The reports of the supposedly anti-Jewish backlash in Germany incited public opinion in Great Britain and the USA against Chamberlain’s efforts to relieve Anglo-German tension. In the United States, Germans were assaulted and persecuted. The Jewish-controlled press and movie industry intensified its efforts at lobbying for an unpopular American role in pursuing a war against Germany.
Thus the American newspaper New York Daily News ventured to publish a letter from the Jew Max Rosenberg, in which he in all seriousness made the suggestion that “ten or twelve professional killers who had been condemned to life imprisonment should be freed, on the condition that they kill Hitler and his organization.” (December 1938, quoted in Die Verfolgung und Ermordung der europäischen Juden, Dok. 219, p. 591, opus cit.)
The number of synagogues destroyed has been variously reported as 267 (November 11, 1938, Heydrich’s report to Göring) and 2000 (November 11, 2008, Rheinische Post: Michael Hamerla Als vor 70 Jahren der Massenmord begann)
Who then was the organizer or at least the inspirer of the Reichskristallnacht? The victors had 35 years time and every opportunity to solve this not unimportant question. They did not do so. They might thereby have destroyed the legend they themselves had created, that the Reichskristallnacht had been the beginning of the “final solution” (as they understand it). Instead, as the 9/10 November neared its 40th anniversary, the myth was pitched to the public (and not only the German public) of the “Nazis,” and among them particularly Dr. Goebbels, as author of the Reichskristallnacht, although all sensible deliberations indicate the opposite. What had been the cause of the “Kristallnacht,” which resulted in damage to or destruction of 180 synagogues among the existing 14,000 and an equal percentage of Jewish businesses? (Wilfred von Oven, Journalist and press attaché of Dr. Goebbels, Buenos Aires, March, 1981)
“From now on, the strict injunction goes out to the entire population to abstain immediately from all further demonstrations against Jewry, whatever their kind. The final response to the Jewish assassination in Paris will be issued to Jewry through judicial channels, or by administrative order.” (November 10, 1938)
***
A seventeen year old Polish Jew, Hershel Gruenspan, residing in Paris, had become so upset about the fate of his father in Germany that he armed himself with a pistol, walked into the German embassy and, not being able to see the ambassador, shot the first secretary, vom Rath. This being the third German official fatally assassinated by a Jew, the storm troopers were supposedly ordered out to take revenge on the Jewish population. This story is about as ridiculous as the by now discredited myth about the six million gassed Jews or the one about the slaughter of the Polish officers in Katyn by the Germans.
The troubles of Gruenspan Sr. did not originate in Germany but in his native Poland, where the rampant anti-Judaism had caused the flight of tens of thousands of Jews into neighbouring countries, mainly Germany, where they were treated as foreign visitors. In the beginning of 1938 the Polish government suddenly declared that it was going to invalidate all passports of citizens residing abroad if they did not return home to have them renewed. About 70,000 Jews with Polish passports were at the time residing in Germany, and the German government became worried that it might eventually become stuck with them. It ordered them rounded up and transported to the Polish border in regular trains, not cattle cars as it was claimed, with all the necessary supplies including medical personnel if needs should arise. Among them [was] Gruenspan Sr. The Poles refused to accept the deportees and the planned deportations were stopped for the time.
Gruenspan’s son, Herschel, had been staying for two years with an uncle in Paris, who, after the Polish government’s revocation of Herschel’s passport and the French government’s refusal to renew his residence permit, asked him to leave in order to avoid problems with the French authorities. The uncle also refused him any further support. The supposedly penniless Jewish boy moved into a decent hotel in February and on November 7th he purchased a gun for 250 francs in a regular gun shop, with which, an hour later, he murdered the first secretary of the German embassy.
Interestingly enough, the hotel in which Herschel resided for over nine months without any visible means of support was situated right around the corner from LICA (International League Against Anti-Semitism, today called LICRA), whose legal representative was one of France’s most famous lawyers, Moro Giafferi. In 1936 he had defended David Frankfurter, the murderer of Wilhelm Gustloff, in Switzerland. That crime had obviously been engineered by LICA. Only a few hours after Gruenspan’s arrest at the German embassy, Ernst vom Rath was still alive and no news of the shooting could have been made public. Giafferi appeared at the police station which held Gruenspan and announced that he was representing the assassin. Who paid him? Why his interest in an unknown foreign criminal who was illegally residing in France?
Nothing ever happened to Gruenspan. After the fall of France the French authorities handed him over to the Gestapo, which detained him hale and healthy during the whole war without bringing him to trial. After the war he was not tried by the French but was permitted to emigrate to Palestine, where he was reunited with his family. They had been deported from Germany to Poland whence they emigrated to Palestine. Where did Gruenspan Sr., a poor tailor, obtain the four thousand pounds sterling required by the British to permit his family of four entrance into Palestine? (Heinz Weichardt, Under Two Flags)
(The two previous sources may be considered inadequate, but, given the overwhelming evidence of similar duplicity, as well as the general historical tendency recorded here, there is reasonable cause to believe them. Besides, Ingrid Weckert’s book, along with over 75 post-war publications, is not only on the forbidden list in Germany, its printing plates have been destroyed. So it must contain at least some valuable truths.) Allied stalling manoeuvres and incitement instead of a desire for peace. Amongst the people in general, who are not aware of all the connections, the prevailing opinion is that it was our “theft of Czechoslovakia” which served to raise the ire of the British people and rendered them ripe for war. But this is a serious misconception, for it was already right after Munich. As for the time prior to Munich, it ought to suffice to recount the comment which Frau von Ribbentrop relayed to her husband’s defense counsel in Nuremberg. In 1937 Churchill had said to Ribbentrop in the Embassy at London: “If Germany regains her power, she will be crushed again.” When Ribbentrop objected that it would not be as easy this time as it had been in 1914, since Germany had friends on her side, Churchill rejoined: “Oh, we are quite good at persuading those friends to join us in the end” (July 25, 1939 – Stockholm, from Friedrich Lenz, Der Ekle Wurm der deutschen Zwietracht/Worm in the Apple, German Traitors and Other Influences That Pushed the World Into War: The little-known story of the men who destroyed Adolf Hitler’s Germany, Friedrich Lenz 1952)
***
The statesmen we deal with want peace. We must believe them on that point. However, they govern nations whose internal structure renders it possible for them to be relieved of their positions at any time, to make way for others who are not quite as desirous of peace. And these others are already waiting in the wings. In England, for example, all it will take is for Mr. Duff Cooper or Mr. Eden or Mr. Churchill to gain power instead of Mr. Chamberlain; we know very well that it would be the aim of these men to immediately start a new world war. They make no secret of this their intent, they declare it openly. We also know that the same Jewish enemy which has found its expression in a Communist state and form still lurks threateningly in the background. And we know further the power of a certain international press which lives only for lies and slander. This obliges us to be on our guard, and to look carefully to the protection of the Reich. Inclined to peace at all times, but equally prepared for defence. (Hitler, Saarbrücken speech, October 9, 1938)
Sven Hedin, in a conversation with the British Lord Dawson of Penn:
Dawson: “The moment that Germany occupies Danzig - whether it be by peaceful mea
ns, or with armed force - we will immediately and absolutely declare war on Germany.”
Sven Hedin: “A world war, for Danzig? Danzig is a German city, and the injustices of the Treaty of Versailles are being revised.”
Dawson: “It’s not so much for the sake of Danzig itself. Danzig, however, means the Corridor, and with the loss of Danzig, in other words of the Corridor, Poland loses access to the sea, and dries up and chokes to death. That’s what Germany wants, so as then to be able to treat Poland like she has treated Czechoslovakia. From that point on it is only a step to Rumania and her oil fields, to the Black Sea, the Dardanelles, the Mediterranean and the Suez Canal, in other words, to that vein that carries the lifeblood of our Empire. So, if Danzig falls, it’s a matter of the life of the British Empire. We know that a new world war for the sake of Danzig is more than due, and we will take the opportunity when it presents itself.”
Sven Hedin: “Are you prepared to take such a responsibility?”
Dawson: “We understand that there will be nothing left of civilization afterwards, but we will not hesitate one instant.” (Friedrich Lenz op. cit.) (Sven Hedin was a much-decorated Swedish geographer, topographer, explorer, photographer, travel writer, and illustrator.)
Like me, you were a frontline-soldier in the last war. Like me, you know what abhorrence and condemnation the devastation of war has left in the conscience of peoples, how the war ended. My impression of your outstanding role as leader of the German people on the path of peace, in the fulfilment of his duty in the collective work of civilization, leads me to request an answer to this proposal. If French and German blood flows again as it did 25 years ago, in a longer and deadlier war, then each of these peoples will fight in the belief in its own victory. The most certain victors will be destruction and barbarity. (extract from Daladier letter to Hitler, 26 August 1939)
***
I understand the misgivings to which you give expression. I too have never overlooked the grave responsibilities which are imposed on those who are in charge of the fate of nations. As an old front fighter I know, like yourself, the horrors of war. Guided by this attitude and experience, I have tried honestly to remove all matters that might cause conflict between our two peoples. The Versailles treaty was unbearable. No Frenchman with honor –and yourself included, Herr Daladier--would have acted differently from myself in a similar position. In this sense I have then tried to remove from the world the most irrational provisions of the Versailles dictate. I have made an offer to the Polish government which shocked the German people. Nobody but myself could even dare to go before the public with such an offer. I, Herr Daladier, shall be leading my people in a fight to rectify a wrong, whereas others will be fighting to preserve that wrong. That is the more tragic since many important men, also among your own people, have recognized the insanity of the solutions then found (meaning at Versailles) as also the impossibility of maintaining it lastingly. I am perfectly clear about the serious consequences which such a conflict will entail. I believe however, the Poles would have to bear the greatest burden, for, regardless about who wins in a war about this question, the Polish state of today will be lost in any way you calculate. That our two peoples should now enter a new, bloody war of destruction is painful not only for you but also for me, Herr Daladier. As already observed, I see no possibility for us on our part to exert influence in the direction of reasonableness upon Poland for correcting a situation that is unbearable for the German people and for the German Reich. (extract from Hitler letter to Daladier, August 27, 1939, translation from Reader’s Eagle, August 28 1939)
French Secretary of State Bonnet, when he signed the declaration of war:
“It seemed to me as though we had suddenly ordered not only the death of millions of people, but also of precious ideas, spiritual values, the destruction of a world... For some seconds I was devastated. But already, calls were coming in again from London. The news had spread that France would not join in the war until 5 am Monday morning. This delay provoked annoyance in Great Britain.” They were sitting on pins and needles there, for while another “Munich” would have preserved world peace - it would also have preserved Hitler. (F Friedrich Lenz, op. cit., September 3, 1939
Thus, Germany, under Hitler, Britain, under Chamberlain, and France, under Daladier, desired peace, to say nothing of their respective peoples. (“...it is probable that Neville Chamberlain still retains the confidence of the majority of his fellow country-men and that, if it were possible to obtain an accurate test of the feelings of the electorate, Chamberlain would be found the most popular statesman in the land,” attributed to David Margesson, Conservative Government Chief Whip)
They all continued to arm themselves ostensibly for defence, while hoping for peace. But escalation towards war occurred nonetheless.
The invasion of rump-Czechoslovakia on 16 March 1939 solved the question of the Soviet’s “aircraft carrier” against Germany, but it still left unsolved the problem of Poland’s persecution of its German population, which had reached murderous proportions. The highpoint was reached on 3 September 1939, the day England declared war on Germany (“Bromberger Blutsonntag”), during which up to 5,437 German civilians were killed, according to the German Foreign Ministry.
Aposter urges a boycott on German goods
More importantly, “World Jewry” (based in New York) had declared commercial war on Germany with a boycott of German goods on March 24th 1933, already a few weeks after the NSDAP had taken power (“Judea Declares War on Germany” -- headline in the Daily Express), to which Germany logically responded on 1 April with “Kauft nicht bei Juden” (initially a one-day boycott).
Just weeks after Hitler assumed power on January 30, 1933, a patchwork of competing Jewish forces, led by American Jewish Congress president Rabbi Stephen Wise, civil rights crusader Louis Untermeyer, and the combative Jewish War Veterans, initiated a highly effective boycott of German goods and services. Each advanced the boycott in its own way, but sought to build a united anti-Nazi coalition that could deliver an economic deathblow to the Nazi party, which had based its political ascent almost entirely on promises to rebuild the strapped German economy. (Jewish Virtual Library)
***
One of the most dangerous Jewish qualities is the brutal, direct barbaric intolerance. A worse tyranny cannot be practiced than that which the Jewish clique practices. If you try to move against this Jewish clique, they will, without hesitating, use brutal methods to overcome you. Mainly the Jew tries to destroy his enemy in the mental area, by which he takes his material gain away, and undermines his civil existence. The vilest of all forms of retaliation, the boycott, is characteristically Jewish. (Dr. Conrad Alberti-Sittenfeld, a Jew, wrote in 1899 in No. 12 of the magazine Gesellschaft)
This internationally linked body of interest was implacably opposed to Hitler and would have intrigued to provoke war against Germany, whatever course it had taken. (“The World Jewish Congress has been at war with Germany for seven years.” Rabbi M. Perlzweig, head of the British Section of the World Jewish Congress, Toronto Evening Telegram, February 26, 1940.)
In passing, it is relevant to note that New York Jews did not share the danger that threatened their German fellows, so were free to put the latter at risk, according to the Zionist belief that “lesser brethren” may be sacrificed to the cause. During the First World War, twelve thousand German Jews died for their country and many were decorated--although it would be interesting to know if German-Jewish patriotism declined after the defeat of Russia-- but in the context of the Zionist project, their fate was secondary.
Moreover, twin advantages arose from this scheme: with the cooperation of the German government through the Haavara Agreement, useful and wealthy Jews could be induced to emigrate to Palestine, thus forming the base of the Jewish State to come, and the predictable demotion of German Jews in German society could be used to achieve worldwide and ongoing sympathy, after the war. As a consequence of the 1933 Jewish interdiction of purchases of
German goods and of the Weizmann commitment of Jews to Britain’s cause, printed in UK newspapers in 1939, German-Jews were reduced to the status of Japanese-Americans; they were potential enemies of the state and, as such, were eventually incarcerated.
The Association of German National Jews, founded in 1921 by Max Nauman, supported Hitler.
The goal of the association was the total assimilation of Jews into the German Volksgemeinschaft (community), self- eradication of Jewish identity, and the expulsion from Germany of the Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe. Max Nauman was especially opposed to Zionists and Eastern European Jews, the former he considered a threat to Jewish integration and to be carriers of a “racist” ideology serving British imperial purposes, while he saw the latter as racially and spiritually inferior. (Robert S. Wistrich, Who’s who in Nazi Germany (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1982), p.177.)
Finds Racial Difference between East European and Western Jews. London (Nov. 20) A new theory with regard to the difference between the Jews of Eastern and Western Europe is offered by Dean Inge, who is considered one of England’s foremost writers, in an article published today in the Morning Post.
The Jews of Western Europe have no reason to become indignant when Bolshevik atrocities are attributed to the Jews of Russia; the three main faces of Eastern Europe are deeply tainted with Tartar blood. This is true of the Russians and the Poles and also of the millions of so-called Jews in Eastern Europe who are inferior to the genuine Semitic Jews, Dean Inge asserts. (November 23, 1924) (JTA, Global Jewish News Source)
Tell the Truth & Shame the Devil Page 17