How the Zionists criminally suppress freedom of speech.
How the Zionists criminally suppress freedom of speech.
Berlin, April 28, 1939
Deputies, Men of the Reichstag!
The President of the United States of America has addressed a telegram to me, whose peculiar contents you are aware of. Since, as the addressee of this document, I saw it only after the rest of the world had gained knowledge of it on the radio and in the press, and after countless commentators from international democratic institutions had kindly informed us that this telegram was a very adroit tactical paper which was to burden those states governed by the people with the responsibility for the aggression perpetrated by the plutocracies, I resolved to convene the German Reichstag to afford you, my Deputies, the opportunity–in your capacity as the elected representatives of the German nation-to be the first to hear my response which you may either confirm or reject. Beyond this, I thought it expedient to adopt the method employed by Herr President Roosevelt and, for my part, to proceed to inform the rest of the world of my answer by the means at our disposal. I should like equally to take advantage of this occasion to express those sentiments which have deeply moved me in light of the stunning historic events of the month of March of this year.
These, my deepest sentiments, compel me to turn to Providence in humble gratitude, to thank it for calling on me, an unknown soldier in the World War, to rise to the heights of Fuhrer of my dearly beloved Volk. Providence permitted me to find the appropriate path, one not smeared with blood, to free my Volk from misery and to lead it upward once again. Providence granted me the fulfillment of what I consider the mission of my life: to uplift the German Volk from its defeat; to free it from the shackles of this most shameful Diktat of all time!
I have not, as France did in the years 1870–71, referred to the cession of Alsace-Lorraine as intolerable in the future. No, I carefully differentiated between the Saar territory and the two other former Reichslander. And I have not revised my stance on the matter, nor will I revise it in the future. Not once have I allowed my views to be violated or questioned in the interior, either for the sake of publicity, or for any other reason. The return of the Saar has removed from the face of the earth all territorial disputes between France and Germany in Europe.
Nevertheless, I have always regretted that French statesmen take this, my stance, for granted. Things are not so simple. I have not preached this stance for fear of France. As a former soldier, I have no reason for such fear. Moreover, in the context of the Saar settlement, I have left no doubt that a refusal to return this territory to Germany was unacceptable to us. No, I have assumed this attitude towards France as an expression of my realization that it is necessary for Europe to find peace somehow, and that open, limitless demands for ever new [territorial] revisions would merely sow the seeds of lasting insecurity and tensions. If tensions have now arisen, Germany does not bear the responsibility for this. Instead, this is to be blamed on international elements intentionally promoting tensions to serve their capitalist interests.
I have extended binding assurances to a series of states. Not one of the states can lament so much as an insinuation by Germany of any demands in violation thereof. Not one Nordic statesman can claim, for instance, that either the German Reich Government or German public opinion forced on him an unreasonable request which was incompatible with the territorial integrity or the sovereignty of his state.
I was glad that a number of European states took advantage of the opportunity presented by the German Reich Government’s declaration to express, in turn, their unequivocal willingness to espouse a stand of unconditional neutrality and hereby to strengthen this avowal. This is true of Holland, Belgium, Switzerland, Denmark, and so on. I have already mentioned France. I need not mention Italy, as it is tied to us by bonds of a friendship both close and profound. Neither need I speak of Hungary or Yugoslavia, neighbors with whom we are fortunate to enjoy a heartfelt friendship.
By the same token, from the first moment I actively involved myself in politics, I have left no doubt that there do exist certain states of affairs which represent so base and crude an infringement on our Volk’s right to selfdetermination, that we can never be expected to accept or tolerate these. I have not written a single line or a single speech in which I have ever expressed a stance contrary to the one indicated on the subject of the states mentioned before.
Neither does there exist a single line or a single speech concerning other instances in which the stand I espoused was not retroactively confirmed by the actions I later took.
First: Austria. This oldest Ostmark of the German Volk once shielded the Reich to its southeast, as the protective march of the German nation. The Germans who settled in these lands were recruited from among all German tribes, although it may well be true that the majority of them were Bavarians.
Later this Ostmark became the seat of dynastic power of a German empire which lasted half a millennium, while Vienna became the capital city of the German Reich. Already in gradual dissolution, this German Reich was finally shattered by the Corsican Napoleon. Still, it lived on in the framework of the German Union (Deutscher Bund). Although no longer sharing a common statehood, its people recently came together, in yearned-for volkisch unity, to fight and suffer side by side in the greatest war of all time, though not united in the form of a common statehood. I myself am the child of this Ostmark.
Not only did the criminals of Versailles hack this German Reich to pieces and dissolve Austria, what was worse they forbade the Germans to avow their allegiance to the one community to which Germans have belonged for more than one thousand years. To alter this state of affairs is a task I have always regarded as the most lofty and most hallowed of missions in my life. To proclaim this will is something I have never failed to do. I stand ready to realize this will at any time in my life; it is a thought that haunts me day and night.
I would have sinned against Providence’s calling, if I had become a traitor to this endeavor to return my homeland and my German Volk of the Ostmark to the Reich, and thereby to the German Volksgemeinschaft. I have erased the most shameful page of the Versailles Treaty. I have restored the right of selfdetermination to seven-and-a-half million Germans. I have put an end to the persistent democratic rape of these seven-and-a-half million people. They were forbidden to take their destiny into their own hands-I have rescinded this prohibition. I have conducted this plebiscite before the eyes of history. Its results confirmed my expectations.
Those democratic rapists of the peoples (Volkervergewaltiger) conferring at Versailles had apparently shared them. Why else would they have forbidden a referendum on the Anschluss?
When in the course of the migration of the peoples, German tribes for inexplicable reasons began to leave the area which today is Bohemia and Moravia, a foreign, Slavic people penetrated this area and drove a wedge between those Germans who had remained behind. Ever since, this people’s Lebensraum was embraced by the German Volkstum in the form of a horseshoe. In economic terms, an independent existence of this area is conceivable only in connection with the German Volk and the German economy.
Besides this, nearly four million Germans live in the Bohemian and Moravian area. Pressure by the Czech majority has brought a policy of annihilation to bear, especially apparent since the Diktat of Versailles, but which has also been in part due to the economic situation and an increasing poverty, which, in turn, has led to an exodus of the German elements from the area. The numbers of the remaining Germans there dropped to approximately 3.7 million.
While the fringes of this area are populated exclusively by Germans, there are several big islands of German speech in its interior.
The Czechs are a people alien to us, given their foreign heritage. Through a community formed over a thousand years, German influence has largely molded and fashioned their culture. Their economy is the result of affiliation with the greater German economy. At times, the capital of this area was a German Imperial city. It is home to the oldest German university. Numerous cathedrals, city halls, palaces of noblemen and burghers attest to Germany’s cultural influences. Throughout the centuries, the Czech people have fashioned their relations to the German Volk now the more closely, now the more distantly.
Closeness of relations leads to a bloom of both the German and the Czech peoples; separation to catastrophe.
The merit and value of the German Volk is known to us. The Czechs also deserve our respect for the sum of their skills and abilities, their enterprise and diligence, their love for their homeland and folklore. And, indeed, there were periods in which respect for each other’s national conditions was considered most natural.
The credit for assigning to the Czech people the special role of a satellite state that can be set against Germany goes to the democratic architects of peace (Friedensmacher) at Versailles. To this end, they arbitrarily appropriated the possessions of other peoples to this state, not viable in its Czech ethnic core (Volkssubstanz). This meant that it was allowed to rape other nationalities in order to secure a state-financed latent threat to the German nation in Central Europe. For this state, whose so-called state people (Staatsvolk) was in the minority, could survive only due to the brutal oppression of its ethnic majorities. This oppression, in turn, was unthinkable unless the European democracies granted this state protection and assistance. This assistance would only be granted, however, if this state was willing to assume and play the role assigned to it at birth. To play this role meant preventing the consolidation of Central Europe constituting a bridge for Bolshevist aggression into Europe, and, above all, to serve as a mercenary for the European democracies’ agitation against Germany. Everything else arose then of itself.
The more actively this state pursued its mission, the greater became the resistance of the ethnic minorities opposed to it. The greater the resistance, the greater the need for suppression. The resulting hardening of the inner antagonism led to an ever greater dependence on the democratic European founders of this state and its benefactors. For they alone were in a position to maintain economically the unnatural, artificial existence of this edifice.
Essentially, Germany primarily pursued only one interest, namely, to deliver the nearly four million Germans in this country from this unbearable situation, and to enable them to return to their homeland: the one-thousand year old Reich. Of course this problem brought up immediately the entire question of the remaining nationalities. That the removal of these nationalities would rob the remainder of this state of its viability was equally clear, as the founders of this state at Versailles had been only too aware. It was because of this that they decided on the suppression of the other minorities and their forced integration into this dilettantish state structure against their will.
Never have I left any doubt of this, my view and opinion. Certainly, as long as Germany itself was impotent and defenseless, this rape of nearly four million Germans could take place without the Reich being able to mount any resistance to it. However, only a political tot could seriously believe that the German nation would forever remain in the state of the year 1919.
It was only as long as those international traitors, who were financed abroad, held the leadership of the German State that a patient acceptance of this shameful state of affairs could be expected. Ever since the victory of National Socialism forced these traitors to take up residence in those countries from where they received their subsidies, the resolution of this problem has become merely a question of time. And it was a question exclusively of the concerned nationalities, not of Western Europe. It was only natural that Western Europe should take an interest in the artificial state structure created in its interest. That the nationalities surrounding this state should consider this interest decisive for them was perhaps a regrettable fallacy for some. Insofar as this interest exclusively concerned the financial foundations of this state, no objections to this would have been voiced by Germany, had not this financial interest in the end been subservient to the power politics and ambitions of the democracies.
Even the financial sponsorship of this state served one central idea: to create a state, militarily armed to the teeth, with the task of forming a bastion reaching far into the Reich. There was no doubt of its value and the promise it held, either as a base for military operations in the context of Western incursions into the Reich or simply as an air base. A comment by the French Minister of Aviation, Pierre Cot, left no doubt of what was expected of this state. Calmly he spoke his mind, saying that it would be the task of this state, in the event of conflict, to serve as a port for arrival and departure for bombers. From there it would be possible to destroy the most important industrial centers in Germany within hours. Hence, it was only natural that the German state leadership, for its part, resolved to destroy this port of departure for bombers. It arrived at this decision not because of hatred for the Czech people. On the contrary, in the thousand years they have lived together, the German and the Czech peoples have enjoyed centuries of close cooperation, interrupted by only short periods of tension.
Admittedly, in such times of tension, the passions of the men fighting on the front lines of such ethnic conflicts may well dim their sense of justice and thus lead to a false assessment of the overall situation. This is a trait characteristic of any war. However, in the great epochs of understanding coexistence, both peoples have always agreed that each of them had an inalienable right- mutually-to the esteem and respect of its Volkstum.
Even in these years of struggle, I approached the Czech people not only in my capacity as the protector of the biased interests of his Volk and Reich, but also as one who never failed to respect the Czech people itself. One thing is certain, however: had the democratic midwives of this state been allowed to realize their ultimate goal, the German Reich would not have been eliminated, although, undoubtedly, we would also have had to take some losses. Rather the Czech people would in all likelihood have had to bear far more horrendous consequences, as regards its size and position. Indeed, I am convinced these consequences would have been catastrophic.
I am happy that we were able to prevent this catastrophe in Central Europe, albeit to the great irritation of democratic interests, thanks to the restraint we exercised and the insight of the Czech people. For the National Socialist German Reich grants its citizens from the start what the best and most insightful Czechs have fought for throughout the decades. It is the right to one’s own Volkstum, the right to cultivate it and to enjoy it freely. National Socialist Germany has no intention whatever of renouncing the racial principles on which we pride ourselves. They will not only benefit the German, but also the Czech Volk. What we demand is respect for the historic necessity, for the economic predicament that confronts us all.
As I announced the solution of this problem on March 22, 1938 before the Reichstag, I was convinced that I was attending to a Central European necessity. In March 1938, I still believed that we could resolve the minorities question in this state by a slow evolution and that, sooner or later, we would be able to assure a common platform by means of contractual cooperation, which would benefit the interests of all of us not only politically, but also economically.
It was only when Herr Beneš, by then completely in the hands of his international democratic financiers, added a military aspect to the problem and unleashed a wave of repressions on the Germans and simultaneously attempted the well-known mobilization to deal the German state a defeat internationally and to damage its prestige, that I finally realized that a solution in this manner was no longer possible. For the lie about a German mobilization at the time had obviously been inspired by foreign powers and proposed to the Czechs in order to deal a blow to the prestige of the German Reich.
I do not need to repeat once again that Germany had not mobilized a single man in May of last year. By contrast, all of us had been of the opinion that the fate of Herr Schuschnigg would induce others to seek an understanding, by means of a more just treatment of their national minorities. For my person, I had been prepared to undertake patiently such a peaceful evolution, if necessary, over a number of years.
However, it was precisely these peaceful intentions which represented a thorn in the side of the fomenters in the democracies. They hate us Germans and would much prefer to wipe us out completely. And, what are the Czechs to them? A means to an end! What interest do they have in the fate of such a brave little people? What do they care for the lives of a few hundred thousand brave soldiers who unwittingly became the victims of their politics? These Western European fomenters of peace (Friedenshetzer) did not seek to promote peace, but to spill blood. And this bloodshed did enable them to rouse people yet again and thereby to let more blood flow. That is why the mobilization was made up and the public in Prague was told a pack of lies. These were intended to serve as arguments for a Czech mobilization. Above all, they were to furnish an excuse to exert highly welcome military pressure on the pending elections in the Sudetenland.
According to these men’s convictions, there remained only two possibilities for Germany: either it accepted the Czech mobilization and hence suffered a shameful defeat, or it openly confronted Czechoslovakia in a bloody war. This would have made it possible to mobilize the peoples of Western Europe, who had no real interest in this matter, to plunge them into the necessary frenzy of bloodlust and mankind into a new catastrophe. Some would have the honor to lose their lives in this war, while others would profit from it.
You are aware of the decision I made instantly at the time, my Deputies.
First: resolution of this question before the year 1938 ended, by October 2 at the latest. Second: preparations for a solution by all those means which would leave no doubt that any attempts at interference would be thwarted by the united strength of the nation.
At the time, I directed and gave orders for the expansion of our fortifications in the west. By September 25, 1938, they were already in such a condition as to surpass the power of resistance of the former Siegfried Line by thirty to forty times. Since then, they have essentially been completed. At present, the sections I later ordered to be added, running from Saarbrucken to Aix-la-Chapelle, are under construction. To a high degree, they are ready to assume their defensive role.
The state in which this mightiest fortification of all time finds itself today affords the German nation the reassuring knowledge that no power on earth shall ever be able to pierce this front.
When the first attempt at provocation by means of the Czech mobilization had not produced the desired results, a second phase set in. It revealed all the more the true nature of the interests involved in this affair which concerned Central Europe exclusively. And when today a cry rings out in the world, “Never again Munich,” this is ample evidence that these warmongers regard the peaceful solution of this problem as the most ruinous outcome that ever happened.
They regret that no blood was shed. Not their blood, of course, since these fomenters never stand where the shots are being fired, but where the money is being made. What is at stake is the blood of many nameless soldiers.
By the way, it was not even necessary for this Conference at Munich to convene. After all, it came about only because those states which agitated for resistance at all costs later on began to search for a more or less decent escape route, once the problem called for a solution in one way or another. For without Munich, i.e. without the Western European states’ intervention, the solution of this entire problem-had there ever been a like escalation of events- would have been child’s play.
The decision at Munich resulted in the following:
The following questions remained open:
As you are aware, barely had the negotiations between Hungary and Czechoslovakia begun, when the Czechoslovakian as well as the Hungarian negotiators approached Germany and Italy, standing at our side, with the request to undertake, as arbitrators, the drawing of the new borders between Slovakia, the Carpatho-Ukraine, and Hungary. In so doing, they themselves failed to exhaust the possibility of an appeal to the Four Powers, and, thus, waived this right, i.e. declined to take advantage of it.
And this was quite understandable. All those residing in this Lebensraum wished to preserve peace and quiet. Italy and Germany were ready to heed this call. Neither England nor France objected to this agreement, which in its nature had already bypassed the formalities of the Munich Agreement. After all, it would have been crazy if either London or Paris had protested against an act by Germany or Italy which had taken place on the request of those concerned.
As always in such cases, the award arbitrated by Italy and Germany could not completely satisfy both sides. Its major shortcoming was that both parties had to agree to submit to the arbitration voluntarily. Shortly after this award was settled, two states immediately mounted strong protests.
Hungary claimed the Carpatho-Ukraine based on its general interests and certain specific ones. Poland, on the other hand, demanded a direct link to Hungary. In view of these claims, the remainder of this state born at Versailles was destined to perish. In all likelihood, only one other state was interested in maintaining the status quo: Rumania. A competent authority personally informed me of how desirable he felt it was that Rumania should be granted a direct link to Germany through the Ukraine and Slovakia. I am citing this particular example to illustrate how threatened Rumania must have felt by Germany, as certain American clairvoyants would have had it.
It was clear, however, that it was neither Germany’s duty to oppose such a development in the long run, nor to fight for a state of affairs for which we could never have assumed responsibility.
Hence came the moment in which I resolved to declare, on behalf of the Reich Government, that we had no intention to continue to be bothered with the odium of opposing the Polish and Hungarian desire for a common border, just perhaps to secure a route of advance into Rumania. And since the Czech government resorted once more to its methods of old, and Slovakia revealed its desires for independence, there could be no talk of maintaining this state any longer. The Czechoslovakian state constructed at Versailles had outlived its purpose. It broke up not because Germany wished this. It broke up because it is not possible to construct and maintain at the conference table artificial states which are not viable in themselves.
Thus when, a few days before this state disintegrated, England and France inquired about a guarantee, Germany rejected this because the conditions stipulated at Munich no longer applied. To the contrary, when the German Reich Government finally resolved to intervene on its part-now that this whole structure was in the process of disintegration and, for all practical purposes, had already disintegrated-then this occurred in the fulfillment of a self-evident duty. In this context, the following ought to be noted: On the occasion of the Czech Foreign Minister Chvalkovsky’s first visit to Munich, the German Reich Government clearly expressed its views on the future of Czechoslovakia. At the time, I myself assured Herr Minister Chvalkovsky that, given a decent treatment of the large remaining German minorities in Czechia and a pacification of the whole state, Germany would assume a fair attitude. We did not wish to create difficulties for this state.
I left no doubt that, if Czechia undertook any steps reminiscent of the political tendencies of the retired Herr Dr. Beneš, Germany would not tolerate a development along this line. Such a development would be nipped in the bud.
At the time, I also pointed out that the maintenance of huge military arsenal in Central Europe without aim and object had to be regarded as a source of danger.
Later developments proved how right this warning of mine had been. A continually worsening whispering campaign as well as a lapse of the Czech newspapers into the old style made it clear to even the most simple-minded that a return to the old state of affairs was imminent.
The danger of a military confrontation was ever present in view of the possibility that some lunatics could seize the enormous stockpile of war material.
This involved a certain danger of explosions of incalculable consequences.
To prove this to you, my Deputies, I have no choice but to give you a general idea of the numerical proportions of the international arsenal of explosives in Central Europe, which strike me as downright gigantic.
Since this territory has been occupied, the following items were confiscated and secured:
I believe that it was fortunate for millions and millions of people that I was able to prevent this explosion, thanks to the insight which the responsible men on the other side had at the last minute. It is my conviction that we found a solution which has settled this dispute and has eliminated it as a source of danger for Central Europe.
The claim that this solution contradicts the Munich Agreement cannot be justified any more than it can be substantiated. Under no circumstances can the Munich settlement be regarded as a final one. After all, it makes concessions for the solution of additional questions and the need to resolve them. Truly, and this is decisive, it cannot be held against us that the concerned parties appealed to Italy and Germany, and not to the Four Powers. Nor can it be held against us that Czechoslovakia disintegrated on its own and, hence, ceased to exist. It is only natural that, once these ethnographic principles no longer applied, Germany again took charge of its one-thousand year old interests, which are not only of a political, but also of an economic nature. Time will tell whether the solution Germany found was the right one. One thing is sure, however: this solution should not be subject to English control or criticism. For the Lander of Bohemia and Moravia have nothing at all to do with the Munich Agreement since they constituted the final remnants of the former Czechoslovakian state.
As little right as we have to subject English measures, whether just or unjust, to German control and criticism, for instance in Northern Ireland, as little right does England possess to do this in the case of the old German electorates. I completely fail to understand how the personal understanding reached by Mr. Chamberlain and myself at Munich can be applied to this case. After all, the case of Czechoslovakia was dealt with in the Munich Agreement insofar as it was possible to deal with it at that point. Beyond this, it was only planned that, should the concerned parties be unable to arrive at a agreement themselves, they could appeal to the Four Powers. After a period of three months, the Four Powers would meet again for further consultations.
Now the concerned parties have not appealed to the Four Powers, but to Germany and Italy. Evidence for the legitimacy of this step lies in the fact that neither England nor France voiced any objections. Moreover, they have accepted without any further ado the award arbitrated by Germany and Italy.
No, the agreement Mr. Chamberlain and I entered into has nothing to do with the problem at hand. It applies exclusively to questions concerning the coexistence of England and Germany. This is equally evident in the statement that such questions, in the future, ought to be dealt with in the spirit of the Munich Agreement and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, which advocate friendly relations by means of mutual consultations. Should this agreement apply to any and all future German political activities, then England could not take any further steps, for instance, in Palestine or anywhere else for that matter, without consulting Germany before taking action. We certainly expect nothing of the kind and, in turn, we protest that this is expected of us. When Mr. Chamberlain now concludes that the Munich Agreement is null and void, because we abrogated it, I shall take note of his disposition as of today and I shall draw the proper conclusions.
Throughout my years of political activities, I have always advocated the idea of establishing close Anglo-German friendship and cooperation. I found countless congenial people in my Movement. Perhaps they even joined my Movement because of this conviction of mine. The desire for Anglo-German friendship and cooperation not only reflects my own proper sentiments on the topic, derived from the common heritage of our two peoples, but also my opinion that the existence of the British Empire is of importance to mankind and in its best interest. Never have I left any doubt about my conviction that the maintaining of this empire is an object of inestimable value to mankind’s culture and economy.
By whatever means Great Britain may have gained its colonial possessions- and I know this entailed the use of force, the use of the most brutal force in many instances-I nevertheless realize that no other empire has ever been created by different means. In the end, world history values not the method so much as the success; and this not in terms of the success of the method employed, but of the general utility derived from the method.
Undoubtedly the Anglo-Saxon people have accomplished a great colonizing work on this earth. I sincerely admire this achievement. From a higher humanitarian point of view, the thought of its destruction has always seemed to me, and seems to me today, the product of a wanton thirst for fame (Herostratentum). However, my sincere respect for this attainment does not mean I will refrain from assuring the life of my own Volk. I believe it is not possible to bring about a lasting friendship between the German and the Anglo-Saxon peoples if the other side fails to realize that next to British interests there are German ones also. As for the men of Britain the sustenance of the British Empire lends meaning and purpose to life, so the sustenance and liberty of the German Reich does for the men of Germany! A lasting friendship between these two nations is conceivable only in the framework of mutual respect.
The English rule a mighty empire. They built this empire in the days of the German Volk’s slackening. In former times, the German Reich also was a mighty empire. It once ruled the West. In bloody battles and religious confrontations, as well as because this state split up internally, this Reich lost its might and greatness and finally fell into a deep sleep. Still, as the old Reich was nearing its end, the seed for its ultimate rebirth began to germinate. A new Germany grew out of Brandenburg and Prussia: the Second Reich. And, in the final instance, this became the German Volksreich of today.
Perhaps now the English will understand that we have no reason to feel in the least inferior to them. For this, truly, our historic past is too colossal! England has given the world many a great man; Germany has done no less.
The difficult struggle for the survival of our Volk has demanded of us, in the course of three centuries, a blood sacrifice in the defense of the Reich far outstripping the sacrifices other peoples had to make to secure their existence. That, perpetually the victim of aggression, Germany was not able to maintain its assets, that it had to sacrifice many provinces, has been the result of the state’s undesirable development which caused its impotence.
We have now overcome this condition. We, as Germans, therefore do not feel inferior to the British. Our respect for our country is just as great as that of every Englishman for England. The history of our Volk throughout the past two thousand years affords us grounds enough and deeds to fill us with sincere pride.
Should England declare itself incapable of understanding this, our attitude, and should it instead perhaps regard Germany as a vassal state, then our offer of love and friendship for England will have been for naught. We shall neither despair nor lose heart because of this. Instead, we shall then set out on a path- conscious of our own strength and that of our friends-which shall secure our independence and not prejudice our dignity.
I am aware of the British Prime Minister’s declaration in which he maintains he cannot place any trust in assurances by Germany. Under the circumstances, I felt that we should no longer burden him or the English people with conditions, unthinkable without mutual trust. When Germany became National Socialist and thus initiated its resurrection, I made a proposal, for my part, in pursuit of my stalwart policy of friendship for England, to impose voluntary limits on German armament at sea. This implied the will and conviction that war should never again be possible between England and Germany. And this remains my will and my conviction even today.
However, I am now forced to concede that England’s official and unofficial policies leave no doubt that London no longer shares this conviction. Quite the contrary, it is my conviction that, irrespective of what type of conflict Germany might be drawn into, Britain will always oppose Germany. War with Germany is regarded as a matter of course.
I deeply regret this since my only demand of England today is, and will continue to be, the return of our colonies. However, I have always made it perfectly clear that this does not constitute grounds for a war. I remain true to my conviction that England, for whom the colonies have no value, would come to understand Germany’s position one day. Then it would undoubtedly realize that Germany’s friendship far outweighed these objects, which, while they are of no real use to England, are of vital importance to Germany.
Beyond this, I have never made any demands which affected British interests, posed a real danger to its world empire, or were detrimental to England in some other manner. I have restricted myself to demands in the framework of Germany’s Lebensraum, questions closely tied to the German nation’s eternal possessions. Now that journalists and officials in England publicly advocate opposition to Germany in any case, and this is confirmed by the well-known policy of encirclement, then the foundations on which the Anglo-German Naval Agreement rested have been destroyed.
Thus, I have resolved to inform the British Government of this today. This is not a question of a material affair-since I continue to cherish the hope that an arms race with England can be avoided-but a question of self-respect.
Should the British government reconsider and wish to negotiate this matter with Germany in order to reach a clear and definite understanding, then no one would be happier than I.
Beyond this, I know my Volk-I rely on it. We desire nothing that was not ours before. Never will we rob another state of its rightful possessions.
Alas, he who believes he can attack Germany will encounter such a power and such a resistance that those of the year 1914 will have been negligible in comparison.
I would like to discuss in this context a matter which those circles that earlier occasioned the mobilization of Czechoslovakia have taken up as a point of departure for a new campaign against the Reich. In the introduction to my speech, my Deputies, I already assured you that never in my political life, neither in the case of Austria nor in the case of Czechoslovakia, have I assumed an attitude which was incompatible with the measures now executed. On the question of the Memel Germans, I have always pointed out that, should Lithuania not resolve this problem in a refined and generous manner, Germany would have to appear on the scene one day.
You know that the Diktat of Versailles arbitrarily tore the Memel territory from the German Reich, and that in 1923, in the midst of peace, Lithuania occupied these areas and confiscated them more or less. The fate suffered by the Germans living there has become tantamount to martyrdom since then. In the framework of the reintegration of Bohemia and Moravia into the German Reich, I was able to reach an agreement with the Lithuanian government, which allowed for the return of these areas to Germany without any violent act or bloodshed. And here, too, I did not demand even one square mile more than what we originally had possessed and had been robbed of.
This means that only those areas torn from us by the insane dictators of peace at Versailles returned to the German Reich. I am convinced that this solution will have a favorable effect on the relations between Germany and Lithuania. Our behavior has clearly shown that Germany now has no interest in anything other than to live in peace and friendship also with this state. We seek to establish and cultivate economic ties with it.
And, in principle, I wish to explain the following here: the significance of economic agreements with Germany lies not only in its ability to produce nearly all industrial goods in demand, but also in its role as a gigantic consumer. As the buyer of numerous products Germany makes it possible for many other countries to participate in world trade in the first place. Hence, it is in our own best interest not only to preserve these markets, but to cultivate them as well.
For this is what the existence of our Volk is based on to a high degree. It is once more a sign of the greatness of the so-called democratic statesmen that they believe they have won an eminent political success when they manage to prevent a people from making sales, for example, by boycotting its markets, in order to starve them out, I presume. I need not tell you that, in accordance with my convictions, a people will not starve because of this, but it will be all the more willing to fight under such circumstances.
As far as Germany is concerned, it is determined not to allow certain markets which are of vital interest to the nation to be taken from it by terrorist interventions from abroad or by threats from there. This is not only in our interest, but also in the interest of our trading partners. In this case, as in any type of business, dependency is not unilateral but mutual.
We often have the pleasure to read dilettantish treatises in the democratic press which in all earnest maintain that, because Germany has close economic relations with a country, it is trying to make that country dependent on it. What truly hair-raising Jewish nonsense! For, if today the German Reich delivers machinery to an agricultural state and receives foodstuffs in return, then the Reich as a consumer of these foodstuffs is at least as dependent-if not more dependent-on this agricultural state as the agricultural state is on Germany from which it receives industrial products as payment.
Germany regards the Baltic States as its most important trading partners. It is hence in our own interest to see that these lead an independent, orderly national life of their own. In our eyes, this is a prerequisite for any economic development domestically, which in turn creates the prerequisites for our barter trade.
I therefore am happy that in the case of Lithuania, too, we have been able to remove the bone of contention between our two countries. Thus, we have cleared away the only obstacle in the way of a friendly policy. It does not consist of political compliments, but can and will hold its own, I am convinced, in practical work in the economic sphere.
The democratic world profoundly regrets that no blood was shed in this instance, too. It regrets that 175,000 Germans were able to return to their beloved German homeland without a few hundred thousand others being shot in the process! This truly pains the humane world apostles. It is not surprising in the least that they immediately set out to search for new means of once again upsetting the European atmosphere thoroughly. And this time, as in the case of Czechoslovakia, they again alleged that Germany had taken military measures, that is they claimed that a so-called German mobilization had taken place. And the object of this mobilization was Poland.
There is little to be said on the topic of Polish-German relations. In this instance as well, the Peace Treaty of Versailles has grievously and intentionally wounded the German Volk. Above all, the strange delimitation of the Corridor, granting Poland access to the sea, was to preclude a reconciliation between Poland and Germany for all time. And, as emphasized earlier, this problem is perhaps the most painful one for Germany to bear.
This notwithstanding, I remained steadfast in my conviction that the necessity of granting the Polish state free access to the sea cannot be ignored.
Moreover, in principle, I have always maintained that it would be expedient that people whom Providence has destined-or damned, for all I care-to live next to one another, did not needlessly and artificially poison their relations. The late Marshal Pilsudski, who adhered to this view also, was willing to review the issue of a decontamination of Polish-German relations and finally to arrive at an agreement, in which Germany and Poland pledged themselves to renounce war as a means of settling conflicts between them.
Poland was granted one exception from this agreement: the provision that pacts of assistance previously entered into by Poland would not be affected by this regulation. Reference here was solely to the Mutual Assistance Pact with France. It was accepted as a matter of course that this provision applied only to the pact already concluded and was not to be extended to pacts to be concluded in the future. It is a fact that this German-Polish Pact considerably contributed to a relaxation of tensions in Europe.
Nevertheless one question remained open, one issue which would naturally have to be resolved sooner or later: the question of the German city of Danzig. Danzig is a German city and it wishes to return to Germany. On the other hand, this city does have contractual obligations to Poland, although they were forced on it by the dictators of peace at Versailles. Now that the League of Nations-previously a great contributor to the unrest-has commissioned a most tactful High Commissioner to represent its interest, the question of Danzig was destined to land on the conference table once more, at the very latest when this ominous institution itself began to fade. I regard the peaceful resolution of this question as a further contribution to a final relaxation of tensions in Europe. This relaxation of tensions is assuredly not promoted by the smear campaign of warmongers gone crazy, but rather by the elimination of real sources of danger.
Since the problem of Danzig was discussed several times a few months ago, I forwarded to the Polish Government a concrete proposal. I will now inform you, my Deputies, of the contents of this proposal. You shall be able to judge for yourselves whether this proposal was not the most gigantic concession imaginable in the service of peace in Europe.
As emphasized previously, I have always recognized the necessity for this state to have access to the sea and I have taken account of this. I am not a democratic statesman; I am a realistic National Socialist. However, I held it equally necessary to point out to the government in Warsaw that, just as it desires access to the sea, Germany desires access to its province in the East. These are indeed difficult problems. Germany bears no responsibility for this. The ones to be blamed are the magicians of Versailles who either out of malice or thoughtlessness set up a hundred powder kegs all around Europe, each equipped with a fuse virtually impossible to extinguish.
You cannot solve these problems in the same old way. I hold it to be absolutely essential that new ways be found. After all, Poland’s access to the sea and Germany’s access to the Corridor are devoid of any military significance.
Their significance is of a psychological and economic nature exclusively. To assign military significance to this traffic route would mean succumbing to military naivety to an exceptional degree.
I have therefore made the following proposal to the Polish Government:
In return, Germany is willing:
The Polish Government has refused this proposal of mine and has declared itself willing:
I sincerely regret the attitude of the Polish government which I fail to understand. This alone is not decisive, however. What is far worse is that Poland, like Czechoslovakia a year ago, now apparently believes it has to call up troops, under pressure from a mendacious worldwide campaign of rabblerousing.
And this though Germany has conscripted not one man nor in any way intended to take action against Poland.
As stated earlier, all this is regrettable in itself. It will be up to posterity to decide whether it was wise to refuse the unique proposal which I had made. As stated earlier, this was an attempt to resolve a question which moves the entire German nation emotionally through a truly unique compromise, and to solve it to the advantage of both countries.
It is my conviction that Poland was not interested in the give and take of this solution-it sought exclusively to take. That Danzig could never again become Polish was completely beyond doubt. And the plans for an attack, falsely attributed to Germany by the international press, now led to the so-called offers of guarantee. It also led to a commitment by the Polish government to a pact of mutual assistance which would force Poland to oppose Germany militarily, in the event of war between Germany and another power-in which England would appear on the scene again. This commitment violates the agreement which, at the time, I had entered into with Marshal Pilsudski. For this agreement bore solely on commitments then already in existence, i.e. on Poland’s commitment to France, of which we knew. To expand on these commitments retroactively is inconsistent with the German-Polish Non- Aggression Pact. Under the circumstances, I would never have concluded this Pact. For what is the meaning of a non-aggression pact, when one party leaves open countless exceptions to the rules! Either collective security exists, that is collective insecurity and the perpetual threat of imminent war, or there are clear agreements, which, in principle, prevent the contracting parties from resorting to arms. Thus, I regard the agreement reached at the time with Marshal Pilsudski as unilaterally abrogated by Poland and therefore null and void. I have informed the Polish Government of this. I can only repeat once again that this does not signify a fundamental change in principle in my views of the stated problems.
Should the Polish Government consider it worth its while to arrive at a renewed contractual regulation of its relations to Germany, then I shall naturally welcome this with the one provision that such a regulation must contain clear commitments, which must be mutually binding for both parties.
Germany is gladly willing to undertake such obligations and to fulfill them as well.
When, for these reasons, new unrest took hold in Europe during the past weeks, the propaganda at the service of the international warmongers was responsible, a form of propaganda perpetrated by numerous organs in the democratic states. They seek to continuously exacerbate nervous tensions by fabricating persistent rumors; to make Europe ripe for a catastrophe; that catastrophe which they hope will achieve what has not been achieved by other means up to now: Bolshevism’s annihilation of European culture! The rabblerousers’ hatred is easily understood if one considers that in the meantime one of the crisis spots in Europe has been pacified, thanks to the heroism of one man and his people, and-if I may say so-thanks to the Italian and German volunteers. During these last weeks, Germany has joined in the experience and celebration of Spain’s victory with heartfelt sympathy.
When, at the time, I resolved to heed the request by General Franco for assistance by National Socialist Germany in his struggle against the international backing of the Bolshevist murderers and incendiaries (Mordbrenner), the same international warmongers misinterpreted and abused this step by Germany in the most shameful manner.
At the time, Germany was accused of seeking to gain a foothold in Spain; of coveting Spain’s colonies; there was the base lie of 20,000 men landing in Morocco. In brief, everything possible was done to discredit the idealism of our men and the Italian reinforcements and to provide new fodder for yet another campaign of warmongering.
In a few weeks, the victorious hero of Nationalist Spain will make his solemn entry into the capital of his country. The Spanish people will jubilantly cheer him as their savior from unspeakable horrors, as their liberator from gangs of murderers and incendiaries, on whose conscience are the execution and the murder of an estimated 775,000 human beings. Entire populations of villages and cities were literally slaughtered under the silent, gracious patronage of humanitarian world apostles from the democracies of Western Europe and North America. In this victory parade, side by side with their Italian comrades, the volunteers of our German Legion will march in the rows of valiant Spanish soldiers.
Shortly afterwards we hope to welcome them here in the homeland. The German Volk will then find out how, in this instance also, its valiant sons fought in the defense of the freedom of a most noble people and how, in the end, they contributed to the rescue of European civilization. For the victory of Bolshevist subhumanity (Untermenschentum) in Spain could only too easily have swept over Europe. Hence, the hatred felt by those who regret that Europe did not go up in flames. Now, they are all the more determined to make use of every opportunity to sow the seeds of distrust between nations and to whip up the enthusiasm for war, desirable from their point of view, somewhere else.
What these international warmongers have come up with, in the last weeks, in terms of mendacious statements and falsified reports, which were circulated in numerous newspapers, was partially as childish as it was spiteful. And its first success-insofar as it did not serve the domestic politics of the democratic governments exclusively-has been the spread of a type of nervous hysteria which in the land of unlimited possibilities has presently already led to people thinking that a landing by Martians is possible. However, the actual purpose is to prepare public opinion to accept the English policy of encirclement as necessary and, if worse comes to worse, to support this policy.
By contrast, the German Volk can calmly go about its daily work. The best army in Germany’s history defends its frontiers; a gigantic Luftwaffe protects its air space; its coasts have been made unassailable by any enemy power. In the West the mightiest bulwark of all time has been erected.
What is decisive, however, is the unity of the Volkskorper, the trust all Germans place in their Wehrmacht, and-I believe I can say this-the trust that all place in their leadership.
No less is the trust our leadership and our Volk place in our friends. At their fore stands the one state, which in its fateful solidarity is closest to us in all respects. And in this year also, Fascist Italy has shown the greatest possible understanding for Germany’s justified interests. No one should be surprised that, for our part, we reciprocate these sentiments for Italy’s vital necessities.
The alliance which binds the two peoples can never come apart! Any attempt to rock it is ludicrous in our eyes. In any event, a few days ago, one great democratic newspaper published an article which illustrates and elucidates this well. It maintained that one could no longer count on playing Italy and Germany against each other in order to destroy them separately later.
Thus, the German Reich Government has profound understanding for the lawfulness of the action of our Italian friend against Albania and has welcomed it. Yes, Fascism has not only the right but the duty to attend to the preservation of order in this Lebensraum, which nature and history have assigned to Italy. Only such an order can lay the foundations for the bloom of human civilization and its maintenance. And the rest of the world can no more doubt, in the end, the civilizing works of Fascism than it can doubt those of National Socialism. In both cases, undeniable facts speak against untenable fibs and unproven assertions by the other side.
It is the long-term goal of the German State leadership to bring about increasingly close relations between Germany, Italy, and Japan. We regard the continued existence and the preservation of the freedom and independence of these three world powers as a strong element in the maintenance of a truly human civilization, a practical civilization, as well as a more just world order for the future.
As I mentioned in my introduction earlier, the world was informed of the contents of a certain telegram on April 15, 1939. I did eventually see this telegram myself, though not until somewhat later. It is difficult to classify this document. It simply fits into no known category. Therefore, my Deputies of the German Reichstag, standing before you and hence before the German Volk, I will try to analyze the contents of this curious document. From there I will go on to give the necessary answers in your name and in the name of the German Volk.
Answer: To this I would like to say that the fear of war has undoubtedly haunted mankind throughout the ages, and rightly so. For example, from the conclusion of the Peace Treaty of Versailles in 1919 until 1938, fourteen wars alone have been waged, in none of which Germany has been involved. However, the same cannot be said of states of the “western hemisphere” in the name of which Mr. President Roosevelt claims to be speaking. To these wars one must add, within the same time period, twenty-six armed interventions and sanctions imposed by brute force, and resulting in bloodshed. And in this, too, Germany has not been involved in the least.
The United States has participated in six cases of armed intervention since the year 1918 alone Soviet Russia has been involved in ten wars and military actions since 1918 carried out by use of force and bloodshed. And in this, too, Germany has not been involved. Nor has it caused any of these incidents.
Hence, in my eyes, it would be a mistake to attribute the fear of war of the peoples of Europe and beyond right now to precisely those wars for which Germany could be held responsible.
Instead, the cause for this fear lies in an unbridled smear campaign in the press, as mendacious as it is vile, in the dissemination of nasty pamphlets to foreign heads of state, in the artificial scaremongering which has even made interventions from other planets seem possible, which, in turn, has led to dreadful scenes of utter confusion.
I believe that the minute the responsible governments exercise the necessary restraint themselves and demonstrate greater love of truth, and impose this criterion on their journalistic organs, with regard to international relations and the internal affairs of other people, then assuredly this constant fear of war will vanish immediately. And then, the peace we all desire will be forthcoming.
Answer: No one knows this better than the German Volk. The Peace Treaty of Versailles placed so heavy a burden of debt on its shoulders that even a hundred years would not have sufficed to pay it off. And all this despite the fact that it was American specialists in constitutional law, historians, and professors of history who proved conclusively that Germany could not be blamed for the outbreak of the World War any more than any other nation.
Still, I do not believe that every struggle has catastrophic consequences for the environment, i.e. the entire earth, especially if it is not artificially drawn into this conflict by a system of impenetrable alliances. Since the world has experienced wars not only in the past centuries, but also frequently in more recent decades, as I have demonstrated in my earlier comments, then this would mean that, if Mr. Roosevelt’s views are correct, the sum of the consequences of these wars would bear heavily on mankind for millions of years to come.
Answer: This is precisely the same opinion I have always advocated myself. Also as history proves, I have settled the necessary political, economic and social problems without resort to arms, without resort to war. Regrettably, a peaceful settlement has been rendered more difficult through the agitation by politicians, statesmen, and news reporters, who were neither concerned nor in the least affected by the issues in question.
Answer: As far as Germany is concerned, I am not aware of such threats to other nations. Nevertheless, each day in democratic newspapers I read lies concerning such threats. Daily I read about the mobilization of German troops, trooplandings, and blackmail. And all this is supposedly directed against states with whom we live in peace and enjoy the most friendly of relations.
Answer: This is a conviction I have expressed as a politician during twenty years in which, regrettably, the responsible statesmen in America could not bring themselves to see their involvement in the World War and the nature of its outcome in this light.
Answer: If this is indeed clear, then it must be truly criminal negligence-not to employ a less refined expression-by the leaders of these peoples if they prove incapable of curtailing, in view of the powers at their command, the excesses of their warmongering press and thereby of sparing the world the disaster which threatens in the case of armed confrontation.
Moreover, I fail to comprehend how the responsible leaders, instead of cultivating diplomatic relations internationally, can recall their ambassadors or take like actions to disrupt and render these relations more difficult without a good reason.
My answer: I do not understand which three nations in Europe are being referred to.
Should reference be made to the provinces which have been reintegrated in the German Reich, then I must bring a mistaken notion of history to the attention of the President. These nations have by no means lost their independence within Europe. Rather it was in the year 1918 when, through the breach of a solemn promise, they were torn from the communities they belonged to. The stamp of nationhood was imprinted on their brow, one they neither desired nor deserved.
Independence was likewise forced on those who gained no independence thereby, but who instead were forced into a dependency on foreign powers whom they despised.
As far as the nation in Africa is concerned which supposedly lost its freedom too, this is evidently yet another case of mistaken identity. Not one nation in Africa has lost its freedom. Rather nearly all former inhabitants of this continent have been subjected by brute force to the sovereignty of other peoples. This is how they lost their freedom. The people of Morocco, the Berbers, the Arabs, the Negroes, and so on, all of them became the victims of foreign powers, whose swords assuredly did not bear the inscription “Made in Germany,” but instead “Made by Democracies.”
Answer: I hold such rumors, devoid of any basis in reality, to constitute a violation of peace and quiet in the world. I perceive therein an attempt to frighten small nations or at least an attempt to make them increasingly nervous. Should Mr.
Roosevelt have concrete cases in mind, then I would request that he name the states threatened by an attack and the potential aggressors in question. Then it will be possible to eliminate from the face of this earth these outrageous and general accusations by short declarations.
My answer: Once again, I would like to state that, first of all, I have not waged war.
And, second, I have lent expression to my distaste for war as well as for warmongering for many years. Third, I do not know why I should wage war. I would be greatly indebted to Mr. Roosevelt if he could explain all this to me.
My answer: I hold this to be the attitude embraced by all reasonable men. Only it seems to me that in almost every war both parties tend to claim to be acting in self-evident home defense. Regrettably, the world does not possess any institution, including the person of Roosevelt, able to resolve this problem unequivocally. For example, there is no doubt that America did not enter into the World War in “self-evident home defense.” A commission appointed by Mr. Roosevelt himself to investigate the reasons for America’s entry into the World War arrived at the conclusion that this entry had been essentially for the realization of capitalist interests. Now, all there is left for us to do is to hope that the United States itself shall adhere to this noble principle in the future and will not make war on another people “save in the case of selfevident home defense.”
My answer: Had America raised its voice of strength and friendship for mankind in a more timely fashion and, above all, had this voice carried with it practical applications, then at least the treaty could have been prevented, which has become the source of the greatest disruption for mankind of all time, namely, the Diktat of Versailles.
My answer: Theoretically that may well be possible, since one ought to think that, in many instances, reason would prevail in pointing to the justness of the demands on the one side, and to the necessity of making concessions on the other. For example, according to all laws of reason, logic, and the principles of an allencompassing higher justice, even according to the commandments of a divine will, all nations should equally partake in the goods of this world. It is not right that one nation should occupy so large a Lebensraum that not even fifteen inhabitants live on one square kilometer, while other nations are forced to sustain themselves with 140, 150, or even 200 inhabitants per square kilometer.
And, under no circumstances, could these fortunate nations then seek to restrict the existing Lebensraum of those already impoverished, for example, by taking away their colonies. Thus, I would be happy if these problems could actually be solved at the Council table.
My skepticism is based on the fact that it was America which lent expression itself to pronounced reservations regarding the effectiveness of conferences. Without doubt, the greatest council of all time was the League of Nations. It was the will of an American President which created this body. All nations of this world together were to solve the problems of mankind at its Council table. However, the first state to withdraw from this endeavor was the United States. And this was the case because President Wilson himself already had voiced severe misgivings about the possibility of solving truly decisive international problems at the Council table.
With all due respect to your opinion, Mr. Roosevelt, it is contradicted by the actual fact that, in the nearly twenty years of the League of Nations’ existence-this greatest permanent conference of the world-it did not manage to solve even one truly decisive international problem. Throughout many years, the Treaty of Versailles had selectively excluded Germany from active participation in this great international conference in breach of the promise given by President Wilson. In spite of the bitter experiences of the past, the German Government nevertheless did not believe it ought to follow the example of the United States, but instead chose to occupy its seat at the Council table at a later date. It was not until after many years of futile participation that I finally resolved to imitate the Americans and withdraw from this greatest conference in the world. And since then I have set out to solve the problems concerning my Volk, which regrettably were not solved at the Council table of the League of Nations like all the others, and, without exception, I solved them without resort to war! Beyond this, many problems were brought to the attention of international conferences in the past years, as emphasized earlier, without a solution of any kind being found. And, Mr. Roosevelt, if your view is correct that all problems can be solved at the Council table, then all nations, including the United States, must have been led either by blind men or criminals in the last seven or eight thousand years. For all of them, including some of the greatest statesmen in the United States, have made history not by sitting at Council tables, but by making use of the strength of their nation. America did not gain its independence at the Council table any more than the conflict between its northern and southern states was solved at the Council table. I am leaving out of consideration here that the same holds true for the countless wars in the course of the gradual conquest of the North American continent. I mention all this only to observe that, with all due respect to the assuredly noble nature of your views, Mr. President Roosevelt, they are not in the least confirmed by either the history of your own country or the history of the rest of the world.
My answer: Truly, Mr. Roosevelt, you cannot believe that when the fate of the nation is at stake any government or leadership of the nation will lay down its weapons before a conference, or surrender them, simply in the blind hope that the intelligence or insight, or whatever, of the other participants in the conference will make the right decision in the end? Mr. Roosevelt, there has been only one people and one government in all of world history, which has adhered to the formula which you recommend: that of Germany. Acting on solemn promises by the American President Wilson and the endorsement of these assurances by the Allies, the German nation once trustingly laid down its arms. It approached the Council table unarmed. However, once it had laid down its arms, the German nation no longer was even invited to the conference. Instead, contrary to all assurances, the greatest breach of promise of all time was affected.
And then, one fine day, instead of resolving the greatest confusion of all time at the Council table, the most inhuman Diktat in the world brought about even more terrible confusion. The representatives of the German Volk, having laid down their arms and trusting in the solemn assurances of the American President, appeared unarmed to accept the Diktat of Versailles. They were received not as the representatives of a nation, which throughout four years had withstood the whole world with immense heroism in the struggle for its freedom and independence, but instead they were treated in a more degrading manner than could have been the case with Sioux Chiefs.
The German delegates were called names by the mob, stoned. They were dragged to the greatest Council table in the world no differently than prisoners to the tribunal of a victor. There, at gunpoint, they were forced to accept the most shameful subjugation and pillage of all time. Let me assure you, Mr. Roosevelt, that it is my own unshakeable will to see to it that not only now, but in the future as well, no German ever again shall step into a conference room defenseless. Instead, every representative of Germany shall perceive behind him the united force of the German nation, today and in the future, so help me God.
Answer: The representatives of Germany shall never again enter into a conference, which means nothing other than a tribunal for them. For who is to judge them? In a conference, there is neither a prosecution nor a judge, there are only two warring parties. And if the common sense of the concerned parties cannot find a solution or a settlement, then surely they will not submit themselves to a judge’s verdict by disinterested foreign powers. Besides, it was the United States which declined to step before the League of Nations for fear of becoming the unwitting victim of a court which could decide against the interest of individual parties, provided the necessary majority vote was attained.
Nevertheless, I would be greatly indebted to Mr. Roosevelt if he could explain to me how precisely this new world court is to be set up. Who are to be the judges? How shall they be selected? To whom shall they be held responsible? And, above all, for what shall they be held responsible?
Answer: In countless public addresses, Mr. Roosevelt, I have already done this. And in today’s session, I have made such a frank statement before the forum of the Reichstag-insofar as this is possible within the span of two hours. I must decline, however, to make such statements to anyone but the Volk for whose existence and life I am responsible. It alone has the right to demand this of me.
I render account of German policy objectives in so public a manner that the whole world can hear it anyway. Alas, these clarifications are of no consequence to the rest of the world, as long as there is a press capable of distorting any explanation, making it suspect, placing it in question, and concealing it beneath new mendacious answers.
Answer: Apparently Mr. Roosevelt seriously believes it would render a service to the cause of peace worldwide if the nations of the world would make such frank statements relating to the present policy of governments.
Why does President Roosevelt burden the German head of state so selectively with the request to make such a statement without inviting other governments to make similar statements relating to their policies? I do not believe that it is permissible at all to demand that such statements be made to a foreign head of state. Instead, in accordance with President Wilson’s demand at the time for the abolition of secret negotiations, such statements should best be made to the entire world.
I have not only consistently been willing to do this, but-as mentioned before-I have also done so all too frequently. Regrettably, it was precisely the most important statements on the goals and intentions of the German policies which the press in many of the so-called democratic states either withheld from the people or misrepresented.
When, however, the American President Roosevelt feels called on to address such a request to Germany or Italy of all states simply because America is far removed from Europe, then, since the distance between Europe and America is equally great, our side also would have the right to question the President of the United States on the foreign policy goals pursued by America and the intentions on which this policy is based, for instance with regard to the states of Central and South America. In this case, Mr. Roosevelt surely would refer us to the Monroe Doctrine and decline this request as an uncalled-for interference in the internal affairs of the American continent. Now, we Germans advocate exactly the same doctrine with regard to Europe and, in any event, we insist on it insofar as this regards the domain and the interests of the Greater German Reich.
Besides this, of course, I would never allow myself to direct a similar request to the President of the United States of America, as I assume he would justly regard this as tactless.
Answer: By what means does Mr. Roosevelt determine which nations are apprehensive as to the course of the policy of Germany and which do not? Or is Mr. Roosevelt in a position, in spite of the surely enormously heavy load of work on his shoulders in his own country, to assess by himself the inner state and frame of mind of foreign peoples and their governments?
Answer: As a first step, I took pains to inquire from the cited states whether, first, they are apprehensive. Second, I asked whether Mr. Roosevelt’s inquiry on their behalf was initiated by them or whether, at least, he had secured their consent in this. The responses obtained were negative throughout, in part even marked by outright indignation. However, a number of the cited states could not forward their response to us because, like Syria for example, they are presently not in the possession of their liberty since their territories are occupied by the military forces of the democratic states which have robbed them of all their rights. Third, far beyond this, the states bordering Germany have all received many binding assurances, and many more binding proposals, than Mr. Roosevelt requested of me in his peculiar telegram.
Fourth, should there be a question as to the value of these general and specific statements which I have repeatedly made, then would not any additional statement of this nature , even if it was made to Mr. Roosevelt, be equally worthless? After all, what is decisive is not Mr. Roosevelt’s opinion of such statements, but the value assigned to them by the states in question.
Fifth, I must yet point out to Mr. Roosevelt a few additional mistaken notions of history. For instance, he mentions Ireland and requests a statement that Germany not attack Ireland. Now, I have just read a speech by the Irish Prime Minister De Valera, in which, contrary to the opinion of Mr. Roosevelt, he oddly enough does not accuse Germany of oppressing Ireland and instead reproaches England for the persistent aggressions under which his state suffers.
And, despite Roosevelt’s great insight into the needs and concerns of other states, it can safely be assumed that the Irish Prime Minister knows better what threatens his country than the President of the United States does.
Equally, it appears to have slipped Mr. Roosevelt’s mind that Palestine is not being occupied by German troops but by English ones. By brute force, England is curtailing Palestinian freedom and is robbing the Palestinians of their independence to the advantage of Jewish intruders for whose cause the Palestinians suffer the most cruel of abuses. The Arabs living in this territory assuredly have not complained to Roosevelt of German aggressions. Rather, in persistent appeals to international public opinion, the Arabs lament the barbaric methods by means of which England seeks to overpower a people who loves its freedom and fights only to defend it.
This may well be one of the problems Mr. Roosevelt would like to see solved at the Council table. It ought to be decided by an impartial judge and not by brute force, military means, mass executions, the torching of villages, the dynamiting of houses, and so on. One thing is certain: in this case, England cannot claim to be repulsing the threat of an Arab attack on England. Instead England is the invader, whom no one bade come, and who seeks to establish his reign by force in a country not belonging to him. A number of similarly mistaken historic notions of Mr. Roosevelt are to be noted; not to mention how difficult it would be for Germany to conduct military operations in states and countries some of which are at a distance of two to five thousand and more kilometers.
I wish to state the following in concluding: the German Government nonetheless is willing to extend an assurance of the type desired by Roosevelt to each and every one of the cited states, if this state desires it and approaches Germany with such a reasoned request. However, there is one prerequisite: this assurance must be absolutely mutual in nature. This will be superfluous in a number of the cases of the states cited by Roosevelt since we are either already allied to them or, at the very least, enjoy close and friendly relations with them.
And, beyond the duration of such an arrangement, Germany will gladly enter into agreements with each of these states, agreements of the nature desired by this state.
I would not like to let this opportunity pass without extending assurances to the President of the United States on the issues of territories of most immediate concern to him, namely, the United States itself and the other states of the American continent. And herewith, I solemnly declare that any and all allegations of a planned German attack on American territories or an intervention to be pure swindle and crude fabrication. Not to mention that, assessed from a military standpoint, such allegations can only be the products of an overwrought imagination.
Answer: Mr. Roosevelt apparently is not aware that this problem already was completely resolved as far as Germany was concerned. In the years 1919 to 1923, the German Reich completely disarmed, as explicitly confirmed by the allied commissions, to the extent enumerated below.
The following were destroyed in the Army: 59,000 fieldguns and barrels; 130,000 machineguns; 31,000 trench mortars and barrels; 6,007,000 rifles and carbines; 243,000 MG barrels; 28,000 gun carriages; 4,390 trench mortar carriages; 38,750,000 shells; 16,550,000 hand grenades and rifle grenades; 60,400,000 live fuses; 491,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition; 335,000 tons of shell cases; 23,515 tons of cartridge cases; 37,600 tons of gunpowder; 79,000 ammunition gauges; 212,000 telephone sets; 1,072 flamethrowers, and so on.
Further destroyed were: sledges, mobile workshops, flak vehicles, limbers, steel helmets, gas masks, machines of the former war industry, and rifle barrels.
Further destroyed in the air were: 15,714 fighter planes and bombers; 27,757 aircraft engines.
At sea, the following were destroyed: 26 heavy battleships; 4 coastal armored ships; 4 battlecruisers; 19 light cruisers, 21 training ships and special ships; 83 torpedo boats; 315 U-boats.
Also destroyed were motor vehicles of all types, gas bombs and, in part, anti-gas defense equipment, propellants, explosives, searchlights, sighting devices, range finders and sound rangers, optical instruments of all kinds, harnesses, and so on; all airplane and airship hangars, and so on.
In accordance with the solemn assurances, which were given to Germany and corroborated in the Peace Treaty of Versailles, this was to constitute merely an advance payment to enable the outside world for its part to disarm without danger. As in all the other cases, having placed its faith in the promises given, Germany was to be shamefully deceived once more. As you are aware, all subsequent attempts sadly failed, in spite of years of negotiation at the council table, to bring about a disarmament of other states, which would have constituted no less than an element of intelligence and justice and the fulfillment of commitments made. I myself have contributed to these discussions a series of practical suggestions, Mr. Roosevelt, and I sought to initiate debate to at least reduce armament as much as possible. I suggested a 200,000-man ceiling for standing armies, an abolition of all offensive weapons, bombers, gas warfare, and so on.
Answer: I believe, Mr. Roosevelt, that it is not a matter of discussing these problems in theory. Instead, it is imperative to take concrete actions to remove actual impediments to the international economy. The greatest impediments lie within the respective states themselves. Previous experiences have shown that all great international conferences on trade failed simply because the respective states were not capable of keeping their domestic economies in order. Currency manipulation carried this insecurity to the international capital market. Above all, this resulted in constant fluctuations in the exchange rates.
It likewise places an intolerable burden on world trade relations if, because of ideological considerations, it is possible for certain countries to unleash a campaign of wild boycotts of other peoples and their goods, and thereby to practically exclude them from participation in the market. I believe you would render us a great service, Mr. Roosevelt, if you took advantage of your strong influence in the United States to eliminate these particular impediments to the conduct of truly free trade.
However, it did not prove possible to see through these proposals in the rest of the world, in spite of Germany’s complete disarmament. I therefore advanced proposals for a ceiling of 300,000 men to be put up for discussion. The result was equally negative. I thereupon continued to place a series of other detailed disarmament proposals before the forum of the German Reichstag and hence before the international public.
Nobody even thought of joining in these discussions. Instead, the rest of the world began to reinforce its existing vast armament. It was not until the year 1934 that I ordered a thorough German rearmament, after the last of my comprehensive proposals on behalf of Germany, regarding the 300,000-man army, had been rejected for good.
Still, Mr. Roosevelt, I should not like to stand in the way of the discussion of armament questions in which you intend to participate. I would only like to request that, before you turn to me and Germany, you contact the others. I can still see in my mind’s eye a sum of practical experiences and I am inclined to remain skeptical until reality sets me right.
For I simply cannot believe that, if the leaders of other peoples are not even capable of putting in order production in their own states and of eliminating the campaign of wild boycotts for ideological reasons which so detrimentally affect international economic relations there can be much hope of international accords bearing fruit in the improvement of economic relations. Only in this manner can we secure the right for all to buy and sell on equal terms in the world market.
Besides this, the German Volk has made concrete demands in this context. I would be delighted if you, Mr. President, as one of the successors to the late President Wilson, would speak up for finally redeeming the promise which once led Germany to lay down its arms and to surrender to the so-called victors. I am speaking, in this context, not so much of the countless billions of so-called reparation payments extorted from Germany, as of the return of the areas stolen from Germany. The German Volk has lost three million square kilometers of land both within and beyond Europe.
Moreover, unlike the colonies of other nations, the colonial possessions of the German Reich were not acquired by conquest but instead by treaties and purchase. President Wilson solemnly pledged his word that Germany’s claims to its territorial possessions, as well as all others, would undergo just scrutiny.
Instead, those nations, which have already secured for themselves the mightiest colonial empires of all time, have been awarded the German possessions. This causes our Volk great concern especially today, and will increasingly in the future as well. It would be a noble deed if President Franklin Roosevelt redeemed the promise made by President Woodrow Wilson. This would constitute a practical contribution to the moral consolidation of the world and the improvement of its economy.
Answer: Mr. President Roosevelt! Without any difficulty, I do understand that the greatness of your empire and the immense riches of your land allow you to feel responsible for the fate of the entire world and for the fate of all peoples.
However, Mr. Roosevelt, my situation is much more modest and limited. You have 135 million inhabitants living on nine-and-a-half million square kilometers. Your land is one of untold riches and vast natural resources. It is fertile enough to sustain half a billion human beings and to provide them with all necessities.
I once took over a state on the brink of ruin thanks to its ready trust in the assurances of the outside world and the feeble leadership of a democratic regime.
Unlike America, where not even fifteen persons live on one square kilometer, this state has 140 persons per square kilometer. The fertility of our soil does not equal yours. We lack the numerous natural resources which nature places at the disposal of your people. The billions of German savings, accumulated in the form of gold and currency during the years of peace, were extorted from us and taken away. We lost our colonies. In the year 1933, there were seven million unemployed in my country. Millions worked part-time only, millions of peasants were reduced to misery, commerce was nearly destroyed, trade was ruined; in short: chaos reigned.
I have been able to accomplish only one task in the years since, Mr. President Roosevelt. I could not possibly feel myself responsible for the fate of a world which showed no sympathy for the woeful plight of my own Volk. I saw myself as a man called on by Providence to serve this Volk and to deliver it from its terrible hardships. Within the six-and-a-half years now lying behind us, I lived day and night for the one thought: to awaken the inner forces dormant in this Volk forsaken by the outside world, to increase them to the utmost, and, finally, to use them in the salvation of our community.
I overcame chaos in Germany. I restored order, enormously raised production in all spheres of our national economy, labored to create substitutes for a number of the raw materials we lack, smoothed the way for new inventions, developed traffic, ordered the construction of gigantic roads. I had canals dug, colossal new factories brought to life. In all this, I strove to serve the development of the social community of my Volk, its education, and its culture. I succeeded in bringing those seven million unemployed, whose plight truly went to heart, back into a useful production process. Despite the difficulties faced, I managed to preserve his plot of soil for the German farmer, to rescue this for him. I brought about a bloom in German trade and fostered traffic.
To preclude threats from the outside world, I have not only united the German Volk politically, I have rearmed it militarily. Further, I have sought to tear to shreds page upon page of this Treaty, whose 448 articles represent the most dastardly outrage ever committed against a people and man. I have restored those provinces to the Reich which were stolen from it in 1919. I have led home to the Reich millions of despondent Germans torn from us. I have restored the one-thousand-year old, historic unity of the German Lebensraum. And I have labored to do so, Mr. President, without bloodshed and without bringing either upon my own Volk or other peoples the hardships of war. I have done this all by myself, Mr. President, although a mere twenty-one years ago, I was but an unknown laborer and soldier of my Volk. And, hence, before history, I can truly claim the right to be counted among those men who do the best that can reasonably and in all fairness be expected of them individually.
Your task is infinitely easier, Mr. President. In 1933, when I became Reich Chancellor, you became the President of the United States. From the start, you thereby placed yourself at the head of the largest and richest state in the world.
It is your good fortune to have to nourish barely fifteen human beings per square kilometer in your country. You have virtually never-ending natural resources at your disposal, more than anyone else in the world. The vastness of the terrain and the fertility of the soil are capable of providing each individual American with ten times the foodstuffs possible in Germany. Nature permits you to do this. While the inhabitants of your country number barely a third more than those of Greater Germany, they have fifteen times its Lebensraum at their disposal.
Thus, the vastness of your country allows you to have the time and leisure to attend to problems of a universal nature. You hence conceive of the world as so small a place that you can intervene beneficially and effectively wherever this might be required. In this sense, your concerns and suggestions can be far more sweeping than mine. For my world is the one in which Providence has put me, Mr. President Roosevelt, and for which I am responsible. It is a much smaller one. It contains only my Volk. But I do believe I am thereby in a better position to serve those ends closer to the hearts of all of us: justice, welfare, progress, and peace for the entire community of man!
Arriving at London in early 1938, newly-appointed U.S. Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy took up quickly with another transplanted American.
Viscountess Nancy Witcher Langhorne Astor assured Kennedy early in their friendship that he should not be put off by her pronounced and proud anti-Catholicism. “I’m glad you are smart enough not to take my [views] personally,” she wrote.
Astor pointed out that she had a number of Roman Catholic friends – G.K. Chesterton among them – with whom she shared, if nothing else, a profound hatred for the Jewish race.
Joe Kennedy, in turn, had always detested Jews generally, although he claimed several as friends individually. Indeed, Kennedy seems to have tolerated the occasional Jew in the same way Astor tolerated the occasional Catholic.
As fiercely anti-Communist as they were anti-Semitic, Kennedy and Astor looked upon Adolf Hitler as a welcome solution to both of these “world problems” (Nancy’s phrase). No member of the so-called “Cliveden Set” (the informal cabal of appeasers who met frequently at Nancy Astor’s palatial home) seemed much concerned with the dilemma faced by Jews under the Reich. Astor wrote Kennedy that Hitler would have to do more than just “give a rough time” to “the killers of Christ” before she’d be in favor of launching ”Armageddon to save them. The wheel of history swings round as the Lord would have it. Who are we to stand in the way of the future?” Kennedy replied that he expected the “Jew media” in the United States to become a problem, that “Jewish pundits in New York and Los Angeles” were already making noises contrived to “set a match to the fuse of the world.”
During May of 1938, Kennedy engaged in extensive discussions with the new German Ambassador to the Court of St. James’s, Herbert von Dirksen. In the midst of these conversations (held without approval from the U.S. State Department), Kennedy advised von Dirksen that President Roosevelt was the victim of “Jewish influence” and was poorly informed as to the philosophy, ambitions and ideals of Hitler’s regime. (The Nazi ambassador subsequently told his bosses that Kennedy was “Germany’s best friend” in London.)
Columnists back in the states condemned Kennedy’s fraternizing. Kennedy later claimed that 75% of the attacks made on him during his Ambassadorship emanated from “a number of Jewish publishers and writers. … Some of them in their zeal did not hesitate to resort to slander and falsehood to achieve their aims.” He told his eldest son, Joe Jr., that he disliked having to put up with “Jewish columnists” who criticized him with no good reason.
Like his father, Joe Jr. admired Adolf Hitler. Young Joe had come away impressed by Nazi rhetoric after traveling in Germany as a student in 1934. Writing at the time, Joe applauded Hitler’s insight in realizing the German people’s “need of a common enemy, someone of whom to make the goat. Someone, by whose riddance the Germans would feel they had cast out the cause of their predicament. It was excellent psychology, and it was too bad that it had to be done to the Jews. The dislike of the Jews, however, was well-founded. They were at the heads of all big business, in law etc. It is all to their credit for them to get so far, but their methods had been quite unscrupulous … the lawyers and prominent judges were Jews, and if you had a case against a Jew, you were nearly always sure to lose it. … As far as the brutality is concerned, it must have been necessary to use some ….”
Brutality was in the eye of the beholder. Writing to Charles Lindbergh shortly after Kristallnacht in November of 1938, Joe Kennedy Sr. seemed more concerned about the political ramifications stemming from high-profile, riotous anti-Semitism than he was about the actual violence done to the Jews. ”… Isn’t there some way,” he asked, “to persuade [the Nazis] it is on a situation like this that the whole program of saving western civilization might hinge? It is more and more difficult for those seeking peaceful solutions to advocate any plan when the papers are filled with such horror.” Clearly, Kennedy’s chief concern about Kristallnacht was that it might serve to harden anti-fascist sentiment at home in the United States.
Like his friend, Charles Coughlin (an anti-Semitic broadcaster and Roman Catholic priest), Kennedy always remained convinced of what he believed to be the Jews’ corrupt, malignant, and profound influence in American culture and politics. “The Democratic [party] policy of the United States is a Jewish production,” Kennedy told a British reporter near the end of 1939, adding confidently that Roosevelt would “fall” in 1940.
But it wasn’t Roosevelt who fell. Kennedy resigned his ambassadorship just weeks after FDR’s overwhelming triumph at the polls. He then retreated to his home in Florida: a bitter, resentful man nurturing religious and racial bigotries that put him out-of-step with his country, and out-of-touch with history.
Further information on the Stalin-Kakanovich Ukraine Holocaust
Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich (Kogan), of Jewish descent, was born in Kubany, near Kiev, Ukraine, in 1893. In 1911, he joined the Jewish-founded Communist Party and became involved with the Bolsheviks (Lower East Side New York Jews). Kaganovich took an active part in the 1917 takeover of Christian Russia by Communism and rose rapidly in the Party hierarchy.
From 1925 to 1928, he was first secretary of the party organization in Ukraine and by 1930 was a full member of the Politburo.
Kaganovich was one of a small group of Stalin’s top sadists pushing for very high rates of collectivization after 1929. He became Stalin’s butcher of Christian Russians during the late 1920s and early 1930s when the Kremlin launched its war against the kulaks (small landowners who were Christians) and implemented a ruthless policy of land collectivization. The resulting state-organized forced famine, was a planned genocide and killed 7,000,000 Ukrainians between 1932 and 1933, and inflicted enormous suffering on the Soviet Central Asian republic of Kazakhstan.
Josef Stalin (Dzhugashvili) altered census figures to hide the millions of famine deaths when the Ukraine and northern Caucasus region had an extremely poor harvest in 1932, just as Stalin was demanding heavy requisitions of grain to sell abroad to finance his industrialization program which was on top of enforced collective farming of 1929. Stalin is conservatively estimated to have been responsible for the murder and/or starvation of 40,000,000 Russians and Ukrainians during his reign of terror, while the total deaths resulting from the de-kulaklization and famine, by way of Kaganovich, can be conservatively estimated at about 14,500,000.
On any analysis, Kaganovich, was one of the worst mass murderers in history, and little wonder that during World War II large numbers of Ukrainians greeted the Germans as liberators, with many joining the Waffen-SS to keep Communism from enslaving all of Europe.
Honest historians who focus on the fabled six million sing to the swindlers hymn sheets. By adding to the debate they keep the fraudsters holohoax on the front pages. Simultaneously, they fail to use their skills to bring to public attention multiple and verifiable holocausts committed by Communism and Capitalism.
The six million supposedly gassed Jews pales into insignificance when set against the 170 million butchered by the Communist and Capitalists. The fabled six million would be of no more interest than the verifiable genocide of the Armenians, the Tatars or the Cossacks. It would become a ‘mere detail of history’.
The question is how to respond to those who re-write or censor history.
Firstly, it must be recognised that the public mind-set is manipulated by media. Newspaper columnist, Joseph Alsop, was primarily responsible for getting the US into the Vietnam War. Rival columnist Walter Lippmann, a confidant of Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev, brought the conflict to an end. This is the power of the Press at work. Mainstream media that starts and stops wars can make or break presidents and premiers.
Media is the swamp that decides what pond-life thrives and what dies in their cesspool. German Minister of Information, Dr Joseph Goebbels:
Think of the Press as a great keyboard on which the government can play.”
According to independent research the US has been directly or indirectly responsible for the deaths of an estimated 30 million people since WWII. Yet, the only mantra in the public mind is the centuries old recycled six million cliché that is as fanciful as is the concept of Santa Claus.
R. J. Rummel is a respected independent analyst based at the Journal of Peace Research in Hawaii. According to his Power Kills: Genocide and Mass Murder, 170,000,000 people have been ‘murdered by government’ during the last 100 years. Yet, thanks to the manipulative mainstream media the public are wholly unaware of this ‘Magnitude of the Martyrs’.
The power of media can never be underestimated. There is still universal belief that the 1917 American-backed coup that delivered Imperial Russia to US corporate and banking interests was a Russian revolution. Because media has censored, collaborated in or laundered Bolshevism the public are unaware that 70 to 100 million Christian martyrs were slaughtered during Josef Stalin’s tenure of terror.
The media has convinced a gullible public that Hitler’s Germany was a despotic regime whilst Joseph Stalin’s Bolshevik Occupied Russia was benign, a great ally and even a workers paradise. Because of media’s lying and censorship, most people hold Hitler responsible for World War II. They remain blissfully ignorant of International Jewry’s responsibility for a brother’s war that led to the deaths of 55 million martyrs and the enslavement of 23 great European nations.
Media never challenges the West’s multiple wars or NATO’s highly inflammatory provocations against Russia, China and North Korea. Media never publicly challenges the aims of government. Media ring-fences NATO and US conflicts in the Middle East. Media describes the Satanic cult ruling Israel-occupied Palestine as the only democracy in the Middle East; a transparent lie.
Without a shred of evidence acceptable to a magistrate’s court, media has convinced the incredulous public that half the world’s verifiable Jews population were killed in just three years in a country smaller than the state of Texas. Yes, sadly, the people are that simple-minded.
Media achieves this by constantly recycling what Adolf Hitler identified as the Big Lie strategy practiced by Jews and their Shabbos goy mercenaries. The success of the Big Lie is proved true by it being used to keep in the public mind the holocaust hoax.
Revisionist historians ~ I include myself ~ sing to the media’s hymn sheet by keeping their focus on the huckster’s holocaust hoax. This distraction plays the media’s game of convincing the public that the only holocaust worthy of debate and criticism was the Nazi one.
For my part I intend to turn the spotlight on the multiple proven holocausts committed by what Hitler described as Capitalism and Communism being two sides of the same coin.
By Dr Friedrich Karl Wiehe
Published in Berlin, 1938
Table of Contents
1. Population and the Social Structure of German Jews
2. Jews in German Economic Life
3. Jews and Corruption
4. The Jews in German Political Life
5. The Jews in the German Press
6. Jews in German Art and Literature
7. The Jewish Share in Immorality
8. The Jewish Share in Crime
“I was a Jew before I was an American. I have been an American all of my life, 64 years. But I have been a Jew for 4.000 years.”
– Rabbi Wise in a speech in Cleveland in June 1938.
Ever since the day when the National-Socialists came into power in Germany, thereby placing the solution of the Jewish problem in the forefront of German politics, public opinion the world over has become increasingly interested in that problem….
Germany’s attitude towards the Jewish question can be rightly understood only if we consider it from the standpoint of a philosophy of history based on the conception of the race as fundamental factor of social evolution – i.e. of the philosophy which from the outset has inspired the National-Socialist effort to reconstruct and re-organise the entire life of the German nation. According to this philosophy, the differentiation and variety of the heterogeneous human races, as well as of the peoples who descend from them, constitute an essential element of the Divine creative purpose. Providence has assigned to each people the task of freely and fully developing its own specific characteristic traits. Hence it is contrary to the Divine purpose if a people allows its destiny to be shaped by extraneous forces; and such a people will assuredly perish in the struggle for existence. The question of the intrinsic value of such forces is irrelevant. The sole thing that matters is that they are extraneous – that they have no part in or relation to the hereditary structure, biological and traditional, of the people among whom they operate.
No clearer demonstration of this truth has been furnished in the history of the world than by the downfall of the Roman empire, which was doomed from the moment when the ancient Roman element that formed its nucleus began to be stifled by the inroad of foreign influences. The whole life – political, social, economic, military – of the Roman Empire was finally dominated by alien influences, the result being a racial and cultural syncretism which could not but prove fatal to the Empire in the long run.
The family, as the cell of the social community, is naturally subject to the same law of heredity as the aggregate. Those peoples who are derived from the Germanic race, to cite only this particular example, have a strongly developed family instinct. They know, thanks to instinctive intuition fortified by hereditary experience, that the destiny of every family is determined throughout successive generations by the predominance of certain biological and traditional factors. Hence in all families where the consciousness of this truth has not been obliterated, the greatest possible care is invariably taken that there shall be no admixture of new blood susceptible of adulterating the racial composition or debasing the traditional standard of the family. A number of families illustrious in history have consistently maintained this standard by a rigorous adherence to the principle of consanguinity.
Germany, starting from a philosophy of history based on the principle of racial differentiation, is the first country to have consistently drawn the conclusions resulting from the lessons of the past two thousand years in regard to the Jewish question. Those lessons have taught us the reason why the attempt to solve that question by means of the abortive attempt to assimilate the Jews was pre-doomed to failure. Those lessons have proved to the hilt the utter impossibility of assimilating the Jews, and have shown the inevitability of the periodical recurrence of anti-Semitism in consequence.
The lessons taught by the past two thousand years may be resumed as follows:-
 The Jewish question is not a religious, but exclusively a racial, question. The Jews, the overwhelming majority of whom are of Oriental, i.e. Near Eastern descent, have no racial affinity whatever with the peoples of Europe. It should be observed that the attitude of the German government towards the Jewish question is dictated solely by the fact that the Jews are an alien race, without any consideration of the intrinsic value of the specific qualities of that race.
Even in the era of emancipation, during which the Jews were on principle incorporated in the national communities of the Western world, and which was characterised by the “conversion” of millions of Jews to Christianity, it proved impossible to blot out the traces of their ineradicably alien nature. Sufficient evidence of this fact is forthcoming from Jewish sources. In his book Höre, Israel, the late Dr. Walther Rathenau wrote: “In the life of the German national the Jews are a clearly differentiated alien race… In the Marches of Brandenburg they are like unto an Asiatic horde.” The well known Jewish author Jakob Klatzkin ex pressed himself with refreshing can dour in his work Krisis und Entscheidung im Judentum (1921) as follows: “Everywhere we are strangers in the lands in which we live, and it is our inflexible resolve to maintain our racial idiosyncrasy.” Both testimonials were furnished at a time when the emancipation of the Jews in Germany hat reached its culminating point.
 For the past 2000 years the Jewish race has been perpetually on the move. The whole world is its home, conformably with the motto ubi bene, ibi patria. True to their destiny, the Jews will never admit being bound by any national ties. The abnormal structure of the Jewish community, in which neither peasants nor handicraftsmen find a place, renders it impossible for the Jews to adapt themselves to the conditions of life in the countries which give them hospitality.
 Racial predisposition and historical destiny combine to incline the Jews to certain categories of activity, whose sphere of influence is, by their very nature, international. It is consequently explicable that, during the era of emancipation, the Jews should have successfully sought to obtain control of a) public opinion, b) the stock and share markets, c) wholesale and retail trade, d) certain influential cultural organisations, and – last, but not least – e) political life. At the close of the emancipation era in Germany, the Jews enjoyed a practical monopoly of all the professions exerting intellectual and political influence. This enabled them to stamp their entirely alien features on the whole public life of the country.
 One of the results achieved by the policy of “assimilation” during the era of emancipation was the release of the Jews in Eastern Europe from their ghettos, and their emigration to the more liberal-minded States of Western Europe and North America. Between 1890 and 1900, some 200,000 East European Jews found their way into Great Britain. The number of Jews who emigrated to the United States between 1912 and 1935 is computed at upwards of 1,500,000. If the Jewish question has today attained such vital importance, this is to a large extent due to those migrations of Jews, migrations which, on the one hand, demonstrated the illusory nature of the theory of the Jews’ capacity for assimilation, and, on the other, hastened the process of the domination of West European and North American states by Jewish elements.
The process in question had been practically completed in Germany before the advent of National-Socialism to power. An alien race, without roots in German soil and without even the most remote affiliation with the German people, had taken possession of Germany. The poison of an alien spirit, of an alien manner of thinking, had been instilled, cunningly and systematically, into the German mind. Hence the whole German organism necessarily conveyed a totally misleading impression to an observer from outside. National-Socialism was therefore faced by the urgent necessity of solving a problem which vitally affected the very existence of the German nation.
Impartial foreign observers had long since recognised the inevitability of a radical solution of the Jewish question in Germany. Already in December, 1910, the Times, in a review of Houston Stewart Chamberlain’s book “The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century,” remarked that nearly everything in Germany had come under Jewish control – not only business life, but the press, the theatre, the film, etc., in short, everything susceptible of influencing German spiritual life, and that it would be inconceivable that the Germans could tolerate such a slate of affairs in the long run. A clash must sooner or later inevitably occur, in the view of the Times.
Since a solution of the Jewish problem by means of the assimilation of the Jewish race, of its absorption in German national life, had proved wholly impossible, there remained to the National-Socialists but the single alternative of solving the Jewish question by the elimination of that unassimilable race from Germany.
Foreign critics take particular exception to this view. Even objective observers, fully aware of the consequences of Jewish ascendency and of the resulting inevitability of an anti-Semitic reaction, condemn the methods adopted by National-Socialism for the solution of the Jewish question in Germany as inhuman and barbarous when pushed to their only logical conclusion.
Whether considered from a purely psychological, or from a concrete political, point of view, this criticism of Germany’s attitude is bound to exert great influence on Germany’s relations with other countries. It is therefore necessary to carefully examine the grounds on which that criticism is based.
It is incontestable – in fact no attempt has been made to deny or even to minimise the fact – that the policy of the German government towards the Jews has entailed numerous hardships – amounting in certain individual cases to a positive miscarriage of justice. It cannot be denied that a number of Jews affected by recent legislative measures directed against their race honestly felt themselves to be thorough going Germans. Such Jews had done their best to render service to the state as functionaries, artists, men of letters, scientists, and – last but not least – as soldiers in the Great War.
In order to understand why Germany has proceeded to such a radical solution of the Jewish problem by means of methods of such relentless severity, it is necessary to make abstraction of individual cases, however interesting they may be intrinsically, and to bear in mind that no legislative measure, nor indeed any farreaching political action, can be conceived which does not inevitably entail more or less numerous individual hardships. It is the same as with surgical operations, when the surgeon, in order to extirpate the germs of disease, must resort to the excision of healthy tissue surrounding the infected parts. Only in this way can he hope to save the sick organism.
But in order to understand the German attitude towards the Jewish question it is necessary to go still farther – to remember (as has already been indicated) that the unceasing encroachment of the Jews on the entire public life of Germany within the last few decades finally resulted in a terrible national catastrophe. The disastrous end of the Great War for Germany, followed as it was by complete political and economic collapse, by cultural and moral deterioration, by unemployment on a colossal scale with its consequent impoverishment of all social classes to a degree hitherto undreamt-of in modern times – this epoch of Germany’s greatest and most cruel humiliation coincided with the final triumph of Jewish emancipation, with the culminating point of Jewish ascendency in Germany, just as the aforementioned writer in the Times had prophesied in 1910.
Already more than a generation ago, one of the most sincere and farsighted minds in international Jewry, the late Zionist leader Theodore Herzl, described this interdependence of general distress and Jewish ascendency in a passage of his Zionistische Schriften (vol. 1, pp. 238/9), which is by no means applicable solely to Germany, but which has, on the contrary, universal validity. Therein Herzl characterised as follows the part played by the Jews:-
“There are among them a few persons who hold in their hands the financial threads that envelop the world. A few persons who absolutely control the shaping of the most vitally important conditions of life of the nations. Every invention and innovation are for their sole benefit, whilst every misfortune increases their power. And to what use do they put this power? Have they ever placed it at the service of any moral ideal – nay, have they ever placed it at the disposal of their own people, who are in dire distress? … Without those persons no war can he waged and no peace be concluded. The credit of states and individual enterprises are alike at the mercy of their rapacious ambition. The inventor must humbly wait at their doors, and in their arrogance they claim to sit in judgment on the requirements of their fellow beings.”
Nothing could be better calculated to clear Germany from the reproach of sinning against the laws of humanity, than a detailed enumeration of the facts which prove to what an appalling degree Germany herself experienced the truth of Herzl’s words – of the facts which incontestably show what immeasurably bitter experiences have forced Germany to seek a radical solution of the Jewish problem, as far as she is concerned, by the ruthless elimination of all Jewish influence in German Life.
The following chapters endeavour to present a resume of the importance of the part played by the Jews at the peak of the era of emancipation–i.e. up to the advent to power of National-Socialism.
It is essential, in the first place, to get an accurate picture of the numerical significance of German Jews in those days, as well as their regional distribution within the Reich and their social structure.
The result of the census in 1925 – the last to be held before National-Socialism took over power – showed that out of a total population of 62.5 millions there were 546,379 professing the Jewish faith. In other words, this was just less than 1 % of the total population.
It must be noted however that this statistic merely embraced those Jews professing Jewish faith and not those who were Jews by blood and race but who for some reason or another had accepted a Christian faith. No method whatsoever existed for compiling statistics in respect of this latter category. All that one could do was to set up a statistic for those who were orthodox Jews. Only in recent times the authorities in Germany have set themselves the task of ascertaining how far Jewish blood has penetrated into the German race. These investigations have not yet been concluded; they involve a vast amount of detail work. Hence all statistics that follow are necessarily still based on the figures for orthodox Jewry.
In spite of this we have at our disposal some very reliable research data by the Jews themselves. We refer in this connexion to the works of Heinrich Silbergleit Die Bevölkerungsverhältnisse der Juden im Deutschen Reich – The Jewish Population Problem in the German Reich – (Berlin 1931). By basing our statistics to a large extent on these research figures, we are placing ourselves beyond criticism as prejudiced anti-Semitics.
We have shown that the total percentage of German confessional Jews in 1925 was just below 1%, to be exact, 0.90 %. But this did not mean that the regional distribution within the Reich was on the same scale. Whereas the purely rural districts of Mecklenburg, Oldenburg, Thuringia or Anhalt possessed only a very sparse Jewish population (0.16 to 0.32 %), the majority of Jews were heavily concentrated in the large urban areas, particularly in Prussia, Hamburg or Hessen (1.05 to 1.72 %). In Prussia, the largest of the German federal states, the census showed that nearly 73 % of the total number of Jews were concentrated in the large cities with a population of more than 100,000 – whereas the corresponding ratio for the non-Jewish population reached barely 30 %.
A comparison with the results of the various census since 1871 shows that the status of Jews in the rural districts of Germany has consistently decreased, whereas all urban districts have shown a constant increase.
This can be ascribed to a veritable and phenomenal domestic migration of German Jews within the last 50 years towards the large urban areas. The main reason for this migration is to be found in the rapidly increasing Jewish emancipation in those days consequent upon a German victory in the Franco-Prussian war.
One of the main objectives of this Jewish migration was Berlin, the capital of the Reich, where the number of Jews had become trebled between 1871 and 1910, (36,000–90,000). In this metropolis, the centre of national, political and cultural activity, Jews bad established their headquarters. Here they were able to develop unhampered their own peculiar racial characteristics.
The 1925 census returns for Berlin showed that there were 172,500 Jews or 4.25 % out of a total population of approximately 4 millions. This percentage is four times greater than the percentage of Jews in the whole German population. Berlin, the capital of Prussia, the largest of the federal states, therefore possessed 42 % of the 400,000 Prussian Jews.
Twenty-five percent of these 172,500 Berlin Jews were aliens. This fact alone illustrates clearly the total lack of Jewish affinity for national ties and national sentiment. Nearly one-quarter or 18.5 % of the 400,000 Jews in Prussia possessed foreign nationality.
To be able to appreciate the true significance of these figures, one must bear in mind that Jewry in the large cities was able to attain such numerical significance despite the fact that it was subject to a number of restrictive factors. These could only be made good by a constant immigration from the East, particularly during and after the Great War. It is this Eastern immigration of low-class, mean and morally unscrupulous Jews which has given the German Jewish problem its particular harsh note.
Another aspect of Jewish life is the comparative infertility of Jewish marriages when compared with the rest of the population; further, the evident and constantly increasing tendency to contract marriage with Christians.
Statistics in regard to cross-marriages in Germany reveal the fact that between 1923 and 1932, two male Jews out of every three married Jewesses, – the third marrying a Christian. The statistics in regard to Jewesses were hardly less. In 1926 there were 64 cross-marriages for every hundred purely Jewish marriages, in other words, there were two cross-marriages for every three Jewish ones. At the same period in Germany as a whole, there were 50 cross-marriages against 100 purely Jewish ones, that is, two Jewish marriages to one cross-marriage.
It is self-evident that the complete one-sided distribution of German Jews and their systematic migration to, and concentration in, the large urban areas was an unsound policy and disastrous not only for the Jews but also for the national life of Germany.
But the structure of professional life also suffered from this morbid one-sidedness. Here statistics show that Jewry was a tree without roots, without any anchorage whatsoever in social life. This abnormal social composition was responsible for the fact that the Jews exclusively preferred the commercial professions and steered clear of all manual work.
These facts can be checked by the results of the trades records established in the various German federal states in 1925. In Prussia, Württemberg and Hessen, these census gave the following results in regard to the percentage of Jews employed in the various groups:
Trade and traffic
It is often asserted that external pressure, political and social considerations, as well as ghetto and boycott have squeezed the Jews out of handicraft trades and forced them into commercial spheres. Here however we must reply by stating that in rural districts, particularly in the former province of Posen and in Hessen-Nassau, the Jews had every opportunity of working as farmers or craftsmen. There were certainly no restrictions placed on them. But they preferred to deal in cattle, corn or fertilizers and especially in money which brought them rich reward.
Felix A. Theilhaber, the well-known Jewish economist, reporting his observations on the causes of Jewish disintegration in Der Untergang der deutschen Juden – The Decline and Fall of Germany Jewry – (Berlin 1921), confirms the fact that so-called primitive production is not in keeping with Jewish characteristics. He admits, primarily, that racial talents force the Jews into the so-called business professions as they are more easily able to guarantee commercial success and material security. Theilhaber finally arrives at the following conclusion:
“Agriculture has little material attraction for German Jews. … Racial instincts, traditions and economic pre conditions compel them to choose other professions. .. Hence it is natural that certain types dominate in German Jewry, for example, clothiers, agents, lawyers and doctors. Jewish characteristics and peculiarities are also evident in other branches (departmental stores, furs, tobacco and even the press). One peculiar Jewish feature is the craving for individualism, the urge to become independent and wealthy.”
Among the intellectual professions named by this Jewish author, that of medicine and law were the two most attractive. They were the professions that offered most material gain. Jewish influence in these professions was therefore most marked and finally assumed a dominating character.
In 1932 there were approximately 50,000 German medical practitioners of which 6,488, – 13% – were Jews. That is to say, a figure ten times greater than that to which they were entitled on the basis of population ratio. It is noteworthy to mention in this connexion that the majority of these Jewish doctors classed themselves as specialists in venereal diseases.
In Berlin, the capital of the Reich, the percentage of Jewish doctors was still greater. The figure was 42 % and 52 % for the panel doctors. In the leading Berlin hospitals 45 % of all the doctors were Jews.
An abnormal and disproportionate state of affairs also existed in the legal professions as compared with the population ratio. In 1933 there were 11,795 lawyers practising in Prussia of which 3,350 or nearly 30 % were Jews; 2,051 or 33 % of the total number of 6,236 public notaries were Jews. In Berlin itself the percentage was much higher, – bordering between 48 % and 56 %.
Further consideration must be given to the fact that the administration of justice was chiefly in the hands of orthodox Jews. The position was similar in regard to the professorships at various leading German universities. The table below furnishes the statistics of three of these universities in 1931. Not only the law and medical faculties are quoted but the philosophical as well in order to show the abnormal Jewish penetration:
Frankfurt a. M.
Out of 44 lecturers, 15 Jews = 34 %
Out of 23 lecturers, 6 Jews = 26 %
Jewish lecturers 33 %
Out of 265 lecturers, 118 = 43 %
Out of 101 lecturers, 43 Jews = 43 %
Jewish lecturers 28 %
Out of 268 lecturers, 85 Jews = 31 %
Out of 107 lecturers, 26 Jews = 25 %
Jewish lecturers 32 %
Two of the most important phases of public life viz. law and public health were thus in danger of coming under complete Jewish control.
Jewish penetration into German economic life was still more pronounced. In strict accordance with the objectives referred to in the previous chapter, trade and commerce were the principle spheres in which Jews centred their attention. Their peak activity in this respect, be it noted, was reached during the currency inflation from 1919 to 1923. In that particular period very little material benefit accrued to anyone engaged in productive and strenuous work. An instinct for speculation and commercial shrewdness was the ruling factor in those days. It is no wonder therefore that Jewish business concerns sprang up like mushrooms over night in that period. We need only recall such well-known Jewish names as Jakob Michael, Richard Kahn and Jacob Shapiro or the corrupt business concerns associated with the Austrian Jewish speculators, Siegfried Bosel and Castiglioni, two names that became notorious far beyond Germany’s frontiers. At huge cost to the national budget all these concerns finally collapsed when German currency was stabilized.
In 1931, Dr. Alfred Marcus, the Jewish statistician previously referred to, carefully examined Jewish participation in individual branches of German trade in his book Die wirtschaftliche Krise des deutschen Juden, – The Economic Crisis of German Jews. – His investigations led to the following remarkable results:
In 1930, 346 or 57.3 % of the total of 603 firms in the metal trades were in Jewish hands; in scrap-metal there were 514 firms of which 211 or 41 % were Jews; grain merchants totalled 6,809 of which 1,543 or 22. % were Jews; textile wholesalers numbered 9,984 of which 3,938 or 39,4 % were Jews; in the ladies dress branch there were 81 Jewish firms out of a total of 133, or 60.9 %. In the art and booksellers trades, both of which possess an extremely cultural value, many of the most important firms were Jewish. We need only mention S. Fischer, Cassirer, Flechtheim, Ullstein and Springer.
Still more important is the financial or banking business. Here well-nigh every leading business was in the hands of Jews. A few individual instances can be quoted. Both the governing directors of the Deutsche Bank und Discontogesellschaft (1929) and four of its twelve board members were Jews. The chairman, two vice-chairmen and three of the five governing members of the board of the Darmstädter und Nationalbank were Jews. The chairman, vice-chairman and three of the seven members of the governing board of the Dresdner Bank (1928) were Jews. Finally, everyone of the three owners of the Berliner Handelsgesellschaft were also Jews.
The big private banks were also nearly all in Jewish hands. We need only recall such well-known firms as Arnhold, Behrens, Warburg, Bleichröder, Mendelsohn, Goldschmidt, Rothschild, Dreyfuss, Bondi and Maron, Aufhäuser, Oppenheim, Levy, Speyer-Ellissen, Heimann, Stern.
By means of these key positions in the financial world Jewish influence penetrated by way of the boards of directors to every section of German industry. The Adress Buch der Direktoren und Aufsichtsräte – A Guide to Company Directors & Boards of Management – published in 1930, i. e. long before the National-Socialists assumed power – proves the alarming influence of Jewish capital or capital controlled by Jews on German economic life.
Outstanding among Jewish financiers in this respect was Jacob Goldschmidt, a member of the boards of no less than 115 companies. He was closely followed by Louis Hagen, a Jewish banker, with 62 appointments. Third on the list was a Christian lawyer, followed successively by four Jewish bankers who together held 166 positions on the boards of various companies. Further down this list Jews continued to play a very prominent role.
This concentration of business-company authority in the hands of a small group of Jewish financiers was certainly not compatible with a conscientious fulfilment of the exacting duties of a company director. On the other hand no effort or work was necessary in producing extraordinary handsome returns. This was one of the most important factors that led to discrediting the political and economic systems of that period, and also formed one of the causes which led to a widespread growth of anti-Semitism among the broad masses in Germany.
The domination of German industry by a system of Jewish boards of business directors certainly went hand in hand with direct Jewish penetration and subsequent control of industrial production. The complicated nature of this vast field and its complex structure makes it possible to give only a few illustrations which, however, by no means exhaust the real extent of Jewish expansion.
In the electrical branch for example, mention must be made of the AEG, – the German General Electric Company. This company was established by the Jew Emil Rathenau and after the Great War, was controlled by two Jews. The whole of the metal market was controlled by the Jew Merton, head of the Frankfurt Metal Bank. The Osram Company, the leading electric globe concern, was controlled by Meinhardt, a Jew. The Continental Rubber Company in Hannover, Germany’s largest productive plant, and the Calmon Rubber Company at Hamburg were established and controlled by Jews. Adler, Oppenheim, Salamander and Conrad Tack & Co., four Jewish firms, dominated the entire German leather industry. The iron market was controlled by the Jew Ottmar Strauss, Hugo Herzfeld, a Jew, exercised a decided influence in the potash industry. In the mining industry section, Paul Silverberg dominated the Rhenish lignite or brown coal industry whilst two co-religionists, the Petschek brothers had a similar function in the Central German lignite district.
Jewish participation was also extraordinarily large in industrial organisations and in official organs of German economic life. This influence was particularly pronounced in the Chambers of Commerce and Industry. To quote one example: The Berlin Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the largest of its kind in Germany, had 98 members in 1931 of which no less than 50 were Jews or half-caste Jews. Four hundred of the 1,300 members attached to the Chamber as advisory experts were Jews, whilst 131 of the 209 commercial judges appointed by the Chamber were also Jews. The Chamber itself was presided over by a President and five vice-presidents. The president himself and three of his deputies were Jews.
The position was far worse on the exchanges. We need do no more than give the Berlin Exchange, the most important one in Germany, as an example. Twenty-five of the 36 committee members of the Securities and Bonds Exchange were Jews, twelve of the 16 committee members of the Produce Exchange were Jews and ten of the 12 committee members of the Metal Exchange were also Jews. The committee of the whole Exchange was composed of 70 members of whom 45 were Jews. Attendance at the Exchange was also more or less a Jewish monopoly. In 1930 for example, the attendance at the Securities and Bonds Exchange totalled 1,474 of which number approximately 1,200 were Jews. The Produce Exchange had an attendance of 578 of which 520 were Jews, and at the Metal Exchange out of an attendance of 89 there were 80 Jews.
It is obvious that the Reichsbank, the official bank for the issue of paper money, was in no position to resist permanently this well-nigh Jewish monopoly of capital and economic interests. The result was that in the period between 1925 and 1929 four of the six members of the controlling board of Reichsbank directors were Jews or half-caste Jews. All three members of the Central Council of the Reichsbank and two of their deputies were Jews.
It is necessary now to supplement the aforementioned quantitative analysis of Jewish participation in German economic life by a qualitative one in which the following facts must be borne in mind:
When compiling the aforementioned statistics in regard to certain professions in the various German states since 1925 it was ascertained that in Prussia, the largest state, out of a total of approximately 3 million employed in the professions – either independently or in leading capacities – approximately 92,000 were orthodox Jews. This means that 48 % of all Jews professionally employed held leading positions, whereas the corresponding ratio for the remainder of the population amounted to only 16 %.
If we compare this with the Jewish share in the non independent manual work branch, then the whole abnormal social structure of Jewry stands revealed in its true light: Whereas Prussia in 1925 employed approximately 8.5 million ordinary workers (i. e. 46,9 % of the sum total of all in employment). Jews totalled only 16,000 i.e. (8.4 % of all Jews in employment). The percentage of Jews (which in the leading positions was three times greater than that of the whole population) dropped therefore in the manual trades to one sixth of the figure for the rest of the population, and for all practical purposes had reached zero.
This supplementary qualitative assessment makes it perfectly plain that prior to the National-Socialist regime the whole of German economic life had reached that alarming stage where it was under foreign domination by Jews and principally by Jews in leading key positions.
It is not surprising that this powerful domination of German economic life should express itself in abnormally high incomes for members of the Jewish community. It is difficult of course to give accurate figures in this respect. We will, however, limit ourselves to the statistics furnished us by the Jewish statistician, Dr. Alfred Marcus, to whom reference has already been made. Marcus estimates the average Jewish income for 1930 as 3.2 times greater than the average income of the rest of the population.
Summarizing the aforementioned particulars, it must be emphasized once more that the Jews concentrated themselves exclusively on commercial and financial undertakings and assumed therein absolute leading positions. Agriculture and other manual work were severely left alone. Abnormal concentration of Jews in large cities, particularly in Berlin, must not be forgotten.
It does not require much intelligence to realize that such an abnormal social and regional structure must ultimately lead to a state of severe tension, if not to serious disturbances in public life. This would have taken place in any case even if the Jews had wisely adapted themselves to the requirements of the country which was giving them shelter. These tensions had to lead to an explosion one day if Jewry, blinded by the lustre of its fortunes continued to exercise no restraint in displaying its foreign racial characteristics. But nowhere have Jews been more downright unrestrained than during the era of economic and political corruption which Germany experienced after the Great War.
It is no exaggeration to say that public life in those days was governed by an epidemic of corruption. This was by no means confined to Germany. Europe and the United States of America were similarly affected. Jews played a leading part in corruption scandals everywhere. In France it was Hanau, Oustric and Stavisky; in the United States of America it was Insull and in Austria, Bosel, Berliner and Castiglioni were the outstanding figures.
Fundamentally it is not surprising that this plague of corruption became most widespread and acute in the period which followed the disastrous World War. On the other hand, however, it is typical of the Jew and his character that he should be the bearer and the principal beneficiary of this process of disintegration.
It is understandable that Germany, as the loser of the war, became infected to a particularly acute degree with the germ of corruption. During its most distressful period of trial and tribulation – the result of the Dictate of Versailles Germany therefore became acquainted with Jewry as the exploiters and beneficiaries of its national misfortunes. No other country can point to a similar experience.
The list of Jewish profiteers in those years of national distress who veritably swamped the crumbling structure of German economic life and finally were responsible for its total collapse and ruin – ranges from the company promoter type and inflation profiteer to all the various types of soldiers of fortune and large-scale swindlers. In no other national economy has Jewish nature with its selfishness, its unscrupulousness and its urge for quick profits developed itself so unrestrictedly as in Germany throughout that particular tragic period.
Even the war companies, which during the Great War attended to the supplies of raw materials, were allowed to come more and more under Jewish influence. The largest concern of its kind, the Zentral Einkaufsgesellschaft – the Central Buying Company – for example, was controlled by a Jew. The important Kriegs Metall Company – the War Metals Company – was in charge of 14 governing men of whom 12 were Jews. A public scandal as the result of the business methods of this company was avoided for the simple reason that the political and military developments of the war confronted Germany with other and more pressing tasks.
Jewry’s great and triumphant hour of corruption came with the end of the Great War, the liquidation of the armaments. Factories and the sale of military stores and equipment offered splendid opportunities for handsome profits and the Jews were not backward in exploiting this state of affairs. The Jew, Richard Kahn, to mention an example, made a contract with the Deutsche Werke – the largest state-owned armaments plant – whereby the whole of its valuable stock was sold to him at scrap-metal price. Kahn was not the only Jew who profiteered enormously as the result of Germany’s downfall. Felix Pinner, a Jewish author, in his book entitled: Deutsche Wirtschaftsführer – German Leaders of Economy – (Berlin 1924) has characterized the innumerable Jewish profiteers as follows:
“Many of them . . . started business as army suppliers. In a number of cases it was difficult to say whether their chief motive was a desire to deal in military supplies or an excuse for shirking military duties. In many cases their big opportunity came when military stores and equipment were finally sold. Others again firmly established themselves financially with the advent of the currency inflation period.”
Business in deflated currency in the years 1919 to 1923 brought many outstanding triumphs to corruptive and speculative dealers. The Jews in particular were prominent in floating large companies as the result of shady transactions on the exchange. These concerns, which were none too securely established, paid out large dividends in the early stages before finally crashing. The most well-known names in this respect are the Jews Jakob Michael, Richard Kahn and the Eastern Jew Ciprut and his brother. These two brothers are referred to by Pinner, the Jewish author, in his book from which we have already quoted. He states: “The Ciprut brothers are of the breed that comes from the south-eastern plains of Roumania or Persia; soldiers of fortune attracted by the decomposing stench of German currency.”
All these cases however were not the deciding factors that turned the Jewish question in Germany into a most burning problem for the whole nation. No. They took place at a time when all phases of economic and political law and order were extremely lax. To a certain extent they even passed unnoticed in the general chaotic state of affairs during the first post-war years. But nothing was more calculated to open the eyes of the general public in Germany and fan the flame of anti-Semitism than the huge wave of Jewish corruption which had assumed such a criminal character that one public scandal followed another in rapid succession.
We refer in particular to the five Sklarz brothers, the three Barmat, the three Sklarek and the two Rotter brothers as well as the scandals associated with Michael Holzmann and Ludwig Katzenellenbogen. All these Jewish past-masters in corruption were, with the exception of Katzenellenbogen, Easterners i. e. Galician or Polish Jews who had migrated to Germany either during or after the Great War.
The first of the big corruption cases was the one in connexion with the five Sklarz brothers. With the help of influential connexions in the Social-Democrat party they succeeded, shortly after the war, in obtaining a monopoly for supplies to those troops that had been commissioned with the task of restoring domestic law and order. These contracts led to enormous profits within a short space of time. These brothers increased their wealth considerably by further shady manipulations and by discreet bribes to leading government officials. All this helped these unscrupulous Jewish black guards materially when they subsequently came up for trial. Very little light could be thrown on their shady conduct and after a well-nigh endless trial, only one of the five brothers was convicted in 1926.
These five brothers were ably assisted by a Russian Jew, Parvus-Helphand, one of the most unscrupulous blackguards and swindlers produced by the war. He utilized the millions he made out of war supplies in order to establish good relations with the Social-Democrats in power at that time. As a principal wire-puller he remained in the background of many corruption scandals. No one dared to institute proceedings against a man who had successfully bribed so many leading government officials.
The three Barmat brothers were artists in corruption on a more imposing scale. Their home was at Kiev and during the war they were engaged in business in Holland as food merchants. With the help of Heilmann, the Jewish politician, the five Sklarz brothers and Parvus-Helphand these three Barmat brothers ultimately received permission to settle in Germany. By means of ruthless exploitation of human weaknesses, small and large favours which culminated in direct bribes, these brothers were able finally to win the confidence of influential friends and members of the government. In this way they soon became the owners of ten banks and a great number of industrial concerns. With the help of fraudulent balance sheets they procured a loan of 38 million Marks, partly granted by the Prussian State bank and partly by the Reich Ministry of Posts and Telegraphs. When finally this inflated Barrnat concern crashed, its debts were estimated at 70 million gold Marks, and half of this sum had to be covered by the savings of small investors.
The subsequent court proceedings against these Barrnat brothers ended in very small terms of imprisonment. Herr Bauer, the Social-Democrat Reich Chancellor at that time, who had become involved in the proceedings was forced to resign.
After the crash, Julius Barmat went abroad again. In his new surroundings he applied with great success the methods which he had adopted in Germany. By bribing influential politicians he was able to obtain loans and finally defrauded the Belgian National Bank of 34 million gold francs. He evaded the law by committing suicide in 1937.
The three Jews, Iwan Baruch, Alexander Kutisker and Michael Holzmann were less successful in their efforts than their predecessors. Nevertheless they are worthy of mention. They turned their attention to the Prussian State Bank which Barmat had previously defrauded. They also succeeded in defrauding this institution to the extent of 14 million gold Marks.
By far the largest scandal however was brought about by the Sklarek brothers of whom there were three. The case is certainly unparalleled in the history of crime, politics, business and bribery. The principle sufferers were the city authorities in Berlin.
By a clever and crafty system of favours, presents and bribes of every description these three Jews had literally purchased goodwill in various civic quarters in Berlin – where Social-Democrats and Communists were chiefly in power. In this way they secured an absolute monopoly for the supply of clothing either to the police force, traffic department, social aid depots or public works department. All municipal officials were systematically bribed who might in any way prove useful to the Sklareks in obtaining and keeping their monopoly. Even the Oberbürgermeister, Berlin’s Lord Mayor, was bribed. In this way, therefore, it was possible to obtain payment from the Stadtbank – the Berlin Municipal Bank – for all faked invoices in respect of goods never supplied. The sums paid on this account ran into enormous figures. When the firm of Sklarek finally suspended payments, the municipal bank had been defrauded of 12,5 million Marks. An enquiry to ascertain the whereabouts of a further 10 million Marks brought no results.
The legal proceedings against these three Jews commenced in 1932 and lasted nine months. In accordance with public feeling the sentences were more severe than in previous cases. Two of the brothers (one had died in the meantime) were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment with hard labour.
Mention must still be made of the Jewish Director-General Katzenellenbogen. He was head of the Schultheiss-Patzenhofer concern, one of the largest industrial undertakings in Germany with a share capital of 75 million Marks and a preferential capital of 15 million Marks. By means of disreputable speculation with a view to personal enrichment at the expense of the company, Katzenellenbogen brought this vast concern to the verge of bankruptcy. The shareholders were defrauded to the extent of thirty million Marks. Part of his dishonest profits Katzenellenbogen used for the purpose of financing Erwin Piscator, the Bolshevik theatrical director. Katzenellenbogen was finally convicted for fraud and for issuing false balance sheets and sentenced to imprisonment.
The final case in this long series of corruption scandals was the one dealing with the Rotter brothers. These two Jewish speculators had formed a combine embracing seven of the largest Berlin theatres. The work of exploiting these theatres was considerably facilitated by the flotation of several companies whose affairs were placed in the hands of an ignorant though willing person acting as a mere figure head. In one single year, 1932, these two adventurers were able to squeeze no less than 300,000 Marks clear profit out of these under takings after all expenses had been met. Their monthly salaries, which they themselves had fixed at 2,000 Marks each were not included in this figure. A further 400,000 Marks accrued to them as the result of a fraudulent contract respecting two cultural undertakings. While Christian actors in these theatres were badly underpaid, the Jewish “stars” on the other hand received fantastic salaries, as much as 1,000 to 2,500 Marks per evening being no rare occurrence. The Rotter brothers lived a life of splendid luxury and the day came in 1932 when their concern also finally crashed with debts amounting to 3.5 million Marks. The two brothers declined all responsibility for the crash and decamped to Liechtenstein for which country they had taken care to obtain papers of naturalization.
We have already stated that Austria also had its Jewish corruption scandals on a large scale. Apart from Castiglioni and Bosel mention must be made of Berliner, the large-scale Jewish swindler. As Director-General of the large Phönix Life Insurance Company, he utilized the funds of this company for political purposes. Berliner maintained excellent relations with all political parties in Austria and paid out a total of three million schillings in bribes in respect of elections and the occupation of certain important positions. He influenced the press in his time by payments amounting to 170 million schillings. The trade unions and the military Heimwehr organization were also supported by him from funds fraudulently appropriated from his company. In this way, the debts of the Phönix Company finally totalled the mammoth sum of 670 million schillings. 330,000 policy holders of the company, chiefly of the non-wealthy middle class type, were the principal sufferers and had to foot the bill by means of increased premiums and reduced benefits.
This list of Jewish corruption by no means lays claim to being complete. Attention has only been drawn to those cases which in Germany and elsewhere have focused particular public attention by reason of their magnitude. But the instances quoted suffice to deny the oft – repeated Jewish charge that Jews were in no way more involved in corruption than Christians. Here it can be said that during the period which has been referred to, only two great corruption scandals by Christians have taken place. These are the Raiffeisen Bank and the Lahusen cases. Jewish participation in corruption is therefore not only greater on a percentage basis – that is when compared with the Jewish population ratio but also totally dominant in every respect.
A decisive factor in judging Jewish corruption is that legal punishment of this crime was either invariably a long-winded affair or no charge was subsequently preferred against the criminals. When a conviction did take place punishment was invariably mild. The reason for this was to be found in the very friendly and mutually profitable relations existing between these Jews and various influential personages in the government and other public bodies. And here again, Jews were always to be found in highly-placed and important key positions.
This inter-connexion of interests has already been referred to above. Reference has already been made to Heilmann, the Jewish Social-Democrat Reichstag member who paved the way for the Barmats. The Jewish Secretary of State Abegg has also been mentioned as acting in a similar capacity. As further examples of Jewish corruption in the Prussian Civil Service, mention must be made of Dr. Weismann, Secretary of State and State Commissar for Public Law and Order in Prussia. Further, Dr. Weiss, Deputy Chief of Police in Berlin. Both were officially responsible for law and order; Dr. Weismann himself was classified as the senior official in Prussia, the largest of the federal states.
Dr. Weismann played a particularly shady part in the proceedings against the Sklarz brothers. It is characteristic of him that he attempted to bribe Herr Gutjahr, the leading state prosecutor, with a sum of three million Marks with a view to having the charge modified. Gutjahr refused to be bribed and subsequently Weismann was responsible for this trusted official being officially reprimanded.
Weismann and Dr. Weiss were both heavy gamblers in private life. The Jewish periodical Die Weltbühne even criticized Weismann in 1920 as “one of the most notorious gamblers in Berlin.” Dr. Weiss – the deputy chief of police was frequently surprised in 1932 in various illicit gaming dens. Before the National-Socialists came into power the Court of Appeal in Berlin even confirmed that he had committed an offence against the law and that he “did not possess the moral qualities necessary for such a responsible position.”
In Imperial Germany the Jews did not play any important roles in the political life of the country, that is to say, not insofar as they were in possession of important key positions. But this state of affairs changed radically with the outbreak of the 1918 revolution and the introduction of a new constitution. There is no need here to examine the question of whether this new state structure was in line with the governing political ideas of Jewry. The facts, however, are that with the commencement of November 1918, a veritable rush was made by the Jews to capture the leading key positions in the Reich and in the federal states.
Among the six so-called “Representatives of the People” who formed the first Reich government after the collapse, there were two Jews, Hugo Haase and Otto Landsberg. Kurt Eisner, a Jew, headed the list as Minister-President in Bavaria; in Prussia the Jew Paul Hirsch assumed a similar function. The first Reich government established in 1919 on a parliamentry basis contained five Jews. Many of the most important departments in the Reich ministeries were controlled by Jews.
To thoroughly appreciate the significance of this fact, one must bear in mind, that Jewish usurpation of political leadership commenced with the beginning of an epoch of political weakness which, in foreign affairs led to complete surrender and shameful servility; in the domestic sphere to complete disunion and disruption. Even the loss of the Great War - which naturally had to lead to a profound change in Germany’s position abroad and in her domestic affairs as well – is certainly no sufficient excuse or explanation. Opinion abroad, when dealing with that particular period, will agree that a more dignified attitude would have been helpful in improving the German position. On the other hand, the servile and defeatist policy of the German Jewish politicians commanded nothing but contempt and only served to accentuate German’s national shame and misery.
Those particular Jewish politicians were also in no way satisfied that a change from constitutional monarchy to a parliamentary-republican regime had taken place in German affairs. This is testified to by the Jewish author, Rudolf Schay, in his book Juden in der deutschen Politik (Jews in German Politics) published in 1929. He states:
“Among the elements who carryon the revolution, and will not accept a free and bourgeois and a democratic republican order – but who insist on the complete fulfillment of all social demands, – Jews have played a dominant role; viz: Rosa Luxemburg, Eisner and Landauer … “
This complete fulfillment of all socialist demands was nothing else than a realization of the Communist manifest inspired and dictated by the Jew Karl Marx. But that was only possible by completely surrendering all national ideas and interests of the German nation.
It is therefore not surprising that Jewish politicians were playing a leading role, even during the Great War, in all those movements which aimed at undermining the political and military strength of Germany. Which of the Allied countries would not have taken immediate steps to punish the author of a treacherous article such as that which appeared on October 20, 1918, in the Social-Democratic paper Vorwärts, written by its editor, the Jew Friedrich Stampfer. He stated:
“Germany must – that is our inflexible will as socialists - strike her war flag for ever, without bearing it home in victory for the last time.”
That is the same brand of defeatism which already at the beginning of the Great War had permeated the many pacifist organisations, all of which were under Jewish control.
Prominent among these organisations was the Neues Vaterland (The New Fatherland) subsequently known as “The German League for Human Rights.” Its policy was principally dictated by the Jews Witting, Grelling, Bernstein, Magnus Hirschfeld, Heymann, Gumbel, Wulfsohn etc. The pacifist Youth Organisation was also led by Jews: Max Hodann, Jakob Feldner, the Jewish Communist Scholen and the half-caste Jewish sons of Karl Liebknecht.
It is not our intention to criticize pacifism as such. Unquestionably pacifism is a political conviction of great moral significance and is certainly worthy of every effort to support it. But pacifism is only tolerable for the political direction of a country – particularly when all national forces of that country are concentrated to the full – as long as it remains within boundaries prescribed by the political interests of the country.
But it is those particular pacifists mentioned above who primarily must be held responsible for the collapse of Germany’s spirit of resistance, for the estrangement that took place between the people and its political leaders and for the cleavage between the army at the front and the people at home. No one was more successful than the leading pacifist Jews in giving Germany’s enemies suitable material for propaganda.
Prominent in this work is the Jew already referred to, Dr. Richard Grelling – a name undoubtedly still well-remembered in the former Allied countries. Before the War he emigrated to Switzerland and there published his two books J’accuse and Das Verbrechen (The Crime) in which he attempted to prove Germany’s alleged guilt for the outbreak of hostilities. This book was very widely circulated in the Allied and neutral countries as an “authoritative and convincing” personal document of Germany’s war guilt and all the attendant horrors. In 1917, Karl Federn, Grelling’s co-religionist and also an author, replied by denouncing Grelling’s conduct as “dishonourable” and stating further that Grelling had built up his case “by lies and the use of false and forged documents.” Grelling never replied to these severe charges which were constantly repeated in later years. On the contrary, he was coward enough to attempt to deny authorship of these two books.
Mention must also be made of the Jewish journalist Hermann Fernau who conducted propaganda against Germany from Switzerland in 1917/1918. His newspaper articles furnished the Allies with excellent material for disruptive propaganda in German front line trenches.
Geheimrat Witting, a highly placed German official, brother of the Jewish author Maximilian Harden, was responsible for the unlawful and widespread publication in pamphlet form of a private memorandum (“My London Mission”), the property of Count Lichnowsky, the former German Ambassador in London. This memorandum contained observations of a purely personal character but their unlawful publication was just as disastrous to Germany’s political position as the works of Grelling.
Jews also took a prominent part in the work of planning the revolution in Germany which finally led to the collapse of the entire western front.
It was Dr. Oscar Cohn, the Social-Democratic deputy who early in November 1918 accepted the sum of four million gold roubles from M. Joffe, the Soviet-Russian ambassador to Berlin in those days, and also a Jew. This money was intended to finance the German revolution. Hugo Haase, a Jewish Reichstag deputy, was the master-mind behind the Sailors’ revolt at Kiel, which was the signal for general revolution throughout Germany. At the national meeting of protest held on May 12, 1919, when it was unanimously decided to vote against signing the peace terms, it was the Jew Haase, as leader of the Independent Social-Democrats, who alone insisted on accepting the terms. It must also be added that in the Prussian Diet of that period it was a Jew, Kurt Rosenfeld, who on May 7, 1919, on the occasion of a similar protest meeting demanded that these terms should be accepted.
Closely allied to these destructive elements and traitors to national interests, a few further outstanding names can be mentioned: The Jews Georg Bernhard, editor of the Vossische Zeitung, Friedrich Stampfer and Erich Kuttner, both on the staff of the Social-Democratic Vorwärts, Rudolf Hilferding, attached to the radical Freiheit press. Their united efforts were chiefly responsible for Germany being forced to bow down and submit to the yoke of the peace terms. Although political development proved later that these terms could never be fulfilled, yet to the military collapse there was added a total political and economic crash.
It is not possible to conclude this chapter of Jewish defeatism without mentioning the following: It is true that there were also numbers of non-Jewish Germans who both during and after the war committed treason on strictly Jewish lines. But the Jewish percentage in this dastardly political work is not only relative but actually incomparably higher. In fact, the percentage is so abnormally great, that the list of non-Jewish perpetrators is almost insignificant.
Seeking for an explanation of this curious fact one finds that Jewry is outwardly as well as inwardly completely rootless; on the basis of its racial habits and its historical past it recognizes no ties which can in any way be connected with love for a homeland.
At the same time, however, this political attitude of the Jews clearly shows up the glaring ingratitude which they have demonstrated in Germany. There is no country where the requirements of Jewish emancipation have been more justly fulfilled than in Germany; and there is not another country in which Jews were so accomodatingly allowed to fill positions in the public services. But in no other country in the world have Jews in times of severe national distress played such an inglorious, destructive and treacherous role as in Germany.
Two particular and instructive instances of post-war date will illustrate the Jewish lack of national feeling and also demonstrate the objectionable way in which profound national susceptibilities were wounded by Jews.
The first case is the scandal in connexion with Professor Theodor Lessing. During the election campaign for a Reich President in 1925, this Jew, who had been entrusted with the work of educating German youth, published an article in a foreign and anti-German paper – the Prague Tageblatt – opposing Field Marshal von Hindenburg as a candidate for the Presidency. This article abounded in slanderous and ill natured attacks on the Field Marshal who was stigmatized as “inhuman”, a “simpleton” and a “ferocious wolf”. Lessing added that the Field Marshal would prove to be a “Nero” in office.
To fully grasp this dastardly attack, one must recall to mind that the Field Marshal, after a strenuous career, had again placed himself at the service of the country at the age of seventy-seven. This was at a time when a disrupted Germany sorely needed a man who would collect all the forces for the work of national reconstruction. One must further remember that Hindenburg as Commander-in-Chief of the German Army during the War, had become a loved and venerable figure, the very embodiment of all the glorious achievements of the army at the front. This slanderous attack had the same effect on Germany as a similar attack on Kitchener or Nelson would have in England, or Marshal Foch in France or George Washington in America.
A veritable storm of indignation arose in academic circles throughout the country. Prof. Lessing, however, was not reprimanded and was even permitted to continue his slanderous attacks. But the result was a natural further strengthening of the anti-Semitic tendencies of the whole nation.
The character of this Jew Lessing is further emphasized in his “War Memoirs” published in 1929 in the same Prague newspaper. He states clearly but equally cynically as well as incomprehensibly stupid:
“I was fortunate in becoming a shirker. Throughout four years of war I was called up to the colours regularly once a month. Disqualification became more and more difficult. I kept on inventing excuses in order to keep away from the front.” That was the man who dared to slander Hindenburg, the soldier, and make him appear ludicrous.
The “Gumbel Case,” broadly speaking, is similar to the Lessing scandal. Emil Gumbel, a Jew, was also a university teacher; he belonged to those pacifists, traitors and defeatists previously referred to. He also was closely connected with the Third International and with Moscow. In a series of pamphlets he made seditious statements which brought him into conflict with the law despite the fact that the sympathetic attitude of the government in those days was all in his favour. Gumbel also participated in the publication of a document entitled “Germany’s Secret Armaments” in which he endeavoured to expose Germany’s alleged breaches of the disarmament terms of the Versailles Treaty. This document was handed to the French, English and Polish governments by the Jewish controlled pacifist “League for Human Rights.” It is quite obvious that this document brought about a difficult foreign political situation for Germany. In speeches which Gumbel made in 1924 at various French universities, he even went so far as to admit the truth of the oft-repeated false statement about Germany’s war guilt.
Hence there is no cause for surprise that this man (who had never seen the front) was incapable of a spark of human feeling for the heroic deeds of German soldiers in the war. It was he who dared to declare at a public meeting in 1924 that the dead German soldiers had “died on the field of dishonour. “
Despite these infamous statements and insults to the German people, which caused widespread indignation, Gumbel was able to maintain his position as teacher at the university until 1933. Influential Jewish friends such as Georg Bernhard and Albert Einstein were his protectors. He was even able to continue his insults and at a later meeting at Heidelberg he declared: “The War Memorial to German soldiers is to me nothing but one big turnip.”
Would it be possible – one must ask the question in view of this blackguardism – for an English university teacher to insult the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in a similar manner? Would not a storm of national indignation sweep away Jewish blackguards of the Gumbel and Lessing type? National-Socialism in Germany certainly accomplished that when it cleared out its Gumbels and Lessings, its Grellings and Bernhards and the whole clique of defeatists and traitors. By means of legislation, such disruptive work was made impossible for all time.
In Gumbel’s case one could already discern the connexion that existed between people of his character and Marxism. Opinions’ may vary in regard to Marxism and its parliamentary champions, but when one closely studies this subject one cannot deny the fact that Marxism and Jewry are closely allied.
It is a well-known fact that the Father of Marxism, Karl Marx, was a member of a rabbi family. Subsequent logical developments prove that this was no mere accident. Another Jew, Ferdinand Lassalle, stood next to Marx on the threshhold of this new socialist workers movement. Lassalle was the son of a Jewish silk merchant in Breslau. Both looked up to the Jew Moses Hess as their spiritual father, quoted as the “Father of Modern Socialism” and the “Communist Rabbi” – by the “Jewish Lexicon” – the standard work of reference for all German Jews. All Jewish thought since those days has always felt itself drawn towards this Marxist socialism, and the array of Jewish leaders in the Marxist workers movement has been maintained up till now.
Opinions may differ in other countries, but Germany’s attitude towards this problem is guided by the profound relationship existing between Marxism and Jewry. The two are inseparable wherever they occur. The war and post-war periods in Germany have definitely proved the disastrous effects of Jewish Marxism as a political factor.
At the turn of the century, two Jews in succession were chairmen of the Social-Democratic party in Germany: Paul Singer and Hugo Haase. After that Jews gained more and more dominating influence in all sections of the Marxist movement, its parliamentary, journalistic and literary work. The consolidation of the Marxist theory and science became well-nigh a Jewish monopoly. Outstanding Jewish theorists in this work were Eduard Bernstein, Rudolf Hilferding, Adolf Braun, Jacob Stern and Simon Katzenstein. The central intellectual organ of international Marxism was the publication called the Neue Zeit (The New Age), published in Berlin, which started its career in 1883 with one dozen Jewish contributors. In 1905 this figure had increased to forty and in 1914, no less than one hundred Jews from all parts of the world were contributing articles to this publication. The position was similar in other intellectual and literary publications of German Marxism.
The Marxist daily press was almost completely in the hands of the Jews. The Vorwärts – the principal organ of the German Social-Democratic Party, was founded by Singer, a Jew. In 1929, according to a statement by its editor-in-chief, Friedrich Stampfer, the whole of his editorial staff, with one exception, was composed of Jews. When later on the Communist paper the Rote Fahne (Red Flag) was published the percentage of Jews on its staff was equally high. Its editors were the Jewess Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht who, although a Christian, had been twice married to Jewesses. Another publication preeminently controlled by Jews was the Freiheit (Liberty) – with an extreme Marxist policy controlled by Rudolf Hilferding and Paul Hertz, both Jews. The Social-Democratic press news services and foreign press offices were essentially dominated by Jewish journalists.
The percentage of Jewish Social-Democratic Reichstag deputies totalled 22 % in 1924 while the percentage of Jewish Communist deputies was given as 15 % in the same year. Here it is well to emphasize again that Jews totalled barely 1 % of the whole German population.
The following is the list of Jews elected to the Reichstag in 1924, as members of the Social-Democrat Party:
Aufhäuser, Dr. Adolf Braun, Bernstein, Eggerstedt, Frölich, Heimann, Dr. Hertz, Dr. Hilferding, Hoch, Jacobshagen, Kirschmann, Landsberg, Dr. Levi, Dr. Löwenstein, Ludwig, Stefan Meier, Dr. Moses, Dr. Rosenfeld, Frau Schiffgens, Frau Toni Sender, Stampfer, Frau Wurm.
In the same year, the Communist Party returned the following Jews as members.
Frau Arendsee, Frau Gohlke (known as Ruth Fischer), Hoernle, Katz, Koenen, Münzenberg, Rosenbaum, Dr. Rosenberg. Scholem.
In 1932, Jewry in the Marxist parties was represented in the Reichstag by the following Jewish members:
In the Social-Democratic section, – Aufhäuser, Dr. Adolf Braun, Eggerstedt, Frölich, Heilmann, Heimann, Heinig, Dr. Hertz, Dr. Hilferding, Kirschmann, Landsberg, Dr. Löwenstein, Dr. Marum, Stefan Meier, Reuter, Schneppenhorst, Frau Schreiber-Krieger, Frau Toni Sender, Friedrich Stampfer, Frau Wurm.
In the Communist section, – Gräf, Hoernle, Frau Kessel, Kippenberger, Münzenberg, Frau Sandtner.
It was natural therefore that this influx of Jews in the Reichstag should have its effect on government in the Reich itself and in the federal states. Prussia particularly was their happy hunting ground and they were to be found in key position in practically every ministry. No important step could be taken anywhere without brushing up against a Jew in authority.
When taking this all-powerful Jewish influence in all Marxist organisations and parties into account, it is no longer surprising that the policy of the Social-Democrats was shaped and influenced entirely by their Jewish leaders. Therefore we see once more the same spirit of defeatism and treachery to which we have already referred.
A start was made, almost immediately on August 4th, 1914, when the Jew Hugo Haase led 14 Social-Democrat deputies in the Reichstag in an attempt to stop government war loans. Two years later 18 Social-Democrat deputies finally voted against the same governmental measure. Apart from this Jew Haase, their ranks had been swelled by five other Jews. The Jewess Rosa Luxemburg led the campaign of sapping Germany’s power of resistance. The first success of this dastardly process of undermining became evident in August 1914, when a public statement opposing the government’s policy of home defence was published by a Hamburg Social-Democrat newspaper. That statement was signed by three leading Jews.
After the November 1918 collapse, nearly all the radical leaders with Bolshevik tendencies were Jews. They took a prominent and for Germany a disastrous part in the peace negotiations, to which reference has already been made.
In Communism, which is the extreme form of Marxism, Jewish domination became particularly marked. Its leaders and propagandists were almost exclusively Jews. The “Spartacist League”, founded in 1918 as a forerunner to the Communist party, was in charge of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg. This league was modelled on true Soviet lines and called on the proletariat to arm in those days of terror which followed the collapse of the nation. The league’s Moscow agent was the Jew, Leo Jogiches (formerly known as Tyschko). Mention has already been made of the fact that Oscar Cohn, the Jewish radical socialist, received the sum of 10 million gold roubles from Joffe, the Jewish Soviet Ambassador to Berlin in November 1918.
After a systematic preparation by these German and Russian Jews, chaos and indescribable horror was finally let loose by them on the German nation, culminating at Munich. Here again it was a Jew, Kurt Eisner, an author, who played the part of leader and organiser. In 1917, when Germany was still fighting for her existence, he had already agitated for strikes and revolution. Eisner founded a Workers’ Council at Munich on strictly Bolshevik lines; his “Revolutionary Tribunal” contained nearly all Jews – five of them in number. Only those who have experienced that period of Jewish terror and slaughter, the murder of hostages, plunderings and acts of arson, are able to realize why Munich became the birth place of National-Socialism, whence the movement spread to other parts of Germany, and finally put an end to Jewish domination.
The closely allied interests of Jewry and Communism were in no way affected when the first Communist attempts at revolution were summarily suppressed. The so-called cultural Bolshevism of the extreme Marxists, sponsored mainly by Jews, now joined with those forces which were tireless in their efforts to overthrow law and order with the object of Bolshevising Germany.
It is necessary to quote only a few distinctive examples of the work that was being carried on in this extensive sphere of moral corruption and disruption. During negotiations in regard to a reform of the German Criminal Code, the Jewish radical socialist Kurt Rosenfeld intimated that he was opposed to punishment for the crime of high treason as well as for sodomy and homosexual offences.
Jews were also dominant in questions relating to the education of children on Bolshevik principles. Jewish pedagogues, Jewish principals of official school establishments founded and supported experimental schools and “Juvenile Republics” modelled on Soviet lines. Authority was entirely banished in these institutions, the sexes were educated in an immoral manner and sexual problems formed the major part of the school curriculum. In this respect much publicity was given to Kurt Lowenstein as the Jewish principal of Berlin’s schools, and his colleague, Fritz Karsen-Krakauer, another Jew.
To complete the sordid picture of closely allied interests between Jewry and Bolshevism which had brought Germany to the brink of Communism only a short while before National-Socialism took power, it remains to be said that Jews were still in certain key positions up to the last minute.
Hans Kippenberger is first on the list. He was head of the terror and espionage branches of the German Communist party. Heinz Neumann, son of a wealthy Berlin merchant, was also prominent. He was a member of the Central Executive of the German Communist party and one of the most dangerous agitators among the general public. He coined the infamous phrase: “Kill the fascists wherever you meet them” which in 1932 led to a series of foul murders of National-Socialist party members. Abroad, Neumann was equally busy. He was responsible for the Communist rising in Canton in 1927 and for this act he was labelled in the world press as the “The wholesale butcher of Canton.”
Jews have always possessed a special aptitude for journalism and the organisation of press work. Accordingly, they played a prominent part in the establishment of German newspapers. Hardly any other function has given them so much power as their influence on the press. They soon proved however that they had little or no interest in that sense of high moral obligation which is the duty of those who are responsible for influencing public opinion. On the contrary, their interests were primarily centred in the rich possibilities for material gain.
If one examines the Jewish controlled German press of the last decades, one realizes that for purely material reasons it served a craving for sensation, for vanity and the lower instincts of the masses. Circulation was increased in proportion as newspapers undermined in the most grave manner all respect for morals, law and order.
The two largest German newspaper concerns were, before 1933, in Jewish hands: viz. Ullstein and Mosse. Both these firms were founded by Jews and their directorates and editorial staffs were comprised of nearly all Jews.
Ullstein. Publishers & Printers:
The circulation of this largest newspaper concern averaged 4 million daily. They published five large daily newspapers, several weekly papers and many periodicals and magazines of every description. The Ullstein News Agency influenced a great number of provincial papers. In addition to this, Ullstein possessed also an extensive book publishing branch.
The whole of the shares in this vast concern were held by the five Jewish Ullstein brothers. The directorate consisted of these brothers, three other Jews and only two Christians.
The largest newspaper issued by this concern was the Berliner Morgenpost which had a larger circulation than any other German paper (more than 600,000 daily). Besides a Jewish editor this paper had in 1927 ten other Jews as members of the editorial staff. The editorial staff of the Vossische Zeitung – an extremely influential political organ – was in charge of the Jew Georg Bernhard and fourteen Jewish sub-editors. Bernhard at that time was keen on making a name for himself in politics. The position in regard to the remaining Ullstein papers was practically the same.
Mosse. Publishers & Printers:
This firm was, as far as size is concerned, not so important as Ullstein. Its daily circulation was 350,000. Established and maintained as a family concern by the Eastern Jew, Rudolf Mosse (formerly Moses), its influence was none the less very great. Its chief publication was the Berliner Tageblatt established long before 1933. It was this paper which for many years was looked upon abroad as representative of German public opinion.
The editor of this paper was the Jew Theodor Wolff, who also took a prominent part in politics. Apart from him the important positions on the editorial staff were filled by seventeen other Jews. In five important capitals outside the Reich the Berliner Tageblatt was represented by Jews.
Another paper issued by this concern was the Acht-UhrAbendblatt, another politically influential publication in which Jews were dominant with a chief editor and eight co-religionists as sub-editors.
It was only natural that the rest of the German press could play only a very insignificant part when compared with the activities of these two mammoth concerns. Neither the provincial press with its economic disunity nor the publishing house of August Scherl – the only large Christian under taking in the capital – were able to exercise influence sufficient to seriously challenge the united power of these two big all-Jewish undertakings.
That the Marxist party press was overwhelmingly directed and influenced by Jews has already been stated above. Moreover the official press departments of the government – particularly in Prussia – were also in charge of Jews. The three most important press departments in Prussia, the largest of the German federal states were, in 1930 for example, in charge of four Jews.
It was therefore only a matter of course that the professional and economic organisations of German journalists came entirely under Jewish influence. The largest of these organisations, the Reichsverband der deutschen Presse – the German Press Association – was directed for many years and until 1933 by the Jewish chief editor of the Vossische Zeitung, Georg Bernhard. In the Verein Berliner Presse – the Berlin Press Union – which was the leading social and benefit society for all journalists in the capital, the right to nominate and elect members had been vested from 1888 in the hands of a purely Jewish committee. Finally, the official organisation of “free lance” German writers, the Schutzverband deutscher Schriftsteller was controlled by a directorate which, in 1928 and 1929, consisted of 90 % Jews. Its president was at that time the Jewish publicist Arnold Zweig, author of the war novel, Streit um den Sergeanten Grischa, in which he foully besmirched the national honour of the German people.
In this connexion it is necessary to examine the work and the significance of those Jews who for many years were regarded in Germany and abroad as the most authentic apostles of German publicism. We refer in particular to Georg Bernhard, Theodor Wolff and Maximilian Harden. All three were Jews. All three were journalists of surpassing technical skill, men who, through their masterly handling of the written word alone, were well able to make “converts” to the ideas they represented. But behind the winning exterior was bidden the same dangerous spirit of denial of all traditional values, of criticism for criticism’s sake, the spirit of destruction, disintegration and instability which we have been compelled to recognize as the main characteristics of Jewry in all spheres.
It is exceptionally significant that Georg Bernhard’s real profession was that of banker and stock exchange financier. He belonged until shortly before the Great War to Social-Democracy, and his whole life displays a remarkable vacillation between two such contradictory things as stock exchange journalism and Marxist activity. Then, in 1913, he was appointed chief editor of Ullstein’s Vossische Zeitung. In this position, in two different hours of destiny in Germany’s post-war history, he played a calamitous part:
In the critical weeks before the signing of the Versailles Treaty, when the German people and its leaders well-nigh unanimously rejected the intolerable and harsh conditions of that dictated peace, he made common cause with those really comparatively few men of public influence who, through the medium of the spoken and printed word, ruthlessly suppressed every flickering of the spirit of national resistance, and thereby destroyed all hopes of securing more bearable conditions. One requires only to glance at the old issues of the Vossische Zeitung for those weeks and months to realize how systematically Bernhard went about this work. Even the most humiliating terms of this treaty – the “War-Guilt” clause, he attempted to represent as a mere bagatelle. Thus he wrote – to give only one example – on June 18th 1919:
“The German reader of the Note will most easily be able to reconcile himself with those parts which deal with the historical origin of the war and with the question of guilt for it … if one regards the matter in this manner, one cannot take the scolding in the war-guilt paragraph tragically.”
With these words Bernhard attacked the German government from behind whilst the latter was waging a dramatic struggle regarding these points of honour, in particular the clause relating to war-guilt and the release of German officers. It will be understood outside Germany as well that we cannot forget such a betrayal of national interests, such a lack of proper pride and feeling for honour as was displayed by the Jewish journalist Bernhard.
In the second case, we already find Bernhard committing open criminal treason. During the occupation of the Rhineland, there arose in the occupied zone a movement, supported and forwarded for political reasons by foreign money, which strove to prevent for ever the return of the occupied Rhineland to the Reich, and to establish its complete independence. Georg Bernhard with his Vossische Zeitung got into contact with these Rhenish separatists. The separatists received from him political advice and financial support. In the year 1930, one of the owners of Ullstein, the Jew Dr. Franz Ullstein, published this fact in the periodical Tagebuch. He declared that Georg Bernhard’s agent in Paris, the Jew Dr. Leo Stahl, had paid a sum of money to Matthes, the leader of the separatists, and that Bernhard himself had corresponded and associated with Matthes.
This political scandal forced Bernhard eventually to retire from political journalism. He became, and this is also characteristic, the head of a large departmental store association. Since 1933 he has been busy abroad publishing an anti-German émigré paper.
Theodor Wolff, the editor of the Berliner Tageblatt behaved in a different but equally objectional manner. An apparently convinced monarchist during the war, there was, after the change of constitution in Germany, no one who reviled and slandered the deposed Hohenzollerns in so evil a manner as Wolff.
Even if we could forgive him such opportunism, quite inexcusable is his behaviour at the time when the increasing spread of indecency and immorality in Germany forced the government in 1926 to take constitutional steps for the suppression of filthy and otherwise low-grade literature. The intention was, above all, to protect youth from coarsening and indecent influences. Theodor Wolff openly opposed this effort. He condemned the new law and as a protest, resigned from the democratic party which he had helped to found because they had supported the new measure.
In order to understand the whole frivolous irresponsibility of this Jewish publicist, one must know just how far the flooding of the German book and periodical markets with dirty, pornographic productions had gone. We shall have more to say about this later on.
Still more influential than Georg Bernhard and Theodor Wolff, certainly the mightiest man of the pen which Germany had for a generation, was Maximilian Harden, a brother of Witting, the previously mentioned Jewish defeatist.
With his periodical, Die Zukunft – The Future – he indulged in high politics for more than twenty years. Hardly any other man has shown so much fluctuation in character and principles as he.
He began by setting himself up as judge of morality in Imperial Germany and dealt a death blow to the reputation of the monarchic system by his journalistic scandalmongering about the Hohenzollern court. During the Great War he was certainly the only real “annexationist” in Germany, demanding as the price of victory the whole of Belgium, the French coast opposite England and the Congo Basin, (Vide Zukunft of 17th October 1914). Then when the fortunes of war, in 1916, began to turn away from Germany, Harden also retreated. He attacked German war policy and became an enthusiastic admirer of President Wilson. In 1919, he finally conducted a cowardly campaign against the national resistance to the tyrannical peace treaty terms, naming this resistance “artificially-forced hysteria and miserable falsehood.”
The driving forces of such characterless behaviour were vanity and petty selfish ambition. Harden is rightly described by the world-renowned historian, Friedrich Thimme, as “The Judas of the German people.”
Many years before the National-Socialist regime, indeed, even before the War and prior to the period when Jewish emancipation had reached its climax, anxious observers pointed out that cultural life in Germany hardly deserved the epithet of “German” any more and that it had actually become a merely Jewish sphere of activity. The crisis in German cultural life has never been more aptly described and the Jewish problem has never been discussed in clearer terms than in the article by the Jewish essayist Moritz Goldstein, already published as early as 1912 in the Kunstwart (issue dated March 1912), a German Art magazine of very high standing.
Goldstein depicts how the Jews, at the beginning of their emancipation, generally invaded all branches of German cultural life and, as alert scholars, soon commenced to supplant their masters. Goldstein gives the following synopsis of the consequences resulting from this development:
“Jews suddenly filled all those positions which are not withheld from them by force, they have converted German aims and tasks into their own and they strive for them accordingly. It seems as if German cultural life were to be completely transferred into Jewish hands. This was neither anticipated nor desired by the Christians at the time they granted the pariah in their midst a share in European cultural life. They began to take defensive measures, they resumed their custom of calling us aliens, they commenced to regard us as a danger in the Temple of their Art. Consequently we are now faced by the following problem. We Jews guide and administrate the intellectual property of a nation which denies our qualification and competency to do so.”
Goldstein describes this Jewish administration and control of German art and culture as a “prodigious fact.” A retrospective examination of German intellectual life as it was before 1933 will corroborate Goldstein’s testimony. In all spheres, be it on the stage, in literature, music, painting and the plastic arts, be it in the film or, more recently, in broadcasting, Jews always occupied the leading positions, compelling all to follow their intellectual guidance.
To take the theatre, for instance, – the Berlin stages, which, as the most modern, are naturally always imitated by the theatres of all the provinces, were all under Jewish management. The choice of the programmes was made according to an entirely Jewish outlook and the result was that Jewish authors predominated.
In the domain of literature, the best-sellers were invariably the output of Jewish authors or publishers. Readers abroad, who took an interest in German literature during those days. will still be able to recall such names as Emil Ludwig, Jakob Wassermann, Arnold Zweig, Lion Feuchtwanger and various others. The sale of their books outweighed that of all other German authors by far. Statistics have shown that practically the half of all German belletristic literature circulating abroad during the last ten years was the product of Jewish authors.
Music life was similarly dominated by Jewish influence. In the great majority of cases, the important conductors’ positions in Berlin and in the provinces were occupied by Jews. The intellectual influence resulting from this trend was decisive for the choice of the works appearing on the programmes of opera and concert hall. The participation of Jewish com posers grew to astonishing dimensions. – Gustav Mahler and Arnold Schonberg were substituted for Beethoven, Richard Wagner and Hans Pfitzner were supplanted by Franz Schreker. Music critiques written by Jews and the influence of the professional agencies, which were practically totally in Jewish hands, naturally did their part to support this development.
This tendency was even more evident in the sphere of the lighter type of entertainment music such as the operetta, the film, in the gramophone industry and in broadcasting. An ever increasing Jewish influence upon conservatories, in the publishing branch as a whole and in professional music literature could be observed so that, taken as a whole, the conclusion was justified that Jewish preponderance in music life was indeed alarming.
The situation was no different with regard to the plastic arts and painting. Jewish art traffic and Jewish art literature paved the way to success for a whole generation of Jewish painters and sculptors, – a way which was barred to the majority of German artists. Film and broadcasting were practically exclusively reserved to Jewish activity, so that it is nearly impossible to speak of a German participation in these domains.
To destroy any possible doubt as to the accuracy of these statements regarding the Jewish preponderance in German intellectual life, it is merely necessary to revert to the testimony of such a trustworthy Jew as Moritz Goldstein who, already in 1912, made the following observations in the essay quoted above:
“Nobody actually questions the power the Jews exercise in the press. Criticism, in particular, at least as far as the larger towns and their influential newspapers are concerned, seems to be becoming a Jewish monopoly. Predominance of the Jewish element in the theatre is also generally recognized: nearly all the managers of Berlin stages are Jews; the same may be said of a large part, even perhaps of the majority of the actors, whilst the fact that the concert and theatre are dependent upon the Jewish public is continuously being proudly asserted and also deplored … Many an apostle of German art has been forced, much against his will, to convince himself of the enormous number of Jews amongst German poets.”
Since 1912 this development progressed very rapidly. The main cause was that Jews even invaded the official administration of German intellectual life. They were granted governmental positions which had been closed to them before the War.
For many years the Jewish lawyer Seelig acted as the responsible head of the Department for Theatres in the Prussian Ministry for Culture, whilst the Department for Music was in the hands of the Jew Leo Kestenberg. As the policy of the German press was controlled by Jews, indeed, the supreme official administration was conducted by Secretary of State Weismann, it is easily possible to conjecture to what an extent the Jewish usurpation of the entire German intellectual life was officially sponsored and propagated.
This Jewish preponderance was by no means the result of an intellectual superiority, of greater talents or creative powers on the part of the Jewish race. On the contrary, it was mainly the Jewish economic ascendency described above which lead to the establishment of their dominant position in German cultural life. This economic domination was the instrument to attain the practical application of their intellectual and cultural influence.
In this connection it is even more important to bear in mind that the characteristic Jewish intellectual attitude, which manifested itself in all spheres of cultural life, decisively favoured the realization of their craving for predominance. Their lack of national sentiment, their egoism, their absolute rationalism, their absence of scruples and their characteristic habit of speculating upon the basest instincts, – traits which have already been mentioned in the chapter devoted to Jewish journalism, – were the foundation for their economic success, upon which their intellectual domination was based. The consequence was the disintegration and decay of German cultural life. As a matter of fact, it was not so much the dimensions of Jewish power, nor the extent of the alien usurpation which aroused opposition and protest on the part of the German nation, finally leading to the most acute anti-Semitism, but it was rather the characteristic Jewish moral standpoint, their innate spirit and the methods applied by the Jewish race to use and abuse this intellectual power.
To clearly demonstrate this it is necessary to undertake a closer examination of the various spheres of German intellectual life as they existed before 1933.
We have already recalled the names of those Jewish authors whose works, at least as far as their sales are concerned, ranked foremost amongst all German novels. The most successful of these writers was no doubt Emil Ludwig, whose real name is Cohn. At that time his books were presumably the most widely circulated works of literature published in the German language. The total number of impressions attained by his works exceeded two millions in 1930 and his novels have been translated into twenty-five languages. Abroad, Ludwig was, for many years, regarded as the representative of German contemporary literature.
This reputation and the enormous sale of his historical biographies cannot, however, be explained by the veritable quality or ethical value of his literary work. Ludwig is one of the best examples demonstrating what enormous success may be achieved by well calculated advertising undertaken on a generous scale. . . .
Alfred Kerr is the second important personage amongst the Jewish literary pseudo-prophets. In his capacity as critic to the Jewish “Berliner Tageblatt,” he despotically swayed his sceptre over all the theatres of the capital. His word was decisive for the success or failure of actors and personnel. . . . it is not surprising that the lyrical poems of this guardian of German culture (Caprichos, 1921) are nothing but a collection of obscene and repulsive sexuality.
Georg Hermann represented a somewhat different, but by no means superior, type of Jew occupying a conspicuous position in the German literary world. In his political diary entitled Randbemerkungen – Marginal Notes – (Berlin 1919) he reveals the credo of a weak, utterly decadent man of literary ambitions, devoid of moral backbone and support: “As a Jew, I belong to a race much too old to be duped by mass suggestion. Such words as Nation, War and State are endowed with neither sound nor colour for me.”
The cosmopolitan, international mentality of Ahasuerus’s sons is clearly reflected in the following confession: “I feel at home in any country of the world whose language I speak, where there are beautiful women, flowers and art, a good library, a chess board, pleasant and cultivated society and where the climate is healthy and agreeable and the landscape attractive.” Nevertheless, Hermann is honest enough to admit that the Jewish race is responsible for the dissemination of the negative attitude towards state and patriotism. He declares: “The Jew’s rejection of all nationalistic ideology is the principal source of his evolutionary quality and intrinsic value.”
Hermann’s standpoint which, as a matter of fact, is a purely anarchistic one, even goes so far as to frankly betray personal cowardice: “Five minutes of cowardice are preferable to being dead for the rest of one’s days.”
The versatility and inconsistency attributed to the chameleon and the Israelite alike were developed to an almost unattained perfection by the Jewish author Kurt Tucholsky. This exceptionally productive feuilleton writer, endowed with a brilliant style and great talents, made use of not less than four different pen-names, with which he operated as the occasion demanded. Apart from his own name he signed with the pseudonyms Peter Panter, Kaspar Hauser and Theobald Tiger. Many important daily papers and magazines published his articles. His numerous books, which all attained a wide circulation, ranked him amongst the most read German authors of those days.
Unfortunately, he merely employed his admirable intellectual gifts for destructive criticism. Nothing was sacred to him and he scoffed at the ideals of the German nation; he flung his biting sarcasm and venomous mockery at every religious and national sentiment. After the general collapse of the German Empire in 1918, Tucholsky, who never took part in the War himself, derided and gibed at the German Army in endless tirades in which he particularly gave vent to his con tempt of the German officer. Similarly to his Jewish colleague Lessing, he insulted the venerable and revered Field Marshal von Hindenburg and publicly described him as a “National hero as they are painted on beer glasses.” Devoid of all sentiment of patriotism, the stigma of actual High Treason could not abash him. In his book Deutschland, Deutschland über alles (Berlin 1929) which is solely dedicated to the calumniation of his native country, he cynically vaunts: “What these judges term High Treason is no concern of ours and can be estimated as an honourable action in our eyes.”
The analysis of his mentality may be completed by his own words with which he advocates an absolute liberation from all moral discipline: “Man has two legs and two convictions, one during the times of his prosperity, the other during the times of want.”
Finally, Tucholsky was addicted to the most pernicious type of pornography and he, together with the Jew Theodor Wolff, was one of the violent opponents of the Law for the Protection of Juveniles against the detrimental influences of worthless and immoral literature.
To depict the rapid increase in the alien usurpation of the entire German theatre by Jews it would suffice to refer the reader to the book published by the formerly very popular Jewish author Arnold Zweig: “Jews on the German Stage” (Juden auf der Deutschen Bühne) (Berlin 1928). With unparalleled frankness Zweig describes how the functions of the financier, the theatre director, the agent, the stage manager, the actor, critic, poet and playwright were conquered and held by the Jews. – Zweig relates: “They come from God knows where with money in their pockets … ” meaning that type of Jew who, like the corrupt briber Katzenellenbogen, the Russian Jew Kahn and the two Rotter brothers, – the latter also emigrated to Germany from Eastern Europe, – tried their luck in the theatrical branch, degrading the stage, the institution originally dedicated to art and culture, to a mere source of pecuniary profit. Zweig designates the Jewish agents as “slave-holders” who had, in the course of time, developed an unrestricted monopoly, by the means of which they controlled the entire theatrical domain and upon whose intermediary all actors were dependent for their engagements. He says: “The international relations and collaboration between the various agencies corresponds to and is a direct result of the international interrelationship of the modern East European Jewish Movements. – There is no actor who does not remember the countless humiliations and insults to which he has had to submit at this slave market. In the case of some of these agencies the path to public recognition and fame traverses the path of the extortioner … “
The fact has already been mentioned that the management of the influential theatres of the whole country, particularly that of the Berlin stages and even of the State Theatres, had been acquired by Jews. The two Rotter brothers alone were managers of seven theatres in Berlin. Even the Jewish author Arnold Zweig was compelled to admit in their case that “under the management of these upstarts the literary theatre was degraded to a mere financial enterprise devoted entirely to the realization of pecuniary profit.” The Jew Leopold Jessner, stage manager of the Berlin State Theatre, was the one who turned Shakespeare’s and Schiller’s classical dramas into the eccentric popular hits which aroused justified indignation even outside of Germany. Although of Jewish race himself, the critic Fritz Engel was forced to express his disapproval of the performance of Jessner’s staging of “Hamlet” in December 1926: “He converts it into a society play, sometimes into a comedy and almost into a revue.”
In view of this Jewish predominance in the theatrical sphere, it is hardly surprising that the plays figuring in the repertoires of the theatres exactly reflected the mentality of their Jewish proprietors. The fundamental tendency upon which an these plays were based aimed at the destruction of generally accepted ideals of society and state, nation, government and legislation, religious and moral principles. Anyone taking the trouble to study the theatre programmes of those days will continually observe that Jewish names predominate by far.
After the War, the Communist Jewish author Ernst Toller was the first to write for the stage. He was a member of the Communist Workers Council under Eisner’s leadership in Munich in 1919. His drama Feuer aus den Kesseln (Draw the Fires) is a deliberate glorification of the Sailors’ Mutiny of 1918 and Hinkemann (Maimed) is a unparalleled derision of the German Army.
Friedrich Wolf, a Jewish author whose plays were included in the repertoire of practically all theatres, also devoted himself at first to the creation of dramas dealing with mutinies, but then he deviated to topics based on absolute moral and intellectual disintegration and the liberation from all principles of ethic conduct. In his play Cyankali he loudly propagates the abolition of the paragraph of German Law which protects the life of the unborn child.
Walter Mehring is one of the most unsympathetic personalities of the Jewish literary world and he displayed considerably more malice and venomous animosity than all his predecessors and colleagues. He commenced his career with the production of licentious songs, whose flagrant libertinism met with the complete approval of and were formally gloated upon by the predominantly Jewish public frequenting the cabarets and places of amusement at the Kurfürstendamm in Berlin. His drama, “Der Kaufmann von Berlin”, which was performed for the first time in 1929 by the Communist theatrical manager, Piscator, forms the height of Jewish power-craze on the German stage. Mehring makes a caricature of the misery of the years after the war, which hordes of Jewish immigrants from the East took advantage of, in a mercilessly twisted form. The hero in the play is such an Eastern Jewish immigrant, who shows up in the Jewish streets of Berlin, dirt poor and without any means and who conquers Berlin in no time. The shameless truism whith which Mehring describes this course of events is quite level with his cynical derision of everything that is sacred to the German people. At the climax of the drama, street sweepers sweeps away piles of junk consisting of national symbols, steel helmets and – even the dead body of a fallen German soldier. A chorus sings the refrain: “Dreck, weg damit!” (Shit, away with it!)
It would not be difficult to continue this list of dramatists by the addition of innumerable names and examples. Apart from Arnold Zweig and Waiter Hasenclever, Ferdinand Bruckner, for instance, should be mentioned, whose dramas were regarded as gireat revelations by an audience composed of perverse seekers of sexual sensations. These plays - Verbrecher (Criminals), Krankheit der Jugend (Malady of Youth) – enjoyed their particular preference as they nearly exclusively dealt with criminal and sexual abnormalities which were treated as if they embodied the very purpose and joy of life.
However, this enumeration will suffice to imperatively force the observer to ask himself which other self-respecting country valuing the integrity of its religious conceptions and its moral principles, would have tolerated the activity and intellectual influence of such a depraved group of literary corrupters. It is indeed a regrettable symptom that Germany, saturated with Jewish mentality, endured their presence and influence for so long, in fact until the National-Socialist regime brought about a complete revolution in this respect.
To an even greater degree than in the sphere of the theatre, the Jews had swooped upon the whole film industry during the years before 1933. This fact is easy to explain, in as much as financial and artistic factors are more intricately related in this branch of art than in any other. The profits derived in the film industry considerably exceed those of any other artistic enterprises. The possibility of realizing tremendous earnings naturally induced the Jews to invade the German film industry which had begun to flourish during the years following the War. The enormous Jewish participation in the film branch is demonstrated by the following figures:
In 1931 41 firms of the 67 German film producers were in Jewish hands, – that is to say 61 per cent. Of 28 distributors 24 were Jewish, that is 86 per cent. During the same period 119 of the 144 film manuscripts were written by Jews (82 per cent). In 77 cases the staging was carried out by Jews (53 per cent). If one examines the names of the producers, directors and film stars which participated in those films which were enthusiastically praised by the press and which developed into box office successes, one will invariably discover that the great majority were Jewish. Amongst the producers and distributors we find: Pressburger and Rabinowitsch (Cine-Allianz), Heymann, Fallner and Somló, Levy or Cohn. The directors were: Oswald-Ornstein, Zelnik, Meinert, Neufeld or Schönfelder. The actors: Pallenberg, Siegried Arno, Fritz Walburg, Felix Bressart, Kurt Gerron, Grete Mosheim, Gitta Alpar, Rosa Valetti, etc. etc.
The mentality typical of the entire Jewish film industry is displayed in its crudest form by the so-called “social and hygienic instruction films,” a type of film with which the German cinemas were veritably flooded during the years after the War. Officially they were intended to acquaint the masses with the dangers of abnormal sexual intercourse and debauch. They were based on a pseudo scientific foundation and under this mask Jewish capital speculated upon the primitive erotic desires and the lowest instincts of the public. Criminals, prostitutes and the pathologically abnormal were the heroes of this category of film. A choice of titles taken at random from the legion of such so-called “instructive” films will give the best idea of their type and value: – “Morals and Erotic” – “The Book of Sin” – “What Price for Love?” – “Culpable Mothers” – “Prostitution” – “When Women go Astray.” – The contents harmonized with these seductive titles which gave rise to considerable expectations on the part of the public, which were by no means deceived. These films veritably wallowed in mire and filth and, with the most cynical openness, reproduced scenes actually showing the most repulsive debauchery and perversion. The government of those days, which certainly could hardly be called prudish or narrow minded, was compelled to put a stop to the greatest excesses in this direction in 1920 by passing a Film Law, without, however, having been successful in radically eliminating this evil.
In subsequent years the greatest profits in the film industry were derived from “military farces” – a category of film dedicated to the ridicule of the German Army and the individual German soldier. These films were also generally the product of Jewish activity, be it that Jews participated in the capacity of producers, authors, directors or actors. Finally, it is important to remember that Communist propaganda films such as “Potemkin” and “Storm over Asia” were introduced into Germany by Jewish distributors and cinema theatre concerns.
The disintegration and decay of German intellectual life under Jewish supremacy are most apparent and assume their crudest aspects in the sphere of light entertainment art: In the operetta, and especially the revue, frivolity and licentiousness had developed to such an unbelievable extent that Berlin was regarded as the most immoral town in the world in those days; under the circumstances this was not at all astonishing.
None others than the Jews introduced the new form of public amusement, the revue, a branch of art utterly unknown in the Germany of pre-War days. Not content with the introduction of this novelty, they abused it and converted the revue into that species of entertainment which was to blame for quite a large part of the depravity and laxity which had attacked German moral life.
It is extremely characteristic that everyone of the Berlin Revue proprietors – in the provinces there were very few enterprises of this nature – were Jews without a single exception. Many a former visitor to Berlin will still associate such names as James Klein, Hermann Haller, Rudolf Nelson, the two Rotter brothers and Eric Charell with most unpleasant recollections. The complementary staff of authors, composers, directors and stars were also generally chosen amongst the members of the Jewish race.
These revues were veritable orgies of sexuality and licentiousness. All realities of life were regarded from the one and only aspect of erotic desire and its satisfaction. Modesty and decency were scoffed at as being old fashioned and ridiculous.
The loud and vulgar titles given to these revues, for which enormous propaganda was made, speak for themselves. The following translations give an impression of what was presented to the public:
“Undress Yourselves” – “A Thousand Naked Women” – “The Sins of the World” – “Houses of Lust” – “Strictly Prohibited” – “O Gee, A Thousand Pretty Girls” – “Sweet and Sinful.”
The advertisements for James Klein’s Revue “Undress Yourselves” were deliberately designed to awaken the lowest instincts of the public by enticing it with the following enumeration: “An evening without morals and principles – Sixty nude models, winners of beauty prizes – The adventures of beautiful women – Experiences with a girl of fifteen –.”
The posters advertising the revue “A Thousand Naked Women” announced: “The grand revue of Free Love – Forty Pictures of Morality and Immorality.”
The performances themselves absolutely fulfilled the expectations. The scenes on the stage revealed all what the most daring phantasy can imagine, in short, a display of absolute libertinism and a complete surrender to sensual passions.
Even a strictly impartial and sober observer without any pronounced anti-Semitic views cannot any longer remain unimpressed by such examples of laxity and frivolity which all point to typical Jewish indecent and immoral characteristics. At the same time such characteristics are contrary to the spirit which animates all cultured nations. For all that, the reproach that the Jews are an inferior race, which these facts reveal, is so grave that it seems necessary to make a few further observations in this respect. It will be seen however as far as Germany is concerned, that everywhere where existing moral standards have been deliberately relaxed – where immorality was made into a business – Jews were prominent, if not dominant in this work. Even the so called “Sexual Science” – one of the unsavoury products of the last century – was a purely Jewish invention and exploited by them into a most flourishing and lucrative branch of trade.
The authentic “Jewish Encyclopedia” was even compelled to admit a marked racial sexuality in its co-religionists. Cautiously it stated: “The Bible itself contains many references to the fact that the sensual element in sexual intercourse was often very pronounced . . . The words of the Prophets resound with complaints and threats in regard to adultery of which one hears so much.” (Vol. V, p. 384.) With the ‘advent of emancipation this Jewish urge, restrained by the ghettos of the middle ages, poured forth into the public life of the state. A clear field however was only given to it when, as the result of the revolution in Germany in 1918, all barriers of law, order and censorship were broken down. A veritable storm flood of Jewish immoral literature, obscene films and plays then broke over Germany. Cinemas and theatres have already been exhaustively dealt with. It remains to be said that in literature all authors of obscene works were Jews in every case.
Among the hundreds of thousands of books confiscated by the National-Socialists in 1933 very familiar names repeatedly cropped up. Together with publishing firms such as Benjamin Harz, Richard Jacobsthal, Leon Hirsch, M. Jacobsohn or Jacobsthal & Co. mention must be made of the publishers of Kulturforschung – Cultural Research – a Vienna firm whose production was sufficient to fill many libraries. The titles speak for themselves. Sittengeschichte des Lasters (The Moral Story of Depravity), Sittengeschichte der Schamlosigkeit (The Moral Story of Profligacy), Bilderlexikon der Erotik (Illustrated Lexicon of Sexual Love), Sittengeschichte des Geheimen und Verbotenen (The Moral Story of Secret and Forbidden Things), etc. etc.
Among the publishers, the following must be recalled to mind: Dr. Ludwig Levy-Lenz, Leo Schidrowitz, Dr. Iwan Bloch, Franz Rabinowitsch, Georg Cohen, Dr. Albert Eulenburg, Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld.
Iwan Bloch and Magnus Hirschfeld were in reality the real exponents of this so-called scientific sexual research. In reality it was nothing else than a downright treatise on obscene subjects and a degradation of all marriage and family ties.
Their assistants were Felix Abraham und Levy-Lenz. No amount of search will ever reveal a Christian collaborator in this “sexual science.” The publications issued by these obscene pseudo-scientists tell their own particular story of what took place in Magnus Hirschfeld’s “Institution for Sexual Science” and in similar concerns: “Sexual Catastrophes,” “Sexual Pathology,” “Love Chains,” “How to avoid Pregnancy” (by Magnus Hirschfeld), “The Perverters,” “Prostitution,” “Sexual Life in our Age” (by Iwan Bloch), - these were the popular subjects.
It was due to their unrestricted and infamous efforts that the general public became acquainted with all the noisy talk of free love, a call for unlimited right to allow all passions and instincts to run riot, as well as the demand to make homosexuality and abortion non-punishable offences. A heated campaign was waged on the question of unrestricted and non-punishable acts of abortion championed by Jews: Dr. Max Hodann, Dr. Lothar Wolf, Dr. Levy-Lenz, Martha Ruben-Wolf, Felix Halle and Alfons Goldschmidt. This circle of Jews issued at the same time numerous publications advocating greater birth restriction and the avoidance of pregnancy.
Finally we must not overlook Dr. Max Hodann, Berlin’s Medical Officer of Health. With his “Workers’ Sexual Magazine” he contrived to inject the poison of moral disintegration into the broad masses. He also earned for himself a particularly unsavoury reputation for his outspoken propaganda for sexual self-abuse.
Hr. Scavenius, the Danish Chargé d’Affaires at the Hague, was undoubtedly right when he declared three years ago in a wireless lecture that “Germany at that time was the pornographic centre of the world.”
It is difficult indeed to ascertain the real extent of the German Jewish share in crime throughout the Reich for the following reasons: The criminal records kept in Germany since 1882 recognized only orthodox Jews. Those innumerable Jews who had accepted a Christian faith or who were not associated with any established religion, were never embraced in these records. Therefore a great number of criminals, Jewish by race, has been absorbed in other statistical categories. To this must be added the fact that commencing with the year 1918, criminal records ceased to show any subdivision into confessions. This step was in all probability the result of Jewish intervention. The following statistics therefore cannot in any way be regarded as complete. Nevertheless they are food for thought in throwing light on Jewish characteristics.
When taking all this into account, the official “Statistics of the German Reich” (New Edition, Vol. 146) reveal the fact that a number of certain crimes were committed more frequently by Jews than by Christians. Taking an average valuation for the period 1892 to 1901, we obtain the following table:
Jewish perpetrators in ratio to non-Jewish
14 times as many
13 times as many
Theft of material property
11 times as many
9 times as many
6 times as many
Receiving stolen goods
5 times as many
It will be seen from this that Jews-have a strong liking for commercial crime. That this fact has in no way been sufficiently explained by the large percentage of Jews in business is revealed by the investigations conducted by the Jew Ruppin. In his book, Die Juden der Gegenwart – Contemporary Jews – (Berlin 1904), with the aid of comparative statistics Ruppin arrives at considerably greater figures for commercial crime than Jewish participation in commerce would seem to indicate. The Jew Wassermann arrives at the same conclusion in his book Beruf, Konfession und Verbrechen, – Profession, Confession and Crime –, (Munich 1907). He proves that Jewish criminality in bankruptcy in 1900 was seven times greater than among non-Jewish criminals and six times greater in cases of fraudulent insolvency. Wassermann obtained these statistics by being guided expressly by the percentage participation in commercial professions.
The official “Statistics of the German Reich” for the period 1910 to 1914 furthermore prove that at a later stage very little alteration had taken place. The following table exemplifies this:
Jewish perpetrators in ratio to non-Jewish
Commercial receiving of stolen goods
5 times as many
Abuse of trust funds according to commercial law
3 times as many
2 times as many
Theft of immaterial property
8 times as many
12 times as many
13 times as many
Quite apart from these commercial crimes Jews have taken a still greater share in other branches of crime far more reprehensible. We refer to the drug traffic and prostitution, illicit gambling and pickpocketting.
The “Central Organisation for Combatting Drug Crime” has established that in 1931, out of 272 international drug traffickers no less than 69 (25 %) were Jews. In 1932 the figures were 294 and 73 (again 25 %). In 1933, the Jewish percentage had increased to 30 %. The Central Organisation for Combatting Unlawful Gambling and Games of Chance registered 57 Jews out of a total of 94 cases which came to its notice in 1933. In 411 cases of pickpocketting in 1932 193 Jews were involved. In the same year it was found that among the international pickpocketting gangs, out of a total of 163 criminals 134 were Jews or 82 %.
The high percentage of Jews in immoral crime – already referred to in the chapter on Jewish immorality – is frankly admitted by the Jewish scientist Ruppin, to whom we have already referred. He writes:
“That Jews live principally in the large towns and cities is responsible for the fact that certain crimes usually limited to city life are associated with them; for example, procuration, cooperation in immorality.”
* * *
In view of the limited space at our disposal, we could necessarily only give a résumé of the part played by the Jews in Germany before 1933. It would be easy to write a substantial volume on the subject. But even such a work could only reach the same conclusions at practically every page. Our résumé will suffice to convince unprejudiced and objectively minded readers of that which it was our object to prove – namely, that the preponderating influence of the Jews developed into a national calamity of the worst sort for Germany, and that the previously cited words of Theodore Herzl, “every misfortune increases their power,” have proved in the result to be only too true.
The interdependence of national distress and Jewish ascendency has scarcely ever been manifested with such luminous clearness as in Germany. Under these circumstances, it surely behooves us to seek to understand the fundamental reasons underlying the Jewish problem in this country as it has presented itself during the past decades.
Animated by a desire to solve this ancient problem if possible, by the emancipation and assimilation of Jewish elements, Germany had shown herself more accessible to the absorption of Jews than many other countries had done. All barriers had been taken down, all restrictions abolished, all spheres of activity opened unreservedly to the Jews – nay, leading positions were assigned to them even in those domains which were of the most vital importance for national life. The Jews, who numbered less than 1 % of the total population of Germany, occupied the key posts in German industry. Political leadership was to a large extent in their hands. The press and cultural life in general were predominantly under their influence. Their aggregate income exceeded that of the 99 % remaining inhabitants by over one-third. Truly, the Jews had every conceivable opportunity for merging their distinctive existence in the collective life of the German community – a distinctiveness, moreover, frequently deplored by some of the best Jewish elements.
But the Jews consistently ignored the rules of fair play as far as their credulous German partner was concerned. The overwhelming majority of them never desired to be merged in the German nation, because they were aware of the fact that their racial dissimilarity constituted an insuperable obstacle to assimilation. During the years of great tribulation they never hesitated to betray Germany, and to shamelessly misuse the opportunities afforded them in such abundance for their own egoistical purposes and interests. Defeatism and treason, political degradation and economic corruption, moral depravity, the debasement of all national and religious values – these were the outstanding features of a Germany dominated by the alien Jewish race.
Germany had to pay dearly for the illusion that it is possible to solve the Jewish question by means of a generous effort to assimilate the Jews. She had reckoned without a factor of decisive importance: namely, the congenital, in grained, boundless ingratitude of the Jewish race. Not the least of the reasons for the uncompromising attitude of German anti-Semitism – an attitude that has often been misunderstood abroad – is the glaring contrast, irrefutably evidenced by the events of the past decades, between the incontestable good faith of the Germans and the cynical ingratitude of the Jews.
That this contrast constitutes, so to speak, the nucleus of the whole Jewish problem, has been publicly admitted by two leading Jews. The Chief Rabbi of Hamburg, Dr. Joseph Karlebach, wrote in the Jewish review Der Morgen (vol. II, p. 129, 1930): “to be a Jew, is to be opposed to the natural attitude of human beings.”
The French Jew Bernard Lazare, who was well known at the close of the last century, was even more candid in his book l’ Antisémitisme, in which he puts the question: “By what qualities or defects has the Jew drawn upon himself such universal reprobation? Why has he alternately and in equal measure been maltreated and hated by Egyptians and Romans, by Persians and Arabs, by Turks and Christian nations? It is because the Jew is everywhere, and right down to the present day has remained, an asocial being.”
These admissions by candid Jewish writers, whose authority is undisputed, explain better than any words of ours why National-Socialism was compelled to give a definite and final solution to the Jewish question, so far as Germany is concerned. Anti-Semitic feeling in this country has not been roused to such a degree by the mere fact of the preponderance of an utterly alien influence, but by the spirit underlying that influence and inseparable from it – a spirit of an essentially asocial nature, which requited evil for good and invariably prompted those inspired by it to repay hospitality and benevolence with treachery and unrelenting, destructive hatred.
When the National-Socialists came into power in 1933, they endeavoured to solve the Jewish question by methods calculated to peacefully reduce the excessive influence of the Jews on public life to proportions compatible, firstly, with the position of the Jews as an alien race, and, secondly, with their number – which, as has already been said, was less than 1 % of the total German population. When the amount of misfortune brought on Germany by the Jews prior to 1933 is recalled, the methods adopted to diminish their influence on German public life must be accounted remarkably moderate, and as evidencing extraordinary restraint and discipline among the leaders of the new Germany. The fact is too easily overlooked, that the advent to power of National-Socialism constituted a revolution in the truest sense of the word, and it may without exaggeration be asserted that scarcely a revolution in history has been accomplished with such exemplary discipline.
The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 formed the basis of a peaceful and orderly settlement of the Jewish question in Germany. But the Jews themselves were not prepared to reckon with the incontestable fact that their era of emancipation in Germany was definitely at an end. They were not willing to abandon their usurped supremacy without a struggle, and since this was no longer possible in Germany itself, they deliberately stirred up an agitation abroad, hardly less dangerous than an openly proclaimed war. By means of a consistently carried out poisoning of the sources of public opinion, they have succeeded in creating a caricature of National-Socialist Germany and inflaming international opinion against the latter. By organising a boycott of German goods, they have endeavoured to throttle Germany economically. They have even gone so far as to reply to the measures of the National-Socialist government by the assassination of Wilhelm Gustloff and Ernst von Rath.
The world-embracing associations and interests of Jewry as an international power, as well as the asocial spirit animating it, could not be evidenced in more convincing manner than by its success in putting the whole world instantaneously, so to speak, into movement against National-Socialist Germany. For the world has taken very much less notice of processes of elimination carried out elsewhere on a far greater scale. Who has championed the cause of those millions of Russians driven from their land by the Bolshevist revolution, or who, unable to escape in time, were tortured and massacred? Who ever spent a thought on the Germans in the Baltic States, 80 % of whom were forced to emigrate after the Great War, and who to a large extent are condemned to a life of perpetual hardship in foreign countries?
On the other hand, wherever the interests of even a single Jew are affected, international Jewry howls for redress and assistance until international peace is seriously menaced by its bellowings.
Germany knows full well where the source of the everlasting disquiet is to be found, which perpetually enervates the world and effectively prevents the realisation of all efforts to reach international understanding and peace. The German government, conscious of its responsibilities, has drawn the logical conclusion, and surely and definitely eliminated all Jewish influence, of whatever nature it may be, at home. It has thus contributed, for its part, to getting rid of an element which, in the words of the illustrious historian Theodor Mommsen, is “an operative ferment of national disintegration.”
* * *
At the close of our study of the Jewish problem in Germany, the problem arises of what is to be done with the Jews. For it is evident that the effects of the policy of the German government towards the Jews cannot remain confined solely to Germany, but must be farreaching. Anti-Semitism has been awakened in all countries where belief in the blessings of “assimilation” has been rudely shaken by the course of events, and by the spiritual and political renascence which characterises the present era. The multitude of Jewish emigrants carry with them the Jewish question, with all its inevitable consequences, into such new “homes” as may be opened to them.
Hence it is clear that the Jewish problem is susceptible of solution only on an international basis. The Jews themselves have unambiguously recognised the necessities arising out of the existing situation. The Jüdisches Nachrichtenblatt of December 30, 1938, wrote: “For all who wish to see, it is evident that territories will ere long be required for the settlement, not only of Jews from Germany, but of Jews from other European countries also. Whoever is able to interpret current events cannot fail to observe the rapidity with which the Jewish question is becoming increasingly urgent in a number of European States and the consequent necessity of a correspondingly rapid solution of it.”
It has already been said that the projected creation of a National Home for Jews in Palestine will not afford a solution of the Jewish problem. What is needed, is to find territories, the ownership of which is not, as is the case in Palestine, claimed by others – territories which by virtue of a general agreement shall be allotted exclusively to the Jews. This need is reflected in the fact that even in England, the Mandatory Power, herself, the possibility of settling Jews in overseas territories is envisaged.
Germany, having no colonies, is not in a position to make any effective contribution to these international discussions.
Racial characteristics and historical destiny combine to render it somewhat more than problematical that the attempt to solve the Jewish question by means of the creation of a Jewish State can ever hope to be successful. We have exposed this point of view in detail when dealing with the problem of Palestine. In the long run it must depend on the Jews them selves, and on their immense financial power, whether the united efforts of the Western countries to find a solution will be fruitful or not – whether, after two thousand years of incessant wanderings, Ahasuerus will eventually find rest.