«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 ...»
Apart from this question, the research into the origins of the Protocols must be carried out to its very last detail. It would be particularly important to find out from whom Major Suchotin received the Protocols in 1895, or at an earlier date. Here we find ourselves at a dead end, which is all the more difficult to overcome, as the supposedly non-Jewish Soviet State puts difficulties in the way of all enquiries which are likely to prove disadvantageous to the Jews. Moreover the former Member of the Duma, Colonel B a r o n B. E n g e l h a r d t, in a communication from Riga, dated the 2 nd April 1935, states that in the Spring of 1917, immediately after the formation of the Provisional Government by the Freemason P r i n c e L w o w, it became the principal care of that government to remove from the Ministry of Home Affairs and from the Police Department all confidential documents having relation either to Jewry or to the Protocols.
All files and documents of a nature disagreeable to Jewry were collected, and under orders from Prince Lwow handed over against written receipt to the Jewish Politician W i n a w e r, a member of the Masonically influenced Miljukow party. From this time onwards the material in question completely disappeared.
The expert Loosli did it is true, succeed through the intermediary of the Jewish solicitor T a g e r in Moscow in borrowing from the Soviet government documents for the composition of his expertise. These however, in spite of desperate efforts on the part of Loosli to nail down Ratschkowsky as the forger of the Protocols, do not afford the smallest ground for this assumption. Moreover apart from this, these documents of which Loosli was as proud as he was of the forgeries of Radziwill and of du Chayla, contain nothing whatever relating to the authorship of the Protocols.
The fact that the authorship and the time of the composition of this document still remain a mystery, does not justify the assumption that the Protocols are an Anti-Semitic forgery; and even less, when the fact is taken into account that their contents are in complete and accurate accord with other Jewish writings, as also with the political occurrences of our time. This document has been in existence for many decades, and i t s v a l i d i t y h a s n e v e r y e t b e e n l e g a l l y d i s p r o v e d. As long however as a forgery has not been proved, this document may be looked upon as genuine. F o r i t i s t h e i n a u t h e n t i c i t y o f a document which must be proved by those who would attack it, a n d n o t i t s a u t h e n t i c i t y b y t h o s e w h o w o u l d d e f e n d i t. The Berne lawsuit has not cleared up the situation in any way; for of all the theses which have been brought to prove forgery, there is not one that will hold water. One and all rest upon a gross perversion of the facts. O n l y t h e g u i l t y, a n d t h o s e w h o a r e a f r a i d o f t h e truth, make use of such methods as were used in Berne.
5. Three orthodox Jews stand for the Authenticity of the Protocols.
If up till now I have been principally concerned in the refutation of the assertions made by the opposing side, and have been able to show that Jewry have not been in the position to bring any valid evidence in support of forgery, I will now discuss a few important cases which go to show the authenticity of the Protocols. In this connection, I will quote the declarations of three orthodox Jews.
About the year 1901, in the small Polish city of S c h o c k e n, now called S k o k i, there lived one R u d o l f F l e i s c h m a n n, an assistant Rabbi, and slaughterer by trade.
With this person the local Public Prosecutor, M. N o s k o w i c z, entered into friendly relations. Fleischmann, whose honour had suffered serious injury at the hands of the Chief Rabbi Dr. Veilchenfeld, in that the latter had assaulted his fiancée, complained bitterly to his Christian friend, and related to him much in regard to the anti-Christian writings of the Jews.
In this fashion they came to speak about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which at the time were already known in Russia. As Noskowicz has asserted in writing, Fleischmann assured him t h a t t h e P r o t o c o l s r e a l l y d i d e x i s t, a n d t h a t t h e y w e r e n o f o r g e r y. M o r e o v e r t h a t t h e y w e r e p o s i t i v e l y o f J e w i s h o r i g i n. He further laid it on him as a duty, to warn his Christian co-religionists and co-citizens of the Jewish danger.
Noskowicz relates a second instance also. In the year 1906, he put the question direct to the well known Rabbi G r ü n f e l d o f S w a r z e d z in Poland, as to whether the Protocols were genuine or not. Thereupon Grünfeld gave him the following characteristically Jewish answer: "My dear Herr Noskowicz, you are too curious, and want to know too much. We are not permitted to talk about these things. I a m n o t a l l o w e d t o s a y a n y t h i n g, a n d y o u a r e n o t s u p p o s e d t o k n o w a n y t h i n g. For God's sake be careful, or you will be putting your life in danger."
We are in possession of a further statement from the Russian Captain George (Our readers will understand that we cannot give his real name, as we otherwise might endanger the lives of his relatives in Soviet Russia.) In February 1924, in Jugo-Slavia, he visited the Jew S a w e 1 i j K o n s t a n t i n o w i t s c h E p h r o n, who was a refugee from Soviet Russia.
Ephron in his early days had been a Rabbi in Vilna. He went over however to the Greek Orthodox Church, and became a mining engineer in St. Petersburg. He was moreover an author, and wrote under the nom de plume of "Litwin". He was the Editor of the Monarchist paper "The Light", and was a contributor to "The Messenger". He was also the author of the drama going under the name of "The Smugglers", which contains much severe criticism of Jewry. In consequence of this, he was brutally assaulted by some Jews, and his life being threatened when the Bolshevist revolution broke out he had to fly from his country, arriving finally in Serbia, where he found asylum in a cloister in the neighborhood of Petkowitze in the district of Schabatz. It was there that he died in the year 1926.
When on a certain occasion Captain George questioned him on the subject of the genuineness of the Protocols, Ephron declared with emphasis t h a t h e h a d f o r l o n g been well acquainted with their contents, indeed for many years b e f o r e t h e y w e r e e v e r p u b l i s h e d i n t h e C h r i s t i a n p r e s s. Ephron's words were written down by Captain George who made sure of the matter by obtaining a s w o r n s t a t e m e n t regarding his bona fides from the Arch-Priest of the Russian Church in Paris in the month of October 1928.
Both written declarations namely that of Public Prosecutor Noskowicz, and that of Captain George were included by Lieut. Colonel Fleischhauer in the expert report which he rendered to the Court in Berne. Like all other evidence offered by Fleischhauer however, these witnesses were completely disregarded by the Marxist Judge.
The case of Ephron interested me quite exceptionally, and I therefore got into touch with different colonies of Russian emigrés with a view to finding people who had been acquainted with him. The results were altogether beyond my expectations. I discovered a Russian who had formerly fought in Wrangel's Army, W a s s i l i j S. (His real name is also concealed) who had made friends with Ephron at Petkowitze and who actually handed me a short treatise upon the Protocols in the Russian language written by Ephron himself. It is actually the concept of a letter addressed by Ephron in the year 1921, to the Russian Emigrant paper, edited by Burtzew in Paris, "Obschtscheje djelo" (La Cause Commune). Ephron had at about this time read an article in this paper, in which a writer by name of A. J. K u p r i n, questioned the genuineness of the Protocols, and pretended to show that they were a forgery on the assumption that the Jews were incapable of producing an anti-Christian work of this
description. The indignant Ephron thereupon wrote the following letter to the Editor:
"In my quiet cloister (I am living in a Serbian monastery.) it is seldom that I see a newspaper. The other day however a copy of the "Obschtscheje djelo" came into my hand, and in it I read a feuilleton by A. J. Kuprin entiled "Guslitzkaja Fabrika". In this feuilleton Monsieur Kuprin discusses the Zionist Protocols of Nilus, and describes for the benefit of the reader the impressions which he gets from the perusal of this book.
Whatever conclusion he comes to in this instance in regard to the genuineness of the Protocols, is a matter of little or no interest to me, f o r i n t h e m a t t e r u n d e r consideration, Monsieur Kuprin cannot be considered an a u t h o r i t y i n a n y s e n s e o f t h e w o r d. In spite of the above however, my
attention was drawn to certain statements in this feuilleton. Monsieur Kuprin writes:
"What surprises one in the Protocols is this downright, blind, stupid, one might say uniform hate against Christianity, which only an unimaginative and commonplace Jewbaiter, writing in accordance with his feelings against the Jews, could ascribe to the Elders of Zion. Every word of these Protocols breathes blood, revenge, slavery, destruction and ruin. One does not only feel the deadly and poisonous power of the word, but also the paralysing commonplace. When the diplomats of two different countries set out to ravish a portion of a third, or when two financiers set about plucking some trustful pigeons, they do not usually call things by their proper names, but are wont to conceal the hard reality with kindly words and tasteful forms. These 70 Elders, the highest authority of an intelligent people, and no doubt themselves also highly cultivated persons, would it is clear be ashamed of such a primitive and pogrom-like brutality as is attributed to them in the Protocols."
"The above quotation from the article of this well meaning author breathes passionate resentment against the Protocols, and the Christian conscience of the writer cannot reconcile itself to the wickedness and the hate against Christianity with which the Protocols are permeated. He is unable therefore to acknowledge that they are genuine, and out of goodness of heart he cannot recognize them. Thus must it be. It is difficult to come to terms with life when such wickedness and such hattfare found to exist. To an author brought up and educated in Christian ethics, they may seem impossible and an absurdity.
But nevertheless... This wickedness and this hatred of Christianity among the chosen people have both existed in t h e p a s t, a n d e x i s t u p t o t h e p r e s e n t d a y. " "I propose to the well meaning author that he communicate with Monsieur Pasmanik, and ask him to be kind enough to translate the following w o r d s t a k e n f r o m t h e p r a y e r w h i c h e v e r y J e w i s b o u n d t o r e p e a t t h r i c e d a i l y. (I take it that Monsieur Pasmanik is cognisant of ancient Hebrew, and is also familiar with the prayers.) "SCHAKETZ TISCHAKZENU', SAWE TISSAWENU, KI CHEREM, "HU"...
"These words, I repeat it, and I hope that Monsieur Pasmanik will confirm what I say, are repeated three times a day by every Jew in his prayers. Now if Monsieur Pasmanik will accurately translate the words of the Hebrew prayer, and Monsieur Kuprin comes to hear of their meaning, he will surely understand that as a Christian, and as a man of honour, h e i s b o u n d p u b l i c l y t o w i t h d r a w w h a t h e h a s s a i d i n t h e a b o v e q u o t e d s t a t e m e n t, a statement clearly dictated by goodness of heart, and from feelings of Christian charity, and in no way attributable to any knowledge of Judaism, or of Jewish ethics."
P. S. If in the course of the next fifteen days Monsieur Pasmanik does not communicate the meaning of the Hebrew prayer to A. J. Kuprin, I will print a translation in the Nowoje Wremja, as much for his own edification, as for the edification of other writers similarly placed, who have erred in all good faith."
Upon Ephron's Russian concept the following further notes are to be found, and also a
translation of the Hebrew text:
"Up to the sixties of the previous century these words were printed in the Hebrew prayer books; at the beginning of the sixties however, they were forbidden by the Russian censorship, which naturally did not prevent the Jews then, as it does not prevent them now, from repeating them three times a day.
"Schaketz tischakzenu", thou shall utterly detest it, (the Cross of Christ), "Save tissawenu", thou shalt utterly abhor it, "Ki cherem", for it is a cursed thing.
"Hu", fye!" *) Burtzew never published this letter. He also suppressed it in his evidence before the Court in Berne. Whether Ephron also sent it to the Nowoje Wremja as he intended, is not known.
It is altogether characteristic of Ephron's attitude to the Protocols, that it was just an article which pretended to prove them a forgery which *) For this curse the Jews make use of Deuteronomy VII, 26.
he took as an occasion for repudiating any such theory. He does not express any direct opinion as to their authenticity, but it is sufficient that he denies to Kuprin the right to express any opinion upon the matter, upon the grounds that he does not understand the subject, and that he energetically repudiates the letter's attempt to establish a forgery. His attitude comes even more clearly to light in the following report compiled by Wassilij Smirinow in the presence of
two witnesses on the 15th of December 1936, viz:
"After my arrival in Jugo-Slavia in the year 1921, in my capacity of an officer in General Wrangel's army, I came across a group of Russian emigrants in the village of Petkowitze, in the district of Schabatz, where it had been suggested that I should live.
"In the vicinity of this village, the Serbian monastery of St. Pelko is to be found. As I heard shortly afterwards, in this monastery lived Sawelij Konstantinowitsch Ephron, who had found a home there, as age and infirmity (he was at the time 72) prevented him from doing any active work. Ephron had come there on the recommendation of Bishop Michael of Schabatz, in whose diocese this cloister was situated. Bishop Michael had in former times been the head of a Serbian religious house in Moscow.