(I.e. Strawman 'Protocols of Zion' comparisons are an obfuscatory and therefore dishonest tactic.)
The issue facing anyone wanting a correct appraisal of this history is to understand CORRECTLY AND IMPARTIALLY the motives behind the actions. The problem is though that ANY criticism of Jews or Jewish groups is taboo and is treated as if it were the repeating anti-semitical "jew-hating tropes". Bollocks. No group, or race, or abstract conceptual 'people', are above criticism. None.
These examples I am showing WERE the perceptions of the times. So... Why are people avoiding it?
AND - surprise, surprise - these perceptions were NOT exclusive to Hitler nor to pre-war Germany.
Yet this is NOT HOW the history(?) (or 'dogma') of 'THE Holocaust' is presented to us, is it?
- - - - - - - -
The Chicago Daily Tribune, 19th June 1920.
'Trotzky leads radical crew to world rule' by John Clayton.
Douglas Launcelot Reed (1895 – 1976) was a British journalist, playwright, novelist and author of a number of books of political analysis. His book Insanity Fair (1938) was one of the most influential in publicising the state of Europe and the megalomania of Adolf Hitler before the Second World War. According to Reed, he resigned his job as sub-editor at The Times British newspaper in protest against the appeasement of Hitler after the Munich Agreement of 1938. Yet by the time of his death, Reed had been largely forgotten except for various remarks about Jews. The Times obituary condemned Reed as a "virulent anti-Semite" although Reed himself claimed that he drew a distinction between opposition to Zionism and anti-Semitism. Reed believed in a long-term Zionist conspiracy to impose a world government on an enslaved humanity."For the last two years army intelligence officers, members of the various secret service organizations of the entente, have been bringing in reports of a world revolutionary movement other than Bolshevism. At first these reports confused the two, but latterly the lines they have taken have begun to be more and more clear. Bolshevism aims for the overthrow of existing society and the establishment of an international brotherhood of men who work with their hands as rulers of the world. The second movement aims for the establishment of a new racial domination of the world. So far as the British, French and our own department's inquiry have been able to trace, the moving spirits in the second scheme are Jewish radicals. ... Within the ranks of communism is a group of this party, but it does not stop there. ... The organization of the world Jewish-radical movement has been perfected in almost every land. ... The aims of the Jewish-radical party have nothing of altruism behind them beyond liberation of their own race."
'The Controversy of Zion' by Douglas Reed. Chapter ninteen: 'The World Revolution Again':
"The simultaneous triumphs of Bolshevism in Moscow and Zionism in London in the same week of 1917 were only in appearance distinct events. The identity of their original source has been shown in an earlier chapter, and the hidden men who promoted Zionism through the Western governments also supported the world-revolution. The two forces fulfilled correlative tenets of the ancient Law: “Pull down and destroy … rule over all nations”; the one destroyed in the East and the other secretly ruled in the West....The fact of Jewish leadership was a supremely important piece of knowledge and the later suppression of it, where public debate would have been sanative, produced immense effects in weakening the West. The formulation of any rational State policy becomes impossible when such major elements of knowledge are excluded from public discussion; it is like playing billiards with twisted cues and elliptical balls. The strength of the conspiracy is shown by its success in this matter (as in the earlier period, of Messrs. Robison, Barruel and Morse) more than by any other thing.