I’m still only halfway through Douglas Reed’s book The Controversy of Zion but so far it seems like Mr. Reed is indeed an honest writer although I could probably have some issues with him on certain details. But I’ll let Reed have the words now as he was after all the one who was The Times correspondent in Berlin, Vienna and Budapest (among other cities) during the rise of the Third Reich and even witnessed the Reichstag fire with his lying eyes:
In the case of “the Jewish persecution” in Germany I found that impartial presentation of the
facts gradually gave way to so partisan a depictment that the truth was lost. This transformation was effected in three subtle stages. First the persecution of “political opponents and Jews” was reported; then this was imperceptibly amended to “Jews and political opponents”; and at the end the press in general spoke only of “the persecution of Jews”. By this means a false image was projected on to the public mind and the plight of the overwhelming majority of the victims, by this fixing of the spotlight on one group, was lost to sight. The result showed in 1945, when, on the one hand, the persecution of Jews was made the subject of a formal indictment at Nuremberg, and on the other hand half of Europe and all the people in it
were abandoned to the same persecution, in which the Jews had shared in their small proportion to populations everywhere.
At that period I, typical of Englishmen of my generation, had never thought of Jews as different from myself, nor could I have said what might make a Jew, in his opinion, different from me. If I later became aware of any differentiation, or of the desire of a powerful group to assert one, this was not the result of Hitler’s deeds but of the new impediment to impartial reporting which I then began to observe. When the general persecution began I reported it as I saw it. If I learned of a concentration camp containing a thousand captives I reported this; if I learned that the thousand included thirty or fifty Jews I reported that. I saw the first terror, spoke with many of the victims, examined their injuries, and was warned that I incurred Gestapo hostility thereby. The victims were in the great majority, certainly much over ninety percent, Germans, and a few were Jews. This reflected the population-ratio, in Germany and later in the countries overrun by Hitler. But the manner of reporting in the world’s press in time blocked-out the
great suffering mass, leaving only the case of the Jews.
I illustrate this by episodes and passages from my own experience and reporting. Rabbi Stephen Wise, writing in 1949, gave the following version of events personally reported by me in 1933, and undoubtedly purveyed the same version in the presidential circle of which he was a familiar during those years: “The measures against the Jews continued to outstrip in systematic cruelty and planned destruction the terror against other groups. On January 29, 1933 Hitler was summoned to be chancellor . . . at once the reign of terror began with beatings and imprisonment of Jews. . . We planned a protest march in New York on May 10, the day of the ordered burning of Jewish books in Germany . . . the brunt of the attack was borne by Jews. . . concentration camps were established and filled with Jews”.
All these statements are false. The measures against the Jews did not outstrip the terror against other groups; the Jews were involved in a much larger number of others. The reign of terror did not begin on January 29, 1933, but in the night of the Reichstag fire, February 27. No “burning of Jewish books” was ordered; I attended and reported that bonfire and have looked up my report published in The Times, to verify my recollection. A mass of “Marxist”* books was burned, including the works of many German, English and other non-Jewish writers (my books, had they then been published, would undoubtedly have been among them); the bonfire included some Jewish books. the “brunt” of the terror was not borne by Jews, nor were the concentration camps “filled with Jews”. The number of Jewish victims was in proportion to
their ratio of the population.
Oh dear, we have been lied to!
In any case I think part of the difference between the Jews and white Europeans that Reed as a young man had failed to notice can be extracted from the following quote from an earlier part of the book that describes ‘the logic’ of Bolshevik terror:
The aspect of a Talmudic vengeance on “the heathen” was unmistakably given to the massacres of that period. In August 1918 a Jew, Kanegisser, shot a Jew, Uritsky; thereon a Jew, Peters, at
the head of the Petrograd Cheka ordered “mass terror” on Russians and another Jew, Zinovieff, demanded that ten million Russians be “annihilated”; the British Government’s White Book on Bolshevism (1919) records the massacre of Russian peasants which followed.
You just can’t make stuff like that up! First a Jew eliminates another Jew who presumably had ran out of favors with organized Jewry and then the Jews plot how to punish the non-Jews for that crime. And the Jews always outdo themselves as they hardly stopped after they annihilated mere ten million Russians. Though I’d say it’s about time to show them that the time of outdoing themselves in that way is over.
*I could note that Reed may not have made the connection that since rabbi Wise was the same rabbi who proclaimed that Judaism=Marxism in his twisted mind he may not have differentiated between Marxist and Jewish books.