Adolf Hitler Research Society

…Since WWII, [Jews] have been particularly sensitive to any hint of a resurgence of Nazism, either in the United States or Germany, and they have constantly reminded the rest of the world about Hitler and his cohorts.

AHRS Adler

For this reason, one of the most active aspects of J.W.V.’s postwar program has been keeping Nazis, Nazi sympathizers, and Germany herself under close surveillance. There are several reasons for this—to make sure that America does not reward Nazis, to make sure there is no resurgence of Nazism in Germany, to make sure that Germany does not stray in her obligations, particularly to Israel, and to make sure that war criminals are appropriately punished (Gloria R. Mosesson, p. 123-124).

Jewish War Agitation: Hitler to Ahmadinejad

The historical indictment of Adolf Hitler as the primary antagonist of the Second World War is an ahistorical construct. It was, and remains, the creation of historians as opposed to historical fact. The truth is that Hitler bears far less responsibility for the Second World War than any one of the four main Allied nations, those being: Great Britain, the Soviet Union, America, and above all, Israel.¹ In fact, when we apply the same historiographical measures and standards to Hitler’s Germany as we have to Hussein’s Iraq and Ahmadinejad’s Iran, then we are drawn to the conclusion that Americans, Israelis, and Britons are guilty of the same provocative international actions and aggressive war policies today as those of the 1920s through 1940s. This analysis will focus on the specific details of international Jewish agitation for war against Hitler’s Germany, Hussein’s Iraq, and Ahmadinejad’s Iran–all within a comparative context. I will prove beyond any doubt that Jewish agitation for war proved to be the decisive component in America’s decision to go to war in 1941, 2003, and quite possibly again this year (2009) against Iran.

Background: Jewish Ethnostrategy and Agitation against Germany

In a highly biased analysis of 1933, Jewish author Gloria Mosesson (1971) states the following:

Nineteen thirty-three was the year that saw active Comrade Herbert H. Lehman become Governor of New York State, Franklin Delano Roosevelt become President of the United States, and Adolf Hitler, an Austrian paperhanger turned German Fuehrer, become Chancellor of a Germany that was soon to have its name unofficially changed to Nazi Germany (p. 43).

Mosesson not only assigns to Hitler the responsibility and usage of the defamatory label of “Nazi Germany,” but more disturbingly she defames his character by calling him a “paperhanger,” insinuating that this is a career of which one ought to be ashamed. She does not call Roosevelt an ailing and crippled communist, nor does she assign a negative connotation to the then Jewish New York State Governor Herbert Lehman. In fact, she refers to him as an “active Comrade” which can only be interpreted as “active co-religionist.” Hitler never asked to be called “Nazi” nor did he view himself or Germany as “Nazi.” This term was a creation of the foreign press outfits that were agitating hostility towards Germany. Referring to Germany under Hitler as “Nazi Germany” is the equivalent of referring to modern day Iran as “Islami Iran” since it has evolved from a western-inclined democratic tradition to an Islamic authoritarian style republic. It was just “Germany” and it is just “Iran.”

She went on to say:

It is the eternal credit of the Jewish War Veterans of the United States that they were the first Jewish organization to recognize the menace of Hitler for what it was, and to take decisive action to fight Nazism wherever they would find it. There had been Jews who had questioned the need for a Jewish war veterans’ organization, who had suggested that its same functions could be handled by American veterans’ organizations or the rest of the Jewish community. But for that matter why then have Jewish hospitals or Jewish employment services (Ibid., p. 43-44)?

Mosesson has asked an important rhetorical question in this passage. Why have Jewish hospitals or employment organizations indeed! One cannot help but notice that there are no modern day Mexican employment organizations or hospitals, Polish employment organizations or hospitals, Iranian employment organizations or hospitals, Russian employment organizations or hospitals, German employment organizations or hospitals, ad infinitum. Mosesson (1971) has even affirmed that the Jewish people are a “race,” so it would be difficult to argue that these apartheid social organizations were strictly religious-based as opposed to race-based (p. 41). This is a topic which Dr. MacDonald has dealt with extensively in his tour de force, Separation and Its Discontents.

In a SAID summary, MacDonald’s website states:

The basic thesis of this book can be summarized by the proposition that Judaism must be conceptualized as a group strategy characterized by cultural and genetic segregation from gentile societies combined with resource competition and conflicts of interest with segments of gentile societies. This cultural and genetic separatism combined with resource competition and other conflicts of interest tend to result in division and hatred within the society (MacDonald, n.d.).

This explains at least in part why many of the Jews in 1930s America wanted a Jewish war veterans’ organization and why author Mosesson was so keen upon defending this desire in her book. Please recall that Mosesson (1971) has argued that this organization in particular was the first to recognize the “menace” of Hitler (p. 44). As argued by MacDonald, the Jews were especially successful as regards their ethno-social cohesive group strategy; thus, they were able to bring this organization to culmination even though some Jews opposed it. This successful ethnocentric cohesion in turn explains Jewish virulence and hostility towards German National Socialism. In the case of “Nazi” Germany the Jews were not considered part of the newfound German ingroup; rather, they were the ostracized outgroup. Hence, they became the victims of the same discriminatory attitudes and policies that they had so readily utilized in Weimar German society while acting as a cohesive ethnocentric ingroup; in even clearer terms, the Jews found themselves to be the victims of policies identical to their own. This is especially the case with the Nuremberg Laws which mimicked the biblical laws of Ezra almost to the point of plagiarism (See endnote [i] here).

Jewish-Zionist activist Lenni Brenner has affirmed this very principle:

Zionism has no illusions about the difficulty of the Jewish condition, which consists above all in an abnormal occupational pattern and in the fault of an intellectual and moral posture not rooted in one’s own tradition … On the foundation of the new state, which has established the principle of race, we wish so to fit our community into the total structure so that for us too, in the sphere assigned to us, fruitful activity for the Fatherland is possible. … Our acknowledgement of Jewish nationality provides for a clear and sincere relationship to the German people and its national and racial realities. Precisely because we do not wish to falsify these fundamentals, because we, too, are against mixed marriage and are for maintaining the purity of the Jewish group … We believe in the possibility of an honest relationship of loyalty between a group-conscious Jewry and the German state… (Atzmon, 2006).

So, Brenner has not only acknowledged the alien cultural disposition which proved problematic for successful German-Jewish relations throughout the Weimar years, but even more importantly, he has affirmed that the Nuremberg Laws were not to be detested by Jewry because they were based upon the racial laws of the Jews themselves. For the Jews to have detested the Nuremberg racial laws would have exposed them as bigots.

One of the reviews for MacDonald’s SAID briefly summarizes the German-Jewish social phenomenon in Hitler’s Germany:

MacDonald concludes that the National Socialism of (Nazi) Germany was not only a reaction to but a ‘mirror image’ of what Jews were doing. The similarities, he says, lie in the common focus on genetic purity (and endogamy), eugenic practices, cooperation within the cohesive ingroup, and hostility to and denigration of outgroups (seen in the original Hebrew versions of Jewish religious texts [see Israel Shahak’s (1994) Jewish History, Jewish Religion; John Hartung’s (1995) Love thy neighbor; (Skeptic Magazine, 3{November}:86-99)]. But where in the mirrored images of Jewish activities does one find the massacre of six million gentiles? Nowhere, of course, circa Weimar Germany. But think of the Biblical Joshua’s still celebrated genocide of the Canaanites, and the ongoing and frequently murderous actions taken by Jews in Israel against Palestinian Arabs (e.g., Deir Yassin; Baruch Goldstein), approved of by surprising percentages of Israeli Jews (Hilton, 1998) [emphasis added].

Hilton forgot to mention the genocide of Palestinians and Russian Slavs by Jews.

Jewish Lies and Deceit: A Glimpse Then and Now

Mosesson (1971) goes on to claim that “…none other than a Jewish veterans’ organization could straddle the communal scene and effectively coordinate the interests of Jews, of veterans, and Americans” (p. 44). According to this deduction the Jews could only count on themselves to take care of themselves which is not necessarily a faulty trait. In fact, it was probably these sorts of microdelegations that gave the Jewish people in America an extra edge over other racial and ethnic groups that were competing for the same financial, political, and social resources at the time. This is certainly the case today with regards to both the ADL and AIPAC Lobby (ADL, 2007; Leupp, 2007). Had the Germans been as effective as the Jews at ethno-strategy then it could just as easily have been they who swayed American foreign policy in favor of their worldview as opposed to the worldview of Jewry. It was this potential at the time that had solicited American Jewry, as well as Jewry abroad, to viciously and relentlessly attack any and all opposition to its ethos, which is convincingly argued by Mosesson. This was especially the case with regards to the numerous accusations of membership in the so-called “Nazi fifth column,” which appears to have consisted of numerous independent thinkers who disagreed with American intervention in Europe; that is, the thinkers who opposed Jewish interests of course. Even the renowned African American political figure and intellectual W.E.B. Du Bois was accused of sympathizing with Nazism (Lusane, p. 127). African American Lonnie Lawrence Dennis was actually accused of placating to Hitler’s “fifth column” in America. Dennis had also reportedly been photographed near or with Hitler, while in attendance at a 1935 Nuremberg Rally (Ibid., p. 122). American Jews and other warmongers accused Dennis of placating to “Hitler’s fifth columnists within the States” because his reports had been so well-received among anti-war, pro-Nazi advocates (Ibid.). Dennis had referred to Hitler as “the greatest political genius since Napoleon” in the pro-Nazi newspaper, Weckruf. He had also praised him as “rational” in that same article (Ibid.).

Mosesson (1971) tows this same line in having openly criticized assimilated or gentilized Jews:

It is noteworthy that this attitude carries over to the Jews who are afraid to put their efforts to positive and constructive community contributions because they are afraid to be labeled Jewish for fear of inciting anti-Semitism. Hitler was to teach them quite a different lesson by his thoroughness in rounding up and destroying by the thousands German Jews who had fled their Jewishness in the protective coloration of being good Germans (p. 44-45).

This argument can be countered, if not dismantled on three premises:

1. Dr. Robert Faurisson has concluded that thousands of Jews were not rounded up and “destroyed” by Hitler (Faurisson, 2006).

2. Mosesson has conveniently ignored the historical fact that at least 150,000 Jews and Mischlinge were allowed to serve in the German armed forces during the Second World War (Rigg, p. 192). Over 6,000 of these men had two Jewish parents (Ibid., p. 65). This indicates that numerous Jews were successfully assimilated in Hitler’s Germany and therefore accepted as members of ‘Nazi’ German society at the time.

3. As argued by Gilad Atzmon, the Jewish people have been guilty of numerous genocides which date as far back as biblical times; moreover, they have continued on the path of genocide with the Zionist occupation of Palestine (Atzmon, 2006).

The following excerpt from Atzmon’s essay explains much in the way of Jewish evolutionary group strategy. It emphasizes the Jews’ continued utilization of the alleged holocaust as their justification for the aforementioned genocide in Palestine as well as their continuous persecution of perceived ‘Nazis’ throughout the world.

In the article, Medoff explores the similarities between Esther’s lobbying in Persia and her modern brother’s lobbying within [   ] FDR’s administration at the pick [sic] of WWII. ‘The Esther in 1940s Washington was Henry Morgenthau, Jr.,’ says Medoff, ‘a wealthy, assimilated Jew of German descent who (as his son later put it) was anxious to be regarded as ‘one hundred percent American.’ Downplaying his Jewishness, Morgenthau gradually rose from being FDR’s friend and adviser to his Treasury Secretary.’

Clearly, Medoff spotted a modern Mordechai as well…‘a young Zionist emissary from Jerusalem, Peter Bergson (real name: Hillel Kook), [  ] led a series of protest campaigns to bring about U.S. rescue of Jews from Hitler. The Bergson group’s newspaper ads and public rallies roused public awareness of the Holocaust—particularly when it organized over 400 rabbis to march to the front gate of the White House just before Yom Kippur in 1943.’

Medoff’s reading of the Book of Esther provides us with a glaring insight into the internal code of Jewish collective survival dynamics in which the assimilated (Esther) and the observant (Mordechai) are joining forces with clear Judeo centric interests in their minds (Atzmon, 2006).

The passage above contains a fundamentally flawed argument; that being, that this “Bergson group” knew about the “Holocaust” by the year 1943. That is impossible. The earliest date as to knowledge of the alleged “Holocaust” could not have come until the year 1945 at the earliest. We need not even discuss the unsubstantiated, Jewish-supported argument that “homicidal gassings” did not even begin until 1942 (McFee, 2003). It would be ridiculous to even attempt to argue that the Germans allowed the details of their ultra secret gassing program to be leaked to the foreign press within a year of its implementation if they had not even committed the plan to paper; rather, they had allegedly implemented it with a “wink and a nod” as argued by the Jewish and mainstream historians themselves (H-HP.org, n.d.).

It is important to note that Jewish agitation against Germany exacerbated an already vehement anti-Jewish social reality in German society. This resulted largely from the international Jewish boycott of German goods in 1933 and the socio-economic hardships bestowed upon German society under the Versailles Diktat. One must be willing to acknowledge that Hitler had either perceived or genuinely believed that Jews had been the primary culprits behind the imposition of Versailles. He viewed it as wholly unfair because he felt Jews had played an imperative role in getting Germany involved in the First World War to begin with. It was for this reason that he and others dubbed the prominent Jewish leaders and financiers of the time “November criminals.” This is best explained by the Jewish German Heinz Weichardt.

As an aside, I am not thoroughly convinced as to the internal validity of this source; however, even if it is a work of fiction, it nevertheless conveys an accurate portrait of the internal strife between National Socialists and Jews just as would a fiction account of a holocaust “survivor”. So, even if Weichardt lied about his experiences, or this work is fraudulent, it nevertheless dovetails the official accounts of the socio-political context of Germany during the 1930s-1940s. Besides, he is no less credible than such holocaust “survivors” as Olga Lengyel (Five Chimneys), Elie Wiesel (Night), Filip Mueller (Eyewitness Auschwitz: Three Years in the Gas Chambers), Thomas Blatt (No Time for Tears), and Miklos Nyiszli (Auschwitz).

I have been able to verify some facts about one of his relatives, which I have included below, and I have also been able to confirm his personal information as stated in the introduction by J.B. Campbell (PeopleFinders.com, n.d.). His birth year and age match up with Mr. Campbell’s account so there is really only the issue of exaggeration and a lack of credibility as regards the internal validity. It appears as though Mr. Campbell had influenced Weichardt’s thinking to some degree, but this would have to be proven. Furthermore, Heinz more than likely would have been categorized as a Mischling and not a Jew; according to his autobiography his mother was “of Jewish extraction” (Weichardt, p. 2; Rigg, p. 16-17). This leads the reader to believe that she may not have been one hundred per cent Jewish. Regardless of what the truth may be, in the following excerpted and condensed account, Weichardt attempts to explain Hitler’s anti-Jewish thinking through an analysis of the context of the socio-political reality surrounding Hitler at the time; but, before proceeding, one may want to become familiar with a relative of Weichardt’s, Mr. Louis Weichardt.

According to Wikipedia Louis was “…a South African political leader who founded the Gray Shirts, a National Socialist organization. [He was] born in Paarl of German extraction (Note: According to JewishGen.org, Weichert/Weichardt is a Jewish surname). In Cape Town, on October 26, 1933, he founded the South African Christian National Socialist Movement with a paramilitary section (modeled on Nazi Germany’s brown-shirted Sturmabteilung). …[He had been] interned during World War II; he afterwards worked with Oswald Pirow’s New Order. [After] disbanding his party in 1948, Weichardt gave his allegiance to Daniel François Malan’s National Party. He became senator from [sic] Natal Province from 1956-1970” (Wikipedia, n.d.). Now that I have established a somewhat more credible portrait of this source, we may proceed with Weichardt’s account of Hitler’s anti-Jewish thinking.

According to Weichardt (2004):

Hitler examines the war maps.

After obtaining the Balfour Declaration the Jewish-American press and their followers made a sudden turnabout and began to pour their well-practiced venom on the still hard-fighting Germans, who were from now on to be known simply as barbarous Huns. This was not only a betrayal of Germany but also of their German co-religionists who were more accepted in Germany than anywhere else in the world and where most of their able-bodied men were still fighting for what they considered their fatherland. It was rather easy to convert the ‘idealistic’ but feebleminded Wilson into a fanatic crusader for ‘democracy’ and America joined the bloodletting with supposedly the best of intentions. As far as the public was concerned it was the job of the Jewish press, as well as others such as the Hearst press to release a never ending stream of anti-German hate propaganda which did a good job and the easily misled masses patriotically marched off to war. Russia had collapsed, the Jew Kerensky formed the first revolutionary government and decided to continue the war against Germany—a preposterous idea considering the condition of Russia at that time. Germany, eager to end the war in the east, decided to help a new and more radical revolution in Russia. Lenin, leader of the far left Communists, was residing in Zurich. He had promised to end the war with Germany as soon as he was in control of Russia and negotiations began for his secret transport through Germany to St. Petersburg. I am somewhat familiar with these occurrences because my father was at that time the top member of the German press corps in Switzerland and got involved in the above-mentioned negotiations. The Jews outside Germany decided to help Lenin along in his bid for power and sent his comrade Trotsky (Bronstein) and hundreds of Communist Jewish radicals from Brooklyn, armed with untold millions of dollars, to Russia. The rest is well-known history as far as the events in Russia are concerned. …

Here now rises the curtain over the second act of Jewish treachery against Germany—this time unfortunately in Germany proper. This is the story: After the German army had driven the Russians out of Germany and Austrian Galicia it drove them out of Russian Poland and Ukraine. The Jews, in Poland a major part of the population, became fearful of the traditional severe anti-Semitism in those parts, especially since the Germans had the plan to create a new Polish state at the end of the war with Russia. A massive movement of Galician Jews, most of them being Austrian citizens, began their trek westward into Austria, mainly Vienna, whence they could freely enter Germany. A few thousands in the beginning swelled to hundreds of thousands towards and after the end of the war. Among the first arrivals there was a disproportionate amount of Communist agitators which wormed its way into Germany’s Socialist movement, which already was dominated by Jewish intellectuals. In Germany, because of the Allied blockade, the suffering of the civilian population had already become severe and demoralizing and exactly after the Russians were forced to sign the peace-treaty of Brest-Litowsk, the unions struck a mortal blow to Germany’s war effort by striking the munitions factories. The planned offensive was thereby sufficiently delayed to permit the Americans to arrive with their unlimited supplies and after another year of hopeless resistance and President Wilson’s reasonable sounding peace offer, revolution broke out in Germany.

The war was lost and in Versailles Wilson’s proposals were wiped off the table and a peace was dictated to the newly formed German democracy, the insanity of which doomed it to an early demise at the day of its birth. The Communists under their Jewish leadership (Liebknecht, Luxemburg, Toller, Eisner, Radek, Kuhn, etc.) started bloody uprisings in Berlin, Munich and Hungary. Hostages, including women, were being taken and murdered, thousands were dying in street fights with police and gendarmes. Toller, leader of the Red Army which formed in Bavaria, recommended that most Germans should be gassed (aha!) and received congratulations and promises of help from Lenin personally. The new Socialist president, Ebert, was finally forced to call on the remnants of the German army, and with the help of the newly formed Freikorps (mostly patriotic former members of the army), the Bolsheviks along with the incursions of Poles across the newly enforced German borders were finally defeated. It should be emphasized at this point that nearly all the leaders of the Communist terrorists were foreign Jews. During the accelerating inflation certain businessmen and well connected financiers, again the majority being Jewish, were able to amass fortunes, which helped the rise of anti-Semitism in the country suffering from defeat and incredible hunger, thanks to the continuing British blockade, which was prolonged for one year after the armistice and caused the deaths of approximately 800,000 Germans, mostly women and infants. …

On January 31, 1933, with a Bolshevik uprising only weeks—perhaps [even] days—away, Hitler, as leader of the largest party, was constitutionally named Reichschancellor. The most remarkable part about the following national ‘revolution’ is the fact that it was totally orderly and bloodless. A few especially obnoxious leaders of the extreme left were locked up and perhaps got a well earned beating from overly enthusiastic storm troopers, who remembered their murdered comrades. If I am wrong about this, please name me one prominent victim of this ‘terror.’ When on February 27, 1933 a Communist succeeded in setting fire to the Reichstag building in Berlin, the Communist Party was outlawed and the top leaders were arrested. Any claim that the National Socialists set the fire is typical lying propaganda. Today this is even admitted in Jewish-ruled Germany! During the following fall a trial was held in Germany’s highest court against the admitted arsonist and the Communist hierarchy. One Bulgarian Communist, Dimitroff, of postwar fame, had a field day in court by insulting Hermann Göring, but in the end all of them were acquitted except the arsonist. The highest court in National Socialist Germany could not produce sufficient evidence to tie the Communist élite to the crime which was certainly committed in their name. … (p. 4-12).

This pithy depiction of Hitler’s thinking, as well as that of his fellow National Socialists, with regards to the Jews is accurate. Even Hitler himself had stated very similar reasons for his personal feelings about Jews in Mein Kampf and during conversations with both Dietrich Eckart and Otto Wagener. (See Eckart, Bolshevism from Moses to Lenin and Wagener, Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant). I would also like to briefly add that Hitler’s suppression of his SA, as well as the murder of Ernst Roehm, was a far cry from tyranny because it was done to secure the safety and future of the German Reichswehr, which was the only official militia of the German nation (Dietrich, p. 28-29). If Hitler had allowed his SA to overthrow the German military then he would have been guilty of a crime against the state which he had recently avowed to protect and defend. It would have been the modern day equivalent of George W. Bush’s private Blackwater organization overthrowing the United States military. Hitler is absolutely exonerated in this regard. Let us now briefly return to the subject of the Jewish boycott against Germany.

Not even Mosesson (1971) can deny the popular Jewish support for the 1933 international boycott of German goods. The J.W.V. [Jewish War Veterans] played a crucial role not only in the instigation of the boycott but also in the recruitment process to get other Jewish organizations and businesses involved (p. 45). Many Jews were at first reluctant to place their Jewishness ahead of their Americanism, but the boycott fever proved an irresistible temptation and a parade was even organized as a show of Jewish American prowess and defiance towards everything German (Ibid., p. 45). “Thousands of WWI veterans flock[ed] to join existing posts” (Ibid.). Mosesson even makes mention of the “mammoth parade” which was “kicked off” by the J.W.V. in New York on 23 March 1933. It is difficult to fathom that the idea of destroying the lives of fellow human beings with the possibility of starving them unto their collective death was a cause for celebration.

Many people would like only to indict the Zionist Jews for instigating this international boycott of 1933, but that simply is not an accurate portrayal of the historical reality. The man who had conceived of the boycott of “German-made imports” was a certain J. George Fredman. The J.W.V. agreed with his idea and “adopted it as national policy” (Mosesson, p. 45). Again, and this cannot be emphasized enough, the J.W.V. was next to solo in its efforts to orchestrate this international boycott until it had recruited, through grassroots activism, enough enthusiastic Jewish participation to make it an international effort. The whole idea was spawned by a single pro-Jewish grassroots activist, not a Zionist. The J.W.V. had also committed itself to combating “Hitlerism” and “anti-Semitism” in America (Mosesson, p. 45). Remarkably, the J.W.V. was able to expand its “national body… geographically [and] numerically” (Ibid.). In other words, what began as a simple boycott became an INGO (International Non-Governmental Organization). Just four months into the international boycott, Samuel Untermeyer had gone so far as to announce on 6 August 1933 that “…we will undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends” (AHRS, 2007).

The National Commander and “parade marshal” was none other than Abraham Kraditor for whom the Abraham Kraditor Memorial Award for Political Science was named (Stella, n.d.). On just three days’ notice “sponsors were solicited” and included the American Legion, V.F.W., Palestine Legionnaires, and “delegates from many fraternal, social and commercial organizations” including the “Ladies Auxiliary” (Mosesson, p. 45). Once again, we can clearly see that non-Zionists were both solicited and involved in this international boycott against Germans simply because they had popularly elected Hitler to direct the affairs of their nation. According to Mosesson (1971), “The parade route, which led to City Hall, was lined with almost a million people. Commander Fredman presented an anti-Nazi resolution to New York’s Mayor John O’Brien, who stated: ‘Any regime which encourages religious intolerance as its basis must and will meet with the moral opposition of the entire world’” (p. 45-46).

First of all, “religious intolerance” had nothing to do with National Socialist Germany at this time. Remember, this accusation was made in November 1933 which was only eleven months after Hitler’s inauguration on 30 January 1933 (Toland, 1992). As documented by Toland (1992), Hitler had stated in the private company of his closest comrades, “Some foreign source today called me ‘anti-Christ,’ he said. “The only kind of anti I am is anti-Lenin” (p. 291). Furthermore, both historians Ernst Helmreich and Richard Steigmann-Gall have argued that the alleged religious intolerance of Christians during the span of the Third Reich is completely inaccurate (See The German Churches Under Hitler and The Holy Reich). The Jewish grievance of “religious intolerance” under Hitler is likewise inaccurate. Jews were not persecuted for religious reasons. They were persecuted for political, criminal, financial, and social reasons, above all. Christianity may have played a significant role in certain aspects of Jewish persecution in general, but it was not the sole or predominant cause of Jewish persecution in Hitler’s Germany (AHRS, 2005).

As I had written in an earlier analysis:

The legalized criminality and predominantly Marxian attributes of this people as a whole was the primary contributing factor to Jewry’s collective persecution at the hands of the Natsos. Perhaps if the Jewish people had not collectively declared war upon Germany, nor proved themselves to be a hostile socio-political phenomenon within German society—namely, with their Marxian ideology—then Hitler would not have persecuted them to such an extent as has been proven forensically and historically [referring specifically to deportation and internment, not “extermination” which remains wholly unproven]” (AHRS, 2007).

Furthermore, let us not overlook what we have been discussing which is the fact that international Jews had boycotted Germany in order to “destroy” it in 1933 (AHRS, 2007). The atrocities and extremes of Reichskristallnacht did not occur until 1938, so this event cannot be cited as an excuse. Additionally, Hitler was “disgusted” by the violent, anti-Jewish events that had ensued in his name (Weckert, 1985).

Jewry’s Self-Inflicted Sufferings: Ideal for Attaining Control

The following excerpt from historian Ingrid Weckert’s essay, “Crystal Night 1938: The great Anti-German spectacle,” gives us an historically accurate portrayal of Hitler’s reaction to “religious intolerance” toward Jewry.

‘Crystal Night’ is the name that’s been given to the night of 9-10 November 1938. In almost all large German cities and some smaller ones that night, store windows of Jewish shops were broken, Jewish houses and apartments were destroyed, and synagogues were demolished and set on fire. Many Jews were arrested, some were beaten, and some were even killed. The ‘Reich Crystal Night’ (Reichskristallnacht) was one of the most shameful events of National Socialist Germany. Although the Jews suffered initially, the greatest harm was ultimately done to Germany and the German people.

Even people who are sympathetic to National Socialism cannot understand how this event could have happened. Julius Streicher, the so-called ‘number one Jew baiter’ [note 1] for example, was shocked when he first learned about the demonstrations and destruction the next morning. [Emphasis added]

The all-important question is: Who was responsible for the incident? It is generally accepted, especially by contemporary historians, that the Nazi gang organized and carried out the pogrom, and that the chief instigator was Propaganda Minister Dr. Joseph Goebbels. The truth of the matter is that Adolf Hitler was so disgusted by the incident that he forbade anyone from discussing the matter in his presence. Dr. Goebbels complained that he would now have to explain this terrible affair to the German people and the world, and that he simply did not know what kind of credible explanation to give. If he had actually been responsible for the Crystal Night, he surely would have had a well-prepared explanation. The explanation he gave on the morning of the 10th was extremely unconvincing and was generally not believed by the German public. During my study of this subject, which resulted in my book on the Crystal Night, Feuerzeichen, I found many facts which do not agree with the generally accepted thesis. On the contrary, the evidence which I have found gives a completely different picture (Weckert, 1985). [Emphasis added]

It may be pertinent to mention at this point that a least some Jews in Germany at the time were aware that ominous things were to come. This foreboding could only have been evoked in individuals or groups that had something to hide or felt some degree of guilt about what they might have been harboring in their hearts and minds.

The following passage by Gilad Atzmon should suffice as to the knowledge of this foreboding:

… They [Zionists] followed their very Jewish cultural code. They followed the Book of Esther, they took the role of Mordechai. They tried to find a way to collaborate with what they correctly identified as a prominent emerging power. In 1969, Rabbi Prinz confessed that ever since the assassination of Walther Rathenau in 1922, there was no doubt in our minds that the German development would be toward an anti-Semitic totalitarian regime. When Hitler began to arouse, and as he put it ‘awaken’ the German nation to racial consciousness and racial superiority, we had no doubt that this man would sooner or later become the leader of the German nation (2006).

This passage leads us to acknowledge that some Jews knew what was coming. Instead of taking measures to normalize Jewish-German relations, they chose instead to remain insular and ethnocentric, which could only put them in opposition to German society, politics, and culture. Perhaps if German Jews had made serious and honest efforts to curb the collective criminality and social debauchery of their co-religionists things might have turned out quite different for both Germany and Jewry. Mosesson (1971) has argued that the Jewish boycott tactics were “many and varied” (p. 47). Some of the tactics are so unbelievable in their scope and range that one would do well to at least familiarize oneself with the pervasiveness of this movement and the detrimental consequences it probably wrought upon the German economy. These actions, in turn, had undoubtedly served to incite German hostility towards Jews in Germany itself.

According to Mosesson:

There were more parades, meetings, solicitation of help from other Jewish groups, boycott stamps and all kinds of reminders, like book matches, about the boycott. Lists of substitute products for German imports were made up, cheaters who removed German labels and sold their goods as American items were apprehended, and even the National City Bank was petitioned not to make a proposed loan to Germany. Constant vigilance led to an ever-decreasing number of German imports.

William Bobier of Phoenix, Arizona (formerly of Cleveland, Ohio), recalls that J.W.V. members worked with the Federal Bureau of Investigation [FBI] in giving information on German-American Bund members, backers, meetings, and activities.

This protest against Hitler’s regime, the first public one in the United States, was actually spurred by the inertia of American Jews in taking any action in the face of the stories of brutality and oppression against German Jewry. It was an indication of farsightedness, moral courage, and forthright action on the part of the J.W.V. (p. 47).

First of all, the fact that the Jewish War Veterans were able to either persuade or coerce the American FBI into taking action against German American citizens is unprecedented; however, it does not come as nearly as much of a shock today as it probably had back then. Secondly, the accounts of “brutality” against German enemies and even Jewry were oftentimes fraudulent or exaggerated. Aside from the aforementioned Weckert account, the following is just one example among many.

As documented by historian A.V. Schaerffenberg (2003):

On April 27, 1937, newspapers around the world were filled with outrage over an air raid on the undefended Basque city of Guernica. Gruesome photographs of 6,000 dead women and children appeared accompanied by headlines accusing the ‘Nazi murderers’ of causing this terrible tragedy. While every effort was being made by journalists in France, England, Russia, and America to inflame public opinion against the Germans, Condor Legion pilots were puzzled, because they never bombed Guernica. Their targets had been confined to Republican strongholds around the nearby city of Bilbao. Although Guernica’s civilian dead were real enough, they had in fact been butchered by Communist hit squads, who transformed their own atrocities into anti-Fascist propaganda. They were aided and abetted, of course, by the largely sympathetic world press, whose readers were [not] allowed an opportunity to learn about contrary evidence from [either] the Germans [or] the international Red Cross (p. 33-34).

America: “Brimming with the Jewish Spirit”

Numerous Americans have been able to see the extent of the power wielded against the alleged enemies of America through such Jewish socio-political vehicles as the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Simon Wiesenthal Center, AIPAC, JINSA, the Jewish Defense League, and the American Jewish Congress (AJC). A recent article in The Economist pointed out the extent of the power of the AIPAC Lobby on America’s foreign policy and political life (AHRS, 2007). American public opinion was at that time, and continues to be, largely guided by Jewish interests due to the undeniable fact that Jews owned controlling interest of nearly every American media outlet (Weltner, n.d.; also see Neumann’s unconvincing rebuttal of this charge here: http://www.counterpunch.org/neumann01072003.html).

In addition, former CIA director from 1993-1995 R. James Woolsey had stated the following:

I sometimes get asked these days if I’m Jewish—it’s my neoconish views on defense and foreign affairs, I suppose. For a while I would just say, ‘No, Presbyterian,’ but I’ve started saying instead, ‘Well, I anchor the Presbyterian wing of JINSA (the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs).

What with anti-Semitism growing in Europe and a hideous variety thereof metastasizing in the Middle East—not to speak of the American Left’s (and a small part of the Right’s) hostility to Israel, which sometimes veers off into anti-Semitism—it seems to me our Jewish friends could use a bit of solidarity these days. Today, the first day of Rosh Hashana, celebration of the Jewish New Year, is as good a time as any to explain why. …

… I’ve mainly been in synagogues for the bar mitzvas and bat mitzvas of friends’ children. The next time you are, notice what the object of veneration is—it is the Torah, the law itself. At a point in the service it is carried, lovingly, around the congregation, greeted as an old friend. I am convinced that it is this veneration of the law—with its status above the ruler—that is at the heart of anti-Semitism. …

Jews have almost always been the first target of tyrants [obvious allusion to Hitler], because their beliefs and religious practices, honed by nearly two millennia in Diaspora, clearly declare that in their view the law is above the ruler… We should all reflect upon the historic reality that when anti-Semitism raises its head, the rest of us, unless we are willing to live with a foot on our neck, will be the next targets.

Jewish humor, a distinctive barrier against any propensity to self-righteousness, permeates American culture. A number of times during the Cold War, I was involved in arms control negotiations with the Soviets. No matter how bad the tension across the negotiating table during the day, Russian and American negotiators would often end up going out for dinner together. Somehow, even in the most difficult periods, the conversation frequently turned to trading jokes. … (2003).

This excerpt from an article posted on the website of the Jerusalem Post is revealing in more ways than one.

First of all, Mr. Woolsey indicates that he has been completely won over to the Jewish ethos. He is so won over in fact that he deems it necessary to participate in Jewish cultural and religious affairs as evidenced in the above passage when he makes mention of attending the bar mitzvahs and bat mitzvahs of his friends. He even seems to feel that it is no longer acceptable for him to reply that he is simply a “Presbyterian” as evidenced in the first sentence of his article. One may want to just reflect on this for a moment and ask oneself, would a Jewish individual say, “I represent the Jewish wing of the Christian Coalition of America,” as opposed to, “Yes, I’m Jewish.” Furthermore, are there Christian Americans within the highest echelons of the Israeli intelligence and government, such as Mossad or even in the Knesset?

There are currently numerous Jews in the American Senate and House of Representatives, so why aren’t there Christians in the Israeli Knesset, especially given the special ‘friendship’ between the United States and Israel? It would seem that a set of true allies would want to integrate as much as possible to make the entire system of alliance function more smoothly and as efficiently as possible. It appears that Germany and Italy had shared more intelligence and had a better working alliance than the US and Israel currently have today (see Bormann’s Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-1944 or Ludecke’s I Knew Hitler for information on the Mussolini-Hitler alliance). As a matter of fact, as documented by A.V. Schaerffenberg (2003), Hitler had even sent his Japanese allies his atomic intelligence which was regrettably intercepted by the British en route. This was the only reason America developed the atomic bomb first—once again, they had stolen the intelligence of German minds and used it against innocent civilians (p. 156).

Secondly, Woolsey appears to have a greater political and social affinity for Israel than his own nation, which seems odd for a man who had directed the American CIA for two years.

Thirdly, Woolsey indicates that Jews have almost always been on the receiving end of tyranny, however he completely avoids whether it be cleverly or ignorantly the fact that the controlling interests behind Soviet tyranny, mass liquidation, collectivization, and oppression was largely Jewish (Strauss, 2003; Weber, 1994). He also neglects to acknowledge new evidence suggesting that in all probability Hitler had literally preempted Stalin by mere weeks (Michaels, 1999; Makow, 2007; Hoffmann, p. 26-30).

Was Hitler Really Responsible for Instigating War on the Eastern Front?

Before touching on my last point regarding Woolsey, let me briefly interject that according to renowned historian Joachim Hoffmann (2001):

According to Viktor Suvorov, August 19, 1939, was the date upon which Stalin started the Second World War (since this was the day Stalin ordered his surprise attack against the Japanese 6^th Army at Khalkhin Gol). Professor Lev Kopelev made a similar statement on December 24, 1994; his phraseology is different, but no less clear: ‘In 1939, the World War was continued by the Hitlerite and Stalinist realms… on a new and monstrous scale’ (p. 30). …

The Point of departure of the present description is, as stated above, the fact—which is now indisputable—that Hitler, through the initiation of hostilities, just barely preempted a war of aggression prepared by Stalin. This indisputable scholarly fact is the rock upon which the hopes of our ideologues, in the truest sense of the word, are wrecked. Their arguments are null and void, but their doctrinaire blindness, nevertheless, remains (p. 23). …

A conference of the highest commanders of the Red Army under the Chairmanship of the People’s Commissar of Defense, Marshal of the Soviet Union Timoshenko, made the decision in December 1940 to conduct any future war as a war of attack. In January 1941, two large-scale staff war-game planning maneuvers of the top leadership cadres of the Red Army (also under the direction of the People’s Commissar of Defense and to some extent in the presence of Stalin and a few members of the Politburo) produced the first study for the execution for an offensive war against Germany (p. 54). …

What were the details of the Soviet General Staff’s plan? The above mentioned short ‘Credo of Attack’ ran as follows: ‘When one considers that Germany keeps its army mobile through the installation of rear support services, then it can preempt us [predupredit, with double underlining by General Vatutin] during deployment, and carry out a surprise attack.’ … As a perceptive observer, Pourray, has remarked, if the Soviet General Staff feared that the Germans might preempt the Red army, this must have been because the Russians were already doing something that the Germans needed to preempt (p. 59).

As the above passages indicate, Hitler was not the sole aggressor of the Second World War; moreover, he truly had launched a preemptive war against the Soviet Union, which exposes the Americans and Britons for what they were for illegally entering that justified preemptive strike: war criminals and aggressors. So, the Americans and Britons, along with their Jewish agitators, had not acted against Hitler in defense; rather, they acted aggressively just as they had against Iraq in 2003, and just as they may yet against Iran this year.

For those who remain in doubt as to Stalin’s responsibility for World War II, perhaps a report of 31 August 2007 ought to suffice as sufficient evidence in support of this accusation. According to reporter Tom Segev, new inquiry into the responsibility for the Second World War has revealed some rather interesting, aside from disturbing, results. Segev has concluded, in the following report, that Stalin was responsible for the Second World War. I had come to the same conclusion, in this very dissertation as a matter of fact, though with greater reserve (see H.W. Koch’s study “Barbarossa: The Current State of the Debate”).

Segev has reported the following:

MISCHA Shauli sat at the National Archives in Washington, D.C., completely beside himself. It had been years since the first time he heard about the existence of a document said to prove that Stalin, not Hitler, bore the main responsibility for World War II, and for years he had searched for it with all his skills as a professional detective.

Shauli’s last position was as Commander Shauli, Representative of the Israel Police in Russia. Previous to that he had been head of the police fraud investigation unit for the Southern District.

A few years ago Shauli read “Icebreaker: Who Started the Second World War” by Bogdan Rozen. Rozen, who now lives in England, wrote it under the pseudonym of Viktor Suvorov. Shauli, impressed by the book, translated it into Hebrew and saw to its publication here.

From out of the sea of details, a coherent thesis emerges: Stalin dragged Hitler into war to force Europe into chaos and facilitate a communist revolution on the continent. According to Shauli, there is evidence to back up this theory, including a speech by Stalin himself as well as a report obtained by the U.S. Consulate in Prague. The report has been mentioned here and there over the years, but it has never been published, because no one knows where it is today.

Shauli, 59, believed that the definitive evidence was out there, hiding somewhere. He believed, and did not give up, repeatedly setting out to find it, going as far as Washington. No one is happier than he is today: The document is in his possession, and now the history of World War II may have to be rewritten: It was Stalin’s fault.

The document, from October 1939, consists of three pages in English that purportedly reflect a dialogue in Moscow between a delegation from Czechoslovakia and a senior Soviet Foreign Ministry official. The Czechs tried to find out why the U.S.S.R. had signed the nonaggression treaty with Nazi Germany, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of August 1939. A few days later the Germans invaded Poland, and World War II began.

The Soviet official, Alexandrov by name, explained to the Czech delegation that had the Soviet Union signed an agreement with the West, Hitler would not have dared to launch a war, and without that war there would have been no possibility of imposing communism in Europe. He also listed the benefits to the Soviet Union of the pact with Nazi Germany, and of the war.

The veracity of the document must be proved, and even if it turns out to be genuine, its significance is worthy of debate. Mischa Shauli is continuing his investigation. No, he said this week, he does not fear that shifting responsibility for the war from Hitler to Stalin “acquits” Hitler; he is responsible for other crimes (2007).

Let us now return to our analysis of Woolsey’s article.

Lastly, he neglects to mention the Jews’ extreme religious persecution of Christians in Soviet Russia (Makow, n.d.).

Unfounded Suffering to Get their Way

In light of the evidence, Woolsey’s baseless assumption—Jews are the “first target” of tyranny—requires qualification, especially if the American public is expected to rely upon him and people like him as a credible source when it comes to the legitimacy and necessity of an Israeli-American alliance. Clearly he does not concern himself with evidence that might serve to make him think a little more critically about what his Jewish friends tell him. He has also claimed that when anti-Semitism “raises its head” Americans can expect to “be the next targets.” This is an argument which is wholly illogical when one looks at it critically. It is a logical fallacy. Why would anti-Semitism put Americans of non-Jewish descent in peril?

Last but not least, Woolsey closes his article by claiming “We’re all Jews in America” which is certain to raise at least a few brows as to its legitimacy. It seems Mr. Woolsey needs to learn how to analyze evidence and speak for himself.

Mosesson, like Woolsey, has decided that the J.W.V., unlike the non-Jewish American organizations, was “farsighted,” morally courageous, and all of these other praiseworthy things without having truly examined the reality of the situation in Germany at the time. As I have shown in the account of Schaerffenberg, and there are numerous others, the alleged atrocities against the Jewish people in Germany were either fraudulent or grossly exaggerated most of the time. Ingrid Weckert (1985) has also discussed the exaggeration of the suffering of the Jews under Hitler (see http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/6/2/Weckert183-206.html).

It might not be a bad idea to recount the words of American Doug Brinkley (2001) on his visit to Hitler’s Germany:

… I have visited the concentration camps in Germany. In the camp at Oranienburg, about twenty English miles out of Berlin, I found 187 prisoners—not 1500 as Lord Marley claims. Two guards with rifles stood in front of the gate, but there were no machine-guns. I found totally modern, sanitary facilities and not, as has been claimed, ‘just a single water pump in the courtyard with old pails for the use of individual prisoners.’ The sleeping rooms were not ‘ruins made with some dirty straw covering concrete floors,’ rather they were just as good and clean as the sleeping rooms of many army barracks I have seen in America.

I could see that many false claims had been made. For example, the prisoners receive the same food as the commandant of the camp and the National Socialist guards—three plentiful means each day, naturally without luxury. They have two free hours for relaxation and exercises. If they behave well, they may have two visits each month from relatives or friends. One will be amazed—as I was indeed myself surprised—that I did not find a single Jew in this concentration camp; the prisoners were mostly communists. I had been invited to join a group of journalists and other official visitors who were to visit the Oranienburg concentration camp. But I declined, because there were rumors that the conditions in the camp had been altered for such visits.  … I therefore got special permission from the police and picked another day at random to go to Oranienburg unannounced. I drove the twenty miles in a common taxi. There were no other visitors there that day. …

… I talked with many prisoners. Their answers were essentially the same. The first prisoner I spoke to was a communist. He spoke English and read foreign papers. He said: ‘My whole life I always had too little time—now I have too much.’ Another said: ‘Aside from the loss of my freedom, I have nothing to complain about.’ A group of prisoners further commented, ‘We are well treated, as prisoners can just expect to be.’ They told me they were never hit, that no mistreatment occurred and that order and discipline prevailed in the camp (p. 20-21).

Some individuals may require more evidence than what Brinkley has offered here and I have just the evidence—from a scurrilous source nonetheless!

According to Oranienburg inmate Kurt Ludecke (1937):

… After the usual routine, plus a primitive but welcome shower-bath, I was locked up alone in a cell somewhat larger than the Alex cell. Altogether my new home was friendlier. The window, though barred, was wider; there was a real little table and a cupboard, a wash-basin and a shoebrush, and a bunk which folded against the wall. There was a single mattress—luxury! The walls mercifully were white with only a lower dado of grey.

For a few hours I was almost happy. And there hung the prison rules of the old regime, still in force. Yes, here was Prussian order: bed-clothing changed twice a month, a fresh towel every week, and rules for everything—church services, prison library, writing, visitors, cell-cleaning, and so forth. Here the prisoner had a few privileges, however modest. … [W]e were not required to work and had the privilege of buying tobacco, food, and little extras through the commissary. I read as many newspapers as I wanted. The food was meager and simple, but eatable, and I sustained myself pretty well with the extras I bought. … Except for the Freigang—half an hour in the morning and afternoon in the recreation yard, a large compound with some elms and apple trees—we were left completely to ourselves (p. 687-688).

These various accounts ought to put to rest the inundating accounts of unleashed German brutality against prisoners and Jews. There are numerous “holocaust survivor” accounts which, remarkably, espouse these same decent realities, so one would do well to consult those works as well. Now, let us once again return to the account of the Jewish boycott against Germany.

Mosesson (1971) goes on to note:

It is interesting to note some of the consequences of the boycott and corollary work. For instance, by November 1933, Woolworth’s had already discontinued the sale of some three hundred fifty items imported from Germany. J.W.V. petitioned the United States Olympic Committee not to participate in the upcoming 1936 Olympics, scheduled to be held in Berlin. This was an ongoing struggle, and by 1935, the American Legion was cooperating with the J.W.V. in opposing United States entry in the games.

But perhaps the most important aspect of the entire program was its impact in awakening the Jewish and American communities to the threat of Nazi Germany, not only to Jews, but to all freedom-loving peoples. It was the avowed aim of the Nazis to spread their totalitarian doctrines throughout the United States, through such groups as William Pelley’s Silver Shirts, the Christian Front, the German-American Bund, and the preachings of Father Coughlin, Gerald L.K. Smith, and others like them. Not only did J.W.V., as an organization, root out and publicly expose these dangerous policies, but individual members fought them in various ways (p. 47-48).

Jewish Lies then Similar to those of Today

Mosesson has made a mistake in assuming that Pelley was pro-Hitler, as he himself had stated that Hitler’s ideology was not necessarily the right kind for Americans (Pelley, n.d.). Indeed, Pelley appears to have been anti-Jewish due to his own personal experiences with Jewish power in America; so, to act as though his anti-Jewish inclinations were a direct result of Hitler’s anti-Jewish inclinations would need a great deal more evidentiary support than Mosesson has provided. Furthermore, Hitler cannot possibly be held accountable for the activities and beliefs of such fascists as Oswald Mosley, Louis Beam, or any others for that matter. Jews like Mosesson make the incorrect assumption that all fascism is somehow connected, but that could not be further from the truth. Perhaps the international fascist movements of the time were connected on an ideological level, but to see them as one unified international movement would be to mistakenly apply the standards and measures of the Jewish international boycott against Germany to those gentile fascist movements of the era. Gentiles do not engage in international movements to the same extent as Jews do, and this can most easily be proven by simply studying the 1933 boycott, or even the modern day ‘war on terror’ which is a phantasm supported by myriad Jewish interests throughout the world, as well as the theories and activities of related Jewish think tanks like the ADL, JINSA, and AIPAC (MacGregor, 2005; See also http://nowarforisrael.com/ and http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=12229].

On March 24, 2006, Jewish Week war correspondent James Besser reported the following:

As Iraq careens toward civil war, and public disillusionment with the conflict grows at home, a new report on the pro-Israel lobby published by Harvard’s prestigious Kennedy School of Government could revive charges of Jewish and pro-Israel complicity in the war.

Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, said the report’s claim that Jewish and pro-Israel groups played a major role in pressing for the Iraq war in 2003 could ‘give these views new credibility.’

‘We have always been concerned that those opposed to the war have tried to portray it as a Jewish war, an Israeli war,’ Foxman said. ‘Our concern has been that if the war went badly, and there was more public disillusionment, these kinds of conspiracy theories could resurface and grow.’

That, he said, is ‘exactly what’s happening now’ as the Harvard report races around the world on antiwar and anti-Israel web sites.

‘The charge isn’t new,’ said Martin Raffel, associate director of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. ‘But this is Harvard and the University of Chicago we’re talking about; it’s the credibility of the writers. Twenty years from now, when academics are studying these issues, they will go back to these sources. It becomes part of the canon.’

The report comes against the backdrop of a deteriorating situation in Iraq — and as the Bush administration suggests its tough stand against Iran is based heavily on concerns about Israel’s safety.

On Monday, President George W. Bush said that ‘the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. … It’s a threat to world peace [?]. It’s a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance.’

A longtime pro-Israel leader said that ‘once again the administration is hiding behind Israel’s skirts to justify its policies. That’s dangerous, because it reinforces these anti-Semites who will say it’s an Israel-driven policy. It’s an attempt to neutralize the left by suggesting that if they oppose his Iran policies, they’re anti-Israel.’

The study, part of Harvard’s ‘Working Papers’ series, was written by Harvard professor Stephen Walt and University of Chicago scholar John Mearsheimer, co-director of the school’s program on International Security Policy. Both are regarded as top international affairs scholars.

Walt has written critically on ‘unconditional’ U.S. support for Israel and on the pro-Israel lobby; Mearsheimer was a signer and defender of a letter arguing that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon might use the ‘fog of war’ when the Iraq war began to ‘commit further crimes against the Palestinian people, up to full-fledged ethnic cleansing.’

Upon reading this excerpt we can clearly see that Jewish interests are playing a pivotal role in the alleged ‘war on terror’ supposedly being waged to secure the safety of Americans in America. That is a lie. This war is being waged to secure the safety of Jews in Israel and possibly also those Jews living outside of Israel. In light of the evidence, one may safely state that there is an historical parallel between the Jewish role in the strained relations between Americans and Germans during the 1930s-1940s and the present-day strained relations between Americans and Iranians. The Jews had also played a significant role in creating strained relations between America and Iraq prior to America’s unwarranted invasion and occupation of that country. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, America perceived Nazism as terrorism primarily because Jews had painted such a portrait for American consumption in the American media and press (Walendy, 1987). An American paper, according to Ludecke, had even labeled Hitler a “terrorist” (p. 531).

Mosesson (1971) goes on to say:

1939 German-American Bund rally.

…J.W.V. members were always quick to point out to onlookers that when the German-American Bund marched, only German flags were displayed, not American ones. When J.W.V. members attended meetings, like the American Legion, this was again quietly pointed out—and so was the ever-present Nazi salute. The Nazis’ aggressive warlike hate-mongering statements were also publicized in appropriate ways. And the American community began to get the message—Hitler was not only bad for Jews; he was bad for America (p. 48-49).

Let me briefly ask why it is that the ADL and the Jewish war veterans of today are not raising their voices against Mexican flags being donned at pro-Mexican/anti-American rallies? This is yet another example of Jewish bigotry. The Jews must perceive a ‘Nazi’ threat; otherwise, they will defend the perpetrators in question. The Jews are usually quick to defend unless they perceive those to be defended as ‘Nazis’ hostile to Jewish-specific interests, even if those ‘Nazis’ are pro-American. The question ought to be asked, are Americans Israeli or are they American?

Here again we encounter the J.W.V. selling Americans on the idea that Hitler and Nazism was under their beds and that they had better do something about it. This is almost identical, if not identical, to the Jewish media frenzy which is constantly whipped-up over the most insignificant statements and/or actions of a few isolated Muslims in America or abroad. In order for Jewish interests to prevail, Americans must be sold on the idea that Muslims and Islam in general are dangerous and “bad for America,” to use Mosesson’s own rhetoric.

According to a recent article by Patrick J. Buchanan…

This full essay requires membership to AHRS.

Please visit:

http://www.adolfhitlerresearchsociety.org/bulletins/the-new-ahrs/

©2009. Adolf Hitler Research Society. All Rights Reserved.