Father Coughlin Answers His Critics

Father Coughlin Answers His Critics

by Dr. E. R. Fields

Father Charles Edward Coughlin was one of the most influential American figures of the 1930s. He published Social Justice magazine with a circulation of 900,000, and 220 employees. It was larger than most daily newspapers today. He had the most popular weekly radio program of all time, with some 40 million listeners, (30% of the entire U.S. population). He lashed out against communism, financial swindles, cultural rot and the betrayal of the Roosevelt Administration. Fr. Coughlin's opposition to U.S. entry into World War II brought down Roosevelt's wrath and his paper was suppressed in April, 1942.

Coughlin was born in Canada of Irish parents on Oct. 25, 1891. At the University of Toronto he excelled in math, tutoring others. He starred in football, swimming, handball and rugby. Ordained a Catholic priest at St. Basil's Seminary he was appointed pastor of the "Shrine of the Little Flower" church in the city of Royal Oak, Michigan. With only 28 families the church could not make its mortgage payments of \$400 per month. Fr. Coughlin was an enthusiastic fan of the Detroit Tiger's baseball team. He became a friend of the immortal Babe Ruth and Tigers president Dick Richards, who also owned Detroit radio station WJR.

Richards hired Fr. Coughlin for \$58 a week to give a half-hour religious program. They quickly discovered that Coughlin had, "the perfect radio voice." An instant hit, his program was picked up by CBS and broadcast nation- wide. Thus, he was able to raise the funds to build the first octagon church in America with the altar in the center. Outside stands a 180 foot tower with two huge images of Christ. He built a broadcasting studio on the top floor of the tower where it stands today. He soon reached millions of listeners.

On January 30, 1930, Fr. Coughlin launched his first on-the-air attack on Communism. He coined the term, "The Red Menace" and blasted "the Bolsheviks and the Bankers who support them." His words had virility and simplicity which quickly garnered him a huge national following. In 1932 he came out in favor of the bonus bill for First World War veterans as a way of stimulating the economy and lifting America out of the depression. Coughlin testified before a Senate Committee saying: "The veterans bonus would place instant money into the channels of commerce. Let's give human rights

precedent over financial rights." He fought to shorten the work week from 48 hours down to 40 and was instrumental in the adoption of Social Security in 1937.

Fr. Coughlin had been a supporter of Roosevelt until the Marxist Henry Wallace was picked as Secretary of Agriculture. On March 4, 1933 Coughlin broke with Roosevelt telling his national radio audience "We had high hopes the new day of financial independence had arrived but clouds of suspicion are darkening our hopes. Roosevelt is getting lost in his narrow confines."

Fr. Coughlin then switched his support to Louisiana Sen. Huey Long and his "Share The Wealth" program. He wanted to back Long in his planned race for president against Roosevelt in 1936 elections. This plan was destroyed when the Jew Dr. Carl Weiss, (age 29), gunned down Huey Long in the Baton Rouge State Capitol on Sept. 8, 1935. When Fr. Coughlin received the news, he remarked, "This is the most regrettable thing in modern history."

Fr. Coughlin headed The National Union for Social Justice, (NUSJ). With Gerald L.K. Smith and Dr. Francis Townsend, they formed The Union Party to defeat Roosevelt in 1936. They held huge rallies supporting Rep. William Lemke for President. Coughlin addressed 30,000 people in Madison Square Garden, 150,000 in Chicago's Riverview Park and 45,000 attended the Union Party convention in Cleveland. Coughlin told a cheering crowd, "God fearing Americans now have the opportunity to seize back control of their country. F.D.R. Stands for Franklin Double-crossing Roosevelt! Why is it that the Communist Party has endorsed Roosevelt for President? He is a liar and a betrayer. The White House lies on the rotten meat of broken promises."

Roosevelt's Postmaster General Jim Farley said, "Fr. Coughlin is the most dangerous man in America." Coughlin charged that the Communist movement was controlled by Roosevelt appointees, Supreme Court Justice, Felix Frankfurter, Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morganthau, Jr, and union official David Dubinsky. All three were Jews. The controlled liberal media began accusing Fr. Coughlin of "anti-Semitism." (Note: FBI records since released prove that both Frankfurter and Dubinsky were indeed Communists.) Recently declassified government papers reveal that Morganthau seriously considered indicting Fr. Coughlin for income tax evasion. However, he decided that the political repercussions of a Jewish cabinet officer prosecuting a Catholic priest would be damaging to the organized Jewish political community.

Fr. Coughlin noted that over half of the members of the Communist Party were Jews and stated: "Anti-Christ is riding high and handsome. Meanwhile, the Jews of America have not condemned Communism. Meanwhile, our government is fostering relations with

Communist states. And meanwhile, the people of America are suffering from the rule of those who are opposed to our Christ."

Fr. Coughlin was losing radio stations due to pressure from organized Jewry and Roosevelt. On Sept. 23, 1940, he made his last announcement over the air: "I have been retired, temporarily, by those who control circumstances beyond my reach. With few exceptions, the radio station owners bowed to the will of the administration to which they are obliged for their operative licenses." He then joined with Henry Ford and Col. Charles Lindbergh in trying to keep America out of World War II. Circulation of Social Justice was now close to one million and was sold in over 2,000 Catholic Churches, (Coughlin said that 60% of his readers were Protestants). Some 400 Irish police in New York City were members of his NUSJ.

After Pearl Harbor. Roosevelt moved quickly to crush Social Justice. On April 14, 1942, Attorney General Francis Biddle revoked Coughlin's second class mailing permit. Coughlin personally traveled to Washington to confront Biddle. The red faced Biddle stammered and did not respond as Fr. Coughlin shouted in his face, "You are nothing but a damn coward! You should be a street cleaner. You were born a coward and you're still one!"

Fr. Coughlin retired to pastor his Church of the Little Flower and did not re-enter politics. In 1966, in celebration of his 50th year as a priest, Cardinal Cushing hailed him as, "a man ahead of his time. a giant of his generation among the committed priests of America."

Later Fr. Coughlin was asked about his life's work and replied, "If I had to do it all over again, I would do it the same way!" Fr. Coughlin passed away in his sleep on Oct. 27, 1979 at age 88. Coughlin was truly a giant among men. He fought for the rights of the common man. He had drive, charisma, strength and the largest personal following of any political figure in American history. He feared no man. He gave the people a program to better their lives and hope for the future. He once said, "It is never too late to act for righteousness!"

(Editor's Note: This book was compiled by E. Perrin Schwartz, editor of Fr. Coughlin's magazine, "Social Justice." Fr. Coughlin oversaw its research and approved these documents which support his statements regarding the activity of the organized Jewish community and its collusion with the Communist Party.)

First Published by Social Justice, 1940.

Second Publication by Dr. James K. Warner, 1993

Third Publication by THE TRUTH AT LAST, 1997

Called The Most Dynamic Speaker In American History!

Father Charles Coughlin delivers a fiery address to a packed hall in Cleveland, Ohio on July 16, 1936 at the convention of The Union Party.

Madison Square Garden, May 22, 1935, Father Coughlin addresses a mass meeting of his National Union for Social Justice with over 30,000 people attending.

Father Coughlin Answers His Critics

Contents

NOVEMBER 20, 1938

The title of this chapter is a date which marks the beginning of a series of events out of which grew the charges that Father Coughlin is an anti-Semite, a pro-Nazi and a falsifier of documents.

On that date he broadcast over a chain of radio stations an address entitled Persecution—Jewish and Christian. The occasion for the address was the wide publicity given to the atrocities perpetrated in the name of the Hitler Government of Germany against Catholics, Protestants and, particularly, Jews, resident under the jurisdiction of the Third Reich.

These atrocities culminated in a \$400,000,000 fine levied against the Jews resident in Germany.

The civilized world, shocked as a result of this and previous persecutions, voiced its protest.

With other public speakers, Father Coughlin raised his voice in the memorable address of November 20, 1938. Among other things, he recorded his sympathy for the Jews and his opposition to all forms of persecution; he recollected that while persecution of Christians had been practiced in Russia, Mexico and Spain under Communist régimes, no such publicity and sympathy had been aroused for them, although their sufferings were more extensive, more cruel and more devastating than those the Nazis were responsible for in Germany.

Regretting that this had been so, Father Coughlin called upon all religious Jews and Christians to band together to exterminate the spirit of persecution from the world—Communist persecution as well as Nazi persecution.

That point is significant; for if he were an anti-Semite, he would not have invited the cooperation of religious Jews nor would he have protested against the persecution of all Jews.

In his series of addresses beginning with November 20, 1938, Father Coughlin reminded his audience that Naziism was a defense mechanism against Communism. But he characterized it as a "stench" and was careful not only to avoid praising it but to condemn it.

In fact, Father Coughlin, a priest in good standing with his Church and functioning as pastor of the Shrine of the Little Flower, could not and would not be tolerated were he an advocate of Naziism. Nor could his writings (and the speech of November 20, 1938 was published) have been circulated without the knowledge of his lawful superiors, as every Catholic knows and as every reader should know.

It is not necessary, at this point, to substantiate the statement that Naziism was conceived as a defense mechanism against Communism. Suffice it to say that though this latter evil invited opposition because of its assault against religion, property, liberty and society in general, nevertheless, its opponents in Germany, under the banner of the Swastika, were content to fight evil with evil.

In his November 20, 1938 address, and elsewhere, Father Coughlin reminded his audience that Nazis blamed the rise of Communism on Jews. He quoted lists of names of Jews prominent in Communism, which lists, he indicated, the Nazis had distributed throughout Germany. Moreover, he quoted a British White Paper and The American Hebrew magazine as corroborating evidence to indicate that Jews had played a prominent part in the affairs of Communism.

And for what purpose? To confirm his contention that, in order to nullify the advertised relationship between Jewry and Communism, religious Jews should join with God-fearing Christians in opposing Communism.

Following this November 20, 1938 address, official Jewry did not join openly with Christians in opposing Communism. Instead, Father Coughlin became the target of a vicious attack. He was referred to as an anti-Semite in the pulpit, the press and over the radio.

Immediately following, the use of certain radio stations which he enjoyed was denied him. When it became known that these canceled stations were either owned or controlled by Jews the entire affair became a national question involving the Jews and Father Coughlin.

Before concluding this chapter, it is well to append certain quotations from Father Coughlin's November 20, 1938 address to substantiate some of the assertions made above.

(a) "Whatever be the reason for this unparalleled publicity, we are thankful to God that it has happened; for it gives both Jew and Gentile, Christian and non-Christian, an opportunity to write a new precedent, to establish a new tradition—a precedent and tradition by which we will all unite with all our facilities for all time to oppose all persecution wherever it may originate.

"The Jew has challenged the Christian for his sympathy and cooperation. In turn the Christian challenges the Jew for his

• (b) "It is the belief, be it well or ill-founded, of the present German Government, not mine, that Jews—not as religionists but as nationals only—were responsible for the economic and social ills suffered by the Fatherland since the signing of the Treaty of Versailles....
• (c) "Uncontradictable evidence gleaned from the writings and the policies of Lenin, proved indisputably that the Government of the Soviet Republics was predominantly anti-Christian and definitely anti-national.

"More than that, the 1917 list of those who, with Lenin, ruled many of the activities of the Soviet Republic, disclosed that of the 25 quasi-cabinet members, 24 of them were atheistic Jews, whose names I have before me. . . .

• (d) "Nor do I speak these words to defend the atheistic, international Jews and Gentiles throughout the world who follow the footsteps of Lenin and advocate the principles of Marx. I do ask, however, an insane world to distinguish between the innocent Jew and the guilty Jew as much as I would ask the same insane world to distinguish between the innocent Gentile and the guilty Gentile....

• (e) "I ask you: Should not all good men—Jew and Gentile, Catholic and Protestant, Christian and non-Christian—coordinate their forces to restore sanity, peace and justice to an era which for its ferocity, its barbarism and its hatred has outstripped the Diocletians, the Neros and Torquemadas of old?...

• (f) "Persecution is an injustice, wherever it exists. Today's persecution was born from the loins of yesterday's persecution. Thus, if Naziism, a persecutor of Jew and Catholic and Protestant, is a defense mechanism against Communism, be assured that Communism, another persecutor, was a defense mechanism against the greed of the money changers, who persecuted and pilloried the teeming populations of Europe. . . .

• (g) "Therefore, I say to the good Jews of America, be not indulgent with the irreligious, atheistic Jews and Gentiles who promote the cause of persecution in the land of the Communists; the same ones who promote the cause of atheism in America. Yes, be not lenient with your high financiers and politicians who assisted at the birth of the only political, social and economic system in all civilization that adopted atheism as its religion, internationalism as its patriotism and slavery as its liberty....

• (h) "My fellow citizens, I am not ignorant of Jewish history. I know its glories. I am acquainted with its glorious sons. I am aware of the keen intellectuality which has characterized its progress in commerce, in finance, in all the arts and sciences and, particularly, in the field of communications.

• (i) "But I am also aware that every nation from time immemorial has lifted in its hand the lash of persecution to strike the back of Jewry. From Nineveh to Berlin; from ancient to modern times, a constant moan of suffering has been raised from the Weeping Wall whose structure now has encompassed the world....

• (j) "By all means, let us have courage to compound our sympathy not only from the tears of Jews but also from the blood of Christians—(c.) 600,000 Jews whom no government official in Germany has yet sentenced to death, and

• (c.) 25-million Christians, at least, whose lives have been snuffed out, whose property has been confiscated in its entirety and whose altars and Christ have been desecrated since 1917 without official protest from America—America that has extended and still extends the right hand of recognition to the murderers themselves.

• (k) "Let us distil this sympathy into a program of peacepeace, the result of order; order, the offspring of law; and law, the child of justice.

"Thanks be to God, both the radio and the press at length have become attuned to the wails of sorrow arising from Jewish persecution!

"May these notes rise in rapid crescendo until a symphony, not of hate but of love, not of protest but of determination, fills the heart of every human being in America.

"May every honest Jew, every God-fearing Jew, as well as every honest and God-fearing Christian, find themselves cooperating in this common objective.

"Gentiles must repudiate the excesses of Naziism. But Jews and Gentiles must repudiate the existence of Communism from which Naziism springs."

The above quotations show that Father Coughlin considered Naziism a defense mechanism—an immoral one—against Communism; that he carefully distinguished between religious Jews and Gentiles and irreligious Jews and Gentiles by beseeching the former to league together to put down all persecution; that the Nazi Government had circulated and used formidable lists of names of Jews whom they identified with Communism.

Incidentally, be it recognized that the Jews in the United States do not enjoy a total solidarity. While they are co-racials, they are not co-religionists because many of them, as in the case of Gentiles, have abandoned religion. Some of them are Zionists who believe in the restoration of Palestine to Jewry; others are opposed to this policy. Some of them are Orthodox Jews, follow-

ing, more or less, the ancient tenets of their age-old religion; others are Reformed Jews, having accepted beliefs and practices cut to a different pattern. Moreover, as in the case of Gentiles, many of them are Marxians, devoted to the cause of Soviet Russia, of Loyalist Spain, of Communist Mexico. These latter gather, unfortunately, in organizations which, though misrepresenting the best that is in Jewry, invite criticism upon the entire race because of their presumption to represent their entire race.

Father Coughlin's position towards all these Jews is sound. In his address broadcast December 11, 1938, he said:

"The best answer that Jewry can give me or America is not a passionate denial that Jews, far beyond their proportion of population, are not interested in furthering Communism. Official action will speak more eloquently than ten thousand denials.

"In asking the Gentiles of America to oppose the Gentiles of the Nazi party in Germany, Jews are not seeking anything that is unreasonable.

"On the other hand, when the Gentiles of America ask the Jews in this country to oppose the Jews in Russia, in Spain and elsewhere who are supporting Communism to our detriment and to the detriment of the Christians living abroad, we are asking nothing unreasonable.

"There comes a time in the life of every individual as well as in the life of every nation when righteousness and justice must take precedence over the bonds of race and blood."

CHAPTER II

THE JEWISH PEOPLE'S COMMITTEE

In the early days of February, 1940, it was nationally advertised in the press and on the radio that the Department of Justice had marked Father Coughlin for investigation.

According to the Department of Justice, the complaints registered against the pastor of the Roman Catholic Shrine of the Little Flower originated from the Jewish People's Committee. This organization, presuming to represent all the Jews in America, alleged that Father Coughlin was guilty of misusing the mails to defraud and of other crimes.

It is advantageous to study the nature, the composition and the leadership of the Jewish People's Committee as well as its activities in order to be in a position to judge if its officers were really interested in prosecuting a criminal or in smearing an opponent.

According to the publication known as Jewish Life, (published monthly by the New York State Jewish Buro, Communist Party Vol. II, No. 11, p. 19):

"The Jewish People's Committee for United Action against Fascism and Anti-Semitism" (not against Communism and anti-Christianity "was organized in 1936 by a group of progressive and left-wing organizations." The groups originally represented in the Jewish People's Committee did not want to organize a new committee. As a result of the refusal of the American Jewish Congress and the World Jewish Congress to admit the representatives of the Jewish Section of the International Workers Order, the Icor, etc. these organizations set up the new committee . . ."

The above Jewish statement is recorded to make clear this point, namely, that the Jewish People's Committee is self-admittedly composed of the left-wing Jewish organizations in America, having been brought into existence because the representatives of these left-wing units could not gain entrance into the American Jewish Congress and the World Jewish Congress.

Although the Jewish population in the United States is estimated to be 4½-million persons, there are, according to the report delivered at the National Conference of Jewish Communists held in New York, December, 1938, approximately 400,000 members in the Jewish People's Committee. (The Struggle Against Anti-Semitism, B. J. Soltin, p. 48.)

Heading the Jewish People's Committee are William Weiner and Ben Gold, as sponsors, together with John L. Spivak and A. A. Heller.

What affiliations had William Weiner? Among them he was listed as third in command, following W. Z. Foster and Earl Browder, of the Communist Party in the United States of America.

Ben Gold was a member of the National Committee of the Friends of the Soviet Union in 1934.

John L. Spivak, widely advertised as the ace reporter for the New Masses magazine, a publication long identified with the Communist Workers Book Shop of 50 East 13th Street, New York City, consistently has exercised his talents to prove that left is right.

A. A. Heller, to mention but one of his activities, served as second in command for the American Friends of the Soviet Union with offices at 461 Fourth Avenue, New York City.

It is interesting to trace the origin of the Jewish People's Committee from Jewish records. This assembly of leftists is recognized in the following statement taken from the report delivered at the National Conference of Jewish Communists held in New York in December, 1938. From the text of their report the following is quoted:

"Two years ago, we," (Jewish Communists) "were still very much isolated from the Jewish masses and had no say in Jewish life. Now the situation is much different. Our word is listened to by hundreds of thousands of American Jews. We have become a factor our opponents must reckon with. We may say that very little of any consequence is taking place in Jewish life in this country without the participation, or even the initiative, of the Jewish Communists.

"In the last two years we have contributed to the building of such central bodies as the Jewish People's Committee and YKUF which number hundreds of affiliated organizations with a membership of hundreds of thousands." (The Struggle Against Anti-Semitism, B. J. Soltin, pp. 46-47.)

Any person, fortified with the preceding and following facts who applauds the Jewish People's Committee is applauding an organization which, though masquerading under the name of the Jews, is officered by exponents of anti-godism, anti-Americanism and anti-Christianity.

According to Jewish Life, November, 1938, page 13, there are 20,000 Jewish organizations in America.

Be it further known that the Jewish People's Committee, composed of 400,000 members and under the leadership of avowed Communists, presumed not only to belittle and contemn the silent organizations of American Jews, but to speak for American Jewry. The factuality of this statement is evident from the following quotation which is found on page 16 of The Jewish Examiner of Friday, June 30, 1939:

"The program of the Jewish People's Committee as outlined elsewhere in this issue is a realization of the fervent wishes of the American Jewish community. Its emphasis upon the necessity of unity is a notable step forward from the unrealistic, shiftless attitude that has characterized Jewish organizational life to the present day. That the Jewish People's Committee, hardly more than a year old,* is still the only American Jewish agency that is applying itself wholeheartedly to the struggle of uniting our people in this country is a sad commentary on the condition of organized Jewish life.

"This is not to say that other groups, particularly the 'Big Four'—the B'nai B'rith, Jewish Labor Committee, American Jewish Congress and the American Jewish Committee—have not taken steps to knit the loose threads of

^*Jewish People's Committee was organized in 1936. This inconsistency in reference to time is on the part of the editors of The Jewish Examiner, not on ours.—Ed. note.

American Jewish life into a strong, indestructible fabric. The effort has been made before. But like the last, the General Jewish Council, they have all been wrecked by petty squabbles, personal ambitions and an utter lack of understanding of the Jewish position in the United States.

"Just about a year ago, we were hailing the formation of the General Jewish Council as an achievement of great moment to our people. A year has passed and a survey of the accomplishments of the Council reveals that it has done nothing to justify its existence. With particular reference to Father Coughlin it has carried the fight no further than the publication of some literature, which is admittedly good enough in its own right but pitifully inadequate when compared with what must be done.

"The Jewish People's Committee, with much less in its coffers, is launching the program that was expected of the General Jewish Council and its big four constituents. Its talk of Jewish unity is apparently substantial. In the Fall it will inaugurate a nation-wide broadcast to fight Coughlin on his own grounds. In addition it is mapping a broad program of activity behind which it expects to rally the entire American Jewish people. Here at last is an organization that represents the Jewish people, that provides a program of action to meet the current emergencies. As such it deserves the generous support of our people. The energies of American Jewry have been dissipated too long. It is time a halt were called."

The above quotation records a bold assertion—one that has not been challenged by the "Big Four"; one that originates with a leftist organization; one that presumes to speak for all Jews; one that, if fair-minded readers may judge from its negative program, is interested in destroying a Catholic priest rather than in campaigning against radicalism.

To indicate that this leftist Jewish Communist front was concerned chiefly with destroying Father Coughlin, the reader is invited to consider the following program of the Jewish People's Committee advertised in The Jewish Examiner: (Friday, June 30, 1939, p. 16.)

• "1. A nation-wide radio campaign against auti-Semitism and Father Coughlin, which will include addresses by prominent Americans.
• "2. A national petition campaign addressed to the President and Congress to outlaw racial bigotry and defamation.*
• "3. A national educational campaign exposing Father Coughlin and other anti-Semites.

^*Possibly that accounts for the 5,799 complaints made to Mr. J. Edgar Hoover's Department. Ed. Note—See Congressional Record, January 23, 1940, p. 944.

"4. The mobilization of public opinion for local ordinances to halt the violence of Coughlinites and Nazi-minded groups.

"5. Distribution of a Pledge Certificate throughout the country calling for support of race tolerance and democracy and against anti-Semitism."

Such is the publicized program of this leftist organization.

To indicate how successfully this Jewish People's Committee misrepresented itself not only as the voice of general Jewry but in other matters, let there be here recorded the litany of names of Senators and Representatives whom they claimed to be their backers:

Among the Senators are: Arthur Capper of Kansas, Morris Sheppard of Texas, Lewis B. Schwellenbach of Washington, Edward R. Burke of Nebraska, Robert A. Taft of Ohio, Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. of Massachusetts, Robert F. Wagner of New York, Sheridan Downey of California, Frederick Van Nuys of Indiana.

Among the Representatives are: John M. Coffee of Washington, Thomas H. Cullen of New York, Vito Marcantonio of New York, Fred A. Hartley, Jr. of New Jersey and Bruce Barton of New York.** (The Jewish Examiner, June 30, 1939, p. 16.)

To impress more clearly upon the readers the leftist origin of the charges registered against Father Coughlin and the identity of the chieftain of the Jewish People's Committee, let us return to the subject of Mr. William Weiner.

First of all, Weiner,*** who was chairman of the Jewish People's Committee for nearly two years, is not his natal name. As far as the government officials can ascertain his name was Welwel Warszower. At this writing he is at large on a \$10,000 bail, having been indicted by a Federal Grand Jury last December for a passport forgery.

At the time of his indictment, Assistant United States Attorney, Lester Dunigan, is reported to have described Weiner as "the rankest sort of impostor who had masqueraded as a citizen of the United States for the last twenty years under the aliases of Robert William Weiner and William Weiner and A. Benson and A. Blake."

Although this Communist testified under oath before the Dies Committee that he was born in Atlantic City, the government discovered that he first saw the light of day in Radanjenko, Russia, September 5, 1893 and emigrated to the United States in 1914. Unfortunately, he never troubled himself to become a citizen.

^**Do not necessarily accept this claim made by the Jewish People's Committee.

^***Re Weiner: See New York Times, December 5, 1939, p. 8

When indicted on forging passports, in addition to being chairman of the Jewish People's Committee, Weiner was financial secretary of the Communist Party and officer in other leftist organizations.

This red alien, together with Messrs. Gold, Heller and Spivak, headed the Jewish People's Committee and assumed to speak for all Jews, including the rightist Jews of this nation.

The chairman of the Jewish People's Committee assumed to stir up class hatred in this country by trumping up "charges" against a Catholic priest not because, in reality, the priest was anti-Semitic, but because he was, he is, and always will be, anti-Communist

The chairman of the Jewish People's Committee assumed to use the Department of Justice to institute criminal proceedings against Father Coughlin—a Department of a Government he is foresworn to destroy through world revolution.

The chairman of the Jewish People's Committee assumed—and with success—to inaugurate a smear campaign through the agency of a free press which carelessly headlined, in some instances, that the Jews of America were responsible for this outrageous activity—a free press that he and his kind would abolish on their coming to power.

Surely the respectable Jews and Gentiles will not tolerate such misrepresentation any longer!

Surely such a patient Department of Justice will not suffer this outrage any longer!

Surely the boasted freedom of the press will not cloak with silence such enemies of freedom any longer!

Surely fair-minded readers should set on foot an inquiry to the Department of Justice to ascertain the full truth concerning the Jewish People's Committee, together with their members, supporters and activities!

The activities of the Jewish People's Committee have been numerous — too numerous to detail. It was a fund-collecting agency. It engaged numerous speakers and, presumably, paid their expenses whether they were Jews or Gentiles. It distributed a copious amount of anti-Coughlin literature. It serviced the press with handouts. It originated amongst its followers and innocent persons a campaign of letters against Father Coughlin to the Department of Justice and other branches of government.

And all this time it masqueraded under the title of the Jewish People's Committee. Although the Jewish People's Committee notified the Jews of America of its intents and representations, nevertheless, it has escaped public condemnation to this date from both Jew and Gentile, press and radio.

As was said by the announcer who followed Father Coughlin in his address of February 11, 1940: "Is arson being committed in the north end of town while a false alarm is being sounded in the south end?"

Is the professedly Communist-led, leftist Jewish People's Committee more interested in yelling "Stop, thief!", while its leaders and followers and fellow travelers are pilfering the liberties of America?

These facts and comments are set down not to vindicate Father Coughlin but to unmask for the readers of this book the origin, nature, leadership and activities of this radical, communistic lewish group. (See Appendix I.)

CHAPTER III

NOTES ON THE GENERAL JEWISH COUNCIL

Among the critics who took cognizance of Father Coughlin's radio addresses of November 20, 1938 and thereafter was the General Jewish Council. Early in 1939 this organization, composed of the American Jewish Committee, the B'nai B'rith, American Jewish Congress and the Jewish Labor Committee, published and distributed a booklet entitled Father Coughlin—His "Facts" and Arguments.

Instead of accepting the proffered invitation to join with Christians in opposing Communism, the General Jewish Council booklet was given over to controverting statements and "facts" presented by the Radio Priest in conjunction with his November 20, 1938 address; with attempting to break down the authenticity of documents employed by the pastor of the Shrine of the Little Flower; with attempting to prove that certain banker Jews played no part in the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia; with attempting to prove that Father Coughlin is a Nazi agent; with attempting to prove that Jews played an insignificant part in fostering Communism; with attempting to prove that Jews in general were persecuted under Communism; with attempting to prove that Jews officially have opposed Communism; with attempting to prove that Naziism was not a political defense mechanism against Communism; and with two or three pages intended to display the Catholic stand against anti-Semitism, and other things.

The booklet concludes with an Appendix consisting of a list of Soviet executives operating in Moscow, or from Moscow, in the name of the U.S.S.R

The General Jewish Council booklet was given wide circulation through the United States mails without cost to the recipient. Written in a manner that appeared to be scholarly and sincere, it found its way into the libraries of ecclesiastics and Congressmen, of attorneys and business executives.

The General Jewish Council booklet, in fine, formed the basis of a widespread and hitherto uncontradicted attack on Father Coughlin, and was considered the official Jewish answer to "Coughlinism."

Father Coughlin — His "Facts" and Arguments can not be neglected. It merits an answer and a refutation; for by most Americans the General Jewish Council is regarded as a reputable organization whereas the Jewish People's Committee, with its hundreds of thousands of advertised members, is looked upon with disrepute by reason of its communistic leadership and radical activities.

The General Jewish Council is composed of the B'nai B'rith, the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress and the Jewish Labor Committee, as was pointed out above.

The General Jewish Council's booklet describes B'nai B'rith as "a national fraternal society with over 75,000 members." (See Appendix II).

Ludwig Lewisohn declared at a recent B'nai B'rith banquet: "B'nai B'rith represents Jewry throughout the world."—(B'nai B'rith magazine, July, 1937, p. 352.) That is a significant admission.

Moreover, a spokesman for B'nai B'rith (B'nai B'rith magazine, June, 1938, p. 343) boasted that there are 450 local lodges of the Order.

B'nai B'rith's accomplishments were evidenced, in part, in an article appearing in the B'nai B'rith magazine of June, 1938, p. 365. Herein, boasting of the twenty different "experiments in unity" of Jewish Kehillahs in the United States, the following record was published:

"Elimination of Objectionable Religious Practices in Schools: In Bridgeport and Cleveland, the Councils persuaded public school officials to stop Easter and Christmas practices which had been embarrassing to the Jewish children and had found serious objection among Jewish parents who had hesitated to deal with the matter individually."

Not only is the B'nai B'rith organization interested in eliminating religion from schools. A B'nai B'rith pamphlet entitled Three Questions Jews Must Answer, asks: "By what right may we" (the Jewish people) "describe ourselves today as a religion?"

Preceding this intriguing question, this B'nai B'rith pamphlet prints the following:

"But strange as is the organization of Judaism as a faith, stranger still is the relationship of Jews to their faith. There are hundreds of thousands of Jews who are unbelievers. Yet they still consider themselves Jews. What sort of a religion is it if those who neglect it still consider themselves Jews? Or more curiously, two years ago certain missionaries—men of Jewish birth who were converted to Christianity and work to convert other Jews to Christianity—certain missionaries wrote to the Zionist organization demanding the right to participate in the upholding of the Jewish homeland in Palestine. Now, certainly, nobody who was once a Catholic and became a Protestant would insist upon joining the Knights of Columbus. No Protestant who became a Catholic would insist on participating in a purely Protestant endeavor. Yet, here are men who deliberately have abandoned Judaism and yet want to participate in a Jewish effort. What sort of religion is Judaism if not only those who neglect it, but those who try to convert others away from it, still consider themselves Jews? What, then, is meant when a Jew repeats the thought of the prophet Jonah and says, 'I am a Jew'? What is the relationship between Jewishness and Judaism? . . . In the light of the peculiarities of Judaism itself, and the strange relationship of Jewish people to it, by what right may we describe ourselves today as a religion?"

Accepting this more or less official Jewish comment at its worth, it is evident that Father Coughlin was not wrong when he distinguished religious Jews from other Jews; nor was he attacking religion in criticizing those Jews and Gentiles who were intimately interested in furthering Communism.

One suspects that not the ties of religion, but rather those of race, establish a strong unity amongst Jews, particularly when some of them are either persecuted or singled out as Jews for their unsocial behaviorisms; for if religion were the substantial tie, it would be difficult to understand how religious Jews could protect either by their silence or help with their support those of their irreligious brethren who succumbed to the sophistries of Marxism.

The American Jewish Congress, also a unit of the "Big Four", was headed by Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, who is reputed to have a definite leaning towards Marxism. One not only remembers the support he tendered to the Communists in Spain, but also the rebuke he administered to the late saintly Cardinal Hayes of New York, when that distinguished prelate pleaded prayers for the persecuted Christians in Franco's army.

The Jewish Labor Committee, a third unit of the "Big Four", was headed by the late B. Charney Vladeck, the well-known Rus-

sian-born Socialist, long since identified with the American Civil Liberties Union, the Rand School, the pro-Soviet Amalgamated Clothing Workers' Union and the manager of The Jewish Daily Forward, recognized as a Socialist paper.

The Jewish Labor Committee is best described by B'nai B'rith magazine in its April, 1934 issue in which we read:

"With the leading Jewish Socialist organizations, large trade unions and other labor bodies represented by over 1,000 delegates, this recent conference equalled in size and resembled in character the one that was held at the outbreak of the war."* (1915 Convention representing a half million Jewish radicals as reported in the Jewish Communal Register 1917-1918.) "It was estimated that the delegates acted and spoke for more than a half million organized Jewish toilers and spoke for them in behalf of specific Jewish interests, but from a distinctly labor point of view...

"... To show the world that we have great armies of labor is a very good thing, but to have the same world note that these hosts are largely of a radical frame of mind, is something about which we have in the past been somewhat squeamish...

"'It is clear to us . . . that the attacks upon us' (Jews) of the present day are, after all, closely bound up with the general social struggle, which is gradually encircling the entire world as a conflict between capital and labor . . .

"It is not the intention of Jewish labor to interfere with the constructive efforts in Jewish life carried on by other groups. On the contrary, it is our aim to strengthen and enforce every important general step through energetic and planned support"." (B'nai B'rith magazine, April, 1934.)

The above quotation deserves re-reading. Bear in mind that the Jewish Labor Committee is representative of a half-million organized Jewish toilers and spoke for them in behalf of specific Jewish interests but from a distinctly labor point of view; bear in mind that it is composed of Jews "largely of a radical frame of mind."

CHAPTER IV

THE AMERICAN OFFICIAL SERVICES REPORT

From page 8 to page 25, inclusive, the authors of the General Jewish Council booklet expended considerable effort to prove that Father Coughlin misquotes documents; and, therefore, "Jewish bankers did not finance Communism in Russia."

The documents in question were the British White Paper and the American Official Services Report, both employed by the Radio Priest to substantiate his statement that the Jewish bankers did assist in financing Communism in Russia.

The General Jewish Council booklet does not deny the existence of the British White Paper. It does, however, repudiate the authenticity of the American Official Services Report.

While this chapter will concern itself, primarily, with the authenticity of the American Official Services Report, nevertheless, it is the appropriate place to discuss the accusation of Father Coughlin's misquoting the British White Paper, the original edition of which implicates Jews in general in financing Communism in Russia.

On November 20, 1938 Father Coughlin was in error when he said, relative to the British White Paper:

"This official paper prints the names of the Jewish bankers, Kuhn, Loeb and Company of New York City, among those who helped to finance the Russian Revolution."

He should have said that the document which contains the specific names of Jewish bankers was the American Official Services Report.

On reading the British White Paper, which was issued officially by His Brittanic Majesty's Government in 1919, we find the following generic words:

"I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshevism is the greatest issue now before the world, not even excluding the war which is still raging, and unless, as above-stated, Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world, as it is organised and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of things. . . . "*

On reading the American Official Services Report—a document divided into eight Sections—we find the following more specific words in Sections I to IV and VI to VIII as here printed:

"Section I.—In February, 1916, it was first discovered that a revolution was being fomented in Russia. It was found out that the following persons as well as the banking-house mentioned were engaged in this work of destruction:

"Jacob Schiff (Jew); Gugenheim (Jew); Max Breitung (Jew); Kuhn, Loeb & Co. (Jewish Banking-House), of

^*Document No. 6, p. 6, Sir M. Findlay to Mr. Balfour.—Received September 18, 1918.

which the following are the directors: Jacob Schiff, Felix Warburg, Otto Kahn, Mortimer Schiff, S. H. Hanauer (all Jews)4

There can be no doubt that the Russian revolution, which broke out a year after the information given above had been received, was launched and fomented by distinctively Jewish Jences.

"As a matter of fact, in April, 1917, Jacob Schiff made a public declaration that it was thanks to his financial help that the Russian revolution had succeeded.

"Section II.—In the spring of 1917, Jacob Schiff began to supply funds to Trotsky (Jew) to bring about the social revolution in Russia. The New York daily, Forward, which a Judaeo Bolshevik organ, gave a subscription for the same purpose.

"Through Stockholm, the Jew, Max Warburg, was like-\nise furnishing funds to Trotsky and Co. They were also
receipt of funds from the Westphalian-Rhineland Syndicate, which is an important Jewish enterprise, as well as
from another Jew, Olaf Aschberg, of the 'Nya Banken' of
Stockholm, and from Givotovsky, a Jew, whose daughter\nis married to Trotsky. Thus the communications were set\nup between the Jewish multi-millionaires and the Jewish
proletarians.

"Section III.—In October, 1917, the social revolution took place in Russia, thanks to which certain Soviet organizations took over the direction of the Russian people. In these Soviets the following individuals made themselves remarkable:

"Section IV.—At the same time the Jew, Paul Warburg, who had been in relation with the Federal Reserve Board, was remarked to be in active contact with certain Bolshevik notabilities in the United States. This circumstance, together with other points about which information had been obtained, was the cause of his not being re-elected to the above-

tained, was the cause of his not being re-elected to the abovementioned Committee.

"Section VI.—On the other hand, Judas Magnes, subsidized by Jacob Schiff, is in close contact with the world-wide Sionist organization, Poale Zion, of which he is in fact the director. The final end of this organization is to establish the international supremacy of the Jewish Labour Movement. Here again we see the connexion between the Jewish multi-millionaires and the Jewish proletarians.

"Section VII.—Scarcely had the social revolution broken out in Germany when the Jewess, Rosa Luxembourg, automatically assumed the political direction of it. One of the chief leaders of the International Bolshevik Movement was the Jew, Haase. At that time the social revolution in Germany developed along the same lines as the social revolution in Russia.

"Section VIII.—If we bear in mind the fact that the Jewish Banking-House of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. is in touch with the Westphalian-Rhineland Syndicate, German-Jewish House, and with the Brothers Lazare, Jewish House in Paris, and also with the Jewish House of Gunzbourg of Petrograd, Tokio and Paris; if, in addition, we remark that all the above-mentioned Jewish Houses are in close correspondence with the Jewish House of Speyer & Co. of London, New York and Frankfort-on-the-Main. as well as with the 'Nya Banken,' Judaeo-Bolshevik establishment at Stockholm, it will be manifest that the Bolshevik movement is in a certain measure the expression of a general Jewish movement and that certain Jewish Banking-Houses are interested in the organization of this movement."*

Be it repeated that when Father Coughlin said that the British White Paper contained the names of the Jewish bankers, Kuhn, Loeb and Company, of New York City, among those who helped to finance the Russian Revolution, he was mistaken. He should have said that these names were contained in the American Official Services Report.

^*Translation as appears in The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, by Rev. Denis Fahey, pp. 89-91.

As a matter of fact, on December 4, 1938 in his broadcast, Father Coughlin again mistakingly attributed Section VIII of the American Official Services Report to the British White Paper.

Previous to Father Coughlin's December 4, 1938 address, he telephoned to Doctor Denis Fahey at Dublin, Ireland. In Father Coughlin's mind at the time there was the belief that the contents of the American Official Services Report were incorporated in the British White Paper; and this erroneous belief was founded upon an inaccurate reading of pages 88, 89, 90 and 91 of The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, where Father Fahey, (as will be evident from reproductions in Appendix III) correctly quoted and distinguished the two documents in question, namely, the British White Paper and the American Official Services Report.

Although, in attributing certain contents of the American Official Services Report to the British White Paper, Father Coughlin was in error, yet it was a happy one, for it offered the occasion to pursue the thesis that Kuhn, Loeb and Company and some of the members of the firm were implicated in financing the Russian Revolution, despite their denials. These denials were published in an early edition of the New York Times of November 29, 1938, which subject will be dealt with more specifically in a following chapter.

Meanwhile, let us recall that from page 8 to page 25, inclusive, the General Jewish Council booklet is concerned, chiefly, with proving that Jewish bankers did not finance Communism; and this proof is rested upon the premise that Father Coughlin "misquotes documents." The argument may be condensed to this remarkable syllogism:

"Father Coughlin said that certain Jewish bankers helped to bring about Communism, resting his contention upon the British White Paper.

"But the British White Paper does not include any statement concerning Jewish bankers.

"Therefore, Jewish bankers did not participate in founding Communism."

It is unnecessary to point out the errors in this reasoning.

It is necessary, however, to discuss the authenticity of the American Official Services Report which the General Jewish Council booklet regards as a spurious document; for that document, if authentic, should be accepted as proof, along with other evidence, that Jewish bankers did help finance Communism.*

^*With Father Coughlin's approval the above statements in this chapter have been set down as written.

Thus, to the task: In speaking of the American Official Services Report, Father Denis Fahey in his book, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, says:

"The chief document, treating of the financing of the Russian Revolution, is the one drawn up by the American Secret Service" (American Official Services) "and transmitted by the French High Commissioner to his Government. It was published by the Documentation Catholique of Paris on 6th March, 1920, and preceded by the following remarks: 'The authenticity of this document is guaranteed to us. With regard to its exactness of the information which it contains, the American Secret Service takes responsibility.'"

Now in Section I of this official report we read:

"... It was found out that the following persons as well as the banking-house mentioned were engaged in this work of destruction:

"Jacob Schiff (Jew); Guggenheim (Jew); Max Breitung (Jew); Kuhn, Loeb & Co. (Jewish Banking-house), of which the following are the directors: Jacob Schiff, Felix Warburg, Otto Kahn, Mortimer Schiff, S. H. Hanauer (all Jews).

"There can be no doubt that the Russian revolution, which broke out a year after the information given above had been received, was launched and fomented by distinctively Jewish influences." (The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, by Rev. Denis Fahey, pp. 88-89.)

Here, then, was a scholarly Irish priest referring to a document (the American Official Services Report) whose authenticity had been guaranteed to the highly reputable organization known as the Documentation Catholique. Nevertheless, the General Jewish Council booklet says: "Father Coughlin did not state how or by whom the 'authenticity of his document is guaranteed,'" thereby assailing its authenticity.

Following the publication of the General Jewish Council booklet, which caused so much comment when it indicated that the American Official Services Report was spurious, Father Coughlin pursued the case further to satisfy himself that the document was really genuine and authentic. Thus, he obtained a copy of the Documentation Catholique.* Personally, the writer of this chapter has seen and inspected in Father Coughlin's vaults an original of the British White Paper and the original of the Documentation Catholique containing the American Official Services Report.

Because so much controversy and confusion exist over this American Official Services Report, it is expedient to write at more length of matters pertinent to it.

Let it be pointed out, for example, that during the World War days there were four Service Departments functioning in the United States. They were: (1) the Army Intelligence Service,

(2) the Navy Intelligence Service, (3) the War Trade Board's Intelligence Service, and (4) the Special Intelligence Service of the State Department. Moreover, there were various divisions of these Services which had official relations with numerous bureaus of intelligence of the Allied Armies then working in America.

What, then, of Mr. Frank J. Wilson, Chief of the United States Secret Service and attached to the United States Treasury Department? Did he not deny knowledge of the document which we are discussing? He did.

After Father Coughlin broadcast to the general public that such a document existed, some interested person approached Mr. Wilson and asked him if such a document were in his files. He gave out a statement "that no such report was ever made by the United States Secret Service."

This statement probably is true in that the United States Secret Service Bureau, of which Mr. Wilson was chief, did not issue such a report. It is readily granted that the Secret Service Department had nothing to do with this report. It was and is known as a report of the American Official Services, originating outside the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department. It appears that the report which actually does exist was compiled by a special operator of the State Department.

Let us, therefore, be not confused by a similarity of names. Carefully distinguish "Secret Service" and "Official Services."

The disputed document, the American Official Services Report, was published by the newspaper A Moscou of Rostov on Don, September 23, 1919; by General Natchvolodov in L'Empereur Nicholas et Les Juifs; by Monsignor Jouin in La Judeo-Maconnerie et L'Englisc Catholique; by H. De Vries in Israel, Son Passe and Son Avenir; and in the magazine La Vieille France in 1920.

Without inflicting upon the reader a heap of incidental scholarship, it might be recorded that the identical number and notation of the American Official Scrvices Report was filed in the secret archives of the French General Staff as follows: 7-618-6 np 912 S.R. II, Transmis Par l'Etat Major del'Armee Deuxieme Burcau.

This Bureau was the inner circle of the French Military Intelligence composed of expert operators, saboteurs, decoders and military observers. Its membership was limited to expert and trusted operators in the regular Secret Service.

Many French persons were aware of these things. Therefore,

in 1932 when Le Figaro and l'Ami Du Peuple published the document in question, no responsible body of Jews in France intervened to challenge its authenticity.

But when Father Coughlin inculpated the Jewish bankers on the strength of the disputed report, the authors of the General Jewish Council booklet tried to exculpate them by denying the authenticity of the document.

If the Radio Priest had available time to use more documents in his broadcast, he could have used corroborative evidence concerning the financing of the Russian Bolshevik Revolution. For example, the Russian Okrana (pre-revolutionary Secret Service agency) compiled a report dated February 15, 1916, which reached the Russian High Command in the same year—a portion of which was published in A. Natchvolodov's (Lieutenant General of the Russian Imperial Army) book entitled L'Empereur Nicholas II et Les Juifs.

The Russian Secret Service report reads as follows

"The Russian revolutionary party in America has certainly decided to proceed to action. Consequently outbreaks may be expected at any time. The first secret reunion destined to mark the beginning of the period of violent action took place on Monday evening, February 14, in the East Side of New York. In all, sixty-two delegates attended, of whom fifty were veterans of the revolution of 1905 and other fresh recruits. Most of those were Jews, amongst them quite a number of educated men, doctors, writers, etc.

There were also some professional revolutionaries in the assembly.

The discussions at this first reunion were devoted almost entirely to the examination of the possibility of a revolution in Russia on a big scale and to a study of the means at their disposal, seeing that the moment was most favorable. It was announced that the party had received secret information according to which the situation was entirely favorable to their plans, in view of the fact that all the preliminary arrangements for an uprising had been concluded. The only serious obstacle was that of money, but as soon as this question was raised, certain members immediately informed the assembly that that need not cause any hesitation for as soon as they would be required, large sums would be given by persons in sympathy with the movement for the liberation of the Russian people. In this connection the name of Jacob Schiff was mentioned several times.

"The soul of this new revolutionary movement is the German Ambassador in Washington, Count Bernstorff. Dr. Albert, the financial agent attached to the German Embassy in Washington, is manager of this revolution, just as he was manager of the revolution, which took place in Mexico. He is aided in his task by the first secretary of the German Embassy."

There stands the matter of the American Official Services Report.

Although Father Coughlin erroneously did attribute words found in the American Official Services Report to the British White Paper, this admitted error does not warrant the conclusion suggested by the General Jewish Council booklet, namely, that Jewish bankers did not participate in financing Communism in Russia.

Although the American Official Services Report was not contained in the British White Paper, it neither adds to nor subtracts from the historical value of these two separate, authentic documents which are of ultimate importance whether they are combined or separated. The British White Paper inculpates Jews in general; the American Official Services Report specifies the names of the Jews.

To confirm the evidence already set down in this and other chapters relative to Jacob Schiff and Mr. Warburg, we urge you to read Appendix V entitled Jacob Schiff, Warburg and Bolshevism.

CHAPTER V

THE BRITISH WHITE PAPER'S TESTIMONY

When the authors of the General Jewish Council booklet expended so much effort to disparage the authenticity of the American Official Services Report, possibly there was a dual reason for so doing. First, to create the impression that Father Coughlin was manufacturing evidence; and second, to minimize the importance of the British White Paper.

Definitely, Father Coughlin did not manufacture evidence, although, we repeat, he mistakingly attributed some evidence found in the American Official Services Report to the British White Paper.

Therefore, it will be profitable, from the standpoint of polemics, to print in this chapter some of the more important statements contained in that remarkable, official, uncontested British document which hitherto was not given much publicity.

Before proceeding, however, may we urge the readers to inspect the article relative to the British White Paper printed in Appendix VI. Hence, to the point:

The British White Paper, Russia, No. 1 (1919) is a collection

of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia. The British White Paper was presented by command of His Majesty George V, 1919 (April) to the British Parliament.

In less than three weeks after it was published, the original British White Paper was withdrawn from circulation and an abridged edition of the British White Paper substituted. The public was then informed that the original, unabridged edition was out of print. As stated previously, Father Coughlin possesses a copy of the original; and from that we shall quote.

The Foreword to this official publication indicates the nature of the material contained within the British White Paper. It reads as follows:

"The following collection of reports from His Majesty's official representatives in Russia, from other British subjects who have recently returned from that country, and from independent witnesses of various nationalities, covers the period of the Bolshevik régime from the summer of 1918 to the present date. They are issued in accordance with a decision of the War Cabinet in January last. They are unaccompanied by anything in the nature either of comment or introduction, since they speak for themselves in the picture which they present of the principles and methods of Bolshevik rule, the appalling incidents by which it has been accompanied, the economic consequences which have flowed from it, and the almost incalculable misery which it has produced."

Be it observed that the authors of the General Jewish Council booklet reprint the title page of the original British White Paper but do not distinguish between the abridged edition and the unabridged edition; and they do not submit the reasons for the suppression of certain parts in the abridged edition which are found in the unabridged edition—parts which are very evidentiary to the main discussion, namely, that Jews played an important part in factualizing Bolshevism in Russia.

Thus, we will submit passages from the original British White Paper which will substantiate Father Coughlin's statement that atheistic and irreligious Jews were prominent among the leaders of the Communist Revolution in Russia.

1.*

"Sir E. Howard to Mr. Balfour.—(Received August 20, 1918.)

"Following is summary of the more important points in a series of despatches:

"Stockholm, August 19, 1918.

"August 7. — I called at temporary prison and saw

^*Numbers are ours and do not indicate number of the document

Greenep, Wishaw and Jerram. They are all well-treated by their guards who are real Russians, unlike most of their leaders, who are either fanatics or Jewish adventurers like Trotsky or Radek . . ."

2.

"Sir M. Findlay to Mr. Balfour.—(Received September 18, 1918.)

"Following is Report by Netherlands Minister at Petrograd, the 6th September, received here to-day, on the situation in Russia, in particular as affecting British subjects and British interests under Minister's protection:—

to call the attention of the British and all other Governments to the fact that, if an end is not put to Bolshevism in Russia at once, the civilisation of the whole world will be threatened. This is not an exaggeration, but a sober matter of fact... I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshevism is the greatest issue now before the world, not even excluding the war which is still raging, and unless, as above stated, Bolshevism is nipped in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world, as it is organised and worked by Jews who have no nationality, and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends* the existing order of things. The only manner in which this danger could be averted would be collective action on the part of all Powers... I would beg that this report may be telegraphed as soon as possible in cipher in full to the British Foreign Office in view of its importance..."

3.

"Mr. Alston to Earl Curzon. (Received January 25, 1919.)

'Vladivostock, January 23, 1919.

"Following from High Commissioner:-

"'Following statements respecting Bolsheviks in Perm and neighbourhood are taken from reports sent by His Majesty's consul at Ekaterinburg. The Omsk Government has similar information:—

"'The Bolsheviks can no longer be described as a political party holding extreme Communistic view. They form relatively small privileged class which is able to terrorise the rest of the population because it has a monopoly both of arms and of food supplies. This class consists chiefly of

workmen and soldiers, and included a large non-Russian element, such as Letts, Esthonians and Jews; the latter are especially numerous in higher posts. Members of this class are allowed complete licence, and commit crime against other sections of society . . . "

"Lord Kilmarnock to Earl Curzon

"Copenhagen, February 3, 1919.

"My Lord,

"... A French gentleman, who left Petrograd towards the end of January, has given me the following information as regards the situation ... 'The Bolsheviks comprised chiefly Jews and Germans ... The Russians were largely anti-Bolshevik ... "

5.

"General Knox to War Office.

rinburg, there is further evidence to show that there were two parties in the local Soviet, one which was anxious to save Imperial family, and the latter, headed by five Jews, two of whom were determined to have them murdered. These two Jews, by name Vainen and Safarof, went with Lenin when he made a journey across Germany. On pretext that Russian guard had stolen 70,000 roubles, they were removed from the house between the 8th and 12th. The guard were replaced by a house guard of thirteen, consisting of ten Letts and three Jews, two of whom were called Laipont and Yurowski, and one whose name is not known. The guard was commanded outside the house by a criminal called Medoyedof" (alias Medvedeff) "who had been convicted of murder and arson in 1906 and of outraging a girl of five in 1911. The prisoners were awakened at 2 A.M., and were told they must prepare for a journey. They were called down to the lower room an hour later, and Yurowski read out the sentence of the Soviet. When he had finished reading he

6.

"Rev. B. S. Lombard to Earl Curson

"Officers' Quarters, 8, Rothsay Gardens, Bedford, March 23, 1919.

"My Lord,

"I beg to forward to your lordship the following details with reference to Bolshevism in Russia:—

"I have been for ten years in Russia, and have been in Petrograd through the whole of the revolution . . .

"It originated in German propaganda, and was, and is being, carried out by international Jews . . .

"The Results.

"All business became paralysed, shops were closed, Jews became possessors of most of the business houses, and horrible scenes of starvation became common in the country districts..."

7.

• "Mr. B. —, who has lived in Russia all his life, left Moscow on the 8th February and was interviewed at the Foreign Office on his arrival and supplied the following information:—
• "'... In spite of the appalling conditions prevailing everywhere, the Kremlin is well supplied with all kinds of food. A servant of the house where Mr. B. stayed had a brother in the Kremlin, and he told her that there was an abundance of ham, white bread, butter, sausages, etc."

8.

"Memorandum by Mr. B.

"... An arrest is the prelude to every kind of corruption; the rich have to pay huge exactions to intermediaries, who are usually Jews, before they can obtain their release ..."

9.

"Memorandum by Mr. B.

"... At the Putilof Works anti-Semitism is growing, probably because the food supply committees are entirely in the hands of the Jews ..."

It is regrettable that Father Coughlin did not have time at his disposal to read over the air the entire British White Paper to confirm the point that Bolshevism "is organized and worked by Jews"; that Bolshevism is organized and worked by Jews "for their own ends"; that Jews "are especially numerous in higher posts" of the Bolshevik party; that the Bolsheviks "comprised chiefly Jews and Germans"; that Bolshevism "originated in German propaganda, and was, and is being, carried out by international Jews," etc.

Some of the parts contained in the original edition of the British White Paper were not contained in its expurgated form. And the expurgated form is the one generally referred to by Father Coughlin's opponents. Thus, the British White Paper (1919, April) does assist in substantiating the thesis that Jews played a prominent part in factualizing Bolshevism in Russia.

MONSIGNOR RYAN'S TECHNIQUE

In his broadcast on Sunday, November 20, 1938, Father Coughlin stated that:

"... the 1917 list of those who, with Lenin, ruled many of the activities of the Soviet Republic, disclosed that of the 25 quasi-cabinet members, 24 of them were atheistic Jews, whose names I have before me..."

He then referred to the list of names appearing on page 29 of this book.

On December 30th the Commonweal magazine published an article written by the Rt. Rev. Msgr. John A. Ryan in which the Monsignor asks: "Where did he" (Father Coughlin) "get this list?"

Monsignor Ryan then proceeds to "expose" the source of Father Coughlin's information in the following words:

"In his broadcast the following Sunday, Father Coughlin answered this question by citing a volume entitled, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, by Reverend Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp., professor in Blackrock College, Dublin, Ireland, the book he has continued to recommend even on the cover of Social Justice. On page 90 of that volume will be found these twenty-five names. Where did Father Fahey get them? From a weekly paper published in London called The Patriot. In passing, it should be noted that the Appendices to Father Fahey's volume include three other fairly long extracts from this newspaper. Taken together, the four show that The Patriot is definitely anti-Semitic. Indeed, Father Fahey's book itself may fairly be put in the same category. There are numerous illustrations of this bias in the body of the book and there is Appendix V, which presents four pages from the notorious Protocols of the Elders of Sion. While Father Fahey admits that the Protocols have not been established as authentic, he denies that they have been proved forgeries.

"To return to the precious list of twenty-five: where did The Patriot get it? Purportedly from the issue of March 6, 1920, of the Documentation Catholique of Paris, a publication whose statements, of course, have not the authority of the Church. Where did this French journal get it? From an alleged report made by the American Secret Service to the French High Commissioner, says the Documentation Catholique.

"Here then we have the ultimate alleged source of the list. Father Coughlin quotes Father Fahey, who quotes The Patriot, which quotes the Documentation Catholique, which declares that 'the American Secret Service takes responsibility'."

So wrote Monsignor John Ryan, formerly of the Catholic University of Washington.

This book is no vehicle in which to convey personalities. Nevertheless, as a parenthetical statement, it is appropriate to inform our readers that the Commonweal magazine is not, as sometimes advertised, a Catholic publication as is, for example, America, the Jesuit magazine. Since it passed into the hands of its present owners, Commonweal became notorious for its support of the Communists in Spain.

As for Monsignor Ryan, it will be remembered that this venerable ecclesiastic has contributed to literature much that is praiseworthy, particularly in the field of sociology. Nevertheless, he is neither omniscient nor impeccable in his pronouncements and activities. In ecclesiastical circles, the good Monsignor's campaign for prohibition and his pronouncements on the morality of questions related thereto are well-remembered. In laical circles, it is also remembered that he was a spokesman over a national radio chain against Father Coughlin; and that these radio facilities were paid for by the Democratic Party.*

In political circles he will be remembered as the ecclesiastic who permitted his name to appear upon the New Deal payroll.*

These are matters of public record imprinted here to serve merely as a background against which to evaluate the present pronouncements of the well-publicized ecclesiastic who is notorious for his tirades against Father Coughlin, which tirades undoubtedly never received the imprimatur of his ecclesiastical superiors. Undoubtedly it is understood that Father Coughlin, due to the supervision which is exercised over him both in regard to his written and spoken word, could not indulge in reprisals, even if he cared to do so.

^*In a letter to the Catholic Transcript, Monsignor Ryan defended his radio speech of October 8, 1936 and said: "I regard this speech as one of the most effective and beneficial acts that I have ever performed in the interests of my religion and my country."

^*In a letter which he wrote to The Tablet, December 2, 1939 issue, Monsignor Ryan said: "My appointment to the Industrial Appeals Board was widely publicized at the beginning of August, 1934, in all the Catholic and secular papers; therefore, I assumed that all intelligent persons were aware that my salary while a member of the Board was at the rate of \$6,000 a year. This is a pretty fair remuneration but I admit that I was worth it."

And now for Monsignor Ryan's article that appeared in the Commonweal: To say the least, it is unscholarly, as will be pointed out. It is suspected that the authors of the General Jewish Council booklet were aware of its inaccuracies and mistakes. Unhesitatingly, however, the venerable Monsignor's testimony was accepted. Credit for its errors, likely, will be disavowed by the Jewish authors. Despite any disclaimer of responsibility for Monsignor Ryan's errors, the fact remains that the authors of the Jewish booklet share that responsibility.

Thus, in an objective manner be it re-stated that Monsignor Ryan, in his Commonweal article, maintains that Father Fahey (whom Father Coughlin quoted) took his "facts" originally from The Patriot, a London "anti-Semitic" publication.

In no place in his book did Father Fahey say that he had taken the list of Bolshevik officials, or any of his facts concerned with the American Official Services Report, from The Patriot, as the Monsignor categorically states.

When confronted with this charge, Father Fahey wrote, in a communication addressed to Father Coughlin:

"First of all, I did not represent The Patriot as quoting La Documentation Catholique. I did not know even if The Patriot had done so."

In these two sentences we have the solemn word of a distinguished Catholic priest on this subject—a word that no brother priest safely can contradict without proof at hand.

Having no proof, why did Monsignor Ryan invent the story that Father Fahey obtained his information from The Patriot, which the Monsignor classifies as an anti-Semitic publication? Simply to destroy the value of the facts by attributing them to "prejudiced" sources. That is an old trick employed by crafty men. When they are unable to disprove the factuality of evidence presented by a witness, they endeavor to discredit the character of the witness. In this case, craftiness descended to new depths in so far as the Monsignor invented an anti-Semitic (?) witness in order to convey a certain impression to unsuspecting readers.

According to his own statement, Father Fahey did not quote The Patriot. Definitely he gave as the source of his information (when speaking of the 1917 list of those who, with Lenin, ruled many of the activities of the Soviet Republic) the American Official Services Report drawn up by Americans and transmitted by the French High Commissioner to his Government. Recognize that this Report was published by La Documentation Catholique of Paris on March 6, 1920 and was guaranteed to that institution as an authentic document.

Moreover, Father Fahey says:

"This document was quoted in 1920 in a supplement to the paper La Vicille France, which added: 'All the governments of the Entente were aware of this memorandum...'"

At any rate, Monsignor Ryan resurrected for the benefit of the General Jewish Council a moth-worn technique which, in attempting to improve, he tore to shreds in so far as he invented a questionable (?) witness to disparage the forcefulness of irrefutable testimony.

There is a magazine known as The Patriot. But Father Fahey did not quote it in this instance. Why should be quote it when he had copies of the original documents supplied to him by La Documentation Catholique of Paris?

Fortified with the Ryan technique, the authors of the General Jewish Council booklet proceeded to employ it in another instance. They attempted to discredit Father Coughlin further, and completely, by declaring that certain other information was gathered from anti-Semitic sources. Here are the words they printed:

"The text which Father Coughlin claims to have read from the White Paper does exist, however, in the Nazi propaganda sheet, World Service, issue of February 15, 1936, and a comparison shows that Father Coughlin virtually incorporated the actual language of World Service' in his speech."

The World Scrvice, for the readers' information, is a pro-Nazi publication.

The question is: Did Father Coughlin or did he not employ it as the source of his quotations? Positively, he did not; and the authors of the General Jewish Council booklet knew that he slid not, despite their assertions to the contrary. Therefore, be it re-asserted that Father Coughlin quoted verbatim Section VIII of the American Official Services Report as published by La Documentation Catholique and as found translated in Father Fahey's book.

To prove this assertion, to the confusion of the General Jewish Council booklet, are submitted copies of the four texts involved, namely, the Report itself as published in La Documentation Catholique, Father Fahey's text, Father Coughlin's text, and the World Service text:

DOCUMENTATION CATHOLIQUE

"'VIII—Si nous remarquons ce fait que la firme juive Kuhn Loeb et Cie est en relations avec le Syndicat westphalien rhénan, firme juive d'Allemagne, et les frères Lazare, maison juive de Paris, et aùssi la maison de banque Gunsburg, maison juive de Pétrograd, Tokio et Paris, si nous remarquons en plus que les affaires juives ci-dessus sont en etroites relations avec le maison juive Speyer et Cie de Londres, New-York et Franc-fort-sur-le-Mein, de même qu'avec 'Nya Banken,' affaire juive bolcheviste, de Stockholm, il apparaitra que le mouvement bolcheviste, comme tel, est dans une certain mesure l'expression d'un mouvement general juif et que certaines maisons de banque juives sont intéréssees dans l'organisation de ce mouvement.'

FATHER FAHEY'S TEXT

"'Section VIII—If we bear in mind the fact that the Jewish Banking-House of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. is in touch with the Westphalian-Rhineland Syndicate, German-Jewish House, and with the Brothers Lazare, Jewish House in Paris, and also with the Jewish House of Gunzbourg of Petrograd, Tokio and Paris; if, in addition, we remark that all the above-mentioned Jewish Houses are in close correspondence with the Jewish House of Speyer & Co. of London, New York and Frankfort-on-the-Main, as well as with the 'Nya Banken,' Judaeo-Bolshevik establishment at Stockholm, it will be manifest that the Bolshevik movement is in a certain measure the expression of a general Jewish movement and that certain Jewish Banking-Houses are interested in the organization of this movement.'"

FATHER COUGHLIN'S TEXT

"Section VIII of this British White Paper" (Father Coughlin should have said Section VIII of the American Official Services Report) "reads as follows: 'If we bear in mind the fact that the Jewish Banking House of Kuhn, Loeb and Co. is in touch with the Westphalian-Rhineland Syndicate, German-Jewish House; and with the Brothers Lazare, Jewish House in Paris; and also with the Jewish House of Gunzbourg of Petrograd, Tokio and Paris; if in addition, we remark that all the above-mentioned Jewish Houses are in close correspondence with the Jewish House of Speyer & Co., of London, New York and Frankfort-on-the-Main, as well as with 'Nya Banken,' Judaeo-Bolshevik establishment at Stockholm, it will be manifest that the Bolshevik movement is in a certain measure the expression of a general Jewish movement, and that certain Jewish Banking Houses are interested in the organization of this movement.'"

WORLD SERVICE TEXT

"'VII. When we bear in mind that the Jewish firm Kuhn, Loeb & Co. is in contact with the 'Rheinisch-Westfälisches Syndikat', a Jewish firm in Germany, with Lazare Bros., a Jewish banking house in Paris and also with Gunzburg, a Jewish banking concern in St. Petersburg, Paris and Tokio, and when we further ascertain that all the above-mentioned Jewish banking houses are in close relationships with the Jewish banking house of Speyer & Co. in London, New

York and Frankfort, and with the Jewish Bolshevist 'Nye Banken' in Stockholm, it appears certain that the present Bolshevist movement is more or less the expression of a general Jewish movement, and that certain Jewish banking houses are active participators in the organisation of the movement.'"

Evidently, the Monsignor Ryan technique of source-smearing employed by the General Jewish Council booklet authors is very weak when inspected under the clear light of recorded facts.

The examination of the four texts printed above reveals that Father Fahey has accurately translated Section VIII of the American Official Services Report as published by Documentation Catholique and that Father Coughlin has quoted this translation verbatim, with the exception that he said "British White Paper" instead of "American Official Services Report."

The markings of all texts are the same; and the wording of Father Fahey's text and Father Coughlin's text is identical. Father Coughlin declared that Father Fahey's work was the source of his information. This examination has proved the truth of his statement inasmuch as both texts are identical.

That Father Coughlin was not indebted to World Service is abundantly clear to the students of textual criticism. Father Coughlin quotes verbatim the translation found in Father Fahey's book, and not in one single instance does he accept the verbal differences which distinguished the translation found in World Service. This conclusively gives the lie to the accusation that "Father Coughlin virtually incorporated the actual language of World Service in his speech."

Finally, Father Fahey (therefore Father Coughlin) could not have been indebted to World Service since his work was published in 1935. As a matter of fact, it bears the imprimatur of the Most Reverend Bishop of Waterford and Lismore under the date of February 19, 1935.

On the other hand, the World Service issue quoted did not appear until February 15, 1936.

Father Fahey's text (therefore Father Coughlin's text) was in print one whole year before the World Scrvice issue.

Therefore, simply on the element of time, the charge of the General Jewish Council is disproved.

As to the bad faith of the writers of the General Jewish Council booklet, the facts speak for themselves. The writers of the General Jewish Council booklet, by their own admission, had Father Fahey's book before them as is evident; for on page 15 of the Jewish booklet the following statement is made: "The document . . . which Father Fahey identifies on page 88 of his book, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World . . ."

By a strange irony, page 88 is the actual page on which Father Fahey introduces the American Official Scrvices Report. In view of this admitted knowledge, how could the General Jewish Council so blandly have ignored the fact that Father Fahey was the source of Father Coughlin's information? The conclusion is inescapable. The General Jewish Council knew that Father Fahey's work was the source of Father Coughlin's information.

To smear Father Coughlin was its purpose, and to succeed in that purpose it did not hesitate to use the Ryan technique.

CHAPTER VII

DID JEWS PARTICIPATE IN THE BIRTH OF BOLSHEVISM?

In the previous chapter one gathers that the General Jewish Council booklet did not attempt to meet Father Coughlin's arguments so much as to belittle his sources. If the authors of the Jewish booklet, either morally or amorally, could impress the general public that Father Coughlin's sources were Nazi, then the Radio Priest's facts would be regarded as no more trustworthy than the Swastika itself.

We, the authors, believe that we have presented our case so far, proving, relative to this point, that both Monsignor Ryan and the General Jewish Council are not only inaccurate in their assertions as to Father Coughlin's sources of information, but that their motives are open to suspicion.

This chapter and those that follow will deal with information pertinent to disprove the headline appearing on page 28 of the General Jewish Council booklet, namely, "Jews Played a Negligible Part in the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia"—which thesis the authors of the Jewish booklet support by quoting Father Joseph N. Moody, Professor of European History at Cathedral College, New York City, and Professor Hugo Valentin, Professor of History at Upsala University in Sweden. Thus, to the point:

In Section III of the American Official Services Report, the authenticity of which has been guaranteed, we read the following:

"In October, 1917, the social revolution took place in Russia, thanks to which certain Soviet organizations took over the direction of the Russian people. In these Soviets the following individuals made themselves remarkable:

To confirm the assertion that Jews played a prominent part in the Bolshevik Revolution (October, 1917), it is appropriate to refer to the Overman Report, a United States Government document.

As far back as 1919 the United States Senate held hearings before a sub-committee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, relative to the general subject of Bolshevik propaganda. Because Senator Lee S. Overman presided at these hearings, they are sometimes referred to as the Overman Report.

During these hearings Reverend Mr. Simons testified and said:

"I have a paper here which was circulated when Lenine and Trotsky were asserting themselves, in August. September, and October of 1917, giving a list of about 20 names showing the Jewish in one column, and then the assumed Russian name in the other. That thing was considered a very dangerous document, but it was being circulated everywhere, and one copy came to me. In that document I found Apfelbaum's name, and his assumed name. Beyond that I do not know anything about Mr. Apfelbaum . . ." (Overman)

Committee Report, p. 123.)

"Senator Overman: Did you see this list of names that Mrs. Summers handed in?

"Mr. Simons: I have seen at least four different lists, and the first that came out I have in my possession here. This came out about August, 1917, and was widely circulated in Petrograd and Moscow (reading):

Real Name

the first list that we had." (Overman Committee Report, p. 142.)

The above excerpt from the Overman Report is used merely

The above excerpt from the Overman Report is used merely to confirm the information contained in the American Official Services Report. (See Appendix VII.)

Bear in mind that Father Coughlin maintained that the Jews played a part in the birth and development of Bolshevism. He did not at any time state that they were totally responsible for it. The part they played, he observed, was one out of proportion to the number of persons who were interested in its financing and development.

Had the authors of the Jewish booklet cared to use Jewish writers to sustain the point that "Jews Played a Negligible Part in the Bolshevik Revolution," they could have done so instead of using Father Moody and Professor Valentin. For example, the Woburn Free Press of London (a pen name for the Jewish Board of Deputies) published a pamphlet entitled Bolshevism Is Not Jewish. In it we read that:

"The largest Party opposed to the Bolsheviks was known

as the Menshevik Party, which included many Jews whose opinions were based on Social Democracy and bitterly opposed to the anti-democratic principles of Bolshevism."

The General Jewish Council, however, thought it more expedient to use as a witness the Reverend Father Moody of New York. But we are content to accept argumentation, apparently more convincing, from the Jewish source and analyze its validity—particularly since it rests upon the distinction between Bolshevik and Menshevik.

In October, 1938, the London Free Press analyzed the above statements—in fact, the entire Woburn Free Press pamphlet—and satisfactorily destroyed this contention.

What is the difference between a Bolshevik and a Menshevik?

A Congress of the Russian Social Democratic Party was held in London in one of the early years of this century and a split arose in the ranks of its members over the wording of Paragraph 1 of the rules of the party. Lenin proposed that the article should read:

"Anyone is a member of the party who participates in the organization of the party."

Martoff introduced a counter-proposal which read:

"Anyone working under the supervision of the party is a member of the party."

In the voting which followed upon Lenin's proposition and Martoff's counter-proposal Lenin's proposition carried the delegates by a few votes. From that day forth the followers of Lenin were called "majoritarians" (Bolsheviks); while those who followed Martoff were called "minoritarians" (Mensheviks). (London Free Press, October, 1936.)

The London Free Press continues:

"Thus the difference between a Menshevik and a Bolshevik is a mere matter of hair splitting over the qualifications of party members and the two parties, in all the essentials of revolutionary propaganda, were inspired by the same aims. Thus the whole of the side-tracking insinuation of the Woburn Press pamphlet disappears into nothing on the most casual investigation."

Again the Woburn Free Press adds:

"Among the fiercest opponents of Bolshevism was the general League of Jewish Workers called the Bund."

Both Dr. Moody and Dr. Valentin virtually voice this substanial error and thus preserve an historical inaccuracy.

To this statement the writer of the London Free Press article

"The facts are that the Bund had joined the Mensheviks in 1906; as the Provisional Government had granted the Jews full emancipation and as the Bund had many members who were small capitalists, the Bund as such, in the spring of 1917, opposed the Bolsheviks. During the summer of 1917 large numbers of intellectual and proletarial members left the Bund and joined the Bolsheviks. In 1920, the Bund joined the Russian Communist Party."

Despite Reverend Father Moody's and Professor Hugo Valentin's contention that Jews played a negligible part in the Bolshevik Revolution, let us submit further evidence as to the incorrectness of the General Jewish Council's thesis.

Accordingly, we quote the eminent Jew. Angelo Rappoport, the author of a book entitled Pioncers of the Russian Revolution. On page 252 he says:

"The members of the Bund (General Union of Jewish Workingmen) have never hesitated to show an example of self-sacrifice to the fighters for freedom. They indeed deserve the appellation of the pioneers of the Russian revolution."

And, to confirm our contention, let us oppose the testimony of the world-famous Jesuit magazine, together with its world-famous students, to the testimony of Father Moody and Professor Valentin.

According to The Civilta Cattolica (Jesuit publication) in its May, 1928 issue, (p. 342) we read:

"It is without reason that the Univers Israelite attempts to prove that the Jews of Russia did not create Bolshevism but only Menshevism . . . vain efforts . . . for it is certain that Menshevism was only a step and a decisive step towards Bolshevism."*

According to Tsarisme et Revolution by A. de Goulévitch, (pp. 275-276, Paris, 1931) we read:

"Some persons have opposed the February revolution (1917) known also as the Kerensky revolution to the October revolution, or to the final establishment of Bolshevism. Synthetically examined, these two events which some have distinguished from each other, are one and the same historical phenomenon. Their distinction is the effect of a tragic illusion that indicates a peculiar and regrettable ignorance of things... One cannot insist too much on the unity of the movement of insurrection and on the unity of revolution. The triumph of Bolshevism in Russia was the fatal and inevitable consequence of the fall of Czarism, the logical result of the 'February revolution,' financed by the league of all the enemies of Russia and achieved by the Social-Democrats... aided in this task by the other opposition parties that followed their leadership and thus brought about their

own ruin as well as that of their country."

This last quotation, confirming Civilta Cattolica, as is evident, virtually identifies the Kerensky Revolution in the spring of 1917 with the final Bolshevik Revolution in the autumn of the same year. Every student knows the difference between these two revolutions. But many persons do not know that one was only preparatory for the other.

That there was an association between the two, we repeat, is known to competent students of history. In the spring revolution of 1917 conducted under Kerensky, Lwoff and Milioukoff, we find these three men rising to power.

Milioukoff, acting for the Provisional Government, was the gentleman who succeeded in persuading high officials in the British Government of the necessity of freeing Trotsky, who was arrested at Halifax, Canada (See Le Russie Sous les Juifs, pp. 34 and 35, quoting Sir George Buchanan, British Minister to Russia.)

The revolution which forced Russia to withdraw from the World War and to conclude the ignominious peace of Brest-Litovsk was planned and executed by foreign agents (Lenin, Trotsky, Asev, Parvus, Zinoviev, Kamenev) and the emigrés whom Lenin brought with him from Switzerland and Trotsky from America.

We owe a great debt to Mr. Victor Marsden, Russian correspondent of the Morning Post of London, who was present in Russia at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution (and who is universally recognized as an authority on the Revolution), for his authentic list of the chief Bolshevik officials in the early days. We refer the reader to Appendix VIII.

The General Jewish Council maintained that Jews played a negligible part in the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia; it recommends that Father Coughlin should have consulted a book entitled Documents of Russian History, 1914-1917 by Professor Frank Alfred Golder, for an authentic list of the official cabinet members of the Lenin Government; and adds that only two of the names on Father Coughlin's "Nazi list" are contained in the list submitted by Professor Golder.

Now Professor Golder openly admits, and the General Jewish Council booklet so states, that he is dealing only with the years 1914 to 1917. But in a communication addressed to the Commissar of Foreign Affairs dated January 12, 1918, the German Government ordered the president of the Council to insist on the election of the following candidates to the Central Executive Committee which was to be reelected: Trotsky, Lenin, Zinovieff,

Kameneff, Joffe, Sverdlov, Lunacharsky, Kollantai, Fabrizius, Martov, Steklov, Golman, Frunze, Lander, Milk, Preobrajenski, Sollers, Studer, Golberg, Avanesov, Volodarsky, Raskolnikov, Stuchka, Peters and Neubut. (Sisson Report p. 8, Doc. 7.)

Of course the General Jewish Council failed to print this authentic list of Russia's real leaders. Naturally this document would not be found in the authoritative work to which Father Coughlin was referred, since the book covered only the years 1914 to 1917.

Quoting the General Jewish Council booklet, page 31, we read:

"Referring to the alleged present-day domination of Soviet Russia by Jews, Father Coughlin said in his broadcast of November 20, 1938: 'It was increased year by year-and particularly in 1935, when the official disclosure made manifest that the central committee of the Communist party operating in Russia consisted of 59 members, among whom were 56 Jews; and that the three remaining non-Jews were married to Jewesses. The litany of these names, too long to read to a radio audience, also will be printed in a pamphlet for distribution to all who request it.'

"What 'official disclosure' he refers to he did not state. However, in his speech of November 27th, it appears that he was quoting from The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World.

"An examination of the names of those at the head of the Russian Government in 1935, published in The Statesman's Year-Book for 1935 (Macmillan & Company, Ltd. London), a standard reference book, shows that only seven of the 59 names published by Father Coughlin appear therein. Of the names on the official list only six are Jews."

While the General Jewish Council booklet said: "... it appears that he" (Father Coughlin) "was quoting from The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World," it is on record that the Radio Priest said he was using a Nazi list; and he said this simply to indicate that the Nazis were concerned with identifying Jews with Communism. While we appreciate that the authors of the General Jewish Council booklet find it difficult to accept as absolutely accurate the list published by the Nazis, we refer them to a reliable French book which lists the names of Jews prominent in Communism; and this French book entitled Les Juifs en U.R.S.S. published by Les Nouvelles Editions Nationales, 27 Rue des Petits-Champs, Paris, can not be discredited by a mere gesture.

This authentic French list contains the names of 54 members of the Comité Central Polit Bureau of the Communist Party, a committee which frames the policies of the Soviet Government, the Russian Communist Party and the Communist International.

Of these 54, 51 certainly are Jews, 2 are married to Jews and 1, for the sake of argument (Josef Stalin) is regarded as a Georgian.

The General Jewish Council booklet, in attempting to controvert Father Coughlin, upheld the thesis that Jews played a negligible part in the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. A further attempt was made to dissociate the spring revolution from the autumn revolution of 1917. And a final attempt was made to discredit the list of 59 names of the men, 54 of whom were members of Comité Central Polit Bureau of the Communist Party. This attempt was executed by the authors of the General Jewish Council booklet on page 31 in words printed above and which we repeat:

"An examination of the names of those at the head of the Russian Government in 1935, published in The Statesman's Year-Book for 1935 (Macmillan & Company, Ltd., London), a standard reference book, shows that only seven of the fifty-nine names published by Father Coughlin appear therein. Of the names on the official list only six are Jews."

As will be evident from the quotation in which Father Coughlin said he was giving a list of the members of "the Central Comité of the Communist Party operating in Russia," the authors of the General Jewish Council booklet deliberately deceived their readers by publishing a list of the "chairmen of the Union Central Executive Committee and of the Union Council of People's Commissars," which lists have absolutely no resemblance to the list of the members of the Central Comité of the Polit Bureau of the Communist Party. Polemics do not permit us to proceed beyond that statement of fact—a fact which speaks for itself.

Further testimony germane to this chapter is available in the Appendix.

CHAPTER VIII

THE AMERICAN HEBREW DISPUTE

At this juncture it is well to handle the dispute which arose over Father Coughlin's quotation from The American Hebrew magazine.

The authors of the General Jewish Council booklet again accuse the Radio Priest of falsifying the record when he substituted the words "the Russian-Jewish Revolution" for the word

Secondly, the authors of the General Jewish Council booklet say that The American Hebrew magazine article in question did not refer to the second Russian Revolution in October of 1917 but solely to the spring revolution—the Kerensky Revolution of that same year.

Having read the previous chapter wherein world famous scholars like Marsden together with editors such as those of the Civilta Cattolica identify the two revolutions, we are able to treat of this disputed passage.

The passage in question is a quotation used by Father Coughlin from an article written by Svetozar Tonjorov entitled Jews in World Reconstruction. The pertinent passage reads in Father Coughlin's officially published text as follows:

"The achievement (the Russian-Jewish Revolution) destined to figure in history as the overshadowing result of the World War, was largely the outcome of Jewish thinking, of Jewish discontent, of Jewish effort to reconstruct."

The authors of the General Jewish Council booklet argue, we repeat, that the above quotation conveyed a meaning not intended by Mr. Tonjorov; that it referred to the springtime revolution in 1917 under Kerensky and not to the autumn revolution—the Bolshevik Revolution which followed in the same year.

And, now, to the discussion

Be it noted that in Father Coughlin's printed address the words "the Russian-Jewish Revolution" appeared in parenthesis. They were Father Coughlin's words. They were used to clarify the preceding words of the text which otherwise would not have been understandable. The preceding words were "The achievement."

According to the critics, the words "The achievement" refer only to the Kerensky Revolution; according to Father Coughlin, they refer to the entire revolution, including both the Kerensky Revolution and the Lenin Revolution. Therefore, it is pertinent to print a sufficient portion of the text of Mr. Tonjorov's American Hebrew article to permit the reader to judge for himself. And the reader will note that while The American Hebrew contributor characterizes the Bolshevik movement as "neither polite nor tolerant," he also says: "... Force was needed to clear the Russian ground of the accumulated abuses of centuries. While it was sweeping away the obstacles to freedom, the Bolshevist broom swept away many useful and desirable things..." (p. 434) That sentence alone is a very revealing admission.

Here, however, is The American Hebrew article for the reader's judgment and consideration:

"Out of the economic chaos, the discontent—and it was a legitimate discontent, be it noted—of the Jew evolved organized capital, with its working instrumentality, the banking system.

"That was a great achievement—an achievement almost as great as the evolution of organized government out of the selfish operations of the barons and their super-baron. Gradually, in every country in the world, the government of the barons and the government of the Jewish banker effected an alliance that constituted up to the outbreak of the great war—and apparently still constitutes—the dual force that controls the destinies of nations and of individuals everywhere

"Organized government, like organized finance, is an essential condition to the welfare of human society. The indictment against both government and finance lies in their joint rejection of the Golden Rule—in their joint attempt, successful up to the present—to ride roughshod over the rights of nations and of individuals.

"To impose rules—and especially the Golden Rule—upon this dual Niagara of force is the paramount problem of the day.

"One of the impressive phenomena of the impressive time is the revolt of the Jew against the Frankenstein which his own mind conceived and his own hands fashioned for his defence in the darkness of the middle ages. This revolt is a continued phase of the unrest that formulated through Jewish lips the Sermon on the Mount.

"The workings of this unrest are to be seen in the events that have accomplished, since the fateful year 1914, a task that looms far larger than the French Revolution—the annihilation of the most firmly entrenched, the most selfish and most reckless autocratic system in the world, the Russian Czarism.

"That achievement, destined to figure in history as the overshadowing result of the world war, was largely the outcome of Jewish thinking, of Jewish discontent, of Jewish effort to reconstruct.*

"Even amid the mass of legends that have been transmitted to the columns of the press by men and women whose main purpose was to paint the Russian revolution in warning colors, it is possible for the discriminating mind to discern facts that terrify.

^*It was this paragraph that Father Coughlin quoted.

"The Bolshevik Movement" is neither polite nor tolerant; in its initial phase it was purely destructive. Force was needed to clear the Russian ground of the accumulated abuses of centuries. While it was sweeping away the obstacles to freedom, the Bolshevist broom sweept away many useful and desirable things. . . . (p. 434)

"The military, economic and political power which Soviet Russia is developing in the face of the united opposition of the rest of the world is a sign of the passing of the destructive phase of the Lenine-Trotzky revolution, which may also mean the passing of Lenine and Trotzky themselves . . . .

"This rapid emergence of the Russian revolution from the destructive phase and its entrance into the constructive phase is a conspicuous expression of the constructive genius of Jewish discontent.

"What Jewish idealism and Jewish discontent have so powerfully contributed to accomplish in Russia, the same historic qualities of the Jewish mind and heart are tending to promote in other countries. It was natural that, under the stress of the political and economic torrent that swept away a firmly entrenched institution of oppression in Russia, discontent in other parts of the world should find expression in overemphasis of issues and overstatement of aims.

"Such an overshooting of the mark is inseparable from all great aims in their white heat. But, just as in Russia the first violent impulses of destruction have been succeeded in an incredibly short time by a systematic and eminently successful campaign of reconstruction, so in every country the Jewish movement to bring about a happier and more rational state of society is being modified to the requirements of actualities.

"In every country the same genius that first created Capitalism to meet a great racial and universal need and then revolted against its irresponsible excesses, is working to create a better state of society for its own benefit* and the greater happiness of all other peoples."**

There, then, is The American Hebrew magazine article which Father Coughlin was accused of distorting and misquoting. It was written in 1920, nearly three years following the Lenin-Communist Revolution in Russia. The author stated in proper tense

and mood that "what Jewish idealism and Jewish discontent have so powerfully contributed to accomplish in Russia, the same historic qualities of the Jewish mind and heart are tending to promote in other countries."

^**All quotations are from The American Hebrew magazine, September 10, 1920, Jews in World Reconstruction, by Svetozar Tonjorov, student of world movements; advocate of American unity, pp. 434, 507.

It is the reader's privilege to judge for himself. And it would be rash judgment were we to accuse the authors of the General Jewish Council booklet of deliberate falsification in this instance.

Consider the last paragraph in The American Hebrew quotation wherein we read:

"In every country the same genius that first created Capitalism to meet a great racial and universal need and then revolted against its irresponsible excesses is working to create a better state of society for its own benefit and the greater happiness of all other peoples."

Already Mr. Tonjorov claims that Jews created Capitalism; already he is cognizant that Democracy exists in America and elsewhere. Nevertheless, he says:

"In every country" (not exempting the United States) "the same genius that first created Capitalism . . . is working to create a better state of society for its own benefit and the greater happiness of all other peoples."

Definitely he states Jews created Capitalism; definitely he states that Jews desire to overthrow Capitalism; definitely he states that Jews wish to accomplish in other countries what they accomplished in Russia.

CHAPTER IX

KUHN, LOEB AND COMPANY; THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION AND INTERNATIONAL BANKING

In the fourth chapter of this book, as the reader recollects, the General Jewish Council booklet denied the authenticity of the American Official Services Report, which document specified at least one name of a member of the firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Company as having participated in financing the Russian Revolution.

In the seventh chapter, under the title, Did Jews Participate in the Birth of Bolshevism?, copious quotations from authoritative sources indicate that while there were two Russian Revolutions in the year 1917—one in the spring and one in the fall—the latter was but a complement to the former.

As the heading reads, this chapter will deal more specifically with matters related to the banking house of Kuhn, Loeb and Company and to their relations with the Russian Revolution.

Following the December 4, 1938 address of Father Coughlin, Mr. Elisha Walker, a member of Kuhn, Loeb and Company, and his traveling companion, Mr. John J. Gillespie, visited Father Coughlin at his home on the evening of December 9, 1938. These gentlemen were anxious, among other things, to discover if Father Coughlin had in his possession a certain copy of the New York Times from which he quoted the previous Sunday. The quotation referred to was a statement issued by their firm claiming that Kuhn, Loeb and Company never had any financial relations with any Russian Government. This statement was printed as such in an early edition of the New York Times on November 29, 1938.

Mr. Elisha Walker said that the New York Times had assured him that no edition of their paper on November 29, 1938 carried the story that was quoted in the broadcast of December 4, 1938.

Both Mr. Walker and Mr. Gillespie were surprised when Father Coughlin's secretaries produced the copy of the early edition of the New York Times of the same date and showed them that the Kuhn, Loeb and Company official release had been printed.

As now conceded by all, the Kuhn, Loeb and Company statement actually did appear in the early edition of the New York Times of November 29, 1938 and did not appear in the later edition of that paper for the same day.

Now the New York Times in its early edition (November 29, 1938) did print the following:

"Kuhn, Loeb & Co. in a statement last night said:

"'The firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. has never had any financial relations, or other relations, with any government in Russia, whether Czarist, Kerensky or Communist'."

The Kuhn, Loeb and Company statement continued to say that the late Jacob Schiff "had no relations with any fomenters of the Bolshevik uprising which destroyed the Kerensky government, being utterly out of sympathy with their methods and principles."

It is evident that Kuhn, Loeb and Company were greatly disturbed because Father Coughlin associated the name of that firm and the names of some of its members with the Russian Revolution.

If that fact were established it would tend to clarify the meaning of the words "international bankers." If that fact were successfully challenged it would not only harm Father Coughlin but would exonerate Kuhn, Loeb and Company.

On December 2, 1938 Kuhn, Loeb and Company sent intimidating telegrams to various radio stations denying that Kuhn, Loeb and Company helped to finance the Russian Revolution. The telegrams read as follows:

"We are informed that on November 20, 1938, you broad

cast an address by the Reverend Charles E. Coughlin of Royal Oak, Michigan, in which it was charged that the firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. helped to finance the Russian Revolution and Communism. We are also informed that on the following Sunday, November 27, 1938, you broadcast another address by the same speaker in which that charge was repeated. You are hereby notified that such charge is wholly untrue. Copies of statements issued by this firm and by the United States Secret Service which appeared in the newspapers on November 29 and November 30 have been forwarded to you by registered air mail. (Sgd.) Kuhn Loeb & Co."

The statement issued by Kuhn, Loeb and Company referred to in the above telegram reads as follows:

"We desire to comment on the allegations made by the Reverend Charles E. Coughlin, of Royal Oak, Michigan, in his recent radio broadcasts and publications to the effect that the firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. were among those who helped to finance the Communist Revolution in Russia. Although it is the established policy of this firm to refrain from public reply to misstatements, the fact that the misstatements in question constitute an attack upon the good name of the deceased partners of our firm requires a departure from such policy.

"The firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. has never had any financial or other relations with any Government in Russia, whether Czarist, Kerensky or Communist.

"The Kerensky Government, established upon the fall of the Czarist Government in 1917, was, during its existence, a military ally of the United States and received loans from the United States Government. The late Jacob H. Schiff, then senior partner in this firm, at one time offered, as an individual, to subscribe to a so-called Liberty Loan of the Kerensky Government but did not, in fact, subscribe to such loan. He had no relations with any fomenters of the Bolshevik uprising which destroyed the Kerensky Government, being utterly out of sympathy with their methods and principles.

"During the great famine in Russia in 1921 and 1922, the Congress of the United States appropriated large amounts for relief in Russia. These relief funds and contributions from private individuals were distributed in Russia by Mr. Herbert Hoover. The late Felix M. Warburg, then a partner in this firm, as well as thousands of other Americans of all creeds and shades of opinion, contributed liberally, as individuals, to such Russian relief funds, and to the establishment of farm settlements in Russia.

^"A letter was recently addressed by one of the members of

our firm to Father Coughlin, following the first appearance of these charges in his magazine, calling his attention to their falsity. Father Coughlin has nevertheless elected to disregard the facts and has repeated his misstatements in his two last broadcasts.

"The fact is that neither the firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. nor any of its partners, past or present, assisted in any way to finance any Communist Revolution or activity in Russia or anywhere else.

"November 28, 1938."

It will be observed that the last paragraph of this statement can not be substantiated by Kuhn, Loeb and Company in the face of evidence.

Once again we call the attention of our readers to the American Official Services Report, treated in a previous chapter.

Further important information exists to nullify the soundness of the Kuhn, Loeb and Company statement as contained in the early edition of the New York Times of November 29, 1938, to-wit, that "the firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co. has never had any financial relations, or other relations, with any government in Russia, whether Czarist, Kerensky or Communist," and that the late Jacob Schiff "had no relations with any fomenters of the Bolshevik uprising which destroyed the Kerensky government, being utterly out of sympathy with their methods and principles."

We proceed with our argument:

In a document published by the United States Department of State entitled: Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States—1917—Supplement 2—The World War—Volume 1, page 25, we read the following confirming evidence:

"File No. 763.72119/563a

"The Secretary of State to the Ambassador in Russia (Francis).
(Telegram)

Washington, April 16, 1917.

"1321. Please deliver following telegram:

"Miliukov, Petrograd (or Baron Gunzburg): American Jewry is alarmed by reports that certain elements are urging separate peace between Russia and Central powers. A separate peace may, in our opinion, lead to the ultimate restoration of an autocratic government and the degradation of the Russian Jews below even their former deplorable condition. We are confident Russian Jewry are ready for the greatest sacrifices in support of the present democratic government as the only hope for the future of Russia and all its people. American Jewry holds itself ready to cooperate with their Russian brethren in this great movement." Mar-

shall, Morgenthau, Schiff, Strauss, Rosenwald

"(If sent to Baron Gunzburg, add: May we ask you to submit this to your Government.)

Lansing."

Comment upon this startling document is almost unnecessary. Two names of the Kuhn, Loeb and Company firm—Schiff and Strauss—are mentioned in this telegram sent by the United States Secretary of State, Robert Lansing.

Granting that Mr. Schiff and Mr. Strauss are not the firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Company, we proceed with our argument:

According to the Jewish Communal Register, 1917 edition, edited and published by the Kehillah (Jewish Community) of New York City (p. 1019):

"Mr. Schiff has always used his wealth and his influence in the best interests of his people. He financed the enemies of autocratic Russia and used his financial influence to keep Russia from the money market of the United States."

The New York Times (March 24, 1917) described a protest meeting of Russian sympathizers in New York. In the meeting, a Mr. George Kennan, a recognized authority on Russian affairs and an agent of revolution in the Russo-Japanese war of 1905, referred to the fact that as early as 1905 the revolutionary movement was "financed by a New York banker you all know and love." An unidentified Mr. Parsons said that he would read a telegram from the New York banker to whom Mr. Kennan made reference. He read a telegram sent by Mr. Jacob Schiff, a director of the financial house of Kuhn, Loeb and Company, from White Sulphur Springs to the meeting in New York. The telegram reads as follows:

"Will you say for me to those present at tonight's meeting how deeply I regret my inability to celebrate with the Friends of Russian Freedom the actual reward of what we had hoped and striven for these long years! I do not for a moment feel that if the Russian people have under their present leaders shown such commendable moderation in this moment of crisis they will fail to give Russia proper government and a constitution which shall permanently assure to the Russian people the happiness and prosperity of which a financial autocracy has so long deprived them." (Sgd.) Jacob H. Schiff."

Mr. Kennan, speaking of Mr. Schiff's work for the Friends of Russian Freedom since 1905 when he engaged in distributing revolutionary material to Russian prisoners in Tokyo, said concerning the movement:

"The movement was financed by a New York banker you all know and love, and soon we received a ton and a half of Russian revolutionary propaganda. At the end of the war 50,000 Russian officers and men went back to their country ardent revolutionists. The Friends of Russian Freedom had sowed 50,000 seeds of liberty in 100 Russian regiments." (New York Times, March 24, 1917.)

In the following chapter, under the title of The Sisson Documents the subject of international bankers and the part they played in the Russian Revolution will be discussed further in a manner pertinent to the point in question.

The conclusion drawn from the evidence submitted in the above chapter nullifies the statement attributed to Kuhn, Loeb and Company, published in letters to certain radio stations and in the New York Times of November 29, 1938.

CHAPTER X

THE SISSON DOCUMENTS—AND INTERNATIONAL BANKERS

These papers, the authenticity of which, in part, was challenged by the General Jewish Council booklet, show, among other things, the international character of Jewish banking as related to Communism.

On page 20 of the General Jewish Council booklet under the caption of The Sisson Report we read:

"To fortify his argument Father Coughlin refers to 'another collection of documents known as The Sisson Report,' claiming that their authenticity is guaranteed....

"First let us point out a misstatement of Father Coughlin. There is no National Board for Historical Service of the United States. There was in 1918 a private organization called the National Board for Historical Service. The words 'of the United States' were inserted by Father Coughlin, making it sound as though he were referring to an official organization."

From this Sisson Report Father Coughlin quoted certain documents. Relative to the Sisson Report, and particularly to the documents referred to by Father Coughlin, the General Jewish Council booklet (p. 21) said:

"It will be noted that the committee found that the two documents referred to by Father Coughlin were of questionable authenticity. That this fact was known to Father Coughlin is suggested by the fact that he referred to the National Board for Historical Service. Nevertheless, he says that their 'authenticity is guaranteed.'"

Let us analyze this charge leveled against the Radio Priest by the authors of the General Jewish Council booklet. The analysis and the conclusions drawn therefrom will be evident from the following:

Edgar Sisson was the special representative of President Wilson in Russia during the Bolshevik Revolution. He wrote a personal chronicle of the Revolution in a book, entitled One Hundred Red Days—November 25, 1917-March 4, 1918. Moreover, he compiled a report entitled The German-Bolshevik Conspiracy while acting in his capacity as "Special Representative in Russia of the Committee on Public Information," in the winter of 1917-18. As is evident from even a casual reading of the book and the brochure which contains the report, Sisson, acting as the special representative of President Wilson, enjoyed intimate contact with the representatives of foreign powers and thereby acquired important documents bearing on the German-Bolshevik conspiracy. Unfortunately, the authors of the General Jewish Council booklet neglect to give their readers these pertinent facts.

In his address of December 4, 1938, Father Coughlin said:

"... Let me elaborate by referring to another collection of documents known as the Sisson Report. This latter collection of documents, whose authenticity is guaranteed by the National Board for Historical Service of the United States and is accepted by the United States Congress, is official."

The authors made capital of the fact that Father Coughlin called the investigation board the National Board for Historical Service of the United States, noting that the words "of the United States" were inserted by Father Coughlin.

Let it be said that Father Coughlin inserted these descriptive words to refer specifically to the Board and to distinguish it from other historical boards and historical associations functioning in other countries. It is true that the organization was a private historical investigation organization. But the fact that the Committee on Public Information submitted the documents to the investigators of this Board and that both the Committee and the United States Congress accepted the judgment of these investigators makes the documents official and the Board's decisions official, at least in this instance.

Father Coughlin quoted documents Nos. 57 and 64 of the Sisson Report saying that the Board had guaranteed their authenticity. To deny this statement, the authors of the General Jewish Council booklet quote the following words relative to the authenticity of these documents: "III. For the documents of our third group, apart from Nos. 56 and 58, we" (the Board) "have only the Russian mimeographed texts. The originals of nearly all of them would have been written in German. We have seen neither originals nor photographs, nor has Mr. Sisson, who rightly relegates these documents to an appendix and expresses less confidence in their evidential value than in that of his main series, Nos. 1 to 53. With such insufficient means of testing their genuineness as can be afforded by Russian translations, we can make no confident declaration."

Without accusing the authors of the General Jewish Council booklet of deliberate mutilation and intentional suppression of evidence in this instance, we now quote the remainder of the Board's testimony on the authenticity and genuineness of these same documents.

Thus, the following sentences constitute the remaining statements of the paragraph which the authors of the booklet quoted only partially:

"Thrown back on internal evidence alone, we can only say that we see in these texts nothing that positively excludes the notion of their being genuine, little in any of them that makes it doubtful, though guarantees of their having been accurately copied and accurately translated into Russian are obviously lacking." (German-Bolshevik Conspiracy, Report of the Special Committee on the Genuineness of the Documents, p. 30.)

Of course, it will be recognized that both internal evidence and external testimony are used to test the genuineness of historical documents. The one complements the other. Hence, although external testimony was lacking concerning these documents—a point which the authors of the General Jewish Council booklet emphasized—yet internal evidence indicated that the documents were genuine—a fact which the same authors overlooked.

Let us see what Mr. Sisson himself thought and wrote concerning these documents. He said:

"This appendix" (No. 1) "is of circulars of which (except in two cases noted) I have neither originals nor authenticated copies. A number of sets of them were put out in Russian text in Petrograd and in other parts of Russia in the winter (1917-18) by the opponents of the Bolsheviki. The circulars were declared to be copies of documents taken from the Counter-Espionage Bureau of the Kerensky Government, supplemented by some earlier material from the same bureau when it was under the Imperial Government. The opportunity for securing them could easily have been afforded to the agents and employees of the Bureau, for most

This was the first official portrait of the original leaders of the Communist Revolution of 1918. At top is Lenin, in center, founder of the Red Army, Leon Trotsky, (real name Bronstein), clockwise, A.V. Luncharsky, Jacob Sverdlov, President of the Central Committee, Lev Kamenev, (Rosenfeld), Commissar of Labor and Defense, Gregory Zinoviev, (Applebaum), Politburo Secretary.

All are Jews with the exception of Luncharsky! Stalin was left out because he did not play a major role in the revolution. Thus he later had this picture banned.

Jacob Schiff was born into financial circles in Frankfurt. Germany in 1847. He moved to New York and got a job with the Kuhn, Loeb Bank. At age 26 he married Solomon Loeb's daughter Theresa and soon took over the bank. He used its great wealth to finance Communism in both Russia and America. Schiff founded The American Jewish Committee.

Lazar M. Kaganovich, a Jew, was Stalin's No 2 man. He was head of all heavy industry. On July 14, 1941 Stalin married Kaganovich's sister Rosa after his first wife committed suicide. Later, on July 15, 1951 Stalin's daughter married Kaganovich's son. Mihail.

Max Warburg headed the M.M. Warburg Bank of Hamburg. Germany. His brothers Paul and Felix moved to New York. They married into the Kuhn, Loeb Bank. Felix married Jacob Schiff's daughter Frieda while Paul wed Nina Loeb. Paul Warburg was a founder of the Federal Reserve Bank and its first Vice-President in 1914. Max Warburg gave Lenin millions to overthrow the Czar of Russia.

L.P. Beria headed the Soviet Secret Police from 1938 - 1953. He was preceded by Nikolai Yezhov and G.G. Yagoda. All three were Jews. Along with Stalin, they are considered the worst mass murderers in all history.

1917-1918

פנקם הקהלה דנויארק רבתי תרע"ח

EDITED AND PUBLISHED

Kehillah (Jewish Community) of New York City
356 SECOND AVENUE
NEW YORK CITY

Schiff, Jacob Henry, was born in 1847, at Frankforton-the-Maine, Germany. He received his education in the
schools of Frankfort. In 1865 he came to America, where
he settled in New York City. Here, he joined the staff of
a ranking house. In 1873, he returned to Europe where
he made connections with some of the chief German banking
houses. Upon returning to the United States, he entered
the banking firm of Kuhn, Loeb and Company, New York,
of which he later became the head. His firm became the
financial reconstructors of the Union Pacific Railroad, and
since then is strongly interested in American railroads.
Mr. Schiff's principle of "community of interests" among
the chief railway combinations led to the formation of the
Northern Securities Company, thus suppressing ruinous
sompetition. The firm of Kuhn, Loeb & Co., floated the
large Japanese War Loans of 1904-5, thus making possible
the Japanese victory over Russis. Mr. Schiff is director of
numerous financial companies, among them the Central
Trust Company, Western Union Telegraph Company, the

Mr. Schiff has always used his wealth and his influence in the best interests of his people. He financed the enemies of autocratic Russia and used his financial influence to keep Russia from the money market of the United States. When last year, Mr. Schiff celebrated his seventieth birthday, all the factions of Jewry in the United States and elsewhere united in paying tribute to him.

The Jewish Communal Register, is reproduced above, page 1.018, edition of 1917 - 1918. This proves that Jewish banker, Jacob Schiff, used his great wealth to bring down the Christian Czar of Russia in order to pave the way for the Jewish-communist revolution. He financed Japan's war against Russia in 1904, kept Russia out of the U.S. money market, (obtaining loans) and financed the "enemies" of "autocratic Russia" - this means the Jewish revolutionaries! Trotsky was living in exile in New York in March 1917 when Jacob Schiff agreed to finance his return to Russia along with 267 Yiddish speaking Jews to begin the revolution. The New York Journal-American of Feb. 3, 1949 reported, "Today it is estimated, even by Jacob's grandson, John Schiff, that the old man sank about \$20 million for the final triumph of Bolshevism in Russian."

of the employees walked out when the Bolsheviki grasped the Government, and could have taken freely of the contents of their departments.

"Some of the documents were included in the publication made in Paris, hitherto referred to.

"I have not relied on them as proof, but they fit to other fabrics of proof, and in the light of it are more valuable for themselves than they were when they stood alone." (The German-Bolshevik Conspiracy. Appendixes to the Report, p. 26.)

The two documents which Father Coughlin quoted and to which the author of the General Jewish Council booklet referred were Nos. 57 and 64 in the Sisson Report. Let us inspect them:

"DOCUMENT NO. 57

"Circular, November 2, 1914.—From the Imperial Bank to the representative of the Nia-Banken and the agents of the Diskonto Gesellschaft and of the Deutsche-Bank:

"'At the present time there have been concluded conversations between the authorized agents of the Imperial Bank and the Russian revolutionaries, Messrs. Zinovieff (here and below version A has Zenzinoff) and Lunacharsky. Both the mentioned persons addressed themselves to several financial men, who for their part addressed themselves to our representatives. We are ready to support the agitation and propaganda projected by them in Russia on the (one) abso-

lute condition that the agitation and propaganda noted (planned) by the above-mentioned Messrs. Zinovieff and Lunacharsky will touch the active armies at the front. In case the agents of the Imperial Bank should address themselves to your banks we beg you to open them the necessary credit which will be covered completely as soon as you make demand on Berlin.—(Signed) Risser.'

"(Addition as part of document): Zinovieff and Lunacharsky got in touch with Imperial Bank of Germany through the bankers, D. Rubenstein, Max Warburg, and Parvus. Zinovieff addressed himself to Rubenstein and Lunacharsky through Altvater to Warburg, through whom he found support in Parvus."

Sisson noted:

"Lunacharsky is the present People's Commissioner of Education. Parvus and Warburg both figure in the Lenin and Trotsky documents. Parvus is an agent at Copenhagen (see 'New Europe,' January 31, 1918, pp. 94-95). Warburg is believed to have been lately in Petrograd." (pp. 26, 27)

"DOCUMENT NO. 64

"Stockholm, September 21, 1917. Mr. Raphael Scholan

(Schaumann), Haparanda.

"'Dear Comrade: The office of the banking house M. Warburg has opened in accordance with telegram from president of Rhenish-Westphalian Syndicate an account for the undertaking of Comrade Trotsky. The attorney (agent) purchased arms and has organized their transportation and delivery up to Luleo and Varde. Name to the office of Essen & Son in Luleo, receivers, and a person authorized to receive the money demanded by Comrade Trotsky.—J. Furstenberg."

Sisson noted:

"This is the first reference to Trotsky, and connects him with Banker Warburg and Furstenberg. Luleo and Varde are Swedish towns, the former near to Haparanda, which is on the border of Sweden and Finland." (p. 27)

There are many other documents contained in the Sisson Report which refer directly to and thus corroborate the matter discussed in the above documents. Let us submit a few of them:

Document No. 1 records that the People's Commissary for Foreign Affairs had removed from the dossier on the traitors Lenin, Zinovieff, Koslovsky, Kollontai and others the order of the German Imperial Bank No. 7433, March 2, 1917, for allowing money to Comrades Lenin, Zinovieff, Kameneff, Trotsky, Sumenson, Koslovsky and others for propaganda in Russia, and that the books of the Nia Banken containing the accounts of the above comrades which were opened by order of the German Imperial Bank, No. 2754 had been audited. Order 7433 of the German Imperial Bank noted that all representatives of German banks in Sweden should honor requisitions received through Finland emanating from Lenin, Zinovieff, Kameneff, Trotsky, Sumenson, Koslovsky, Kollontai, Sivers and Merkalin on the basis of the Order 2754 depositing money in private German businesses in Sweden, Norway and Switzerland. (p. 5)

Document No. 2 confirms the former. The German Staff Intelligence Bureau, writing to the chairman of the Council of People's Commissars, called attention to the fact that the originals of the above documents, Imperial Bank 2754 and 7433, were found in the possession of one Captain Konshin and bore the stamps of the Russian Okhrana (Intelligence Service). The adjutants of the German Intelligence Service even repeated the orders contained in these documents—a repetition which accords exactly with the originals above referred to as Document No. 1. (pp. 5-6)

It was not a mere coincidence that at the now historically notorious meeting held at Stockholm in 1916, plans were formulated for the betrayal of Russia by the former Russian Minister of the Interior, Protopopoff, and the German agents. In the meeting, the German Foreign Office and banking interests were represented by Mr. Warburg, whose two brothers were members of the American international banking house of Kuhn, Loeb and Company, of which the late Jacob Schiff was a senior member. Nor is it still another coincidence that in the later states of the Russian Revolution (see Sisson Documents) international finance was hard at work to break down Russia's last line of resistance to the Central Powers, international revolutionism and international finance.

Document No. 4. Communique from German Staff Intelligence Bureau to the Commissariat of Foreign Affairs notes that the Socialist Party ruling in Russia (January 17, 1918) was in communication with Messrs. Scheidemann and Parvus through Messrs. Furstenberg and Radek relative to business relations of the Communist Party of Russia with the Imperial Government. (pp. 7-8)

Document No. 8. Communication from German Imperial Bank dated January 8, 1918, to the Commissar of Foreign Affairs calls attention to the fact that the Reichsbank had deposited 50-million gold roubles in Stockholm for expenses in maintaining the Red Guards and increasing propaganda in Russia; because certain parts of Russia, notably South Russia and Siberia, were yet antagonistic to Germany. (p. 9)

Document No. 9. Communique from German Imperial Bank, January 12, 1918, to the Commissar of Foreign Affairs orders that 5-million gold roubles from the credit fund of the General Staff should be placed at the disposal of Assistant Naval Commissar Kudriashoff for agit-prop in the Far East particularly "in China to carry on an agitation against Japan." (p. 9)

Document No. 11. Imperial Bank No. 12378 is a resolution of a conference of the German commercial banks convened on proposal of the German delegation at Petrograd by the management of the Imperial Bank to discuss the resolutions of the Rhine-Westphalian Syndicate and Handelstag. These resolutions relate to a moratorium on Russian debts, purchase of Soviet securities by German banks, re-establishment of private foreign ownership of Russia's utilities, transportation and productive enterprises, outlawing of foreign capital, particularly English, French and American, for exploiting Russia's coal, oil and metals, transfer of two mining districts in Poland to Germany and an oil region in Galicia to Austria, grant of exclusive privilege to Germany and Austria of sending workmen and technicians into Russia, outlawing of all foreign workers and technicians for five years, agreement that German specialists control statistical departments of all productive and manufacturing enterprises in Russia, setting up of banks in Russia which will be dependent upon the will of

German and Austrian bankers, plan that all Russia's banking business will be transacted through the Deutsche Bank, treaty that all ports of Russia will be under the leadership of German specialists and provision that all tariff, shipping and railway rates will be computed on the basis of a Russian-German-Austrian trade pact. (pp. 9-10)

Authors such as Wickham Steed (Through Thirty Years, Vol. 2, p. 303) deduce from such evidence as the above "the prime movers in the Russian revolution were Jacob Schiff, Warburg and other financiers" who hoped to exploit Russia for their own purpose and began that exploitation when they persuaded the nations of the world to recognize Russia. Steed says that these Red financiers were "akin to if not identical with the men who sent Trotzky and some scores of associate desperadoes to Russia."

Document No. 37A provides that the Russian agents of agitprop who would be sent to Roumania for propaganda purposes should be "paid out of the cash of the 'German Naphtha-Industrial,' which has bought near Boreslav the business of the jointstock company of Fanto and Co." (p. 20)

Document No. 54. Circular from the Ministry of Finance dated February 18, 1914, directed to all German banks by agreement with the Austro-Hungarian government, the Oesterreichische-Kreditanstalt, informing the bankers that the Imperial Government orders all institutions of credit to establish themselves in Luleo, Haparanda and Varde on the frontier of Finland and in Bergen and Amsterdam. The Imperial Government ordered all of these institutions to make provisions "for very close and absolutely secret relations being established with Finnish and American banks." The government recommended "the Swedish Nia Banken in Stockholm, the banking office of Furstenberg, the commercial company, Waldemar Hansen, in Copenhagen, as concerns which are maintaining lively relations with Russia." (p. 26)

Document No. 61. To Mr. Kirch, representative of the Deutsche-Bank in Switzerland, a commission charging him with the management of an account for the support of Russian emigrés "desirous of conducting propaganda amongst Russian prisoners

Document No. 62. Cable from Copenhagen dated June 18, 1917, to Mr. Ruffner, Helsingfors, advises that 315,000 marks have been transferred from the account of Disconto-Gesellschaft to Mr. Lenin's account in Kronstadt as per order of the Syndicate. (p. 27)

Document No. 65. Cable from Svenson of Stockholm to Farsen, September 12, 1917, advises Farsen that according to his

order 207,000 marks "as per order of your Mr. Lenin" have been handed to persons designated in Farsen's letters. (p. 27)

Document No. 66. Cable from Furstenberg of Luleo dated October 2, 1917, to Mr. Antonov of Haparanda advises: "Comrade Trotsky's request has been carried out. From the account of the Syndicate and the Ministry (Original translator's note: probably Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Berlin press division) 400,000 kroners have been taken and remitted to Comrade Sonia, who will call on you with this letter and will hand you the said sum of money." (p. 28)

Document No. 67. Cable from Scheidemann of Berlin to Olberg advises, "By agreement with the persons known to you, 150,000 kroners are transferred to be at your disposal at Furstenberg's office, through Nia-Banken." (p. 28)

Document No. 68. A cable from Parvus (Israel Helphandt), German agent and bag man for the Bolsheviks, addressed to Mr. Mir of Stockholm dated July 14, 1917, advises that Mr. Mir will receive through Mr. I. Ruchvergen 180,000 marks. Of this sum Engineer Steinberg will transfer 140,000 marks to Lenin for expenses. The balance was earmarked for agit-prop work against Britain and France. Parvus notes that he received the letters of Malianik and Stocklov and promised to consider their contents. (p. 28)

We have emphasized the Sisson Documents because they establish the following facts:

• German bankers cooperated with the German General Staff in foisting Communism on Russia and received the reward for their subsidies in the future exploitation of Russia.
• (2) The Jewish-German bankers of the Bleichroeder-Mendelsohn-Oppenheim-Warburg group selected and subsidized for agents of Bolshevism many apostate Jew radicals.

And, most importantly, the Sisson Documents were accepted by the United States Congress because their authenticity had been guaranteed by history critics of the National Board for Historical Service. Mr. George Creel, chairman of the Committee on Public Information (which body published the Sisson Documents as War Information, Series No. 20, October, 1918), had turned over Mr. Sisson's documents to members of the National Board for Historical Service for their expert examination and judgment.

All these documents are submitted to show that complementary evidence exists to sustain the charge that Jews did participate in establishing Bolshevism. Moreover, these documents did not originate with Father Coughlin and are not "of questionable authenticity" as charged by the authors of the General Jewish Council booklet.

CHAPTER XI

SEMITISM AND ANTI-SEMITISM

Α

Counsel and Decrees of the Church Relating to Jews

On page 52 of the General Jewish Council booklet, under the title of The Catholic Stand Against Anti-Semitism, we read:

"It should be apparent to anyone who reads this memorandum that Father Coughlin is conducting an anti-semitic campaign. In so doing he is not only going against the great body of Catholic opinion, but is disobeying the admonitions of the Popes and violating the canons of his church. 'The Catholic Church,' said Pope Pius XI on September 25, 1928, 'habitually prays for the Jewish people who were the bearers of the divine revelation up to the time of Christ. Actuated by this love, the Apostolic See has protected this people against unjust oppression and just as every kind of envy and jealousy among the nations must be disapproved of, so in an especial manner must be that hatred which is generally termed anti-Semitism.'"

This is, purportedly, a quotation from the Decree Amici Israel, which will be printed in full in this chapter and, later on, criticized factually.

That Father Coughlin is conducting an anti-Semitic campaign is a serious charge, particularly when the General Jewish Council booklet endeavors to sustain it by "quoting" (?) words from Pope Pius XI (?) purportedly spoken on September 25, 1928 (?).

Be it definitely said that Father Coughlin is not an anti-Semite, understanding by that term that anti-Semitism is hatred of or opposition to Jews because they are Jews.

Now, to the point relative to the "quotation" employed in the General Jewish Council booklet as set down above:

In a Decree of the Holy Office dated March 25, 1928 (not September 25, 1928)—a Decree often misquoted as to purpose, intent, authorship and date—the Catholic Church gives valuable information and direction to her children regarding the two extremist groups of Jew-friends and Jew-haters. This Decree, issued by the Sacred Congregation, the official guardian of faith and morals, reminds us of the blindness of the Jewish people in having followed a false leadership for the past 2,000 years.

The Congregation of the Holy Office points out that the Jewish people were "at one time the chosen people of God." They were chosen originally, under God-given leadership, to be the "bearers of Divine Revelation." They were, says the Holy Office, "bearers of Divine Revelation up to the time of Jesus Christ."

Now it is the contention of Christianity, and particularly of the Catholic Church, that since the time of Jesus Christ the Jews are no longer the chosen people because they have refused to follow the leadership of Jesus Christ. Thus, the Church admonishes her children to pray for and to work for the conversion of the Jews, according to the Decree referred to, "in spite of, yes indeed on account of, their subsequent blindness."

The Jews, as a race, have rejected Jesus Christ Whom we accept as God and Who is the Leader of all peoples. By following another leadership, the Jews find themselves in difficulties everywhere. To any other person, or nation, or race, refusing to follow the leadership of Christ, the same observation can be made, namely that difficulties will beset them.*

Against the extreme Jew-lovers and Jew-haters who, perchance, overlook these and even more important facts, the Holy Office, thus speaks in its Decree of March 25, 1928—a Decree entitled Concerning the Abolition of the Association Popularly Known as "The Friends of Israel." It is well understood herein that the Church has condemned the methods of the extremist Friends of Israel as "abhorrent to the sense of the Church, to the mind of the Holy Fathers, and to the very Sacred Liturgy itself." But, on the other hand, the Church, in this same Decree, takes occasion to remind her children that she always has condemned that particular type of anti-Semitism which is "hatred of the Jewish people."

Without further comment we imprint below the English translation of the Decree frequently referred to as Amici Israel— The Friends of Israel—a Decree which the General Jewish Council booklet misquoted as to authorship, date of publication and purpose:

Commentarium Officiale
Annus XX—Volumen XX, F. 103
ACTA SS. CONGREGATIONUM
SUPREMA SACRA CONGREGATIO S. OFFICI

^*In this conjunction, may we urge our readers—including Jews—to open the Bible at the Book of Deuteronomy and read the twenty-eighth chapter wherein it is plainly stated in the inspired words of God that wonderful benedictions will descend upon the Jews if they remain faithful to the Revelations manifested to them by God, but astounding punishments will be suffered if they reject His leadership.

English Translation

DECREE

"Concerning the Abolition of the Association Popularly Known as 'The Friends of Israel.'

"Since there has been submitted to the judgment of this Supreme Congregation of the Holy Office the nature and purpose of the association known as the 'Friends of Israel', and the booklet entitled Pax Super Israel, published by the moderators of the organization and distributed far and wide in order that its nature and method might become publicly known, their Eminences, charged with the safeguarding of faith and morals, first of all recognized in it the praiseworthy plan of exhorting the faithful to pray to God and to work for the conversion of the Jews to the Kingdom of Christ. Nor is it surprising that, thinking only of this sole purpose, not only a number of the faithful and priests, but also not a few bishops and cardinals became members of it. For the Catholic Church has always been accustomed to pray for the Jewish people, who were the bearers of Divine Revelation up to the time of Jesus Christ; this despite, indeed on account of their

subsequent blindness.* Actuated by this love the Apostolic See has protected this people against unjust oppressions and, just as She has disapproved of every kind of envy and jealousy among nations, so in a special manner does She condemn that hatred against the people at one time chosen by God,* that hatred namely which nowadays is popularly signified as 'anti-Semitism.' Nevertheless, noting and considering that this association, 'Friends of Israel,' has adopted a manner of acting and speaking abhorrent to the sense of the Church, to the mind of the Holy Fathers and to the very Sacred Liturgy itself, their Eminences, through a vote of the consultors in a plenary session of the Congregation, held Wednesday, March 21, 1928, decreed the abolition of the Association, 'The Friends of Israel', and de facto* abolished it, and commanded that no one in the future should dare to write or publish books or pamphlets which in any way favor such incipient errors.

"On Thursday, the 22nd day of the same month and year, Pius XI in an audience granted the Assessor of the Holy Office, approved and commanded to be published the resolution of their Eminences.

"(Given at Rome 25th of March 1928. From the archives of the Holy Office.)"

Italics ours

^**N. B. The authors of the General Jewish Council booklet (p. 52) did not quote the above Decree in its entirety, thus conveying to the readers in erroneous meaning.

The reader will observe that Pius XI is not the author of this Decree as was stated by the General Jewish Council booklet. He will also observe the correct date of its publication and the purpose for its having been written.

B

*Following the factual identification of the above Decree, which the General Jewish Council booklet altered as to content, date and authorship, let us become more specific on this question of Semitism by quoting liberally from a pronouncement relative to this subject by Pope Benedict XIV (1740-1785).

Because it expresses the mind of at least one Pope, Benedict XIV, on the subject of Semitism, let there be recorded here his letter addressed to the primates, archbishops and bishops of Poland on the Jewish question. Its English translation comes to us from the pens of the Rev. Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp., and the Rev. S. Rigby. It reads as follows:

"Out of the many subjects of which We have just made mention there is none about which We feel We ought to complain except the last" (the Jewish question). "But concerning this point We are forced to cry out tearfully, 'The finest colour is changed.' (Lament. Jer. IV.I.) To put it briefly, from responsible persons whose testimony is worthy of credence and who are well acquainted with the state of affairs in Poland, and from people living in the Kingdom who out of zeal for religion, have forwarded their complaints to Us and to the Holy See, We have learned the following facts.

"The number of Jews has greatly increased there. Thus certain localities, towns and cities, which were formerly surrounded by splendid walls (the ruins thereof bear witness to the fact), and which were inhabited by a great number of Christians, as We learn from the old lists and registers still extant, are now in an ill-kept and filthy condition, peopled by a great number of Jews, and almost bereft of Christians. Besides, there is in the same Kingdom a certain number of parishes of which the Catholic population has diminished considerably. The consequence is that the revenue forth-coming from such parishes has dwindled so greatly that they are in imminent peril of being left without priests. Moreover, all the trade in articles in general use, such as liquors, and even wine, is also in the hands of Jews; they are allowed to have charge of the administration of the public funds; they have become the leaseholders of inns and farms and have acquired landed estates. In all these ways, they have acquired landlord rights over unfortunate Christian tillers of the soil, and not only do they use their power in a heartless and inhuman manner, imposing severe and painful labours upon Christians, compelling them to carry excessive burdens, but

in addition, they inflict corporal punishment, such as blows and wounds. Hence, these unhappy people are in the same state of subjection to a Jew, as slaves to the capricious authority of their master. It is true that, in inflicting punishment, the Jews are obliged to have recourse to a Christian official to whom this function is entrusted. But, since that official is forced to obey the commands of the Jewish master, lest he himself be deprived of his office, the tyrannical orders of the Jew must be carried out.

"The famous monk Radulphus was in former times carried away by excessive zeal and was so hostile to the Jews that, in the 12th century, he traversed France and Germany preaching against them as enemies of our holy religion, and ended by inciting the Christians to wipe them out completely. And so it came to pass that a great number of Jews were slaughtered. One wonders what that monk would do or say, if he were alive to-day and saw what is happening in Poland.

The great S. Bernard opposed the wild excesses of Radulphus' frenzy and in his 363rd letter, wrote to the clergy and people of Eastern France as follows:—

^"'The Jews must not be persecuted: they must not

be slaughtered or hunted like wild animals. See what the Scriptures say about them. I know what is prophesied about the Iews in the Psalm; 'The Lord,' says the Church, 'has revealed to me Il is will about my enemies: Do not kill them, lest my people become forgetful.' They are assuredly the living signs that recall to our minds the Passion of the Saviour. Moreover they have been dispersed all over the world, so that while paying the penalty of so great a crime, they may be witnesses to our Redemption.'

"Again in his 365th letter, addressed to Henry, Archbishop of Mayence, he writes:—

"Does not the Church triumph every day over the Iews in nobler fashion by bringing home to them their errors or converting them, than by slaughtering them! It is not in vain that the Universal Church has established all over the world the recitation of the prayer for the obstinately unbelieving Iews, that God may lift the veil from over their hearts, and lead them out of their darkness into the light of truth. For if she did not hope that they who do not believe may believe, it would seem to be foolish and purposeless to pray for them."

"Peter, Abbot of Cluny, wrote against Radulphus in a similar strain to Louis, King of the French. He exhorted the King not to allow the Jews to be slaughtered. Nevertheless, as is recorded in the Annals of the Venerable Cardinal Baronius under the year of Christ, 1146, he at the same time urged the king to take severe measures against them, on account of their excesses, in particular, to despoil them of the goods which they had taken from the Christians or amassed by usury, and to use the proceeds for the benefit and advantage of religion.

"As for Us, in this matter, as in all others, We follow the line of conduct adopted by Our Venerable Predecessors, the Roman Pontiffs. Alexander III" (1159-81) "forbade Christians, under severe penalties, to enter the service of Jews for any lengthy period or to become domestic servants in their households. 'They ought not,' he wrote, 'to serve Jews for pay in permanent fashion.' The same Pontiff explains the reason for this prohibition as follows: 'Our ways of life and those of Jews are utterly different, and Jews will easily pervert the souls of simple folk to their superstition and unbelief, if such folk are living in continual and intimate converse with them.' This quotation concerning the Jews may be found in the Decretal Ad haec.

"Innocent III" (1198-1216) "after having mentioned that Jews were being admitted by Christians into their cities, warned Christians that the mode and the conditions of admission should be such as to prevent the Jews from returning evil for good: 'When they are thus admitted out of pity into familiar intercourse with Christians, they repay their hosts,

as the proverb says, after the fashion of the rat hidden in the sack, or the snake in the bosom, or the burning brand in one's lap.' The same Pontiff says it is fitting for Jews to serve Christians, but not for Christians to serve Jews, and adds: 'The sons of the free-woman should not serve the sons of the bondwoman. On the contrary, the Jews, as servants rejected by that Savior Whose death they wickedly contrived, should recognise themselves, in fact and in deed, the servants of those whom the death of Christ has set free, even as it has rendered them bondmen.' These words may be read in the Decretal, Etsi Judaeos.

"In like manner, in another Decretal, Cum Sit Nimis, under the same heading, De Judaeis et Saracenis (On Jews and Saracens) he forbids public positions to be bestowed on Jews: 'We forbid the giving of public appointments to Jews because they profit by the opportunities thus afforded them to show themselves bitterly hostile to Christians.'

"In his turn, Innocent IV" (1243-54) "wrote to Saint Louis, King of the French, who was thinking of expelling the Jews from his domains, approving of the king's design, since the Jews did not observe the conditions laid down for them by the Apostolic See: 'We, who long with all Our heart for the salvation of souls, grant you full authority by these present letters to banish the above-mentioned Jews, either in your own person or through the agency of others, especially since, as We have been informed, they do not observe the regulations drawn up for them by this Holy See.' This text can be found in Raynaldus, under the year of

"Now, if any one should ask what is forbidden by the Apostolic See to Jews dwelling in the same towns as Christians, We answer that they are forbidden to do the very things they are allowed to do in the Kingdom of Poland, namely, all the things We have enumerated above. To be convinced of the truth of this statement, there is no need to consult a number of books. One has only to peruse the Section of the Decretals De Judacis et Saracenis (On Jews and Saracens) and read the constitutions of the Roman Pontiffs, Our Predecessors, Nicholas IV" (1288-94); "Paul IV" (1555-59); "Saint Pius V" (1566-72); "Gregory XIII" (1572-85); and Clement VIII" (1592-1605), "which are readily available, as they are to be found in the Bullarium Romanum. You, however, Venerable Brethren, do not need to take upon yourselves even that much reading in order to see clearly how matters stand. You have only to go through the Statutes and Regulations drawn up in the Synods of your predecessors, as they have been most careful to include in their Constitutions everything that the Roman Pontiffs have ordained and decreed concerning this matter.

"The kernel of the difficulty, however, lies in the fact that

the Synodal Decrees have either been forgotten or have not been carried out. It is incumbent upon you, therefore, Venerable Brethren, to restore them to their pristine vigour. The character of Your sacred office demands that you should zealously strive to have them enforced. It is meet and fitting, in this matter, to begin with the clergy, seeing that it is their duty to point out to others how to act rightly and to enlighten all men by their example. We are happy in the confidence that, by the mercy of God, the good example of the clergy will bring back the straying laity to the right road. All this you can enjoin and command with the more ease and assurance because, as We have learned from the reports of trustworthy and honourable men, you have not leased either your goods or your rights to Jews, and have avoided any dealings with them in lending or borrowing. You are thus, so We are given to understand, completely free from, and unembarrassed by, any business relations with them.

"This systematic mode of procedure prescribed by the sacred canons for exacting obedience from the refractory, in matters of great importance like the present, has always included the use of censures and the recommendation to add to the number of the reserved cases those which one foresees would be a proximate cause of danger or peril for religion. You are well aware that the Holy Council of Trent took every care to strengthen your authority, especially by recognising your right to reserve cases. The Council did not merely refrain from limiting your right exclusively to the reservation of public crimes, but went much further, and extended it to the reservation of acts described as more serious and detestable, so long as the said acts were not purely internal. On divers occasions, in various decrees and circular letters, the Congregations of Our August Capital have laid down and decided that under the heading of 'more serious and detestable offences' should be ranked those to which mankind is most prone, and which are detrimental to ecclesiastical discipline, or to the salvation of the souls entrusted to the pastoral care of the bishops. We have elaborated this point at some length in Our Treatise on the Diocesan Synod, Book V, Chapter V.

"We beg to assure you that every help that We can give shall be at your disposal to ensure success in this matter. In addition, to meet the difficulties that will inevitably present themselves, if you have to proceed against ecclesiastics exempt from your jurisdiction, We shall give to Our Venerable Brother, the Archbishop of Nicea, Our Nuncio in your country, suitable instructions on this point, so that you may be able to obtain from him the faculties required to deal with the cases that may arise. At the same time, We solemnly assure you that, when a favourable opportunity offers, we shall treat of this matter, with all the zeal and energy We can muster, with those by whose power and authority the

noble Kingdom of Poland can be cleansed of this foul stain. Do you, Venerable Brethren, first of all, beg with all the fervour of your soul, the help of God Who is the Author of all good. Implore His aid also, by earnest prayer, for Us and for this Apostolic See. Embracing you in all the fullness of charity, We very lovingly impart, both to you and to the flocks committed to your care, the Apostolic Benediction

"Given at Castel Gandolpho, 14th June, 1751, in the 11th year of Our Pontificate."

No comment is required upon this letter addressed officially by Benedict XIV to the Church in Poland. Surely Benedict and his predecessors, whom he quotes, were not anti-Semitic, although he recognized a Semitic question.

In our day we recollect the attempts made by the Jews, particularly through Zionist endeavors, to regain residence in Palestine.

As a result of the first World War the allied forces occupied the Holy Land. The British Government and others promised to re-establish Jewry in Palestine. Following the Treaty of Versailles, many thousands of Jews, resting upon the promises of the allied powers, moved to the Holy Land. Shortly afterwards, on June 13, 1921, Pope Benedict XV delivered an Allocution at a Consistory summoned for the creation of Cardinals in which he expressed the following thoughts pertinent to Jews in Palestine. Said he:

"Furthermore, when Christians again gained possession of the Holy Places by means of the Allied forces, We enthusiastically participated in the general joy of the faithful; but beneath this rejoicing there lay the fear, which We admitted to you in the same address, lest it would come about as a result of this fact, so excellent and delightful in itself, that the Jews would soon get the upper hand in Palestine and enjoy a certain superior right. The facts themselves show that this was not an empty fear. For it is apparent that the condition of Christians in the Holy Land not only is not any better but even worse than before, specifically, because of the new laws and institutions of the country, which—we do not say by the deliberate will of the authors but certainly in reality—tend toward causing the Christian name to fall from the position which it has always held up to now, to the advantage of the Jews. In addition to these things, we see a great effort being made by many to profane the Holy Places and to convert them into certain pleasure resorts, by importing thither worldly attractions and every kind of incitement to sensuality—which indeed can be approved of nowhere else, much less where there abound the solemn memorials of religion.

"However, since the status of Palestine has not yet been definitely established, we now declare that We desire that when the moment for settling the status of Palestine arrives, the rights of the Catholic Church and of all Christians be safeguarded and kept intact; indeed, as far as the rights of the Jewish race are concerned, We surely do not wish them to be decreased, but We also contend that the sacrosanct rights of Christians must by no means be jeopardized by them. In this matter, then, We urgently ask that the governments of Christian peoples, including the non-Catholic, do not refuse to take the proper stand in the League of Nations, to which is entrusted the power to deal with the English mandate of Palestine." (Actes de Benoit XV, Tome III, Oct. 1920-1921, 5 rue Bayard, Paris-8.)

To conclude this chapter may we quote the observations of the preeminent writer, Hilaire Belloc. In his book entitled The Jews, he says:

"It was the instinctive policy with the mass of the Jewish nation, a deliberate policy with most of its leaders, not only to use ridicule against Anti-Semitism but to label as 'Anti-Semitic' any discussion of the Jewish problem at all, or, for that matter, any information even on the Jewish problem. It was used to prevent, through ridicule, any statement of any fact with regard to the Jewish race save a few conventional compliments or a few conventional and harmless jests.

"If a man alluded to the presence of a Jewish financial power in any region—for instance, in India—he was an Anti-Semite. If he interested himself in the peculiar character of Jewish philosophical discussions, especially in matters concerning religion, he was an Anti-Semite. If the emigrations of the Jewish masses from country to country, the vast modern invasion of the United States, for instance (which has been organized and controlled like an army on the march) interested him as an historian, he could not speak of it under pain of being called an Anti-Semite. If he exposed a financial swindler who happened to be a Jew, he was an Anti-Semite. If he exposed a group of Parliamentarians taking money from the Jews, he was an Anti-Semite. If he did no more than call a Jew, a Jew, he was an Anti-Semite." (Belloc, The Jews, pp. 160-161.)

AN ANTI-SEMITIC OR AN ANTI-COMMUNIST CAMPAIGN?

On page 39 of the General Jewish Council booklet, under the title of Father Coughlin a Hero in Germany, we read:

"In view of this it is scarcely surprising that Father Coughlin's anti-semitic campaign and his use of Nazi methods have received wide acclaim through Germany...."

On numerous occasions, as recorded in his radio addresses, Father Coughlin has condemned Naziism, thereby establishing his record.

Sober minds do not reason that Father Coughlin is a Nazi agent or a Hitler hireling even though he has been praised by the Nazi press.

The Reverend Joseph Moody, Professor of History at Cathedral College, New York, accepted a scroll from the international Jewish Masonic Society, B'nai B'rith, in recognition of his outstanding work for Jewry. No one would conclude, we hope, that Dr. Moody, was, therefore, an international Jewish Mason with definite anti-Catholic and anti-Christian tendencies.

This error in reasoning by the authors of the General Jewish Council booklet may be best explained by William Zukerman who wrote in Harper's Magazine, (January, 1935, p. 210): "It is one of the minor tragedies of Jewish thinking that, by long and unfortunate association, criticism of the Jew and anti-Semitism have become inseparable in the Jewish mind."

Very definitely Father Coughlin has criticized some Jews, not as Jews, but in so far as they have advocated or practiced radicalism. For doing so it is illogical to call him an anti-Semite or a pro-Nazi.

An excellent example of priestly thought on this subject has been recently given by that great Catholic historian, the Reverend Francis Borgia Steck, O.F.M. Father Steck bluntly forbids world Jewry to try to pin the label of anti-Semite upon Father Coughlin.

Says Father Steck in a letter to Commonweal deploring the attack of Msgr. John A. Ryan against Father Coughlin:

"His broadcast of November 20th . . . was no more anti-Semitic than what Archbishop Mitty told us over the radio on November 16th, and what Msgr. Fulton Sheen said in his sermon at the recent Pan-American Mass here in Washington."

World Jewry (and its satellites) would do well to mark Father Steck's further observation: "Confusion," says he, "is apt to arise however in the minds of such as do not like to see Father Coughlin in this distinguished company. It adds so much to his words and makes his stand so strong."

Pertinent to this chapter, and serving as a generality for the specific paragraphs to follow, may we quote the Catholic World of July, 1937 (p. 457). We read the following under the title of The Church and Jevery:

In G. K.'s Weekly of February 4, 1937, we read the following:

"As for anyone who does not know that present revolutionary Bolshevist movement is Jewish in direction and especially Jewish in Russia, I can only say that he must be a man who is taken in by the suppressions of our deplorable press."

And again on August 13, 1936, in the same weekly, we read:

"Moscow has the enormous material advantage of vast funds, such as a despotism can levy at will from the labor of more than 50-million adult men and women working on its soil." (Allowing as productive of revenue one-third of the gross population.) "All the surplus value of that labour is available, and a very large part of it is actually used, for propaganda and supply in countries outside Russia.

"Moscow is only a symbolic word, but the reality beneath the symbol is now fairly familiar. It is a group of men wellorganized

"This group of men is cosmopolitan and largely Jewish, with the Jewish intensity of purpose . . . the Jewish ability to act in secret, the Jewish indifference to property and national ideals . . . and, above all, the Jewish tenacity . . . "

If Jews have been persistent in their opposition to Communism, why, then, did Pope Benedict XIV write as he did of them? Why did many Catholic Cardinals and Bishops throughout the world—particularly in Europe—while not affirming that Jews uphold Communism, definitely associate Jews with Communism?

There is a famous letter of 1921 written in Hungary by Bishop Ottocar Prohaszka. Bishop Prohaszka knew the terrors of the Communist revolution in Hungary directed by the Jew, Bela Kun (Cohn), who lately worked with Loyalists in Spain.

Says Bishop Prohaszka:

"Hungary wants to remain a Hungarian State. Neither England nor the United States is qualified to contest this right... We proclaim to the world that we cannot endure the indefinite Jewish usurpation and we shall get rid of it... We do not hate anybody, not even the Jews, but we love our people and our Fatherland first. We must safeguard our own existence first. France to the French, England to the English. Perfect. But to whom Hungary? To the Hungarians. She belongs to us and we shall not allow anybody to steal her from us, either by violence or by ruse... Let them accuse us of anti-Semitism, of reaction or of whatnot. We shall not be intimidated or duped by shameless subterfuge. We unmask and we denounce this so-called Liberalism that expels us from our own house to hand it over liberally to Jewry. This liberalism is only treason."

It is well to remember that these words of Bishop Prohaszka were uttered in the year 1921, long before the advent of Hitler

to power.

In Catholic Poland, Cardinal Hlond emphasizes the existence of a Jewish problem, in his Pastoral Letter of 1936, as follows:

"A Jewish question exists, and there will be one so long as the Jews remain Jews. It is an actual fact that the Jews fight against the Catholic Church. They are free-thinkers, and constitute the vanguard of Atheism, Bolshevism, and Revolution."

Father Coughlin's complaint is against the activities of such atheistic Jews. His appeal to religious-minded Jews seems to be but the echo of Catholic thought throughout various parts of the world. In fact, Cardinal Hlond seems to recommend steps never suggested by Father Coughlin. Says the Cardinal:

"One does well to prefer his own kind in commercial dealings and to avoid Jewish stores and Jewish stalls in the markets, but it is not permissible to demolish Jewish businesses. One should protect one's self against the evil influence of Jewish morals, and particularly boycott the Jewish press, and the Jewish demoralizing publications, but it is inadmissible to assault, hit or injure the Jews."

Cardinal Baudrillart, Rector of the Catholic Institute of Paris, discoursing recently on the Jewish activities in Catholic Spain spoke as follows on the occasion of his eulogy of the martyrs of the French Revolution:

"Personal sources allow me to affirm that at the beginning of the Spanish revolution, sixty Russian Jews crossed the Pyrenees to play the role of executive agents, to burn churches and convents, to pillage them, to profane sacred things and to instruct the Spaniards who would not have dared by themselves to put their hands on the objects of their age-old veneration."

With these words of His Eminence in mind, it is easy to understand the indictment of world Jewry which His Excellency, the Most Rev. Antonio Garcia, Bishop of Tuy, Spain, uttered in his striking Pastoral Letter.

Bishop Garcia had, of course, a most excellent opportunity of seeing the effects of these anti-Christian activities. He was one of the signatories of the Collective Letter of the Spanish Hierarchy issued July 1, 1937.

Bishop Garcia writes as follows:

"It is evident that the present conflict is one of the most terrible wars waged by Anti-Christ, that is, by Judaism, against the Catholic Church and against Christ. And at this crisis in the history of the world, Jewry uses two formidable armies; one secret, namely that of Freemasonry; the other, open and avowed, with hands dripping with blood, that of the Communists and all the other associated bodies, Anarchists, Anarcho-Syndicalists, Socialists, as well as the auxiliary forces, Rotary, and Leagues of Benefaction . . ." (Quoted from Rev. Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, p. 264, second ed.)

In view of such testimony it is ridiculous for the General Jewish Council to label Father Coughlin as a sinful anti-Semite because he has laid emphasis on the revolutionary activities of atheistic and anti-religious Jews. He, as were the ecclesiastics quoted above, was and is an opponent of Communism. Communism, not hatred for Jews, is the question of paramount concern.

It is significant to note that various rabbis throughout the world have condemned Communism. Also, it is a matter of record that the B'nai B'rith adopted a resolution at their National Convention in Washington, D. C. in 1938 abhorring Communism. The words of their resolution are in part as follows:

"The great masses of the Jewish people are faithful to the religious teachings of their fathers. Judaism is a part of their life. In it they find consolation and hope. They believe in its precepts and in its prophecies. Russian Communism has fought unremittingly against the religious faith of the Jew. A Communist who was a Jew is now an apostate. Communism would destroy religious faith. If Communism were to rule, it would destroy both Judaism and Christianity. There are some Communists who were born Jews, just as there are Communists who were born Protestants and Catholics, but it is unjust for this reason to accuse either one of these religious sects with the responsibility of Communism." (Father Coughlin—His "Facts" and Arguments, p. 43.)

Informed persons take exception to the statements made in the above quotation. First and foremost, the great masses of the Jewish people are not faithful to the religious teachings of their fathers. The great masses of Jews have abandoned their Mosaic religion.

Second, the B'nai B'rith statement confuses the public by using the word Jew in relation to religion only, whereas, in truth it is also used extensively in relation to race. When a Jew apostatizes from his religion, he does not cease to be a Jew racially.

At no time did Father Coughlin condemn religious Jews. Moreover, it is admitted that a religious Jew, faithful to the precepts of his ancient religion, cannot be a Communist.

The B'nai B'rith statement is juggling truth by expressing half-truths. No one is inveigled by the assertion that a racial Jew

ceases to be a racial Jew when he adopts the errors of Communism. (See Appendix X.)

In concluding this chapter, let it be re-stated that Father Coughlin invites religious Jews to cooperate with him in condemning irreligious Jews who have succumbed to the allurements of Communism. At least he was intelligent enough to recognize the dual meaning of the word, Jew—a meaning that can be taken either in a religious sense or a racial sense.

Therefore, we quote for the edification of Jews as racialists the timely remarks contained in a statement issued by James W. Gerard, former ambassador to Germany. They are these:

"As a friend of the Jewish people, I want to state that if the American nation ever gets the idea that the Jewish race and Communism are synonymous there is a possibility of a pogrom in the United States that will make those of the Czar's era in Russia look like a small parade." (New York Times, Oct. 8, 1934.)

CHAPTER XIII

WHY ARE JEWS PERSECUTED?

It is obvious that Father Coughlin's critics endeavored to single him out as the one great anti-Semite within the Catholic Church. Recollecting the letter addressed by Benedict XIV to the Polish Church; recollecting the statements incorporated in the previous chapter, it is evident that many high, informed and renowned ecclesiastics criticized Jews—and they were not anti-Semites; for their criticism was directed not against Jews as Jews but against Jews as radicals.

Father Coughlin recognizes that the addiction to Communism on the part of many Jews is a cause of their persecution. He pleads with the religious Jews, even at the cost of dissociating themselves completely from the radical members of their race, to condemn Communism and to use their vast influence in liquidating it.

While on this subject of why Jews are persecuted, let there be inserted at this point a portion of an article from The Sign magazine, a Catholic publication (April, 1938):

"Now, persecution is never right but it must be admitted that the Jews have at times offered some ground for the assaults which have been made on them. Since the outbreak of hostilities in Spain, the Jews of the world have shown a united front against Franco and Nationalist Spain and in favor of the Madrid-Valencia-Barcelona régime. They have used all the resources at their command through propaganda and material assistance to aid the cause of the Reds and to harm that of the Nationalists."

The article continues with these remarks:

"Generalissimo Franco appears at present to be well on his way towards bringing the whole of Spain under his control. When that is done we hope that he will be a good enough Christian to forget the hostility of World Jewry in his hour of need and will repress any attempted reprisals. If he fails in this, the Jews of the world should remember that it was they and not he who declared war." (See Appendix XI.)

Considering that Jews are a minority, not only in the world but in every nation in the world; and considering that almost without exception Jewish leaders supported the anti-Christian movement in Spain, did not their actions invite repercussions? Were not the enemies of General Franco definitely anti-Christian?

Did not the press, radio and silver screen, wherein the Jews hold such prominent and powerful positions, conceal the truth of the Spanish civil war and favor the cause of the anti-Christians? These are provocative questions and are pertinent to the heading of this chapter.

The Jewish Chronicle in its issue of April 4, 1919 published that:

"There is much in the fact of Bolshevism itself, in the fact that so many Jews are Bolsheviks, in the fact that the ideals of Bolshevism at many points are consonant with the finest ideals of Judaism...."

This and similar statements published by Jews partially answer the question: "Why are Jews persecuted?"

The Catholic press in many countries pointed out these facts long before Hitler became a world figure. For instance, in Italy, as far back as May, 1928, we have the following powerful testimony from that excellent Catholic Jesuit publication, Civilta Cattolica (May 19, 1928, p. 341):

"But coming to the topic to which the document invites us, to the Jewish peril that threatens the whole world by its pernicious infiltration and evil influences, especially among the Christian nations and more particularly among the Latin Catholics, where the blindness of the old liberalism has particularly favored the Jews, whilst it persecuted the Catholics, most particularly religious, this peril becomes every day more and more threatening. It is to the credit of our periodical—we may say this in all sincerity—that we have denounced this peril from its very beginning. We have denounced it,

furnishing documents, proofs and facts of the frequent and undeniable alliance with Masonry... or other sects and societies camouflaged as patriotic, but in reality fluctuating towards or tending in fact to the subversion... of the modern civil and religious society.

"Rejecting the propensity of those who wish to hold the Jews responsible for all the worst events afflicting the world, and Europe in particular, we have tried, as can be seen, for instance, in the question of Bolshevism, to show clearly in these pages how great has been the responsibility and the preponderance of the misguided generation of Jews in the Russian revolution, as well as already in the French, and in the more recent one in Hungary with all their concomitant destructions, cruelties and savage horrors. From the Russian revolution, the dissolution of the Russian Empire and the tyranny of Bolshevism which now threatens Europe, have resulted. This fact is admitted by all those who are best informed upon contemporaneous history.

"It is vain indeed that a Jewish revue, Univers Israelite, (August 8, 1925) has endeavored to prove that the Jews in Russia did not create Bolshevism but only Menshevism. Vain efforts indeed not only by reason of the weakness of the arguments, but also even if the claims were true, because it is certain that Menshevism was merely a step, a decisive step, towards Bolshevism, just as liberalism was a step towards Socialism and the latter towards Communism which led finally to the impiety and barbarity of the Bolshevik anarchy.

"To such extremity has the Jewish propaganda, in alliance with the Masonic and the Bolshevik led us. We cannot understand why it is protected by governments which pretend to oppose resolutely all such Masonic, liberalistic, Socialistic and Communistic propaganda. In less than a century this propaganda has led from complete toleration, or from a status rather of privilege than of simple liberty or equality which was conceded to the Jews, to their hegemony in many fields of public life especially in the economic and industrial field and in the domains of high finance, where they hold a dictatorial preponderancy which empowers them to make laws for States and governments, in matters concerning politics and finance without fear of a rival, as has happened during the great war.

"And in spite of this" (their small percentage of the total population), "they" (the Jews) "hold leading positions in the industries, in the banks, in diplomacy and even more so in the occult societies plotting their world hegemony.

"We hear that many statesmen, politicians, journalists and other writers complain about this state of affairs; and even more bitterly the industrialists and financiers. But not one of these, while placing the blame upon the Jews, considers how great is his own complicity and how terrible his own responsibility when all modern societies are in such a deplorable condition. It is they, who in conjunction with the sons of Judea, have prepared and unleashed the religious persecution against the Catholics and against the clergy; and also the anti-Christian strife which is the basis of the whole liberalistic and Masonic movement. Hence the alliance of liberalism and Judaism with Masonry that has finally given to the race and nation of the Jews such a great influence may indeed reach a great social preponderance for Jews in all domains of modern life especially in the economic field. This is a sadly humiliating subjection, but it is the result and the punishment of this false liberal patriotism and of its insincere Nationalism. It is evident that Italy has been compelled to subject herself in large measure to this pernicious influence because of her social, economic and political conditions just as other nations, especially the Latin nations, are also subject to it. But what is even more deplorable is that the people not only adapt themselves to it but that they also are pleased with it and show it favor, as for example, when this influence is favored by the so-called League of Nations."

Even before Herr Hitler became the German Fuehrer the Catholic press of Germany had much to say concerning the deplorable conditions, from the Christian standpoint, which existed in that country. The following extract from the internationally famous Catholic weekly Schönere Zukunft of November 13, 1932, is from the pen of Dr. Joseph Eberle and shows the Austro-German Catholic reaction against the Jewish control of German life. He says:

"To-day, Catholics are almost completely silent about the question of Judaism, though Jewish influence, not only in Russia, Hungary, Poland, France, England, America and Austria, but also in Germany, has attained a degree of power and might, altogether out of proportion to the number of Jews in the total populations of these countries. Three-fourths of the large banking concerns, at the head of which we must place the four big D-Banks—Deutsche Bank, Darmstädter Bank, Diskonto-Gesellschaft and Dresdener Bank—three-fourths of the big exchanges, including those of Berlin, Frankfort and Hamburg, three-fourths of the principal commercial enterprises, including those of Karstadt, Tietz and Werheim, three-fourths of the leading newspapers, of the publishing firms, of the telegraphic and advertising agencies, of the groups controlling theaters and cinema, are Jewish.

"In Austria, matters are still worse. Of course, there are still many non-Jewish, industrial magnates, but they are becoming more and more subservient to banks directed by Jews. There are certainly still to be found rich landed proprietors and wealthy financiers who are Christians, but so far as the direction of economic affairs is concerned, they are without influence, in comparison with Jewish financial magnates, such as Charles Fürstenberg, Dr. Solmssen, Mammroth, Bleichröder, Speyer-Ellissen, Sobernheim, Iandau, Arnhold, Dr. Solamonsohn, Eugen Gutman, Von Straus, Kempner, Freiherr von Oppenheim, Warburg, etc. There are still influential Catholic publishing firms, but even firms like those of Herder and Kösel-Pustet are much inferior to the Jewish publishing firms of Ullstein, Mosse, Cassirer, E. Goldschmidt, etc. There are certainly many non-Jewish writers, nevertheless we learn from statistics of the publishing business that, in Germany, foreign and Jewish authors are more widely read than German and Christian authors, so that Börries von Munchausen speaks of the passing of the German soul. It can be established also that the best known non-Jewish men of letters, as for example Gerhart Hauptmann and Sudermann, owe their literary success to their friendliness towards Judaism. Such are the intellectual and economic power and influence of Jews in Germany today. And yet Catholics in great measure keep silence about the matter. This silence is, in part, due to ignorance, especially in the provinces. But it is also due to an already existing dependence on Jews. Three-fourths of the

Christian newspapers would be reduced to two-thirds or even one-half of their present size, if they were compelled to give up the advertisements of Jewish shops and banks, and Jewish advertisements would not be forth-coming if the Jewish question were treated of."

Corroborating the above statement and, at the same time, clarifying it, the following is taken from Civilta Cattolica (an official Jesuit publication), October 1, 1938:

"We, like our predecessors, insist that one and the other" (justice and charity) "must be practiced and maintained towards the Jews, even though it may be a certainty that they will not practice these virtues towards us. Certainly, they have never practiced these virtues during past persecutions of the Church caused or promoted by them in cooperation with Masonry—which they have upheld too often—or with other subversive and anti-Christian parties existing from the era of the 'great' French Revolution down to our own day.

"But this has never led us and it will never lead us to pay them back in the same coin; but, nevertheless, we are inspired to put every obstacle in the way of their wrong doing and to protect others from their preponderant influence—and we do this for the commonweal, moral and religious, and especially for the protection of the Jews themselves.

"In 1890 our Review insisted on this last point—the discovery of a method to harmonize the presence of Jews with the rights of Christians. Such a method must regulate the presence and residence of Jews by laws designed to prevent the Jews from injuring the common welfare of Christians and to restrain Christians from injuring the welfare of the Jews. Consequently these laws are not odious and unfavorable but rather framed for the mutual advantage of Jew and Christian.

"Our predecessor of the preceding century thinks that the absolute civil equality which liberalism granted to the Jews, and which joined them to the movement of Masonry was not only not due to them, since they have no right to it, but it is also harmful to them and to the Christians. He was of the opinion that 'sooner or later by agreement or by coercion they will have to remake' what has been undone a hundred years ago in the ancient civil legislation out of love for innovations, for an apparent liberty and a false progress. 'And perhaps,' he added, 'the Jews themselves will be forced to ask that the legislation will be recast.' The reason for this prophecy is now apparent to us; because we see today that the preponderance to which the revolutionary legislation has raised them is digging an abyss beneath their feet—an abyss equal in its depth to the heights on which they find themselves.

"But above all, we have a very good reason to consider if all that our predecessor denounced in 1890 is not too true now and has not been confirmed by the experience of half a century, namely, 'that the equality given to the Jews by the anti-Christian sect, wherever it has usurped the government of the people, has created the effect of uniting Judaism with Masonry in the persecution of the Catholic Church and of exalting the Jewish race above the Christians in occult force and evident opulence'."

"Why are Jews persecuted?"

There is a theological reason. There is a social reason. There is an economic reason. And all these reasons were well known to Father Coughlin who invited the religious Jews to cooperate with him in cleansing America of Communism from whose unholy loins there sprang unholy Naziism with its resultant persecution.

Possibly, as the Radio Priest said in one of his addresses, it is more a question of Semitism in America than of anti-Semitism. And possibly, Semitism, which religious American Jews have permitted to be labeled as internationalism, to be identified with Communism, to be associated with usury, and to be wedded to untruthful propaganda—possibly within the orbit of that sphere one can find the reason for the persecution of the Jews. (See Appendices XI and XII.)

THE JEWS, THE PRESS, THE SPANISH CIVIL WAR—AND (SILENCE?)

For many months, and particularly since November 20, 1938, Father Coughlin has been attacked by a portion of the press of the nation. Why?

In attempting to answer this question, first of all, there are presented to our readers the following quotations:

The late Pius XI wrote as follows:

"A third powerful factor in the diffusion of Communism is the conspiracy of silence on the part of a large section of the non-Catholic press of the world. We say conspiracy, because it is impossible otherwise to explain how a press usually so eager to exploit even the little daily incidents of life has been able to remain silent for so long about the horrors perpetrated in Russia, in Mexico and even in a great part of Spain; and that it should have relatively so little to say concerning a world organization as vast as Russian Communism.

"This silence is due in part to short-sighted political policy and is favored by various occult forces which for a long time have been working for the overthrow of the Christian Social Order." (Encyclical Atheistic Communism.)

Archbishop John J. Mitty of San Francisco, participating in a Catholic broadcast designed to express sympathy for the persecuted Jews of Germany, said on November 16, 1938:

"As Catholics, we have a deep and immediate sympathy with the Jewish men and women who are being lashed by the cruelty of fierce persecution. They, for racial reasons, and we, for our religion, are writhing in Germany under the same intolerant power.

"We sympathize for another reason. For more than two years our fellow Catholics have suffered a parallel crucifixion in Spain and our sympathy for them has largely been in silence. The facts were plain. They are vouched for by the unanimous testimony of the venerable body of bishops in Spain. They witnessed and lived through the horrors which they related in their joint letter to the world.

"They told of the destruction of churches, convents, schools, hospitals, institutions of charity. They saw the flames and the smoking ruins. They saw the artistic and architectural treasures of centuries reduced to ashes by the mad fury of diabolical hatred. They saw thousands of their own priests, and innocent helpless nuns murdered or driven naked like hounded beasts through the streets by crazed

mobs, dead to decency and to the least tingle of human feeling. The government meanwhile connived or was incompetent and the fury went on.

"We in this country read very little of this monstrous story whose record was written month after month in human blood. Somebody muzzled the correspondents; somebody controlled the cables; somebody closed the columns of our press."

Hilaire Belloc wrote relevant to the press:

"One small but significant factor in the whole business of these 70's and early 80's—the beginning of the last quarter of the nineteenth century—was the rise to monopoly of the Jewish international news agents, among which Reuters was prominent, and the presence of Jews as international correspondents of the various great newspapers, the most prominent example being Opper, a Bohemian Jew, who concealed his origin under the false name of 'de Blowitz,' and for years acted as Paris correspondent for The Times, a paper in those days of international influence." (The Jews, p. 48.)

The conclusion one is apt to draw from the previous quotations is that the authors of this conspiracy of silence were Jews. They were naturally indifferent to the sufferings of Christians in Communist nations because atheistic and irreligious Jewish commissars, possibly, were endeavoring to establish Israel's world hegemony in international Sovietism.

The only obstacle to Jewish plans, so we are informed, was the Catholic Church. In an editorial of the Jewish Sentinel (November 26, 1920) this sentiment is expressed:

"Our only great historical enemy, our most dangerous enemy, is Rome in all its shapes and forms, and in all its ramifications. Wherever the sun of Rome begins to set, that of Jerusalem rises."

Many quotations from responsible and authoritative Jewish authors demonstrate that world Jewry favors Communism. The few individual denials which the General Jewish Council booklet has featured merely emphasize that official Jewry has not condemned Jewish Communists. During the civil war in Spain what representative body of Jews openly condemned the Loyalist-Communists? None! From the time of the second Russian Revolution in 1917 down to the present, what official, representative body of Jews excoriated Stalinism and condemned Communism? None!

Therefore, the reader must not permit his mind to be confused by the idle propaganda of the press and radio that such condemnation was ever uttered.

Now that the entire world knows that the Spanish war was a conflict between Christianity and Communism, between Chris-

tocracy and Satanocracy, what must be the conclusion arrived at by the citizens of the United States when the conspiracy of the press fortunately was disclosed?

No one disputes where the forces of Christianity stood in this contest. Pius XII in his telegram to General Franco said:

"We lift our heart unto the Lord in sincere gratitude for Your Excellency's desired victory for Catholic Spain. . ." (Spain, May 15, 1939, p. 21.)

On April 16, 1939 the Holy Father, in a speech broadcast to the Spanish nation, said:

"The nation chosen by God to be the principal instrument for the evangelization of the New World and an impregnable bulwark of the Catholic Faith, has just given to the proselytizers of the materialistic Atheism of our age the highest proof that the eternal values of religion and of the spirit stand above all things."

His glorious predecessor, Pius XI also wrote:

"The fury of Communism has not confined itself to the indiscriminate slaughter of bishops, of thousands of priests and religious of both sexes; it searches out above all those who have been devoting their lives to the welfare of the working classes and the poor. But the majority of its victims have been laymen of all conditions and classes. Even up to the present moment, masses of them are slain almost daily for no other offense than the fact that they are good Christians or at least opposed to atheistic Communism. And this fearful destruction has been carried out with a hatred and a savage barbarity one would not have believed possible in our age." (On Atheistic Communism.)

In 1937, Msgr. Garcia, Bishop of Tuy, Spain, declared:

"It is evident that the present conflict is one of the most terrible wars waged by Anti-Christ, that is, by Judaism, against the Catholic Church and against Christ." (The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, Rev. Denis Fahey, p. 264.)

Very Reverend Martin Gillet, Master General of the Order of Preachers, declared:

"We desire the complete triumph of the creators of this great Christian epic, written with the blood of so many martyrs, among whom figure already more than 100 Dominicans, our brothers, headed by our holy predecessor, the Most Reverend ex-General Fr. Buenaventura G. Paredes." (London Catholic Times, October 21, 1938.)

Dr. Alexander Hamilton, founder of the School of Geography at Harvard University, said after his return from Spain in 1938, that the Spanish conflict was a battle between Christianity and atheism and that Fascism had no part in the struggle.

"The Spanish Nationalist was and is a holy war and the holiest war in history," says Father Menendez-Reigada, O.P., of Salamanca University.

Indeed, it has been evident that international Jewry has favored the Communist-Loyalists of Spain. As is well known, the Comintern dispatched Jewish Communists over the Pyrenees to Spain to act as agents of agit-prop under the direction of Moise Rosenberg, Heinz Neumann and Bela Kun—the men who, above all others, were responsible for the revolution. (See testimony of Cardinal Baudrillart.)

Reverend Joseph F. Thorning, Ph.D., described the pro-Communist attitude of many Jews in London. (The Sign, April, 1938.)

At the thirty-seventh annual convention of the Rabbinical Assembly of America, presided over by Dr. Cyrus Adler, 200 rabbis adopted the following resolution:

"The conflict in Spain between the accredited legally elected government and the Fascist Rebels is of signal importance as foreshadowing the world struggle between democracy and the forces of oppression. We are particularly heartened by the active support given by large sections of the clergy, particularly in the Basque country, to the Loyalist government, which had made democracy and social progress its watchwords." (New York Times, June 8, 1937.)

The June, 1933 issue of B'nai B'rith praised Inacio Bauer, president of the Kehillah of Madrid, and bemoaned the fact that "Spaniards everywhere still spoke of the Jew as though he were ... a cancer in Spain."

At a memorial meeting held in honor of the young Jew, Samuel Levinger, killed in action in Spain fighting for the Loyalists, a collection was taken up "to buy an ambulance for the Spanish Loyalists in memory of 'those heroic American Jews who gave up their lives in Spain in the struggle against international Fascism'." (See B'nai B'rith, March, 1938, p. 234.)

Jewish Life, published by the New York State Jewish Buro, Communist Party, in an article entitled Jewish Fighters in Spain. says:

"Jews from practically every corner of the earth are fighting in the Loyalist trenches of Spain today . . . The American boys who came back were most impressed by the broad distribution of Jews in practically every International Brigade. . . " (January, 1938, p. 16.)

The same article, boasting that more than half of the Americans in one battalion were Jewish and that Yiddish was the common language, announced: "We are beginning to publish a bulletin of

the International Brigade in the Yiddish language."

"Condemnation of Fascist forces in Spain and an expression of direct sympathy with the cause of the Loyalists was expressed here today by the Central Conference of American Rabbis in a resolution adopted just before the adjournment of their annual meeting. 'This Spanish revolt is the crisis of world fascism at the present moment', the resolution stated. 'The victory of the fascist forces in that country would be a menace to the cause of democratic government and to the peace of the world'." (Central Conference of American Rabbis held in Columbus, Ohio, May 30, 1937 as reported in the New York Times of May 31, 1937.)

The New York Jewish daily, The Day, May 11, 1937, quotes the following with approval:

"The Social Justice Committee of the Rabbinical Assembly" (largest rabbinical organization in America) "favors the general tendency of the recently adopted social legislation, and in particular approves the scope of the T.V.A.... It endorses the President's plan for the reorganization of the Supreme Court... It sends its heartiest best wishes to the Spanish Loyalist Government..."

When a committee was organized in the United States to keep the Spanish Embargo and thereby prevent the shipment of arms to the Communists in Spain during the days of the Spanish Civil War, 125 Catholics and non-Catholics joined the said committee. Maurice Bisgyer, national secretary of B'nai B'rith, also joined this committee at the outset. A short time thereafter, however, he ordered his name to be stricken from the list of the committee organized by the National Council of Catholic Men.

The Russian-Born Jew, David Dubinsky, collected money from the I.L.G.W.U., a preponderantly Jewish labor union, at the very outset of the war for the support of the Spanish Loyalists. Mr. Dubinsky also pictured a time when the entire labor movement of the world would be united. He praised "those who have been fighting not only for Spain but for the labor movement of the entire world against Facism. . . . The progressive labor movement here prays that the Loyalists will be victorious."

At the National Unity Convention of the Jewish People's Committee for United Action Against Fascism and Anti-Semitism, Representative William I. Sirovich of New York, a Jew, asserted that "the fate of democracy for the next hundred years" would be decided at Madrid. (New York Times, March 14, 1938.)

Borough President Stanley M. Isaacs attacked the Neutrality Act at a rally of about 20,000 Loyalist sympathizers held in Madison Square Garden. He said: "To shame this country of ours by its departure from historic American principles and by the hasty adoption of an unsound neutrality program has helped to undermine democracy in Spain." (New York Sun, June 10, 1938.)

The fall of Barcelona and the surrender of Madrid destroyed the hope of world Jewry in making Spain a Judaca Secunda and in wiping out in blood the insult of the nation's expulsion of the Jews and the Spanish Catholics' inquisition of Jewish converts.

The Reverend Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp., notes in his authoritative work, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World (p. 326):

"By a communication of the Kipa (Catholic) Agency we are informed that a Jewish leader named Rubenstein, returning to the United States after having interviewed the Jewish Vice-president of the Spanish senate, A. Pulido, about the outlook of the Jews in republican Spain, declared that 'the Jews can look with confidence on Spain as a land of new hopes and bright prospects'."

In years to come the same press that distorted the real news of the depression; the same press that stooped to publish the British propaganda which inveigled us into the World War; the same press that, either wittingly or unwittingly, perverted the news of the Spanish civil war—that same press will be recognized as responsible for publishing defamation upon defamation to discredit Father Coughlin who, through circumstances not of his own making, was the chief enemy of Communism and its fellow travelers in America, and recognized as such by Jews.

CHAPTER XV

WHAT NON-NAZIS SAY OF THE JEWISH SHARE IN MID-EUROPEAN COMMUNISM

The authors of the General Jewish Council booklet (p. 39) maintained that Father Coughlin attempted to place the total responsibility for Communism in Germany upon Jews. Said they:

"There is a striking resemblance between the Hitler and the Coughlin attempts to fasten responsibility for Communism upon the Jews in complete disregard of the actual facts. An examination of the facts reveals that the Jews actually played an insignificant part in German Communism . . .

"The leaders of Communism in Germany-Thaelmann and Torgler-were both Gentiles.

"In spite of this conclusive evidence, Hitler persists today in repeating that he rescued Germany from 'Jewish Communism.' And Father Coughlin, relying for his 'facts' upon Nazi propaganda, continues to broadcast the same fiction throughout the United States."

Had Father Coughlin attempted to do this, he would have erred. No one, however, can point out with definite text and context where this alleged attempt was made by the Radio Priest.

A

As for the assertion that Thaelmann and Torgler, the Gentiles, were the leaders of Communism in Germany, history records a different fact. For example, Prof. Simon Dubnow, a foremost Jewish historian, in his Theodor Herzl—A Memorial (World Jewry Since 1914, published by The New Palestine, p. 286) says:

"Shortly after this" (Communist Revolution in Russia) "the Communists in Bavaria seized the government and proclaimed a Soviet Republic which, however, lasted only one month, from the beginning of April to the beginning of May. Here too a few tragic Jewish figures flit across the screen of the revolution . . .

"Then there was Eugene Levine, another Jewish participant in the Communist upheaval in Bavaria. As a youth he had been involved in the Russian Revolution of 1905. During the World War he had been an active pacifist propagandist. He was arrested with other leading Munich Communists and sentenced to be shot by the military tribunal on June 4th."

To corroborate this statement, which we selected from an admittedly Jewish source, we submit more specific proofs. The French newspaper VU, directed by the Jew, Lucien Vogel, published a special edition in April, 1932, dedicated to Germany. In it we read:

"The Revolution of 1918 (Kurt Eisner, Karl Liebnecht, Rosa Luxemburg, Hugo Haase) marked the public triumph of socialistic politics . . .

"Like the second internationale (program of Linz, of Otto Bauer) the soviet movement (Eisner, Ernst Toller, Radek and Landauer) and later the new Constitution of Weimar (Hugo Preuss) are equally the work of Jews...

"We have seen how the Revolution of 1918 realized in some manner, the emancipation of the Jews. Led by Israelites, it marked also the triumph of Judaism: before that time, the Jews exercised scarcely any activity in the affairs of bankers. After 1918, they possessed all, even in the sphere of government, in the zones of influence and of power."

In the Communist Revolution in Bavaria in 1919 we find the following leaders (list from La Mysterieuse Internationale Juive

by Leon de Poncins

The leaders of the Communist Revolution in Hamburg* were the following:

The last two names were of men who were members of the Russian Commercial Mission in Hamburg.

In the book, Communism in Germany (Ehrt, p. 20) we read:

"It is worth noting that the agitation for a rising in Hamburg in 1923 was conducted under the same slogan of 'anti-Facism' as in 1932 and 1933. Russian Jews were again the leading persons concerned in the preparation of the rising. On this occasion there were Sobelsohn, alias Karl Radek, and Otto Marquardt, member of the Soviet Commercial Mission in Hamburg."

The leaders of the Spartacus League, from which the revolution took its name, "Spartacist Uprising," were, among others:

The last two were shot by the soldiers of General Noske.

Leon de Poncins in his book La Mysterieuse Internationale Juive, informs us that nothing is more characteristic than the fact that after the Revolution of 1918, almost all the leaders of Socialism and Bolshevism were Jews. The Jew, Kurt Eisner, boasted that he and ten other Jews had made the revolution: Lowenberg, Rosenfeld, Wollheim, Rothschild, Arnold, Kranold, Rosenhek, Birenbaum, Reis and Kaiser.

The Jew, Joffe, who represented the Soviet Government in Berlin, together with Russian Cheka member, Gorev-Skoblewsky, admitted publicly in 1918 that he had given money to Hugo Haase for propaganda purposes and 10-million rubles were given to

^*Communism in Germany, Adolf Ehrt, p. 19.

Oscar Kohn to foster the revolution in Germany. (La Mysterieuse Internationale Juive, Chapter entitled Les Juifs Dans Le Mouvement Révolutionnaire Allemand De 1918 A 1933.)

In Hungary the two principal leaders and terrorists of the Communist Revolution were Jews, Bela Kun and Szamuelly. Most of the commissars were Jewish; while the five members of the Directing Committee were all Jews, to wit:

B

In Hungary several Jews of the Russian Bolshevist type appeared. Bela Kun, who formerly had been Minister of Foreign Affairs, created trouble in his fatherland during the five months of Soviet government in Hungary—from March through July, 1919. He then fled to Russia and received a responsible appointment in the Crimea; and there he became known as one of the most brutal exterminators of the bourgeoisic.

The Encyclopedia Brittanica, XIII-fourteenth edition-says:

"Kun commenced a 'Red Terror' against his enemies in Hungary, and again attacked the Roumanians, but they easily drove his forces back, and he fled to Vienna on August 1, 1919. Here he was interned in the local lunatic asylum, but after an attempt had been made to murder him by means of poisoned Easter eggs (which, being a Jew, he did not eat), he was allowed to go to Russia. Here he played an obscure but apparently important part, and was believed to visit central Europe periodically."

And to testify further to the part played by Jews in the Communist uprising in Hungary we quote Prof. Simon Dubnow who, in his Theodor Herzl—A Memorial, (pp. 286-287) published by The New Palestine, says:

"During the years that followed the Hungarian Jews paid heavily for the part played by Kun and several other Jewish madmen in the Communist Revolution. Hundreds of Hungarian Jews fell victims to the reactionary terror that raged under the dictatorship of General Horthy."

The authors of the General Jewish Council booklet, page 35, in tracing out the similarities between Dr. Goebbels' speech and an article appearing in Social Justice on December 5, 1938, note with a certain amount of exuberance that Father Coughlin "seems to have improved a thousandfold upon Goebbels' figures" (regarding the number of Hungarians put to death by Bela Kun). Actually, Dr. Goebbels said: "In Budapest 20 hostages were murdered," whereas Father Coughlin said: "In 1919 Hungary, a neighbor to

Germany, was overrun with Communists. The notorious atheist, Bela Kun, a Jew whose real name was Aaron Cohn, murdered 20,000." Dr. Goebbels was talking about a specific incident—the murder of hostages in Budapest—whereas Father Coughlin was talking about the entire Communist Revolution of 1919.

A study of such books as A Voros Uralom Aldozatai Magyarorszagon will indicate that Father Coughlin was correct in his statement.

The above-mentioned book (English translation), Victims of the Red Régime in Hungary, written by Dr. Albert Vary, assistant attorney to the Crown, is a transcript of official reports and trials conducted during the Soviet régime. It shows that during the 133 days of Bela Kun's reign over Hungary, eight out of ten of the real rulers of Hungary were Jews, while 31 out of 45 commissars were Jews.

An official document published by the first Communist cabinet in Hungary in the Budapesti Kozlony, March 24, 1919, indicates the following, namely, that the Jews were in entire control in various commissaries and departments in the Hungarian Government. Contemporary literature, especially newspapers, bear out the fact that more than 20,000 people were killed in the Kun uprising, or purge, during the 133 days of Bela Kun's dictatorship.

On page 374 of the hearings before a special committee on un-American activities in the House of Representatives an authoritative witness testified:

"Killed in revolutions and counter-revolutions in Hungary during and after the Bela Kun Soviet government periods, 700,000." (Walter S. Steele, Investigation of Un-American Propaganda Activities in the U. S.)

Father Coughlin had no need to improve upon Dr. Goebbels, or, for that matter, even to consult him when he had at hand authentic documents, some of them official reports of this Hungarian Government.

C

As for Spain, history records that Möise Rosenberg, Heinz Neumann, and Bela Kun were the active agents of the Comintern in imposing Sovietism on that unhappy country and in the Loyalist-Nationalist struggle which followed with the murder of over a million Christians in a civil war.

If the authors of the General Jewish Council booklet were writing the historical facts which Dr. Goebbels and Father Coughlin wrote, how would they write them? If they set out to write facts as facts they would have to write them in essentially the same way. Hence we could say that they relied upon Dr. Goebbels and Father Coughlin for their information, if we acted on the same illogical

principle which the authors of the General Jewish Council booklet

employ.

The important question is: Are the facts narrated by Dr. Goebbels and Father Coughlin true? They are. We observe that the authors of the General Jewish Council booklet did not try to disprove them. Evidently, by their silence, the authors of the booklet admit that the facts are undeniable; even though the same authors would try to create the impression that the facts were the Reich Minister's fancies doled out as facts by Father Coughlin.

Having quoted a few of the many authors who have given testimony to support Father Coughlin's contentions, may we invite students to pursue this subject further by reading the follow-

ing authoritative works:

Communism in Germany, Ehrt, 1932, called also Revolte Armee (1933); La Revolution Allemande, Paris, Plon, 1933, E. O. Volkmann; Bolschevismus and Judentum, Berlin, 1934, Herman Fehst; La Livre Proscript, Paris, Plon, Cecile Tormay, 1925; Germany's Fight for Western Civilization, Berlin, 1934, Edward O. Jamnrowski; Bilder Aus Dem Kommunistischen Ungarn, Dr. Hans Eisele, 1920.

The findings of these students, most of whom lived through the attempts of the Communists to capture Germany, Hungary and Spain, are considered to be reliable.

CHAPTER XVI

IN CONCLUSION

It would be a difficult task to list the names of persons and organizations cooperating in accusing Father Coughlin of being an anti-Semite, a pro-Nazi, a falsifier of documents and a priest in bad standing.

It has been impossible to list in An Answer to Father Coughlin's Critics the identity of the hundreds of periodicals, pamphlets and leaflets circulated to spread these charges.

It is sufficient to recognize them as rivulets flowing from the fountainhead of the General Jewish Council's booklet and the Jewish People's Committee.

In treating, factually and objectively, with the General Jewish Council's booklet which was mailed extensively throughout America, we believe we have contributed a service to the cause of truth and justice.

Moreover, we have made an effort to avoid stinging personalities. Likewise, we have made an effort to refrain from praising Father Coughlin because such a technique weakens rather than strengthens a polemic argument.

The second chapter of An Answer to Father Coughlin's Critics dealt specifically with the Jewish People's Committee. Therein it was necessary to mention the names of the officers of that organization. Therein was incorporated the question: "Is arson being committed in the north end of town while a false alarm is being sounded in the south end?" Therein it was stated that Welwel Warszower, alias William Weiner, Robert William Weiner, etc., was the third officer in command of the Communist Party in America and that he was under indictment for fraudulently securing a passport.

Since that chapter was written Welwel Warszower, alias William Weiner, chieftain of the Jewish People's Committee, was found guilty and sentenced.

The New York Herald Tribune, in its February 9, 1940 issue, published the following news item relative to Weiner's trial. It reads, in part, as follows:

"Welwel Warszower, national treasurer of the Communist party in the United States, went on trial yesterday in United States District Court before a jury of one woman and eleven men and Judge John C. Knox on charges that he obtained a passport fraudulently, the same charge on which Earl R. Browder, general secretary of the Communist party, was convicted on January 22nd.

"Warszower, who has long been known as Robert William Wiener to members of the Communist party here, was indicted on December 4, by the same grand jury which has indicted three other prominent Communists in an investigation into the activities of an alleged Communist passport mill. It was charged that Warszower, on July 31, 1936, obtained a passport by making four false statements."

Observe that neither The New York Herald Tribune nor any other daily paper, to our knowledge, referred to this criminal as the head of the Jewish People's Committee—the organization that was responsible for originating the complaints against Father Coughlin to the United States Department of Justice.

That omission is most significant. "Is arson being committed in the north end of town while a false alarm is being sounded in the south end?"

Why did not the press of the nation publicize Weiner's connection with the Jewish People's Committee, the organization, with the General Jewish Council, responsible for launching a campaign to discredit Father Coughlin? It is opportune to state in these concluding pages that a large portion of the American press sought to associate Father Coughlin's name with the arrest of 17 men designated by the Department of Justice as members of "The Action Committee." This portion of the press persisted in identifying these 17 prisoners as members of The Christian Front and intimated that Father Coughlin was the sponsor of that organization.

Almost coincidentally, criminal charges against Father Coughlin were registered with the United States Department of Justice by the Jewish People's Committee. This news also received national front-page publicity.

Meanwhile, both in editorial and in news article, the members of the so-called Christian Front and Father Coughlin were tried in the court of the public press and, for all practical purposes, were found guilty by the jury of public opinion.

One suspects that this molding of public opinion was the object that the Jewish People's Committee had in mind; and one suspects that they knew beforehand how to secure publicity for their charges.

In conjunction with this, it is appropriate to remind the reader that on February 6, 1940, 16 persons were arrested in the City of Detroit, Michigan for having aided in recruiting volunteers to serve in the Loyalist-Communist army in Spain. Incidentally, many of these 16 persons were Jews.

To the surprise of all, the charges brought against these 16 workers for the Loyalist-Communist cause in Spain were dropped by order of Attorney General Jackson. He based his decision upon the fact that if he should pursue the charges against these 16, it would be necessary for him and his department to go back as far as "the Italo-Ethiopian and the Sino-Japanese conflicts," and institute proceedings against those who had aided in obtaining recruits for the participants therein.

Here below is printed a letter appearing in The Tablet, February 24, 1940, and signed by Anne Martin. This letter comments clearly upon this action of the Attorney General. It reads as follows:

"PUZZLING ACTION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL"

"Dear Sir: Enclosed are two clippings from the Herald Tribune of February 16, 1940. One relates to Attorney General Jackson's dismissal of the charges against the indicted Abraham Lincoln Brigade and the other to the conviction of Robert Weiner.

"Mr. Jackson's dismissal action is based upon:

"(a) 'The alleged illegal acts occurred in 1937 and 1938.'

"Reading from the clipping about Mr. Weiner, we find 'he was found guilty on a charge of having obtained a passport in 1936 by fraudulent means."

"(b) 'The FBI investigation report was not submitted until March, 1939' and 'No action was taken by the then Attorney General until December, 1939.'

"Does this imply that if the Government is guilty of negligence or wrong-doing it must continue this negligence or wrong-doing?

"(c) 'The Justice Department was faced with the dilemma of either discontinuing these cases or entering a vastly broader campaign of prosecution which would include enlistment activities during the Italo-Ethiopian and the Sino-Japanese conflicts.'

"Under this reasoning, Hauptmann should not have been tried until the kidnaper of Dorothy Arnold had been arrested. Nor should the indictments against the American Federation of Labor officials been obtained until the unlawful acts of officials of the Congress of Industrial Organization had been presented to the courts.

"Does the Attorney General contend that there are cases involving enlistment activities during the Italo-Ethiopian and the Sino-Japanese conflicts? Perhaps there are some cases involving such activities during the Russian Revolution or during the Boer-British or during the Franco-Prussian conflicts.

"(d) Says Mr. Jackson 'I see no good to come from reviving in America at this late date the animosities of the Spanish Conflict.'

"However, only a few days ago Mrs. Roosevelt said to the Youth Congress 'I sympathize in your feeling for Spain.' No one will deny that 'that' feeling was definitely in favor of the Red Loyalist cause as was also the feeling of 'these Detroit Defendants.'

"The Attorney General by his dismissal action reveals the strength of the unseen power which is steadily destroying our rights, our liberties, our Country, our Religion.

"Anne Martin

"Manhattan, Feb. 19."

But returning to the Jewish People's Committee and to its chairman, William Weiner, (more properly called Welwel Warszower) let it be known that on February 21, 1940, he was sentenced to serve two years in a Federal penitentiary for passport fraud. He was the man who headed the organization which was chiefly responsible, together with the General Jewish Council, for assailing Father Coughlin. It was his organization which registered complaints against Father Coughlin with the Federal Department of

Justice for having misused the mails and for other crimes. Following these complaints, Father Coughlin was smeared from Minneapolis to Miami and from the Plymouth Rock to the Golden Gate so successfully that many persons, accustomed to believe the stories in newspapers, condemned the Radio Priest without due process of trial.

It is most significant to observe that when William Weiner was sentenced to serve two years in jail for his crime, the same newspapers which gave publicity to the alleged crimes of Father Coughlin printed only an insignificant story relative to William Weiner. An example of the publicity attending his being sentenced is here submitted as it appeared in The Detroit News, Wednesday, February 21, 1940, buried on page 20:

THE DETROIT NEWS, FEBRUARY 21, 1940.

U. S. Communist Chief, Russian, Goes to Prison

NEW YORK, Feb. 21.—(U.P.)—Welwel Warszower, Russian-born secretary- of the American Communist Party, today began to serve two years in prison for passport fraud. For 20 years Warszower, alias

native-born American. He was convicted last week of giving false information in a passport application.

Federal Judge John C. Knox said he would recommend deportation after Warszower has served his term.

on for passport fraud.
\nears Warszower, alias Japan is expected to further ream Wiener, posed as a strict the use of electric power.

These matters are set down in this chapter to enable the reader to judge the fairness of the press in publicizing the alleged crimes of Father Coughlin and the certain crime of William Weiner who headed the attack against Father Coughlin through an organization of self-admitted leftist Jews remarkable for their power in influencing the press.

In conclusion, permit us to quote an editorial comment which appeared in the Jesuit weekly, America, under the date of February 10, 1940:

"Eighteen men were arrested on January 14 in New York by agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. One was released almost immediately. The remaining seventeen, properly handcuffed, were brought to the Federal Building in Brooklyn. Federal Judge Grover M. Moscowitz addressed them: 'You are charged here, from the first day of July, 1939, to the thirteenth day of January, 1940, with conspiracy with other people to overthrow the Government of the United States by seizing a quantity of firearms and munitions. Are you guilty or not guilty?' Each defendant replied: 'Not guilty.' Judge Moscowitz held each in \$50,000 bail. In due time, the seventeen will be put on trial. Thus far, the story is clear.

"Beneath the simple surface facts of men being charged with sedition are concealed other layers of facts. Some of the men arrested on January 14 were members of the Christian Front. In its origin, the Christian Front was one of several religious groups dedicated to Catholic Action. It had, for one of its objectives, the aim of combating Communism and other subversive ideologies. Some of the members, who were anti-Semitic, became vociferous and troublesome, both to the Jews and to their associates. Through the activities and excesses of such members, the Christian Front came to be regarded as an affront to the Jews. As a result, Jewish Action swung into operation. A committee of Jewish leaders, therefore, determined that the Christian Front should be obliterated. Thus far, the story remains clear.

"Anti-Semitism is not, in itself, a crime punishable by law. The anti-Semitic person, however, must observe the law. On this basis, Jewish Action secured the cooperation of the municipal authorities of New York, of the Attorney General's office in Washington, of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Through a period of six months, evidence was sought as to the activities of those members of the Christian Front who were judged to be anti-Semitic. Those suspected were found to be of varied types and affiliations. It was discovered that these suspects were vulnerable on the charge that they were conspiring against public order and the Government. For this alone they were arrested. One of them, at least, had Bund connections and, as reported, an otherwise bad record. One of them, it is asserted, was a 'plant'; in the language of his associates, 'a rat.' Some of the others among the seventeen freely admitted that they were members of the Christian Front but very vehemently proclaimed their loyalty to the United States; they opposed Communism, they said, because it was a destructive force in their country. They are now in jail, and in due time will be judged as to whether or not they are guilty of sedition. The story is not so clear.

"Public opinion has been aroused against these men not because they were seditious but because they and others with whom they associated were believed to be anti-Semitic. The newspapers have played up the anti-Semitic slant more than they have the horrors of sedition. Likewise, the resentment of the public has been skilfully maneuvered against the Christian Front. In addition, the excesses of some members of the Christian Front are utilized for the purpose of attacking the Catholic Church and for hostility toward Catholics. Following the arrests in New York, the witch-hunters began scouring the country, seeking to involve or to punish or to ruin any citizen who was in the least way connected with the Christian Front. There is no question of conspiracy or sedition; there is frankly, the question of anti-Semitism.

"In Philadelphia, for example, members of the Christian Front were brought to trial; there was no evidence against them; they were released as innocent; nevertheless, they were condemned by public opinion as if they were criminals. The investigations have been pressed in many more large cities, on the twin charge of sedition and anti-Semitism, always with reference to the Christian Front. And now the finger is pointed toward Detroit: Evidence has been carefully collected to press charges against Father Coughlin. If the proceedings advance, he will not be brought to court because of any alleged anti-Semitic utterances or activities, but for other reasons. And yet, every person in the United States will know that proceedings have been instituted against him solely because he is charged with being anti-Semitic.

(Editor's Note: All of the members of The Christian Front were eventually acquitted. They had the support of the Catholic "Brooklyn Tablet" and Father Edward Brophy who founded The Christian Front. This was considered as a major defeat for New York's Jewish leaders.)

For several years, many Catholics and Protestants have been vigorous in condemning and opposing both Communism and Naziism. But for all practical purposes, they have not enjoyed Jewish cooperation in their condemnation of and opposition to Communism. This was most noticeable during the days of the Spanish civil war when Jews in great numbers upheld the cause of the Communists.

The reader can draw his own conclusions and offer his own suggestions.

The prudent Jews can, likewise, exert their own influence to remedy this situation.

It is true that some Jews have denounced Communism in a general way. But is it true that any responsible Jewish organization, outside the Jewish War Veterans, has denounced any Jewish individual known for his communistic activities? When the General Jewish Council and the Jewish People's Committee oppose such individuals with the same vigor with which they have assailed Father Coughlin, then, maybe, the vast majority of Americans will begin to believe that they are truly opposed to Communism and to those who practice and spread it.

To our mind, the whole question of propagandized Communism in America demands a speedy remedy, lest the question of Communism becomes synonymous with the question of Semitism

Appendices

APPENDIX I

FORTUNE MAGAZINE AND COMMUNISTS IN AMERICA

Statistics do not give the true story of the strength of Communism in America. On page 45 of the General Jewish Council booklet we read that Fortune magazine conducted a survey in February, 1936; but the results of the survey were contradicted by Mr. Mark Weinbaum, editor of the Slovo. In an article of The American Magazine, (December, 1937, p. 146) the author thus comments on the Fortune-Weinbaum controversy:

"To return to Weinbaum, he guesses that the entire Communist party in America totals about 50,000, of whom not more than 8,000 are Red-militant-radical in the sense that they foment revolution, want to make America and the whole world Communist. He believes that about two thirds of these small totals are Jewish and about one-third Gentile."

However, the Communist-led Jewish People's Committee numbers 400,000 members. The error, if there is one, in the Fortune magazine survey, may be traced to their investigators who counted as Communists only those persons carrying dues-paying membership cards. A card does not make a Communist. What a man thinks and does, and whom he follows are better standards to use in designating a Communist.

THE KINGSHIP OF CHRIST AND THE STRUGGLE AGAINST COMMUNISM By Rev. Denis Fahey, C.S.Sp.

On the one hand, the Sovereign Pontiffs down the ages have striven to protect the Jews from physical violence and to secure respect for them as persons. On the other hand, they have aimed unceasingly at protecting Christians from the contamination of Jewish Naturalism and they have tried to prevent Jews from obtaining control over Christians. The Letter A Quo Primum (1751) of Pope Benedict XIV, addressed to the Polish Hierarchy, is a typical example of the efforts of the Holy See in the latter direction.

It has been asserted that it is the native ability of the Jews, their ambitious and untiring activity, that has placed them in the key positions at one time in the Soviet Union. Those days of prominence of apostate Jews in the U.S.S.R. is a thing of the past. Was it owing to the intellectual superiority of the Jews over the natives that in 1935, eighteen years after "the liberation of the Russian people," the Censorship Department in Moscow was entirely staffed by Jews? There was in that year not a single non-Jew to be found in it. Surely a few Russians could learn to speak and write Russian and other languages as well, if not better, than Jews.

Where can the proof of my statement be found? It is to be found in the book Insanity Fair, by Mr. Douglas Reid, an English Journalist, who certainly cannot be accused of having preconceived opinions about Germany or Russia.

He puts down plainly and simply what he saw and experienced in both countries . . . Here is some of what I have quoted from him in the pamphlet, The Rulers of Russia: "My paper had never sent a correspondent to Moscow because of the Soviet Censorship . . . Before I had been there five minutes the Soviet Government started quarrelling with me about the most trivial thing. For I wrote that Anthony Eden had passed through streets lined

with 'drab and silent crowds' . . . and a little Jewish censor came along, and said these words must come out. I asked him if he wanted me to write that the streets were filled with top-hatted bourgeoisie; but he was adamant. Such is the intellectual level of censors. The censorship department, and that means the whole machine for controlling the home and muzzling the foreign press, was entirely staffed by Jews, and this was a thing that puzzled me more than anything else in Moscow. There seemed not to be a single non-Jewish official in the whole outfit, and they were just the same Jews as you met in New York, Berlin, Vienna and Prague—well-manicured, well-fed. dressed with a touch of the dandy. I was told that the proportion of Jews in the Government was small, but in this one department that I got to know intimately they seemed to have a monopoly, and I asked myself, where were the Russians? The answer seemed to be that they were in the drab, silent arounds which I had seen but which must not be heard of."

How many in Europe or the United States knew of that state of affairs of 1935? Has it changed since? If the whole Department for "controlling the home and muzzling the foreign press" is manned by Jews, we cannot rely on the statements coming from U.S.S.R. about the people in keypositions.

To carry on the struggle against Naturalism in our day, there is grave need of publishing all these facts. The convert Jewish priest, Father Lémann, in his book, L'Entrée des Israélites dans la Société Française (The Entrance of the Jews into French Society), points out the terrible danger to which Spain was exposed at the end of the 15th century and the beginning of the 16th, owing to the number of Jews disguised as Christians who had got into important positions and were manoeuvring Spanish society to its ruin. He speaks of them as adepts at dissimulation. When the Communist Movement is seen in its true light, it will be found that the modern attack on Spain from Russia was also a triumph of Jewish dissimulation.

In this connection I wish to point out that the B'nai B'rith Lodges are the highest naturalistic secret organizations in our once Christian countries. In the year 1874, an agreement was signed between Armand Levy and Albert Pike by which the Jewish Lodges were recognized and welcomed into the organization of Freemasonry practically on their own terms. The only non-Jews who can enter the B'nai B'rith Lodges are visitors of the highest degree—Inspectors General of the Palladium, Jews on the other hand have free access to the ordinary Masonic Lodges. If Msgr. Ryan wishes to read the text of the agreement, he will find it in Domenico Margiotta's life of Adriano Lemmi. Now according to the Revue Internationale des Sociétés Secrétes of 15th Dec., 1938, a hundred million frances have been collected in France to finance Jewish activities in the French political arena and in the French press.

APPENDIX III

LA DOCUMENTATION CATHOLIQUE

Documentatio

Catholique

LES QUESTIONS ACTUELLES, CHRONIQUE DE LA PRESENT L'ACTION CATHOLIQUE MEYUE PORGAMISATION ET DE RÉFERSE RELIGIEUDE

ABONDIEMENTS France : Un An. 20 ft. 1 Sie Mein. 11 b.,
Etunges : Un An. 22 b. 1 Sie Mein. 12 b.

RÉDACTION ET ADMINISTRATION. S. RUE RAYARD PARIS.VIII-

JACOB SCHIFF, WARBURG AND BOLSHEVISM

(Taken from Through Thirty Years by Henry Wickham Steed;* Doubleday, Page & Company, 1924; Vol. 2. Chp. XVIII; page 301)

The Bullitt Mission (The Peace Conference of 1919)

^*Henry Wickham Steed:

Acting correspondent of The (London) Times at Berlin, 1896

Correspondent at Rome, 1897-1902.

Correspondent at Vienna, 1902-1913.

Foreign Editor of The (London) Times from 1914-1919.

Editor of The (London) Times from February 1919 to Nov. 1922.

Lectured on Central European History at King's College, London, from

In 1918 he engaged in propaganda in enemy countries.

He was head of a special mission to Italy, March to April 1918

Who's Who (1940) (Riographical Dictionary)

European feeling against the blood-stained fanatics of Russia ran extremely high. Therefore, when it transpired that an American official, connected with the Peace Conference, had returned, after a week's visit to Moscow, with an optimistic report upon the state of Russia and with an authorized Russian proposal for the virtual recognition of the Bolshevist régime by April 10th, dismay was felt everywhere except by those who had been privy to the sending of Mr. Bullitt. Yet another complication, it was apprehended, would be added to the general muddle into which the Conference had got itself, and the chances of its succeeding at all would be seriously diminished.

"On the afternoon of March 26th an American friend inadvertently gave me a notion that a revival of the Prinkipo proposal, in some form, was in the air. That evening I wrote to Northcliffe:

"'The Americans are again talking of recognizing the Russian Bolshevists. If they want to destroy the whole moral basis of the Peace and of the League of Nations they have only to do so.'

"And, in the Paris Daily Mail of March 27th, I wrote strongly against any proposal to recognize 'the desperadoes whose avowed aim is to turn upside down the whole basis of Western Civilization.'

"That day Colonel House asked me to call upon him. I found him worried both by my criticism of any recognition of the Bolshevists and by the certainty, which he had not previously realized, that if the President were to recognize the Bolshevists in return for commercial concessions his whole idealism' would be hopelessly compromised as commercialism in disguise. I pointed out to him that not only would Wilson be utterly discredited but that the League of Nations would go by the board, because all the small peoples and many of the big peoples of Europe would be unable to resist the Bolshevism which Wilson would have accredited. I insisted that, unknown to him, the prime movers were Jacob Schiff, Warburg, and other international financiers, who wished above all to bolster up the Jewish Bolshevists in order to secure a field for German and Jewish exploitation of Russia."

APPENDIX V

THE BRITISH WHITE PAPER

(Following extract taken from The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World by Rev. Denis Fahey, Appendix I, pp. 291-293.)

In April 1919, there was published by the command of His Majesty, and by His Majesty's Stationery Office, a White Paper entitled, Russia, No. 1 (1919). A Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia. The Foreword, on p. 6, as as follows—"The following collection of Reports from His Majesty's official representatives in Russia, from other British subjects who have recently returned from that country, and from independent witnesses of various nationalities, covers the period of the Bolshevik régime from the Summer of 1918 to the present date. They are issued in

(Editor's Note: This is the cover of the original British Intelligence Report on the Bolshevik Revolution issued on April 5, 1919. This includes the important wording, "It is organized and worked by Jews who have no nationality and whose one object is to destroy for their own ends the existing order of thines.")

RUSSIA. No. 1 (1919)

A COLLECTION OF REPORTS BOLSHEVISM IN RUSSIA.

Presented to Parliament by Command of His Vacato 421 / 1919

PUBLISHED BY HIS MAJESTA'S STATIONERS OFFICE

To be just the different any Book-Berne everty ten HM STATIONERY OFFICE is the lettering inferior three HM STATIONERY OFFICE is the lettering inferior three HM STATIONERY TO SHOOK W. I are the HM STATIONERY TO SHOOK AND STATIONERY TO STATIONERY TO SHOOK AND STATIONERY TO SHOOK AND STATIONERY TO SHOOK AND STATIONERY TO SHOOK AND SHOOK AND STATIONERY TO SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SHOOK AND SH

....

[Cmd. 8.] Price 9d. net.

(Editor's Note: Below is the "Abridged Edition" of the British Intelligence Report which deletes the original wording as quoted above. We can see the date of this revision stamped at the lower left - April 28, 1919.)

A COLLECTION OF REPORTS BOLSHEVISM IN RUSSIA

Abridged Edition of Parliamentary Paper, Russia No. 1

LONDON.

PUBLISHED BY HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE

APR 28 1319

To be purchased through any Bookseller or due the from HM STATIONERY OFFICE BY the following addresses: Increase Horse Engineer, Losinos, W.C. 2, and 20 Versepon States, Losinos, S.W. I. 15 Perra States, Mancaurer, Los Andrews Calonyry Caronia 21 Form States, Losinos and accordance with a decision of the War Cabinet in January last. They are unaccompanied by anything in the nature either of comment or introduction, since they speak for themselves in the picture which they present of the principles and methods of Bolshevik rule, the appalling incidents by which it has been accompanied, the economic consequences which have flowed from it, and the almost incalculable misery which it has produced."

The position, then, is this: This document as it then stood was published by the specific decision of the British War Cabinet. It was such an appalling document, that it needed neither comment, explanation nor extension. The information in it came from His Majesty's official representatives in Russia and from independent persons who had returned from that country with first-hand knowledge of conditions. The testimony from all these sources of information is the same. Apart from the appalling and fiendish cruelties, the one vital fact which this White Paper reveals is given on page 6, in a report issued by the Netherlands Minister at Petrograd, September 6th, 1918. The Minister was then acting officially for the protection of British subjects and interests, our own official representative, Captain Cromic, having been murdered by the Bolsheviks. The part of the report, in which the one vital and central fact is found, reads as follows:—

"The foregoing report will indicate the extremely critical nature of the present situation. The danger is now so great that I feel it my duty to call the attention of the British and all other Governments to the fact that, if an end is not put to Bolshevism in Russia at once, the civilization of the whole world will be threatened. This is not an exaggeration, but a sober matter of fact; and the most unusual action of German and Austrian consuls-general, before referred to, in joining in protest of neutral legations, appears to indicate that the danger is also being realized in German and Austrian quarters. I consider that the immediate suppression of Bolshevism is the greatest issue now before the world, not even excluding the war which is still raging, and unless, as above stated, Bolshevism is niffed in the bud immediately, it is bound to spread in one form or another over Europe and the whole world, AS IT IS ORGANIZED AND WORKED BY JEWS WHO HAVE NO NATIONALITY, AND WHOSE ONE OBJECT IS TO DESTROY FOR THEIR OWN ENDS THE EXISTING ORDER OF THINGS . . . I would beg that this report may be telegraphed as soon as possible in cypher in full to the British Office in view of its importance."

This very vital and significant report was sent by the Netherlands Minister in Russia, to Sir M. Finlay, British representative at Christiania, and by him telegraphed to Mr. Balfour at the British Foreign Office.

There are many questions that could very pertinently be asked concerning this report. But there are two at the moment that press for an answer beyond all others: (1) Why was this very alarming and crucial information not published in the Press? Why the almost universal silence concerning it? Whose influence suppressed it? (2) Why did this official White Paper, published by His Majesty's command at the express decision of the War Cabinet in April, 1919, disappear from circulation and become unobtainable? And why was there published in its place an abridged edition, in which this particular passage and very little else of equal importance

from the Netherlands Minister's report was eliminated? . . .

It is obviously and logically clear that there is only one race on earth that has any interest in the suppression of this official document, and that race is the Jewish race. No other race nor any civilized Government can be benefited by its suppression, for the report within it says quite specifically: "The danger is now so great that I feel it my duty to call the attention of the British and all other Governments to the fact that, if an end is not put to Bolshevism in Russia at once, the civilization of the whole world will be threatened."

APPENDIX VI

JEWS' PART IN BOLSHEVISM

Dr. George A. Simons, testifying before the Overman Committee investigating German and Bolshevik propaganda, said:

"I do not think the Bolshevik movement in Russia would have been a success if it had not been for the support it got from certain elements in New York, the so-called East Side." (Overman Committee Report, p. 113.)

Dr. Simons, who was superintendent of the Methodist Episcopal Church in Petrograd from the fall of 1907 until October 6, 1918, also testified:

"The latest startling information, given me by someone who says that there is good authority for it—and I am to be given the exact figures later on and have them checked up properly by the proper authorities—is this, that in December, 1918, in the northern community of Petrograd, so-called, that is what they call that section of the Soviet régime under the presidency of the man known as Mr. Apfelbaum—out of 388 members, only 16 happened to be real Russians, and all the rest Jews, with the exception possibly of one man, who is a Negro from America, who calls himself Prof. Gordon, and 265 of the members of this northern commune government, that is sitting in the old Smolny Institute, came from the lower East Side of New York—265 of them . . . I think that fits into what you are driving at. In fact, I am very much impressed with this, that moving around here I find that certain Bolsheviki propagandists are nearly all Jews—apostate Jews." (Op. cit. pp. 114-115.)

The Rev. Mr. Simons testified upon questioning by Senator Wolcott:

"I met a number of them" (New York East Siders) "on the Nevsky Prospect in Petrograd, yes; and spoke with them, and a number of them have visited me." (Op. cit. p. 115.)

The Rev. Mr. Simons continued his testimony:

"I was impressed with this, Senator, that shortly after the great revolution of the winter of 1917 there were scores of Jews standing on the benches and soap boxes, and what not, talking until their months frothed and I often remarked to my sister, 'Well, what are we coming to, anyway? This all looks so Yiddish.' Up to that time we had very few Jews, because there was, as you may know, a restriction against having Jews in Petrograd; but after the revolution they swarmed in there, and most of the agitators happened to be Jews. I do not want to be unfair to them, but I usually know a Jew when I see one." (Op. cit. p. 116.)

Rev. Mr. Simons read into the Overman Report a list of names of the apostate Jews who were active in the Bolshevik movement. He testified:

"I have seen at least four different lists, and the first that came out, I have in my possession here. This came out about August, 1917, and was widely circulated in Petrograd and Moscow." (Op. cit. p. 142.)

(List quoted in Chapter VII of this book.)

Mr. William Chapin Huntington, commercial attache of the United States Embassy at Petrograd from June, 1916, to September, 1918, made the following statement before the Overman Committee, thus corroborating the Rev. Mr. Simon's testimony:

"The leaders of the movement, I should say, are about two-thirds Russian Jews and perhaps one-sixth or more of some of the other nationalities, like the Letts or the Armenians... The superiority of the Jews is due to their intellectual superiority, because the average Jew is so much better educated than the average Russian; and also, I think, to the fact that the Hebrew people have suffered so in the past in Russia that it has inevitably resulted in their cherishing a grudge which has been worked out by the movement.

(Overman Committee Re-

port, p. 69.)

Be it observed that the Overman Investigation Committee was a Senate sub-committee of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, 65th Congress, pursuant to S. Res. 439 and 469.

The London Times says:

"One of the most curious features of the Bolshevist movement is the high percentage of non-Russian elements among its leaders. Not less than 75 per cent are Jews." (London Times, March 29, 1919.) According to the same article:

"Of the 20 or 30 commissaries or leaders who proved to be the central machinery of the Bolshevist régime, not less than 75 per cent are Jews . . . among the minor officials the number is legion."

APPENDIX VIII

ANTI-SEMITISM IN RUSSIA

"In his book entitled Lenin and the Jewish Question in Russia (Moscow, 1924) S. Diamanastein reports that Lenin said: 'Anti-Semitism is a powerful weapon in the hands of our enemies. It must be fought with appropriate measures'...."

Hence, Lenin issued a decree on anti-Semitism as counter revolution, the conclusion of which Diamanastein transcribed as follows:

"The Council of People's Commissars demands that all soviets take appropriate measures with a view of fully suppressing the anti-Semitic movement. The pogromists and all those who carry on any anti-Semitic propaganda shall be placed beyond the law." (As quoted from Qui Veut La Guerre, a series of articles appearing in Revue Hebdomadaire, November 16, 23, 1935.)

"Diamanastein recalls also that in many instances: 'Lenin underlined the importance of Jews to the Revolution, not only in Russia, but also in other countries.'" (Qui Veut La Guerre, as quoted above.)

Mikhail Kalinin said in an address which he delivered to the first Ozet Congress in November, 1926, eight years after the publication of Lenin's decrees on anti-Semitism:

"'Why are the Russian intellectuals more anti-Semilic today than in the days of Tzarism! It is but natural. During the first days of the Revolution, the mass of the Jewish intellectuals from the cities threw themselves into the tide of the Revolution. Because they had been an oppressed nation which had never taken part in the government, they naturally had a tendency to participate in revolutionary work, and consequently also in the administration. A large number of Jews occupied posts of Commissars, etc. . . .'" (Report of Ozet Congress as quoted by the author of Qui Veut La Guerre, ut supra.)

Five years after Kalinin delivered this explanation to the Ozet Congress, Josef Stalin, who presumably issued decrees persecuting religious Jews and suppressing Judaism, stated that anti-Semitism had not been destroyed; for the dictator himself said to a correspondent in February, 1931:

"Because they are conscious internationalists, the Communists are persistent opponents of anti-Semilism which is severely prosecuted in the Soviet Union as a counter-revolutionary phenomenon. Our laws punish militant anti-Semilism WITH THE PENALTY OF DEATH'." (As quoted in Qui Veut La Guerre.)

In view of these seemingly contradictory quotations we can explain the matter by saying that the Soviet Government distinguished between the Jew as a religious and the Jew as a national living in Russia. Orthodox Judaism was categorically opposed to atheistic Communism; hence the atheistic and Communist Jews enacted decrees of persecution against their religious brethren. However, to protect themselves against the Russians who resented their supremacy, the Jewish commissars were forced to enact laws condemning anti-Semitism as counter revolution.

Even the Jews themselves are not agreed about the matter of persecution in Russia; for B'nai B'rith magazine, March, 1933, featured two articles on the subject Is Judaism Doomed in Soviet Russia! Both authors praised the Soviet régime, but one upheld the negative of the question and the other the affirmative. Their praise of the Soviet régime and Bolshevik administration does not surprise us since it appears in the B'nai B'rith

magazine.

We quote from Norman Bentwich's article upholding the negative:

"It is certain that the principal prophet of the proletarian movement was the German Jew, Karl Marx, whose picture hangs in every public institution and whose book Kapital is the gospel of the Communist creed; that another German Jew, Ferdinand LaSalle, whose heroic statue adorns the Nevski Prospect of Leningrad was one of the inspirers of the early revolutionary parties; that Jews have, from the beginning to the present day, played a part in the creation and the maintenance of the Revolution; and that for no community has the Revolution brought about a greater change of status than for the Jews. . . .

"It is the function of the Jew to be the interpreter of Soviet Russia to the world and of the world to Soviet Russia; for he forms the principal element in the proletarian society which has close touch with the Western European culture and languages . . . Yet Jewish pride of race is still strong and ardent Communists talk proudly of the equality which has been won for Jews and of the achievement of the Jews in the economic and political movement. They are conscious Jews in spite of their Communism; and if they are opposed in theory to the Jewish national home in Palestine, they are eager to learn what is happening there . . . The spiritual motive of the Revolution goes back to the principles of Socialism in the teaching of the Hebrew prophets, even though the Communist denies the rock from which he is hewn and knows not the hole from which he is dug."

We now quote the author who upheld the affirmative, Pierre Van Paassen: ... 'You still feel yourself a Jew then?' I asked.

"'Still a Jew? I am more of a Jew than ever! Now, under the new regime it is at last possible to be a real Jew. My father could not under the old regime, and he can't yet, because his spirit is imprisoned by all the old traditions. But I am free and my sister is free and we go the new way! . . . Ninety per cent of the Jews of Russia are heart and soul in the upbuilding of the new world."

An article Judaism Is Dead in Russia, B'nai B'rith magazine, May, 1934, p. 270, praised the status of Jews in Russia. The author wonders how the Jews can get along without God and he observes:

"Judaism has always been concerned with more than God. Jews have been held together not only by what is called religion, but also by the bond of peoplehood

has come a freedom which Jews have never experienced anywhere else in the world . . . Stalin's second in command is Lazarus Kaganowich, a humble Jewish leather worker who, through sheer ability, has placed himself in line to succeed Stalin as the Communist leader of Russia . . . Russia is the only country in the world where anti-Semitism is a crime . . . If I were to sum up what has happened to the Jews of Russia under the Communist régime, I should say new opportunities and an intensified social idealism.