- Counter-Currents - https://counter-currents.com -

Hitler or Judah?
A Second Nuremberg Tribunal, Chapter 4


Albrecht Dürer, "Wing of a Blue Roller," 1512, watercolor and gouache on vellum

8,599 words

Previous installment here [2]

Chapter 4

Second Session

The following day, the snow had stopped falling over Nuremberg, but the wind, which was blowing gently over the white carpet, produced miniature whirlwinds which the sun transformed into firebrands. In this way, the town resembled some unusual orchard, planted in the furthest North. We all met again in the auditorium, except for the journalist Ziegler, who refused to attend the session, as he could have done, and had just returned to Paris. The temper of everyone assembled, matched the icy weather, and I expected a peaceful session. A few large dossiers, which the advocates had produced for the debates, littered the large table behind which the President, his assessors, and the Public Prosecutor were sitting. The latter began to speak at once:

“Gentlemen of the jury, Counsel for Adolf Hitler tried in the first session to prove that the aggressive anti-Semitism of his client was justified by legitimate self-defense. This line of approach is obviously aimed at appealing for extenuating circumstances, or even an acquittal. Advocate Kleist has certainly given us a most objective analysis of the genesis and development of Hitler’s anti-Semitism, but this is not of any particular interest to the tribunal. Many people become anti-Semites for reasons which they consider to be excellent, but they do not commit crimes against humanity.

“Advocate Kleist then tried to prove a case of legitimate self-defense by producing as evidence the so-called Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, which describe an alleged permanent aggression by the Jews against all other peoples.

“I know these texts. They are disturbing; they would convince the tribunal and show Adolf Hitler to be a very great man if they were authentic. Unfortunately for him, Counsel for Judah has proved that the documents were forged by agents of the Okhrana, whose aim was to discredit the Russian Jews, considered by the Okhrana to be enemies of the State.”

Adv. Kleist: “My colleague has merely repeated the forgery theme, so popular in Jewish propaganda. But he has not proved anything at all! On the other hand, I shall prove the authenticity of the documents by analysis, and by progressing from the visible fact to the hidden cause. This cannot however be done in a single session. While you condemn the actions of my client, Mr. Public Prosecutor, I shall demonstrate the reality of Jewish aggression, set forth in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, and justifying Adolf Hitler’s claim of legitimate self-defense.”

Public Prosecutor Loubski: “Mr. Advocate, I want this tribunal to examine Hitler’s crimes in chronological order. I therefore intend to analyze today National Socialism’s campaign against the Jews from the time when Hitler assumed power on January 30th, 1933, up to the time when war was declared by Germany on September 3rd, 1939.”

Adv. Kleist: “Mr. Public Prosecutor, your memory needs to be refreshed! Just as most other people today, you err, or shall we say, you forget the true state of affairs. It was not my client who declared war on September 3rd, 1939, but England and, three hours later, France, who had been more than imperiously invited to do so by London! These are the facts, and I should like to remind you that facts are obstinate!”

Prosecutor Loubski: “But you cannot deny that it was Hitler who entered Poland at the head of his armies?”

Adv. Kleist: “Quite right, and without a declaration of war, since it was only a punitive expedition, designed to discourage the Poles from further occupation of the corridor which, since the Treaty of Versailles had cut Germany in two in the name of universal self-determination, humanism, the conscience of mankind, Christian charity . . . etc., etc.!

“All these values had been dictated by democratic principles, i.e., the principles of the 1918 victors, which had, however, changed to the advantage of my client by 1939! The Second World War, the real war, the war which ruined Europe, began on September 3rd 1939, and was declared by England and France, on the misleading pretext of protecting Poland’s freedom, although the real reason was to crush Hitler, the champion of anti-Semitism.

“These statements I shall prove, but for the moment I do not want to put the cart before the horse, and I should like to start, as I should, in 1933.”

Prosecutor Loubski: “Mr. Advocate, I am in complete agreement with you. We return therefore to the year 1933. As soon as Hitler became chancellor of the Reich, the Nazi pogrom could begin!”

Adv. Kleist: “Mr. President, with all due respect, is this a European People’s Tribunal, or a Tribunal of the Inquisition? When I listen to the Public Prosecutor, I have the impression that judgment has already been passed in the second session, and that my client has been condemned before the debate has begun, just as he was in 1946 in Nuremberg.”

President Schoepf: “Advocate, your question is an insult to the tribunal! Why should the Public Prosecutor’s line of approach shock you? He cannot speak otherwise, since he must of necessity be convinced of Adolf Hitler’s guilt. Are you not arguing to prove his innocence, and are you not doing so as a former National Socialist? And is advocate David Hollander not pleading for Judah, as a representative of the Jewish people? None of you will be called upon to pronounce judgment. This is the task of the jury, the assessors, and of myself. There can be no question of this being a Tribunal of the Inquisition!”

Adv. Kleist: “I take note, Mr. President, and I shall try to suppress the irritation which overwhelms me when I hear extracts from the postwar Jewish propaganda arsenal. And I must also apologize if I cause the Public Prosecutor an irritation, comparable to my own, by saying that the anti-Jewish policy of Chancellor Hitler was a masterpiece of moderation between 1933 and 1939!”

President Schoepf: “Mr. Advocate, I would be obliged if you did not start any political debates.”

Adv. Kleist: “This will not be necessary. All I have to do is to quote facts which have been established by history. In this confrontation between Hitler and the Jews, we must just ask the elementary question: who began? It was of course the Jews. I make this assertion and I will prove it.

“Mr. President, Gentlemen of the jury, my client came to power on the 30th of January, 1933. On the 13th of March the Executive Committee of the American Jewish Congress — the most powerful Jewish organization of the time — assembled, and one of its leaders, J. Tannenbaum, declared: ‘On the commercial level a large industrial country like Germany cannot isolate itself completely from the rest of the world.’[1] Although the Jewish Congress did not immediately issue formal orders to boycott German commerce — this was done some weeks later — nevertheless the economic war against Hitler broke out immediately in all those countries where the Jews had some measure of influence, and that was nearly everywhere. There is no trace of an order, formally issued in writing, because all important decisions of the Jews remain secret. They always use what in Africa is called the ‘bush telegraph.’ In London there were signs in the windows: ‘No German goods sold here,’ or: ‘No German travelers should call here.’ To boycott the commerce of a nation in 1933 was an act of war. Hitler had to help a country to its feet which had been ruined by the Treaty of Versailles, which was encumbered by unemployed, which had no foreign credit and no gold, and which also suffered from a weak currency. Germany could not survive without exports. You must remember that the world had been in the throes of an economic crisis since the Wall Street crash in 1929. Every country had to defend itself against its neighbors. Everywhere one could see slogans such as ‘Buy British’ or ‘Buy French.’ And now, to all these conjunctural difficulties, the Jews added the burden of economic war, thinking that this would be enough to remove Hitler from power. Please note, Mr. President, that at that time, my client had not as yet taken any serious steps against the Jews of Germany. But we already have here the start of World War II which was to last for twelve years within the frame­work of a new Hundred Years’ War which the Jews had unleashed in 1917 against the Germanic civilizing influence!”

Counsel for Judah asked for permission to speak, and permission was granted.

Adv. Hollander: “The anti-Semitism of my learned colleague will ensure that World War II never comes to an end before this European People’s Tribunal! However, would he please explain how the Jews could be so naive as to believe that they could win the war against Germany merely by organizing a boycott of her commerce?”

Adv. Kleist: “I do not need to answer this question, since the Jews have answered it themselves in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. May I please quote: ‘It is indispensable for our purpose that wars, so far as possible, should not result in territorial gains: war will thus be brought on to the economic ground where the nations will not fail to perceive, in the assistance we give, the strength of our predominance.’[2] This, Mr. President, is the first stage in my examination of the authenticity of the Protocols. My point of departure will be the visible act — the Jewish offensive against the commerce of the Third Reich — and I shall pursue my research right back to the source of Jewish violence and greed.”

President Schoepf: “Counsel for Judah may speak.”

Adv. Hollander: “I do not deny the organization of an economic boycott of Germany as soon as Hitler came to power, but I deny that there was any connection between this and the so-called Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. The Jewish people simply reacted to aggression with the only means at their disposal.”

Adv. Kleist: “What aggression?”

Adv. Hollander: “There is a great deal of proof available. Hitler had been making preparations since the 19th of September, 1919. I quote from a memorandum written by him: ‘Anti-Semitism based on passion always ends in pogroms. On the other hand, a rational anti-Semitism should conduct an organized combat, defined by law, against the privileges which the Jew enjoys and which distinguish him from other strangers living in our midst. The final object of a rational anti-Semitism should without any doubt be the expulsion of all the Jews from Germany.’”[3]

Adv. Kleist: “That sounds like very good sense! It also bears witness to the moderation of my client! Even before coming to power, he condemns pogroms, thereby excluding the possibility of one day having to liquidate 6,000,000 Jews. He merely declares himself to be in favor of a measure which concerns sovereignty. Any people’s government — and may I remind you that Hitler’s government was supported by 99% of the population! — is entitled to expel from its territory people that it does not want! Has the State of Israel not expelled one-and-a-half-million Palestinians and incarcerated those who remained to protest either in prison or in concentration camps? If we are to excuse the Jews of Israel today for expelling the Palestinians, why should my client not be excused for wanting to expel the Jews? My dear colleague, you must pardon my smiling at your quotation, which I find somewhat ill-chosen. Of course, I have long since realized that to scratch the skin of a Jew is a crime, whereas to mutilate a goy — for example a Palestinian — is of no consequence. This is also referred to in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. I quote: ‘Each victim on our side is worth a thousand goyim in the sight of God.’”[4]

Adv. Hollander: “Mr. President. I should like to know whether this auditorium has been placed at the disposal of the Nazis, or of a tribunal wishing to establish historical truth?”

President Schoepf: “Your colleague is defending his client as best he can, but this court would certainly appreciate your both returning to the central theme of your pleas, namely, the state of legitimate self-defense claimed by Hitler, and his actions from 1933 on.”

Adv. Hollander: “I reject out of hand any such plea of legitimate self-defense. The economic boycott of Germany, which started after the 30th of January, 1933, was merely the retaliation of the Jews for Nazi persecution!”

Adv. Kleist: “Once again I must ask: ‘What persecution?’”

Adv. Hollander: “Persecution of the Jews and of their possessions! In their program of the 24th of February, 1928, the Nazis demanded in paragraph 6 that administrative posts should be reserved for citizens of the Reich alone. Four thousand Jews were affected by this law: 1,832 teachers, 286 magistrates, 282 railway workers and 1,545 civil servants of various kinds.”[5]

Adv. Kleist: “My learned colleague is anticipating history. Is he perhaps referring to persecutions of which Hitler is said to have made himself guilty in February 1920, although he was merely speaking to two-thousand people in the Hofbrauhaus?”

Adv. Hollander: “Not at all! The act of restoration of the public function was published on the 7th of April, 1933 and the decree in which the non-Aryan was defined as a person having one or more Jewish parents or grandparents was published on the 11th of April, 1933.”

Adv. Kleist: “Gentlemen of the Tribunal, please remember these dates. They offer definite evidence that Jewish aggression began first. Of course, I shall not quibble about the day or the week. The Jews obviously realized, as soon as my client appeared on the political scene and had published Mein Kampf, that if he were to attain power, their sway in Germany would be at an end! However, facts are facts, and the Jews’ worldwide attack on German commerce was definitely an act of aggression which justifies my client’s plea of legitimate self-defense!”

“What was his reaction to this initial declaration of war, situated for the moment on the economic plain? Firmly, but nevertheless with exemplary moderation, he issued repeated warnings to the Jewish diaspora. On the 11th of May, 1933, he said to the British Ambassador: ‘If foreign Jews continue to organize boycotts of German products, I shall ensure that their co-religionists in Germany bear the consequences.’[6] He repeated this warning two months later before a Council of Ministers: “It should be remembered that the boycott which has been organized by the Jews is merely one way of removing German leaders from power.”

Adv. Hollander: “I contest the chronology of responsibility which my learned colleague is trying to establish. It is true that the recommendations of the American Jewish Congress in favor of a boycott of German exports were made the day before the reprisals organized by Hitler against the Jews on the 1st of April. But it is equally true that persecution of the Jews increased during the years when the NSDAP was striving for power. My learned colleague is ignoring the details!”

Adv. Kleist: “What do you mean by persecution? Are you suggesting that a Berlin Jew who, during the political struggle before 1933, turned up at a public meeting to insult Hitler and was thrown out of the hall by the SA, could legitimately claim that he was being persecuted? In that case, any political struggle can be classified as persecution of one side or the other. But whereas the supporters of Hitler — and also the Communists for that matter — can produce a long list of followers who were killed in those years — I need only quote Horst Wessel — I think that Judah could count on the fingers of one hand all the German Jews who were ‘persecuted’ in the same way! And yet, I am in no way surprised at the hypocrisy of your argument, my dear colleague I know that any activist who gets into trouble is said to be ‘persecuted’ if he is a Jew, but ‘re-educated’ if he is a goy. I should, however, like to remind you that the city of Nuremberg is not the Wailing Wall! Now let us return to facts. I shall certainly admit that in the days after Hitler had come to power, the situation of the German Jews could hardly be described as comfortable. They appeared in the eyes of everyone to be the losers of this political struggle, but the German people, who had traditionally been very moderately anti­-Semitic, were more inclined to make jokes about them than to kick them in the pants. A few windows were broken, true enough, and a few synagogues were also desecrated, but I challenge Counsel for Judah to quote me one single case in which SA or SS men murdered a Jew! And yet there were at this time 70,000 Jewish refugees from Poland in Germany! It is well-known that a Polish Jew attracts a pogrom just as a lightning conductor attracts lightning. The fact that no Jews lost their lives after Hitler had come to power, is a tribute to the level-headedness and humanism of the German people.”

Adv. Hollander: “What about the American Jews who ‘had been persecuted by the Nazis in Germany! They were not Polish Jews, attracting pogroms like a lightning conductor attracts lightning! The State Department handed Roosevelt a memorandum about the affair and compiled a list of victims.”[7]

Adv. Kleist: Roosevelt was an agent of the Jews, this has now been established beyond all possible doubt. Nevertheless, I take note of your objection. A few residents and some visitors — not all of them Jews, by any means — were set upon by angry passersby or a few SA numbskulls but such incidents are inevitable in the course of a revolution of such colossal proportions as the victory of National Socialism. And yet I have not been able to ascertain the name of a single American who was killed or wounded in Germany during these events. All these so-called atrocities are merely Jewish propaganda which already in those days was almost as well established in the world as it is today. If Hitler had agreed to cancel his reaction to the Jewish boycott, Cordell Hull would have given the press a communiqué which had already been drawn up in the following terms:

The United States are following the situation which is developing in Germany with considerable disquiet. Regrettable incidents have certainly taken place. The whole world deplores this unanimously. Without wishing to minimize or excuse the events which took place in Germany, I nevertheless think that many of the atrocities and acts of terror which have been reported in the United States, have been exaggerated and I fear that if such stories should spread, it could affect adversely the friendship binding our two peoples, which would in fact benefit nobody in the long run.[8]

“On the other hand, gentlemen, the unruly elements of the SA, the hoodlums and provocateurs who most certainly played a part at this time, were for the most part arrested, brought to court, and convicted. Hitler was very anxious to obtain a ‘final solution’ of the Jewish question which would appear without blemish in the eyes of posterity. He said as much to the King of Sweden during his visit to Berlin on April 21st, 1933, during a luncheon at the Embassy, given in honor of Hindenburg, and attended by von Papen, Neurath, and the Italian Ambassador, Cerutti, who telephoned the following message to Rome four days later: ‘Our struggle to free Germany from all heterogeneous elements will be celebrated in later centuries as one of the most important events in German history.’[9]

“Gentlemen, one does not commit atrocities when one wishes to be judged by posterity!”

Adv. Hollander: “Hitler’s declarations should never be taken seriously. Why not tell the court about April 1st, 1933, when the persecution of the German Jews could no longer be said to have been the work of hooligans and provocateurs, since it was officially ordered by Hitler himself?”

Adv. Kleist: “With pleasure. For two months Hitler’s diplomats had negotiated with every capital, but especially with London, New York, and Paris, in an attempt to break the economic blockade which the Jews had organized. The tribunal will find the details of this action set out in a book written by a Jew who could hardly be called a Nazi. I place 12 copies on the table to avoid wasting time by inundating the jury with a torrent of quotations. The author, Eliahu Ben Elissar, a distinguished journalist, once occupied a senior post in the entourage of the President of the State of Israel. He is therefore well- informed on all matters, pertaining to what is generally known as the Jewish question, and he writes with as much objectivity as can be reasonably expected from a Jew who is defending his own people. We are asked for details about this famous April 1st? I quote:

The course of events did not follow the same pattern in all parts of the country. . . . In Berlin there were enormous posters urging the population to join in the boycott. Trucks, equipped with loudspeakers, moved through the streets reminding the Germans constantly that they should boycott the Jews. The shop windows of Jewish firms were covered with placards informing the public of the origins of the proprietor. Boycott pickets of SA and SS men stood at the doors of the shops, the chambers of the lawyers and the waiting rooms of doctors, barring the entrances. There were a host of irritating measures. The Jews of Germany were sent to Coventry for the day.[10]

“The Jews were therefore sent to Coventry for the day, but they were not put to death, as in Jerusalem under Titus and Hadrian, they were not burnt alive on the cross as in Spain, they were not strangled as in Poland or in Russia, and they were not expelled from Germany as they had been from France by King Philip the Fair, or from England by Edward I, and they were not deported to Babylon as they had been by King Nebuchadnezzar. Gentlemen, you must permit me to applaud the patience and moderation of my client in this matter.”

Adv. Hollander: “The German Jews were indeed to be expelled later by Hitler, they were deported and they were also burnt. I find it difficult to believe that the tribunal can accept a comparison between the customs of a barbaric epoch, quoted by my learned colleague, and the behavior of the Germans in the 20th century, as justification of one crime by another!”

Adv. Kleist: “In matters of morality all ages are the same; there is no such thing as moral progress. And it ill becomes a State such as Israel to criticize German morality after having recently elected to the highest executive office a man who forty years ago was the leader of a terrorist gang in Palestine, guilty amongst other crimes of having murdered the United Nations representative, Count Bernadotte! But please forgive my digression. All peoples suffering from the Jewish menace — and I refer to the Protocols — will behave in the future as they did 2,000 years ago. I maintain that, compared with the past which is known, and in comparison with the future which can be foreseen, Hitler and the German people acted with extraordinary moderation, in their situation of legitimate self-defense.”

Adv. Hollander: “To what moderation do you refer, my dear colleague? Are 6,000,000 victims of murder an example of moderation?”

Adv. Kleist: “We shall speak of the war later, although war was already declared by the Jews on January 30th, 1933. For the moment we must devote our attention to the economic weapons, used against Germany, which could not however prevent Hitler from carrying out a social revolution, unique in the history of nations. Gentlemen of the jury, you are young, you never knew those times! I saw working-class houses just as attractive as the villas of French bourgeois, springing from the earth like corn from the fields; I saw open motorways, providing a passage for the mass production of the Volkswagen — the people’s car — whereas fifty years later a country such as France can still promote blindly the production of millions of vehicles without the least thought as to where they can be used! I mention this, by the way! . . . I am not here to sing the praises of Adolf Hitler, the man of progress, but to defend him against Jewish propaganda and against the aggression of a so-called justice, perpetrated here in Nuremberg in 1946.

“Mr. President, I think that I have shown how my client, having decided to solve the Jewish problem in Germany, behaved right from the start with great moderation, although he never abandoned his rights as a sovereign head of State. Just as other men have proclaimed the separation of Church and State, he in turn revised the very basis of German nationality by separating the Jewish minority from the Aryan majority. This he was perfectly entitled to do! He realized that sooner or later he would be compelled to move the Jews of Germany on to other countries. For he had long since recognized the validity of the laws of nature which scientists are today busy rediscovering, to wit, that all animals possess a piece of territory upon which other animals may not encroach.[11] In this matter, my client and the Elders of Zion thought along the same lines, although with one important difference, namely, that Hitler wished to rule over a racially homogeneous people, whereas Judah claimed — and still claims — the right to reign over the whole world, as promised in the Protocols. I quote: ‘The king of the Jews will be the real pope of the universe, the patriarch of the international church.'[12]

Adv. Hollander: “I would remind the tribunal that by once more quoting the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, my colleague is making use of a forgery.”

Adv. Kleist: “Since winning World War II, the Jews have been striving for universal domination and have confirmed, day by day and point by point, the authenticity of this document.

“I must now surprise the tribunal by showing that my client, far from yielding to the fury of the anti-Semites, actually began by collaborating with the Jewish people! Lies are lies, but facts are facts! Hitler was the only Statesman, capable of adopting a reasonable approach to Zionism. Of course, he did not believe for a moment in the sincerity of the Jews, claiming to be on the march towards their promised land, and he said as much in Mein Kampf.[13] He knew, however, that most of the Jews in Germany wanted to emigrate, and it was his intention to help them do so. This he was entitled to.

“But where were they to go?

“France and England, which had seized vast areas of the world by violence, cynicism, and lies, had no intention of giving any territory whatsoever to the Jewish people . . . ‘Colonialism does not concern us,’ they maintained, long before Jean-Paul Sartre said the same thing about hell! Gentlemen, I shall in the course of these proceedings return to this question, and I shall prove that the three great democracies bear a far greater responsibility than does my client for the sad fate which befell the Jews of Germany during the war, because they resolutely refused to accept the solutions put forward by the Third Reich. In 1933, the Jewish national home under British mandate could still assimilate the Jews of Germany. Hitler saw his chance, and up to 1938 he was to support, sometimes in the teeth of opposition from his own administration, an organ which was created in 1933.”

Adv. Hollander: “Of course, he wanted to get rid of the Jews, but provided that they left with nothing in their hands and nothing in their pockets!”

Adv. Kleist: “Quite the contrary! I think that you are misinformed.

“When Hitler came to power he found a country which was ruined, and his Finance Minister instituted currency control, forbidding the export of all capital. This was not an anti-Semitic law but a protective measure, which was no respecter of persons; nobody was allowed to leave the Third Reich with more than 30 marks. And it was obviously so well-organized and so beneficial, that the France of General de Gaulle adopted it in her hour of victory in 1945. Even today the French tourist faces a situation similar to the one obtaining in Germany in 1933. The only difference being that the French tourist may take out 5,000 Francs with him, instead of thirty marks.

“In 1933, Palestine under British mandate, demanded that any Jew wishing to settle in the national home should be in possession of capital equivalent to at least £1,000 Sterling. For this reason, Hitler allowed the Jews to leave Germany with this sum, a very great privilege in comparison with what other citizens were entitled to take with them.”

Adv. Hollander: “My learned colleague is trying to justify the indefensible with tendentious arguments. The poor Jews did not possess £1,000 Sterling, and the few rich Jews in Germany who could leave the country with such a sum, had to abandon a capital which was far greater. This was pure robbery!”

Adv. Kleist: “I reply: First of all, there were very few poor Jews in Germany where this people represents a privileged caste. Secondly, my learned colleague is evidently in complete ignorance of the so­-called Haavara Agreement. This agreement was accepted by Hitler with the express aim of freeing the large Jewish capital which was frozen in Germany. The Hebrew word means ‘exchange.’

“Allow me to give you a brief summary of the measure.

“In April 1933, the Jew, Sam Cohen, director of a colonization company which was active in Palestine, paid a visit to the German Consul in Jerusalem and made him a proposition. He offered to place orders in Germany for all the equipment which he had been buying previously from Czechoslovakia. The transport of goods would be financed by the Jews who had emigrated to Palestine and whose capital was blocked in Germany.

“On his arrival in the promised land, the Jew could draw in Palestinian Pounds the equivalent value of Marks which he had paid into a blocked account in Berlin. Everybody would profit from this arrangement. The emigrants would not lose their capital, the Third Reich would not lose its currency, and the system would enable the Jews to reach Tel Aviv, just as my client wished.

“The Haavara Agreement was signed in Berlin on August 7th, 1933. It involved an initial transfer of 3,000,000 Marks, which was to take place on February 30th, 1934, and which was later to be increased.

“I shall not go into the details, but merely refer you to a book which I have made available for this debate.[14] I do not want to stress the importance of this financial agreement, although it adds a humanitarian touch to the racial policies of my client, who was by no means unmoved by human distress provided it did not endanger a world concept which, for the first time in 3,000 years, he was trying to reintroduce into history.

“I should, however, like to point out that the Jews are much more racist than he was! It was during the 18th Zionist Congress which opened in Prague on August 21st, 1933, the first of its kind since Hitler had come to power, that the Haavara Agreement was discussed in detail for the first time. I quote:

The position of the Jews in Germany must obviously be the main source of preoccupation during these debates. Hoofin and Ruppin[15] have come straight to Prague from Berlin. Many delegates accused Hoofin and Cohen, the two principal negotiators, of having made a pact with the Devil and of having, through the Haavara Agreement, sabotaged the struggle of the Jews against the racialist policies of the Reich.[16]

“You see, gentlemen, how through all of these protests we can dimly discern what has always been the greatness of the Jewish people, but what has also been the cause of all its woes: let the Jews of Germany perish, provided that we can overcome this Hitler, who is blocking our way to world domination!”

Jury Member Chanoux: “Mr. Advocate, I seem to see a contradiction in your argument. On the one hand you quote Mein Kampf, in which your client condemns the Jewish National Home in Palestine as a point of departure for, and as a political instrument of world domination, and now you show him to be a collaborator in the cause of this National Home.

“Did Hitler have a coherent policy, or did he not?

Adv. Kleist: “The basis of his political thought can be found in Mein Kampf, and he never deviated from it strategically. However, just like other heads of State, he was sometimes compelled to make some technical adjustments. The indirect aid for a Jewish National Home was just such a tactical deviation, because it helped the German economy in the short term, and also encouraged the Jews to leave the country.

“The Haavara Agreement, which continued up to 1939, made it possible for 50,000 Jews to leave Germany for Palestine and to transfer 140,000,000 Marks to that country.

Adv. Hollander: “And of course to be fleeced by the Nazis in the process–at a rate of exchange of thirteen Marks for £1 Sterling in 1933, and 28.16 Marks in 1939!”

Adv. Kleist: “That the rate of exchange should have deteriorated does not demonstrate any desire on the part of Hitler to fleece the Jews. On the contrary, it demonstrates the desire of the Jews to ruin Germany by economic war. In Paris, the paper marks which were smuggled out by the Jews in 1938 were sold for three Francs, whereas the official rate of exchange was 12 Francs.

“But let me answer the question, asked by jury member Chanoux.

“Hitler never seriously thought that a Jewish State could be erected in the Palestine of the Arabs. He knew that this would quite rightly provoke a revolt by the Palestinians against a cruel, proud, and overbearing people. He could not, however, disclose his innermost thoughts to England, from whom he sought an alliance. In this connection, I should like to make available to the jury the instructions given by von Neurath to the German Diplomatic Missions in London, Jerusalem, and Baghdad.[17]

Adv. Hollander: “My learned colleague seems to share my sentiments entirely. Hitler merely relaxed his cruel policies when this was profitable to Germany, no more, no less.”

Adv. Kleist: “Hitler never altered his decision to separate the German community from the Jewish minority, and this he was perfectly entitled to do as head of State, just as other heads of State are today entitled to maintain their separatist communities within the national framework, even though these communities want their independence. The Queen of England claims the right to hold on to Ulster; Juan Carlos, King of Spain, wants to hold on to the Basques, and the President of the French Republic asserts his authority over Brittany, Alsace, Corsica, Savoy, and French Flanders. Although all of them could, if they wished, grant their minorities political freedom.”

Jury Member MacCarvil: “I should like to remind Counsel for the Defense that this European Tribunal, composed of representatives from various ethnic groups, does not recognize the right of the democratic States to bind minorities against their will!”

Adv. Kleist: “Hitler was therefore not expelling the Jews; he was in fact liberating them from German tutelage.”

Adv. Hollander: “What a way to do it!”

Adv. Kleist: “His methods were perfectly humane, compared to those of your good friends the Communists, who were sending off millions of innocent Russians to die miserably in Siberia, quite apart from the troublemakers who were summarily executed!

“You speak of victimization? Is the numerus clausus victimization when it is applied to doctors, lawyers, journalists, and teachers, filling up to 70% of all posts in their professions, while representing only 2% of the population, and probably even less? Can a Head of State tolerate this kind of internal colonization after the Jews have been compelled to show their true colors?

“It is true that Himmler and Heydrich had forbidden the Jews to wear the German uniform since April 13th, 1935, but they had no objection to their wearing the uniform of the Zionist Youth because by preparing to leave the Third Reich, they were in fact collaborating with it. Let me quote you the reference of this ‘Nazi Crime’: Brunner circular, Police No. 17929-35 I-1B, dated April 13th, 1935. Federal Archives, Coblenz.

“It was of course puerile to forbid a Jew to sit on a bench offering a typically German scene: an old city, a mountain, or the Black Forest. But you will find it difficult to convince me that 6 million Jews died of fatigue because they had been forbidden to use certain facilities!”

Adv. Hollander: “Mr. President, the heavy irony of my learned colleague should not allow our attention to wander from the matter at hand: the criminal Hitler’s behavior towards Jewry between 1933 and 1939. This is something which I wish to discuss at length.

“Between 1933 and 1939 approximately 200,000 Jews had succeeded in leaving Germany. In spite of the Haavara Agreement, the existence of which I do not contest, they lost most of their possessions. When they made their obligatory declaration, 135,750 German Jews had 7,050 million Marks, while 9,567 foreign Jews possessed assets amounting to 415,000,000 Marks. Rudolf Hess asked his lord and master if the foreign Jews were to be treated as Jews or as foreigners. Hitler replied: ‘Since the Jewish question is a question of race, and not of nationality, it is obvious that foreign Jews should in principle be treated as Jews.'[18] This leads me to suppose that the notorious German greed was given free rein to impound these fortunes, as far as international obligations made it possible.”

Adv. Kleist: “All measures directed against the export of money, had already been taken by the Weimar Republic! By the law of December 8th, 1931, promulgated by the Brüning Government, the emigration of all capital was to be discouraged, Jewish or non-Jewish!”[19]

Adv. Hollander: “Let us now turn to the aforementioned international obligations and the way in which Hitler dodged them. Despite the Haavara Agreement, very few Jews reached Palestine; the vast majority of emigrants were stranded outside Germany and were often compelled to cross the frontiers in secret, pursued by the Gestapo. My learned colleague seems to be unaware of this, and yet the operation is well known, under the code name of ‘The Green Frontier.’ Did Hitler do anything at all to help these refugees?”

Adv. Kleist: “The Third Reich was not Old Mother Hubbard!”

Adv. Hollander: “During the 15th Assembly of the League of Nations which was held in Geneva, the Dutch Government suggested that a plan should be made to help Jewish refugees. What was Hitler’s reaction to this plan?”

Adv. Kleist: “I shall tell you. Von Neurath suggested that the following reply should be made to the abovementioned learned Assembly, which was of course merely another instrument of the cold war being waged against the Third Reich: ‘Apart from those emigrants who have been deprived of their nationality, all the others have left Germany of their own free will and therefore still enjoy the protection of the Reich. They can return at any time.'[20]

“During the interministerial meeting which took place in Berlin on September 26th, 1933, the Führer remarked that: ‘Notwithstanding its very real plight, Germany had taken in hundreds of thousands of immigrants from the East over the past few years. It would not be asking too much of the other countries–and especially those who have always considered the right of asylum to be a sacred duty–to accord this right to a certain number of them.'[21]

“Be that as it may, the League of Nations appointed a High Commissioner for the refugees, the American MacDonald, assisted by Norman Bentwitch, a Jew from England, a supporter of Zionism and a lawyer by profession. For a number of years the American was to go to a great deal of trouble without apparently realizing that his mission was much less concerned with charity than with a diplomatic war against Hitler–subsequent to the economic war and in anticipation of the hot war! The Jewish problem posed by Germany did not at that stage of development merit so much agitation, from which the emigrant Jews did not profit in any way, although of course the anti-Hitler propaganda profited a great deal.

“In February of 1934, MacDonald established that there were 63,400 refugees from Germany, of whom 51,000 were Jews. Of the Jewish refugees, 16,500 were not of German nationality. In the ensuing years the number of emigrants declined: 45,000 in 1934, and 35,500 in 1935. My client was quite right to complain about the invasion of the Weimar Republic by Jews from the East. When he took power, 70,000 Polish Jews were living in Germany, and there were still 50,000 in 1938, after five years of ‘Nazi crimes.’”

President Schoepf: “Could Counsel for Judah explain how and why the Jewish problem in Europe before the war was attributed solely to Adolf Hitler? In fact things were quite different. If I may refer to the figures, 3,300,000 Jews were living in Poland in 1938, representing 10% of the population. How was it that, between 1933 and 1939, no attention was given to the Jewish problem in Poland, but only to the Jewish problem in Germany?”

Adv. Kleist: “Mr. President, I shall reply for my colleague who does not know the details or–if he does know them–does not have the right to disclose them! The pre-war press organized in the West a conspiracy of silence about all problems caused by the Jews in Poland, Hungary, Romania, Russia, and the Baltic States, so that only the German problem should attract attention. Public opinion was betrayed so as to bully it into the worldwide coalition which the Jews needed to destroy my client.”

President Schoepf: “What does Counsel for Judah say about that?”

Adv. Hollander: “Not much. My colleague is diffusing his usual Nazi propaganda.”

President Schoepf: “However, I am forced to mention the numerus clausus in the teaching profession and the other liberal professions, for which only Adolf Hitler was condemned in the international press, although it had been established in Poland in 1933. The number of Jewish students admitted to the universities fell from 8,425 in 1934, to 4,113 in 1938. The ritual slaughter of cattle was restricted in January of 1937, before being totally forbidden. From 1938 on, it was almost impossible for a Jew to be admitted to the bar, and the Polish people organized pogroms to make quite clear that the Jews were to be excluded from the economic life of the country. Between 1934 and 1938 more than 500 Jews were killed in these pogroms.[22]

“How many Jews were killed by Hitler in the same period?”

Adv. Kleist: “Not a single one!”

Adv. Hollander: “What about Kristallnacht?”

Adv. Kleist: “We shall talk about that all in good time. For the moment I merely observe that there was an impasse between Poland and the Third Reich with regard to the Jews. Hitler wanted to be rid of the Jews, and Poland also. The same is true of Hungary and Romania. Hitler refused to acknowledge the authority of the League of Nations in this matter, but he was ready to have discussions with the Evian Committee which took over from the High Commission for Refugees in 1938, without however producing any solution for the problem. I should just like to remind this court that neither the Jewish diaspora nor the great nations with enormous territories at their disposal, such as England, France, Australia, Canada, and the United States, were prepared to make a single sacrifice, either in the homeland or in the colonial territories, to help the mass of Jewish refugees on the point of leaving Germany, and more especially the countries of Eastern Europe, thereby creating a problem of population migration on a world scale, without precedent in history. I should also like to point out that my client respected all legal restrictions imposed from outside.”

Adv. Hollander: “My dear colleague, I can for once come to your aid.

“One of the legal problems created by the Treaty of Versailles was the question of Upper Silesia. The plebiscite of May 20th, 1921, had caused a Polish uprising and a counterattack by the German Freikorps. The League of Nations Council partitioned the province, giving two-thirds to Germany and one-third to Poland.

“When Hitler came to power, he found in the archives a treaty, signed on May 15th, 1922, in Geneva, with Poland and Germany as signatories. This treaty guaranteed for a period of fifteen years the religious and linguistic liberties of the minorities, as well as civil and political equality. This should be of particular interest to the tribunal here assembled.

“As soon as the first anti­-Semitic laws–affecting the 10,000 Jews of Upper Silesia, just like everyone else–were published in Berlin, one of our local co-religionists, Frans Bernheim, drew up a petition to the effect that Hitler should not touch the Silesian Jews, who were protected by the treaty of 1922. He sent this petition to Geneva and — gentlemen — for once, Hitler gave way, and I find this most surprising. He even respected the treaty up to July 10th, 1937, on which date it expired legally.

“What is even more surprising, he forbad in Upper Silesia the publication of Julius Streicher’s Der Stürmer, a magazine which was offensive to us, and he paid the sum of 1,600 Reichsmarks to Frans Bernheim in lieu of damages.”[23]

Jury Member Kadervern: “Mr. President, it seems to me that Hitler the bogeyman may have been a terror for the English, French, and American press, but he does not appear to have made any particular impression on the Jews. Dietrich Bronder, a reputable author, tells us in his book entitled Bevor Hitler Kam (Before the Advent of Hitler): ‘Even when Germany was under the anti-Semitic domination of Hitler, more than 10,000 Jews emigrated to that country between 1933 and 1937, 1,200 of them in 1937 alone. This figure includes 97 who had returned from Palestine.’

“That Jews preferred to return to Germany in 1937, just as they prefer today to go back to the USSR instead of remaining in the State of Israel, can only mean that the Third Reich was not so unattractive after all!”

* * *


As the tribunal had been in session since the morning, the jury and the journalists had had nothing more to eat than a sandwich.

President Schoepf addressed Counsel for the Defense.

President Schoepf: “Advocate Kleist, have you anything to say? This session has lasted for a very long time and I should like to adjourn it.”

Adv. Kleist: “I only want to remind the tribunal that up to the start of World War II, my client worked tirelessly in cooperation with the Evian Committee, in the hope of finding a humane and reasonable solution for the Jewish problem, to which he had drawn attention on his accession to power.

“On February 2nd, 1939, the German delegate, Wohlthat, confirmed the Third Reich’s acceptance of the agreement, drawn up during the discussion between Rublee, delegate of the interministerial committee, and Dr. Schacht. An initial contingent of 600,000 Jews, as defined by the Nuremberg laws, would be allowed to emigrate, with the exception of those persons older than 45, who would find it difficult to readjust. The latter would be entitled to live peacefully in Germany, up to the end of their days. The emigrants could take their personal belongings with them, together with all equipment which they might need in order to exercise their professions. They would be exempted from the emigration tax. All Jews in concentration camps would be freed. A system of exchange, such as the one functioning with the Jewish National Home, would rescue all the capital which was blocked in Germany, with the exception of one billion Marks, claimed by the State as compensation for the assassination of the diplomat Von Raath, and one-and-a-half billion marks, to be used as a guarantee fund. With an equivalent amount, a loan at an interest of 4% would be floated by the representatives of the Diaspora to finance the installation of the immigrants in the host countries.[24]

“These proposals, which were accepted by Hitler, were never carried out. The countries which had large territories at their disposal–all of them so-called ‘democratic nations’–closed their frontiers to an immigration which could have settled the Jewish question in Germany, while the Jews of the Diaspora sacrificed their co-religionists in the Third Reich, because their desire for world domination necessitated the destruction–by war of an economic, political, or military nature–of Adolf Hitler, who was blocking their way.”

Adv. Hollander: “Mr. President, in the next session I shall not only condemn the criminal, Hitler, but I shall also level certain accusations against the Great Powers, whose frenzied selfishness has just been mentioned by my learned colleague.”

Adv. Kleist: “I must again emphasize the treachery of Jewish politics which could only lead to war. The Diaspora provoked this war by rejecting the solution put forward by the Evian Committee. Just for the record, I shall remind you that the committee director of the Jewish World Congress declared in January of 1939: ‘The Jewish people cannot accept a solution for the problem of the German refugees, which would offer the Nazi regime economic advantages, in exchange for a policy of expropriation and expulsion being pursued against the Jews.’”[25]

President Schoepf: “Mr. Advocate, I thank you. Tomorrow we shall pass judgment on the accused for their activities between 1933 and 1939.”

“We shall call on the prosecutor to make a final statement; counsels for Hitler and for Judah may also make a final plea.

“Gentlemen, the session is adjourned.”


[1] Jewish Daily Bulletin, March 14, 1933.

[2] Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, 2nd session.

[3] Werner Maser, Die Frühgeschichte der NSDAP (Frankfurt: Athenaum, 1965), pp. 155, 156.

[4] Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, 2nd session.

[5] Eliahu Ben Elissar, La diplomatie du IIIe Reich et les Juifs (Paris: Julliard, 1969), p. 52.

[6] Minutes of the Council of Ministers, July 15, 1933. Archives: Federal German Republic. R. 43 l/1464.

[7] Letter: Rumbold to Simon, May 11, 1933.

[8] Letter: Philippe to Roosevelt, August 23, 1933.

[9] Telephone conversation, Cerruti-Rome, 25.4.1933. Registration number1689/R.

[10] Jüdische Rundschau, April 7, 1933, p. 144.

[11] Robert Ardrey, The Territorial Imperative: A Personal Inquiry into the Animal Origins of Property and Nations (New York: Atheneum, 1966).

[12] Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, 17th session.

[13] “When Zionism tries to convince the rest of the world that the Jews would be satisfied by the creation of a Palestinian state, Jewry is again deceiving the goyim in the most blatant fashion. There is absolutely no intention of erecting a Jewish state in Palestine for the purpose of going to live there; the Jews merely wish to establish there the central organization for their dishonest enterprise of universal internationalism. This enterprise would thereby enjoy the right of sovereignty and would be protected from intervention by other states; it would be a place of asylum for all unmasked scoundrels and a High School for future mountebanks.”

[14] Eliahu Ben Elissar, La diplomatie du IIIe Reich, pp. 85–93.

[15] Director of the Anglo-Palestine Bank and expert in questions of Jewish colonization.

[16] Eliahu Ben Elissar, La diplomatie du IIIe Reich, p. 94.

[17] Telegraphic instructions of Neurath to London, Jerusalem and Baghdad, June 1, 1937.

[18] Letter: Lammers to Rudolph Hess, July 21, 1938.

[19] Idem. Federal Archives, Bonn.

[20] Note: Bulo-Schwante, September 25, 1933. Bonn, DGPF C l.

[21] Telephone communication Bulow-Schwante, Geneva, September 26, 1933. Bonn, DGPFc l 849/6.

[22] Eliahu Ben Elissar, La diplomatie du IIIe Reich, pp. 301, 302.

[23] Ibid., p. 130.

[24] Ibid., p. 393.

[25] Unity in Dispersion (New York: World Jewish Congress, 1948), p. 116.