The alliance of the most fervent pacifists
with the very soldiers of a warrior society.
PEACE MOVEMENTS THEN AND NOW
"PEACE NOW" -- NOT A NEW INVENTION
Elliott A Green
A "peace movement" did
much to create a suitable climate for the humiliating Israeli retreat from
Lebanon in late May, as well as for the sad pictures of Israel's Lebanese
friends fleeing across the border, and of Israelis fleeing south from Qiryat
Shemonah and other places on the frontier, which has now become a front
line. The "Four Mothers"
movement militated up and down the country for unilateral withdrawal from the
South Lebanon Security Zone, naturally receiving ample TV coverage and radio
talk show time (usually denied to "politically incorrect" groups
larger in numbers), while certain male politicians smirked in the background.
If the situation were not so
would have been hilarious to watch on TV the woman who led the Four Mothers,
trying to talk peace to Hizbullah sympathizers at the border fence who were
cursing her, while she spun her head in her incapacity to comprehend their
contempt for her manic calls for friendship and reconciliation, now that Israel
was out of Lebanon, as their rejection did not fit what her previous
indoctrination had promised.
The Four Mothers is a late
manifestation of a phenomenon, which helped cause much of the human suffering
of the past century, particularly the role of "peace people" in the
years before the Second World War.
Mothers' movements for peace existed long ago, much in the spirit of
Israel's "Four Mothers.” Likewise,
a "Peace Now" movement existed in the world decades before
"Peace Now" in Israel. Groups
putting forth slogans like these were active in the United States precisely
during the Second World War. They
demanded peace with Hitler, and for this purpose, they were ready to agree that
Nazi Germany control vast regions and many countries. For the sake of peace.
Some of these groups were even enthusiastic about the prospect.
The resemblance between the groups
then and now was vast too, particularly from the aspect of their slogans and
psychology. For instance, the Peace Now
Committee as well as groups named United Mothers of America, Mothers of Sons
Forum, and the National Legion of Mothers, were active over different periods
between 1939 and 1945, first with the goal of keeping the US out of the war,
then with the goal of stopping the war against the Nazi-fascist Axis.
fact, peace movements blossomed
in America before and during the Second World War. Both the leaders and the ranks were a strange mixture of
capitalists (not Jews), socialists, pacifists, conservatives, fascists,
German-Americans and German immigrants (understandably perhaps), and fanatic
Judeophobes. The Communists too
demanded peace with Hitler during the Nazi-Communist honeymoon between 1939 and
1941 (the Stalin-Hitler Pact) through a front called American Peace Mobilization. However, the most
important organization before US entry into the war was the America First
Committee (1940-1941). Leaders of the
organization included outstanding personalities in business, the press, and
politics. In the long years of Italian
fascist and German Nazi upsurge in Europe, long before the entry of the United
States into the war, reporters for Time and other publications had shown
sympathy for Hitler and Mussolini and scorned those who dared oppose Nazi and
In the nature of
things, while the
United States was at war, members of the National Legion of Mothers, United
Mothers of America, and the Mothers of Sons Forum, as well as other peace
organizations (including the Peace Now Committee), took a benign view of Hitler
or even sympathized with him. Likewise
today, members of peace movements sympathize with Arafat and Assad. Hitler after all sincerely wanted peace. Hitler said so
explicitly. Just give him what he demands. His demands are fair and reasonable.
Indeed, the psychology and slogans
of that time were very similar to those of today. Sometimes psychology and slogans possess political power and
force to shape the future. The author
of 1984, George Orwell, wrote this in one of his essays ("England,
Your England"). Orwell was a
brilliant analyst of the events of the Second World War period.
through the critical years many left-wingers were chipping away at English
morale, trying to spread an outlook that was sometimes 'squashily' pacifist,
sometimes violently pro-Russian, but always anti-British. It is questionable how much effect this had,
but it certainly had some. If the
English people suffered for several years a real weakening of morale, so that
the Fascist nations judged that they were 'decadent' and that it was safe to
plunge into war, the intellectual sabotage from the Left was partly responsible. Both the New Statesman
and the News Chronicle cried out against the Munich settlement,
but even they had done something to make it possible.
This means that Orwell accused the "leftist"
"pacifists" of causing World War 2 (not alone of course). He clearly accused them of partial
responsibility. In the Munich
Agreement, Britain and France agreed with Hitler that Czechoslovakia must hand
over to Nazi Germany a certain territory -- for the sake of peace and
self-determination. This concession of
Czechoslovak territory led to World War 2 since it granted Germany strategic
advantages over the rump of Czechoslovakia and over Poland, which were
conquered in 1939.
We learn from Orwell that
including the most simplistic, most ostensibly innocent slogans in favour of
peace, might cause public opinion to accept concessions that lead us to
war. This means that when we heed these
slogans we may sacrifice our peace and security in exchange for friendly words
and satisfying, if cloudy, promises from the mouths of dictators and murderers.
One of the slogans leading us in
this direction today is "peace process," which has become an almost
meaningless set of words. Yet, it
excels in its entrancing power even the term "appeasement" from the
many, the term "peace
process" is mentally associated with a chemical or industrial process with
a reliably predictable outcome. For
example, if we heat water to a sufficient temperature, the water evaporates. Maybe the same thing can happen to war. In this case, instead of heating, we will
give up territory and hand it over to our sworn enemies. Thereby, war may evaporate and hostility
come to an end.
others, the term "peace
process" may hint that if we bring the right ingredients together into a
mass, the result will be peace -- like preparing bread. Knead flour into dough, add yeast, the dough
is baked at the right temperature for the right length of time. Now we have bread. Likewise, if the right amount of territory is handed over to old
enemies for the sake of peace, we will eventually get -- peace.
The problem is that geopolitics and
diplomacy are conducted by people and people do not always honestly reveal
their true purposes and their interests as they see them. Duplicity is an old tactic in war and
diplomacy. After all, war is the
continuation of diplomacy, as Clausewitz said.
And sometimes, diplomacy is the continuation of war.
Moreover, as the old adage has
diplomat is a man sent abroad to lie for his country. There is no reason to think that this saying is less valid today
than in the past. Therefore, in a
diplomatic process, you cannot be sure that you know the outcome. It is hardly governed by unchanging laws
like those of physics or chemistry.
PEACE PROCESS PRECEDED MUNICH
The "peace process" of the
1930s was called "appeasement.” This process too was meant to appease a
murderer, Hitler, by satisfying
his demands to receive various territories: the Saar, Austria, the Sudetenland,
Memel, Danzig, etc. The territories
mentioned were of different sizes and inhabited by ethnic Germans, although
they were not under German rule. Hitler
demanded these territories on the grounds of justice and the right to
self-determination, just as today Arafat's supporters speak of
self-determination for "Palestinians.” If these territories are just given to
Hitler, they said in the 1930s,
peace would ensue. Arafat himself told
the UN in September 1999 that Israel need only agree to another Arab state (to
be named "Palestine") and to Jerusalem as its capital -- and the road
to peace would be assured.
The atmosphere and policy of
appeasement of the 1930s led to the Munich Conference between Germany (Hitler),
Britain (Chamberlain), and France (Daladier) in October 1938. Czechoslovakia was not invited. The resulting Munich Pact assigned to Hitler
the Sudetenland (the mountainous border area of Western Czechoslovakia), with
its population who were mostly German.
The Munich Pact embodied the victory of the principle of "territory
for peace.” Czech forces filed out of
the Sudetenland and German Nazi forces marched in. In March 1939, German troops marching from the Sudetenland
occupied the remainder of Czechoslovakia.
In September 1939, the Second World War began as the culmination of the
peace process of that time.
earlier, in the happy days
not long after Germany had conquered the rump of Czechoslovakia, a peace
partisan used another simplistic slogan in order to defend the wounded principle
of "territory-for-peace.” A French
journalist named Marcel D'at asked a rhetorical question in May 1939: Who wants to die for Danzig? (Mourir pour Dantzig) Danzig was a city on the coast of the Baltic Sea that had been separated
from Germany because of German aggression in the First World War, becoming an
independent entity adjacent to Poland through the peace accords that ended that
war. Hitler demanded annexation of
Danzig to Germany for the sake of the principle of self-determination for its
ethnic German population -- and for the sake of peace.
Not so many years ago, Israeli
advocates of the peace process asked contemptuously (like Marcel Dיat in his time), "What do you have to
look for in Gaza?” After we conceded
Gaza, worse terrorism came from Gaza to Tel Aviv than before.
THE URGE TO APPEASE
Before the Second World War, peace
movements were active in Britain and France, in addition to the United States. They called for surrender to
Nazi Germany's demands. The Communist
Parties in these countries took part in the front for peace and for the Nazis
from September 1939 until June 1941, when the Germans attacked the Soviet Union
and the Western Communists changed sides again.
Europe, since most of the
leadership in Britain was committed to "appeasement" long before
Munich (aided by "leftist" pacifists, the Oxford Student Union peace
resolution, etc.), France was the key country whose policy toward Nazi Germany
had to be changed in order for the peace process to go forward at Munich and
afterwards. The spirit of appeasement
in France operated over three intersecting planes, 1) politicians, diplomats,
ideologues of both the "left" and the "right"; 2) gens
d'esprit (intellectuals?), artists and intellectuals; 3) the press.
The pacifist novelist Jean Giono
exemplified the appeasement spirit --perhaps in extreme fashion-- when he
described Adolf Hitler as a "poet in action." Sentiments such as these and corresponding
acts led the philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre to observe the paradox of "the
alliance of the most fervent [French] pacifists with the very soldiers of a
warrior society" [Germany], in the pre-war and occupation periods.
France in the Thirties had a sizable
group of 'intellectuals' who called for peace with Hitler. Apart from Giono,
another was the playwright Jean Giraudoux, he too an outstanding admirer of
Nazi Germany. He was not only active on the second plane but was at work on the
first plane as an important diplomat. It is often forgotten nowadays that his
ostensibly anti-war play, The Trojan War Will Not Take Place, was
written in order to promote peace with Nazi Germany. Other works of his tried
to persuade the French public to try to understand the delicate feelings of the
Teutons. Ironically, Giraudoux served as France's Commissar of Information in
the crucial period between Munich and the invasion of France (1939-1940).
He expressed another common theme of
the appeasers in France, the anti-Jewish theme. He said that he was "fully in agreement with Hitler when he
states that a policy only reaches its highest form when it is
To be sure, Giraudoux expressed the theme more
elegantly, less crudely than the novelist Cיline,
who combined his crude Judeophobia with his anti-war stance:
"We are heading for the Jews' war. We're only good for
The socialist Zoretti expressed the combined
anti-war, anti-Jewish theme in a pragmatic, slightly less crude
manner. He declared to the French socialist congress in December
1938, a few months after Munich: "We're not going to make
war for 100,000 Polish Jews."
Foreign Minister Georges Bonnet went farther.
After Munich, he told his German counterpart Ribbentrop that
France too had an interest in "solving the Jewish Question."
It is important to bear in mind that
appeasers were identified with both the "Left" and
the "Right," the nationalists and the fascists on
one hand, and the socialists (and the Communists between September
1939 and June 1941) on the other. At the time of Munich, the
nationalist and royalist paper, L'Action Francaise,
had argued: "The French do not want to fight for the Jews,
nor for Russia, nor for the Free Masons of Prague."
Note the similar sentiments of both Zoretti and
L'Action Francaise. While the socialist was discarding the purported
internationalist solidarity of the Left, the nationalists were
discarding any concern for what had been considered French geopolitical
interests. Both blamed
the Jews in advance for any eventual war.
theme of the French pro-Hitlerites was the hatred of internal enemies, not
necessarily Jews, as well as hope for the defeat of their own country. The fascist Alain Laubreaux despaired that
"There is only one hope left for France, a short, disastrous war."
On the political and diplomatic
plane, Foreign Minister Bonnet sought a rapprochement with the Nazis after
Munich, seeking to the last minute a compromise over the issue of Poland, an obviously
unattainable compromise, as we see from hindsight. On the same plane, Leon Blum, the Jew and former socialist prime
minister, had exhibited hyperbolic rhetoric in favour of the Munich Conference
at the time: "The Munich meeting is an armload of wood thrown on the
sacred fire at the very moment when the flame is flickering and about to go
Yet, Blum soon changed his
believing that the Munich Accord could only delay war. Blum's call for strengthening French
defences divided the socialists at the December 1938 congress, as we see from
Zoretti's words above. Even after the
Nazi-Soviet invasion of Poland, socialist pacifists in parliament like Pierre
Laval opposed money for the armed forces.
Laval later became Vichy prime minister.
The press of course served the cause
of peace with Hitler. We
have already mentioned Marcel Dיat
the socialist journalist and future vichyite.
Two papers identified as rightist, Gringoire and Je Suis Partout, deserve
special mention. Like
much of our press in Israel today, these papers were full of
sensationalism, scandal, hysterical headlines, and simplistic
"peace" demagoguery. In particular, they disseminated suspicion
of Jewish plots, Jewish exploitation, and a Jewish drive toward
war. Like their Israeli counterparts, these papers
succeeded to a certain extent in debasing public taste and destroying
moral sensitivity. It
was widely reported at the time that some French journalists
(and politicians) were in the hire of the Germans or the Italian
fascists. Various French
publications received subsidies from Hitler or Mussolini.
Genevieve Tabouis, one of the outstanding
anti-Nazi voices in the french press throughout the 1930's,
insisted on this point.
To be fair to the French press, there were several other strong
anti-Nazi voices among them in the Thirties. During the war, a political refugee in New
York, Tabouis looked back bitterly, entitling her book published
there, They Called Me Cassandra.
Various self-styled pro-peace
journalists stigmatised anyone who argued for standing up to Hitler --for
rejecting his territorial demands-- as a Belliciste (warmonger). The British ambassador to France, Sir Eric
Phipps, called the Bellicistes: a "small but noisy and corrupt war group." Here in Israel the label "murderer of
peace" was once thrown at a not sufficiently acquiescent prime minister by
a noted intellectual (?)]. The mood of
angry, hostile --even hate-driven-- pacifism is surely familiar to us in Israel
After the German
only "right wingers" and pacifists became Vichy officials and
collaborators. Various prominent
socialists and Communists (including ex-Trotskyists) did the same. Consider Raymond Abellio, Albertini, Dיat, Jacques
Doriot, Laval (vichy prime minister),
etc. To be sure, some had left the
mainstream socialist and Communist Parties before the occupation.
Nevertheless, the international
Communist movement had helped the Nazis not only from 1939 to 1941 but also at
an early, crucial stage. The Communists
had displayed support for Nazi arguments in the late 1920s and early 1930s,
sympathetically describing Germany as a victim of Western imperialism. They thus supplied an aura of Leftist
approval to Nazi territorial demands and the Nazi rise to power. German Communists did it of course, but so
did the French CP leader, Maurice Thorez, in a speech in Berlin just two weeks
before Hitler became chancellor. His
words of sympathy for Germany in January 1933 should be compared with what the
worldwide Left (including some voices in Israel's "peace camp") has
been saying for many years on behalf of Arabs and "Palestinians.” Thorez denounced the "loathsome yoke
with which France was crushing the German people" and declared himself
favour of the immediate evacuation of the Saar, in favor of a free choice for
the people of Alsace-Lorraine, up to and including separation from France, in
favor of the right of all German-speaking peoples to freely unite."
The French historian Georges Goriely explained that,
"according to the Comintern, the Treaty of Versailles had
supposedly reduced Germany to the status of a colony of international
capitalism. Its desire for national resurgence, especially vis - a vis France,
was likened to an anti-imperialist struggle".
It is needless to elaborate on the
similarities with post-1948, pro-Arab, pro-PLO propaganda.
After Hitler took power, the Nazis
did not merely look on passively as the French fought over policy towards
Hitler's territorial demands. They
actively cultivated the French public, issuing declarations of friendship, making
threats, and paying off journalists (as noted above), facilitating meetings with Hitler for journalists and leaders
of French war veterans, sponsoring French-German friendship committees,
inviting French intellectuals to lecture in Germany, and so forth.
One of the crucial German operatives
in this area of public relations was one Otto Abetz. It may sound familiar when we read that Abetz organized encounters
long before the German invasion of 1940 between German and French
intellectuals, and between German and French youth at a retreat
[youth hostel] in the Black Forest at Sohlberg, for the purpose
of French-German rapprochement.
These annual meetings were eventually controlled by the
too we hear of encounters in far flung places --organized by
such bodies as the European Union and American foundations--
between Israeli and "Palestinian" youth (typically
of the Fatah movement), Israeli and Arab "progressives,"
Israeli and "Palestinian" parliamentarians, etc.,
all for the sake of peace. As to Abetz, he became Hitler's ambassador to conquered France.
In Paris, he was famous for the lavish parties he threw
for French leaders, and for cultivating artists and intellectuals.
Does this call to mind the lavish entertainments that a certain
Arab ambassador throws for the self-styled Israeli elite?
Years after the Second World War,
the philosopher Simone de Beauvoir admitted in her autobiography that the French
pacifists of the Thirties --including herself and Sartre-- had been deluded
when they believed that Hitler was not so bad and that it was possible to make
peace with him.
UNITED STATES: FAIR PEACE TERMS TO ENTICE THE GERMANS
In the United
States, there was no
clear division in that period between peace movements and pro-Nazi movements (such as the German-American
These movements adopted names with lofty meanings, names redolent of
patriotism, of liberal and democratic values, of values honoured by humankind. In addition to groups
already mentioned, there were: We the Mothers Mobilize for America, American
Fellowship Forum, Americans for Peace, and so forth. Their publications were called Social Justice, Women's
Voice, The Free American, etc.
Of course, many people in these movements were honest and decent. As in our own time, the "Four
Mothers" movement in Israel is made up of decent women. Who would deny it? There is no doubt that many of the young people demonstrating for
Gush Shalom (led by Uri Avneri) are decent.
The same goes for Peace Now in Israel (Shalom Akhshav). So it was too in the nineteen-thirties and
up to 1945. Despite the fact that some
of the leaders received money for their efforts from German agents.
Before the United States entered the
war, US peace movements and their leaders generally called for keeping the USA
out of the war, while taking a benign, forgiving view of Germany's conquests of
territory. Robert Wood, chairman of
America First, a businessperson and retired general, called for allowing Hitler
to take not only Europe but also all of South America "below the [Brazilian]
the sake of peace, Charles Lindbergh, considered a hero because of his flight
alone across the Atlantic Ocean, accepted a medal in Berlin from Goering,
founder of the Gestapo, declaring on a later occasion: "I ... advocated
that England and France... permit Germany to expand eastward into Russia." For the sake of
women's side, activists of
the National Legion of Mothers proclaimed that they were struggling for their
sons: "It is too much trouble to bring him up into the world to have him
fight in the battles of foreign nations," and "It would be a disgrace
to women, she 'who are nailed in agony to the cross to give life,' if they
cannot, do not, as an army of mothers, keep the country out of war."
Nevertheless, there were other motives.
Many of them were zealous Judeophobes and anti-Black racists. Many sympathized with Nazi Germany and had
adopted Nazi propaganda themes. For
instance, one of the leaders of "We the Mothers" accused the Jews of
causing the First World War, and even the American Civil War (1861-1865) when
Jews were a tiny minority in the American population. "We the Mothers" claimed in its publications that
Jewish money had financed the Russian Revolution and that most of the refugees
from Nazism were Communists (despite the collaboration between the Communist
Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in that period, 1939-1941).
After the great defeat of Nazi
Germany at Stalingrad in January 1943, the tune changed. Now, the peace movements called for a soft
and easy peace with Germany. As one of
the leaders of the "Peace Now Committee," Professor George Hartmann,
told a crowd at Carnegie Hall: "One of our main jobs is to show Americans
that they can have either victory or peace.
They cannot have both. To win
the war is the surest way to lose the peace."
It is curious that similar
statements were made after Israel's splendid victory in the Six Day War by
Israelis who supported peace movements.
Mati Peled and others in those days spoke in the same style:
"Israel can't have both victory and peace.” How interesting! Peled
also supported an Israeli withdrawal to the pre-1967 armistice lines. There never was peace between 1949 and 1967
when those frontiers were in effect.
There was only relative quiet.
Nevertheless, Peled wanted to return to those lines, which had never
brought peace. It is interesting that
he made similar statements to what his counterparts in earlier peace movements
had said during World War 2 in favour of concessions to Hitler and Nazi Germany.
One representative of the American
Peace Now Movement said, "We should work with fascist Germany and Japan as
equals." Prof. Hartmann claimed that, "If we
entice the German people with a fair set of terms, they will force Hitler to
accept them whether he likes them or not." An official flyer of the American
"Peace Now" movement demanded "negotiations for peace... among
equals." This means that they wanted Nazi Germany to
be equal in status to the Allies in peace negotiations, instead of being a
defeated power. Is there any doubt that
these statements resemble the positions of the Israeli peace movements over the
years since 1967? Is the mentality
expressed in these statements essentially different from the one expressed in
statements by Mati Peled, Uri Avneri, the Four Mothers, Peace Now, Gush Shalom,
and other peace movements in Israel? We
cannot point to any organizational connection between the World War 2 peace
movements in the United States and those currently operating in Israel. However, what is similar are the slogans,
the names, and hence the mentalities.
President Roosevelt said of the
peace advocates in his time: "I do not charge these American citizens with
being foreign agents. But I do charge
them with doing exactly the kind of work that the dictators want done in the
fact, we note that the Peace Now Committee, like other peace organizations, was tied to German
agents. An investigation on behalf of a
congressional committee found that a man by the name of John Collett had
inspired the founding of the Peace Now Committee.Professor Hartmann reported the same thing.
It seems likely therefore that
Collett invented or proposed the name "Peace Now.” It ought to be pointed out that Collett was
a Norwegian. He had left his country in
1940, several months after the German conquest. He carried a passport issued by the notorious pro-Nazi Quisling
regime, at a time when Axis states did not simply issue passports to whoever
asked for one. Collett arrived in the
United States through Japan (before US entry into the war). The congressional investigating committee's
report identified Collett as the "leading spirit" in organizing the
Peace Now group (founded in 1942).
The secretary of the Peace Now
Committee (Bessie Simon) had ties with pro-Nazi propagandists who worked in the
United States, as well as ties with the America First Committee (which
dissolved itself not long after US entry into the war).
In the light of this background, it
might seem to many that Collett was sent by the Nazis to organize opposition to
American intervention against Germany in the war.
None of this means that all members
of the movement were German agents or that most of them did not simply and
innocently wants peace. The same
applies to our contemporary Israeli Peace Now Movement. Who would venture to say that most members
of the Israeli Peace Now do not innocently want peace? However, it is sad to see that so little has
been learned from history. More exactly, several aspects of
history, such as the episode of the pro-Nazi peace movements, are hardly studied, at least not in Israel.
Many, but not
all, of the peace
movements in the United States during the Second World War epoch received
funding from Nazi Germany. Yet, they
all contributed to the Nazis' psychological warfare efforts in the war. Therefore, they all contributed to Hitler's
Today, it is not only pathetic but
eerie to see our "peace camp" plead with other dictators, the Syrian
Assads, to take strategically vital territory from Israel, while neither the
father nor his son and successor has shown any sign of really wanting an
agreement unless it represents abject surrender (perhaps not even in that
case). Furthermore, it has long been
known that Hafez Assad was a mass murderer (Consider the destruction of Hama,
1982, 20,000 estimated killed, etc.), as it was not known of Hitler before
Munich. Moreover, since Egypt signed
the first peace accord between Israel and an Arab state, the already rabid
Judeophobia in the state-controlled communications media has intensified. Rather than teaching peace and
reconciliation, Egypt's schools are preparing the next generation for war with
Israel. Few Israelis, not even the
"left," travel to Cairo anymore, even to tour the pyramids.
It seems that the world in general
and Israel in particular have learned little and forgotten too much about how
World War 2 began, about "appeasement" and Munich and the
Nazi-Communist alliance that set off the war.
How many today know that German and Soviet diplomats jointly declared a
"struggle for peace" shortly after their joint invasion of
Poland while Jews had already died in bombings of
the Jewish neighbourhoods of Polish cities, special targets of the Luftwaffe?
LIST OF SOURCES
Simone de. La Force de l'Age. Paris, 1960.
Julien. La Trahison des Clercs (ed. rev.), Paris, 1946.
Roy Carlson (penname of Avedis Derounian), The Plotters (New York: Dutton, 1946).
Alfred. A History of Modern France, vol. 3, Baltimore: Penguin, 1970.
Martin. The Roots of Appeasement. New York & London, 1970.
Bertram (ed.), Historical Dictionary of World War II France. London: Aldwych, 1998.
Sarre dit 'oui' a Hitler," Le Monde. 13 January 1985.
Howe (ed.), The Pocket Book of the War. New York, 1941.
Bernard-Henri. "Le Testament de Dieu".
Williamson. "Munich at Fifty," Commentary, July 1988.
Leon. De Moscou a Beyrouth.
Rossi, Les Communistes francais pendant la Drole de Guerre.Paris,
Andre " The Munich Men: How Chamberlain and Roosvelt Invited
World War II" Policy Review no. 45, Summer 1988.
Sayers & Albert Kahn, The Plot against the Peace. New York, 1945.
Schwarz, "Der Khurbn fun Yidn in Sovetn-Farband," Algemeyne Entsiklopedye, VI, New York, 1963
George. Facts and Fascism. New York, 1943.
Flynn Stenhjem, An American First (New Rochelle, 1976).
Swerdlow, "Playing the Mother Card for Fascism," Dissent,
Tabouis, Blackmail or War. Harmondsworth,
They Called Me Cassandra (New York, 1942).
Vingt Ans de Suspense Diplomatique. Paris, 1958.
Paassen, Pierre. Days
of Our Years (rev. ed.). Garden City, 1940.
That Day Alone. New York, 1941.