«by Dr. Karl Bergmeister Notes from the editor of this e-book: • The original scanned version of this book was downloaded from nazi.org.uk in July ...»
At the end of October 1934, the 16 witnesses called by the Jewish plaintiffs were heard, and on the 14th of May 1935 judgement was entered to the effect that the Protocols were a forgery and demoralising literature. No other decision was possible, because on the one hand the Marxist judge accepted the falsehoods of the Princess Radziwill and of the Comte du Chayla as correct, and consequently was bound to accept the expertises of Baumgarten and Loosli, which were founded upon these falsehoods; and on the other hand because he refused to listen to the objections raised by the expert Fleischhauer against these falsehoods. Quite apart from this, the judge went so far in his preconceived opinion that the Protocols were a forgery, and in his lack of objectivity under undisguised pressure from Jewry, that he did not even stop at deliberately setting aside the conditions laid down in the Swiss Civil Code for the carrying out of legal proceedings. Thus he only allowed the witnesses brought by the Jewish plaintiffs to be heard, whereas of the 40 witnesses brought by the defendants, not a single one was allowed a hearing. The proceedings were accordingly carried on solely upon the testimony of the Jewish plaintiffs.
In other ways also bias may be said to have celebrated triumphs. Thus the expert Fleischhauer was hindered by a variety of expedients from making use of his legal right to examine the documents of the other side; and whereas the two Swiss experts were allowed a good eight months for the preparation of their expertises, the judge demanded that Fleischhauer should prepare his expertise within six weeks. It was only after a protest, that he agreed to extend this period by the insufficient term of one month.
In consequence of all this, the principal defendant Silvio Schnell lodged an appeal through his counsel Hans Ruef.
After a lapse of two and a half years, the case was reopened in the Court of Criminal Appeal in Berne on October 27th 1937.
Messrs Ursprung and Ruef, counsel for the defendants, demanded that the verdict given in the court of first instance be quashed, and their clients acquitted. Mr. Ruef submitted that the evidence taken down during the original proceedings had not been submitted to the witnesses for signature, and argued that little credibility could in any event be attached to their statements. He pointed out moreover that all the Russian documents which had been submitted to the court by M. Loosli were uncertified copies of the originals, and that a number of mistakes had been discovered in the different translations.
Mr. Ruef finally declared that it was not possible to apply the Bernese law to the incriminated document, because its contents were of a political, and not of a moral nature.
The Assistant Public Prosecutor Loder recognised that the manner in which the official record of the proceedings had been kept in the court of first instance had not been correct, and he further recognised that a whole series of errors in the sense of the Penal Code had been committed.
On the 1st November 1937 the Appeal Court pronounced judgement in the following terms:
"The accused Sylvio Schnell is acquitted without indemnity, all elements which might constitute a basis for the charge being absent."
In summing up the President declared that any expertise on the authenticity or nonauthenticity of the Protocols was superfluous. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion being a political pamphlet of a polemical order, the Bernese law did not apply. For this reason a complete acquittal had been pronounced. The President declared with emphasis that the judge in the court of first instance had no right to set on foot enquiries as to the authenticity or the non-authenticity of the Protocols for the reason that the matter was irrelevant to the consideration of whether an immoral publication was to hand.
In this important lawsuit therefore Jewry have not attained their object.
When in spite of this the Jewish press announce that all that was decided by the Court of Appeal was that the Protocols are not demoralising literature, and that the declaration of the judge in the court of first instance that they are a forgery retains its validity, this amounts to no more than a gross misleading of public opinion.
In the Court of Appeal the judgement of the first court was quashed in its entirety, and the considerations upon which the first judge based his faulty judgement, and more especially his assumption that a forgery was to hand, were deprived of all weight.
4. The supposed proofs of forgery.
Of the evidence brought by Jewry against the authenticity of the Protocols already in 1921, and in Berne in 1934/1935, the following may be said to be the substance.
The assumption made by P r i n c e s s R a d z i w i l l that the Protocols were drawn up in the year 1906 after the Russo-Japanese War and the first Russian Revolution may be said to be false if only on the following grounds namely, that the text of the Protocols can be proved to have been in the hands of Stepanoff already in 1895, that in 1901 it was in the hands of Nilus, and that in the year 1903, it was published in the "Snamja". It can further be proved that in 1905, and some years previously, both Ratschkowsky and Golowinsky were no longer in Paris. Thus does the whole catena of lies contrived by Princess Radziwill fall to the ground.
This woman moreover falsely gave herself out as a princess in her interview with the Press in 1921, whereas already in 1914, after her divorce from Prince William Radziwill, she married an engineer called Karl Emil Kolb, from whom she was again shortly afterwards divorced, and in 1921 following upon of a new marriage became Mrs. Danvin. It was in vain for the expert Fleischhauer to point out to the court during the proceedings that the evidence of this woman could not be taken seriously, if only for the reason that she was a proven forger and crook. The court refused to make any investigation of her previous career. It might therefore be fitting at this point to mention some of her shady actions in the past. About the year 1900 she attached herself to the diamond mine owner C e c i l R h o d e s, at the time he was going to South Africa. On the grounds of pure vanity apparently she published in a paper called "Greater Britain", which she edited there, what purported to be an interview with the late M a r q u e s s o f S a l i s b u r y on the political situation in South Africa. In this interview Lord Salisbury is supposed to have expressed the view that Rhodes should be advanced to the position of Premier of Cape Colony. To put the matter beyond all doubt, the Princess showed Rhodes' private secretary the text of statement purporting to be signed by Lord Salisbury, and a telegram which she stated she had received from him inviting her to an interview. It came out afterwards that the telegram was not genuine, as it was not Lord Salisbury, but the Princess who had sent it to herself, that the interview had never taken place, and that moreover Lord Salisbury's signature had been forged.
During the year 1901, she passed cheques to the aggregate amount of £ 29,000, signing them with the name of Cecil Rhodes. Following upon this she was arrested and sentenced to eighteen months hard labour. A full account of this affair, and of other exploits of this forgeress and adventuress may be found in the memoirs of two of Cecil Rhodes' private secretaries entitled "Cecil Rhodes, his private life by his private secretary Philip Jourdan" London, 1910 and "Cecil Rhodes, the man and his work by one of his private and confidential secretaries, Gordon le Sueur". London
1913. Both books may be seen at the library of the University in Göttingen.
After leaving South Africa this woman did not alter her way of life. In 1921, she was arrested at the instance of two hotels in New York for having piled up bills for meals, and then disappeared without paying them.
A suitable witness indeed to prove that the Protocols are a forgery!
The patently false statement that the Protocols were first drawn up after the Russo-Japanese war in 1905 was very awkward to the C h i e f E x p e r t L o o s l i, s o h e i n h i s t u r n proceeded to falsify the evidence and with the object of adding verisimilitude to the statement made by Radziwill, he in his e x p e r t i s e u n o b t r u s i v e l y a l t e r e d t h e y e a r 1 9 0 5 t o 1 8 9 5. He was compelled by Fleischhauer seven months later to own up to this before the court. Even this incident produced no effect upon the biased judge. There are moreover definite grounds for the supposition that Landman laid before the Princess what was definitely a text, the main contents of which had been prepared beforehand, and which was afterwards ornamented by a few personal comments of her own. It is also stated that she was paid the unusually high sum of 500 Dollars for the interview by L e w i s M a r s h a l l, the B'nai Brith Mason and leader of American Jewry. This of course was no honorarium, but hush-money.
The second in the this unholy alliance was C o m t e d u C h a y l a, who was shameless enough to insist before the court upon the correctness of his article (previously referred to).
It was only after the lawsuit was over, that I succeeded in discovering the whereabouts o f S e r g e j S e r g e j e w i t s c h N i l u s, the son of the late S. A. Nilus, deceased in 1930, and the first publisher of the Protocols. In a detailed statement dated March 24 th 1936, Nilus junior states that Comte du Chayla published his report in "Dernières Nouvelles" being fully aware that it was untrue, and thus h e i s a p e r f i d i o u s l i a r a n d s l a n d e r e r. Nilus junior declared moreover that he himself was the legitimised son of S. A. Nilus, and of the latter's lifelong friend. This lady however was not Madame Natalia Afanassiewna, nor as stated by du Chayla, a Madame Komarowsky, but N a t a l i a A f a n a s s i e w n a W o l o d i m e r o w. She had never at any time been in touch with Ratschkowsky. She had moreover never had anything to do with the Protocols. Nilus junior declared himself prepared to state upon oath that he was himself present when in the year 1901, Major Suchotin, also a friend of his father's, had handed the manuscript over to him. He cannot remember having seen at the time the ominous inkstain upon the front page.
Further enquiries revealed the fact that Comte du Chayla in the year 1921, was Chief of Propaganda on the Staff of the Don Cossack Corps of General Wrangel's Army. During his employment in this capacity, he was discovered to be acting as a Bolshevist agent, and as such was arrested and condemned to death for high treason. General Wrangel however, acting under pressure from the French Ambassador quashed the sentence, and had to content himself with expelling the treasonable officer from the army.
Upon this matter and upon the previous career of the Count, State Councillor G r e g o r P e t r o w i t s c h G i r t s c h i t s c h, formerly in the Judge Advocate General's Department of Wrangel's army and at present living in Tunis, has furnished exhaustive information in a report dated the 30th April 1936, such information having added importance in view of the fact that Girtschiisch himself conducted the case against du Chayla.
Already at the beginning of June 1936, D r. B o r i s L i f f s c h i t z, a Russian Jew practising at the bar in Switzerland, and acting as counsel to du Chayla, was informed of the existence of these declarations, both of which were handed to the court. Du Chayla however omitted to bring any action for libel against S. S. Nilus. He apparently considered discretion to be the better part of valour, and that it was preferable in this instance to take the insult that he was a perfidious liar and slanderer sitting down, rather than take the risk of bringing an action against S. S. Nilus which would expose him to the danger of Nilus proving his contention true.
Yet a third witness has recently come forward in the person of A n d r e j P e t r o w i t s c h R a t s c h k o w s k y in Paris. He is the son of State Councillor Ratschkowsky, whom incidentally, Du Chayla falsely described as a general, a rank which he never held. In a written statement dated 13th July 1936, he states that he has searched through all the archives of his late father, which are in his possession, that is to say not only through his private correspondence, but also through all drafts of reports sent to the authorities in St. Petersburg, and that nowhere has he been able to detect the smallest trace of his father over having had anything to do with the Protocols. He had moreover never had so much as a hint from his father that the Protocols were known to him. His father had never been an Anti-Semite, he had had Jews as friends and collaborators, and more particularly at the time of the publication of the Protocols, his Secretary was the Jew M. G o l s c h m a n n. Finally his father was never acquainted with the fabulous Madame Komarowsky, who was supposed to have handed the document over to him.
Through the reports of those who might be described as the most telling witnesses in the case namely Nilus junior, Girtschitsch and Ratschkowsky junior, light has finally been brought to bear upon the forger's den. The statements of the crook and ex-Princess Radziwill, now Mrs. K. Danvin, and of the Bolshevist Agent and traitor Comte du Chayla are in all essential points untrue. State Councillor Ratschkowsky had never on any occasion anything to do with the Protocols. Nilus's lifelong friend who according to du Chayla was the go-between who handed him the Protocols, was not called Komarowsky, but Wolodimerow, and was never in contact of any kind with Ratschkowsky.