Category Archives: Anglozionism

Claire Daly, MEP, Zionism as is Practiced – “A European Settler Colonial Project”

“A EUROPEAN SETTLER COLONIAL PROJECT”, EU Parliamentarian Clare Daly put Israel on blast for committing war crimes and killing children during its latest aggression on Gaza and Jenin, slamming EU politicians for siding with the occupiers against the colonized.


The Americans, The Never-Fair-Players

 “Volyn,” who was released from Turkey, reveals that the Mariupol garrison surrendered [in Azovstal] in exchange for the departure of high-ranking American military personnel.

“We were kept for almost a month in the catacombs under ‘Azovstal’ for the sake of propaganda, where we senselessly lost hundreds of our fighters. And probably most of us would have perished there if it weren’t for the intervention of the Americans, who reached an agreement with the Russians to withdraw their high-ranking officers from the facility in exchange for the garrison’s surrender.” – “Volyn” in an interview with Turkish media.

(c) “Volyn” in an interview with Turkish media

Do Biden and Netanyahu Need a New War?

by Germán Gorraiz- Political Analyst

Netanyahu’s return to power in coalition with several ultra-right and ultra-Orthodox parties would torpedo the Oslo Accords as he intends to continue with the systematic campaign of illegal settlements, whose penultimate episode would be the announcement of the creation of the new settlements of Asif and Matar with the confessed aim of “doubling the population of the Golan Heights” as well as a serious threat to the sui generis Israeli democracy by attempting to liquidate the current separation of powers.

Given the political, social and security instability in which the country finds itself, Netanyahu (using the invisible dictatorship of the fear of the Third Holocaust, whether it comes from Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran), will seize the opportunity to unleash a surprise attack against Iran in the hope that the spark will spread throughout the explosive barrel of the Middle East.

Israel considers Iran the greatest exporter of terror and violation of rights in the world, while denouncing that Iran continues to enrich uranium and is dangerously close to obtaining a nuclear bomb and also, Netanyahu urgently needs the fog of oblivion to cover with its mantle the judicial process in which he is accused of bribery, fraud and breach of trust and which according to him would only be a “judicial coup d’état to remove him from power”.

Consequently, Israel is already moving its Mossad assets to destabilize the regime of the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, by means of media and selective attacks, while it attempted to seal alliances with the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia to form an entente against Iran. Thus, according to a report by the Veterans Today portal, “Israel is moving air defense weapons, long-range artillery, helicopters and F-15 fighter planes to Erbil, capital of Iraqi Kurdistan, for a wider war against Iran” (Operation Persia), which would be Joe Biden’s secret trump card to increase his popularity in the run-up to the 2024 presidential elections.

The the combined signs of Biden’s senility, of the Afghanistan fiasco, runaway inflation and the possible entry into recession of the economy next year, have sunk the Democratic president’s popularity to 30%, which could facilitate the triumphant return of Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential elections. Unless Biden can pull an ace out of his sleeve.

Given that the US military strategic reserves are at a maximum and the Chinese colossus represents a growing challenge to US economic-military hegemony, and after the failure of the CIA-directed color revolution against the Iranian government known as the “Islamic veil revolt”, Biden will use an initial surprise attack by Israel on Iran to initiate a new war in the Middle East with the double objective of drying up China’s energy sources and increasing his popularity.

Is it time to attempt the Greater Israel?

The unequivocal objective of the US-Britain-Israel Trilateral would be to unleash a new conflict with Iran in order to proceed to redraw the cartography of the disjointed puzzle formed by the current countries of the Near and Middle East and thus achieve strategically advantageous borders for Israel, following the plan orchestrated 60 years ago jointly by the governments of Great Britain, the United States and Israel and which would have the backing of the main Western allies.

This plan aims to resurrect the endemism of Greater Israel (Eretz Israel), an entity that would attempt to unite the antithetical concepts of the Biblical atavism, claimed from the sources of Genesis 15:18, which states that “4,000 years ago, the title to all the land between the Nile River of Egypt and the Euphrates River was bequeathed to the Hebrew patriarch Abraham and subsequently transferred to his descendants”.

This would mean the restoration of the Balfour Declaration (1917), which outlined a State of Israel with a vast area of nearly 46,000 square miles, extending from the Mediterranean to the east of the Euphrates, encompassing Syria, Lebanon, north-eastern Iraq, northern Saudi Arabia, the Red Sea coastal strip and the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt, as well as Jordan, which would be renamed Palestine-Jordan after being forced to take in the entire Palestinian population of the current West Bank and Gaza, forced into a massive diaspora (the new nakba).

Ambassador Tracy Believes it is Not About the “Anglo-Saxons”

US ambassador to Russia Lynne Tracy has argued that the Kremlin shouldn’t use the term “Anglo-Saxons” to describe American and British leadership, as the US is “enriched” by immigrants. Tracy’s tenure in Moscow has already proven contentious, with Russia’s Foreign Ministry accusing her of “direct interference” in the country’s affairs.

Russian officials, including President Vladimir Putin and former President Dmitry Medvedev, have repeatedly used the term “Anglo-Saxons” to describe the foreign leaders – mostly in the UK and US – pushing the hardest anti-Russia policies. The publication of Russia’s updated foreign policy doctrine last month made its use official, listing “the US and other Anglo-Saxon states” separately from countries in the “European region.”

“I noticed the use of this term, but…it seems very strange to me,” Tracy told the Kommersant newspaper on Thursday. “And it does not at all reflect the essence of the United States, which is a multinational country where people from all over the world live.”

“And all of them, as you know, have contributed to American culture, greatly enriched American life,” she added.

Tracy’s issue, however, with the Kremlin’s phrasing is relatively minor compared to the numerous other controversies that have emerged since she arrived in Moscow in January.

Tracy, along with Britain and Canada’s envoys to Russia, were summoned to the Russian Foreign Ministry earlier this month for demanding the “immediate release” of Vladimir Kara-Murza, an opposition activist who was found guilty of treason and handed a 25-year prison sentence.

Tracy’s “provocative statements” amounted to “blatant interference into internal affairs,” the ministry said, referring to Kara-Murza as a US-backed “agent of influence.”

The ministry responded unfavorably to Tracy’s Kommersant interview too, particularly her comment that Washington “does not view Russians as enemies.” Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova stated on Friday that despite Tracy’s platitudes, “Russian people are getting killed” with American weapons, wielded by “a regime that was brought to power by the US as a result of a coup orchestrated by the US.”

She wrote on her Telegram post: “The Russian people are getting killed with targeting done by the US, money [provided] by the US, weapons [supplied] by the US, and by the hands of a regime that was brought to power by the US as a result of a coup orchestrated by the US,”

Speaking to reporters on Friday, Zakharova did not directly address Tracy’s “Anglo-Saxons” comment. However, she did stress that any interference by envoys of the US, Britain, Canada, or “other countries that have joined the frenzied Russophobia of the Anglo-Saxons…will be suppressed in the most decisive way, and the diplomats involved in this subversive work will be expelled from Russia.”

At the same time, the minister of defense Shoigu said on Friday“Unprecedented pressure is being applied to independent nations through the use of open blackmail, threats, ‘color revolutions,’ coups, and dissemination of blatant disinformation. All those tools long ago became the Western calling card,”.

The minister interpreted the Ukraine conflict as a vivid example of American “criminal policy.” The US goal is to “inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, create a threat to China and preserve its [hegemonic] position,” said Shoigu. “Today, Washington and its accomplices are executing a strategic plan to provoke other nations into military confrontation with the states they don’t like, primarily Russia and China.”

via RT

Patrushev on the North Caucasus Threats

Top Russian security security official Patrushev:

“Today, in order to provoke extremist behavior in N. Caucasus, they’re spreading calls for mass riots, illegal actions & terrorist acts. This destructive activity is carried out with coordination & support of Anglo-Saxons and their henchmen. [Referring to two Chechen Wars where Putin has alleged US fostered violence & separatism], Russia has already encountered the use of such methods and remembers what the residents of the North Caucasus had to endure.

When the West provoked a conflict on the territory of our country using intl terrorist groups, we managed, with active participation of residents of Caucasus, to decisively suppress criminal activities that posed a threat to the territorial integrity of Russia & keep peace.”

Is the US Funding Anti-Netanyahu Rallies?

Officials traveling with the Israeli prime minister told an Israeli online newspaper that Washington has been suspected of funding mass protests against Benjamin Netanyahu’s judicial reforms that have been rocking the country for over two months.

A senior government official accompanying Netanyahu on his trip to Italy told the daily this week that the protests seemed to be well organized and amply funded with what he estimated to be millions of dollars.

“We are following what is happening. This is a very high-level organization. There is an organized center from which all the demonstrators branch out in an orderly manner,” the unnamed official was quoted as saying.

He said it was “clear to us” who was paying for the transportation of thousands of protesters as well as all the flags and stages, while another member of Netanyahu’s entourage confirmed to the paper that the senior official was referring to the United States.

Separately, Netanyahu’s son Yair shared an article from the right-wing website Breitbart that claimed the US State Department was funding one of the groups involved in the protests.

Half a million protesters reportedly rallied nationwide on Saturday night to demand that Netanyahu’s hard-right government go back on its decision to shake up the judiciary. The reform seeks to curtail the Supreme Court’s power to review and strike down laws that it rules to be unconstitutional.

The Zionist Coup Against Kennedy

by Mark H. Gaffney via Unz Review

Barren Summit

Forty years and counting
Since Kennedy was killed
And our vacuum of leadership
Still has not been filled.

Why should those shoes present
Such difficulty filling?
The candidates are weeded out
By those who did the killing.

by David Martin, author of The Assassination of James Forrestal (2019)

The last few years have been a painful time for those of us old enough to remember the 1960s. Over my lifetime I watched my country decline by every measure of greatness. It’s been excruciating, slow and nearly imperceptible from day to day, like water torture. Who would have guessed, even ten years ago, that we would now be on the brink of nuclear war with Russia? Each day, I scour the news and Internet hoping and praying for the peace movement to show up. But where are they? Even as events continue to escalate and momentum builds for a wider war in eastern Europe, I see no placards, no protesters in the streets, and very little evidence that our people understand what is happening. I never thought it would come to this.

World War II concluded ~78 years ago and today almost no one is left alive who remembers. Must we relive the nightmares of history every third or fourth generation simply because humans do not live long enough to preserve the horrific memories of the last war? Something within me resists this explanation, however, as too simplistic. There is another possibility: that our people have been disenfranchised, so dumbed down and demoralized by umpteen years of nonstop propaganda (including Russia-hate) that they are no longer able to think clearly, nor act to restore our country.

In my opinion, the greatest measure of our decline has been the abysmal quality of our leadership, especially at the national level. If this is true, then we must ask: How did it happen? In articles I read and while talking with friends, I often see/hear it repeated that the downward spiral started with the assassination of John F. Kennedy. I agree and take it as self evident that rightful authority has been under assault ever since.

Recently, I was compelled to modify my own views about the JFK murder, after reading an extraordinary book by a French writer Laurent Guyenot, From Yahweh to Zion (2020). The author is an outstanding biblical scholar, and he has written the most penetrating analysis of Zionism I have ever seen. Like many Americans, I once believed that the CIA and Italian mafia were behind the JFK assassination. But I now discount the-CIA-&-mob-did-it narrative as just another limited hangout.

Over the years, I studied the JFK murder spasmodically, returning to the issue again and again. But the truth remained elusive because of false leads, misdirections and conflicting narratives, the purpose of which, we need to understand, is to obfuscate the facts and keep us in the dark. Yet, despite all of the mind control and propaganda, evidence has been mounting that vice president Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) orchestrated the assassination of John F. Kennedy. I will now present some of the most salient points, the gist of what I have learned.

President John F. Kennedy’s plan to drop Lyndon Johnson from the ticket during his upcoming re-election campaign in 1964 has been widely reported. But less well known is the fact that Johnson was not only going to be replaced, he was facing prison time. During his brother’s first term, Attorney General Robert Kennedy learned a great deal about Johnson’s criminal activities. And RFK had begun feeding this evidence to the Senate Rules Committee. Just hours before his brother was gunned down in Dallas, the committee heard testimony that Johnson had received a $100,000 kickback for finagling a contract with a Ft Worth Texas firm, General Dynamics, to build the F-111 fighter plane. (Roger Stone, The Man Who Killed Kennedy, 2013, p. 198)

There was also evidence Johnson received another large kickback from a Texas businessman, Billie Sol Estes. Earlier, Johnson had tipped off Estes that Congress would soon pass a bill to pay farmers not to grow cotton. At the time, the country had a huge cotton surplus and the glut was driving down the price. Estes moved quickly to exploit the inside information by leasing hundreds of thousands of acres of Texas farmland, which ‘entitled’ him to millions in subsidies. Later, he admitted that he personally delivered a suitcase with $200,000 in cash to Johnson as payment for the tip. (James T. Tague, LBJ and the Kennedy Killing, 2013, p. 400)

Life Magazine was also gathering evidence about Johnson’s shady dealings and was set to run an expose in the next issue. Today, few Americans realize that at the time of JFK’s murder Johnson was facing a corruption scandal and the likelihood of prosecution. Had the facts come out, LBJ’s political career would have been over. Vice president Johnson only flipped the situation by removing the man who stood in his path to power. (The Man Who Killed Kennedy, p. 199)

Several of Johnson’s Texas associates, including his secretary Bobby Baker and Billie Sol Estes eventually did go to prison. Years later, Estes told a Texas Grand Jury that Johnson had ordered the murders of at least six other people, these were before Kennedy, including his own loose-lipped sister. Johnson’s sister Josepha apparently drank too much, slept around, and knew far too much about the stolen 1948 election that put Lyndon in the US Senate. In 1951, Johnson’s hit man, Mac Wallace, was convicted of one of these murders in the first degree. It was only Johnson’s skill at perverting the Texas judicial system that got Wallace off with a five-year suspended sentence. If this sounds incredible, that was also my reaction. Nonetheless, it happens to be true. (LBJ and the Kennedy Killing, p 395 – 400)

Some of the most damning testimony against Johnson was given by a prostitute named Madeleine Brown, his mistress of twenty-one years and the mother of one of his three known out-of-wedlock children. In later years, Brown spoke freely to researchers about what she knew. In 1988, she told James T. Tague that on New Year’s Eve, 1964, a very intoxicated Johnson told her the sordid tale about how he arranged Kennedy’s assassination. (LBJ and the Kennedy Killing, p. 321)

Should we believe her? Is the testimony of a prostitute credible? The late author James T. Tague thought so. In his 2013 book, LBJ and the Kennedy Killing Tague stated that although initially he dismissed Brown’s story as outlandish, over the years as he dug deeper he was able to corroborate nearly everything she told him. Tague was himself in Dallas on the day Kennedy died. He was standing near the Dealey Plaza overpass when it happened, and was slightly wounded by a small piece of concrete that flew up in his face when an errant bullet hit the nearby curb. The experience made such a deep impression on Tague that he spent the next forty years investigating Kennedy’s murder. His book makes for essential reading. (LBJ and the Kennedy Killing, p. 353-356)

But on the night before the killing there was also a fateful meeting in Dallas at the sprawling suburban home of oil millionaire Clint Murchison. It was billed as a birthday party with dinner and drinks to honor J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Director whose long-time friendship with Murchison is well documented. Hoover and his partner Clyde Tolson (second in command at the FBI) were frequent guests at Murchison’s famous race track at La Jolla, California. Both men were gamblers and loved horse racing.

That evening, Johnson did not arrive until well after midnight as the guests were thinning out. At which time, a smaller group gathered in a separate room behind closed doors. Brown told Tague she waited in the living room, and when this second meeting finally broke up, Johnson came over, squeezed her hand, and whispered in her ear: “after tomorrow those Kennedys will never embarrass me again.” (LBJ and the Kennedy Killing, p. 356)

Madeleine Brown held an executive position at a commercial advertising firm in Dallas. She told a friend she worked in advertising by day and as a call girl by night. She was a high-class hooker and came to know many powerful and wealthy men in Texas society. She was a familiar face for this reason and because of her relationship with Johnson. Brown knew all of the principals at Murchison’s party and she identified twenty-five individuals who stayed for the subsequent meeting. Her list of names originally appeared in Robert Gaylon Ross’s 2001 book, The Elite serial Killers. Tague acknowledges that Brown had been drinking that night. He concedes that her list needs further vetting. Clarity about who left early and who stayed for the late night meeting is vital because the latter group was complicit in the murder of Kennedy.

Murchison’s cook and the butler corroborated some of the names, as did Robert Gaylon Ross who was Tague’s friend. I am not going to discuss every name on the list, only those that in my view are the most important. Here is the list.

  • H. L. Hunt, billionaire oil man
  • Texas governor John Connally
  • FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover
  • Clyde Tolson, second in command of the FBI
  • Dallas mayor Earle Cabell
  • ex-Dallas mayor R. L. Thornton
  • Dallas County sheriff Bill Decker
  • Jack Ruby
  • Carlos Marcello
  • Texas ranger and US marshal Clint Peoples
  • W. O. Bankston, local car dealer
  • Joe Yarbrough, construction
  • George Brown, of Brown and Root
  • Amon G. Carter Jr.
  • John Currington, advisor to H. L. Hunt
  • John McCloy, chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations
  • B. R. Sheffield, military construction
  • Cliff Carter, executive director of the Democratic National Committee
  • Joe Civello, Dallas mafia
  • Larry Campbell, Jimmy Hoffa representative
  • Don Smith, General manager, Del Mar race track
  • Mac Wallace, assassin

Notice, the list includes Texas Governor John Connally, Dallas mayor Earle Cabell, the ex-mayor R. L. Thornton, and the Dallas County sheriff Bill Decker. Through Cabell and Decker Johnson also controlled Dallas chief of police Jesse Curry and the chief of homicide, Will Fritz.

Governor Connally’s name was on the list, and his role was crucial. It was Connally who originally invited president Kennedy to Texas. A problem arose, however, because the White House advance man, Jerry Bruno, insisted on a different motorcade route that did not include Dealey Plaza, which was the site for the planned hit. When Connally refused to budge about the route the disagreement became so bitter the White House asked Bill Moyers, then deputy director of the Peace Corps, to try to mediate a solution. Moyers was close to both Connally and Johnson. It was only after Connally threatened to cancel the presidential visit altogether that the White House finally relented and agreed to the route through Dealey Plaza. (The Man Who Killed Kennedy, p. 222-223)

Another dust up also involved Connally, though indirectly. Early on the evening of November 21, Kennedy summoned Johnson to his suite at the Rice Hotel in Houston. A fierce argument ensued about who would sit where in the motorcade the next day in Dallas. Johnson wanted Connally to ride with him out of concern for his safety. But Kennedy wanted a show of party unity and insisted that Senator Ralph Yarborough should ride with Johnson. Yarborough was the leader of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party in Texas, while Johnson led the conservative Democrats. This meant Connally would sit with Kennedy in the lead vehicle, exposing him to serious injury or death. Kennedy won the argument. A furious Johnson reportedly stormed out of the room.

Despite the risks, Connally did as he was told. He had been Johnson’s subservient bagman ever since the stolen 1948 election when he served as Johnson’s campaign manager. Johnson once bragged: ‘I can call John Connally at midnight, and if I tell him to come over and clean my shoes, he’ll come running.’ Johnson’s argument with Kennedy in Houston explains why he did not arrive at Murchison’s until after midnight. (Robert A. Caro, Means of Ascent, 1990, p.118)

Also present was Amon G. Carter, Jr., owner of the Ft. Worth Star Telegram, the largest circulation newspaper in Texas. Carter also owned WBAC radio and a TV network, Channel 5 (NBC 5).

As noted, J. Edgar Hoover was also in attendance. He was a long time ally of Johnson’s and his role was vital: Hoover would manage the cover up. The FBI would control the forensic evidence and steer any investigation toward the predetermined narrative of a lone gunman.

Consider that through the aforementioned individuals Johnson controlled state and local government, the site for the planned hit, law enforcement, the media, and the cover up. LBJ had all of the bases covered.

But Johnson also had unlimited financial backing from the oil patch. Oil tycoon H. L. Hunt was present and no doubt shared his friend Clint Murchison’s antipathy for president Kennedy. Both men stood to lose millions if Kennedy went ahead with his announced plan to reduce or eliminate the oil depletion allowance. Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg once stated that her mother Jackie Kennedy Onassis believed that Texas oil men were behind the murder of her husband. (LBJ and the Kennedy Killing, p. 353)

At least one of the shooters was present, Mac Wallace who was a convicted murderer, as noted. Years later, a previously unidentified fingerprint that police lifted from a cardboard box on the sixth floor of the Texas Book Depository would be found to match Wallace’s prints taken at the time of his 1951 murder trial. (Jesse E. Curry, JFK Assassination File, 1969, p. 53; also see Barr McClellan, Blood. Money & Power: How LBJ Killed JFK, 2003; also see LBJ and the Kennedy Killing, p. 392)

Also present was the man who shot Lee Harvey Oswald: Jack Ruby. It is common knowledge that Ruby was a mobster and I had always assumed this meant the Italian variety. But I was wrong. Ruby’s actual name was Jacob Leon Rubenstein and he was the son of Jewish Polish immigrants. Ruby’s connections were with the Jewish underworld. According to former Los Angeles Police Department detective Gary Wean, Ruby was friendly with Los Angeles gangster Mickey Cohen who had replaced Benjamin “Bugsy Siegel” Siegelbaum as Jewish crime boss on the West coast. Detective Wean accumulated a large file on Cohen, and he claims that in 1946 when he first encountered Ruby in Los Angeles, Ruby was riding with Cohen in a large black limousine. A year later, Wean was introduced to Ruby at an LA nightclub known as Harry’s Place. (Gary Wean, There’s a Fish in the Courthouse, 1987, p. 681)

In his autobiography Mickey Cohen describes how he became infatuated with Zionism. He also explains how, after World War II, he started shipping army contraband and surplus weapons to the Irgun. (Mickey Cohen, In My Own Words, 1975, p. 91-92)

Cohen was personally acquainted with Irgun chief Menachem Begin whom he met while the terrorist was ‘on the lam’ sojourning in California. At the time, Begin was still wanted in Israel/Palestine for blowing up the King David Hotel in 1946. He would remain in the political wilderness until the 1967 Six Day War when prime minister Levi Eshkol invited him to join a ‘government of national unity.’ That signaled Begin’s ‘rehabilitation.’ Later, he would stage a political comeback and even become Israeli prime minister.

But Ruby was also associated with the ‘chairman of the board,’ Meyer Lansky, godfather of the Jewish underworld. Ruby owned a stake in Lansky’s gambling casino, the Colonial Inn, located north of Miami Beach. (Jim Marrs, Crossfire, 1989, p. 392)

Lanksy was also a Zionist with strong Israel connections. Lansky was a major donor to Israel and to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). His daughter Mira Lansky Boland later became an ADL official. (Steven Fox, Blood and Power: Organized Crime in Twentieth Century America, 1989, p. 314.)

I wish I had space here to adequately cover Meyer Lansky. But to do him ‘justice’ would fill a book. Lansky was the long-time accomplice and partner in crime of the notorious ‘Lucky’ Luciano. He was instrumental in arranging the historic meetings in 1943 between Luciano and the US Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI). At the time Luciano was serving a 30 – 50 year prison sentence in New York for running a prostitution racket. The US Navy needed the assistance of Luciano’s syndicate to protect US harbors and shipping from German sabotage and attacks that had become a serious problem. The deal crafted in the meetings with Luciano, mediated by Lansky, achieved the desired objective.

Later, Luciano’s mafia connections assured the success of the US invasion of Sicily and the roll back of Benito Mussolini. After the war, the US commuted Luciano’s sentence for services rendered and deported him back to Italy. Mussolini hated the mafia and by the 1930s had nearly eradicated it. But the fateful US government compromise with Luciano enabled the mafia to recover. Within two years, Luciano had rebuilt his heroin trafficking operation in Sicily on a bigger scale than ever. Meanwhile, Lansky managed Luciano’s financial affairs in the US. (Alfred W. McCoy, The Politics of Heroin, 1972, p. 28 – 45)

In 1949-1950, Lansky also helped Luciano set up the notorious French Connection that handled the processing and transport of Turkish opium to Marseilles where it was processed into heroin, then sent on to the US. The network was not solely Jewish and involved elements of Luciano’s Sicilian/Italian mafia and even Corsicans. But Lansky handled the finances and arranged the laundering of the profits. The Lansky-Luciano network ‘prospered’ for many years and resulted in a huge explosion of drug addiction in American cities. Much of the heroin entered the US through Cuba and Florida. Transport was handled by another Lansky ally, the Trafficante family based in Tampa. (The Politics of Heroin, p. 44-45)

A large portion of the profits returned to Europe where it was laundered through Swiss banks. After washing, the money came back to the US or went elsewhere for investment. Lansky, a wizard at laundering illicit money, used a number of Swiss banks including one he personally owned, the Exchange and Investment Bank of Geneva. Another was the brainchild of an orthodox rabbi, Tibor Pinchas Rosenbaum: the International Credit Bank (ICB) of Geneva. (The Politics of Heroin, p. 45; also see Michael Collins Piper, Final Judgement, 2004, chapters 7, 11 and 12))

ICB was a Jewish bank. Rosenbaum had also co-founded the World Zionist Congress and was a director (and treasurer) of the Jewish Agency. ICB had a reputation for accepting deposits from anywhere, no questions asked. Various ministries of the Israeli government held accounts at the bank, including the Mossad, the Defense Ministry, and the Histadrut, Israel’s labor federation. Another account was held by the Israel Corporation, a government supported development company. According to a report in the New York Times, ICB was used by the Israeli government for arms purchases and to ‘help channel funds from the international Jewish community into Israel.’ (Clyde H. Farnsworth, ‘A Global Bank Tangle and its Lost Millions’, The New York Times, April 9, 1975)

Did Israel use laundered drug money to finance arms deals, or even to finance Israel’s ultra-secret nuclear weapons program? It is possible. On one occasion Shimon Peres reportedly called up Rosenbaum and demanded $7 million dollars within 24 hours ‘for Israel’s national security.’ Rosenbaum complied and delivered the funds overnight. Given this kind of activity it is not surprising that ICB collapsed in 1974-1976 amidst claims of skimming and looted assets. The story is so tangled it resembles a trip down Alice’s rabbit hole or through the looking glass. (‘A Global Bank Tangle and its Lost Millions’)

With very few exceptions, students of the JFK assassination have typically passed over in silence the almost certain involvement of the Jewish underworld in the crime of the century. This needs to change for a reason that ought to be self-evident. In the early 1960s, Attorney General Robert Kennedy’s legal crusade against organized crime posed a serious and immediate threat to Meyer Lansky’s crime network in the US. In 1961, Kennedy’s justice department incarcerated Mickey Cohen, Lansky’s west coast boss, and charged him with tax evasion. (Wyatt Reid, Inside Mob Boss Mickey Cohen’s flashy Reign as the King of Los Angeles, August 6, 2022, posted at )

By 1963, RFK’s justice department was also targeting another Lansky figure, Carlos Marcello, who managed Lansky’s holdings in New Orleans. They had already deported Marcello once and in 1963 were attempting to do so again. The Jewish mob certainly had a motive to get rid of Kennedy. It is called self preservation. So, I was not surprised to learn that Marcello’s name is on the list, and that he was present that night at Murchison’s. (Hank Messick, Lansky, 1971, p. 86 – 87)

They say a sign hung above the door at Marcello’s Town and Country motel in New Orleans. The sign read: THREE CAN KEEP A SECRET IF TWO ARE DEAD. Although Marcello’s actual role in the JFK assassination remains unclear, one likely reason for his attendance in Dallas would have been to represent Lansky.

Jack Ruby’s role, on the other hand, was highly visible. Later, Ruby told his defense attorney William Kunstler that he killed Oswald “for the Jews.” The admission is so shocking that I obtained a copy of Kunstler’s autobiography just to confirm that Ruby said it. No mistake, the quote can be found in Kunstler’s book in black-and-white, verbatim. But no less shocking was Kunstler’s verbal hocus-pocus as he attempted to spin the comment and explain it away. (William Kunstler, My Life as a Radical Lawyer, 1996, p. 158-160)

Kunstler described Ruby as ‘as one of the most confused and confusing people I ever met.’ But Ruby seems perfectly clear to me in a 1965 interview. ( ) Notice, at the end Ruby mentions that if Adlai Stevenson had been vice president the JFK assassination would never have happened. His meaning could not be more clear. Stevenson was Kennedy’s preferred choice for VP in 1960. Ruby is fingering Johnson for Kennedy’s murder.

According to Peter Dale Scott, one of the first phone calls Ruby made after Oswald’s arrest was to Al Gruber, an associate of Mickey Cohen. (Peter Dale Scott, Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, 1993, p. 143)

My own view is that Ruby was under orders from LBJ to make the hit on Oswald. But it is also possible, even likely, that Ruby needed some additional ‘persuasion’ to stiffen his nerve. Any mob decision to cover up the assassination of a US president would have had to come from the very top. That might have been Luciano but for the fact Luciano passed away the previous year. In November 1963, that left Meyer Lansky as the boss of bosses. But Lansky would never have delivered such a message in person. He would have delegated the chore to someone close to Ruby. But not Cohen who was still behind bars.

As Gail Raven, a former girl friend and exotic dancer at Ruby’s Carousal Club put it: ‘He had no choice….Jack had bosses, just like everyone else.’ Notice that Raven refers to ‘bosses,’ not boss. (Arnaldo M. Fernandez, “The Hit Man And The Mobster: Jack Ruby And Santos Trafficante,” posted at )

Dorothy Kilgallen nearly busts open the case

Dorothy Kilgallen was one of the most intelligent journalists who wrote about the Kennedy assassination. She was also one of the bravest. For many years, Kilgallen was a regular on the popular TV quiz show, What’s My Line? where she displayed an ability to think on her feet. Kilgallen had a knack for discovering the true identity of the featured guests. She also wrote a weekly news/gossip column that was carried by 200 papers. Kilgallen’s specialty was juicy tid-bits from Hollywood, high profile court cases and unsolved murders. By the 1950s, Kilgallen enjoyed a celebrity status unmatched in her day.

She was also a dogged investigator with the instincts of a blood hound. After the Kennedy assassination, Kilgallen was first journalist to question the official narrative of a lone gunman. Indeed, she did so in her very next column posted one week after the assassination. On November 29, 1963, she wrote: “The case is closed is it? Well I’d like to know how in a big smart town like Dallas, a man like Jack Ruby, operator of a striptease honky tonk, could stroll in and out of police headquarters as if it were a health club at a time when a small army of law enforcers was keeping a ‘tight security guard’ on Oswald….That is why so many people are saying there is ‘something queer’ about the killing of Oswald, something strange about the way his case was handled, a great deal missing in the official account…”

Later, when Kilgallen attended the trial in Dallas of Jack Ruby she was the only journalist to be granted a private interview with the accused (on two occasions). This was at Ruby’s request. Apparently ‘What’s My Line?’ was one of Jack’s favorite TV shows. Kilgallen wrote that she stayed behind at the trial because she had been told Ruby wanted to talk. When Ruby’s co-counsel Joe Tonahill beckoned to her she went up to the defense table. Ruby rose and politely shook hands. She wrote that although he was smiling ‘the total effect was inexpressibly sad.’

Kilgallen described him in harrowing terms: ‘Ruby’s eyes were glassy and when we shook hands, his hand trembled in mine ever so slightly like the heartbeat of a bird. I’m nervous and worried, he told her. I feel I’m on the verge of something I don’t understand, the breaking point maybe. Ruby then told her he was ‘really scared.’ ( )

By one account, the presiding Judge Joe B. Brown allowed Ruby and Kilgallen (with Tonahill) to retire to chambers for an interview behind closed doors. Not even Ruby’s guards were present on this occasion. (Lee Israel, Kilgallen, 1979)

Jack Ruby never testified at his own trial. This was integral to defense attorney Marvin Belli’s strategy to portray him as ‘temporarily insane’ on the day of the killing. The strategy failed, however. Ruby was convicted. Even so, discrepancies emerged during the testimony of several witnesses indicating that the official narrative could not possibly be correct. For example, Ruby’s whereabouts at the time of the assassination raised a red flag. One witness testified that at the time Kennedy was shot Ruby was in the offices of the Dallas Morning News, located several blocks from Dealey Plaza. The office windows faced the Plaza with a direct line of sight to the Texas Book Depository. Did Ruby deliberately position himself to watch the assassination? If so, this meant he had prior knowledge. ( )

Subscribe to New Columns

When I checked the layout of downtown Dallas using Google Earth Pro software I was able to measure the distance from the Dallas Morning News building to the location of the “kill zone” on Elm Street. The distance is 1,460 feet.

Other testimony revealed that Ruby was already shadowing (stalking?) Oswald on the evening of November 22 when the authorities presented the accused Oswald in hand-cuffs to the press at City Hall. The police assembly room was packed with reporters and photographers. Ruby was seen with a pen and pad in hand, behaving as if he were a member of the press which he was not.

From the questioning of other witnesses it also emerged that the shadowing continued the next day. On the afternoon of November 23, Ruby was seen on the third floor of City Hall, just outside the homicide department where Oswald was being interrogated. Ruby was in the hallway crowded with press. As before, he was pretending to be a reporter. But Ruby was well known at City Hall and one of the detectives yelled out, ‘Jack, what are you doing here?’ The detective had to shout to be heard because the corridor was crowded and noisy. Ruby gestured and replied, ‘I am helping all of these fellows.’ ( )

These discrepancies surely mean that Ruby’s encounter with Oswald did not happen by chance. Nor was the shooting an impulsive act. It was pre-meditated. The shadowing also undermines what Ruby told the Warren Commission, i.e., ‘No one else requested me to do anything. I never spoke to anyone about attempting to do anything. No subversive organization gave me any idea. No underworld persons made any effort to contact me. It all happened that Sunday morning…’

In March 1964, Kilgallen attempted to contact Robert Kennedy through Pierre Salinger who told Kennedy ‘she has some information she wants to turn over to you.’ The meeting never happened, however. During this difficult period RFK was dealing with his own grief and loss, and avoided contact with journalists, specially these investigating the murder of his brother. (David Talbot, Brothers, 2007, p. 262)

Many researchers have dismissed Jack Ruby’s trial as inconsequential, probably because Ruby never testified. But I suspect these skeptics have never studied the transcript of the trial in Dallas. Surely the trial convinced Kilgallen (in my view correctly) that Ruby was the key to figuring out who killed Kennedy.

This probably explains why in August 1964, about a month before the official release of the Warren Commission Report in September, Kilgallen leaked the entire transcript of Ruby’s three hours of testimony to the Commission. Somehow she had obtained a copy, 102 pages in length. Kilgallen serialized the entire transcript in three issues of The New York Journal-American. With the benefit of hindsight, it appears she leaked the transcript to draw attention to the Commission’s inept questioning of Ruby, but also, and more importantly, to shed light on the discrepancies exposed at his Dallas trial. The leak prompted J. Edgar Hoover to order a tap on Kilgallen’s phone. He also put her under surveillance.

Dorothy Kilgallen never revealed the details about her interviews with Jack Ruby. She planned to tell all in a forthcoming book, Murder One, to be published by Random House. Meanwhile, she kept her notes and manuscript on her person at all times. She told friends she was close to discovering who killed Kennedy. But Kilgallen did not live long enough to finish her book. On November 8, 1965, she was found dead in her Manhattan apartment. Her personal hairdresser Marc Sinclaire found the body and immediately concluded she had been murdered. Kilgallen was fully dressed, sitting up in a bed she never used, in a room she never slept in. The reported cause of death was a mix of alcohol and barbiturates, traces of which were found on the rim of a glass. Her manuscript and notes had disappeared.

But the plot against Kennedy was not simply a coup d’tat by a power hungry vice president, nor a move by the Jewish underworld to defend its drug trafficking empire. The stakes were infinitely higher, as I am about to show.

Ben Gurion and JFK

The last name on Madeleine Brown’s list I will discuss is John McCloy. But he is far from the least. When I saw his name I was stunned because of what this means. One need only Google ‘John J. McCloy’ to appreciate who this man was. Over a span of fifty years McCloy advised eight presidents from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Ronald Reagan, including John F. Kennedy.

Allow me to briefly review his storied career. As a young artillery officer, McCloy saw combat briefly during the last months of World War I. After the war he returned to Harvard and completed his law degree. During the 1920s-30s McCloy enjoyed a successful career as a Wall Street attorney. This phase of his life came to an end in 1940, however, when he was recruited by US Secretary of War Henry Stimson. McCloy served under Stimson throughout World War II as a war planner and on intelligence issues. During this period McCloy and James Donovan founded the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), forerunner of the CIA. After the war McCloy became president of the World Bank, then served as the first High Commissioner for Germany. In this capacity he oversaw the creation of the Federal Republic of Germany.

In the 1950s, McCloy served as chairman of Chase Manhattan Bank, was chairman of the Ford Foundation, and also a trustee of the Rockefeller Foundation. For many years, he also served as chairman of the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations. McCloy’s association with the Rockefellers went all the way back to his Harvard days. In short, McCloy’s remarkable resume indicates that by the 1950s he had reached the pinnacle of the US power establishment and was among the select group of men who rule America. He was one of the elite.

McCloy advised president Kennedy on disarmament and arms control issues. But it is of special relevance to this discussion that, in 1963, Kennedy recruited McCloy to be his personal envoy to the Mideast. The objective of his visit: to broker a deal with Israeli Prime Minister David Ben Gurion and arrange for US inspection of Israel’s Dimona nuclear reactor. At the time, only four nations possessed nuclear weapons and Kennedy wanted to keep it that way. Kennedy was alarmed by the growing likelihood that numerous other nations, including Israel, were about to join the ‘nuclear club.’ (Avner Cohen, Israel and the Bomb, 1998, p. 132)

Ben Gurion had promised Kennedy that the Dimona reactor was solely for peaceful purposes. When Kennedy met Shimon Peres at the White House Peres likewise assured him that Israel ‘will not be the first nation in the Middle East to introduce nuclear weapons.’ But what did this mean, really? US intelligence experts knew that the Dimona reactor was of French design and that Peres had personally arranged the technology transfer. Given Peres’ hawkish record Kennedy surely remained skeptical. US nuclear experts told Kennedy that a minimum of two inspections a year were needed to guarantee that the reactor would not be used to produce plutonium for nukes. And Ben Gurion’s offer of (maybe?) one visit a year fell short. (Israel and the Bomb, p. 118)

In mid-June 1963 McCloy arrived in Washington DC for three days of briefings with administration officials, after which he met with Kennedy. At this time JFK signed a strongly worded letter to Ben Gurion that was tantamount to an ultimatum. The showdown with the US that Ben Gurion had sought to avoid appeared imminent. (Israel and the Bomb, p. 156)

Suddenly, however, Ben Gurion resigned, probably a dodge to avoid having to respond to Kennedy’s ultimatum. This put the Dimona issue in limbo. Despite this, McCloy proceeded with the first leg of the planned diplomatic mission: to Egypt where he consulted with Abdul Nasser. The Egyptian president heard McCloy out but not surprisingly was non-committal. However, because of Israel’s failure to respond due to Ben Gurion’s resignation, Kennedy canceled the next leg of McCloy’s trip, to Tel Aviv. McCloy returned to Washington and within weeks the White House abandoned the initiative. The new prime minister Levi Eshkol was insisting that he needed more time to study Kennedy’s proposals.

Meanwhile, Kennedy’s proposed Partial Test Ban was gaining traction. JFK probably judged that the Dimona inspection matter could wait until later and refocused his efforts on this other no less important issue. As we know, Averell Harriman’s July 1963 mission to Moscow was successful. Late in July, the US and Soviets initialed an agreement to ban atmospheric nuclear tests. In September 1963, the US Senate ratified the treaty and within six months more than 100 nations acceded to it or signed it outright. The Partial Test Ban was a major achievement for Kennedy and for the world.

John McCloy shows his colors

Now we come to the dark side. As a Rockefeller man McCloy had many friends in the oil industry, including Clint Murchison. We know that during the summer of 1963 Murchison hosted McCloy at his Mexican hacienda ‘to hunt white wings.’ One can only imagine what these two powerful men discussed over steaks and drinks. (LBJ and the Kennedy Killing, p. 356)

McCloy’s subsequent attendance at the November 21, 1963 meeting at Murchison’s home in Dallas indicates that the “wise man” of Wall Street had decided to betray Kennedy and join the coup against rightful authority. McCloy was anything but a loose cannon. His involvement surely means that other members of the US elite knew about and supported the coming coup. David Rockefeller had already taken the unusual step of publishing a strongly worded letter in Life magazine critical of Kennedy’s economic policies.

It is fair to assume that McCloy briefed Murchison, LBJ and others about Kennedy’s blocked initiative to inspect the Dimona reactor. Although Kennedy later obtained an agreement from prime minister Eshkol for US inspections, his successor did not share Kennedy’s deep commitment to non-proliferation. LBJ was more than willing to look the other way.

There were inspections, yes, but not two a year. The minimum requirement had been abandoned. We also know that the Israelis fooled the US inspectors by installing a dummy control room complete with fake dials and phony data.

The US scientists thought the reactor was producing electricity when, in reality, it was geared up to maximize production of plutonium. Even as the inspectors conducted their walk-through the reactor was busily producing plutonium for bombs. The Israelis also deceived the inspectors another way, by bricking over the elevator doors to conceal the shafts to the clandestine separation plant six floors below ground. The fact they got away with all of this seems to have further emboldened them. On the occasion of the 1968 inspection, the Israelis became belligerent, harassing the US inspectors so openly and aggressively that the scientists terminated the visit. It was the last US inspection. Why bother anyway? US officials must have realized it was all a charade. (Mark H. Gaffney, Dimona: The Third Temple, 1989, p. 69)

On December 6, 1963, scarcely two weeks after Kennedy’s murder in Dallas, Johnson awarded John McCloy the Presidential Medal of Freedom for unspecified services to the country. A few days later, Johnson also picked McCloy to serve on the Warren Commission. In my opinion, these very public back-to-back gestures by Johnson were a signal to the US elite that the coup d’tat had been completed successfully. As we know, McCloy was a diligent participant in the Warren Commission ‘investigation’ and helped to promote the lone gunman narrative. ’Orwellian’ is the only word fit to describe this dark chapter in US history.

Today, there can be no doubt about McCloy’s views on US foreign policy. The record is clear. While at the World Bank McCloy cooperated with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to make aid to third world countries conditional on austerity measures to keep them dependent on the West and prevent them from developing their own economies. While at the Ford Foundation McCloy arranged for that supposed philanthropic institution to secretly funnel CIA monies for covert operations. In March 1964, McCloy helped orchestrate the CIA coup that overthrew the popularly elected and non-communist president of Brazil, Joao Goulart. To sum up, McCloy was a neo-colonialist and no less of a scoundrel than Lyndon Johnson. (Donald Gibson, Battling Wall Street, 1994, p. 71-72, 79; also see William Blum, Killing Hope, 1995, p.163 – 169)

Finally, I need to add a clarification. Although Richard M. Nixon was also on Brown’s list, Republican political operative and author Roger Stone knew Nixon personally and interviewed him. Stone says Nixon left the party at Murchison’s long before Johnson arrived, and so, was not a part of the plot to kill Kennedy. In light of this, I have taken the liberty of dropping Nixon’s name from Brown’s list. Otherwise, Stone reached the same conclusion as Tague about who killed JFK. No doubt, Nixon, a savvy politician, eventually figured out on his own what had happened and who was responsible. (The Man Who Killed Kennedy, p. 229)

Based on my research, I suspect Madeleine Brown may also have been mistaken about one other name, Clint Peoples. The issue needs more vetting.

In a subsequent article I will show that Lyndon Johnson was a staunch Zionist.

Mark H. Gaffney is the author of Dimona: The Third Temple (1989), Gnostic Secrets of the Naassenes (2004), The 9/11 Mystery Plane and the Vanishing of America (2008), Black 9/11 (2nd ed, 2016), and his latest, Deep History and the Ages of Man (2022). Mark can be reached for comment at

America’s Dirtiest Secrets

by Larry Romanoff via Unz Review

This essay is the Introductory Chapter to a new series of E-books which will very soon be published on

When I began doing my historical research in earnest perhaps 20 years ago in Shanghai, my interest was driven by primarily two things: one was the incessant American propaganda flooding the world, and particularly China, with an entirely unjustified air of moral superiority that masked all of the American crimes and atrocities committed over centuries. The second was the irritating flood of negative propaganda about China, filling the print and airwaves about China’s mostly imaginary inferiority to the exceptional Americans. From this, I intended to write a series of articles, and perhaps a book or two, that illuminated the opposite side of these two pictures. This is an oversimplification, but my research and writing interests were limited to an attempt to rectify the standard narrative of “China bad; US good”.

But near the beginning of this enterprise, I encountered a statement that said, “The history of the world is the history of the Jews.” That remark registered on me and remained in my memory because it startled me and because it made no sense to me at the time. However, as I progressed with my research into things Chinese and American, I would occasionally encounter references to Jews but, at the time, I had absolutely no interest whatever in the Jews, and I initially would delete those references. In my mind, I had a clean story line which I was pursuing and those increasingly occasional references to the Jews were contaminating my story line and confusing my approach. But eventually I had to realise that the references to the Jews were not contamination but were in fact the real story line.

As one example, I was researching the opium travesty inflicted upon China by – as we were all taught – “the English”. But as I delved deeper into the historical record, I was surprised to discover that “the English” had nothing to do with the opium (except as military enforcer) and that the entire opium landscape was 100% Jewish, primarily Rothschild and Sassoon, with Kadoorie and a few other families. Those families may have held British passports, but they were all Jews and not “Englishmen“. This is also true of the HSBC bank which was created solely to launder the Jews’ drug money – a talent in which it still specialises today. The same pattern appeared to evolve in almost any historical topic I chose to investigate. I was, as we all were, taught, indoctrinated, propagandised and browbeaten to believe that the Russian Revolution was really Russian, and I was very surprised to learn that it was 99.9% Jewish, and that “Russians” had nothing to do with it except as victims. Similarly, I was taught the two World Wars were caused by Germany and that gallant little England prevailed over an evil enemy, but was again surprised to learn that it was the European Jews who contrived mightily to bring about both World Wars, that in fact Germany resisted war until the very end, and was the victim of a massive hate campaign by the Jews who wanted it destroyed.

In an earlier essay, I ended with these words:

The Boer Wars were a British story, but the manuscript was written entirely in Jewish handwriting. In like fashion, the two World Wars, the British East India Company, the unconscionable looting, famines, and slaughters of India, and China’s opium century with its vast atrocities of slaughter, misery, and slave-trafficking, were “British stories”, but the manuscripts for these were also written entirely in Jewish handwriting. Similarly, the stories of Yugoslavia, Greece, Iraq, Libya, and Syria today are “American stories”, but these also were written entirely in Jewish handwriting.

The blithe optimism demonstrated by the planners of the invasion of Iraq is still capable of taking one’s breath away. (Photo: Lisa M. Zunzanyika / Flickr Commons). Source

This is where we are today. These several volumes were originally to be titled, “America’s Dirtiest Secrets”, but that title no longer strictly applies because there is no sensible way to separate the actions of the Americans from their Jewish masters who gave the orders. For example, we know the media stories of the US hijacking of Iraq and believed this was done to remove a dictator. But our perception is severely altered when we learn the invasion was done entirely on Jewish orders, that the so-called “Provisional President” of Iraq – Paul Bremer was a Jew and was taking all his orders from the Jews in the City of London, and that further those Jewish bankers have confiscated all of Iraq’s assets and are taking – free – more than 2/3 of Iraq’s oil. Likewise, we were taught it was the British military (with a bit of French help) that looted the 10 million priceless artifacts from China’s Summer Palace (the Yuanmingyuan) and then utterly destroyed it. But again, our perception changes when we learn the British did so under the orders of the Jews Rothschild and Sassoon, and that a great many of those priceless artifacts ended up in Jewish hands and remain there to this day.

Professor Lindemann (left) on an inspection with Churchill, 1941

In similar fashion, we were all taught about the famous British aviator “Bomber Harris” who won eternal fame for the incendiary carpet-bombing of countless dozens of German cities like Dresden, creating firestorms that incinerated millions of German civilians in one of the world’s greatest wartime atrocities. But again, our perception is severely altered when we learn that it was a Jew named Frederick Lindemann, sent by the Rothschilds as an “advisor” to Churchill, who brought with him the notion of carpet-bombing civilians with incendiary bombs, and that Churchill simply obeyed his Jewish masters in executing this program to help effect “the total destruction of Germany” that the Jews wanted. In like fashion, we were taught that the US dropped the atomic bombs on Japan to hasten the end of the war and “to save lives”. But again, our conceptions are thrown in disarray when we learn that it was a Jew, Bernard Baruch, ostensibly “the most powerful man in America” at the time, who not only chose Japan as the target for these bombs, but also personally selected the cities to be incinerated. Our conceptions are even more challenged when we learn that Baruch’s motivation may well have been retaliation to both Japan and Nagasaki for their expulsion of all the Jews prior to the war. (See End Notes)

Phan Thi Kim Phuc, burned with napalm at age of 9. Source

And with both Europe and especially with Vietnam, in the application of napalm for incinerating civilians, it was indeed the Americans who extensively applied napalm during World War II, in “vast but historically-deleted genocidal incendiary attacks both in Europe and on Japanese cities, as well as during the wars in Korea and Vietnam”. But it was a Jewish chemist named Louis Fieser who developed napalm in a secret laboratory at Harvard University in 1942, and America’s Jewish masters who engineered its use on civilians. Even worse, in Vietnam, the locals discovered they could evade incineration by diving into any body or container of water to extinguish the flames. But it was another Jew, again at Harvard, who engineered the infusion of napalm with white phosphorus, which cannot be extinguished once lit, and will burn a man right through to the bones even under water. In all cases, the Americans did the dirty deeds, but they were “just following orders” from their Jewish overlords.

Independence Day, 1942: the first field test of napalm, behind Harvard Business School. Photograph courtesy of Harvard University Archives/ Louis Fiester, The Scientific Method<

And we realise, as with all such events in the past, that the American military is, just as the British military was doing in the past, functioning as “The Bankers Private Army”. And thus, in real terms, there is no sensible way to separate the actions – the “Dirtiest Secrets” of the Americans – from the “Dirtiest Secrets” of the Jews who issued the Americans and British their marching orders. We cannot disassociate the Mafia boss from his own orders executed by his own underlings.

And thus, while in these books we will be apparently (and superficially) examining America’s Dirtiest Secrets, there will in almost every instance be a distinct under-layer of Jewish influence and control. It is true we will see a few occasions or events where the Americans appeared to act independently – as in the hijacking of Hawaii – with no apparent evidence of Jewish involvement, but these are very few. And so, what we are really discussing and exposing in these pages are the Jews’ Dirtiest Secrets, and we will see that in virtually every instance the Jews operate admirably and very efficiently with what they call “A Gentile Front”, with some non-Jew apparently in charge but with a full complement of Jews in the background instigating, inciting, and ordering Gentiles to execute their plans.

The censorship board. George Creel is seated at far right. Harris & Ewing/Library of Congress. Source

One striking such example you will read about is US President Wilson’s Creel Commission, which perpetrated an astonishingly intense propaganda campaign designed to create a “white-hot hate” for Germans and lead Americans into a World War no one wanted. Creel was selected by Wilson’s Jewish handlers, quite likely by the so-called “Colonel” House, who was a Jew and whose real name was Huis, but it was the Jews Lippman and Bernays who were actually in control of the entire effort. This Jewish manipulation was so effectively done that Creel became the lightning rod for all the historical disapprobation while Bernays is celebrated today as “The father of public relations” in America. In fact, Bernays, the nephew of Sigmund Freud, was the Father of War Marketing, a template invented and executed by the Jews in the most despicable manner imaginable.

In many cases, these situations include historical events that have been so deeply buried by the Jewish media and Jewish book-publishing industries that perhaps not one person in a million has any knowledge of their existence. One such situation consists of the unremitting and unconscionable atrocities inflicted on Germany and the German people during – but especially after – both World Wars, atrocities committed primarily by the Americans but done under the orders of their Jewish masters. This was so widespread – and so true – that today it is illegal in Germany for anyone to even attempt to research atrocities committed against Germans. The reason is that anyone attempting such research would quickly discover that it was the Jews who were responsible for all those atrocities, by both hate propaganda and direct influence, and the Jews naturally don’t want those truths escaping confinement. Thus, the German government was forced to pass a law rendering illegal any investigation into such matters, and most German people today have no knowledge of the incredible betrayals and atrocities inflicted upon them by the Jews. They are instead taught by Jewish-authored books and by Jewish university professors, aided immensely by the Jewish-controlled mass media, that it was Germans who inflicted atrocities on the Jews.

‘We Hated What We Were Doing’_ Veterans Recall Firebombing Japan – The New York Times

Another such example is the incendiary carpet-bombing of nearly 100 Japanese cities– long after Japan had agreed to surrender – carried out by the American Curtis LeMay and resulting in the deaths of about 50% of the population of all those cities, done in the same manner as the Jews arranged for Germany and with the same blood-thirsty determination to utterly destroy Japan and the Japanese as they had for Germany and the German people. This immense and unconscionable atrocity, which resulted in the deaths of at least 10 million civilians – almost all women and children – was so heavily excised from history, including the re-writing of all Japanese history books, that almost no one in Japan has any knowledge of it, and no one outside Japan either. The excision in this case was so total that even Japan’s national population statistics were completely forged, fabricated, and re-calculated after the war, to entirely bury the fact of one of the greatest war-time atrocities in history.

The Japanese also do not research atrocities committed against Japan because they have been taught by their Jewish masters, as in Germany, the same things and for the same reasons. Nobody today in Japan has any knowledge of the involvement of the Jews in their destruction. This is not to dismiss atrocities that were indeed committed by the Japanese against others, but to illuminate the fact that the Jews committed much worse atrocities against the Japanese, and yet have such near-total control over the media, over book-publishing, and over the government itself, that these events have been totally excised from the historical record and the knowledge is deleted from the world’s consciousness. Again, this condition is much abetted by “the Gentile Front” where the Jews used the Americans to perpetrate these horrendous crimes while remaining hidden in the background. And again, let’s not forget that it was a Jew – Bernard Baruch – who chose Japan as the victim for the new atomic bombs and who personally selected the cities to be incinerated, almost certainly done as punishment for Japan’s prior eviction of all the Jews.

It would be of use to you to read two of my previous E-books on Propaganda and the Media[1]

and Bernays and Propaganda[2]

, to help gain an appreciation of some of the methods used by the Jews to ensure silence (and ignorance) about past events. One of the tenets of propaganda is that we have a powerful tendency to believe the first thing we read or hear about a topic, especially if those statements are repeated a number of times. Later, even when faced with incontrovertible proof, facts that cannot be disputed, proving that our now-accepted beliefs are in fact false, we are surprisingly reluctant to change our minds, and we will “hesitate and waver and continue to believe there must be some other explanation”. Our minds are apparently unable to accept that we have believed lies.

This is important because the Jews use this to great advantage to pre-empt the discovery of their atrocities and prevent rational thought. Typically, if knowledge of their past crimes is showing signs of escaping historical confinement, the Jews will use this propaganda tactic to “get there first”, with some Jewish author quickly writing a book or treatise on the subject that is replete with lies and falsified history that attempts to exclude the Jews from involvement and, if at all possible, to blame the victim.

When the truths of China’s opium travesty were beginning to creep out of the sarcophagus and into the daylight of public knowledge, a Jewess named Julia Lovellwas there with a book titled Opium War in which Jews are not even mentioned and which she categorised as a “tragic-comedy”, the hundred or so million Chinese being killed by the Jews apparently being funny to her. But a great many Americans and others, unfamiliar with the true circumstances and never having read anything else, will tend to believe this woman’s despicably false version of events and the Jews will perhaps be spared exposure.

Another such situation occurred when the truth of the mysterious depopulation of Easter Island was beginning to escape confinement. That truth seems to be that it was Jewish slave traders who kidnapped virtually the entire population of Easter Island as slaves to work their guano mines in Peru. Immediately upon this leakage, a Jew named Jared Diamond from the University of California was there with a book explaining that the Easter Islanders simply had some violent disagreement among themselves and killed each other off. Diamond was ridiculed by other academics for his foolish theory that “had not a shred of evidence to support it”, but his book wasn’t written for academics. It was written for the great unwashed of the US who had no knowledge of these events and would likely accept Diamond’s false version. And once again, the Jews might be spared exposure.

The same thing happened again when details began to emerge and leak about the Holland Tulip Bubble having been entirely staged by Jewish ‘bankers’, what with their futures market and all the rest, and not at all a “public mania” as we have been told, but a deliberate attempt to take advantage of public greed and gullibility and empty half the bank accounts in Holland. Once again, immediately on the risk of these leaks becoming public there was a female Jewish author on hand to write a “definitive” work on the topic which oddly made no mention of Jews, but furthermore claimed that no financial losses had occurred to anyone. In fact, this Jewess solemnly claimed that she had access to all the records in Holland and that through the most diligent search she found records of only a few people in Holland who had gone bankrupt during that time, and all those were bankrupt due to “property speculation“ and nothing to do with tulips. In real life, that so-called “bubble“ bankrupted probably half the people in Holland, but once again the Jews are there to pre-empt the truth and to propagate an entirely falsified version of history to protect themselves from exposure.

I have written elsewhere that at least 90%, and maybe even 95%, of everything that you know, or think that you know, or that you believe to be true about history, is wrong. To re-state another way, if we were to take the history of the entire world for the past 500 years and condense it into a history book of 100 pages, at least 50 of those pages would be blank. This is the amount of history – almost entirely involving the Jews – that has been so thoroughly excised from the historical record that it has literally evaporated from human consciousness with almost no living persons having any knowledge of it. And of the remaining 50 pages in this book, probably 45 are so extensively Photoshopped, sanitised, twisted, with crucial details omitted, that they are largely a work of fiction. And of course, anyone attempting to open this historical sarcophagus and expose the contents, is denounced as a deranged revisionist spreading misinformation. And, if the Jews are at all mentioned in this “revisionism”, we have the added attraction of being labeled an “anti-Semitic, holocaust-denying, Nazi Jew-hater”. Most of those souls attempting this historical illumination have very often paid with their careers, their reputations, their bank accounts, sometimes with their freedom and, in some cases, with their lives. These Mafia overlords in the City of London, the Khazar “so-called” Jews, are today just as brutal, savage, and filled with contempt for humanity as they were 1,000 years ago.

David Edwards was quoted in the “Third World Traveler“ as having written:

”Even open-minded people will often find themselves unable to take seriously the likes of Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, Howard Zinn and Susan George on first encountering their work; it just does not seem possible that we could be so mistaken in what we believe. The individual may assume that these writers must be somehow joking, wildly over-stating the case, paranoid, or have some sort of axe to grind. We may actually become angry with them for telling us these terrible things about our society and insist that this simply ‘can’t be true‘. It takes real effort to keep reading, to resist the reassuring messages of the mass media and be prepared to consider the evidence again.”

This is the condition we face today in dealing with these recovered historical truths. In the case of the Jews, they know the truth but are frantic and nearly desperate to keep it buried and under confinement, which is why they so vengefully and viciously attack en masse whenever these facts emerge into daylight. With the Americans, their ignorance of their own nation’s criminality is founded on a blind faith and conviction based on a century of clever Jewish propaganda that is almost always flatly contradicted by the facts. But even citizens of the victim nations – like Germany – suffer enormous shock and disbelief when confronted with the historical truths of their own country, because the Jews and the Jewish media have for nearly 100 years browbeaten them with a totally false historical narrative. Friends sent to German acquaintances my articles on the Jews’ 1933 worldwide boycott of Germany and some related items, with those Germans replying that they found even those brief articles too painful to read at one sitting because, while the evidence was incontrovertible, it contradicted everything they’d been taught all their lives about themselves and their country, and the shock of learning that the things they “knew” were all lies, was emotionally too painful to bear.

At the same time, the world has been subjected to a century or more of outrageously false positive propaganda about the Jews, an almost incomprehensible volume of rose-tinted misinformation about the Jews as the world’s impoverished, misunderstood, persecuted “chosen ones“. In truth, there is little about the Jews and Israel today that is not based on fabricated historical mythologies, buried history, biased presentations, facts twisted so badly as to be often unrecognisable. Probably 95% of what the world knows about the Jews, their history, their massive crimes spanning centuries, their astonishing contempt for both humanity and truth, their conduct in international affairs, is not only wrong, but violently wrong. And to the same extent, the world has also been subjected to enormously and brutally false negative propaganda and misinformation about other nations – about the Jews’ victims, an equally incomprehensible volume of black-tinted information whereby the Jews typically seek to blame their victims for the atrocities perpetrated against them.

These buried historical truths are the content of my books and articles, the history of the world (or parts of it) as it really was, and is, harsh provable truths and documented realities without the vast carpet of propaganda, jingoism, and misinformation that Jewish media power has used to blanket and blind the world for well over a century.


The incendiary bombing of German working-class neighborhoods was planned in detail by the Jews. Since at least the early 1900s, Rothschild had owned most of the armament and munitions factories in Germany. It was through those that he supplied Japan (and Russia too) with the weapons for their war in 1905. During the Second World War the Jews didn’t want all their factories bombed to rubble when the Allies began flying over Germany. Their solution was to kill all the factory workers instead but leave the factories untouched. And it was the Jew Frederick Lindemann, sent by Rothschild to Churchill as an advisor, who brought the scheme to him. We have records of Lindemann’s submission of his plan to the war cabinet urging this method and suggesting that “greater flesh-incineration-per-bomb could be achieved” that way. This is further documented by a memo dated March 30, 1942, from Lindemann to Churchill that resulted in those intense terror-bombing campaigns of German civilians. The working-class neighborhoods were high-density, with these incendiary munitions creating natural intense firestorms that incinerated virtually every living thing in many of them. The British and the Americans, obeying the plans of their Jewish leaders, executed one of the most barbaric and inhuman atrocities of the war.

As I discuss in my essay on Japan, where the same was done there, the country’s population statistics were heavily forged, fabricated, and recalculated after the war to bury the evidence of these atrocities. I am almost certain the same was done with Germany. I haven’t the resources or time to delve into this with Germany, and researching atrocities against Germans is now illegal in Germany, but it is almost a certainty that Germany’s population statistics were massaged in the same was as those of Japan, to hide the truth. There had to have been many many millions of civilians killed in these raids, which were nothing more than an inhumanly deliberate attempt to depopulate Germany. And this doesn’t include the normal war casualties nor the 12 million to 15 million German civilians killed after the war from execution, starvation and migration, nor does it include Eisenhower’s Death Camps nor the perhaps additional million civilian deaths from Operation Paperclip.


Mr. Romanoff’s writing has been translated into 32 languages and his articles posted on more than 150 foreign-language news and politics websites in more than 30 countries, as well as more than 100 English language platforms. Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He is one of the contributing authors to Cynthia McKinney’s new anthology ‘When China Sneezes’. (Chapt. 2 — Dealing with Demons).

His full archive can be seen at and

He can be contacted at:



[1] Bernays and Propaganda

[2] Propaganda and the Media

President Roosevelt’s Campaign to Incite War in Europe

The Secret Polish Documents

via Unz Review

This very lengthy reconstruction of our central role in the outbreak of World War II was published almost forty years ago but I only just read it recently. I think that the parallels with our own current confrontation with Russia are really quite remarkable, as I’ve previously emphasized in some of my own articles: American Pravda: World War III and World War II? — Ron Unz.

Major ceremonies were held in 1982 to mark the one hundredth anniversary of the birth of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. With the exceptions of Washington and Lincoln, he was glorified and eulogized as no other president in American history. Even conservative President Ronald Reagan joined the chorus of applause. In early 1983, newspapers and television networks remembered the fiftieth anniversary of Roosevelt’s inauguration with numerous laudatory tributes.

And yet, with each passing year more and more new evidence comes to light which contradicts the glowing image of Roosevelt portrayed by the mass media and politicians.

Much has already been written about Roosevelt’s campaign of deception and outright lies in getting the United States to intervene in the Second World War prior to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941. Roosevelt’s aid to Britain and the Soviet Union in violation of American neutrality and international law, his acts of war against Germany in the Atlantic in an effort to provoke a German declaration of war against the United States, his authorization of a vast “dirty tricks” campaign against U.S. citizens by British intelligence agents in violation of the Constitution, and his provocations and ultimatums against Japan which brought on the attack against Pearl Harbor — all this is extensively documented and reasonably well known.[1]

Not so well known is the story of Roosevelt’s enormous responsibility for the outbreak of the Second World War itself. This essay focuses on Roosevelt’s secret campaign to provoke war in Europe prior to the outbreak of hostilities in September 1939. It deals particularly with his efforts to pressure Britain, France and Poland into war against Germany in 1938 and 1939.

Franklin Roosevelt not only criminally involved America in a war which had already engulfed Europe. He bears a grave responsibility before history for the outbreak of the most destructive war of all time.

This paper relies heavily on a little-known collection of secret Polish documents which fell into German hands when Warsaw was captured in September 1939. These documents clearly establish Roosevelt’s crucial role in bringing on the Second World War. They also reveal the forces behind the President which pushed for war.

While a few historians have quoted sentences and even paragraphs from these documents, their importance has not been fully appreciated. There are three reasons for this, I believe. First, for many years their authenticity was not indisputably established. Second, a complete collection of the documents has not been available in English. And third, the translation of those documents which has been available in English until now is deficient and unacceptably bad.

When the Germans took Warsaw in late September 1939, they seized a mass of documents from the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In a letter of 8 April 1983, Dr. Karl Otto Braun of Munich informed me that the documents were captured by an SS brigade led by Freiherr von Kuensberg, whom Braun knew personally. In a surprise attack, the brigade captured the center of Warsaw ahead of the regular German army. Von Kuensberg told Braun that his men took control of the Polish Foreign Ministry just as Ministry officials were in the process of burning incriminating documents. Dr. Braun was an official of the German Foreign Office between 1938 and 1945.

The German Foreign Office chose Hans Adolf von Moltke, formerly the Reich’s Ambassador in Warsaw, to head a special Archive Commission to examine the collection and sort out those documents which might be suitable for publication. At the end of March 1940, 16 of these were published in book form under the title Polnische Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte des Krieges [“Polish Documents on the Pre-History of the War”]. The Foreign Office edition was subtitled “German White Book No. 3.” The book was immediately published in various foreign language editions in Berlin and some other European capitals. An American edition was published in New York by Howell, Soskin and Company as The German White Paper. Historian C. Hartley Grattan contributed a remarkably cautious and reserved foreword.[2]

The translation of the documents for the U.S. White Paper edition was inexcusably bad. Whole sentences and parts of sentences were missing and portions were grossly mistranslated. H. Keith Thompson explained to me why this was so during a conversation on 22 March 1983 and in a letter of 13 May 1983. A poor first draft English-language translation had been prepared in Berlin and sent to America. It was given to George Sylvester Viereck, a prominent pro-German American publicist and literary advisor to the German Library of Information in New York City. Thompson knew Viereck intimately and served as his chief aide and re-writer. Viereck had hurriedly redrafted the translation from Berlin into more readable prose but without any opportunity of comparing it to the original Polish text (which he could not read in any case) or even the official German-language version. In making stylistic changes for the sake of readability, the meaning of the original documents was thereby inadvertently distorted.

The matter was also discussed at a small dinner for Lawrence Dennis hosted by Thompson at Viereck’s apartment in the Hotel Belleclaire in New York City in 1956. Viereck explained that he had been a highly paid literary consultant to the German government, responsible for the propaganda effect of publications, and could not be concerned with the translation groundwork normally done by clerks. Even the most careful translation of complicated documents is apt to distort the original meaning, and literary editing is certain to do so, Viereck said. Thompson agreed with that view.

In preparing the English-language text for this essay, I have carefully examined the official German translation and various other translations, and compared them with facsimiles of the original Polish documents.

Media Sensation

The German government considered the captured Polish documents to be of tremendous importance. On Friday, 29 March, the Reich Ministry of Propaganda confidentially informed the daily press of the reason for releasing the documents:

These extraordinary documents, which may be published beginning with the first edition on Saturday, will create a first-class political sensation, since they in fact prove the degree of America’s responsibility for the outbreak of the present war. America’s responsibility must not, of course, be stressed in commentaries; the documents must be left to speak for themselves, and they speak clearly enough.

The Ministry of Propaganda specifically asks that sufficient space be reserved for the publication of these documents, which is of supreme importance to the Reich and the German people.

We inform you in confidence that the purpose of publishing these documents is to strengthen the American isolationists and to place Roosevelt in an untenable position, especially in view of the fact that he is standing for re-election. It is however not at all necessary for us to point Roosevelt’s responsibility; his enemies in America will take care of that.[3]

The German Foreign Office made the documents public on Friday, 29 March 1940. In Berlin, journalists from around the world, including the United States, were given facsimile copies of the original Polish documents and translations in German. journalists were permitted to examine the original documents themselves, along with an enormous pile of other documents from the Polish Foreign Ministry.

The release of the documents was an international media sensation. American newspapers gave the story large front page headline coverage and published lengthy excerpts from the documents. But the impact was much less than the German government had hoped for.

Leading U.S. government officials wasted no time in vehemently denouncing the documents as not authentic. Secretary of State Cordell Hull stated: “I may say most emphatically that neither I nor any of my associates in the Department of State have ever heard of any such conversations as those alleged, nor do we give them the slightest credence. The statements alleged have not represented in any way at any time the thought or the policy of the American government.” William Bullitt, the U.S. Ambassador to Paris who was particulary incriminated by the documents, announced: “I have never made to anyone the statements attributed to me.” And Count Jerzy Potocki, the Polish Ambassador in Washington whose confidential reports to Warsaw were the most revealing, declared: “I deny the allegations attributed to my reports. I never had any conversations with Ambassador Bullitt on America’s participation in war.”[4]

These categorical public denials by the highest officials had the effect of almost completely undercutting the anticipated impact of the documents. It must be remembered that this was several decades before the experiences of the Vietnam war and Watergate had taught another generation of Americans to be highly skeptical of such official denials. In 1940, the vast majority of the American people trusted their political leaders to tell them the truth.

After all, if the documents made public to the world by the German government were in fact authentic and genuine, it would mean that the great leader of the American democracy was a man who lied to his own people and broke his own country’s laws, while the German government told the truth. To accept that would be quite a lot to expect of any nation, but especially of the trusting American public.

Comment from Capitol Hill generally echoed the official government view. Senator Key Pittman, the Democratic Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, called the documents “unmitigated falsehood designed to create dissension in the United States.” Senator Claude Peper, Democrat of Florida, declared: “It’s German propaganda and shouldn’t affect our policies in the least.” Only a few were not impressed with the official denials. Representative Hamilton Fish of New York, the ranking Republican member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, called for a Congressional investigation and declared in a radio address: “If these charges were true, it would constitute a treasonable act. If President Roosevelt has entered into secret understandings or commitments with foreign governments to involve us in war, he should be impeached.”[5]

American newspapers stressed the high-level denials in reporting the release of the documents. The New York Timesheadline read: U.S. BRANDS AS FALSE NAZI DOCUMENTS CHARGING WE FOSTERED WAR IN EUROPE AND PROMISED TO JOIN ALLIES IF NEEDED. The Baltimore Sun headlined: NAZI DOCUMENTS LAYING WAR BLAME ON U.S. ARE ASSAILED IN WASHINGTON.[6]

Although the book of Polish documents was labeled “first series,” no further volumes ever appeared. From time to time the German government would make public additional documents from the Polish archives. These were published in book form in 1943 along with numerous other documents captured by the Germans from the French Foreign Ministry and other European archives, under the title Roosevelts Weg in den Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten der Vereinigten Staaten [“Roosevelt’s Way Into War: Secret Documents on the War Policy of the President of the United States”].[7]

An important unanswered question is: Where are the original Polish documents today? Unless they were destroyed in the conflagration of the war, they presumably fell into either American or Soviet hands in 1945. In view of recent U.S. government policy on secret archival material, it is very unlikely that they would still be secret today if they had been acquired by the United States. My guess is that if they were not destroyed, they are now either in Moscow or at the East German Central State Archives in Potsdam.

It is particularly important to keep in mind that these secret reports were written by top level Polish ambassadors, that is, by men who though not at all friendly to Germany nonetheless understood the realities of European Politics far better than those who made policy in the United States.

For example, the Polish ambassadors realized that behind all their rhetoric about democracy and human rights, and expressions of love for the United States, the Jews who agitated for war against Germany were actually doing nothing other than ruthlessly furthering their own purely sectarian interests. Many centuries of experience in living closely with the Jews had made the Poles far more aware than most nationalities of the special character of this people.

The Poles viewed the Munich Settlement of 1938 very differently than did Roosevelt and his circle. The President bitterly attacked the Munich agreement, which gave self-determination to the three and a half million Germans of Czechoslovakia and settled a major European crisis, as a shameful and humiliating capitulation to German blackmail. Although wary of German might, the Polish government supported the Munich agreement, in part because a small Polish territory which had been a part of Czechoslovakia against the wishes of its inhabitants was united with Poland as a result of the Settlement.

The Polish envoys held the makers of American foreign policy in something approaching contempt. President Roosevelt was considered a master political artist who knew how to mold American public opinion, but very little about the true state of affairs in Europe. As Poland’s Ambassador to Washington emphasized in his reports to Warsaw, Roosevelt pushed America into war in order to distract attention from his failures as President in domestic policy.

It is beyond the scope of this paper to go into the complexities of German-Polish relations between 1933 and 1939 and the reasons for the German attack against Poland at dawn on the first day of September 1939. However, it should be noted that Poland had refused to even negotiate over self-determination for the German city of Danzig and the ethnic German minority in the so-called Polish Corridor. Hitler felt compelled to resort to arms when he did in response to a growing Polish campaign of terror and dispossession against the one and a half million ethnic Germans under Polish rule. In my view, if ever a military action was justified, it was the German campaign against Poland in 1939.

Poland’s headstrong refusal to negotiate was made possible because of a fateful blank check guarantee of military backing from Britain — a pledge that ultimately proved completely worthless to the hapless Poles. Considering the lightning swiftness of the victorious German campaign, it is difficult to realize today that the Polish government did not fear war with Germany. Poland’s leaders foolishly believed that German might was only an illusion. They were convinced that their troops would occupy Berlin itself within a few weeks and add further German territories to an enlarged Polish state. It is also important to keep in mind that the purely localized conflict between Germany and Poland was only transformed into a Europe-wide conflagration by the British and French declarations of war against Germany.

After the war the Allied-appointed judges at the International Military Tribunal staged at Nuremberg refused to admit the Polish documents as evidence for the German defense. Had these pieces of evidence been admitted, the Nuremberg undertaking might have been less a victors’ show trial and more a genuinely impartial court of international justice.

Authenticity Beyond Doubt

There is now absolutely no question that the documents from the Polish Foreign Ministry in Warsaw made public by the German government are genuine and authentic.

Charles C. Tansill, professor of American diplomatic history at Georgetown University, considered them genuine. “… I had a long conversation with M. Lipsky, the Polish ambassador in Berlin in the prewar years, and he assured me that the documents in the German White Paper are authentic,” he wrote.[8] Historian and sociologist Harry Elmer Barnes confirmed this assessment: “Both Professor Tansill and myself have independently established the thorough authenticity of these documents.”[9] In America’s Second Crusade, William H. Chamberlin reported: “I have been privately informed by an extremely reliable source that Potocki, now residing in South America, confirmed the accuracy of the documents, so far as he was concerned.”[10]

More importantly, Edward Raczynski, the Polish Ambassador in London from 1934 to 1945, confirmed the authenticity of the documents in his diary, which was published in 1963 under the title In Allied London. In his entry for 20 June 1940, he wrote:

The Germans published in April a White Book containing documents from the archives of our Ministry of Foreign Affairs, consisting of reports from Potocki in Washington, Lukasiewicz in Paris and myself. I do not know where they found them, since we were told that the archives had been destroyed. The documents are certainly genuine, and the facsimiles show that for the most part the Germans got hold of originals and not merely copies.

In this ‘First Series’ of documents I found three reports from this Embassy, two by myself and the third signed by me but written by Balinski. I read them with some apprehension, but they contained nothing liable to compromise myself or the Embassy or to impair relations with our British hosts.[11]

In 1970 their authenticity was reconfirmed with the publication of Diplomat in Paris 1936-1939. This important work consists of the official papers and memoirs of Juliusz Lukasiewicz, the former Polish Ambassador to Paris who authored several of the secret diplomatic reports made public by the German government. The collection was edited by Waclaw Jedrzejewicz, a former Polish diplomat and cabinet member, and later Professor Emeritus of Wellesley and Ripon colleges. Professor Jedrzejewicz considered the documents made public by the Germans absolutely genuine. He quoted extensively from several of them.

Mr. Tyler G. Kent has also vouched for the authenticity of the documents. He states that while working at the U.S. embassy in London in 1939 and 1940, he saw copies of U.S. diplomatic messages in the files which corresponded to the Polish documents and which confirmed their accuracy.

Two Key Diplomats

Two American diplomats who played especially crucial roles in the European crisis of 1938-1939 are mentioned often in the Polish documents. The first of these was William C. Bullitt. Although his official position was U.S. Ambassador to France, he was in reality much more than that. He was Roosevelt’s “super envoy” and personal deputy in Europe.

Like Roosevelt, Bullitt “rose from the rich.” He was born into an important Philadelphia banking family, one of the city’s wealthiest. His mother’s grandfather, Jonathan Horwitz, was a German Jew who had come to the United States from Berlin.[12] In 1919 Bullitt was an assistant to President Wilson at the Versailles peace conference. That same year, Wilson and British Prime Minister Lloyd George sent him to Russia to meet with Lenin and determine if the new Bolshevik government deserved recognition by the Allies. Bullitt met with Lenin and other top Soviet leaders and upon his return urged recognition of the new regime. But he had a falling-out with Wilson and left diplomatic service. In 1923 he married Louise Bryant Reed, the widow of American Communist leader John Reed. In Europe Bullitt collaborated with Sigmund Freud on a psychoanalytical biography of Wilson. When Roosevelt became President in 1933, he brought Bullitt back into diplomatic life.[13]

In November 1933, Roosevelt sent Bullitt to Moscow as the first U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union. His initial enthusiasm for the Soviet system gave way to a deep distrust of Stalin and Communism. In 1936 the President transferred him to Paris. He served there as Roosevelt’s key European diplomat until 1940 when Churchill’s assumption of leadership in Britain and the defeat of France made his special role superfluous.

In the Spring of 1938, all U.S. envoys in Europe were subordinated to Bullitt by an internal directive of the State Department.[14] As the European situation worsened in 1939, Roosevelt often spoke with his man in Paris by telephone, sometimes daily, frequently giving him precisely detailed and ultra-confidential instructions on how to conduct America’s foreign policy. Not even Secretary of State Cordell Hull was privy to many of the letters and communications between Bullitt and Roosevelt.

In France, the New York Times noted, Bullitt “was acclaimed there as ‘the Champagne Ambassador’ on account of the lavishness of his parties, but he was far more than the envoy to Paris: He was President Roosevelt’s intimate adviser on European affairs, with telephone access to the President at any hour.”[15]
Bullitt and Roosevelt were fond of each other and saw eye to eye on foreign policy issues. Both were aristocrats and thorough internationalists who shared definite views on how to remake the world and a conviction that they were destined to bring about that grand reorganization.

“Between these teammates,” the Saturday Evening Post reported in March 1939,

there is a close, hearty friendship and a strong temperamental affinity. The President is known to rely upon Bullitt’s judgment so heavily that the ambassador’s mailed and cabled reports from abroad are supplemented several times a week by a chat by transatlantic telephone. In addition, Bullitt returns to the United States several times each year to take part in White House councils, to the displeasure of the State Department, which considers him a prima donna.

In the whole roster of the State Department the President could not have found an adviser who would have been so responsive to his own champagne personality as Bullitt. Both men, born patricians, have the same basic enthusiasm for remolding society …[16]

In Europe, Bullitt spoke with the voice and the authority of President Roosevelt himself.

The second most important American diplomat in Europe was Joseph P. Kennedy, Roosevelt’s Ambassador at the Court of St. James. Like Bullitt he was a wealthy banker. But this Boston Catholic of Irish ancestry was otherwise a very different sort of man. Roosevelt sent Kennedy, an important Democratic party figure and father of a future President, to Britain for purely political reasons. Roosevelt disliked and distrusted Kennedy, and this sentiment grew as Kennedy opposed the President’s war policies more and more vehemently. Moreover, Kennedy despised his counterpart in Paris. In a letter to his wife, he wrote: “I talk to Bullitt occasionally. He is more rattlebrained than ever. His judgment is pathetic and I am afraid of his influence on F.D.R. because they think alike on many things.”[17]

The Documents

Here now are extensive excerpts from the Polish documents themselves. They are given in chronological order. They are remarkably lucid for diplomatic reports and speak eloquently for themselves.

• • •

On 9 February 1938, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, Count Jerzy Potocki, reported to the Foreign Minister in Warsaw on the Jewish role in making American foreign policy:

The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State Department is becoming ever more powerful …

… The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent.

in their definition of democratic states, the Jews have also created real chaos: they have mixed together the idea of democracy and communism and have above all raised the banner of burning hatred against Nazism.

This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler which wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean of blood.

In conversations with Jewish press representatives I have repeatedly come up against the inexorable and convinced view that war is inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be subdued by the ‘democratic world.’

On 21 November 1938, Ambassador Potocki sent a report to Warsaw which discussed in some detail a conversation between himself and Bullitt, who happened to be back in Washington:

The day before yesterday I had a long conversation with Ambassador Bullitt, who is here on vacation. He began by remarking that friendly relations existed between himself and [Polish] Ambassador Lukasiewicz in Paris, whose company he greatly enjoyed.

Since Bullitt regularly informs President Roosevelt about the international situation in Europe, and particularly about Russia, great attention is given to his reports by President Roosevelt and the State Department. Bullitt speaks energetically and interestingly. Nonetheless, his reaction to events in Europe resembles the view of a journalist more than that of a politician …

About Germany and Chancellor Hitler he spoke with great vehemence and strong hatred. He said that only force, and ultimately a war would put an end to the insane future German expansionism.

To my question asking how he visualized this coming war, he replied that above all the United States, France and England must rearm tremendously in order to be in a position to oppose German power.

Only then, when the moment is ripe, declared Bullitt further, will one be ready for the final decision. I asked him in what way a conflict could arise, since Germany would probably not attack England and France first. I simply could not see the connecting point in this whole combination.

Bullitt replied that the democratic countries absolutely needed another two years until they were fully armed. In the meantime, Germany would probably have advanced with its expansion in an easterly direction. It would be the wish of the democratic countries that armed conflict would break out there, in the East between the German Reich and Russia. As the Soviet Union’s potential strength is not yet known, it might happen that Germany would have moved too far away from its base, and would be condemned to wage a long and weakening war. Only then would the democratic countries attack Germany, Bullitt declared, and force her to capitulate.

In reply to my question whether the United States would take part in such a war, he said, ‘Undoubtedly yes, but only after Great Britain and France had let loose first!’ Feeling in the United States was no intense against Nazism and Hitlerism, that a psychosis already prevails today among Americans similar to that before America’s declaration of war against Germany in 1917.

Bullitt did not give the impression of being very well informed about the situation in Eastern Europe, and he conversed in a rather superficial way.

Ambassador Potocki’s report from Washington of 9 January 1939 dealt in large part with President Roosevelt’s annual address to Congress:

President Roosevelt acts on the assumption that the dictatorial governments, above all Germany and Japan, only understand a policy of force. Therefore he has decided to react to any future blows by matching them. This has been demonstrated by the most recent measures of the United States.

The American public is subject to an ever more alarming propaganda which is under Jewish influence and continuously conjures up the specter of the danger of war. Because of this the Americans have strongly altered their views on foreign policy problems, in comparison with last year.

Of all the documents in this collection, the most revealing is probably the secret report by Ambassador Potocki of 12 January 1939 which dealt with the domestic situation in the United States. This report is given here in full:

The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing hatred of Fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible — above all religious persecution and concentration camps are exploited — this propaganda is nevertheless extremely effective since the public here is completely ignorant and knows nothing of the situation in Europe.

Right now most Americans regard Chancellor Hitler and Nazism as the greatest evil and greatest danger threatening the world. The situation here provides an excellent platform for public speakers of all kinds, for emigrants from Germany and Czechoslovakia who don’t spare any words to incite the public here with every kind of slander. They praise American liberty which they contrast with the totalitarian states.

It is interesting to note that in this extremely well-planned campaign which is conducted above all against National Socialism, Soviet Russia is almost completely excluded. If mentioned at all, it is only in a friendly manner and things are presented in such a way as if Soviet Russia were working with the bloc of democratic states. Thanks to the clever propaganda the sympathy of the American public is completely on the side of Red Spain.

Besides this propaganda, a war psychosis is being artificially created. The American people are told that peace in Europe is hanging only by a thread and that war is unavoidable. At the same time the American people are unequivocally told that in case of a world war, America must also take an active part in order to defend the slogans of freedom and democracy in the world.

President Roosevelt was the first to express hatred against Fascism. In doing so he was serving a double purpose: First, he wanted to divert the attention of the American people from domestic political problems, especially the problem of the struggle between capital and labor. Second, by creating a war psychosis and by spreading rumors about danger threatening Europe, he wanted to get the American people to accept an enormous armament program which exceeds the defense requirements of the United States.

Regarding the first point, it must be said that the internal situation on the labor market is steadily growing worse. The unemployed today already number twelve million. Federal and state expenditures are increasing daily. Only the huge sums, running into billions, which the treasury expends for emergency labor projects, are keeping a certain amount of peace in the country. Thus far there have only been the usual strikes and local unrest. But how long this kind of government aid can be kept up cannot be predicted. The excitement and indignation of public opinion, and the serious conflict between private enterprises and enormous trusts on the one hand, and with labor on the other, have made many enemies for Roosevelt and are causing him many sleepless nights.

As to point two, I can only say that President Roosevelt, as a clever political player and an expert of the American mentality, speedily steered public attention away from the domestic situation to fasten it on foreign policy. The way to achieve this was simple. One needed, on the one hand, to conjure up a war menace hanging over the world because of Chancellor Hitler, and, on the other hand, to create a specter by babbling about an attack of the totalitarian states against the United States. The Munich pact came to President Roosevelt as a godsend. He portrayed it as a capitulation of France and England to bellicose German militarism. As people say here: Hitler compelled Chamberlain at pistol-point. Hence, France and England had no choice and had to conclude a shameful peace.

The prevalent hatred against everything which is in any way connected with German Nazism is further kindled by the brutal policy against the Jews in Germany and by the émigré problem. In this action, various Jewish intellectuals participated: for instance, Bernard Baruch; the Governor of New York State, Lehman; the newly appointed judge of the Supreme Court, Felix Frankfurter; Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau; and others who are personal friends of President Roosevelt. They want the President to become the champion of human rights, freedom of religion and speech, and the man who in the future will punish trouble-makers. These groups of people who occupy the highest positions in the American government and want to pose as representatives of ‘true Americanism’ and ‘defenders of democracy’ are, in the last analysis, connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.

For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the interests of its race, to portray the President of the United States as the ‘idealist’ champion on human rights was a very clever move. In this manner they have created a dangerous hotbed for hatred and hostility in this hemisphere and divided the world into two hostile camps. The entire issue is worked out in a masterly manner. Roosevelt has been given the foundation for activating American foreign policy, and simultaneously has been procuring enormous military stocks for the coming war, for which the Jews are striving very consciously. With regard to domestic policy, it is very convenient to divert public attention from anti-Semitism, which is constantly growing in the United States, by talking about the necessity of defending religion and individual liberty against the onslaught of Fascism.

On 16 January 1939, Polish Ambassador Potocki reported to the Warsaw Foreign Ministry on another lengthy conversation he had with Roosevelt’s personal envoy, William Bullitt:

The day before yesterday, I had a longer discussion with Ambassador Bullitt in the Embassy where he called on me. Bullitt leaves on the 21st of this month for Paris, from where he has been absent for almost three months. He is sailing with a whole ‘trunk’ full of instructions, conversations, and directives from President Roosevelt, the State Department and Senators who belong to the Committee on Foreign Affairs.

In talking with Bullitt I had the impression that he had received from President Roosevelt a very precise definition of the attitude taken by the United States towards the present European crisis. He will present this material at the Quai d’Orsay [the French Foreign Ministry] and will make use of it in discussions with European statesmen. The contents of these directives, as Bullitt explained them to me in the course of a conversation lasting half an hour, were:

1. The vitalizing of foreign policy under the leadership of President Roosevelt, who severely and unambiguously condemns totalitarian countries.

2. United States preparations for war on sea, land and air will be carried out at an accelerated pace and will consume the colossal sum of 1.25 billion dollars.

3. It is the decided opinion of the President that France and Britain must put an end to any sort of compromise with the totalitarian countries. They must not get into any discussions aiming at any kind of territorial changes.

4. They have the moral assurance that the United States will abandon the policy of isolation and be prepared to intervene actively on the side of Britain and France in case of war. America is ready to place its whole wealth of money and raw materials at their disposal.

The Polish Ambassador to Paris, Juliusz (Jules) Lukasiewicz, sent a top secret report to the Foreign Ministry in Warsaw at the beginning of February 1939 which outlined U.S. policy towards Europe as explained to him by William Bullitt:

A week ago, the Ambassador of the United States, William Bullitt returned to Paris after a three months’ leave in America. Meanwhile, I have had two conversations with him which enable me to inform you of his views regarding the European situation and to give a survey of Washington’s policy.

The international situation is regarded by official circles as extremely serious and in constant danger of armed conflict. Those in authority are of the opinion that if war should break out between Britain and France on the one hand, and Germany and Italy on the other, and should Britain and France be defeated, the Germans would endanger the real interests of the United States on the American continent. For this reason, one can foresee right from the beginning the participation of the United States in the war on the side of France and Britain, naturally some time after the outbreak of the war. As Ambassador Bullitt expressed it: ‘Should war break out we shall certainly not take part in it at the beginning, but we shall finish it.’

On 7 March 1939, Ambassador Potocki sent a remarkably lucid and perceptive report on Roosevelt’s foreign policy to his government in Warsaw. This document was first made public when leading German newspapers published it in German translation, along with a facsimile reproduction of the first page of the Polish original, in their editions of 28 October 1940. The main National Socialist party newspaper, the Voelkischer Beobachter, published the Ambassador’s report with this observation:

The document itself needs no commentary. We do not know, and it does not concern us, whether the internal American situation as reported by the Polish diplomat is correct in every detail. That must be decided by the American people alone. But in the interest of historical truth it is important for us to show that the warmongering activities of American diplomacy, especially in Europe, are once again revealed and proven by this document. It still remains a secret just who, and for what motives, have driven American diplomacy to this course. In any case, the results have been disastrous for both Europe and America. Europe was plunged into war and America has brought upon itself the hostility of great nations which normally have no differences with the American people and, indeed, have not been in conflict but have lived for generations as friends and want to remain so.

This report was not one of the Polish documents which was released in March 1940 and published as part of the “German White Book No. 3” (or the German White Paper). However, it was published in 1943 as part of the collection entitled “Roosevelt’s Way Into War.” As far as I can determine, this English translation is the first that has ever appeared. Ambassador Potocki’s secret report of 7 March 1939 is here given in full:

The foreign policy of the United States right now concerns not only the government, but the entire American public as well. The most important elements are the public statements of President Roosevelt. In almost every public speech he refers more or less explicitly to the necessity of activating foreign policy against the chaos of views and ideologies in Europe. These statements are picked up by the press and then cleverly filtered into the minds of average Americans in such a way as to strengthen their already formed opinions. The same theme is constantly repeated, namely, the danger of war in Europe and saving the democracies from inundation by enemy fascism. In all of these public statements there is normally only a single theme, that is, the danger from Nazism and Nazi Germany to world peace.

As a result of these speeches, the public is called upon to support rearmament and the spending of enormous sums for the navy and the air force. The unmistakable idea behind this is that in case of an armed conflict the United States cannot stay out but must take an active part in the maneuvers. As a result of the effective speeches of President Roosevelt, which are supported by the press, the American public is today being conscientiously manipulated to hate everything that smacks of totalitarianism and fascism. But it is interesting that the USSR is not included in all this. The American public considers Russia more in the camp of the democratic states. This was also the case during the Spanish civil war when the so-called Loyalists were regarded as defenders of the democratic idea.

The State Department operates without attracting a great deal of attention, although it is known that Secretary of State [Cordell] Hull and President Roosevelt swear allegiance to the same ideas. However, Hull shows more reserve than Roosevelt, and he loves to make a distinction between Nazism and Chancellor Hitler on the one hand, and the German people on the other. He considers this form of dictatorial government a temporary “necessary evil.” In contrast, the State Department is unbelievably interested in the USSR and its internal situation and openly worries itself over its weaknesses and decline. The main reason for United States interest in the Russians is the situation in the Far East. The current government would be glad to see the Red Army emerge as the victor in a conflict with Japan. That’s why the sympathies of the government are clearly on the side of China, which recently received considerable financial aid amounting to 25 million dollars.

Eager attention is given to all information from the diplomatic posts as well as to the special emissaries of the President who serve as Ambassadors of the United States. The President frequently calls his representatives from abroad to Washington for personal exchanges of views and to give them special information and instructions. The arrival of the envoys and ambassadors is always shrouded in secrecy and very little surfaces in the press about the results of their visits. The State Department also takes care to avoid giving out any kind of information about the course of these interviews. The practical way in which the President makes foreign policy is most effective. He gives personal instructions to his representatives abroad, most of whom are his personal friends. In this way the United States is led down a dangerous path in world politics with the explicit intention of abandoning the comfortable policy of isolation. The President regards the foreign policy of his country as a means of satisfying his own personal ambition. He listens carefully and happily to his echo in the other capitals of the world. In domestic as well as in foreign policy, the Congress of the United States is the only object that stands in the way of the President and his government in carrying out his decisions quickly and ambitiously. One hundred and fifty years ago, the Constitution of the United States gave the highest prerogatives to the American parliament which may criticize or reject the law of the White House.

The foreign policy of President Roosevelt has recently been the subject of intense discussion in the lower house and in the Senate, and this has caused excitement. The so-called Isolationists, of whom there are many in both houses, have come out strongly against the President. The representatives and senators were especially upset over the remarks by the President, which were published in the press, in which he said that the borders of the United States lie on the Rhine. But President Roosevelt is a superb political player and understands completely the power of the American parliament. He has his own people there, and he knows how to withdraw from an uncomfortable situation at the right moment.

Very intelligently and cleverly he ties together the question of foreign policy with the issues of American rearmament. He particularly stresses the necessity of spending enormous sums in order to maintain a defensive peace. He says specifically that the United States is not arming in order to intervene or to go to the aid of England or France in case of war, but rather because of the need to show strength and military preparedness in case of an armed conflict in Europe. In his view this conflict is becoming ever more acute and is completely unavoidable.

Since the issue is presented this way, the houses of Congress have no cause to object. To the contrary, the houses accepted an armament program of more than one billion dollars. (The normal budget is 550 million, the emergency 552 million dollars.) However, under the cloak of a rearmament policy, President Roosevelt continues to push forward his foreign policy, which unofficially shows the world that in case of war the United States will come out on the side of the democratic states with all military and financial power.

In conclusion it can be said that the technical and moral preparation of the American people for participation in a war-if one should break out in Europe-is preceding rapidly. It appears that the United States will come to the aid of France and Great Britain with all its resources right from the beginning. However, I know the American public and the representatives and senators who all have the final word, and I am of the opinion that the possibility that America will enter war as in 1917 is not great. That’s because the majority of states in the mid-West and West, where the rural element predominates, want to avoid involvement in European disputes at all costs. They remember the declaration of the Versailles Treaty and the well-known phrase that the war was to save the world for democracy. Neither the Versailles Treaty nor that slogan have reconciled the United States to that war. For millions there remains only a bitter aftertaste because of unpaid billions which the European states still owe America.

Juliusz Lukasiewicz, Poland’s Ambassador to France, reported to Warsaw on 29 March 1939 about further conversations with U.S. envoy Bullitt in Paris. Lukasiewicz discussed Roosevelt’s efforts to get both Poland and Britain to adopt a totally uncompromising policy towards Germany, even in the face of strong sentiment for peace. The report concludes with these words:

… I consider it my duty to inform you of all the aforesaid because I believe that collaboration with Ambassador Bullitt in such difficult and complicated times may prove useful to us. In any case it is absolutely certain that he agrees entirely with our point of view and is prepared for the most extensive friendly collaboration possible.

In order to strengthen the efforts of the American Ambassador in London [Joseph Kennedy], I called the attention of Ambassador Bullitt to the fact that it is not impossible that the British may treat the efforts of the United States with well-concealed contempt. He answered that I am probably right, but that nevertheless the United States has at its disposal the means to really bring pressure on England. He would be giving serious consideration to mobilizing these means.

The Polish Ambassador in London, Count Edward Raczynski, reported to Warsaw on 29 March 1939 on the continuing European crisis and on a conversation he had with Ambassador Joseph Kennedy, his American counterpart. Kennedy’s remarks to Raczynski confirmed Bullitt’s reputation in diplomatic circles as an indiscreet big mouth:

I asked Mr. Kennedy point blank about the conference which he is supposed to have had recently with [British Prime Minister] Mr. Chamberlain concerning Poland. Kennedy was surprised and declared categorically that a conversation of such special significance never took place. At the same time, and thereby contradicting his own assertion to a certain extent, Kennedy expressed displeasure and surprise that his colleagues in Paris and Warsaw [William Bullitt and Anthony Biddle] ‘who are not, as himself, in a position to get a clear picture of conditions in England’ should talk so openly about this conversation.

Mr. Kennedy-who made me understand that his views were based on a series of conversations with the most important authorities here-declared that he was convinced that should Poland decide in favor of armed resistance against Germany, especially with regard to Danzig, it would draw England in its wake.

This concludes the excerpts from the Polish reports.

• • •

The Path To War

While the Polish documents alone are conclusive proof of Roosevelt’s treacherous campaign to bring about world war, it is fortunate for posterity that a substantial body of irrefutable complementary evidence exists which confirms the conspiracy recorded in the dispatches to Warsaw.

The secret policy was confirmed after the war with the release of a confidential diplomatic report by the British Ambassador to Washington, Sir Ronald Lindsay. During his three years of service in Washington, the veteran diplomat had developed little regard for America’s leaders. He considered Roosevelt an amiable and impressionable lightweight, and warned the British Foreign Office that it should not tell William Bullitt anything beyond what it wouldn’t mind reading later in an American newspaper.[18]

On 19 September 1938 — that is, a year before the outbreak of war in Europe — Roosevelt called Lindsay to a very secret meeting at the White House. At the beginning of their long conversation, according to Lindsay’s confidential dispatch to London, Roosevelt “emphasized the necessity of absolute secrecy. Nobody must know I had seen him and he himself would tell nobody of the interview. I gathered not even the State Department.” The two discussed some secondary matters before Roosevelt got to the main point of the conference. “This is the very secret part of his communication and it must not be known to anyone that he has even breathed a suggestion.” The President told the Ambassador that if news of the conversation was ever made public, it could mean his impeachment. And no wonder. What Roosevelt proposed was a cynically brazen but harebrained scheme to violate the U.S. Constitution and dupe the American people.

The President said that if Britain and France “would find themselves forced to war” against Germany, the United States would ultimately also join. But this would require some clever maneuvering. Britain and France should impose a total blockade against Germany without actually declaring war and force other states (including neutrals) to abide by it. This would certainly provoke some kind of German military response, but it would also free Britain and France from having to actually declare war. For propaganda purposes, the “blockade must be based on loftiest humanitarian grounds and on the desire to wage hostilities with minimum of suffering and the least possible loss of life and property, and yet bring the enemy to his knees.” Roosevelt conceded that this would involve aerial bombardment, but “bombing from the air was not the method of hostilities which caused really great loss of life.”

The important point was to “call it defensive measures or anything plausible but avoid actual declaration of war.” That way, Roosevelt believed he could talk the American people into supporting war against Germany, including shipments of weapons to Britain and France, by insisting that the United States was still technically neutral in a non-declared conflict. “This method of conducting war by blockade would in his [Roosevelt’s] opinion meet with approval of the United States if its humanitarian purpose were strongly emphasized,” Lindsay reported.[19]

The American Ambassador to Italy, William Phillips, admitted in his postwar memoirs that the Roosevelt administration was already committed to going to war on the side of Britain and France in late 1938. “On this and many other occasions,” Phillips wrote, “I would like to have told him [Count Ciano, the Italian Foreign Minister] frankly that in the event of a European war, the United States would undoubtedly be involved on the side of the Allies. But in view of my official position, I could not properly make such a statement without instructions from Washington, and these I never received.”[20]

Carl J. Burckhardt, the League of Nations High Commissioner to Danzig, reported in his postwar memoirs on a remarkable conversation held at the end of 1938 with Anthony Drexel Biddle, the American Ambassador to Poland. Biddle was a rich banker with close ties to the Morgan financial empire. A thoroughgoing internationalist, he was an ideological colleague of President Roosevelt and a good friend of William Bullitt. Burckhardt, a Swiss professor, served as High Commissioner between 1937 and 1939.

Nine months before the outbreak of armed conflict, on 2 December 1938, Biddle told Burckhardt

with remarkable satisfaction that the Poles were ready to wage war over Danzig. They would counter the motorized strength of the German army with agile maneuverability. ‘In April,’ he [Biddle] declared, ‘a new crisis would break out. Not since the torpedoing of the Lusitania [in 1915] had such a religious hatred against Germany reigned in America as today! Chamberlain and Daladier [the moderate British and French leaders] would be blown away by public opinion. This was a holy war!,[21]

The fateful British pledge to Poland of 31 March 1939 to go to war against Germany in case of a Polish-German conflict would not have been made without strong pressure from the White House.

On 14 March 1939, Slovakia declared itself an independent republic, thereby dissolving the state known as Czechoslovakia. That same day, Czechoslovak President Emil Hacha signed a formal agreement with Hitler establishing a German protectorate over Bohemia and Moravia, the Czech portion of the federation. The British government initially accepted the new situation, but then Roosevelt intervened.

In their nationally syndicated column of 14 April 1939, the usually very well informed Washington journalists Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen reported that on 16 March 1939 Roosevelt had “sent a virtual ultimatum to Chamberlain” demanding that henceforth the British government strongly oppose Germany. According to Pearson and Allen, who completely supported Roosevelt’s move, “the President warned that Britain could expect no more support, moral or material through the sale of airplanes, if the Munich policy continued.”[22] Chamberlain gave in and the next day, 17 March, ended Britain’s policy of cooperation with Germany in a speech at Birmingham bitterly denouncing Hitler. Two weeks later the British government formally pledged itself to war in case of German-Polish hostilities.

Bullitt’s response to the creation of the German protectorate over Bohemia and Moravia was to telephone Roosevelt and, in an “almost hysterical” voice, urge him to make a dramatic denunciation of Germany and immediately ask Congress to repeal the Neutrality Act.[23]

In a confidential telegram to Washington dated 9 April 1939, Bullitt reported from Paris on another conversation with Ambassador Lukasiewicz. He had told the Polish envoy that although U.S. law prohibited direct financial aid to Poland, it might be possible to circumvent its provisions. The Roosevelt administration might be able to supply war planes to Poland indirectly through Britain. “The Polish Ambassador asked me if it might not be possible for Poland to obtain financial help and aeroplanes from the United States. I replied that I believed the Johnson Act would forbid any loans from the United States to Poland but added that it might be possible for England to purchase planes for cash in the United States and turn them over to Poland.”[24]

On 25 April 1939, four months before the outbreak of war, Bullitt called American newspaper columnist Karl von Wiegand, chief European correspondent of the International News Service, to the U.S. embassy in Paris and told him: “War in Europe has been decided upon. Poland has the assurance of the support of Britain and France, and will yield to no demands from Germany. America will be in the war soon after Britain and France enter it.”[25]

In a lengthy secret conversation at Hyde Park on 28 May 1939, Roosevelt assured the former President of Czechoslovakia, Dr. Edvard Benes, that America would actively intervene on the side of Britain and France in the anticipated European war.[26]

In June 1939, Roosevelt secretly proposed to the British that the United States should establish “a patrol over the waters of the Western Atlantic with a view to denying them to the German Navy in the event of war.” The British Foreign Office record of this offer noted that “although the proposal was vague and woolly and open to certain objections, we assented informally as the patrol was to be operated in our interests.”[27]

Many years after the war, Georges Bonnet, the French Foreign Minister in 1939, confirmed Bullitt’s role as Roosevelt’s deputy in pushing his country into war. In a letter to Hamilton Fish dated 26 March 1971, Bonnet wrote: “One thing is certain is that Bullitt in 1939 did everything he could to make France enter the war.”[28] An important confirmation of the crucial role of Roosevelt and the Jews in pushing Britain into war comes from the diary of James V. Forrestal, the first U.S. Secretary of Defense. In his entry for 27 December 1945, he wrote:

Played golf today with [former Ambassador] Joe Kennedy. I asked him about his conversations with Roosevelt and [British Prime Minister] Neville Chamberlain from 1938 on. He said Chamberlain’s position in 1938 was that England had nothing with which to fight and that she could not risk going to war with Hitler. Kennedy’s view: That Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it had not been for [William] Bullitt’s urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it had not been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said, kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans wouldn’t fight; Kennedy that they would, and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war. In his telephone conversations with Roosevelt in the summer of 1939, the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain’s backside.[29]

When Ambassador Potocki was back in Warsaw on leave from his post in Washington, he spoke with Count Jan Szembek, the Polish Foreign Ministry Under-Secretary, about the growing danger of war. In his diary entry of 6 July 1939, Szembek recorded Potocki’s astonishment at the calm mood in Poland. In comparison with the war psychosis that had gripped the West, Poland seemed like a rest home.

“In the West,” the Ambassador told Szembek, “there are all kinds of elements openly pushing for war: the Jews, the super-capitalists, the arms dealers. Today they are all ready for a great business, because they have found a place which can be set on fire: Danzig; and a nation that is ready to fight: Poland. They want to do business on our backs. They are indifferent to the destruction of our country. Indeed, since everything will have to be rebuilt later on, they can profit from that as well.”[30]

On 24 August 1939, just a week before the outbreak of hostilities, Chamberlain’s closest advisor, Sir Horace Wilson, went to Ambassador Kennedy with an urgent appeal from the British Prime Minister for President Roosevelt. Regretting that Britain had unequivocally obligated itself in March to Poland in case of war, Chamberlain now turned in despair to Roosevelt as a last hope for peace. He wanted the American President to “put pressure on the Poles” to change course at this late hour and open negotiations with Germany. By telephone Kennedy told the State Department that the British “felt that they could not, given their obligations, do anything of this sort but that we could.” Presented with this extraordinary opportunity to possibly save the peace of Europe, Roosevelt rejected Chamberlain’s desperate plea out of hand. At that, Kennedy reported, the Prime Minister lost all hope. “The futility of it all,” Chamberlain had told Kennedy, “is the thing that is frightful. After all, we cannot save the Poles. We can merely carry on a war of revenge that will mean the destruction of all Europe.”[31]

Roosevelt liked to present himself to the American people and the world as a man of peace. To a considerable degree, that is still his image today. But Roosevelt cynically rejected genuine opportunities to act for peace when they were presented.

In 1938 he refused even to answer requests by French Foreign Minister Bonnet on 8 and 12 September to consider arbitrating the Czech-German dispute.[32] And a year later, after the outbreak of war, a melancholy Ambassador Kennedy beseeched Roosevelt to act boldly for peace. “It seems to me that this situation may crystallize to a point where the President can be the savior of the world,” Kennedy cabled on 11 September from London. “The British government as such certainly cannot accept any agreement with Hitler, but there may be a point when the President himself may work out plans for world peace. Now this opportunity may never arise, but as a fairly practical fellow all my life, I believe that it is entirely conceivable that the President can get himself in a spot where he can save the world …”

But Roosevelt rejected out of hand this chance to save the peace of Europe. To a close political crony, he called Kennedy’s plea “the silliest message to me that I have ever received.” He complained to Henry Morgenthau that his London Ambassador was nothing but a pain in the neck: “Joe has been an appeaser and will always be an appeaser … If Germany and Italy made a good peace offer tomorrow, Joe would start working on the King and his friend the Queen and from there on down to get everybody to accept it.”[33]

Infuriated at Kennedy’s stubborn efforts to restore peace in Europe or at least limit the conflict that had broken out, Roosevelt instructed his Ambassador with a “personal” and “strictly confidential” telegram on 11 September 1939 that any American peace effort was totally out of the question. The Roosevelt government, it declared, “sees no opportunity nor occasion for any peace move to be initiated by the President of the United States. The people [sic] of the United States would not support any move for peace initiated by this Government that would consolidate or make possible a survival of a regime of force and aggression.”[34]

Hamilton Fish Warns The Nation

In the months before armed conflict broke out in Europe, perhaps the most vigorous and prophetic American voice of warning against President Roosevelt’s campaign to incite war was that of Hamilton Fish, a leading Republican congressman from New York. In a series of hard-hitting radio speeches, Fish rallied considerable public opinion against Roosevelt’s deceptive war policy. Here are only a few excerpts from some of those addresses.[35]

On 6 January 1939, Fish told a nationwide radio audience:

The inflammatory and provocative message of the President to Congress and the world [given two days before] has unnecessarily alarmed the American people and created, together with a barrage of propaganda emanating from high New Deal officials, a war hysteria, dangerous to the peace of America and the world. The only logical conclusion to such speeches is another war fought overseas by American soldiers.

All the totalitarian nations referred to by President Roosevelt … haven’t the faintest thought of making war on us or invading Latin America.

I do not propose to mince words on such an issue, affecting the life, liberty and happiness of our people. The time has come to call a halt to the warmongers of the New Deal, backed by war profiteers, Communists, and hysterical internationalists, who want us to quarantine the world with American blood and money.

He [Roosevelt] evidently desires to whip up a frenzy of hate and war psychosis as a red herring to take the minds of our people off their own unsolved domestic problems. He visualizes hobgoblins and creates in the public mind a fear of foreign invasions that exists only in his own imagination.

On 5 March, Fish spoke to the country over the Columbia radio network:

The people of France and Great Britain want peace but our warmongers are constantly inciting them to disregard the Munich Pact and resort to the arbitrament of arms. If only we would stop meddling in foreign lands the old nations of Europe would compose their own quarrels by arbitration and the processes of peace, but apparently we won’t let them.

Fish addressed the listeners of the National Broadcasting Company network on 5 April with these words:

The youth of America are again being prepared for another blood bath in Europe in order to make the world safe for democracy.

If Hitler and the Nazi government regain Memel or Danzig, taken away from Germany by the Versailles Treaty, and where the population is 90 percent German, why is it necessary to issue threats and denunciations and incite our people to war? I would not sacrifice the life of one American soldier for a half dozen Memels or Danzigs. We repudiated the Versailles Treaty because it was based on greed and hatred, and as long as its inequalities and injustices exist there are bound to be wars of liberation.

The sooner certain provisions of the Versailles Treaty are scrapped the better for the peace of the world.

I believe that if the areas that are distinctly German in population are restored to Germany, except Alsace-Lorraine and the Tyrol, there will be no war in western Europe. There may be a war between the Nazis and the Communists, but if there is that is not our war or that of Great Britain or France or any of the democracies.

New Deal spokesmen have stirred up war hysteria into a veritable frenzy. The New Deal propaganda machine is working overtime to prepare the minds of our people for war, who are already suffering from a bad case of war jitters.

President Roosevelt is the number one warmonger in America, and is largely responsible for the fear that pervades the Nation which has given the stock market and the American people a bad case of the jitters.

I accuse the administration of instigating war propaganda and hysteria to cover up the failure and collapse of the New Deal policies, with 12 million unemployed and business confidence destroyed.

I believe we have far more to fear from our enemies from within than we have from without. All the Communists are united in urging us to go to war against Germany and Japan for the benefit of Soviet Russia.

Great Britain still expects every American to do her duty, by preserving the British Empire and her colonies. The war profiteers, munitions makers and international bankers are all set up for our participation in a new world war.

On 21 April, Fish again spoke to the country over nationwide radio:

It is the duty of all those Americans who desire to keep out of foreign entanglements and the rotten mess and war madness of Europe and Asia to openly expose the war hysteria and propaganda that is impelling us to armed conflict.

What we need in America is a stop war crusade, before we are forced into a foreign war by internationalists and interventionists at Washington, who seem to be more interested in solving world problems rather than our own.

In his radio address of 26 May, Fish stated:

He [Roosevelt] should remember that the Congress has the sole power to declare war and formulate the foreign policies of the United States. The President has no such constitutional power. He is merely the official organ to carry out the policies determined by the Congress.

Without knowing even who the combatants will be, we are informed almost daily by the internationalists and interventionists in America that we must participate in the next world war.

On 8 July 1939, Fish declared over the National Broadcasting Company radio network:

If we must go to war, let it be in defense of America, but not in defense of the munitions makers, war profiteers, Communists, to cover up the failures of the New Deal, or to provide an alibi for a third term.

It is well for all nations to know that we do not propose to go to war over Danzig, power politics, foreign colonies, or the imperialistic wars of Europe or anywhere in the world.

Powers Behind The President

President Roosevelt could have done little to incite war in Europe without help from powerful allies. Behind him stood the self-serving international financial and Jewish interests bent on the destruction of Germany. The principal organization which drummed up public support for U.S. involvement in the European war prior to the Pearl Harbor attack was the cleverly named “Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies.” President Roosevelt himself initiated its founding, and top administration officials consulted frequently with Committee leaders.[36]

Although headed for a time by an elderly small-town Kansas newspaper publisher, William Allen White, the Committee was actually organized by powerful financial interests which stood to profit tremendously from loans to embattled Britain and from shrewd investments in giant war industries in the United States.
At the end of 1940, West Virginia Senator Rush D. Holt issued a detailed examination of the Committee which exposed the base interests behind the idealistic-sounding slogans:

The Committee has powerful connections with banks, insurance companies, financial investing firms, and industrial concerns. These in turn exert influence on college presidents and professors, as well as on newspapers, radio and other means of communication. One of the powerful influences used by the group is the ‘400’ and social set. The story is a sordid picture of betrayal of public interest.

The powerful J.P. Morgan interest with its holdings in the British Empire helped plan the organization and donated its first expense money.

Some of the important figures active in the Committee were revealed by Holt: Frederic R. Coudert, a paid war propagandist for the British government in the U.S. during the First World War; Robert S. Allen of the Pearson and Allen syndicated column; Henry R. Luce, the influential publisher of Time, Life, and Fortune magazines; Fiorella LaGuardia, the fiery half-Jewish Mayor of New York City; Herbert Lehman, the Jewish Governor of New York with important financial holdings in war industries; and Frank Altschul, an officer in the Jewish investment firm of Lazard Freres with extensive holdings in munitions and military supply companies.

If the Committee succeeded in getting the U.S. into war, Holt warned, “American boys will spill their blood for profiteers, politicians and ‘paytriots.’ If war comes, on the hands of the sponsors of the White Committee will be blood-the blood of Americans killed in a needless war.”[37]

In March 1941 a list of most of the Committee’s financial backers was made public. It revealed the nature of the forces eager to bring America into the European war. Powerful international banking interests were well represented. J.P. Morgan, John W. Morgan, Thomas W. Lamont and others of the great Morgan banking house were listed. Other important names from the New York financial world included Mr. and Mrs. Paul Mellon, Felix M. and James F. Warburg, and J. Malcolm Forbes. Chicago department store owner and publisher Marshall Field was a contributor, as was William Averill Harriman, the railroad and investment millionaire who later served as Roosevelt’s ambassador in Moscow.

Of course, Jewish names made up a substantial portion of the long list. Hollywood film czar Samuel Goldwyn of Goldwyn Studios was there, along with David Dubinsky, the head of the International Ladies Garment Workers Union. The William S. Paley Foundation, which had been set up by the head of the giant Columbia Broadcasting System, contributed to the Committee. The name of Mrs. Herbert H. Lehman, wife of the New York Governor, was also on the list.[38]

Without an understanding of his intimate ties to organized Jewry, Roosevelt’s policies make little sense. As Jewish historian Lucy Dawidowicz noted: “Roosevelt himself brought into his immediate circle more Jews than any other President before or after him. Felix Frankfurter, Bernard M. Baruch and Henry Morgenthau were his close advisers. Benjamin V. Cohen, Samuel Rosenman and David K. Niles were his friends and trusted aides.”[39] This is perhaps not so remarkable in light of Roosevelt’s reportedly one-eighth Jewish ancestry.[40]

In his diary entry of 1 May 1941, Charles A. Lindbergh, the American aviator hero and peace leader, nailed the coalition that was pushing the United States into war:

The pressure for war is high and mounting. The people are opposed to it, but the Administration seems to have ‘the bit in its teeth’ and [is] hell-bent on its way to war. Most of the Jewish interests in the country are behind war, and they control a huge part of our press and radio and most of our motion pictures. There are also the ‘intellectuals,’ and the ‘Anglophiles,’ and the British agents who are allowed free rein, the international financial interests, and many others.[41]

Joseph Kennedy shared Lindbergh’s apprehensions about Jewish power. Before the outbreak of war he privately expressed concerns about “the Jews who dominate our press” and world Jewry in general, which he considered a threat to peace and prosperity. Shortly after the beginning of hostilities, Kennedy lamented “the growing Jewish influence in the press and in Washington demanding continuance of the war.”[42]

Betrayal, Failure, Delusion

Roosevelt’s efforts to get Poland, Britain and France into war against Germany succeeded all too well. The result was untold death and misery and destruction. When the fighting began, as Roosevelt had intended and planned, the Polish and French leaders expected the American president to at least make good on his assurances of backing in case of war. But Roosevelt had not reckoned on the depth of peace sentiment of the vast majority of Americans. So, in addition to deceiving his own people, Roosevelt also let down those in Europe to whom he had promised support.

Seldom in American history were the people as united in their views as they were in late 1939 about staying out of war in Europe. When hostilities began in September 1939, the Gallup poll showed 94 percent of the American people against involvement in war. That figure rose to 96.5 percent in December before it began to decline slowly to about 80 percent in the Fall of 1941. (Today, there is hardly an issue that even 60 or 70 percent of the people agree upon.)[43]

Roosevelt was, of course, quite aware of the intensity of popular feeling on this issue. That is why he lied repeatedly to the American people about his love of peace and his determination to keep the U.S. out of war, while simultaneously doing everything in his power to plunge Europe and America into war.

In a major 1940 re-election campaign speech, Roosevelt responded to the growing fears of millions of Americans who suspected that their President had secretly pledged United States support to Britain in its war against Germany. These well-founded suspicions were based in part on the publication in March of the captured Polish documents. The speech of 23 October 1940 was broadcast from Philadelphia to the nation on network radio. In the most emphatic language possible, Roosevelt categorically denied that he had

ledged in some way the participation of the United States in some foreign war. I give to you and to the people of this country this most solemn assurance: There is no secret Treaty, no secret understanding in any shape or form, direct or indirect, with any Government or any other nation in any part of the world, to involve this nation in any war or for any other purpose.[44]

We now know, of course, that this pious declaration was just another one of Roosevelt’s many brazen, bald-faced lies to the American people.

Roosevelt’s policies were more than just dishonest-they were criminal. The Constitution of the United States grants authority only to the Congress to make war and peace. And Congress had passed several major laws to specifically insure U.S. neutrality in case of war in Europe. Roosevelt continually violated his oath as President to uphold the Constitution. If his secret policies had been known, the public demand for his impeachment would very probably have been unstoppable.

The Watergate episode has made many Americans deeply conscious of the fact that their presidents can act criminally. That affair forced Richard Nixon to resign his presidency, and he is still widely regarded as a criminal. No schools are named after him and his name will never receive the respect that normally goes to every American president. But Nixon’s crimes pale into insignificance when compared to those of Franklin Roosevelt. What were Nixon’s lies compared to those of Roosevelt? What is a burglary cover-up compared to an illegal and secret campaign to bring about a major war?

Those who defend Roosevelt’s record argue that he lied to the American people for their own good — that he broke the law for lofty principles. His deceit is considered permissible because the cause was noble, while similar deception by presidents Johnson and Nixon, to name two, is not. This is, of course, a hypocritical double standard. And the argument doesn’t speak very well for the democratic system. It implies that the people are too dumb to understand their own best interests. It further suggests that the best form of government is a kind of benevolent liberal-democratic dictatorship.

Roosevelt’s hatred for Hitler was deep, vehement, passionate — almost personal. This was due in no small part to an abiding envy and jealousy rooted in the great contrast between the two men, not only in their personal characters but also in their records as national leaders.

Superficially, the public fives of Roosevelt and Hitler were astonishingly similar. Both assumed the leadership of their respective countries at the beginning of 1933. They both faced the enormous challenge of mass unemployment during a catastrophic worldwide economic depression. Each became a powerful leader in a vast military alliance during the most destructive war in history. Both men died while still in office within a few weeks of each other in April 1945, just before the end of the Second World War in Europe. But the enormous contrasts in the lives of these two men are even more remarkable.

Roosevelt was born into one of the wealthiest families in America. His was a life utterly free of material worry. He took part in the First World War from an office in Washington as UnderSecretary of the Navy. Hitler, on the other hand, was born into a modest provinicial family. As a young man he worked as an impoverished manual laborer. He served in the First World War as a front line soldier in the hell of the Western battleground. He was wounded many times and decorated for bravery.

In spite of his charming manner and soothing rhetoric, Roosevelt proved unable to master the great challenges facing America. Even after four years of his presidency, millions remained unemployed, undernourished and poorly housed in a vast land richly endowed with all the resources for incomparable prosperity. The New Deal was plagued with bitter strikes and bloody clashes between labor and capital. Roosevelt did nothing to solve the country’s deep, festering racial problems which erupted repeatedly in riots and armed conflict. The story was very different in Germany. Hitler rallied his people behind a radical program that transformed Germany within a few years from an economically ruined land on the edge of civil war into Europe’s powerhouse. Germany underwent a social, cultural and economic rebirth without parallel in history. The contrast between the personalities of Roosevelt and Hitler was simultaneously a contrast between two diametrically different social-political systems and ideologies.

And yet, it would be incorrect to characterize Roosevelt as merely a cynical politician and front man for powerful alien interests. Certainly he did not regard himself as an evil man. He sincerely believed that he was doing the right and noble thing in pressuring Britain and France into war against Germany. Like Wilson before him, and others since, Roosevelt felt himself uniquely qualified and called upon by destiny to reshape the world according to his vision of an egalitarian, universalist democracy. He was convinced, as so many American leaders have been, that the world could be saved from itself by remodeling it after the United States.

Presidents like Wilson and Roosevelt view the world not as a complex of different nations, races and cultures which must mutually respect each others’ separate collective identities in order to live together in peace, but rather according to a selfrighteous missionary perspective that divides the globe into morally good and evil countries. In that scheme of things, America is the providentially permanent leader of the forces of righteousness. Luckily, this view just happens to correspond to the economic and political interests of those who wield power in the United States.

President Roosevelt’s War

In April 1941, Senator Gerald Nye of North Dakota prophetically predicted that one day the Second World War would be remembered as Roosevelt’s war. “If we are ever involved in this war, it will be called by future historians by only one title, ‘the President’s War,’ because every step of his since his Chicago quarantine speech [of 5 October 1937] has been toward war.[45]

The great American historian, Harry Elmer Barnes, believed that war could probably have been prevented in 1939 if it had not been for Roosevelt’s meddling. “Indeed, there is fairly conclusive evidence that, but for Mr. Roosevelt’s pressure on Britain, France and Poland, and his commitments to them before September 1939, especially to Britain, and the irresponsible antics of his agent provocateur, William C. Bullitt, there would probably have been no world war in 1939, or, perhaps, for many years thereafter.”[46] In Revisionism: A Key to Peace, Barnes wrote:

President Roosevelt had a major responsibility, both direct and indirect, for the outbreak of war in Europe. He began to exert pressure on France to stand up to Hitler as early as the German reoccupation of the Rhineland in March 1936, months before he was making his strongly isolationist speeches in the campaign of 1936. This pressure on France, and also England, continued right down to the coming of the war in September 1939. It gained volume and momentum after the quarantine speech of October 1937. As the crisis approached between Munich and the outbreak of war, Roosevelt pressed the Poles to stand firm against any demands by Germany, and urged the English and French to back up the Poles unflinchingly.

There is grave doubt that England would have gone to war in September 1939 had it not been for Roosevelt’s encouragement and his assurances that, in the event of war, the United States would enter on the side of Britain just as soon as he could swing American public opinion around to support intervention.

Roosevelt had abandoned all semblance of neutrality, even before war broke out in 1939, and moved as speedily as was safe and feasible in the face of anti-interventionist American public opinion to involve this country in the European conflict.[47]

One of the most perceptive verdicts on Franklin Roosevelt’s place in history came from the pen of the great Swedish explorer and author, Sven Hedin. During the war he wrote:

The question of the way it came to a new world war is not only to be explained because of the foundation laid by the peace treaties of 1919, or in the suppression of Germany and her allies after the First World War, or in the continuation of the ancient policies of Great Britain and France. The decisive push came from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

Roosevelt speaks of democracy and destroys it incessantly. He slanders as undemocratic and un-American those who admonish him in the name of peace and the preservation of the American way of life. He has made democracy into a caricature rather than a model. He talks about freedom of speech and silences those who don’t hold his opinion.

He talks about freedom of religion and makes an alliance with Bolshevism.

He talks about freedom from want, but cannot provide ten million of his own people with work, bread or shelter. He talks about freedom from the fear of war while working for war, not only for his own people but for the world, by inciting his country against the Axis powers when it might have united with them, and he thereby drove millions to their deaths.

This war will go down in history as the war of President Roosevelt.[48]

Officially orchestrated praise for Roosevelt as a great man of peace cannot conceal forever his crucial role in pushing Europe into war in 1939.

• • •

It is now more than forty years since the events described here took place. For many they are an irrelevant part of a best-forgotten past. But the story of how Franklin Roosevelt engineered war in Europe is very pertinent — particularly for Americans today. The lessons of the past have never been more important than in this nuclear age. For unless at least an aware minority understands how and why wars are made, we will remain powerless to restrain the warmongers of our own era.


[1] See, for example: Charles A. Beard, President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War 1941 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1948); William Henry Chamberlin, America’s Second Crusade (Chicago: Regnery, 1952, 1962); Benjamin Colby, ‘Twas a Famous Victory (New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House, 1979); Frederic R. Sanborn, Design for War (New York: Devin-Adair, 1951); William Stevenson, A Man Called Intrepid (New York: Ballantine Books, 1980); Charles C. Tansill, Back Door to War (Chicago: Regnery, 1952); John Toland, Infamy: Pearl Harbor and Its Aftermath (New York: Doubleday, 1982).

[2] Saul Friedlander, Prelude to Downfall: Hitler and the United States 1939-1941 (New York: Knopf, 1967), pp. 73-77; U.S., Congress, House, Special Committee on Investigation of Un-American Activities in the United States, 1940, Appendix, Part II, pp. 1054-1059.

[3] Friedlander, pp. 75-76.

[4] New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1.

[5] Ibid., p. 4, and 31 March 1940, p. 1.

[6] New York Times, 30 March 1940, p. 1. Baltimore Sun, 30 March 1940, p. 1.

[7] A French-language edition was published in 1944 under the title Comment Roosevelt est Entre en Guerre.

[8] Tansill, “The United States and the Road to War in Europe,” in Harry Elmer Barnes (ed.), Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace (Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton, 1953; reprint eds., New York: Greenwood, 1969 and Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review [supplemented], 1982), p. 184 (note 292). Tansill also quoted from several of the documents in his Back Door to War, pp. 450-51.

[9] Harry Elmer Barnes, The Court Historians Versus Revisionism (N.p.: privately printed, 1952), p. 10. This booklet is reprinted in Barnes, Selected Revisionist Pamphlets (New York: Arno Press & The New York Times, 1972), and in Barnes, The Barnes Trilogy (Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review, 1979).

[10] Chamberlin, p. 60.

[11] Edward Raczynski, In Allied London (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1963), p. 51.

[12] Orville H. Bullitt (ad.), For the President: Personal and Secret (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972), p. x1v [biographical foreword]. See also Time, 26 October 1936, p. 24.

[13] Current Biography 1940, ed. Maxine Block (New York: H.W. Wilson, 1940), p. 122 ff.

[14] Gisleher Wirsing, Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um die Weltherrschaft (Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942), p. 224.

[15] Bullitt obituary in New York Times, 16 February 1967, p. 44.

[16] Jack Alexander, “He Rose From the Rich,” Saturday Evening Post, 11 March 1939, p. 6. (Also see continuation in issue of 18 March 1939.) Bullitt’s public views on the European scene and what should be America’s attitude toward it can be found in his Report to the American People (Boston: Houghton Mifflin [Cambridge: Riverside Press], 1940), the text of a speech he delivered, with the President’s blessing, under the auspices of the American Philosophical Society in Independence Hall in Philadelphia shortly after the fall of France. For sheer, hyperventilated stridency and emotionalist hysterics, this anti-German polemic could hardly be topped, even given the similar propensities of many other interventionists in government and the press in those days.

[17] Michael R. Beschloss, Kennedy and Roosevelt (New York: Norton, 1980), pp. 203-04.

[18] Robert Dallek, Franklin D. Roosevelt and American Foreign Policy 1932-1945 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), p. 31. See also pp. 164-65.

[19] Dispatch No. 349 of 20 September 1938 by Sir. R. Lindsay, Documents on British Foreign Policy (ed. Ernest L. Woodward), Third series, Vol. VII (London, 1954), pp. 627-29. See also: Joseph P. Lash, Roosevelt and Churchill 1939-1941 (New York: Norton, 1976), pp. 25-27; Dallek, pp. 164-65; Arnold A. Offner, America and the Origins of World War II (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1971), p. 61.

[20] William Phillips, Ventures in Diplomacy (North Beverly, Mass.: privately published, 1952), pp. 220-21.

[21] Carl Burckhardt, Meine Danziger Mission 1937-1939 (Munich: Callwey, 1960), p. 225.

[22] Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen, “Washington Daily Merry-Go-Round,” Washington Times-Herald, 14 April 1939, p. 16. A facsimile reprint of this column appears in Conrad Grieb (ed.), American Manifest Destiny and The Holocausts (New York: Examiner Books, 1979), pp. 132-33. See also: Wirsing, pp. 238-41.

[23] Jay P. Moffat, The Moffat Papers 1919-1943 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1956), p. 232.

[24] U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States (Diplomatic Papers), 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956), p. 122.

[25] “Von Wiegand Says-,” Chicago Herald-American, 8 October 1944, p. 2.

[26] Edvard Benes, Memoirs of Dr. Eduard Benes (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1954), pp. 79-80.

[27] Lash, p. 64.

[28] Hamilton Fish, FDR: The Other Side of the Coin (New York: Vantage, 1976; Torrance, Calif.: Institute for Historical Review, 1980), p. 62.

[29] James V. Forrestal (ads. Walter Millis and E.S. Duffield), The Forrestal Diaries (New York: Viking, 1951), pp. 121-22. I have been privately informed by a colleague who has examined the original manuscript of the Forrestal diaries that many very critical references to Jews were deleted from the published version.

[30] Jan Szembek, Journal 1933-1939 (Paris: Plan, 1952), pp. 475-76.

[31] David E. Koskoff, Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974), p. 207; Moffat, p. 253; A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1961; 2nd ed. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Premier [paperback], 1965), p. 262; U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956), p. 355.

[32] Dallek, p. 164.

[33] Beschloss, pp. 190-91; Lash, p. 75; Koskoff, pp. 212-13.

[34] Hull to Kennedy (No. 905), U.S., Department of State, Foreign Relations of the United States, 1939, General, Vol. I (Washington: 1956), p. 424.

[35] The radio addresses of Hamilton Fish quoted here were published in the Congressional Record Appendix (Washington) as follows: (6 January 1939) Vol. 84, Part 11, pp. 52-53; (5 March 1939) same, pp. 846-47; (5 April 1939) Vol. 84, Part 12, pp. 1342-43; (21 April 1939) same, pp. 1642-43; (26 May 1939) Vol. 84, Part 13, pp. 2288-89; (8 July 1939) same, pp. 3127-28.

[36] Wayne S. Cole, Charles A. Lindbergh and the Battle Against American Intervention in World War II (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974), pp. 128, 136-39.

[37] Congressional Record Appendix (Washington: 1941), (30 December 1940) Vol. 86, Part 18, pp. 7019-25. See also: Appendix, Vol. 86, Part 17, pp. 5808-14.

[38] New York Times, 11 March 1941, p. 10.

[39] Lucy Dawidowicz, “American Jews and the Holocaust,” The New York Times Magazine, 18 April 1982, p. 102.

[40] “FDR ‘had a Jewish great-grandmother’” Jewish Chronicle (London), 5 February 1982, p. 3.

[41] Charles A. Lindbergh, The Wartime Journals of Charles A. Lindbergh (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1970), p. 481.

[42] Koskoff, pp. 282, 212. The role of the American press in fomenting hatred against Germany between 1933 and 1939 is a subject that deserves much more detailed treatment. Charles Tansill provides some useful information on this in Back Door to War. The essay by Professor Hans A. Muenster, “Die Kriegsschuld der Presse der USA” in Kriegsschuld und Presse, published in 1944 by the German Reichsdozentenfuehrung, is worth consulting.

[43] An excellent essay relating and contrasting American public opinion measurements to Roosevelt’s foreign policy moves in 1939-41 is Harry Elmer Barnes, Was Roosevelt Pushed Into War By Popular Demand in 1941? (N.p.: privately printed, 1951). It is reprinted in Barnes, Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.

[44] Lash, p. 240.

[45] New York Times, 27 April 1941, p. 19.

[46] Harry Elmer Barnes, The Struggle Against the Historical Blackout, 2nd ed. (N.p.: privately published, ca. 1948), p. 12. See also the 9th, final revised and enlarged edition (N.p.: privately published, ca. 1954), p. 34; this booklet is reprinted in Barnes, Selected Revisionist Pamphlets.

[47] Harry Elmer Barnes, “Revisionism: A Key to Peace,” Rampart Journal of Individualist Thought Vol. II, No. 1 (Spring 1966), pp. 29-30. This article was republished in Barnes, Revisionism: A Key to Peace and Other Essays(San Francisco: Cato Institute [Cato Paper No. 12], 1980).

[48] Sven Hedin, Amerika im Kampf der Kontinente (Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1943), p. 54.

Sources and References

Listed here are the published editions of the Polish documents, the most important sources touching on the questions of their authenticity and content, and essential recent sources on what President Roosevelt was really-as opposed to publicly-doing and thinking during the prelude to war. Full citations for all references in the article will be found in the notes.

Beschloss, Michael R. Kennedy and Roosevelt. New York: Norton, 1980.

Bullitt, Orville H. (ed.). For the President: Personal and Secret. [Correspondence between Franklin D. Roosevelt and William C. Bullitt.] Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1972.

Germany. Foreign Office Archive Commission. Roosevelts Weg in den Krieg: Geheimdokumente zur Kriegspolitik des Praesidenten der Vereinigten Staaten. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag, 1943.

Germany. Foreign Office. The German White Paper. [White Book No. 3.] New York: Howell, Soskin and Co., 1940.

Germany. Foreign Office. Polnische Dokumente zur Vorgeschichte des Krieges. [White Book No. 3.] Berlin: F. Eher, 1940.

Koskoff, David E. Joseph P. Kennedy: A Life and Times. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974.

Lukasiewicz, Juliusz (Waclaw Jedrzejewicz, ed.). Diplomat in Paris 1936-1939. New York: Columbia University Press, 1970.

Wirsing, Giselher. Der masslose Kontinent: Roosevelts Kampf um die Weltherrschaft. Jena: E. Diederichs, 1942.

This item was first presented at the Fourth IHR Conference in Chicago, September 1982. It was first published in The Journal of Historical Review, Summer 1983 (Vol. 4, No. 2), pages 135-172.

For Further Reading

Patrick J. Buchanan, Churchill, Hitler and ‘The Unnecessary War’. New York: Crown, 2008.

William H. Chamberlain, America’s Second Crusade. Chicago: 1950.

Benjamin Colby, ‘Twas a Famous Victory. New Rochelle: 1979.

Matthew DeFraga, “March 1939: America’s Guarantee to Britain,” Ex Post Facto: Journal of the History Students at San Francisco State University. 1998, Vol. VII.

Thomas Fleming, The New Dealers’ War: Franklin Roosevelt and the War Within World War II. New York: Basic Books, 2001.

J. F. C. Fuller, A Military History of the Western World. New York: 1987. Vol. 3, esp. pp. 372-375, 411-419.

Germany, Auswärtiges Amt [German Foreign Office]. Documents on the Events Preceding the Outbreak of the War. New York: 1940.

Adolf Hitler. Reichstag speech of Dec. 11, 1941. (Declaration of war against the USA)
( )

David L. Hoggan. The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed. IHR, 1989.

Herbert C. Hoover, Freedom Betrayed: Herbert Hoover’s Secret History of the Second World War and its Aftermath(George H. Nash, ed.). Stanford Univ., 2011.

Friedrich Stieve. What the World Rejected: Hitler’s Peace Offers 1933-1939
( )

Viktor Suvorov (pseud.), The Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II. Annapolis, Md.: Naval Institute Press, 2008

A.J.P. Taylor, The Origins of the Second World War. New York: 1983.

John Toland, Adolf Hitler. Doubleday & Co., 1976.

Mark Weber, “Roosevelt’s ‘Secret Map’ Speech,” The Journal of Historical Review, Spring 1985 (Vol. 6, No. 1), pp. 125-127.
( )

Mark Weber, “The ‘Good War’ Myth of World War Two.” May 2008.
( )

(Republished from JHR, Summer 1983 by permission of author or representative)

Marauding and Plundering as State Policy

Sergey Zergulio Kolyasnikov @SergeyKolyasnikov writes : via RT

We live in interesting times. One by one, the masks are cracking. And now U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Victoria Nuland is happily announcing that the U.S. administration is gratified to know that the Nord Stream 2 is a pile of metal at the bottom of the sea.

And former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson says that the Normandy format, which was created to peacefully resolve the conflict in southeast Ukraine, was a “diplomatic imitation.” The same one that resulted in the February 12, 2015 negotiations that produced the Minsk agreements.

We are not accustomed to states’ endorsement of terrorist methods. We do remember how, when Hillary Clinton was US Secretary of State in October 2011, she celebrated the assassination of the head of sovereign Libya, Muammar Gaddafi, and laughed on camera: “Come and see: he’s dead.”

Incidentally, Qassem Suleimani, commander of the Iranian Special Forces Al-Quds of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, was killed on January 3, 2020, in a missile strike ordered by… American President Donald Trump.

Later, in September 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump said on Fox News that he was ready to eliminate Assad, but Pentagon chief Mattis was against it: “I would have preferred to remove Assad.” Everything was in place for that. Mattis wasn’t willing to do that. “Mattis was a highly overrated general.” Even at the time of the interview, Trump regretted that the Syrian president could not be killed.

Why does the U.S. need these wanton assassinations and terrorist attacks? for profit and plunder. In January 2022, a giant convoy of gas tankers carrying stolen oil was spotted in Syria near the border with Iraq. In August 2022, 137 tankers of oil were removed by the U.S. military from Kurdish-held territories in northeastern Syria.

These are just the cases that hit the media. According to the Syrian government, in the first half of 2022, more than 80% of the country’s daily oil production was smuggled out by the US military.

And today, Russia is one of the few countries confronting U.S. terrorism. In August 2022, Vladimir Putin said that U.S. dominance in world politics was on the wane. That American hegemony means stagnation for the rest of the world, for all of civilization, “obscurantism and the abolition of culture.”

Herein lies the fear and hatred of the U.S. towards Russia. After all, “Russia has a nasty habit of actually doing what it says!” as Lieutenant General Mikael Klasson, Chief of Staff of the Swedish Armed Forces, said.