DOUGLAS REED REDISCOVERED
The Author: In Europe during the years immediately before and after World War II the name of Douglas Reed was on everyone’s lips; his books were being sold by scores of thousand, and he was known with intimate familiarity throughout the English-speaking world by a vast army of readers and admirers. Former London Times correspondent in Central Europe, he had won great fame with books like Insanity Fair, Disgrace Abounding, Lest We Regret, Somewhere South of Suez, Far and Wide and several others, each amplifying a hundredfold the scope available to him as one of the world’s leading foreign correspondents.
The disappearance into almost total oblivion of Douglas Reed and all his works was a change that could not have been wrought by time alone; indeed, the correctness of his interpretation of the unfolding history of the times found some confirmation in what happened to him at the height of his powers.
After 1951, with the publication of Far and Wide, in which he set the history of the United States of America into the context of all he had learned in Europe of the politics of the world, Reed found himself banished from the bookstands, all publishers’ doors closed to him, and those books already published liable to be withdrawn from library shelves and “lost”, never to be replaced. Ivor Benson.
BEHIND THE SCENE
(Continuation of Far and Wide)
” The world is governed by very different personages to what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes Disraeli.”
DOLPHIN PRESS (PTY) LTD.,
P.O. BOX 332, PINETOWN,
NATAL, SOUTH AFRICA.
This edition (C) Dolphin Press (Pty) Ltd., I976.
Authorized by Douglas Reed from the book Far and Wide
As published by Jonathan Cape, London, 1951
33 Ashley Road, Epsom, Surrey, England.
The Heritage Bookshop,
Box I052J, G.P.O. Melbourne 300I, Australia.
Canadian Intelligence Publications,
P.O. Box I30, Flesherton, Ontario, Canada.
Colortone Engraving Co.
in ‘Monophoto’ Times New Roman.
Printed and Bound by:
Lithotone (Pty) Ltd.,
Both of 73 Gale Street, Durban,
Republic of South Africa.
FOREWORD by Ivor Benson
1. THREE SERVITUDE’S
Chaim Weizmann’s Story
Weizmann in Britain
The Grand Design
World War II
Birth of the Israeli State
General Smuts and Zionism
The Overriding Allegiance
Six Million Lost and Found
The Deception of Nations
The Roosevelt Era
Power to Corrupt
‘New World Order’
Churchill and Roosevelt
The Yalta Conference
Two Sides of the Coin
Servant of God, well done! Well hast thou fought
The better fight, who single hast maintained
Against revolted multitudes the cause
Of truth, in word mightier than they in arms,
And for the testimony of truth hast borne
Universal reproach, far worse to bear
Than violence; for this was all thy care -
To stand approved in sight of God, though worlds
Judged thee perverse. The easier conquest now
Remains thee, aided by, this host of friends …
- from ‘Paradise Lost’ by John Milton.
Far and Wide, published in 1951, is Douglas Reed’s record of his travels in the United States occupying most of the year 1949.
‘Europe’, he wrote in a foreword, ‘is cut in two and, I believe, will either be wholly crushed into servile oblivion at one more move in the great game, or rise again … Much power to sway the decision, either way, has passed from Europe to America, so that I felt an urgent need of the mind to go there. The balance of money-power and manufacture- power has greatly shifted thither; and if the world is governed by very different persons from what those believe who are not behind the scenes (Disraeli’s words) then America is today the land which they will chiefly seek to divide, rule and use for the completion of their plan’.
Reed’s book falls into two distinct parts. In the first he tells what he saw and heard and experienced during his travels, exercising to the full those brilliant powers of description and narrative which had already brought him fame with books like Insanity Fair, Disgrace Abounding, From Smoke to Smother and Somewhere South of Suez.
In Part Two, reproduced in this volume with slight abridgment, he stands back from a vividly clear world-picture of mid-century America and offers an explanation of what he has seen, against the background of all he had learned during 20 years as a foreign correspondent.
‘America’, he wrote, ‘was the essential last stage on my journey of political exploration. I knew all the rest, from Moscow through Berlin to London and Paris, and I believed I had a good notion of what went on in America … All those fragments now fitted into the picture of a continuing process, guided by master hands unseen . .
It would be hard to improve on Douglas Reed’s own summing up:
‘Today the scene is set for the third act, intended to complete the process. The money-power and the revolutionary – power have been set up and given sham but symbolic shapes (‘Capitalism’ or ‘Communism’) and sharply defined citadels (America’ or ‘Russia’). Suitably to alarm the mass mind, the picture offered is that of bleak and hopeless enmity and confrontation . . . Such is the spectacle publicly staged for the masses. But what if similar men, with a common aim secretly rule in both camps and propose to achieve their ambition through the clash between those masses?
I believe any diligent student of our times will discover that this is the case”.
The signs were clear enough in I949 for an observer with Douglas Reed’s profound insight and historical flair, but he did not have in his possession the full factual corroboration which is now available.
Far and Wide, especially Part Two of that book, is more important today than when published a quarter of a century ago, because it helps us to understand what has been happening, and arms us in our minds for the final stages of a struggle which involves all mankind.
Douglas Reed knew, as did many others including Winston Churchill, that the Bolshevik Revolution had been financed and masterminded from the West. But he could not have known what we now know: that the Soviet Union’s entire industrial might, including its formidable war machine, has been placed there by Western big business and Western high finance.
Now we know, because the subject has been thoroughly researched by Dr. Antony Sutton, who was for I0 years a Research Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, his main findings having been published by the Institution in three massive volumes. Sutton has also written books for the general public: National Suicide, which tells how the Soviet war machine came into existence; and Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution, which is the detailed, documented story of the collusion of international bankers and Soviet Communism ever since the Bolshevik Revolution.
One of the recent and most obvious signs of this treacherous collusion is the so-called détente policy, a cunning device with which to ‘explain away’ what can no longer be hidden – the massive transference of vitally necessary aid in technology, food and finance to a Socialist regime which would have collapsed years ago without a constant flow of such aid.
How has it been possible for all this to happen?
The short answer is that we have been disarmed by a cunning which we could not understand because it is the product of an alien, involute kind of thinking which is out of register with our own.
We cannot understand another unless we can identify ourselves in some way with his motivational system. That means that we need to feel as he feels if we are to understand him. And we find it hard to identify ourselves as Westerners with a motivational system which has its origins in a rancorous hatred of Christian civilization.
The key to the riddle of that cunning will be found in those words, what if similar men, with a common aim, secretly rule in both camps.
Not only do they rule in the ‘rival’ citadels of Capitalism and Communism. The double-dealing is much deeper and more widespread than that. In every conflict in the West, in every opposition of interests, no matter how seemingly remote from conspiratorial ends, the agents of conspiracy nearly always represent a Third Presence.
Supremely powerful as super-capitalists, their influence and control are equally strong among revolutionary and other radical opponents of capitalism.
With supreme impudence, the conspirators send their agents, always well supplied with money, into patriotic, anti-Communistic movements, pre-empting the anti-Communist position, if they can, by setting up bogus anti-Communist movements to draw off support that might otherwise go to genuine organisations.
The method has many variations, but can be briefly explained as follows: Conspirator ‘C’ notices some signs of a conflict or opposition of interests between ‘A’ and ‘B’. He places his agents in both camps, losing no opportunity of creating division and confusion in both. The first result is the blurring of the issues which separate ‘A’ and ‘B’. ‘C’ now achieves his success not from the victory of either ‘A’ or ‘B, but as a third and secret consequence of an indeterminate struggle in which neither ‘A’ nor ‘B’ can ever hope to emerge the victor.
This method is employed not only in the great political parties, like the Republican and Democratic in the United States of America, but in every imaginable area of activity – cultural, economic, political, scientific and even religious – the tools frequently employed being this century’s rootless intellectuals and liberals…..
Communism’s “useful idiots”, as Lenin called them.
Nowhere have the operations of a Third Presence been more plainly in evidence in the United States than in the areas of race relations and crime.
White revolutionaries, agents of the conspiracy, equally at home in both camps, have stirred the Blacks to a frenzy of hatred against the White community. Working in the same way, they have sought every imaginable means of harnessing crime to political purposes, while at the same time undermining the processes of law enforcement by means of gross leniency in the courts and persistent legalistic harassment of the police.
The entire background of this form of subversion in America has been set out in some detail by Robertson in his richly documented book The Dispossessed Majority.
The idea is always the same: to paralyse at the centre any vortex of the popular will which could, if left undisturbed, gather force and momentum; in other words, to prevent any genuine polarisation of social or political forces in which people who belong together can work with an undivided will to do what needs to be done.
What happened to Douglas Reed after the publication of Far and Wide would make another exciting story, but the full story has never been told. The subverted West has its own way of dealing with writers who fail to toe the leftist line, a method less dramatic but every bit as effective as any used behind the Iron Curtain.
The re-publication of Part Two of Far and Wide can, therefore, be taken as another of the many signs that there have been important changes since 1951, signs of the commencement of an era of defiant frankness and honesty in the examination and discussion of the world’s escalating problems, signs that the people of the West have begun at last to devise ways and means of penetrating the ‘electrified fences’ which the enemy has erected in the realm of public opinion.
Western ‘Investigators and thinkers in increasing numbers are finding the courage to defy the intimidators: scientists such as Dr. R. Gayre, editor of The Mankind Quarterly; Doctors Jensen and Shockley; Dr. Antony Sutton; Dr. Peter Bauer, of the London School of Economics (of all places), and psychologists such as Dr. H.J. Eysenck and Dr. Thomas Szasz.
Among those who deserve special mention are the great Russian writer, Alexander Solzhenitsyn ; the American poet, Ezra Pound; and the young American author of Imperium, Francis Parker Yockey, who paid with his life for his brilliant analysis of contemporary history.
The West is fighting back in other ways – by setting up organisations and movements which are learning how to protect themselves against infiltration and undermining. It is such organisations and groups which have made possible the distribution on a vast scale of books like :”None Dare Call It Treason ” by John Stormer, “None Dare Call It Conspiracy” by Gary Allen, “The New Unhappy Lords” by A.K. Chesterton, the books of Eric Butler and many others, some of which are listed in the brief bibliography at the end of this book.
The turning of the tide may already have occurred. But we may be sure that a revolutionary movement energised by so much wealth and exploiting so ruthlessly a misguided materialist utopianism, can be halted finally only by a counter-revolutionary movement drawing its power from a genuine religious resurgence.
As the quality of existence deteriorates and dangers thicken, more and more people are bound to realise that the struggle is essentially religious, involving as it does all those values whose presence or absence marks the difference between freedom and servitude.
All that remains to be decided is whether this awakening at depth will occur in time to prevent the denouement of World Tyranny – or only after a terrible price in human suffering has been paid.
There is a grim warning in the last few lines of Douglas Reed’s second postscript to
Far and Wide, written in July 1951 shortly before the book went to press, in which he made this forecast:
Public men, by the mid-century, had come to fear these inhibitors too much to tempt their wrath, and any who did risk that ire were defamed by so powerful a machine of
the spoken and written word that even the masses, after lending an eager ear of hope renewed for an instant, in the nature of masses then dully turned their backs on the
speakers and shunned them, thinking they must be evil after all. In that way they were brought again and again to pit themselves against each other, always in the name of ‘freedom’, for their own mutual destruction and enslavement; thus the short-lived but bloody fiasco of the World State came about. Only when they experienced it did they know the truth and rise; and God must have willed it so, for ‘by a divine instinct men’s minds mistrust ensuing danger’.
It is the oldest story in the world. It is the story of Isaiah, of Jeremiah and of Daniel.
What, then, is the offence for which our people must be so severely punished?
It is the offence of a single-minded pursuit of personal self-interest, neglect of duty, compounded with the offence of abandoning to persecution the prophets who would warn them.
IVOR BENSON. Durban, March, I976.
DOUGLAS REED REDISCOVERED
FOR a writer in his eighties it is a pleasant and unusual, if not unique experience to be present at, and indeed to preside over his own disinterment, which is what the heading to this preface signifies. I hope that what follows below may make the labour of exhumation appear worth while to those who read.
What follows is two-thirds of Part Two of a book, Far and Wide, which I wrote in I950; it was published in 1951 and almost at once disappeared from general circulation, so great and effective was the hostility aroused in behind – the – scenes quarters by this Part Two in particular (dislike clichés but feel myself justified in using this one by the best imaginable authority, Disraeli: who said the world was governed by very different people from what was imagined by those who are not – behind the scenes -).
My publisher had the book read for libel by a lawyer who passed it for libel but said the publisher and I would be ruined if the book appeared. The publisher went out of business, though the name of the firm survives, and I was ruined as far as publication was concerned, though I survived by various expedients. My last two books (1966 and 1974) were banned from publication in my native land.
Part Two, therefore, was anathema to – people behind the scenes -. The reader of this may judge why.
After the Second War I went to America as soon as I could (1949) and spent a year traveling the United States from coast to coast. I wanted to find out how American state policy and the power of the American war machine had been diverted to serve the ends of spreading Communism and leaving the Communist Empire a great step nearer to its goal of world dominion.
I found out, and told the story of treachery in Part Two.
Communist spies and agents were creeping out of the American edifice of state on all sides. The American Government, and the British and Canadian Governments, were riddled with these creatures. It was all coming out, now that “too late” had struck.
Even the lunatic fringe of credulous and crapulous hangers -on could no longer pretend that no conspiracy existed.
The list of proven traitors was as long as that of the dead in two wars on some small town or village war memorial. Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter White, Maclean, Burgess, Philby, Nunn May, Pontecorvo, Klaus Fuchs, Fred Rose: this was only the start, and over the ensuing years, now that Judas was deemed an honourable man, they came to preen themselves at press conferences in Moscow, and with the smile of the villain even to boast of their deeds.
This was the tale I told in Part Two, in 1950, and it was the end of my writing days. Reviewers unitedly abused the book and in effect it disappeared from circulation. However, a few copies must have remained in circulation, and their readers, as the years passed, checked on Part Two, found it accurate and suggested re-publication. To their efforts is due, in 1976, this “rediscovery” of it. It was true in 195I and is true now.
Summing up all I had learned, I pictured America in the grip of “three servitude’s”. The first of these is Zionism, to which all American Presidents in the last sixty years have kowtowed like Chinese peasants. No American politician dares challenge its supremacy, and this submission has obviously been achieved through what Theodor Herzl, the founder of Zionism, called ” the awful power of our purse”. He is responsible for the metaphor of the upper and nether millstones between which the Christian nations are being crushed.
The second servitude, I found, was the permeation of American public life at all its levels by Soviet Communism. This process began in full force with the inauguration of President Roosevelt in 1932, and demonstrably it led to the warping of major courses of state policy. The two foreign ambitions. both deriving from the Jewish areas of Russia, obviously meet in the central ambition of a totalitarian World State, dominated by them.
The third servitude was the grip of organised crime on American life, but that does not aspire to world rule, it is only important because of its corruption of political life at its foundations, as distinct from the higher citadels.
DOUGLAS REED. Durban, March I976
CHAPTER 1 : THREE SERVITUDE’S
MY experience is that a man may have many countries and one that he loves: his own. I found much to respect and admire everywhere I have been: the diligence, thrift and virility of Germans, the poetry and patriotism of Poles, the taste and urbanity of Frenchmen, the charm and friendliness of Austrians, the happy energy of Belgians, the dour industriousness of Hollanders, the mellow peasant culture of Croats and Slovaks, the indomitable nationhood of Serbs and Bulgars, the brilliant valour of Greeks. I felt all these things as part of a common Christian inheritance in which I equally shared.
Europe’s many wars did not alter that; out of the quarrels of kings, popes and barons emerged ever a clear purpose and an improving way of life, commonly Christian. The century of Armageddon, I believe, is to show whether all that is to be destroyed, and the American Republic might have the greatest part in deciding the issue.
In America again, I felt this underlying kinship of Christian purpose, but overlain now by much confusion. Its huge strength and energy are as admirable as the good nature of the masses of its people, once reached, and the beauty (and especially in the South, the charm) of its women. Americans are filled with an urgent longing to fulfill the American Dream and a deep perplexity about its shape. A great quantity of idealism, faith, hope and charity is stored up in a younger generation, particularly, which feels spiritually lost and is the easy prey of misleaders.
The great question, which may decide the outcome of Armageddon, is whether this stored energy will be put to continuing the 2000 – year process -the splendid results of which are clear to see in Europe, or to destroying it, and therewith the American Republic too. The sharp visible contrast between the earlier Republic of Richmond, Washington and Boston and the later one of New York, Chicago and Los Angeles shows that the decision may be balanced on a razor edge.
Two hundred and fifty years ago William Penn said, ‘Either nations will be governed by God or they will be ruled by tyrants.’
For some time past America has produced no William Penns to restate eternal truths.
The leaderless mass stands irresolute, not yet quite a firmly welded nation, while many voices cry that America’s manifest destiny now is to destroy all nations and Christianity with them; the thing is more subtly said but that is the purpose.
Hatreds, passions and prejudices are to some extent innate in man and may be reduced by wise leadership or inflamed by bad. As I have gone along I have seen that they are incited, in all countries, by organised forces from outside for the purpose of setting up the World State on the ruins of Christian nations. That key once found the dark origins of our twentieth-century wars and the strange doubling their courses took are alike plain to understand. The parent organisation goes back at least to the French Revolution; all European and American wars since then seem to some extent to have been deflected by it; the second war of this century clearly was brought almost completely under its control and so directed that its outcome left but one more stage of the grand design to be completed. *
* i.e. The Illuminati (see books of N. Webster,etc.) ** That is in 1932.
This is ‘the deception of nations’ mentioned in Revelation as an integral part of the process of Armageddon, if Biblical prophecy be true at all. The deception of the American nation was very great despite the outer panoply of free nationhood which it retained for the nonce at the war’s end. It was promised four freedoms, but in truth was surrendered to three servitude’s.
The first of these is the now visible supremacy in its affairs of a new, foreign ambition: Political Zionism. No American politician of rank today dares challenge it, and this submission has apparently been brought about by what the founder of Political Zionism, Theodor Herzl, called ‘the awful power of our purse’.
The second servitude is the permeation of American public life at all levels by a second foreign ambition, Soviet Communism. This is the other prong of the pincers described by Herzl: ‘When we sink we become a revolutionary proletariat.’
The edifice of State is weakened at the top by the power of the purse and at the middle by the infiltration of revolutionaries. This second process began in full force with the inauguration of President Roosevelt nearly twenty years ago. (written in 1932)
Demonstrably it led to the warping of major courses of State policy and has not yet been stopped, merely a little impeded. These two foreign ambitions, ostensibly separate but born in the same place, appear to meet in the central ambition of a World State, dominated by them. Plainly they intend, if they can, to bend the strength of America to that end.
The third servitude, which helps the other two by corrupting political life at its foundations, as distinct from the higher citadels and departmental levels of power, is organised crime.*
* See Far and Wide, ch. 40, ‘Cities Full of Violence.’
The grasp of these three forces on the body politic and civic of the Republic, and their influence over the leaderless mass of spiritually starved opinion, are great enough to make America’s destiny doubtful, no longer manifest, today.
This three-coiled captivity is not merely an American plight. It occurs in all the remaining nations of the Christian West and caused the ruin of those now submerged. It is greatest in America because, by all evidential signs, the emigration from Eastern Europe was mainly and deliberately directed thither, for the purposes of power.
In England the visible, though unadvertised, power of Political Zionism is as great; no leading politician of any party now resists it. The deflection of major acts of State policy has been clear to see since the Balfour Declaration. Permeation of public life by Soviet Communism is considerable and official resistance to exposure as constant as in America. Organised crime, in the gaming, liquor and prostitution sense, is much less, though Eastern European figures often appear in the occasional revelations of attempted political corruption.
Essentially, the mass of Americans and of British are in the same boat now. I never in either country found any mass of people, outside the immigrant sections involved and those natives whom they suborn, who wanted American or British nationhood destroyed. or even merged. The broad legions of people wanted to retain their own national identity under the government of God, not to disappear serf like into a shapeless mass under an Asiatic supremacy.
The question whether either nation will be able to keep its individuality, now that the occult servitude’s are so strong, is the one which the rest of this century of Armageddon will answer. The course and outcome of the Second War were portents as ominous as they could be for the result of any third one.
Nevertheless I found in both countries that widening masses of opinion were becoming alert to the shape and purpose of the grand design, and as to the final upshot, Saint Mark has a word for it: ‘And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars. See that ye be not troubled, for all these things must come to pass but the end is not yet.’
Clearly the revolution of destruction will go on awhile, like a dancing dervish pirouetting towards his foaming collapse. After seeing America I felt sure that every effort would be made to use American and British strength a third time to complete the ruin of the Christian area, and even to set these people against each other if the purpose could be better served that way. I felt equally sure that the grand design would fall at the last and that the end of the Christian two thousand years is not yet.
CHAPTER 2 : ZIONISM PARAMOUNT
The three forces which weaken the whole structure of American public life in effect serve the strongest among themselves, Political Zionism, which stands behind the seats of the mighty while the others work in lesser places, if to similar ends of power-over-politicians. The proof of this supremacy is to be found by a simple test: the extent to which public discussion is permitted.
It is entirely free in the matter of organised crime. No day passes but this is publicly debated somewhere in the Republic, in the tone that ‘It is loathsome but normal, and not to be put down. Huey Long once said he could buy politicians ‘like sacks of potatoes’ and the daily talk in America is always full of such allusions to purchasable men. The great argument, however, overlooks possible effects on national policy and treats the matter merely as one of local ‘wide openness’ and parochial effects; possibly for that reason it is so free. That wireworm at the roots may imperil the whole plant is an aspect ignored.
The case of Communist permeation at the middle level is different. Public discussion is nominally free, so much so that the outer world receives an impression of ‘a witch hunt’ in constant progress. In truth public anxiety to know what goes on is combated, and powerful opposition is offered, from the highest places down, to the general demand for knowledge and action. The chorus of ‘hysteria’, ‘Redbaiting’ and ‘anti-Semitism’ reaches a higher crescendo each time some startling disclosure is achieved by persistent investigators. The great bulk of Americans have in fact been thwarted for seventeen years in their wish to have the stables cleansed (this is the case in England, too). *
* Today (I976) this applies in all Western countries.
At the topmost level, a virtual ban on public discussion of Political Zionism proves the paramountcy of its sway in American affairs. As in England, the open expression of doubt about this territorial ambition, and support for it, has been almost driven underground in recent years. An imperial thrall has been laid on America in this matter. Traditional Americans, whose forebears detested laws of less-majesty and the genuflection’s of courts, now find their leaders performing an even humbler obeisance in this direction; like foremost politicians in England, they thus emulate those Rumanian nobles who long bowed to the Sultan’s rule, vainly hoping to keep rank and possessions.
The Soviet ban on ‘anti-Semitism’ (which was in effect a veto on public discussion of the origins of Communism) has in practice been extended to the British island and the American Republic in the matter of Political Zionism. It is less-majesty in a new form and because of it present -day Americans and Englishmen do not as a rule see the grave future courses and penalties to which support of Political Zionism has committed them.
The way in which this overlordship has been imposed on the Christian West is wonderful and fascinating to study. It has all been done so quickly and with such sure skill (and if it is evil, as I think, may be to the good in the end, for the catfish in the tank re-invigorates other fish grown lazy).
Political Zionism and Soviet Communism both grew up side by side in the Jewish areas of Czarist Russia, within Jewish families living beneath the same rooftree. The golden age was then dawning for Jews everywhere. When Napoleon convened their Grand Sanhedrin in Paris in 1807 the Rabbis declared that Israel existed only as a religion and aspired to no national resurrection. All over the world even Orthodox Jews, claimant for civic equalities, strenuously denied that Israel was a nation within the nations; Reform Judaism echoed this avowal. In England Jewry vowed that if England should emancipate the Jew it would fill his heart with consciousness of country; he would think, feel, fear and hope as an Englishman. America was opening to Jews and the same pledge was made on their behalf there.
It was true, too. Jews in those countries did lose much of the sense of being different which accompanied them, like a curse, down the centuries and caused them (not the Gentiles) to build ghetto’s for themselves. They became good and happy Germans, Englishmen, Frenchmen, Americans. They seemed to confound those opponents of the Jewish Disability Bill in the English Parliament who argued that the Jews looked forward to the coming of a great deliverer, to their return to Palestine, to the rebuilding of their temple, to the revival of their ancient faith in its tribal form, and therefore would always consider England not as their country, but merely as their place of exile. Similarly those events disproved for ever the lie that men inherently hate Jews.
Yet the English objectors, and Americans who raised warning voices against the new immigration, were made true prophets by the event.
All that was gained was swept away by one section of the community of Russian Jews. They revived and imposed on Jews everywhere the old teaching, ‘Do not cultivate strange lands, soon you will cultivate your own; do not attach yourself to any land, for thus you will be unfaithful to the memory of your native land; do not submit to any king, for you have no master but the Lord of the Holy Land, Jehovah; do not scatter among the nations, you will for felt your salvation and you will not see the light of the day of resurrection: remain such as you left your house; the hour will come and you will see again the hills of your ancestors, and those hills will then be the centre of the world, which will be subject to your power.’
The destructive achievement, in both the Zionist and Communist aspect, came from the Jews in the Russia of the Romanoffs; that is the key to understanding of the present and future.
The Jews who made those two great movements were not Semites; on that point all qualified authorities agree., their ancestors never knew ‘the hills of your ancestors’. They were the descendants of a Russian, Mongol-Tartar race converted to Judaism in the seventh century whose remote forebears never trod Palestinian soil. * Their two destructive exploits are astounding, considered as feats, like those of weightlifters, but still are less extraordinary than the submission to them of leading Gentile politicians in the Christian West during the last forty years. **
* See Dr. John Beaty, Iron Curtain Over America, and Jewish Encyclopedia 1911 edition.
** And it continues.
CHAIM WEIZMANN’S STORY
The tale, more fantastic than any of the Arabian Nights, is most plainly told in
Dr. Chalm Weizmann’s Trial and Error. It shows the soil where the two destructive movements grew, to their present fiery bloom, in the last decades of the past century. There was a little White Russian village ‘within the Pale’, with 400 or 500 Russian families and under 200 Jewish ones. The Jews kept to their own streets of their own wish, so that Jews and Gentiles were strangers to each other’s ways of thought, dreams, religions, festivals and even languages. All buildings were of wood save two of brick, the church and ‘the house of the richest Jew’.
The Pale of Settlement was ‘a prison house for Jews’, yet the typical Jewish family depicted had a house of seven rooms and a garden and some acres of land, the father employed fifty or sixty Russians in the season. There was no starvation or any pogroms in the place though pogroms were heard of elsewhere (the student of these things will often come across such statements). Russian servants were employed and the matriarch of the family went each summer to distant Bohemia or Bavaria.
It does not look too dire a picture. Yet within this Jewish household, in the 1880s, was ferment. The ‘Return’ was in the air, ‘a vague deep-rooted Messianism, a hope which would not die’. Such families were deeply divided among themselves, so that brothers and sisters often would not speak to each other. The line of dispute was between those young Jews who wanted to overthrow the Czardom and gain power inside Russia (the later Communists) and those who wanted to recreate a Jewish nation in Palestine (the later Zionists). The matriarch said well, if the revolutionary son were right they would all be happy in Russia, and if the Zionist one were correct she would go to Palestine, so all would be well either way.
It is a vivid picture of the beginnings of the things we now experience. It is given as one of Jewish misery but the Russians seem to have been much worse off.
In From Pharaoh to Hitler Mr. Bernard J. Brown, writing as a Jew, says, ‘When the Jews talk about oppression they are mistaken in assuming that they have been the only oppressed people on earth. As late as I860 there were over 23,000,000 Christian peasants in Russia in abject slavery, while the Jews of that period in Russia followed their trades and professions. enjoying reasonable freedom and prosperity consistent with the form of government and general economic conditions prevalent at that time.’
This Russia, nevertheless, the younger Jews, to judge from Dr. Weizmann, wished to destroy. True, a third body of Jewish opinion existed, that of the Jews who wished to ‘assimilate’ themselves, like Jews in the West. Throughout Dr. Weizmann’s book these Jews appear as more detestable than Gentile ‘anti-Semites’.
At that time the victory of those Jews, who wished to ‘keep the peace of the city’ in whatever land they dwelt, seemed certain. The whole history of the world for eighteen hundred years had been one of gradually improving humanity and enlightenment, broken only by what seemed the passing nightmare of the French Revolution, * and in this upward process Czar Alexander II was a typical figure. It was he who in 1861 liberated the 23,000,000 Russian serfs, so that a new dawn broke for the innumerable races and faiths of Russia. A reconciler and unifier, he was killed at the decisive moment, like Lincoln, the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Alexander of Yugoslavia and Count Bernadotte. **
* See The French Revolution, N H. Webster (Constable, London, 1919
** See The Battle for Rhodesia, appendix on assassination of Dr. H.J. Verwoerd.
See Far and Wide, report by Mr. Louis Levine (pages 278 and 279, footnotes.)
Repressive measures followed against the population generally, including Jews. The masses were resentful and, says Dr. Weizmann, among the Jews this first folk awakening had two facets, the revolutionary, mingling with the general Russian revolt, and the Zionist nationalist’.
This, then, was the actual birth of twins long in gestation, Soviet Communism and Political Zionism. (At the Communist revolution of 1917, however, Jewish revolutionaries did not * mingle with the general Russian revolt’ – they led it exclusively, and from that day to this the leadership of Soviet Communism has continued to be predominantly Russian-Jewish, while that of Political Zionism has been almost exclusively so, though it is represented as a movement of all Jews throughout the world.) ***
In the decade following Czar Alexander’s murder Dr. Weizmann went to school at Pinsk. He did not personally experience pogroms but ‘did not need to live in the midst of pogroms’ to know that ‘the Gentile world was poisoned’ indeed, he knew little of Gentiles but from the first they were to him ‘the symbols of menacing forces’. The frame of mind seems clearly innate, not the result of thought or experience; it might fairly be called ‘anti-Gentilism’, an emotional antipathy and not a reasoned antagonism. It coloured his approach to school-going: ‘The acquisition of knowledge was not for us so much a normal process of education as a storing up of weapons in an arsenal by means of which we hoped later to be able to hold our own in a hostile world.’
The world, however, was not hostile to Jews. All doors were open to them, and that seems to have disquietened Dr. Weizmann more than anything. At Pinsk (where he had ‘no social contact with Gentiles’, who were a minority of the population) he found many assimilationist Jews. The Zionists were becoming compact and began to fight ‘assimilation’. Thus Dr. Weizmann locates the actual sources of the thing which overclouds the world today; he says the foundation layers of the Zionist State are Pinsk and Vilna, Odessa and Warsaw, and many lesser-known Jewish communities of those Eastern European stretches; that is Russian Jewry.
Dr.Weizmann disliked Czarist Russia so much that, graduated at Pinsk, he crossed the German frontier clandestinely and went to Pfungstadt. He found there something previously unrealised by him; that German Jewry was exerting itself to be German (he calls this ‘a queer chapter in Jewish history’). He obtained a post at a Jewish boarding school and decided that its principal who held such views, was an intellectual coward and a toady. The sight of Jews entirely free seems to have appalled him. He was ‘lonely and desperately homesick’ for Pinsk, for the little village in the prison-like Pale! ‘It was better in Pinsk, though Pinsk was Russia’. He longed for the separate, ghetto-like life of the Jews there, and returned. Pinsk seems indeed to have been a good place for Jews, because his four years of military service were due ‘but I managed to talk my way out of the army in a special interview with the local military commander, a decent and cultured Russian who thought it a pity to have my education interrupted!’
Later he went to Berlin, Freiburg, Geneva and other places, where he found Jewish students from Russia increasing in number and revolutionary fervour. They were militant cells engaged in fighting ‘the assimilationist revolutionary movement, not on its revolutionary but on its assimilationist side’.
This means that they worked for revolution and against the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile, which they saw as an obstacle to revolution. Nevertheless, the ‘assimilationist’ Jews remained aloof: ‘I cannot say that anything resembling real intimacy ever grew up between the Russian – Jewish student colony and the Jewish community of Berlin; the gap between the two worlds was almost unbridgeable’.
This great gulf was in time to be bridged by Mr. Lloyd George, Lord Balfour, later British leaders, President Wilson, President Roosevelt and President Truman.
In the next ten years, as student and then teacher at those Christian universities, Dr. Weizmann learned ‘the technique of propaganda and the approach to the masses’.
Meanwhile a westernised Jew, Dr. Theodor Herzl, emerged as the visible leader of the conspiracy now grown into an open movement; by publishing The Jewish State he first proclaimed the territorial ambition. Not one Gentile in a million, probably, even noticed it. World Jewry, which knew what it would mean, was put in the condition of a dove cote invaded by a cat. This was the reversal of all that Orthodox and Reform Jewry alike had promised; in the end it would mean the ruin of the achievements of centuries.
In Dr. Herzl first appeared the phenomenon of this century, the Zionist operator on whose knee Gentile politicians sat as puppets.
Rabbi Elmer Berger says, ‘With Herzl that group of Jews which committed itself to Zionism and acknowledged him as its leader entered a peripatetic kind of diplomacy, which took it into many chancelleries and parliaments, exploring the labyrinthine and devious ways of international politics in a part of the world where political intrigue and secret deals were a byword’. Dr. Herzl began successfully to court what Mr. Bernard J. Brown describes as ‘the false praise of those Christians who, for one reason or another, seek Jewish favour’.
Herzl used words which seemed of the most foolish pretension at the time, but were modest in comparison with what Political Zionism later achieved. When his first important Jewish backer died. Baron de Hirsch, Herzl wrote, ‘Hirsch dies and I enter on negotiations with princes’.
He hoped to buy for twenty million pounds a charter for Palestine from the Sultan of Turkey, who ever needed money, but that fell through. Seeking an interview with the Kaiser, he promised ‘the diminution of radical’ (that is, revolutionary) ‘propaganda in Europe, in proportion to the development of national effort among Jews’, but when the Kaiser delayed in procuring Palestine for him Herzl wrote threateningly to him, ‘If our work miscarries, hundreds of revolutionaries will at a single bound join the revolutionary parties’. He told one of the Rothschilds, who feared Political Zionism, ‘I will start a great agitation in which it will be difficult to maintain order . . . You think it is a misfortune to operate with masses; consider well, would it not be a greater misfortune if I set the masses in, motion by a tumultuous agitation?’
Herzl in such words precisely foretells, as if by divine or demoniac revelation, the working of the machine he built, the crushing of Gentile nations between the power of the purse and the revolutionary masses, both controlled from the same source.
He used the famous phrase about ‘England being the point where the Archimedean lever must be applied’, and England was so used (though not by him) to prise open the oyster.
After Herzl’s death his threats became realities. He failed or did not succeed quickly enough for those whose passions he aroused; he seems at the end to have become terrified of the thing he began. When he called the First Zionist Congress he found he was no longer master of his machine. ‘There rose before our eyes’, he wrote, ‘a Russian Jewry the strength of which we had not even suspected . . .
They represented the views and sentiments of the five million Jews of that country . . .
What a humiliation for us, who had taken our superiority for granted!’
Russian Jewry took over, as Russian Jewry took over Soviet Communism, and Russian Jewry remains the master- force today.
Herzl became a discredited Messiah. In 1903 he produced at last an offer of Uganda, from the British Government. I cannot recall any comparable donation in history, but it was derisively rejected by the Russian Jews, who now controlled a project which was gathering momentum like a wheel rolling downhill. Herzl relieved his extremists of further annoyance by dying the next year, at forty-four, an opportune death, for by sponsoring the Uganda scheme he made himself, if not quite a reconciler and peacemaker, then a ‘deviationist’ (in the modern idiom). Much worse than that, during a visit to Moscow he warned the Political Zionists against harbouring revolutionaries in their ranks! His death occurred at the decisive moment.
WEIZMANN IN BRITAIN
At that time Dr. Weizmann, now thirty, poor, little known outside Zionist circles, was on his way to England, which he chose as a country in which ‘at least theoretically’ a Jew might be allowed to live and work without let or hindrance (the words ‘at least theoretically’, published in I949, seem mildly amusing in the light of all he was able to achieve; in this case practice more than vindicated theory). He went to Manchester with but a letter of introduction to a professor at the University there. He was ‘very warmly received’, given the use of a laboratory at a nominal rent, access to ‘the Holy of Holies’ (the storeroom where fine chemicals were kept), ‘consistent kind-heartedness’ from workmen ‘who spared no effort to produce any piece of apparatus or furniture that I asked for’. Soon the services of two research men were added and, within the year, the offer of a research scholarship and a weekly lectureship.
This seems fairly sympathetic treatment and was but the beginning of much warmer friendliness. However, in 1932 Dr. Weizmann, contemplating the wild beasts of the Kruger National Park in South Africa, observed, ‘It must be a wonderful thing to be an animal in the South African game reserve; much better than being a Jew in Warsaw – or even in London’.
Manchester produces in its natives a moral outlook akin to the New England Conscience, or to the warm humanity of Bloomsbury and Greenwich Village. Its corporate soul responds like a harp string to the cries of oppressed beings far away, and the farther away the better. In Manchester the new-born babe’s first cry is not of pain, but already of righteous indignation about the lot of Thailanders, Vietnamese, Louisiana Negroes and Durban Indians. If the world has a conscience (and The Times has said so), Manchester is its guardian. What Manchester thinks today the world thinks tomorrow and regrets the day after …
Dr. Weizmann says he went to Manchester to keep out of Zionist politics for a time; but he landed in a most propitious place for their pursuit. He had what he himself calls an astounding experience of Manchester’s illusions soon after he arrived. He shared his laboratory with a Japanese student and the two read with delight newspaper reports of Russian defeats in the war with Japan, then in progress; the Japanese because he was Japanese, Dr. Weizmann because he longed for his native Russia’s defeat.
If the mere desire to do good in some vague way at someone else’s expense qualifies for a place in heaven, the spirit of Manchester will one day be highly enthroned there; if the scrutiny of facts and right or wrong also belongs to the qualifying process, it will meet grave trouble at the turnstiles. At Manchester in 1906 the notion of transferring masses of East Europeans to Palestine made immediate appeal. The little matter of the Arabs there did not worry the Manchester Conscience, for the Arabs had not studied the technique of propaganda and the approach to masses or sent anyone to Manchester.
The Chairman of the Conservative Party there was a Zionist (this is something which still be devils both the large political parties in England and America). Before he was two years in England or had much command of English Dr. Weizmann found himself closeted with the lately defeated Prime Minister (and leader of the Conservative Opposition), Mr. Arthur Balfour, in an hotel room!
Does history show a more fateful meeting. A mysterious foreign ambition began to entwine itself round British policy. Dr. Weizmann, an obscure newcomer, found that Mr. Balfour had only ‘the most naive and rudimentary notion of the movement’ (a description which remained good twenty years later when Lord Balfour first saw the Arabian land where, in the meantime, he had undertaken to set up a National Home for the Zionists. Being warmly welcomed in Jewish parts of it, he said it reminded him of a general election tour, but with everybody on the same side. Against the wishes of his Zionist hosts, who wished ‘to spare him as much as possible’, he went on to Arab Damascus and had to be smuggled away from an infuriated mob and to a ship. He may thus at the last have suspected another side to the question; he had but a few years to live).
In 1911, after seven years, Dr. Weizmann’s position at the university was worth £600 and his wife’s, as medical officer for several city clinics, £350, so that the joint income, as he says, was considerable for those days and possibly vindicated England’s comportment towards newcomers, Jewish or Gentile. On this account, perhaps, the German Jews in Manchester were contentedly assimilated. Dr. Weizmann, however, felt most at home with the Russian Jews there, the old English-Jewish families ‘might just as well have belonged to another world.’ Russian Jews predominated in the Jewish community and a strong Political Zionist group took shape around Dr. Weizmann in Manchester.
In 1907 he first saw the country of his ambitions; * he found it a dolorous one where 80,000 Jews lived, in poverty and amity, with some 550,000 Arabs. All that was to be changed.
*That is, Palestine.
The First War began in 1914; long-memoried readers may recall that it appeared to be concerned with such matters as the rape of Belgium, ending Prussian militarism, and making the world safe for democracy. At its start Baron Edmond de Rothschild told
Dr. Weizmann that it would spread to the Middle East, where things of great significance to Political Zionism would occur.
The first few months saw another fateful meeting; Dr. Weizmann, by chance he says, was presented to Mr. C.P. Scott, editor of the Manchester Guardian. Mr. Scott, whose ideas about the matter may have been as rudimentary as Mr. Balfour’s, asked typically Mancunian questions (‘Are you a Pole?’) and was told of Dr. Weizmann’s hatred of Russia, then England’s powerful ally. This did not deter him from immediate enthusiasm. Thereafter when he went to London Dr. Weizmann habitually met him at the station, Mr. Scott’s usual greeting being, ‘Now, Dr. Weizmann, tell me what you want me to do for you’.
This led to a third fateful meeting. When the war was still four months young Mr. Scott took Dr. Weizmann to breakfast with Mr. Lloyd George (Mr. Asquith was then Prime Minister and, learning of a scheme to transplant Eastern Europeans to Palestine, said it was fantastic). Mr. Lloyd George told Dr. Weizmann that a leading English Jew, Mr. Edwin Montagu, would bitterly oppose the project. Indeed, the mass of Jews everywhere, other than those from Russia, were firmly against it. At this time the curious process began; wherever established Jews resisted an enterprise which they thought perilous to Jewry, Gentile leaders turned against them. The little known Dr. Weizmann from Russia was more kindly heard than the eminent spokesmen of Jewish communities established in England for centuries.
Mr. Lloyd George sent Dr. Weizmann again to Mr. Balfour, who apparently first asked an obvious question: how a friend of England could be so anti-Russian when Russia fought on our side? Dr. Weizmann spoke of pogroms and expulsions which made ‘every Russian victory a horror for the Jews’ and this seems to have satisfied Mr. Balfour, who said, ‘It is a great cause you are working for. You must come again and again’. Such are the things which secretly go on in war time.
Whilst Czarist Russia in the cast took the brunt off bowed French and British shoulders in the west, Dr. Weizmann told British leaders of his hatred for Russia. The very name of Political Zionism was unknown to the fighting – men or the watching masses, but behind the scenes this new ambition took root and stem in London. Dr. Weizmann says his meetings with Mr. Scott, Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Balfour were but ‘the beginnings of our discoveries of friends’. The thing, unless one looks for baser motives, seems today only explicable as an infatuation among public men.
Political Zionism in the next few years made immense strides, and if they were not even greater this was due to the opposition of Jews, the mass of whom stood everywhere as firm as they could behind Gentile politicians who went down like nine pins.
After two years of war English Jewry still refused to demand more than ‘equal rights’ with the Arabs and ‘reasonable facilities for immigration and colonisation’ in the event that the war should put Palestine in the hands of England or France. At the Foreign Office Mr. Lucien Wolf (until then accepted as the secular spokesman of British Jewry) protested that Political Zionism was a purely East European movement. He and his kind fought vainly against Gentile politicians who seem to have been possessed.
When Mr. Lloyd George became Prime Minister, and prepared for the fatal deed, he told Dr. Weizmann, ‘I know that with the issuance of this Declaration I shall please one group of Jews and displease another. I have decided to please your group because you stand for a great idea’. These words will first be fully tested when the great idea reaches its full consummation and I think that may not now be long.
Dr. Weizmann, curiously, wrote: ‘We hate equally anti-Semitism and philo-Semitism; both are degrading’. If he meant by this anti -Zionism and pro-Zionism he ought to have hated Messrs. Scott, Balfour and Lloyd George. The circle of these champions widened and its multiplying members remained ‘completely baffled’ by the opposition of British Jews.
The then editor of The Times, says Dr. Weizmann, expressed intense annoyance because anti-Zionists wrote letters of protest to his paper (in later years such expostulations were rebuked as ‘anti-Semitism’). Lord Milner publicly reproved those who thought Palestine should remain what it was, Arab. Mr. Philip Kerr (later Lord Lothian and an Ambassador to America), wrote contemptuously to Dr. Weizmann, from Russia, of ‘so-called British Jewry’ and said no amount of talk by Mr. Edwin Montagu ‘or people like him’ would stem the tide.
This gestation of the thing now accomplished is fantastic to contemplate. Dr. Weizmann went to the Admiralty and found that his Zionist work thrust itself insistently into his labours there. He converted Sir Mark Sykes (Chief Secretary to the War Cabinet), Mr. Leopold Amery (later to be Colonial Secretary; Mr. Amery was ‘incensed when leading Jews attacked the scheme openly’), Mr. Ormsby-Gore, Lord Robert Cecil; the slip became a landslide.
He found his work easy then because it was in the realm of the abstract; he says, in memorable words, that ‘the great difficulties, like the Arab problem, had not yet come to the fore’. In the later events the Arabs, and pledges made to them, never came much to the fore.
America, too, was now being roped in. The Jewish Question having been solved by the centuries, a new Jewish Question was thrown up there, the Political Zionist one, and the Zionist leader, Mr. Brande is, was appointed Advisor to President Wilson on the Jewish Question; the era of The Advisers began. Then General Smuts, from South Africa, appeared in London and heartily assured Dr. Weizmann that something would be done about Palestine and the Jewish people. By this time a growing family of powerful men, freed from the peace time cheeks of public debate, accepted the Russian Jews, the Political Zionists from Eastern Europe, as ‘the Jewish people’.
Thus Political Zionism, which in 1880 was but a matter of violent inter – family dispute between Jewish-revolutionary and Jewish nationalist sons in Jewish homes in Russia, by 1917 was imperiously presented to the British and American governments as the demand of the entire Jewish people.
Still the great masses knew nothing of it and thought the war they fought was for the liberty of men and nations. They could not dream that one of its primary purposes was to drive a small, harmless and allied people out of its native land and install East Europeans in their place.
They were never consulted about that, though their leaders secretly vied in fervour for this cause. Dr. Weizmann says, ‘Our difficulties were not connected with the first rank statesmen. These had, for by far the greatest part, always understood our aspirations, and their statements in favour of the Jewish National Home really constitute a literature. It was always behind the scenes, and on the lower levels, that we encountered an obstinate, devious and secretive opposition’.
The words ‘behind the scenes’ and ‘secretive’ are notable, for the masses knew very little of the methods by which ‘first rank statesmen were won. However, Dr. Weizmann did not invariably find first rank statesmen so admirable. In a much later connection (the Czechoslovak crisis of 1938) he refers to Mr. Neville Chamberlain’s profound ignorance’ and says he does not know if it was ‘typical for the British ruling class, but judging from its behaviour at that time it either did not know, or else it did not wish to know because the knowledge was inconvenient, disturbing and dangerous’.
The three adjectives might equally apply to the first rank statesmen in England and America who took up Political Zionism; either they did not know or did not wish to know whither that would lead, and their uninstructed peoples were dragged along with them.
‘THE GRAND DESIGN’
Of those ‘first rank statesmen’ who in 1917 prepared the first triumph of Political Zionism Lord Robert Cecil (Assistant Secretary for Foreign Affairs) is exceptionally important because he alone (Dr. Weizmann says), ‘saw it in its true perspective as an integral part of world stabilisation. To him the re-establishment of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine and the organisation of the world in a great federation were complementary features of the next step in the management of human affairs.’
I do not know, but doubt, if Lord Robert Cecil ever explained the matter to his own people like that, but in these words a much bigger nigger pops out of the woodpile. In them the ‘National Home’ no longer appears as an all – satisfying end in itself, as it was first presented to be.. or even as the basis of a future Zionist State, which it was denied to be. The words contain the true shape of the whole ambition, as I believe it to be, for they speak of world stabilisation, of a world federation, and of managing mankind. If this future world federation is to surmount nations, why had it to begin with the creation of a new nation, the Zionist one, unless the ‘management of human affairs’ is to be assumed by that one?
In 1917, with the First War in its fourth year and the masses still all oblivious of such large schemes for their future, the secret process suddenly accelerated and cleared, as if a developing fluid abruptly brought out the outlines of a negative. Either all the fates conspired, or the Political Zionists were then strong enough, to displace any front rank statesmen who still resisted and to supplant them with men obedient to their will. Mr. Asquith, the only important objector remaining, had been overthrown, and one may now doubt whether deficiencies of leadership were the cause. The real reason may have been certain secret Anglo-French treaties about Palestine which might have preserved the Arabs from their approaching fate.
President Wilson was prompted sternly to denounce ‘secret treaties’, (Americans retained a holy horror of these two words until President Roosevelt, in 1944 – 45, made secret treaties on a really stupendous scale) and Mr. Asquith went.
The new government was made up of men to whom, apparently, Political Zionism was by now a foremost issue of the war (I recall with humility the importance I then attached to the French front, above which I flew). Mr. Lloyd George was Prime Minister, Mr. Philip Kerr his secretary, Mr. Balfour Foreign Secretary. Lord Robert Cecil Assistant Foreign Secretary, and so on. Lord Robert Cecil had been assured that ‘a Jewish Palestine would be a safeguard to England, in particular in respect to the Suez Canal’. This put the matter on a plane below mere righteousness, but even at that the final test has yet to be made and might be interesting to watch.
Another significant thing happened while the fateful issue was in the balance. General Smuts, arrived in London. was acclaimed as the symbolic figure of Boer-British reconciliation. The public masses in South Africa and England knew nothing of his admiration for Political Zionism, and hardly its name. He was invited to join the British War Cabinet, a proceeding without precedent in the Commonwealth which his Boers greatly resented. He did join it, in a status never clearly defined, and was offered the command in Palestine by Mr. Lloyd George who (General Smuts says) ‘was very anxious that a determined offensive should be made in Palestine … He was strongly under the impression that Palestine should be made a decisive feature of the war’ (my italics). Learning from the military authorities that they counted the enterprise of little military value General Smuts refused the command, but in the Cabinet presented his plan for such a campaign, which was eventually undertaken.
Thus as the First War drew to its end Palestine was made ‘a decisive feature’ and British Commonwealth troops, not for military reasons, were used to conquer the territory of the future Zionist State.
The great moment thus approached. To the last British Jewry repudiated Political Zionism, to the ‘downright annoyance’ of the editor of The Times, who spent ‘a good hour’ discussing with Dr. Weizmann ‘ the kind of leader which was likely to make the best appeal to the British public’ and produced ‘a magnificent presentation of the Zionist case’. In such circumstances may leading articles about major issues sometimes be written.
By August 1917 Dr. Weizmann was able to inform Mr. Frankfurter (later esteemed as an adviser by Presidents Roosevelt and Truman) that the only remaining obstacle was ‘outside interference – entirely from Jews!’ ( these delightful words about outside interference by Jews in Political Zionism are Dr. Weizmann’s).
Before the decisive Cabinet meeting Dr. Weizmann wrote to the Foreign Office to protest against the anti-Zionist view being urged at it by ‘a prominent Englishman of the Jewish faith’. At the last moment President Wilson cabled support for the Zionist cause and the British and American Jews were finally undone.
The overt, fatal deed followed; the Balfour Declaration fathered a ‘Jewish National Home’ in Palestine and, as I think, tethered the British and American peoples to the ambition of a Zionist-controlled world federation which lay behind it. The Declaration hardly indented the consciousness of the British and American masses and they still do not see its full consequences for themselves.
Its immediate meaning was only clear to the Arabs and to British officials and soldiers in Palestine.* It led to thirty years of Arab rising and then to an Arab war against aggression, broken by overwhelming force. During that period Commissions were repeatedly sent to Palestine to find the reason for so much trouble and each in turn reported the blindingly obvious, that the native population objected to enforced displacement by Eastern European newcomers. Similarly (as Dr. Weizmann records) administrators who went to Palestine favourably inclined towards Political Zionism ‘as an almost universal rule … turned against us in a few months’.
* e.g. Hugh Braun. Roy Farran, Sir John Glubb, Sir Ronald Storrs, Gen. Carl von Horn, Col. Peter Young, etc., in their various books of personal narrative.
The front rank statesmen, who thus prepared their peoples’ future tribulations were happy. Lord Balfour thought the Declaration the great achievement of his life. Lord Robert Cecil (one of the founders of the League of Nations) thought the National Homeland of equal importance with the League (soon to die). President Wilson and Mr. Lloyd George announced that the National Home would be the foundation of a Jewish Commonwealth, so that, the war being over, the broad masses were at length able to perceive this object of it.
General Smuts said. One of the great objects we fought for in the war was to provide a national home for the Jewish people’. The people concerned, however, were never told that this was an object, let alone a great object, of the war they went into.
Nor was a similar objective ever announced as the aim of the Second War, but events show that this was the fact and the peoples might logically assume that a primary object of any third war, though cloaked at the start, would be the expansion of the Zionist State, and the imposition of a ‘world federation’ and a new ‘management’ on mankind. In the aftermath of the Second War such aims, earlier concealed, were much more openly admitted by leading politicians, and little room for doubt remains about their future attitude.
The leading men of the Christian West had identified Political Zionism, a movement of the revolutionary Russian Jews, with World Jewry everywhere and forced the rising generation of Jews into this grasp. They undid the work of centuries and renewed the ferment in Jewry just when it was allayed. In doing this they flouted and affronted their own established Jewish communities. If any statesmen survive, or are growing up now, their task will be to undo what was done, and they will need the help of God and the prayers of men for that.
In the first stage of the great plan leading British politicians, editors, soldiers seem to have succumbed as if to hypnosis, and lost even patriotic prudence during the greatest war in history. Vainly did the British Jews point out that the Political Zionists were ‘an International organisation which included different, even enemy, elements’ and refuse all truck with them. No such objections, Dr. Weizman n recalls, ‘ever occurred to the many Englishmen who were encouraging us so generously in those days’.
The explanations which leading men later gave for their submission to the Russian Zionists were casual or misleading. Mr. Lloyd George gave contradictory accounts of motive. One was that the promise of a National Home was expected to rally Jewish opinion throughout the world to the Allied cause; in fact the bulk of British, American and German Jews were opposed to Political Zionism, and this remains true today to an extent only lessened by the fact that new Jewish generations have been told by British and American leaders that they consider Political Zionism to be The Jewish People.
Another Lloyd Georgian version is that he promised the National Home to Dr. Weizmann, in gratitude for a new method of producing acetone, a substance much needed during that war. Dr. Weizmann (who received the cash payment customary for such services, in this case ten thousand pounds) refers to this statement with gentle irony, saying that ‘history does not deal in Aladdin’s lamps’. He also mentions that Mr. Lloyd George, in memoirs designed for the masses said he first met Dr. Weizmann and became interested in Political Zionism in 1917 (the year of the Declaration); whereas, says Dr. Weizmann, they met long before that and Mr. Lloyd George’s ,advocacy of the Jewish Homeland long predated his accession to the Premiership’.
Slowly truth emerges, with the passing of the years. A vital or lethal, twist was given to the declared aims and purposes of the First War and this distortion continued, with ever graver effects, through the intervening years and into the Second War. Even on the low level of material advantage the thing proved a curse to the British. The politicians and editors had been told and so informed the masses, that, the National Home once established, ‘England would have in the Jews the best possible friends’.
Of Jews that might have been true, but the Political Zionists proved inveterate enemies, ever crying that England should enforce their rule in Palestine by arms and killing British soldiers and officials for twenty-five years because this was not done. No such murderer ever received the penalty for murder; in no land ever occupied by the British, for periods short or long, has that ever occurred before. During the twenty years of peace and six of war the authorities in London who sent men to do duty in Palestine intervened to protect their assailants if they were killed doing it. Nothing was allowed to stop the transplantation of Eastern Europeans to Palestine. The Arabs breed fast however and maintained superior numbers.
Clearly a Zionist majority could never be achieved unless in the confusion of another world war (which the masses thought inconceivable).
WORLD WAR II
Without open war the National Home could not be converted into a Zionist State. One of the last administrators, Mr. Malcolm Macdonald (the son of a Socialist Prime Minister) inherited the illusions about Political Zionism fashionable in political quarters but as Colonial Secretary, when he had to handle the actual substance of this dream, was quickly undeceived, like all others. His term of office produced the White Paper in 1939 which was a British Government’s confession, after twenty-one years, of an earlier one’s error; it was to restrict Zionist immigration and set up an Arab State in Arab Palestine within five years. Thereon the Second War broke out.
Initially it was supposed to be about Poland, Czechoslovakia and other countries, which in the event were treated as if they were the culprits, not the victims, with the connivance of the Western leaders. The British Island survived, and also the western half of Europe, which was left in such plight that it might at any time be overrun.
In the Second War as in the First the twin causes born in Czarist Russia were served; the Communist Empire was aggrandised and the Zionist State set up, with the help of American and British arms.
This phenomenon having appeared in two wars, its recurrence in larger form in any third one plainly could only be prevented by the exposure and disentanglement of Soviet Communist and Political Zionist influence from British and American State policy. Possibly this is not even feasible during the present generation of first rank statesmen, who seem to accept the thrall as a normal thing. However, new generations arise and tomorrow is also a day, as the Germans say.
During the Second War the weight of Political Zionist pressure gradually was transferred from London to Washington and applied there with practised skill, again at the decisive moment; America was drawn into the fatal coils. There was a sound reason for this. As Dr. Weizmann wrote, front rank politicians are easily won for Political Zionism, but greater resistance is met on lower levels, where public servants seem to be of stouter timber and hold tenaciously to their conceptions of duty and principle.
As the Second War began he met these hindrances in England.
He records that, very early in that war, he saw Mr. Churchill (not yet Prime Minister)
at the Admiralty. He said he ‘hoped Mr. Churchill would see the enterprise through’ and the Political Zionists would want after the war to build up a State of three or four million Jews in Palestine; Mr. Churchill replied, ‘Yes, indeed, I quite agree with that’
I do not think the British islanders, at that dire moment, ever knew that Mr. Churchill conceived this among the aims of the war; if he publicly said so I must have missed it. I knew he attacked the White Paper, but also recalled that in 1922, when he was Colonial Secretary, he officially announced that the National Home would not mean the imposition of a Jewish nationality upon the inhabitants of Palestine as a whole’.. any expectations that it was to be made ‘as Jewish as England is English’ were impracticable and His Majesty’s Government had no such aim, nor did they contemplate the disappearance or subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine; the Balfour Declaration contained nothing that need cause alarm to the Arab population of Palestine.
Mr. Churchill became Prime Minister and in August I940 (while the Battle of Britain yet impended) Dr. Weizmann , wrote to him, urging that the Zionists in Palestine be accorded their ‘elementary human right to bear arms’ (a matter which involved the elementary human right of the Arabs to remain in Palestine). Much later the Zionists amassed many arms, in secret ways, and used them against the British to such effect that the responsible Minister recorded a serious interference with the British war effort. At this moment, however, authorities at lower levels proved resistant and Dr. Weizmann refers to ‘the frustrations we encountered’.
Mr. Churchill’s memoirs are unexpectedly illuminating at this point. Without much comment he reproduces his own documents which show that long before August 1940 he urgently wanted to arm the Zionists. These papers appear in the volume called Their Finest Hour ‘ and perusal of them made me wonder whose finest hour that was.
He acquired ‘the chief power in the State’ on May 10th, as France disintegrated. By May 23rd, as disasters accumulated, he was instructing his Colonial Secretary that ‘The main and almost the sole aim in Palestine at the present time is to liberate the eleven battalions of excellent regular troops who are now tethered there, for this purpose the Jews should be armed in their own defence and properly organised as speedily as possible*. On May 29th, while the evacuation from Dunkirk was at its height, he repeated the order more urgently. That seemed fair enough at a moment when the British Army looked likely to be lost in France. He reiterated the order on June 2nd, by which time the salvation of the British Army had changed the situation.
On June 6th he complained of military opposition to this order … At the end of June he complained of ‘difficulties’ with two Ministers, particularly Lord Lloyd, the Colonial Secretary responsible, ‘who was a convinced anti-Zionist and pro-Arab. I wished to arm the Jewish colonists’.
I may be odd, but when I look back on those tense days of Dunkirk I still find it hard to understand that, at such a moment, a British Government could find time to think about arming the Political Zionists in Palestine.
In July again (while the British Islander thought presumably his lonely plight to be an all-exclusive preoccupation), Mr. Churchill ‘wished to arm the Jews at Tel Aviv, who with proper weapons would have made a good fight against all corners. Here I encountered every kind of resistance’.
Clearly, ‘difficulties at lower levels’ arose.. men responsible or on the spot, with a sense of duty, are not easily to be convinced that such a course as the one now proposed is right. Apart from that the reference to ‘proper weapons’ is striking. At that moment the weapons of the British Army had been lost in France and the British Island was almost unarmed (I well remember the long search I had to find a forty-year-old pistol, which none other would buy, in a secondhand shop in Exeter). Mr. Churchill records that our armies were unarmed except for rifles, that the whole country contained barely 500 field guns and 200 tanks of any type or condition.
In August and September, as England’s ordeal began, Mr. Churchill repeated his exhortations, and later volumes of his memoirs than I have may continue the narrative. I feel sure the beleaguered British people at that time were unaware that the arming of the Zionists, which in effect would mean the transfer of Arab Palestine to new owners, was so important in their affairs; they fancied their own plight to be a total and paramount preoccupation.
Anyway Political Zionism did not at that moment succeed in its next objective. Responsible men at lower levels or at the scene delayed the downhill process for a while (the further services of Lord Lloyd might have been beneficial to all concerned, including the mass of Jews, but he died in 1941).
By the war’s end, however, the thrall was upon first rank politicians in America and the second fatal deed was perpetrated.
Dr. Weizmann went to America in 1940, 1941 and 1942. He found among ‘the top political leaders’ real sympathy for Political Zionism, but, once more, had trouble with ‘the experts in the State Department’ (professionals are often troublesome; they know something of the subject). Before his third visit, he says, Mr. Churchill told him, I would like to see Ibn Saud made lord of the Middle East – the boss of the bosses – provided he settles with you … You might talk it over with Roosevelt when you get to America. There’s nothing he and I cannot do if we set our minds to it.
Dr. Weizmann found powerful friends for Zionism, including particularly Mr. Henry Morgenthau, Junior, whose name attaches to the Plan for Germany which, in effect, bisected Europe and made a third war as certain as any human event can be. President Roosevelt was (in 1942) ‘completely affirmative’ about the Zionist ambition in Palestine (though Dr. Weizmann does not clearly record whether he definitely accepted the proposition that ‘the consent of the Arabs’ should not be sought).
By this time politicians everywhere were competing for Zionist favour like men struggling for the last seat on a band wagon and the British working man’s Socialist Party issued its admirable pronunciamento: ‘Let the Arabs be encouraged to move out as the Jews move in. Let them be handsomely compensated for their land, and their settlement elsewhere be carefully organised and generously financed’ (seldom have a few words so precisely described the opposite of the subsequent event, when the Arabs were encouraged with bombs to move into destitution).
In September 1943 Mr. Churchill again gave ‘friendly reassurances’ to his visitor and in November 1944 was ‘very specific’, speaking of partition and of the inclusion of the invaluable Negev in the Zionist State now generally, though privily, proposed. Mr. Churchill also urged Dr. Weizmann, who was going to Palestine, to stop in Cairo and see Lord Moyne, one of Mr. Churchill’s colleagues who was showing improved comprehension of Political Zionism (Dr. Weizmann was unable to comply because the news of Lord Moyne’s better behaviour apparently w as not known in Palestine, so that he was killed by Political Zionists in Cairo only two days later).
Then the Second War ended and the real trouble began. Just before it closed President Roosevelt, on his homeward way from Yalta, received Ibn Saud on his cruiser. What he said is astounding, if his words are rightly quoted by the New York Times of October 19th, 1945: ‘No decision will be taken with regard to the basic situation in Palestine without full consultation with both Arabs and Jews’ and I would take no action in my capacity as Chief of the Executive Branch of our government which might prove hostile to the Arab people’.
He died immediately after saying this. The fascinating question is, did he say it’? If he did, it was in the nature of a deathbed conversion, return to grace, or perception of truth by revelation; the remainder of this century would look very different if ‘top line politicians’ habitually spoke so and acted accordingly. He died but had he lived his political health might never have been the same again, those words once spoken. His confidant, Mr. Harry Hopkins, gives a different version, much more in keeping with the present pattern of politicianship. He says President Roosevelt demanded that Ibn Saud admit more Jews into Palestine and was ‘wholly committed publicly and privately and by conviction’ to his demand.
In the private commitments, at least, one may believe in these times, and whether Mr. Roosevelt underwent a last-moment illumination or not is but a collector’s item, for his successor accepted those commitments. At the decisive moment American strength was used to set up the Zionist State, as British strength was used exactly thirty years before to proclaim the National Home.
The war’s last shot was scarcely fired before Mr. Truman requested Mr. Attlee to infuse another hundred thousand Zionists into Palestine. The British Government recoiled like an executioner appalled. It was politically impossible for the first Socialist Government to begin its rule by an attack on Arabs, and thus blatantly to demonstrate that the war-against-aggression was one for aggression and against defenceless small peoples (even though support of Political Zionism and readiness to drive Arabs from Palestine was by this time the final test of a good British Socialist, too! In 1939 a Socialist leader, Mr. Herbert Morrison, wagged his finger at an errant Socialist, Mr. Malcom Macdonald, who sought in his responsible office to avert the catastrophe in Palestine, and mournfully reminded him that he was once a Socialist!)
The deed demanded was just too crude and in practice infeasible. Thereon, with the ease of a neat change of gear, the American Republic was used to supply the desired acceleration. In this matter the junior Mr. Henry Morgenthau was ‘of particular assistance’, Dr. Weizmann says (Morgenthau’s father was resolutely anti-Zionist; this is an instance of the way in which Political Zionism, once fathered on all Jews by Gentile politicians, widened its influence among Jews of the rising generation).
In Palestine the Political Zionists increased their attacks on the British until only two alternatives remained.. to suppress them or get out. The British Government got out.
In New York the body called The United Nations was set up. As individual politicians nearly all had shown submission to Political Zionism, equal subservience was to be expected from any corporate body. On November 19th, I947 just thirty years after the issuance of the Balfour Declaration, President Truman received Dr. Weizmann ‘with the utmost cordiality’. That same afternoon the American delegation at the United Nations received telephonic instructions from the President to support Political Zionist claims.
BIRTH OF THE ISRAELI STATE
Ten days later the United Nations, at American insistence but on legal or moral authority unknown, announced that a Zionist State would be set up in Palestine after the British withdrawal. At the last the American and British Foreign Ministers sought to avert the deed. The resignation of Mr. George Marshall (who told American Senators it would be like touching off the powder keg of a new world war) was not long delayed.
This event gave the lie to every moral principle ever stated by Western politicians as the issue of the two wars.
The Arabs were inoffensive people who harmed none, had no part in causing either war, were not connected with the events in Europe which were supposed to have caused those wars, were themselves oppressed, and as the direct result of each war had their land thrown open to an invasion, mockingly sanctified in the second case by a self elected body claiming to represent The World.
The Arabs may be as good or bad as most or worse than any: that is not the point. The moral principle was publicly derided and crowned with thorns on each occasion and the lesson for the future is plain. If it is not clear enough, the utterances of top line politicians unmistakably point to a continuance of the process.
Mr. Truman (whose presidency was undreamed of by Americans when the Second War began), said in 1949 that the day when he recognised the Zionist State in reality his creation, was the proudest of his life, how many Americans could have imagined that in 1941?
Mr. Churchill, having accused Mr. Bevin of ‘prejudice against the Jews in Palestine’, described himself in 1950, in a message to the Friends of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, as ‘an unfaltering Zionist who always had the interest of the Jewish people at heart’; how many British Islanders realised that in 1939 or 1940 or understood what it implied?
Mr. Anthony Eden told Jewish ex-service men (according to the Jewish Agency) that the emergence of the Jewish State was the most memorable event in the recent history of the world; what would British folk have thought had the matter been foretold to them in that form in 1939?
General Smuts told a Zionist gathering in 1950, ‘I bracket the Battle of Britain and the resurrection of Israel as among the human highlights of our epoch’; yet the one was resistance to invasion, the other invasion of a small and helpless land.
Obviously the future will not improve while this exotic ambition keeps its hold on leading men in Western countries. Only increasing public alertness and a new breed of politicians could bring a change for the better. The affairs of nations are passing out of the hands of nations and entering (as Rabbi Elmer Berger wrote) ‘the labyrinthine and devious ways of international politics in a part of the world where political intrigue and secret deals are a by word’. One has the feeling of being in a dark room where tentacles delicately wave and grope, and with sure grasp fix on a man, another man, and another man …
GENERAL SMUTS AND ZIONISM
General Smuts seems to me especially representative of a type now universal in all English-speaking countries. He, Mr. Churchill and Dr. Weizmann were all born about the same time. His life shows a line undeviatingly Christian, patriotic, conservative and reasonable save for the inexplicable championship of Political Zionism. He fought with his South African Boers against the British (Mr. Churchill was in the opposing ranks) and afterwards led the cause of Anglo-Boer reconciliation. The Boers did not want so quick a friendship with England and resented him; the British South Africans were glad to live under Boer leadership if the great family were preserved. Neither group knew that the Zionist cause (then unknown to the masses) was deep in his heart.*
*See also: Autobiography Gen. Sir William Butler, and The War in South Africa LA. Hobson.
His purpose in entering Mr. Lloyd George’s Cabinet in the First War was to plan a campaign in Palestine and, if he could, to command it! His approved biography says he later regretted refusing it and wonders ‘whether he would not prefer, to the memories he has, the thought that he entered Jerusalem’. In 1948 he said the Zionist triumph had been the one highlight in an era of tragedy and failure and ‘I am proud of the fact that the last important act while I was Prime Minister was the recognition of the State of Israel’. In 1949, to a Zionist audience, he said ‘I am happy to have been associated with at least one thing in my life which has been successful, and I am glad that South Africa has had a small share in the realisation of the great vision’.
South Africans, like the Americans and British, never knew that this was ‘the great vision’. General Smuts, like American presidents and British prime ministers, became caught up in paradoxes. He told his obdurate Boers that ‘hankering after the past can lead in the wrong direction’ but supported Political Zionism, which invoked a past two thousand years older and beyond all proof. A Boer politician, when General Smuts visited London for a Zionist gathering, said, ‘He flew six thousand miles for the purpose of honouring Jewish nationalism and then he flew back six thousand miles to continue undermining South African nationalism’; this applied equally to almost any leading American or British politician.
When all has been examined the workings of General Smuts’s mind, and that of all such leaders, remain in this matter incomprehensible. He said, ‘There never was such nonsense as this idea the Jews have that they are an exclusive, pure race. They are the most impure race on earth. I doubt if they are even Semites’. Yet he joined in the clamour against ‘anti-Semitism’ and called it ‘the manifestation of a canker which cats into the very heart of Christianity’.
If such a thing as an anti-Semite exists he might be one, for if the Jews are not Semites the Arabs undoubtedly are and he disliked them; his approved biography attributes ‘racial predilections’ to him and he said: ‘I never saw any romance in the Arabs . . . They are a bitter, recalcitrant little people’. (A curious incident in his career occurred in 1920 when a sect of African Natives, who adopted the Jewish ritual and called themselves Israelites, encamped to celebrate the Passover at a place called Bullhoek and refused to leave it, these Israelites stood fast when troops sent by General Smuts’s government advanced against them, nearly three hundred of them, and one white trooper, being killed).
General Smuts appears to be more closely identified with Political Zionism than even any other Gentile politician of these four decades. When he was made a Freeman of the City of London in 1917 (while the Balfour Declaration was in incubation) he publicly recommended the ‘interesting military and political possibilities’ of a Palestine campaign and spoke of ‘silent, invisible forces’. He habitually used words of mystic fervour about Political Zionism and once said, ‘Nothing in the whole bloody history of the human race compares with the history of the Jewish people’.
Today the bloody expulsion of the Arabs from their native Palestine may be compared with another bloody expulsion in antique and barbaric times. However, he thought what has been done is just: ‘It is not because I love the Jews better than other people that I support them; I love justice’. He became, as a Zionist writer said, ‘the Jews’ leading and accepted, perhaps their only active and consistent friend among the statesmen of the world’ (in both these quotations ‘Jews’ should apparently be read as meaning ‘Political Zionists’).
THE OVERRIDING ALLEGIANCE
Today these beliefs of General Smuts are clearly held by leading politicians in all English-speaking countries, and this will not quickly change because they have established successions loyal to this supreme, if mystic, theory. General Smuts’s political heir was a Mr. J.H. Hofmeyr who told Zionists, ‘Hold fast to that Zionist ideal whatever happens, for it alone can save Jewry and the world’. Mr. Hofmeyr died but the succession passed to another Zionist champion.
The same situation exists in America and Britain. President Truman upheld Political Zionism like Presidents Roosevelt and Wilson. Mr. Churchill, when he became Prime Minister, supported it like Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Balfour, and Mr. Eden has avowed his respect for it. The thrall has spread to all other English-speaking lands. During the struggle at the United Nations Assembly to give a mock-legality to the partition of Palestine the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand delegations suddenly joined with General Smuts’s South African one in ardent support for Political Zionism and in opposition to hardpressed Britain; this was the first great dissension between Commonwealth nations, which in physical danger always immediately united.
The overriding allegiance spreads to all parties in all these countries, too, so that in this matter the English -speaking voter in America, Britain or throughout the Commonwealth countries has no choice. At the last American presidential election the Democratic candidate, Mr. Truman, displayed the Zionist State as a trump card, but the Republican one, Mr. Dewey, appeared to think Zionist favour equally essential and at a Jewish ceremony ‘donned a skull cap for the first time … since he sang in a synagogue choir as a young man’. Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, a leading Democratic personality, became vice-chairman of the ‘National Christian Committee of the United Jewish Appeal’ (which collects funds for Political Zionism); Senator Robert Taft, leader of the Republican Party, became another vice-chairman.
Both parties appear to believe the approval of Political Zionism so important that they will do anything to court it. If they win an election, they think they have won through a mass of votes ‘delivered’ by the Zionist interest; if they lose, they increase their efforts to gain that vote at the next election.
Exactly the same situation exists in England. When the Second War ended (during which the Socialists spoke of ‘encouraging the Arabs to move out and the Jews to move in’) the masses of Jewry swung at once to socialism. Suddenly Jews vanished from the Conservative benches, more Jews than ever before appeared on the Socialists ones and in the government (so that certain measures which cut deeply into the ancient British traditions of liberty and property were associated with the names of Ministers of Russian-Jewish origins).
Immediately the other party the Conservative, redoubled its efforts, not to overthrow Socialism, but to gain Zionist support.
In 1950 a new election came and was fiercely fought in a neck-and-neck contest which brought the Socialist majority down from 140 to 6 seats.
Yet that Homeric struggle, so eagerly watched by the world, was essentially bogus; I believe the Conservative Party management would risk losing an election rather than put up one candidate anywhere who does not accept Political Zionist supremacy and may have lost this election for that sake.*
*See Far and Wide, case of Andrew Fountaine, (pages 305-307).
In about seventy years Political Zionism, a movement of Russian Jews, has established its power over the masses of Jews everywhere and, through Gentile politicians, over the English-speaking nations, the major policies of which are clearly conditioned by it now.
It was a thing born of an innate hostility to Gentiles which no act of Gentile mankind could alter. The success achieved can only be understood by considering the conspiratorial beginnings, among several million Russian Jews who lived self-secluded among Gentiles, who at school, university and in their careers pursued the Zionist ambition parallel with and through their education and professional activities. There is a science of mind-control and these men proved masters of it. They achieved dominance over Gentile politicians and split world Jewry as by atomic fission, reviving in it the doctrine of a peculiar people with a Messianic mission overriding other loyalties, overruling native interests, overlording public affairs.
The propagandist approach to the masses has worked wonders. The minds of men in the mass seem like screens. on which headlines produce an impression. In America, Mr. Albert Jay Nock thought that the increase in literacy (that is, the ability to read words) went parallel with a decrease in comprehension of what was read or what went on. In evidence he compared the American periodicals of today with the much superior ones of forty years ago (a comparison apt in England, too).
SIX MILLION LOST AND FOUND
For a decade at least the majority of Americans were as fearful of the words ‘anti-Semitism’ as an Alabama darkie might be of the evil eye; at that point, thought, reason and discrimination failed. Particularly, the words ‘six million Jewish dead’ seemed to atrophy the power to think. (A relevant reminiscence: at the Paris Peace conference in 1919, after the First War, Dr. Weizmann maintained that ‘as a group the Jews had been hit harder by the war than any other’. People still living may recall the huge casualties on all sides, the ruin in France, the massacres in Russia, the inflation-years in Germany and compare their sum with this statement).
Mr. Nock may be right; a bench of Kentucky farmhands or Sussex gaffers, before they could read, probably would caustically have dismissed such rhetorical extravagances as this one of the six millions.
During the Second War I noticed that the figures of Jewish losses, in places where war made verification impossible, were being irresponsibly inflated, and said so in a book. The process continued until the war’s end when the figure of six millions was produced. A transparently worthless estimate was not only used for mass-delusion through newspapers, but even given official status! If by any turn of chance the American and British representatives who bandied it about at Nuremberg were ever called to answer for it, they might be hard pressed for a defence, for any impartial tribunal might tear it to pieces.
No proof can be given that six million Jews ‘perished’; proof can be adduced that so many could not have perished.
Some casualties in war can be precisely ascertained. Thus in six years the huge expenditure of human and mechanical effort by the Germans, Italians, Japanese and lesser foes killed 824,928 British, Commonwealth and American fighting-men, merchant sailors and civilians (Mr. Churchill’s and General Eisenhower’s figures). The reader may calculate how much more effort would have been needed to kill seven -and-a-half times as many people, separately.
He might consider, too, the output of energy entailed, in the form of desk-work, detectives, constables, vehicles and the like, in the capture of one wanted man, say a felon or one who has lost his memory, and multiply that by six millions. Certain mathematical rules govern destruction on such a scale; you need pursuers jailers, prisons, camps, transport, executioners in numbers inconceivable. The Germans would have needed, behind the fronts, armies perhaps ten times as great as all they disposed of, for such butchery.
In a matter where nothing is verifiable, one thing seems sure: that six million Jews were never even contained in German-occupied territories. Many Jews left Europe before the war began and the only large communities which remained were in Poland and Russia, countries from which trustworthy statistics are not to be expected. Many of those in Poland apparently welcomed the Communist invasion of 1939 and went into the Communist zone.
A Jewish observer, Mr. Levine, * returning to America from Russia in 1946, said: ‘At the outset of the war, as we all know, Jews were among the first evacuated from the western regions threatened by the Hitlerite invaders and shipped to safety east of the Urals’. He said these privileged ones amounted to two millions.
* See Far and Wide, case of Andrew Fountaine, (pages 305-307).
Yet this massive assertion about the six millions was used by politicians in the highest places, by prosecutors at Nuremberg, and habitually by mass-newspapers which in lesser matters would print no statement unverified!
In truth nobody outside Political Zionism knows how many Jews the world contains, partly because Jewry has always included a section which avoids prominence in statistics, partly because the numbers in the Soviet areas cannot be ascertained, partly because Political Zionism has been able to obscure population-movements.
Rabbi Elmer Berger wrote in 1946, of the Jews in Poland and Russia, that he did not know how many had survived ‘and no one knows’. Since President Roosevelt’s time track has been lost of the increase of Jewish population in America, good observers believe it now to approach eight millions. In England the figure is similarly unknown; ‘It is impossible in the absence of official statistics to do more than make an intelligent guess … The exact number of Jews in Britain remains a mystery’ (the Zionist Record).
In my judgment the figure of six millions was a grotesque exaggeration which an un-intimidated press would never have published, save to expose. In this matter the charges brought against the German leaders at Nuremberg cannot be substantiated, yet they were apparently presented as ‘the crux of the case’ (Captain Liddell Hart, alluding to the trial of Field Marshall von Manstein) and the men condemned were executed on the Jewish Day of Atonement. **
* Mr. Louis Levine, President of American Jewish Council for Russian Relief, 1946. ** See Louis Marschalko, The World Conquerors, ch. II.
If ever freedom of debate returns to the world, a board of impartial accountants might be set to study this matter of the six millions, stated by leading politicians of the West, and their representatives at Nuremberg, to have perished. Until then, all the student of the times can do is to try and trace their fate in such figures as are available to him. Figures, however, are curious things; though inanimate, they have a kind of life of their own, and if stretched too far may, like elastic, inflict painful stings and surprises.
Thus the seeker after truth today can only turn to those publications which, for many decades, have built up a reputation for supplying the most authentic and carefully scrutinised statistics in all important matters of the day. The chief of these, in the United States and Britain respectively, are the World Almanac and Whitaker’s Almanac. In a question so shrouded in mystery as that of the number of Jews in the world they, with all others, are thrown on Jewish statistics, and they both state that the ones they present are supplied by Jewish sources, which thus are responsible for them.
Thus the World Almanac for 1947 (two years after the war’s end) printed such Jewish-supplied ‘estimates’, which gave the world’s population of Jews in 1939, when the war began, as 15,688,259. The population after 1945 was not then given. The World Almanac for 1950 and 1951, however, still quoting these Jewish estimates, gave the Jewish population of the world in 1939 as 16,643,120. The Jewish estimators gave no reason why they then found the Jewish population before the war to have increased by a million, it is a large difference in a relatively small figure. In the 1950 and 1951 editions figures for the Jewish population of the World after the war were given: according to these estimates they were 11,373,000 (1950 edition), or 11,303,350 (1951 edition).
If those estimates were correct, that would show the disappearance, if not of six million Jews, then of something over five million (assuming that the amended figure for 1939 is correct, and not the earlier one; in the second case, something over four million Jews disappeared, in these estimates).
Whitaker’s Almanac for 1949 and 1950 gives total estimates, from similar Jewish sources, which approximately correspond with those printed in the World Almanac for 1950 and I951. These state that the Jewish population of the world in 1939 was 16,838,000 and in 1948 11,385,200, a reduction of nearly five and a half millions.
But when the detailed estimates given in both almanacs are more closely compared a large discrepancy becomes apparent. The estimate of the Jewish populations of separate countries, given in Whitaker’s, for 1949 and 1950, adds up to much more (13,120,000) than the total figure (11,385,200) given for the world !
If this were correct, and if the larger figure for 1939 is also the right one, the decline in Jewish population would be something over three and a half millions, or two and a half if by any chance the lower estimate for 1939 were nearer the truth.
Where the real truth is, no man can ascertain, for the truth lies buried in those parts of the world where (as such careful publications wisely state in other sections) no trustworthy statistics can be obtained: Soviet Russia and the Eastern European countries forced into the Soviet area in 1945.
Thus the perspiring student will at length find, when he examines the figures for separate countries, the main reason for the large difference between the estimates published by the World Almanac and by Whitaker’s.
In the Jewish estimates for separate countries supplied to these publications, the Jewish population of the Soviet Union after the war is given at 2,000,000 (in the World Almanac, 1950 and 1951) and 5,300,000 (in Whitaker’s 1949 and 1950)!
The first figure makes the sum, of vanished Jews, work out; in the second one, most of them reappear! That the second one is, in fact, the truer one is suggested by the fact that Whitaker’s breaks down the Soviet population of Jews into cities, giving very large Jewish communities to such traditionally Jewish cities as Odessa and Kieff.
If these figures, as I believe, come much nearer to the truth, the figure of six millions, on the strength or weakness of which such grave things were done, was one which would not bear any scrutiny by independent investigators. It can never be so examined unless and until the Iron Curtain lifts or is smashed.
However, if the estimates supplied to the World Almanac for its 1950 and 1951 editions were correct, they mean that only 2,600,000 Jews now exist in all Soviet Russia and the three traditional countries of large Jewish population in Eastern Europe (Poland. Hungary and Rumania) which at Yalta were forced into the Soviet area. Before the war this area contained between nine and ten million Jews, as far as can be estimated.
According to the Jewish authority I quoted above Jews in it were removed from the regions threatened by Hitler in 1939 and ‘shipped to safety cast of the Urals’. He gave a figure of two millions, apparently for the Eastern European countries alone, without
reference to Jews already in Soviet Russia.
Finally as an illustrative footnote to this excursion into statistics, in 1948 the New York Times (a Jewish-owned newspaper) published what was offered as an authoritative, statistical article, which stated that the figure of the Jewish world population for the year 1948 was between 15,700,000 and 18,600,000.
In a time of such propagandist darkness the lot of the uneasy patriot is hard, in America as in England.
Political Zionism openly shows its power, in ways wounding to native pride, in New York. Crowds of New Yorkers, flocking to hear a famous German pianist were rudely thrust back by Zionist and Communist pickets who said he once played for Hitler; two hours before the concert was due to begin the Department of Justice (given untrammeled powers in such matters by the President) ordered him to leave the country. A Jewish magistrate refused to try young Zionists who threw refuse at a visiting Foreign Minister (Mr. Bevin). A rabbi, marrying a young woman twice found guilty by twelve jurors of Communist espionage (and at liberty pending appeal) wished her happiness with the words: ‘Beyond mere conjecture there is neither proof nor certainty as to any act of disloyalty on your part ‘ .
Literature and the drama come under the Zionist ban, which pauses at no name. The Merchant of ‘Venice is in practice banned in New York (as by law in Moscow). The film of Oliver Twist was long taboo because the lesser of two rogues is a Jew. The Gentile Americans number over 140 millions, but have no free choice from the mind’s menu; the dishes are first tasted by the court official, as it were, and only those approved by him appear on it.
The press for years was almost closed to any reasoned criticism of Political Zionism, in editorial, news or letter columns. (In London, too, analogous conditions obtain. When a Zionist film about Palestine was shown there, and taken off at public protest, three leading London newspapers reported the matter at length without once mentioning the words Palestine, Zionists or Zionism).
For nearly a decade there was in daily reality a very powerful censorship in this one matter. It produced widespread symptoms of mental claustrophobia among the American population and in 1949 began to relax a little under the stress of public exasperation, intuitive if not reasoned. It remains strong and produces a kind of mental twilight which is either that of dusk or dawn and must get better or get worse.
Either the politicians of America (and Britain) will enact laws of lese-majesty in some form, to crush public discussion of the origins and aims of Soviet Communism and Political Zionism, or a more reasonable regime will return and the two great countries will take their destinies in their own hands again.
I believe most Jews would welcome that, but at present they are all classed as Political Zionists by the leading Gentile politicians (rather as Mr. Churchill lumped all Germans together as ’65 millions of these malignant Huns’).
In this twilight period an important part is played by numerous semi-secret organisations which play on the fear of ‘anti-Semitism’. They have public names and offices but are semi-secret in their methods of intimidation.
A chief one is the Anti-Defamation League, originally a fraternal Jewish lodge but now a body of vast resources and endless activities. Its own description of its work is that it ‘sends literature to various groups, works through the radio, the motion-picture industry and other media; subsidises speakers’ bureau’s and publishes periodicals, pamphlets and books (from comic strips to literature), fostering goodwill and condemning discrimination, whether social, political or economic encourages movements, meetings, programmes of all kinds, and uses every advertising media from newspaper advertisements to billboards’. This, it says, ‘amounts to a high-powered educational programme geared to reach every man, woman and child every day of the year’.
The Anti-Defamation League reported that in one recent year it transmitted 2I6 broadcasts a day, that it influenced 1900 daily newspapers with a circulation of 43,000,000, apart from rural foreign language, negro and labour publications, that it placed 330,000 books in public libraries, as well as 9,000,000 pamphlets ‘tailored to fit the audience’, and distributed 40,000,000 comic-strip books to children and servicemen. Through approved lecture bureau’s it presented approved lecturers to 30.000,000 people, and much more.
This is the public side of its work, and plainly represents the indoctrination of public opinion on a scale greater than any commonly practised by regular political parties.
The lesser-known aspect of its activities is the keeping of dossiers and black lists. Its spokesmen (some years ago it claimed 150 public relations committees in as many cities and 2000 key men in a thousand more) have been known to call on editors and publishers to persuade them against publishing material displeasing to it. The fear of losing advertising revenue is strong in America (as in England and the Commonwealth countries).
Similar organisations, open in name but semi-clandestine in method, exist in other countries. Signs of their activity in England have been such things as the sudden deletion (until protest was made) of the term ‘Christian name “from British registration forms in favour of ‘forename’ (‘Christmas’ and ‘Xmas’ might be analogous cases), and the servile and superfluous announcement of twenty-one East End candidates at the last British election t hat they ‘pledged themselves to combat racial and religious prejudice’ (the creation of the non-existent thing).
In France, again, a body called The Centre of Jewish Contemporary Documentation has been formed. The title suggests dossiers and black lists and inevitably awakens memories of Ochrana and Gestapo practices. It was first formed in France during the
German occupation ‘to gather documents and information’. This collection (the speakers said) ‘now contained 75,000 documents of great importance’ and ‘valuable use’ was being made of these, the French delegation at Nuremberg depended entirely’ on these documents and if the Centre had not existed ‘the Nuremberg Trials would not have had the same result’.
Thus the source of such charges as that about the six million dead is seen the repute of American, British and French justice is involved.
All this gives the picture of a growing mechanism of power and indirect control.
I said that for a decade at least the result has been almost to eliminate public discussion of Political Zionism, but that statement has one important exception. The ban runs for Gentiles only. Discussion is boundlessly free in the Zionist press. The perusal of this is somewhat humiliating to the Gentile reader who fears the hold which Political Zionism has gained over his leaders, for he finds in it all the arguments he would himself advance and would like to hear from his own representatives. The Zionist argument dominates, of course, but prudence, doubt, common humanity and reason all come to the word.
The Zionist press contains all that is disallowed, in daily practice, in the Gentile mass-circulation sheets. It gives the true picture of world Jewry in renewed ferment, seeking the truth and its own soul.
The Zionist newspapers reminded me of a Jewish village in Ruthenia in 1938, where a man said to me. ‘These Jews are the most disputatious people in the world among themselves but at the approach of a stranger they close together like a sea urchin at the touch of a human finger’.
In these publications I found the Jew who felt guilt because of the treatment of the Arabs; to whom the ruination of these poor peoples’ homes and homeland by those who complained of homelessness was an awful thing. Next to him was the Jew who was tormented by the revived curse of dual loyalties; he did not want to become an Israeli or a Zionist-in-exile, but to remain a good American, Britisher, Frenchman or German.
Next came the Jew who wanted it both ways, that is, to remain in the Dispersal and be a good Israeli; and the Jew who said, ‘I supported Zionism as a Jewish Nationalist but now the Zionist State is here, for any who want to go to it, I am done with it, I propose to live as a Frenchman’. There was the Jew who wanted the new State to be one of a tribal religion, more exclusive than Hitler’s, the Jew who wanted intermarriage with Gentiles, and the Jew who wanted it to be atheist and communist. There was a Berlin Jew who said five thousand of his fellow Jews there were saved by Germans and he would live nowhere else; Jews who longed to return to Europe and could not; Jews who hated Europe and adored the Communist destroyers of it. There were replies to all these opinions; the debate was open and endless.
Again, I found in the Zionist newspapers the open truth about the cry of ‘anti-Semitism’. I knew it was a transferable label, moved about by the Political Zionists from one country to another in order to keep the Jewish masses on the rack; no Gentile newspaper would print that, but here it was candidly avowed.
A leading Yiddish writer said the Political Zionists were keeping up the clamour of ‘anti-Semitism’ in order to undermine the morale, faith and hope of Jews in their American home. He said the Zionist intention was to keep Jews constantly on edge with the scare of anti-Semitism, not to let them forget the Hitler horrors, and to spread doubts, fear and despair about the future of Jews in America. Every manifestation of anti-Semitism, he wrote, was seized on and exaggerated to create an impression that American Jews stand on the brink of a catastrophe and that, sooner or later, they will have to run for safety.
He proved this by quoting a Hebrew writer in Jerusalem, who said. ‘Upon us, Zionists, now lies the old responsibility of constantly raising the hair of the Jewish people, not to let them rest; to keep them for ever on the edge of a precipice and make them aware of dangers facing them’ (‘raising the hair’ means ‘making the flesh creep`).
This method was explained again by a Zionist publication in Paris, which said that, while American Jews lived in a fool’s paradise, they would never agree to regard that country as a place of transit for Israel, so that they must be ‘propagandised’. By this means they would in time be brought to the Zionist State (where, as another Zionist writer recorded, a ‘pronounced anti-Goyism’ was emerging).
As a companion piece to these candid Zionist statements, the Gentile mass-circulation sheets in 1948 and 1949 began to inform their readers that ‘anti-Semitism’ was rearing its head in the Soviet Empire (a quaint conceit). The Zionist newspapers quietly instructed their better-informed readers not to take these Gentile babblings too seriously; the Soviet remained the Jews’ best friend in the world.*
*c. g. The South A African Jewish Times (Behind the News, -Feb. I970) carried a reassuring article under the heading “USSR would never support Nasser in a War on the Jewish State”.
These quotations show that if the Jews of the world are not to be allowed peace, it is not the Gentile masses who will disturb them, though perhaps the top-line Gentile politicians in their submission to Political Zionism and its falsely Messianic aim of ruling the world from Jerusalem.
Reed’s account of his visit to Carpathian-Ukraine.
The next day I began to study Carpathian-Russia, alias Carpathian-Ukraine. When Czechoslovakia was dismembered, as I wrote earlier, the best thing for this easternmost province, if the welfare of its inhabitants alone were considered, would have been to divide it between Hungary and Poland, since otherwise the few marooned mountaineers who were left could hope for little better than starvation. But this did not happen. Italy did succeed in getting for her protégé, Hungary, the fertile plains to the south and the only two towns of any size, Ungvar and Munkacs, together with the railway. But Germany insisted that a narrow strip, consisting mainly of mountains and intervening valleys running, rib-like, north and south, should remain independent; and this became the home-ruled statelet of Carpathian-Russia. This is the official name for it, but actually the members of the two-man Government are both Ukrainians, and the little state is currently spoken of as Carpathian-Ukraine.
Why? Why were these few hundred thousand half-starved mountaineers cut off from their only chance of making even a meagre living — the Hungarian plain — and given an unwelcome independence?
In order that the name ‘Ukraine’ should be printed on the European map. Poland, which has between 4,500,000 and 7,000,000 Ukrainians, Russia, which has from 20,000,000 to 25,000,000 Ukrainians, both deny that there is a great Ukrainian nation pining to be liberated. But the champion of the principle of self-determination, Germany, has put the word ‘Ukraine’ on the map. The sight of this little self-governed Ukrainian state is supposed to fill the Ukrainians in Poland, Russia and Rumania with longing.
When Germany, after Munich, enforced the creation of Carpathian-Ukraine it did look very much as if the ‘Great Ukraine’ would be the object of the next German coup, and that was why I made that dreary journey, over the one remaining road, to Chust. Germany had already liberated the Ukraine once, during the [First] World War, and put a Hetman there, and the idea of the German-controlled Ukraine, with its great mineral and agricultural wealth, was a pet one of many German expansionists.
For the last twenty years Berlin has been the home of emigrant Ukrainian leaders. The present claimant to the Hetman’s throne lives in Germany, and is said to keep his crown there; he is even a colonel in the German army. Immediately after Munich masses of propaganda about the ‘Great Ukraine’, printed in Berlin, London and New York, began to be distributed. I have even seen a map showing that in the seventeenth century a Great Ukrainian state did exist, comprising the territory, now in Polish, Russian and Rumanian possession, that the Ukrainian patriots of to-day claim for it. But, for that matter, in the seventeenth century nobody questioned the historic frontiers of Bohemia. These were mutilated for the first time in history by the Men of Munich; it would be strange if an indirect result of their work were to be the restoration of the original frontiers of Ukrainia as they existed in that same century.
So everything, after Munich, seemed to point to the Great Ukraine as the direction of Germany’s next great coup. But when I went to Carpathian-Ukraine I became rather doubtful about this, or at any rate about the possibility of using Carpathian-Ukraine as a suitable basis for the erection of the Great Ukraine, or as a springboard for the great Ukrainian swoop.
For one thing, there is only the one road, at present, leading to Carpathian-Ukraine. It goes up hill and down dale for some hundreds of miles, and would need a deal of improvement before it could be used for major military operations. For another, the population of this remote statelet only amounts to about half a million people. The evidence of the eye would suggest that about half of these are Jews; actually a sixth is probably nearer the truth. The remainder comprise some of the most miserably poor and racially mixed people in Europe; most of them do not themselves know what they are, but they know that they have nothing to eat. Many of them speak two, three, four or five languages or dialects, and have been successively told in the last twenty-five years that they are Hungarians, Ruthenians, and, now, Ukrainians. The proportion of them who have any knowledge of what a Ukrainian is is very small. This is not very important; the only thing that is important for these people is that they should be lifted out of the misery in which they live, and if anything happens to achieve that, whether it be called the Great Ukraine or what not, it will be welcome.
Never have I seen such poverty as reigns in Carpathian-Ukraine, although I believe rather similar conditions existed in Ireland, before the war, before the Irish took their affairs into their own hands, in the days when the land was at the mercy of the absentee landlord. Here, in these remote Carpathian hills and valleys, the peasant has a house without a chimney, without flooring. He builds his fire on the stamped-earth floor and the smoke just rises and filters through the roof. Geese, pigs and goats, if he is lucky enough to have any, share the one room with him and his family. For food, he has insufficient quantities of maize bread, which is only just edible. If he has half an acre of land he may pull a rudely-fashioned plough across it himself, or turn it over with a spade.
Money he never sees. He thinks with regret of the great days when he could at harvest time at least go down into Hungary and work on the big estates and bring back, as his wage, a side of bacon for the winter. That was wealth to him.
These peasants, their wives and children, live like animals. Even that is an under-statement. In many districts they are animals. I can see hardly any difference between their life and that of an animal. In one district, round the villages of Svalava and Verezky, where there are a few small factories, inter-marriage and the drinking of methylated spirits has produced a stunted race of deformed and mentally inferior people. Their life is so hard and their wages so small that their only solace is drinking spirits, and as they cannot afford Schnapps, at 36 kronen a litre, they buy methylated spirits from unscrupulous dealers at 5 kronen a litre. It brings intoxication and forgetfulness of hunger in half an hour.
Carpathian-Ukraine is a good place to study the persecution of a non-Jewish community by the Jewish one. Here, for the first time, I saw the Eastern Jews in their native habitat. By the time they reach Budapest, Vienna, Berlin or Prague they are already Westernized. Here, as in Poland, you have the raw material of your Hollywood film producers and screen stars, your international bankers, your slick Jewish journalists — for here, in Carpathian-Ukraine, they are learning English too.
Here you have a peasant population that has been plundered and bled white in centuries of exploitation, that has passed from one tyranny to another, Czars, kings, nobles, the Church, Russia, Poland, Hungary, and is now completely in the thrall of the Jewish community, which according to statistics only comprises about 15 per cent of the whole, but which controls all the money-power, the trade, commerce and banking. It is a grip far more subtle but as vice-like as that of any dictators. There is no escape for the peasant.
In Carpathian-Ukraine you are far more acutely aware of the Jews than in other countries, because they wear the uniform of black hat, caftan, ringlets and beard. In every town and village you enter they thus thrust themselves on your gaze, and your first impression is that they must be numerically predominant, that there must be more Jews than non-Jews in the place. This is not the fact. The reason is that they own all the shops and house-property in the main square and in the centre of the town generally. The non-Jews live in the meaner streets and remoter quarters.
The way to test this is to go through one of these towns on Friday evening, when the Jewish Sabbath begins. Nearly all the shops in the place are closed; it is difficult for the non-Jewish population to buy anything on Friday evening or Saturday morning. The squeeze-out of the non-Jews is complete. Only large and financially powerful concerns, like Bata, can hope to compete with the Jewish traders, and perhaps a non-Jewish shopkeeper here and there who keeps going chiefly on what he earns on Friday evening and Saturday morning. The non-Jewish small trader, with little capital, almost invariably goes bankrupt before very long. The Jews quarrel a good deal, and violently, among themselves, but at the approach of a non-Jew they close their ranks with a solidarity impossible to find among any other people in the world, unless it be some remote race in Tibet.
The wholesale trade is almost exclusively in the hands of the Jews, and the downfall of the non-Jewish interloper is achieved by supplying his Jewish competitors with goods at prices which enable them to undersell him. If any Jew fails to fall into line the services of the rabbi are enlisted and heavy punishments may be enforced against him; he may be refused access to the ritual bath, or the Jewish slaughterer may be ordered not to kill his chickens for him.
The peasant is entirely in the hands of the Jews. If he has any money and wishes to buy anything, he must buy it from a Jew. If he has no money, and needs to borrow some for his taxes or his mortgage, he must borrow it from a Jew. If he has something to sell, he can only sell it to the Jewish dealers. If he wishes to hire a plough, he must hire it, at a high rate, from a Jew. Most sinister of all, if he wants to drink — and spirits form his only solace — he must go to a Jew for it, for the great majority of the alcohol licences are in the hands of Jews. If he goes to law, he puts money into the pocket of the Jewish lawyer — for in Carpathian-Ukraine only 19 of the 160 lawyers are non-Jews. To litigate against a Jew, in these conditions, is for him an almost hopeless proceeding.
It is an iron ring, from which there is no escape. It is often said that there are many poor Jews in this region. The non-Jews are all poor. There are many Jews who look poor, very few who are poor in the sense that the peasant is poor.
All in all, I came to feel dubious, after looking at Carpathian-Ukraine, about the imminence of the Great Ukrainian coup, under German leadership. Carpathian-Ukraine did not seem to me a good basis either for major military or for major political operations.
Only a few score people, in the little Government and administration, feel Ukrainian and pine for the Great Ukrainian state. The real Ukrainians, the potential Ukrainian nation, live under Polish and Russian rule, and how are you to get at them, without war? After Munich, Poland and Russia seemed to be moving together, against this threat, but after that again came Franco’s progress in Spain, and suddenly you found Colonel Beck, the Polish Foreign Minister, at Berchtesgaden, and Herr von Ribbentrop, the German Foreign Minister, in Warsaw, and it looked to me very much as if Germany found the prospects in the West and in the Mediterranean improving so much that she was turning her eyes in that direction and shelving the Ukrainian project for the present, as if she were telling Poland, ‘Now, just behave well if anything explodes in Western Europe and nothing will happen to you’.
The only signs of the Great Ukrainian movement that I could find in Chust were the German-backed Government, headed by a cleric, Mgr. Voloshin, and his one Minister, M. Revay, who both count as Ukrainians, and the Ukrainian Storm Troops, the Karpatska Sitch, of whom I saw a few here and there in their grey-green uniforms. A German officer or two had passed that way, a German geologist or two, a German road-surveyor or two. But on the whole, the signs were that Germany was not signalling full-steam-ahead in the Ukraine, for the present.
The Great Ukrainian iron is a good one to have in the fire, and with the creation of this little state the iron is there, ready for use one day. But I fancy the fire will need a good deal of stoking, the iron a good deal of heating. In any case, one Great Power, Russia, and one almost Great Power, Poland, are involved, and I cannot see how Germany can for the present get over that.
For the moment, Hungary and Rumania seem to offer less certain prospects of resistance to German expansionism, I thought, after looking at Carpathian-Ukraine. So I burned the remains of my Christmas tree in the little iron stove, packed my bags, and boarded the ancient bus again. (Douglas Reed, Disgrace Abounding, Jonathan Cape, London, [DATE].)
Reproduced From: Ukrainian Archive