Breaking Taboos: Jewish War Agitation

Breaking Taboos: Jewish War Agitation—Hitler to Ahmadinejad Part 2

Democrats know they are distrusted on national security. They fear that if they defund this war and bring on a Saigon ending in the Green Zone, it will be a generation before they are trusted with national power. And power is what the party is all about.

Yet, not only does the situation in Iraq appear increasingly grim, with rising U.S. and Iraqi casualties, other shoes are about to drop that will reverberate throughout the region.

Support for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, with his war in Lebanon a debacle and his leadership denounced by a commission he appointed, is in single digits. Waiting in the wings is Likud super-hawk ‘Bibi’ Netanyahu, the most popular politician in Israel, who compares today to Munich 1938 and equates Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with Hitler.

If and when Bibi comes to power, he will use every stratagem to provoke us into attacking ‘Hitler.’ [Emphasis added]

Also drumming for war on Iran are the floundering neocons and the Israeli lobby. Under orders from the lobby, Nancy Pelosi stripped from a House bill a stipulation that Bush must come to Congress for authorization before launching an attack on Iran.

With Democratic contenders reciting the mantra ‘All options are on the table,’ and Iran defying U.N. sanctions, pursuing nuclear enrichment and detaining U.S. citizens, Bush has a blank check to launch a third war.

Lebanon is ablaze. Gaza is ablaze. The Afghan war is not going well. The Taliban have a privileged sanctuary. The NATO allies grow weary.

In Pakistan, the most dangerous country on earth – one bullet away from an Islamic republic with atom bombs – our erstwhile ally, President Musharraf, is caught in a political crisis over his ouster of the chief justice.

Presidents Musharraf in Islamabad, Kharzi in Kabul and Siniora in Beirut, and Prime Minister Maliki in Baghdad, sit on shaky thrones. No one knows what follows their fall. But it is hard to see how it would not be crippling for America’s position.

With such volatility in this crucial region of the world, with such uncertainty, it is easy to see why Democrats prefer to be the ‘dummy’ at the bridge table and let Bush play the hand.

The congressional Democrats are cynical, but they are not stupid. If the surge works and U.S. troops are being withdrawn by fall 2008, they do not want it said of them that they ‘cut and ran’ when the going got tough, that they played Chamberlain to Bush’s Churchill (World Net Daily, 2007).

The truth about American military intervention then and now on behalf of Jewry

Wars of aggression make countries less secure, not more secure. This article exposes Jewish aggressiveness towards Iran. It also exposes the Jews’ utilization of the unfounded ‘Hitler’ threat as justification for both American and Israeli aggression. As argued by Buchanan, a war with Iran will have nothing to do with American or Israeli security, just as Joachim Hoffmann and A.V. Schaerffenberg have demonstrated that American intervention in World War II was wholly unfounded and hence, unjustified. Historian John Toland (1992) has described in detail Hitler’s unprecedented offer to withdraw all of his troops from Poland during the first few days of the invasion; he had even offered to pay reparations to the Polish authorities in order to compensate them for the damages wrought by the Wehrmacht. As noted by Toland (1992), “[Ribbentrop stated over the telephone] the Fuehrer is prepared to move out of Poland and to offer reparation damages provided that we receive Danzig and a road through the Corridor, if England will act as mediator in the German-Polish conflict. You [Hesse] are empowered by the Fuehrer to submit this proposal to the British cabinet and initiate negotiations immediately” (p. 573). This came after Hitler’s exceedingly generous peace offer prior to the actual invasion which the Poles had foolishly refused. This proposal included a resolution to the problem of the Corridor via plebiscite, which was completely democratic (Toland, p. 562). Need I mention that Hitler forbade attacks upon women and children during the Blitzkrieg campaign (Ibid., p. 570)? Compare this attitude with that of the modern day IDF and American forces (Benac, 2007; Human Rights Watch, 2006). Americans acted aggressively against Hitler under Jewish pressure and they are about to make the same mistake against Iran. This was also the case with Iraq in 2003. Additionally, I would like to point out that this article indicates that the Jews in Israel are clearly not peace-loving, as the majority would like to see the aggressive pro-war Neocon Netanyahu come to power. His brazen war-mongering rhetoric against the new ‘Hitler’ undoubtedly makes them giddy for another Middle East bloodbath. So, the attempt at painting Israeli innocence is now moot. The fact of the matter is that Hitler was as much of a threat to the United States as was Saddam Hussein and as is Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (see Pfaff, 2006; Drash, 2004).

Historian Gerhard Weinberg attempted to prove that Hitler had ordered bombers intended specifically for America, through the dictations typed-up for his Secret Book, but that claim has been put to rest by the fact that serious German bomber production did not begin until 1943 (Schaerffenberg, p. 140-144). Schaerffenberg (2003) has confirmed that Hitler had not commissioned any potential long-range bombers until the second half of the war; the Messerschmitt ME.262 Sturmvogel bombers were not requested until September 1943, and they were only meant to repel the invasion of France by the Allies [read: Normandy] (p. 143). In addition, production for the A-10 intercontinental ballistic missile—the first of its kind—was not scheduled for production until the summer of 1945 (Ibid., p. 155). The experimental prototype for the “Amerika Bomber” was not tested until spring 1944 even though the concept aircraft was built prior to the invasion of Normandy (Ibid., p. 155). This clearly indicates that Hitler had had no intentions of sending unwarranted bombers to America. The soonest Hitler had planned to bomb America was in the fall of 1945 (Ibid., p. 155). In conclusion, if Hitler had even pondered the idea of actually sending any bombers to America in 1944 or 1945, it would have been wholly justified at that point in time because America had officially declared war on Japan, Germany’s Axis partner, on 8 December 1941; America had unofficially declared war on Germany in 1937 with the Ludlow Resolution (Ibid., p. 105). In fact, Roosevelt had enacted the mandatory draft in October 1940 (Hoff-Grambau, 2001)! Why have a mandatory draft in a committed neutral nation-state?

As an important aside, some 17,000 G.I.s deserted during the Normandy Invasion, partially because the first Wehrmacht soldiers they encountered were Russian volunteers (Schaerffenberg, p. 145). As noted by Schaerffenberg (2003), “there were more AWOLs than civilian strikes during the war, more hours lost in desertion than were lost because of strikes.” Numerous G.I.s had even intentionally injured themselves, overloading Army field-hospitals, in order to avoid fighting on the front (p. 145-146).

For those who remain uncertain as to Hitler’s strategies, please recall that intent is the issue at hand when studying opposing forces in the context of warfare. For instance, just because Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may be engaging in the development of a nuclear weapon does not mean that it is intended for actual use. Think back to the Cold War and the concept of “Mutually Assured Destruction” (MAD) (Parrington, 1997; see also Carmichael, 2007). This same case may be applied to Hitler; just because he contemplated a bomber with the United States in mind prior to the invasion of Normandy does not mean that he was intending to use it. He simply wished to have it “at the ready,” especially in light of Roosevelt’s flagrant war criminal acts against Germany under the farce of neutrality from the years 1937 through 1940 (Clark, 2007). On this issue Hitler is absolutely exonerated.

President Roosevelt had thoroughly breached his own Neutrality Act of 1937 by the year 1940 (Ibid.; see also MultiEducator, 2000). He sent some 50 American destroyers to the Royal Navy in September 1940 in addition to committing many other flagrant acts of war not including his complicity, if not participation, in the international Jewish boycott against Germany (Schaerffenberg, p. 106). Needless to say, Churchill was the one that had ordered an unwarranted retaliatory air attack over Berlin simply because one German pilot accidentally overshot his military target landing his payload within London’s “eastern city limits.” The Germans immediately reported this accident, which resulted in no injuries and very light damage to infrastructure, to the International Red Cross and the British authorities in hopes of an understanding that this was a mistake. Churchill withheld this information from not only his Parliament and Cabinet, but also his Bomber Command, and used this incident as his pretext for the unwarranted air raid against German civilians in Berlin. He betrayed his own country in so doing, but Hitler ordered no retaliatory attacks (Ibid., p. 73). Hussein did not have a single weapon that could endanger an American or America, and even if Ahmadinejad develops a nuclear weapon, his chances of sending it successfully into American airspace is about as probable as the successful development of a flying pig (Bolkcom, 2004). One need only read up on NORAD to get a glimpse of the brevity of American air defense capabilities. Once again, we come back to Mosesson’s account of the Jewish boycott against Germany.

Mosesson (1971) goes on to state:

In St. Louis, Missouri, which had a large German-American population, and was a center for the Bund and Gerald L.K. Smith’s activities, J.W.V. took the lead in exposing them to the public. It started an Americanism Council, consisting of the leadership of all the major veterans’ organizations in the city. As a result, there was a marked decrease in support for the right-wingers (p. 49, 51).

Oy Vey: The “Evil” Fascists!

What is most interesting about the so-called “right-wing activities” of Gerald Smith is the fact that most of them consisted of anti-war protests, radio broadcasts, and speeches, as well as pro-American activism through the America First Party coupled with support for trade unions and open attacks on corruption (Jeansonne, p. 24-27). Smith along with his fellow “right-winger” Father Coughlin had even defied Roosevelt’s communistic and grossly flawed New Deal policies (Willy, n.d.).

Mosesson’s denunciation and ostracizing of the activities of these particular individuals as being “right wing,” and even her insinuation that they were pro-Nazi, would be equivalent to accusing such prominent American personalities as Paul Craig Roberts, Lew Rockwell, Ward Churchill, Ron Paul, or even Patrick J. Buchanan of being pro-Islamic. That is not at all an accurate assumption. Just because these individuals have obvious qualms with either the power of the Israel Lobby or with current American foreign policy as it pertains to the Middle East does not mean that they are pro-Islamic. It also does not mean that they are anti-American. On the contrary, most of these people boast about their pro-Americanism and that is the very reason they oppose the current foreign policy which is clearly pro-Israel and not pro-American (Buchanan, 2006). A more accurate assumption would be to accuse the Israel Lobby and its affiliates of being anti-American (Mekay, 2004).

Even Paul Craig Roberts has confirmed this assessment in a fairly recent article he wrote, on December 10, 2006, which has been posted on the website of Counter Punch:

As long as Bush remains in office, the neoconservatives will demand more wars. In the current issue of ‘Foreign Policy,’ neocon Joshua Muravchik stridently insists that Bush bomb Iran before he leaves office. Muravchik urges his fellow neocon warmongers to ‘pave the way’ for the bombing of Iran and to ‘be prepared to defend the action when it comes.’

As Middle East expert Anthony Sullivan writes, the neoconservatives are ‘fifth columnists’ whose ‘real concern is not the United States but Israel.’ Sullivan writes that ‘it is past time that neoconservatives and their movement be left to drown in the deepest reaches of the ocean.’

Amen! And send Bush and Cheney and Rice with them.

In an online Common Dreams article posted on March 29, 2004, Mekay reported the following:

... [Philip Zilekow] served on the board between 2001 and 2003.

‘Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I’ll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990—it’s the threat against Israel,’ Zelikow told a crowd at the University of Virginia on Sep. 10, 2002, speaking on a panel of foreign policy experts assessing the impact of 9/11 and the future of the war on the al-Qaeda terrorist organization.

‘And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don’t care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn’t want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell,’ said Zelikow.

The statements are the first to surface from a source closely linked to the Bush administration acknowledging that the war, which has so far cost the lives of nearly 600 U.S. troops and thousands of Iraqis, was motivated by Washington’s desire to defend the Jewish state.

The administration, which is surrounded by staunch pro-Israel, neo-conservative hawks, is currently fighting an extensive campaign to ward off accusations that it derailed the ‘war on terrorism’ it launched after 9/11 by taking a detour to Iraq, which appears to have posed no direct threat to the United States.

Israel is Washington’s biggest ally in the Middle East, receiving annual direct aid of three to four billion dollars.

The Question of Control of Middle Eastern Oil: America or Israel?

This article certainly exposes the now undeniable fact that America is fighting two wars on behalf of a foreign nation and the only possible vested interest Americans could have in this conflict is the control of the region’s oil supply, the majority of which resides on the shared border of Iran and Iraq in the Zagros Oil Belt (Judicial Inc, 2007). This certainly makes sense seeing as how America has a largely petroleum-based economy, but the bottom line is that the Middle Eastern countries have a vested interest in American consumption of their oil because it supports a good bulk of their entire collective regional economy (Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC, 2004). So, the argument that an attack on Iran would be for American control of Zagros oil is folly. This is about Israel’s control of Middle Eastern oil, which, in turn, explains why America is seeing absolutely no oil price benefits from the present invasion and occupation of Iraq. Even Saddam Hussein had clearly recognized the importance of his nation’s oil sales to America. In fact, America was the nation that had boycotted Iraqi oil with the imposition of the Iraq Oil Embargo (Ali, 2003). Hussein was clever enough turn to new markets, which inflamed America to the point of secretly condoning this economic survival tactic, especially since America and other parts of the world needed Iraq’s oil at the time (Labott and Hirschkorn, 2005).

According to an online CNN report posted on February 2, 2005, Menendez, Walker, and Ruggie were quoted as saying:

‘The reality is that we were either silent or complicit, and that is fundamentally wrong.’

Former State Department diplomat Walker said, ‘It was almost a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ kind of policy. It was accepted in the Security Council. No one challenged it.’

John Ruggie, a former senior adviser to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, said U.S. diplomats focused on assuring U.N.-approved shipments to Iraq were free of military components, and the United States felt Jordan and Turkey needed to be compensated for the adverse impact of the sanctions.

Ruggie said, ‘The secretary of state of the United States said each and every year that those illegal sales were in the national security interest of the United States. So it wasn’t just that the U.S. was looking the other way.’

Another Jewish Tactic: Economic Sanctions, not Hussein, Greatly Harmed Iraq

As indicated by this excerpt, it is clearly the citizens of the nations that suffer the results of economic sanctions. Keep this in mind when thinking about the Jewish boycott against Germany in 1933. Think about this as well: Americans could have ended up paying a lot more for petrol-based products and services as well as fueling their cars, as they had in the 1970s (Daily Past, 1973), and at least 2 million Iraqis died as a direct result of such a ruthless policy on behalf of the United States (Ali, 2003). It is also certainly worthy to mention that Hitler was forced to resort to this same tactic because the Jewish interests in America and Britain, and possibly even Europe and Palestine to a small degree, imposed and maintained a massive deprivation upon the German economy throughout the 1930s and 1940s. As aforementioned, the individuals that suffered the most under these sanctions were German and American citizens; Americans were deprived of German goods and services and Germans were deprived of American, Jewish, and British goods and services. Just one look at Cuba or Hussein’s Iraq is evidence enough of this harshly inhuman policy (see Herrera, 2003; Sacks, 2003).

As compellingly stated by Dr. Amir Ali (2003):

The 2003 war proved that the 12-year embargo itself was the only real weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, a weapon that the Iraqi people are still paying a high price for and still suffering from this failed policy built on misinformation and/or disinformation.

This embargo has killed so many and [devastated] the lives of almost all Iraqis. Almost everyone is in agreement that lifting the embargo is a good thing. It is long overdue, but still a good thing. Nevertheless the sufferings and injustices of the embargo [have] left a permanent mark on Iraqi society. This should help explain the phenomenon of why not many Iraqis are celebrating this long overdue action.

Many Iraqis are asking ‘Who will compensate the families of almost 2 million Iraqis who needlessly died for this terrible policy of maintaining the embargo for 12 years?’ That injustice remains as a legacy for a failed policy that we as a nation should learn from, in order to avoid similar mistakes in the future.

The most important lesson that we should learn from this catastrophe is that embargos (sanctions) do NOT work to force behavioral changes from governments, rather they only hurt and kill innocent civilians. Let us hope we never again use embargos (sanctions) as a tool of foreign policy.

Jewish Sanction War against Germany: An Atrocious Tactic of Civilian Destruction

This is not wholly unlike what the Jews in America and Britain had willed for Germany when they joined in on the international boycott organized by their co-religionists. Henry Morgenthau, a prominent American Jew, said, in 1933: “Germany must be turned into a wasteland, as happened there during the Thirty Year War” (Walendy, 1987). The Jews in America had even solicited gentile support against the German people.

The prominent American Jew, Samuel Untermeyer, stated the following during a radio broadcast on WABC, New York, on 6 August 1933:

Each of you, Jew and Gentile alike, who has not already enlisted in this sacred war should do so now and here. It is not sufficient that you should buy no goods made in Germany. You must refuse to deal with any merchant or shopkeeper who sells any German-made goods or who patronizes German ships or shipping.... we will undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends.

This proclamation was also reported in the New York Times, on 7 August 1933 (AHRS, 2007).

Israel’s Role Today

As a brief aside, America is not to be the only nation indicted for the illegal invasion of Iraq on behalf of the state of Israel. Without a doubt, Israel has much to gain from this illegal invasion and occupation, especially from an economic standpoint as indicated in the following excerpt; hence, Israel will also be indicted, as will complicit Britain.

According to an article posted online for the Guardian Unlimited on 20 April 2003:

Plans to build a pipeline to siphon oil from newly conquered Iraq to Israel are being discussed between Washington, Tel Aviv and potential future government figures in Baghdad.

The plan envisages the reconstruction of an old pipeline, inactive since the end of the British mandate in Palestine in 1948, when the flow from Iraq’s northern oilfields to Palestine was re-directed to Syria.

Now, its resurrection would transform economic power in the region, bringing revenue to the new US-dominated Iraq, cutting out Syria and solving Israel’s energy crisis at a stroke. [This is really an attractive option for the Syrians.]

It would also create an endless and easily accessible source of cheap Iraqi oil for the US guaranteed by reliable allies other than Saudi Arabia—a keystone of US foreign policy for decades and especially since 11 September 2001.

Until 1948, the pipeline ran from the Kurdish-controlled city of Mosul to the Israeli port of Haifa, on its northern Mediterranean coast.

The revival of the pipeline was first discussed openly by the Israeli Minister for National Infrastructures, Joseph Paritzky, according to the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz.

The paper quotes Paritzky as saying that the pipeline would cut Israel’s energy bill drastically—probably by more than 25 per cent—since the country is currently largely dependent on expensive imports from Russia (Vuillamy, 2003).

In light of the evidence presented in this article, if one is going to condemn the illegal invasion of Iraq then one must be willing to condemn all of its supporting interests, Israel inclusive. Furthermore, if Iraq had formed a preemptive military alliance with say, Iran and Syria prior to the Israeli-American invasion, then any one of these nation-states would have been obliged to declare war on either America or Israel or both America and Israel. Without a doubt this would have been a justifiable response to an aggressive assault such as that launched against Iraq in March 2003, especially in light of the now undeniable fact that Iraq posed absolutely no threat to America or Israel at the time (Serendipity, n.d.).

Israel’s Role Yesterday

The question must now be raised, why is Hitler to be historically condemned for preempting a strike from not only the Soviet Union and Great Britain, but also America? It is now documented fact that Hitler preempted Stalin so he cannot possibly be condemned for declaring war on the Soviet Union (Hoffmann, p. 7). Stalin had in fact immediately invaded upon the outset of Operation Barbarossa which could only mean that he had prepared to attack Germany in an aggressive campaign as opposed to waging a defensive one. Hoffmann has provided a detailed study of Soviet military operations throughout the month of May to solidify his case against Stalin (see Stalin’s War of Extermination, Chapter 2, pp. 54-88; also see book review by I. Rimland, 2001).

Undeniably, Great Britain had no credible grievance against Germany at the time (Liddell-Hart, p. 135-136), just as present-day America and Israel have no credible grievance against Iraq. It might not be a bad idea to mention that neither of these countries has a credible, let alone legitimate, grievance against present-day Iran either (IranMania, 2006; also see Takeyh, 2005).

Iraq was not a threat to the United States, Britain or Israel and neither is Iran (Wanniski, 2004). This same case may be historically applied to Hitler. It really ought to be acknowledged that there is an undeniable correlation between the events of today and those events surrounding World War II when they are examined within an historical comparative analysis. For instance, let us just examine a very brief account of Captain Liddell-Hart for comparison.

According to renowned military historian Captain Liddell-Hart (1948):

‘When Hitler continued to keep on the brake, Blumentritt’s thoughts ran back to this conversation. He felt that the ‘halt’ had been called for more than military reasons, and that it was part of a political scheme to make peace easier to reach. If the British army had been captured at Dunkirk, the British people might have felt that their honor had suffered a stain which they must wipe out. By letting it [the British army] escape Hitler hoped to conciliate them (p. 135).

This conviction of Hitler’s deeper motive was confirmed by his strangely dilatory attitude over the subsequent plans for the invasion of England. ‘He showed little interest in the plans,’ Blumentritt said, ‘and made no effort to speed up the preparations. That was utterly different to his usual behavior.’ Before the invasion of Poland, of France, of Russia, he repeatedly spurred them on. But on this occasion he sat back (p. 136).

Moving along, America did not have a credible grievance against Hitler’s Germany either, as documented by Irving and Schaerffenberg just to name two (Clark, 2007; also see AHRS, 2007). Disregarding this known fact, Roosevelt trespassed into sovereign German waters in flagrant violation of his own Neutrality Act of 1937 (Naval-History.net, n.d.; also see Schaerffenberg, p. 105-108, 111 and Clark, 2007). Moreover, he actively condoned economic sanctions against the German state in allowing Jews in America to carry on as they did with their boycott activities. As aforementioned, the FBI and numerous non-Jewish Americans and American companies even lent them support! Consequently, it is a mistake to historically indict Hitler as either sole antagonist or sole-proprietor of the Second World War; in actual fact, Hitler ought to bear less responsibility for the Second World War than any one of the four main Allied nations, those being, Great Britain, the Soviet Union, Israel [not yet a physical nation-state at the time] and America.

Bringing it all together

If we are to apply the same measures and standards to Hitler’s Germany that we have to Hussein’s Iraq and Ahmadinejad’s Iran then we must be drawn to the conclusion that Americans, Israelis and even Britons were guilty of the same provocative if not hostile international actions and aggressive war policies then as they are today. There is very little divergence to be seen between these two comparative historical contexts and realities. Let me also add that American public opinion was overwhelmingly opposed to war with Hitler (over 79% of Americans opposed war with Germany according to a 1941 Gallup poll) just as current American public opinion is mostly opposed to continued involvement in Iraq and any future involvement in Iran (Schaerffenberg, p. 108-109; See also Watson, 2006; Angus Reid Global Monitor, 2005; and PollingReport.com, 2007). As a matter of fact, newspaper polls in Britain demonstrated that over 50% of Britons did not wish to continue with war upon the surrender of France during WWII (Schaerffenberg, p. 72). So, the notion of British popular support for Allied foreign policy during WWII was just that, a notion. This is the same case in Britain today (Khaleej Times Online, 2006). I would like to end this segment by stating that just as Ahmadinejad obliged to make peace with America, Britain, and Israel in 2003, so too had Hitler, in the year 1940 (Porter, 2006).

As documented by Schaerffenberg (2003):

...In the summer of 1940, with his armies triumphant on the Continent, [Hitler] was anxious to forge a permanent peace, if not an alliance with the British. ‘I can see no further use for the continuation of this conflict,’ he told them in a public radio address. ‘Let us think of the unbearable hardships our women and children in both lands will have to endure if we allow this senseless war to go on. I am speaking now not as a beaten man begging for peace, but as a leader of a victorious armed forces asking for reason.’ He made no claims whatsoever on the Empire; he demanded no terms of surrender, because England’s defeat did not fit into his vision for a United States of Europe [a new order for the East which he had discussed at length with Otto Wagener] of which Britain was a part. Instead, he presented the most generous offers of cooperation ever made by a conqueror to enemies humiliated on the field of battle [in reference to Dunkirk].

In addition to renouncing military operations against Great Britain, the Fuehrer offered to immediately withdraw his armies from all occupied territories, except from the German city of Danzig, and presented 25 Wehrmacht divisions at England’s disposal against all her enemies. Hitler was joined by the King of neutral Sweden, Pope Pius XII, and Britain’s own Queen Elizabeth, in calling upon Churchill to end the war. Average citizens were allowed to learn virtually nothing of Hitler’s unprecedented offer, however. ... [The pro-peace stance of the British citizens] was virtually reflected by half of the cabinet members who urged acceptance of Hitler’s offer. Churchill succeeded in keeping all the details of this magnanimous proposal from both the masses and his own government. Had those details been made known, he realized, the majority would have weighed against him (p. 72-73).

According to historian and national security policy analyst Gareth Porter (2006):

... An Iranian threat to destroy Israel has been a major propaganda theme of the Bush administration for months. On Mar. 10, Bush said, ‘The Iranian president has stated his desire to destroy our ally, Israel. So when you start listening to what he has said to their desire to develop a nuclear weapon, then you begin to see an issue of grave national security concern.’

But in 2003, Bush refused to allow any response to the Iranian offer to negotiate an agreement that would have accepted the existence of Israel. Flynt Leverett, then the senior specialist [in] the Middle East on the National Security Council staff, recalled in an interview with IPS that it was ‘literally a few days’ between the receipt of the Iranian proposal and the dispatch of a message to the Swiss ambassador expressing displeasure that he had forwarded it to Washington.

Interest in such a deal is still very much alive in Tehran, despite the U.S. refusal to respond to the 2003 proposal. Turkish international relations professor Mustafa Kibaroglu of Bilkent University writes in the latest issue of Middle East Journal that ‘senior analysts’ from Iran told him in July 2005 that ‘the formal recognition of Israel by Iran may also be possible if essentially a ‘grand bargain’ can be achieved between the U.S. and Iran.’

The proposal’s offer to dismantle the main thrust of Iran’s Islamic and anti-Israel policy would be strongly opposed by some of the extreme conservatives among the mullahs who engineered the repression of the reformist movement in 2004 and who backed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in last year’s election.

However, many conservative opponents of the reform movement in Iran have also supported a negotiated deal with the United States that would benefit Iran, according to Paul Pillar, the former national intelligence officer on Iran. ‘Even some of the hardliners accepted the idea that if you could strike a deal with the devil, you would do it,’ he said in an interview with IPS last month.

The conservatives were unhappy not with the idea of a deal with the United States but with the fact that it was a supporter of the reform movement of Pres. Mohammad Khatami, who would get the credit for the breakthrough, Pillar said.

Parsi says that the ultimate authority on Iran’s foreign policy, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was ‘directly involved’ in the Iranian proposal, according to the senior Iranian national security officials he interviewed in 2004. Khamenei has aligned himself with the conservatives in opposing the pro-democratic movement.

The similarities between the peace proposals offered to the Allied powers by Hitler and those offered to the Allied powers of today by Ahmadinejad are similar in their respective tones of generosity; though, Hitler’s was arguably even more generous. I would now like to quote Mosesson one last time in order to further expose just how mendacious the American-Jewish boycott campaign was against Hitler’s Germany.

Mosesson (1971) continues not only to defend, but to justify the boycott instigated by her co-religionists in the following passage:

Some Jewish veterans took more direct action. They went, as individuals, to the meetings of the Bund and fought physically with the Nazis. J.W.V. members were not even daunted by the country’s largest concentration of Bundists, in New York City’s Yorkville area. ... J.W.V. members ‘invaded’ the territory on a number of occasions to break up their parades and meetings. Perhaps it was not the most effective action possible, but it spoke for the bravery and convictions of men who were no longer younger. ...

In June, 1935, the World Conference of Jewish ex-servicemen held an international conference in Paris, to which fifteen countries sent delegates. The J.W.V. was represented by National Commander-in-Chief William Berman, and a small but vocal delegation. As a result of that conference, the first J.W.V. post outside the United States was formed—Paris Post #20, in Paris, France. ... (p. 51-52).

In 1937, J.W.V. effected an important breakthrough in community cooperation on the boycott. The influential Jewish labor leader, Sidney Hillman, was prevailed upon by a J.W.V. member to approach John L. Lewis at the National C.I.O. Convention. He detailed to him the dangers of Nazism to the American way of life. Lewis was impressed by the accuracy and scope of J.W.V. research and, which Hillman quoted, and he promised to put the C.I.O. into the fight. ...

Harry Schaffer of Pittsburgh, who was National Commander in 1937 and 1938 recalls how even Max Schmeling’s victory tour became part of the boycott.

I would like to briefly interject by mentioning that Schmeling was never even a Nazi Party member, but because of his ethnicity he was subject to Jewish discrimination and the Jewish boycott against Germany (About.com, 2007).

The account of Mosesson (1971) continues as follows:

... The [boxing] match promoters were approached [by the J.W.V.] and were told forcefully not only about Nazi atrocities, but about Schmeling’s plans to ‘export’ his proceeds to Germany, whose government was most vocal in its anti-American outbursts. It was pointed out that not only would they incur the wrath and ill-will of the Jewish community, but that it would be a most unpatriotic act.

The promoters were persuaded. The same thing happened in Boston and in other cities, and the tour was finally cancelled. Schmeling went back to Germany without his tour booty—thanks to J.W.V. (p. 53).

The vehemence of this account and the rabid Jewish discrimination against an innocent young German man who just wanted to compete in a few boxing matches in America is almost too unbelievable to read. Can anyone even fathom what kind of hostility this blatant discrimination might have evoked in the Jewish people had this man been a Jewish boxer competing in Germany? Hitler had actually invited the American Jewess Helene Mayer to compete for Germany during the 1936 Olympics. She did not experience any discrimination comparable to this and had even been invited to a festive dinner at Hitler’s Chancellery, as had the African American athlete Jesse Owens (see Rigg, p. 183; Weichardt, p. 24). The fact that the principle of patriotism was exploited by these Jews in this fashion and used to control these particular Americans’ freedoms of thought is simply mortifying. This is the same sort of exploitation and reverse psychology utilized by such American news caricatures as Sean Hannity and Michael Savage (TVNewsLies.org, n.d.; MediaMatters.org, 2007).

I would like to end this cogent historical comparison with a few key passages from Mosesson’s book:

America watched in consternation, and passed its Neutrality Act, which had the practical effect of hampering the Allied war effort while it affected the Axis powers not at all adversely. As a matter of fact, every disadvantage to Britain and France became an asset to Germany, Italy, Russia, and Japan, so that the United States was in a position of giving inverse aid to its natural enemies. And J.W.V. was quick to recognize this, perhaps because it looked at more than the war effort in Europe. It looked at the millions [?] of concentration-camp inmates, at the refugees who were denied entrance to Palestine or to any other country, at the once-flourishing Jewish community in Poland from which horror stories were coming. And it recognized that help had to be given, that the ‘isms’ and Axis propaganda that the United States stay neutral be ignored [forget the wishes of the American people], and that America had to be ready [for intervention in Europe]! [Hence,] National Defense activities became another facet of J.W.V. work, with direct and indirect participation in upgrading the nation’s military machine. Enlistments rose, and then when the draft started in 1940 [!], there was an additional task of providing moral support and what small comforts could be added to the servicemen’s life while on duty. Thus, it was to these new programs added to its base activities that the J.W.V., under the leadership of National Commanders Edgar H. Burman and Frederick S. Harris, devoted the twenty-seven months between August, 1939, and the Day of Infamy, December 7, 1941 (p. 55-56). ...

...Since WWII, [Jews] have been particularly sensitive to any hint of a resurgence of Nazism, either in the United States or Germany, and they have constantly reminded the rest of the world about Hitler and his cohorts.

For this reason, one of the most active aspects of J.W.V.’s postwar program has been keeping Nazis, Nazi sympathizers, and Germany herself under close surveillance. There are several reasons for this—to make sure that America does not reward Nazis, to make sure there is no resurgence of Nazism in Germany, to make sure that Germany does not stray in her obligations [!], particularly to Israel [!!], and to make sure that war criminals are appropriately punished (p. 123-124). [Emphasis added]

It is my hope that exposure to this historical comparative analysis between the chains of events leading up to American involvement in WWII, and the present day Iraq war, and soon-to-come Iran war, will help in evoking some degree of serious dialogue in opposition to the aims and desires of the Israel Lobby in America. There are serious issues that we as non-Jewish Americans must consider with the utmost diligence in the interests of our children and our nation-state if we are to avoid another Jewish agitation in favor of foreign war.

The tab for the Iraq war will no doubt top $2 trillion when interest is applied, so, one can reasonably assume that a war with Iran would add a couple trillion more dollars to that already stultifying figure. This deficit burden cannot be managed by this nation. Americans have got to start thinking about the consequences of this deficit before hurling themselves into another war which will not at all serve their national interests.

One would do well to analyze the collapse of the Soviet Union and read in detail about the horrors of everyday life for former Soviet citizens with no money and few resources. Moreover, please be sure and read about all of the balkanization campaigns that ensued which bled numerous governments dry; which, in turn, caused severe strife for the citizenry of those balkanized nations. Is this what America wants as its future?

Seemingly, it is Ahmadinejad who evokes the feeling of goodness and it is Blair who couldn’t match it. It was Blair who couldn’t even recruit the minimal dignity and kindness to salute his foe. British columnists should know better. Ahmadinejad didn’t win by points, it wasn’t about winning a political battle. This was just another chapter in an ongoing clash between civilizations, between Good and Evil and as it seems, we are stuck at least momentarily with Bush, Blair and their Ziocon philosophy, not exactly the civilized one and not remotely the carrier of ‘goodness’ so to say. ...

[T]he issue here has nothing to do with truth. The question to be asked here is why is it so complicated for us Western people to accept the possibility that the truth of the other may be slightly or even very different to ours? I may admit that I find it rather concerning that the British press willingly and blindly bought the British government account of the naval dispute while dismissing the possibility that the Iranians may have had an adequate argument to offer.

At the end of the day, we may have to face it, Blair and his government’s record for telling the truth is not very impressive. In the last five years the British government has managed to lie more or less about everything; whether it was Iraqi WMD, 45 minutes of deployment of those imaginary weapons, whether it was a [ph]antasmic pretext for an illegal war.

It would be fair to comment that as much as Blair can hardly tell the truth, President Ahmadinejad has yet to be caught telling a lie. ...

Brits and Americans should ask themselves whether they can recall Bush or Blair meeting with any of the many illegally detained Guantanamo Bay inmates? Brits may also want to ask themselves when was the last time their Prime Minister was seen chatting with Abu Hamza or alike? My usual Ziocon critics would obviously blame me for equating here ‘innocent’ naval personnel to ‘murderous blood thirsty terrorists’. I would suggest to them to bear in mind that it is ‘us’ who label others as ‘terrorist’ as much as it is ‘us’ who generously entitle ourselves as ‘innocent’. I may as well voluntarily suggest to my possible critics that within this so called ‘cultural clash’, it is again ‘us’ who launched an illegal war, it is ‘us’ who are legally and morally responsible for the ongoing genocide in Iraq and Afghanistan, it is ‘our’ democratically elected governments that support the Israeli atrocities in Palestine. It is ‘our’ leaders who happen to be the terrorists who fail to talk to the so called enemy. It is ‘our’ leaders who fail to offer any hope for peace. Instead they just prepare us for many more conflicts to come. More importantly, I may suggest to my critics that in the eyes of an Iranian, the captured naval personnel are part of an invasion army that destroys Arab and Muslim states.

I wonder how the majority of British people would feel about a bunch of Iranian naval commandos operating in the English Channel stopping every Western vessel and searching its belly for some potential military goods. I wonder as well how would some Brits [ ] feel about the Iranian democratically elected government interfering with the British Parliament’s recent decision to spend dozens of billions on a new Trident, a weapon designed for indiscriminate killing of millions. Obviously there is no need to elaborate on these rhetoric[al] questions; the answers are clear. The vast majority of Brits wouldn’t accept anyone interfering neither with British politics nor with the Kingdom’s territorial water. Yet, for the majority of Westerners, constant intimidation and destruction of Muslim or Arab states seems to be nothing other than business as usual (Atzmon, 2007).

Regrettably, for both Americans and Britons, the fateful year 1941 had also evolved into “business as usual,” but this does not mean that America must hold to this course for the rest of its life as a nation-state. Americans have the power to change the course of their collective future and they have the sole power to stop what may well be the worst war in 62 years. Americans can take this opportunity as an acknowledgement and correction of their war crimes of yesterday, as well as those of today, by assuming their collective responsibility for their criminal past and present; hence, demonstrating to the rest of the world that they are ready to be an honorable and respectable member of the global community of nation-states.

This dissertation was written in commemoration of my leader, Adolf Hitler, and all of the courageous Axis forces that fell in the war against AntiChrist—for my and your freedom—during WWII. Thank you Adolf Hitler and thank you Germany.

End Notes

1. Israel was not at that time a physical nation-state. The international community of ‘Israel’ was referred to at least by Hitler as “international Jewry.”

References

About.com. (n.d.). The German Boxer Max Schmeling. About.com. Retrieved May 28, 2007, from http://german.about.com/library/blschmeling.htm.

AHRS. (2007). Boycott Fever: “Bring Germany to her Knees”! Adolf Hitler Research Society. Retrieved May 27, 2007, from http://www.hitlerresearch.org/index21.html.

AHRS. (2006). Excerpts from Schaerffenberg’s Bungling Amateur or Military Genius? Adolf Hitler Research Society. Retrieved May 27, 2006, from http://www.adolfhitlerresearchsociety.org/index5_files/AVSchaerffenberg_excerpts.html.

AHRS. (n.d.). Judea Declares War on National Socialist Germany. Adolf Hitler Research Society. Retrieved May 24, 2007, from http://www.hitlerresearch.org/index19.html.

Ali, M.A. (2003, May). Lifting the Iraq Embargo After Almost 2 Million Deaths. Retrieved May 28, 2007, from http://www.ilaam.net/War/IraqEmbargo.html.

Anti-Defamation League. (2007, February). Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in his Own Words. Retrieved May 26, 2007, from http://www.adl.org/main_International_Affairs/ahmadinejad_words.htm.

Atzmon, G. (2007, April). Between Good and Evil. Adolf Hitler Research Society. Retrieved May 28, 2007, from http://www.adolfhitlerresearchsociety.org/index8_files/GAtzmon_between_good_evil.html.