The alliance of the most fervent pacifists with the very soldiers of a warrior society.
            Jean-Paul Sartre[1]

 

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 sad, it 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.

            In 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 fascist demands.

            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.

            All 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.[2]

             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 pacifism, 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.

 

PEACE PROCESS

            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 nineteen-thirties.

            For 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.

            For 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 it, a 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.

 

A 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.

            Somewhat 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.

 

FRANCE: 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.

            In 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."[3] 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 racial. " [4] 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 dying..." [5] 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." [6] 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." [7]

            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." [8] 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.

            Aside from Judeophobia, another 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."[9]

            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 out."[10]

            Yet, Blum soon changed his mind, 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. [11] Genevieve Tabouis, one of the outstanding anti-Nazi voices in the french press throughout the 1930's, insisted on this point. [12] 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."[13] 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 today.

            After the German occupation, not 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

            "In 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."[14]

     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". [15]

     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,[16] 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 Hitler Youth. [17] Today 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. [18] 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.[19]

 

THE 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 Bund).  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] bulge."[20]For 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."[21] For the sake of peace.

            On the 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."[22]  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."[23]

            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."[24] 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."[25] An official flyer of the American "Peace Now" movement demanded "negotiations for peace... among equals."[26] 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 United States."[27]

            In 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.[28]Professor Hartmann reported the same thing.[29]

            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).[30]

            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).[31]

            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 war effort.

            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[32] while Jews had already died in bombings of the Jewish neighbourhoods of Polish cities, special targets of the Luftwaffe?

PARTIAL LIST OF SOURCES

Beauvoir, Simone de. La Force de l'Age. Paris, 1960.

Benda, Julien. La Trahison des Clercs (ed. rev.), Paris, 1946.

John Roy Carlson (penname of Avedis Derounian), The Plotters (New York: Dutton,                 1946).

Cobban, Alfred. A History of Modern France, vol. 3, Baltimore: Penguin, 1970.

Gilbert, Martin. The Roots of Appeasement. New York & London, 1970.

Gordon, Bertram (ed.), Historical Dictionary of World War II France. London:             Aldwych, 1998.

Goriely, Georges. "La Sarre dit 'oui' a  Hitler," Le Monde. 13 January 1985.

Quincy Howe (ed.), The Pocket Book of the War. New  York, 1941.

Levi, Bernard-Henri. "Le Testament de Dieu". Paris, 1979.

Murray, Williamson. "Munich at Fifty," Commentary, July 1988.

Poliakov, Leon. De Moscou a Beyrouth. Paris, 1983.

A. Rossi, Les Communistes francais pendant la Drole de Guerre.Paris, 1951.

Ryerson, Andre " The Munich Men: How Chamberlain and Roosvelt Invited World War II" Policy Review no. 45, Summer 1988.

Michael Sayers & Albert Kahn, The Plot against the Peace. New York, 1945.

Salomon Schwarz, "Der Khurbn fun Yidn in Sovetn-Farband," Algemeyne Entsiklopedye, VI, New York, 1963 (Yiddish).

Seldes, George. Facts and Fascism. New York, 1943.

Michele Flynn Stenhjem, An American First (New Rochelle, 1976).

Amy Swerdlow, "Playing the Mother Card for Fascism," Dissent, Spring 1997.

Genevieve Tabouis, Blackmail or War. Harmondsworth, 1938.

_______. They Called Me Cassandra (New York, 1942).

_______. Vingt Ans de Suspense Diplomatique. Paris, 1958.

Van Paassen, Pierre. Days of Our Years (rev. ed.). Garden City, 1940.

_______. That Day Alone. New York, 1941.