Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old August 9th, 2014 #1
Sean Gruber
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,465
Sean Gruber
Default #1 Germany and the Jewish Question Thread

I edited a translation of Germany and the Jewish Question to make it more readable. My editing procedures are described in an Editor's Afterword.

The German original is here.

I plan to post a chapter here every week and comment on it.


Germany and the Jewish Question
by Dr. Friedrich Karl Wiehe
for The Institute for the Study of the Jewish Question, Berlin

Introduction: The Jewish Question, A 2,000-Year-Old Problem
"I was a Jew before I was an American. I have been an American all of my life, 64 years. But I have been a Jew for 4,000 years." — Rabbi Wise in a speech in Cleveland, Ohio, USA, June, 1938
Ever since the National Socialists came to power in Germany and placed the solution of the Jewish question in the forefront of German politics, public opinion the world over has become increasingly interested in that question.

Antisemitism has often been described as an exclusively German phenomenon, as a National Socialist invention which necessarily remains incomprehensible to the rest of the world. But today it is obvious that the Jewish question is not confined to Germany, that it causes grave anxiety to statesmen in many countries, and that in many lands a pronounced anti-Jewish reaction has set in.

For the moment, we do not propose to enquire whether these developments are a result of Germany's example. It is sufficient to note that the Jewish question has been, or is about to become, acute everywhere, that there is now scarcely a country which does not find itself compelled to contribute in some way or other to solving it. Everyone who discusses Germany's attitude to the Jewish question is therefore dealing with an important problem of contemporary international politics — and, having regard to its far-reaching significance, is duty-bound to investigate that question carefully.

It is a mistake to believe that the Jewish question has arisen only in the past few years or, indeed, that its origin is to be sought in modern times at all.

The Jewish question is not an invention of National Socialism, nor is it derived from the antisemitic movements that marked the close of the nineteenth century. If National Socialism can lay claim to any originality in the matter, it is only because the National Socialist Party was the first body of men to draw logical conclusions from a certain historical fact.

The present German attitude to the Jewish question is based on two thousand years of European experience. And this experience has been particularly bad for Germany, especially during the past few decades.

For the Jewish question certainly dates back some two thousand years. Strictly speaking, it is even older. It is as old as the history of the Jews. The Jewish question occurs anywhere the nomadic Jewish race comes in contact with peoples who have a settled abode. This historical fact is admitted by Jews themselves. The Jewish Encyclopedia [Judische Lexikon], which is the standard work of the German Jews — published long before National Socialism came to power — confirms the persistence of the Jewish question down through the centuries, when it states (vol. III, column 421): "this Jewish question is as old as the association of the markedly dissimilar Jewish people with other peoples."

It is a singular and, at bottom, mysterious phenomenon that the Jews have never been able to find a permanent home in which to develop a political and social existence of their own, yet have never proved capable of being absorbed by any of the innumerable countries where they have sought hospitality. This peculiar destiny of the Jews is, of course, subject to ups and downs; but these variations are only the perpetual ebbing and flowing of an unbroken tide.

There were times when the Jewish problem appeared definitely solved, when these foreign immigrants appeared to have become completely assimilated and to have lost their distinct ethnic personality. In such halcyon days no Jewish question seemed to exist. But sooner or later the illusion was dispelled, and, after many years of comparative rest and quiet, Ahasuerus was compelled to resume his eternal wanderings.

The first expulsions of Jews on a large scale occurred as long ago as the earliest history of Palestine. Seven hundred years before the Christian era the Assyrian King Sarrukin booted the Jews out of the country, and his example was followed in 586 B.C. by King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon. Persecutions in Alexandria and the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 A.D. opened a period in which the Jewish question was no less acute than it is now. Further milestones in the eternal wanderings of the Jews are the Crusades; the expulsion of the Jews from England under Edward I in 1290; and their expulsion from Spain under Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492. There is no century in which an expulsion of Jews has not taken place. Every nation in Europe has sought to preserve itself against Jewish domination by all the means at its disposal.

It is an incontrovertible historical fact that those peoples with a settled abode who throughout the ages afforded hospitality to nomadic Jewish tribes invariably regarded the latter as an essentially dissimilar race, and not merely as a different religious community. Hence hospitality was granted to Jews only under special conditions. It is interesting to observe in this connection that in every case in which a European state was weak and financially impoverished, the restrictions imposed on Jews were greatly relaxed and eventually abrogated. The numerical preponderance of Jews in Eastern Europe — which has become the reservoir of Jewry in modern times — is to a great extent attributable to the political and financial weakness of the former Kingdom of Poland.

The opening of the so-called modern era seemed nevertheless to herald a period of permanent peace and rest for the hitherto-restless Wandering Jew. It was the era of enlightenment, of liberalism, of belief in the ideals of progress and the rights of man. According to the principles in vogue in this era, Jews differ from other citizens only in religion and so enjoy equality with the adherents of other religious bodies. They were no longer considered as belonging to a different race, no longer considered as strangers. Differentiation on ethnic grounds between Jews and native populations was on principle abolished by the French Revolution, and in the ensuing decades this principle was adhered to by legislation and social custom alike.

Thus, the nineteenth century was dominated by the tenet of the emancipation and "assimilation" of the Jews. It was considered best not even to mention the Jewish question and to act as if such a question did not exist.

In the countries of Western Europe, Jews themselves were animated by an intense desire for "assimilation." Conversions and mixed marriages were the principal means employed by Jews for acquiring, in the words of Heinrich Heine, himself a Jew, an "admission ticket to European culture," and thereby attaining a preponderating influence in political, cultural, and economic life. It should be added that a number of Jews were inspired by a sincere desire to throw off their skin and obliterate as far as possible their hereditary tracks.

This process of so-called assimilation reached its culminating point in the first three decades of the twentieth century — during which Israel became King of the Western world. But it cannot be reasonably doubted that this epoch has come to an end. The most farsighted among the Jews have clearly perceived the inevitability of a reaction. Forty years ago a leading German Jew, Dr. Walther Rathenau, in a book entitled Listen, Israel! [Höre, Israel!], criticized the policy of assimilation and uttered a warning to those of his co-racialists who occupied, or were about to occupy, prominent positions in Germany. "They apparently do not even dream," he wrote, "that only in an epoch in which all the forces of Nature are artificially enchained can they be protected against that which their fathers endured."

That modern Jewry did not heed the many warning voices within its own ranks affords another proof that the Children of Israel have not learned, or have not wished to learn, the lessons taught by their own fate — that they are blind to the errors which they so often commit in their complacency. Also typical of the Jewish mind is that even Rathenau himself failed to draw the logical conclusions of his vision.

Some forty years ago a comparatively small number of Jews headed by Dr. Theodore Herzl founded what is known as the Zionist movement, in the conscious recognition of the uselessness — even the harmfulness — of the so-called assimilation policy and of the consequences that were bound to follow. The Zionist movement represented an effort to avoid those consequences. Impressed by the antisemitic movement that arose in France at the close of the nineteenth century in connection with the Dreyfus case, Herzl proclaimed to his co-racialists the doctrine: "return to Palestine." Although it was backed by the energy inspired by Herzl's highly persuasive idealism, this doctrine appeared nothing short of astounding because this was at a time when the assimilation policy had reached its zenith. Herzl's exhortation found a resounding echo chiefly among the great mass of East European Jews, in Jewry's immense reservoir in Poland, Lithuania, and Romania, and it is easy to understand why. These Jews had never had any share in the benefits of emancipation and "assimilation." Their economic and social position was as a general rule unsatisfactory, and their political situation was weak enough to make them particularly susceptible to an appeal to establish their own national home in an independent Jewish state. Yet despite their numerical superiority, these East European Jews were of minor importance to the realization of Herzl's ambitious plan precisely because they lacked economic and political significance. It was instead the influence of the Western European and North American Jews that would be decisive. But among them Herzl's novel doctrine was like unto the seed sown on rocky ground. Blinded by the alluring glitter of an artificial "golden age" of assimilation, the Western Jews had only a smirk for Zionism's vagaries and were deeply hostile to it. And even after this much-derided Zionism had assumed a more or less concrete shape in the following decades, the participation of Western Jews was confined almost exclusively to financial support. Practical Zionists among them were few in number.

Nevertheless, Herzl's plan to establish a Jewish national home soon awakened great interest among the Western nations that had the questionable privilege of harboring the descendants of Abraham. Already in 1903, in his capacity as Colonial Secretary, Joseph Chamberlain — the father of the present British Prime Minister — submitted, on behalf of the British Government, a plan for establishing a large-scale Jewish settlement in Uganda. The realization of this practical plan, which was laid before the Zionist Congress at Bale, was frustrated by the doctrinaire attitude of the Zionists, who insisted on a settlement of the Jews exclusively in Palestine. So the British Government clear-sightedly identified the existence of a Jewish question, and the necessity of solving it, at a time when belief in the blessings of assimilation prevailed without contest in Germany.

In 1917 Zionism won a decisive victory with the British government's publication of the Balfour Declaration, which promised unreserved British support for the endeavor to create a Jewish national home in Palestine. The fulfillment of this promise began shortly after the World War [World War I]. But now that twenty years have elapsed, the failure of that promise is obvious. In the light of experience, Herzl’s scheme has been proved impracticable. He did not foresee the wave of antisemitism which is now sweeping through Europe — or did not accurately calculate its rapidity.

It is unnecessary to discuss here the recent [terroristic] events in Palestine (which are not the first of their kind). Palestine, after all, has been in a condition of unrest from the day when Jews entered the country. 1

What we may call the "assimilation era" has come to an end after almost one hundred fifty years, with no possibility for Jews to escape in time the inevitable consequences of an unavoidable reaction.

There can be no doubt that the countercurrent of antisemitism is rapidly increasing in strength the world over. Even a cursory glance at the newspapers of many lands suffices to show that the responsible leaders of states in every corner of the globe are compelled in varying degrees to take account of this phenomenon. Foreign critics who maintain that antisemitism is limited to Germany should be reminded of the well-known words of Zionist hero Dr. Chaim Weizmann that the world is divided into two groups of countries: those that wish to expel the Jews, and those that don't wish to let them in.

The first of these groups includes not only Germany but also Italy. In the latter country, comprehensive legislative measures have been undertaken to exclude Italian Jews from public life and to expel foreign Jews. Mention may also be made of Poland, with a Jewish population of over 3 million, more than 10% of the entire population. Not only have various specified professions been entirely closed to the Jews in Poland, but also it has been officially stated in Warsaw that the problem of the Polish Jews can be solved only by emigration. In Hungary, a bill originally got up by the Darányi Cabinet, and reintroduced by the Imrédy Cabinet, aims at restricting Jewish participation in economic and cultural life. In Romania, which has some 1.5 million Jews, the antisemitic movement has by no means come to an end with the collapse of the Goga ministry, as is shown by the extensive measures adopted since as well as by the aim of taking away their recently acquired Romanian nationality from all Jews who have immigrated into Romania since the World War. There can be no doubt that antisemitism is constantly progressing in Romania and sooner or later will become the dominating factor in that country.

The governments of the above-mentioned countries have adopted markedly antisemitic measures. It would be piling on to list the countries — such as Holland, France, and Great Britain — that have not adopted similar measures but in which, nonetheless, antisemitic movements are noticeable and the influence of antisemitic organizations on public opinion is increasing.

The second group of countries — those that do not wish to let in the Jews — comprises the states into which Jewish immigrants have poured as a result of the growing antisemitic peril. They are mostly overseas countries, foremost among them the South American republics and the Union of South Africa. These countries had at first opened their doors to Jewish immigration and offered the immigrant a wide field for the exercise of his activities. But they have had every reason to regret their hospitality. They have been compelled increasingly to cut back the very liberal immigration regulations originally enacted by them.

Today, there is practically no country in which Jewish immigrants can hope to find adequate means of subsistence. This was clearly shown at the international conference at Evian which was convened in the summer of 1938 for the purpose of dealing with the problem of Jewish emigration, but which failed to achieve any concrete result for the reason that none of the numerous states represented at the conference was willing to declare its readiness to admit Jewish refugees.

It has been proved beyond doubt that Jewish refugees, fleeing the menace of antisemitism in the lands where they were formerly domiciled, bring with them — into any promised land where they fondly hope to establish a new home — the deadly antisemitism germ. This again proves the fact, established by the experience of millennia, that Jewry and antisemitism are interchangeable terms, that the Wandering Jew is himself the carrier and transmitter of antisemitism. This explains why, in the countries where antisemitism was formerly unknown and to which Jewish emigrants have recently flocked, antisemitic currents have been created that are sufficiently strong that no government is able to ignore them.

Thus no one who removes himself from the overheated contemporary political atmosphere and studies the Jewish question seriously and with a due sense of responsibility can conscientiously maintain that antisemitism is confined to Germany exclusively. Such an objective study must lead also to a negation of the occasionally heard proposition that the spread of antisemitism is attributable only to the example set by Germany. As a matter of plain fact, can anyone believe that antisemitism can be fostered artificially in any country that is fundamentally unreceptive to it? Isn't it true that the seed has been sown on ground so fertile that it needed only a certain chain of circumstances to cause it to bear fruit?

It isn't surprising that Germany's policy toward the Jews has attracted so much attention. Germany is suffering the fate of those nations or individuals who have sufficient courage and sense of responsibility to practice and defend a conviction fundamentally opposed to the dominating principles of the times. No great human achievement has been accomplished without struggle and sacrifice. Anyone who rebels against the tyranny of dead dogmas brings on himself the odium that inevitably falls upon the revolutionary innovator. The heroes of the French Revolution, for example, were confronted by the solidarity of all the rest of Europe when they sought to substitute the worn-out tenets of absolutism with the great slogans of liberalism.

Germany's attitude to the Jewish question can be understood rightly only if it is considered from the standpoint of a philosophy of history based on the conception of race as the fundamental factor of social evolution — the philosophy which, from the outset, has inspired the National Socialist effort to reconstruct and reorganize the entire life of the German nation. According to this philosophy, the differentiation and variety of the heterogeneous human races, and of the peoples who descend from them, constitute an essential element of the Divine creative purpose. Providence has assigned to each people the task of freely and fully developing its own characteristic traits. Hence it is contrary to the Divine purpose if a people allows its destiny to be determined by extraneous forces; and such a people will assuredly perish in the struggle for existence. The question of the intrinsic value of such forces is irrelevant. The sole thing that matters is that they are extraneous, that they have no part in or relation to the biological and traditional hereditary structure of the people they operate among.

World history has furnished no clearer demonstration of this truth than the downfall of the Roman Empire, which was doomed from the moment the inclusion of foreign influences began to stifle the ancient Roman element that formed its nucleus. Alien influences finally dominated the Roman Empire's whole life — political, social, economic, military — and the result was a racial and cultural syncretism that had to prove fatal to the Empire in the long run.

The family, as the cell of the social community, is naturally subject to the same law of heredity as the nation. The peoples who are derived from the Germanic race, to cite one example, have a strongly developed family instinct. They know, thanks to instinctive intuition fortified by hereditary experience, that the destiny of every family is determined throughout successive generations by the predominance of certain biological and traditional factors. Hence in all families where the consciousness of this truth has not been obliterated, the greatest possible care is always taken that there shall be no admixture of new blood susceptible of adulterating the racial composition or debasing the traditional standard of the family. A number of history's illustrious families maintain this standard by rigorously adhering to the principle of consanguinity.

Germany, starting from a philosophy of history based on the principle of racial differentiation, is the first country to have drawn consistent conclusions concerning the Jewish question from the lessons of the past two thousand years. These lessons have shown us why attempting to solve that question by assimilating the Jews was doomed to failure. The lessons demonstrated the impossibility of assimilating the Jews and the consequent inevitability of periodic recurrences of antisemitism.

The lessons may be stated as follows.

1. The Jewish question is not a religious question. It is exclusively a racial question. Jews, the overwhelming majority of whom are of Oriental, that is, of Near Eastern, descent, have no racial affinity whatever with the peoples of Europe. It should be observed that the German government's attitude to the Jewish question is dictated solely by the fact that the Jews are an alien race, without any consideration of the value of the specific qualities of that race. Even in the era of emancipation, during which the Jews were on principle incorporated in the national communities of the Western world, and which was characterized by the "conversion" of millions of Jews to Christianity, it proved impossible to blot out the traces of their ineradicably alien nature. Sufficient evidence of this fact is found in Jewish sources. In his book Höre, Israel! Rathenau wrote: "In the life of the German national the Jews are a clearly differentiated alien race ... In the Marches of Brandenburg they are like unto an Asiatic horde." The well-known Jewish author Jakob Klatzkin expressed himself with refreshing candor in his work Crisis and Decision in Judaism [Krisis und Entscheidung im Judentum] (1921) as follows: "Everywhere we are strangers in the lands in which we live, and it is our inflexible resolve to maintain our racial idiosyncrasy." Both testimonials were given at a time when the emancipation of Jews in Germany had reached its highest point.

2. For the past two thousand years the Jewish race has been perpetually wandering, on the move. The whole world is its home, in conformity with the motto ubi bene, ibi patria ["wherever one is well-off, there is his country"]. True to their destiny, Jews will never permit themselves to be bound by any national ties. The abnormal structure of the Jewish community, in which neither peasants nor craftsmen find a place, makes it impossible for Jews to adapt themselves to the conditions of life in the countries which give them hospitality.

3. Racial predisposition and historical destiny combine to incline Jews to certain categories of activity, whose sphere of influence is naturally international. This explains why the Jews during the emancipation era sought to obtain control of a) public opinion, b) the stock and share markets, c) wholesale and retail trade, d) certain influential cultural organizations, and — last but not least — e) political life. At the close of the emancipation era in Germany, Jews enjoyed practically a monopoly on all the professions that exert intellectual and political influence. This enabled them to stamp their entirely alien features on the whole public life of the country.

4. One of the results achieved by the policy of "assimilation" during the emancipation era was the release of the Jews in Eastern Europe from their ghettos, and their emigration to the more liberal-minded states of Western Europe and North America. Between 1890 and 1900, some 200,000 East European Jews found their way into Great Britain. The number of Jews who emigrated to the United States between 1912 and 1935 is computed to be more than 1.5 million. If the Jewish question has attained such vital importance nowadays, then this is largely due to these migrations of Jews, migrations which not only demonstrated the delusional nature of the theory of Jews' capacity for assimilation, but also hastened the process of Jewish elements' dominating Western European and North American states. And the process in question was practically complete in Germany before National Socialism came to power. An alien race — without roots in German soil and without even the remotest affiliation with the German people — had taken possession of Germany. The poison of an alien spirit, of an alien manner of thinking, had been instilled, systematically and cunningly, into the German mind. Hence the whole German organism necessarily conveyed a totally misleading impression to an observer from outside. National Socialism was therefore faced with the urgent necessity of solving a problem which was life-or-death for the German nation.

Impartial foreign observers had long since recognized the inevitability of a radical solution of the Jewish question in Germany. In December, 1910, the London Times, in a book review of Houston Stewart Chamberlain's The Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, admitted that nearly everything in Germany had come under Jewish control — not only business life, but also everything capable of influencing German spiritual life, such as the press, the theater, the cinema, etc. — and that it was inconceivable that the Germans would tolerate this state of affairs for long. In the view of the Times, a clash must sooner or later occur.

Because a solution of the Jewish problem by means of the assimilation of the Jewish race, that is, the absorption of that race into German national life, had proved wholly impossible, there remained to the National Socialists the single alternative of solving the Jewish question by the removal of that unassimilable race from Germany.

Foreign critics take particular exception to this view. Even objective observers, fully aware of the consequences of Jewish ascendency and of the inevitability of an antisemitic reaction, condemn the methods adopted by National Socialism for the solution of the Jewish question in Germany as inhuman and barbarous when taken to their only logical conclusion.

This criticism of Germany's attitude is bound to exert great influence, psychological and political, on Germany's relations with other countries. It is therefore necessary to examine very carefully the grounds of that criticism.

It is incontestable — and no attempt has been made to deny or even to minimize the fact — that the policy of the German government toward the Jews has entailed numerous hardships, amounting in certain individual cases to a positive miscarriage of justice. It cannot be denied that a number of Jews affected by recent legislative measures directed against their race honestly felt themselves to be thoroughgoing Germans. Such Jews had done their best to render service to the state as functionaries, artists, men of letters, scientists, and, not least, soldiers in the War.

In order to understand why Germany has proceeded to such a radical solution of the Jewish problem by such relentlessly severe methods, one must abstract away from individual cases, however interesting they may be intrinsically, and bear in mind that no legislative measure, nor indeed any far-reaching political action, can be conceived that does not entail more or less numerous individual hardships. It is the same as with surgical operations, when the surgeon, in order to extirpate the germs of disease, must resort to excising healthy tissue that surrounds the infected parts. Only in this way can he hope to save the sick organism.

But in order to understand the German attitude to the Jewish question it is necessary to go still further — to remember (as has already been indicated) that the incessant encroachment of Jews on the entire public life of Germany within the past few decades caused a terrible national catastrophe. The disastrous end of the War, followed as it was by complete political and economic collapse, by cultural and moral deterioration, by unemployment on a colossal scale, with its consequent impoverishment of all social classes to a degree hitherto undreamed-of in modern times — this epoch of Germany's greatest and cruelest humiliation coincided with the absolute and total triumph of Jewish emancipation, with the zenith of Jewish power in Germany, just as the aforementioned writer in the Times had foreseen in 1910.

Already more than a generation ago, one of the more sincere and farsighted minds in international Jewry, Herzl, described this interdependence of Jewish ascendency and general distress in a passage of his Zionist Writings [Zionistische Schriften] (vol. 1, pp. 238-9), which is by no means applicable solely to Germany, but which has, on the contrary, universal validity. Therein Herzl characterized as follows the part played by Jews:
There are among them a few persons who hold in their hands the financial threads that envelop the world. A few persons who absolutely control the shaping of the most vitally important conditions of life of the nations. Every invention and innovation are for their sole benefit, while every misfortune increases their power. And to what use do they put this power? Have they ever placed it at the service of any moral ideal — nay, have they ever placed it at the disposal of their own people, who are in dire distress? ... Without those persons no war can be waged and no peace can be concluded. The credit of states and individual enterprises are alike at the mercy of their rapacious ambition. The inventor must humbly wait at their doors, and in their arrogance they claim to sit in judgment on the requirements of their fellow beings.
Nothing else could clear Germany from the reproach of sinning against the laws of humanity than a detailed enumeration of the facts that prove to what an appalling degree Germany herself experienced the truth of Herzl's words, the facts that incontestably show what immeasurably bitter experiences have forced Germany to seek a radical solution of the Jewish problem, at least as far as she is concerned, by the ruthless elimination of all Jewish influence in German life.

The following chapters attempt to provide an overview of the importance of the part played by Jews at the height of the emancipation era, before National Socialism came to power.

1 Even if the existing difficulties in Palestine were to be overcome, the objections which have always been raised against the utopian theories of Zionism would continue to be valid, if only for the following reasons.

1. In the mandated territory of Palestine, Jewry would necessarily be dependent upon the Mandatory State, which means that it would depend upon the favor of the Mandatory State — i.e., upon the shifting currents of political evolution.

2. Up to now, the Zionist movement has succeeded in settling some 400,000 Jews in Palestine. Yet Palestine counts over 900,000 Arab inhabitants, whose forefathers have lived in the country for more than 1,000 years. The Arabs contest, quite correctly, the Jewish claim on Palestine as a Jewish national home. And behind the Palestinian Arabs stand 32 million Arabs in the Near East and Egypt. Whatever agreement may be reached regarding their respective rights, it is safe to say that under existing circumstances the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine of any dimensions worth mentioning, or, indeed, of any viable Jewish state at all, is no more than hypothetical.

3. The exodus of the Jews from Palestine began 2,000 years ago. Since then, the Jews have had no contact whatever with the country they now want to dominate.

4. The Jews who are currently trying to create a Jewish state in Palestine have long since ceased to have any common culture. In the course of its wanderings, the Jewish race has lost its cultural independence. Hundreds of thousands of "assimilated Jews" have abandoned even the Jewish religion, which anyway has absorbed any amount of heterogeneous cultural elements. Jews are not united even by the tie of a common language; only a small minority is familiar with Hebrew, while Yiddish is spoken almost exclusively by the East European Jews.

5. The utopian character of the proposal to constitute a Jewish state in Palestine is perhaps best proved by studying the structure of Jewish communities in other lands. Such a study will show that Jews are adapted solely to certain conditions of urban life and that they generally lack the capacity for agriculture or manual labor.

Seeing all this, no one can seriously doubt that the plan of creating a Jewish state in Palestine is delusional. Only a fraction of the 16 million or so Orthodox Jews in the world could ever hope to find a home in Palestine. Herzl's plan for enabling the Jews to escape the threatening peril of antisemitism has not succeeded in solving the Jewish question.


Next week:
The Jewish Question in Germany before 1933
1. Population and Social Structure of German Jews
No jews, just right

Less talk, more action

Last edited by Sean Gruber; August 15th, 2014 at 08:30 PM.
Old August 16th, 2014 #2
Sean Gruber
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,465
Sean Gruber

The Jewish Question in Germany before 1933
1. Population and Social Structure of German Jews

First, it is essential to get an accurate picture of the numerical significance of the Jews in Germany in those days, including their regional distribution within the Reich and their social structure.

The results of the 1925 census — the last to be taken before National Socialism came to power — show that out of a total population of 62.5 million were 546,379 professing the Jewish faith. That is slightly under 1% of the total population.

It must be noted that this number stands only for Jews professing the Jewish faith, and not for those who accepted a Christian faith for some reason but are Jews by blood and race. No method existed for compiling statistics about the latter category. The only thing that one could do was to count Orthodox Jews. Only in recent times have the authorities in Germany set themselves the task of ascertaining how far Jewish blood has penetrated the German race. These investigations have not been concluded as yet; they involve much detail work. All the statistics that follow are necessarily based on the figures for Orthodox Jewry.

In spite of that, we have at our disposal some reliable data compiled by the Jews themselves. We refer to the work of Heinrich Silbergleit, The Jewish Population Problem in the German Reich [Die Bevölkerungsverhältnisse der Juden im Deutschen Reich] (Berlin, 1931). By basing our figures mostly on his research, we hope that we are placing ourselves beyond criticism as prejudiced antisemitics.

We have shown that the total percentage of German confessional Jews in 1925 was just under 1% (to be exact, 0.87%). But this does not address the regional distribution of Jews within the Reich. The rural districts of Mecklenburg, Oldenburg, Thuringia, and Anhalt had only a small Jewish population (between 0.16% and 0.32%), while the majority of Jews were concentrated in the large urban areas, particularly Prussia, Hamburg, and Hessen (between 1.05% and 1.72%). In Prussia, the largest of the German Federal States, the census showed that nearly 73% of the total number of Jews were concentrated in cities that had a population of more than 100,000. The corresponding percentage of the non-Jewish population was under thirty.

Comparing the results of the various censuses taken since 1871 shows that the number of Jews in the rural districts of Germany has consistently declined and that all urban districts have shown constant increases. This can be ascribed to a phenomenal domestic migration of German Jews to the large urban areas during the past fifty years. The main reason for this migration was the rapidly expanding Jewish emancipation in those days, which resulted from the German victory in the Franco-Prussian War.

One of the main targets of this Jewish migration was Berlin, the capital of the Reich, where the number of Jews tripled between 1871 and 1910 (from 36,000 to 90,000). In this metropolis, the center of national, political, and cultural activity, Jews established their headquarters. Here they were able to develop their own peculiar racial characteristics.

The 1925 census returns for Berlin showed that there were 172,500 Jews out of a total population of just under 4 million, 4.25%. This percentage is more than four times that of Jews in the whole German population. To put this another way: Berlin, the capital of Prussia, the largest of the Federal States, possessed 43% of the 400,000 Jews in Prussia.

A quarter of these 172,500 Jews in Berlin were foreign nationals. That fact alone clearly illustrates the lack of Jewish affinity for national ties and national sentiment. And nearly one-fifth or 18.5% of the 400,000 Jews in Prussia were aliens.

To be able to appreciate the significance of these figures, one must bear in mind that Jewry was able to acquire such numerical significance in the large cities despite the fact that it was subject to a number of restrictive factors. Constant immigration from the East drove the augmentation of these numbers, particularly during and after the War. It is this Eastern immigration of low-class, mean, and morally unscrupulous Jews that has given the Jewish question in Germany its particularly harsh note.

Another aspect of Jewish life is the comparative infertility of Jewish marriages, the evident and constantly increasing tendency to intermarry with Christians.

Statistics on intermarriage in Germany reveal that between 1923 and 1932 two out of three male Jews married Jewesses; the third married a Christian. In regard to Jewesses, in 1926 there were 64 intermarriages for every 100 purely Jewish marriages. Overall, there were 50 intermarriages for every 100 purely Jewish marriages. It is evident that the lopsided distribution of German Jews, their systematic migration to and concentration in the large urban areas, was an unsound policy, disastrous not only for the Jews but also for the national life of Germany.

But the structure of professional life also suffered from an unhealthy one-sidedness. Here statistics show that Jewry was a tree without roots, without anchorage in social life. This abnormal social composition can be seen in the fact that Jews preferred the commercial professions and steered clear of all manual work.

This can be checked by examining the trades records that were established in the various German Federal States in 1925. These records show the percentages of Jews employed in various kinds of work in Prussia, Württemberg, and Hessen.


Prussia: 58.80%
Würtemberg: 64.60%
Hessen: 69.00%


Prussia: 25.80%
Würtemberg: 24.60%
Hessen: 22.00%


Prussia: 1.70%
Würtemberg: 1.80%
Hessen: 4.00%

It is often asserted that external pressure, political and social considerations as well as ghettoization and boycott, have squeezed Jews out of handicraft trades and forced them into commercial spheres. We must reply that in rural districts, particularly in Hessen-Nassau and the former province of Posen, Jews had every opportunity of working as farmers or craftsmen. There were certainly no restrictions placed on them. But they preferred to deal in cattle, corn, or fertilizers, and especially in money, which brought them rich reward.

The well-known Jewish economist Felix A. Theilhaber reported in The Decline and Fall of Germany Jewry [Der Untergang der deutschen Juden] (Berlin, 1921) his observations on the causes of Jewish disintegration. He confirms that so-called primitive production doesn't jibe with Jews. He admits that their racial talents force Jews into the so-called business professions as these are more easily able to guarantee commercial success and material security. He arrives at the following conclusion:
Agriculture has little material attraction for German Jews ... Racial instincts, traditions, and economic preconditions compel them to choose other professions ... Hence it is natural that certain types dominate in German Jewry, for example, clothiers, agents, lawyers, and doctors. Jewish characteristics and peculiarities are also evident in other branches (department stores, furs, tobacco, and even the press). One peculiar Jewish feature is the craving for individualism, the urge to become independent and wealthy.
Among the intellectual professions named by this Jewish author, medicine and law were the two most attractive. They were the professions that offered the most material gain. Jewish influence in these professions was therefore very marked and finally dominant.

In 1932 there were approximately 50,000 German medical practitioners, of which 6,488 — 13% — were Jews. That is to say, a figure more than ten times greater than that to which they were entitled on the basis of population ratio. It is worth mentioning in this connection that the majority of these Jewish doctors classified themselves as specialists in sexually transmitted diseases.

In Berlin, the capital of the Reich, the percentage of Jewish doctors was even greater. The figure was 42%, and for the panel doctors 52%. In the leading Berlin hospitals 45% of the doctors were Jews.

An abnormal and disproportionate state of affairs also existed in the legal professions, if compared with the population ratio. In 1933 there were 11,795 lawyers practicing in Prussia, and 3,350 or nearly 30% of them were Jews; of the 6,236 public notaries, 2,051 or 33% were Jews. In Berlin itself the total percentage was much higher, bordering 48,010 or 56%. One must also note that the administration of justice was chiefly in the hands of Orthodox Jews.

The situation was similar in regard to professorships at various leading German universities. Below are the statistics for three of these universities in 1931. Listed are not only the law and medical faculties but the philosophical faculty too, in order to show the abnormal Jewish penetration.


Out of 44 lecturers: 15 Jews = 34%

Out of 23 lecturers: 6 Jews = 26%

Frankfurt a. M.
Jewish lecturers: 33%


Out of 265 lecturers: 118 Jews = 44%

Out of 101 lecturers: 43 Jews = 42%

Frankfurt a. M.
Jewish lecturers: 33%


Out of 268 lecturers: 85 Jews = 31%

Out of 107 lecturers: 26 Jews = 24%

Frankfurt a. M.
Jewish lecturers: 32%

Thus two of the most important phases of public life — law and public health — were in danger of coming under complete Jewish control.



A Jewish tactic — maybe the most effective one — is to twist "merit" into a universalist term. They pretend that humans are alike — "equal before the law," the law of some imaginary global tribunal, or in the eyes of some desert god. The result is that you aren't supposed to care if Jews take your job, your country, your life; "let the best man win." You ought to smile, step out of the way, and wave goodbye to your family, culture, country, future.

For a contrast, look at Dr. Wiehe's argument. He says that the most important principle is race. Not a twisted universalist interpretation of merit. Race. From the Introduction (here):
Germany's attitude to the Jewish question can be understood rightly only if it is considered from the standpoint of a philosophy of history based on the conception of race as the fundamental factor of social evolution [...]. According to this philosophy, the differentiation and variety of the heterogeneous human races, and of the peoples who descend from them, constitute an essential element of the Divine creative purpose. Providence has assigned to each people the task of freely and fully developing its own characteristic traits. Hence it is contrary to the Divine purpose if a people allows its destiny to be determined by extraneous forces; and such a people will assuredly perish in the struggle for existence. The question of the intrinsic value of such forces is irrelevant. The sole thing that matters is that they are extraneous, that they have no part in or relation to the biological and traditional hereditary structure of the people they operate among. [Bolding added]
From this viewpoint, Wiehe can attack Jews effectively. He sees clearly they are taking jobs and professions away from Germans (Whites) — pushing Germans out. It doesn't matter if the Jews are better (or only seem better) at certain jobs. Whether they are better or not, whether they are competent or crooked, they aren't German. They aren't us, says Wiehe.

In the following chapters, Wiehe shows just what interracial merit really consisted of in Germany in the case of the Jews. It is an instructive picture.

Next week:
2. Jews in German Economic Life
No jews, just right

Less talk, more action

Last edited by Sean Gruber; August 16th, 2014 at 12:47 PM.
Old August 23rd, 2014 #3
Sean Gruber
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,465
Sean Gruber

2. Jews in German Economic Life

Jewish penetration into German economic life was even deeper. In strict accordance with the objectives referred to in the previous chapter, Jews gave their principal attention to trade and commerce. The peak activity of the Jews, in this respect, was reached during the currency inflation from 1919 to 1923. In that period little material benefit accrued to anyone engaged in productive hard work. An instinct for speculation and commercial shrewdness was the ruling factor; therefore it is no wonder that Jewish business concerns sprang up like mushrooms overnight in that period. We need only to recall such notorious Jewish names as Jakob Michael, Richard Kahn, and Jacob Shapiro or the corrupt business concerns associated with the Austrian Jewish speculators Siegfried Bosel and Castiglioni, two names which became well-known far beyond Germany's frontiers. When German currency was stabilized, all these concerns collapsed at great cost to the national budget.

In 1931 the Jewish statistician Dr. Alfred Marcus, in his book The Economic Crisis of German Jews [Die wirtschaftliche Krise des deutschen Juden], carefully examined Jewish participation in individual branches of German trade. His investigations led to the following remarkable findings.

In 1930, of the total 603 firms in the metal trades, 346 or 57% were in Jewish hands; in scrap-metal were 514 firms of which 211 or 41% were in Jewish hands; grain merchants totaled 6,809, of which 1,543 or 22% were Jews; textile wholesalers numbered 9,984, of which 3,938 or 39% were Jews. In the ladies dress trade there were a total of 133 firms, of which 81 or 60% were Jewish. In the art and booksellers trades — both of which possess great cultural value — many of the most important firms were Jewish; we need only mention S. Fischer, Cassirer, Flechtheim, Ullstein, Springer.

Even more important is the financial business, or banking. Here virtually all the leading businesses were in the hands of Jews. Following are only a few examples. In 1929 both governing directors of the Deutsche Bank und Discontogesellschaft, and 4 of its 12 board members, were Jews. The chairman, two vice-chairmen, and 3 of the 5 governing members of the board of the Darmstädter und Nationalbank were Jews. In 1928 the chairman, vice-chairman, and 3 of the 7 members of the governing board of the Dresdner Bank were Jews. All three owners of the Berliner Handelsgesellschaft were Jews.

Also in Jewish hands were nearly all the large private banks. We need only to recall such well-known firms as Arnhold, Behrens, Warburg, Bleichröder, Mendelsohn, Goldschmidt, Rothschild, Dreyfuss, Bondi and Maron, Aufhäuser, Oppenheim, Levy, Speyer-Ellissen, Heimann, Stern.

From these key positions in the financial world, by way of the boards of directors, Jewish influence permeated every part of German industry. A Guide to Company Directors and Boards of Management [Adress Buch der Direktoren und Aufsichtsräte] — published in 1930, long before the National Socialists came to power — proves the alarming influence of Jewish capital, or capital controlled by Jews, on German economic life.

Outstanding among Jewish financiers in this respect was Jacob Goldschmidt, a member of the boards of no fewer than 115 companies. He was closely followed by Louis Hagen, a Jewish banker with 62 appointments. Third on the list was a Christian lawyer, followed successively by four Jewish bankers who together held 166 positions on the boards of various companies. The list of Jews playing prominent roles in finance could be continued indefinitely.

This concentration of business authority in the hands of a small group of Jewish financiers is certainly not compatible with the conscientious fulfillment of the exacting duties of a company director. Extraordinarily handsome returns were cadged without work or effort. This was one of the most important factors in the discrediting of the political and economic systems of that period, and was one of the causes of the widespread growth of antisemitism among the broad masses in Germany.

The domination of German industry by a system of Jewish boards of directors certainly went hand-in-hand with Jewish penetration and subsequent control of industrial production. The complicated nature of this vast field and its involved structure make it possible to give only a few illustrations which, nevertheless, do not describe the extent of Jewish power.

In the electrical business, mention must be made of the AEG, the German General Electric Company. This company was established by the Jew Emil Rathenau, and it was controlled by two Jews after the War. The whole of the metal market was controlled by the Jew Merton, head of the Frankfurt Metal Bank [Frankfurter Metallbank]. The Osram Company [Osram-Werke], the leading electric light bulb concern, was controlled by Meinhardt, a Jew. The Continental Rubber Company in Hannover — Germany’s largest production plant — and the Calmon Rubber Company at Hamburg were established and controlled by Jews. Adler, Oppenheim, Salamander, and Conrad Tack & Co. [Conrad Tack A.-G.], four Jewish firms, dominated the German leather industry. The iron market was controlled by the Jew Ottmar Strauss. Hugo Herzfeld, a Jew, exercised a major influence in the potash industry. In mining, Paul Silverberg dominated the Rhenish lignite or brown coal industry, while two co-racialists of his, the Petschek brothers, had a similar function in the Central German lignite district.

Jewish participation was also very large in industrial organizations and the official organs of German economic life. This influence was particularly pronounced in the Chambers of Commerce and Industry. To give only one example: in 1931 the Berlin Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the largest of its kind in Germany, had 98 members, of which no fewer than 50 were Jews or half-caste Jews. Four hundred of the 1,300 members attached to the Chamber as advisory experts were Jews, and 131 of the 209 commercial judges appointed by the Chamber were Jews. The Chamber itself was presided over by a president and five vice-presidents; this president himself and three of his deputies were Jews.

The situation was much worse on the exchanges. We need only to cite as an example the Berlin Exchange, the most important one in Germany. Twenty-five of the 36 committee members of the Securities and Bonds Exchange were Jews. Twelve of the 16 committee members of the Produce Exchange were Jews, and 10 of the 12 committee members of the Metal Exchange were Jews. The committee of the whole Exchange was composed of 70 members of whom 45 were Jews. Attendance at the Exchange was also more or less a Jewish monopoly. For example, in 1930 the attendance at the Securities and Bonds Exchange totaled 1,474, of which number approximately 1,200 were Jews. The Produce Exchange had an attendance of 578, of which 520 were Jews, and the Metal Exchange had an attendance of 89, of which 80 were Jews.

It is obvious that the Reichsbank, the official bank for the issue of paper money, was in no position to resist permanently this Jewish near-monopoly of capital and economic interests. The result was that in the period between 1925 and 1929, 4 of the 6 members of the controlling board of Reichsbank directors were Jews or half-caste Jews. All three members of the Central Council of the Reichsbank and two of their deputies were Jews.

It is necessary now to supplement this quantitative analysis of Jewish participation in German economic life with a qualitative one. In Prussia, the largest state, out of a total of approximately 3 million employed in the professions — either independently or in leading capacities — approximately 92,000 were Orthodox Jews. That means 48% of all employed Jews held professional positions. The percentage for the remainder of the population was only seventeen.

If we contrast this with the Jewish share in non-independent manual work, then the whole abnormal social structure of Jewry becomes clear. In 1925 Prussia employed approximately 8.5 million ordinary workers, 46.9% of the total of all in employment, but Jews were only 16,000 of them, or 8.3% of all Jews in employment. The percentage of Jews — which in the leading positions was three times that of the whole population — dropped therefore in the manual trades to just under one-sixth of the figure for the rest of the population, and for all practical purposes had reached zero.1

This supplementary qualitative assessment makes it plain that prior to the National Socialist government the whole of German economic life had reached the alarming stage of being under foreign occupation by Jews and principally by Jews in leading positions.

It is not surprising that this domination of German economic life should express itself in abnormally high incomes for members of the Jewish community. It is difficult of course to give accurate figures in this respect. We will, however, limit ourselves to the statistics furnished us by the Jewish statistician Marcus, to whom reference has already been made. He estimates the average Jewish income in 1930 to be 3.2 times greater than the average income of the rest of the population.

In summarizing the foregoing, it must be reemphasized that the Jews concentrated themselves on commercial and financial undertakings and assumed leading positions therein. Agriculture and other manual work was left alone. Abnormal concentration of Jews in large cities, particularly in Berlin, must not be forgotten.

It does not require much intelligence to realize that such an unhealthy social and regional structure must ultimately lead to a state of severe tension, if not to serious disturbances, in public life. This would have taken place in any case, even had the Jews wisely adapted themselves to the requirements of the country that was giving them shelter. These tensions had to lead to an explosion one day if Jewry, blinded by the luster of its fortunes, continued to exercise no restraint in displaying its foreign racial characteristics.

But never was Jewry less restrained than in the economic and political corruption that Germany experienced after the War.

1 [The total number of employed non-Jews is apparently 18,123,667, the total number of employed Jews 191,667. — Editor]


Next week:
3. Jews and Corruption
No jews, just right

Less talk, more action

Last edited by Sean Gruber; August 25th, 2014 at 01:42 AM.
Old August 25th, 2014 #4
John Evans
Christian Anti-Semite
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Kikesville, Hymietown
Posts: 251
John Evans

The jews are an evil force whose goal is world rule, which they have pursued with single-minded determination since they first started wandering through the desert, stealing the livestock of other non-jewish people and killing their owners. The National Socialists' approach to the jewish question was appropriate, and it's too bad they were unable to complete their battle with world jewry before the jews and their cronies ganged up on them and forced Germany to fight to defend itself. The end of the war in 1945 was the victory of jewry over White Christian civilization, and we are still paying the price that the jews are extorting from us.
No jews, no problems.

Never trust a jew.
Old August 30th, 2014 #5
Sean Gruber
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,465
Sean Gruber

3. Jews and Corruption

It is no exaggeration to say that public life in those days was governed by an epidemic of corruption. This was by no means confined to Germany. Europe and the United States of America were similarly affected. Jews played a leading part in corruption scandals everywhere. In France it was Hanau, Oustric, Stavisky; in the United States of America it was Insull; and in Austria, Bosel, Berliner, and Castiglioni were the outstanding figures.

Fundamentally it is unsurprising that this plague of corruption became most widespread and acute in the period that followed the disastrous War. But that Jews should be the bearer and the principal beneficiary of this process of disintegration is typical of their character.

It is understandable that Germany, as the loser of the War, became infected with the germ of corruption to an especially acute degree. During its most distressful period of trial and tribulation, which was the result of the Dictate of Versailles, Germany became acquainted with Jews as the exploiters and beneficiaries of its national misfortunes. None of the other countries involved can point to as bitter an experience with this.

The Jewish profiteers who undermined the structure of German economic life in those years of national distress, and finally were responsible for its total collapse and ruin, range from the company-promoter type and the inflation-profiteer to every type of soldier-of-fortune and large-scale swindler. In no other national economy has Jewish nature — with its selfishness, its unscrupulousness, and its lust for quick profits — developed itself so unrestrictedly as in Germany throughout that tragic period.

Even the war companies, which during the War attended to the supplying of raw materials, were allowed to come more and more under Jewish influence. The largest concern of its kind, the Central Buying Company [Zentral Einkaufsgesellschaft], for example, was controlled by a Jew. The important War Metals Company [Kriegs Metall Company] had 14 governing men of whom 12 were Jews. A public scandal over the business methods of this company was avoided for the simple reason that the political and military developments of the War confronted Germany with more pressing matters.

Jewry's great and triumphant hour of corruption came with the end of the War. The liquidation of the armaments factories and the sale of military stores and equipment offered splendid opportunities for obscene profits, and Jews were not slow to exploit this state of affairs. The Jew Richard Kahn, to mention one example, made a contract with the Deutsche Werke — the largest state-owned armaments plant — whereby the whole of its valuable stock was sold to him at scrap-metal price. Kahn was not the only Jew who profiteered enormously as the result of Germany's downfall. Felix Pinner, a Jewish author, in his book German Industrial Leaders [Deutsche Wirtschaftsführer] (Berlin, 1924), has characterized the innumerable Jewish profiteers as follows: "Many of them ... started business as army suppliers. In a number of cases it was difficult to say whether their chief motive was a desire to deal in military supplies or to find an excuse for shirking military duties. In many cases their big opportunity came when military stores and equipment were finally sold. Others again firmly established themselves financially with the advent of the currency inflation period."

Business in deflated currency in the years 1919 to 1923 brought many noticeable triumphs to corrupt and speculative dealers. Jews in particular were prominent in floating large companies by shady transactions on the exchange. These companies, which, again, were none too securely established, paid out large dividends in their early stages before finally crashing. The most well-known names in this respect are the Jews Jakob Michael and Richard Kahn, and the Eastern Jew Ciprut and his brother. These two brothers are mentioned in the Jew Pinner's book, from which we have already quoted. Pinner states: "The Ciprut brothers are of the breed that comes from the southeastern plains of Romania or Persia: soldiers-of-fortune attracted by the decomposing stench of German currency."

All these cases however were not the deciding factors that turned the Jewish question in Germany into a most burning problem for the whole nation. No. They took place at a time when all phases of economic and political law and order were extremely lax, and so, to a certain extent, they were almost lost in the general chaotic state of affairs during the first post-war years. But nothing was more calculated to open the eyes of the general public in Germany and fan the flame of antisemitism than the huge wave of Jewish corruption which had assumed such a criminal character that one public scandal followed another in swift succession.

We refer in particular to the five Sklarz brothers, the three Barmat brothers, the three Sklarek brothers, and the two Rotter brothers, as well as the scandals associated with Michael Holzmann and Ludwig Katzenellenbogen. All these Jewish masters in corruption were, with the exception of Katzenellenbogen, Easterners, i.e., Galician or Polish Jews, who had migrated to Germany either during or after the War.

The first of the large corruption cases involved the five Sklarz brothers. With the help of influential connections in the Social Democrat Party, they succeeded, shortly after the War, in obtaining a monopoly on the supplies of the troops who had been commissioned to restore domestic law and order. These contracts led to enormous profits within a short space of time. The brothers increased their wealth considerably by discreet bribes to leading government officials and by further such dealings. All this materially helped these Jewish blackguards when they subsequently came up for trial. Little light could be thrown on their shady conduct, and after a well-nigh endless trial only one of the five brothers was convicted in 1926. The brothers were ably assisted by a Russian Jew, Parvus-Helphand, one of the most unscrupulous blackguards and swindlers produced by the War. He used the millions he made out of war supplies to establish good relations with Social Democrats in power at that time. A principal wire-puller, he remained in the background of many corruption scandals; no one dared to start proceedings against a man who had successfully bribed so many leading government officials.

The three Barmat brothers were artists in corruption on a more imposing scale. Their home was in Kiev, and during the War they did business in Holland as food merchants. With the help of the Jewish politician Heilmann, the five Sklarz brothers, and Parvus-Helphand, the three Barmat brothers ultimately received permission to settle in Germany. By means of ruthless exploitation of human weaknesses — small and large favors which ended in direct bribes — these brothers were able to win the confidence of government members and influential friends. In this way they soon became the owners of ten banks and many industrial concerns. Partly by using fraudulent balance sheets, they obtained a loan of 38 million Marks, partly granted by the Prussian State Bank and partly by the Reich Ministry of Posts and Telegraphs. When this inflated Barmat concern crashed, its debts were estimated at 70 million gold Marks; half this sum had to be covered by the savings of small investors. The subsequent court proceedings ended in very short terms of imprisonment. Herr Bauer, the Social Democrat Reich Chancellor at the time, who was implicated in the proceedings, was forced to resign. After the crash, Julius Barmat went abroad again. Able to obtain loans in his new surroundings, he applied with great success the methods that he had adopted in Germany. He finally defrauded the Belgian National Bank of 34 million gold francs by bribing politicians. He evaded the law by committing suicide in 1937.

The three Jews Iwan Baruch, Alexander Kutisker, and Michael Holzmann were less successful than their predecessors. Nevertheless they are worthy of mention. They turned their attention to the Prussian State Bank, which Barmat had previously defrauded. They, too, succeeded in defrauding this institution, in the amount of 14 million gold Marks.

But the largest scandal, by far, was the case of the Sklarek brothers of whom there were three. This case is certainly unparalleled in the history of crime, politics, business, and bribery. The principal victims were the city authorities in Berlin. By a clever and crafty system of favors, gifts, and bribes of every description, these three Jews had literally purchased goodwill in various civic quarters in Berlin — where Social Democrats and Communists were chiefly in power. In this way these brothers secured an absolute monopoly for the supply of clothing to the police force, the traffic department, the social aid depots, and the public works department. All municipal officials were systematically bribed who might in any way prove useful to the Sklareks in obtaining and keeping their monopoly. Even the Oberbürgermeister, Berlin's Lord Mayor, was bribed. In this way it was possible to obtain payment from the Berlin Municipal Bank for all faked invoices, i.e., invoices for goods never supplied. The sums paid on that account ran to incredible figures. When the Sklarek firm finally suspended payments, the Berlin Municipal Bank had been defrauded of 12.5 million Marks. An inquiry to ascertain the whereabouts of a further 10 million brought no results. The legal proceedings against these three Jews commenced in 1932 and lasted nine months. In accordance with public feeling, the sentences were more severe than in previous cases. Two of the brothers (one had died in the meantime) were sentenced to long terms of imprisonment with hard labor.

Mention must still be made of the Jewish Director-General Katzenellenbogen. He was head of the Schultheiss-Patzenhofer concern. This was one of the largest industrial concerns in Germany, with a share capital of 75 million Marks and a preferential capital of 15 million Marks. By means of disreputable speculation with a view to personal enrichment at the expense of the company, Katzenellenbogen brought this vast concern to the verge of bankruptcy. The shareholders were defrauded of 30 million Marks. Katzenellenbogen used some of his dishonest profits to finance Erwin Piscator, the Bolshevik theatrical director. Herr Katzenellenbogen was finally convicted for fraud and for issuing false balance sheets, and was sentenced to imprisonment.

The final case in this list of corruption scandals was the one involving the Rotter brothers. These two Jewish speculators had formed a combine encompassing seven of the largest Berlin theaters. The work of exploiting these theaters was considerably facilitated by floating several companies the affairs of which were dumped in the hands of a willing innocent who was acting as a figurehead. In a single year, 1932, the two adventurers were able to squeeze no less than 300,000 Marks clear profit out of these undertakings (after expenses). Their monthly salaries, which they themselves had fixed at 2,000 Marks each, were not included in this figure. A further 400,000 Marks accrued to them thanks to a fraudulent contract concerning two cultural undertakings. And while Christian actors in these theaters were badly underpaid, the Jewish "stars" got fantastic salaries — as much as 1,000 to 2,500 Marks per evening was no rare occurrence. The Rotters lived a life of luxury, but the day came in 1932 when their concern finally crashed, with debts amounting to 3.5 million Marks. The two brothers declined any and all responsibility and decamped for Liechtenstein, for which country they had taken care to obtain naturalization papers.

We have already said that Austria also had large-scale Jewish corruption scandals. Leaving aside Castiglioni and Bosel, we pause on Berliner, the big Jewish swindler. As Director-General of the Phönix Life Insurance Company, he used this major company's funds for political purposes. Berliner maintained excellent relations with all political parties in Austria and paid out a total of 3 million schillings in bribes for elections and the occupation of certain important positions. He influenced the press of his day by payments amounting to 170 million schillings. The trade unions and the military Heimwehr organization were also supported by him from funds misappropriated from his company. The company's debts finally totaled the mammoth sum of 670 million schillings. Three hundred thirty thousand policy holders, chiefly of the non-wealthy middle-class type, were the principal sufferers and had to foot the bill through reduced benefits and increased premiums.

This list of Jewish corruption does not claim to be complete at all. Attention has been drawn only to those few large cases, in Germany and elsewhere, that focused special public attention. But the examples given here belie the oft-repeated Jewish assertion that Jews were no more involved in corruption than Christians were. During the period which has been referred to, only two great corruption scandals by Christians took place; these were the cases of the Raiffeisen Bank and the Lahusen. Jewish participation in corruption was, therefore, not only greater on a qualitative basis — i.e., when compared to the Jewish population ratio — but also in absolute numbers.

A decisive factor in judging Jewish corruption is that legal punishment was invariably delayed or no charge was subsequently preferred against the criminals. When a conviction did take place, punishment was invariably mild. The reason for this is to be found in the very friendly and mutually profitable relations existing between the criminals and various influential personages in the government and other public bodies. And here again, Jews were always to be found in key positions. Mention of this interconnection of interests has already been made. Reference was made to Heilmann, the Jewish Social Democrat Reichstag member who paved the way for the Barmats. The Jewish Secretary of State Abegg was also noted as acting in a similar capacity.

More examples of Jewish corruption in the Prussian Civil Service are the cases of Drs. Weiss and Weismann. They were the Deputy Chief of Police in Berlin and the Secretary of State and State Commissar for Public Law and Order in Prussia, respectively. Both were officially responsible for law and order; Weismann was classified as the senior official in Prussia, the largest of the Federal States. Weismann played a particularly shady part in the proceedings against the Sklarz brothers. It is characteristic of him that he attempted to bribe Herr Gutjahr, the leading state prosecutor, with a sum of 3 million Marks, in an attempt to have the charge modified. Gutjahr refused to be bribed and subsequently Weismann was responsible for this trusted official's being officially reprimanded.

In private life Drs. Weiss and Weismann were both addicted to gambling. The Jewish periodical The World Stage [Die Weltbühne] criticized Weismann in 1920 as "one of the most notorious gamblers in Berlin." Weiss — again, Berlin's Deputy Chief of Police — was frequently surprised in 1932 in various illegal gaming dens. Before the National Socialists came to power Berlin's Court of Appeal even confirmed that he had committed a certain offense against the law and "did not possess the moral qualities necessary for such a responsible position."


Next week:
4. The Jews in German Political Life
No jews, just right

Less talk, more action

Last edited by Sean Gruber; August 31st, 2014 at 04:33 PM.
Old September 5th, 2014 #6
Sean Gruber
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,465
Sean Gruber

4. The Jews in German Political Life

In Imperial Germany Jews did not play any important role in the country's political life, because they were not in possession of key positions. But this state of affairs changed radically with the 1918 Revolution and the introduction of a new constitution. It is unnecessary to examine here whether this new state structure was in line with the governing political ideas of Jewry. The facts show that from November, 1918 on, Jews made a veritable rush to capture the major key positions in the Reich and in the Federal States.

Among the six so-called "Representatives of the People" who formed the first Reich Government after the collapse were two Jews, Hugo Haase and Otto Landsberg. In Bavaria the Jew Kurt Eisner became Minister-President; in Prussia the Jew Paul Hirsch assumed a similar position. The first Reich government established in 1919 on a parliamentary basis contained five Jews. Many of the most important departments in the Reich ministries were controlled by Jews.

To appreciate thoroughly the significance of this Jewish takeover of political leadership, one must bear in mind that it began with a time of political weakness which led to total surrender and shameful servility in foreign affairs and total disruption and disunion at home. Even the loss of the War is certainly no sufficient excuse or explanation for this, although it had to lead to a profound change in Germany's position abroad and in her domestic affairs. When considering that particular period, even opinion abroad will agree that a more dignified attitude would have been helpful in improving the German position. It was the defeatist and servile policy of the German Jewish politicians, commanding nothing but contempt, that served to deepen Germany's national shame and misery.

Those Jewish politicians were in no way satisfied with the change from constitutional monarchy to a parliamentary-republican regime in German affairs. This is testified to by the Jewish author Rudolf Schay in his book Jews in German Politics [Juden in der deutschen Politik] (1929), in which he states: "Among the elements who carry on the revolution, and will not accept a free, bourgeois, and democratic-republican order — but who insist on the complete fulfillment of all social demands — Jews have played a dominant role; viz: Rosa Luxemburg, Eisner and Landauer…"

This fulfillment of all socialist demands would be no other than a realization of The Communist Manifesto authored by the Jew Karl Marx. But that would be possible only by surrendering all the national ideas and interests of the German nation.

It is therefore not surprising that Jewish politicians were playing a leading role, even during the War, in all those movements which aimed at undermining Germany's military and political strength. Which of the Allied countries would not have taken immediate steps to punish the author of a treacherous article such as that which appeared on October 20, 1918, in the Social Democrat paper Forward [Vorwärts], written by its editor, the Jew Friedrich Stampfer. He stated: "Germany must — that is our inflexible will as socialists — lower her war flag forever, without bearing it home in victory for the last time."

That is the same brand of defeatism which at the beginning of the War had already permeated the many pacifist organizations, all of them under Jewish control.

Prominent among those organizations was New Fatherland [Neues Vaterland], subsequently known as the German League for Human Rights. Its policy was principally set by the Jews Witting, Grelling, Bernstein, Magnus Hirschfeld, Heymann, Gumbel, Wulfsohn. The pacifist Youth Organization was also led by Jews: Max Hodann, Jakob Feldner, the Jewish Communist Scholen, and the half-caste Jewish sons of Karl Liebknecht.

It is not our intention to criticize pacifism as such. Unquestionably pacifism is a political conviction of great moral significance and is certainly worthy of every effort to support it. But pacifism is tolerable in a country's political direction only as long as it remains within the boundaries prescribed by the interests of that country, and particularly when all national forces of the country are strong.

It is those particular pacifists mentioned above who must be held principally responsible for the collapse of Germany's spirit of resistance, for the estrangement that took place between the people and its political leaders, and for the cleavage between the Army at the Front and the people at home.

No one was more successful than the leading pacifist Jews in giving Germany's enemies suitable material for propaganda. Prominent in this work is the Jew already referred to, Dr. Richard Grelling — a name undoubtedly still well-remembered in the former Allied countries. Before the War he emigrated to Switzerland and there published his two books I Accuse [J’accuse] and The Crime [Das Verbrechen] in which he attempted to prove Germany's alleged guilt for the outbreak of hostilities. These books were very widely circulated in the Allied and neutral countries as an "authoritative and convincing" personal document of Germany's war guilt and all the attendant horrors. In 1917 Karl Federn, Grelling's co-racialist and also an author, replied by denouncing Grelling's conduct as "dishonorable" and stated further that Grelling had built up his case "by lies and the use of false and forged documents." Grelling never replied to these serious charges, which were constantly repeated in later years. On the contrary, he was cowardly enough to attempt to deny his authorship of these two books.

Mention must also be made of the Jewish journalist Hermann Fernau who made anti-German propaganda from Switzerland in 1917 and 1918. His newspaper articles furnished the Allies with excellent material for disruptive propaganda in the German front lines.

Geheimrat Witting, a highly placed German official, brother of the Jewish author Maximilian Harden, was responsible for the unlawful but widespread publication in pamphlet form of a private memorandum (My Mission to London 1912-1914). This memorandum was the property of Count Lichnowsky, the former German Ambassador in London. It contained observations of a purely personal nature but its publication was just as disastrous for Germany's political position as the works of Grelling were.

Jews also had a prominent part in planning the 1918 Revolution, which finally led to the collapse of the entire Western Front. It was Dr. Oscar Cohn, the Social Democrat deputy, who early in November, 1918 accepted the sum of 4 million gold rubles from M. Joffe, then the Soviet ambassador in Berlin and a Jew. This money was intended to finance the German Revolution. Hugo Haase, a Jewish Reichstag deputy, masterminded the sailors revolt at Kiel, which was the signal for general revolution throughout Germany. At the national meeting of protest held on May 12, 1919, when it was unanimously decided to vote against signing the peace terms, it was the Jew Haase, as leader of the Independent Social Democrats, who alone insisted on accepting the terms. It must be added that in the Prussian Diet of that period it was a Jew, Kurt Rosenfeld, who on May 7, 1919, on the occasion of a similar protest meeting, demanded that these terms should be accepted.

Closely allied to these destructive elements and traitors to national interests, a few more prominent names can be mentioned: the Jews Georg Bernhard, editor of the Vossi Newspaper [Vossische Zeitung]; Friedrich Stampfer and Erich Kuttner, both on the staff of the Social Democrat Vorwärts; and Rudolf Hilferding, attached to the radical Freedom [Freiheit] press. Their united efforts were chiefly responsible for Germany's being forced to bow down and submit to the yoke of the peace terms, although political developments proved later that these terms could never be fulfilled: to the military collapse was added a total political and economic crash.

It is not possible to conclude this overview of Jewish defeatism without mentioning the following. It is true that there were also a number of non-Jewish Germans who both during and after the War committed treason on strictly Jewish lines. But the Jewish percentage in this dastardly political work is incomparably higher not only qualitatively but also absolutely. In fact, the percentage is so abnormally large that the list of non-Jewish perpetrators is almost insignificant.

Seeking an explanation of this curious fact, one finds that Jewry is outwardly as well as inwardly completely rootless. On the basis of its racial habits and its historical past it recognizes no ties which can in any way be connected with love for a homeland.

This attitude of the Jews shows up clearly in the glaring ingratitude that they have demonstrated in Germany. There is no country where the requirements of Jewish emancipation have been more justly fulfilled than in Germany, and there is not another country in which Jews were so obligingly allowed to fill positions in public service. But in no other country have Jews in times of such severe national distress played such an inglorious, destructive, and treacherous role.

Two instances from after the War will illustrate the Jewish lack of national feeling and the way Jews wounded profound national sensibilities.

The first case is the scandal in connection with Professor Theodor Lessing. During the election campaign for Reich President in 1925, this Jew, who had been entrusted with the work of educating German youth, published an article in a foreign anti-German paper — the Prague Daily Paper [Tageblatt] — opposing Field Marshal von Hindenburg as a candidate for the presidency. The article abounded in slanderous and ill-natured attacks on the Field Marshal, who was stigmatized as "inhuman," a "simpleton," and a "ferocious wolf." Lessing added that the Field Marshal would prove to be a "Nero" in office.

To grasp this dastardly attack completely, one must recall to mind that the Field Marshal, after a strenuous career, had at the age of 77 again placed himself at the service of the country. This was at a time when a disrupted Germany sorely needed a man who could collect all the forces needed for the work of national reconstruction. One must further remember that Hindenburg, as Commander in Chief of the German Army during the War, had become a venerable figure, the embodiment of all the glorious achievements of the Army at the Front. The slanderous attack had the same effect in Germany as a similar attack on Kitchener or Nelson would have in England, or Marshal Foch in France, or George Washington in America.

In response, a storm of indignation raged in academic circles throughout the country. Prof. Lessing, however, was not reprimanded and was even permitted to continue his slanderous attacks. The result was a further strengthening of the antisemitic tendencies of the whole nation.

The character of this Jew Lessing is further emphasized in his "War Memoirs" published in 1929 in the same Prague newspaper. He states with as much cynicism and stupidity as bluntness: "I became a shirker through sheer luck. During four years of war I was called to the colors regularly, once a month. Disqualification became more and more difficult. I kept on inventing excuses in order to keep away from the Front." This was the man who dared to slander Hindenburg.

The Gumbel Case, broadly speaking, is similar to the Lessing scandal. Emil Gumbel, a Jew, was also a university teacher. He belonged to those pacifists, traitors, and defeatists previously referenced; he was also closely connected with the Third International and Moscow. In a series of pamphlets he made seditious statements, which brought him into conflict with the law despite the fact that the sympathetic attitude of the government in those days was all in his favor. Gumbel also participated in the publication of a document titled "Germany's Secret Armaments," in which he endeavored to expose Germany's alleged breaches of the disarmament terms of the Versailles Treaty. This document was handed to the French, English, and Polish governments by the Jewish-controlled pacifist German League for Human Rights, and brought about a difficult foreign political situation for Germany. In speeches which Gumbel made in 1924 at various French universities, he even affirmed the oft-repeated false statement about Germany's war guilt. Hence there is no cause for surprise that this man (who had never seen the Front) was incapable of a spark of human feeling for the heroic deeds of German soldiers in the War. It was he who dared to declare at a public meeting in 1924 that our fallen German brothers had "died on the field of dishonor."

Despite these infamous statements and insults to the German people, which caused widespread indignation, Gumbel was able to maintain his position as a university teacher until 1933. Influential Jewish friends such as Georg Bernhard and Albert Einstein were his protectors. He was even able to continue his insults. At a later meeting at Heidelberg he declared: "The War Memorial to German soldiers is to me nothing but one big turnip."

Would it be possible — one must ask the question in view of this blackguardism — for an English university teacher to insult the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier in a similar manner? Would not a storm of national indignation then sweep away Jewish blackguards of the Gumbel and Lessing type? National Socialism in Germany certainly accomplished that when it cleared out its Gumbels and Lessings, its Grellings and Bernhards, and the entire clique of defeatists and traitors. By means of legislation such disruptive work has been made impossible for all time.

In Gumbel's case one could already discern the connection that existed between people of his character and Marxism. Opinions may vary in regard to Marxism and its parliamentary champions, but when one closely studies the subject one cannot deny that Marxism and Jewry are closely related.

It is a well-known fact that the father of Marxism, Karl Marx, was a member of a rabbinical family; subsequent developments were only logical. Another Jew, Ferdinand Lassalle, stood next to Marx. Lassalle was the son of a Jewish silk merchant in Breslau. Both looked up to the Jew Moses Hess as their spiritual father, called the "Father of Modern Socialism" and the "Communist Rabbi" by the Jewish Encyclopedia [Judische Lexikon], the standard reference work for all German Jews. All Jewish thought since those days has felt itself drawn towards this Marxian socialism, and the preponderance of Jewish leaders in the Marxist workers movement has been maintained up to now.

Opinions may differ in other countries, but Germany's attitude towards this subject is guided by the profound relationship existing between Marxism and Jewry. The two are inseparable wherever they occur. The period in Germany during and after the War has proved the disastrous effects of Jewish Marxism as a political factor.

At the turn of the century, two Jews in succession were chairmen of the Social Democrat Party in Germany, Paul Singer and Hugo Haase. After that, Jews gained an increasingly dominant influence in all sections of the Marxist movement, in its parliamentary, journalistic, and literary work. The consolidation of Marxist theory and science became virtually a Jewish monopoly. Outstanding Jewish theorists in this work were Eduard Bernstein, Rudolf Hilferding, Adolf Braun, Jacob Stern, and Simon Katzenstein. The central intellectual organ of international Marxism was a publication called the New Age [Neue Zeit], published in Berlin, which started its career in 1883 with 12 Jewish contributors. In 1905 this figure had increased to 40, and in 1914 no fewer than 100 Jews from all parts of the world were contributing articles to this publication. The story of other intellectual and literary publications of German Marxism is similar.

The Marxist daily press was almost completely in Jewish hands. The Vorwärts, the principal organ of the German Social Democrat Party, was founded by Singer, a Jew. In 1929, according to a statement by its editor-in-chief, Friedrich Stampfer, his entire editorial staff, with only one exception, was composed of Jews. Later on, when the Communist newspaper the Red Flag [Rote Fahne] was published, the percentage of Jews on its staff was equally high. Its editors were the Jewess Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht who, although a Christian, had been twice married to Jewesses. Another preeminently Jewish publication was Freiheit — with an extreme Marxist policy — controlled by Rudolf Hilferding and Paul Hertz, both Jews. Jewish journalists dominated the Social Democrat press news services and foreign press offices.

In 1924 the percentage of Jewish Social Democrat Reichstag deputies totaled 22%; of Jewish Communist deputies, 15%. Here it is instructive to emphasize again that Jews totaled hardly 1% of the population of Germany.

The following is a list of the Jews elected to the Reichstag in 1924, as members of the Social Democrat Party: Aufhäuser, Dr. Adolf Braun, Bernstein, Eggerstedt, Frölich, Heimann, Dr. Hertz, Dr. Hilferding, Hoch, Jacobshagen, Kirschmann, Landsberg, Dr. Levi, Dr. Löwenstein, Ludwig, Stefan Meier, Dr. Moses, Dr. Rosenfeld, Frau Schiffgens, Frau Toni Sender, Stampfer, Frau Wurm.

In the same year, the Communist Party returned the following Jews as members: Frau Arendsee, Frau Gohlke (known as Ruth Fischer), Hoernle, Katz, Koenen, Münzenberg, Rosenbaum, Dr. Rosenberg, Scholem.

In 1932 Jewry in the Marxist parties was represented in the Reichstag by the following Jewish members. Social Democrats: Aufhäuser, Dr. Adolf Braun, Eggerstedt, Frölich, Heilmann, Heimann, Heinig, Dr. Hertz, Dr. Hilferding, Kirschmann, Landsberg, Dr. Löwenstein, Dr. Marum, Stefan Meier, Reuter, Schneppenhorst, Frau Schreiber-Krieger, Frau Toni Sender, Friedrich Stampfer, Frau Wurm. Communists: Gräf, Hoernle, Frau Kessel, Kippenberger, Münzenberg, Frau Sandtner.

It was natural that this influx of Jews in the Reichstag should have its effect on governance in the Reich itself and in the Federal States. Prussia particularly was their happy hunting ground and they were to be found in key positions in practically every ministry. No important step could be taken anywhere without brushing up against a Jew in authority.

When taking into account this overwhelmingly powerful Jewish influence in all Marxist organizations and parties, one is not surprised that the Social Democrats' policy was shaped and influenced entirely by their Jewish leaders. In it we see once more the same spirit of defeatism and treachery to which we have already referred. A start was made almost immediately, on August 4, 1914, when the Jew Hugo Haase led 14 Social Democrat deputies in the Reichstag in an attempt to stop government war loans. Two years later, 18 Social Democrat deputies voted against the same measure. Five other Jews had joined the Jew Haase in the ranks. The Jewess Rosa Luxemburg led the campaign of sapping Germany's power of resistance. The first success of this dastardly process of undermining became evident in August, 1914, when a Hamburg Social Democrat newspaper published a statement opposing the government's policy of home defense. That statement was signed by three leading Jews.

After the November, 1918 collapse, almost all the extreme leaders with Bolshevik tendencies were Jews. They took a prominent, and for Germany disastrous, part in the peace negotiations.

In Communism, which is the extreme form of Marxism, Jewish domination became particularly marked. Its leaders and propagandists were almost exclusively Jews. The Spartacist League, founded in 1918 as a forerunner to the Communist Party, was run by Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg. The League was modeled on true Soviet lines, and in the days of terror that followed the collapse of the nation it called on the proletariat to take arms. The League's Moscow agent was the Jew Leo Jogiches (formerly known as Tyschko). Mention has already been made of the fact that Oscar Cohn, the Jewish Social Democrat, received the sum of 10 million gold rubles from Joffe, the Jewish Soviet Ambassador in Berlin in November, 1918.

These German and Russian Jews systematically prepared the chaos and indescribable horror they loosed on the German nation, culminating at Munich. Here again it was a Jew — Kurt Eisner, an author — who was the leader and organizer. When, in 1917, Germany was still fighting for her existence, he had agitated for strikes and revolution. He established a Workers Council at Munich on strictly Bolshevik lines; his "Revolutionary Tribunal" contained nearly all Jews, five in number. Only those who have experienced that period of Jewish terror and slaughter, the murder of hostages, the plunders, the acts of arson, are able to see why Munich became the birthplace of National Socialism, whence the movement spread to other parts of Germany and finally put an end to Jewish domination.

The common interests of Jewry and Communism were in no way affected when the first Communist attempts at revolution were suppressed. The so-called Cultural Bolshevism of the extreme Marxists, sponsored mainly by Jews, now joined with those forces which were tireless in their efforts to overthrow law and order with the goal of Bolshevizing Germany. It is necessary to cite only a few examples of the work that was being carried on in this extensive sphere of moral corruption and disruption. During negotiations concerning a reform of the German Criminal Code, the Jewish radical socialist Kurt Rosenfeld intimated that he was opposed to punishment for the crime of high treason as well as for sodomy and homosexual offenses. Jews were also dominant in issues related to the education of children on Bolshevik principles. Jewish pedagogues, Jewish principals of official school establishments founded and supported experimental schools and "Juvenile Republics" modeled on Soviet lines. Authority was entirely banished in these institutions, the sexes were educated in an amoral manner, and sexual problems formed the major part of the school curriculum. In this respect much publicity was given to Kurt Lowenstein, the Jewish principal of Berlin's schools, and his colleague Fritz Karsen-Krakauer, another Jew.

To complete the sordid picture of the common interests of Jewry and Bolshevism, which brought Germany to the brink of Communism before National Socialism came to power, it remains to be said that Jews held certain key positions up to the last minute. Hans Kippenberger is number one on this list. He was the head of the terror and espionage branches of the German Communist Party. Heinz Neumann, son of a wealthy Berlin merchant, was also prominent. He was a member of the Central Executive of the German Communist Party and one of the most dangerous agitators among the general public. He coined the infamous phrase, "Kill the fascists wherever you meet them," which in 1932 led to a series of foul murders of National Socialist party members. Neumann was equally busy abroad. He was responsible for the Communist uprising in Canton in 1927. Because of this, the world press labelled him "the wholesale butcher of Canton."


Next week:
5. The Jews in the German Press
No jews, just right

Less talk, more action

Last edited by Sean Gruber; September 6th, 2014 at 02:14 PM.
Old September 13th, 2014 #7
Sean Gruber
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,465
Sean Gruber

5. The Jews in the German Press

Jews have always possessed a special aptitude for journalism and the organization of press work. Accordingly, they played a prominent part in the establishment of German newspapers. Hardly any other function has given them so much power as their influence on the press. They soon proved however that they had little or no interest in the sense of high moral obligation that is the duty of those who are responsible for influencing public opinion. On the contrary, their interests were primarily centered in the rich possibilities for material gain.

If one examines the Jewish-controlled German press of recent decades, one realizes that for purely material reasons it served a craving for sensation, for vanity and the masses' lower instincts. Circulation was increased in proportion as newspapers seriously undermined all respect for morals, law, and order.

The two largest German newspaper concerns were, before 1933, in Jewish hands: Ullstein and Mosse. Both these firms were founded by Jews, and their directorates and editorial staffs were comprised almost entirely of Jews.

Ullstein. Publishers & Printers:

The circulation of this large newspaper concern averaged four million daily. It published five large daily newspapers, several weekly papers, and many periodicals and magazines of every description. The Ullstein News Agency influenced a large number of provincial papers. In addition to this, Ullstein possessed a very large book publishing branch.

All the shares in this vast concern were held by the five Jewish Ullstein brothers. The directorate consisted of these brothers, three other Jews, and just two Christians.

This concern's largest newspaper was the Berlin Morning Mail [Berliner Morgenpost], which had a bigger circulation than any other German paper, more than 600,000 daily. In 1927 it had ten Jews on the editorial staff, apart from its Jewish editor. The editorial staff of the Vossische Zeitung — an extremely influential political organ — was headed by the Jew Georg Bernhard and fourteen Jewish sub-editors. Bernhard at that time was keen on making a name for himself in politics. The story of the rest of the Ullstein newspapers is similar.

Mosse. Publishers & Printers:

This firm was not as important as Ullstein as far as size is concerned. Its daily circulation was 350,000. Established and maintained as a family concern by the Eastern Jew Rudolf Mosse (formerly Moses), its influence was huge nonetheless. Its chief publication was the Berlin Daily Paper [Berliner Tageblatt] established long before 1933. It was this newspaper which for many years was looked upon abroad as representing German public opinion. The editor was the Jew Theodor Wolff, who took a prominent part in politics, too. Apart from him, the important positions on the editorial staff were occupied by seventeen other Jews. Jews represented the Berliner Tageblatt in five important capitals outside the Reich.

Another newspaper issued by this concern was the Eight O'Clock Evening Paper [Acht-Uhr-Abendblatt], another politically influential publication in which Jews were dominant, with a Jew as chief editor and eight co-racialists as sub-editors.

It was only natural that the rest of the German press could play only an insignificant part in comparison with these two important concerns. Neither the provincial press with its economic disunity nor the publishing house of August Scherl — the only large Christian undertaking in the capital — was able to exercise enough influence to challenge the united power of these two big Jewish-dominated undertakings.

That the Marxist Party press was overwhelmingly directed and influenced by Jews has already been shown in the previous chapter. Moreover, Jews were in charge of the official press departments of the government, particularly in Prussia. The three most important press departments in Prussia, the largest of the German Federal States, were, in 1930 for example, headed by four Jews.

It is simply a matter of course that the professional and economic organizations of German journalists came entirely under Jewish influence. The largest of them, the German Press Association [Reichsverband der deutschen Presse], was directed for many years before 1933 by the Jewish chief editor of the Vossische Zeitung, Bernhard. In the Berlin Press Union [Verein Berliner Presse], the leading social and benefit society for all journalists in the capital, the right to nominate and elect members had been vested from 1888 in a purely Jewish committee. The official organization of free-lance German writers, the Defense Association of German Writers [Schutzverband deutscher Schriftsteller], was controlled by a directorate which was 90% Jewish in 1928 and 1929. Its president at that time was the Jewish publicist Arnold Zweig, author of the war novel The Case of Sergeant Grischa [Streit um den Sergeanten Grischa], in which he foully besmirched the national honor of the German people.

In this connection it is necessary to examine the work and significance of those Jews who for many years were regarded in Germany and abroad as the high priests of German public relations: Georg Bernhard, Theodor Wolff, and Maximilian Harden. All three were Jews. All three were journalists of surpassing technical skill who, simply through their masterly handling of the written word, were well able to make "converts" to the ideas they represented. But behind this winning exterior was hidden the same dangerous spirit of denial of all traditional values, of criticism for criticism's sake — the spirit of disruption, disintegration, destruction which we have been compelled to recognize as the main characteristic of Jewry in all spheres.

It is significant indeed that Georg Bernhard's real profession was that of banker and stock exchange financier. He belonged until shortly before the War to the Social Democrat Party, and his whole life shows a remarkable vacillation between two such contradictory things as stock exchange journalism and Marxist activity. Then, in 1913, he was appointed chief editor of Ullstein's Vossische Zeitung. It was in this position that he played a calamitous part in two different hours of destiny in Germany's post-war history.

In the critical weeks before the signing of the Versailles Treaty, when the German people and its leaders almost unanimously rejected the intolerable and harsh conditions of that dictated peace, he made common cause with those comparatively few men of public influence who, through the medium of the spoken and printed word, suppressed every flickering of the spirit of national resistance and thereby destroyed all hopes of securing more bearable conditions. One need only to glance at the old issues of the Vossische Zeitung of those weeks and months to realize how systematically Bernhard went about this evil work. Even the most humiliating part of this treaty — the "War Guilt" clause — he attempted to represent as a mere trifle. Thus he wrote — to give one example — on June 18, 1919: "The German reader of the Note will most easily be able to reconcile himself with those parts which deal with the historical origin of the war and with the question of guilt for it … if one regards the matter in this manner, one cannot take the scolding in the War-Guilt paragraph tragically." With these words Bernhard attacked the German government from behind while it was waging a terrific struggle regarding these points of honor, in particular the clause relating to War-Guilt and the release of German officers. It will be understood outside Germany, too, that we cannot forget such a betrayal of national interests, such a lack of proper pride and feeling of honor, as this Jewish journalist Bernhard displayed.

Bernhard also committed criminal treason. During the occupation of the Rhineland, there arose in the Occupied Zone a movement, supported and advanced for political reasons by foreign money, that strove to prevent the return of the occupied Rhineland to the Reich and establish its complete independence. Bernhard with his Vossische Zeitung got in contact with these Rhenish separatists. The separatists received from him political advice and financial support. In 1930, one of the owners of Ullstein, the Jew Dr. Franz Ullstein, published this fact in the periodical Tagebuch. He declared that Bernhard's agent in Paris, the Jew Dr. Leo Stahl, had paid a sum of money to Matthes, the leader of the separatists, and that Bernhard himself had corresponded and associated with Matthes. This political scandal forced Bernhard eventually to retire from political journalism. He became, and this is also characteristic, the head of a large department store association. Since 1933 he has been busy abroad publishing an anti-German émigré paper.

Theodor Wolff, the editor of the Berliner Tageblatt, behaved in a different but equally objectionable manner. Although Wolff was apparently a convinced monarchist during the War, there was, after the change of constitution in Germany, no one who reviled and slandered the deposed Hohenzollerns in so evil a manner as he. Even if we could forgive him for his opportunism, quite inexcusable is his behavior in the period when the increasing spread of indecency and immorality in Germany forced the government in 1926 to take constitutional steps for the suppression of filthy and otherwise low-grade literature. The intention of these steps was, above all, to protect youth from coarsening and indecent influences. Wolff openly opposed this effort. He condemned the new law and as a protest resigned from the Democratic party, which he had helped to found, because it had supported the new measure. In order to comprehend the frivolous irresponsibility of this Jewish publicist, one must know just how far the flooding of the German book and periodical markets with dirty, pornographic productions had gone. We shall have more to say about this later on.

Still more influential than Bernhard and Wolff, certainly the mightiest man of the pen which Germany had for a generation, was Maximilian Harden, a brother of Witting, the previously mentioned Jewish defeatist. With his periodical The Future [Die Zukunft] he indulged in high politics for more than twenty years. Hardly any other man has shown so much fluctuation in character and principles as he. He began by setting himself up as a judge of morality in Imperial Germany, dealing a death blow to the reputation of the monarchic system with his journalistic scandalmongering about the Hohenzollern court. During the War he was the only real "annexationist" in Germany, demanding as the price of victory the whole of Belgium, the French coast opposite England, and the Congo Basin (Die Zukunft of October 17, 1914). But when the fortunes of war, in 1916, began to turn away from Germany, Harden also retreated. He attacked German war policy and became an enthusiastic admirer of US President Woodrow Wilson. In 1919, he finally conducted a cowardly campaign against the national resistance to the tyrannical peace treaty terms, naming this resistance "artificially forced hysteria and miserable falsehood." The driving forces of such characterless behavior were vanity and petty selfish ambition. Harden is rightly described by the world-renowned historian Friedrich Thimme as "the Judas of the German people."


Next week:
6. Jews in German Art and Literature
No jews, just right

Less talk, more action

Last edited by Sean Gruber; September 13th, 2014 at 08:44 AM.
Old September 20th, 2014 #8
Sean Gruber
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,465
Sean Gruber

6. Jews in German Art and Literature

Many years before the National Socialist regime, indeed even before the War and before the period when Jewish emancipation had reached its climax, anxious observers pointed out that cultural life in Germany hardly deserved the name "German" any longer and that it had become a merely Jewish sphere of activity. The crisis in German cultural life has never been more aptly described and the Jewish problem never discussed in clearer terms than in the article by the Jewish essayist Moritz Goldstein, published as early as 1912 in The Protector of Art [Der Kunstwart] (March, 1912), a German art magazine of high standing.

Goldstein describes how the Jews, at the beginning of their emancipation, generally invaded all branches of German cultural life and, being quick studies, soon commenced to supplant their masters. Goldstein gives the following synopsis of the consequences of this development:
Jews suddenly filled all those positions which are not withheld from them by force. They have converted German aims and tasks into their own and they strive for them accordingly. It seems as if German cultural life were to be completely transferred into Jewish hands. This was neither anticipated nor desired by the Christians when they granted the pariah in their midst a share in European cultural life. They began to take defensive measures, they resumed their custom of calling us aliens, they commenced to regard us as a danger in the Temple of their Art. Consequently we are now faced by the following problem. We Jews guide and administrate the intellectual property of a nation which denies our qualification and competency to do so.
Goldstein describes this Jewish administration and control of German art and culture as a "prodigious fact." An examination of pre-1933 German intellectual life will corroborate Goldstein's testimony. In all spheres, whether the stage, literature, music, painting, the plastic arts, the cinema, or, more recently, broadcasting, Jews always occupied the leading positions, compelling all to follow their intellectual guidance.

Consider theater, for instance. Being the most modern, the Berlin stages are always imitated by all the provincial theaters, and they were all under Jewish management. The choice of the programs was made according to an entirely Jewish outlook, and the result was that Jewish authors predominated.

In literature, the best-sellers were always the output of Jewish authors or publishers. Readers abroad who took an interest in German literature in those days will still be able to recall the names Emil Ludwig, Jakob Wassermann, Arnold Zweig, Lion Feuchtwanger, and various others. The sales of their books outweighed those of all other German authors by far. Statistics have shown that almost half of all German high literature circulating abroad during the last ten years was the product of Jewish authors.

Musical life was similarly dominated by Jewish influence. In the great majority of cases, the important conducting positions in Berlin and in the provinces were occupied by Jews. This was a decisive factor in the choice of the works that would appear on the programs of opera and concert halls. The representation of Jewish composers reached astonishing dimensions. Gustav Mahler and Arnold Schönberg were substituted for Beethoven; Richard Wagner and Hans Pfitzner were supplanted by Franz Schreker. Music critiques written by Jews, as well as the influence of the professional agencies (which were totally in Jewish hands, as a practical rule), did their part to support this development.

This tendency was even more evident in the lighter type of entertainment music such as the operetta, not to mention the cinema, broadcasting, and the gramophone industry. One could observe an ever-increasing Jewish influence on conservatories, the publishing branch as a whole, and professional music literature. The conclusion was justified that Jewish preponderance in musical life was worrying.

The situation was no different in the plastic arts and painting. Jewish art-market traffic and Jewish art literature paved the way to success for a whole generation of Jewish painters and sculptors, a way barred to the majority of German artists. Film and broadcasting were more or less exclusively reserved to Jewish activity, so that it is nearly impossible to speak of German participation in those fields.

To dispel any doubt as to the accuracy of these statements regarding Jewish preponderance in German intellectual life, it is necessary merely to refer to the testimony of so reliable a Jew as Moritz Goldstein who, as far back in 1912, made the following observations (in the essay referenced above):
Nobody actually questions the power the Jews exercise in the press. Criticism, in particular, at least as far as the larger towns and their influential newspapers are concerned, seems to be turning into a Jewish monopoly. The dominance of the Jewish element in the theater is also generally recognized: nearly all the managers of Berlin stages are Jews; the same may be said of a large part, even perhaps the majority, of the actors; the fact that the concert and theater are dependent upon the Jewish public is continuously being proudly asserted and also deplored ... Many an apostle of German art has been forced, much against his will, to convince himself of the enormous number of Jews among German poets.
This development had progressed very rapidly after 1912. The main cause of this was that Jews invaded the official administration of German intellectual life. They were granted governmental positions which had been closed to them before the War.

For many years the Jewish lawyer Seelig was head of the Department of Theaters in the Prussian Ministry of Culture, while the Department of Music was in the hands of the Jew Leo Kestenberg. Considering the fact that the policy of the German press was controlled by Jews — indeed, its supreme official administration was conducted by Secretary of State Weismann — it is quite possible to conjecture to what extent the Jewish usurpation of German intellectual life was officially sponsored and propagated.

Jewish preponderance was by no means the result of intellectual superiority, of greater talent or creative power on the part of the Jewish race. On the contrary, it was mainly the Jewish economic ascendency described above which led to the establishment of their high position in German cultural life. This economic domination was the tool they used to attain their intellectual and cultural influence.

In this connection it is even more important to bear in mind that the characteristic Jewish intellectual attitude, which manifested itself in all spheres of cultural life, decisively favored the realization of their craving for predominance. Their lack of national sentiment, their egoism, absolute rationalism, absence of scruples, and characteristic habit of speculating upon the basest instincts, traits which have already been mentioned in the chapter devoted to Jewish journalism, were the foundation for their economic success, upon which their intellectual domination was based. The result was the disintegration and decay of German cultural life. As a matter of fact, it wasn't so much the dimensions of Jewish power, nor the extent of the alien takeover, which aroused opposition and protest on the part of the German nation, finally leading to the most acute antisemitism. It was, instead, the characteristic Jewish moral standpoint, their innate spirit, and the methods applied by their race to use and abuse this intellectual influence.

To demonstrate this clearly, it is necessary to examine more closely the various spheres of pre-1933 German intellectual life.


We have mentioned the names of the Jewish authors whose works, at least as far as their sales are concerned, ranked foremost among German novels. The most successful of these writers was Emil Ludwig, whose real name is Cohn. In that period, his books presumably were the most widely circulated works of literature published in the German language. The total number of printings of his works exceeded two million in 1930, and his novels have been translated into 25 languages. Abroad, Ludwig was regarded for many years as the epitome of German contemporary literature.

This reputation and the enormous sales of his historical biographies cannot, however, be explained by the actual quality or ethical value of his literary work. Ludwig is one of the best examples of what enormous success may be achieved by well-calculated advertising undertaken on a generous scale. All his books, dedicated to great personalities of history, are based merely upon a glib style and lighthearted manner of narration, while the content itself is of the most deplorable banality, clothed in a mantle of superficial philosophical commonplaces. He utterly lacks true understanding of real historical greatness and of fundamental historical motives, focusing his attention mostly upon the personal and intimate traits of the subjects he portrays, that is, upon that part of human nature where even the greatest are but ordinary mortals. All his books, which he dumped the market at incredibly short intervals, are characterized — whether they deal with Napoleon I, Lincoln, Goethe, or even Jesus Christ — by the same absence of individual profundity and earnest engrossment, and they all bear the same features of a formulaic and, as it were, wholesale production.

The following are but a few examples, to illustrate Ludwig's literary methods. In his study of Goethe, Genius and Character [Genie und Charakter] (Berlin, 1924), his account of the relations between Goethe and Schiller completely ignores the intellectual dimension — the opposite poles embodied by these two men who, by the metaphysical contrast between their natures, simultaneously attracted and repelled each other. Ludwig regards the relations between these two eminent men in the light merely of professional envy and competition, where one grudges the other fame and fortune. In his work about Jesus Christ, Ludwig even takes a frankly blasphemous tone. The title itself — The Son of Man [Der Menschensohn] (Berlin, 1928) — is a deliberate antithesis to the Christian conception of Christ as the Son of God. Ludwig's portrait consequently deprives the figure of Christ of all its religious attributes. What remains is a benevolent, rather sentimental type of person, hypnotized by a mission which has been foisted upon him by outsiders. According to Ludwig, Christ's ideas and teachings are not new at all but represent old Jewish religious doctrines already extolled by Philo and others. In his telling of the Sermon on the Mount, Ludwig says about Christ's teachings: "His audience is not aware that Hillel, head of the Synedrion, taught the same ideas couched in practically the same words fifty years before." Should this passage not suffice to demonstrate Ludwig's style, the following examples will no doubt convince; they clearly show the approach he chose in order to create a blasphemous caricature of the Savior:
Also wealthy citizens often invite him because he is learned in the Holy Scriptures and because of his reserved conduct.[...] At such occasions he whiles in their company and partakes of their wine — it is strong wine from the vineyards on the hills. He avoids neither festivities nor women and he jests with the party-goers ... He is also of cheerful disposition and does not scorn the pleasures of the table ... When the women anoint him or languorously listen to his words, his heart’s yearning and dream of love are realized and he, the Prophet, lavishly distributes to many what the good man reserves for one alone.
However, Ludwig goes further and openly ridicules every Christian sentiment. According to him, it is solely Judas the Traitor who gave Christ the necessary opportunity of fulfilling His mission of redemption. "Judas wanted to force Jesus and his enemies to a decision [...] Only he who brought suffering upon the Master could open the Gates of Eternal Splendor for him [...] If God wrought a miracle and granted that His Son should finally be victorious, then the apparently faithless disciple [Judas] would be doubly justified." These words are the quintessence of all impiety towards divine and human ideals and shamelessly betray the most blatant cynicism, an eternal character trait of the Jewish race.

Alfred Kerr is our second important figure among the Jewish literary pseudo-prophets. In his capacity as critic for the Jewish Berliner Tageblatt, he despotically waved his wand over all the theaters of the capital. His word was decisive for the success or failure of actors and personnel. His activity, however, was not confined to newspaper criticism, for he also devoted his time to writing books. His friend and biographer, the Jew Joseph Chapiro, relates the following exceedingly characteristic confession made by Kerr: "My friends — what is character? Very often just the opposite of the general conception, for our display of character is restricted to minutes." Kerr also discussed the figure of Christ, in his book The World in Light [Die Welt im Licht] (1913). While Ludwig at least tries to keep up the appearance of a certain literary seriousness, Kerr casts aside every vestige of decency and goes for the jugular. No profanation is too tasteless and he even asserts: "I can well imagine hearing Christ jabbering Jewish jargon. Oscar Wilde let him pompously talk Greek — rubbish — he spoke Jewish jargon." Considering this complete lack of every kind of delicate feeling, it is not surprising that the lyrical poems of this guardian of German culture (Whimsies [Caprichos] [1921]) are nothing but a collection of obscene and repulsive sexuality.

Georg Hermann representes a somewhat different, but by no means superior, type of Jew occupying a conspicuous position in the German literary world. In his political diary entitled Marginal Notes [Randbemerkungen] (Berlin, 1919) he reveals the credo of a weak, utterly decadent man of literary ambitions, devoid of moral backbone and support: "As a Jew, I belong to a race much too old to be duped by mass suggestion. Such words as Nation, War, and State are endowed with neither sound nor color for me." The cosmopolitan, international mentality of Ahasuerus's sons is clearly reflected in the following confession: "I feel at home in any country of the world whose language I speak, where there are beautiful women, flowers and art, a good library, a chess board, pleasant and cultivated society, and where the climate is healthy and agreeable and the landscape attractive." Nevertheless, Hermann is honest enough to admit that the Jewish race is responsible for the dissemination of the negative attitude towards State and patriotism. He declares: "The Jew's rejection of all nationalistic ideology is the principal source of his evolutionary quality and intrinsic value." Hermann's standpoint, which, as a matter of fact, is a purely anarchistic one, even goes so far as to confess personal cowardice: "Five minutes of cowardice are preferable to being dead for the rest of one's days."

The versatility and inconsistency attributed to the chameleon and the Israelite alike were developed to an almost unparalleled perfection in the Jewish author Kurt Tucholsky. This exceptionally productive gossip-column writer, endowed with a brilliant style and great talents, made use of not less than four different pen names, with which he operated as the occasion demanded. Apart from his own name he signed with the pseudonyms Peter Panter, Kaspar Hauser, and Theobald Tiger. Many important daily newspapers and magazines published his articles. His numerous books, which all attained a wide circulation, ranked him among the most read German authors in those days. Unfortunately, he employed his admirable intellectual gifts merely for destructive criticism. Nothing was sacred to him and he scoffed at the ideals of the German nation; he flung his biting sarcasm and venomous mockery at every religious and national sentiment. After the general collapse of the German Empire in 1918, Tucholsky, who never took part in the War himself, derided and gibed at the German Army in endless tirades in which he particularly gave vent to his contempt of the German officer. Like his Jewish colleague Lessing, he insulted the venerable and revered Field Marshal von Hindenburg and publicly described him as a "national hero as they are painted on beer glasses." Devoid of all sentiment of patriotism, the stigma of actual High Treason could not stop him. In his book Germany, Germany Above All Else [Deutschland, Deutschland über alles] (Berlin, 1929), which is solely dedicated to the calumniation of his native country, he cynically asserts: "What these judges term High Treason is no concern of ours and can be estimated as an honorable action in our eyes." The analysis of his mentality may be completed by reading these words of his which advocate an absolute liberation from all moral discipline: "Man has two legs and two convictions, one during the times of his prosperity, the other during the times of want." Finally, Tucholsky was addicted to the most pernicious type of pornography, and he, together with the Jew Theodor Wolff, strongly opposed the Law for the Protection of Juveniles against the detrimental influences of worthless and immoral literature.


To depict the rapid takeover of the entire German theater by Jews it should be enough to refer the reader to the book published by the formerly very popular Jewish author Arnold Zweig, Jews on the German Stage [Juden auf der Deutschen Bühne] (Berlin, 1928). With unparalleled frankness Zweig describes how the jobs of financier, theater director, agent, stage manager, actor, critic, poet, and playwright were taken over and held by Jews. Zweig relates: "They come from God knows where with money in their pockets ... " meaning that type of Jew who, like the briber Katzenellenbogen, the Russian Jew Kahn, and the two Rotter brothers — the latter having emigrated to Germany from Eastern Europe — tried their luck in the theatrical line, thereby degrading to a mere source of pecuniary profit an institution originally dedicated to art and culture. Zweig designates the Jewish agents, upon whose favor all actors were dependent for their engagements, as "slave-holders" who had, in the course of time, developed an unrestricted monopoly by means of which they controlled the entire theatrical domain. He says: "The various agencies' international collaboration corresponds to and is a direct result of the international interrelationships of the modern East European Jewish movements. There is no actor who does not remember the countless humiliations and insults to which he has had to submit in this slave market. In the case of some of these agencies the path to public recognition and fame traverses the path of the extortionist ... "

It has been mentioned already that the management of the more influential theaters of the country, particularly that of the Berlin stages and even the State Theaters, had been acquired by Jews. The two Rotter brothers alone were managers of seven theaters in Berlin. In their case even Zweig was compelled to admit that "under the management of these upstarts the literary theater was degraded to a mere financial enterprise devoted entirely to the realization of pecuniary profit." The Jew Leopold Jessner, stage manager of the Berlin State Theater, twisted Shakespeare's and Schiller's classical dramas into eccentric popular hits which aroused justified indignation even outside of Germany. Although a Jew himself, critic Fritz Engel was forced to express his disapproval of the performance of Jessner's staging of Hamlet in December 1926: "He converts it into a society play, sometimes into a comedy, and almost into a revue."

In view of this Jewish predominance in the theatrical sphere, it is hardly surprising that the plays figuring in the repertoires of the theaters exactly reflected the mentality of their Jewish proprietors. The aim upon which all these plays were based was the destruction of generally accepted ideals of Society and State, Nation, Government and Legislation, and religious and moral principles. Anyone taking the trouble to study the theater programs of those days will observe that Jewish names predominate by far.

The Communist Jew Ernst Toller was the first author to write for the stage after the War ended. In 1919 he was a member of the Communist Workers Council under Eisner's leadership in Munich. His drama Fire from the Boilers (British title: Draw the Fires) [Feuer aus den Kesseln] is a deliberate glorification of the Sailors' Mutiny of 1918, and Cripple, the German Man [Der deutsche Hinkemann] is a unparalleled mockery of the German Army.

Friedrich Wolf, a Jew whose plays were included in the repertoire of practically all theaters, also devoted himself at first to the creation of dramas about mutinies, then switched to topics based on moral and intellectual disintegration and freeing oneself from all principles of ethical conduct. In his play Cyanide [Cyankali] he aggressively advocates abolishing the paragraph of German Law that protects the life of the unborn child.

Walter Mehring is one of the nastiest personalities of the Jewish literary world, and he displayed much more malice and venomous animosity than any of his predecessors and colleagues. He started by writing filthy songs, the flagrant libertinism of which was beloved and boosted by the mostly Jewish public frequenting the cabarets and places of amusement at the Kurfürstendamm in Berlin. His drama The Merchant of Berlin [Der Kaufmann von Berlin], which was first produced by the Communist stage manager Piscator, may be regarded as the low point of the Jewish debauchery of the German stage. With pitiless cynicism Mehring caricatures the poverty and misery of the German Nation during the years following the War, which attracted countless swarms of vampire-like Eastern Jews from Galicia, Armenia, Poland, and Russia. The hero, a poverty-stricken, miserable immigrant and typical Eastern Jew, appears in those streets of Berlin that are principally populated by Jews. In a short time, he is successful in subjugating the whole town, which fulfills his every whim. The shameless way in which Mehring depicts this development, which he seems to regard as natural, can only be compared to the brutality with which he ridicules all ethical values holy to the German Nation; as a crowning effect of the drama, street cleaners sweep away, together with a heap of refuse, revered national symbols, soldiers' steel helmets, and even the corpse of a dead warrior. To accompany this procedure the chorus sings: "Away with the rubbish into the gutter ... "

It would not be difficult to continue this list of dramatists by piling up innumerable names and examples. In addition to Arnold Zweig and Waiter Hasenclever, Ferdinand Bruckner, for instance, should be mentioned; his dramas were considered revelatory by an audience composed of perverse seekers of sexual sensations. The plays Malady of Youth [Krankheit der Jugend] and Criminals [Verbrecher] enjoyed their particular popularity because they dealt almost exclusively with sexual and criminal abnormalities, which were treated as if they embodied the very joy and purpose of life.

But the foregoing should suffice to force anyone to ask himself which other self-respecting country, valuing the integrity of its religious conceptions and its moral principles, would have put up with the activity and intellectual influence of such a depraved group of literary corrupters. It is indeed a regrettable symptom that Germany, saturated with the Jewish mentality, endured their presence and influence for so long, in fact until the National Socialist regime brought about a complete revolution in this respect.


To an even greater degree than in theater, Jews had swooped down upon the whole film industry before 1933. This is easy to explain, inasmuch as financial and artistic factors are more interrelated in this branch of art than in any other. The profits made in the film industry considerably exceed those made in any other artistic enterprise. The possibility of realizing tremendous earnings naturally induced Jews to invade the German film industry, which had begun to flourish during the years following the War.

The enormous Jewish participation in film is demonstrated by the following figures. In 1931, 41 of the 67 (61%) film production firms in Germany were in Jewish hands. Of 28 distributors 24 were Jewish (85%). During the same period, 119 of the 144 film scripts were written by Jews (82%). In 77 cases the staging was carried out by Jews (53%). If one examines the names of the producers, directors, and actors participating in those films which were enthusiastically praised by the press and which developed into box office successes, one will invariably discover that the great majority were Jews. Among the producers and distributors we find Pressburger and Rabinowitsch (Cine-Allianz), Heymann, Fallner and Somló, Levy and Cohn. The directors were Oswald-Ornstein, Zelnik, Meinert, Neufeld, and Schönfelder. The actors: Pallenberg, Siegried Arno, Fritz Walburg, Felix Bressart, Kurt Gerron, Grete Mosheim, Gitta Alpar, Rosa Valetti, etc.

The mentality typical of the Jewish film industry is displayed in its crudest form in the so-called "social and hygienic instruction films," a type of film which absolutely flooded the German cinemas in the post-war years. Officially these films were intended to acquaint the masses with the dangers of abnormal sexual intercourse and debauchery. But they were based on a pseudoscientific foundation and under this mask Jews made a financial killing off the primitive erotic desires and lowest instincts of the public. Criminals, prostitutes, and the pathologically abnormal were the heroes of this category of film. A selection of titles taken at random from the legion of such "instructive" films will give the best idea of their type and value: Morals and the EroticThe Book of SinWhat Price for Love?Guilty MothersProstitutionWhen Women Go Astray. The contents harmonized with these seductive titles, which gave rise to considerable expectations on the part of the public, who were by no means deceived. These films truly wallowed in mire and filth and, with the most cynical openness, reproduced scenes actually showing the most repulsive debauchery and perversion. The government of those days, which could hardly be called prudish or narrow-minded, was compelled in 1920 to put a stop to the greatest excesses in this direction by passing a Film Law, without, however, being successful in radically eliminating this evil.

In subsequent years the greatest profits in the film industry were derived from "military farces" — a category of film dedicated to ridiculing the German Army and the individual German soldier. These films were also generally the product of Jewish activity, since Jews figured as producers, authors, directors, or actors. Finally, it is important to remember that Communist propaganda films such as Potemkin and Storm over Asia were introduced into Germany by Jewish distributors and cinema theater owners.


The disintegration and decay of German intellectual life under Jewish supremacy are most apparent and crude in light entertainment. In the operetta, and especially the revue, frivolity and licentiousness had developed to such an unbelievable extent that Berlin was regarded as the most immoral town in the world in those days; under the circumstances this was not astonishing.

None other than Jews introduced the new form of public amusement, the revue, a branch of art utterly unknown in the Germany of pre-war days. Not content with the introduction of this novelty, they abused it, converting the revue into that species of entertainment which was to blame for quite a large part of the depravity and laxity that had attacked German moral life.

It is extremely characteristic that every one of the Berlin revue proprietors — in the provinces there were very few enterprises of this nature — were Jews, without a single exception. Many a former visitor to Berlin will still associate such names as James Klein, Hermann Haller, Rudolf Nelson, the two Rotter brothers, and Eric Charell with most unpleasant recollections. The complementary staff of authors, composers, directors, and stars was also generally chosen from among the members of the Jewish race.

These revues were veritable orgies of sexuality and licentiousness. All aspects of life were reduced to lust and its satisfaction. Modesty and decency were scoffed at as being old-fashioned and ridiculous.

The loud and vulgar titles given to these revues, which were advertised to the hilt, speak for themselves. The following titles give an impression of what was presented to the public:

"Undress Yourselves" — "A Thousand Naked Women" — "The Sins of the World" — "Houses of Lust" — "Strictly Prohibited" — "O Gee, A Thousand Pretty Girls" — "Sweet and Sinful."

The advertisements for James Klein's revue "Undress Yourselves" were deliberately designed to awaken the lowest instincts of the public by enticing it with the following enumeration: "An evening without morals and principles — Sixty nude models, winners of beauty prizes — The adventures of beautiful women — Experiences with a girl of fifteen."

The posters advertising the revue "A Thousand Naked Women" announced: "The grand revue of Free Love — Forty Pictures of Morality and Immorality."

The performances themselves fulfilled the expectations. The scenes on the stage revealed all that the most daring fantasy can imagine: in short, a display of complete libertinism and surrender to sensual passions.


Next week:
7. The Jewish Share in Immorality
No jews, just right

Less talk, more action

Last edited by Sean Gruber; September 22nd, 2014 at 02:26 PM.
Old September 27th, 2014 #9
Sean Gruber
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,465
Sean Gruber

7. The Jewish Share in Immorality

Even a strictly impartial observer without any pronounced antisemitic views cannot remain unimpressed by such examples of laxity and frivolity, which all point to typically Jewish indecent and immoral characteristics. Such characteristics are contrary to the spirit that animates all cultured nations. Even so, the reproach that the Jews are an inferior race, which these facts reveal, is so grave that it seems necessary to make further observations in this respect. But it will be seen that, as far as Germany is concerned, in making immorality into a business whenever existing moral standards are deliberately relaxed, Jews are at least prominent. Even so-called "sexual science" — one of the unsavory products of the last century — was a purely Jewish invention, and Jews turned it into a flourishing and lucrative branch of trade.

Even the Judische Lexikon was compelled to admit that there is a marked racial sexuality in the Jews. Cautiously it stated: "The Bible itself contains many references to the fact that the sensual element in sexual intercourse was often very pronounced … The words of the Prophets resound with complaints and threats in regard to adultery of which one hears so much" (vol. V, p. 384). With the advent of emancipation, this Jewish urge, restrained by the ghettos of the Middle Ages, poured forth into the public life of the State. A clear field however was given to it only when, as the result of the German Revolution in 1918, all the barriers of law, order, and censorship were broken down. A veritable flood of Jewish immoral literature and obscene films and plays swamped Germany then. Cinemas and theaters have already been dealt with extensively. It remains to be said only that all the authors of obscene literary works were Jews in every case.

Among the hundreds of thousands of books confiscated by the National Socialists in 1933, very familiar names repeatedly cropped up. Together with publishing firms such as Benjamin Harz, Richard Jacobsthal, Leon Hirsch, M. Jacobsohn, and Jacobsthal & Co. mention must be made of the publishers at Cultural Research [Kulturforschung], a Vienna firm whose production was sufficient to fill many libraries. The titles speak for themselves. The Moral Story of Depravity [Sittengeschichte des Lasters], The Moral Story of Profligacy [Sittengeschichte der Schamlosigkeit], Illustrated Lexicon of Sexual Love [Bilderlexikon der Erotik], The Moral Story of Secret and Forbidden Things [Sittengeschichte des Geheimen und Verbotenen], etc. Among the publishers: Dr. Ludwig Levy-Lenz, Leo Schidrowitz, Dr. Iwan Bloch, Franz Rabinowitsch, Georg Cohen, Dr. Albert Eulenburg, Dr. Magnus Hirschfeld.

Iwan Bloch and Magnus Hirschfeld were the truest exponents of this so-called scientific sexual research. In reality it was nothing other than a treatise on obscene subjects and a degradation of all marriage and family ties. Their assistants were Felix Abraham and Levy-Lenz. No amount of research will ever reveal a Christian collaborator in this "sexual science." The publications issued by these obscene pseudoscientists tell their own particular story of what took place in Magnus Hirschfeld's Institution for Sexual Science and in similar concerns: "Sexual Catastrophes," "Sexual Pathology," "Love Chains," "How to Avoid Pregnancy" (by Hirschfeld), "The Perverters," "Prostitution," "Sexual Life in our Age" (by Bloch) — such were the favorite subjects.

It was due to their unrestricted and infamous efforts that the general public became acquainted with all the noisy talk of free love, a call for the unlimited right to allow all passions and instincts to run wild, as well as the demand to make homosexuality and abortion non-punishable offenses. A heated campaign was waged on behalf of legalizing unrestricted acts of abortion, which were championed by the Jews Dr. Max Hodann, Dr. Lothar Wolf, Dr. Levy-Lenz, Martha Ruben-Wolf, Felix Halle, and Alfons Goldschmidt. This circle of Jews issued at the same time numerous publications advocating greater birth control and avoidance of pregnancy.

At last we must not overlook Dr. Max Hodann, Berlin's Medical Officer of Health. With his Workers' Sexual Magazine he contrived to inject the poison of moral disintegration into the broad masses. He also earned for himself a particularly unsavory reputation for his outspoken propaganda for sexual self-abuse.

Mr. Scavenius, the Danish Chargé d'Affaires at the Hague, was undoubtedly right when he declared three years ago in a radio speech that "Germany at that time was the pornographic center of the world."


Next week:
8. The Jewish Share in Crime
No jews, just right

Less talk, more action

Last edited by Sean Gruber; September 27th, 2014 at 10:24 PM.
Old October 4th, 2014 #10
Sean Gruber
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,465
Sean Gruber

8. The Jewish Share in Crime

It is very difficult to ascertain the true extent of the Jewish share in crime throughout the Reich for the following reasons. The criminal records kept in Germany since 1882 recognized only Orthodox Jews. The innumerable Jews who had accepted a Christian faith or who were not associated with any established religion were never included in these records. Therefore a great number of criminals, Jewish by race, were absorbed in other statistical categories. Also, starting in 1918, criminal records ceased to show any subdivision into confessions. This step was, in all probability, the result of Jewish intervention. The following statistics therefore cannot in any way be regarded as complete. Nevertheless, they are food for thought when it comes to Jewish characteristics.

The official Statistics of the German Reich (New Edition, vol. 146) reveals that Jews favor certain crimes more than Christians do. Using a normal sample, we obtain the following results for the period 1892-1901.

Punishable self-interest — committed 14 times more frequently by Jews
Usury — committed 13 times more frequently by Jews
Theft of material property — committed 11 times more frequently by Jews
Fraudulent bankruptcy — committed 9 times more frequently by Jews
Criminal bankruptcy — committed 6 times more frequently by Jews
Receiving stolen goods — committed 5 times more frequently by Jews

It will be seen from this that Jews have a strong liking for commercial crime. This is in no way sufficiently explained by the large percentage of Jews in business, as revealed by the investigations conducted by the Jew Ruppin. In his book Contemporary Jews [Die Juden der Gegenwart] (Berlin, 1904), Ruppin, with the aid of comparative statistics, arrived at considerably greater figures for commercial crime than Jewish participation in commerce would seem to indicate. The Jew Wassermann arrives at the same conclusion in his book Profession, Confession and Crime [Beruf, Konfession und Verbrechen] (Munich, 1907). He proves that criminality in bankruptcy in 1900 was seven times greater among Jewish than among non-Jewish criminals, and six times greater in cases of fraudulent insolvency. Wassermann obtained these statistics by being guided expressly by the percentage participation in commercial professions.

The official Statistics of the German Reich for the period 1910-1914 furthermore proves that not much had changed, to wit:

Commercial receiving of stolen goods — committed 5 times more frequently by Jews
Abuse of trust funds under commercial law — committed 3 times more frequently by Jews
Fraud — committed 2 times more frequently by Jews
Theft of immaterial property — committed 8 times more frequently by Jews
Usury — committed 12 times more frequently by Jews
Criminal bankruptcy — committed 13 times more frequently by Jews

Quite apart from these commercial crimes Jews have taken an even bigger share in much more reprehensible branches of crime. We refer to drug trafficking, prostitution, illicit gambling, and pickpocketing.

The Central Organization for Combating Drug Crime has established that in 1931, out of 272 international drug traffickers, no fewer than 69 (25%) were Jews. In 1932 the figures were 294 and 73 (again about 25%). In 1933 the Jewish percentage had grown to 30%. The Central Organization for Combating Unlawful Gambling and Games of Chance counted 57 Jews out of a total of 94 cases that came to its notice in 1933. In 411 cases of pickpocketing in 1932, 193 Jews were involved. In the same year it was found that — among the international pickpocketing gangs — out of a total of 163 criminals, 134 were Jews (82%).

The high percentage of Jews in immoral crime — already referred to in the chapter on Jewish immorality — is frankly admitted by the Jewish scientist Ruppin, to whom we have already referred. He writes: "Jews live principally in the large towns and cities, and this is responsible for the fact that certain crimes, usually limited to city life, are associated with them, for example, procuration, cooperation in immorality."


Next week:
No jews, just right

Less talk, more action

Last edited by Sean Gruber; October 4th, 2014 at 01:04 AM.
Old October 10th, 2014 #11
Sean Gruber
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,465
Sean Gruber

Conclusion: The Jews — An Anti-Social Element. What Should Be Done With The Jews?

Because of the limited space at our disposal, we could only give a hint of the part played by Jews in Germany before 1933. It would be easy to write a weighty volume on the subject. But even such a work would only reach the same conclusions. The present work is enough to convince unprejudiced and objective readers of that which it was our goal to prove — namely, that the preponderating influence of the Jews developed into a national calamity of the worst sort for Germany, and that the previously cited words of Theodore Herzl, "every misfortune increases their power," have proved in the end to be true.

The interdependence of national distress and Jewish ascendency has scarcely ever been manifested with such luminous clarity as in Germany. Surely, under these circumstances, it behooves us to seek to understand the fundamental reasons underlying the Jewish problem in this country as it has presented itself in recent decades.

Animated by a desire to solve this ancient problem (if possible) by emancipating and "assimilating" Jewish elements, Germany had shown herself to be more willing to absorb Jews than were many other countries. All barriers were torn down, all restrictions abolished, all spheres of activity unreservedly opened to Jews — nay, leading positions were assigned to them even in those domains that were of the most vital importance in national life. Jews, who numbered less than 1% of the total population of Germany, occupied key posts in German industry. Political leadership was largely in their hands. Cultural life, including the press, was predominantly under their influence. Their aggregate income exceeded that of the other 99% by over one-third. Truly, the Jews had every opportunity to abandon their separate existence and merge with the collective life of the German community — a separateness, moreover, that some of the best Jewish elements frequently deplored.

But the Jews consistently ignored the rules of fair play when it came to their credulous German partner. The overwhelming majority of them never desired to be submerged in the German nation, because they were aware that their racial dissimilarity constituted an insuperable obstacle to "assimilation." During the years of great tribulation, they never hesitated to betray Germany and shamelessly to misuse for their own egoistical purposes and interests the opportunities given to them in such abundance.

Defeatism, treason, political degradation, economic corruption, moral depravity, the debasement of all national and religious values — these were the outstanding features of a Germany dominated by the alien Jewish race.

Germany paid dearly for the illusion that it is possible to solve the Jewish question by a generous effort to "assimilate" the Jews. She had reckoned without a factor of decisive importance: namely, the congenital, ingrained, boundless ingratitude of the Jewish race. Not the least of the reasons for the uncompromising attitude of German antisemitism — an attitude that has often been misunderstood abroad — is the glaring contrast, overwhelmingly evidenced by events of the past decades, between the indubitable good faith of the Germans and the cynical ingratitude of the Jews.

That this contrast is the nucleus, so to speak, of the whole Jewish problem, has been publicly admitted by two leading Jews. The Chief Rabbi of Hamburg, Dr. Joseph Karlebach, wrote in the Jewish review Dawn [Der Morgen] (vol. II, p. 129, 1930): "To be a Jew is to be opposed to the natural attitude of human beings." The French Jew Bernard Lazare, who was well known at the close of the last century, was even more candid in his book Antisemitism [L'Antisémitisme], in which he puts this question: "By what qualities or defects has the Jew drawn upon himself such universal reprobation? Why has he alternately and in equal measure been maltreated and hated by Egyptians and Romans, by Persians and Arabs, by Turks and Christian nations? It is because, right down to the present day, the Jew has remained an asocial being everywhere."

These admissions by candid Jewish writers, whose authority is undisputed, explain better than any words of ours why National Socialism was compelled to give a definite and final solution to the Jewish question so far as Germany is concerned. Antisemitic feeling in this country has not been roused to such a high degree by the mere fact of the preponderance of an utterly alien influence, but also by the spirit underlying that influence and inseparable from it — namely, a spirit of an essentially asocial nature, which requited evil for good. This spirit invariably prompted those animated by it to repay hospitality and benevolence with treachery and unappeasable, destructive hatred.

When the National Socialists came to power in 1933, they endeavored to solve the Jewish question by peaceful methods calculated to reduce the excessive influence of the Jews on public life to proportions compatible, firstly, with the position of the Jews as an alien race, and, secondly, with their number — which, as has been said already, was less than 1% of the total German population. When the amount of misfortune the Jews brought on Germany prior to 1933 is recalled, the methods adopted to diminish their influence on German public life must be considered as remarkably moderate, and as showing extraordinary restraint and discipline on the part of the leaders of the new Germany. That National Socialism's advent to power constituted a revolution in the truest sense of the word is too easily overlooked, and it may be asserted without exaggeration that scarcely a revolution in history was accomplished with such exemplary discipline.

The Nuremberg Laws of 1935 formed the basis of a peaceful and orderly solution of the Jewish question in Germany. But the Jews were not prepared to cope with the incontestable fact that their era of emancipation in Germany was through. They were not willing to abandon their ill-gotten supremacy without a struggle, and since this was no longer possible in Germany itself, they deliberately got up an agitation campaign abroad, one hardly less dangerous than an openly proclaimed war. By means of a consistently carried out poisoning of the sources of public opinion, they have succeeded in creating a caricature of National Socialist Germany and inflaming international opinion against it. By organizing a boycott of German goods, they have tried to throttle Germany economically. They have even gone so far as to reply to the measures of the National Socialist Government by assassinating Wilhelm Gustloff and Ernst von Rath.

The worldwide associations and interests of Jewry as an international power, as well as the asocial spirit animating it, are most convincingly seen in its success in setting the whole world instantaneously, so to speak, against National Socialist Germany. For the world has taken much less notice of elimination processes carried out elsewhere on a far greater scale. Who has championed the cause of those millions of Russians driven from their land by the Bolshevist revolution — or the ones who, unable to escape it in time, were tortured and massacred? Whoever gave a single thought to the Germans in the Baltic States, eighty percent of whom were forced to emigrate after the War, and who to a large extent are condemned to a life of perpetual hardship in foreign countries?

In contrast, whenever the interests of even one Jew are affected, international Jewry howls for redress and assistance until international peace is seriously menaced by this howling.

Germany knows full well where the source of the everlasting disquiet is to be found which perpetually weakens the world and effectively prevents the realization of all efforts to reach international understanding and peace. The German Government, conscious of its responsibilities, has drawn the logical conclusion, and surely and definitely eliminated all Jewish influence, of whatever nature it may be, at home. It has thus contributed, for its part, to getting rid of an element which, in the words of the illustrious historian Theodor Mommsen, is "an operative ferment of national disintegration."


At the close of our study of the Jewish question in Germany, the problem arises of what is to be done with the Jews. For it is evident that the effects of the policy of the German Government toward the Jews cannot remain confined to Germany, but must be far-reaching.

Antisemitism has been awakened in all countries where belief in the blessings of "assimilation" has been rudely shaken by events and by the spiritual and political renaissance which characterizes the present era. The masses of Jewish emigrants are carrying the Jewish question, with all its inevitable consequences, into such new "homes" as may be opened to them.

It is clear that the Jewish problem is susceptible of solution only on an international basis. The Jews themselves have unambiguously recognized the necessities arising out of the existing situation. The Jewish Newspaper [Jüdisches Nachrichtenblatt] of December 30, 1938 stated: "For all who wish to see, it is evident that territories will ere long be required for the settlement, not only of Jews from Germany, but of Jews from other European countries also. Whoever is able to interpret current events cannot fail to observe the rapidity with which the Jewish question is becoming urgent in a number of European states and the consequent necessity of a correspondingly rapid solution of it."

It has already been noted here that the projected creation of a national home for Jews in Palestine is no solution to the Jewish problem. What is needed is to find territories, the ownership of which is not, as is the case in Palestine, claimed by others, territories which by virtue of a general agreement shall be allotted exclusively to Jews. This need is reflected in the fact that even in England, the Mandatory Power herself, the possibility of resettling Jews in overseas territories is envisaged.

Germany, having no colonies, is not in a position to make any effective contribution to these international discussions.

Racial characteristics and historical destiny combine to render it more than questionable whether the attempt to solve the Jewish question by means of the creation of a Jewish State can ever hope to be successful. We explained this viewpoint in detail when discussing the problem of Palestine. In the long run, it depends on the Jews themselves, and on their immense financial power, whether the united efforts of the Western countries to find a solution will be fruitful or not — whether, after two thousand years of incessant wandering, Ahasuerus will eventually find rest.


Next week:
Editor's Afterword
No jews, just right

Less talk, more action

Last edited by Sean Gruber; October 11th, 2014 at 01:59 PM.
Old October 18th, 2014 #12
Sean Gruber
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,465
Sean Gruber
Default Editor's Afterword

Editor's Afterword

I did not make this English translation. I edited the most readable English translation available to me, found on a web page which subsequently disappeared.

Again, the German original is here (at least as of this writing):

My editing aims may be grouped under five heads.

1. To make the translation more idiomatic. The translation contained much "Germglish" (hybrid of German and English). I tried to make it less awkward without fudging meaning or tone.

2. To paragraph for sense. The meaning of some consecutive material was brought out better by paragraphing it together, or else by separating it into paragraphs.

3. To substitute clearer terms where advisable. For example, where permissible I substituted "to establish" for "to found" if "to found" might have looked strange.

4. To prune for strength. Here is a hypothetical example. "It will indubitably be seen that there is absolutely no possibility … " would be pruned to "There is no possibility."

5. To clarify the statistical analyses in Chapter 1 and elsewhere, including regularizing the calculation of percentages.

Apart from all that, the biggest change I made is to reduce to a footnote the Introduction's long list of objections to Zionism. This improves the flow of the Introduction without losing any of that important material.

This is not a scholarly edition. I did independent research only to the extent of checking such things as the titles of some of the books, stage plays, and other writings which the author mentions. For abler hands is the worthy task of documenting and discussing the author's source material, of making an annotated edition.

August—October, 2014
No jews, just right

Less talk, more action



Display Modes

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:27 AM.
Page generated in 0.34237 seconds.