The H put in perspective

 

AUSTIN J. APP    Spring 1980 The Journal of Historical Review

Austin J. App

I am highly gratified — and I am sure all the other speakers are too — that the Institute for Historical Review had the inspiration and the courage to organize this 1979 Revisionist Convention. It is badly needed and long overdue.

Every major war is conducted on tidal waves of propaganda, fair and foul. World War II, because it involved almost the whole world, and because the victors insisted on Unconditional Surrender, and because their side included the two most vengeful and vindictive ideologies in the world, Bolshevism and Zionism, also was guilty of the most shameless and unscrupulous propaganda so far on record. In part because of the never-forget — never-forgive mentality, World War II Allied atrocity propaganda has not ebbed down but kept in high tide, as with the recent phony documentary the NBC-TV Holocaust.

Therefore Historical Revisionism is more important than after any other war: the more atrocity — and hate-mongering vitiate the terms of peace, as at Yalta and Potsdam, the more Revisionism is needed to heal the wounds. The Institute for Historical Review does a vital service both to historical scholarship and also to basic values.

Since 1946, when mostly from small back-page items in brave little publications, I soon was sickened by mountains of evidence of the bestialities of the victors, especially the Soviet-Russians. In anger I published Ravishing the Women of Conquered Europe. The subtitle was: “The Big Three Liberators at Work Having a Wonderful Time Raping and Debauching the Women of Germany, Austria and Hungary; Re-Educating Them to Become Good Christians.” I followed this with History’s Most Terrifying Peace. I got thousands and thousands of grateful letters. But I also discovered what hatred and recriminations historical truth provokes among the vindictive vipers in public affairs and in the press!

For me it feels good after thirteen years to see California again. In June 1966 I spoke at the San Diego Mann Jr. High School on “Police Brutality a Phony Cry.” But even farther back, in 1923-24 I spent a year in San Francisco, which climaxed with my taking a national scholarship examination (at St. Mary’s College). What I won was a Knights of Columbus four-year full Fellowship to the Catholic University of America, in D.C., a milestone in my career. Being here today unrolls the kaleidoscope of a lifetime before me.

It was a lifetime during which I was ever painfully conscious of the ugly lies about the world wars, which sabotaged the ideals expressed in the Fourteen Points and the Atlantic Charter. I am sorry to conclude that American foreign policy has never been consistently wise or fair; and, if anything, it is even now getting worse rather than better. General Douglas MacArthur in 1952 (U.S. News, 18 July1952) said:

“Foreign policy has been as tragically in error as has domestic policy. We practically invited Soviet dominion over the free peoples of Eastern Europe … permitting the advance of the Soviet forces to the West to plant the red flag of Communism on the ramparts of Berlin, Vienna and Prague, capitals of Western civilization.”

In a similar vein former President Herbert Hoover said,

“The souls of one quarter of mankind have been seared by the violation of that American promise [namely, Wilson’s Fourteen Points and Roosevelt’s Atlantic Charter]. The ghosts of the Four Freedoms and the Atlantic Charter now wander amid the clanking chains of a thousand slave camps.” (U.S. News, 18 July 1952)

The tragic fact is that America, far from having made the world safe for democracy and self-determination, got into and won the war by spreading so much hatred and atrocity propaganda about the Germans that at the end the leaders and the people wanted, not justice, but vengeance and reparations. They wanted kangaroo war crimes trials for the losers. In place of self-determination, the victors dismembered Germany and Austria, tore provinces away and totally robbed and expelled the inhabitants — twelve million of them — shipped her factories to Soviet Russia, instituted ex post facto laws and trials to hang Germans. While having from the beginning declared Allied war criminals, including Jews, untouchable, the Israelis and Bolsheviks have bludgeoned West Germany to keep persecuting so-called Nazis even to the present day. This June for the third time, under the leadership of Simon Wiesenthal, and in disregard of the democratic rights of the German people, the Bonn Parliament revoked for another spell of years the Statute of Limitations.

Recently President Carter said that American “causes were always just.” William F. Buckley (Star, 19 July 1979) commented that,

“There was very little justice in the Mexican war, in the Spanish-American war, or in the seizure of Vera Cruz. … our intervention in Vietnam, rather than our failure to consummate our mission there, was the unjust thing.”

The unhappy mission of Revisionists will have to be to show that we got unjustly into both world wars against Germany, and, to our everlasting shame and sorrow, did probably more harm than any nation ever did before — in that the U.S., and only the U.S., had the means to lend-lease Soviet-Russia into Berlin — into the heart of Western Europe.

Anglo-American propaganda has managed to represent the Entente or the Allies as the “good guys” and the Germans and the Axis as the “bad guys.” This is to fool the people and foul up the peace. The intrinsic reason America intervened in European wars to destroy Germany was not ethics but power politics. When America saw that Germany was clearly the strongest nation in Europe, the U.S. began to side with the second — strongest there, Britain.

But the American people preferred neutrality. Therefore they had to be exposed to horrendous atrocity propaganda, such as that the Kaiser wanted to rule the world, that Germans cut the hands off Belgian babies, that submarine warfare made all Germans criminals. Even so, a third factor had to be mobilized to grease America’s entry into World War I. That factor was the Balfour Declaration.

Jews had for centuries been best treated by Germany and Austria and felt most congenial there, even to adopting Yiddish as their language. Consequently for the first two years of World War I American Jews were sympathetic to the Central Powers, and certainly against Czarist Russia. The British War Cabinet, in the face of German victories, decided to change the “very pro — German tendency among the wealthy American Jewish bankers and bond issuing houses” (See Conrad Grieb, The Balfour Declaration, N.Y., 1972, p. 3). The Zionist quid pro quo was for Britain to establish “a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine” and the Zionists to get America into the war on the side of Britain. The Balfour Declaration followed, dated 2 November 1917.

Perverting the American Jews from neutrality to intervention against the Central Powers had been pushed for a year or more — with success. What helped to make moralistic Wilson a rabid interventionist was the illicit affair he had had with a colleague’s wife, Mrs. Peck (remarried, Mrs. Hulburt). Her stepson needed $40,000 to keep him out of jail. The stepmother asked President Wilson for the money, in exchange for which she would return to him the packet of love letters he had written her. When Wilson could not pay this amount, Samuel Untermeyer rushed to the rescue: If President Wilson would appoint a Jew to the next vacancy on the Supreme Court, Untermeyer would settle Mrs. Peck’s claim. Thus it happened that America was “blessed” with its first Jew on the Supreme Bench, and the interventionists on 18 January 1916 got a radical Zionist in a prestige position to help get America into World War 1.

On 2 April 1917, using as a pretext the sinking of the Sussex (which in fact had not been sunk), Wilson asked Congress on 2 April 1917, for a declaration of war against Germany. Dr. E.J. Dillon, in his The Inside Story of the Peace Conference, wrote, “Henceforth the world will be governed by the Anglo-Saxon peoples, who in turn are swayed by their Jewish elements” (See Grieb. op. cit., p.7).

The Balfour Declaration sowed discord between the Germanic and the Jewish people, which in very fact led to World War II; to a Morgenthauistic and Bolshevik conclusion; to the expulsion by the Zionists of the Palestinians; and the sort of continuing friction which could bring about the Third World War. In this, all symptoms point to American’s being again involved, not on the side of justice and the Palestinians, but as in World War II on the side of the Jews. If Soviet Russia were then to help the Arabs, the lines for it would be drawn — with America once again, as in World War II, crusading on the wrong side.

During the Weimar Republic German Jews did not talk or act like patriotic Germans. They were nihilisic, they denigrated the Wehrmacht; Walter Mehring called the Stahlhelm dirt (Dreck), Kurt Tucholsky called German volunteers of 1914 victims of mass drunkenness, Arnold Zweig called the German people a nation of murderers and vote cattle. On my first visit to Germany in 1931 I was shocked by this Jewish pejorativeness. When during the Vietnam war I read the American press, the Washington Post and New York Times and most of the rest, I recalled the similarity.

When Hitler became Chancellor his Third Reich government was the victim of every possible worldwide resistance and smear. It was an indiscriminate opposition on the part of world Jewry, not only where Hitler was or might have been wrong, but also where he was obviously right, as when he demanded the self — determination for Austria, the Sudetenland, and Danzig which the victors in 1919 had denied. As early as 1933, before Hitler had harmed a single Jew, an International Jewish Boycott Conference, presided over by Samuel Untermeyer, the same who had paid Wilson $40,000 to appoint Brandeis Supreme Court justice in 1916, declared a crippling boycott on the Third Reich, while it was still in the throes of the inhuman reparations imposed at Versailles.

The boycott included not only the United States but some eight or more other countries. Simultaneously the anti — German propaganda of World War I was revived. And be it noted the International Jewish Boycott did not exempt the Jews of Germany from this hostile action. Nor did it keep it merely a Jewish action, but succeeded in pressuring the United States to cooperate with it: it imposed a general tariff against German goods as against the “most favored” status for all other nations, while International Financial interests tried to “call” sufficient German treasury notes to “break” Germany (see John Beaty, The Iron Curtain Over America, 1951, p. 63). The fact is that U.S. foreign policy from 1933 on was directed more to further Zionist interests rather than those of the U.S. or of the American people.

At Versailles the peace dictators had violated the right of self — determination of Austria, of the Sudeten Germans, and of the Corridor and Danzig. Germany had the right and the duty to champion this right for these people. Hitler did this, and was on the point of settling for a road through the Corridor and the return of Danzig, an ancient German city of 400,000.

What honest historians call the Unnecessary War broke out over this last injustice of Versailles, the worst and most costly war in history. Why did Poland refuse to negotiate? Because Britain guaranteed to go to war for Poland. Why did Britain give this foolish and tragic promise? Ambassador Joseph Kennedy, as related in the Forrestal Diaries, 27 Dec. 1945, reveals that the war broke out over Roosevelt’s catering to Zionist interests, not to America’s, nor even Britain’s. We read:

“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 … Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into war.”

Even worse, though the American people overwhelmingly wanted us to avoid the stupidity of intervention against Germany as in World War I, the same forces, Roosevelt and the Zionists, used every strategy to involve us. The insults and calumnies Zionist publicists hurled at Hitler, while the U.S. was still neutral, and before anyone had invented the atrocity story of the six million Jews “gassed”, might have provoked any sovereign nation to hit back. Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes wrote that there is

“No greater paradox in history than a war in behalf of Poland on the basis of the Jewish issue. There were in Poland, in 1933, six times as many Jews as in Germany, and they were surely treated as badly as were German Jews under Hitler.” (See Blasting the Historical Blackout, p.35)

Nevertheless, before there was any mention of a so — called “Holocaust,” and while America was still neutral, American Zionists, with the approval of the media, produced the most mass genocidic book in history: Theodore N. Kaufman in Germany Must Perish (Argyle Press, Newark, 1941) literally urged the sterilization of 48,000,000 German men and women of childbearing age, so that, he explained, Germanism will be extirpated in two generations.

Once, as Clare Booth Luce said, Roosevelt had lied America into the war by the back door — by provoking the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor — the same Rooseveltians and Zionists immediately started not only to propagandize for Unconditional Victory but for destroying Germany forever. The propaganda thrust was not for achieving a durable peace soon, but for permanent Unconditional Hatred. Among the most bestial peace plans in history ranks that of the Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau Jr., assisted by a parcel of Zionists, chief of whom was Harry Dexter White, later exposed as a Communist spy. Morgenthau without a blush of shame for his monumental atrocity wrote Germany Is Our Problem (Harper, NY, 1945). It describes the Morgenthau Plan for the pastoralization of Germany which Morgenthau presented to Roosevelt and Churchill at the Quebec Conference in 1944. Germany was to lose most of its territory, all of its manufacturing facilities, and live by farming but without machinery. The mines of the Ruhr were to be destroyed, its five million Germans deported — Morgenthau said he did not care how they would be taken care of. Even harsh peace advocates like Cordell Hull and H.L. Stimson had enough humanity left in them to be appalled. They protested that the plan would starve thirty million Germans to death. Yet Roosevelt and Churchill, who had so piously proclaimed the Atlantic Charter, approved this most murderous peace plan in history. 

During the last year of the war, with victory visible, Jewish publicists demanded a Morgenthau peace, did not urge what was ‘good for Europe and America’, but what ministered to the vindictiveness and eye — for — an — eyism of Zionists. Richard M. Bruckner wrote Is Germany Incurable? (Philadelphia, 1943); Dr. L.M. Birk, head, Director of Friends of Democracy, demanded that “Germany should be removed from the map;” and Louis Nizer in What to Do with Germany, published in 1944, urged that “150,000 German leaders should be tried and sentenced up to life.” In the meanwhile Stalin’s Jewish propaganda minister, Ilya Ehrenburg, inflamed the Bolshevik invaders of Germany to

“Kill. In Germany, nothing is guiltless. Neither the living nor the yet unborn … Ravish them (the German women) as booty. Kill, you gallant Red soldiers.”

When Jewish publicists urged vengeance on the Germans, they served the vindictiveness of the Zionists and the barbarous expansionism of Soviet Russia, not the good of the West Europeans and Americans. Even Stalin, when peace was in sight, restrained Ehrenburg’s hate propaganda as a hindrance to making peace.

In past wars, when the enemy surrendered, the atrocity propaganda ebbed off. But after World War II this propaganda intensified after Unconditional Surrender. We ask why. For whose benefit? A few days after Surrender, Prof. Friedrich Grimm was interviewed by (who unknown to him) was Sefton Delmer, the British War Propaganda Chief, who boasted, “I am of the Central Office you talked about: Atrocity propaganda — and with it we won the total victory.” When Dr. Grimm said, “I know, and now you must stop it!” Sefton Delmer retorted:

“No, now we shall start all the more! We shall continue this atrocity propaganda, we shall intensify it, until nobody shall accept a good word from Germans anymore, until all the sympathy you had in other countries shall be destroyed, and until the Germans themselves shall be so confused that they do not know anymore what they are doing!” (Quoted from Udo Walendy’s The Methods of Reeducation, p. 8)

Here is revealed the strategy of infamy of the selfproclaimed crusaders for world peace and brotherhood. The deluge of atrocity propaganda against Germany during and after the war triggered history’s most terrifying peace, and left a legacy of injustices which the U.S. is morally bound to try to correct. The worst of these is the monumental expulsion of fourteen million Oder — Neisse and Sudeten Germans, killing nearly three million of them, raping many of their women, and now letting Soviet Russia, and Poland, and Czechoslovakia claim those ancient German lands.

Worse psychologically, and unique in history, is the reeducation and the monstrously clever creation of a German government that toadies to intemational, Zionistic interests. Harry Elmer Barnes, commenting on Prof. Hoggan’s visit to West Germany in April — May, 1964, and his hasty reception by Bonn and the media, wrote,

“The German situation in 1964 is a case of fantastic political masochism without parallel in human history. I know of no other instance in history where a people have almost frantically sought to cast the dark shadow of guilt upon themselves for a public crime they did not commit — exclusive responsibility for the second world war. … in 1964, those who sought the truth about 1939 were being vilified and even exposed to prosecution as public criminals by the Bonn Government.”

(Unpublished manuscript, Malibu, Calif. 1 July 1964)

What has limited true German autonomy; what has kept Washington and London from agitating to get the Wall out of Berlin and the Iron Curtain out of Central Europe; what has kept Washington from ever alluding to the human rights of the seventeen million Germans of the German Democratic Republic; what has, if you will, kept Washington from insisting that Rudolf Hess be freed from Spandau before another bushel of wheat be sold to Soviet Russia, is in the final analysis the Zionist and Communist agitation about the Third Reich’s alleged extermination of Jews.

The simple truth is that U.S. Foreign Policy has since Roosevelt’s Lend — Lease been essentially more in the interests of Israel than of America, or the good of mankind. Now and then someone lets the cat out of the bag. J. Bernard Hutton, in Hess: the Last of the Third Reich’s Imprisoned Leaders (MacMillan, NY, 1970, p. 180), commented:

“At Nuernberg, all the crimes of the Nazi leaders, and of the Allies, faded into insignificance beside this one shocking crime of racial persecution and annihilation. And this was what the Nuernberg Trial was about — it was for the crime against the Jews that the Nazi leaders were punished.”

Here the stark and horrid truth of American Foreign Policy is expressed. Hutton, poor brainwashed fellow (like most other publicists), believed the legend of the six million. He writes, “Millions of Jews were rounded up … driven to prepared killing centers where they were gassed …”

Because the atrocity story that the Third Reich exterminated six million Jews has been the root cause of the most monstrous peace treaty in history, because it continues to blackmail billions of unjust reparations to the promoters of the atrocity story, and because it continues to generate hatred and lies and perjuries, it must have the top priority of Revisionism. 

A few courageous historians like Prof. Paul Rassinier, Dr. Arthur R. Butz, the Jewish Concentration Camp survivor Josef Burg (Munich) and Richard Harwood, Heinrich Haertl, lately Hellmut Diwald, in part David Irving, are beginning to give evidence that the story of the six million exterminated Jews is both the most enormous and the most brazen and unfounded lie in all of recorded history. Dr. Butz called his blockbusting breakthrough The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. After 239 pages of evidence he concluded flatly, “The Jews of Europe were not exterminated and there was no German attempt to exterminate them.”

Since Dr. Butz wrote those fateful words, there has been such a frantic resurrection of the Holocaust as to resemble a death rattle. What intensified the frenzy was Dr. Butz’s corollary that if the extermination was proven false; if the “unspeakable criminal acts” on which the Luxemburg Treaty justified the reparations to Israel and Jews are faked; then the reparations become invalidated. The Anti — Defamation League sponsored an issue of eleven million copies of The Record: The Holocaust in History, with the slogan, “The Crime we cannot neglect or forget.” A most monumental world — wide propaganda production was the T.V. Holocaust, a hybrid documentary soap opera, in which all the lies of the “Six Million” are regurgitated. The “saintly” Jewish participants are called Weiss (White), the wicked Germans are Schwarz (Black). Fact, fiction, and falsehood are so cleverly mixed that most viewers will carry away only the customary lies and perjuries about the German treatment of Jews.

In Six Million Did Die (Arthur Suzman and Denis Diamond, Johannesburg, 1978, 137 pages) announces that “the truth shall prevail,” and purposes to refute Richard Harwood’s Did Six Million Really Die?, which sent and continues to send shockwaves through the circles committed to the lie of the six million. Suzman and Diamond denounce Harwood for writing that Germany is paying reparations “calculated on six million dead;” then insist that the reparations represent valid “material claims … unaffected by moral — historical claims” (p.53). They then quote Chancellor Adenauer (27 Sept. 1951) justifying the reparations in the Bundestag with the words, “unmentionable crimes were committed in the name of the German people, which call for moral and material compensation” (p.51). Obviously if the Third Reich treated Jews essentially no different from gypsies, or from Roosevelt’s treatment of the Japanese Americans, and much less badly than the Soviet — Poles — Czechs treated the Oder — Neisse and Sudeten Germans, then the reparations are totally uncalled for.

A few facts on the Luxemburg Agreement and how Germany became saddled with reparations to Israel and Jews all over the world of eighty million D — Marks, justifies Harwood’s contention that the Six Million accusation is “undoubtedly the most profitable atrocity allegation of all time.” In 1951, twenty — three Jewish organizations, in the Conference on Jewish Material Claims Against Germany, demanded (1) funds for relief and rehabilitation of Jewish victims of Nazi persecution, (2) indemnification for injuries inflicted upon individual victims of Nazi persecutions.

On 21 March 1952, Bonn and Israel began to negotiate in the Hotel Oud Wassenen in The Hague. On 7 May 1952, the Israeli Foreign Minister, Moche Scharett, declared in the Knesset that if Bonn did not advance new guarantees and payments, Israel would end negotiations with international consequences that would produce a crisis in Germany. Nahum Goldman, head of World Zionism, warned Adenauer that if Germany did not pay up there would be “violent reaction of the whole world” expressing “deep sympathy with the martyrdom of the Jewish people during the Nazi period.” More impudently, the London Jewish Chroniclewrote blackmailingly, “The whole international weight of World Jewry will be mobilized against Germany, if Bonn’s offers of reparations remain unsatisfactory.” (Echoes of 1933?)

All the while Bonn had presented to Commissioner John McCloy the draft of what was to become the Grundvertrag — the Constitution — of West Germany. But McCloy kept delaying ratification. Adenauer wrote in his Memoirs,

“It was clear to me that, if the negotiations with the Jews failed, the negotiations at the London Debt Conference would also run aground, because Jewish banking circles would exert an influence … which should not be underestimated.”

Thereupon Adenauer, abandoning “democracy” for the time being, went over the heads of his Ministers and of the German people, and committed himself and West Germany to pay Israel 3.45 billion D — Marks reparations; 80 million the first two years. Thereupon Commissioner McCloy, and France and Britain, on 26 May 1952, ratified the Constitution giving West Germany a limited sovereignty. Adenauer had had to agree “that they would not dispute any of the pronouncements of the Allies during and after World War II.” This included the Nuremberg pronouncements, and the “acceptance of the legend of the ‘extermination’ of six million Jews” (Quoted from The South African Observer, July 1979).

Then after further negotiations about details, the Luxemburg Agreement was signed on 19 September 1952. Its first Whereas accuses Germans of “unspeakable criminal acts … perpetrated against the Jewish people during the National Socialistic regime of terror” (Six Million Did Die, p. 53). This certainly founds the reparations to Jews and Israel on what came to be called the extermination of six million Jews.

From the beginning, the Federal Republic of Germany was a cleverly disguised and managed satellite “democracy” controlled by Washington (and London) for the prime benefit of Israel. Never were the German people given a chance to vote on these reparations. Nor were they ever asked to vote on whether they approved on continuing war crimes trial or whether they really wanted the Statute of Limitations honored (as in every other democratic country).

Adenauer’s first pledge of 3.45 billion D — Marks to Israel, in order to get McCloy to ratify the Constitution, was the Niagara Falls of reparations to Jews all over the world and to Israel, a state non — existent when the “Holocaust” was said to have occurred. This Luxemburg Agreement, under the umbrella of Washington, in the first twelve years provided Israel with the following commodities and services:

“West Germany built an entire merchant marine for Israel (including 59 ships and a drydock), repaired and rebuilt Israel’s telephone and telegraph network, constructed a copper plant, steel plant and five power plants in Israel, laid 280 kilometers of irrigation pipeline, laid new railroad tracks over most of the depleted railway system, for which it delivered 400 boxcars, passenger coaches and diesel locomotives. One Kibbutz received $200,000.”

(Quoted from Instauration, August, 1978.)

This fairy — godmother bonanza to Israel was kept a deep dark secret from the German people, under the shadow of a peculiar Zionistic — Washingtonian democracy. It was also kept secret from the Arabs, who lost three wars against an attacking enemy equipped with the world’s best German war materiel. When the Arabs found out, it created a convulsion that destroyed Chancellor Erhard and ever since proved a millstone for the Christian Democratic Party — to the advantage of the socialistic and pro — Russian Social Democrats of Willy Brandt and Wehner and Bahr.

The enormity of German reparations to Israel has been kept as secret as possible from the German people and the world. One has to assume that the puppet Bonn government is ashamed to reveal that it has been and is distributing possibly a hundred billion D — marks to Jews all over the world, to Israel, to Jewish institutions, and to sponsor pensions to every Jew — not who was “gassed” but who was allowed to leave Hitler’s Germany safely and with most of his property. All this while neither the victors nor Bonn have made any realistic attempt to help the fourteen million Oder-Neisse and Sudeten Germans get indemnities from the Communists. Bonn may also fear the end someday of German patience and an outburst of wrath.

Israel too is very secretive about the payments and pensions the Israelis got or are getting from Germany. Perhaps they too are ashamed. More probably, secretly conscious of the enormous blackmail most of these reparations represent, they fear that if the Western world became fully informed of the swindle, it would stop turning the other cheek and demand first of all the full truth, and secondly, justice for the Arabs. But here and there some Jewish writer boasts of the goldmine the defamed and slandered Germans have been to them. Nahum Goldmann, in his book The Jewish Paradox (London, 1978), boasted that whereas at the Nuremberg Trials one Jewish organization suggested only the ridiculously small sum of twenty million marks of reparations, he managed to induce Germany to pay eighty million D — Marks (p.166 — 8). Goldmann boasts that without these German reparations Israel would hardly possess half of its “Infrastruktur”: “All trains, all ships, all electrical works, as well as a major portion of industry is of German origin.” Then he adds “this passes over entirely the individual pensions which are being paid to the survivors. At the present time Israel still collects annually hundreds of millions of dollars in German currency”. And ingeniously and unscrupulously, even now, other wartime disadvantages to Jews are presented for claims. The Washington Observer, for example, on 15 December 1970, carried the following “Observation”:

“The Jewish World Federation of Nazi Victims is pressing another claim for payment from Germany. This time they want $20 billion for lost wages for two million Jews who were allegedly forced by the Nazis to work in factories during the war.”

And Jewish publicists never bother to try to reconcile the alleged gassing of six million with for example the employment of two million working and surviving in the factories!

Surely, the atrocity story of the extermination of six million Jews has been and still is the most profitable invention and swindle in world history. So organized and so supported by perjury is this “manna” from the German taxpayer that one might suspect virtually every Zionist in the world or someone in his family of being a beneficiary of a pension or an indemnity based on the lie of the six million.

The damage this lie of the six million has done is enormous. It ruined the peace; it inspired the awful injustices of the Yalta and Potsdam peace treaties. But a world that wants to lay claim to justice and decency must correct the wrongs of those treaties. The beginning must be made by establishing the truth about the policy of the Third Reich towards Jews.

In 1973, in my booklet, The Six Million Swindle (40 pages, Boniface Press, 8207 Flower Ave., Takoma Park, Md. 20012, 50 cents), I entitled one short section: “Eight Incontrovertible Assertions on the Six Million Swindle.” Since then brave and scholarly studies have destroyed every foundation for the “Holocaust” and exposed the story of the six million “gassed” as an impudent lie. They have not invalidated, they have confirmed, my assertions. I conclude by quoting them:

First, the Third Reich wanted to get Jews to emigrate, not to liquidate them physically. Had they intended extermination, 500,000 concentration camp survivors would not now be in Israel to collect fancy indemnities from West Germany.

Second, absolutely no Jews were “gassed” in any concentration camps. There were crematoria for cremating corpses who had died from whatever cause, including especially also the victims of the genocidic Anglo — American air raids.

Third, the majority of Jews who died in pogroms and those who disappeared and are still unaccounted for fell afoul in territories controlled by the Soviet Russians, not in territories while under German control.

Fourth, most of the Jews alleged to have met their death at the hands of Germans were subversives, partisans, spies, and criminals, and also often victims of unfortunate but internationally legal reprisals. One reason for my denouncing the Nuremberg prosecutors as lynchers is that they hanged Germans for actions they themselves adopted!

Fifth, if there were the slightest likelihood that the Nazis had in fact executed six million Jews, World Jewry would scream for subsidies with which to do research on the question, and Israel would throw its archives and files open to historians. They have not done so. On the contrary they have persecuted anyone who tries to investigate impartially and even call him an anti — Semite. This is really devastating evidence that the figure is a swindle.

Sixth, the Jews and the media who exploit this figure have never offered a shred of valid evidence for its truth. At most they misquote Hoettl, Höss, and Eichmann who spoke only casually of what they were in no position to know or to speak on reliably. Nor do the Jews themselves credit these witnesses as reliable even when they comment on what they could know, e.g., that the concentration camps were essentially work camps, not death camps!

Seventh, the burden of proof for the six million figure rests on the accusers, not the accused. This is a principle of all civilized law. Proving true guilt is easier than proving true innocence. It is hardly possible for a man accused of cheating on his wife to prove that he did not cheat on her. Therefore the accuser must prove his charge. This responsibility the Zionists and Bolsheviks have not accepted, and the browbeaten Germans have rather paid billions than to dare to demand proof!

Eighth, obvious evidence that the figure of six million has no scientific foundation is that Jewish scholars themselves present ridiculous discrepancies in their calculations. And honest ones, whom we recognize by the fact that their co-racialists smear — terrorize them, and even beat them up, invariably lower the six million estimate.

Those who throw around large round numbers, like six million gassed, four million in Auschwitz, two million by mobile units in Russia, let them come up with the proofs — the graves, the bones, the ashes. Six million corpses do not just disappear. They accuse, so they must prove. But in their default, it seems that it is up to us Revisionists to show that the figure of six million is a totally unsubstantiated, brazen lie. What slender means I have had at my disposal, including some ten trips to Europe, including Dachau, Arolsen, and many interviews, induce me to estimate the number of Jewish casualties under the Third Reich at 300,000 in round numbers. Until Jewish publicists come up with solid evidence to the contrary, which so far they have not even realistically tried to do, I will consider 300,000 casualties — some from executions, from reprisals, most of them (like Anne Frank) from diseases.

Holocaust, Hate Speech and Were the Germans so Stupid?

The late British video-journalist Anthony Lawson, a retired international-prize-winning commercials director, cameraman, ad agency creative director and voice over, expertly introduces the viewer to the basic concepts and consequences of scepticism about the orthodox Holocaust narrative.

 

The Morgenthau Plan for the Genocidal Destruction of Germany and the German People after WW2

Save 75.0% on select products from hird with promo code 75LI9AG6, through 10/16 while supplies last.

                                          

Henry Morgenthau Secretary of the U.S. Treasury

Harry Dexter White, creator of ''The Morgenthau Plan for the collapse and total destruction of Germany after WW2.

Prof. Anthony Kubek

Secretary of the U.S. Treasury Henry Morgenthau, Jr. served in President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Cabinet from January of 1934 to July of 1945. Before Morgenthau was appointed Secretary of the Treasury, he had lived near Roosevelt's home at Hyde Park, N.Y. for two decades and could be counted as one of his closest and most trusted friends. 

His appointment was clearly the culmination of twenty years of devotion to, and adoration of, his neighbor on the Hudson. According to his official biographer, Morgenthau's "first joy in life was to serve Roosevelt, whom he loved and trusted and admired." 

The Morgenthau Diaries consist of 900 volumes located at Roosevelt Library in Hyde Park, New York. As a consultant to the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, I was assigned to examine all documents dealing with Germany, particularly ones related to the Morgenthau Plan for the destruction of Germany following the Second World War. The Subcommittee was interested in the role of Dr. Harry Dexter White, the main architect of the Plan.

The Treasury Department under Secretary Morgenthau had many functions that went beyond anything in the Department's history. The Morgenthau Diaries reveal that the Treasury presumed time and time again to make foreign policy. In his Memoirs Secretary of State Cordell Hull described it in these terms:

Emotionally upset by Hitler's rise and his persecution of the Jews, Morgenthau often sought to induce the President to anticipate the State Department or act contrary to our better judgment

 We sometimes found him conducting negotiations with foreign governments which were the function of the State Department. His work in drawing up a catastrophic plan for the postwar treatment of Germany and inducing the President to accept it without consultation with the State Department, was an outstanding instance of this interference. 

Actually it was Dr. Harry Dexter White, Morgenthau's principal adviser on monetary matters and finally Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, who conducted most of the important business of the Department. 

The Diaries reveal that White's influence was enormous throughout the years of World War II. Shortly after Morgenthau became Secretary in 1934, White joined his staff as economic analyst on the recommendation of the noted economist, Prof. Jacob Viner of the University of Chicago. Then 42 years old, White was about to receive a doctorate in economics from Harvard University, where he previously had taught as an instructor. 

He moved up quickly in the Treasury Department, named in 1938 as Director of Monetary Research and in the summer of 1941 acquiring an additional title as "Assistant to the Secretary." Articulate, mustachioed, and nattily dressed, he was a conspicuous figure in the Treasury but remained unknown to the public until 1943, when newspaper articles identified him as the actual architect of Secretary Morgenthau's monetary proposals for the postwar period.

The Diaries reveal White's technique of dominating over general Treasury affairs by submitting his plans and ideas to the Secretary, who frequently carried them directly to the President. 

It is very significant that Morgenthau had access to the President more readily than any other Cabinet member. He ranked beneath the Secretary of State in the Cabinet, but Hull complained that he often acted as though "clothed with authority" to project himself into the field of foreign affairs. Morgenthau, Hull felt, "did not stop with his work at the Treasury." 

Over the years White brought into the Treasury a number of economic specialists with whom he worked very closely. White and his colleagues were in a position, therefore, to exercise on American foreign policy influence which the diaries reveal to have been profound and unprecedented. 

They used their power in various ways to design and promote the so-called Morgenthau Plan for the postwar treatment of Germany. Their actions were not limited to the authority officially delegated to them: their power was inherent in their access to, and influence upon, Secretary Morgenthau and other officials, and in the opportunities they had to present or withhold information on which the policies of their superiors might be based. What makes this a unique chapter in American history is that Dr. White and several of his colleagues, the actual architects of vital national policies during those crucial years, were subsequently identified in Congressional hearings as participants in a network of Communist espionage in the very shadow of the Washington Monument. Two of them worked for the Chinese Communists.

Stated in its simplest terms, the objective of the Morgenthau Plan was to de-industrialize Germany and diminish its people to a pastoral existence once the war was won. If this could be accomplished, the militaristic Germans would never rise again to threaten the peace of the world.

 This was the justification for all the planning, but another motive lurked behind the obvious one. The hidden motive was unmasked in a syndicated column in the New York Herald Tribune in September 1946, more than a year after the collapse of the Germans. The real goal of the proposed condemnation of "all of Germany to a permanent diet of potatoes" was the communization of the defeated nation. "The best way for the German people to be driven into the arms of the Soviet Union," it was pointed out, "was for the United States to stand forth as the champion of indiscriminate and harsh misery in Germany." 

Anyone who studies the Morgenthau Diaries can hardly fail to be deeply impressed by the tremendous power which accumulated in the grasping hands of Dr. Harry Dexter White, who in 1953 was identified by Edgar Hoover as a Soviet agent. White assumed full responsibility for "all matters with which the Treasury Department has to deal having a bearing on foreign relations..." 

 He and his colleagues had Secretary Morgenthau's complete approval in the formulation of a blueprint for the permanent elimination of Germany as a world power. The benefits which might accrue to the Soviet Union as a result of such Treasury planning were incalculable.

When members of the Senate Internal Security sub committee asked Elizabeth Bentley, who was a courier between White and Soviet agents, whether she knew of a similar "Morgenthau Plan" for the Far East, she gave the following testimony:

 Miss Bentley: No. The only Morgenthau Plan I knew anything about was the German one.

Senator Eastland: Did you know who drew that plan?

Miss Bentley: [It was] Due to Mr. White's influence, to push the devastation of Germany because that was what the Russians wanted.

Senator Ferguson: That was what the Communists wanted? Miss Bentley: Definitely, Moscow wanted them [German factories] completely razed because then they would be of no help to the allies.

Mr. Morris: You say that Harry Dexter White worked on that?

Miss Bentley: And on our instructions he pushed hard. 

When J. Edgar Hoover testified before the Subcommittee on November 17, 1953, he affirmed this testimony:

 All information furnished by Miss Bentley, which was susceptible to check has proven to be correct. She had been subjected to the most searching of cross-examinations; her testimony has been evaluated by juries and reviews by the courts and has been found to be accurate.

Mr. Hoover continued: 

  Miss Bentley's account of White's activities was later corroborated by Whittaker Chambers; and the documents in White's own handwriting, concerning which there can be no dispute, lend credibility to the information previously reported on White. 

Morgenthau hit the ceiling when he got a copy of the Handbook for Military Government in Germany, which was designed for the guidance of every American and British official upon entering Germany. The Handbook offered a glimpse of a very different kind of occupation that Treasury officials were hoping for. Its tone was moderate and lenient throughout Germany was not only to be self-supporting but was to retain a relatively high standard of living. Morgenthau wasted no time in showing the Handbook to President Roosevelt, who immediately rejected its philosophy as too soft.

Impressed by the critical memorandum White had prepared, the President killed the Handbook and sent a stinging memorandum to the Secretary of War, Henry L. Stimson, and a copy of which was sent to Hull. "This so-called Handbook is pretty bad," Roosevelt began, and he instructed that "all copies" be withdrawn immediately because it gave him the impression that Germany was to be "restored just as much as The Netherlands or Belgium, and the people of Germany brought back as quickly as possible to their pre-war estate." 

Thus both Hull and Stimson were put on notice by the President that the State and War Departments must develop harsher attitudes towards Germany or be bypassed in the formulation of that policy. According to General Lucius Clay, suppression of the Handbook eventually had a "devastating effect on the morale of American officials responsible for disarming Germany." /9

Meanwhile the State Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff had earlier completed their own prospectus and directive for postwar Germany. In the State document there was to be no "large-scale and permanent impairment of all German industry."

 ICS 1067, as the military directive was numbered, was unmistakably akin in spirit to the "soft" State Department prospectus. Moreover, it was in "harmony" with the Handbook -- that is to say, this draft not only tolerated but actually encouraged friendly relations between American soldiers and German civilians. 

From various inter departmental meetings with State and War, a new version of JCS 1067 finally emerged. It completely reversed the spirit of the original draft. It was largely the handiwork of Harry Dexter White. It is indeed remarkable how the Treasury intervened and eventually got the State and War Departments to alter their basic policy on postwar Germany.

In the realm of finance, of course, the Secretary of Treasury would naturally be involved in the postwar treatment of Germany. But Morgenthau delved deeply into matters altogether unrelated to economics. The Germans needed psychiatry, Morgenthau told White. He said he was interested in "treating the mind rather than the body," and in planning "how to bring up the next generation of children." It might be wise to take the whole Nazi SS group out of Germany, he thought, and deport them to some other part of the world. "Just taking them bodily," he told White, and he "wouldn't be afraid to make the suggestion" even though it might be very "ruthless ... to accomplish the act." 

Regarding the punishment of Nazi leaders, White suggested that a list of "war criminals" be prepared and presented to American officers on the spot, who could properly identify the guilty and shoot them on sight. Morgenthau remarked jokingly that a good start could be made with Marshal Stalin's "list of 50,000" -- a reference to Stalin's vodka toast to Roosevelt and Churchill at the Teheran Conference. 

The disposition of the Ruhr Valley was one of the main topics discussed in one of the many Treasury meetings. For many years the coal fields of the Ruhr had been essential to the German economy. The British economist John Maynard Keynes had said after World War I that the Kaiser's empire was built "more truly on coal and iron than on blood and iron." 

Coal was the backbone of all German industry, vital to her electric power and to her chemical, synthetic oil, and steel industries. It was Morgenthau's persistent view, therefore, that the Ruhr should be "locked up and wiped out," and he was positive that the President was in "complete accord" on this point.

As the discussion proceeded, White shrewdly intimated that it might be better to place the Ruhr under international controls which would "produce reparations for twenty years." This was a straw proposal that Morgenthau promptly rejected. "Harry, you can't sell it to me at all," he said, "because it would be under control only a few years and the Germans will have another Anschluss!" 

The only program he would have any part of, Morgenthau declared, was "the complete shut-down of the Ruhr." When Harold Gaston, the Treasury public relations officer, interrupted to ask whether this meant "driving the population out," Morgenthau replied: "I don't care what happens to the population... I would take every mine, every mill and factory and wreck it." 

"Of every kind?" inquired Gaston. "Steel, coal, everything. Just close it down," Morgenthau said. "You wouldn't close the mines, would you?" inquired Daniel Bell, one of the Secretary's assistants. "Sure," replied Morgenthau, and he reiterated that the only economic activity which should remain intact was agriculture -- and that could be placed under some type of international control. He was for destroying Germany's economic power first, he said, and then "we will worry about the population second."

Morgenthau seemed very confident that the President would not waver in his support of a punitive program for postwar Germany. Any effective plan, however, would have to be executed within the next six months, or otherwise the Allies might suddenly become "soft." The best way to begin, Morgenthau advised, was to have American engineers go to every synthetic gas factory, and dynamite them or "open the water valves and flood them." Then let the "great humanitarians" simply sit "back and decide about the population afterwards." Eventually the Ruhr would resemble "some of the silver mines in Nevada," Morgenthau said. "You mean like Sherman's march to the sea?" asked Dan Bell. Morgenthau answered bluntly that he would make the Ruhr a "ghost area." 

Such was the character of Secretary Morgenthau's views on the treatment of Germany. Never in American history had there been proposed a more vindictive program for a defeated nation. 

With the Treasury exerting unprecedented influence in determining American policy toward Germany, the fallacies of logic, evasion of issues and deliberate disregard of essential economic relationships manifest in the above conversation were incorporated in the postwar plan as finally adopted. Furthermore, no paper of any importance dealing with the occupation of Germany could be released until approved by the Treasury. The State and War Departments became virtually subservient to the Treasury in this area, normally their responsibility. 

At a meeting in the President's office, Morgenthau and Stimson presented their opposite views. Stimson objected vigorously to the Treasury recommendation for the wrecking of the Ruhr. "I am unalterably opposed to such a program," he declared, holding it to be "wholly wrong" to deprive the people of Europe of the products that the Ruhr could produce.  The Treasury Plan, if adopted, would breed new wars, arouse sympathy for Germans in other countries, and destroy resources needed for the general reconstruction of ravaged Europe. He urged the President not to make a hasty decision, and to accept "for the time being" Hull's suggestion that the controversial economic issue be left for future discussion. 

At the Quebec summit conference between Roosevelt and Churchill in September 1944, Morgenthau was asked to explain his plan to the British. Churchill was horrified and "in violent language" called the plan "cruel and un-Christian." But Morgenthau hammered on the idea that the destruction of the Ruhr would create new markets for Britain after the war. He also promised Churchill an American loan of $6.5 billion! Churchill "changed his mind" the next morning. 

Although foreign affairs and military matters were discussed in depth at the Quebec Conference, neither Hull nor Stimson were in attendance. The Treasury Department took precedence over State and War in negotiations regarding Germany.

The effects of Morgenthau's victory at Quebec were quickly felt in Washington. At a luncheon with Undersecretary of War Robert Patterson, Morgenthau brought up the Quebec agreement. Patterson said jokingly: "To degrade Europe by making Germany an agricultural country, isn't that offensive to you?" Morgenthau replied: "Not in the case of Germany." 

Hull felt strongly that Morgenthau should have been kept out of the field of general policy, and so did Stimson. When Stimson heard of the President's endorsement of the Treasury plan at Quebec, he quickly drafted another critical memorandum. "If I thought that the Treasury proposals would accomplish [our agreed objective, continued peace)," he wrote, "I would not persist in my objections. But I cannot believe that they will make for a lasting peace. In spirit and in emphasis they are punitive, not, in my judgment, corrective or constructive." He continued:

 It is not within the realm of possibility that the whole nation of seventy million people, who have been outstanding for many years in the arts and the sciences and who through their efficiency and energy have attained one of the highest industrial levels in Europe, can by force be required to abandon all their previous methods of life, be reduced to a level with virtually complete control of industry and science left to other peoples ... Enforced poverty is even worse, for it destroys the spirit not only of the victim but debases the victor. It would be just such a crime as the Germans themselves hoped to perpetrate upon their victims -- it would be a crime against civilization iLself. 

Word of "Morgenthau's coup at Quebec" leaked to the press with two results. One was that Roosevelt, because of the adverse reaction, evidently concluded that his Treasury Secretary had made "a serious blunder." The other was to stiffen German resistance on the Western front. Until then there was a fair chance that the Germans might discontinue resistance to American and British forces while holding the Russians at bay in the East in order to avoid the frightful fate of a Soviet occupation. This could have shortened the war by months and could have averted the spawning of malignant communism in East Germany.

How the Treasury officials were able to integrate basic features of their plan into the military directive, originally prepared by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and known as JCS 1067, is fully disclosed in the Diaries. White saw to it that many elements of his thinking were embodied in JCS 1067. Previous directives for guidance of American troops upon entrance into Germany, which already had undergone six or more revisions of a stylistic nature, were now brought more in line with the punitive thinking of Morgenthau and White. A new directive, which called for a more complete de-nazification, was, with some modifications, the spirit and substance of the Treasury plan. In the two full years that JCS 1067 was the cornerstone of American policy, Germany was punished and substantially dismantled in accord with the basic tenets of the Morgenthau Plan. 

JCS 1067 forbade fraternization by American personnel with the Germans, ordered a very strict program of de-nazification extending both to public life and to business, prohibited American aid in any rebuilding of German industry, and emphasized agricultural rehabilitation only.

Subsequently, JCS 1067 became a severe handicap to American efforts in Germany. It constituted what may be called without exaggeration a heavy millstone around the neck of the American military government. It gave only limited authority to to the United States military government by specifically prohibiting military officials from taking any steps to rehabilitate the German economy except to maximize agricultural production.

Through various channels, White had gathered information concerning the kind of policy directives other departments had in preparation. This he was able to achieve through a system of "trading" which Morgenthau had initiated at his suggestion. As Elizabeth Bentley told the Internal Security Subcommittee, "We were so successful getting information... largely because of Harry White's idea to persuade Morgenthau to exchange information." Treasury officials, for example, would send information to the Navy Department, and the Navy would reciprocate. There were, according to Miss Bentley, at least "seven or eight agencies" trading information with Morgenthau.

At the Yalta Conference on February 4, 1945, the question of postwar treatment of Germany was the most important item on the agenda. The President's conduct suggests the powerful effect on his thinking of White's masterplan and Morgenthau's salesmanship. On the major points regarding Germany the President easily capitulated to the Soviets. 

Stalin and Roosevelt were in general accord that the defeated Germans should be stripped of their factories and left to take care of themselves. But Churchill wished to preserve enough of the existing economic structure of Germany to permit the defeated nation to recover to some degree.

In his book Beyond Containment, William H. Chamberlin assesses Yalta as a tragedy of appeasement:

 Like Munich, Yalta must be set down as a dismal failure, practically as well as morally ... The Yalta Agreement represented, in two of its features, the endorsement by the United States of the principle of human slavery. One of these features was the recognition that German labor could be used as a source of reparations ... And the agreement that Soviet citizens who were found in the Eastern zones of occupation should be handed over to Soviet authorities amounted, for the many Soviet refugees who did not wish to return, to the enactment of a fugitive slave law.

After President Roosevelt returned from Yalta, State Department officials grasped an opportunity to push through their own program for postwar Germany. On March 10, 1945, Secretary of State Edward Stettinius submitted for the President's consideration the draft of a new policy directive for the military occupation of Germany. The prime movers in this strategy were Leon Henderson, James C. Dunn, and James W. Riddleberger, the departmental expert on German affairs. They purposely did not consult with Treasury officials because they knew there would be major objections from them. The March 10 memorandum was a reasonable substitute for the rigorous JCS 1067, which was so pleasing to White and Morgenthau. It was based on the central concept that Germany was important to the economy recovery of Europe. It provided for joint allied control of defeated Germany, preservation of a large part of German industry, and a "minimum standard of living" for the German people. The memorandum had no provision for dismemberment, and Germany was to begin "paying her own way as soon... as possible." 

When Morgenthau saw a copy of the State Department memorandum, he became so furious that he immediately telephoned Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy to voice his complaints. "It's damnable, an outrage!" he exclaimed.

 "Riddleberger and these fellows are just putting this thing across ... I'm not going to take it lying down." The State Department plan, if adopted, would have spelled complete defeat for Morgenthau and White. "It makes me so mad," Morgenthau raged, "I think the President should fire Jimmy Dunn and two or three other fellows." 

Several days later, armed with a memorandum drafted by White, Coe, and Glasser, he hurried to the White House. He was disturbed to find Roosevelt's daughter, Anna, and her husband, Maj. John Boettinger, caring for the President, "whose health by that time was faltering to the point where mental lapses could be expected." Roosevelt apparently no longer thought that Morgenthau had "pulled a boner" with his destroy-Germany plan and when Boettinger commented "You don't want the Germans to starve," the President replied "Why not?" Morgenthau told White he was worried about Boettinger's attitude. The question one may ask is did the Soviets know what the American people did not know -- that Roosevelt was close to death and liable to blackouts at any moment?

Morgenthau reported jubilantly, however, to his "team" that the President had accepted his plan as "a good tough document." He confided in his diary:

 We have a good team, they just can't break the team... It is very encouraging that we had the President back us up... they tried to get him to change and they couldn't -- the State Department crowd. Sooner or later, the President just has to clean his house. I mean the vicious crowd... They are Fascists at heart...

The State Department was sorely disappointed that the President had rejected their March 10th memorandum. It was a severe defeat for Riddleberger, Dunn, and others who were advocating a reasonable program for Germany. Morgenthau felt that the new JCS document should declare unmistakably that the State Department paper of March 10 was officially withdrawn. White asked McCloy and General Hilldring whether everyone in the War Department would understand that the new document "superseded" the March 10 memorandum. McCloy assured him that everyone would be duly notified. White then asked whether it would be perfectly "clear" in the Army that the Treasury document "took precedence over and caused the revision of any document contrary to it." General Hilldring answered there would be no problem here.

A cardinal point of dispute between the Treasury and the Department of War resided in the question of the treatment of German war criminals. Stimson advised the President to have trials rather than the "shoot on sight" policy advocated by Morgenthau. Stimson believed the accused should have a right to be heard and be allowed to call witnesses to his defense. Another subject of controversy between the Treasury on the one side and the State and War on the other was the question of reparations. The Treasury believed that reparations should be limited to whatever the Allies could wring out of defeated Germany at the end of the war. 

Morgenthau and White were dead set against the old concept of long-term reparations payments, because such annual tribute would necessitate the re-building of industry on a large scale in Germany. They wished to make the Germans "pastoral" and then throw upon them the full responsibility for taking care of themselves. The World War I application of "reparations" would result in nothing more or less that the revitalization of German industrial might. In their thinking this specter loomed large indeed.

White and his colleagues were careful not to jeopardize postwar relations with the Soviet Union. They frequently expressed their fears of Western encirclement of Russia. They thought that those individuals in the American government who wished to restore Germany were motivated by the idea that a strong Reich was necessary as a "bulwark against Russia." This attitude was certainly responsible for many of the current difficulties between Washington and Moscow. At one of the interdepartmental meetings a dispute developed over the question of compulsory German labor as restitution for war damages in Russia. Treasury officials were boldly advocating the creation of a large labor force with no external controls. This view was challenged by War, State and other departments as treating two or three million people as slave labor. 

Morgenthau reminded his opponents that the whole issue of compulsory labor had already been decided upon at Yalta. "We are simply carrying out the Yalta agreement," he exclaimed, and anyone who is going to protest "... is protesting against Yalta ..." It is significant that five months previously, President Roosevelt had sent a memorandum to Morgenthau to the effect that if "they [Russia] want German labor, there is no reason why they should not get it in certain circumstances and under certain conditions." 

White opined that if the Russians needed two million German laborers to reconstruct their devastated areas, he saw nothing wrong with it; it was "in the interest" of Russia and even Germany that the labor force come from the ranks of the Gestapo, the S.S., and the Nazi party membership. "That's not a punishment for crime," he stated, "that's merely a part of the reparations problem in the same way you want certain machines from Germany... 

As long as Morgenthau was Secretary of the Treasury, White performed adroitly in his strange Svengali role. But fundamental changes in the management of American foreign policy occurred after Harry Truman became President. While the President was still a Senator, he read in the newspapers about the Morgenthau Plan, and he didn't like it. 

Morgenthau wanted to come to Potsdam, threatening to resign if he was not made a member of the U.S. delegation. Truman promptly accepted his resignation.

What were the final results of the Morgenthau Plan? What actual effect did it have on Germany? "While the policy was never fully adopted," wrote W. Friedmann, "it had a considerable influence upon American policy in the later stages of the war and during the first phase of military government."  

Although President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill eventually recognized the folly of what they had approved at Quebec, Morgenthau, White, and the Treasury staff saw to it that the spirit and substance of their plan prevailed in official policy as it was finally mirrored in the punitive directive known as JCS 1067.

In a very definite way JCS 1067 determined the main lines of U.S. policy in Germany for fully two years after the surrender. Beginning in the fall of 1945, to be sure, a new drift in American policy was evident, and it eventually led to the formal repudiation of the directive in July of 1947. Until it was officially revoked, however, the lower administrative echelons had to enforce its harsh provisions. "The military government officers," writes Prof. Harold Zink, "were unable to see how Germany could be reorganized without a substantial amount of industrialization. They tried to fit the Morgenthan dictates into their economic plans, but they ended up more or less in a state of paralysis." 

As White had certainly anticipated, the economic condition of Germany was desperate between 1945 and 1948. The cities remained heaps of debris, and shelter was at a premium as a relentless stream of unskilled refugees poured into the Western zones, where the food ration of 1,500 calories per day was hardly sufficient to sustain life. As Stimson, Riddleberger, and others had predicted, the economic prostration of Germany now resulted in disruption of the continental trade that was essential to the prosperity of other European nations. As long as German industrial power was throttled, the economic recovery of Europe was delayed -- and this, in time, led to serious political complications. 

To nurse Europe back to health, the Marshall Plan was devised in 1947. It repudiated, at long last, the philosophy of the White-Morgenthau program.

The currency reforms of June 1948 changed the situation overnight. These long overdue measures removed the worst restraints, and thereupon West Germany began its phenomenal economic revival.

After all this has been said, an implicit question haunts the historian. It is this: if the Morgenthau Plan was indeed psychopathically anti-German, was it also consciously and purposefully pro-Russian? The Secretary of the Treasury never denied that his plan was anti-German in both its philosophy and its projected effects, but no one in his department ever admitted that it was also pro-Russian in the same ways. In his book, And Call It Peace, Marshall Knappen suggested in 1947 that the Morgenthau Plan "corresponded closely to what might be presumed to be Russian wishes on the German question. It provided a measure of vengeance and left no strong state in the Russian orbit." 

In document after document the Diaries reveal Harry Dexter White's influence upon both the formative thinking and the final decisions of Secretary Morgenthau. Innocent of higher economics and the mysteries of international finance, the Secretary had always leaned heavily on his team of experts for all manner of general and specific recommendations.  White was the field captain of that team; on the German question he called all the major plays from the start. As a result of White's advice, for example, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing was ordered in April 1944 to deliver to the Soviet government a duplicate set of plates for the printing of the military occupation marks which were to be the legal currency of postwar Germany. 

The ultimate product of this fantastic decision was to greatly stimulate inflation throughout occupied Germany, and the burden of redeeming these Soviet-made marks finally fell upon American taxpayers to a grand total of more than a quarter of a billion dollars.  White followed this recommendation with another, in May of 1944, which again anticipated the emerging plan. This time he urged a postwar loan of ten billion dollars to the Soviet Union. 

Remember that, in her testimony before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee in 1952, the confessed Communist courier Elizabeth Bentley charged that White was the inside man who prepared the plan for Secretary Morgenthau, and "on our instruction he pushed hard." Also, J. Edgar Hoover of the FBI charged that White was an active agent of Soviet espionage, and despite the fact he had sent five reports to the White House warning the President of White's activities, Truman promoted him to a position at the United Nations. When the shocking story of White's service as a Soviet agent was first revealed by Attorney General Herbert Brownell in a Chicago speech, it created quite a stir of public charges and counter-charges by then retired Harry Truman.

The concentration of Communist sympathizers in the Treasury Department is now a matter of public record. White eventually became Assistant Secretary. Collaborating with him were Frank Coe, Harold Glasser, Irving Kaplan and Victor Perlo, all of whom were identified in sworn testimony as participants in the Communist conspiracy. When questioned by Congressional investigators, they consistently invoked the Fifth Amendment. In his one appearance before the House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1948, White emphatically denied participation in any conspiracy. 

A few days later he was found dead, the apparent victim of a heart attack (which is questioned by some investigators). Notes in his handwriting were later found among the "pumpkin papers" on Whittaker Chambers' farm.  In a statement before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee in 1953, Attorney General Brownell declared White guilty of "supplying information consisting of documents obtained by him in the course of duties as Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Treasury, to Nathan Gregory Silvermaster..."  Silvermaster passed these documents on to Miss Bentley after photographing them in his basement. When asked before two congressional committees to explain his activities, Silvermaster invoked the Fifth Amendment.

Never before in American history had an unelected bureaucracy of faceless, "fourth floor" officials exercised such arbitrary power over the future of nations as did Harry Dexter White and his associates in the Department of the Treasury under Henry Morgenthau, Jr. What they attempted to do in their curious twisting of American ideals, and how close they came to complete success, is demonstrated in the Morgenthau Diaries, which I had the privilege of examining and which were published by the Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, in 1967.
 

Save 75.0% on select products from hird with promo code 75LI9AG6, through 10/16 while supplies last.