William L. Pierce
Growing Zionist Power in the Postwar Era1
IF THE SECOND WORLD WAR was a watershed in the history of the rise and fall of Western civilization and of the race which created that civilization, it was an even more decisive event in the history of the race which has done its best to poison and distort that civilization while sucking sustenance from it.
For the Western people the war was a spiritual death spasm. For the Jews, however, it was the final breaking free from the ghetto. The French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars had breached the walls within which they had been encysted during the rise of the West. The First World War and the Bolshevik Revolution had gained important new beachheads for them and at the same time had broken down most of the remaining barriers to the spread of their toxins throughout the body of their host. The Second World War saw the destruction of the West’s last defenses against them, and it was followed by a Jewish metastasis.
In the postwar years the Jews moved from one triumph to another. Their opponents had been killed, publicly discredited, or intimidated into silence; the ideas and values which constituted their ideological and spiritual arsenal had supplanted the native ideas and values of their hosts; no door remained closed to them.
They did suffer one substantial setback, however: their applecart in Russia was very nearly upset, and they lost many of their earlier gains there. Stalin, who had worked intimately with them for more than four decades – first in the overthrow of the old order in Russia and the extermination of the millions who had resisted bolshevization, and then in the battle against Germany – had become, some time before the end of the war, like the Pharaoh who “knew not Joseph.”
As a matter of fact, Stalin had come to know the Jews too well for their own good. He had seen, even before the start of the war, the total lack of regard which so-called “Russian” Jews had for Russia, “German” Jews had for Germany, etc. He eventually realized that, as an organized, energetic, and self-conscious minority contemptuous of all who did not belong to them and always ready to do anything to advance their own fortunes at the expense of their hosts, the Jews were a potential fifth column inside every country which tolerated their existence.
That was fine when the Comintern could depend on them to undermine the established order throughout the West and serve as the agents of Marxism wherever they lived, outside Russia; but it was not so fine to have such a crew on the loose inside the Soviet Motherland, especially in positions of power – and before the war Jews were vastly overrepresented in the Soviet power structure, including the secret police. Like Pharaoh, Stalin considered it prudent to deal with them before “their falleth out any war” and “they join also unto our enemies and fight against us.”2
He began dealing with them in earnest after the defeat of Germany in 1945, and he greatly accelerated his program for the de-Judaization of the Soviet state bureaucracy and the Communist Party hierarchy in 1948, when the Zionists made their move in Palestine and issued an explicit claim on the loyalty of all Jews, wherever in the world they happened to live. Had Stalin not died in 1953, on the eve of a rumored radical purge of all the remaining Jews in positions of influence in the Soviet Union, he might have left a legacy for which all succeeding generations of Russians would have been grateful to him. Even so, he accomplished much in that direction before his death.
The Jews certainly realized the danger, inherent in Zionism, of alarming some of their more perceptive Gentile hosts and provoking a reaction. But in 1948 the voices of caution were overwhelmed by those Jews who correctly saw a Gentile world so thoroughly bamboozled (at least, outside the Soviet Union) and demoralized that they could make their first big grab in the Middle East since the establishment of the Palestine Mandate nearly three decades earlier, without significant interference.
Indeed, although a destabilized Middle East was manifestly contrary to the interests of the United States, Britain, France, and the other Western nations whose economies were dependent on imported Middle Eastern petroleum, by 1948 the Jews had fastened their grip so tightly on the democratic political process in those countries that not only were they able to prevent any significant opposition to their schemes from materializing, but they even managed to extort support, both under the table and above it, from the very governments in the West most threatened by those schemes.
And of course, they could hardly anticipate any opposition from the Soviets, who stood to be the principal beneficiaries of turmoil and instability in the Middle East. It is not surprising, then, that the Soviet Union was the second country to bestow its official blessing on the Jews’ enterprise by extending de jure recognition to the group of Zionist leaders who on May 14, 1948, declared themselves the provisional government of the new state of Israel, which they intended to carve out of Palestine.
What begs for an explanation is the fact that the United States, with nothing to gain and everything to lose, was the first country to give diplomatic recognition to the Zionists: while the Soviet Union at least waited a decent interval of three days, U.S. President Harry Truman, with Jewish leaders breathing down his neck, announced the U.S. recognition of Israel in Washington just 11 minutes after its existence was declared in Tel Aviv.
Jewish political influence had been very strong in America before the war, of course, but it was much stronger after 1945. In part the increase was the predictable result of the enormous effort the Jews had put forth during the war years to enlarge and refine their propaganda machine. The world had never before seen such a propaganda campaign as the Jews orchestrated in their war against Hitler: not only the lockstep coordination of press, cinema,3 and radio – already largely under their control before the war – in generating a Niagara of hate and misrepresentation, but also the infiltration and mobilization of thousands of business, professional, religious, educational, civic, and government organizations and agencies for the same purpose.
All of the Jews who had guided the efforts of the Office of War Information (the Federal government’s principal propaganda agency) or the Songwriters War Committee, who had drawn salaries as members of the Arts Council of the Office of Civilian Defense, who had churned out anti-German pulp fiction for the Writer’s War Board, who had scripted patriotism-means-more-tolerance-for-Jews sermons on behalf of the National Conference of Christians and Jews, who had edited ideologically slanted teachers’ guides and classroom reading materials, or who had conducted hundreds of opinion polls4 to see how the whole propaganda campaign was working didn’t go back to their wholesale houses and department stores after the war.
This greatly expanded apparatus for controlling public opinion was only part of the explanation for the increased political influence the Jews wielded, however. Their postwar ace was the “Holocaust”: the supposed extermination of 6,000,000 of their brethren in “gas ovens” (to use their horrifyingly suggestive but deliberately misleading terminology) by Hitler’s Jew-hating minions. Everything the Jews had learned about propaganda before and during the war, and the entire apparatus they had built up for generating it, went into a new campaign: the promotion of the “Holocaust” story. This is not the place to examine the details of that story, to attempt to separate the half-truths in it from the outright lies; here we are concerned only with the way in which it was used and the effects it had on governmental policy.5
Before the war the Jews had power, which stemmed primarily from their wealth and their control of a large portion of the news and entertainment media. They were able to buy politicians and other allies with their wealth, and they were able to use their media power to promote their allies and intimidate their foes – as well as to move public opinion on various issues in directions suiting Jewish interests. But, by and large, they had no sympathy. Very few Americans liked them, and many were willing to stand up to them publicly.
Automaker Henry Ford had stood up to them in the 1920s, until his fear of their money power became too great. Independent publisher and radio broadcaster Father Charles Coughlin stood up to them as late as 1942. Any politician in an area with an independent newspaper and adequate non-Jewish sources of campaign financing could afford to stand up to them, and many did. While the Jews and their allies in the Congress and the White House were maneuvering the United States into the war against Hitler in 1940 and 1941, dozens of senators and representatives publicly denounced their schemes. Millions of ordinary, non-ideological Americans regarded Jews generally as sinister and unsavory and viewed their growing power with alarm. Jews could be, and often were, criticized – as Jews – by perfectly respectable, conventional citizens.
After the war, and a few years of unremitting “Holocaust” propaganda, the Jews had not only power, but also sympathy. Respectable, conventional citizens – regardless of their actual feelings concerning Jews – were afraid to criticize them, for fear of seeming callous and uncharitable toward a race which had already suffered so much.
This became even more the case among politicians. To oppose organized Jewry on any issue entailed the risk of being labeled an “anti-Semite.” That may have been a matter of indifference to many politicians before the war, but by the late 1940s it was considered a political kiss of death.
And what could be more “anti-Semitic” than denying the poor, persecuted Jews the right to a country of their own, where they could weep over their brethren who had perished in the gas chambers, worship as they pleased, and bother no one? At least, that’s how the controlled media presented the question to the American public, and it had the desired effect. As one widely read “Holocaust” publicist put it, with modest understatement: “The Zionists managed to create a climate of opinion favorable to Zionism among legislators, church dignitaries, and the public in general. The fate of European Jewry aroused sympathy among non-Jews, the efforts of a pioneering community in Palestine appealed to many Americans.”6
America was not the only land whose politicians were afflicted in the postwar years by an inability to act in accord with national interests whenever Jewish interests were different. Britain, which had administered the Palestine Mandate since its beginning, experienced the Jewish yoke in an especially humiliating manner.
The Jewish settlers in Palestine had always complained about the way in which the British administrators there carried out their responsibilities. No matter how much the British favored the Jews at the expense of the native Palestinians, it was never enough; the Jews always demanded more and then screamed that the British were “anti-Semitic” if the demands were not satisfied immediately.
A principal source of friction was the refusal of the Jews to abide by the immigration quotas set by the British. The British wanted to minimize the unrest among the Palestinians caused by the growing influx of Jews into their country, but the Jews were determined to achieve a numerical majority in Palestine as soon as possible.
The Irgun, which originally had directed its terrorist activity against the Palestinian population, began blowing up British police stations and shooting isolated British soldiers in the back when the British government took steps to halt illegal Jewish immigration. After the war started, an especially violent Irgunfaction, the Stern Gang, devoted itself principally to anti-British activity. While British soldiers were dying in Europe to make Germany safe for the Jews, Jews in Palestine were murdering other British soldiers.
When the war in Europe ended, the Jews expressed their gratitude to the British by greatly stepping up their anti-British terrorism. One of their proudest moments came on July 22, 1946, when Irgun terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, which housed the British administrative offices, killing 101 Britons and Arabs. They followed this feat by kidnapping British soldiers, strangling them, and then boobytrapping the corpses.
The British Army was required to keep both hands tied behind its back in its struggle with the Irgun. Each time the British military authorities made a move to take strong action against Jewish terrorists in Palestine, Jews in London would apply pressure to the politicians, and the Army was restrained. This activity was a preview of the crippling restrictions which politicians in Washington would apply to U.S. combat forces in Vietnam during the Kissinger era. Britain was in a no-win situation.
It did not help British pride to know that the weapons being used against British soldiers in Palestine were supplied largely by Britain’s ally, the United States. Even before the end of the war, shipments of U.S. Weapons were being diverted to Palestine from military depots in Europe. The U.S. Office of Strategic Services (O.S.S.), wartime precursor to the Central Intelligence Agency – and riddled with Jews – coordinated this activity, with approval from Washington.
While hundreds of thousands of Jews from war-ravaged Europe – later counted as “Holocaust” victims – were being smuggled into Palestine under the noses of the British authorities, along with thousands of tons of weapons and other military equipment, other Jews were busy in the newly organized United Nations, making preparations for the next major step in the Zionist program: the conversion of their British-administered “homeland” in Palestine, which they still were obliged to share with the native Palestinians, into an independent, all-Jewish nation.
The United States delegation to the United Nations, setting the trend which has not varied since, acted virtually as if it were representing the Jewish Agency (the Zionist coordinating group for the takeover of Palestine) instead of the American people. With the joint backing of the United States and of the Soviet Union and its satellites, a resolution was rammed through the UN General Assembly, over the vigorous protests of all of the Moslem members, on November 29, 1947, calling for the partition of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states.
At that time Jews constituted approximately one-fourth of the population of Palestine but owned only 5.67 per cent of the land.7 The UN partition resolution, however, called for a Jewish state consisting of 56.47 per cent of the total land area of Palestine. The remainder was to be divided between an Arab state and an international zone comprising Jerusalem and its vicinity.
This outrageously unfair act by the United Nations, an organization formed just two years earlier ostensibly to “maintain international peace and security, … take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and … develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,”8 laid the basis for five major wars and an unending state of hostility in the Middle East during the next 35 years.
Jews everywhere were jubilant at this coup, and there was dancing in the streets of New York City on the night of November 29. The Moslem nations of the world were momentarily stunned, and then their anger at their betrayal by the United States began expressing itself in anti-American riots and demonstrations in Damascus, Beirut, Baghdad, Cairo, and elsewhere. Fighting between Jews and Palestinians broke out in a number of places in Palestine, with the British caught once again in the middle.
Jews greatly stepped up the smuggling of illegal immigrants and arms into Palestine. Although they were pleased with the partition resolution, which was a big step toward their goal, they had no intention of leaving more than 40 per cent of Palestine to the Palestinians, as specified by the United Nations. Their ultimate goal was a state encompassing not only all of Palestine, but big chunks of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt as well. These territorial demands had been spelled out in 1919 by the Jewish delegation at the Paris Peace Conference.
But the Jews knew that they would have to fight for every additional acre they planned to seize. The Soviet Union and its satellites – especially communist Czechoslovakia – became their principal source of arms in 1947, but Jews in the United States also continued to assist in the smuggling of illegal arms to their brethren in Palestine, confident that if they were caught by the Federal Bureau of Investigation a little organized wailing about the “Holocaust” would probably suffice to get them off – as indeed it did in many cases.9
Thus was the stage set for the British evacuation of Palestine in May 1948, the Jewish declaration of the existence of Israel, and the series of wars of territorial expansion which continue to this day. More than any other nation the United States has been the Jews’ instrument in imposing their will on the Middle East. It has provided their diplomatic backing, bullying or bribing other nations into compliance – or, at least, non-interference – with Israeli aims; it has given them their weapons, often dangerously depleting American defense stockpiles in the process;10 and it has financed their wars, which have cost $25 billion in direct U.S. aid since 1948 and several times that figure in indirect aid.
It is appropriate, then, that the United States should pay the price of being chosen to serve the Chosen People in such profligate manner – and that price has been weighty indeed. On the material side there is, for example, the price of the 1973-74 oil embargo imposed on the United States as an Arab response to the U.S. arms airlift to Israel in the 1973 war. That first use of the Arabs’ “oil weapon” resulted in a permanent, tenfold increase in the cost of America’s imported petroleum. The consequent damage to the U.S. economy during the past decade in trade deficits, inflation, and unemployment has been staggering, and it continues to mount each year.
On the moral side, however, the price has been even greater. One expects hypocrisy from any democratic government, of course, for what greater hypocrisy can there be than the pretense that the masses have the wisdom to govern themselves prudently? But there must be added to this the hypocrisy of pretending to value human rights, while supporting a government which drops cluster bombs on refugee camps, machine-guns demonstrating schoolchildren, and routinely dynamites the homes of the relatives of persons suspected of anti-government activity.
The U.S. Congress withholds support from friendly Latin American governments, even to the extent of permitting them to fall to communist guerrillas, because those governments are suspected of condoning right-wing “death squads,” yet it unhesitatingly grants every request for financial and military aid from a regime which operates the world’s most feared, efficient, and wide-ranging death squad, the dreaded Mossad, carrying out assassinations of Palestinians and Palestinian sympathizers as far afield as Norway.
The government of the United States has had, since 1945, a policy of barring from America’s shores all “war criminals.” Former President Jimmy Carter professed such horror at the thought that a few aging Germans, Poles, Ukrainians, Latvians, and Lithuanians accused of mistreating or killing Jews during the Second World War may be leading peaceful lives as U.S. citizens that he formed a special agency, the Office of Special Investigations, to track them down and hound them out of the country. President Reagan has made the same profession of horror and has kept the O.S.I. witch-hunters on his payroll. Yet both Presidents have repeatedly welcomed Israel’s leaders to America, hugging and shaking hands with men who were professional terrorists and, by any reasonable definition of the word, active war criminals more recently than anyone on the O.S.I.’s list of potential victims. In particular, current Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, Mr. Reagan’s guest on more than one occasion, has been a leader of both the Stern Gang terrorists, who perpetrated the massacre of Palestinian women and children at Deir Yassin on April 9, 1948, and of the Mossad death squad, which has an ongoing program of international terrorism today.11
Even the moral damage involved in this hypocrisy is dwarfed by the loss of honor attendant on the utterly shameful behavior of America’s leaders in the wake of Israel’s attempt to sink the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967, however.
Long before 1967 Israel had relied heavily on a uniquely Jewish “dirty tricks” brand of diplomacy in its relations with other nations. Typical of Israel’s dirty tricks is the so-called “Lavon affair” (after Pinhas Lavon, who was the Israeli minister of defense at the time). When Gamal Abdel Nasser became Egypt’s leader in 1952, he worked hard to establish good relations between Egypt and the United States, and, despite the extremely hostile controlled U.S. media, he had a certain degree of success. Israel, of course, wanted to squelch American friendship with any Arab nation.
In order to generate American hostility toward Egypt, the Israelis recruited Jews with Egyptian citizenship, gave them training in sabotage and assassination techniques, and then instructed them to attack Americans and American installations in Egypt. The attacks would be blamed on Egyptian nationalists by the controlled media in the United States. The scheme worked as intended, with a number of U.S. offices and American-owned businesses in Cairo destroyed by terrorist bombs in 1954, until the Egyptian police uncovered the nest of Jewish saboteurs in December 1954 and arrested many of them. The story of the arrests and the subsequent confessions of the Jews went virtually unreported in the United States. Needless to say, the Israelis were not even reprimanded by the U.S. government; instead of being required to pay reparations, they continued receiving U.S. financial aid without interruption.
In 1967 the Jews tried the same trick again, but with a new twist. On June 5, 1967, Israel had launched its so-called “Six Day War” against Egypt, Syria, and Jordan, with the aim of grabbing more land from all three Arab nations. The conflict was officially represented to the U.S. government, which had provided the Israelis with most of their weapons, as a “defensive” war.
A U.S. Navy electronic intelligence-gathering ship, the U.S.S. Liberty, was patrolling in international waters off Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula during the fighting, however, and the Israelis didn’t like the idea of the Americans eavesdropping on their battlefield communications; they knew that it would soon become apparent to anyone listening in that their intentions were anything but defensive. The idea of sinking the ship and then blaming it on the Egyptians was a natural one for the Jews. Consequently, after carefully reconnoitering the Liberty at low altitude to ascertain that the ship was armed only with two .50 caliber machine guns, the Israelis made a surprise attack on the afternoon of June 8 with jet fighter-bombers and torpedo boats.
A bomb, rocket, and torpedo attack on the Liberty was followed up with napalm and the machine-gunning of the ship’s life rafts. The Jews intended that there be no American survivors. The Liberty’s radio operator was able to get off a call for help to the U.S. Sixth Fleet before the ship’s communications equipment was destroyed, however, and the Israelis were forced to break off the attack as U.S. Navy jets streaked to the rescue – but not before 34 Americans had been killed and another 171 wounded.
Once again, the U.S. government and the controlled U.S. media collaborated in a massive cover-up of Israel’s treachery, and American taxpayer’s money continued to flow into Israel’s war chest. President Lyndon Johnson was under such intense pressure from Jews in the United States to keep the lid on news of the U.S.S. Liberty incident that the Liberty’s surviving crew members were ordered to maintain strict silence about what had happened to them. Fortunately, several of them have been motivated by a sense of patriotism which goes beyond obedience to an utterly corrupted government, and the story of the attack on the Liberty has been told.12 The great mass of the American electorate, however, who depend entirely on television and daily newspapers for their information about the world around them, remain as ignorant of that act of perfidy as they do of the Lavon affair.
And the treason continues….
1 This is the fifth and final article in a series on the subject. The first article, beginning with biblical times, appeared in the December 1982 issue.
2 Exodus 1:10.
3 In 1941 one American political leader who remained unswayed by the Jewish lobby was Senator Gerald P. Nye (R-ND). While conducting an investigation of subversive propaganda in Hollywood, he spoke out in the Senate: “At least 20 pictures have been produced in the last year all designed to drug the reason of the American people, set aflame their emotions, turn their hatred into a blaze, fill them with fear that Hitler will come over here and capture them, that he will steal their trade….[The movies] have become the most gigantic engines of propaganda in existence to rouse war fever in America and plunge the nation to her destruction.”
4 A Gallup poll taken in 1942 to determine whom Americans loved and whom they hated must have been disappointing to the Jewish propagandists, after all of their hard work. Although the Japanese ranked 17th, at the bottom of the popularity list, the Germans came in seventh from the top (after the Canadians, English, Dutch, Scandinavians, Irish, and French). “Jewish refugees” ranked tenth.
5 The Jews have generated an enormous number of books dealing with the “Holocaust.” Some – especially those with scholarly pretensions – are cleverly done, but most are crudely transparent efforts to maintain public sympathy for Jews and Israel in the Gentile world. Not even the “scholarly” books will stand up to critical examination, however.
A fairly typical example is Walter Laqueur’s A History of Zionism (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972). Laqueur has genuine credentials as a historian, although nearly all of his professional efforts have gone into promoting the “Holocaust.” Despite his credentials, however, Laqueur’s treatment of “Holocaust” statistics is almost incredibly sloppy. On page 559 of his book he writes: “…[T]here had been a lingering belief that the news about genocide had perhaps been exaggerated, that more Jews had survived than originally assumed. By April 1945 there were no longer any doubts. Of more than three million Jews in Poland, fewer than a hundred thousand had survived; of 500,000 German Jews – 12,000.” After reference to “Nazi mass killings” Laqueur sums up his “Holocaust” comments on the next page: “Roughly speaking, out of every seven Jews living in Europe, six had been killed during the war.”
The implication is clear: the Germans had shoved those missing 2.9 million “Polish” and 488,000 “German” Jews into gas chambers.
But Laqueur certainly knows, for example, that of the 499,682 Jews in Germany at the time of the 1933 census, more than two-thirds had voluntarily emigrated before the outbreak of war in 1939. He knows that, because his fellow Jews had published reams of statistics on the prewar emigration from Germany, in such easily accessible places as the annual American Jewish Yearbook. Yet nowhere in A History of Zionism does Laqueur let on that he knows.
6 Laqueur, op. cit., p. 556.
7 Exact land-ownership figures were available from the British administration, but population figures could be determined only approximately, because of the large influx of illegal Jewish immigrants.
8 Charter of the United Nations, article 1.
9 One Jew caught smuggling arms to Palestine from the United States via Mexico who did not get off altogether free was Herman Greenspun. Indicted in 1949 for violation of the Neutrality Act, he was convicted in 1950. But he was later given a full pardon by President John F. Kennedy.
10 In the 1973 “Yom Kippur War” the Jews were initially in danger of losing to the Arabs, and they could not afford to wait for additional munitions to arrive from the United States via normal channels. They demanded – and received – from President Richard Nixon an emergency airlift of arms from the arsenals of U.S. Army and Air Force units stationed in Europe.
The transfer of these weapons to Israel was without statutory authorization (the Foreign Military Sales Act of 1968 authorized the secretary of defense only to sell surplus or stockpiled weapons to a foreign power, not to give away or sell weapons which already had been allocated to U.S. forces), and National Vanguard Editor William Pierce immediately sought an injunction in the Federal courts to halt the weapons airlift to Israel. While the Nixon administration stalled for time in the courts, the airlift continued on a crash basis.
Eventually the Congress gave an ex post facto authorization to the transfer of the weapons, which had included 140 jet fighter-bombers, 1,200 tanks and other armored vehicles, and thousands of tons of bombs and ammunition. U.S. commanders in Europe were left with combat units stripped bare of armor and weapons, and in some cases it was several years before they were fully combat ready again.
11 For a brief sketch of Shamir’s career – and an account of the Deir Yassin massacre – see page 5 of the October 1983 issue of National Vanguard.
12 The fullest and most authoritative account of the Israeli attack on the Liberty and the disgraceful reaction by U.S. political leaders and the controlled news media is given by James M. Ennes, Jr., a U.S. Navy officer on the ship during the attack, in his book Assault on the Liberty (Random House, 1979).
From National Vanguard magazine (January, 1984)