Trapped on our home page with no table of contents?
Here's your escape hatch.

• Don't miss the overarching Thornwalker site!

(Back home for on-siters.)

Nicholas Strakon
Publisher and editor
  Ronald Neff
Managing editor
Our bashful  SUPPORT  page

The Olson File
 April 22, 2021

Were Europe’s Jews Sacrificed
To Further the Zionist Dream of a Jewish State?

   by Douglas Olson

Books are wonderful things, primarily because they preserve thoughts and history that certain individuals and groups are determined to cover up and eradicate. Often, it is more rewarding to read the books of strangers — even outright enemies — than those of friends, whose thoughts may very well already be known to the reader, no matter how vaguely. It is from strangers and enemies that you are most likely find the most interesting revelations.

Take, for example, anti-Zionist Rabbi Elmer Berger’s book Judaism or Jewish Nationalism: The Alternative to Zionism, published by Bookman Associates in 1957.

Berger’s arguments against Zionism are not nearly as interesting as a short tale he recounts that was told to him by “the distinguished American liberal and fighter for civil liberties, Morris Ernst, who had been a close friend and advisor of Franklin Roosevelt,” at the annual conference of the American Council for Judaism in 1950:

  Roosevelt had an idea [in late 1940 or early 1941] that what we ought to do with the people pushed around in Europe was to get up what he called a World Budget and let all the free nations of the world agree as to how many people they would take in as immigrants irrespective of race, creed, color or political belief. The President told me that he was sure that he could get so many into Canada, so many into Australia, so many in each South American country....

I went over to England on Roosevelt’s hunch that I should speak to the British, the officials, to see if they would agree to take in 100,000 or 200,000 of the people pushed around by the Nazis. It was Roosevelt’s hunch that if we could get England for a hundred or two hundred thousand and pick up a couple of hundred thousand elsewhere in the world, nation by nation, we could then educate the Congress of the United States to go back to our traditional position of asylum: a position that is not only good from the point of view of compassion but is essential for the enrichment of our own culture. *

I went to England and I sat with officials and came back one day to the White House, and I said, “We’re at home plate. That little island of Great Britain” — mind you, it was during the blitz that I was there — “that little island, I am convinced, on a properly representative program of a World Immigration Budget (or what we now call Displaced Persons) will take in 150,000 — or in any event will match the great United States up to 150,000.” The boss turned to me — I thought I had done a good job — and he said, “A hundred and fifty thousand to England; 150,000 to match them in the United States, pick up 200,000 or 300,000 elsewhere; we can start with half a million of the oppressed.”

I came back in about a week.... He turned to me, adding: “Nothing doing on the program.” I said, “What’s the matter?” He said, “We can’t put it over because the dominant vocal Jewish leadership of America won’t stand for it.” And I said, “It’s impossible. Why?”

He said, “Well, they’re right from their point of view. The Zionist movement knows that Palestine is, and will be for some time, a remittance society. They know that they can raise vast sums for Palestine by saying to donors, ‘there is no other place this poor Jew can go.’” But, said Roosevelt, “if there’s a world political asylum for all people irrespective of race, creed or color, they can’t raise their money. Because the people who don’t want to give money will have an excuse and say, ‘what do you mean there’s no place they can go but Palestine? They are the preferred wards of the world.’”

I could scarcely believe it. I didn’t want to believe it. That a bit of chauvinism and nationalism among a few leaders of the Jewish organizations of America could defeat an overall haven for the oppressed of Europe. I said, “Let me test it out.” I went to friends of mine, without mentioning the British people I had spoken to, without mentioning Roosevelt — I laid down this grand dream, this great plan — of the world joining together to give relief to the people pushed around by Hitler.

I assure you that I was thrown out of parlors of friends of mine. And they said very frankly, and they were right from their point of view, “Morris,” they would say, “this is treason — you’re undermining the Zionist movement.” I’d say, “Yes, maybe I am. But I’m much more interested in a haven for half a million or a million people — oppressed throughout the world....”

[Rabbi Berger then comments:] Zionists themselves were anything but coy or cagey about making it clear that their interest in humanitarianism was incidental to their conviction the so-called “Jewish” problem had to be solved within the framework of world recognition that “the Jewish people” was a nation. International recognition of the Zionist formula for a “Jewish” state in Palestine constituted such international recognition of “Jewish” nationalism. No program to solve the refugee problem or to admit Jews to Palestine which did not proceed from this fundamental Zionist premise was acceptable to Zionism.

The most striking thing here — besides the fact that Ernst related this story to the anti-Zionist Berger at all — is that he first quotes Roosevelt as concerned about “people pushed around in Europe ... regardless of race, creed, color or political belief,” but later admits that it’s really all about Jews.

If the Jews didn’t want to participate in the refugee program, why should that have barred hundreds of thousands of Gentiles from fleeing the war zones under Roosevelt’s “humanitarian” scheme? Obviously, it was either because Roosevelt didn’t have the guts to stand up for these goyim in the face of powerful Jewish opposition, or because he really intended all along to help only the Jews.

If the scheme had proceeded only for the benefit of the Gentiles, it is equally obvious in hindsight that international Jewry would have boldly lied and claimed that Jews had been deliberately excluded by the governments involved because of “anti-Semitism,” and would have used that falsehood to raise even more money and sympathy for their brethren.

Instead, because the Jewish power structure cared more for its racist empire-building than the fate of its own people in the war zones — over whom Jewish elites have since cried oceans of phony tears and reaped countless billions of dollars in reparations and incalculable political advantages. They also damned untold numbers of Gentiles to death in those areas by their shameless greed for the money and the power to realize their monstrous and inevitably disastrous racial schemes.

And who can dare say I’m not right — “from my point of view”? Ω

* Note this early tribute to what has since become deified as “diversity” — just as big a lie in the early 1940s as it is today.

April 22, 2021

Earlier entries in The Olson File and Douglas Olson’s occasional anthologies, Freak Show and Flashback, are all available in the Olson archive.



Published by Thornwalker at, 2021

Reprint information.