Christopher Jon Bjerknes is a historian of science who has published several books and articles on the history of the theory of relativity. His work has been cited in peer reviewed journals and books. He writes: “I am deeply troubled by the persecution of historians taking place in Europe today.” The following 10,000-word article explains why he is, who he finds to be the culprits, and implicitly argues how we should face up to this issue.

Free Speech, Free David Irving

It is amazing to me that in the twenty-first century in the heart of Europe an internationally famous historian is being held against his will for the “crime” of offering his opinion on historical questions. What is more amazing is that the press, in particular the American press, has not yet broadly spoken out in a symbolic open petition for a writ of habeas corpus to free this man. Free speech is a fundamental human right and when it is denied to any of us, it is denied to us all.

Oppression leads to oppression, and one need only look to the history of the persecution of David Irving to discover the truth of this truism. I will resist the temptation to offer up the examples of the Inquisition, the Nazi policy of Gleichschaltung or Lenin’s Bolshevistic “democratic centralism”; and instead will present the direct lineage of events which has brought us to the political persecution of David Irving.

In the early nineteenth century, the emancipation of the Jews of Europe was still being debated. Scholars exercised their natural rights to free speech to examine and interpret history and publish their findings. Some offended others. For example, Karl Marx published an article on the subject of the emancipation of the Jews which offended many Jews and he was later called a “self-hating Jew” by the Nazi apologist and Zionist Joachim Prinz.* Ludolf Holst published Das Judentum in allen dessen Teilen. Aus einem staatswissenschaftlichen Standpunkt betrachtet, Mainz, (1821), which offended Ludwig Boerne. Boerne responded with a negative review of Holst’s book and famously stated that he eagerly awaited the day when any statement which offended Jews would bring its author into prison, or the insane asylum. Ironically, Boerne exercised his right of free speech to call for the suppression of speech which offended him. Boerne’s vision was popular among racist Jews, and became a reality in Russia immediately after the Russian Revolution. Sigmund Freud, who had been traumatized by anti­-Semites, sought to stigmatize any criticism of Jewish racism and tribalism as if it were the manifestation of a mental disorder requiring treatment.

Jewish racism begat anti-Jewish racism, and vice versa. Eugen Karl Duehring was perhaps the most influential racial and political anti-Semite in history. He published Die Judenfrage als Racen-, Sitten- und Culturfrage: mit einer weltgeschichtlichen Antwort, H. Reuther, Karlsruhe, (1881); which persuaded political Zionist Theodor Herzl to embrace and endorse political anti-Semitism and racism in his book Der Judenstaat; Versuch einer modernen Loesung der Judenfrage, M. Breitenstein, Leipzig, Vienna, (1896). Duehring reiterated the racialist and socialist “solutions” to the “Jewish question”; which were proposed in Rom und Jerusalem: die letzte Nationalitaetsfrage, Eduard Wengler, Leipzig, (1862); by racist Zionist Moses Hess; and which led to the segregationist National Socialist movement in Germany. Duehring’s claims were only bolstered by the cries for suppression of free speech by Boerne, and by an organized campaign in the press and in the universities to destroy his career and to silence him. Organized oppression led to cries for organized oppression.

The Nazis are reviled for their suppression of fundamental human liberties. One does not secure these liberties by selectively denying them. The “slippery slope” of suppressing Irving’s and your right to speak freely will inevitably lead to more oppressive proscriptions against speech. Soon it may be illegal to criticize racist Zionism. Then, we face the possibility that unrelated expressions of speech will spuriously be likened to criticism of privileged opinions and punished by draconian prison terms and ultimately the dreary political “psychoprisons” of the Soviet Union. As a man of Jewish descent, I dissent against the persecution of David Irving which is being conducted in my name. Jewish and Zionist organizations are establishing the legal precedent for proscribing all forms of free speech, and, as has happened in the past, it is this precedent which may ultimately be used to oppress Jews. Will it then be illegal to speak out against political oppression?

The media are clearly trying to tell us that David Irving is not human, and therefore he has no human rights which can be violated. By spurious association, the media is trying to convince us that free speech is not a human right, but a weapon employed by monsters. They are dehumanizing and vilifying David Irving in order to dehumanize and vilify free speech, such that we are not aware of the attack made on our fundamental liberties. The mass media do not much care about the alleged threat David Irving poses by expressing an opinion, otherwise they would not give such vast exposure to his viewpoint. What they want is the power to proscribe speech and shield Israel and Jewish racism from valid criticism. By associating free speech with Irving, while demonizing him for the “criminal act” of offering an unpopular opinion on the Holocaust, they are pushing the patently false message that free speech is a villain, and that good people must be protected from that allegedly insidious villain, which used to be known and loved under the title “free speech”. Americans are not so stupid as to fall victim to the media’s sophistry. The message and the facts must be gotten out to them, a process which depends upon free speech.

Again, it is amazing that the mass media are telling us, almost as a unified voice, that we need to be protected from free speech, the same media whose stock and trade depend upon free speech and who so often remind us of the public’s right to know, and of the media’s right to offer their opinions regardless of whom they might offend. This campaign against Irving stinks of ethnic bias and centralized power, whether it be through direct ownership or through intimidation. It bears the foul stench of Jewish ethnic bias, of Jewish racism.

As Prof. Norman G. Finkelstein has ably argued, the Holocaust has become an industry for Zionists and a means to control public opinion in a most corrupt and deplorable fashion. The dead are not only exploited to fill the coffers with cash, their names are invoked to cover up of the misdeeds of Jewish racists past and present. Zionists and Jewish racists have an interest not only in obstructing an investigation into the demographic horrors of the Holocaust, and the apartheid crimes of Israel, but desperately want to hide from the public the crimes of racist Zionists in the persecution of Jews in the twentieth century. Nazism was more than a German nationalist movement. For many years, Nazism was a Zionist and a Bolshevist movement disproportionately led by men and women of partial, in some cases perhaps even full, Jewish descent.

Why would any Jew sponsor Hitler, or found an anti-Jewish society? After Jewish emancipation, the vast majority of European Jews wanted to assimilate into Western society. Racist Zionist Jews, a small minority in the Jewish community, feared that the “Jewish race” would disappear through the “final solution to the Jewish question” of “assimilation”, or so they stated in their writings and speeches of the nineteenth century. The Nazis did not coin the phrase “final solution to the Jewish question”, nor did the Nazis intend it to mean the extermination of the Jews. The Zionists used the expression to refer to the integration of Jews, which process the Zionists loathed. The political Zionists were and are racist segregationists. Both the political Zionists and the Nazis, who were in fact political Zionists, offered an alternative “final solution to the Jewish question” to that of assimilation, one of Jewish segregation in a “world ghetto”, which is another Zionist phrase. Before the Nazis even came into existence, the political Zionists called for the segregation of Jews into a ghetto.

The “final solution” of extermination was not proposed by a German Nazi, but rather by an American Jew; and it was not the extermination of Jews which he proposed, but the genocide of German Gentiles. Theodor Newman Kaufman advocated the genocidal sterilization of all Germans as a “final solution” in 1941 in his book Germany Must Perish!, Argyle Press, Newark, New Jersey, (1941), before the Wannsee-Konferenz occurred. Kaufman’s book was merely a more modern manifestation of the ancient racist Jewish divine commandment that Jews must exterminate the seed of Esau/Edom/Amalek/Haman, lest God exterminate the Jews, themselves; which “race” of Esau came to signify Gentiles in general. I do not touch upon the question of whether and which Nazis did in fact attempt to exterminate European Jews under their control. There certainly was an ancient Jewish tradition that assimilatory Jews must be exterminated. Numerous Jewish prophets called for the genocide of Jews and Gentiles in their pursuit of Jewish world domination and a messianic age, when all religions other than Judaism would be suppressed, when all the nations would be destroyed, and when Gentile cattle would serve the Jews as slaves or face certain death.

The political Zionists, Albert Einstein chief racist among them, embraced the myth that anti-Semitism is the salvation of the “Jewish race”, in that it forces Jews to segregate against their will and better natures. Einstein hated non-racist Jews, though he himself had married a non-Jew. At least since Spinoza, prominent Jewish racists have openly stated that anti-Semitism is the only means to preserve the divine race. Jewish racists helped to put Hitler into power in order to herd up the Jews of Europe and force them into segregation. Jewish racists collaborated with the Nazis to kill off the weakest Jews and preserve the best genetic stock for deportation to Palestine, which could not possibly house the numerous Jews of Europe. Western Jews in general hated Eastern Jews. Political Zionists encouraged the Nazis to force assimilatory Jews, especially Eastern Jews, into segregation. They also encouraged the Soviets towards anti-Semitism in order to leave “red assimilationist” Jews no option but to create a Jewish state in formerly Russian territory or in Palestine, or face annihilation. The worst enemy of persons of Jewish descent has often been the Zionist, especially the Zionist in anti-Semite’s clothing. Too many Zionists have carried on, and carried out, the bloodthirsty and treacherous tradition of ancient Jewish racism, which they see as the product of “superior Jewish racial instincts”, and which admonishes Jews to exterminate other Jews who would otherwise assimilate.

Many non-racist Jews have sought to make the public aware of these facts. Though the mass media have largely ignored them, especially in America, their message is filtering through to the public through the internet. Direct ownership and intimidation of the media by Zionists no longer provides them with an absolute means to control public opinion, and, thereby, the outcome of political elections. As a result, the Zionists only option is to press for legislation proscribing speech, which exposes their myths and their entrenched racism. This they shamelessly do in the names of the dead Jews the political Zionists of old helped to put in their graves.

In order to demonstrate that there is more to the Holocaust than the simplistic standard “Holocaust Industry” version with which most of us are familiar, I will quote some rather interesting passages from racist Zionists at the end of this article. This is by no means an exhaustive study. There is a great deal more evidence, some of it far more shocking than what appears below. I do not publish these citations to in any way minimize the incalculable suffering of European Jews in the twentieth century; but rather to emphasize it, and to call attention to its diverse causes, which include racist political Zionism and brutal Marxist Bolshevism, a fact you will not often see mentioned in the mass media. The history of Jewish racism, and the crimes Jews have committed against other Jews, is largely a hidden history and a taboo subject. It will likely soon become illegal throughout the world to repeat these facts and exposit upon that history. One has a right to ask, why?

The question prompts itself, towards what end do the Zionists rail against the fundamental human right of free speech? The messianic prophecies of Judaism call for even worse events than the Holocaust and the world wars which have already occurred. Zionists have long seen politics as playing the role of the Messiah in the modern world, and this is not the kindly and commercially appealing Messiah of Christ, but the genocidal Messiah, the Jewish king which obliterates the nations and religions and enslaves the Gentiles—the Jewish Messiah of the Old Testament who hates those of us of Jewish descent who have assimilated. Since the “Jewish State” has been rebuilt, some racist Jews view this as the messianic age. The entire ancient mythology would be an utterly ridiculous subject were it not for the fact that an entire racist nation, Israel, has these myths as its reason for being, and justifies substantial crimes it has committed against humanity as the fulfillment of these prophesies. We have already seen the damage racist Zionist nations, like Nazi Germany and at times the Soviet Union, have done.

Together with Thomas Jefferson and racist Zionists, we should eliminate the supernatural from Judaic messianic myth and ask, why are these events coming about and whose perceived self-interests do they serve? Why do some Zionists want to make it illegal for me, or anyone else, to publish an expose of Jewish racism and expose the threat Jewish racism poses to humanity and most of all to those of us of Jewish descent? Why is there an international chorus cheering in a Purim-like howl in cowardly celebration of David Irving’s persecution? Is it not quite obvious that their attacks are a bit overdone and a little too monotone to escape suspicion? What monstrous bogey is the 67 year-old man, that they cannot dare to engage him in an unfettered debate, but must instead shackle him and tape shut his mouth, then cast aspersions on him en masse which he cannot practically or legally answer? Surely he is outnumbered. Must he also be chained with his tongue ripped out while prissy ninnies snipe at him from behind the cover of an unjust law? Mistake it not, it is free speech the Zionists have pilloried. Irving is simply their sophistical means to attack speech as if it were a menace, but why?

The inhuman nature of the laws which violate Irving’s and our fundamental rights to due process by presuming him, and all who would defend him, guilty, and therefore make it illegal for him to present a defense, are a subject I may address at another time. Guilt by accusation does not allow for proof of innocence, and an attendant crime against history is the fact that every person on Earth is now under duress and any statements, especially those which would prove Irving wrong in his historical assertions, are suspect, because they are made under duress. Making historical revisionism illegal does not have the effect of making mandatory versions of history credible, but rather makes it more difficult for one to consider them credible, given that they are enforced at gunpoint.

In an attempt to gain privilege under the law, Judeans have been making false claims of anti-Semitism for at least the past 2,500 years. The ancient Judeans smeared the Egyptians by fabricating an alleged history of oppression in Egypt, which never occurred. Evidence that there are those who still practice this ignoble art appears in Paul Findley’s books: They Dare to Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel’s Lobby, Lawrence Hill, Westport, Connecticut, (1985); and Deliberate Deceptions: Facing the Facts about the U.S.-Israeli Relationship, Lawrence Hill Books, Chicago, (1993); and Silent No More: Confronting America’s False Images of Islam, D: Amana Publications, Beltsville, Maryland, (2001); as well as Norman G. Finkelstein’s books: The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, Second Edition, Verso, London, New York, (2003); and Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, University of California Press, Berkeley, (2005).

How do we protect ourselves from Jewish racism? How do we put an end to the corruption of international politics by Jewish and Zionist organizations, which have a corrupt and ethnically biased press at their disposal, which press enables them to smear anyone who speaks out against them? Perhaps measures must be taken. Since they have set the precedent of taking legal measures to proscribe speech and ban organizations which offend them, we should perhaps outlaw Jewish and Zionist organizations which terrorize us, which corrupt our politics and our press, and which imprison us for holding our own opinions and for acting in our own interests. We could make it illegal for anyone to accuse anyone else of anti-Semitism. We could place those who pressure our politicians with smear campaigns that dub them anti-Semites in prison for long terms, after trials in which they are presumed guilty by accusation; and, therefore, any evidence which would prove them innocent is considered further proof of their guilt, and any who would dare rise to defend them must also therefore be presumed guilty of a crime. We could pass legislation that would place anyone who accuses another of anti-Semitism in an insane asylum, give them drug therapies to curb their paranoid delusions in order to end their torment and ease their poor conflicted souls. Perhaps a good first step would be a congressional committee made up of members who are shielded from criticism for life, the way some Jewish elite seek to be shielded for life from criticism, a committee to investigate the corruption of our press and our politics; a committee whose findings, if antagonistic to Zionists’ perceived self-interests, must be echoed throughout the international press, and a committee whose findings, if beneficial to Zionists’ perceived self-interests, must be suppressed. Judaic literature which calls for the oppression of Gentiles and the extermination of assimilatory Jews and non-compliant Gentiles, could be banned internationally. While I am speaking sarcastically to make a point and expose the methods of Jewish racists, I fear that the patience of the majority will soon expire and turn against the minority, which is actively seeking to oppress them and gain privilege for itself under the law. How could I not arrive at that conclusion, given that oppression has so often led to oppression in the past?

*K. Marx, “Zur Judenfrage. 1) Bruno Bauer: Die Judenfrage. Braunschweig 1843. -- 2) Bruno Bauer: Die Faehigkeit der heutigen Juden und Christen frei zu werden. Ein und zwanzig Bogen aus der Schweiz. Herausgegeben von Georg Herwegh. Zuerich und Winterthur. 1843. S. 56-71”, Deutsch-Franzoesische Jahrbuecher, Herausgegeben von Arnold Ruge und Karl Marx, 1ste und 2te Lieferung, Paris, (1844), pp. 182-214. Prinz wrote, “The brochure of the baptized Jew Karl Marx on the Jewish question is an anti-Jewish pamphlet and an autobiographical entry in the chapter of Jewish self-hatred.” “Die Broschuere des getauften Juden Karl Marx ueber die Judenfrage ist ein antijuedisches Pamphlet und ein autobiographischer Beitrag zum Kapitel des juedischen Selbsthasses.”—J. Prinz, Wir Juden, Erich Reiss, Berlin, (1934), p. 44. On Marx’s “anti-Semitism” see: E. Bernstein, “Jews and German Social Democracy”, Die Tukunft (New York), Volume 26, (March, 1921), pp. 145ff.; English translation in: P. W. Massing, Rehearsal for Destruction: A Study of Political Anti-Semitism in Imperial Germany, Howard Fertig, New York, (1967), pp. 322-330. See also: P. L. Rose, Revolutionary Antisemitism in Germany from Kant to Wagner, Princeton University Press, (1990), pp. 296-305. Communists have always been opportunistic Jew baiters, and they seek to tear down society in order to prepare the way for revolution.

RACIST ZIONISTS ON THE ALLEGED TRUTH AND BENEFITS TO JEWS OF ANTI-SEMITISM:

Albert Einstein claimed that anti-Semites were correct to believe that Jews exercised undue influence in Germany. Einstein wrote in the Jüdische Rundschau, on 21 June 1921, on pages 351-352,

“This phenomenon [anti-Semitism] in Germany is due to several causes. Partly it originates in the fact that the Jews there exercise an influence over the intellectual life of the German people altogether out of proportion to their number. While, in my opinion, the economic position of the German Jews is very much overrated, the influence of Jews on the Press, in literature, and in science in Germany is very marked, as must be apparent to even the most superficial observer. This accounts for the fact that there are many anti-Semites there who are not really anti-Semitic in the sense of being Jew-haters, and who are honest in their arguments. They regard Jews as of a nationality different from the German, and therefore are alarmed at the increasing Jewish influence on their national entity. [***] But in Germany the judgment of my theory depended on the party politics of the Press[.]--A. Einstein, “Jewish Nationalism and Anti-Semitism”, The Jewish Chronicle, (17 June 1921), p. 16.

and,

“The way I see it, the fact of the Jews’ racial peculiarity will necessarily influence their social relations with non-Jews. The conclusions which—in my opinion—the Jews should draw is to become more aware of their peculiarity in their social way of life and to recognize their own cultural contributions. First of all, they would have to show a certain noble reservedness and not be so eager to mix socially—of which others want little or nothing. On the other hand, anti-Semitism in Germany also has consequences that, from a Jewish point of view, should be welcomed. I believe German Jewry owes its continued existence to anti-Semitism.”—A. Einstein, A. Engel translator, “How I became a Zionist”, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 7, Document 57, Princeton University Press, (2002), pp. 234-235, at 235.

Nazi Zionist Joseph Goebbels, sounding very much like political Zionist Albert Einstein, was quoted in The New York Times, on 29 September 1933, on page 10,

“It must be remembered the Jews of Germany were exercising at that time a decisive influence on the whole intellectual life; that they were absolute and unlimited masters of the press, literature, the theatre and the motion pictures, and in large cities such as Berlin, 75 percent of the members of the medical and legal professions were Jews; that they made public opinion, exercised a decisive influence on the Stock Exchange and were the rulers of Parliament and its parties.”

Einstein had a reputation as a rabid anti-assimilationist. On 15 March 1921, Kurt Blumenfeld wrote to Chaim Weizmann,

“Einstein [***] is interested in our cause most strongly because of his revulsion from assimilatory Jewry.”—K. Blumfeld quoted in: J. Stachel, Einstein from ‘B’ to ‘Z’, Birkhäuser, Boston, (2002), p. 79, note 41.

Einstein expressed his virulently segregationist viewpoint in 1921,

“To deny the Jew’s nationality in the Diaspora is, indeed, deplorable. If one adopts the point of view of confining Jewish ethnical nationalism to Palestine, then one, to all intents and purposes, denies the existence of a Jewish people. In that case one should have the courage to carry through, in the quickest and most complete manner, entire assimilation. We live in a time of intense and perhaps exaggerated nationalism. But my Zionism does not exclude in me cosmopolitan views. I believe in the actuality of Jewish nationality, and I believe that every Jew has duties towards his coreligionists. [***] [T]he principal point is that Zionism must tend to strengthen the dignity and self-respect of the Jews in the Diaspora. I have always been annoyed by the undignified assimilationist cravings and strivings which I have observed in so many of my friends.”—A. Einstein, “Jewish Nationalism and Anti-Semitism”, The Jewish Chronicle, (17 June 1921), p. 16.

In 1921, Einstein declared, referring to Eastern European Jews,

“These men and women retain a healthy national feeling; it has not yet been destroyed by the process of atomisation and dispersion.”–A. Einstein quoted in: J. Stachel, “Einstein’s Jewish Identity”, Einstein from ‘B’ to ‘Z’, Birkhäuser, Boston, (2002), p. 65. Stachel cites, About Zionism: Speeches and Letters, Macmillan, New York, (1931), pp. 48-49. For Zionist Ha-Am’s use of the image of atomisation and dispersion, see: A. Hertzberg, The Zionist Idea, Harper Torchbooks, New York, (1959), p. 276.

On 1 July 1921, Einstein was quoted in the Jüdische Rundshau on page 371,

“Let us take a brief look at the development of German Jews over the last hundred years. With few exceptions, one hundred years ago our forefathers still lived in the Ghetto. They were poor and separated from the Gentiles by a wall of religious tradition, secular lifestyles and statutory confinement and were confined in their spiritual development to their own literature, only relatively weakly influenced by the forceful progress which intellectual life in Europe had undergone in the Renaissance. However, these little noticed, modestly living people had one thing over us: Every one of them belonged with all his heart to a community, into which he was incorporated, in which he felt a worthwhile member, in which nothing was asked of him which conflicted with his normal processes of thought. Our forefathers of that era were pretty pathetic both bodily and spiritually, but—in social relations—in an enviable state of mental equilibrium. Then came emancipation. It offered undreamt of opportunities for advancement. The isolated individual quickly found their way into the upper financial and social circles of society. They eagerly absorbed the great achievements of art and science which the Occidentals [At the time Einstein made his statement, Jews and Gentiles often referred to Jews as “Orientals”.] had created. They contributed to the development with passionate affection, and themselves made contributions of lasting value. They thereby took on the lifestyle of the Gentile world, turning away from their religious and social traditions in growing masses—took on Gentile customs, manners and mentality. It appeared as if they were being completely dissolved into the numerically superior, politically and culturally better organized host peoples, such that no trace of them would be left after a few generations. The complete eradication of the Jewish nationality in Middle and Western Europe appeared to be inevitable. However, it didn’t turn out that way. It appears that racially distinct nations have instincts which work against interbreeding. The adaptation of the Jews to the European peoples among whom they have lived in language, customs and indeed even partially in religious practices were unable to eliminate all feelings of foreigness which exist between Jews and their European host peoples. In short, this spontaneous feeling of foreigness is ultimately due to a loss of energy. For this reason, not even well-meant arguments can eradicate it. Nationalities do not want to be mixed together, rather they want to go their own separate ways. A state of peace can only be achieved by mutual tolerance and respect.”

Einstein stated that Jews should not participate in the German Government,

“I regretted the fact that [Rathenau] became a Minister. In view of the attitude which large numbers of the educated classes in Germany assume towards the Jews, I have always thought that their natural conduct in public should be one of proud reserve.”–A. Einstein quoted in: R. W. Clarck, Einstein, the Life and Times, World Publishing Company, USA, (1971), p. 292. Clarck refers to: Neue Rundschau, Volume 33, Part 2, pp. 815-816.

Einstein merely parroted the Zionist Party line. Werner E. Mosse wrote,

“While the leaders of the CV saw it as their special duty to represent the interests of the German Jews in the active political struggle, Zionism stood for. . . systematic Jewish non-participation in German public life. It rejected as a matter of principle any participation in the struggle led by the CV.”—W. E. Mosse, “Die Niedergang der deutschen Republik und die Juden”, The Crucial Year 1932, p. 38; English translation in: K. Polkehn, “The Secret Contacts: Zionism and Nazi Germany, 1933-1941”, Journal of Palestine Studies, Volume 5, Number ¾, (Spring-Summer, 1976), pp. 54-82, at 56-57.

The Jewish Central-Verein fought against Nazi racism, while the Zionist newspaper Jüdische Rundschau often embraced it. In 1925, Einstein wrote in the official Zionist Party organ Jüdische Rundschau,

“By study of their past, by a better understanding of the spirit [Geist] that accords with their race, they must learn to know anew the mission that they are capable of fulfilling. [***] What one must be thankful to Zionism for is the fact that it is the only movement that has given many Jews a justified pride, that it has once again given a despairing race the necessary faith, if I may so express myself, given new flesh to an exhausted people.”–A. Einstein quoted in: J. Stachel, “Einstein’s Jewish Identity”, Einstein from ‘B’ to ‘Z’, Birkhäuser, Boston, (2002), p. 67. Stachel cites, “Botschaft”, Jüdische Rundschau, Volume 30, (1925), p. 129; French translation, La Revue Juive, Volume 1, (1925), pp. 14-16.

On 12 October 1929, Albert Einstein wrote to the Manchester Guardian,

“In the re-establishment of the Jewish nation in the ancient home of the race, where Jewish spiritual values could again be developed in a Jewish atmosphere, the most enlightened representatives of Jewish individuality see the essential preliminary to the regeneration of the race and the setting free of its spiritual creativeness.”—A. Einstein quoted in: J. Stachel, “Einstein’s Jewish Identity”, Einstein from ‘B’ to ‘Z’, Birkhäuser, Boston, (2002), p. 65. Stachel cites, About Zionism: Speeches and Letters, Macmillan, New York, (1931), pp. 78-79.

Einstein’s public racism eventually waned, but he continued to publicly express his segregationist philosophy in the same terms as anti-Semites, as well as his belief that Jews “thrived on” and owed their “continued existence” to anti-Semitism. Einstein stated in December of 1930 to an American audience,

“There is something indefinable which holds the Jews together. Race does not make much for solidarity. Here in America you have many races, and yet you have the solidarity. Race is not the cause of the Jews’ solidarity, nor is their religion. It is something else—which is indefinable.”—A. Einstein quoted in: “Einstein on Arrival Braves Limelight for Only 15 Minutes”, The New York Times, (12 December 1930), pp. 1, 16, at 16.

Einstein’s confusing public statement perhaps resulted from his desire to promote multi-culturalism in America, which had the benefit of freeing up Jewish immigration to the United States. Einstein was also likely parroting, or trying to parrot, a fellow anti-assimilationist political Zionist whose pamphlet was well known in America, Solomon Schechter and his Zionism: A Statement, Federation of American Zionists, New York, (1906), in which Schechter states, among other things, “Zionism is an ideal, and as such is indefinable.”

Einstein stated in 1938,

“Just What Is a Jew? The formation of groups has an invigorating effect in all spheres of human striving, perhaps mostly due to the struggle between the convictions and aims represented by the different groups. The Jews, too, form such a group with a definite character of its own, and anti-Semitism is nothing but the antagonistic attitude produced in the non-Jews by the Jewish group. This is a normal social reaction. But for the political abuse resulting from it, it might never have been designated by a special name. What are the characteristics of the Jewish group? What, in the first place, is a Jew? There are no quick answers to this question. The most obvious answer would be the following: A Jew is a person professing the Jewish faith. The superficial character of this answer is easily recognized by means of a simple parallel. Let us ask the question: What is a snail? An answer similar in kind to the one given above might be: A snail is an animal inhabiting a snail shell. This answer is not altogether incorrect; nor, to be sure, is it exhaustive; for the snail shell happens to be but one of the material products of the snail. Similarly, the Jewish faith is but one of the characteristic products of the Jewish community. It is, furthermore, known that a snail can shed its shell without thereby ceasing to be a snail. The Jew who abandons his faith (in the formal sense of the word) is in a similar position. He remains a Jew. [***] Where Oppression Is a Stimulus [***] Perhaps even more than on its own tradition, the Jewish group has thrived on oppression and on the antagonism it has forever met in the world. Here undoubtedly lies one of the main reasons for its continued existence through so many thousands of years.”—A. Einstein, “Why do They Hate the Jews?”, Collier’s, Volume 102, (26 November 1938); reprinted in Ideas and Opinions, Crown, New York, (1954), pp. 191-198, at 194, 196. Einstein expressed himself in a similar way to Peter A. Bucky, P. A. Bucky, Einstein, and A. G. Weakland, The Private Albert Einstein, Andrews and McMeel, Kansas City, (1992), p. 87.

Einstein went along with the crowd of prominent political Zionists who openly stated that anti-Semitism is welcomed, encouraged and useful to the Zionists. They based their belief on Spinoza’s declaration that emancipation leads to assimilation and that the Jews only exist in modern times because of anti-Semitism. Prominent Zionist and author of the Encyclopaedia Judaica; das Judentum in Geschichte und Gegenwart, Jakob Klatzkin stated in 1925,

“The national viewpoint taught us to understand the true nature of antisemitism, and this understanding widens the horizons of our national outlook. [***] In the age of enlightenment antisemitism was included among the phenomena that are likely to disappear along with other forms of prejudice and iniquity. The antisemites, so the rule stated, were the laggard elements in the march of progress. Hence, our fate is dependent on the advance of human culture, and its victory is our victory. [***] In the period of Zionism, we learned that antisemitism was a psychic-social phenomenon that derives from our existence as a nation within a nation. Hence, it cannot change, until we attain our national end. But if Zionism had fully understood its own implications, it would have arrived, not merely as a psycho-sociological explanation of this phenomenon, but also as a justification of it. It is right to protest against its crude expressions, but we are unjust to it and distort its nature so long as we do not recognize that essentially it is a defense of the integrity of a nation, in whose throat we are stuck, neither to be swallowed nor to be expelled. [***] And when we are unjust to this phenomenon, we are unfair to our own people. If we do not admit the rightfulness of antisemitism, we deny the rightfulness of our own nationalism. If our people is deserving and willing to live its own national life, then it is an alien body thrust into the nations among whom it lives, an alien body that insists on its own distinctive identity, reducing the domain of their life. It is right, therefore, that they should fight against us for their national integrity. [***] Know this, that it is a good sign for us that the nations of the world combat us. It is proof that our national image is not yet utterly blurred, our alienism is still felt. If the war against us should cease or be weakened, it would indicate that our image has become indistinct and our alienism softened. We shall not obtain equality of rights anywhere save at the price of an explicit or implied declaration that we are no longer a national body, but part of the body of the host-nation; or that we are willing to assimilate and become part of it. [***] Instead of establishing societies for defense against the antisemites, who want to reduce our rights, we should establish societies for defense against our friends who desire to defend our rights. [***] When Moses came to redeem the children of Israel, their leaders said to him, ‘You have made our odor evil in the eyes of Pharaoh and in the eyes of his servants, giving them a sword with which to kill us.’ Nevertheless, Moses persisted in worsening the situation of the people, and he saved them. [Emphasis Added]”—J. Klatzkin, Tehumim: Ma’amarim, Devir, Berlin, (1925). English translation in J. B. Agus, The Meaning of Jewish History, Volume 2, Abelard-Schuman, New York, (1963), pp. 425-426.

Karl Kautsky predicted that the Jews would disappear due to their assimilation following World War I. The First World War, which the Zionists planned would fulfill their dream of a Jewish state, instead rendered it obsolete, and they were the only group that had a vested interest in promoting discord in Europe, anti-Semitism and the segregation and expulsion of Jews. Others had learned that the emigration of large numbers of Jews from their country resulted in economic hardship. The Zionists unwisely promised profits for all from racism directed against Jews.

Albert Einstein’s anti-assimilationist beliefs hailed from an ancient tradition. Simon Dubnow wrote in 1905,

“Assimilation is common treason against the banner and ideals of the Jewish people. [***] But one can never ‘become’ a member of a natural group, such as a family, a tribe, or a nation. One may attain the rights or privileges of citizenship with a foreign nation, but one cannot appropriate for himself its nationality too. To be sure, the emancipated Jew in France calls himself a Frenchman of Jewish faith. Would that mean, however, that he became a part of the French nation, confessing to the Jewish faith? Not at all. Because, in order to be a member of the French nation one must be a Frenchman by birth, one must be able to trace his genealogy back to the Gauls, or to another race in close kinship with them, and finally one must also possess those characteristics which are the result of the historic evolution of the French nation. A Jew, on the other hand, even if he happened to be born in France and still lives there, in spite of all this, he remains a member of the Jewish nation, and whether he likes it or not, whether he is aware or unaware of it, he bears the seal of the historic evolution of the Jewish nation.”—S. Dubnow, Die Grundlagen des Nationaljudentums, Jüdischer Verlag, Berlin, (1905). English translation from K. A. Strom, Editor, The Best of Attack! and National Vanguard Tabloid, National Alliance, Arlington, Virginia, (1984), p. 60.

Long before the First World War, Voltaire stated in the end of Chapter 104 of his Essai sur les Moeurs et l’Esprit des Nations, et sur les Principaux faits de l’Histoire Depuis Charlemagne Jusqu’à Louis XIII, (1769); that should Gentiles—in Voltaire’s view—become wise to the ways of Jews and prevent Jews from exploiting them, then rich Jews would abandon their religious superstitions and assimilate and the poor Jews would become thieves like Gypsies. According to Voltaire, whose work was well known, Jews would disappear through assimilation. [See: F. M. Arouet de Voltaire, Histoire de Charles XII, Roi de Suède, (1731); and Dictionnaire Philosophique, Multiple Editions; multiple English translations, including: W. F. Flemming, A Philosophical Dictionary, Volume 6, Dingwall-Rock, New York, (1901), pp. 266-313; and Essai sur les Moeurs et l’Esprit des Nations, et sur les Principaux faits de l’Histoire Depuis Charlemagne Jusqu’à Louis XIII, Chapter 104, (1769); and Philosophie Génerale: Métaphysique, Morale et Théologie, Chez Sanson et Compagnie, Aux Deux-Ponts, (1792).]

The emancipation of Jews in Bolshevik lands, and the assimilation of affluent Jews in capitalistic societies, greatly concerned the Zionists, who feared it would be the end of all Jews. Before Voltaire, Spinoza noted that assimilation was causing the Jewish ethnicity to disappear. After Voltaire, Wellhausen, relying on Spinoza’s observations, noted that emancipation was leading the Jews to assimilate and therefore to disappear—a fact that terrified the Zionists, many of whom were hypocrites who had themselves married Gentiles. Julius Wellhausen wrote in 1881,

“The Jews, through their having on the one hand separated themselves, and on the other hand been excluded on religious grounds from the Gentiles, gained an internal solidarity and solidity which has hitherto enabled them to survive all the attacks of time. The hostility of the Middle Ages involved them in no danger; the greatest peril has been brought upon them by modern times, along with permission and increasing inducements to abandon their separate position. It is worth while to recall on this point the opinion of Spinoza,[Footnote: Tract. Theol. Polit. 0. 4, ad fin.] who was well able to form a competent judgment:--‘That the Jews have maintained themselves so long in spite of their dispersed and disorganised condition is not at all to be wondered at, when it is considered how they separated themselves from all other nationalities in such a way as to bring upon themselves the hatred of all, and that not only by external rites contrary to those of other nations, but also by the sign of circumcision, which they maintain most religiously. Experience shows that their conservation is due in a great degree to the very hatred which they have incurred. When the king of Spain compelled the Jews either to accept the national religion or to go into banishment, very many of them accepted the Roman Catholic faith, and in virtue of this received all the privileges of Spanish subjects, and were declared eligible for every honour; the consequence was that a process of absorption began immediately, and in a short time neither trace nor memory of them survived. Quite different was the history of those whom the king of Portugal compelled to accept the creed of his nation; although converted, they continued to live apart from the rest of their fellow-subjects, having been declared unfit for any dignity. So great importance do I attach to the sign of circumcision also in this connection, that I am persuaded that it is sufficient by itself to maintain the separate existence of the nation for ever.’ The persistency of the race may, of course, prove a harder thing to overcome than Spinoza has supposed; but nevertheless he will be found to have spoken truly in declaring that the so-called emancipation of the Jews must inevitably lead to the extinction of Judaism wherever the process is extended beyond the political to the social sphere. For the accomplishment of this centuries may be required.”—J. Wellhausen, Sketch of the History of Israel and Judah, Third Edition, Adam and Charles Black, London, (1891), pp. 201-203.

Biblical writings tell that God will punish assimilated Jews and pious Jews to remind all of Israel who God is. God punishes them with the sword and with fire and renders them ash. The punishment of the Jews through murderous anti-Semitism in order to drive them back to God is perhaps most strongly advocated in the book of Ezekiel. Zionist Theodor Herzl concluded that anti-Semitism was a good and useful thing, in that it forced Jews towards Zionism and segregation. Herzl wrote in Chapter 4 of his book The Jewish State,

“Great exertions will hardly be necessary to spur on the movement. Anti-Semites provide the requisite impetus. They need only do what they did before, and then they will create a desire to emigrate where it did not previously exist, and strengthen it where it existed before.”

Spiritual Zionist Ahad Ha-Am noted that Western Zionists thrived on anti-Semitism, because their racist political Zionism is “a product of anti-Semitism, and is dependent on anti-Semitism for its existence[.]”—A. Ha-Am, “The Jewish State and the Jewish Problem”, in A. Hertzberg, The Zionist Idea, Harper Torchbooks, New York, (1959), pp. 262-269, at 266.

Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann wrote to Ha-Am, in mid-December, 1914,

“I pointed out to [Balfour] that we too are in agreement with the cultural antisemites, in so far as we believe that Germans of the Mosaic faith are an undesirable, demoralizing phenomenon, but that we totally disagree with [Cosima] Wagner and [Houston Stewart] Chamberlain as to the diagnosis and the prognosis; and I also said that, after all, all these Jews have taken part in building Germany, contributing much to her greatness, as other Jews have to the greatness of France and England, at the expense of the whole Jewish people, whose sufferings increase in proportion to ‘the withdrawal’ from that people of the creative elements which are absorbed into the surrounding communities—those same communities later reproaching us for this absorption, and reacting with antisemitism.”—Letter from C. Weizmann to A. Ha-Am of December 14 and 15, 1914, in: C. Weizmann, Edited by L. Stein, et al., The Letters and Papers of Chaim Weizmann, Volume 7, Israel Universities Press, Jerusalem, (1975), pp. 81-83, at 81-82. Reprinted in: L. Brenner, Editor, 51 Documents: Zionist Collaboration with the Nazis, Barricade Books Inc., Fort Lee, New Jersey, (2002), pp. 21-22, at 22.

Even after obtaining the Balfour Declaration in exchange for bringing America into the war on the side of Great Britain, the Zionists faced a seemingly insurmountable challenge after the First World War. The vast majority of Jews did not want to segregate, much less steal the Arab’s land and move to the desert. The question prompts itself, to what extent did the Zionists promote the anti-Semitism of the Holocaust, which ultimately led to formation of the State of Israel? Israel Zangwill, in consort with many other Zionists—including Einstein, stated in 1914,

“But if from the Gentile point of view the Jewish problem is an artificial creation, there is a very real Jewish problem from the Jewish point of view—a problem which grows in exact proportion to the diminution of the artificial problem. Orthodox Judaism in the diaspora cannot exist except in a Ghetto, whether imposed from without or evolved from within. Rigidly professing Jews cannot enter the general social life and the professions. Jews qua Jews were better off in the Dark Ages, living as chattels of the king under his personal protection and to his private profit, or in the ages when they were confined in Ghettos. Even in the Russian Pale a certain measure of autonomy still exists. It is emancipation that brings the ‘Jewish Problem.’ It is precisely in Italy with its Jewish Prime Minister and its Jewish Syndic of Rome that this problem is most acute. The Saturday Sabbath imposes economic limitations even when the State has abolished them. As Shylock pointed out, his race cannot eat or drink with the Gentile. Indeed, social intercourse would lead to intermarriage. Unless Judaism is reformed it is, in the language of Heine, a misfortune, and if it is reformed, it cannot logically confine its teachings to the Hebrew race, which, lacking the normal protection of a territory, must be swallowed up by its proselytes. [***] Nor is there anywhere in the Jewish world of to-day any centripetal force to counteract these universal tendencies to dissipation. The religion is shattered into as many fragments as the race. After the fall of Jerusalem the Academy of Jabneh carried on the authoritative tradition of the Sanhedrin. In the Middle Ages there was the Asefah or Synod to unify Jews under Judaism. From the middle of the sixteenth to the middle of the eighteenth century, the Waad or Council of Four Lands legislated almost autonomously in those Central European regions where the mass of the Jews of the world was then congregated. To-day there is no center of authority, whether religious or political. Reform itself is infinitely individual, and nothing remains outside a few centers of congestion but a chaos of dissolving views and dissolving communities, saved from utter disappearance by persecution and racial sympathy. The notion that Jewish interests are Jesuitically federated or that Jewish financiers use their power for Jewish ends is one of the most ironic of myths. No Jewish people or nation now exists, no Jews even as sectarians of a specific faith with a specific center of authority such as Catholics or Wesleyans possess; nothing but a multitude of individuals, a mob hopelessly amorphous, divided alike in religion and political destiny. There is no common platform from which the Jews can be addressed, no common council to which any appeal can be made. Their only unity is negative—that unity imposed by the hostile hereditary vision of the ubiquitous Haman. [***] The labors of Hercules sink into child’s play beside the task the late Dr. Herzl set himself in offering to this flotsam and jetsam of history the project of political reorganization on a single soil. But even had this dauntless idealist secured co-operation instead of bitter hostility from the denaturalized leaders of all these Jewries, the attempt to acquire Palestine would have had the opposition of Turkey and of the 600,000 Arabs in possession. It is little wonder that since the great leader’s lamentable death, Zionism—again with that idealization of impotence—has sunk back into a cultural movement which instead of ending the Exile is to unify it through the Hebrew tongue and nationalist sentiment. But for such unification, a religious revival would have been infinitely more efficacious: race alone cannot survive the pressure of so many hostile milieux—or still more parlous—so many friendly. [***] In the diaspora anti-Semitism will always be the shadow of Semitism. The law of dislike for the unlike will always prevail. And whereas the unlike is normally situated at a safe distance, the Jews bring the unlike into the heart of every milieu and must thus defend a frontier-line as large as the world. The fortunes of war vary in every country, but there is a perpetual tension and friction even at the most peaceful points, which tend to throw back the race on itself. The drastic method of love—the only human dissolvent—has never been tried upon the Jew as a whole, and Russia carefully conserves—even by a ring fence—the breed she designs to destroy. But whether persecution extirpates or brotherhood melts, hate or love can never be simultaneous throughout the diaspora, and so there will probably always be a nucleus from which to restock this eternal type. But what a melancholy immortality! ‘To be and not to be’—that is a question beside which Hamlet’s alternative is crude. [***] But abolition of the Pale and the introduction of Jewish equality will be the deadliest blow ever aimed at Jewish nationality. Very soon a fervid Russian patriotism will reign in every Ghetto and the melting-up of the race will begin. But this absorption of the five million Jews into the other hundred and fifty millions of Russia constitutes the Jewish half of the problem. It is the affair of the Jews. [***] Moreover, while as already pointed out the Jewish upper classes are, if anything, inferior to the classes into which they are absorbed, the marked superiority of the Jewish masses to their environment, especially in Russia, would render their absorption a tragic degeneration. [Emphasis Added]”—I. Zangwill, The Problem of the Jewish Race, Judaen Publishing Company, New York, (1914).

In 1914, Zionist Joseph Chaim Brenner stated that Jews owed their survival to anti-Semitism, a thought echoed by Albert Einstein,

“Then they come and tell us: All praise to our history of martyrdom! All praise to the martyr-people who suffered everything and yet survived despite all persecution, all oppression by authorities, and all hatred of the people. But here, too, who can tell us what might have happened if not for the oppression and the hatred? Who can tell us whether, had there been no universal and understandable hatred of such a strange being, the Jew, that strange being would have survived at all? But the hatred was inevitable, and hence survival was equally inevitable! A form of survival such as befits that kind of being, survival with no struggle for worldly things (apart from those familiar livelihoods by which we live a dog’s or a loan-shark’s life) but, of course, full of martyrdom for the sake of the world-to-come, yes, certainly, in the name of the Kingdom of Heaven. [***] The expulsions and the ghettos—these assured our survival. [***] History! History! But what has history to tell? It can tell that wherever the majority population, by some fluke, did not hate the Jews among them, the Jews immediately started aping them in everything, gave in on everything, and mustered the last of their meager strength to be like everyone else. Even when the yoke of ghetto weighed most heavily upon them—how many broke through the walls? How many lost all self-respect in the face of the culture and beautiful way of life of the others! How many envied the others! How many yearned to approach them![Emphasis Added]”—J. H. Brenner, “Self-Criticism”, in A. Hertzberg, The Zionist Idea, Harper Torchbooks, New York, (1959), pp. 307-312, at 308, 310.

Before the Holocaust, political Zionists warned assimilatory Jewry that the Holocaust was coming, then political Zionists encouraged it. While the Holocaust was occurring, political Zionists rejoiced in the fact that the prophecies were being fulfilled and gloated over their warnings, which were made good by their own actions. It is some magician who holds up a cup of blood, predicts that it will spill, and then deliberately pours it onto the ground. After the Holocaust, Jewish and Christian Zionists poured blame on assimilatory Jewry for the demise of the Jews in Europe. [An interesting dialog on this issue takes place in the 1991 film The Quarrel directed by Eli Cohen.] The Zionists had a road map to Jerusalem in the book of Ezekiel, and the road was paved by Hitler.

RACIST ZIONISTS ON “THE FINAL SOLUTION TO THE JEWISH QUESTION”:

The expression “final solution of the Jewish question (or: problem)” was a commonplace in the parlance of the Zionists long before the Wannsee-Konferenz. The exact phrasing depends upon translation, but one finds such phrases in: A. Ha-Am, “The Negation of the Diaspora”, in A. Hertzberg, The Zionist Idea, Harper Torchbooks, New York, (1959), pp. 270-277, at 272-273, 277.

Nahum Sokolow wrote in the introduction of his History of Zionism of 1919,

“The progress of modern civilization has come to be regarded as a sort of ‘Messiah’ for the final solution of the Jewish problem.”—N. Sokolow, History of Zionism 1600-1918, Volume 1, Longmans, Green and Co., New York, (1919), p. xvii.

Sokolow spoke in context of the “Jewish mission” of reformed Jews under the influence of Moses Mendelssohn to arrogantly proselytize a generic form of Judaism with a friendly face, which they had allegedly stripped of its racist underpinnings and overtones, to the Gentiles of the world, and in so doing integrate Jews into the common culture, while undermining other religions and cultures. The Zionists believed this “final solution of the Jewish problem” resulted in fatal assimilation, whereas the Zionists were pitching racism, segregation and Palestine as the “final solution of the Jewish problem”.

In 1898, an American Zionist, Richard Gottheil, proposed a Zionist “final solution of the Jewish question”, which was identical to the Nazis’ “final solution”. Gottheil feared the loss of the Jewish race, not through violent genocide, but by “a final solution of the Jewish question” of “assimilation”. Gottheil proposed that Jews form a nation in Palestine in order to maintain the Jewish race through segregation. Note that Gottheil mentions “those Jews who are forced to go” to Palestine. Gottheil’s speech appeared in The World’s Best Orations, Volume 6, F. P. Kaiser, St. Louis, (1899), pp. 2294-2298:

“THE JEWS AS A RACE AND AS A NATION

(Peroration of the Address, ‹The Aims of Zionism,› Delivered in New York
City, November 1st, 1898)

I KNOW that there are a great many of our people who look for a final solution of the Jewish question in what they call «assimilation.» The more the Jews assimilate themselves to their surroundings, they think, the more completely will the causes for anti-Jewish feeling cease to exist. But have you ever for a moment stopped to consider what assimilation means? It has very pertinently been pointed out that the use of the word is borrowed from the dictionary of physiology. But in physiology it is not the food which assimilates itself into the body. It is the body which assimilates the food. The Jew may wish to be assimilated; he may do all he will towards this end. But if the great mass in which he lives does not wish to assimilate him—what then? If demands are made upon the Jew which practically mean extermination, which practically mean his total effacement from among the nations of the globe and from among the religious forces of the world, -- what answer will you give? And the demands made are practically of that nature. [Emphasis Added]”

The minutes of the Nazis’ Wannsee Conference do not contain any statements plotting the deliberate murder of Jews. The “final solution of the Jewish question” proposed in the minutes of the Wannsee Conference was not murder, sterilization or complete extermination; but was instead the deportation of Jews to the East in conformity with the wishes of the Zionists. An English translation of the minutes appears in: R. S. Levy, “Wannsee Conference on the Final Solution of the Jewish Question”, Antisemitism in the Modern World: An Anthology of Texts, D.C. Heath, Toronto, (1991), pp. 252-258; see also: pp. 250-252.

Nazi propagandist Julius Streicher affirmed at the Nuremberg Trials that the Nuremberg Laws of 1935 were patterned after Jewish Law,

“Yes, I believe I had a part in it insofar as for years I have written that any further mixture of German blood with Jewish blood must be avoided. I have written such articles again and again; and in my articles I have repeatedly emphasized the fact that the Jews should serve as an example to every race, for they created a racial law for themselves—the law of Moses, which says, ‘If you come into a foreign land you shall not take unto yourself foreign women.’ And that, Gentlemen, is of tremendous importance in judging the Nuremberg Laws. These laws of the Jews were taken as a model for these laws. When, after centuries, the Jewish lawgiver Ezra discovered that notwithstanding many Jews had married non-Jewish women, these marriages were dissolved. That was the beginning of Jewry which, because it introduced these racial laws, has survived throughout the centuries, while all other races and civilizations have perished.”—Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 November 1945 -- 1 October 1946, Volume 12, Secretariat of the Tribunal, Nuremberg, Germany, p. 315.

Dr. Marx asked Julius Streicher, and note that the “1935 legislation” called for the segregation of Jews, not the extermination of the Jews, and was lauded by Zionists like Georg Kareski, A. I. Berndt, and Bernhard Loesener,

“Were you of the opinion that the 1935 legislation represented the final solution of the Jewish question by the State?”—Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 November 1945 -- 1 October 1946, Volume 12, Secretariat of the Tribunal, Nuremberg, Germany, p. 316.

Streicher, who was a vitriolic anti-Semitic Nazi propagandist and a man of Jewish descent and appearance, responded that Zionism was the final solution of the Jewish question,

“With reservations, yes. I was convinced that if the Party program was carried out, the Jewish question would be solved. The Jews became German citizens in 1848. Their rights as citizens were taken from them by these laws. Sexual intercourse was prohibited. For me, this represented the solution of the Jewish problem in Germany. But I believed that another international solution would still be found, and that some day discussions would take place between the various states with regard to the demands made by Zionism. These demands aimed at a Jewish state.”—Trial of the Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 14 November 1945 -- 1 October 1946, Volume 12, Secretariat of the Tribunal, Nuremberg, Germany, p. 316.