Hitler or Judah?
A Second Nuremberg Tribunal, Chapter 6, Part 1

6,114 words

Chapter 6

Fourth Session

Part 1 of 3

Three months later, spring reassembled the members of the tribunal in Nuremberg. In accordance with the rules, laid down by the statutes, a new President and assessors had to be elected. The chair was filled by Charles Zermatten. Karl Verschaeve and Kittila Saronen were chosen to assist him.

The new President opened the session and said: Gentlemen, according to our basic program, this Fourth session must judge who was responsible for the Second World War. I ask Counsel for Adolf Hitler to address the Court, since the suppositions of guilt weigh heaviest on his client.

Adv. Kleist: “By exposing for the first time in thirty years the deception based on the presentation of Hitler as being solely responsible for the war of 1939–1945, I shall call upon honest historians to sweep aside the professional liars who have held undisputed sway since the end of that conflict. The present court of appeal must rout the syndicate of victors who in 1946 gathered in Nuremberg in order to make a parody of justice. Since it is conducted by free and honest men, it will surely allow truth to triumph over the lies and propaganda of Jewry!”

Adv. Hollander: “I suppose we shall again be treated to a generous dose of the forgeries, known as the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion?”

Adv. Kleist: “Amongst other things, yes, for the Protocols are merely a simple commentary on laws which are much older and which reveal to us the secret ambitions of Judah. My dear colleague, I shall even justify Hitler with the Old Testament!”

Adv. Hollander: “Spare us your literary flights of fancy, and give us some facts.”

Adv. Kleist: “You shall have your facts all in good time. For the moment, I wish to expose the hidden aspect of a war which was one of the worst disasters in the whole history of mankind. The premises for the conflict between Hitler and Judah had been established 3000 years earlier, when Isaiah promised Judah that she should possess the earth for all eternity.[1] Would Judah achieve this goal if more powerful nations were to bar the route and spoil her chances? Not at all, gentlemen! In the course of history, the Jews have often lost the match when they tried to engage in open battle, but they always regained the lost ground and even made still greater progress by using secret weapons which had been devised long before. Only Judah proved capable of fighting on the immaterial terrain of ideological persuasion! Gentlemen, I should like to quote the example of the Emperor Vespasian. On realizing, as did Hitler, the danger which Judah represented for the Empire, he sent his legions out against her. The Jews fought initially in the open, and their heroism equaled that of the Greeks. They were, however, conquered, and Titus destroyed Jerusalem. But military defeat paved the way for the rise of Christianity! Gentlemen, I ask you: What was Christianity other than a creation of Judah, hawked about the Roman Empire by Paul of Tarsus, a psychological weapon for the destruction of beliefs which formed the basis of individual and social customs in those times? By reason of the new slave morality, Christianity was to legitimize the presence in Rome of a flood of inferior peoples: The well-born Romans were drowned in a sea of cross-breeds.

“With Constantine, however, Christianity was itself infiltrated by the pagan values which had existed in ancient Europe. Christianity could now keep the Jew at a safe distance because his destructive nature could clearly be recognized. Judah was expelled from the Christian citadel. The whole process had to start afresh! Judah was not discouraged and duly started afresh.

“From 1750 on, Judah infiltrated Freemasonry which had initially been a new Aryan reaction against the old clerical oppression which had come from the East. Judah infused her destructive ideas into the movement. And thanks to a Judaized Freemasonry, leading to the revolution of 1789, Judah was able to re-enter victoriously the society of the goyim. My learned colleague should read and reread the Protocols, which he resolutely refuses to accept at face value.[2]

“Having been fully reintegrated into Western society, the Jew continued his forward march. The conquest of the world, foretold by the prophets in the Old Testament and in the Talmud, and reaffirmed by the Elders of Zion, was making good progress, when suddenly there appeared a man whom history will one day judge to be one of the seven or eight giants of humanity, if we escape the domination of Judah, whereas he will be forever stomped as the greatest criminal of all times if the Jewish domination should succeed. This man was called Adolf Hitler, and his fate was already foretold by the prophets, whom I quote: ‘The men of all nations shall be enslaved by Israel, but those who held you under their domination, shall be exterminated by the sword.’[3]

“For the first time since the Jewish problem had arisen in the world, Hitler defined ‘Homo judaicus’ not on the basis of religious belief, which can easily give rise to deception, as was proved by the conduct of the Marranos in Spain, but on the biological level. Just as we were informed by the lamentations of Jewish writers, quoted during previous sessions, a son of Judah would never again be able to escape from Jewry. The experiment, which Hitler undertook with the Jews in Germany, made it impossible to escape once more into a racial underground which was the wonder of days gone by. They would never again be able to call themselves both Jew and German, Jew and Englishman, Jew and American, Jew and Frenchman. Hitler had undone the scheme of the prophets irrevocably. Hitler had to be destroyed for having appeared before the world not as Dictator of the Germans, Slayer of the Slavs, or Conqueror of America, but as Liberator of all non-Jews. This modern drama would appear to prove the intellectual superiority of the Jews, it explains their success, justifies perhaps the promises made in the Bible and the Talmud, and also their claim to he called the chosen people of God!”

President Zermatten: “What does Advocate Hollander think when his colleague suggests that we pay homage in this way to his client?”

Adv. Hollander: “I shrug my shoulders and say nothing. The Jews deserve neither this excessive homage nor the indignities to which they are so often subjected. My opponent is conducting the defense of his client in apocalyptic terms, and it is all totally unreal.”

Jury Member Scandico: “Since the jury is allowed to ask questions during sessions, I should like to ask Advocate Hollander, who calls the Protocols apocryphal, whether he is not struck by the relationship between the writings of the old prophets or the Elders of Zion on the one hand, and recent events on the other?”

Adv. Hollander: “I am not a rabbi, but legal adviser to a firm of diamond dealers in Rotterdam. However, I think I can give you an objective answer. The Apocalypse of Baruch is of course a disputed document, whereas the prophesies of Isaiah are not. Nevertheless, I maintain that the alleged guilt of Judah, as described by my opponent, dissolves into thin air when the writings of our prophets are interpreted correctly. The domination, promised on certain conditions to the Jewish people, is of an entirely mystic order. There can be no question of political dictatorship over the world, according to principles similar to those of Hitler.”

Adv. Kleist: “You do not then agree with the English philosopher, Houston Stewart Chamberlain?”

Adv. Hollander: “Of course I do not! He was a Nazi!”

Adv. Kleist: “A perfect example of the insult proffered under the guise of an argument to counter any criticism of Jewish policies. I nevertheless refer you to Chamberlain’s Foundations of the Nineteenth Century, and in particular to this very remarkable statement: ‘The relationship between the Jews and their God has always been a political one.’[4] Long before Chamberlain was born, Moses had said to his people: ‘And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and do all His commandments which I command you this day, that the Lord thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth.’ This we are told in the book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 28, first verse. Moses was speaking about life on earth, and not about heaven, my dear colleague! Isn’t that clear? And in any case, the whole matter was settled right from the start by Abraham. It is the voice of the patriarch which we hear, but it could quite easily be a real estate agent speaking: ‘The land that thou beholdest, I shall give it to thee and thy posterity for all eternity!’ The post-exile prophet Haggai confirms this when he says to the Jews in the 22nd verse of the second Chapter: ‘And I will overthrow the throne of kingdoms and I will destroy the strength of the kingdoms of the heathen; and I will overthrow chariots, and those that ride in them; and the horses and their riders shall come down, everyone by the sword of his brother.’

“At the beginning of the 20th century, the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion make the same promises with the same premises; and it will be very easy for me to prove it.

“Mr. President, gentlemen of the jury, these famous Protocols are no more than a confirmation of the Jewish prophetic writings. Their contents are no more surprising than those of Deuteronomy, Numbers, Leviticus, or Exodus. They fit the history of the Jewish people so precisely, and they translate Jewish political thought so perfectly; that it seems to be very difficult to call them apocryphal.”

Adv. Hollander: “Mr. President, could we not talk a little less about Isaiah, and a little more about Hitler?”

President Zermatten: “Your colleague is defending his client as he thinks best, and I must thank him for keeping the debate on a very high historical level.”

Adv. Kleist: “It is indeed history which will enable me to explain to the jury why I have, right from the start, entered a plea of legitimate self-defense for my client. The gigantic struggle which took place 30 years ago was not a struggle between Hitler and Stalin, Churchill or Roosevelt, but a struggle with Yahweh.”

President Zermatten: “The tribunal needs more precise details.”

Adv. Kleist: “The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion had foreseen the necessity for, and general direction of such a war, and especially the destruction of the goy leader who dared to put any obstacle in the path of the Jewish people. ‘And it was said by the prophets that we were chosen by God himself to rule over the whole earth. God has endowed us with genius that we may be equal to our task. If there were a genius in the opposite camp, he could fight against us, but even so, a newcomer is no match for the old campaigner.’[5]

“A most interesting prophecy, gentlemen! There was indeed a genius in the camp of the goyim, but Hitler was not as experienced as the ‘old campaigners’ who were leading the Jews, and their prophesies become more and more astonishing, the closer we get to the war: ‘At the moment, we are invulnerable as an international force, because if we are attacked by one State, we are supported by another.’[6] Here is another quotation: ‘We can destroy all opposition by making neighboring lands declare war on any country which dares to stand up to us.’[7]

“Gentlemen, I am not dreaming; this took place before our very eyes on September 3rd, 1939. I can only conclude that Hitler had been placed in a position of legitimate self-defense. The reason why my client could not assemble enough forces to liberate all the goyim, was because he was an isolated minority, as foreseen by the Protocols and other Jewish prophesies.”

Adv. Hollander: “My dear colleague, I am still waiting for you to prove where, when, and how Judah declared war on Hitler! I am anxious to discover by what sleight of hand you will explain how a people without a single general or soldier can declare war, and then bring the war to a victorious conclusion!”

Adv. Kleist: “Speaking objectively, it was not the Jews who declared war on the Third Reich; England and France did so on behalf of Judah, and I have just shown why. The Jews did not have an army, but they could employ auxiliary troops, the troops of England and France, with the forces of the United States in reserve. It is nevertheless important to try and understand why those powers, in which the Jews were only a minority and in which there were even fairly vigorous anti-Semitic groups, should have agreed to wage a war which was not their war, but Judah’s war. The answer is quite simple. They did so because they were unaware of the true situation; they believed that they were defending democratic ideals, and they were unaware that these ideals were simply Jewish creations, destined to further the imperialistic designs of the Elders of Zion.”

Public Prosecutor Ante Kozica: “Is Advocate Kleist not perhaps attributing to the Elders of Zion a subtlety which they do not possess?”

Adv. Kleist: “Certainly not! They always propagate their subversive ideas by proxy, and they have done so since primitive Christianity was exported by one of their agents, Paul of Tarsus, until it was confiscated by Constantine and the Aryans, who in turn put this religion to their own use. In the 18th century they could not start anew, they could not infuse their poison directly into the aristocratic world, which kept them at a safe distance. They therefore entrusted this work to philosophic societies which they had infiltrated, with a view to making them societies of Jewish thought.”

Adv. Hollander: “Prove it!”

Adv. Kleist: “Your authors have done so already. ‘It is quite true that there were Jews who had had connections with Freemasonry since its inception. They were students of the Kabbalah, and this is shown by certain rites which have survived. During the years preceding the French Revolution, they entered the secret societies in ever increasing numbers, becoming themselves the founders of secret associations.’ This statement was made by one of the most important of all Jewish writers, Bernard Lazare.[8] I continue: ‘The spirit of freemasonry is the spirit of Judaism in its most important beliefs; it is Judaism’s ideas, its language and, to a large extent, its organization. The hope which illuminates and sustains freemasonry is the hope which illuminates and sustains Israel. Its crown will be this marvelous house of prayer, of which Jerusalem will be the center and the triumphant symbol.’[9]

“I quote again: ‘Each lodge is, and should be, a symbol of the Jewish temple; every master is a representative of the Jewish King; and every Freemason is the personification of the Jewish worker.’”[10]

Prosecutor Kozica: “Mr. Advocate, please define the values which freemasonry imposed on French society.”

Adv. Kleist: “The rootless idea of freedom, and the unbridled concept of progress, which the Elders of Zion had long considered to be the best of their secret weapons, and which they recommended in their protocols. I quote:

Far back in ancient times we were the first to cry amongst the masses of the people the words “liberty, equality, fraternity,” words many times repeated since those days by stupid poll-parrots who from all sides flew down upon these baits, and with them carried away the well-being of the world! True freedom of the individual, formally so well guarded against the pressures of the mob. The would-be wise men of the Goyim, the intellectuals, could not make anything out of these words, uttered in the abstract; they did not note the contradictions in their meaning and interrelations; they did not see that in nature there is no equality, and cannot be freedom; that nature herself has established inequalities of minds, of characters and capacities, just as immutably as she has established subordination to her laws.[11]

“And listen to what these men say about progress in their Temple of Wisdom:

Therefore we shall continue to direct their minds to all sorts of vain conceptions of fantastic theories, new and apparently progressive; for have we not with complete success turned the brainless heads of the Goyim with progress, till there is not among them one mind able to perceive that behind this word lies a departure from truth, in all cases where it is not a question of material invention? For truth is one, and in it there is no place for progress. Progress, like a fallacious idea, serves to obscure truth so that none may know it except us, the chosen of God, its guardians.[12]

“By rallying to these false concepts of the world, diffused by the philosophic societies of the 18th century, the English, French, and American nations have espoused, without realizing it, a purely Jewish cause, and eventually they were to adopt without difficulty the image of Hitler which Judah wished to impose on an Aryan world, thinking in accordance with Jewish canons.

“This cause was apocalyptic, right from the start. It gave a Biblical dimension to the crusade of the Democracies, in which almost the whole West was engaged. It was only necessary to magnify the images, to blacken the colors, to increase the tension, to refine the lies, to reawaken old historic hatreds, in order to strike down Hitler, either by political action after the economic action or, as a last resort, by force of arms. Death to the new anti-Christ, vehicle for all the sins of the world, and particularly for the sins of racialism!

“Gentlemen of the jury, we should admire the subtlety of Judah who, although racialist since the beginning of time, succeeded in having this same racialism, which had protected her through thousands of years, condemned by the Goyim! In fact, the matter is very simple. For the first time in history, a non-Jewish politician had reached the same level of lucidity as the Elders of Zion. Just as they did, he placed the future of his people within an earthly perspective, not the perspective of a hypothetical life after death. He opposed Jewish racialism with his own racialism, knowing full well that racialism is the only guarantee for the survival of a people that wishes to remain true to itself from century to century. Hitler was therefore not so much an enemy of the Jewish people, as a competitor. That was the point of departure for a conflict which was to be raised to the absolute and cruel level of a war of religion.”

Prosecutor Kozica: “Mr. Advocate, if we understand you correctly, you maintain that on the eve of the war the Jews could control the West by psychological manipulations, and that the crusade of the Democracies was in fact merely a mask for the crusade of Yahweh against Hitler? But how did your Elders of Zion maneuver the English and French nations away from an ideological point of view which supported armed conflict? After all, one does not plunge people into a war merely to defend ideals; people need more tangible motives, motives of self-interest or tradition.”

Adv. Kleist: “Quite right! But first of all we must make a distinction. The English mobilized with great determination, France was much more reticent. England was following her traditional policy, defending her prosperity by fighting against the birth of a new continental power which was destined to become stronger than she; France acted because she was afraid of losing her anarchical liberties if Hitler were to remain in power. The motives of the English were solidly based on an old political tradition, the motives of France were weak, except for an incredible hostility towards Germany, Nazi or otherwise, a hostility which had reigned since 1871. The rest was the fruit of vigorous Jewish propaganda. Consequently, the English fought with great energy, whereas the French fought without enthusiasm, and only for a short while.”

Adv. Hollander: “Yes, but neither party fought for the apocryphal Elders of Zion. My dear colleague, you are not writing a novel, but trying to defend a criminal. The only correct statement which you have made concerns England. It was England who took the initiative of declaring war on the most dangerous continental power. This was in line with British tradition, and was not the result of the influence of phantoms from Zion. You should rather blame the City.”

Adv. Kleist: “In other words, Jewish capital!”

Adv. Hollander: “Not at all! The Jews certainly do have financial interests in the city of London, this I admit. But they are small, compared to Anglo-Saxon capital. For this reason, it is the City which gives orders to Number 10, Downing Street. The City directs the policies of a sovereign England with regard to Europe. As long as the City was hostile to war; there was no war. But it had war declared by its agent, the Prime Minister of His Majesty, Mr. Neville Chamberlain, as soon as it became convinced that its economic future was being threatened by the Third Reich and by Japan. As the representative of a totally selfish money power, the City was totally unconcerned whether Judah perished or not. But it was most certainly concerned about the devaluation of the pound sterling on the field of battle which Hitler’s controlled economy was preparing.

“Gentlemen, the turning point is well known. It occurred between the 15th and the 19th of March, 1939, that is to say, between the time when the Wehrmacht entered Prague—a monumental psychological error on the part of Hitler—and the signing of the treaty by which London gave a guarantee to Romania.

“Just after Munich, the Reich’s Minister of Economy, Walther Funk, left for the Balkans and Turkey. He said in Belgrade: ‘We can absorb in Germany everything that Yugoslavia produces. We can send to Yugoslavia everything which she needs. The prices which we offer, cannot be equaled by any other country.’ The treaty was signed on October 25th. Hitler was to buy 50% of Yugoslav exports and would, of course, in turn supply most of Yugoslavia’s needs. After Belgrade and Sofia, Minister Funk visited Turkey. He offered the Turks a loan of 12 million pounds for the industrial and mining reconstruction of Anatolia, with the aid of German machines and technicians. The City began to wonder what would become of the advantages which it had gained from the loan of 16 million pounds, granted some four months earlier.

“While Hitler was winning an economic Blitzkrieg in the Balkans, his Japanese partner was landing in force 50 kilometers from the most profitable of the harbors which were controlled by England: Hong Kong. On October 22nd the Japanese captured Canton and on the 25th Hankou, thereby turning Hong Kong into a port without a hinterland. The Japanese Ambassador in Rome declared: ‘British predominance in the Far East is a thing of the past. A new era in Japanese history has just begun.’ The Blitzkrieg continues, for the moment limited to strategy: Reichsmark versus pound sterling.

“The Mexican Government signed a 17 million dollar agreement with Berlin concerning the delivery of oil to Germany. It was a barter agreement. The Third Reich was to pay with irrigation apparatus, agricultural machines, office equipment, typewriters, photographic equipment. Furthermore, the agreement was concluded on the basis of an oil price far below the world rate. In this way, Germany would not only receive oil without having to apply to British Petroleum, but the transaction would leave the City without a single penny for services of credit, brokerage, guarantee, loans, and insurance. Hitler’s economic revolution would condemn London to death, just as the racial revolution would condemn the Jews to death. By wanting to kill too many people at the same time, and at different levels, one ends up, gentlemen, as Hitler did!

“England decided to defend herself, and Churchill stepped into the shoes of William Pitt at the beginning of the 19th century. Hitler did not follow Napoleon’s example by declaring a continental blockade, but by his barter agreements, which represented a return to utterly primitive economic methods, he was excluding Britain from the profit economy from which she lived.

“The City reacted in the House of Commons on the 30th of November, 1938, in the person of R. S. Hudson, who said: ‘What worries us is the fact that Germany, by her methods, is ruining commerce throughout the world.’

“A most important admission, gentlemen! R. S. Hudson was in no way distressed by Hitler’s persecution of the Jews in Germany; he was not worried by the terror directed against a whole people by the Gestapo, or by the aggressive rearmament of the Wehrmacht. He was complaining about poor sales of whiskey, which could not compete with Germany’s loathsome potato brandy; he was worried by Mercedes’ competition for Rolls-Royce; and he was possibly already envisaging the liquidation of Austin in the near future by Volkswagen. He added with a certain degree of anguish:

We have examined all the measures which we could possibly apply. The only thing to do, is to organize our industries in such a way that they can offer a united front to the corresponding German industries and tell them: if you do not stop your present policies, and conclude an agreement by which you undertake to sell your products at prices which earn a reasonable profit, we shall fight you, and we shall destroy you with your own weapons.

“R. S. Hudson knew perfectly well that by uniting the efforts of an aging industry based on trade unions which were paralyzed by their medieval practices, he could never destroy a revolutionary industrial organization like Germany’s. He was probably thinking of another kind of war, which is the economy’s ultima ratio. Be that as it may, another spokesman was to affirm what Hudson did not dare say openly. On December 4th, Lord De la Warr made a speech in Bradford. He complained that nothing that England could do ‘would satisfy Germany; that friendly words and gestures were considered to be cowardice, and that only weapons could speak plainly’ . . . The die had been cast in favor of war.

“Gentlemen, the phantoms of Zion had nothing to do with this conflict which was being prepared!”

President Zermatten: “The arguments of Advocate Hollander seem reasonable. Can the opposing Counsel explain how France was dragged into war in the wake of England, for the purely ideological reasons of which he has just spoken, and in the name of a traditional hostility which, since 1871, she had borne Germany, Nazi or otherwise?”

Adv. Kleist: “France was drawn into the war by her press, and by an abuse of confidence.”

Adv. Hollander: “Her whole press was, of course, written in Hebrew?”

Adv. Kleist: “No, this would have had no political value, since the French do not understand Hebrew! But I shall tell you how things were arranged in that country, and how they are still arranged.

“For a long time past, a large newspaper has been bad business, from a commercial point of view. It can only survive by serving the political or economic interests of some group, unless of course it is subsidized by a rich man.

“For example: before the war, Henri de Kerillis, who was not a Jew, founded and published the newspaper L’Époque. The tone was very patriotic, but the money was Rothschild’s. The director therefore marched in the forefront of the democratic crusade against Hitler. Le Populaire, official organ of the S.F.I.O., was supported by Léon Blum, a great Jew who on occasion took charge of France’s destiny.

“From the beginning of 1938, the Jew, Robert Bollack, was telling anyone who wanted to listen that if a hundred million francs were necessary to combat fascism in France, he would find this sum in the twinkling of an eye. He became quickly the co-proprietor of the Agence économique et financière with the goy, Coulon. He thereby obtained control of Le Temps, a paper which was much revered by the wealthy French bourgeoisie, and also of the Poste Parisien, a radio program.

“Emile Buré, of the newspaper L’Ordre, was supported by the Jew, Epstein, who was in turn subsidized by the Soviet Embassy and by co-religionist bankers in London. Pertinax, of the Daily Telegraph, and Geneviève Tabouis, of the Sunday Times, received enormous salaries in comparison with those paid to the editors of the French newspapers for which they were working, L’Écho de Paris and L’Œuvre. They were, of course, also enrolled in the crusade of the Democracies.

“And as for L’Humanité—which systematically relayed the orders of Moscow, i.e., of the original pre-Stalin communism, i.e., the orders of Judaism—this newspaper had been blowing the war bugle for 7 years already!”

Adv. Hollander: “But there was also the Catholic, Georges Bidault, and his newspaper, L’Aube. Bidault was not a Jew!”

Adv. Kleist: “I quite agree, but Christian Democracy already represented in 1939 a form of Christianity which, in perfect agreement with John XXIII and Paul VI, was soon to return to its Jewish origins. Everything was wonderfully orchestrated for this concert, in which the Elders of Zion gave the lead. There was perfect manipulation of a press which they controlled yesterday as they do today, either by their capital or by the publicity of which they possess almost a monopoly. You will find their plans in the Protocols; this is already old history.[13]

“But it sometimes happens that the Jews, in order to reach certain sectors of public opinion, have to do away with their protective mask. They come, as it were, courageously out into the open. In France there was, for example, La Lumière, the most violently anti-Hitler and anti-Mussolini newspaper.

“This need not surprise us, since it was more or less the official organ of the Lodges, and was directed by a Jew, Georges Boris, whose assistants were Weisskopf, alias Georges Gombault, Salomon Grumbach, Emile Kahn, and also a certain Albert Bayet, an important officer of Freemasonry. Only three thousand copies of La Lumière were printed, but they nevertheless reached all the politicians. Its influence was enormous and its articles were broadcast over the radio by order, so that millions of Frenchmen could be reached.

“The Jew, Ramond Philippe, who was a member of the administrative council of the Lazard Bank, had since January 1936 owned L’Europe Nouvelle, a magazine whose specialty was foreign affairs, a field in which it set the pace. In the weekly Vendredi, the tone was set by the Jew Jean-Richard Bloch, who gave proof of prophetic insight when he wrote in Les Nouvelles Littéraires: “Civilization can also perish because of peace” (please note this line of thought, Mr. President!), and in Vendredi: “The era of religious wars has re-opened, race against race, continent against continent, philosophy against philosophy. These wars will be much crueler and harsher than the old wars between peoples and nations. They will be an immense civil war on a world scale.” After this prophesy, it would seem unnecessary to make any further comment on the Second World War, if I had not agreed to defend Adolf Hitler.”

“Mr. President, I could keep you here in Nuremberg for hours and days on end by giving you one quotation after another. I have therefore prepared a press review, as compact as possible, covering the crucial period between 1936 and 1938, from the Spanish war up to the Masonic provocation. In this review you can study the whole secret machinery which unleashed the war against my client. Please note that this war was constructed in exactly the same way as the revolution which is called French, but was in fact also Masonic. If you wished to take the comparison further, I could refer you to a book of the extremely clear headed Georges Michon.[14]

“Le Patriote français, Les Annales patriotiques, Le Journal universel, Le Journal général de L’Europe, Le Courrier extraordinaire, Le Journal de Paris, all of them Girondin and Lafayette newspapers—brought about the declaration of war on the 20th of April 1792, just as L’Ordre, L’Humanité, Le Populaire, L’Époque, L’Aube, Le Figaro, Le Temps, L’Œuvre, Paris-Soire, Ce soire, Le Droit de vivre, brought about the declaration of war on September 3rd, 1939.

“The inoffensive declaration of Pillnitz, this ‘friendly little note,’ sent by the Emperor and the King of Prussia to the unfortunate King Louis XVI, was presented to the public as an unacceptable ultimatum; just as Hitler’s wish to retrieve the monstrous Danzig corridor, created by the Treaty of Versailles, was later to be presented as another unacceptable claim.

“There is only a technical difference between the two promotion campaigns for the ‘war of liberty.’ In 1792 there was no radio. In 1936 it was possible to amplify the arguments of the warmongers, while those of the few newspapers which had escaped the Jewish sphere of influence were ignored. The arguments of the warmongers were deceptive, but very clever, and it is for that reason, gentlemen, that I have taken France as an example, rather than any other country. In those turbulent days we heard of so-called ‘reports on ultra-secret meetings’; there were long discussions on documents which were never published, and texts which had been shortened or altered; there were false reports and incorrect maps, showing frontier rectifications; and anyone opposing war was (already) being accused of treason. I shall now distribute my brochure if Mr. President will agree to adjourn the session.”

President Zermatten: “The session is adjourned.”

Advocate Kleist distributed the texts which he had just had photocopied, and everyone left the hall.

Notes