Germany And the Jewish Question Part 6

This is the continuation of a series started a year ago. Use the search bar to find the previous post.


By Dr Friedrich Karl Wiehe
Published in Berlin, 1938

The Jews in German culture

Already many years before the National Socialists took over the government, yes, even before the World War, when the climax of Jewish emancipation had not been reached at all, concerned observers pointed out, that the German cultural life hardly deserved the designation of “German”, that it had far more become a Jewish domain. Nowhere has the crisis in German culture been described more distinctly and noone has pinpointed the Jewish problem more sharply than the Jewish cultural writer Moritz Goldstein in an article, which he published already in 1912 in one of the most esteemed German artperiodicals “Kunstwart” (March edition 1912).

Here Goldstein describes how the Jews at the beginning of the emancipation period stormed ahead in the German cultural life and as pupils willing to learn soon began to drive away their own teachers. He sums up the result of this development as follows:

“On all the post, that they are not being held back from by force, there is suddenly Jews, the tasks of the Germans the Jews have made their own; it looks more and more as if the German culture will pass into the hands of Jews entirely. But the Christians have not expected this and have not wanted it, when they gave the outcasts in their midst a place in European culture. They started to defend themselves, they started again to call us strangers, they started to consider us a danger in the temple of their culture. And so now we are faced with the problem: We Jews administer the spiritual property of a people, although it denies us the right and the qualifications to do so.”

“A monstrous fact” Goldstein further calls this Jewish administration of the German culture. Whosoever would take a look at the cultural life before 1933, must confirm Goldsteins testimony. Everywhere the leadership was on Jewish hands, be it in theatre, music, visual arts, film or during the most recent developments, radio.

In the field of theatre f.ex. almost all stages in the capital of Berlin, which was trend-setting for all of Germany, was under the leadership of Jews. That was also the case with the repertoire: it was controlled by Jewish writers.

In litterature the great results were achieved by Jewish publishing houses and Jewish writers. Those who occupied themselves with Jewish litterature during this period, probably knows the names: Emil Ludwig, Jakob Wassermann, Arnold Zweig, Lion Feuchtwanger etc. Their circulation exceeded all things considered all other German writers. About half of all German fiction, which was known abroad, came demonstrably from Jews.

Also the realm of music was dominated by Jews. In Berlin as well as in the rest of the country, the decisive posts as conductors were mostly held by Jews. The cultural-political influence, which resulted thereby, on the creation of opera- and concert repertoire, was enormous. The number of Jewish composers rose to undreamt-of hights. Beethoven was replaced by Gustav Mahler and Arnold Schönberg. Richard Wagner and Hans Pfitzner were supplanted by Franz Schreker. The Jewish music critics in the newspapers and the almost exclusively Jewish agencies supported this striving thoroughly.

Even more onesided was the tendency in the field of light entertainment music, in the operette, in the sound film, in the grammophone record industry and in the radio. Finally there was an increasing Jewish influence in the music academies so that one notices that presisely in the field of music the Jewish overrepræsentation was frighteningly high.

It was no different in the field of visual art. Jewish art dealers and Jewish art litterature opened the way to success for a generation of Jewish painters and sculptors, which mostly remained closed for the other German artists. Finally film and also radio was so completely occupied by Jews, that one could hardly even speak of a German share.

If one still doubts the Jewish influence on German culture described here, one can again refer to a Jew as honest as Moritz Goldstein, who already in 1912 nailed it down:

“Noone doubts the power which the Jews have through the press. Especially the review is at least in the capital and its influential newspapers becoming a Jewish monopoly. Just as well known is the prevailing Jewish element in theatre: almost all theatrical managers in Berlin are Jews, a large part, maybe the most part of the actors also – and that without a Jewish audience a treatrical and concert life in Germany would be all but impossible is repeatedly extolled and regretted ….. How many Jews there are among German poets, so many a guardian of German art knows in his wrath.”

Since the year 1912 this developement had gone fast. This happened mostly because the Jews in the time after the war forced their way into the offices of the administration of the German cultural life, which had been closed to them during the reign of the emperror. F.ex. the teatrical department in the Perussian ministry of culture was lead for years by the Jewish lawyer Seelig and the music department by the Jew Leo Kestenberg. Since also the press policy of the Preussian state was on Jewish hands and even the top management of the whole administration (secretary of state Weismann) one can form a picture of the thoroughness of the Jewish exploitation of the cultural life favoured and supported by the administration.

It is certain that this Jewish predominance was not a consequence of spiritual superiority or a greater gift of creative powers. It was far more the economic superiority of Jewry as described above, which had led to the creation of this domination. It was the instrument for achieving spiritual and cultural influence.

It is however far more important to maintain, that the pronounced Jewish spirit, which unfolded itself in all fields of cultural creation one-sidedly favoured this thrust towards a domineering position. The lack of sense of duty of the Jewish race, the pronounced rationalism of Jews, the unscrupulousness and speculating in the lower instincts, which we have already ascertained in the Jewish journalism, was the basis for the economic results on which they could establish the spiritual domination. The result was the destruction and the dissolution of the cultural life of Germany. Thus it was not so much the extent of the Jewish domination, which brought about rejection and resistance in the German people and which finally lead to the sharpest antisemitism. It was far more the spirit of Judaism, the way in which it excerted and abused its cultural power.

In order to establish that with enough clarity, it is necessary to examine some of the fields of the German cultural life before 1933 a little more closely.



Above we have already given a count of the Jewish authors, who were far ahead of all German authors during these years as far as the circulation of their works goes. The most succesfull of them was no doubt Emil Ludwig, who was originally named Cohn. He was probably the most read German-language author of this period. Already in 1930 the circulation of his books exceeded two million and his novels were translated into 25 languages. For a long time Ludwig was simply regarded as the representative of German contemporary litterature.

This reputation and the attraction that his litterary biographies achieved could not, however, be due to a genuine value in his litterary acomplichments. It is far more a classic example of the success that one can achieve by clever and large scale advertisement. For in all of his books, which he has devoted to great personalities from the history of the world there is behind a pleasant style and a captivating lightness an unheard of banality in the presentation of the contents, a superficial, hackneyed psychology. A real eye for historic greatness and for the real causes of historic events, the author lacks completely. All the more Ludwig concerns himself with the all too human where also the great are sometimes small. All of his books, which he threw out onto the book market with startling speed – wether it was about large themes such as Napoleon I., Lincoln, Goethe or even Jesus Christ – they lacked the individual immersion and carry all the signs of schematization and mass fabrication.

Just a few examples can explain the recipie, after which Ludwig manufactured his litterary off-the-peg clothes:

In his study of Goethe (“Genie und Character”, Berlin 1924), there is in the description of the relationship between Goethe and Schiller no trace of the spiritual world of these two personalities, in which they attracted and repelled each other in their metaphysical conflict. Ludwig sees in the relationship between those two great ones nothing but that which is between two envious, jealous competitors, where the one begrudges the other fame and material success.

In his work on the life of Christ (Berlin 1928), Ludwig brings it to outright blasphemy. Already the title “Der Menschensohn” (The son of Man) is a deliberate antithesis to the Christian belief, that Jesus is the son of God. Consequently in his representation he strips the image of Jesus of all religious contents and what remains is a good, somewhat over-imaginative human being, who is hypnotized by a mission, which has been forced upon him from the outside. According to Ludwig, the teachings of Christ are absolutely nothing new, but religeous thesis’ from Judaism, which already Philo and others had posed. Thus he says of the Sermon on the Mount: “His listeners do not know, that Hillel, the head of Synhedrions, said almost the same thing 50 years earlier.”

If this quotation is not enough to characterize Ludwig, the following samples may convince the reader; they give an idea of the blasphemically distorted picture Ludwig tries to impart to his reader of the Redeemer:

“Also the rich were happy to invite him, because he knew the scriptures well and always restrained himself; so he sits with them by the wine and it is a strong wine, that grown on the hills. Parties and women he does not shun and he makes merry with the guests… He is also cheerful and likes to sit at the table … When the women salve him or listen to him dreamily, he realizes the love dream of his heart and squanders on many as a prophet what the citizen shares with one.”

Ludwig goes even further to publicly deride the Christian feelings. In his opinion the traitor Judas has only deserved merit for Jesus fulfilling his saviour mission: “Judas and his enimies wanted to force him to make a decision … the person, who caused the master suffering, only opened the road for him to glory … When God made a miracle and let his son be victorious in the end, the appearently faithless disciple was doubly justified.”

In these words there is a lack of veneration for all devine and human values, the crude cyniscism, which is the eternal mark of the Jewish race, so shameless as hardly any other place.

Next after Emil Ludwig we find among the litterary peacocs Alfred Kerr. As critic for the Jewish “Berliner Tageblatt” he had for many years unrestrained power over the theatre of the capital of Berlin. His word determined the rise or fall of theatre directors and actors. In many cases he also acted as a writer. His friend and biographer, the Jew Joseph Chapiro, tells the following very characterstic confessions about Kerr’s life: “My dears, what is character? Often its own antithesis, for we have character – for a few minutes at a time.” Also Kerr dealt with the figure of Christ in his book: “Die Welt im Licht!” But where Emil Ludwig at least tries to pretend to a certain litterary value, Kerr drops all pretense in open scorn. Among other things he says about the Christ: “I hear Christ “mauschlen” (speaking Jewish and gesticulating; peddling) Oscar Wilde lets Christ palaver in Greek. How can he? He mauscheled” Here one needs to know that “mauscheln” in German means to speak loudly and gesticulate with the hands, which was the obtrusive way in which Galician Jews spoke.

In view of such shamelessness it is not surprising the these guardians of German culture were also overflowing with shameless sexual allusions, when they tried their hand at lyric poems. (Caprichos 1921)

A somewhat different, but no more appreciated type of the Jews who until 1933 controlled the German bookmarket, was Georg Hermann. In his political diary called “Randbemerkungen” (Marginal Notes) (Berlin 1919) he makes a confession, which is quite spineless, as a man of letters, unhampered by all ties: “As a Jew I belong to an old race, which is too old to fall for mass suggestion. Words like people, war, state are for me colour- and soundless.” The cosmopolitan, overnationally minded spirit of the sons of Ahasverus is expressed as follows: “I could be comfortable everywhere in the world, anywhere where I speak the language, where there is beautiful women, flowers and art, a good library, a chessgame, cultured manners, and where climate and landscape are understandable and advantageous for me.” Here Hermann is honest enough to feel Judaism as carrier of the destruction of the idea of the nation state. “The modernity of the Jews, the most recent source of their value, is for the two thirds of it due to abhorring the idea of the nation state.” This basically anarchial school of thought has even risen to an open admission of personal cowardice: “Rather cowardly for five minutes than dead for a whole long life.”

In no other of the authors of Judaism the Jewish tendency to chameleon-like variability has shown as clearly as in Kurt Tucholsky. This very productive and brilliantly gifted serial story writer acted under no less than four different names (aside from his real name he also called himself Peter Panter, Kaspar Hauser and Theobald Tiger), which he used as he saw fit. In many large newspapers and periodicals he published his articles, and his numerous books, with constantly large circulations, made him one of the most read authors in Germany.

But his rich gifts very only used for negative critiscism. Nothing which was sacred for the German people was sacred to him and over all national and religeous values he poured the acid of his derision. He, who had not himself participated in the war as a soldier unfolded himself after the collapse in 1918 in a months long derision of the German army and especially of the German officers. Quite like his fellow Jew, Lessing, he threw smut upon the honorable fieldmarshal von Hindenburg and called him in public “a national hero, which you paint on beerglasses”. As a man without a fatherland, he did not shy away from open treason; in his book, “Deutschland, Deutschland über alles” (Berlin 1929), which is one long slander of his homeland, he declares cynically: “What these judges call treason, does not concern us, what they consider high treason is not to us a dishonourable action.”

That fits the overall picture of this man, who professed himself to characterlesness with the words: “Man has two legs and two convictions: one, when he is doing well and one when he is doing badly”, that he also occupied himself with pornography of the worst kind and fought fiercely side by side with his fellow Jew, Theodor Wolff, against the above mentioned law, that was to protect the youth against trash and smut.



In order to prove the Jewish take over of the German theatrical life after the war, one really only needs to refer to a book by the then very well known writer Arnold Zweig “Juden auf der deutschen Bühne” (Jews on the German Stage) (Berlin 1928). With an unsurpassed frankness it describes how Jewry as finance people, theatre directors, agents, stage managers, actors, critics, poets and playwrights had taken over the theatrical field completely. “They come from somewhere with money”, Zweig says about every Jew, who – like the corrupt Katzenellenbogen, the Russian Jew Kahn or the brothers Rotter, also Eastern Jews – tried their luck in the theatrical concerns and turned the cultural institution of the stage into a business. Zweig furthermore describes the Jewish agents as “slave traders”, who had gradually captured the theatrical life completely. He says further: “The international chaining together of the agencies … coincides with the international cliquishness in the modern Eastern Jewish movement… all the memories of the actors are full of humiliations, which they have suffered on this slave market … With many agents … the road to the audience goes through the blackmailers bed …”

That the leadership of almost all leading stages in the country, especially the Berlin theatre and even the national stage had fallen into Jewish hands has already been mentioned above. Seven Berlin theatres were lead by the Eastern Jews, the brothers Rotter, of who the Jew Arnold Zweig stated: “Under the leadership of these newcomers the litterary theatre has been turned into a mere and crude business.”

And it was the Jew, Leopold Jessner in the capacity of director of the national stage who made the excentric tours out of the classic dramas of Shakespeare and Schiller, which became disreputable far beyond the German borders. Even the Jewish critic, Fritz Engel had to declare in the “Berliner Tageblatt” after a “Hamlet” performance in December 1926: “He makes a drawing room play … at times a comedy, almost a revue out of it.”

It is therefore not surprising, that the plays that were domineering the repertoires were in accordance with the spirit among the Jewish powers that be in the theatrical world. Their general basic theme was directed against the state- and social values, against the public authorities and the law, against moral and religious norms. If one looks at a theatre program from these years, one is always met by the same sight: Jews are predominat at the top.

Chronlogically the first one is the Jewish comminist Ernst Toller, a member of the Jews Eisners sovjet government in Munic in 1919. His dramas (“Feuer aus dem Kesseln” and “Hinkemann”) are a glorification of the sdailor’s muteny from 1918 and an incredible derision of the German armies.

His fellow Jew Friedrich Wolf, another playwright, whose plays had been performed just as much as those of Toller, also started with muteny dramas and then went into the subject of moral decay. In his much performed play “Cyankali” he makes boastful propagande against the paragraphs in German law, which makes abortion illegal.

Even more vicious than his predecessor, probably one of the most repugnant writers among Jewish playwrights, is Walter Mehring. He starts out with making chansons, the meanness of which in the cabaret’s at Berliner Kurfürstendamm were cheered by a predominantly Jewish audience. His drama, “Der Kaufmann von Berlin”, which was performed for the first time in 1929 by the Communist theatrical manager, Piscator, forms the height of Jewish power-craze on the German stage. Mehring makes a carricature of the misery of the years after the war, which hordes of Jewish immigrants from the East took advantage of, in a mercilessly twisted form. The hero in the play is such an Eastern Jewish immigrant, who shows up in the Jewish streets of Berlin, dirt poor and without any means and who conquers Berlin in no time. The shameless truism whith which Mehring describes this course of events is quite level with his cynical derision of everything, that is sacred to the German people. At the climax of the drama, street sweepers sweeps away piles of junk consisting of national symbols, steel helmets and – even the dead body of a fallen German soldier. A chorus sings the refrain: “Dreck, weg damit!” (Shit, away with it!)

One could easily continue this list with numerous examples and names. Aside from Arnold Zweig and Walter Hasenclever one could also mention f.ex. Ferdinand Bruckner, whose dramas were great events for a depraved flock of lustfull sensation-mongers, because they made criminal and sexual aberrations the only meaning of life (f.ex. “Verbrecher” (Criminal) or “Krankheit der Jugend”(Illness of the Youth)) But let enough be said, let it be enough to ask the question again: In what country, which holds on to its national honour, the sacredness of the religious feelings, morals, law and order would such a trend-setting clique of beasts not have been chased to hell at once? The by Jewish spirit saturated Germany even tolerated them until National Socialism took over the government in 1933.



Before 1933 the Jews had taken possession of the film even more thoroughly than of the theatre. That was understandable, because in film artistic and financial elements are more closely connected than anywhere else. The earnings in filmindustry overshadows the earnings of any other artistic activity. And it was the possibility of gain that got Jewry interested in crowding into the German filmindustry, which was flourishing after the war. How large the number of Jews was is shown by the following example:

In the year 1931 out of 67 German productionfilms 41 firms, i.e. 61 % Jewish, out of 28 rental firms 24, i.e. 86 %. At the same time out of in all 144 film manuscripts 119 or 82 % written by Jews. The production was in 77 cases, i.e. 53 % on Jewish hands. If one looks at the names of producers, stage managers and actors of these films, which were praised by the critics and turned into box office successes, one finds everywhere an overwhelming majority of Jews. Among producers and distribution agencies: Pressburger and Rabinowitsch (Cinema-alliance), Heymann, Fallner and Somló, Levy or Cohn. Under stage managers: Oswald-Ornstein, Zelnik, Meinert, Neufeld or Schönfelder. Under actors and actresses: Pallenberg, Siegfried Arno, Fritz Walburg, Felix Bressart, Kurt Gerron, Grete Moshein, Gitta Alpar, Rosa Valetti etc.

The spirit of this Jewish filmindustry is characterized by the socalled „socially hygienic informationfilms“ which Jews had brought out onto the market and which flooded Germany after the World War. They were alledgedly supposed to scientifically inform the broad masses of the dangers of sexual excesses. But under the guise of science they speculated in the lust and lower instincts of the audience. Criminals, tarts and homosexuals were the centre of the story. A random choice of film titles may shed some light on the spirit of these films:

“Moral und Sinnlichkeit” (Morals and sensuality), „Das Buch des Lasters” (The book of vices), „Was kostet Liebe?“ (What is the price of love?), “Sündige Mutter” (Sinnful Mama), “Prostitution” (Prostitution), “Wenn ein Weib den Weg verliert” (When a woman looses her way). The boosting titles correspond to the contents: They rummaged around in filth and showed with cynical openness the filthiest scenes of perversions. Even the government of that time, which was really magnanimous in such matters, found it necessary in 1920 to counteract the worst anomalities with legislation concerning comedy, however without being able to ward off the evil completely.

During the most recent years the greatest business was the socalled military farces, i.e. films, which in an intolerable way seek to ridicule and derise the German army and the individual German soldier. Also here we find Jews at top level as playwrights, as producers, stage managers and actors. Finally it should be remembered, that the well known Bolshevist propagandafilms such as “Panzerkreuzer Potemkin” or “Sturm über Asien” were imported to Germany by Jewish film agencies and film concerns.



The biggest step in the direction of the decline of the German cultural life was taken in the field of the light entertainment genre. Here – in the genre of musical comedy and above all revue – the frivolousness and the amorality had taken on such forms, that f.ex. Berlin during these years was quite correctly considered the most immoral city in the world. It was Jews, who introduced this form of art, which was not yet known before the war, and they abused it in a way, which is a long way responsible for the decline of morals.

It is very significant that all of the revue managers in Berlin – and there was practically no revue theatres outside of Berlin – were Jews without exceptions! Their unsavoury names will be recalled by many foreign visitors to Berlin: James Klein, Hermann Haller, Rudolf Nelson, the brothers Rotter and Eric Charell. Likewise the numerous revue playwrights, composers, stage managers and stars were almost exclusively Jewish domain.

In these revues the uninhibited sex drive endulged in veritable orgies. All of the reality of life was considered an aspect of the sexual desire and its satisfaction. Chasteness and discipline were ridiculed as oldfashioned prejudice.

Already the exciting titles of these revues, which were promoted at great expense, are significant. Here is a little “taste”:

“Zieh dich aus” (Get undressed) – “Tausend nackte Frauen” (One thousand naked Women) – “Die Sünden der Welt” (The sinns of the World) – “Häuser der Liebe” (The Houses of Love) – “Streng verboten” (Strickly prohibited) – “Donnerwetter, tausend Frauen” (Hullabaloo, one thousand Women) – “Sündig und süss” (Sweet and sinnful)

In the advertisement for the revue by James Klein “Zieh dich aus” the following contents were announced with deliberate speculation in the lower instincts: “An evening without morals and with the participation of 60 prized nudemodels. The hunt for beautiful women. Experiences with a 15 year old (!)” On the poster for the revue “Tausend nackte Frauen” it said: The great revue about free love. 40 pictures about morality and immorality.

The contents of the play thus announced corresponded exactly with the evoked ideas. All performances were of unsurpassed unambigiuty and advertised for uninhibited submission to the sexual instincts.


Published in: on March 4, 2018 at 12:43 am  Leave a Comment  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s