testimony of one of the office boys who worked for Leo Frank. He was obviouslynervous and timid the few minutes he was on the stand; saying only that he worked most Saturdays, including the day of the murder, and had never seen strange women in Frank’s office and had never seen Dalton at all. But this inconspicuous boy, AlonzoMann, carried a terrible secret; one he would hold for the next sixty-nine years. It was not until 1982, when he was on the verge of death, that he unburdened his soul and told what he had seen that fateful day. He had seen Jim Conley carrying the body of Mary Phagan over his shoulder, near the elevator shaft on the first floor of the factory (Conley had testified that he could not liftthe body). Conley had threatened Mann with death if he ever repeated what he had seen. Mann had gone home and told hismother, who advised him to keep quiet. So the trial went on, with no one realizing this shy, timid, scared boy had carried the truthof the case both to and away from the witness chair.

August 13, 1913 – the fifteenth day in the trial of Leo Frank. Another medical witness was called by the defense. Dr. William Kendrick, head of the Atlanta Medical School, said that Dr. Roy Harris’s conclusions on the time of Phagan’s death were mere guesswork. Another witness testified to having worked the previous Thanksgiving with Frank, and that nothing unusual had happened. Jim Conley had claimed he watched while Frank entertained a woman in his office that day. More character witnesses were called during the afternoon. In cross-examining one of these witnesses, Hugh Dorsey asked if he had ever heard complaints about Frank fondling young girls. At this point Mrs. Rae Frank, Leo Frank’s mother, leapt to her feet and shouted at Dorsey “No, nor you either, you dog.” One of the defense attorneys escorted Mrs. Frank out of the courtroom.

August 14, 1913 – the sixteenth day in the trial of Leo Frank. After an angry outburst by Frank’s mother the previous day, solicitor Hugh Dorsey requested that she and Frank’s wife be removed from the courtroom for the duration of the trial. Judge L.S. Roan turned down this request, but did warn the women not to interrupt the proceedings again. Many more character witnesses testified, some having traveled all the way from New York for that purpose. Frank’s mother-in-law (with whom the Franks lived) testified Frank acted normally the night after murder, even engaging in a friendly game of cards. This contradicted earlier testimony that Frank had been nervous, drunk, and suicidal the night following the murder. Finally, Rachel Carson, a female employee of the factory, said she had talked to Jim Conley the Monday following the murder. Conley told her he was so drunk on Saturday that he didn’t remember anything he did, but that he was sure Leo Frank was innocent. When Carson told Conley someone had reported seeing a black man lurking behind some boxes on the first floor soon after the time of the murder, Conley was so startled he dropped his broom.

August 15, 1913 – the seventeenth day in the trial of Leo Frank. Many more character witnesses were called by the defense, culminating in the testimony of Leo Frank’s mother.Having already expressed her complete confidence in Frank’s innocence, she identified a letter written by Frank to an uncle in New York the afternoon of April 26th, soon after the murder was committed. The letter was written in a precise, neat hand, dealing with various family matters. It did not, the defense claimed, show any signs of a nervous, guilt-ridden man. After the day’s proceedings, the defense said they were prepared to call every female employee of Frank, if necessary, to prove he did nothing improper with them at the factory.

August 16, 1913 – the eighteenth day in the trial of Leo Frank. Many more female employees of the National Pencil factory were called, all testifying to Frank’s good character and that he had never done anything improper to them. One did say he opened the door to the girls’ dressing room once, but the defense claimed this was because some girls were flirting out the window and he wanted to stop it. Residents of the area where the Franks lived testified that he had walked around the neighborhood the evening after the murder, and seemed calm and normal. Finally, the defense announced what most of the crowd had been waiting to hear; Leo Frank himself would take the stand on Monday (this was a Saturday).

August 18, 1913 – the nineteenth day in the trial of Leo Frank. After another group of character witnesses in the morning, Leo Frank took the witness stand. He spoke for four hours, calmly but firmly laying out his story. Frank said Jim Conley’s tale was all lies, and that the detectives tried to distort everything he (Frank) said in order to incriminate him. He freely admitted to being nervous after hearing of the murder, claiming any man in his position would be nervous, and justifiably so, especially after seeing the body of Mary Phagan. He said Mary came in for her pay soon after 12:00 noon on April 26th, returned a few minutes later to ask if the shipment of metal had arrived (Phagan’s job was putting metal tips on pencils), then left his office and he never saw her alive again. He worked on a financial report that afternoon, then went home. He never saw Jim Conley that day. Frank concluded his statement thus: “Some newspaper man has called me ‘the silent man in the Tower.’ (for his unwillingness to talk to police or the press) Gentlemen, this is the time and here is the place! I have told you the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

August 19, 1913 – the twentieth day in the trial of Leo Frank. This day was rather anti-climatic after Leo Frank’s statement the previous day. The defense continued its parade of character witnesses; solicitor Hugh Dorsey did get one of them to admit he had once seen Mary Phagan talking with Leo Frank, and that Phagan seemed to be backing away. There was another bitter disagreement between the opposing attorneys over the defense team’s attempts to discredit the statement of Minola McKnight. McKnight was the housekeeper for the Selig family (Frank’s in-laws with whom he and his wife lived) who had signed a statement saying Leo Frank was intoxicated and talked of suicide the night after Phagan’s murder. Though McKnight later repudiated the statement, which had been signed after she spent a night in jail and undergoing hours of intensive questioning, Dorsey still introduced it as evidence, leading to yet another vehement argument between the opposing sides.

August 20, 1913 – the twenty-first day in the trial of Leo Frank. The evidence phase ended on this day, as the defense rested its case. Solicitor Hugh Dorsey then called several female ex-employees of the National Pencil Factory to the stand. They all testified that they had a bad opinion of Leo Frank’s character, but could not give concrete examples of immoral behavior on his part. After their testimony, Leo Frank again was called, by the defense, to repudiate their statements. Shortly after 4:00, the evidence phase of the case was closed, with final arguments set to begin the next day.

August 21, 1913 – the twenty-second day in the trial of Leo Frank. Final arguments began this day, with aidesto the two main attorneys (Hugh Dorsey for the prosecution and Luther Rosser for the defense) beginning. Leo Frank was portrayed as a Jekyll and Hyde character who could mask his deviant tendencies from his family and friends. The defense contended that Jim Conley was the murderer and concocted his story to save his own neck.

August 22, 1913 – the twenty-third day in the trial of Leo Frank. Solicitor Hugh Dorsey took up the argument on this day, blistering the character of Leo Frank and portraying Mary Phagan as a symbol of lost innocence andvirtue. He tried to deflect charges of anti-Semitism by recalling the great names in Jewish history, arguing that Frank with his deviant behavior dishonored them as well as the Southern girl he had so brutally murdered. Although Judge L.S. Roan kept strict control of the courtroom, Dorsey’s words were quickly relayed to the large crowd waiting outside. When Dorsey emerged he was greeted with thunderous applause.

August 23, 1913 – the twenty-fourth day in the trial of Leo Frank. Solicitor Hugh Dorsey continued his eloquent, yet ferocious, final argument, scoring Leo Frank for his abhorrent behavior and contending that he could not careless what opposing attorneys or Frank’s family thought of him; his duty was to Mary Phagan and the people of Georgia.

August 25, 1913 – the twenty-fifth, and final, day in the trial of Leo Frank. Solicitor Hugh Dorsey ended his finalargument, which took parts of three days. The defense then argued that Frank was the latest in a long line of Jews who werepersecuted for their religious beliefs, and again asserted that Jim Conley was the true murderer. Conley, and many other prosecution witnesses, had shady characters, while Leo Frank had been a pillar of the community who had many well respected people, plus many of his employees, testifying on his behalf. If the case came down to Leo Frank’s word against Jim Conley’s, then it was obvious who should be believed. After hearing their instructions from Judge L.S. Roan, the jury retired to ponder the verdict. At 4:55 they returned with their decision; Leo Frank was declared guilty. Neither Frank nor his family or lead attorneys were present in the courtroom when the verdict was announced. Reportedly Judge Roan feared mob violence should Frank have been acquitted. When told of the verdict, Frank re-asserted his complete innocence, saying the jury had been influenced by mob law.

August 26, 1913 – Judge L.S. Roan sentenced Leo Frank to hang for the murder of Mary Phagan. The execution date was set for October 10, but Frank’s attorneys immediately motioned for a new trial. The hearing on this motion was set for October 4, thus assuring that there would be a delay in carrying out Frank’s sentence.

Appeals, Commutation, Lynching

October 31, 1913 – Judge L.S. Roan denied a motion for a new trial for Leo Frank. His execution date was re-scheduled for April 17, 1914.

February 17, 1914 – the Georgia Supreme Court denied a motion for a new trial.

February 24, 1914 – Jim Conley was sentenced to a year on a chain gang for his role in Mary Phagan’s murder.

April 6, 1914 – just eleven days before Leo Frank was scheduled to hang, his attorneys filed a motion to set aside the guilty verdict in the Fulton County Superior Court. The execution was re-scheduled for January 22, 1915.

June 6, 1914 – the Fulton County Superior Court denied the motion to set aside the verdict. Leo Frank’s attorneys immediately appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court.

October 14, 1914 – the Georgia Supreme Court denied Leo Frank’s request for a new trial. [see text]

November 14, 1914 – the Georgia Supreme Court affirmed the trial and judgement in the Leo Frank case. [see text] Leo Frank’s attorneys then appealed to the United States District Court of North Georgia.

December 21, 1914 – the United States District Court denied the motion to set aside the guilty verdict. Leo frank’s attorneys appeal to the United States Supreme Court, meaning Frank’s execution – set for January 22, 1915 – was again delayed.

April 9, 1915 – the United States Supreme Court rejected Leo Frank’s last appeal. His execution, already postponed three times, was re-set for June 22, 1915.

May 31, 1915 – Leo Frank’s attorneys filed an appeal for clemency with the Georgia Prison Commission, hoping to have his death sentence commuted. The appeal was denied.

June 20, 1915 – In his last day in office, Georgia governor John Slaton commuted the sentence of Leo Frank, from death to life in prison. Slaton spent many hours pouring over the files of the case, and was convinced that Frank was innocent. He had several notable appeals to back this decision; Judge L.S. Roan (who had presided over the case and originally sentenced Frank to the gallows) urged commutation, saying he had serious doubts about Frank’s guilt. Jim Conley’s girlfriend had made it known that Conley had confessed privately to her that he indeed killed Mary Phagan, as had a cell mate of Conley’s. Finally, Conley’s own attorney, William Smith, wrote to Slaton urging commutation; Smith had become convinced of his own client’s guilt in the matter. Knowing that his decision would not be popular, he made plans to leave the state immediately upon his successor being sworn in; he and his wife spent several months traveling. Slaton also ordered that Frank be transferred from the Fulton County Prison, for fear that a lynch mob would overpower the guards.

June 21, 1915 – Leo Frank, in the middle of the night, was transferred from the Fulton County Prison to the Georgia State Penitentiary in Milledgeville

July-August 1915 – Georgia Populist politician and publisher Tom Watson, in his magazines Watson’s Magazine and The Jeffersonian, published scathing editorials against Leo Frank and the commutation of his sentence. While charges of anti-Semitism had certainly surrounded the trial of Leo Frank, Watson was blatant in his sentiments. His inflammatory writings are generally credited with pushing the already strong feelings regarding this case past the boiling point. In what is now ominous phraseology, Watson called on the citizens of Georgia to take justice into their own hands and inflict the death sentence upon Leo Frank.

July 18, 1915 – Prisoner J. William Creen slashed Leo Frank’s throat at the Georgia State Prison Farm in Milledgeville. Only the quick actions of two other prisoners, both doctors, who stopped the flow of blood and stitched the wound, saved Frank’s life.

August 16, 1915 – A caravan of eight vehicles bearing 25 armed men from the Atlanta area arrived at the Georgia StatePrison at Milledgeville around 10 p.m. Calling themselves the Knights of Mary Phagan, they cut the telephone lines, surprised the guards and entered the barrack of Leo Frank, who two years earlier had been convicted of the murder of 14-year-old Mary Phagan in one of the most infamous trials of the century. The intruders seized Frank and departed into the night. Seven of the cars then took back roads headed for Marietta, while one car acted as a decoy in case of pursuit.

August 17, 1915 – Through the early morning hours, the lynch mob who had seized Leo Frank from Georgia StatePrison in Milledgeville drove by back roads towards Marietta. Sometime early on the morning of the 17th, they reached the outskirts of Marietta. Here, at Frey’s grove near Mary Phagan’s girlhood home, the mendecided to hang Frank, though there are conflicting reports on this. One story is that some wanted to continue with the original plan – to hang Frank in the Marietta town square, while others did not want to do this in broad daylight. A second story says that there was disagreement among the men on whether to hang Frank at all; the story being that those who had ridden in the car with Frank on the three plus hour ride had become convinced of his innocence. Whatever the truth may be, Frank was hanged there in Frey;s grove. Asserting his innocence to the very end, Frank’s only request was that his wedding ring be returned to his wife (which it was several days later). When word of the lynching spread, crowds gathered to see the body hanging from a tree. Photographs were taken, one of which later became a souvenir postcard. A few in the crowd threatened, and even began to inflict, violence to Frank’s body, before former judge Newt Morris convinced them to stop. Frank’s body was rushed to an undertaker in Atlanta, with a line of vehicles trailing behind. Although the undertaker tried to keep the body concealed, a large crowd soon gathered demanding to see it. After a rock was thrown through a window, officials agreed to let the public view Frank’s body. Under police supervision, thousands ofcurious Atlanta-area residents filed by single file to view Frank’s body — including the city detective whohad arrested Frank. That night Frank’s body was quickly embalmed and placed on a train for New York,where the burial services were held in Brooklyn’s Mount Carmel Cemetery. As a footnote to the lynching, no one was ever prosecuted for the murder of Leo Frank. A website now claims to identify the lynchers of Leo Frank – June 12, 2000

August 18, 1915 – Leo Frank’s body, accompanied by his wife, departed Atlanta on a train bound for Brooklyn, NY.

August 20, 1915 – Leo Frank was buried in Brooklyn, NY.

November 25, 1915 – the Knights of Mary Phagan met atop Stone Mountain, burned a cross, and initiated the new invisible order of the Ku Klux Klan. Soon thereafter the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith was founded in New York; its founding was based largely on the Leo Frank case and its aftermath. Ironically, Leo Frank had been president of the Atlanta chapter of B’nai B’rith. It must be noted here that the Phagan family has not condoned Klan activity, especially in regards to Mary. In fact the family expressly forbade a Klan request to hold a ceremony at Mary Phagan’s grave site.

1916 – Hugh Dorsey was elected governor of Georgia.

1918 – Hugh Dorsey was re-elected governor of Georgia.

1920 – Tom Watson elected senator from Georgia.

April 23, 1957 – Lucille Frank, Leo’s widow, died in Atlanta.

1962 (exact date unknown) – Jim Conley died. Rumors spread soon after his death that he had made a death-bed confession to the murder of Mary Phagan, but no evidence has been found to substantiate this rumor.

Pardon

March 4, 1982 – Alonzo Mann, in failing health, signed an affidavit asserting Leo Frank’s innocence and Jim Conley’s guilt. He admitted he had seen Conley carrying the limp body of Mary Phagan on his shoulder near the trapdoor leading to the basement on April 26, 1913. Conley had threatened to kill him if he ever told anyone what he had seen. He did go home and tell his mother, who advised him to keep quiet. After Frank’s conviction, his parents still kept him quiet, saying it would do no good to come forth after the verdict. He was telling the story now to unburden his soul. He had actually tried to tell the story several times before, but no one had paid any attention. He had even gotten into a fight with a fellow soldier in World War I when he tried to asset Frank’s innocence.He took several lie detector tests while telling his story to a group of reporters for The Tennessean, a newspaper in Nashville, TN. The tests indicated Mann was telling the truth.

March 7, 1982 – The Tennessean ran the story of Alonzo Mann’s confession.

November 10, 1982 – Alonzo Mann repeated his story in a videotape statement in Atlanta.

January 4, 1983 – Based largely on Alonzo Mann’s testimony, the Anti-Defamation League submitted an application for a posthumous pardon for Leo Frank to the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles.

December 22, 1983 – the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles denied the motion for a pardon, the reason being that while Alonzo Mann’s testimony might incriminate Jim Conley, it did not conclusively prove the innocence of Leo Frank.

March 11, 1986 – the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles finally issued a posthumous pardon to Leo Frank, based on the state’s failure to protect him while in custody; it did not officially absolve him of the crime.

(Chronology taken primarily from reports in The Atlanta Constitution and The Atlanta Journal)


Links to other Leo Frank sites:

Leo Frank Lynchers – site claiming to have identifications of most involved in lynching

Printed Sources on the Leo Frank case:

The Atlanta Constitution and The Atlanta Journal: Back issue available on microfilm at the University of Georgia Libraries

Creative Loafing article on the lynching of Leo Frank

Dinnerstein, Leonard, The Leo Frank Case, New York, Columbia University Press, 1968

Frey, Robert Seitz and Frey, Nancy, The Silent and the Damned: the Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank, Lanham, MD, Madison Books, 1988

Garrett, Franklin M., Atlanta and Environs: A Chronicle of Its People and Events. Volume II, Athens, GA:University of Georgia Press, 1954, pp. 619-628

Golden, Harry, A Little Girl is Dead, Cleveland, World Publishing Co., 1965

Phagan, Mary, The Murder of Little Mary Phagan, Far Hills, NJ, New Horizon Press, 1987. Note: This book was written by Mary Phagan’s great niece and gives a unique family perspective on the case.

Rascoe, Burton, The Case of Leo Frank: A Factual Review of One of the Most Sensational Murder Cases in Court Annals, Girard, KS, Haldemann-Julius, 1947.

Samuels, Charles, Night Fell on Georgia, New York, Dell Publishing Co., 1965.

Woodward, C. Vann, Tom Watson, Agrarian Rebel, New York, The Macmillan

Company, 1938.

Send comments to Charles Pou

(c) Carl Vinson Institute of Government, The University of Georgia

The Fake Legends of Adolf Hitler’s “Jewish Grandfather”

Source: http://carolynyeager.net/fake-legends-adolf-hitler%E2%80%99s-%E2%80%9Cjewish-grandfather%E2%80%9D

How and why it got started, and why it’s not true

By Carolyn Yeager, March 2011

copyright 2011 Carolyn Yeager

The rumor that Adolf Hitler was the grandson of a Rothschild seems to have been hatched in the mind of a crypto-Jewish propagandist working in the United States’ first unified intelligence agency, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). Not long after, a former high Nazi official, waiting for his execution, “confessed” to discovering a “Jewish grandfather” in Hitler’s background. These fabrications have been thoroughly debunked, and the true story of Hitler’s family background is told below.

Background information about Walter Langer and the OSS

The OSS was formed at the request of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, from advice given to him by Canadian/British spymaster William Stephenson, aka “Intrepid,” who had been conducting British intelligence in the western hemisphere since 1939. Roosevelt asked William J. Donovan to draft a plan for an intelligence service. Donovan had functioned as an informal emissary to Britain for Roosevelt during 1940-41, assigned to gauge Britain’s ability to succeed against Germany. In this role, he met with directors of Britain’s intelligence services, and even with Winston Churchill. Donovan was appointed as the “Coordinator of Information” in July 1941. In June 1942, the OSS was established by Presidential military order. Its job was to collect and analyze strategic information required by and useful to the Joint Chiefs, and to conduct special operations not assigned to other agencies.* Since the FBI, the Army and Navy jealously guarded their areas of responsibility, the reach of the OSS was limited to what it could find in the way of new opportunities for espionage that weren’t already being served by the former-named departments.    *Italics used throughout are my added emphasis – cy

William L. Langer was recruited during the war to work for the new OSS. Taking leave from his position as head of the History Dept. at Harvard Univ., he became head of the Research and Analysis Section of the OSS. He must have had something to do with bringing his brother Walter into his section, since Walter’s main accomplishment was a psychological analysis of Adolf Hitler.  

Walter Langer was a psychoanalyst with a PhD but not an M.D.; he was the first person admitted to the American Psychiatric Association without a medical degree. Imagine that! The brothers were the sons of German immigrants to the U.S. No religion is ever given for either, increasing the likelihood the family was Jewish but did not want to advertise that fact. Langer is a common Ashkanazi Jewish and German name. For instance, there is a Rabbi Samuel Langer, well known on the U.S. east coast who died in 1969, and David Langer, a Jewish soldier in the Polish Army whose picture was taken in 1929.

At the end of the war, William was appointed special assistant for intelligence analysis to the U.S. Secretary of State, James F. Byrnes. In 1950, William Langer organized the office of National Estimates in the newly established Central Intelligence Agency [CIA], the successor of the OSS. He returned to Harvard in the 1950’s, but from 1961 to 1977 he served on the President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board [from the Kennedy through Ford administrations]. In his book Diplomacy of Imperialism [1956], he argued against a “genocide” of the Armenians on the grounds their revolutionary leaders provoked the Turks into it.1

The Fake Legends1

Left: William L. Langer   Right: Walter C. Langer in retirement. Look at the schnoz on both these brothers.

Langer’s “Psychological Profile of Adolf Hitler”

Walter was given the task by Donovan in 1943 of preparing a brief psychological and psychoanalytical profile of Hitler. But Langer wanted to do something more monumental. Without the opportunity to meet or speak with Hitler himself, Langer turned to disgruntled ex-National Socialists and others who had fallen out with Hitler, and to his tribal animosity for the Third Reich and knowledge of psycho-babble. For example, he wrote in his Preface:

The material available for such an analysis is extremely scant and spotty. Fortunately, we have at our disposal a number of informants who knew Hitler well and who have been willing to cooperate to the best of their abilities.

Reading this profile, it becomes obvious it can only have been written by a Jew. The peculiar hatred, bias and ridicule are of the type that only Jews express against their enemies. Donovan must have been disappointed and considered the report useless since it was full of inaccuracies and full-blown lies … a work of fantasy and Freudian psycho-speak, liberally layered with overt sexual imagery and speculations. With no basis whatsoever, Langer writes:

 … a number of informants have commented on [Hitler’s] delight in witnessing strip-tease and nude dancing numbers on the stage. On such occasions he can never see enough to satisfy him even though he uses opera glasses in order to observe more closely. Strip-tease artists are frequently invited to the Brown House, in Munich, to perform in private and there is evidence that he often invites girls to Berchtesgaden for the purpose of exhibiting their bodies. On his walls are numerous pictures of obscene nudes which conceal nothing and he takes particular delight in looking through a collection of pornographic pictures which Hoffmann has made for him. […] In addition to the eyes, the anal region has also become highly sexualised and both faeces and buttocks become sexual objects. Due to early toilet training, certain inhibitions have been set up which prevent their direct expression. […] We may, therefore, regard Hitler’s perversion as a compromise between psychotic tendencies to eat faeces and drink urine on the one hand, and to live a normal socially adjusted life on the other. The compromise is not, however, satisfactory to either side of his nature and the struggle between these two diverse tendencies continues to rage unconsciously.

No kidding! And even worse—all from rumor, hearsay and Langer’s own sick Jewish mind. It descends into pornography for many pages, almost half the report. What of any value can have been gained thereby for the OSS?

Showing how Langer went way beyond the task that was assigned to him, the following passage is reminiscent of some other writings from that time [such as Germany Must Perish! by American Jew Theodore Kaufman] that sought to condemn the German nation as a whole for massive evil, and along with it, the entire “civilized world.”

It was not only Hitler, the madman, who created German madness, but German madness which created Hitler. Having created him as its spokesman and leader, it has been carried along by his momentum, perhaps far beyond the point where it was originally prepared to go. Nevertheless, it continues to follow his lead in spite of the fact that it must be obvious to all intelligent people now that his path leads to inevitable destruction. From a scientific point of view, therefore, we are forced to consider Hitler, the Fuehrer, not as a personal devil, wicked as his actions and philosophy may be, but as the expression of a state of mind existing in millions of people, not only in Germany but, to a smaller degree, in all civilized countries. To remove Hitler may be a necessary first step, but it would not be the cure. It would be analogous to curing an ulcer without treating the underlying disease. If similar eruptions are to be prevented in the future, we cannot content ourselves with simply removing the overt manifestations of the disease. On the contrary, we must ferret out and seek to correct the underlying factors which produced the unwelcome phenomenon. We must discover the psychological streams which nourish this destructive state of mind in order that we may divert them into channels which will permit a further evolution of our form of civilization.

“Our form of civilization” meaning Jewish-American form of civilization? This is exactly what they know we need to do to Jews in order to save ourselves … to “ferret out the underlying factors” that are bringing about our destruction. In this OSS profile, there was no mention of a Jewish grandfather for Hitler. But the idea must have been forming to Langer, because toward the end of the “psychological analysis” section of his report, he suddenly invents “Jewish Godparents” for Hitler. His tendency to speculate on pet theories is working overtime when he writes:

We know that he had very little money when he left Linz, certainly not enough to live on for almost an entire year while he spent his time in painting. Since the date of his mother’s death has been so universally distorted (? don’t know what he means by this; the date was always Dec. 1907-cy), it would seem that efforts were being made to cover something which happened during this intervening year. My guess would be that he lived with his Jewish godparents 2 who supported him while he was preparing work for the Academy. When he failed to be admitted at the end of a year, they put him out and made him go to work. There is one bit of evidence for this hypothesis. Hanisch 3, in his book, mentions in passing that when they were particularly destitute he went with Hitler to visit a well-to-do Jew whom Hitler said was his father. The wealthy Jew would have nothing to do with him and sent him on his way again. There is scarcely a possibility that Hitler’s father was a Jew, but Hanisch might easily have understood him to say father when he said godfather. This would certainly make much more sense and would indicate that Hitler had contact with his godparents before the visit and that they were fed up with him and would help him no further.

The Rothschild story appears …

In 1972, Langer published a lengthier, revised version of his profile in book form, titled The Mind of Adolf Hitler: The Secret Wartime Report. It contained a forward by brother William, and an afterword by the “psychoanalytic historian” Robert G.L. Waite. In the book, Langer adds some new allusions to Jewish superiority in speaking of Adolf’s father:

Alois’ intelligence and behavior were beyond what can be expected from an Austrian family of peasants and more suitable to a linage of highly educated Jews.

This is prologue to his theory of a Rothschild paternity, admitting even as he puts it forth that it lacks credibility:

There are some people who seriously doubt that Johann Georg Hiedler was the father of Alois. Thyssen and Koehler, for example, claim that [Austrian] Chancellor Dollfuss had ordered the Austrian police to conduct a thorough investigation into the Hitler family. As a result of this investigation a secret document was prepared that proved that Maria Anna Schicklgruber was living in Vienna at the time she conceived. At that time she was employed as a servant in the home of Baron Rothschild. As soon as the family discovered her pregnancy she was sent back to her home in Spital where Alois was born. If it is true that one of the Rothschilds is the real father of Alois Hitler, it would make Adolf a quarter Jew. According to these sources, Adolf Hitler knew of the existence of this document and the incriminating evidence it contained. In order to obtain it he precipitated events in Austria and initiated the assassination of Dollfuss. According to this story, he failed to obtain the document at that time since Dollfuss had secreted it and had told Schuschnigg of its whereabouts so that in the event of his death the independence of Austria would remain assured. Several stories of this general character are in circulation.4

First, the “secret document” has never been seen, and no doubt never existed. The best one can find on anti-Hitler conspiracy sites is that it is “now in the hands of the British Secret Service.” And, of course, they’re not releasing it.

Second, the political putsch attempt by Austrian National Socialists, not under Hitler’s control in any way, that occurred in Vienna in 1934 was not instigated by Hitler; in fact, he was displeased by the attempt and the bad impression it created.

Third, Dollfuss may have searched into Hitler’s family line, but the Baron Rothschild part is totally unbelievable. There are no records showing Maria Anna Schickelgruber registered as a domestic servant in Vienna, ever, something that was required at the time. Langer admits this is just one of several “stories,” i.e. rumors, in circulation. He concludes that “it is sounder not to base our reconstruction on such slim evidence but to seek firmer foundations.” Yet he repeats these baseless rumors for the very purpose of keeping such rumors alive.

Robert G.L. Waite, who wrote the afterword for Langer’s book, was a Canadian self-styled “psychohistorian,” with a specialty in Adolf Hitler, who authored his own psycho-bio, Adolf Hitler: The Psychopathic God, published in 1977. Waite, who gained his psychiatric ‘insight’ from the extended treatment he received for depression he suffered since his university days, and was known for stubbornness and acting out emotionally in public, found Langer’s theories provocative, even if wrong. He wrote: “But even when Langer is mistaken and his guesses prove incorrect, he is often on the right track.”

Consider his hint that Hitler’s grandfather might have been a Jew. There is no reason to believe the unlikely story told by Langer’s informant that Hitler’s grandmother Maria Anna Schicklgruber, a peasant woman in her forties from the Waldvietral of rural Austria, had had an intimate liason with a Baron Rothschild in Vienna.

The Fake Legends2

Above: Family resemblance? Not a bit, yet some imagine it. This photo comparison is found on Internet sites as evidence of Hitler’s Rothschild lineage!

and the Frankenberger story

In place of Langer’s failed rumors, Waite posits another false story of a different “Jewish grandfather” that had also been “circulating” for years, to wit that Hitler’s paternal grandmother had been working as a cook in the household of a Jewish man named Leopold Frankenberger before she gave birth to Hitler’s father out of wedlock.

But Hitler had worried that he might be blackmailed over a Jewish grandfather and ordered his private lawyer, Hans Frank, to investigate his paternal lineage. Frank told the Fuehrer that his grandmother had become pregnant while working as a domestic servant in a Jewish household in Graz.

The facts of this matter are in dispute – and a very lengthy dispute it has been. The point of overriding psychological and historical importance is not whether it is true that Hitler had a Jewish grandfather, but whether he believed that it might be true.

Waite then lies when he writes: “He did so believe and the fact shaped both his personality and his public policy.”

No, Hitler did not believe it, and in fact Hans Frank’s entire story is false, an invention made up in the mind of a condemned man under pressure to “clear his conscience.” There was no blackmail letter from Hitler’s nephew Patrick and there was no Frankenberger family living in Graz.

The American Jewish psychologist G. M. Gilbert was sent to Europe as a military intelligence officer and was appointed prison psychologist for the German prisoners.  He later wrote in his book Nuremberg Diary on p.19: “He [Hans Frank] and Albert Speer were the only defendants to show any true remorse for their war crimes …” He should also have said they were the only two who spoke ill of Adolf Hitler in retrospect, the former in hopes to clear himself before God, the latter in hopes to clear his reputation before his new earthly rulers.

The Fake Legends3

Above: Hans Frank in confinement, 1945

HITLER’S TRUE GENEALOGY

These are the principal blood relatives of Adolf Hitler:

Maria Schicklgruber, paternal grandmother

Johann Georg Hiedler, presumed, official paternal grandfather

Johann Nepomuk Hüttler, real paternal grandfather and maternal great-grandfather

Johann Baptist Põlzl, maternal grandfather

Klara Hitler, mother

Alois Hitler, father

Paula Hitler, sister

Alois Hitler, Jr., half-brother (by his father’s 2nd wife)

Angela Hitler Raubal, half-sister (by father’s 2nd wife)

Geli Raubal, niece (through his half-sister Angela)

Leo Raubal Jr, nephew (through his half-sister Angela)

William Patrick Hitler, nephew (through his half-brother Alois, Jr)

Below is an accurate genealogic chart from Familypedia.com. The only addition that needs to be made is to link Maria Anna Schicklgruber and Johann Nepomuk Hüttler as having an extra-marital liason which resulted in the child Alois Schicklgruber in 1837 (see Werner Maser, below). But in all other aspects, it conforms to the research done and accepted by all historians and genealogists. There are no Jews or Jewish connections at all.

The Fake Legends4

Werner Maser, a German historian and author of several serious books on Hitler, was described in his obituary in the London Times as “one of the first German historians to treat the Nazi period as a field of academic research.”5

This is borne out in his exceedingly thorough job of tracing Adolf Hitler’s family background and lineage in his book, Hitler: Legend, Myth and Reality, published in German in 1971, in English in 1973. He concludes that Hitler’s paternal grandfather was Johann Nepomuk Hüttler, a German farmer living in Spital, in the Waldviertel region in the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

This book and the information it contains has been available for 40 years, yet conspiracy theorists who want to believe Hitler was a Rothschild or simply a part-Jew ignore it. Maser’s investigation included personal trips to look through church and baptismal records, interviewing relatives, heirs, school-fellows and childhood friends. In the attic of one of Hitler’s cousins, he discovered material which biographers had been seeking for half a century, including large numbers of letter and notes in Hitler’s own hand.

The Fake Legends5

Werner Maser

FINDINGS OF WERNER MASER

  1. It is undisputed that Adolf Hitler was born to Alois Hitler and Klara Pölzl. Alois, however, was born Schicklgruber because his mother, Maria Anna Schicklgruber was unmarried. [Not an unusual occurrence in Austrian villages at that time.]
  2. Maria Anna Schicklgruber was not a poor housemaid who worked for wealthy Jewish families. The daughter of Johann Schicklgruber, a prosperous farmer in possession of a well-appointed farm in the village of Strones, and Theresia Pfseisinger, she was born in 1795 and is described by Maser as a thrifty, reserved and exceptionally shrewd peasant woman. She gives every appearance of having been strong-minded, a trait that was passed down to her son Alois and her grandson, Adolf.
  3. Maria Anna Schicklgruber’s brother, Jakob, purchased the family farm from his father for 3000 gulden when the father was only 53 years old. Maria’s mother, Theresia, had just inherited 210 gulden from her father’s total estate of 1054 gulden, so the parents felt prosperous enough to retire. To put the value of 3000 gulden in perspective: a cow at that time could be purchased for 10 to 12 gulden; a brood sow cost 4 gulden; a bed w/bedding was 2 gulden; an inn with stabling could be had for 450 to 500 gulden. As you can see, 3000 gulden was a substantial amount.
  4. Maria Anna, at the age of 26, inherited 74.25 gulden at the death of her mother in 1821. She kept this sum in the Orphans’ Fund until 1838, earning 5% interest. By then, it had increased to 165 gulden, over double the original amount. Her son was not born until June 1837 when she was 42 yrs. old.
  5. She refused to reveal the name of her child’s father, even though the priest wanted her to do so. Thus, the child could only be given her name. This strong-willed woman did marry, in 1842—five years after the birth of her son—a man named Johann Georg Hiedler of the village of Spital. If he were the father of Alois, Maria Anna would certainly have named him such when they married and legitimized her son, but she did not. That entry was made in the baptismal register at Döllersheim where they married, but not until ten years after her death! The one responsible for it was Hiedler’s younger brother, Johann Nepomuk Hüttler, in whose household young Alois went to live at the age of 5 years, after his mother’s marriage to Hiedler.6
  6. 6. So … we have Maria Anna Schicklgruber Heidler’s illegitimate son Alois going to live in the household of his new stepfather’s brother—his ‘uncle.’ Maser explains it this way: Hiedler, at this time 50 years old and never before married, may have resented and/or been irritated by the presence of a young child who was not his. But more likely, Johann Nepomuk, a much younger 35 years old, who was married at the time Alois was conceived, could now welcome his son, as ‘nephew,’ into his family without his wife becoming suspicious.
  7. All reports are, according to Maser, that Alois was happy in his ‘uncle’s’ home where he had ‘cousins’ and a more lively family life than he experienced living with his 47-year-old mother and her new husband.
  8. Maria Anna Hiedler died in 1847 at the age of only 52. Alois did not, on his own initiative, seek legal legitimacy. His birth status did not hamper his career, in which he rose to what was considered the very respectable position of a Customs official; nor did it appear to trouble him personally. He was known as a tolerant, modern thinker, not particularly religious. His second wife Franziska Matzelsberger had a son born out of wedlock when he married her and he accepted this son in his household. It wasn’t until sometime between 1874 and 1876 that he changed his name to Hitler. Hitler is almost identical in sound to Hüttler.
  9. It was in 1876 that Franz Schicklgruber, administrator of his sister Maria Anna’s estate, made over to his nephew Alois 230 gulden. It was now that Alois signed his name “Hitler,” spelling it just slightly differently than Hüttler. Maser comments that the Schicklgruber family was no doubt proud of how well Alois had done for himself and saw to it that he got the bulk of the inheritance of his mother.
  10. Rothschild and Frankenberger Jew paternity is ruled out on the grounds of there being no evidence Maria Anna Schicklgruber ever worked for a Jewish family in Graz or Vienna.
  11. The Jew Frankenberger story: Hans Frank, who became Govenor General of Poland from 1939 to 1945, is responsible for the false story, with the help of an American army chaplain Sixtus O’Conner, written before Frank was put to death by the Nuremberg IMT [International Military Tribunal]. He concocted a story that Maria Anna Schicklgruber worked as a cook in the household of a Jewish family in Graz, Austria at the time she gave birth to her son. In his ‘report,’ this family had a 19 yr-old son. [Remember, MAS was 42 years old, a fact of which Hans Frank was probably ignorant.] Further, he said the family, named Frankenberger, paid a maintenance allowance to Maria Anna for 14 years [which makes Jews look responsible and honorable]. But the story is false from start to finish. Some of the main reasons are:
  12. A) From the end of the 15th Century until a decade after Maria Anna died, no Jews lived in Graz. They had been expelled by Emperor Maximilian I in 1496 from the province of Styria, which included Graz. In 1781, under Joseph II, they were allowed to re-enter, but only for a few weeks at a time, during Lent and at the Feast of St. Giles to the annual Fairs, after paying a fixed sum. Two years later, these rights were again curtailed, and it remained enforced until 1860 that no Jews whatsoever could even enter the province.
  13. B) No resident by the name of Frankenberger is listed as having lived in Graz at that time.
  14. C) Records from 1821 to 1838 pertaining to Maria Anna’s money in the Orphans’ Fund showed no change of address in 1836 or ’37. Moreover, as a subject of the “Lordship of Ottenstein” she could not have absented herself for any length of time without it being noted.
  15. D) Frank wrote in his report that Adolf Hitler told him in a conversation that he knew there were no Jews in his family because he had talked with his father and grandmother about it. But Hitler could not have said that—his grandmother had been dead since before he was born! This shows that Hans Frank’s story is made up out of whole cloth—including the part about “investigating the matter for Hitler.”
  16. The Rothschild in Vienna story: This is debunked for the same reasons. Maria Anna Schicklgruber did not visit or live in Vienna, and there is no record of who these Rothschilds were, their address or other necessary information.

13, Patrick Hitler: Another rumor of an alleged newspaper article in the Paris-Soir in which Hitler’s nephew [by his half-brother Alois, Jr.], Patrick, described his uncle Adolf as the grandson of a Graz Jew called Frankenreither. Maser dug up this issue of that defunct newspaper while on a trip to Paris and found it carried two pages and six illustrations of Patrick Hitler’s story, but no allusion whatsoever to any Jewish antecedents.

COMMENTS AND OTHER FINDINGS BY WERNER MASER

  1. Maser feels that Johann Nepomuk Hüttler and Alois decided on the change of name in compliance with the wishes of Maria Anna. The inheritance was given in the same year that Alois wrote his name as Hitler. The baptismal record continues to name Johann Georg Hiedler as Alois’ father, but Alois chose to spell the name as Hitler.
  2. Klara Pölzl, Alois 3rd wife, mother of Adolf, was a granddaughter of Johann Nepomuk Hüttler and his wife Eva Maria [Decker], making her the niece of her husband Alois. She was considered his niece because Alois was a Schicklgruber and Klara was a Decker on the maternal side. Hüttler died in 1888, Adolf was born in 1889.
  3. Adolf Hitler’s maternal grandfather was Johann Baptist Põlzl, a farmer living in Spital. His paternal grandfather was Johann Nepomuk Hüttler, also a Spital farmer. Maser says that there is a distinct family resemblance between all the relations in Spital who are descended from Hüttler, and some of them bear a strong resemblance to Adolf Hitler. Hitler visited Spital in 1905, 1906 and 1908, and several times when on leave during the First World War. He knew his relatives and a great deal about his family history.

Endnotes

  1. http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/shaw-hovannisian.htm

The methods used by the Armenian nationalist groups to secure foreign intervention at this time were very well documented by the distinguished Harvard University diplomatic historian, the late William L. Langer, in Diplomacy of Imperialism (2d ed.; New York, 1956), on the basis of Armenian as well as Western reports, and without any use of Turkish sources. Thus he found in the British Parliamentary Papers (Turkey No. 10, 1879, nos. 45 and 62 and Turkey No. 7, 1880, no. 3) statements from the British ambassador in June and July, 1879, such as ‘The same intrigues are now being carried on in Asia Minor to establish an Armenian nationality and to bring about a state of things which may give rise to a Christian outcry and European interference’ (p. 153).

Langer reports (p. 157) that Revolutionary placards were being posted in the cities, and there were not a few cases of the blackmailing of wealthy Armenians, who were forced to contribute to the cause. Europeans in Turkey were agreed that the immediate aim of the agitators was to incite disorder, bring about inhuman reprisals, and so provoke the intervention of the powers. For that reason, it was said, they operated by preference in areas where the Armenians were in a hopeless minority, so that the reprisals would be certain.

Langer concluded (p. 163) that ‘Enough has been said above to make unnecessary any further reference here to the Hentchak and its program and methods. The leaders were quite prepared to have thousands of their fellow-countrymen massacred in order to force intervention by the European powers and in order to raise from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire a new Armenian socialist state.’

Langer states: “Mr. Herbert, the British chargé, appreciated the provocation to the Turks. Mr. Hume-Beaman, an expert on things oriental, roundly declared that every member of the Armenian committees should be hanged, and that the responsibilities for the massacres rested divided between these cowardly committees and the ‘braggart and ineffectual intervention of Europe’.” (Langer, pp. 324-325]

  1. This is the first mention of “Jewish godparents.” They appear out of the blue as a “guess” by Langer. The intention is clearly to show Jews as good, compassionate and upstanding people who “saw through” the good-for-nothing Hitler—placing Jews in the superior position morally, financially and educationally.
  2. One of Langer’s “informants” who was employed by Hitler in Vienna as an agent for selling his paintings. Their business relationship lasted for 8 months. At that time, Hitler took Hanisch to court for not turning over the money he owed Hitler. Hanisch was found guilty and spent a very short time in jail.
  3. Walter C. Langer, The Mind of Adolf Hitler, Basic Books, 1972, pg.111-113.
  4. In his book on the Nuremberg Tribunals, Trial of a Nation, Maser alleged that Hitler’s architect, Albert Speer, who was given only a prison sentence by the tribunal, made a secret deal with the chief American prosecutor Robert H. Jackson.
  5. The father of Johann Georg Hiedler, born 1792 and Johann Nepomuk Hüttler, born 1807 was Martin Hiedler, born 1762. Johann Nepomuk chose to spell the name Hüttler, or perhaps it was an error by a priest or cleric.

Caricatures from “Der Stürmer” – translated in English and colourized!

The Year 1938 – Part 1

03.March-1938-01

03.March-1938-02

03.March-1938-03

03.March-1938-04

03.March-1938-05

03.March-1938-06

03.March-1938-07

03.March-1938-08

03.March-1938-09

03.March-1938-10

Jacob Schiff hails Russian Revolutionists

Source: http://winstonsmithministryoftruth.blogspot.de/2012/08/jacob-schiff-hails-russian.html

On July 7, 1917, the Russian newspaper Russkoye Slovo printed a message from Jewish mega-banker Jacob H. Schiff, regarding the new regime’s envoys which had been sent to New York City:

“I am greatly interested in all that passes in present-day Russia, and I hail the visit of the Russian Commission to the United States with the greatest joy and interest.”

Jacob Schiff hails Russian Revolutionists