William L. Pierce
From the Balfour Declaration to the Roosevelt Era1
IN PRESENTING HIS PLAN to use an anticipated war among the Gentile nations for the furtherance of Jewish goals, Theodor Herzl had announced at the first meeting of the Zionist Congress, in August 1897: “After the great European war is ended, the peace conference will assemble. We must be ready for that time.”2
When the Paris Peace Conference finally did assemble, on January 18, 1919, the Jews were more than ready: they had stacked the conference in their favor more thoroughly than any riverboat gambler had ever stacked a deck of cards. All the delegates of the Allied powers – especially those of Great Britain and the United States – had been approached beforehand, many of them repeatedly, and been harangued, badgered, bribed, threatened, and coaxed to support the Zionists’ demand that Palestine be taken from Turkey and given to them.
Jews also had taken a hand in the preparation of background material used for briefing the delegates on the historical, political, and economic facts relevant to their deliberations. Thus, a set of recommendations prepared by the “Intelligence Section” of the U.S. delegation to the conference suggested that “the Jews be invited to return to Palestine and settle there” and that future policy should be “to recognize Palestine as a Jewish state as soon as it is a Jewish state in fact.”3
Finally, most of the top Zionist leaders converged on Paris, so that they could follow the proceedings at the conference closely and do any personal arm twisting needed to keep the delegates in line. Louis Brandeis was in and out; his protégé Felix Frankfurter was there whenever he was not; Chaim Weizmann commuted between London and Paris; Rabbi Stephen Wise came from New York; and Bernard Baruch, a wealthy Wall Street commodities speculator who had come to have as strong an influence on President Wilson as that exercised by Brandeis, was an official delegate of the U.S. government.4
A few of the Allied political leaders undoubtedly had a sympathy for the Zionist position based on their childhood inculcation with Sunday School tales of the “chosen people” and the “promised land.” During the first years of this century such beliefs were still fairly common among otherwise intelligent and sophisticated men in America and Britain. This apparently was the case with British Prime Minister Lloyd George, for example, who was known to lecture his colleagues in Parliament on the Old Testament from time to time.
Biblical superstitions were not what the Jews were counting on, however. Money and political influence, the latter exercised through their growing control of the press, were their principal arguments in persuading the delegates to give them what they wanted. Their influence was strongest among the British and the Americans, with their virtual domination of the weak and confused Woodrow Wilson being their trump card.
Rabbi Wise has related a conversation he had with Wilson while the conference was in session: “‘Mr. President,’ I said, ‘world Jewry counts upon you in its hour of need and hope.’ Placing his hand on my shoulder, he quietly and firmly said, ‘Have no fear, Palestine will be yours.’”5
Such a commitment to the Jews was, of course, completely contradictory to Wilson’s loudly and widely professed principle of “self-determination for all peoples,” since the Palestine he proposed to give to the Jews already was inhabited by a people hoping for their own self-determination. The truth of the matter is that Wilson seems to have been much more concerned with the rhetorical impact of his famous “Fourteen Points,” which enumerated the principles he asserted would govern America’s policy at the peace conference and which he had announced to the world on January 8, 1918, than with their actual meaning.
He had an abundance of lawyerly cleverness with words, and he was brimful of all the latest liberal platitudes about the desirability of “peace without victory” and making “the world safe for democracy,” but he seems to have had little understanding of, and less concern for, the realities of the situation to which his Fourteen Points – and his “Four Principles” (announced February 11, 1918), “Four Ends” (July 4, 1918), and “Five Particulars” (September 27, 1918) – supposedly were addressed.
The very first of the Fourteen Points, for example, called for an end to all secret diplomatic negotiations and demanded that “diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.” One can only wonder what the man had been smoking when he came up with that idea, so contrary to common sense and human nature is it. Indeed, Wilson himself became so conspicuous in ignoring his own injunction the following year, when he carried on most of his peace negotiations in Paris behind closed doors, that Robert Lansing, his secretary of state, had to warn him about the bad impression this secrecy was making on the public.
The sixth of Wilson’s Fourteen Points, calling for all nations to adopt a hands-off policy toward the Bolsheviks in Russia, who were then in the process of taking over that country and liquidating their “class enemies” in the most brutal fashion, bears the unmistakable imprint of Brandeis and Baruch. The Allies were concerned about the Bolsheviks for two reasons: first, because they sapped Russia’s ability to continue fighting Germany (the Bolsheviks, in fact, made a separate peace with Germany in March 1918 and put up no effective resistance to the continued German presence in Russia thereafter); and second, because they were afraid that Bolshevism might spread to their own countries if it were permitted to succeed in Russia. These concerns had led to a limited amount of Allied military help for the White (i.e., anti-Bolshevik) Russian forces. Wilson, who had welcomed the revolution in Russia from the start,6 strenuously opposed this help, and, despite the pleas of the Allies, refused to send more than a token U.S. military force to Russia, where its role was limited to observation.
If one did not know better, one might attribute Wilson’s insistence on non-interference with the Bolsheviks to an almost incredible degree of naiveté; he was, after all, the woolliest-minded of democracy mongers, and if he really believed that the purpose of America’s involvement in the First World War was to make the world safe for democracy, then it is conceivable that he may also have believed that the success of the Bolsheviks in Russia would be a gain “for freedom in the world, for justice, and for peace.” But, of course, he really believed neither of those things. He took America into the war, because the people who supported him and flattered him, who touted him in their newspapers as a “champion of the people” and guided his political career for him, told him to. And he sabotaged the Allied move to aid the White Russians against the Bolsheviks, because the same people told him to do that too.
The historians who still excuse Wilson’s stand on the Bolsheviks as mere liberal woolly-mindedness (many liberals shared Wilson’s optimistic views on the Bolshevik Revolution at the time) are belied by an abundance of documentary evidence. The United States had diplomatic personnel in Russia who kept the secretary of state back in Washington closely informed of what was happening there, and the American military observers who had been sent to Russia as a sop to the Allies also submitted copious reports. The message that came back to Washington from every American source in Russia was the same: most of the Bolsheviks were not members of the “great, generous Russian people” but were Jews; they were opposed by most Russians; they were ruining Russia and destroying the best of her people; and they were a menace to the world which ought to be stamped out immediately.
The National Archives in Washington contain an abundance of State Department and War Department reports with this message. Many of the State Department reports have long since been gathered up, reprinted in bound volumes, and made available to the public; those which have not can still be located relatively easily by any diligent researcher.
Two weeks before Wilson read his war message to Congress and nearly 10 months before he announced the Fourteen Points, information had been sent to Washington indicating who was behind the budding revolution in Russia, then in its “Provisional Government” phase. On March 19, 1917, U.S. Ambassador David Rowland Francis sent a telegram from Moscow to Secretary of State Robert Lansing. In it he said: “Immeasurably important to the Jews that revolution succeed. If Jews make such advances, however, great discretion should be exercised lest revolution assume a phase which would arouse opposition… [of] anti-Semitics [sic] who are numerous here.”7
On May 2, 1918, the U.S. consul general in Moscow sent a telegram to Lansing which reported: “…Jews predominant in local Soviet government, anti-Jewish feeling growing among population which tends to regard oncoming Germans as deliverers…. German, Ukraine troops closing in actively on Bryansk which is Red Army staff headquarters but Red Army lacking in discipline and morale, flees before enemy without fighting and plunders local population which is prepared [to] welcome Germans as deliverers….”8
THE FOLLOWING MILITARY INTELLIGENCE report of March 1, 1919, photographically reproduced below, by U.S. Army Captain Montgomery Schuyler is typical, rather than exceptional, of the accounts of Bolshevik activity which were received in Washington from American diplomatic, commercial, and military observers in Russia in the years 1917-1919. Note the reference in the third paragraph to orders not to interfere in local affairs. President Wilson had grudgingly permitted a few American military personnel to be sent into revolution-torn Russia at Allied insistence, but they were under orders not to help the White Russians or to hinder the Bolsheviks. Wilson made a great pretense of humanitarianism and of concern for freedom and human rights, but the documentary record proves him a fraud.
He justified the U.S. intervention in the First World War on the basis of making the world “safe for democracy,” destroying the “autocratic power” of the German government, and giving the German people “self-determination.” Why, then, did he insist on non-intervention in Russia, when it was quite clear that the Bolsheviks were establishing a regime a thousand times more obnoxious to any humanitarian – or even to a genuine liberal – than that of the German Kaiser? Furthermore, a determined Allied effort in Russia could have put down the Bolsheviks at a relatively small cost in lives, while Wilson’s policy of intervention against Germany resulted in the deaths of three million more combatants, including 115,000 Americans, and a vastly greater destruction of Europe’s cultural heritage, by prolonging the First World War nearly two years.
Every major foreign-policy move Wilson made – taking America into the war, blocking Allied intervention against the Bolsheviks, backing a British mandate over Palestine – forced him to repudiate some lofty principle or other he had proclaimed earlier, but every move also served the purposes of his Jewish advisers and boosters. Woodrow Wilson willingly sacrificed the lives of millions of his own people in order to please these unspeakably evil men and retain their support. (The full text of this report is included in the Appendix at the end of this article.)
On July 5, 1918, Lansing received a lengthy telegram from the U.S. consul in Vladivostok, John Kenneth Caldwell. It contained a report by an American commercial representative who had traveled throughout Russia during the preceding 13 months, and it described in detail the suffering of the Russian people at the hands of the Bolsheviks whom Wilson was so anxious to protect: “…Bolsheviks in every city I have resided are simply robbing, murdering, and burning. Practically every business is ruined…. Fifty per cent of Soviet government in each town consists of Jews of worst type, many of whom are anarchists…. The great mass of Russian people prefer even German tyranny to Bolshevik terrorism. I suggest careful consideration Ally [sic] intervention….”9
On October 5, 1918, a dispatch was sent to Washington from the U.S. Embassy in London. It contained an eyewitness report written by a Dutch diplomat who had recently returned from Petrograd (formerly St. Petersburg, now Leningrad). After describing some of the mass arrests, starvation, and massacres being inflicted on the Russian people by the Bolsheviks, the report concluded: “The foregoing report will indicate the extremely critical nature of the present situation. The danger is now so great that I feel it my duty to call the attention of the British and all other governments to the fact that if an end is not put to Bolshevism in Russia at once the civilization of the whole world will be threatened…. I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshevism is the greatest issue now before the world, not even excluding the war which is still raging, and unless as above stated Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world as it is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things. The only manner in which this danger could be averted would be collective action on the part of all powers.”10
On November 12, 1918, the American legation in Copenhagen forwarded to Washington a report by an American bank official, R.R. Stevens, the representative in Russia of the National City Bank of New York, who had just finished an extended journey in Bolshevik territory. Stevens repeated what every other observer had stressed: “It is very important to note that from the smallest districts up to the very head the government is composed almost entirely of Jews….” He described the suffering and death of the Russian people under the Bolsheviks, and then he, too, called for intervention: “All humanity cries out against it; all humanity should rise and demand a decent government where every man and all classes should have a right to exist…. The only solution which can be made of the Russian problem is international intervention on humanitarian grounds, backed by whatever military force is required.”
None of this had the least effect on Wilson. He refused to criticize the horror in Russia in any way, and he continued to insist that the Bolsheviks be left free to work their will on the prostrate Russian people without interference from the West, which was exactly the way the Jews wanted things to stay – in Russia, that is. In Palestine, on the other hand, they very much wanted Western intervention, and again Wilson was their compliant tool.
The 12th of Wilson’s Fourteen Points asserted that the “nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development.” That promise of autonomy was a continuation of the war propaganda begun by the British to win the support of the peoples of the Middle East for the Allied side. It had worked well, causing Arab uprisings against the Turks and delivering much of the eastern Mediterranean area into British hands.
Wilson’s promise meant no more than the earlier British promises, however, in the face of Jewish demands. Arab autonomy was the last thing the Jews wanted. The Zionist leaders at the peace conference did not even want Jewish autonomy, in fact, because that would have left them with many responsibilities they were unwilling to accept – including the responsibility for defending themselves from the Palestinians whose land they wanted.
The Zionist plan was for Turkish rule over Palestine to be replaced by British rule; the Jews would then be given free rein to begin occupying the land and building up all the infrastructure of a Jewish state, while the British would maintain law and order, keep the buses running, deliver the mail, and protect the Jews from the inevitable wrath of the Palestinians. When the Jews had become strong enough, they would take over de jure rule from the British. That was the way Weizmann spelled it out for Lansing and for Lloyd George in Paris.11
And that was largely the way things finally came out at the peace conference. To be sure, the Jews did not get quite everything they demanded – but they demanded a great deal. The territory they wanted Britain to administer for them as a future Jewish state included not only all of Palestine, but also a third of Lebanon; the entire East Bank of the Jordan, right up to the outskirts of Amman; and sizable chunks of Egypt and Syria as well.12 Jehovah, it seems, had promised all of that to them.
When it became clear that the Palestine Mandate would actually comprise only about half of the territory the Jews were claiming, Brandeis was brazen enough to send a telegram to the conference importuning the “Christian nations” to keep their “solemn promise to Israel” by enlarging the Mandate.13 Until 1922, when the League of Nations formally approved the Palestine Mandate, specifically excluding the East Bank (Transjordan) from the territory covered, the Jews still thought they might get most of the land they coveted.
The Jews also did not approve of an inter-Allied commission of inquiry, the so-called King-Crane Commission, whose task was to determine the wishes of the inhabitants of the proposed Mandate and report back to the peace conference. They urged Wilson to hurry up with the signing of the treaty, before the commission could give its report.
When that report finally was presented, in August 1919, it opposed Jewish aims right down the line. It concluded that subjecting the inhabitants of Palestine “to unlimited Jewish immigration, and to steady financial and social pressure to surrender the land, would be a gross violation of the principle [of self-determination]….”14 By that time, however, the treaty had been signed at Versailles (on June 28), and Wilson had returned to America to receive the cheers of the crowds, his crusade for the right of “self-determination for all peoples” conveniently forgotten.
A great deal could be written about events in Palestine subsequent to the signing of the Versailles Treaty: about Jewish immigration and the taking over of the land, about conflict with the Palestinians, and about Jewish chicanery in dealing with their British protectors. This is not a history of Zionism per se, however, but an account of the way in which the Jews, using Zionism as a unifying and organizing principle, gained control of the government of the United States and then used that control to advance their own ends, to the incalculably great detriment of the American and European peoples. Therefore, events in Palestine will be sketched only in broad outline, and the focus will remain on Jewish activity in America and Europe.
As was demonstrated in the first article of this series, the Jews built their bridgehead in America during the 35 years from about 1880 to the First World War, carrying out during the latter half of that period a specific plan to gain and use political influence in the United States. Their plan involved three elements: a general buildup of numbers, financial resources, and media control; finding a proper tool through which they could work their will; and then bringing all of their strength into play at a decisive moment – namely, at the peace conference following the long-anticipated war between the goyim.
The plan, as far as it went, worked quite well. Not only did the Jews get most of what they wanted at the peace conference, but the strength they had developed in finance and the media could now be used for other purposes. Woodrow Wilson was of no use to them after the peace conference (he suffered a complete breakdown in September 1919, which left him an invalid until his death in 1924), but the singularly vulgar form of democracy which had emerged in America by the first part of this century was ideally suited for bringing to the fore new men whom they could control as completely as they had controlled Wilson.
Thus, as the 1920s dawned, everything seemed rosy for the Jews. At the same time that Jewish immigrants were pouring into Palestine to begin building a new world Jewish headquarters there, they were consolidating their grip on the two largest White nations in the world, the United States and Russia.
Then things began going wrong for them. In Russia, after Lenin’s death in 1924, the foremost Jewish Bolshevik, Trotsky (Lev Davidovich Bronstein), lost a power struggle against a faction which, although mostly Jewish also, was headed by a non-Jew, Stalin (Iosif Vissarionvich Dzhugashvili). At the end of the decade Jews still filled nearly every top post in the Soviet power structure, but the viciousness and thoroughness with which Stalin had waged his fight against Trotsky and the latter’s followers had frightened many of the more far-sighted Jews, and they were filled with uneasy forebodings about their future in the Soviet Union.
In the next decade those forebodings were realized, as Stalin launched a massive purge of the Bolshevik power structure, sending whole armies of Jewish commissars to their deaths in prison cellars and slave-labor camps. The fact that many of the prison wardens and camp commissars in the 1930’s were still Jewish was only a slight comfort, because a new generation of Gentile commissars was clearly on the rise, and the days of Jewish power in the Soviet Union were numbered.
Growing Jewish power in the United States also brought a reaction in the 1920s which made many Jews uneasy. Automaker Henry Ford was not the only influential Gentile who was busily alerting his fellow Americans to the Jewish danger. The major book-publishing firms, unlike the newspapers, were still free of Jewish control, and dozens of writers were producing books, for popular and semi-popular readerships, which attempted to awaken a sense of racial consciousness and racial solidarity among the White masses and the White leadership elite alike.15
It was in Palestine, though, that the Jews’ schemes seemed most in danger by the end of the decade. They had, for one thing, overestimated the power of the British government to protect Jewish immigrants from the wrath of the Palestinians who were being dispossessed. There were repeated outbreaks of violence between Jews and Palestinians during the 1920s, beginning with disturbances in March and April 1920 which took 13 Jewish lives.
On July 1, 1920, the British government ended its military rule in the mandated territory and set up a civilian administration there, headed by a High Commissioner for Palestine. He was Herbert Samuel, a member of a wealthy Jewish banking family and an outspoken Zionist.
Ten months later, during a communist May Day demonstration organized by recent Jewish immigrants from Russia, the Jews suffered their first major setback in Palestine. Moslem Palestinians, enraged by the Jews’ attempts to disseminate communist propaganda among them, killed 47 Jews, many of them Bolshevik demonstrators.
Samuel’s police in turn killed 48 Palestinians. No amount of repressive police action was able to pacify the Palestinians or make the Jews feel completely safe after that, however, and Jewish immigration statistics reflected this. After an initial influx of Zionist immigrants had raised the Jewish proportion in the population of Palestine from 8.1 per cent in 1918 to 16.6 per cent by 1926, the balance remained virtually static through the end of the decade.
In 1927 the number of Jews actually declined: the 2,713 immigrants were fewer than half of the 5,071 Jews who packed up and left Palestine. By 1930 the Jews still made up less than a sixth of the population. It was clear that the Zionist scheme for converting Palestine into a Jewish state was in serious trouble.
The Zionists had never contemplated that all of the world’s Jews, or even a majority of them, would move to Palestine, of course. Who would milk and fleece the goyim if that happened? The scheme was to maintain and even expand all of the existing Jewish colonies among the Gentile nations, in order that the Jews might continue to exercise their influence and collect their tribute there. But they also wanted an all-Jewish headquarters state, where there would be no prying Gentile eyes and to which all the Jews of the world could look for leadership.
The problem was that life was too good among the Gentiles. Why should Shlomo or David leave his plush sinecure in the Soviet bureaucracy and take up life on a Palestinian kibbutz, where he actually would be expected to work with his hands? Why should Israel and Sarah sell their nice, safe pawnshop in Brooklyn and face infuriated Palestinian mobs in Jaffa or Jerusalem?
During the first few years after the First World War the Zionist zealots who actually wanted to live in Palestine were joined by large numbers of Jews who had been displaced by the war and were willing to accept any haven. Later the only immigrants were the zealots, and there just weren’t enough of them. If the Zionists wanted a Jewish Palestine, they were going to have to find a way to shake many more Jews loose from their soft lives in Europe, America, and elsewhere and persuade them that they would be safer and more prosperous in Palestine than where they were. Perhaps another war would do the trick.
Another development during the 1920’s which helped to turn the thinking of Zionist leaders toward the benefits which Jews might be able to reap from another major war among the goyim was the rise of Revisionism. In April 1925 Vladimir Jabotinsky (1880-1940), a Soviet Zionist, founded the Revisionist Party. His aim was to persuade his fellow Jews to break with the policies of gradualism and compromise to which he felt the Zionist establishment had succumbed and which had led to stagnation in the takeover of Palestine; he wanted a return to the militant, uncompromising, political Zionism of Herzl.
Jabotinsky was furious with those Jews who were so concerned with world opinion that they paid lip service to the statements in the Balfour Declaration and in the subsequent League of Nations Mandate for Palestine which called for the protection of the rights of the Palestinian people. Had not the Jews’ god told them that the earth and all in it were created solely for the sake of the Jewish people? Had not he ordered them to exterminate without mercy everyone who stood between them and their rightful dominion over the earth? Why, then, should they not arm themselves and begin killing Palestinians immediately? That was the way to solve the Arab problem!16
Bloodthirsty as he was, Jabotinsky was also a cunning strategist, and he was just as willing to sacrifice Jews to his ultimate goal of Jewish rule as he was to kill the enemies of the Jews. When he was unable to make his views prevail among the Zionist majority in 1925, he set about deliberately exacerbating the hostility between Jewish immigrants and Arabs in Palestine. His efforts came to fruition in August 1929, in a series of race riots which resulted in the deaths of 133 Jews and 116 Palestinians, the bloodiest confrontation yet.
The bloodshed may not have been good for Jewish immigration immediately, but it did wonders for Jewish consciousness and militance. Jabotinsky and his followers organized and trained groups of armed Jewish thugs, whose role was as much provocation of the Palestinians as it was defense of the Jews. From these groups came the dreaded Irgun, specializing in assassinations and terrorist bombings from 1931 until September 1948. In 1943 the leadership of the Irgun fell to a young Zionist lawyer from Poland, Menachem Begin, under whose guidance the organization committed atrocities of such shocking sadism and bloodthirstiness that even many of his fellow Jews were embarrassed.
Jabotinsky was Begin’s spiritual father. He was a man of wider vision than Begin, however, and the scope of his activities extended far beyond Palestine. He recognized that two things were essential to Zionist success: The flow of Jewish immigrants to Palestine must be greatly increased, and the Jews of the diaspora must maintain their race consciousness and their solidarity, lest they lose the political influence they were able to wield over Gentile governments despite their small numbers. Both of these things required that the Jews of the diaspora not be permitted to be too comfortable. They must be kept on edge, militantly self-conscious and separated from their Gentile hosts by a barrier of fear and hatred.
Thus, as early as 1919-1921 he was in contact with the great Ukrainian patriot Simon Petlyura, who was organizing an anti-Bolshevik resistance in the Ukraine – and killing all the Jews he could get his hands on. Later Jabotinsky was a great admirer of Benito Mussolini and his Fascist movement.
Jabotinsky thought a man like Petlyura ultimately better for the Jews than Trotsky, because the former helped them maintain their Jewish consciousness and separateness – even if at the expense of a few Jewish lives – whereas Bolshevik policies would lead to assimilation and loss of Jewish identity. While Mussolini’s Fascists aroused a sense of ethnic consciousness in their fellow Italians – and a great feeling of unease in the Jews of Italy – Jabotinsky’s agents capitalized on this unease by organizing Italy’s young Jews into armed self-defense groups, part of his Betar movement. Throughout the 1930s the Revisionists resorted to assassinations and other provocations to fuel the growing anti-Jewish feeling in Europe, all the while urging the increasingly worried masses of Jews to organize for their own protection – and to go to Palestine.
From 1933 on, however, it was the establishment Zionists much more than the Revisionists who led the campaign for a new world war. Even without any prompting from Jabotinsky they were thoroughly frightened of what was taking place in Europe, especially in Germany, where Adolf Hitler, their sworn enemy, had become chancellor on January 30, 1933.17
Thirty-three days later their own man took office as president of the United States. Franklin Roosevelt differed in many ways from Woodrow Wilson. Although both seemed to have been born with large doses of lawyerly guile and glibness in their makeups, Wilson was essentially a weak, foolish, vain, and impractical man who was utterly dependent on his Jewish advisers throughout his career, while Roosevelt was strong, self-confident rather than vain, and utterly “street wise” in the sort of political maneuvering which eventually took him to the White House.
Roosevelt made much use of Jewish advisers – indeed, he was surrounded by even more of them that Wilson had been – but it was a matter of choice, not necessity. Wilson would have been helpless in the political arena without his Jews. Roosevelt probably could have managed well enough without them, but he was a man of great ambition and no principles, and he knew the power they wielded.
By 1933 that power was much greater than it had been when Wilson became President. For two more decades the Jews had been working on their takeover of Main Street, U.S.A., while they consolidated their earlier beachhead on Wall Street. Most significant of all, however, was their growing control of the news and entertainment media in America.
David Sarnoff, a Jewish immigrant from Russia, had become president of the Radio Corporation of America in January 1930. He was also chairman of the board of directors of its subsidiary, the National Broadcasting Company. Another Jew, William S. Paley, had been the president of the competing Columbia Broadcasting System since 1928. And just a few weeks after Roosevelt was inaugurated, Bernard Baruch’s old partner on the War Industries Board, Eugene Meyer (who was also appointed head of the War Finance Corporation by President Wilson), purchased the Washington Post at a bankruptcy auction in the District of Columbia for a trifling $825,000.
Motion pictures were becoming an influential medium of persuasion, especially after the introduction of sound in 1926, and Hollywood was already solidly Jewish by 1933: there were the Warner brothers (Albert, Harry, Jack, and Sam) of Warner Brothers, Harry Cohn of Columbia Pictures, Adolph Zukor of Paramount Pictures, Samuel Goldwyn (born Goldfish) and Louis B. Mayer of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, William Fox (born Fuchs) of Twentieth Century Fox, and many, many others, from chairmen of the boards on down to the directors and scriptwriters.
And so it went – in business, in finance, in the media, and increasingly in politics too. The Jews were already powerful in the Democratic Party in Wilson’s time, mostly behind the scenes. By 1933 they were coming out front, at least in those areas of their strongest influence: in that year Jews took over the governorships of two of the nation’s most populous states, New York (Herbert H. Lehman) and Illinois (Henry Horner).
What made this infiltration of America’s power centers possible for such a small minority – and made it enormously more effective after it had occurred – was Jewish organization and Jewish solidarity.
Many other groups of immigrants to America – Irishmen, Germans, Poles, Italians – felt a certain sense of solidarity with their own kind during the first few years after their arrival, especially those who settled in large cities among other immigrants of the same nativity, and they formed numerous ethnic organizations, mostly churches and cultural associations, but also political clubs. Even today in the large cities of the Northeast one finds such organizations. In nearly all cases, however, they exercise only a local influence.
More important, they lack any unifying principle. A Gaelic Society in South Boston or a Pulaski Club in a Polish neighborhood of Philadelphia may contribute to a sense of ethnic solidarity in the community, but neither has any millennial purpose; neither attempts to nourish ancient ambitions to despoil non-Irish or non-Polish citizens or to gain hegemony over them; neither preaches the “chosenness” of its members, rubs salt into the memory of imagined wrongs, and plots vengeance on the world; neither demands an exclusive loyalty or inspires a zeal to advance the interests of fellow Irishmen or fellow Poles at all costs. Belonging to such a group may or may not be of some benefit to one’s business or political ambitions, but the benefit, if any, is seldom decisive.
With the Jews it is altogether different. They are by far the most highly organized of ethnic groups. Every Jewish neighborhood in America has not only a synagogue, but also a staggering array of Jewish business, cultural, recreational, fraternal, youth, women’s, philanthropic, and political organizations.
Furthermore, each of these local Jewish groups is part of an international network, with hardly an individual Jew anywhere not tied into it, regardless of his particular circumstances, sympathies, and interests. If an earthquake in India leaves six Jewish families there homeless today, a relief fund for those six families will be on the agendas of thousands of local chapters of Jewish philanthropic societies all over America tomorrow; if a prominent Jewish racketeer is arrested by the police in Chicago, 16 different Jewish legal defense organizations in New York will know about it before he is even fingerprinted and photographed in the Chicago precinct station; if a tipsy Congressman is overheard making a less-than-adulatory remark about Jews at a Washington cocktail party, the Jewish War Veterans, the Anti-Defamation League, the American Jewish Congress, and 44 other national Jewish organizations will have angry letters denouncing him on the editorial pages of every major newspaper in the country the next morning, while the members of all 11 synagogues in his congressional district will be knocking on doors to collect signatures on a recall petition.
And, unlike nearly all non-Jewish organizations, every Jewish organization is wholly, enthusiastically, aggressively, self-righteously – often hysterically – ethnocentric. Beside this Jewish racism, those of the Mafia, the Black Muslims, and the Ku Klux Klan seem anemic. For the Jews are both more exclusive and more ruthless than the Sicilians in advancing their own kind, infinitely cleverer than the Blacks, and simultaneously more brazen and more subtle than most White racists.
Of all the causes which may be advanced to explain the unique Jewish solidarity, perhaps the most basic is the Jewish religion. Although it has, unfortunately, spawned religions which make claims to universality, Judaism itself is an entirely particularistic tribal religion, the central idea of which is an exclusive covenant between a materialistic, predatory people and their tribal god. It is short on theology and very long on tribal legend, chest-thumping self-glorification, and rules for racial survival in a hostile, race-mixing world. It is strictly a them-vs.-us religion, which draws the sharpest possible line between the Jews and everyone else.18
Another aspect of the Jews’ xenophobic attitude, which is held even by non-religious Jews, is a uniquely intense preoccupation with alleged past injuries done them by other peoples: Egyptians, Philistines, Persians, Romans…; it is a very long list. Many other peoples nurse historic grievances – Armenians and Greeks against Turks, Blacks against Arabs and Whites, Koreans against Japanese, Irishmen against Englishmen, Southerners against Yankees – but only the Jews cherish their “persecution” to such an extent that it has been elevated to one of the determining features of their world view. They virtually define themselves in terms of their enemies, past and present. What would the Jews be today if they did not have the “Holocaust” of a generation ago to wail about? One can hardly imagine it.
In addition, there almost certainly must be genetic factors involved in such a deeply ingrained and persistent sense of tribal solidarity. Whatever its causes, it has always given the Jews a unique strength and made them a unique danger to other peoples.
Zionism added a new dimension to the danger, because it fired the imagination of the Jews, stimulated whatever latent idealism and spirit of sacrifice remained in an almost wholly materialistic race, and provided a common goal toward which they could direct their considerable energies. Although the Jewish colonization of Palestine was not going according to schedule in 1933, the Zionist idea was still very much alive among Jews in America; making them a more unified – and, therefore, more potent – political force than ever before.
Even then it was something which few dared to mention in public, but no knowledgeable politician remained unaware of the Jews’ power to help or hinder his career. Had the American people been blessed with a man of principle and responsibility, a patriot with a sense of racial consciousness and destiny, as a leader at that time, then, strong as the Jews were, he could have broken their power.
The Germans gained such a leader in 1933. But the Americans, mired in the democratic system for which Woodrow Wilson had made the world safe, got Franklin Roosevelt. Thus was the stage set for the Zionists’ realization of their dream.
Capt. Schuyler’s letter:
[handwritten across top of page:] 383.9 Mil. Int. Report, Schuyler
In reply please
refer to No _______
DoD Dlr. 5200.9 Sept . 27, 1958
NWR by [signature] Date 8-17-60
PERSONAL AND CONFIDENTIAL
AMERICAN EXPEDITIONARY FORCES. SIBERIA .
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF STAFF
March 1, 1919.
My dear Colonel Barrows:
I have just received your letter of January 29th, forwarded by Baron Hoven of General Romanovsky’s staff, who has just arrived in Omsk, I was of course much interested in your news, as I had been unable to find anything about the movements of our officers or as to myself.
I was afraid that I should be stranded in Omsk for some little time even if the others got away and although I want to get home just as soon as possible for urgent personal business reasons, I realize that I am of more use here than possibly anywhere else. This work, however, is so familiar to me as this is the fifth revolution I have watched in the pains of birth, that I must confess it has lost its charm of novelty.
I have not attempted to write you anything concerning the situation here in Omsk as I have felt that conditions here were so fluid that what I wrote would be valueless when received by you. Lieutenant Cushing is preparing a sort of weekly report which he will send in in his own name and which will suffice for us both for the present. My telegrams have been perhaps more numerous than you desired and some of the subjects mentioned may not interest our expedition in the least. This I was aware of when sending them, but I felt it was better to err on the side of fullness than the other way. I am strictly obeying my orders to keep out of local affairs and avoid giving advice, but I must say that it is very hard not to jump in and manage this government entirely.
The problems which the Omsk government has to face are not at all intrinsically different from those which prevail in every movement of the kind known to history, but the besetting problem in this instance is that Admiral Kolchak has to work with the materials available for his purposes, namely the Russian people of today, who are so thoroughly disorganized and lifeless as a result of the last three years , that they are unable even to think for themselves far less govern themselves.
In the first place, the coup of Admiral Kolchak’s friends whereby he assumed the role of Supreme Governor was absolutely necessary if the whole of Siberia was not to fall ripe into the hands of the Bolsheviks. That visionary set of impractical theorists with whom I spent an evening in a railroad car at a Manchurian station – Messrs Avksentiev [former Minister of Interior in the Kerensky Cabinet] and company – were far worse than out and out anarchists, for they were weak dreamers who could not even maintain the ordinary police security necessary to life in any community. Crime was rife in the streets of Omsk, murders and hold ups were of nightly occurrence in this city on the [?] streets and the Bolshevik city governments throughout Siberia were running things their own way just as they are in Vladivostok today.
It is of course difficult to legalize Admiral Kolchak’s position, in fact it is impossible, for while it was done by the decree of the so called government of the time, it was simply a coup d’état. His status however is as good according to Russian law as that of any of the revolutionary governments which preceded him.
In the beginning and of necessity his acts for the restoration of order were autocratic; he depended on the support of the army and the officers especially, and he put down local disorder with a high hand…
Ever since then however, he has shown himself in so far as he could safely do so, more and more liberal, and I have no hesitation is saying that I firmly believe that his own opinions and frame of mind are far more liberal than the outside world gives him credit for. He is unfortunate in this that he has had to depend upon the mailed fist to maintain his position and to keep his government from being overridden by the Bolshevik elements which are numerous in every city in Siberia.
It is probably unwise to say this loudly in the United, States, but the Bolshevik movement is and has been since its beginning guided and controlled by Russian Jews of the greasiest type, who have been in the United States and there absorbed every one of the worst phases of our civilization without having the least understanding of what we really mean by liberty. (I do not mean the use of the word liberty which has been so widespread in the United States since the war began, but the real word spelt the same way), and the real Russian realizes this and suspects that Americans think as do the loathsome specimens with whom he now comes in contact. I have heard all sorts of estimates as to the real proportion of Bolsheviks to that of the population of Siberia and I think the most accurate is that of General Ivanov-Rinov who estimates it as two per cent. There is hardly a peasant this side of the Urals who has the slightest interest in the Bolshevik or his doings except in so far as it concerns the loss of his own property and, in fact, his point of view is very much like that of our own respectable farmers, when confronted with the I [?] ideal.
Unfortunately, a few of our people in the United States, especially those with good lungs, seem to think that the Bolsheviks are as deserving of a hearing as any real political party with us. This is what the Russian cannot understand and I must say that without being thought one sided, I should not hesitate to shoot without trial if I had the power, any persons who admitted for one moment that they were Bolsheviks. I would just as soon see a mad dog running about a lot of children.
You will think I am hot about this matter but it is, I feel sure, one which is going to bring great trouble on the United States when the judgment of history shall be recorded on the part we have played . It is very largely our fault that Bolshevism has spread as it has and I do not believe we will be found guiltless of the thousands of lives uselessly and cruelly sacrificed in wild orgies of bloodshed to establish an autocratic and despotic rule of principles which have been rejected by every generation of mankind which has dabbled with them.
There have been times during the past month when I have been afraid that the Kolchak government would not last until the next morning. I have had I suspect, the closest connection with the leaders here of any foreigner in Omsk and my sources of information are so many and so varied that I am pretty sure to hear the different points of view on every imaginable question. The announcement of the Princes’s Island conference with Bolsheviks came as a clap of thunder to the government, in fact it so took the wind out of their sails, that I believe they would have thrown up the government and run away if it had not been for [page 3] timely and cool headed advice which they received. Then the news became more widely known there was a fairly strong reactionary movement started by Cossack officers and adherents of the old regime. This was discovered and allowed to die a natural death with very good results. With the failure of the Princes Island conference, the government began to get back a little of the strength it had lost and today I believe it will hold on for some time, provided it does not get another series of hard knocks from the Allies or the United States.
The very clever and most unscrupulous Japanese propaganda which has been carried on here is one of the most interesting I have ever seen carried out by that country. The way the Japanese took over Korea and we made a scrap of paper of our solemn treaty with that poor little miserable people was child’s play to the present methods of procedure in regard to K_x Siberia. Admiral Kolchak hates the Japanese, the latter naturally are not unaware of that feeling and cordially reciprocate it and the combination of their propaganda with that of the Bolsheviks in the United States and elsewhere is very powerful. I can understand how people who know nothing of our foreign relations or of the Russian people can be carried off their feet by it, but how responsible men can listen to it I do not know. If the feelings of the Russian people are to be consulted and the future of their own country is to be in their hands, there will be no Bolshevik future for this land. They have submitted to it first, from the very good reason that they did not know how to go about fighting it and second, because it came at the psychological moment when the morale of the people had been so shaken that they were ready to endure anything in order to be allowed to be let alone.
The scheme now being worked out for a popular assembly for all parts of Siberia will, I am sure, be of service and even if only partially successful – and I do not see at present how it can be more – will do much towards proving the sincerity of Kolchak in his promises.
Please do not get the idea that I am enthusiastically in favor of the present government, that I consider it ideal or even good, for it is not; but I do consider that it has already united more varied and more numerous elements of the Russian people than any other government which might take its place would do. The question of the moment is not an ideal government but one that will last for the next few weeks and will restore order enough so that any elections may have a fair chance of being carried out without force and fraud and graft.
Personally, I am fairly comfortable here; Cushing and I have each a room requisitioned by the government and it will be impossible to carry out the recommendations made by the Adjutant in a recent telegram because there are no rooms to be had and we have had applications for two months already. With kind regards to all friends,
I am, Very sincerely yours,
Lt. Col. Barrows,
1 This is the second article of a multi-part series. The first article, covering the period from biblical times to the First World War, appeared in National Vanguard No. 91.
2 For the context of Herzl’s announcement, see National Vanguard No. 91, p. 12.
3 My Diary at the Conference of Paris, David Hunter Miller (New York, 1924), v. IV, pp. 254-267. A more recent work, covering not only the Paris Peace Conference but the entire period from 1914 to 1948, is The Palestine Diary, Robert John and Sami Hadawi (New York, 1970). This latter work is probably the most valuable single source available in English today on the Zionist intrigues which led to the dispossession of the Palestinian people and the formation of the state of Israel
4 Bernard M. Baruch (1870-1965), of mixed Sephardic and Ashkenazic ancestry, began his career as a runner for a Wall Street broker. Then he began peddling stocks on the side and giving advice on buying and selling. He bought a seat on the New York Stock Exchange in 1898, and by 1910 he had amassed an enormous fortune through speculation. He always seemed to know before anyone else when a stock was ready to soar or plunge. President Wilson appointed him chairman of the War Industries Board in 1918, making him virtually an economic czar of the United States during the last phase of the First World War.
Serving under Baruch on the War Industries Board was another self-made Jewish stock speculator, Eugene Meyer, later to become owner of the Washington Post (and father of the present owner, Katherine Meyer Graham).
5 Challenging Years, Stephen S. Wise (New York, 1949), p. 197. Wise (1874-1949), who was born in Hungary, came to the United States in 1875, in the vanguard of the Jewish invasion force. He became the leader of one of the largest Jewish congregations in New York City and exerted great influence in the Democratic Party political machine there. He attended the second Zionist Congress in 1898 in Basle, and in the same year he became one of the principal founders of the Zionist Organization of America. During the First World War he organized the American Jewish Congress and became its first president. Later he promoted the World Jewish Congress and was president of that organization also.
Although Wise shared with Brandeis and Baruch the task of guiding Wilson during the post-World War I peace negotiations, his greatest and most destructive role came during the presidency of Franklin Roosevelt. From 1933 until his death he exerted a powerful influence over the policies of the U.S. government, and he was one of the foremost promoters of the anti-German propaganda which led the United States into the Second World War.
6 In Wilson’s address to the Congress on April 2, 1917, calling for a U.S. declaration of war against Germany, he had referred to the recent outbreak of revolution in Russia thus:
“Does not every American feel that assurance has been added to our hope for the future peace of the world by the wonderful and heartening [sic!] things that have been happening within the last few weeks in Russia? Russia was known by those who knew it best to have been always in fact democratic at heart, in all the vital habits of her thought, in all the intimate relationships of her people that spoke their natural instinct, their habitual attitude toward life. The autocracy that crowned the summit of her political structure, long as it had stood and terrible as was the reality of its power, was not in fact Russian in origin, character, or purpose; and now it has been shaken off and the great, generous Russian people have been added in all their naive majesty and might to the forces that are fighting for freedom in the world, for justice, and for peace. Here is a fit partner for a League of Honor.”
The effect of the revolution was, of course, exactly opposite to that predicted by Wilson: instead of adding Russia to the Allied forces (Czarist Russia was already one of the Allies), it took Russia out of the war.
7 Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1918, Russia (Washington, 1931) v. 1, p. 7.
8 Ibid., v. I, p. 518.
9 Ibid., v. II, pp. 239-241.
10 Ibid., v. I, pp. 674-679.
11 Memoirs of the Peace Conference, David Lloyd George (New Haven, 1939), p. 748.
12 Palestine Diary, v. I, pp. 123-125.
13 Ibid., pp. 142-143.
14 Ibid., p. 139.
15 Henry Ford spent millions of dollars during the First World War in a vain effort to keep America from becoming involved. During this effort he became aware of the Jews’ role in fomenting the war. After it was over he purchased a newspaper, the Dearborn Independent, and over the next few years published hundreds of documented articles exposing the Jews’ destructive activities. Many of these articles were later reprinted in four bound volumes titled The International Jew, which were widely distributed during the 1920s.
Lothrop Stoddard’s books on race and politics, especially The Rising Tide of Color (1920) and Revolt against Civilization (1922), also sold in the hundreds of thousands of copies.
Another writer whose books (The Passing of the Great Race, published in 1916, was his best) were very influential during the 1920s was Madison Grant, then the chairman of the New York Zoological Society.
16 “But of the cities of these people, which the Lord thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth.”
“But thou shalt utterly destroy them – namely, the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites – as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee….” (Deuteronomy 20:16-17.)
17 In his personal political testament Adolf Hitler described his decision to devote his life to the fight to liberate his people from the Jews and Jewish influences. The decision was made in November 1918, when Hitler was lying in a German military hospital, blinded by a British poison-gas attack. There the 29-year-old corporal, who had spent four years fighting in the trenches and had received Germany’s highest decoration for bravery, heard of the mutinies and strikes organized throughout Germany by the Bolsheviks, crippling the German government and paralyzing the war effort.
Then news of the Kaiser’s abdication and the German surrender reached him. In Hitler’s own words:
“The more I tried to achieve clarity on the monstrous event in this hour, the more the shame of indignation and disgrace burned my brow. What was all the pain in my eyes compared to his misery?
“There followed terrible days and even worse nights – I knew that all was lost. Only fools, liars, and criminals could hope in the mercy of the enemy. In these nights hatred grew in me, hatred for those responsible for this deed.
“In the days that followed, my own fate became known to me….
“Kaiser Wilhelm II was the first German emperor to hold out a conciliatory hand to the leaders of Marxism, without suspecting that scoundrels have no honor. While they still held the imperial hand in theirs, their other hand was reaching for the dagger.
“There is no making pacts with Jews; there can only be the hard: either-or.
“I, for my part, decided to go into politics.” (Mein Kampf, v. I, ch. 7.)
A little over 14 years later Hitler became Germany’s chancellor.
18 See “What Is a Jew,” National Vanguard No. 90, pp. 3-7.
From National Vanguard magazine (March, 1983)