Review: How the Jews Defeated Hitler: Exploding the Myth of Passivity in the Face of Nazism, Part One of Two

Andrew Joyce, Ph.D.

At the close of my review of the late David Cesarani’s Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews, 1933–1949, I remarked that “the Holocaust,” as a cultural concept, had performed one of the greatest vanishing acts in history — the disappearance of the Jews as active participants during World War II.[1] Faced with an almost blanket portrayal of Jewish victimhood and passivity during the period, I commented: “Examining the thousands upon thousands of histories of World War II, one would get the impression that there was not only one war, but also only one aggressor. Quite how and why “the Jews” leave the historical stage as belligerents in 1939, when the preceding six years had witnessed them engaging in international propaganda wars, political maneuvering, and targeted assassinations in several European countries, has been surprisingly overlooked.” Benjamin Ginsberg’s relatively short but efficient work, How the Jews Defeated Hitler (2013, First Paperback 2016), may be considered a significant exception to this overwhelming omission, offering an argument that Jews played “a major role in the defeat of Nazi Germany.”[2]

In the introduction to his text, Ginsberg, a Professor of Political Science at Johns Hopkins University, outlines the structure of his argument along with his definition of Jewish resistance to the advance of National Socialism in Europe. Ginsberg’s definition of Jewish resistance is important because it differs significantly, in terms of its discursive parameters, from those generally employed in Holocaust historiography and its offshoots. For those interested in a more detailed exploration of the issue of Jewish resistance during World War II, as a subject of historiographical debate, The Holocaust in History by Michael R. Marrus (Penguin, 1989) and Histories of the Holocaust by Dan Stone (Oxford University Press, 2010) are perhaps the best and most succinct introductions to the most pertinent themes. However, in brief, historiographical argument prior to the 2010s was limited to two strands of thought, each biased and deeply flawed. The first strand of ‘resistance’ historiography was the negation of the idea of Jewish resistance. This involved lachrymose assertions that Jews offered no opposition to an unprovoked and irrational German hostility, and were led to sensationalized forms of mass murder like ‘lambs to the slaughter.’ A prime example within this strand is Martin Gilbert’s The Holocaust: The Jewish Tragedy (Harper Collins, 1986), and is also strongly associated with Raul Hilberg’s assessment that “the reaction pattern of the Jews is characterised by almost complete lack of resistance.” This first strand of argument was particularly popular in the diaspora, and in the United States and Great Britain in particular. The Holocaust developed as a cultural trope in these countries in tandem with the development of this lachrymose strand of historiography.

The idea of totally passive victimhood was, however, less popular among Israeli academics and hardline Zionists more generally. In the eyes of these Jews, the Jewish experience during World War II had fortified and proven prewar arguments on behalf of a Jewish national home, and it was almost a matter of national pride that some emphasis be placed on explicitly Jewish efforts to fight against National Socialist Germany. In this context, histories began to emerge from Israel in the 1960s glamorizing Jewish partisan warfare, or events such as the Warsaw Uprising. The second strand to Jewish resistance historiography of course retained the idea that Jews, ultimately, were victims, in the sense that they were victims of an unprovoked and irrational German hostility. However, the difference was that this strand denied total passivity in the face of such hostility, and made strenuous efforts to emphasize armed Jewish participation in European national resistance movements, and in partisan warfare. It represented, for lack of a better term, an idea of ‘muscular victimhood.’[3]

Both of these strands suffered from severe methodological and theoretical failings in that both discussed Jewish resistance only within the sphere of armed, guerilla, partisan action. Even the briefest of glances through Jewish history would illuminate the fact that, at least since the sack of Jerusalem by Titus in AD 70, Jews have pursued their social and political goals via means significantly more abstract than armed conflict. Indeed, the century prior to World War II witnessed the development of modern Jewish politics, with features involving the consolidation of media power, the strengthening of transnational political networks, the development of international Jewish mutual aid networks (particularly following the Damascus Affair in 1840), and the ascent of the Jews into Western governments and the professions. It should therefore be regarded as remarkable that discussions of Jewish opposition to National Socialism should have neglected these international and incredibly influential spheres of influence as potential or actual avenues for resistance. Ginsberg’s unique contribution is to take the mainstream discussion of Jewish resistance into these neglected areas. Across four chapters, Ginsberg explores Jewish activism in the United States, the Soviet Union, in the field of counterintelligence, and in partisan warfare, and argues that Jewish actions in all spheres were crucial to the defeat of National Socialist Germany.

Ginsberg’s chapter on the Soviet Union is particularly interesting. For centuries Jews have lacked the conventional means of defense available to a threatened nation, and in the 1930s Jews were a group of around 18 million people scattered across the globe. To combat such strategic deficiencies however, Jews could rely upon centuries of experience in more abstract forms of defensive diplomacy, and in the 1930s this involved “working for, with, and through states and political leaders who shared their hostility toward Nazi Germany.”[4] Ginsberg explains that by the 1930s Jews exerted a remarkable level of influence in Soviet government and society. Jews were crucial to the founding of the Social Democratic Party in the 1890s, and the Jewish Socialist Bund played a major role in the unsuccessful 1905 revolution. In the period leading up to the 1917 revolution, Jews were instrumental in the leadership of both the Bolshevik and Menshevik parties. It was therefore quite predictable that after the revolution, “among the first official acts of the victorious Bolsheviks was outlawing pogroms and anti-Semitic movements.”[5]

Jews came to play major roles in the Communist Party and the Soviet state, taking key roles in areas such as “foreign affairs, propaganda, finance, administration, and industrial production.”[6] Half of Lenin’s first Politburo were Jewish, and during the early decades of Communist rule Jews were “especially prominent” in the security services. For example, the Jewish pharmacist Genrikh Yagoda was head of the secret police during the 1930s, and specialized in preparing poisons for his agents to use in liquidating Stalin’s opponents. Ginsberg adds that “other high-ranking Jewish secret police officers included M.T. Gay, who headed the special department that conducted mass arrests during the “Great Terror” of the 1930s, and A.A. Slutsky and Boris Berman, who were in charge of Soviet terror and espionage abroad.

Quickly rising as an elite in Soviet society, Jews enjoyed privileged access to the professions and influential political and cultural positions. “Though making up less than 2 percent of the overall populace, between 1929 and 1939, Jews constituted 11 percent of the students in Soviet universities. This included 17 percent of all university students in Moscow, 19 percent in Leningrad, 24 percent in Kharkov, and 35.6 percent in Kiev.”[7] Ginsberg adds that “Jews had become the backbone of the Soviet bureaucracy and constituted a large percentage of the nation’s physicians, dentists, pharmacists, and other professionals, as well as nearly 20 percent of the scientists and university professors in such major cities as Moscow and Leningrad.”[8] The USSR’s most influential journalist, Mikhail Koltsov, was Jewish, while the Soviet Union’s official radio announcer, Yuri Levitan, was also a Jew. Other culturally influential Jews were Semyon Lozovsky, chief Soviet press spokesman, Ilya Ehrenberg, the leading publicist for anti-German sentiment, and Vasily Grossman, the Soviet army’s most influential war correspondent. The Soviet film industry was also dominated by the Jews Sergei Eisenstein, Mikhail Romm, Mark Donskoy, Leonid Lukov and Yuli Reisman. Thus, while Jews ostensibly had no nation of their own, Ginsberg remarks that they “had a good deal of influence within the new Soviet state.”[9]

Jews used this influence to combat a very strong threat from National Socialist Germany. During the first weeks of the German attack, the Wehrmacht destroyed more than 17,000 Soviet aircraft, 20,000 tanks, and 100,000 heavy guns and mortars. As many as 5 million Soviet troops had been killed or captured or were missing in action. Jews had an obvious interest in fighting against such odds, and flooded the army’s influential positions in order to push a fanatical resistance effort. Ginsberg remarks that it was commonly remarked by troops (and repeated by Alexander Solzhenitsyn) that no Jews were to be found on the front lines.[10] Ginsberg himself concedes that Jews “sought whatever refuge they could find and preferred rear-echelon assignments.”[11] However, Jews were over-represented at officer level, and remarkably comprised more than 10 percent of the army’s political officers — essentially the enforcers of government doctrine. Ethnic nepotism resulted in such a high number of medals being spuriously awarded to under-represented Jewish front line troops that in 1943 the Soviet regime was forced to try to reduce the number (and avoid aggravating non-Jewish combatants) by issuing a statement reading: “Medals for distinguished conduct are to be awarded to men of all nations, but within limits with regard to the Jews.”

Aside from warfare, Jews were essentially slave-masters overseeing the vast sphere of Soviet war production. The millions of Russians working ceaselessly in munitions factories came under the control of Boris Vannikov, deputy people’s commissar for armaments, while mass population movements of workers were orchestrated by the commissar for transport, Lazar Kaganovich. Those workers tasked with building more and more factories were under the control of the Director of the Commissariat for Construction, the Jew Semyon Ginsburg. Steel production (Semyon Reznikov), aviation (Solomon Sendler), naval construction (Grigory Kaplun), the chemical industry (Leon Loshkin), and the fields of electricity, heavy industry, and fuel, were under Jewish authority. The vast Russian workforce was essentially under Jewish control, and put to use in defense of Jewish interests. Meanwhile, the German workforce was operating on only one shift, continuing to produce consumer goods. Children went to school and women stayed at home. In the Soviet Union, the factories of the Jews operated every minute of every day, two million women were drafted into the military, and children were forced into the systems of production. A worker had to show up for work 66 hours per week, with only one day off per month.[12]

As well as possessing a vast and captive workforce for war production, Jews also engaged in intensive popular mobilization efforts. This was necessary because many of the USSR’s citizens “hated the regime,” which had uprooted, dispossessed, and starved to death millions of peasants. Ginsberg demonstrates that Jews dominated the machinery of both popular coercion and persuasion, effectively maneuvering public opinion in line with Jewish interests. In the area of coercion, Jews were prominent in the NKVD, and the head of the army’s political officers was Lev Mekhlis, a Jewish Communist who had played a major role in the military purges of the 1930s. One of the main responsibilities of Mekhlis was “making certain the soldiers fought and did not surrender.” But Jews were much more prominent in the field of persuasion. In the army, political workers called politruks were assigned to military units in order to enforce discipline and also lecture troops on their duties to the motherland and the bestial nature of the Germans. Ginsberg stresses that Jews were hugely over-represented at politruks, and were very important in preventing instances of Soviet surrender. The Jewish-dominated Soviet film industry also dedicated itself to “exhorting the frightened and exhausted citizenry to fight the Germans.”[13] Mikhail Romm and Mark Donskoy both specialized in films portraying the brutal torture of Russian women by Germans. Jewish-made films like these were then “shown throughout the war to fan feelings of Russian nationalism and hatred for the Germans.”[14]

The official army newspaper, Red Star, was edited by the Jewish David Ortenberg. Ortenberg worked in tandem with co-ethnic Ilya Ehrenberg to create propaganda calling upon “every Soviet citizen to kill the Germans.” One of Ehrenberg’s most famous slogans was “If you have killed one German, kill another. There is nothing jollier than German corpses.”[15] Jewish propagandists like Ortenberg and Ehrenberg also worked abroad to build support for the Soviet cause. “The major vehicle for this effort was the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee (JAFC) composed of prominent Soviet Jewish political figures and intellectuals.” The JAFC raised money in the United States and Great Britain. “Though nominally an independent entity headed by the famous Soviet Jewish actor Solomon Mikoels, the JAFC was actually part of the Soviet Information bureau and closely monitored by a Jewish NKVD official, Sergei Shpigelglaz.”[16]

The JAFC found it easy to establish contact with similarly influential networks in the United States because that nation too had by World War II witnessed the rising power of the Jews. Ginsberg’s chapter on the United States is perhaps the most interesting of the entire text, and certainly from my own perspective justified the modest purchase price. Ginsberg begins by charting the rise of the Jews under FDR— a “long climb to power and prominence.”[17] More than 15 percent of Roosevelt’s top-level appointees were Jews—at a time when Jews constituted less than 3 percent of the population. Jews became such a prominent and visible element of Roosevelt’s New Deal program (a term coined by the Jewish Samuel Rosenman) that opponents referred to it as the ‘Jew Deal.’ Ostensibly a purely economic platform, the New Deal acted as a gateway for Jews into a much wider array of influence.

Among the most important Jewish figures in and around the Roosevelt administration were Henry Morgenthau (Secretary of the Treasury), Felix Frankfurter (appointed to the Supreme Court), Louis Brandeis (Supreme Court Justice), Jerome Frank and Abe Fortas (Securities and Exchange Commission), Isador Lubin (Bureau of Labor Statistics), Charles Wyzanski (Department of Labor), David Niles (White House Special Assistant), David Lilienthal (chair of the Tennessee Valley Authority), Nathan Strauss (U.S. Housing Authority), and Benjamin Cohen, the author of most New Deal legislation. These Jews, and lower level co-ethnics in and around the Roosevelt administration, were instrumental in challenging American isolationism. Ginsberg states that in combination with organized Jewish groups, these figures were crucial in bringing “isolationism into disrepute and turning American opinion against Germany.”[18]

The same period also witnessed the beginning of the end for the WASP establishment, mainly because WASPs (as one of the only Anglophilic elements in White America) decided to enter into a marriage of convenience with Jews in order to fight isolationism. Departing from a prior hostility to Jews, Anglo Northeastern Protestants let their guard down and made formal organizational pacts with Jewish propagandists. This was most notable in the form of the Century Group, which “worked vigorously for American intervention against the growing power of Nazi Germany.”[19] In the Century Group, Jews like James Warburg, Walter Wanger and Harold Guinzberg rubbed shoulders with Ward Chaney, Joseph Alsop, Frank Polk, Dean Acheson and Allen W. Dulles. After the defeat of France in 1940, the Century Group called for the United States to declare war against Germany without waiting to be attacked. Another strategy of the Century Group was to sponsor celebrities to give anti-German speeches, particularly in response to pro-isolationist meetings headed by figures such as Charles Lindbergh. The media networks controlled by the Century Group manipulated public opinion through tactics such as giving prominence to anti-German speeches while “relegating opposing points of view, such as those expressed by Charles Lindbergh, to the back pages.”[20]

Jews were crucial in sending destroyers and military hardware to Great Britain. As well as trying to shift public opinion in an anti-German direction, it was Benjamin Cohen (at Felix Frankfurter’s insistence) who sent a memorandum to Roosevelt arguing that he had the legal authority to release the destroyers without consulting Congress.[21] Another major supporter of this scheme, and the Lend Lease scheme which helped finance it, was the Fight for Freedom Committee (FFF) another group bringing together Jews and the Eastern WASP establishment. In common with many such groups, while its visible leadership was WASP, its influence derived from socially and culturally prominent Jews, in the case of the FFF Warburg and Guinzburg of the Century Group, along with Hollywood producers Jack and Harry Warner, labor leader Abe Rosenfield, and New York businessman Mac Kreindler. The FFF, which also had a close working relationship with British intelligence, was instrumental in a prolonged anti-Lindbergh campaign, and was successful in making a connection between “pro-isolationism” and “pro-Germany” in the public mind. Jewish groups like the American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League also undermined the isolationist position through propaganda and infiltration. “One ADL agent, Marjorie Lane, became an active and trusted member of a number of isolationist and anti-Semitic groups, including Women for the USA, Women United, and Mothers Mobilize for America.”[22]

In common with the situation in the Soviet Union, American Jews used the film industry to mobilize non-Jewish support for Jewish interests. Most of America’s film studios had been founded by Jews, and the 1930s witnessed an outpouring of anti-German productions. Roosevelt would later personally thank the movie industry for its “splendid cooperation with all who are directing the expansion of our defense forces,” and intervened to secure a reduced sentence for Jewish fraudster and head of Twentieth Century Fox, Joseph Schenk, who had been convicted of income tax evasion (an incident with eerie premonitions of the pardon of Marc Rich under Bill Clinton for the same crime).[23] The news media was also highly involved in the effort to shift public opinion, and both CBS and NBC (two of the most important networks) were owned by Jews.[24]

Go to Part 2

[1] A. Joyce, ‘A Tactical Retreat on the Holocaust: Review of Final Solution: The Fate of the Jews, 1933-1949 by David Cesarani’, in The Occidental Quarterly, Vol. 16, No. 4 (Winter 2016-2017).

[2] B. Ginsburg, How the Jews Defeated Hitler: Exploding the Myth of Passivity in the Face of Nazism (New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016), p.1.

[3] For a more complete overview of this strand of argument see O. Kenan, Between Memory and History: The Evolution of Israeli Historiography of the Holocaust, 1945-1961 (Peter Lang Publishing, 2003).

[4] Ginsberg, p.7.

[5] Ginsberg, p.9.

[6] Ginsberg, p.9.

[7] Ginsberg, p.10.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ginsberg, p.11.

[10] Ginsberg, p.18.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ginsberg, p.32.

[13] Ginsberg, p.34.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Ginsberg, p.37.

[18] Ginsberg, p.40.

[19] Ginsberg, p.41.

[20] Ginsberg, p.42.

[21] Ginsberg, p.43.

[22] Ginsberg, p.46.

[23] Ginsberg, p.49.

[24] Ibid.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Print
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

40 Comments to "Review: How the Jews Defeated Hitler: Exploding the Myth of Passivity in the Face of Nazism, Part One of Two"

  1. July 14, 2017 - 9:15 am | Permalink

    How the Jews “defeated” Hitler? That’s only a fragment of the story. It’s Jews taking credit for solving a problem without mentioning that they caused the problem.

    Jews essentially fomented the war in 1939 just as they now foment Middle-East wars. That was what Hitler said on 30 January 1939: ” If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war …”

    This is borne out by Neville Chamberlain’s comment to Ambassador Joseph Kennedy about who pushed him into the war — “America and the world Jews” — and by the captured Polish documents that show how Poland too was prodded into an anti-German posture. A central role was played by a Jew with a very unlikely name, William Christian Bullitt. Admiral James Forrestal recorded comments from Ambassador Kennedy: “That Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it had not been for Bullitt’s urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland….” Apart from the Polish documents, this is all in Forrestal’s diary-entry of 27 December 1945,

    • Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
      July 14, 2017 - 5:52 pm | Permalink

      Forrestal himself most likely a victim of the very same forces:

    • July 14, 2017 - 6:28 pm | Permalink

      During WWII James Forrestal was Secretary of the Navy and afterwards he became the first Secretary of Defense. He was never an Admiral.

      Speaking of Forrestal, in 1949 he was assassinated by persons or person unknown. Both the Soviets and the Israelis had reason to wish him out of the way.

      • Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
        July 15, 2017 - 1:08 pm | Permalink

        James Forrestals heroic attempts to save America from the Jewish/Zionist takeover and the smearing and whitewashing of his name which continues to this day is one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th century. He was adamant that involvement in the Middle East on behalf of Jewry was too costly in blood and money and would in the end destroy America. He appealed to Truman and the Democrats to “lift the Jewish/Palestine question out of politics” but was told by the party boss that “many people who had contributed to the campaign were pressing for assurances from the administration of definite support for the Jewish position in Palestine.” He then turned to Republican Governor of New York and presidential hopeful Dewey, who replied that ” it was a difficult matter to get results because of the intemperate attitude of the Jewish people who had taken Palestine as their emotional symbol. ” He sent a memo to the State Department, Jan. 21, 1948, in which he stated “It is doubtful of there is any segment of our foreign policy of greater importance or of greater danger to the security of the United States than our involvement in the Middle East.” He was proving to be a threat to the future of Israel. Shortly thereafter the Jewish press and radio were broadcasting that Secretary of Defence James Forrestal was a coward who allowed his wife to be attacked by a burglar, that he was a tax cheat and an unfaithful husband, and eventually, that he was insane. This last attack on his character proved useful when he was dragged of to Bethesda Military Hospital, commited as insane, and thrown from the window on May22, 1949.

        • Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
          July 15, 2017 - 2:14 pm | Permalink

          I meant to write smearing of his name and whitewashing of his confinement and death. I get carried away when his name is brought up.

        • July 15, 2017 - 8:53 pm | Permalink

          Karen, your concern about the treatment of Forrestal is justified but …

          Forrestal was never committed and he was never diagnosed as insane by physicians. If you read the Navy’s report on his death, known as the “Willcutts Report” – I linked to it above – especially the Nurse’s Notes in the Appendix, you get the impression he came to Bethesda Naval Hospital voluntarily.

          • Karen T's Gravatar Karen T
            July 16, 2017 - 2:53 pm | Permalink

            (Mod. Note: “Karen”, please don’t post “naked” links! We’d prefer to have you write a bit of text telling us about what you’re posting, and why. I’ll let this one through, but not after this. We don’t want to have to examine every link posted, and require that you “introduce” any link you post.)


          • Mark Hunter's Gravatar Mark Hunter
            July 20, 2017 - 12:05 am | Permalink

            Karen linked to one of David Martin’s articles about the Forrestal case, reprinted on someone else’s website. Since that someone else is a nut (angels, giants, zombies etc.), you might like a link to Martin’s original article. Here’s a list of all Martin’s Forrestal articles along with a blurb about each one:
            Who Killed James Forrestal?

  2. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    July 14, 2017 - 6:27 pm | Permalink

    The French State turns a blind eye to organized Jewish violence.

  3. Trenchant's Gravatar Trenchant
    July 14, 2017 - 6:36 pm | Permalink

    Betar youth groups give the lie to Jewish passivity.

    • tadzio308's Gravatar tadzio308
      July 16, 2017 - 3:43 am | Permalink

      One cannot help but notice that all betar trainees are too cowardly to show their faces and are masked. Contrast that with the two victims of alleged antisemitism who proudly display their faces.

  4. Peter's Gravatar Peter
    July 14, 2017 - 7:37 pm | Permalink

    Thank you for another fascinating article Dr. Joyce. This puts Hitler’s speech in a new light when he said Jews will pay a heavy price if they succeed in pushing the world into war.

  5. Edward Harris's Gravatar Edward Harris
    July 15, 2017 - 6:07 am | Permalink

    When King Edward 8th abdicated (((the London money))) chased him into exile.This was agreed to at the castle of the Duke of Rutland by 5 dukes including Rutland and Northumberland. I forget the date but it was in the mid 1930’s.
    If the King had stayed in the UK he would have helped his brother and probably prevented WW2.
    That is why he was sent into exile.

  6. Junghans's Gravatar Junghans
    July 15, 2017 - 8:21 am | Permalink

    This is another definitive article about the Jewish orchestration of NS Germany’s crucifixion ….and straight from a kosher source. There is lots of documentation on the real origins of the war in Europe, unfortunately this information, and thus the truth, has been smothered for a very long time. A recent PBS story about an anti-Jewish revenge pogrom in Jedwabne, Poland is a case in point; where, during the lengthy (((double talk))), there was hardly any mention at all of the local Jewish support for Stalin’s, at the time, (recent 1940-41) lethal occupation.

    Peter Moreira also wrote a revealing, and somewhat braggadocio book about Henry Morgenthau called ‘The Jew Who Defeated Hitler’. Earlier German sources such as Kommoss’ book ‘Juden Hinter Stalin’ states the same basic facts about the Jewish deep state involvement, and intrigue. Hartmut Stern’s year 2000 book ‘Juedische Kriegserklarungen An Deutschland’ clearly points out the malevolent Jewish anti-German agitation.

  7. Harvey's Gravatar Harvey
    July 15, 2017 - 12:13 pm | Permalink

    What a lot of jammy jam on this article! Will check out the Damascus Affair, 1840. TOQ membership is so rewarding.

  8. T. J.'s Gravatar T. J.
    July 15, 2017 - 2:55 pm | Permalink

    RT show about USS Liberty attack by israel fifty years ago. Very rare criticism of jews- this is hard hitting. Spread everywhere.

  9. July 15, 2017 - 6:21 pm | Permalink

    one of the only Anglophilic elements

    Were there other Anglophilic elements? If so, how could it have been one of the only Anglophilic elements? And how can “only” take a plural anyway?

    • Andrew Joyce's Gravatar Andrew Joyce
      July 15, 2017 - 11:30 pm | Permalink

      1. Yes. There Northeast establishment wasn’t composed strictly of Protestants of Anglo descent. And there were elements outside of it that also showed support for the British war effort.

      2. “One of the only” is a contested but sanctioned colloquial phrase, in which “only” means “relatively few.”

      If this movement spent more time on creativity and activism than pedantry, we might actually get somewhere.

      • Andrew Joyce's Gravatar Andrew Joyce
        July 15, 2017 - 11:31 pm | Permalink

        The Northeast establishment*

    • Andrew Joyce's Gravatar Andrew Joyce
      July 16, 2017 - 12:06 am | Permalink

      “How can only take a plural anyway?”

      Easily, and often.

      “We realized the ship was sinking but there were only four life jackets left.”

      I normally ignore pedantry, but this instance is just too annoying.

    • Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
      July 19, 2017 - 12:27 pm | Permalink

      No article here or anywhere has ever left me so despairing, but that’s okay. Facts are facts.

      @JeffRucker: Re “one of the only”. I agree with you, Mr. Joyce’s protestations notwithstanding. It is not pedantry to find the phrase objectionable. Also, who “sanctions” every awkward-sounding expression that comes down the pike? The same folks who write for the mainstream press?

      Some recently developed expressions, while not keeping precisely to all rules of grammar, just make sense – but “one of the only” followed by a plural noun is not one of them. We don’t have to accept everything that comes down the pike.

      Guess I’d better hotfoot it out of here now.

      • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
        July 19, 2017 - 4:10 pm | Permalink

        I don’t wish to quarrel with an old friend, but surely, dear B., you’d agree that the following sentences are wholly orthodox and idiomatic in construction.

        The Amazon rain forest includes several of the only remaining unexplored areas on this planet.

        The only kids that don’t drive my big sister crazy are her own.

        White parents are the only ones who have blond and blue-eyed children.

        Only TOO commenters care enough about idiomatic English usage to quarrel and quibble about it.

        You and Andrew are the only persons who can help me.

        Also, my copy of the OED records instances of idiomatic adjectival use of only extending in unbroken line from the thirteenth century.

        • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
          July 19, 2017 - 4:33 pm | Permalink

          I hit Reply too soon. I had meant to add the following comment about the objected-to phrase “one of the only.”

          The dictionaries I have on hand, all of them published twenty years ago and much, much more—I mention this fact to stave off the legitimate objection that I am referring to a source that treats barbarous Afro-Judaic neologisms as proper English—all list “few” as one of the wholly standard meanings of “only.” Thus, were one to write,

          Andrew Joyce is one of the only TOO writers who are willing and indeed eager to duke it out with critics.

          he or she would (1) be correct about Joyce and (2) be describing him in standard English, whichever side of the Atlantic the writer of the sentence might dwell upon.*
          *Being far too circumspect a man to speak for our Ozzie cousins and friends, even those few who are sober during half or more of their waking hours, I’d be delighted to get Brenton Sanderson’s authoritative judgment of what constitutes proper Australian English usage.

          • Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
            July 20, 2017 - 11:12 am | Permalink

            Ahem. I knew I’d get you out of the woodwork, but not in opposition.

            If what we mean is “few”, why not just say “few”? Or “several”? I’m old enough to recall a time when “one of the only” followed by a plural noun without any number in front of it was not to be found. This new use of “only” is strange and clumsy.

            Let’s take your example, Andrew Joyce is one of the only TOO writers who are willing and indeed eager to duke it out with critics. What does that sentence deliver that “one of the few TOO writers…” does not? Why do you suppose this new usage appeared, and why did everyone and his dog gobble it up?

            Now, let’s get to your 5 examples. #1 doesn’t use the phrase “one of the only”, which is what we are discussing here, but using “several” in the same manner is awkward, also. The other 4 use “only” correctly.

            Now, Pierre, regarding dictionaries. My Collins English dictionary has a long entry on “only”. I read and reread it; it gives 14 examples of proper use of that word. Nowhere can I find “one of the only” followed by a plural noun alone as being proper usage. Where “only” means “few”, the dictionary gives the following correct example: The only men left in town were too old to bear arms. Not “one of the only men left in town…”

            Ivan is one of the only men to drive a Lada. VS
            Ivan is one of only 5 men who drive a Lada. VS
            Ivan is one of the few men who drive a Lada VS
            Ivan is one of several men who drive a Lada.

            I can’t deconstruct this any further if the improper use of “only” in the first sentence above isn’t easy to see. Jett Rucker, come on down! Maybe you can do better.

            I thank the moderator with all my heart for indulging me on this matter. And to you, Pierre, for your patience. :) I’m happy you troubled yourself to reply to my comment.

          • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
            July 20, 2017 - 9:20 pm | Permalink

            To avoid taxing everyone else’s patience, I’ll keep this very short.

            I quite agree with these sentiments of yours: “If what we mean is ‘few’, why not just say ‘few’? Or ‘several’?” Indeed, in my last example sentence, I too would have written “few” had I been writing it as something other than an example. My sole relevant point was this: “only” used respectably and idiomatically in the sense of “few” has roughly an 800-year pedigree. That is not to say that you and I have to like it or use it ourselves as Dr. Joyce did, but I think he clearly had grounds for objecting to the basis on which JR criticized him.

            Pax tecum, B.

          • Barkingmad's Gravatar Barkingmad
            July 21, 2017 - 11:17 am | Permalink


            “My sole relevant point was this: “only” used respectably and idiomatically in the sense of “few” has roughly an 800-year pedigree.”

            Er…no. The issue is not the use of “only” meaning “few”.

            The issue is the use of the expression “one of the only” where “only” is used as a word-for-word substitute for “few”. It’s recent, and it’s goofy.

            tecum? Tsk tsk. ;)

  10. Peter J's Gravatar Peter J
    July 16, 2017 - 5:59 am | Permalink

    Excellent piece of work. Detailed and to the point. A range of such essays in a book – one chapter being, for instance, the dreyfus affair another being the asset stripping of Russia after 1991 eye – would be valuable in showing that we are now living under global Jewish imperialism.

  11. Lothar von Trotha's Gravatar Lothar von Trotha
    July 16, 2017 - 2:17 pm | Permalink

    Untermeyer, Baruch, Wise, all the Jews in this article and many more got in on the act. The Hollywood Jews as well, like Lillian Hellman writing “The North Star” praising Soviet partisans with the Jew director Lewis Milestone and the Jew producer Samuel Goldwyn scored by the Jew Aaron Copland, or the 1941 Stalin love fest “Mission to Moscow,” written by the Jew Howard Koch (based on the cretinous shabbos goy ambassador Joseph Davies’s loving account of the Great Terror/show trials) and directed by the Jew Michael Curtiz.

    Not only were Americans shedding blood to save the Soviet Union, but shipping off B-25 Mitchells, M-4 Shermans, P-39 Airacobras, spam, boots, Studebaker trucks, etc., WHILE pro-communist films are showing in the theaters. This idiocy, gleefully plunging into war moments after being “isolationist” and reelecting FDR in 1940 with his promise that “American boys” wouldn’t be on European soil fighting another war. Naturally, these stoops would be pushed as “the greatest generation.” As soon as communism is saved, the Jews turn their back on it with Israel and realized that rotting capitalism and freedom from the inside out by redefining them and pushing “progress” of women and blacks, while holding the strings in actuality, is far more lucrative and subversive than the brute force of NKVD gangs and gulags. Shamelessly unprincipled chameleons morphing from communism to “civil rights” and “feminism,” but never in Israel, this rot and destruction is their thanks for saving them. Nothing but bitching about the MS St. Louis and how the anti-semitic bastids never did enough for them, etc. I truly despise these “people.”

    Some relevant newspaper quotations from throughout the 30’s of other Jews conspiring to set “the greatest generation” to destroying its brethren on their behalf (I assume they’re all legit):

    “The millions of Jews who live in America, England and France, North and South Africa, and, not to forget those in Palestine, are determined to bring the war of annihilation against Germany to its final end.” (The Jewish newspaper, Central Blad Voor Israeliten in Nederland, September 13, 1939)”

    “Germany is the enemy of Judaism and must be pursued with deadly hatred. The goal of Judaism of today is: a merciless campaign against all German peoples and the complete destruction of the nation. We demand a complete blockade of trade, the importation of raw materials stopped, and retaliation towards every German, woman and child.” (Jewish professor A. Kulischer, October, 1937)

    “Our fight against Germany must be carried to the limit of what is possible. (((Our Greatest Ally))) has been attacked. Let us, therefore, defend (((Our Greatest Ally)))! Against the awakened Germany, we put an awakened (((Our Greatest Ally))). And the world will defend us.” (Jewish author Pierre Creange in his book Epitres aux Juifs, 1938)

    “Germany must be turned into a waste land, as happened there during the 30-year War.” (Das Morgenthau-Tagebuch, The Morgenthau Dairy, p. 11).

    “The fight against Germany has now been waged for months by every Jewish community, on every conference, in all labor unions and by every single Jew in the world. There are reasons for the assumption that our share in this fight is of general importance. We shall start a spiritual and material war of the whole world against Germany. Germany is striving to become once again a great nation, and to recover her lost territories as well as her colonies. But our Jewish interests call for the complete destruction of Germany…” Vladimir Jabotinsky, in Mascha Rjetsch, January, 1934)

    For months now the struggle against Germany is waged by each Jewish community, at each conference, in all our syndicates, and by each Jew all over the world. There is reason to believe that our part in this struggle has general value. We will trigger a spiritual and material war of all the world against Germany’s ambitions to become once again a great nation, to recover lost territories and colonies. But our Jewish interests demand the complete destruction of Germany. Collectively and individually, the German nation is a threat to us Jews.
    – Vladimir (((Jabotinsky))) (founder of the Jewish terrorist group, Irgun Zvai Leumi) in Mascha Rjetsch, January, 1934 (also quoted in Histoire de l’Armée Allemande by Jacques Benoist-Mechin, Vol. IV, p. 303).

    Hitler will have no war (does not want war), but we will force it on him, not this year, but soon. – Emil Ludwig (((Cohn))) in Les Annales, June, 1934 (also quoted in his book The New Holy Alliance)

  12. George F. Held's Gravatar George F. Held
    July 18, 2017 - 6:21 am | Permalink

    Great article.
    Contains info every American should know
    Too bad only few will read it.

  13. pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
    July 18, 2017 - 7:28 am | Permalink

    “an unprovoked and irrational German hostility,”
    Everyone agrees that the entire war was PACKED TO THE RAFTERS with lies and propaganda from start to finish – but this was and is all ‘okay because it was part of the war effort’. No one doubts that these lies existed from start to finish. Eg an Allied ship carrying munitions plus civilians and claiming it was only civilians after the Germans sank it (I cannot recall the name). No-one minds that the lies were made up, either then or now.

    However, we are also asked to believe that in relation to everything uttered in the war by the Allies in respect of the Jews – that no lies were told when it came to this subject (although they must have been ‘severely tempted to exaggerate’ in order to demonise the enemy – but ‘they resisted’ we must assume), and in the Allies’ account nothing was exaggerated except the lampshades from human skin. Even the official reduction of the ‘6 million’ figure which resulted in a lowering of one figure by 1.5 m on a plaque (if this is number correctly remembered) did not stop it somehow staying at 6 million.

    • July 18, 2017 - 9:56 am | Permalink

      “Even the official reduction of the ‘6 million’ figure which resulted in a lowering of one figure by 1.5 m on a plaque (if this is number correctly remembered) did not stop it somehow staying at 6 million.”

      Your knowledge here is confused. The figure of 4 million or more deaths at Auschwitz was promulgated by the Soviet government in 1945. That was supposed to include roughly 2.5 million Jews and 1.5 million others.

      In November 1989 Yehuda Bauer of Israel’s Yad Vashem museum complained that the death-tolls claimed for the camps in the Soviet bloc were too high to be credible, that they produced a sum of Jewish deaths far exceeding the canonical 6 million, and must therefore be reduced in order to bring them into accord with the figure of six million dead Jews.

      Bauer stated that it was important to change the figures because Holocaust Deniers would point out the inconsistency. This was part of a wave of Jewish self-criticism and retrenchment about the Holocaust that followed Ernst Zuendel’s False News Trials in Canada. Arno Mayer (Why Did the Heavens Not Darken?) and David Cole were also part of that wave.

      Bauer made his concern crystal-clear:

      ”They can add, you know,” he said. The four million figure, combined with the known deaths elsewhere, would result in a total number of Holocaust victims well above the approximate figure of six million that has long been established by different methods, including a comparison of European Jewish population statistics before and after the war, he said. [P. Steinfels, “Auschwitz Revisionism: An Israeli Scholar’s Case,” NY Times, 12 November 1989]

      The reduction of the numbers at Auschwitz does not in itself disprove the 6 million. It does however raise a question about how such figures are derived and casts doubt on their credibility. It shows that the figures claimed for the various camps are not based on a direct count. The figure of 6 million then is based on what?

      Bauer says that the figure of six-million is based not on a direct count of the dead but on statistics about Jewish populations. How trustworthy is that? There is no independent verification that Disraeli ever said it, but Mark Twain attributed to him the view that there were: “lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

      Incidentally, the number of non-Jewish concentration-camp deaths alleged by the official authorities on the Holocaust has indeed been drastically reduced. In 1945 there were 14 million non-Jewish deaths alleged by OMGUS. In the late 1960s a West German prosecutor, Rueckerl, said 8 million. In the 1970s it was down to 5 million (which is the figure that most people have heard). After Trump’s Holocaust Day statement last January, Yehuda Bauer stated:

      “[T]he number of non-Jews who died in the concentration camps is no more than half a million.” (R. Kampeas, JTA, 31 January 2017)


      (Mod. Note: “Hadding”, please don’t bring H-revisionism into the comment threads here. I’ll post this one comment since you are a TOO author, but don’t expect any subcomments to be approved.)

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      July 18, 2017 - 10:34 am | Permalink

      The ship was the Laconia (h/t Arch Stanton).

      • pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
        July 19, 2017 - 3:58 am | Permalink

        Hadding Scott – thanks for the summary to clear all that up. I realise the discussion should not be diverted but I just make one general comment also relevant to the article – that WWI (One) has been completely reviewed and now viewed as a waste of young men’s lives, and perhaps one of the reasons this review is not allowed for WWII is that it is still too close and time has to pass before the people can take the revisionism that involves criticism of their own side, including the terrible realisation that your (Allied) side bankrupted its countries and killed off its young men for: nothing/not much/a cause not worth dying for/so that Poland cold end up in the Soviet bloc/on the side of Stalin/, and ANYTHING that reduces their own halo and makes people realise that the cause was not so grand and glorious after all, anything that does this, or reduces the demonisation of ‘the enemy’ – anything along these lines is a place they do not want to go, but they might go there after sufficient years have passed, as has happened now with WWI. In other words we must keep up the official version of who were the goodies and baddies, even if this involves Stalin being one of the goodies who got Poland at the end of it, and for Stalin to be a goodie we need an extra bad baddie to make this possible.

        Also, WWI did not involve a left/right struggle so the globalists/lefties have no interest in taking sides, but WWII did involve such a struggle and the left do want to take sides, and this involves keeping up the demonisation of the Germans.

        However, the Germans cannot blame everyone else for this continued demonisation, as they themselves are leading it, for example a German teacher got in big trouble (prosecuted even?) for saying a banned expression at a sports race when cheering on a runner (that meant something like ‘on to victory’ or ‘strive to win’ – I just spent 20 min but cannot find the Daily Mail article from a few years ago) . In fact they are self-flagellating so much that they are at the stage of inviting the third world over to punish them for being superior and to bring them down to the level of the third world.

        One way to look at it is that post WW2 enabled a different subset to take over in Germany – one that hated Germany (and all the West) for the ‘crime’ of being better, and their hatred is now being demonstrated beyond doubt by their determination to make Germany third world – there is no greater satisfaction for the left than doing this to any country they hate for being – dare I say – ‘superior’?

        Pierre de Craon Thanks. Somehow I think that the film of this will never be made. Hollywood are too busy making yet another D-day film, then after that it will probably be another one about St Mandela.

  14. Captain John Charity Spring MA's Gravatar Captain John Charity Spring MA
    July 18, 2017 - 7:07 pm | Permalink

    Round of Applause Andrew! Hitler’s mistake was not believing the lurid cartoons that Julius Streicher published. These tentacled Octopus creatures were not jokes or crude metaphors. They accurately described the throttling power of Jewry.

  15. pterodactyl's Gravatar pterodactyl
    July 19, 2017 - 6:44 am | Permalink

    Below is a link to a British Daily Mail newspaper article (the most popular paper) about the British royal couple visiting Poland last week and visiting a camp from WWII. I quote three recent reader comments (order by ‘newest’).

    This is relevant to the article as the up/down count for comments under the article suggests that despite complete maintenance of the wartime propaganda stance taken by the Allies (and Germany joining in enthusiastically), perhaps the readers seem to be weakening in their credibility of the version of history as related by the current elite, and backed by prison sentences in some countries for doubters.

    (1) Propaganda Patrol up-33 down-22

    (2) (for this comment, see REPLY)

    This atrocity SHOULD be reported in case anyone tries to forget what happened, and what better way to highlight it to today’s youngsters. A lot of your young people today just have no conception of the horrors that were done to ordinary men, women and children, and they need to know, and WHO it was who carried out these monstrous acts.

    Forgetting? Not much chance of that now is there? It’s rammed down our throats morning noon and night.
    up-28 down-19

    (3) history is written by the victors
    up-38 down-20

    Note the lack of mention of the H word, with one poster complaining his post mentioned it and was removed.
    PS I did not post as I am banned from this paper (without breaking any house rules).

    PS this paper (which likes to shout ‘far-right’ and ‘racist’ all the time) is considered the most right wing paper in Britain and is reviled as such on the far-left radio stations that we receive. Imagine what the others must be like.

  16. Sam's Gravatar Sam
    July 19, 2017 - 2:38 pm | Permalink

    I can’t find the reviews of Cesarani’s book, can anyone help?

    • Sam's Gravatar Sam
      July 19, 2017 - 4:15 pm | Permalink

      Its OK, found them.

    • Pierre de Craon's Gravatar Pierre de Craon
      July 19, 2017 - 4:56 pm | Permalink

      The articles were a five-part series called “Review of ‘Final Solution The Fate of the Jews, 1933–49′”; they seem no longer to be archived here at TOO, doubtless for sound prudential reasons.

      Search online using the formula [Andrew Joyce David Cesarani]. , and you’ll find what you seek. I use Startpage for privacy’s sake, but the usual suspects will get you where you wish to go, too.

  17. Thomas Gentry's Gravatar Thomas Gentry
    July 21, 2017 - 6:09 pm | Permalink

    Author William Lasser, in his book, Ben V. Cohen: Architect of the New Deal gives the details of how Cohen, by “hook or crook,” was able to fashion the Lend-Lease legislation in order to get around America’s proclaimed neutrality. Ben Victor Cohen was the World Zionist Organization’s chief legal counsel at the 1919 Paris Peace conference where he and Chaim Weitzmann claimed the “war booty” of Palestine for the efforts of world Jewry in drawing America into that European conflict. I may be in error, but wasn’t Henry Morgenthau the sole witness to the death of FDR at Warm Springs, Georgia?

Comments are closed.