The Czech Conspiracy – A Phase in the World-War Plot

 

     George Henry Lane-Fox Pitt-Rivers, B Sc. (Oxon.), F.R.A.I.,
Late Captain of The Royal Dragoons; formerly Fellow Commoner, Worcester College, Oxford; First General Secretary of the International Union for the Scientific Investigation of Population.
Author of: The World Significance of the Russian Revolution (1920)
and The Clash of Culture and the Contact of Races (1927), etc.
2nd (enlarged) edition. The Boswell Publishing Co. Ltd., 10 Essex Street, London, W. C. 2, 1938.
This digitalized version © 2004 by The Scriptorium.
Except for Daily Express facsimile on p. 1, and except where noted otherwise, all illustrations are from the original.

1. Prologue
2. Concealment of the Truth
3. Origin of the Czecho-Slovak Republic
4. The National Minorities and their Czech Masters
5. The Reward for Desertion and Betrayal: The Czechs in Russia
6. Under the Czech Terror in Bohemia:
    Arrest of English Investigators by the Czech Police
7. Towards Armageddon up to September 26th
8. Epilogue
9. Notes and References
 The Czech Conspiracy A Phase in the World-War Plot http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/czechconspiracy/cc00.html The Czech Conspiracy A Phase in the World-War Plot George Henry Lane-Fox Pitt-Rivers “The surest way to prevent seditions is to take away the matter of them. For if there be fuel prepared, it is hard to tell whence the spark shall come, that shall set it on fire.” (Francis Bacon) Prologue: Why and how this book was written This book is about the latest phase of the World-War Plot and its Consequences, for Europe and for us. It was first published as a pamphlet under the title Czecho-Slovakia during the recent crisis, and was written immediately after my return from a tour in Central Europe. As the result of requests from some Members of Parliament and some friends who wished to have in handy form, before the national crisis was debated in Parliament, some inside information as well as access to sources and documents not easily procurable or available, the pamphlet was compiled under circumstances of great difficulty within the space of a very few days. The second, and much enlarged, edition now called for meets a wider need. It provides, on the one hand, a historical record in which the seeds of the present world situation are traced back to the balance of European powers at the time of the Treaty of Berlin in 1878, and on the other reveals some of those hidden undercurrents that run beneath the diplomatic and political records of the present and past which still threaten us with catastrophe and disaster, unless we are in a position to recognise and understand their meaning. Since the end of the World War I have devoted myself to the related studies of anthropology, agriculture, the science of population and of international affairs. In their pursuit I have made frequent visits, sometimes on university lecture tours, to Germany, France, Spain, Belgium, Poland, and Czecho-Slovakia, as well as to other countries. In 1936 I visited Spain after the outbreak of the Civil War. The same year found me studying the minority problems in Czecho-Slovakia. Events in these two countries have been closely connected and are linked with events in France and England. It was Lenin who once said: “Poignardez d’abord l’Espagne et puis la France.” It was the Comintern and the “Internationals” which planned to Bolshevise Spain, not without the complicity of some English politicians. When plans miscarried, owing to General Franco’s victory, Czecho-Slovakia, which had for long been used in the game, was chosen as the readiest means to bring about a world war. I make no profession of having “purely academic interests.” Invariably such pretensions conceal ulterior motives or fail to conceal the cautious pedantry and the dullness of those who have no living interests at all. Of course I am strongly, even passionately, biased – but only in favour of the truth. And I am careless – whether the truth be welcome or not. The very English and learned Dr. Johnson once wrote: “The true lover of his country is ready to communicate his fears, and to sound the alarm, whenever he perceives the approach of mischief. He sounds no alarm when there is no enemy. Popular instructions are commonly the work, not of the wise and steady but the violent and rash, whose meetings are seldom attended but by the idle and dissolute. As war is one of the heaviest of national evils, a calamity in which every species of misery is involved, no man who desires the public prosperity will inflame general resentment.” It is in the control of public instruction that the greatest danger to peace and prosperity now lies. It is in the contrast revealed between the true facts and public distortion of them that the value of this work may be found. My readers may, in this study, be helped to decide whether it is better that the publication of lies, damaging to the interests of the nation, should be punished or, as in England, that the publication of the truth, damaging to individuals and to political interests, should so often be treated as a criminal offence and a source of lucrative profit to affluent and privileged rogues. We may even consider whether it is better, as in England, that the Press should control the Government or, as in Germany, that the Government should control the Press. Just returned from my tour around the “tinder-box of Europe,” I was asked by Lord Lymington, on September 16th [1938], with some others, to address a packed and enthusiastic meeting in the Caxton Hall. Almost, if not actually, the only newspaper to mention the meeting was the New Statesman and Nation, a journal whose enthusiasm for another “war to make the world safe for democracy” led it to bemoan the failure of Monsieur Mandel and Monsieur Paul Reynaud to bring it about, in an article in the same number, September 24th, under the title “Cold Feet in Paris”. This was the same Monsieur Mandel who was Monsieur Clemenceau’s Private Secretary at the Peace Conference. Could it have been M. Mandel’s Jewishness which accounted for his waning influence during the crisis in Paris? This journal, which hoped that, with the help of Mr. Churchill, Mr. Eden, and Sir Archibald Sinclair, “Mr. Chamberlain can be overthrown in the next fortnight” also noted with satisfaction that the three press reporters, sitting at the table in Caxton Hall, bit their pencils and hung their heads without taking down a word. The New Statesman, however, also appears to have had an attentive correspondent in the hall who reported in its pages that “the audience yelled its disapproval of Czecho-Slovakia, of Soviet Russia, of the Jews, of the Communists, of ‘howling Deans from the wilds of Kent,’ and of the whole British press.” I do not recollect that any speaker, including myself, was guilty of coupling together in one sweeping condemnation this galaxy of political talent, on whose behalf we were expected to send our sons to the shambles. We must, therefore, be grateful to this journal for making the connection clear, and for saving from oblivion this significant indication of the audience’s native English opinion. I preserve, also, from its pages a reference to the fact that I was, anonymously, given the credit for quoting Isaac d’Israeli with approval. The actual quotation, however, was not, curiously enough, given by the New Statesman. It was Isaac d’Israeli’s definition of politics: “The art of governing mankind by deceiving them.” The next reverberation of the Caxton Hall meeting fluttered in the pages of the Jewish Chronicle, which in its issue of September 30th quoted the New Statesman’s account of the meeting. This so alarmed the gentleman who took the chair at that meeting, Mr. Michael Beaumont, former M.P. for Aylesbury and described as a Territorial officer, that he rushed into print in the issue of October 7th of the Jewish Chronicle in order to explain that the New Statesman had not the decency to say that he was no party to any racial dispute and opposed to any form of “anti-Semitism.” He was, moreover, “a life-long and violent opponent of anti-Semitism in any form.” He had, however, “received a pledge, which was not kept, that no anti-Jewish doctrine would be advanced.” This was the first and only indication I received that I had been invited on a platform, not, as I had been led to believe, to talk about Czecho-Slovakia and the crisis, including, of course, the minority problems of Central Europe, but apparently in order to avoid all mention of only one minority – and a very important one – the Jewish minority. It should be needless to say that under such conditions no scientific ethnographer could ever mention the minority problem at all; nor could he intelligently mention Czecho-Slovakia, nor the crisis, nor international affairs, nor Palestine, nor the domestic politics of England, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Roumania, Russia, Spain, Mexico, or the United States of America. Of course it is equally important not to over-emphasise unduly and unnecessarily any one minority; nor is a scientific ethnographer likely to talk about “philo-Semitism” and “anti-Semitism,” as though any such race as a “Semitic” race existed. The Arabs and Jews of Palestine, for example, do not belong to the same racial group. “Semitic” is a linguistic, not a racial, distinction and group. The word “Semite” derives, as everyone knows, from the mythological Hebrew account of the descendants of Shem the son of Noah. It has no ethnological meaning. In Czecho-Slovakia the problem of the Jews was particularly difficult for a demographer to deal with because of the lack of proper statistics. Under the administration of President Masaryk and Benesh a Jew could either register as belonging to a “Jewish national minority” or, if he preferred, as belonging to other of the national minorities, German, Hungarian, Polish, Ruthenian, or Czech. In addition to his choice of “national registration” he might also register, at the same time, as belonging to the Confessional, or Orthodox Jewish, congregation: as a Czech, a German, or Pole of the Jewish faith. Consequently there was no correspondence between the “Confessional” Jews, the “National” Jews, and those non-Orthodox persons of Jewish origin and race who might be registered as German or Czech, etc. The importance of Jews in this part of the world was recognised long before the Czech state existed and Mr. Wickham Steed, in his Hapsburg Monarchy (1913), wrote: “Among the peoples of Austria-Hungary the Jewish people stands first in importance. It is not usually enumerated among the Hapsburg ‘nationalities,’ though the Zionist movement has brought into being a Jewish National Organisation which was represented in the Parliament of 1907 by two Zionist deputies and by a politician who was described as a ‘Moderate Israelite’. In Statistical Year Books the Jews figure only as a ‘denomination.'” For the purpose of clear definition and statistics it would be desirable, especially with the assistance and collaboration of the Jewish Community itself, to distinguish the three categories of modern Israelites as: Political and cultural Jews (including Zionists); denominational and Orthodox Jews; and racial Jews, or Jews by origin and extraction. For convenience, both Jews and non-Jews may agree to employ the term “Jew” to cover all three categories; this would, I believe, conform to its use by such scholars as Professor Gilbert Murray, President of the League of Nations Union. It is the Jew himself, not the Gentile, who has insisted that his nationality, his religion, and his race should be inseparable. Mr. Leon Simon in his Studies in Jewish Nationalism (1920) refers to this insistence as “that deep-rooted instinct which makes him insist at all costs on being something different from his surroundings – an instinct which is religious as well as national only because the nationality of the Jew is inseparable from his national and universal God…. It is misleading to speak of the Jewish system of life as a religious system if we are using the term ‘religious’ in the sense in which it is ordinarily taken…. The Messianic age means for the Jew… the universal recognition of the Jew and his God.” Professor Gilbert Murray once wrote me in a somewhat jocular vein under date January 20th, 1936, in reply to some questions I had raised regarding the League of Nations and the Zionist movement. He wrote as follows: “It is sad that the Jews have so much influence over the Conservatives, the Bishops and the Cecil family, but I am still more disturbed by the rumours I hear of the control exercised by the devil-worshipping Yezidis over the Wessex farmers and the Pitt-Rivers family. How little we suspected these things when we had that pleasant dinner together. Yours sincerely, Gilbert Murray.” This ironic letter may have had no more than a flippant intention but the President of the League of Nations Union, a man of affairs and a great scholar, should surely have been able to say what meaning he attaches to the term “Jew”. In 1920 he wrote in the Contemporary Review a very serious article about Satan and the League of Nations, entitled: “Satanism and the World Order,” which has since become very well known and much quoted. The article ended with the following exhortation: “We have clear schemes set before us of the road ahead which will lead… into regions of safety: the League of Nations. If the great democracies permanently prefer to follow low motives and to be governed by inferior men, it looks as if not the British Empire only, but the whole World Order established by the end of the War and summarised roughly in the League of Nations, may pass from history under the same fatal sentence as the great empires of the past.” In reminding Professor Gilbert Murray of his prophecy, uttered over the cradle of the League, I suggested on March 8th, 1936 that the League of Nations had already been fatally stabbed by the javelin of Nemesis, which venerable goddess had already, long ago, prophesied that the League could not survive the Abyssinian War, then being brought to a close, and wrote: • “Since the ghost of the League of Nations only now manifests itself under the guise of the scholarship of Professor Gilbert Murray, the political activities of the Cecil family and the sartorial effects of Mr. Anthony Eden, the discussion seems relegated to the academic realms of history and the literary commentaries of Francis Bacon on former Ethiopian conflicts. “‘Nemesis’ was said by Francis Bacon to be ‘a venerable Goddess feared by Fortune’s favourites, portrayed with a javelin in her right hand and in her left a pitcher with the similitudes of Ethiopians engraved upon it. And before those whom she destroys, not in their calamity and misfortune but when Fortune’s favourites come before the Common People, she ever presents the black and dismal spectacle of the Troops of Ethiopia.’
”With regard to the Jewish question, I do not think you quite correctly appreciated my use of the term…. In its broader cultural sense I use the term ‘Jewish’ rather like you use the word ‘Hellenic’ when you (in Four Stages of Greek Religion) write: ‘The new spirit of classical Greece with its humanity, its intellectual life, its genius for poetry and art, describes itself as being Hellenic – like the Hellenes. But where no man’s ancestry would bear much inspection the only way to show you were a true Hellene was to behave as such.’ Similarly, the new spirit of international Jewry, with its genius for finance, manipulation and usury, for racial, intellectual and religious confusions, describes itself as merely being ‘Jewish’ – like the Jews; the English language has even made a verb of it – ‘to Jew’.
”How little I suspected many years ago when I read your article on ‘Satanism’ in the Contemporary Review that you were describing Satan as a gentleman who did not like Jewish methods nor the League of Nations.” It is gratifying to think that, when we were writing eighteen years ago, so great a scholar as Gilbert Murray and so little known an author as myself were both such good prophets. The wave of anti-Jewish rioting and agitation, now more marked than ever before, was and is a disquieting feature of the aftermath of the Armageddon that failed. It was particularly noticeable and widespread in France, and was renewed after a young Polish Jew walked into the German Embassy in Paris, on November 7th, and shot and mortally wounded the young German Third Secretary. Even in the Czech areas of Bohemia and Moravia, since the collapse of the Benesh régime, anti-Jew rioting broke out, and a new “anti-Semitic” weekly, the Obnowa, appeared in Prague in November. The B.B.C. suggested, however, without reason, that the reaction was almost confined to Germany. What is the truth? Is it not significant that a prominent English newspaper, the Daily Express, on March 24th, 1933, the year of Hitler’s rise to power, streamed a headline across the front page: “JUDEA DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY”? Beneath it was produced a picture of Hitler being judged by four Rabbis, and the leading article was: “Jews of all the World Unite” – “Boycott German Goods.” Was it then to have been a war of racial revenge that we, together with France and as the ally of Bolshevik Russia, were asked to wage war in 1938? In conclusion it remains to me to thank all those friends whose encouragements or impetuous demands that I should offer such special knowledge, training, and expertise as I may possess, to the public for whatever good use they may care to make of it, were responsible for this book being written. In particular I would thank Seaton Fox for making available his valuable collection of rare documents and books and for equally valuable suggestions, to my old friend Georges Batault and Léon de Poncins, to my publishers, and lastly and above all to Becky Sharpe, my private secretary and companion on many scientific excursions and travels, lecture tours and congresses, which took us together to Spain during the Civil War and to the famine districts of Czecho-Slovakia. In the belief that the ages should be explained by the hours as the hours can be instructed by the ages, I address this volume to those in Parliament or outside who, for good or evil, direct our national destiny, to those who take part in public affairs or local government, in education or public instruction, and to all those amongst my friends, as well as those I have not met, especially in England, France, Germany, and Italy, who believe that the future peace of the world, the prosperity of their own nations, the security of their homes, and the happiness of future generations, depend upon the will to organise, not for war but for peace, upon the foundations laid by the four statesmen who signed the Four-Power Pact at Munich on September 29th, and by the British Premier and the German Führer who signed the Goodwill Declaration on September 30th, 1938. GEORGE PITT-RIVERS, Hinton St. Mary, November, 1938.   Concealment of the Truth Until, in August and September 1938, the newsboys shrieked the scare-line headings in the streets of London: “Gravest Crisis Since the War” – “Peace or War” – “Hitler Unmasked” – “Herr Henlein’s Demands” – “Czechs Ready to Die for their Country”, few people in England knew much about the Czechs or the country they lived in; it had occurred to very few Englishmen why they should take any great interest in that country unless they wanted to buy cheap coloured glass, “made in Czecho-Slovakia”, or unless, maybe, they remembered that Karlsbad plums and Pilsener beer were pleasant comestibles which took their names from two towns in what was once Austria before the twenty-year Balkan Republic ever existed, and for which the name “Czecho-Slovakia” was invented. It certainly never occurred to the man-in-the-street twenty years ago, at the end of the “War to end War and make the World Safe for Democracy”, that old soldiers should be invited again so soon to send their sons to die, not for their own country, not for liberty and their homes, but, so the democratic press vociferously explained, in order that seven million Czechs, allied to 260-million-odd Russians, Frenchmen, and Englishmen, should prevent a little handful of 3½ million half-starved German Bohemians being allowed to vote for Home Rule or even to have enough to eat. The questions that every Englishman wants answered stand out: • Who wants war? • Why? Who profits by war? • How are we concerned? Every Englishman had a right to the answers and of access to the truth – in a matter of life and death. I have undertaken here to set out calmly, dispassionately, and briefly, the principal facts known to me, by personal observation and experiences, by twenty years’ study of these problems in Central Europe, and by my recent adventures in the country which is the Tinder-Box of Europe. True words are not pleasant: pleasant words are not true. So the greatest Chinese sage of all time addressed the small glib liars of the world, who are hired to use words in order to confuse and mislead, and those greater liars who have the power, and use it, to suppress and outlaw the truth. I stand aghast at the power of falsehood! Let every good man and true who knows any hidden fact in the many-sided crystal which makes the whole truth, speak it at the bar of public opinion and shout it above the chattering and lying din. • “Let him take both reputation and life in his hands, and with perfect urbanity, dare the gibbet and the mob by the absolute truth of his speech and the rectitude of his behaviour.” (Emerson.) If, then, in the cause of Truth, I must accuse and give the lie to the printed or the spoken word – I do! 

 The Czech Conspiracy A Phase in the World-War Plot The Czech Conspiracy A Phase in the World-War Plot George Henry Lane-Fox Pitt-Rivers “The surest way to prevent seditions is to take away the matter of them. For if there be fuel prepared, it is hard to tell whence the spark shall come, that shall set it on fire.” (Francis Bacon) Prologue: Why and how this book was written This book is about the latest phase of the World-War Plot and its Consequences, for Europe and for us. It was first published as a pamphlet under the title Czecho-Slovakia during the recent crisis, and was written immediately after my return from a tour in Central Europe. As the result of requests from some Members of Parliament and some friends who wished to have in handy form, before the national crisis was debated in Parliament, some inside information as well as access to sources and documents not easily procurable or available, the pamphlet was compiled under circumstances of great difficulty within the space of a very few days. The second, and much enlarged, edition now called for meets a wider need. It provides, on the one hand, a historical record in which the seeds of the present world situation are traced back to the balance of European powers at the time of the Treaty of Berlin in 1878, and on the other reveals some of those hidden undercurrents that run beneath the diplomatic and political records of the present and past which still threaten us with catastrophe and disaster, unless we are in a position to recognise and understand their meaning. Since the end of the World War I have devoted myself to the related studies of anthropology, agriculture, the science of population and of international affairs. In their pursuit I have made frequent visits, sometimes on university lecture tours, to Germany, France, Spain, Belgium, Poland, and Czecho-Slovakia, as well as to other countries. In 1936 I visited Spain after the outbreak of the Civil War. The same year found me studying the minority problems in Czecho-Slovakia. Events in these two countries have been closely connected and are linked with events in France and England. It was Lenin who once said: “Poignardez d’abord l’Espagne et puis la France.” It was the Comintern and the “Internationals” which planned to Bolshevise Spain, not without the complicity of some English politicians. When plans miscarried, owing to General Franco’s victory, Czecho-Slovakia, which had for long been used in the game, was chosen as the readiest means to bring about a world war. I make no profession of having “purely academic interests.” Invariably such pretensions conceal ulterior motives or fail to conceal the cautious pedantry and the dullness of those who have no living interests at all. Of course I am strongly, even passionately, biased – but only in favour of the truth. And I am careless – whether the truth be welcome or not. The very English and learned Dr. Johnson once wrote: “The true lover of his country is ready to communicate his fears, and to sound the alarm, whenever he perceives the approach of mischief. He sounds no alarm when there is no enemy. Popular instructions are commonly the work, not of the wise and steady but the violent and rash, whose meetings are seldom attended but by the idle and dissolute. As war is one of the heaviest of national evils, a calamity in which every species of misery is involved, no man who desires the public prosperity will inflame general resentment.” It is in the control of public instruction that the greatest danger to peace and prosperity now lies. It is in the contrast revealed between the true facts and public distortion of them that the value of this work may be found. My readers may, in this study, be helped to decide whether it is better that the publication of lies, damaging to the interests of the nation, should be punished or, as in England, that the publication of the truth, damaging to individuals and to political interests, should so often be treated as a criminal offence and a source of lucrative profit to affluent and privileged rogues. We may even consider whether it is better, as in England, that the Press should control the Government or, as in Germany, that the Government should control the Press. Just returned from my tour around the “tinder-box of Europe,” I was asked by Lord Lymington, on September 16th [1938], with some others, to address a packed and enthusiastic meeting in the Caxton Hall. Almost, if not actually, the only newspaper to mention the meeting was the New Statesman and Nation, a journal whose enthusiasm for another “war to make the world safe for democracy” led it to bemoan the failure of Monsieur Mandel and Monsieur Paul Reynaud to bring it about, in an article in the same number, September 24th, under the title “Cold Feet in Paris”. This was the same Monsieur Mandel who was Monsieur Clemenceau’s Private Secretary at the Peace Conference. Could it have been M. Mandel’s Jewishness which accounted for his waning influence during the crisis in Paris? This journal, which hoped that, with the help of Mr. Churchill, Mr. Eden, and Sir Archibald Sinclair, “Mr. Chamberlain can be overthrown in the next fortnight” also noted with satisfaction that the three press reporters, sitting at the table in Caxton Hall, bit their pencils and hung their heads without taking down a word. The New Statesman, however, also appears to have had an attentive correspondent in the hall who reported in its pages that “the audience yelled its disapproval of Czecho-Slovakia, of Soviet Russia, of the Jews, of the Communists, of ‘howling Deans from the wilds of Kent,’ and of the whole British press.” I do not recollect that any speaker, including myself, was guilty of coupling together in one sweeping condemnation this galaxy of political talent, on whose behalf we were expected to send our sons to the shambles. We must, therefore, be grateful to this journal for making the connection clear, and for saving from oblivion this significant indication of the audience’s native English opinion. I preserve, also, from its pages a reference to the fact that I was, anonymously, given the credit for quoting Isaac d’Israeli with approval. The actual quotation, however, was not, curiously enough, given by the New Statesman. It was Isaac d’Israeli’s definition of politics: “The art of governing mankind by deceiving them.” The next reverberation of the Caxton Hall meeting fluttered in the pages of the Jewish Chronicle, which in its issue of September 30th quoted the New Statesman’s account of the meeting. This so alarmed the gentleman who took the chair at that meeting, Mr. Michael Beaumont, former M.P. for Aylesbury and described as a Territorial officer, that he rushed into print in the issue of October 7th of the Jewish Chronicle in order to explain that the New Statesman had not the decency to say that he was no party to any racial dispute and opposed to any form of “anti-Semitism.” He was, moreover, “a life-long and violent opponent of anti-Semitism in any form.” He had, however, “received a pledge, which was not kept, that no anti-Jewish doctrine would be advanced.” This was the first and only indication I received that I had been invited on a platform, not, as I had been led to believe, to talk about Czecho-Slovakia and the crisis, including, of course, the minority problems of Central Europe, but apparently in order to avoid all mention of only one minority – and a very important one – the Jewish minority. It should be needless to say that under such conditions no scientific ethnographer could ever mention the minority problem at all; nor could he intelligently mention Czecho-Slovakia, nor the crisis, nor international affairs, nor Palestine, nor the domestic politics of England, France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Hungary, Roumania, Russia, Spain, Mexico, or the United States of America. Of course it is equally important not to over-emphasise unduly and unnecessarily any one minority; nor is a scientific ethnographer likely to talk about “philo-Semitism” and “anti-Semitism,” as though any such race as a “Semitic” race existed. The Arabs and Jews of Palestine, for example, do not belong to the same racial group. “Semitic” is a linguistic, not a racial, distinction and group. The word “Semite” derives, as everyone knows, from the mythological Hebrew account of the descendants of Shem the son of Noah. It has no ethnological meaning. In Czecho-Slovakia the problem of the Jews was particularly difficult for a demographer to deal with because of the lack of proper statistics. Under the administration of President Masaryk and Benesh a Jew could either register as belonging to a “Jewish national minority” or, if he preferred, as belonging to other of the national minorities, German, Hungarian, Polish, Ruthenian, or Czech. In addition to his choice of “national registration” he might also register, at the same time, as belonging to the Confessional, or Orthodox Jewish, congregation: as a Czech, a German, or Pole of the Jewish faith. Consequently there was no correspondence between the “Confessional” Jews, the “National” Jews, and those non-Orthodox persons of Jewish origin and race who might be registered as German or Czech, etc. The importance of Jews in this part of the world was recognised long before the Czech state existed and Mr. Wickham Steed, in his Hapsburg Monarchy (1913), wrote: “Among the peoples of Austria-Hungary the Jewish people stands first in importance. It is not usually enumerated among the Hapsburg ‘nationalities,’ though the Zionist movement has brought into being a Jewish National Organisation which was represented in the Parliament of 1907 by two Zionist deputies and by a politician who was described as a ‘Moderate Israelite’. In Statistical Year Books the Jews figure only as a ‘denomination.'” For the purpose of clear definition and statistics it would be desirable, especially with the assistance and collaboration of the Jewish Community itself, to distinguish the three categories of modern Israelites as: Political and cultural Jews (including Zionists); denominational and Orthodox Jews; and racial Jews, or Jews by origin and extraction. For convenience, both Jews and non-Jews may agree to employ the term “Jew” to cover all three categories; this would, I believe, conform to its use by such scholars as Professor Gilbert Murray, President of the League of Nations Union. It is the Jew himself, not the Gentile, who has insisted that his nationality, his religion, and his race should be inseparable. Mr. Leon Simon in his Studies in Jewish Nationalism (1920) refers to this insistence as “that deep-rooted instinct which makes him insist at all costs on being something different from his surroundings – an instinct which is religious as well as national only because the nationality of the Jew is inseparable from his national and universal God…. It is misleading to speak of the Jewish system of life as a religious system if we are using the term ‘religious’ in the sense in which it is ordinarily taken…. The Messianic age means for the Jew… the universal recognition of the Jew and his God.” Professor Gilbert Murray once wrote me in a somewhat jocular vein under date January 20th, 1936, in reply to some questions I had raised regarding the League of Nations and the Zionist movement. He wrote as follows: “It is sad that the Jews have so much influence over the Conservatives, the Bishops and the Cecil family, but I am still more disturbed by the rumours I hear of the control exercised by the devil-worshipping Yezidis over the Wessex farmers and the Pitt-Rivers family. How little we suspected these things when we had that pleasant dinner together. Yours sincerely, Gilbert Murray.” This ironic letter may have had no more than a flippant intention but the President of the League of Nations Union, a man of affairs and a great scholar, should surely have been able to say what meaning he attaches to the term “Jew”. In 1920 he wrote in the Contemporary Review a very serious article about Satan and the League of Nations, entitled: “Satanism and the World Order,” which has since become very well known and much quoted. The article ended with the following exhortation: “We have clear schemes set before us of the road ahead which will lead… into regions of safety: the League of Nations. If the great democracies permanently prefer to follow low motives and to be governed by inferior men, it looks as if not the British Empire only, but the whole World Order established by the end of the War and summarised roughly in the League of Nations, may pass from history under the same fatal sentence as the great empires of the past.” In reminding Professor Gilbert Murray of his prophecy, uttered over the cradle of the League, I suggested on March 8th, 1936 that the League of Nations had already been fatally stabbed by the javelin of Nemesis, which venerable goddess had already, long ago, prophesied that the League could not survive the Abyssinian War, then being brought to a close, and wrote: • “Since the ghost of the League of Nations only now manifests itself under the guise of the scholarship of Professor Gilbert Murray, the political activities of the Cecil family and the sartorial effects of Mr. Anthony Eden, the discussion seems relegated to the academic realms of history and the literary commentaries of Francis Bacon on former Ethiopian conflicts. “‘Nemesis’ was said by Francis Bacon to be ‘a venerable Goddess feared by Fortune’s favourites, portrayed with a javelin in her right hand and in her left a pitcher with the similitudes of Ethiopians engraved upon it. And before those whom she destroys, not in their calamity and misfortune but when Fortune’s favourites come before the Common People, she ever presents the black and dismal spectacle of the Troops of Ethiopia.’
”With regard to the Jewish question, I do not think you quite correctly appreciated my use of the term…. In its broader cultural sense I use the term ‘Jewish’ rather like you use the word ‘Hellenic’ when you (in Four Stages of Greek Religion) write: ‘The new spirit of classical Greece with its humanity, its intellectual life, its genius for poetry and art, describes itself as being Hellenic – like the Hellenes. But where no man’s ancestry would bear much inspection the only way to show you were a true Hellene was to behave as such.’ Similarly, the new spirit of international Jewry, with its genius for finance, manipulation and usury, for racial, intellectual and religious confusions, describes itself as merely being ‘Jewish’ – like the Jews; the English language has even made a verb of it – ‘to Jew’.
”How little I suspected many years ago when I read your article on ‘Satanism’ in the Contemporary Review that you were describing Satan as a gentleman who did not like Jewish methods nor the League of Nations.” It is gratifying to think that, when we were writing eighteen years ago, so great a scholar as Gilbert Murray and so little known an author as myself were both such good prophets. The wave of anti-Jewish rioting and agitation, now more marked than ever before, was and is a disquieting feature of the aftermath of the Armageddon that failed. It was particularly noticeable and widespread in France, and was renewed after a young Polish Jew walked into the German Embassy in Paris, on November 7th, and shot and mortally wounded the young German Third Secretary. Even in the Czech areas of Bohemia and Moravia, since the collapse of the Benesh régime, anti-Jew rioting broke out, and a new “anti-Semitic” weekly, the Obnowa, appeared in Prague in November. The B.B.C. suggested, however, without reason, that the reaction was almost confined to Germany. What is the truth? Is it not significant that a prominent English newspaper, the Daily Express, on March 24th, 1933, the year of Hitler’s rise to power, streamed a headline across the front page: “JUDEA DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY”? Beneath it was produced a picture of Hitler being judged by four Rabbis, and the leading article was: “Jews of all the World Unite” – “Boycott German Goods.” Was it then to have been a war of racial revenge that we, together with France and as the ally of Bolshevik Russia, were asked to wage war in 1938? In conclusion it remains to me to thank all those friends whose encouragements or impetuous demands that I should offer such special knowledge, training, and expertise as I may possess, to the public for whatever good use they may care to make of it, were responsible for this book being written. In particular I would thank Seaton Fox for making available his valuable collection of rare documents and books and for equally valuable suggestions, to my old friend Georges Batault and Léon de Poncins, to my publishers, and lastly and above all to Becky Sharpe, my private secretary and companion on many scientific excursions and travels, lecture tours and congresses, which took us together to Spain during the Civil War and to the famine districts of Czecho-Slovakia. In the belief that the ages should be explained by the hours as the hours can be instructed by the ages, I address this volume to those in Parliament or outside who, for good or evil, direct our national destiny, to those who take part in public affairs or local government, in education or public instruction, and to all those amongst my friends, as well as those I have not met, especially in England, France, Germany, and Italy, who believe that the future peace of the world, the prosperity of their own nations, the security of their homes, and the happiness of future generations, depend upon the will to organise, not for war but for peace, upon the foundations laid by the four statesmen who signed the Four-Power Pact at Munich on September 29th, and by the British Premier and the German Führer who signed the Goodwill Declaration on September 30th, 1938. GEORGE PITT-RIVERS, Hinton St. Mary, November, 1938.   Concealment of the Truth Until, in August and September 1938, the newsboys shrieked the scare-line headings in the streets of London: “Gravest Crisis Since the War” – “Peace or War” – “Hitler Unmasked” – “Herr Henlein’s Demands” – “Czechs Ready to Die for their Country”, few people in England knew much about the Czechs or the country they lived in; it had occurred to very few Englishmen why they should take any great interest in that country unless they wanted to buy cheap coloured glass, “made in Czecho-Slovakia”, or unless, maybe, they remembered that Karlsbad plums and Pilsener beer were pleasant comestibles which took their names from two towns in what was once Austria before the twenty-year Balkan Republic ever existed, and for which the name “Czecho-Slovakia” was invented. It certainly never occurred to the man-in-the-street twenty years ago, at the end of the “War to end War and make the World Safe for Democracy”, that old soldiers should be invited again so soon to send their sons to die, not for their own country, not for liberty and their homes, but, so the democratic press vociferously explained, in order that seven million Czechs, allied to 260-million-odd Russians, Frenchmen, and Englishmen, should prevent a little handful of 3½ million half-starved German Bohemians being allowed to vote for Home Rule or even to have enough to eat. The questions that every Englishman wants answered stand out: • Who wants war? • Why? Who profits by war? • How are we concerned? Every Englishman had a right to the answers and of access to the truth – in a matter of life and death. I have undertaken here to set out calmly, dispassionately, and briefly, the principal facts known to me, by personal observation and experiences, by twenty years’ study of these problems in Central Europe, and by my recent adventures in the country which is the Tinder-Box of Europe. True words are not pleasant: pleasant words are not true. So the greatest Chinese sage of all time addressed the small glib liars of the world, who are hired to use words in order to confuse and mislead, and those greater liars who have the power, and use it, to suppress and outlaw the truth. I stand aghast at the power of falsehood! Let every good man and true who knows any hidden fact in the many-sided crystal which makes the whole truth, speak it at the bar of public opinion and shout it above the chattering and lying din. • “Let him take both reputation and life in his hands, and with perfect urbanity, dare the gibbet and the mob by the absolute truth of his speech and the rectitude of his behaviour.” (Emerson.) If, then, in the cause of Truth, I must accuse and give the lie to the printed or the spoken word – I do! 

 The Czech Conspiracy A Phase in the World-War Plot The Czech Conspiracy A Phase in the World-War Plot George Henry Lane-Fox Pitt-Rivers Origin of the Czecho-Slovak Republic The state of Czecho-Slovakia came into existence on October 28th, 1918, as the result of the Czech cause being espoused by President Wilson at the Peace Conference, and after Great Britain had given recognition to the Czech legionaries, composed of prisoners of war and deserters from the Austro-Hungarian army, who had been formed into a Czech Legion in Russia. The Czech nationalist movement was first organized some twenty years before the War, and its influence was largely due to the efforts of the first Czech President, the late Thomas G. Masaryk, in America. During the War, these Austrian-Czech deserters were formed into a Czech battalion, which the British Government recognised in June 1918 as one of the White Russian and Allied forces in the war against Austro-Hungary and Germany, for which purpose they were equipped. On the collapse of the Austrian Empire, a Czecho-Slovak “National” Committee was encouraged by the Allies to proclaim itself a government in Prague and was afterwards recognised in the Treaty of Versailles. Before the end of 1917 nothing remained of Imperial Russia’s war aims. No longer could she aspire to control Constantinople, the Bosphorus, and the Dardanelles, nor to annex Bukovina. No longer could her pre-war pan-Slav ambitions and intrigues serve to rally to her assistance her Czech and Slav Balkan allies, now that the Red standard of World Revolution had replaced the double-headed eagle in Moscow. Russia was defeated and her army broken before America would consent to join the Allies. Lenin accepted Germany’s offer of an armistice and Russian delegates crossed the Russian lines. So Allied diplomacy and propaganda was directed in 1918 to preventing Russia being driven into the arms of Germany. Thus it came about that war aims had to be reconsidered, as it was time to liquidate Imperial Russia’s aims which stood in the way of a separate peace with Turkey. The Bolshevik-internationalist destroyers of our war ally, Russia, and the Bolsheviki’s powerful financial friends in the United States of America, who were subsidising world revolution as well as Czech and Serbian agitation, now had to be conciliated. At the same time, Mr. Lloyd George and his Foreign Secretary, Mr. Arthur Balfour, decided that it was necessary to counter the policy of those members of the British Government who were “inclined to take up a strong anti-Bolshevik attitude.” Accordingly, the Prime Minister requested Mr. Balfour to draw up a Memorandum in which he embodied the new policy of “winning the goodwill of the present rulers of Petrograd” together with the new “war aims,” which circular Memorandum of December 9th, 1917, was sent to members of the Cabinet. It was, according to Mr. Lloyd George, one of Mr. Balfour’s “most notable State documents.” In this Memorandum Mr. Balfour sets out: • “I have already indicated my view that we ought, if possible, not to come to an open breach with the Bolsheviks or drive them into the enemy’s (Germany’s) camp…. If we drive Russia into the hands of Germany, we shall hasten the organisation of the country by German officials on German lines…. The policy of avoiding the active malevolence of the Bolshevik Party raises most important diplomatic issues….”1 It now became the keystone of British diplomatic policy to conciliate Mr. Trotsky and Mr. Litvinov, even though it was well known, as Mr. Lloyd George records, that: • “The Home Office drew our attention to an article in the Woolwich Pioneer by Mr. Litvinov, given under his official seal, inviting the munition workers of Woolwich to start a revolution. The War Office reported that he had also been endeavoring to tamper with the discipline of British troops, notably Russian Canadians. These were some of the difficulties confronting us….”2 Representatives of the Great Powers, who were signatories to the Treaty of London, dated September 4th, 1914, and the secret pact of April 26th, 1915, by which other powers adhered to it, now had to review their “war aims” in the light of a new balance of power. By this Treaty Great Britain, France and Russia had promised certain Austrian territories, inhabited by the Southern Slavs, to Italy. The Serbs, Croats and Slovenes took alarm at the prospect of the partition of Dalmatia by the victorious Allies, and under the leadership of Dr. Trumbitch, President of the Southern Slav Committee, and M. Pasich, Prime Minister of Serbia, assembled in Corfu, where, on June 2th, 1917, they issued a Southern Slav Unitary Declaration proclaiming the unity of the three peoples and claiming the territory inhabited by them. Thus it came about that the Great Powers, Great Britain, France, Russia and Italy, who were signatories to the 1914-1915 pacts of London, were obliged in 1918 “to proceed to the examination of the war aims and of the possible conditions of a just and durable peace in concert with Russia, as soon as a regular government, having the right to speak in the name of the nation, should be established in Russia.”3 Henry Wickham Steed [Spartacus Educational] In February 1918, Lord Northcliffe became, at Mr. Lloyd George’s invitation, Director of Propaganda in Enemy Countries. An Advisory Committee was set up at Crewe House, which included in its membership various well-known publicists and journalists, including Sir Roderick Jones, Managing Director of Reuter’s Agency, Sir Sidney Low, Mr. H. G. Wells, and Mr. Wickham Steed, Foreign Editor and later Editor-in-Chief of the London Times. One branch of the department was divided into sections devoted to propaganda in Germany, Austro-Hungary, and Bulgaria. Co-directors of this Austro-Hungarian section were Mr. Wickham Steed and Dr. R. W. Seton-Watson, afterwards Masaryk Professor of Central European history in the University of London. On the initiative of Messrs. Wickham Steed and Seton-Watson, both members of the Serbian Society of Great Britain, meetings took place between leading Italians and Southern Slavs, which led to these two official propagandists representing their department at a Congress of the “Oppressed Hapsburg Nationalities,” which they arranged in Rome in April, 1918. The main objective and aim of our propaganda department was to form a strong anti-German chain of Central European and Danubian states and to dismember the Austro-Hungarian Empire with the aid of the Czechs and the Southern Slavs. The difficulties of winning over the Southern Slavs to our rapid changes of policy and our new “war aims” were, as I have shown, their misgivings on the “Adriatic question.” Nevertheless, the representatives of the Italian, and of the Yugo-Slav people in particular, found it politic to declare categorically at the Rome Congress that: • “They pledge themselves…. in the future to solve amicably the various territorial controversies on the basis of the principles of nationality and of the right of peoples to decide their own fate…. To such racial groups of one people as may be found necessary to include within the frontiers of the other, there shall be recognised and guaranteed the right of their language, culture, and moral and economic interests.”4 Amongst the principal points of the Memorandum on propaganda issued by the British Director of Propaganda in 1918 is found the following: • “For propaganda among the anti-German peoples the agencies already existing should be utilised. These agencies are chiefly the Bohemian (Czecho-Slovak) National Alliance, the Southern Slav Committee, and various Polish organisations.” In reply to this Memorandum the British Foreign Secretary, Mr. Balfour, wrote: • “Everything which encourages the anti-German element in the Hapsburg dominions really helps to compel the Emperor to a separate peace…. A propaganda which aids the struggle of the nationalities now subject either to Austrian-Germans or to Magyar-Hungarians towards freedom and self-determination, must be right, whether the complete break up of the Austrian Empire or its de-Germanisation under Hapsburg rule be the final goal of our efforts.”4 It becomes quite clear, then, that the official British interpretation of self-determination and freedom of subject nationalities was intended to mean the permanent subjugation of German and Magyar peoples under the yoke of Czechs and Serbs. For twenty years this propaganda, with these objects and aims in view, under the specious cloak of “self-determination” and “collective security,” has been unrelentingly and unremittingly pursued to the very brink of yet another world war, with the able assistance and direction of such official expert Balkan propagandists as Messrs. Wickham Steed and Seton-Watson, Masaryk Professor of the London University. 

 In order to understand the long story of the conflicts and rivalries of the German, Magyar, and Slav peoples of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which has been the arena in which the belligerent intervention of the Great Powers was taking place; and in order to understand the part played by international Jewry on this swift-moving and kaleidoscopic stage, we must go back in history at least as far as the Treaty of Berlin in 1878. In 1877 Bosnia-Herzegovina was emancipated from Turkish rule, whilst Bulgaria was about to emerge as an autonomous principality under Russia’s protection but remaining a tributary under the suzerainty of the Sultan. At the same time Bosnia-Herzegovina was occupied and administered by Austria, though never formally annexed until the Austro-Turkish Convention of February, 1909. Thus these inflammable South-Slav provinces became and remained for sixty years the focal point of Central European power politics. Out of the Treaty of Berlin of the following year emerged also an independent Serbia and an independent Roumania. (Articles 34 and 43.) The confused and rapid changes in British foreign policy towards the German Empire and towards Germans, which is not the same thing, have for a century and more been intimately connected with the influence of European Jewry upon both Empires, and with the dramatic changes in Jewish allegiance that mass migrations and obscure movements in the financial world have brought about. These changes have been signalled in recent history, for example, by the Treaty of Berlin in 1878, after the Russo-Turkish war of 1877, whereby the interests of Jewry brought about an apparent rapprochement in the foreign policy of Great Britain and Germany. This event, however, at the same time marked the set-back to the pan-Slav and expansionist ambitions of Imperial Russia in the West, which dates from the first phase of a new era of power politics, whose precarious diplomatic equilibrium has since been so often disturbed and reversed by oscillations caused by hidden currents. Engraving of Bismarck and Disraeli at the Treaty of Berlin [Eastern Michigan University] At the time, the Treaty of Berlin was hailed as the brilliant achievement of two great statesmen, Bismarck and Disraeli – then Lord Beaconsfield – which would ensure for generations to come the peace of Europe. British as well as German interests were thought to have been safeguarded, Turkey’s hold on Europe checked, and Russia isolated by the revision of her gains in the Russo-Turkish war acquired by the Treaty of San Stefano; while Austria was induced to follow the lead of Great Britain. Except for the cession of Bessarabia, Russian appetites were directed towards the East. Apart from her enhanced prestige, England’s material reward, Cyprus, she obtained secretly from the Turks, who were led to believe that, with Cyprus as a base, a philo-Turkish England would be in a better position to defend the Asiatic possessions of the Ottoman Empire against Russian designs directed towards Constantinople and the Dardanelles. The British plenipotentiaries at the Congress of Berlin were Disraeli, the Prime Minister, and his Foreign Secretary, Lord Salisbury. Thus was the long-time fuse lit which eventually detonated the Balkan powder magazine and threw Tzarist Russia into the arms of the French Republic. British opinion was particularly delighted when the news of England’s Cypriot plum was made public; and when Disraeli returned from Berlin to London, proclaiming “Peace with Honour,” he received the Order of the Garter at the hands of Queen Victoria. Mr. Wickham Steed’s retrospective comments on this passage in the annals of British history, while consistent with his pan-Slav and anti-Austrian partisanship and sympathies, also provide food for reflection upon the rapid changes and reversals of foreign policy which alone are characteristic of British diplomacy. Referring to it in his Hapsburg Monarchy, he wrote: • “British policy has rarely been worse inspired than when, under the Oriental guidance of Disraeli, it secured Cyprus as the price of peace with dishonour, helped Austria-Hungary and Germany to tear up the Treaty of San Stefano, and incurred the moral responsibility for the carnage and havoc of the recent Balkan wars.”5 Mr. Wickham Steed, indeed, supplies an explanation of German-Austrian policy which, it would appear, could even more forcibly be applied to British policy to account for its changes towards Germany and Austria, corresponding to the successive periods when Ashkenazic, or the German-Austrian-Polish-Russian wing of, Jewry exhibited pro-German or anti-German leanings. The theory which Mr. Wickham Steed puts forward he claims was in fact advanced to him by a learned Austrian Hebrew in order to explain the “pro-German tendencies displayed by the Ashkenazim Jews the world over.” “German,” he quotes this pundit as saying, “is the basis of our jargon, and next to Palestine, Germany is the country which we regard as our home. Hence our sentimental leaning towards Germany.” Another less sentimental theory put forward by Mr. Steed of the former undoubted pro-German leanings of the Ashkenazim he summarises in the assertion that: • “Since 1870, the Jews have believed Germany to be the rising power and have consequently striven to ‘back the winner.’ No observer who has had dealings with the Jews of Austria will doubt that some impulse more subtle than the expectation of immediate advantages drives them to pose as Germans and to associate themselves with Germanism rather than with any non-German tendency. The Jews who have deliberately associated themselves with and sought to become assimilated by Slav races like the Czechs, the Serbo-Croatians [sic], the Slovenes, the Slovaks, or by the Roumanes of Hungary, are exceedingly few in number. The case of the Hungarian Jews – who appear to have accepted Magyarisation – is peculiar, and the sincerity of their attachment to Magyarism has yet to be proved. The bulk of the Galician and Hungarian Jews who migrate to Vienna and other parts of Austria claim German ‘nationality.’ When authentic Germans disown them, these Jews reply that they ‘feel like Germans,’ an assertion which authentic Germans passionately deny…. So large a part does this distinction play in Austrian-German politics that a leading Jewish journalist has declared, bitterly but truthfully, that anti-Semitism forms the only bond between the various sections of the Austrian-German ‘national’ party. Pan-Germanism, in Austria at least, has always had an anti-Jewish tendency…. The historian Dr. Friedjung, who had drawn up the programme of the Austrian Pan-German party, and whose pan-German leanings were strong, was thus, as a full-blooded Jew, excluded from the party he had helped to form. It is an irony of fate that while these exclusive tendencies prevail among the ‘Germanic’ German ‘Liberals,’ the whole ‘Liberal’ i.e. non-clerical press of Austria should be in Jewish hands; and that the home policy of the German ‘national’ parties in Austria should be largely determined by the influence of the ‘Germans’ of Prague, most of whom are Jews. The political interests of the veritable Germans have long been subordinated to the exigencies of the struggle between Czechs and Germans of Bohemia, in which the Jewish-German press of Prague and of Vienna have been important if not determining factors. ‘As long as the Czech-German quarrel lasted,’ wrote a Jewish weekly review, ‘the Jews were often protected by the circumstance that the decision lay in their hands…. Henceforth the Jews must pursue none but a Jewish policy, and must so determine their conduct as to inflict damage upon economic and moral anti-Semitism.’ Whether ungrateful or not, this frank declaration must be regarded as a healthy sign. The Jewish ‘danger,’ if danger it be, does not lie in the proclamation and defence of a specifically Jewish standpoint, but in the dissimulation of Jewish ideas under a non-Jewish cloak.”6 In 1871 the Anglo-Jewish Association was established. Its first president was Jacob Waley, Professor of Political Economy at University College, London. From its foundation the Association was prominent in ventilating the disabilities and the interests of the Jewries of Russia, Roumania, Turkey, Persia, North Africa and the Balkan States. Whenever a suitable occasion presented itself the association sought the intervention of the Government in the interests of international Jewry through the British Foreign Office. It was mainly through the efforts of the Association that the Berlin Congress included clauses in the Treaty safeguarding the political and civil liberties of the Jews of Roumania and Serbia. This was the first time before Versailles that Jews were recognised by Treaty as a National Minority. The credit for this has rightly been accorded by Jewry to the influence of Disraeli, the British Prime Minister.7 

 The Czech Conspiracy A Phase in the World-War Plot The Czech Conspiracy A Phase in the World-War Plot George Henry Lane-Fox Pitt-Rivers Origin of the Czecho-Slovak Republic (cont’d.) Italy’s pre-war attachment to the Central Powers in the Triple Alliance was always precarious and did not survive the outbreak of hostilities. Her ambitions and interests in the Adriatic and in the Southern-Slav bloc in fact conflicted with those of the Central Empires. Italy, even when she was our ally at the end of the War, never whole-heartedly entered into the plot so dear to the hearts of international revolutionists, to secure Czecho-Slovakia disguised in democratic trappings as a Trojan horse, to be pushed into the centre of Europe by troops of rose-garlanded enthusiasts for the League of Nations and elderly English professors waving olive branches, out of whose belly were to jump in the fullness of time fully armed Bolshevik warriors pledged to slay Nazi monsters and win Europe for “the permanent revolution.” The Department of Propaganda recorded regretfully in 1920: • “Unhappily the propaganda… were impaired by reactionary tendencies within the Italian Government. Had the Italian Government been prepared in May, 1918, to join with their Allies and Associates in making a joint public • • Ethnographic Map of Austria-Hungary. • Map used by the British Department of Propaganda during the War. The Czech-German area is marked in a rectangle. • (Reproduced in “Secrets of Crewe House,” by Sir Campbell Stuart, K.B.E.; Hodder & Stoughton, 1920.) • [Map 1 – click to enlarge] • declaration in strong and unmistakeable language in favour of the creation of a united and independent Southern Slav State and in recognising the Czecho-Slovaks as an Allied and belligerent nation, the result would undoubtedly have precipitated the collapse of Austria in the early part of the summer of 1918.”4 It is of special interest to-day to examine the Ethnographic Map of Austria-Hungary used by the British Department of Propaganda and published in his book by Sir Campbell Stuart in 1920. It is reproduced here and may be studied in relation to Herr Hitler’s claims for the Sudeten Germans in the Godesberg Memorandum. The map also serves to illustrate forcibly how every guarantee of self-determination of minority peoples has been violated. It is the same map which was used and relied upon by Seton-Watson and Wickham Steed, Co-Directors of the Austro-Hungarian The Map attached to the Godesberg Memorandum. (Sketch map based on the Map annexed to the Memorandum handed to the Prime Minister by the Reichs-Chancellor on September 23, 1938.) [Map 2 – click to enlarge] Section of our Department of Propaganda twenty years ago, as the basis on which the ethnographic character an language groups of the mixed areas in what became Czecho-Slovakia were determined. (See Maps 1 and 2.) Mr. Wickham Steed, whose weighty pronouncements always have priority in the columns of the Times, a priority apparently refused to all other dissentient experts, writing in its issue of October 10th, 1938, appeared to have forgotten his war-time service as Director of Propaganda in Enemy Countries. He writes: • “It appears that the Austrian Census of 1910 is to be the basis on which the racial character of mixed areas in Czecho-Slovakia is to be determined…. In 1910 I was the correspondent of the Times in Vienna….” He then relates that he was asked to return his Umgangssprache, or usual language of adoption, in the Census return of that year. He gave his nationality as British and informed the Austrian official that he habitually used the German language, and ironically adds to his account: • “And this is the Census which is apparently to serve as a ‘guide’ in determining the character of mixed districts in Czecho-Slovakia today!” As a matter of fact, this was the Census which served as the basis of the ethnographic map of Austria-Hungary, used by Mr. Wickham Steed’s propaganda department since 1918! That he confused or misled the Census officials has little bearing on the value or otherwise of the maps on which he himself afterwards relied. Foreigners are not, in any case, included in the ethnographic divisions of those maps. In my map of population foreigners are expressly excluded. Fortunately neither Mr. Wickham Steed nor Mr. Seton-Watson, nor any other of their former colleagues and members of the Serbian Society of Great Britain would have been eligible to vote in plebiscite areas. Mr. Wickham Steed may also be reminded that he himself relates how during the War he assisted an Austrian enemy subject, no less a one than ex-President Benesh of Czecho-Slovakia, to come to England on a forged Serbian passport, while he also records how his Co-Director of Propaganda, “Seton-Watson, once spent a lurid forty-eight hours saving Masaryk from arrest at Hampstead.” Mr. Wickham Steed goes on to tell us in his book, Through Thirty Years (Vol. II, p. 100): “I felt it would be hopeless to explain to this worthy detective the intricacies of Austrian politics, and how an ‘Austrian’ might be in possession of a Serbian passport.” We feel after this long lapse of time that Mr. Wickham Steed may also have equal difficulties in explaining the ethnology and the intricacies of Czecho-Bolshevik politics in the mixed areas of Czecho-Slovakia. May we not forgive the perplexity of an Austrian Census official in 1910 who appears to have understood Mr. Steed’s ethnographic and political explanations no more clearly than did an English Detective-Inspector in 1917? As already noted, the spokesmen for the “Oppressed Hapsburg Nationalities” being the Serbian, Southern Slav, and Italian as well as the English representatives of our “anti-Austrian and German Department of Propaganda,” in the persons of Messrs. Wickham Steed and Seton-Watson, at the Rome Congress in April, 1918, pledged themselves “to guarantee to such racial groups of one people, as it may be found necessary to include within the frontiers of the other, the right of their language, culture, and moral and economic interests.” All the Allied Powers, except the U.S.A., declared, however, that Wilson’s Fourteen Points and “self-determination” did not apply to the settlements with Austria and Hungary – nor to Germany, and, at the same time, they recognised Hungary as a separate power independent of Austria. On April 14th, Wilson agreed to grant Italy the Tyrol south of the Brenner Pass, with about 250,000 Germans, as well as the Trentino. Austria was reduced by about two-thirds of her German-speaking territories, which were distributed between her various Slav and Italian neighbours. Through the influence of M. Clemenceau the Allies decided to prohibit union between Austria and Germany, without, that is to say, the safe proviso embodied in the draft treaty with Germany of first obtaining the unanimous consent of the Council of the League. This proviso was embodied in Article 88 of the Treaty of St. Germain. There can be no doubt that South Tyrol, forcibly torn from her Northern other half by a new frontier at the Brenner Pass, owing to her annexation by Italy in 1919, lost most of that provincial autonomy which the Tyroleans, like all provinces in the old Hapsburg Empire, enjoyed under Austrian rule. Instead of an elected provincial council (Landtag), the truncated province was placed under administration of a prefect at Trent. Its administrative inclusion in the Trentino, the suppression of the German language, and the persevering attempts to Italianise the German-speaking people were for long deeply resented by the Tyroleans; but it was not until the national unification of Italy, under the leadership of Benito Mussolini and the inspiration of the fascist ideology, that good democratic propagandists and enthusiasts for the League of Nations started an agitation to ventilate the grievances of the Germans of the Tyrol.8 They ignored the fact that the Allied Powers and the League of Nations were alone responsible for handing over the South Tyrol to Italy, and they either ignore or else heartily approve the much greater sufferings of the far greater population of Germans handed over, against their will, to the tyranny of Czech and Serbian pirate states in the name of democracy. Similarly, they ignored the worse sufferings of the Northern Tyrol under a dictatorial usurpation of power inspired by Moscow or the Vatican city. After the German-Austrian Anschluss of March 1938, in response to the appeal of the overwhelming majority of Austrian Germans, had effected a common German-Italian frontier and, later, after the Sudeten Germans of Bohemia had been rescued from Czech tyranny, and German-Italian interests had been cemented in a common front against the world Bolshevik threat from Soviet Russia and her vassal Czech state and, finally, just when the position of the Tyrolean Germans of Oberbozen (Bolsano) had improved in the general atmosphere of German-Italian accord, world democracy was thinking and talking of self-determination only for the Southern Tyrol. This, then, was the occasion chosen for a hypocritically-voiced concern for the German-speaking South Tyroleans, when the interchange of German and Italian tourists, artificers, and workmen had reached a maximum; when Italian opera in Germany and German music in Italy were being increasingly popularised, I received this October, 1938, an illustrated edition de luxe of a propaganda pamphlet 9 informing me that in Italy “lectures and theatre performances conducted in German are generally prevented and films with a German text are forbidden, while the cafés are prohibited from tuning in Hitler speaks at the Sportspalast, September 26, 1938 [Steven Lehrer, Hitler Sites] to a German broadcast.” Yet when, on September 26th, I tuned in to hear Hitler’s famous speech to the German nation I found that all the German stations were deliberately jammed by transmitters in England, and I only succeeded in hearing this speech with perfect clarity by tuning in to an Italian station. This speech of Hitler’s was made on September 26th, 1938, the day on which the issue of peace or war between England and Germany was trembling in the balance. This was the day, it so happened, that the first edition of this small volume went to press in pamphlet form. It contained the evidence for the Sudeten case, which, for the first time, Herr Hitler pledged himself before the world to solve. This was the speech relayed from all Italian stations. Was there a single cry from these humanitarians to save the oppressed Tyroleans and the National Socialist majority in Austria from wholesale persecution, imprisonment, torture, and execution at the hands of dictator Dollfuss’s government for the crime of professing their political faith and their passionate wish for union with their German kinsmen in the Reich? Oscar Spangaro I have before me the photograph of one of my Austrian Tyrolean friends. Oscar Spangaro was descended from an old Ritter family once settled in Straubing, in Bavaria, before it migrated to the South Tyrol in the sixteenth century, where, in the course of time, the family name of Sprenger became Spangaro. Some five generations later his family had crossed into the neighbouring province of Carinthia, in Austria. In 1933 my friend was the leader of a small district group of National Socialists in this part of Austria. That year eleven of his comrades were assassinated in the streets within three months. Soon afterwards, with about 800 of his party, he was arrested and thrown into prison. None were brought to trial until, nearly a year later, the survivors were tried in camera and convicted, afterwards brought again to a mock-trial in open court where sentence was confirmed and over one hundred, including Spangaro, were condemned to death. Their first taste of prison discipline was their “examination” during the days immediately following their arrest. In batches they were taken, handcuffed, into the prison courtyard. They were knocked into unconsciousness with rubber truncheons. My friend’s nose and jaws were smashed, his teeth knocked out, and through his thick hair three years later I felt the deep scarified grooves where his scalp had been cut through. He was one of four, condemned to death, who had succeeded in escaping by a piece of miraculous good luck and ingenuity from prison the day before he was to have been executed. When I met him in Berlin, at the end of September 1936, he was still under sentence of death, unable to return to his Austrian home. Who, then, has a right to talk about the self-determination of the Tyroleans? Czecho-Slovakia was not the only monstrous political fraud perpetrated upon the helpless minority peoples of the dismembered Austro-Hungarian Empire – the other one was Yugoslavia by the incorporation into Serbia of Croatian, Macedonian, Hungarian, Slovakian, Dalmatian, and Montenegrin territories. The sufferings of the Croats and Slovenes under Serbian Stefan Raditch [hercegbosna.org] tyranny and a brutal dictatorship has rivalled the sufferings of Sudeten Germans and Magyars under the Czech yoke: but even less has been heard about them by the English public. The Croats, deprived of all administrative rights and the civic liberties they had enjoyed under Hungary, made common cause with the Slovenes. By the beginning of 1920 the Croats and Slovenes combined in a valiant attempt to throw off Serbian domination under the inspiring leadership of Stefan Raditch. By 1926, Raditch was strong enough to induce the late King Alexander to give him a place as a Minister. Three years later Raditch was murdered in the Yugoslav Parliament by the bullet of a pan-Serb representative. Six months later parliamentary government was brought to an end in favour of a Serbian military dictatorship. That is the Serbian method. Since 1928 the Croats, bowed under the Serbian heel, crippled by an ever increasing load of taxation, outlawed in their own land, have worked and plotted only for freedom from the Serbs. The civil war has continued ever since and the British public, which sends its tourists by the hundreds in luxury steamers to the Dalmatian coast, knows nothing of it. • “The unity of Yugoslavia!” said Dr. Trumbitch (President of the Southern Slav Committee in 1917) to a distinguished French author in 1935, “There has never been such a thing! There is a Serbia who has seized Croatia, Slovenia, Banat, Macedonia, Montenegro, Dalmatia, and more, and who has tried for fourteen years to transform them into mere Serb provinces…. They have swept away traditions, customs, local liberties – all that had made for centuries the qualities, the faults, the distinct personalities of our diverse peoples. Serbianisation is carried to extremes under the name of national unity. It is the illiterate who command the educated, imbeciles who command the intelligent…. Yugoslavia has never existed but on the paper of bank notes, stamps, and official documents. Before the War, Croatia and Slovenia were theoretically dependent upon Hungary, but in reality they administered themselves. Their prosperity was legendary and their devotion to public interests made them an élite. But the corruption of the Serbs made them a laughing stock of Europe….”10 An eminent English authority, an expert in Balkan ethnography, Miss Edith Durham, writes to me in a private letter, dated October 6th, 1938, which I am permitted to quote: • “We are now paying for our folly in breaking up the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Whatever its faults it managed its various peoples more justly than the succession states have done. Why did we fight Austria? Because her heir to the throne had been brutally murdered and she quite justifiably wanted to punish the murderers. •       “She was not allowed to do so because Russia was behind the murderers and the death of the Archduke was determined upon at a meeting in Toulouse. Neither the French nor the Russians could afford to have the matter investigated by Austrian police. So we fought on the side of the murderers and now we are paying for it. •       “Austria was condemned to be destroyed and a pan-Slav heaven constructed out of its remains. Czech doctors, tourists, engineers, bankers all preached on this text. •       “Continuously for fourteen years before the War I spent a large part of my time among the Slav-speaking peoples of the Near East; I found the Czechs everywhere working a violent propaganda against the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Towards the end of the Balkan war I worked for a time in Montenegro under a Czech doctor. His persistent encouragement to the Montenegrins to annex all possible Albanian territory for the Slavs and his hopes that the Serbs would stick to Macedonia and not allow the Bulgars to claim any, so disgusted me that I left his hospital. •       “The Czechs, meanwhile, were working hand in glove with the Serb revolutionary gang, ‘Black Hand,’ which was conspiring to undermine Austria-Hungary and finally to precipitate the war by murdering the Archduke. A ‘Black Hand’ man told me enthusiastically that Masaryk had been their great friend. They started enlisting young Serbian and Croatian Austrian subjects to join their revolutionary work and break their oath of allegiance when doing their military service. He added that the cleverest thing Masaryk did was get away so soon as the thing was set going and to start propaganda in the U.S.A. and in England. In the U.S.A. he came in contact with the millionaire iron-master Charles Crane, and his son, Jan Masaryk, now Czech Minister in London, married Crane’s daughter. This helped to spread Czech propaganda in the U.S.A., where Crane had great influence. •       “I have sent much of this information to the Press but have failed to get it printed. Lastly, we allowed the Czechs to subsidise London University. A big university should surely be above accepting propaganda pay.”10 It is a matter of history and common knowledge that on July 23rd, 1914, at six o’clock in the afternoon, the Austro-Hungarian Minister to the Court of King Peter of Serbia presented the famous note to the Serbian Government at Belgrade, demanding inter alia that judicial proceedings should be taken against the accessories to the plot of June 28th, 1914, who are on Serbian territory, which resulted in the murder of the Austrian heir to the throne, and that delegates of the Austro-Hungarian Government should take part in the investigation. A reply was demanded within forty-eight hours. War was declared on July 28th. What is not so well known is the part played by the “Black Hand” of Serbia and the pan-Slav terrorist organisation known as the “Narodna Odbrana”, whose responsibility for the murder is declared in the Austrian Note, and other connected secret societies, who were responsible for bringing about the war in the revolutionary interests. What is also not so well known is the collaboration which existed, and which has continued ever since, between Serbian and Czech secret terrorist organisations. It is therefore of interest and great importance to find recorded in official or semi-official Czech publications evidence of these activities. In a book published by the official Orbis Publishing House in Prague, in 1928, entitled The Czechoslovak Nation’s Struggle for Independence, by Jaroslav Papousek, it is stated and here quoted in a slightly abridged form, that on the outbreak of war Professor Masaryk, • “having entrusted the organisation of the preparations for revolution to his friends, especially Dr. Benesh, departed for Italy…. The journey of Dr. Benesh to Switzerland was of historic importance, for the centre of the revolutionary organisation was in this way transferred abroad, where it remained during the entire subsequent course of the War. After Masaryk’s departure the secret organisation known as ‘Maffie’ continued, of course, to work on the lines agreed upon by Dr. Benesh and Professor Masaryk. Its activities, although never discovered by the Austrian authorities, were, however, gradually crippled when certain Czech political leaders were arrested and imprisoned at the instigation of the Austrian Military Command…. When Dr. Benesh was obliged to transfer his activities abroad, the members of ‘Maffie’ had necessarily to restrict the scope of their political work…. Although the leaders of some parties diverged from the policy drawn up by Professor Masaryk in agreement with ‘Maffie’ and some desired, by an apparent loyalty, to divert from the Czech nation the danger of a harsher persecution, the Austrian Government failed to obtain from these leaders any statement repudiating Professor Masaryk’s work…. The Czechoslovak movement against the Austro-Hungarian Empire did not originate nor develop only at home, but also in all the countries in which the Czechs and Slovaks were living, not only in Russia, France, and England, but also in America.”11 If, possibly, the modern state of Czecho-Slovakia was not actually conceived in America it is certainly no exaggeration to say that it was incubated, hatched, nourished, and finally canned for export to Bohemia, Moravia, and Slovakia by its American foster-parents, in time for the baptismal celebrations after the War to end War, at which France, and her ally England, as proxy for Bolshevik Russia, stood sponsors at the front of the League of Nations. Czecho-Slovakia in truth was actually born in America on May 30th, 1918, at Pittsburg, and announced to the world by the “Pittsburg Pact”, signed by T. G. Masaryk and others. The text read as follows (translated from the Slovakian language): • “The representatives of the Slovak and Czech organisations in the U.S.A., of the Czech National Association, and of the Society of Czech Catholics have, in the presence of the President of the Czecho-Slovak National Council, Professor Masaryk, considered the Czecho-Slovak question and the existing declarations of policy and are agreed upon the following: •       “We agree to the political programme which endeavours to bring about a unity of Czechs and Slovaks in an independent state of the lands of Bohemia and Slovakia. •       “Slovakia shall have its own government, parliament, and laws. The Slovak language shall be the official language in the schools, amongst officials and in public life. •       “The Czecho-Slovak State shall be a republic, and its constitution shall be democratic. The organisation of co-operation between Czechs and Slovaks in the U.S.A. shall be studied and improved in the light of requirements and changing conditions in an atmosphere of mutual understanding. •       “The details of the formation of the Czecho-Slovak State shall be reserved for the freed Czechs and Slovaks and their legal representatives.” • Signed by T. G. Masaryk and the other signatories.12 Previous to the Pittsburg Pact, an International Masonic Congress, held under the auspices of the Grand Orient and Grand Loge de France in June, 1917, took place in Paris. At this Congress resolutions were put forward for the promotion of a League of Nations. The Czech agents in Paris, in pursuance of the policy of Professors Masaryk and Benesh, supported a resolution proclaiming the proximate foundation of a Czech state.13 Because, in its early stages, Czecho-Bolshevik collaboration was organised and conducted in secret lodges and at secret meetings of revolutionary and terrorist organisations of which the evidence has taken years to come to light, and has then been systematically suppressed, particularly in England, the real purpose of the activities of Professors Masaryk and Benesh was hidden from the world. The most irrefutable evidence, however, can now be quoted from the organs of the international revolutionary movement and the Comintern. In pursuance of Czecho-Bolshevik plans the Czechs betrayed national Russia in Siberia at the end of the War and received as a quid pro quo for the betrayal of Kolchak a free passage and other benefits from the Bolsheviks. Between the formation of the Czech state and the Bolshevik October Revolution of 1917 there is a close dependency, as can well be seen from Kopensky’s account in the Communist International, the central organ of the Comintern, of July 7th, 1937: • “The great October Revolution had a strong and positive influence upon the fate of the Czech people. The national freedom bestowed upon the Czech people, the independence of the Czechs, the existence of the Czechs as a state – all that is primarily the result of the influence of the October Revolution. The whole Czech nation will always recollect with gratitude that Comrade Stalin came to understand the position of the Czechs during his trip to Austria in 1912, and demanded the independence of the Czechs before the War in his work Marxism and the National Question. Without the Bolshevik October of 1917, there would have been no Czech October, 1918. With this strong influence of the October Revolution we must associate the fact that the bulk of organised workers in Czecho-Slovakia fell into line with the proletarian movement, and that the Communist movement in Czecho-Slovakia has reached a point in which it includes one million adult citizens and voters out of a population of 15 millions. •       “The close historical connection between the proletariat and the October Revolution in the Soviet Union has strengthened the revolutionary Communist movement.”14 The Czech Conspiracy A Phase in the World-War Plot The Czech Conspiracy A Phase in the World-War Plot George Henry Lane-Fox Pitt-Rivers The National Minorities and their Czech Masters The Czechs, originally a scattered Slav people settled primarily in the Imperial Austrian provinces of Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia, owe their existence as a nation above all else to the ideology of President Wilson and his ecstatic affection for the birth of Bolshevik Russia, with which the Czechs have always been allied, secretly or openly, for the purpose of world revolution and the destruction of Germany and Austria. To the same inspiration the Czechs also owe their power to control and exploit the territory which once formed the richest part of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. Although the territory of the Republic represents only 22 per cent of the former Austrian Empire, it contains by far the greater part of its industries. In addition to the greater part of the textile industries, the Czech Republic has taken over the industries in the old Empire according to the following proportions: Per Cent Sugar factories 92 Breweries 65 Malt factories 95 Liquor industries 50 Glass industries 70 Leather industries 70 Chemical industries       75 Paper industries 70 Building industries 80 Ceramic industries 80 Cotton, wool, flax, jute, and silk industries vary from 75-95 per cent. Of the 282 coal mines formerly in the Austrian Empire, 219, or 79 per cent, were included in the Bohemian province of the new Czecho-Slovak Republic.15 Registered Unemployment in Czechoslovakia since 1929. More than 400,000 unemployed are German. German sector of total population = 23%. German sector of total unemployment = <50%. Figure of German unemployment in Czechoslovakia equals local unemployment in France. [Map 3 – click to enlarge] Out of the 13½ million inhabitants of the Republic in 1921 (Census), 2½ million were engaged in agriculture. Is it not strange, then, that, as we shall see, having seized all the richest and most prosperous districts within the old Austrian Empire, the Czechs have, in the course of twenty years, succeeded in reducing German Bohemia to a state of destitution and misery with the highest rate of unemployment in Europe? (See Map 3.) What then is Czecho-Slovakia? And who are the Czecho-Slovaks? The very name is a senseless absurdity and is intended to imply that there exists such a people called Czechoslovaks. “One might as well,” wrote Lord Rothermere in the Daily Mail, 12th February, 1937, “talk of Anglo-Holland.” No such people exists. Germans, Slovaks, Hungarians, Poles, and Ruthenians (Carpatho-Ukrainians) were forced into a Czech state, invented by an American professor, afterwards President of the United States, who was as ignorant of the elements of geography as he was of European politics, ethnology, or Bohemian history. Yet Czech propagandists and English journalists continue to talk about Czechoslovaks as though any such united national or racial people existed. Dr. Antonin Bohác, the Czech Official Statistician (Councillor of the State Bureau of Statistics, Prague), in giving the distribution of the native population by race, enumerates as separate racial groups: “Czechoslovaks,” without distinguishing Czechs and Slovaks; Russians, including Ukrainians or Little Russian Ruthenians and Great Russians; Poles; German; Magyars; Jews – and “others”. The English Press, similarly, continues to state (e.g. Sunday Pictorial, September 18th, 1938): • “As a fact the Czechoslovaks themselves number 9,688,942, or two-thirds of the population. A third of the inhabitants, therefore, belong to various racial minorities.” But the Czechs themselves, by their own figures, swelled by Jewish or other immigrants not racially discriminated, number only 7,406,493 (1930 Census) out of a total 14,729,536; at most, then, they can only claim to be 51.15 per cent of the total. While every other minority, and especially the Slovaks, have protested for years and have presented petitions to the League of Nations against being placed under Czech rule. The word ‘Czech’ is the native name for the Slavonic inhabitants of Bohemia and Moravia, and ‘Czechy’ is Slavonic for ‘Bohemia’. This branch of the Slav family arrived, so far as is known, in Bohemia, then tenanted by Germanic tribes, about the 7th century A.D. The Slovak Council, under the hands of their President, Professor Francis Jehlicka, and their Chairman, Victor Dvorchak, in an “Appeal to British Common Sense for the Sake of World Peace” (June 1937) wrote: • “The public opinion of Great Britain must be made to understand that our Slovak soldiers will not fight for the Czechs and the Soviet Russians. Nor will the Sudeten-Germans, the Hungarians, the Poles, or the Ruthenians fight for them. •       “English fathers and mothers, do not allow your sons to sacrifice their lives for a bad cause like the Czecho-Bolshevik cause.”16 In the name of common sense, then, let us once and for all understand that there are no such people as Czechoslovaks. From the beginning the Czechs have been used as the tools and the decoy of the Comintern and have been the protected allies of the Russian Soviet Dictatorship. It must also be remembered that it was not until the 1917 March revolution finally broke up the old Russian Empire in order to set up what soon became, and still aspires to be, a world Communist Dictatorship, that the financial interests of capitalistic America consented to join the Allies in the Great War. President Wilson, the friend of the late President Masaryk, and of ex-President Benesh, having borrowed the phrase “self-determination” from the Bolsheviks, was allowed to carve up Europe, which he hardly knew and which he never understood, in order to sow the seeds of endless future wars, cause endless persecution, terrorism, and tyranny because the votes of emigré Czechs were useful to him at home, in Pittsburg, Washington, and especially Chicago, where the Czechs were numerous and active. Even President Wilson’s great admirer, Dr. H. A. L. Fisher, is constrained to admit: “Wilson did not represent his countrymen.”17 Neither, we must insist, did he serve any other national interests except those of the Czechs and the internationalist dictators of Russia. This is how the minority nationalities and racial groups are divided amongst the population according to the 1930 Census: Czechs 7,406,493 Germans 3,231,688 Slovaks 2,282,277 Hungarians 691,923 Subcarpathian Russians (Ruthenians)   549,169 Poles 81,737 Jews (Confessional only) 356,830 Others 49,636 N.B. – The Zionist and non-Orthodox Jewish population is far greater than the figure given for confessional Jews and is distributed amongst the figures which cover the other groups.       Orthodox Jewry claim a much greater number of Confessional Jews in the population of Czecho-Slovakia than that allowed them in the census figures under the category of Jews “by nationality,” by which Jews had the option of registering Population according to Nationalities in Czecho-Slovakia. 1930 Census (foreigners omitted) [Map 4 – click to enlarge] as an alternative to electing to belong to one of the other nationalities; the Census gives 186,642. The Jewish Chronicle of London on September 30th, 1938, states: “But beyond the 32,000 Jews in Sudetenland stand, or tremble, the nearly 320,000 other Jews in Czecho-Slovakia.” No plebiscites of minority peoples in the new synthetic State of Czecho-Slovakia were allowed or considered necessary before half the total population in its five provinces were given over to its new and inexperienced democratic masters. By Article 84 of the Treaty of Versailles German nationals habitually resident in any of the territories defined as forming part of the Czecho-Slovakia State “will obtain Czecho-Slovakia nationality ipso facto and lose their German nationality.” No other national minority was allowed to determine its own political or national allegiance. Teschen, the small but important mining area in Polish Silesia, was occupied and seized by the Czechs in January 1919, after deputies had been elected to represent Teschen in the new Polish constitutional parliament. When in 1920 Bolshevik troops under Tuckachewski were invading Poland and drawing nearer to Warsaw, before the Poles had had time to organise and equip an effective national army, the Hungarians offered to send two divisions to their assistance. The Hungarian and Polish Governments were agreed, but the Czech Government refused to allow the Hungarian troops passage through their territory; territory which, after all, had been Hungarian land. Similarly, they assisted the Bolsheviks by refusing to allow any munitions or supplies to reach Poland from Hungary. With this memory of Czecho-Bolshevik treachery and collaboration, the Polish and Hungarian Governments, not unnaturally, agreed in 1938 to demand a common frontier in Slovakia. The Czechs have always been the aggressors, not of the bold highwayman type, with a shouting challenge to “stand and deliver,” but like the receiver of stolen goods and the sneak-thief, who picks the pockets of the weak. By Article 23, members of the League of Nations undertook to “endeavour to secure and maintain fair and humane conditions of labour for men, women, and children, both in their own countries and in all countries to which their commercial and industrial relations extend.” The clause has been consistently ignored and violated in Czecho-Slovakia – as it has been in Soviet Russia – the country to which they are allied. President Wilson had many excellent notions but no sense of reality. The League of Nations which bears his mark has, with disastrous efficiency, turned every profession of peace into a rankling cause of war, every profession of democracy and liberty into an alliance with dictatorship and tyranny, every promise of self-determination and nationality into the subjection of racial and national minorities under the oppressive yoke of their enemies and persecutors. The idea of racial “self-determination” was the cover and pretence for wrenching Germans from their motherland in Silesia, the Saar, Memel, East Prussia, Danzig, and Eupen and Malmedy; of wrenching Poles from Poland in Silesian Teschen; of wrenching Hungarians from Hungary in Slovakia; of wrenching sub-Carpathian Ukrainians from the Ukraine, whilst the Slovaks themselves were placed under the oppressive and incompetent yoke of Czech rulers in their own homeland. Of the eleven Memoirs which were presented by the Czech delegation to the Peace Conference in 1919, Memoir No. 3 deals with the problems of the Germans of Bohemia: “Les Problèmes des Allemands de Bohème.” The rights of the German minority, as set out in the extract from the text, read as follows: • “The right of the minority to their own schools, their own judges and their own courts of justice will never be disputed in any way whatsoever. •       “The Czechs have no intention of suppressing, for instance, the schools, universities, and technical schools of the Germans. The Germans in Bohemia will have the same rights as the Czecho-Slovaks. The German language will be the second language of the country and no discriminatory measures will be taken against the German element in the population. •       “The régime is to be analogous to that existing in Switzerland.”18 Every one of those professions and undertakings has been consistently violated by the Czechs. These Memoirs and the existing conditions in Czecho-Slovakia have been deliberately concealed from the English public. We assume that the rights of the minorities in Czecho-Slovakia were guaranteed by the Covenant of the League of Nations, yet England is invited to assist the violators of those rights and the oppressors of the minorities. Their own frequent petitions to the League of Nations since then indicate the extent to which these rights have been violated. The Czecho-Slovakian Republic pays annually to the League of Nations 7,300,000 Kronen. As taxpayers the Sudeten Germans, to take only one instance, contribute a considerable portion of this. Since the League of Nations came into existence the Sudeten Germans alone have submitted twenty-two different petitions. No result has come of these beyond an announcement, reported in the English Press on October 1st, 1936, that a Committee of the League Council was considering a petition from the German minority with Anthony Eden as rapporteur. The Slovak National Council have also submitted a number of unheard petitions to the League. In one of these petitions, addressed to the League of Nations in January 1936, the Slovak National Council gives evidence of the existence of seven underground aerodromes in the process of construction under the supervision of Russian experts and officers. The Slovak National Council considered it urgent to bring the matter to the attention of the League of Nations while there was yet time to avoid a catastrophe. Edouard Benesh [Fotoarchiv Scriptorium] The suppression of these petitions is not surprising when we consider that President Benesh found himself President of the Council of the League of Nations in 1934, when preparations were made for the entry of Soviet Russia into the League. The eleven Memoirs of the Czech delegation, from which I have quoted, were never made public until in 1937 they were published by the Berlin Institute “Für Ausländisches Öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht”; although the Hungarian representations were published in Hungary in four volumes by the Hungarian Ministry for Foreign Affairs, on behalf of their delegation to the Peace Conference: the latter are obtainable to-day. It was on the basis of the Czech documents, however, that the Czech-Hungarian frontier was fixed. The Czech Memoranda to the Peace Conference were rapidly compiled, without the assistance of either documents or books, for the most part by M. Benesh personally before the arrival of the Czech delegation composed of sixty-three members, of whom all except five Slovaks and one Ruthenian Slav were Czechs. Let it be observed that, by M. Benesh’s own admission, no members of the delegation represented either the Hungarians or the Bohemian Germans. These facts are attested by M. Benesh in his memoirs: Souvenirs de Guerre et de Révolution, 1914-1918.19 Czecho-Slovakia, it must be remembered, was the only one of the new artificial States, created by Versailles, allowed to take part in the Armistice deliberations. Poland was not admitted, and was only recognised in February 1919; whilst Roumania, although an Ally, was not invited. The Yugoslavs, as such, had as yet been refused recognition by Italy and the Allies. Yugoslav unity only acquired juridical recognition in time to become a signatory to the Treaty of Versailles, up to which time Serbia alone was represented. In truth, the privileged state of Czecho-Slovakia depended upon the fiat and the person of M. Benesh himself. Thus it came about that Benesh, as provisional Foreign Secretary, had represented the newly-created Czech Government at the Inter-Allied Armistice negotiations with Austro-Hungary and Germany, which began at Versailles on October 31st, 1918, and was able to outline and present his principal demands in the name of Czecho-Slovakia before, even, he received any news of the revolutionary events then taking place in Prague. The First Czech Government, under the Presidency of Masaryk and under the Premiership of Kramár, was announced, with much solemnity, on November 14th, 1918; and was formed out of the personnel of the self-appointed National Committee. The announcement of this de facto and de jure historic achievement was made at the first session of the new Assembly, after much wordy rhetoric about their very free and democratic Republic. This was received, according to Benesh, with rapturous and “indescribable” applause. With the exception of two Slovaks, all the nominated Ministers were Czechs, and neither Magyars, nor Germans, nor Ruthenes, nor Poles were represented. The Slovak National Council categorically states that: Thomas Masaryk [Wikipedia] • “The creation of Czecho-Slovakia was decided on at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919, the decision being based on one-sided information and false statistics supplied by President Masaryk, Dr. Benesh, M. Pasich, and others. Recourse was also had to forged maps, curtailed documents and other discreditable devices.”16 Even Mr. Lloyd George, in 1928, wrote that: • “The data and documents which some of our Allies have submitted to us at the Peace Conference [in support of Czech, Roumanian and Serbian claims] from certain quarters were false, and it was upon the basis of this false data and upon evidence that was neither satisfactory nor true, but which showed Europe’s situation at that time in an entirely false light to the eyes of the Allied Powers, that we decided upon frontiers and races. Our decision was based on forgeries.”20 Benesh and Masaryk used the Allied victory to annihilate Hungary; not only Eastern Slovakia and Ruthenia were wrested from her but a vast block of purely Magyar land and population. Banat was divided between Serbia and Roumania, and the idea of a plebiscite turned down when it became apparent that the population of Banat would have voted in favour of going to Hungary. Mr. Seton-Watson’s expert “ethnological” vision as an official of the anti-Austro-Hungarian Propaganda Department had previously suggested the line of such a dismemberment! By the Treaty of Trianon the Serbs became the rulers of over 1,200,000 Hungarians and Germans and only 400,000 Slavs. By it Hungary lost to other races over 3,000,000 Magyars, of whom nearly 1,000,000 were consigned to Czech misrule, and 1,500,000 to Roumania. This was the “New Empire” left by the vultures at Trianon in 1920. And this brigandage had been planned by the vultures for years beforehand. In 1916, Professor Masaryk, with Mr. Seton-Watson, Mr. Wickham Steed and others, founded a weekly journal called the New Europe. And this is what they published in the first number (October 19th, 1916): • “Its foremost aim is to further and consolidate that Entente Cordiale of Allied publicists…. Its highest ambition will be to provide a rallying ground for all those who see in European reconstruction, on a basis of nationality, the rights of minorities and the hard facts of geography and economics, the sole guarantee against an early repetition of the horrors of the present war.” And, then, lest this pious rhetoric should even now conceal the real motive, read on: • “It will be our endeavour to unmask the great designs of German war policy, to provide the historical, racial and strategic background of problems too long neglected in our comfortable island, and to emphasize the need for a carefully thought out counter-plan, as an essential condition to Allied victory.”21 All, they say, is fair in war, but now we, who once fought with the sword when professors in our rear fought with the poison gas of lying words and dark mistrust, may fight for peace with the weapons of peace and answer back in the words of the prophet: “Against whom do ye sport yourselves? Against whom make ye a wide mouth, and draw out the tongue? Are ye not children of transgression, a seed of falsehood, enflaming yourselves with idols under every green tree?” (Isaiah, lvii. 4.) Let me repeat then what an honest Frenchman has said before me: “The jerry-built foundations of the State of Czecho-Slovakia, set in the quicksand of artificiality, repose entirely on violence and deceit.” Examine the maps and reports submitted to the Peace Conference by Professors Masaryk and Benesh. The geographical maps relating to the texts of the reports contain the most obvious errors, inaccuracies, and omissions and numerous self-contradictions, all designed to suggest a diminution and relative insignificance of the German, Hungarian, and Slovak minorities in favour of the Czechs. Several of the more important Hungarian towns, with a population upwards of 8,000, are not shown on the maps at all, whereas the districts are shown marked as though they were Czech or Slav, whilst in some the numbers of Slovaks are grossly exaggerated at the expense of the Magyars and Germans. We are told that German aggression must be resisted because they have listened to the cry of their own nationals, threatened with extinction and calling for help. Can we forget, those of us who have seen and can bear witness to persecution and discrimination, falsehood, and the suppression of the truth in its extremest form, on the part of a predatory Czech state, that aggression has come continuously and with increasing violence from the very people we are invited to defend? General Depression of Masses – Maximum of Suicides. 1921-1931: More than 20,000 suicides among Germans in Czechoslovakia. Next to Austria the Germans of Czechoslovakia are afflicted with the highest percentage of suicides in Europe. German district of Auscha – 1934: 243 natural deaths, 44 suicides. [Map 5 – click to enlarge] Because all mention of the Sudeten German and other minority grievances was systematically suppressed and their petitions pigeon-holed in Genevan cachets until the coming of German National Socialism, there is no excuse for believing that these grievances did not exist. Before 1931, distress in the Sudeten area was so acute that their suicide rate was, with Austria, the highest in Europe. See Map 5. Confirming the countless deputations and petitions of the German minority under Czech rule long before the advent of National Socialism in Germany, the Chairman of the Women’s International League from 1915-1922, member of the British Empire Delegation to the fifth and tenth assemblies of the League and editor of Foreign Affairs from 1924-1928, Mrs. H. M. Swanwick, in a letter to the Manchester Guardian (8. 9. 38) writes: • “I was the recipient of countless articles, resolutions, deputations, and letters setting forth the disabilities of the Germans under Czech rule and the breaches of the Minorities Treaty and the neglect by the League of those breaches…” The Czech Conspiracy A Phase in the World-War Plot The Czech Conspiracy A Phase in the World-War Plot George Henry Lane-Fox Pitt-Rivers The Reward for Desertion and Betrayal: The Czechs in Russia The Russian Government decided to form a Czech battalion soon after the outbreak of war, which reached regimental strength in 1916. The ever-increasing number of Czech deserters and prisoners of war enabled them to enlist enough Czech soldiers to form a brigade: by the spring of 1918 they reached a strength of 50,000 men. Masaryk was in Russia from May, 1917, until April, 1918, after which he became President of Czecho-Slovakia. After the outbreak of the Bolshevik Revolution it was announced that the Czech Legionaries were to take the field in the Allied and White Russian cause. Every White Russian success was announced to the world as a Czech victory. In the tortuous and rapid change of front of the Czech Legion and the intrigues of Benesh at Prague twenty years ago were sown the seeds of a policy which today has borne full fruit, mystified our short-memoried politicians, and brought us again to the brink of war. In 1918, Masaryk was vaunting in Europe the valiant aid rendered by the Czech refugee army in the diversified causes of the Allies, of Social-Democracy, of the Russian White Army Expeditions and, lest it be forgotten, the cause of Czech aspirations and claims to the lion’s share of the dismembered Austro-Hungarian Empire. It is true that their political services were more highly regarded than their military exploits. When the Bolsheviks were driven out of Siberian cities the Czechs invariably remained at their bases – they were more conspicuous after the fighting was over in the conquered sector when their enthusiasm in the cause of democracy made them valued as political instructors.22 Meanwhile Kramár, first Premier of the Republic, and pioneer of pan-Slavism, espoused the Russian emigrés as a contribution to the Czech national cause. Foreign Secretary Benesh, on the other hand, refused further succour to the forlorn White Armies, having concluded a neutrality pact with the Bolsheviks. Thus the latter achieved the difficult task of avoiding a conflict with Moscow in the East, while earning the favours of the anti-Communist, democratic engineers of the Treaty of Versailles in the West. Some of these events I described in a book, published in 1920: • “In the Red Army were Chinese, Letts, international mercenaries and a sprinkling of German military experts on their staffs. In the White Armies were Czechs, alien ex-prisoners of war, and a sprinkling of Allied Staff officers…. •       “Conflict of purpose and a purposeful sabotage ultimately defeated the White cause. The Czech cause and purpose alone triumphed in the end. A system of sabotage began with the first organisation of the Volunteer Army in Siberia, where a few loyal officers rallied around the Czechs, that same Czech army which trekked across Russia and Siberia between 1917 and 1919, and eventually stabbed Admiral Kolchak in the back and secured his defeat, finally surrendering him to the Bolsheviks for execution. •       “This act of treachery in betraying Kolchak was confirmed by the Bolsheviks, whose Chairman of the Revolutionary Committee at Irkutsk, Schirjamov, wrote: ‘The General’s head was the price fixed for a free passage for the Czechs.’ Before leaving Irkutsk, the Czechs removed all the money lying at the State Bank, and on their way to Vladivostock were busy printing Russian paper money. •       “As a reward for their services the officers of the Czech Legion, returning from Vladivostock in December, 1919, were given tracts of land seized from the dispossessed German peasantry and landowners in Bohemia. •       “The Czechs being, as they now are, in a minority in their own artificial state, were able, from 1918 onwards, to reap the fruits bestowed by victors and vanquished alike as, by turn and turn about, new triumphant forces entered upon the stage of international conflict and world revolution.”23 With the entry of Soviet Russia into the arena of Genevan diplomacy and the influence of Litvinov at the League of Nations, Germano-Russian relations became increasingly strained. Benesh’s ambitions of Czecho-Russian alliances saw their fulfilment after 1930 in the final abandonment of all that was left of early pan-Slav aspirations, which had originally attracted the Czechs towards Imperial Russia, and his final ambition was attained in a closer rapprochement towards Bolshevik Russia and France. In the Soviet-Comintern policy of Bolshevising the world he saw the formation of a block of anti-German and so-called anti-Fascist states allied to the bourgeois democratic governments. Benesh himself clearly avowed the ultimate aims of Czech policy when he wrote in 1931: • “Russia will always play a decisive role in our destiny if only on account of our geographic situation. We could not stay the positive direction of our exterior politics in so far as Russia becomes a decisive factor in Central Europe, with her massing forces, as the effective instrument of her own interests. In order to secure our proper place in Europe we depend absolutely upon Russia and, in consequence, it will no longer be possible for us to take a merely passive line towards the Soviet.”24 This policy was opportunely aided by the circumstance of Benesh finding himself President of the Council of the League of Nations in 1934, when Russia entered the League. There followed as a consequence the three-power reciprocal undertaking not to conclude any uni-lateral pact without the joint consent of the three powers, Czecho-Slovakia, France, and Russia, signed in Paris on the 6th and 10th of December, 1934, respectively. These commitments were finally cemented in the conclusion of the bi-lateral mutual assistance pacts between France and the Soviet Union, followed by Czecho-Slovakia in May, 1935, which set the seal to Franco-Soviet-Czech military collaboration. The following month Benesh and Litvinov were toasting each other amidst popular ovation in Moscow and celebrated the renewal of friendship and collaboration between the two countries, which dated from the pre-war period. By the military pact which President Benesh concluded with the Russian Soviet Government at Moscow, assistance was to be provided for the Bolshevik air force and for the Red Army to march through the Carpathian Ukraine when the time should come. On this festive occasion these two spokesmen of belligerent internationalism toasted afresh the new Russo-Czech entente with as much eloquence as on other occasions under democratic auspices they have been applauded as professors of peaceful nationalism. This Moscow meeting was a prelude to the visit shortly afterwards of Russian military and aeronautical experts to Prague when they assisted at the Czech army manoeuvres. The ultimate aims of Czecho-Soviet military collaboration were to lay the foundations for military collaboration in the world war which it was hoped to bring about as a prelude to the world revolution and a World Communist Dictatorship. In furtherance of this scheme Czecho-Slovakia was to become incorporated into the Soviet Union. Some details of the scheme are given in a book published in 1938 by the official Orbis Publishing House in Prague, written by the Czech Ambassador, Jan Seba, entitled Soviet Russia and the Little Entente in World Politics: a foreword is contributed by Foreign Secretary Krofta. It has remained impossible to procure this book through the usual channels in England. For this eulogy of Bolshevism the author was presented with the “Masaryk Prize”. In his book the author considers it necessary that the Soviet Union should be directly connected with Czecho-Slovakia by means of a corridor, for which purpose he proposes that the land should be taken from Poland and a small strip from Roumania. With the realisation of this scheme the Soviet Union would virtually have incorporated Czecho-Slovakia within her territories. In this connection it is significant that at the last Congress of the Comintern, Popoff, a delegate of the Ukraine Communist Party, declared that the Soviet Government considered war inevitable but was exerting every effort to complete the necessary preparations while seeking to postpone the outbreak of hostilities before they were ready. Throughout 1937 and 1938 Stalin’s Government, in an excess of democratic zeal, were still very busy re-organising the Red Army by shooting their leading generals and senior officers. One of the first objects of the war would be to seize those Ukrainian territories still outside the Soviet Union. With the collapse of the old Russian Empire and of the Habsburg Dual Monarchy after the War, the Ukraine, which had been partitioned between the two Empires, enjoyed a brief spell of independence. A national movement for an independent Ukrainian state had been actively prosecuted before the War and had been as energetically suppressed by the Russian Police. In 1917, Professor Michael Hrushevsky, a famous Ukrainian historian, who taught in Lemberg University, became President of the Ukrainian Republic, and in 1918 attended the Brest-Litovsk peace negotiations as political adviser to the Ukrainian Peace Delegation. During the War the Ukrainian nationalists co-operated with the Central Powers in order to bring about the independence of the Ukraine. When the German forces retired, the Bolsheviks overran the country, and the Ukraine was split up between Soviet Russia, Poland, Czecho-Slovakia, and Roumania. The total population of the Ukrainian nation, most of which is now included in the Russian Soviet State, is rather larger than that of Great Britain. The Ruthenian province of Ukraine, which was seized by the Czechs, has only a population of some 730,000 people, of whom 78.1% are Ukrainians; Magyars and Jews being the largest minority groups. The strength of the Ukrainian national movement within the borders of the Soviet State is also a source of danger and anxiety to the Judeo-Muscovite dictators. The lot of the native Ruthenian population has been no whit better than the lot of the other native minorities in Czecho-Slovakia, and famine conditions have prevailed in the Sub-Carpathian province. The large Jewish minority and the Communist emigrants from Soviet Russia, being inimical to Ukrainian national sentiments, were actively supported by the Czechs against the native population. When in 1934 Dr. Benesh, in a speech at Ungvar, declared of Ruthenia, “this part of the Czechoslovakian Republic belongs to us and will always belong to us,” he was expressing a boast bolstered with more misgivings than real assurance. All the rivalries and strivings of national minorities in the polyglot Czech empire, already crumbling on its insecure foundations, are cut across by the single big issue of international Communism directed from Moscow and nationalistic aspirations rooted in the soil where generations have raised families and left sons to till it, until they, in turn, shelter their bones in its folds, whether German or Magyar or Slav. And internationalism, however it be disguised under ephemeral party-political labels, professing democracy, socialism, social-democracy, or Communism is, in Czecho-Slovakia as elsewhere, inevitably fostered and organized by the all-pervading Jewish minorities. The influx of many thousands of emigré Jews from Germany into Czecho-Slovakia during the past twenty years had swollen considerably the ranks of the Social Democratic Party, which supports the Communists and their Soviet allies. Before the elections in May, 1935, the Sudetens had a fierce and bitter struggle with the Communists and Social Democrats, who did not hesitate to use the weapon of Red Terror when fighting their opponents. 

 The Czech Conspiracy A Phase in the World-War Plot The Czech Conspiracy A Phase in the World-War Plot George Henry Lane-Fox Pitt-Rivers Under the Czech Terror in Bohemia: Arrest of English Investigators by the Czech Police Notwithstanding all the arguments and propaganda in favour of Czech domination over the Germans, Slovaks, Magyars, Ukrainians, and Poles in the Republic, one thing is certain, the cultural heritage of the Czechs is German. Bohemia and what is today the greater part of Czecho-Slovakia looks back upon two thousand years of German settlement. Right at the beginning of the Christian era a vast German Empire had been established there, and the annals of Roman history tell of battles against the Germans and describe their manners and customs. Charles IV, King of Bohemia and German Emperor, founded the famous German University of Prague in 1348, the oldest university in Central Europe, which the Czechs have consistently tried to suppress and destroy since their coming to power by the nomination of Government supporters and discrimination against its German professors and men of science. In 1934 the German students successfully prevented the Czechs from forcibly removing the ancient university regalia. Written Czech, as a language distinguishable from the ancient dialect of the Slovaks (Slovénsky), is barely one hundred years old and Czech schooling was first inaugurated by the German administrator of Austria. Masaryk himself has acknowledged that the Germans were the cultural instructors of the Slavs and that it is only by way of German channels that the benefits of Western civilisation have been transmitted to the Czechs. John Hus, the famous leader who raised the standard of revolt against the Holy Roman Empire, is one of the few Czech heroes in early history to whom they can lay claim, and the Hussites conducted their rebel propaganda mainly in the German language and in Latin. Hus received his education in the German University of Prague and adopted Wycliff’s theology. Professor Antonin Bohác, the official Czech statistician, in his reply to my report on demographic conditions in Bohemia, writes ironically, July, 1937, that he has no need to argue with me the case for the cultural achievements of the Czechs and Germans of Bohemia. If he had omitted the word “Czechs and”, he would be perfectly right. He says: • “The Secretary-General of the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population, Captain Pitt-Rivers, challenges the possibility of Czechoslovak contributions to scientific and demographic studies. He has declared conspicuously that the learned heritage, the traditions and the institutions of learning in the country have for long been the exclusive appanage of the German-speaking population. The children of a nation which gave birth to a John Hus and such a leader as Comenius (emigrant Bishop, 1592-1670), and latterly to an illustrious philosopher and politician like T. G. Masaryk, have no need to argue with Captain Pitt-Rivers on the relative value of the cultural element contributed by the Czechs and the Germans of Bohemia. I am content to protest against the extension to the whole history of a nation that cultural decadence inflicted upon it by the loss of her independence in the 17th century. •       “Besides it is not true that the science of population is pursued almost exclusively in the (German) University of Prague by Germans, nor that German men of science are excluded from the Czech National Committee…. Since 1929 I have given each term one or two courses in demographic science in the Czech University of Prague…. In the German University there is no one who has obtained the necessary qualifications to teach the demographic sciences and neither is there any course in demography. The truth is, consequently, quite other than the contention of Captain Pitt-Rivers.” (Translated from the French.)25 Masaryk, the champion of the Czech cause, I might here observe, although the point is a minor one, was himself a Slovak, not a Czech, and yet, as such, was an opponent of Slovak national autonomy. At the end of this year, 1938, there appeared from the press yet another volume by Mr. Lloyd George, entitled The Truth About the Peace Treaties, Vol. I., published by Victor Gollancz, Ltd. In his introduction, Mr. Lloyd George quotes for the first time long extracts from a Foreign Office Memorandum composed in the autumn of 1916, which he describes, in his own words and in his own style, as follows: • “It is an impressive document, well informed, bold and far-seeing. Some of its proposals are startling. They are all well worthy of a careful perusal in view of recent developments. It is the first official pronouncement in which what came to be known as self-determination constituted the principle of a re-adjustment of national boundaries. It is also the first official document which contains a declaration in favour of the establishment of a League of Nations and a reduction of armaments.”26 The origin of the slogan “self-determination” has been discussed; it came from a very different source than the British Foreign Office, whilst the declaration in favour of a “League of Nations” also originated long before the war and was early associated with the activities of Benesh and Masaryk in Paris and Pittsburgh for the purpose of founding a “Czech State.” (See ante, p. 37 [of original printed text]). Nor will those familiar with the pre-war activities of the internationalist revolutionary movement find anything very original in this Memorandum bearing upon its proposals and aims regarding the “breaking-up” of the Austro-Hungarian and German Empires. There is no information in it of any value touching the racial composition or the cultural affinities of the various nationalities of Central Europe. In view of its alleged importance, it is perhaps a pity that the anonymity of the authors of this document has been preserved. All Mr. Lloyd George tells us with regard to its authorship is: • “This remarkable document was prepared and signed by two prominent officials of the Foreign Office. It was circulated to the Cabinet without any covering recommendation or comment from Sir Edward Grey.”26 There appears, however, in Appendix III of this quoted Memorandum a reference to the low cultural development of the Czechs, which may serve as an additional comment, coming as it does from a presumably highly-sympathetic source, to M. Bohác’s claims about Czech contributions to Bohemian culture: • “As to Bohemia, they (the Foreign Office experts) examined three different proposals: The formation of an independent state; secondly, the linking of Bohemia with a Southern-Slav state; and, thirdly, tacking it on to the Kingdom of Poland. They (the Foreign Office experts) are of the opinion that the third solution is desired both by far-seeing Czechs and Poles.”26 The reasons given for the Czechs being in favour of their incorporation in the kingdom of Poland is interesting, and is refreshingly candid in comparison with recent pro-Czech propaganda: • “The Czechs, on the other hand, fully appreciate that they could benefit by the superior culture and civilisation of the Poles.”26 It would appear, therefore, that any solution that did not involve ceding German-speaking territories to Germany or Austria, or involve acknowledging the age-long cultural heritage of the Germans in Bohemia, was, as far back as 1916, thought by our official pundits to be “impressive, well-informed, and far-seeing.” And Mr. Lloyd George still thinks this impressive and well-informed at the end of 1938! Dr. Bohác maintains in his reply to my report that there are no German men of science in the German University of Prague qualified to teach the sciences of population. On the other hand I had received, under date July 20th, 1937, as a result of my request, from the Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy in the German University of Prague the names of fifteen German professors and members of the German Association of Science and Art whose qualifications and faculties cover the range of population sciences in Bohemia, relating especially to ethnography, biology, history, geography, sociology, and German-Bohemian folk studies (deutsche Volkskunde Böhmens), who were teaching these subjects in the University, none of whom were permitted to adhere to the Czecho-Slovak National Committee for the Study of Population. (Text of letter in German.) In the name of history and the truth it should hardly be necessary to protest against a claim, so easily refuted, that the Bohemian nation ever owed its culture to the Czechs. It was largely owing to the fact that the German scientists in the German University of Prague were not allowed to participate in the activities of the Czecho-Slovak National Committee and were not allowed to attend Congresses of the International Population Union, that I was led to visit Czecho-Slovakia in September, 1916, in order to make my own investigations and discover the truth. The outcome of my visit was the collection of facts, figures, and photographs, relating especially to the Sudeten German districts, which were confiscated in Karlsbad. It also led to my arrest by the Czech police on a trumped-up charge of espionage, and a year later to the suppression of my reports on the subject at the International Population Congress in Paris in July, 1937. All these facts have been deliberately withheld from and by the British Press. I now reveal those facts! With my private secretary I crossed the Czecho-Slovak frontier by car into Bohemia at Fürth-im-Wald, en route for Pilsen and Prague, on August 31st, 1936. A few days later I travelled from Prague to enter the Sudeten area around Karlsbad. On Sunday, September 6th, Conrad Henlein, leader of the Sudeten German Party, the largest single political party in Czecho-Slovakia, whose membership includes 95 per cent of the Sudeten Sudeten German leaders: 1936. On the right – Konrad Henlein. On the left (facing camera) – Dr. Wilhelm Sebekowsky. German population, addressed a large gathering of his supporters at Meierhofen. There were over 20,000 people present. Armed Czech police were conspicuous everywhere in their uniform. After the meeting I met Henlein for the first time over a cup of coffee. That twenty minutes was the first time I have ever spoken to the leader of the Sudetens. At that time he assured me that every precaution was taken by the leaders of his Party to expel the idea that they were working for an alliance with Germany. Every opportunity was taken to emphasise that in repudiating the control of the Czech Government they were intent only upon becoming autonomous. At that time, there is no doubt, the Sudetens, like the other minorities, Slovaks, Hungarians, and Poles, were working only for Home Rule and for deliverance from Czech mis-rule and tyranny. One of many derelict Sudeten factories. First-hand evidence of the conditions existing in the “Hunger districts” of Northern Bohemia can only be obtained as the result of a personal visit and careful investigation. Of the sixteen districts officially classified as “Hungergebiete,” that is to say with the highest unemployment rate, fifteen are German, all once in the most prosperous districts of Bohemia. Every thousand meters along the Karlsbad-Eger road are to be seen derelict porcelain, glass, and paper factories, all of them German, which had been in this state since 1930. It has been officially stated that within the last eight years 1,800 factories have been closed down, almost all of these in Sudeten Two evicted Sudetens living in a “shack”. territory – all this long before Hitler’s advent to power in Germany. For miles around tall, smokeless factory chimneys dot the landscape, but there is no sign of the smoke of industrial activity. The once busy and prosperous workmen who manned them now live idle and starving in huts and hovels in their derelict villages. We passed through village after village in this cemetery of industry. In the village of Ellbogen we visited the dilapidated German hospital, with a nominal accommodation for seventy patients. This served a very large district and, in spite of the restricted accommodation, had for long been made to accommodate as many as 140 patients. The hospital comprised a general ward, surgical ward, an infectious diseases war, a gynaecological ward, and a children’s ward. In the children’s and infectious diseases ward patients were accommodated two in a bed. The overworked staff consisted only of the German surgeon, one medical assistant and several Roman Catholic nuns. The hospital had received no help or subsidies from the State for a very long time. They were appallingly short of equipment and the building was in a shocking state of disrepair. Author’s car in front of Czech school in Neusattl. The surgeon-in-charge informed me that there were so many cases of pulmonary tuberculosis in the population that they were obliged to turn all these away. Untreated goitre was also very common in the population. In addition to his work in the general wards the surgeon-in-charge was conducting on an average seven major operations a day. In Neusattl, in sharp contrast to the shacks and hovels we were visiting, stood an imposing solid concrete building. This was a new Czech school in a district where the population was almost exclusively German. (See Photograph.) The headmaster informed me that it was strictly forbidden for foreigners to visit their school or see the children. During the recent trouble a case was reported of a small German boy being Derelict German school in Eger-Karlsbad District taken to hospital suffering from severe knife wounds inflicted upon him by the children of Czech officials in a Czech school. In other villages we visited German schools which were in a state of neglect and disrepair and short of essential equipment. Children in the playground were of poor physique, rickety and under-nourished. Notices were posted on all the German schools: “Betteln Verboten” – “Begging Forbidden.” According to information based on official statistics there are approximately 1,450 State Elementary Schools for the minority populations, of which only 26 are provided for the Germans – the largest minority in the country! “Armenhaus” at Chodau: 6 small rooms, 42 inmates! There exist in the hunger area a few Poor Houses, selected in each district of unrelieved destitution and misery in order to advertise a benevolent State’s professed concern for its citizens and for the relief of destitution. In these so-called “Armenhäuser” alone, each family, irrespective of its size, receives State assistance to the extent of 20 Kronen, the equivalent of 2s. 6d. per week. For the remainder of the unemployed there is nothing, whilst begging is a punishable crime. Notwithstanding the frequent arrests made in the Sudeten villages on charges of begging, in spite of the arrests of fathers of families charged with allowing their children to beg, begging is rife all over Czecho-Slovakia. In Chodau the Armenhaus was quite unfit for human habitation. The bulk of the inmates were children. My illustration shows some of the forty-two inmates, mostly women and children, belonging to the six families accommodated in its six tiny rooms, in each of which there were only three In the Sudeten famine area. Famished woman and stunted child, typical of hundreds photographed in this area between 1935 and 1936. beds. The pallid faces, the rickety limbs of the small children was typical of the general state of malnutrition, want, and neglect in the whole population of that area. Only one of the six families in this house had had anything at all to eat on the afternoon of the day I visited them, and that family were about to divide three small bread rolls amongst nine people – their only meal. House after house, hovel after hovel personally visited in the district showed the same conditions. Few of the families visited had ever tasted meat for years and even bread was rare. Almost the exclusive diet of hundreds of these people consisted of potato and sour cabbage, washed down with the poison called corn coffee. Families of nine and ten were frequently living in one tiny room in a state of Destitute Sudeten family. Note on left, the father lying on bed recovering from bastinado torture by Czech police. nauseating squalor and degradation. In one such family, consisting of ten persons, children and adults, in a room 16 or 18 square meters in area, there were three beds. One was occupied by a girl about 17 years of age in an advanced stage of pulmonary tuberculosis, the other bed was occupied by the out-of-work father of the family, just released from a Czech gaol, where he had undergone a short prison sentence on a charge of begging and his feet had been bastinadoed. The Government statistical bureau in Prague has stated that between 1920 and 1930 more than 20,000 Germans committed suicide. In spite of these depressing and unparalleled conditions many of the rooms were swept and clean, and some attempt was made to keep them orderly and bright. In the centre of this village of poverty stood a new cinema-theatre, built by the municipality for the Czech officials and their families. In the Sudeten area, where the population is exclusively German, small Czech colonies have been formed, land being taken from the Germans for this purpose. All the officials in the Sudeten area, municipal officials, police, schoolmasters, stationmasters, and postmen, etc., are Czech. Even amongst the police very few can speak German. The Bürgermeisters’ secretaries are appointed by the Government. In the army no German is allowed to reach the commissioned ranks, and German recruits are distributed in small batches in all the Czech regiments. In the May elections of 1935, Henlein’s party secured 44 seats out of 300 in the Chamber of Deputies, and their numbers have increased since then. Hundreds of people are arrested all over the Republic on political grounds and suspicion of espionage. Many of them remain incarcerated for indefinite periods. Many die mysteriously in prison. There is ample evidence, officially suppressed and denied, of torture and the use of bastinado on political prisoners in Czech prisons. There are a number of Hungarians, Poles, Roumanians, Germans, and Slovaks who have suffered in this way. There are many who are not citizens of this democratic Republic who have suffered like treatment in Czech prisons. The number of unemployed in the country increased from 53,000 on the 1st January, 1929, to 850,000 on the 1st January, 1936. As has already been shown, by far the largest proportion of this figure is amongst the German population in Bohemia and elsewhere. This is the highest rate of unemployment in Europe in the richest district of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire. On my return to Karlsbad from this distressed area I was arrested and taken by the police, with my private secretary, to the police station. Passports, camera, and films were taken from us and the car impounded. There was no regular representative of the British Consular Service in Karlsbad. By the direct intervention of the British Minister in Prague, Sir Joseph Addison, who sent a member of the Legation Staff, travelling by car from Prague to Karlsbad overnight, my release and the return of my property was effected. It would be interesting to know why, within about three weeks of this outrage on a British subject and a British officer, our Minister was recalled from Prague and another British diplomat sent in his place. 

 The Czech Conspiracy A Phase in the World-War Plot The Czech Conspiracy A Phase in the World-War Plot George Henry Lane-Fox Pitt-Rivers Towards Armageddon up to September 26th: From September 26th to October 1st and the Munich Agreement On April 24th, 1938, Herr Henlein, in a speech at Karlsbad on behalf of the whole Sudeten German population and his Party, issued the following eight demands. Not one of these demands was not originally guaranteed or implicit in the Memoranda presented by the Czech Delegation to the Peace Conference. Henlein’s Eight Karlsbad Demands of April 24th, 1938 were: • 1. • Full equality of status between Czechs and Germans. • 2. • Guarantee of equality by the recognition of the Sudeten Germans as a legal entity. • 3. • Determination and legal recognition of the German regions within the State. • 4. • Full self-government for the German areas. • 5. • Legal protection for every citizen living outside the region of his own nationality. • 6. • Removal of the injustices inflicted in 1918 and reparations for the injuries caused thereby. • 7. • Recognition and realisation of the principle: German regions – German officials. • 8. • Full liberty to profess German nationality and the German political philosophy. No one was so loud in proclaiming the principle of “self-determination” as the late Thomas G. Masaryk, first President of Czecho-Slovakia – no one has so hypocritically violated it. In October, 1918, addressing Anglo-Saxon politicians, Masaryk in a secret circular wrote: • “…the Allies recognise the right to self-determination of nations. President Wilson declared that no nation shall be forced to have a government which is not its own nor for its own interests. The so-called ‘Real’-politicians, whenever it suits them, are ready to accept things as they are, substituting facts for what is right; but what has been or what exists is not thereby made right….”27 On the other hand the whole school of “anti-Realist” politicians of the Masaryk type, in their mad pursuit of illusions and secret ambitions, have suppressed and distorted facts in the service of a hypocritical morality, which has enthroned lies and calumnies and brought about war, famine, massacre, and tyranny in the name of international peace, plenty, and freedom. With pretentious scholarship and forged documents they have relied on general ignorance and emotional appeals in place of knowledge, judgment, and patient research. Professor Masaryk in his summary of the aims of the Peace Terms in the New Europe, by which “the overthrow of theocratic dynasticism and the smashing of the Prussian militarism is to be achieved at the battle-field,” described this as “driving out the devil by Beelzebub.” It is of interest today perhaps to select for notice two of his catalogued 34 aims. The first may possibly represent his “moral” ambitions – for propaganda use – and the other the “real-politik,” which must be kept very much in the background. • “No. (4). All secret agreements must be excluded.” “Or,” he might have added, “at any rate their existence officially denied.” • “No. (30). The Jews among all nations will enjoy the same rights as other citizens; their national and Zionistic aims will receive after the example of England all possible support.”27 Since Henlein’s demands were made, every provocation was offered, every effort was made to force Germany to take action to rescue the Germans of Bohemia so that Hitler could be named the “aggressor,” and in this way a general European war precipitated which would drag in Great Britain. Incidents were multiplied day by day. Czech tanks and armoured cars patrolled Sudetenland and shot down unarmed Sudetens for singing German patriotic songs. They were shot down on the frontier for trying to escape into Germany. The British Press maintained a conspiracy of silence about the conditions in Bohemia but espoused the case of the Czecho-Bolsheviks. The crisis which developed with such rapidity in September and October over the ill-treatment of the Sudeten Germans in Bohemia followed close upon, and was connected with, the incorporation of German-Austria into the Reich on March 12th. Soviet secret diplomacy had hoped to find a cause of general war in the matured plans to Bolshevise Austria. Thousands of Austrian-German National Socialists had for months and even years before been in prisons and concentration camps and were not released until, at the invitation of Dr. Seyss-Inquart, the only National Socialist Minister in Austria, and the overwhelming majority of the population, Hitler marched, without a shot being fired, in triumphal procession to Vienna. I have already given a description of the treatment accorded to German-Austrians in Austria before the Anschluss. Hardly a man in Vienna knew an hour before that their deliverance was at hand. Yet, on that very day the Bürgermeister of Vienna, Richard Schmitz, in close association with von Schuschnigg, the Austrian Chancellor, and Ludwig Draxler, Finance Minister, sent armed Communists on lorries round the streets of Vienna bearing aloft placards with the slogan: “Fight for Schuschnigg and Moscow!” 

 The League of Nations Union immediately got busy organising propaganda on behalf of persecuted German and Austrian Jewish “refugees”. In Vienna alone there is a population of about 176,000 Jews out of a total of 191,000 professing Jews in Austria. Hundreds of the wealthy ones besieged the banks, drew out money and valuables and drove frantically to the frontier, only to find it closed against them. The Union’s Refugees’ Committee was set up to agitate against and raise enormous funds in England on behalf of imaginary and non-existent “refugees” – that is, insofar as the term applies to persons not expelled from their country of origin. It is difficult to state precisely who is a “refugee”, and still more difficult to state why the favoured alien “refugees,” on whose behalf enormous funds are raised in this country, should be given asylum and money, and should be given employment, or trained for employment, at the expense of English-born workmen of native parentage and English, Scotch, or Welsh descent. It is equally hard to say why “political refugees” of the wealthier classes should be allowed to displace Englishmen in their professions, in University posts, or to command English labour by reason of their privileged international connections in our economic and financial-credit system. It is, however, of the utmost importance to recognise that until this policy of “inviting the cuckoo to lay her eggs in our nest” is reversed, the effects of it are cumulative and likely to become increasingly irremediable. Some of these effects, in consequence of our grave unemployment problems and the already existing over-urbanisation of industrial England, are rendered much more serious by official recognition that this mass immigration of aliens, mainly avowing revolutionary and “anti-Nationalist” intentions, and neither being capable of owing, nor willing to owe, allegiance to any nation not directed from Moscow or a Zionist Empire of the future, is to be harboured permanently, and naturalised until such time as they can, in their leisure, find richer or more comfortable hosts elsewhere. In a recent study of the question Sir John Hope Simpson explains: • “Nevertheless, arbitrary and even stupid as much of the distribution (of refugees) is, the countries of residence of refugees are potentially also the countries of final settlement and absorption…. The conditions in which final absorption can occur are of a legal, political, economic, and cultural character…. Legal absorption is symbolised by naturalisation…. Naturalisation has gone far in freeing many of the older refugee groups from legal disabilities…. The majority of all categories of refugees going to the United States have been or may soon be expected to be naturalised; the majority of the children born in exile have acquired a nationality…. At least one quarter of those in France have been naturalised; Jewish refugees in all emigrations have shown a tendency to seek naturalisation as soon as possible…. Nevertheless, governments anxious to co-operate… could make a decisive contribution by pursuing a more generous naturalisation policy and by making simple administrative changes such as reduction of fees for poor applicants and greater promptitude in dealing with applications from refugees.”28 This statement is made by the Director of a “Survey Report on Refugees,” issued under the auspices of the Royal Institute of International Affairs – an institute which professes to be an unofficial and non-political body. It may safely be conceded that its politics, at any rate, are not national politics. It is very noticeable that in this “Survey,” published by Chatham House, the compilers, while dealing at length with the situation in other European countries of refuge, are peculiarly reticent about the situation insofar as it affects England, which appears to be entirely ignored. The definition of the term “refugees,” according to the Convention Concerning the Status of Refugees Coming from Germany, signed at Geneva on February 10th, 1938, and implementing a resolution adopted by the 18th Assembly of the League of Nations, reads as follows: • “Chapter I. Definition. •       1. For the purpose of the present Convention, the term, ‘refugees coming from Germany,’ shall be deemed to apply to •       (a) Persons possessing or having possessed German nationality and not possessing any other nationality who are proved not to enjoy, in law or in fact, the protection of the German Government. •       (b) Stateless persons not covered by previous Conventions or Agreements who have left German territory after being established therein and who are proved not to enjoy, in law or in fact, the protection of the German Government. •       2. Persons who leave Germany for reasons of purely personal convenience are not included in this definition.”29 It is, of course, quite clear that any remaining restrictions to Aliens Immigration are rendered illusory by British commitments under the Refugees’ Convention, sponsored by the League of Nations, which in one form or another it has been Mr. Winston Churchill’s object for years past to encourage. In 1903 Mr. Churchill led the attack in opposing the Aliens Bill. In 1906 he is thus reported in the Manchester Guardian, January 9th: • “Mr. Churchill in addressing a Jewish audience at the rooms of the Achei B’rith Society on Sunday evening appealed for their support on account of the work he had done for the Jews in connection with the Aliens Bill. With regard to the first measure on the subject, men like Sir Charles Dilke, Mr. Herbert Samuel, and himself had striven their utmost to wreck the Bill.” Has Mr. Churchill ever been accused of representing English interests? During the next four months a Mansion House Fund and innumerable appeals on behalf of refugees from Austria, Germany and Czecho-Slovakia were broadcast from the B.B.C. and in the British Press. The League of Nations Union’s Refugees’ Committee co-ordinated and screened the activities of innumerable other propaganda bodies, whose revolutionary and internationalist aims were partly disguised under their philanthropic humanitarian titles. Represented on it were: The Society for the Protection of Science and Learning, The Council for German Jewry, The Jewish Refugees’ Committee, The Save the Children Fund, The Armenian (Lord Mayor’s) Fund, The Churches Committee for Non-Aryans, The Inter-Aid Committee for Children from Germany, The International Student Service, The Society of Friends (Germany Emergency and Austrian Committees), The Catholic Committee for Refugees from Germany, The Co-ordinating Committee for Refugees.30 The previous summer the League of Nations Union and the Cecil family had had the valuable assistance of a representative in the Foreign Office in the person of Lord Cranborne, then Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, under Mr. Anthony Eden, former Foreign Secretary. At the Assembly of the League in September, 1937, Lord Cranborne (United Kingdom) “made a determined effort to secure a decision regarding the work of continued assistance to refugees after 1938.”29 At the 19th Annual General Meeting of the General Council of the League of Nations Union, in Minute no. 850, it was announced that “the Jewish race was suffering most acutely” and demands were made for extended facilities for Jewish immigration to England, the British Empire, to Palestine and the Mandated Territories and to the Crown Colonies. The Archbishop of Canterbury espoused their cause, and in June, 1938, led a deputation to the Home Office which “sympathetically considered the right of refugees to enter this country and receive employment and training for trades and professions…. The deputation was convinced of the willingness and desire of the Home Office to work in close co-operation with those great voluntary organisations represented on the Union’s Refugees’ Committee.” The Archbishop’s deputation was impressed that “the Government would welcome help in educating public opinion in that direction.” (see Minute 850.) By the time I reached Vienna, motoring from Poland in the beginning of September, 1938, mass migrations of Viennese Jewish “refugees” to England and other parts of the British Empire were well on the way. Approaches to the British Consulates in Vienna were blocked with thousands of Jews clamouring for British visas. A large quota were besieging the English Chaplaincy, applying for baptismal certificates in order to qualify for the special benefits and assistance in registering for employment in England under the schemes of the “Churches Committee for Non-Aryan Christians” and other associated bodies. By the unflagging and persevering efforts of the temporary English chaplain, the permanent resident English chaplain being on leave, hundreds of Viennese Jews were weekly being baptised at the improvised font in the “office-chapel” at the English chaplain’s residence, which is situated opposite the English church. The church, unfortunately, was not then available owing to its being closed for the annual cleaning and re-decorations. Through the courtesy of the temporary English chaplain I received personal assurance that the good work of “conversion” was proceeding with the utmost dispatch. I gladly undertook to testify to the work of this hard-pressed representative of the Church of England who, without other clerical assistance, succeeded in converting, preparing for baptism, and baptising so many hundreds of Jewish candidates for entry into the Anglican community, of whom not one in a hundred could speak a word of English. Qualifications for baptism were strictly laid down and complied with. Only those were accepted who were furnished with (a) a British visa, (b) an Ausweis or release from the Jüdischer Kultur-Bund, the Jewish congregation, and (c) the German police permit to leave the country – and not return. Of course, in addition, converts paid the moderate baptismal fees. I am informed that it takes four days between application and baptism, during which time candidates are entitled to four hours’ instruction in the tenets of the Anglican faith and in the Catechism. This, it must be admitted, is not too long a period for those who cannot speak a word of English. I am informed, also, that it is through the Anglican door of baptismal waters that alien Jews can most rapidly prepare for “assimilation and absorption” in their new English home-land, flowing with milk – canned in Switzerland and imported under arrangements of the Milk Marketing Board, and honey – imported from Russia under arrangements of the Board of Trade. By an International Convention of February 10th, 1938, which came into force on October 27th, signed by the United Kingdom, Belgium, Cuba, Denmark, the Catalonian Republic of Spain, France, Norway, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, and Czecho-Slovakia, German “refugees” are given the right to reside in these countries of refuge. It provides for the issue of a “travel document” to take the place of a passport. An additional protocol extends these benefits to “refugees” coming from the territory which formerly constituted Austria.29 

 The Czech Conspiracy A Phase in the World-War Plot The Czech Conspiracy A Phase in the World-War Plot George Henry Lane-Fox Pitt-Rivers Towards Armageddon up to September 26th: From September 26th to October 1st and the Munich Agreement (cont’d.) On April 26th the Czech Government rejected Henlein’s Home Rule demands for the Sudeten Germans, and on August 4th Lord Runciman, appointed as a “special adviser to the Czechoslovak Government on matters affecting their minorities,” met President Benesh and Government representatives in Prague. It was not until August 25th that the Czech Government started offering local autonomy to the Sudetens. Negotiations between the Sudeten leaders and the Czech Government were broken off on September 13th, as a result of the wholesale arrest of Sudeten Germans and the maltreatment of certain German Deputies by the Czech police and the increasing use of force by the Police and the Army in the Sudeten areas. In his report Lord Runciman saw no more than tactlessness, lack of understanding, petty intolerance, and discrimination in Czech rule for the last twenty years, though he is confident that it was never “actively oppressive and certainly not terroristic.” It appears hardly surprising that his mediation produced no results! (See Parliamentary Papers on Czecho-Slovakia, Nos. 7 & 8 [1938] Cmd. 5847 & 5848.) On the previous day, September 12th, the British Cabinet met to consider a recommendation from the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues that there can be no automatic British guarantee of the Czecho-Slovakian frontiers as pleaded by the French. It was an open secret that the “Let’s have a war now at all costs party” in the Cabinet, led by Mr. Duff Cooper, with their friends outside led by Mr. Winston Churchill and Mr. Anthony Eden, were strongly opposing Mr. Chamberlain’s attempts to bring about a peaceful solution and to work for the pacification of Europe. The same day at Nürnberg, Herr Hitler, addressing the Party Congress, declared unequivocally: “The Sudetens must have self-determination. I will not fail my brothers – it is their rights I claim, neither gifts nor concessions from the Czechs.” The following day Henlein demanded from Benesh the revocation of martial law and the withdrawal of Czech troops and police from the Sudetenland. On the 15th the British Prime Minister flew to Berchtesgaden to seek a peaceful settlement with the German Führer. The Czechs intensified their provocation and the number of Sudeten Germans killed increased, until on September 16th the Czech Government proscribed the Sudeten German Party. On the 18th, Daladier, the French Prime Minister, met the British Premier in London. Meanwhile the Japanese Foreign Office declared that Japan was ready to give military support to Germany and Italy against Red operations “according to the spirit of the Anti-Comintern Pact.” Henlein a few days before had broadcast his proclamation to the German people and the entire world: “We want to go home to the Reich.” A further proclamation is issued by Henlein calling for Sudeten volunteers to form a “Freikorps” to defend their homes on the frontier. The Czech Premier, Hodza, declares that his Government would never agree to a plebiscite. On September 22nd, Chamberlain flew to Godesberg, carrying with him the Anglo-French plan which, under Anglo-French pressure, the Czech Government had at length accepted. In Prague meanwhile Communist mobs patrol the streets and shout: “Long live Soviet Russia.” Hodza resigns and one-eyed General Sirovy, an old Czech legionary, is invited by Benesh to form a “military dictatorship.” The tension increases and on September 25th France mobilises 1,000,000 men. Through the medium of the British Prime Minister the German Government sends a note to Prague demanding the evacuation of the Sudeten districts, agreed to in the Anglo-French plan, by October 1st. This was the result of continued persecution and terrorism by the Czech army, now fully mobilised, in the Sudeten areas in spite of the negotiations for a settlement. Poland and Hungary prepare to march to the rescue of Poles and Hungarians, and demand the return of their national minorities. In England, “British” Socialists hold 2,500 meetings during the week, in which the alien Communist element is strikingly conspicuous in support of Prague and Moscow. On September 26th Hitler delivers his famous speech to the German nation from the Sportspalast in Berlin. For purposes of historical record I append some notable extracts: • “If I am now the mouthpiece of the German people, I know that in this hour the whole people, millions strong, agree with every one of my words. This strengthens the nation and makes my oath their oath. Let other statesmen ask themselves whether this is also true in their case. •       “We are not interested in suppressing other nations. We want to live and find happiness in our own way, and let others do the same. •       “Although we are now free and strong, we are swayed by no hatred of other nations. We bear no grudge for the past, we know that the other nations are not responsible. It is a small international clique of self-seekers [egotists; -The Scriptorium] who do not recoil from sending whole peoples to destruction when they think it necessary for their mean interests. •       “I myself am a front-line soldier and know how hard war is. I know the seriousness of war. I wanted to save the German people from it. These democracies, which are indulging in phrases about peace, are the most sanguinary war agitators. Bit by bit the peoples are freeing themselves from the blinding Genevan madness, which I could not call collective obligation to peace but collective obligation to war. •       “I offered my hand to Britain. I voluntarily renounced ever again entering upon a naval armaments competition, in order to give the British Empire a feeling of security. When the Saar region was returned to the Reich I gave the solemn assurance that now all territorial differences with France had been settled. I now see no differences at all between us. With Italy an axis has been formed represented by two peoples which have found themselves both ideologically and politically in a close and indissoluble friendship. •       “Two problems remained. Here I had to make a reservation. Ten million Germans were outside the frontiers of the Reich in two self-contained areas – Germans who wanted to return to the Reich as their home. This figure of 10,000,000 represents no trifle. It represents a quarter of the inhabitants of France. And if France had not for 40 years given up her claim upon the few millions of French in Alsace-Lorraine, then, before God and the world, we have the right to maintain our claim upon these 10,000,000. It is the last territorial claim which I have to make in Europe, but it is the claim from which I do not swerve and which I shall fulfil, God willing. •       “This is the history of the problem. In 1918, Central Europe was torn to pieces under the motto of ‘self-determination of peoples’ and was remodelled by a few crazy so-called statesmen. •       “The Czech State owed its existence to this. This Czech State began with an original lie. The name of the father of that lie was Benesh. •       “This Herr Benesh appeared at Versailles and gave the assurance that there existed a Czechoslovak nation. He had to invent this lie in order to give his insignificant number of compatriots a somewhat bigger and thus more justifiable volume; and the Anglo-Saxon statesmen who in matters of geography and race are not always so well-informed, did not consider it necessary to examine Herr Benesh’s statement. •       “Otherwise they would have seen at once that there was no such thing as a Czechoslovak nation, but that there are Czechs and Slovaks and that the Slovaks do not want to have anything to do with the Czechs. So these Czechs finally, through Dr. Benesh, annexed Slovakia. As that state did not appear to be capable of life, they took, without hesitation, 3,500,000 Germans, in spite of their right to self-determination and their will to self-determination. As this was not enough, a million Hungarians must be added, then Carpathian Russians, and then finally a hundred thousand Poles. •       “Such is the state that was later called Czechoslovakia – against the rights of self-determination of peoples and against the clear desire and will of the outraged nationalities. •       “In these years of Czechoslovak ‘peaceful’ development well-nigh 600,000 Germans had to leave the country for the very simple reason that otherwise they would have had to perish from starvation. The whole development from 1918 to 1938 showed one thing quite clearly: Benesh was determined to slowly exterminate the German element. He succeeded in doing this to a certain extent. He cast innumerable people into the deepest distress. He managed to make millions of people timid and cowed. Under the continual employment of terror he slowly succeeded in silencing millions. •       “A French Air Minister, Pierre Cot, bluntly stated it a few weeks ago: ‘We need the State because German economy and German industry could be best destroyed by bombs from this State.’ And Bolshevism is now using this state as its door of entry. It was not we who sought contact with Bolshevism, but Bolshevism makes use of this state in order to gain a channel into Central Europe. And now a shameless action began. This State, which had only a minority Government, compelled the national groups to follow a policy which some day will force them to fire upon their own brethren. •       “Herr Benesh stood up and demanded from the Sudeten Germans: ‘When I make war on Germany, you have to shoot at the Germans. If you refuse to do it you are traitors and I will have you shot.’ He demanded the same from the Hungarians, the Poles, and the Slovaks, whom he used for aims to which the Slovak people are indifferent. •       “I can assure you that when we occupied Austria my first order was: ‘No Czech need, nor indeed may he, serve in the German army.’ I did not confront him with a conflict of conscience. •       “How long is this to last? For 20 years the Germans in Czechoslovakia and the German people in the Reich have had to look on at this, not because they ever acquiesced in it, but simply because they were powerless and could not shake off their tormentors in the world of democracy. •       “And then came England. I explained unambiguously to Mr. Chamberlain what we now regard as the only possible settlement. It is the most natural that there could be. I know that all the nationalities no longer wish to remain with Herr Benesh, but I speak in the first place for the Germans. For these Germans I have now spoken and assured them that I am no longer inclined to look on inactively and calmly while this madman in Prague thinks he can ill-treat 3½ million people. •       “And I have left no doubt that German patience is at last exhausted. I have left no doubt that it is a peculiarity of our German mentality to put up with something for a long time and with patience, but that eventually there is an end to it. At last England and France addressed the one possible demand to Czechoslovakia: to give up the German territory and withdraw in favour of the Reich. •       “Herr Benesh found a way out. He announced that these territories must be evacuated. That was his declaration! But what did he do? He did not evacuate the territory, but is now driving the Germans out! •       “And that is the point where the game must cease. •       “Herr Benesh had hardly spoken when his military subjection began again – only more intensely. We see the terrible figures: On one day 10,000 fugitives, on the next 20,000, a day later 37,000, two days later 41,000, then 62,000, then 78,000, now 90,000, 107,000, and to-day 214,000. Whole stretches of territory are depopulated, villages are burnt down; efforts are made to smoke the Germans out with grenades and gas. But Herr Benesh sits in Prague and tells himself: ‘Nothing can happen to me, in the last resort England and France stand behind me.’ •       “I have now placed before the British Government a memorandum with a last and final German proposal. This memorandum contains nothing more than the realisation of what Herr Benesh has already promised. The content of this proposal is very simple: Such territory as is German by population and wishes to come home to Germany, comes to Germany. And not only when Herr Benesh has succeeded in driving out perhaps one or two million Germans, but now, and immediately. In this respect I have chosen the frontier which, on the basis of material that has been available for decades on the division of peoples and languages in Czechoslovakia, is just. •       “I have demanded that now, after twenty years, Herr Benesh shall at last be faced with the truth. He will have to hand this territory to us on October 1st. Herr Benesh places his hopes on the world. And he and his diplomats make no secret of it. They declare: ‘It is our hope that Chamberlain will be overthrown, that Daladier will be got rid of, that everywhere men will be overthrown.’ They place their hopes on Soviet Russia. He still thinks he can escape fulfilling his obligations. •       “I am grateful to Mr. Chamberlain for his efforts. I have assured him that the German people wants nothing but peace. But I have also explained to him that I cannot retire beyond the limits of our patience. I assured him further that at the moment when Czechoslovakia solves her problems, namely, when the Czechs have settled with their minorities, peacefully and not by oppression, I am no longer interested in the Czech State – and that is guaranteed. We want no Czechs! •       “In this hour the whole nation will unite with me. It will feel my will as its own will, just as I regard its future and its destiny as giving me my mandate.” That was the speech of a simple soldier, of a great statesman, a leader of his people, of a man of destiny – yes, and a friend of England. It was uttered in an hour when thousands in this country thought that the most devastating and damnable war in history, a fratricidal conflict, would, in a few hours, in a few days, assuredly destroy our sons and all we value besides. Yet every true Englishman and every English soldier will respect, will understand him. “The Times”, September 27, 1938. Page 12, column 4. On the very next day (27th) that incredible organ of national misrepresentation and illusion, the London Times, published “authoritatively,” a statement to the effect that “… if… a German attack is made upon Czechoslovakia, the immediate result must be that… Great Britain, Russia and France… will come to her assistance.” England will bleed for Prague and Moscow! Be patient, my readers, and look back at the issue of the Times of September 27th. For your guidance it is reproduced here in facsimile. Who spoke those words? Who authorised them? Why? On whose behalf? Treaties? What treaties? Commitments? Whose commitments? Remember, shall we not – that twenty years ago we entered into the era of “no secret diplomacy, and self-determination.” Blessed phrase! And the next day. The King signs the mobilisation order for the British Navy. Mr. Duff Cooper is, on September 28th, 1938, ruler of the King’s Navy. Is the die cast? Parliament meets. “M. Jan Masaryk, Czechoslovakian Ambassador, smiling happily, arrives for the debate.” Daily press comment accompanying suitable and convincing photographic evidence of the happy smile of M. Jan Masaryk. Who wants war? Towards the end of the speech Mr. Chamberlain receives a note from Herr Hitler agreeing to a four-Power conference the following day at Munich, at the suggestion of Benito Mussolini. Heartfelt cheers greeted the announcement. “If a German attack is made upon Czecho-Slovakia the immediate result must be that France will be bound to come to her assistance,” reads the article in the Times. On what was that assumption based? There existed no automatic guarantee of Czech frontiers by France and, consequently, there was no obligation for England to support France in such a contingency. M. Jean Montigny, a French Deputy for the Sarthe and a jurist of distinction, examines this question in the light of (i) the Treaty of Versailles; (ii) the Treaty of Alliance and Friendship between Czechoslovakia and France; and (iii) the Locarno Pact of October 16th, 1925; from the juridical, military, political, and moral point of view of the interests and security of France. And he comes unequivocally to the conclusion that there would have been no justification for France undertaking a preventative war in order to secure Czech frontiers against Germany. Addressing the President of the Republic, the Ministers and Members of the French Chamber, he came, in brief, to this conclusion on September 19th, 1938: • “We cannot allow a situation of international tension to be maintained for the purpose of providing our Government with a convenient weapon in domestic politics. •       “We will not admit of a gradual drifting towards war precipitated by the laziness or the pusillanimity of those who direct our national destiny. •       “Were a demoniac will of German hegemony to constrain us to it, then let us prepare to better purpose, than by the verbiage of meetings, so formidable a military coalition as may be necessary to conquer her. But France’s allies must bring thereto their fairly apportioned strength. Thus France, loyally associated with others in a terrible war, in such a case revealed as indispensable in order to safeguard her liberty, her soil, and all those spiritual goods which give a value to life, could call upon her sons. Then the answer is YES! •       “But to demand this sacrifice in a preventative war? NO! •       “In a war where a possibility still lingers of reconciling Germany and Europe? NO! •       “In a war where France, in the role of a new Christ, is to be sacrificed tomorrow in order to glut the triumph of Communism or to save interests other than her own or to accomplish racial revenge? NO, and twice again, NO!”31 The great exodus from London had started on Monday, September 26th. It was slow progress going to London from the South-West by car that week. The roads out of London were choked with down traffic, long lines of limousine cars laden and piled high with household goods, huge trunks and bedding on the roofs. Many of the owners, in fact most of the owners, appeared to be of the wealthy “refugee” type. In London, City and business offices were deserted; skeleton staffs and caretakers left behind were employed sticking brown paper over ground-floor windows, piling sandbags in the upper ones, and preparing “gas-proof chambers” in the basements. The parks were dug up and thousands of navvies employed digging trenches. In many of the poorer districts, such as Stepney, Whitechapel, and Islington, town halls were besieged with frantic crowds all day and for several days clamouring for gas-masks for themselves and their children. Nothing but months of preparation on the part of all organs of publicity, the press, the cinemas, and the British Broadcasting Corporation, all devoted to advertising the inevitable and imminent outbreak of another world war, in which German bombers would make the London and industrial areas their first target, could have produced the mass hysteria and panic scenes which disgraced London, especially the poorer districts where the alien and immigrant population is most numerous, during the crisis week from September 25th to October 1st. All this insidious war-hysteria was disguised as “Air Raid Precautions.” Nothing else could have made the public believe in the imminent danger of war in the first place, or, in the second, believe that, in case of war, the civilian population would find any real protection in the advertised issue of 50,000,000 civilian gas masks. Even gas-proof chambers for dogs and cats were advertised and exhibited. Apart from the well-established military futility of aerial attack by gas bombing, the Civil War in Spain has demonstrated the non-existence of this risk; while the civilian gas mask issued in England has established its effectiveness only in rendering an undisciplined and panicked civilian crowd, with their heads tied up in india-rubber bags, even more inefficient for any useful or orderly task than they would be with their wits about them and the free use of their eyes and nose and hands. As it was, a number of people received serious injuries. Back gardens were frantically dug up to provide “air-raid trenches.” Some people fell into them in the dark and broke their limbs. Trenches and rickety shelters fell in on others while they were digging them deeper. Some people were found dead with their heads in gas-ovens testing out their gas masks. Much was said about the “profiteering” of retailers in A.R.P. appliances. Less was said, however, about the enormous profits of the manufacturers who had government contracts for the supply of civilian gas masks and other A.R.P. paraphernalia. It was not until after the crisis that the public began to appreciate the significance of A.R.P., and the schemes that had been elaborated for the “evacuation” of the civilian population from London and the urban centres into rural districts of the north and south-west of England. Even after the British Prime Minister had announced the Munich Four-Power Pact, which promised security and peace in Europe, the erstwhile pacifists and enthusiasts for “disarmament” redoubled their enthusiasm for “passive defence,” and for the speeding-up of the armaments’ race, in readiness for the world-war they “hoped” was only postponed. The Dean of Canterbury, well known for his enthusiasm in the cause of Bolshevik Spain, appeared, after the crisis, on the platform with Mr. Gollancz of Left-Wing Book Club fame and, with Communist spokesmen, contributed his appeals for Red Spain, for Air Raid Precautions in England, and for “refugees.” Meanwhile, Sir Samuel Hoare, the Home Secretary, in issuing from his Department the recommendations of a “Committee on Evacuation,” introduces and invents a new category of “refugees.” This bomb-shell Report was discreetly withheld by the Home Office from the public until after the crisis. It is announced that arrangements are being made for the reception of persons who “voluntarily become refugees under evacuation schemes from certain industrial areas and thereby become entitled to accommodation in private houses – (in rural areas supposed to be relatively safe from bombing raids) – under powers of compulsory billeting.”32 This is the first time in the history of England, or of any other country not under Communist dictatorship, where it has been suggested that civilians may, under the guise of a national emergency or in time of war, elect, under Government arrangements, to commandeer or requisition private houses for their own accommodation “on the slum clearance standard,” or on the standard of “one person to one room.” Sir John Anderson, the Chairman of this Report, points out that this “evacuation of refugees” scheme – this official, by the way, prefaces his remarks with “we need hardly say” – could not possibly work on a voluntary basis, and would have to be enforced “regardless of the type of refugees which householders would be compelled to accept in their houses and the circumstances and length of time for which they would be compelled to take them.”32 We, on the other hand, “need hardly say,” that a more grotesque and flagrant violation of English Common Law and of civil liberties has never before been suggested by urban and internationalised politicians as a means of outraging and terrorising the rural and agricultural population of England. It is perhaps not surprising to those who know their urban and un-English traditions and political affiliations, that amongst the three members of Sir John Anderson’s Committee are found the names of the Hon. Members for South-West Bethnal Green, Sir Percy Harris, and for North Islington, Dr. Haden Guest.32 

 On September 29th, Hitler, Mussolini, Daladier and Chamberlain met at Munich. The following day the Agreement was signed. On October 1st the Munich Four-Power Pact is signed: the declaration is announced – war is not necessary. Germany fulfils her pledge and crosses the Sudeten frontier into Bohemia. On Sunday, October 2nd, Mr. Duff Cooper resigns from the Admiralty, as a protest against Mr. Chamberlain’s success in keeping the peace. Many other people also are very angry and disappointed that there was no war after all. That is to say a European war, for there is still Palestine, where the Arabs are being taught “democracy”, because they ask for “self-determination,” though they were promised independence twenty years ago. Instead of which they were “mandated” as a “sacred trust of civilisation.” Vide, Article 22 of the Treaty of Versailles. On October 4th the Parliamentary Debate on the crisis reveals how disappointed many prominent politicians were that there was no war. The Lord Mayor opens his fund for Czech refugees. Thousands flocked back into Prague again in order to qualify as refugees – but not the Germans, who, in certain “doubtful” areas, found they did not even need a plebiscite. The House of Commons voted credits of £10,000,000, so that the refugees who remained in Czecho-Slovakia should be as well looked after as those who were able to come to England and enjoy all the funds collected for refugees preferring travel to staying at home. The British public want the truth – not little bits of it, but the whole truth, for it has been cruelly deceived. Let us face it! We have our own distressed areas. There are housing conditions in the South Wales coalfields and elsewhere almost as shocking as those imposed on the Sudeten Germans by the Czechs in Bohemia. We, too, have unemployment, discontent, and distress – unalleviated. What is the solution, now and in the future? It is simple, and becomes every day more obvious. Remove British interference from the affairs of Central Europe and the rest follows. Let us face realities and put our own house in order. Germany will and must rescue her own German children, Poland will rescue the Poles, Hungary the Magyars. This, after all, is only that self-determination which we guaranteed. Let the Czechs be given an area of their own or return to Bolshevik Russia, and there will remain in what has been the unhappy Republic of the Czecho-Bolsheviks only the Slovaks and Ruthenians, who have no desire to set the world alight in the name of the World Revolution and their own self-interests. Are the Slovaks alone to be left to endure the agony of Czech misgovernment and oppression? Fight we will if fight we must, not against Germany for daring and being strong enough to look after her own sons, but against the enemy in our midst! Thus, and thus alone, can England maintain peace and her own honourable obligations. 

 The Czech Conspiracy A Phase in the World-War Plot The Czech Conspiracy A Phase in the World-War Plot George Henry Lane-Fox Pitt-Rivers Epilogue In the famous Declaration, signed by Neville Chamberlain and Adolf Hitler, and drafted by the former at Munich on September 30th, it was formally recognised that the “question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for the two countries and for Europe….” The Four-Power Pact was regarded as “symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again….” Yet no sooner had the peoples’ enthusiasm for the achievement of Peace begun to evaporate in the resumption of the routine of everyday life, than the “British” Press started to prepare the minds of the public for the idea that the danger of war was only postponed, that there must inevitably be another “crisis” sooner or later, that we must continue to re-arm, and that the imbecilities of A.R.P. must be resumed with ever-increasing vigour. The Communists suddenly became fervid champions of British Imperialism, enthusiasts for re-armament, and against the return of any colonies to Germany. They also showed a significant enthusiasm for a crazy scheme, first disclosed in all its detail by the Home Office after the crisis was over, for evacuating “refugee” civilians and children from the cities and compulsorily billeting them, on slum-clearance lines, in the private houses of the helpless rural population; a scheme whose origins may be sought in the Political and Economic Planning of Mr. Israel Moses Sieff. True English opinion was again squeezed out of the press, and a letter signed by a number of prominent Englishmen, to the Times, published on October 11th, was, significantly enough, held up for five days before the Times consented to publish it. I may, therefore, quote it as an indication of true English opinion. It was published as follows in the Anglo-German Review of October, 1938: •             “To the Editor of the Times. •       “The undersigned, who believe that real friendship and co-operation between Great Britain and Germany are essential to the establishment of enduring peace not only in Western Europe but throughout the world, strongly deprecate the attempt which is being made to sabotage an Anglo-German rapprochement by distorting the facts of the Czecho-Slovak settlement. We believe that the Munich Agreement was nothing more than a rectification of one of the most flagrant injustices of the Peace Treaty. It took nothing from Czecho-Slovakia to which that country could rightly lay claim and gave nothing to Germany which could have been rightfully withheld. We see in the policy so courageously pursued by the Prime Minister the end of a long period of lost opportunities and the promise of a new era compared to which the tragic years that have gone since the War will seem like a bad dream.” It bore the signatures of the following: Lord Arnold.
Captain Bernard Acworth.
Professor Sir Raymond Beazley.
Mr. C. E. Carroll.
Sir John Smedley Crooke, M.P.
Mr. W. H. Dawson.
Admiral Sir Barry Domvile.
Mr. A. E. R. Dyer.
Lord Fairfax of Cameron.
Viscount Hardinge of Penshurst.
Mr. F. C. Jarvis.
Mr. Douglas Jerrold.
Sir John Latta.
Professor A. P. Laurie.
The Marquess of Londonderry.
Vice-Admiral V. B. Molteno.
Capt. A. H. Maule Ramsay, M.P.
Mr. Wilmot Nicholson.
Lord Redesdale.
Captain Lane-Fox Pitt-Rivers.
Captain Arthur Rogers, O.B.E.
Major-General Arthur Solly-Flood.
Mrs. Nesta Webster.
Mr. Bernard Wilson.
                  (October 6, 1938.) Among other signatures which arrived too late to be appended to the letter were those of Lord Rochdale, Major Herbert S. Pullar and Professor C. Sarolea. 

   Notes and References 1. War Memories of David Lloyd George, Vol. V., pp. 2573-2578. 2. Ibid., p. 2567. 3. Ibid., p. 2572. 4. Secrets of Crewe House, by Sir Campbell Stuart, K.B.E., cit. Chapter III, “Operations Against Austria-Hungary: Propaganda’s Most Striking Success.” 5. The Hapsburg Monarchy, by Henry Wickham Steed (1913), p. 239. 6. Ibid., pp. 172-4. 7. Cf. A History of the Jews in England, by Albert M. Hyamson, p. 238. 8. The Case of German South Tyrol Against Italy. Translation from the German, edited by C. H. Herford, Litt.D., 1927. 9. An illustrated quarto pamphlet entitled: “Don’t Forget South Tyrol. The Lost Home,” by Hans Fingeller (1938); with 40 illustrations and a page of maps. It bears the name of no publisher or printer, and its authors and printers are therefore liable to prosecution under English Law. Amongst the persons quoted in support is a reference to Professor Seton-Watson quoted from the Slavonic Review of London, 1935. 10. Black Hand Over Europe, by Henri Pozzi, translated by Francis J. Mott (1935), p. 16.
      In this connection see also the works of Mary Edith Durham, F.R.A.I., at one time correspondent of the Times, Manchester Guardian, etc. The Sarajevo Crime (1925); Twenty Years of Balkan Tangle (1920); High Albania (1909); The Burden of the Balkans (1905); and Through the Land of the Serbs (1905). Her private letter only is quoted in the text. 11. The Czechoslovak Nation’s Struggle for Independence, by Jaroslav Papousek; published by the official Orbis Publishing House in Prague (1928). 12. Verrat an Europa, by Karl Vietz, 1938. There is an English translation. (High Treason Against Europe, Heath Cranton, Ltd.) On page 38 of the German edition is a facsimile reproduction of the Pittsburg Pact in the Slovakian language. 13. Société des Nations. Super-État Maçonnique, by Léon de Poncins. A facsimile reproduction is given in this book of the cover of the Congress Minutes of the “Maçonneries des Nations alliés et neutres,” held on 28th-29th and 30th of June, 1917. 14. Verrat an Europa, by Karl Vietz, p. 26. 15. Czecho-Slovakia, by Dr. Josef Gruber. (Translated from Czech documents.) Chapter I. by Dr. Antonin Bohác. 16. The Slovak National Council, Should Great Britain go to War for Czecho-Slovakia?: An Appeal to British Common Sense for the sake of World Peace, 1937. The Slovak Council subsequently issued a further report in 1938. 17. A History of Europe, by H. A. L. Fisher, p. 1160. 18. Die tschechoslowakischen Denkschriften für die Friedenskonferenz von Paris, 1919/1920. Published by “Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht” in Berlin. 19. Souvenirs de Guerre et de Révolution (1914-1918) – La Lutte pour l’Independénce des Peuples, par Edouard Benes, Ministre des Affaires Étrangères de la République Tchécoslovaque, Vol. II.; see especially Chapters XIX and XX. 20. Black Hand Over Europe, by Henri Pozzi, p. 206. 21. Through Thirty Years, 1892-1922, by Henry Wickham Steed, Vol. II., pp. 124-125. 22. See The Czech Legions in Siberia, by General Constantin W. Sakharow, former Chief-of-Staff of the White Russian Army. This book was banned by the Czech Government. 23. The World Significance of the Russian Revolution, by George Pitt-Rivers, with a Preface by Dr. Oscar Levy, 1920. Now out of print. 24. See Nouvelle Révue de Hongrie, February 1937, “Les Rapports Russo-Tchécoslovaques.”
      The 1931 statement of Benesh is contained, as a direct quote, in an inspired article from Prague by the Czech writer Paul Szvatko entitled: “Les Rapports Russo-Tchécoslovaques,” p. 187. The editor of this review, in introducing the writer, comments: “L’un (des deux articles) qui nous vient de Prague, fait connâitre de quelle manière la co-opération politique russo-tchécoslovaque est jugée en Tchécoslovaquie.” The writer of the article, Szvatko, hints that M Benesh repeated this statement of policy on more than one occasion, for he writes: “Cependant, dès 1931, M. Benesh écrivait çeci.” 25. “Résponse au rapport du capitaine Pitt-Rivers concernant la Tchécoslovaquie,” by Dr. A. Bohác, official Czech Statistician. This pamphlet was privately circulated by Dr. Bohác to members of the General Assembly of the International Population Union at Paris, July 1937, in reply to my Reports as Secretary-General. 26. The Truth About the Peace Treaties, by David Lloyd George, Vol. I. (1938), pp. 31-50. 27. The New Europe: The Slav Standpoint, by Thomas G. Masaryk, President of the Czecho-Slovak Republic. Issued for private circulation, Washington, October 1918; and printed by Eyre & Spottiswoode, Ltd., London, 1918. 28. Refugees: Preliminary Report of a Survey, by Sir John Hope Simpson, K.B.E., C.I.E., July 1938; issued under the auspices of The Royal Institute of International Affairs, Chatham House, London, pp. 178-9 and p. 90. 29. Convention concerning the Status of Refugees coming from Germany. Parliamentary Paper, Cmd. 5780, Miscellaneous No. 5 (1938). 30. Minutes, August 1938, Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the General Council of the League of Nations Union, p. 60. 31. “La France devra-t-elle Faire La Guerre Pour La Tchécoslovaquie? Lettre ouverte à Monsieur la Président de la République, Messieurs les membres du Gouvernement et du Parlement,” par Jean Montigny, Député de la Sarthe, Docteur en Droit Ès-Sciences Politiques; 19th September 1938. 32. “Report of Committee on Evacuation,” with a covering memorandum by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Sir Samuel Hoare; Cmd. 5837; July 1938. NOTE – See also White Papers, Miscellaneous Nos. 7 and 8 (1938); “Correspondence respecting Czechoslovakia, September 1938” Cmd. 5847; and “Further Documents respecting Czechoslovakia Including the Agreement concluded at Munich on September 29th, 1938,” Cmd. 5848. 

 The Czech Conspiracy A Phase in the World-War Plot

Published on February 27, 2009 at 11:14 am  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://jewise.wordpress.com/the-czech-conspiracy-a-phase-in-the-world-war-plot/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: