Also online here: http://knud.eriksen.adr.dk/Controversybook/

Henry Makow has this excerpt from another Reed book regarding the Hitler Question by Steve Campbell.  I've added bolding.

Douglas Reed -- Hitler as "Jewish Messiah"

May 7, 2010 (Compiled by Steve Campbell)

Douglas Reed (1895-1976) was a London Times correspondent in Europe during Hitler's rise to power. He detected something fishy about the Hitler phenomenon, especially "British Establishment" (i.e. Illuminati) support for it.

From Douglas Reed's Somewhere South of Suez, 1951, pages 179-181:

"I must for clarity recapitulate this fascinating story as far as it now goes. Early in his twelve years of might, I began to suspect that Hitler was not what he professed to be: merely an arch anti-Communist and anti-Jew. His actions, I thought, would clearly help Communism and Political Zionism (and the outcome of the second war proved this.) I was at first puzzled that he did not see so plain a consequence. Later I thought he did perceive it and was the accomplice of these two powerful forces. Twenty years ago the theory might have been beyond credence. Today, in this century of masks and secret allegiances, it is reasonable.

The man of one sworn loyalty, and a different, hidden one, is now a familiar figure in all countries; he has appeared in the trials of [Soviet spies] Dr. Alan Nunn May and Dr. Fuchs in England, of an M.P., officers and officials in Canada, and of certain persons in America.

I thought Hitler a man of this type, but risen to the highest place instead of just to a high one. It seemed to me that, for great successes, which they could not otherwise achieve, Soviet Communism and Political Zionism needed an apparent antithesis, as a heavyweight champion needs a sparring partner. I believed Hitler played this part, and think the results of the last war uphold this reading of his part in our affairs.

For one thing, his appearance was as mysterious as his disappearance. Although the British and Americans, when they reached Berlin and Vienna, were able to put their hands on a mass of documents one would have expected to be destroyed, the Viennese police dossier of Hitler's formative years before 1914 has never been published.

Chancellor Dollfuss is supposed to have been killed, in 1934, because he knew of it. His successor, Chancellor Schuschnigg, may also know of it; he was present at the Nuremberg Trial but was not put in the witness-box, although the invasion of Austria and his own treatment were matters in the indictment.

At every turn a blank wall opposes those who try to find out what manner of man Hitler was, what he did and with whom he consorted in those significant years. Who enabled him, then, an obscure nobody apparently without a past, to spring into the central limelight of affairs in 1919, like the demon king in pantomime?

I never learned an answer to these questions, but by 1938 I thought the Rabbi of Prague (see Disgrace Abounding, 1939) might be proved correct, who said: 'Hitler is the Jewish Messiah.' Not all rabbis agree that Political Zionism is Messianic, but this one thought so and by that standard could today claim to be right.

Therefore I conjectured that this man-from-nowhere might in truth be the accomplice of Communism and Political Zionism, two forces which have always supported each other. His 'Fascism' thus seemed to me to be merely the third prong of one trident, with which the cauldron of our century is kept stirred."

The Final Solution to Adolf Hitler by Jim Condit Jr.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6759022809518563654&q#

Discussion of "The Final Solution to Adolph Hitler" DVD
Christopher Jon Bjerknes, author and investigator, interviews Jim Condit Jr. on the Hitler-Nazi-Zionist-Founding-of-Israel-Connection. Mr. Bjerknes has many interesting insights to add to the mix. Interview conducted May 23, 2007. This is a three hour interview.

http://www.jewishracism.com/Condit24May2007_1.mp3

http://www.jewishracism.com/Condit24May2007_2.mp3

http://www.jewishracism.com/Condit24May2007_3.mp3

A little nugget on the ghetto myth.  I attempted to watch The Merchant of Venice (Al Pacino version) recently but couldn't get past the opening pity festival for Jewish persecution and the nightly lock up in "the ghetto."

Here's an excerpt from Ch. 15 - THE TALMUD AND THE GHETTOES:

"The Twentieth Century is witnessing the attempt to consummate that hope. Probably the institution of the ghetto chiefly helped the Talmudists to this success.

In the Twentieth Century the masses have been misled to think of "the ghetto" as a kind of concentration camp for Jews set up by Gentile persecutors. The same operation on fact has been performed on the entire history of oppression in the West; in the Twentieth Century all else has been drained away until what remains is presented solely as "the Jewish persecution".

The many persecutions of men during the last 1900 years have involved the Jews in proportion to their numbers, so that their share of the total mass of suffering was small (in the most notorious case of the present century, that of Russia, they were the oppressors, not the oppressed). I do not know if I should ever have elicited this fact, had not my own experience confronted me so sharply with it.

The ghetto was not something inflicted on the Jews by the Gentiles. It was the logical product of the Talmudic Law, and derived directly from the experiment in Babylon. Dr. Kastein describes the Talmud as "the home" which the Jews took everywhere with them. However, for physical life they also needed four walls and a roof. The Talmud itself decreed that the Gentiles were not "neighbours" and that a Jew might not sell landed property adjoining that of a Jew to a Gentile. The express object of such provisions as these was the segregation of Jews from others and their isolation in ghettoes.

The first ghetto was that which the Babylonian rulers allowed the Levites to set up in Babylon. The next was the Jerusalem around which Nehemiah, backed by the Persian king's soldiers, built new walls, wherefrom he drove out all non-Judahites. From those models the European ghetto took its shape. This institution is probably the most onerous part of the modern Jew's spiritual inheritance:

"The ghetto, friend, the ghetto, where all hopes at birth decay".

Jews who never saw a ghetto carry a half-conscious memory of it within them like a haunting fear, yet it was essentially a Talmudist conception, to which their ancestors surrendered. It was the perfect means of corralling a scattered congregation, imprisoning people's minds, and wielding power over them.

The demand for a ghetto often came from the Talmudists (that is to say, outside Poland, where all Jewish life, of course, was ghetto-life). The modern suggestion that the ghetto signified inferiority is part of the legend of "persecution", which is chiefly meant to intimidate Jews, so that they shall always fear to venture outside the fold; today's myth of "antisemitism" is intended to produce the same effect on them.

In ancient Alexandria (the New York of its day) and in medieval Cairo and Cordova the Jewish quarters were established at the insistence of the rabbis, intent on keeping their flock isolated from others. In 1084 the Jews of Speyer petitioned the ruling German prince to set up a ghetto; in 1412, at Jewish request, a ghetto law was enacted throughout Portugal. The erection of the ghetto walls in Verona and Mantua was for centuries celebrated annually by the Jews there in a festival of victory (Purim). The ghettoes of Russia and Poland were an essential and integral part of the Talmudic organization and any attempt to abolish them would have been denounced as persecution."

I've only dabbled in this book as its length makes printing a undertaking.  That said, the prices for copies of the book range from $62 to $762 which is telling.

A few excerpts from the Epilogue:

If this book has any sombre look, that is the native hue of the story it tells, not the reflection of my own cast of mind. I have written with feeling: the feeling of a contemporary, participant, eye-witness and of a journalist thwarted in his calling, which in my belief should serve truth without fear or favour, not special interests. I have seen more of the events of our century and of the secret perversions of national purposes than most, and have discovered through this experience that it was not all chance, but design. Therefore I have written a protest, but it is a protest against the suppression of truth, not against life.

It is a contemporary's tale of history in the making. After my time will come the historians, who from the fragments they disinter will assemble the story in all its elements. As well might one judge the impulses of a man from his skeleton. However, they may perceive things now hidden from me, and, above all, they will find that it was all necessary to the state of affairs in which they find themselves (and that, in the case of historians, is usually a comfortable one). Between the two depictments, somehwere, lies the whole truth; my part of it is the living protest of the living participant...

Anyway, I leave the dispassionate analysis to the future scribe, whose flesh and heartbeat will not be involved; to him the microscope, to me the living spectacle. I am involved. "In history" (said Lord Macaulay) "only the interpretation according to doctrinal necessity ever seems to survive, as the inconvenient and contradictory facts are forgotten or ignored." On that count, this living scribe may be acquitted. I have not ignored anything known to me and I have presented what I know as truly as I am able. I have given the picture of our century as it appeared to a man involved, and as it was withheld from the public masses, who as they went along received only "the interpretation" according to what politicians held to be necessity.

In our time, I judge, a barbaric superstition born in antiquity and nurtured through the ages by a semi-secret priesthood, has returned to plague us in the form of a political movement supported by great wealth and power in all great capitals of the world. Through the two methods used, revolution from below and the corruption of governments from above, it has come far towards success in a fantastic ambition of achieving world dominion, using these two instruments to incite nations against each other.

I cannot presume to judge what is evil; thinking makes it so. I only know what I feel to be evil; perhaps I am wrong. Anyway, by my own sensations and standards I have felt, during the labour of preparing this book, that I lived with evil. The forces which have been projected into the 20th Century, as from some dinosauric cavern, are superstitious ones. I have had a constant sense of contact with the minds of men like Ezekiel, who in barbarous times had barbarous thoughts. I had a distinct feeling of re-encounter with such minds in our present time, though in a place recently redeemed from barbarism, when I read a book, A Pattern of Islands, by Sir Arthur Grimble.

his recounts the author's experiences, early in the 20th Century, as a British colonial administrator in a remote group of Pacific islands, the Gilberts, where the people lived in a state of primeval superstition until 1892, when a British protectorate was proclaimed. I find an uncanny resemblance between the curses enumerated in Deuteronomy, which forms The Law of Zionist nationlism today, and the words of a curse an a cooking oven, used by these islands before the British came. The sorcerer, squatting naked in the dark before dawn over his enemy's fireplace and stabbing it with a stick, mutters:

"Spirit of madness, spirit of excrement, spirit of eating alive; spirit of rottenness! I stab the fire of his food, the fire of that man Naewa. Strike west of him, you! Strike east of him, you! Strike as I stab, strike death! Strangle him, madden him, shame him with rottenness! His liver heaves, it heaves, it is overturned and torn apart. His bowels heave, they heave, they are torn apart and gnawed. He is black mad, he is dead. It is finished: he is dead, dead, dead. He rots" .

The comparison between this and many passages in Deuteronomy and Ezekiel is instructive in this time when the Talmud-Torah is literally invoked as The Law ordaining such deeds as that committed at Deir Yasin; the statement of the Jewish Encyclopaedia, that the Talmud teaches belief in the literal efficacy of cursing, is also relevant. Such passages always occur to me when politicians invoke "the Old Testament"; each time I wonder if they have read it, and if they comprehend the relationship between these superstitions of antiquity and current events, brought about with their help...

Only this element of dark superstition, in my estimate, can account for the fear to which the Jewish masses yield, when they surrender to Zionist nationalism. They were almost liberated from it by the century of emancipation and in another fifty years would have been involved in mankind, but now have been drawn back into its clutch...

The feeling I had, in tracing the story of this ancient superstition and its re-emergence as a political force in our century, was that of contact with a living, evil thing. The destructive revolution, in my view, is part of it and I could have written exactly what an American diplomat, Mr. Frank Rounds, junior, wrote in his diary on Christmas Day of 1951: "In Moscow, you feel that evil exists as a thing, as a presence; that is my thought this Christmas Day".

In this 20th Century process, which I feel as an accompanying, evil presence, all of us now alive, Jew and Gentile, are involved, and most of us will see the denouement. As to that, Mr. Bernard J. Brown in 1933 misgivingly wrote, "Of course we must be feared and eventually hated if we persist in absorbing everything America offers us and yet refuse to become Americans just as we have allways refused to become Russians or Pales."

This statement applies to all countries of the West, not only to America, but Mr Brown was wrong. What he foresaw is one thing the Talmudists can not achieve; hatred is their monopoly, and creed, and they cannot make Christians, oar Gentiles, hate Jews. The hateful things done by the West in this century were done under Talmudic prompting; hatred and vengeance are not innate in Westerners, and their faith forbids these. The teaching of hatred, as part of a religion, still comes only from the literal Torah-Tulmudists in the revolutionary area, in Palestine, and where they have nested in the Western capitals. No Westerner would speak as a Zionist leader spoke to a Jewish meeting at Johannesburg in May, 1953: "The beast that is called Germany must not be trusted. The Germans must never be forgiven and the Jews must never have any contact or dealings with the Germans".

The world cannot live like that, and for this reason the insensate plan must ultimately fail. This is the heresy which the teaching of Christ above all else repudiated; it is the one to which the political leaders of the West have lent themselves since Mr. Balfour, just fifty years ago, began to subordinate national policy to it. When the approaching climax has been overcome this heretic teaching, injected into the West from the Talmudic centre in Russia, will pass.

As a writer, I believe it will pass sooner and with less trouble for all involved, the more the general masses know about what has gone on in these fifty years.

For nothing is secret that shall not be made manifest; Neither anything hid, that shall not be known and come abroad - Luke 8: 17.

Some good background on Baruch:

At this point in the narrative the figure of Mr. Bernard Baruch first emerges from advisory shadows into full light, so that reasonable inferences may be drawn about his long part in the events of our century.

As has been shown, he made a decisive intervention in favour of the Zionist state in 1947 by "changing a great deal" from his earlier hostility to Zionism (Dr. Weizmann) and by advising a responsible Cabinet officer, Mr. James Forrestal, to discontinue his opposition. That is the first point at which Mr. Baruch's influence on state policy may be clearly traced, and it is a significant one, discouraging to those who hope for Jewish "involvement in Mankind", for up to that time he seemed to be (and presumably wished to appear) a fully integrated American, a paragon of Jewish emancipation, tall, handsome, venerable and greatly successful in his affairs...

"One day the door of my room opened and a tall white-haired man entered. It was Bernard Baruch, my first Jewish social visitor. He sat down, observed me for a moment and then spoke. 'I am on your side', said Baruch, 'the only way the Jews will ever get anything is by fighting for it. I'd like you to think of me as one of your Jewish fighters in the tall grass with a long gun. I've always done my best work that way, out of sight'."

This revelatory passage (added to Mr. Baruch's intervention in the Forrestal affair) gives the student insight into the personality of Mr. Bernard Baruch. If this was the sense in which he had done his best work ("as a Jewish fighter in the tall grass with a long gun . . . out of sight") during his thirty-five years of advising six Presidents", the shape af American policy and of world events during the 20th Century is explained. The reader is entitled to take the quoted words at full value and to consider Mr. Baruch's influence on American and world affairs in the light they shed. They are equally relevant to Mr. Baruch's one great public intervention in world affairs, which came about the same time. This was the "Baruch Plan" for a despotic world authority backed by annihilating force, and the words cited above justify the strongest misgivings abaut the purposes to which such a "world instrument" would be used. The "Baruch Plan" is of such importance to this narrative that a glance at Mr. Baruch's entire background and life is appropriate.

He was always generally assumed to be of the aristocratic Jewish type, that is to say, of Sephardic descent leading back, by way af the experience in Spain and Portugal, to a remote possibility of Palestinian arigin. In fact, as he himself stated (February 7, 1947) his father was "a Polish Jew who came to this country a hundred years ago". That places Mr. Baruch among the Slavic Ashkenazi, the non-semitic "Eastern Jews", who are now said (by the Judaist statisticians) to comprize almost the whole of Jewry.

He was born in 1870 at Camden in South Carolina. His family seemed to have identified itself with the weal or woe of the new country, for his father served as a Confederate surgeon and Mr. Baruch himself was born during the evil days af "Reconstruction"; as a child he saw the Negroes, inflamed by carpetbagger oratory and scallawag liquor, surge through the sleepy streets of this plantationcountry town, and his elder brothers stand with shotguns an the upstairs porch; his father wore the hood and robe of the Ku Klux Klan.

Thus in childhood he saw the destructive revolution at work (for it took charge during the final stages and aftermath of the Civil War and "Reconstruction" was recognizably its work) and later saw the enduring values of a free society. However, his family was not truly part of the South and soon the pull of New York drew it thither. There, before he was thirty, Bernard Baruch was a rich and rising man, and before he was forty he was already a power, though an unseen one, behind politics. He is probably the original of the master-financier, "Thor", in Mr. House's novel. Against much opposition Mr. House included him in the group around Mr. Wilson...

Mr. Baruch then presented his Plan to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission at its opening session on June 14, 1946. He spoke with the voice of the Levites' Jehovah offering "blessings or cursings", alluded to the atom bomb as "the absolute weapon" (within a few years an even more pulverizing explosive was in competitive production), and used the familiar argument of false prophets, namely, that if his advice were followed "peace" would ensue and if it were ignored all would be "destroyed". The proposal he made seems to me to amount to a universal dictatorship supported by a reign of terror on the worldwide scale: the reader may judge for himself.

"We must elect world peace or world destruction. . . We must provide the mechanism to assure that atomic energy is used for peaceful purposes and preclude its use in war. To that end, we must provide immediate, swift and sure punishment of those who violate the agreements that are reached by the nations. Penalization is essential if peace is to be more than a feverish interlude between wars. And, too, the United Nations can prescribe individual responsibility and punishment on the principles applied at Nuremberg by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom, France and the United States - a formula certain to benefit the world's future. In this crisis, we represent not only our governments, but, in a larger way, we represent the peoples of the world. . . The peoples of these democracies gathered here are not afraid of an internationalism that protects; they are unwilling to be fobbed off by mouthings about narrow sovereignty, which is today's phrase for yesterday's isolation".

Ben Hecht is the author of Perfidy which laid blame for "the Holocaust" at the feet of Zionists I'm told.  I bought the book but couldn't stomach it.  This quote from Reed helps to explain why i found Hecht such as execrable lump of shite.

One of the most extreme Zionist chauvinists in America then was a Mr. Ben Hecht, who once published the following dictum:

"One of the finest things ever done by the mob was the crucifixion of Christ. Intellectually it was a splendid gesture. But trust the mob to bungle. If I'd had charge of executing Christ I'd have handled it differently. You see, what I'd have done was had him shipped to Rome and fed to the lions. They never could have made a saviour out of mincemeat".

During the period of violence in Palestine which culminated in the pogrom of Arabs at Deir Yasin, this Mr. Hecht inserted a full-page advertisement in many of the leading newspapers throughout America. It was addressed "To the Terrorists of Palestine" and included this message:

"The Jews of America are for you. You are their champions . . . Every time you blow up a British arsenal, or wreck a British railroad train sky high, or rob a British bank, or let go with your guns and bombs at the British betrayers and invaders of your homeland, the Jews of America make a little holiday in their hearts".

It was the author of this advertisement (according to his autobiography) whom Mr. Baruch chose to visit and inform of his affinity and support:

In spite of Hecht's behavior, the book Perfidy was removed from just about every library in the US when it first came out.  It was not removed necessarily by the library board or librarians - it was stolen outright and never replaced.  For years, copies of it couldn't be found anywhere.  It just recently got back into print. 

A bit more from Reed.  Truman seems to have been serially abused and put upon but not about to let such treatment detract from his "proudest moment.":

Deir Yasin, for a little while, solved the Zionists' problem. The partition of Palestine had been achieved, by force. At the same time the event revealed (to the Arabs, if not then to the West) the nature of Dr. Weizmann's "abyss into which terrorism leads". From April 9, 1948 the West itself stood on the brink of this abyss, dug by the acts of two generations of its politicians.

Thus the situation changed completely between March 19, 1948, when the American Government decided that partition was "unworkable" and reversed its policy, and April 9, 1948, when terrorism effected partition. Dr. Weizmann must still have been haunted by his fears, but now that the territory for the Jewish state had been cleared he would not or could not withdraw from "the abyss". The aim now was to achieve a second reversal of American policy, to gain an expression of approval for what had been done by terrorism, and to this end, once more, Dr. Weizmann bent all his efforts. At the first reversal of American policy he had been urgently summoned from London to Lake Success by letters, cables and telephone calls, and the day before it was announced he was again closeted with President Truman. As the days passed, and the news from Deir Yasin flickered briefly over the tapes, he laboured tirelessly at his supreme task: the winning of "recognition" for the Jewish State set up by the terrorists at Deir Yasin.

Dr. Weizmann's energy was extraordinary....

Dates are again significant. On May 13, 1948 Dr. Weizmann saw President Truman; the contest for the presidential nominations then lay immediately ahead and the presidential election a few months beyond, so that this was the ideal moment to apply "irresistible pressure". Dr. Weizmann informed President Truman that the British mandate would end on May 15 and a provisional government would then take over "the Jewish state". He urged that the United States "promptly" recognize it and the President acted with zealous alacrity.

On May 14 (Palestine time) the Zionists in Tel Aviv proclaimed their new state. A few minutes later "unofficial news" reached Lake Success that President Truman had recognized it. The American delegates (who had not been informed) "were incredulous", but "after much confusion" they made contact with the White House and received from it Dr. Weizmann's instructions, transmitted through the President. Dr. Weizmann forthwith repaired to Washington as the President of the new state and President Truman received his guest, thereafter announcing that the moment of recognition was "the proudest of my life".

Eight years later President Truman in his memoirs depicted the circumstances in which his "proudest moment" came about, and his account may appropriately be cited here. Describing the six-month period (from the "partition-vote" in November 1947 to "recognition" in April 1948), he says:

"Dr. Chaim Weizmann. . . called on me on November 19 and a few days later I received a letter from him". Mr. Truman then quotes this letter, dated November 27; in it Dr. Weizmann refers to "rumours" that "our people have exerted undue and excessive pressure on certain" (United Nations) "delegations" and, speaking for himself, says "there is no substance in this charge". Mr. Truman comments, "The facts were that not only were there pressure movements around the United Nations unlike anything that had been seen there before, but that the White House, too, was subjected to a constant barrage. I do not think I ever had as much pressure and propaganda aimed at the White House as I had in this instance. The persistence of a few of the extreme Zionist leaders - actuated by political motives and engaging in political threats - disturbed me and annoyed me. Some were even suggesting that we pressure sovereign nations into favorable votes in the General Assembly."

The "political threats" mentioned here obviously related to President Truman's approaching re-election campaign; this is the only reasonable interpretation of the words. Mr. Truman (according to Dr. Weizmann) promised, at the interview on November 19, "to communicate at once with the American delegation" and the United States vote was then given, on November 29, to the "recommendation" that Palestine be partitioned. Thus President Truman's anger (as recorded in his narrative of 1956) at the methods used in no wise delayed his capitulation to them in 1947 (if that were not made plain the reader of his Memoirs might gain a different impression).

Mr. Truman (in 1956) recorded the outcome of the "solution" (the partition recommendation) supported by him in November 1947: "every day now brought reports of new violence in the Holy Land". He also found that his capitulation of November and Dr. Weizmann's disclaimer of "undue pressure" had no effect at all in the months that followed: "The Jewish pressure on the White House did not diminish in the days following the partition vote in the United Nations. Individuals and groups asked me, usually in rather quarrelsome and emotional ways, to stop the Arabs, to keep the British from supporting the Arabs, to furnish American soldiers, to do this, that and the other" (Disraeli's picture of "the world being governed by very different persons from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes").

The President sought refuge in retreat: "As the pressure mounted, I found it necessary to give instructions that I did not want to be approached by any more spokesmen for the extreme Zionist cause. I was even so disturbed that I put off seeing Dr. Weizmann, who had returned to the United States and had asked for an interview with me". Mr. Truman, in 1956, evidently still held the postponement of an interview with Dr. Weizmann to have been so drastic a measure as to deserve permanent record. He was then visited (March 13, 1948) by an old Jewish business associate "who was deeply moved by the sufferings of the Jewish people abroad" (this was less than a month before the massacre at Deir Yasin) and who implored him to receive Dr. Weizmann, which President Truman at once did (March 18).

Count Bernadotte, who had rescued Jews during WWII, failed to appreciate that some animals are more equal than others, and so, was butchered by Zionist terrorists for his humanitarian efforts.

These excerpts are meant to entice people to download, read, and promote the book.  They do not do justice to Reed and his work.  Hastily done.  Hope they help:

After President Truman's proud recognition of what had been done in Palestine between November 1947 and May 1948 the debate at the "United Nations" lost importance and Dr. Weizmann (who in his letter to President Truman of November 27, 1947 had warmly denied the use of "undue pressure") set to work to muster other recognitions, so that the issue should be put beyond doubt. He learned that Mr. Bevin, in London, "was bringing pressure to bear on the British Dominions. . . to withhold recognition", and he at once showed who was the greater expert in applying "pressure".

Historically regarded, this was a moment of the first importance, because it showed for the first time that Zionism, which had so deeply divided Jewry, had divided the nations of the British Empire, or Commonwealth; what no warlike menace or danger had ever achieved, "irresistible pressure on international politics" smoothly accomplished. Suddenly Zion was shown to be supreme in capitals as far from the central scene as Ottawa, Canberra, Cape Town and Wellington...

This gave proof of superb staffwork and synchronization; miracles of secret organization must have been performed, in a few decades, to ensure the obedience, at the decisive moment, of the "top-line politicians" in Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand. These countries were remote from Palestine; they had no interest in implanting the fuse of new world war in the Middle East; their Jewish populations were tiny. Yet submission was instantaneous. This was world power in operation...

The retreat from London became a rout. Dr. Weizmann records that the New Zealand representative, Sir Carl Berendsen, then "won support from Australia", and soon the "top-line politicians" in Canada followed suit. When the British Dominions followed Mr. Truman and Generalissimo Stalin the smaller states thronged to give "recognition"; they could not refuse to tread where these great ones had rushed in, and thus "the Jewish state" took shape "de facto", the fact being the massacre at Deir Yasin.

Although he became its president, this is in truth the point at which Dr. Chaim Weizmann passes from the narrative, after fifty years of an activity, essentially conspiratorial, in which he encompassed the capitulation of all political leaders of the West and left "tragedy", like a foundling, on its common doorstep...

So much for the birth of "Israel" and the pains it caused to others. No offspring of political illegitimacy was ever ushered into the world by so many sponsors; the "recognitions" poured in and the peacemakers were everywhere discomfited. Mr. Bevin continued in office for a few years and then resigned, soon to die; General Marshall and Mr. Forrestal were dropped at the first opportunity, obviously for the discouragement of others who might take their responsible duty seriously.

Within a few weeks the new state took another step towards "the abyss" of "the old evil". The "United Nations", having accepted the accomplished bisection of Europe and recommended the bisection of Palestine, showed a tardy concern for "peace" and appealed to Count Folke Bernadotte of Sweden to go to Palestine and mediate between the parties. Count Bernadotte had always given himself to the mitigation of human suffering, particularly to the relief and rescue of Jewish victims during the Second War. He worked in the sign of the Cross (the red one) and was killed at the very place where the Cross first became a symbol of faith and hope. No deed can be more atrocious than the murder of an accepted peacemaker and mediator by one of the combatant parties, and within four months of its creation the Zionist state added this second symbolic act to its calendar.

Count Bernadotte (like Mr. Forrestal) kept a diary, published after his death. This records that, after accepting the mission of peace, he passed through London and was visited by Dr. Nahum Goldman, then vice-president of the Jewish Agency and the Zionist state's representative, who told him that: "the state of Israel was now in a position to take full and complete responsibility for the acts committed by the Stern Gang and the members of Irgun"...

Count Bernadotte, after hearing these reassuring words, set out to pacify. In Egypt he saw the Prime Minister, Nokrashi Pasha, who said he "recognized the extent of Jewish economic power, since it controlled the economic system of many countries, including the United States, England, France, Egypt itself and perhaps even Sweden" (Count Bernadotte did not demur to the last statement). Nokrashi Pasha said the Arabs did not expect to escape that domination. However, for the Jews to achieve economic domination of the whole of Palestine was one thing; what the Arabs would not accept, and would resist, was the attempt by force and terrorism, and with the assistance of international Zionism, to set up a Zionist state based on coercion. After this King Farouk told Count Bernadotte that if the war continued (it has not yet ended) it would develop into a third world war; Count Bernadotte agreed and said he had for that reason accepted the task of Mediator.

He also mentioned that in the war he had had "the privilege of rescuing about 20,000 persons, many of them Jews; I myself had been in charge of this work". He evidently thought this would qualify him for Zionist respect, and was wrong. Within a few days he had persuaded the Arabs (on June 9, 1948) to agree unconditionally to a cease-fire, but then read a fanatical Zionist attack on himself for "having forced the truce on the Jews". "I began to realize what an exposed position I was in . . . the friendliness towards me would unquestionably turn to suspicion and illwill if, in my later activities as Mediator, I failed to study primarily the interest of the Jewish party but sought to find an impartial and just solution of the problem".

Irgun (for which the Zionist government through Dr. Goldman in London had claimed "full and complete responsibility") then broke the truce (June 18-30, 1948) by landing men and arms. Count Bernadotte and his observers "were unable to judge the number of Irgun men landed or the quantity of war material unloaded" because the Zionist government refused to allow them near the spot. In the first week of July "the Jewish press made very violent attacks on me". The defamationist method (used against Mr. Forrestal) was now employed and Count Bernadotte's efforts to rescue Jewish victims during the war were turned against him; the insinuation was made that his negotiations with the Nazi Gestapo chief, Heinrich Himmler, towards the war's end about the liberation of Jews had been of dubious character. "It was unjust to cast aspersions on me", (the innuendo was that Count Bernadotte was "a Nazi") "my work having been the means of saving the lives of about 10,000 Jews"...

On September 16, on the historic peacemaker's path "to Jerusalem" (the title of his book) Count Bernadotte in effect wrote his own death warrant; on that day he sent his "Progress Report" as Mediator from Rhodes to the United Nations, and within twenty-four hours he was murdered.

The reason lay in his proposals. He accepted the "de facto" establishment of the Zionist state but, building on that basis, sought to reconcile and pacify by impartial proposals, as just to each party as the accomplished fact would allow. His chief concern was for the civilian Arab population, driven by the pogrom at Deir Yasin from its native villages and huddled beyond the frontiers. Nothing like this had ever been done under the wing of the West, and Count Bernadotte was fresh from efforts to rescue Jews from Hitler. Thus he proposed:

(l) that the boundaries of the Zionist state should be those envisaged in the "recommendation" of the United Nations on November 29, 1947, the Negev to remain Arab territory and the United Nations to ensure that these boundaries were "respected and maintained"; (2) that (as also "recommended") Jerusalem be internationalized under United Nations control; (3) that the United Nations should "affirm and give effect to" the right of the Arab fugitives to return to their homes.

Having despatched these proposals on September 16, 1948, Count Bernadotte, before they could reach New York, flew to Jerusalem (September 17). He and his party, unarmed and defenceless, drove towards Government House when their car was halted by a Zionist jeep pulled across the road. Their movements were clearly as well known as the contents of Count Bernadotte's report; three men jumped from the jeep, ran to his car, and with sten guns killed him and his Chief Observer in Jerusalem, the French Colonel Serot.

The survivors, in an appendix to his diary, describe the killing in detail. Their accounts show its efficient preparation and execution and plainly point to the identity of the chief organizer.