Cause of World Unrest - Nesta Webster

Chapter XII
The 'Peace Conference'

To describe the unofficial activities of the Jews in Paris would be to describe the work of the Conference. Mr. Wilson was surrounded by them; even M. Clemenceau had his watch-dogs; and as for the British delegation, one has only to mention the names of Lord Reading and Mr. Montagu and the close interest they took in the deliberations. Indeed, it will be remembered that there was a strong movement to include the Lord Chief Justice in the original delegation, but, owing to the strong opposition aroused in this country, nothing came of it.

Now the statesmen of Paris, like the Bolsheviks, were guided by general principles. That is the dominant, the peculiar feature of the Peace Conference at Paris. And in that connection let us quote from the History of the Peace Conference, the first volume of which has just been issued under the auspices of the Institute of International Affairs. The concluding paragraph of an interesting chapter on the Bolshevist attitude at Brest-Litovsk is as follows:

"Thus by the close of the year it was evident that the demand for evacuation and the right of self-determination meant for the Bolsheviks nothing but the right of 'bolshevising,' and the appeal of their peace formulae at Brest had long since lost its original force. Yet, in their arguments with the Germans, they had applied self-determination in a bold and far-reaching way, that remained not without influence in many quarters; Ireland and Bosnia, Egypt, India, and Persia appeared along with Posen and Alsace-Lorraine and Armenia. The Russian catchword of 'peace without annexations or indemnities which the Bolsheviks had taken over and amplified, had made a deep, if indefinite, impression.

The demand for no economic boycotts figured among the war aims of many anti-Bolshevist bodies of opinion, and the precedent of the attempt to realize 'no secret diplomacy' was not forgotten. The effect of these ideas was conflicting, and to a large extent impalpable, and they had become in the main divested of any specifically Bolshevist setting, but, in conjunction with President Wilson's enunciation of principles, they coloured the minds and imaginations of such numbers that they exercised an immediate and profound influence upon the Peace Conference."

It is not by any means the first time that the principles enunciated by President Wilson have been linked up with the new gospel which is being preached at Moscow. Indeed, there is reason to believe that a famous European statesman, smarting under the indifference of the Paris Mount Sinai to the grievances of his country, bluntly told the President that he and Lenin were preaching the same doctrine, and that between the Fourteen Points and the Kremlin manifestoes there was little to choose. And really if judged by their distintegrating force, there is little to choose between the one set of pontifical explosives and the other. A Sinn Feiner or an Egyptian Nationalist can justify murder from either, and "making the world safe for democracy" and "the dictatorship of the proletariat" sound equally sweet in a rebel's ear. Common to both Washington and Moscow is the necessity of an international control of the world; to one it is the League of Nations, to the other it is the Third Internationale. The idea is the same though the instruments are different.

And it is difficult to estimate who shouted the louder cry of self-determination. Trotsky and his Jews were ready to barter away the whole Russian Empire for the sake of this holy principle. Why? Because like the "Learned Elders of Zion" they saw beyond the ignorant present. At the time of Brest-Litovsk the application of any principle to the Russian Empire, shattered by war and under the menace of Hoffman's whip, really did not matter very much. But what about the British Empire, and its diverse nationalities all in different stages of political development? Such a principle skillfully applied might have all the mysterious effects of an arsenical dose.

The need for some such doctrinal poison was all the more necessary because to the surprise and disappointment of the Bolsheviks the war did not end in a draw, but in an overwhelming victory for the Entente Powers. Accordingly the parrot cry of self-determination was used for all it was worth, and to the intense gratification of Moscow was taken up in Washington, and in many a sonorous sentence was commended to French Senators and British working men.

It worked, and is working extraordinarily well, in Ireland, Egypt, India, and, who knows, perhaps soon in Central Africa. The only place where apparently it is not allowed to work is Palestine, where less than twenty percent, of Jews under Sir Herbert Samuel are providing themselves with a national home at the expense of eighty percent, of Arabs.

To sacrifice an Empire for a principle is surely a new thing in political idealism. Self-determination has indeed proved the choicest weapon in the Bolshevist armoury. Trotsky could afford to be generous to Finland if it meant in time the gradual break-up of the United Kingdom; he could scatter constitutions among the Baltic States and the Tartars of the Caucasus if the news of this largesse were to awaken the appetites of the politically half-baked communities of the British Empire. All Trotsky's anticipations have been amazingly realized as the British taxpayer ruefully admits when he thinks of the military budgets of Egypt, Ireland, Mesopotamia; war can be fought with ideas as well as with minenwerfer.

The British Empire at this moment is in the full throes of the revolutionary trouble bequeathed to it by the Peace Conference with its crude views, its mandates and plebiscites, and all the paraphernalia of democratic quackery. Self-determination is producing its monstrous brood all over the Empire, but it is curious to note how quiescent it is at present in the lands where the Bolshevist writ runs. It is now on the ebb, and the tide is running in favour of nationalism; witness the recent declaration of Bukharin on behalf of the Soviet of Peoples' Commissions for the reconstruction of a great and powerful Socialist Russia, "which cannot exist if she does not hold the Straits of Constantinople." Here again is another illustration of the way in which the Bolsheviks will use a weapon and then discard it when it has served its purpose.

It is, then, a curious coincidence that, apart from their divergent views on the subject of capital, Washington and Moscow should have so much in common. The trump card of both is the same—international control—and if Lenin abominates the League of Nations, he does so because it is capitalistic, not because it is international. Whence, then, did Mr. Wilson derive his material? It was a subject which greatly interested Paris during the Peace Conference, and much was written about the eminent Jews who surrounded the President.

The present scheme for the League of Nations was originated in 1914 at the Conference of the League to Enforce Peace under the leadership of Dr. Eliot and ex-President Taft. The plan then submitted was the basis of the scheme of the League as drafted at the Paris Conference by Lord Robert Cecil, General Smuts, and President Wilson. These names do not give warrant for the theory that the League of Nations as now constituted is the result of the work of Jewish Internationals.

During the war, before America intervened, writes "Pertinax," in the Echo de Paris:

". . . was founded the American Neutral Conference Committee, which took upon itself the task of bringing about peace with a victorious Germany. Then appeared for the first time all the formulae of the League of Nations, the anathemas launched against the 'old diplomacy' which was said to be responsible for bringing about the war. On this point consult the work, How the Diplomatists Caused the War, written by Mr. Heubsch, the colleague of the Neutral Conference Committee."

The brilliant French writer, M. Charles Maurras, in his book Les Trots Aspects du President Wilson also deals with this subject—

"The decisive influence exercised on Mr. Wilson by a very small company, financiers by profession, domiciled between Hamburg, Frankfort, and New York. . . They were identified with the Association for the League of Free Nations, with its seat in America."

M. Maurras goes on to declare that Mr. Wilson in time fell completely under their influence, and that there is written evidence to that effect, and he is inclined to the opinion that Freemasonry was used as the channel for the dissemination of these ideas.

Here, then, there opens up a most fruitful field of speculation. But let us carry the argument a little further. The principle of self-determination, as we have seen, not only tends to act as a solvent of existing Empires, but it also handicapped seriously the creation of the new States which were brought into existence by the magicians of Paris. To imagine that a nation could be created by a plebiscite, and that a State could be constituted on the principle of nationality alone, without securing for it adequate economic safeguards and strategic frontiers, was a fallacy entertained at Paris which has had most unfortunate consequences for the peace of Europe. In Turkey, the fallacy reached ludicrous lengths. An independent Armenia was created, and the guarantors of its independence at present are Viscount Bryce and the humanitarians of the world; nobody else will touch it.

Moreover, even if it were safely constituted, other believers in self-determination—Assyro-Chaldeans, and so on—would raise claims against it. The Hapsburg Monarchy has been divided into States all beautifully constituted on the same wonderful principle, but apparently incapable of standing on their own legs. In plain words, the Peace Conference was unable to reach a political settlement, and because there was no political settlement we now have economic unrest, high prices, demands for increased wages, strikes to enforce them, and general Bolshevism. The protocols say:

"We will create a universal economical crisis by all possible underhand means, and with the help of gold which is all in our hands."

Now, the supreme instance of this attempt to create States on an unsure foundation, and without proper economic and strategic frontiers, is Poland. Let us briefly summarize the case for that country. The policy of France throughout her history had been to seek some ally in the East who would act as a check on any move by the German States across the Rhine. Turkey, Sweden, Russia, all acted as that counterpoise, and with the fall of Russia French statesmen looked to the creation of a strong Poland to serve that historic purpose. A strong Poland was, therefore, a French interest, and, as Great Britain is the ally of France, presumably a British interest also. Indeed, to judge from a recent quotation by Mr. Lloyd George of a speech of Disraeli, a strong Poland would, in British eyes, act as a check not only on Germany but on Russia.

Now, what happened at Paris? Strategically and economically Poland was compelled to make a bad start. The Polish Commission three times reported in favour of giving Dantzig to Poland, and three times their report was turned down—by Mr. Lloyd George. On the question of Upper Silesia the Commission was also favourable to Poland, and therein it was backed by President Wilson. But one fine day the President veered round, and insisted on a plebiscite. That change of mind was one of the mysteries of the Conference which may some day be revealed. The same story of a vague, unsettled conclusion applies to Eastern Galicia.

Thus, in such vital matters as sea communications, coal and oil supply, Poland was severely handicapped from the very beginning. Why? A strong Poland is not a Jewish interest. For one thing, how many Englishmen are aware of the enormous Jewish population which lives within the ethnographical boundaries of Poland? In 1910 the total number of Jews in the world was, roughly, 12,506,238, and in 1900 almost five million Jews lived in Polish territory. It is interesting, too, to note that since the Russian Revolution of 1905, there was a distinct movement in Poland to get rid of the monopoly exercised by the Jews in all commercial and financial activities in Poland by the creation of Polish Co-operative Societies. It is perfectly clear that a strong national Polish Government would further develop that policy, and might lead in time to measures which would by no means prove welcome to the enormous Jewish population concentrated within its territories.

Now, a strong Poland is also not a German interest, and here the Jews and the Germans work hand in hand. Thus, the semi-official Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung of January 30, 1919, recognizes openly the solidarity of German and Jewish interests. It goes in for a study of the postulates, which are almost identical to those we have just enumerated, and draws the following conclusions:

"Considering that the majority of the Jewish population knows the German language, and that German civilization is familiar to them, the Jewish element may be of the greatest use to Germany for the reopening of those international relations which have been interrupted by the war. Germany will not cease to interest herself in Oriental questions. The foundation of a Jewish Palestine must be greeted with approval. This will, for the reasons quoted above, help Germany in ascertaining economic and intellectual links with the East.

"The Jewish question will be of interest to Germany on account of her vicinity in the Near East with countries inhabited by Jewish masses. The autonomy of the Jews in the East is one of the foundation-stones of order and tranquillity in these countries.

"It may be seen (says this newspaper, in conclusion) that there is no contradiction between the desiderata of the Jews and German interests. For this reason Germany will support Jewish demands at the Peace Conference."

It was notorious during the proceedings of the Peace Conference that whenever any decision favourable to Poland was reached, Jewish gentry from London hurriedly crossed the Channel for the purpose of trying to revoke it.

Thus, as we have said, Poland, as created by the pundits of Paris, started badly. Her subsequent history has been equally unfortunate. The Bolsheviks were exceedingly anxious to secure their grip on a State which with its Christian faith and Western traditions barred their march towards the West. In the letter which Trotsky sent to French Socialists as long ago as October, 1919, and which was given in the Morning Post, he made it clear in his bragging way that Poland's turn was to come next. That Bolshevist offensive was launched in March last, and failed for reasons which have been explained by Major-General Maurice, the military critic of the Daily News. To say, then, that Marshal Pilsudski attacked Russia, which all the Pacifists and Bolsheviks in England are trumpeting forth every day, is untrue. Marshal Pilsudski tried to do what the Serbians were prevented from doing, that is to say, to anticipate the enemy's offensive. From the very beginning of his attack, a violent anti-Polish campaign was started in England, and the English dockers and railwaymen were called upon to prevent the sending of munitions to Warsaw.

At the present moment, Russia and Germany are joining hands over the threatened body of Poland. If Russia and Germany are able to overwhelm Poland, the Treaty of Versailles becomes a scrap of paper, and the war has been fought in vain.

Dr. Dillon, in his book on the Paris Peace Conference, says:

"Of all the collectivities whose interests were furthered at the Conference, the Jews had perhaps the most resourceful and certainly the most influential exponents. There were Jews from Palestine, from Poland, Russia, the Ukraine, Roumania, Greece, Britain, Holland, and Belgium; but the largest and most brilliant contingent was sent by the United States."

And with reference to that great achievement of the Jews at Paris, the Minority Treaties, he says:

"It may seem amazing to some readers, but it is none the less a fact that a considerable number of Delegates believed that the real influences behind the Anglo-Saxon peoples were Semitic. They confronted the President's proposal on the subject of religious inequality, and, in particular, the odd motive alleged for it, with the measures for the protection of minorities which he subsequently imposed on the lesser States, and which had for their keynote to satisfy the Jewish elements in Eastern Europe. And they concluded that the sequence of expedients framed and enforced in this direction were inspired by the Jews assembled in Paris for the purpose of realizing their carefully thought-out programme, which they succeeded in having substantially executed. However right or wrong these Delegates may have been it would be a dangerous mistake to ignore their views, seeing that they have since become one of the permanent elements of the situation. The formula into which this policy was thrown by the members of the Conference, whose countries it affected, and who regarded it as fatal to the peace of Eastern Europe, was this: 'Henceforth the world will be governed by the Anglo-Saxon peoples, who, in turn, are swayed by their Jewish elements.'"

It should be remembered that the original claims of the Jews went much further than those which were eventually sanctioned by the Conference. "The hero of the Minority Treaties" to quote the phrase of the Jewish Guardian, the able and moderate organ of Anglo-Jewry, was Mr. Lucien Wolf—the same gentleman who has recently been attacking the protocols. As Mr. Israel Zangwill said:

"The Minority Treaties were the touchstone of the League of Nations, that essentially Jewish aspiration, and the man behind the Minority Treaties was Lucien Wolf."

Let us in conclusion briefly summarize the argument which has been put forward above. Bolshevism and Wilsonism have much in common—including their insistence on international control and on the principle of self-determination. That principle tends to promote rebellion in the British Empire, and at the same time to lead to the creation of artificial States unprovided by adequate economic and strategic safeguards. Poland is an instance of such a State, and Poland has had to face an opposition in which Jews, Bolsheviks, Germans, and pro-Bolsheviks in this country are playing a part. Poland at this moment is menaced with destruction, and if it succumbs the Entente Powers of the West have lost the war.