Ernst Zündel Replies:
Rebuttal # 10-11
(Question 10 and 11 are treated in this section together)
Since Nizkor complains that Questions 10 and 11 are essentially the same – even insinuating that “. . . something fishy is going on here” – I will be glad to smooth that little wrinkle and deal with them together.
I agree that #10 and #11 cover the same territory – namely the legitimacy of the new National Socialist government treating Jews as enemies intent on ruining Germany when Hitler came to power after January 30, 1933.
There is no question that atrocity propaganda was indeed still in full swing against Germany as a remnant of WWI propaganda – just as it is today, 50 years after the war! – but that was NOT the only reason for Hitler’s energetic Jewish policy.
The utterly compelling reason for his measures was an economic one. Germany was on the verge of bankruptcy when Hitler took charge of his country. The fact was that incredibly powerful international banking concerns, allied with a controlled press and controlled industrial concerns, all intricately related and topped off with voracious public relations/propaganda measures, were effectively strangling Germany.
As quoted from The Transfer Agreement by Edwin Black, a Jew, (MacMillan, 1984, p. 21):
“The deterioration of the once powerful German economy really began in World War I. . . . The Allied blockade cut off Germany’s borders and most of her land trade routes. Trade was decimated. Industry couldn’t export. War material and civilian necessities, including food, could not be imported.
Before the blockade was lifted, 800,000 malnourished German civilians perished.. . . The popular perception among Germans was that they had been starved into submission, defeated not on the battlefield but by political and economic warfare and connivance.
. . . Some Germans, such as the Nazis, blamed a Jewish conspiracy. In their minds it was Jewish bankers who would prosper from Germany’s economic tragedy, since massive loans would be necessary both to recovery from the war and to pay war indemnity.
. . . it was Jewish Bolshevism that would gain by undermining the German Empire and replacing it with a Weimar Republic where Marxism could flourish. . . . it was Jews who at the Treaty of Versailles gained rights of minority citizenship throughout war-reconstructed Europe.
And in Hitler’s own words, (p. 23, same source)
“Not so long ago, Germany was prosperous, strong and respected by all. It is not your fault Germany was defeated in the war and has suffered so much since. You were betrayed in 1918 by Marxists, international Jewish bankers, and corrupt politicians.”
So anti-Jewish sentiment was strong, but it was strong within the context of a decimated, horribly humiliated people. The populace of Germany at that time was blinded and practically clubbed into submission by Marxism, a revolutionary ideology of class warfare that was widely interpreted as having sprung from malevolent Jewish brains. (See Q/A # 9)
Since 1918, Marxism had spread politically motivated strikes, revolution and disorder throughout Germany. Conditions could not have been worse, and chaos, violence, anarchy and destruction reigned wherever these Marxists were active.
One of Hitler’s long-term strategies, therefore, was to detach his nation from the current monetary system that bred such destruction – a monetary system which he correctly perceived as a deliberate, foretellable results of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles.
This point has been brilliantly summarized in “The 1930s Economic Boycott of Germany – Prelude” by Udo Walendy (pp 15-19) in the April 1996 issue of The Barnes Review, and I am quoting from this essay:
“. . . Simultaneous with Adolf Hitler’s rise to power in Germany, an international (Jewish) boycott was organized with the intention of destroying the National Socialists and keeping Germany subservient to the Treaty of Versailles.
One reads of the “violation of Jewish rights” in Germany in 1933 in the context of the international boycott orchestrated against the beleaguered nation. For a historian, however, this approach is not satisfactory, because events must be seen in the light of the fact that “the others, too” – in this case, the Germans – had the same right to fight for their existence. If one wishes to be objective, it just will not do to speak only about Jewish rights having been violated without mentioning in this context that the whole German nation had been deprived of its rights by the Treaty of Versailles.
Countless Germans were unemployed; many had their property expropriated or were otherwise economically ruined. In fact, between 1919 and 1933, poverty, civil war and chaos reigned, with little hope of survival for many. Nor can it be passed over in silence that the conditions prevailing in Germany during that period had been largely influenced by victorious political and economic forces abroad, in particular those who took advantage of multi-national citizenship and who exploited their contacts with international authorities.
Germany’s surrender in 1918, the subsequent economic blockade, occupation of the Ruhr, the payment of massive reparations and its consequences (inflation and large-scale unemployment) the communist riots etc., all enabled these forces to bring about terrible conditions either from outside of Germany or from within by way of immigration, naturalization and financing with hard foreign currencies (predominantly dollars). Instituted concurrently was a management policy for essential political, judicial, economic and journalistic positions which favored primarily not German, but internationally interwoven interests. They were, of course, not always Jewish. But it can’t be ignored that at least one of these pressure groups identified itself either as a coherent race, an internationally dispersed people, or a religious community of one stock and family, and that this group had common obligations and targets, from which it was considered treason to deviate.
Dr. Nahum Goldman, Jewish, for many years president of the World Jewish Congress and the World Zionist Organization, wrote in The Jewish Paradox, (Grosset & Dunlap, page 109):
“Over the years I have personally had a certain amount of power; as president of the biggest Jewish organizations I have had hundreds of millions of dollars in funds under my control; and thousands of employees, though let me say again that this was within the framework of international Jewry, not of a state.”
And Walendy goes on to say by quoting Goldman: …
(Jews) were involved in large-scale banking, a situation unparalleled elsewhere, and, by way of high finance, they had also penetrated German industry. A considerable portion of the wholesale trade was Jewish. …
“The theater was largely in their hands. The daily press, above all its internationally influential sector, was essentially owned by Jews or controlled by them . . .
“The majority of the German Jews were never fully assimilated and were much more Jewish than the Jews in other West European countries.”
Comments Walendy by making his main point – which is that history must not be judged by double standards:
May it be noted in this connection that the state of Israel, after its founding in 1948, never granted equal rights of co-determination or even equal nationality rights to foreigners, certainly not to Germans, living in Israel. But the 70 million nation of Germany which, in 1933, was fighting for its bare existence, its survival, its right of self-determination, was also entitled to think of its own strength, to bring about a change of leadership and, in doing so, to eliminate those people from decisive positions who, Germans believed, were responsible or co-responsible for the nationwide chaos. . . .
The fighting slogans proclaimed by Stephen Wise, president of the American Jewish Congress, at the Second Preparative Jewish Conference on September 5, 1933 in Geneva, was neither consistent with the facts, nor with a policy to maintain peace. He spoke of a “common enemy of mankind having no other aim than to conquer and destroy.” He added: “We stand in the front line; in the first row of trenches.”
What most historians don’t bother to mention is that the Committee of Jewish Delegates, composed of a large number of Jewish organizations, as well as the Zionist World Organization and the B’nai B’rith, participated in the Versailles Peace Conference which had brought on the disastrous economic conditions which Germany faced in 1933 and which had a direct connection to the rise of the National Socialists.
The Jewish organizations participating at Versailles represented over 10 million Jews from a large number of countries. One of their targets, “crowned with success,” was “not to allow any absolute national sovereignty.” The primary object of the peace conference had been the distribution of the spoils of war. . . Who was it, then, who first started to meddle in foreign affairs? …
Jews of the world living outside of Germany proclaimed a war against Hitler, as the London Daily Express, March 24, 1933 headlined it. (“Judea Declares War on Germany”) and no national Jewish group has ever dissociated itself from the declaration.
All these activities and organizations operating across (borders and even continents) provided a real background for using such an effective power politically on a world-wide basis at a time when Hitler was not even master in his own house. . . .
Writes Edwin Black, in The Transfer Agreement, mentioned above, on pages 20-21:
The movement (to stop Hitler) was spreading spontaneously along interreligious lines. Spurred on by the (American) Jewish War Veterans, the nation’s emotions were mobilized. Boycott was finally a word lifted out of the whispers and into the headlines.
March 23 was a success for the Jewish War Veterans. Their boycott kickoff generated maximum publicity. One radio station covered the day with updates every 15 minutes. Extensive support was offered by those in prominence and power – as well as by the anonymous faces in the crowd. . .
German legations around the United States reported the anti-Nazi developments to the fifty-one-day old Reich. Jewish protest was not merely a nuisance, it preyed upon the minds of the Nazis as they braced for their first big fight against their avowed enemies, the Jews.
. . Could mere popular protest in Europe and America influence the Third Reich? Could a boycott – an economic war – topple the Hitler regime. . . ?
At the time, some Jewish leaders either doubted the power of the anti-Nazi movement or were unwilling to participate. The failure to participate worked to Hitler’s advantage, because the Jewish-led, world-wide anti-nazi boycott was indeed the one weapon Hitler feared.
So a world-wide boycott was indeed launched, particularly in the United States and Great Britain, but also in other countries like Poland. Jewish pressure groups with their worldwide connections were responsible for the gradual escalation of a policy of confrontation on an international basis.
One of the leaders of these pressure groups was Samuel Untermyer, (sometimes spelled Untermeyer) one of the most powerful and influential Jewish leaders in America and a most successful attorney, government advisor and president of the non-sectarian Anti-Nazi League.
From 1933 to 1939, Untermyer devoted all of his time and energy to a world-wide boycott of German goods, insisting on rigorous and immediate implementation, wherever and however this could be done. He began his efforts immediately after Hitler’s assumption of power and without any mandate from German Jews.
Wise, founder of the American Jewish Congress, made similar efforts to get this boycott going, but he preferred to have it coordinated with government measures and full powers being given to him by a board of international Jewry operating on a world-wide basis.
All this against the backdrop of an American President, Roosevelt, who, again in Black’s words, “. . . was attuned to the pulse of the Jewish constituency.” (p. 15)
It can be said without qualification, therefore, that during Hitler’s rise to power in Germany, the American media were leftist in the extreme, Marxist-infiltrated, either blind or deceived, and kow-towing to that mass murderer, Joseph Stalin. And the London Times article, so often quoted as the signal that Jews had, indeed, declared war on Germany, was by no means the only indication that economic war was on – world-wide!
In The Nation, Aug. 2, 1933, J.J. Martin wrote:
“Enthusiasm for the boycott, led in America by the well-known New York attorney Samuel Untermyer, and pressed elsewhere by an international Jewish congress held in Amsterdam and by the National Joint Council of the labor unions in England, was one of the ways in which liberal energies were mobilized against Hitler Germany in the summer of 1933 , in addition to the wide publicity given to atrocity stories, too often based on hearsay.” ( p. 223)
Further down, he mentions that
“. . . in no case did [a] German minority as small as the Jews gain the support the latter did in the American liberal press. It [i.e., the boycott and attendant hoopla] was probably the most remarkable campaign ever conducted in the interests of such a small minority group of citizens of a foreign state by any segment of American public opinion-making media in the nation’s history”.
And in the New Republic, Sept. 20, 1933, Martin further reports that
“Late in September, 1933 . . . ‘The world-wide boycott of German goods, shipping and services of all kinds which is being organized by prominent Jewish bodies seems to us the only way of impressing upon those responsible for the present regime in Germany the detestation with which its persecutions are regarded’. It . . . admitted that private boycotts were a type of war measure . . .
So it is not as though Revisionists always cite only that one orphan article in the British paper when they write about this boycott that so enraged and cornered Germany. There is plenty of evidence for anyone who cares to look that US media were fairly abuzz during the entire summer of 1933 about this – as well as other anti-German agitation. This bit of valuable information shouldn’t be allowed to disappear down the memory hole – for otherwise, the kind of nonsense Nizkor has written about, claiming that “only” one newspaper is cited in evidence of a declaration of war on the part of powerful Jewish interests, will become “the historical record” of that sinister, Jewish-led boycott campaign.
To summarize the first point, then: Jewish propaganda was systematically trying to disable Germany before it could even begin to rebuild itself economically from the ravages and unfair treatment of WWI. The boycott was not only “planned” by Jewish individuals and groups, it was implemented by Jewish individuals and groups.
Boycotts or blockades are instruments of war just like guns, tanks and planes, with the intent of disrupting the enemy’s economy (e.g., in the American Civil War, the North blockaded the South; the blockade of Germany by Great Britain in 1919; the boycott of South Africa in the 1980’s; and the current blockade of Iraq). The intent was, and is, the same everywhere – to cripple the enemy and bring it to heel, and then to extort from it a change of behavior and/or policy – the aim of any war.
We are seeing it these days practiced against benign little countries like Switzerland by the World Jewish Congress and the Simon Wiesenthal Center among others.
The next question then, becomes: How was this done?
Quite simply, with influence by people in strategically placed areas of society – such as the press, government and business – with money and with propaganda. Toward this end, largely international family fortunes in Jewish hands were used to buy massive media.
Below, I am citing some facts and statistics taken from The Rothschild Money Trust, (George Armstrong, Omni Publications) written by an American patriot during the Roosevelt Administration. Please keep in mind that this was written long before America decided foolishly to “reply with the guns of America” on behalf of Jewish interests: Remember, this is information from the 1930s:
It is estimated that the Jews have absorbed four-fifth of the wealth of Germany, Austria, Poland and Czech-Slovakia, and more than one-half of that of England, France and Italy. They practically own the banks, railways, steel and munitions plants of these countries, to say nothing of the press and other minor industries.
They undoubtedly own one-half of the wealth of America. With one or two possible exceptions, they own the huge New York banks (which implies the control of the New York Federal Reserve Bank) the insurance companies, 80% of the metropolitan press, the news and advertising agencies, the cinema, and 80% of the radio broadcasting companies.
They are reputed to own 100% of the metropolitan newspapers of both England and France, and likewise 100% of the news and advertising agencies and the cinema of these two countries.
“Think of it. This alien race comprising less than 1% of the population owned 80% of the wealth of the country. The worst of it is that they stole it by the manipulation of the German currency system – in the same way that they have stolen the wealth of our country.
The wonder is that Hitler has been so patient and forbearing. (p 78)
And, finally, we have the Forrestal Diaries, (edited by Walter Millis, (The Viking Press, 1951, page 121 ) where Joseph Kennedy, then Ambassador to Britain, is stating that the Jews were responsible for WWII.
Specifically, we find the following:
Played golf today with Joe Kennedy (Joseph P. Kennedy) who was Roosevelt’s Ambassador to Great Britain in the years immediately before the war). I asked him about his conversations with Roosevelt and Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on.
He said Chamberlain’s position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy’s view: That Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it had not been for Bullitt’s (William C., Bullet, then US Ambassador to France) urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington.
Bullitt, he said, kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn’t fight, Kennedy said that they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war.
In summary it can be said that, in response to Hitler’s meteoric rise, the immensely rich international banking concerns, largely in Jewish hands, meant business – and that “business” meant, sadly, hate propaganda, agitation for a war to stop Hitler.
More about that in QA # 12.