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withdrawn from library shelves and "lost", never to be replaced.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