Leonard Dinnerstein Is Dead

With the rise of the Internet, and the ability of independent scholars to examine original documents, this prominent Jewish historian’s life’s work — an effort to exonerate Jewish sex killer Leo Frank — became a laughingstock.

by Steve Ranes

JEWISH SUPREMACIST, anti-Gentile activist and history-distorter Leonard Dinnerstein has died at age 84. On this day, the 106th anniversary of Leo Frank’s slaying of Mary Phagan, it is fitting that we examine Dinnerstein’s career, which was in large devoted to an attempt to exonerate Jewish sex killer Frank, and cover up the mountain of evidence that he was guilty.

Special thanks to the students of the Leo Frank case and the writers at The American Mercury, National Vanguard, and the Leo Frank Case Research Library who discussed and brought Dinnerstein and his baleful influence on scholarship to my awareness.

Leonard Dinnerstein (1934-2019) is dead and thus so is his part in a dark chapter in American pseudo-academic fraud about Jewish-Gentile relations regarding the Frank-Phagan affair (1913-1915, 1982-1986). And there are signs that the dark chapter itself is about to end.

Leonard Dinnerstein’s half-century-long promulgation of partisan Jewish activist pseudo-scholarship on the Leo Frank Case (he earned his Ph.D., at Columbia University, 1966, with a poorly-constructed and highly biased dissertation on the case; this was published in book form as The Leo Frank Case, 1968, with a number of editions thereafter into the late 20th and early 21st century) set back our understanding of this sensational and contentious 1913-1915 double murder true crime by decades. Dinnerstein’s false narrative was supported by other Jews in both the academy and popular culture. His numerous ideological heirs have aggressively perpetuated the Frank case as a form of Jewish-Gentile pseudo-intellectual ethnic warfare (one of many examples: Robert Seitz Frey’s The Silent and the Damned: The Murder of Mary Phagan and the Lynching of Leo Frank, 1988).

The plain fact is that Dinnerstein’s main thesis — that there was strong Southern “anti-Semitism” and that it led to a false prosecution of Frank — has been thoroughly debunked. The American South, in fact, was and is the most philo-Semitic section of the country and perhaps even the world.

Dinnerstein not only prostituted the term “anti-Semitism” with his prolific bashing of the American South on the subject during his lifetime (one of many examples, “Leo Frank and the Jewish Community,” American Jewish Archive Journal, 1968), something that you’d think even thoughtful Jews would be wary of, but he provided grist for a number of major fear-mongering racketeering groups such as ADL. That group regularly promotes the anti-Gentile “Hang the Jew Cheerleading Hoax” myth that Dinnerstein originated (see Rabbi Steven Lebow, Atlanta Journal Constitution, 2000; Abraham Foxman, op ed 2005; Lauren Jones, ADL, Jonathan Greenblatt, 2017, and many others too many to mention — also see the audiobook, part 10, of the Secret Relationship Between Blacks and Jews, Volume 3 — now censored by Amazon, by the way — at The American Mercury).

“Hang the Jew or We’ll Hang You!”

In this anti-Gentile blood libel, endlessly repeated by the Academia-Hollywood-Industrial-Complex using the big lie method, we are told a tale about supposed mobs of hysterical southern Protestant “anti-Semites,” who were supposedly screaming anti-Jewish death threats into the open windows of the courtroom while the proceedings of the Leo Frank trial were being conducted in front of a packed audience.

This hoax was most effectively debunked in the American Mercury‘s audio book series based on the National of Islam’s book — see section nine and section ten of the audio version — which is now banned by Amazon.

In one example of Dinnerstein’s many falsifications of history, he writes in The American Jewish Archive Journal, 1968:

Beyond the main testimony, the jurors had little more on which to base their decision than hearsay, rumors, and unsubstantiated accusations. Yet most members of the public were thoroughly convinced of the defendant’s guilt and made their voices heard. The intense summer heat necessitated that the courtroom windows be left open, and remarks from the crowds could be heard easily by those inside. “Crack the Jew’s neck!” — “Lynch him!” — were some of the epithets emerging from the more boisterous. Threats were also made against the jury that they would be lynched if they did not hang that “damned sheeny.”

Academia, Dinnerstein’s undeserved domain, is upstream from society and politics. Millions therefore accepted Dinnerstein’s pseudo-intellectual propaganda that Frank was convicted because of “anti-Semites” conspiring against him from day one after the abused and battered body of 13-year-old Mary Phagan was discovered in the early morning hours of Sunday, April 27th, 1913. Most of these millions know nothing about the facts which encircled Leo Frank and made it inevitable that he would be indicted and convicted of the sex killing — and lose every appeal he launched, all the way to the United States Supreme Court. Those millions, when they think of the Frank case, see only the fictionalized narrative woven by Dinnerstein over generations. Dinnerstein’s work is in fact a form of psychological war against Gentiles, most of whom see, when Frank’s name is mentioned, not a pervert and a strangler of a young girl, but who instead visualize in technicolor through Dinnerstein’s and Hollywood’s disfigured imagination, an anti-Jewish mob of booger-eating “rednecks,” belligerently terrorizing the jury, defense team, and judge, making the trial a form of a Salem witch hunt against an angelic and innocent Frank, with their “hate” and murderous hate rubber-stamped by a kangaroo court.

Dinnerstein also promotes the ludicrous Mary Phagan “bite mark” hoax as if it were real evidence of Leo Frank’s innocence.

The “Bite Marks”

Let’s examine the Mary Phagan bite mark hoax’s origin: It began in the book To Number Our Days by hack writer Pierre van Paassen, 1964, pages 237-8. Let us examine each sentence and paragraph of this alleged claim. What are some of the problems with these assertions? Does the whole thing sound like a fabrication, or is it credible?

Here is van Paassen’s claim, repeated by Dinnerstein, in full:

The Jewish community of Atlanta at that time seemed to live under a cloud. Several years previously one of its members, Leo Frank, had been lynched as he was being transferred from the Fulton Tower Prison in Atlanta to Milledgeville for trial on a charge of having raped and murdered a little girl in his warehouse which stood right opposite the Constitution building. Many Jewish citizens who recalled the lynching were unanimous in assuring me that Frank was innocent of the crime.

I took to reading all the evidence pro and con in the record department at the courthouse. Before long I came upon an envelope containing a sheaf of papers and a number of X-ray photographs showing teeth indentures. The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled. But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth of which several photos were included. If those photos had been published at the time of the murder, as they should have been, the lynching would probably not have taken place.

Though, as I said, the man died several years before, it was not too late, I thought, to rehabilitate his memory and perhaps restore the good name of his family. I showed Clark Howell the evidence establishing Frank’s innocence and asked permission to run a series of articles dealing with the case and especially with the evidence just uncovered. Mr. Howell immediately concurred, but the most prominent Jewish lawyer in the city, Mr. Harry Alexander, whom I consulted with a view to have him present the evidence to the grand jury, demurred. He said Frank had not even been tried. Hence no new trial could be requested. Moreover, the Jewish community in its entirety still felt nervous about the incident. If I wrote the articles old resentments might be stirred up and, who knows, some of the unknown lynchers might recognize themselves as participants in my description of the lynching. It was better, Mr. Alexander thought, to leave sleeping lions alone. Some local rabbis were drawn into the discussion and they actually pleaded with Clark Howell to stop me from reviving interest in the Frank case as this was bound to have evil repercussions on the Jewish community.

That someone had blabbed out of school became quite evident when I received a printed warning saying: “Lay off the Frank case if you want to keep healthy.” The unsigned warning was reinforced one night or, rather, early one morning when I was driving home. A large automobile drove up alongside of me and forced me into the track of a fast-moving streetcar coming from the opposite direction. My car was demolished, but I escaped without a scratch…. (To Number Our Days by Pierre van Paassen; available at http://archive.org/details/ToNumberOurDaysByPierreVanPaassen)

In reality, x-ray technology was in its infancy in 1913, and it was never possible or necessary to “x-ray bite marks” on skin anyway — in 1913 or today (such marks are visible on the surface; x-rays would be unnecessary).

Additionally, automobiles had virtually no safety features to speak of in 1922, so the chances of someone walking away “without a scratch” from a head-on collision with a streetcar are effectively zero, and surely such an accident would have been reported in the press.

Look it up yourself: Was Leo Frank’s appeals attorney named “Harry Alexander” (as van Paassen claimed) or Henry Alexander?

And, even more embarrassingly for Dinnerstein, he didn’t even note van Paassen’s egregious, laughable errors of fact: Leo Frank was not lynched on his way to his murder trial in 1913. He was tried and sentenced to death by Judge Leonard Strickland Roan on August 26, 1913, but the hanging took place nearly two years later on August 17, 1915. Leo Frank went on trial in Atlanta, not 170 miles away in Milledgeville where the hoaxer suggests the trial was scheduled. The most bizarre claim of van Paassen — not corrected, not even mentioned by Dinnerstein — is that Leo Frank “had not even been tried,” when in fact his trial was the longest, most sensational, and most expensive in Georgia history, the stuff of front-page headlines for weeks on end just nine years before van Paassen’s supposed “investigation.”

Now do you see why Dinnerstein is a laughingstock?

Dinnerstein laid the groundwork for cultural Marxists, anti-White leftists, which-ever-way-the-wind-blows professors, and Jewish activist academics, to transform the trial and conviction of sex strangler Frank (1884-1915) into a soap opera-style tragedy with Frank as the victim, a maudlin hagiography about a “noble martyr” to “anti-Semitism.” It’s gaudy Jewish-American Kabuki at its finest and a pivotal part of the modern effort to re-paint White-hating Jews as stoic victims in a fictional landscape of “racist” White Americans. The real landscape is very nearly the opposite: wealthy, privileged racist Jews demonizing Blacks (Dinnerstein blames an innocent Black man, James Conley, for Mary Phagan’s murder) and ferociously demonizing Whites who offered almost no resistance to the Jewish ascent over them, who willingly and even eagerly handed over high positions in their society to Jews — Jews like Leonard Dinnerstein who repaid such kindness with weaponized hate and lies.

Leo Frank, an effete (‘effete’ according to Paul Berger of the Jewish Daily Forward and Jewish author Steve Oney, who also uses the same word to describe him) lecher is transmogrified by Dinnerstein and his heirs into a civil rights icon — and thus Jews are suddenly exculpated in their disproportionate historic role as beneficiaries of slavery and traditional anti-Black racism (in fact, the Frank defense team was guilty of gutter-level N-word anti-Black racism in the very courtroom itself).

* * *

Appendix 1:
Alan Dershowitz’s Introduction to the 1991 Edition of Leonard Dinnerstein’s The Leo Frank Case

Introductory Note: We include this piece and the following appendices for analysis by researchers. Scholars should note that Dershowitz, who makes much of legal ethics here, repeats the standard Jewish tropes implausibly blaming James Conley for the crime (which would mean that the entire 1913 Atlanta, Georgia establishment risked their careers and reputations in order to exonerate a Black rapist and murderer of a White girl that they knew to be guilty — a ridiculous claim) and suggesting that widespread Southern anti-Semitism (something which did not exist) was the real reason for Frank’s prosecution. He also invokes the “Knights of Mary Phagan,” an organization which appears to exist only in sensationalist and journalistic accounts of the case, with no real evidence for its actual existence.

* * *

Introduction

By Alan M. Dershowitz

The trial, conviction, death sentence and its commutation and eventual lynching of Leo Frank during the second decade of the twentieth century, constitute a major episode not only in American legal history, but also in the development of American political institutions. The Knights of Mary Phagan, formed to avenge the murder of the young factory worker for which Frank was convicted, became an important component of the twentieth century resurrection of the Ku Klux Klan. The Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith was founded in reaction to the anti-Semitism generated – or at least disclosed – by the Frank case.

Sometimes characterized as the American “Dreyfus” case (a reference to the frame-up of a French Jew which fanned the flames of nineteenth century European anti-Semitism), the trial of Leo Frank in Atlanta, Georgia was conducted in a carnival atmosphere. Crowds outside the courthouse sang “The Ballad of Mary Phagan,” which included the following lyrics:

Little Mary Phagan
She left her home one day;
She went to the pencil-factory
To see the big parade.

She left her home at eleven,
She kissed her mother good-by;
Not one time did the poor child think
That she was a-going to die.

Leo Frank he met her
With a brutish heart, we know;
He smiled, and said, “Little Mary,
You won’t go home no more.”

Sneaked along behind her
Till she reached the metal-room;
He laughed, and said, “Little Mary,
You have met your fatal doom.”

Down upon her knees
To Leo Frank she plead;
He taken a stick from the trash-pile
And struck her across the head.

Crowds inside the courtroom shouted anti-Jewish epithets, and demanded Frank’s death. The smell of the lynch mob was in the air.

The State’s star witness was a black maintenance worker at the factory which Frank managed and at which Mary Phagan worked. He testified that Frank killed the young girl and ordered him to dispose of the body. When the jury convicted Frank, it was the first time in memory that a white man had been convicted of murder on the basis of uncorroborated testimony of a black witness. This apparent advance in racial justice was explained away by a local observer who said: “That wasn’t a white man convicted by that N…’s testimony. It was a Jew.”

Predictably, Frank was convicted, sentenced to death and denied relief on appeal, despite some critical dissenting words from Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. Unpredictably, the Governor of Georgia decided to commute Frank’s death sentence and leave him to serve out a term of life imprisonment. That appeared to be a great victory for Frank and his many supporters around the country, since the evidentiary foundation underlying Frank’s conviction was beginning to crumble as a result of the discovery of new evidence strongly suggesting that it was the government’s star witness – and not Frank – who had killed the victim. It seemed only a matter of time before Frank would be freed from his imprisonment.

In order to prevent Frank’s freedom, several of the “best” citizens of Georgia – including a minister, two former Supreme Court Justices, and an ex-sheriff – decided to take the law into their own hands. They constituted themselves as a vigilante committee and let it be known that they intended to kidnap Frank from prison and lynch him. Despite some perfunctory efforts by prison authorities to protect Frank, the lynch mob had little difficulty breaking into the prison and kidnapping Frank. It was obvious that at least some of the prison authorities were in on the plan. Frank was taken to Marietta, where he was lynched. Everyone knew exactly who was involved in the lynching – indeed some members of the lynch mob boasted about their participation and gave interviews to the press. Photographs of the lynching and souvenir pieces of the rope were sold throughout Georgia. Nonetheless, the coroner’s jury investigating the murder of Leo Frank concluded that it was unable to identify any of the perpetrators. This was typical of lynchings in the South during that era. The only difference is that this victim was not black.

There is a fascinating and largely unknown ethical story behind the public legal story of the Frank case. I use it as a teaching vehicle in my course on legal ethics. It turns out that while Leo Frank was on death row, one of Atlanta’s most prominent lawyers learned that Frank was innocent and that another man – presumably the government’s star witness – was the killer. We do not know for certain whether the real killer confessed directly to the lawyer, or to another lawyer who then sought ethical advice from the pillar of the bar. This is the way the eminent lawyer described it in his own writings:

I am one of the few people who know that Leo Frank was innocent of the crime for which he was convicted and lynched. Subsequent to the trial, and after his conviction had been affirmed by the Supreme Court, I learned who killed Mary Phagan, but the information came to me in such a way that, though I wish I could do so, I can never reveal it so long as certain persons are alive. We lawyers, when we are admitted to the bar, take an oath never to reveal the communications made to us by our clients; and this includes facts revealed in an attempt to employ the lawyer though he refuses the employment….The Law on this subject may or may not be a wise law – there are some who think that it is not – but naturally since it is the law, we lawyers and the judges cannot honorably disobey it.

The eminent lawyer (and any other lawyer who may have received the real killer’s confession in confidence) was forced into the most excruciating legal, ethical and moral dilemma a professional can possibly confront. The ethical rules of the profession are fairly clear. There is no available exception to the rule mandating confidentiality of privileged communications about past crimes. It is not a future crime for a guilty client to remain silent while an innocent man goes to his death for the murder committed by a silent, guilty client. The issue is a bit more complicated if the confessing client was, in fact, the witness who testified against Frank, for the client would then be confessing to perjury. Some courts and commentators have suggested that allowing perjured testimony to remain unrecanted, while the victim of the perjury remains under a death or prison sentence, may constitute a continuing fraud on the court, and thus an exception to the lawyer-client privilege. But that line of authority is hazy at best, and the eminent lawyer did not apparently consider it. He saw the legal and professional ethics issue as simple and straightforward. That still left the moral and personal issue of whether any human being – regardless of his or her profession – can and should allow a preventable miscarriage of justice to be carried out, especially in a capital case. My students in legal ethics generally split down the middle over whether they would violate the rules of the profession – engage in an act of civil disobedience against their own client – in order to save an innocent non-client.

In a typically lawyer-like way, the eminent lawyer in the real case apparently saw to it that the governor learned the information known to him, but without his own “fingerprints” being on the communication. This is how he put it: “Without ever having discussed with Governor Slaton the facts which were revealed to me, I have reason to believe, from a thing contained in the statement he made in connection with the grant of the commutation, that, in some way, these facts came to him and influenced his action.” But the eminent lawyer’s compromise did not work. Although the governor did commute Leo Frank’s sentence, he was not able to persuade a vengeful public of Frank’s innocence. I doubt that Frank would have been lynched had the eminent lawyer come forward and disclosed his information. Instead, his client would almost certainly have been lynched. The complexity of ethical and moral issues in the law can rarely be resolved by simple compromise solutions of the kind attempted by the lawyer in the Frank case. Indeed some such issues have no entirely satisfactory solutions.

Nearly seventy years after Leo Frank’s murder, new evidence of his innocence emerged. An eighty-two-year old man, who had been a youthful eyewitness to events surrounding the killing of Mary Phagan, finally came forward and told what he had seen back in 1913. His evidence contradicted the State’s star witness and strongly suggested that the murder was committed by that same witness, the black maintenance man. The murderer threatened the young witness with death if he ever mentioned what he had observed, and he did not come forward for all those years. Now, he has told his story and it seems to have persuaded most objective people that Leo Frank was lynched for a crime committed by someone else.

Finally, in 1986 Frank was posthumously pardoned with the following official apology: “The lynching aborted the legal process, thus foreclosing further effort to prove Frank’s innocence. It resulted from the State of Georgia’s failure to protect Frank. Compounding the injustice, the State then failed to prosecute any of the lynchers.” Remarkably, some Georgians continued to resist the pardon.

Alan Dershowitz
Cambridge, Massachusetts
January 11, 1991

* * *

Appendix 2:
Leonard Dinnerstein Obituary from the New York Times

Introductory Note: Scholars and researchers should note that the New York Times was the main vehicle among many in the multimillion-dollar campaign to convince the public that Leo Frank was an innocent victim of “anti-Semitism.” Its heavily-Jewish management and Jewish ownership continue to this day. Dinnerstein was the heir apparent of the campaign’s pseudo-scholarly side beginning with his 1968 book on the case, so this piece is essentially a hagiography.

* * *

Leonard Dinnerstein, 84, Dies; Scholar of Anti-Semitism in U.S.

By Sam Roberts

Jan. 31, 2019

Leonard Dinnerstein, a historian whose doctoral dissertation on the 1915 lynching of Leo Frank, a Jewish factory manager, in Atlanta heralded his career as one of the nation’s foremost scholars of anti-Semitism, died on Jan. 22 at his home in Tucson. He was 84.

The cause was complications of kidney failure, his daughter, Julie Dinnerstein, said. He had spent most of his academic career at the University of Arizona in Tucson.

Professor Dinnerstein was a young scholar who had completed postgraduate course work at Columbia University in 1963 and was gravitating toward a thesis topic on political history when his wife proposed a more contemporary subject, like civil rights.

His adviser approved, he recalled, and as he was leaving the building following their meeting an acquaintance reminded him that “the Jews were involved in civil rights before it became a Negro issue,” he would later write. Another friend suggested that the topic be narrowed further to Leo Frank.

“My response was, ‘Who’s Leo Frank?’ ” Professor Dinnerstein recounted.
He went on to research and write about Frank, who ran a pencil factory and was sentenced to death for the strangling in 1913 of Mary Phagan, a 13-year-old employee. After the governor commuted the sentence to life imprisonment, a mob kidnapped Frank and hanged him.

No one was prosecuted for the lynching. As a result, and because the state had failed to protect Frank so that he could pursue legal appeals, he was posthumously pardoned in 1986 by the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles, although not officially absolved of the crime itself.

Professor Dinnerstein’s thesis was published in 1968 by Columbia University Press, titled simply “The Leo Frank Case.” It has never been out of print. “The book launched my professional academic career in 1968,” he wrote in the preface to a 2008 revised edition, which added an up-to-date perspective to the original exploration of what Professor Dinnerstein described as “the ambivalence that Southerners felt toward Jews” and “the poor judgments that some Jews made when trying to defend Frank.”

The case divided people both by class as well as religion. After the verdict, based on evidence that some viewed as questionable, prominent Jews across the country — including Louis Marshall of the American Jewish Committee; Albert Lasker, the advertising executive; and Adolph Ochs, the publisher of The New York Times — weighed in on Frank’s behalf.

“There are still people who sincerely believe that Frank was guilty of the crime for which he was convicted,” Professor Dinnerstein wrote. “I have no doubts: Frank was innocent.”

In perhaps his most authoritative work, “Anti-Semitism in America” (1994), he argued that age-old European prejudice against Jews was instilled in the New World by the earliest settlers, reinforced by successive waves of Protestant and Roman Catholic immigrants and ingrained as “an irrevocable part of the American heritage.”

The book has been regarded as the definitive examination of American anti-Semitism and was cited in 2017 by the House Judiciary Committee in a hearing on anti-Semitism on college campuses.

Professor Dinnerstein’s 1994 book has been regarded as the definitive one on American anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism peaked in the late 1930s and early ’40s, when, Professor Dinnerstein wrote, Americans were unnerved by the Depression and anxious about another war in Europe. Some, he said, felt trapped between what they imagined was a global cabal of Jewish bankers and an influx of subversive Jewish refugees.

In his book, Professor Dinnerstein quoted one demagogue warning of “200,000 Communist Jews at the Mexican border waiting to get into this country,” a horde that not only threatened democracy but, if admitted, would also “rape every woman and child that is left unprotected.” But Professor Dinnerstein concluded that relations between Jews and gentiles had improved over time. “Not only did Pope John XXIII inaugurate a new emphasis on interfaith dialogue, but the Second Vatican Council specifically ‘exonerated’ Jews for Christ’s death,” he wrote, referring to reforms by the Roman Catholic Church in the mid-1960s.

“By comparing the strength of anti-Semitism in the United States today with what it had been in previous decades or centuries,” he continued, “the obvious conclusion is that it has declined in potency and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.”

Leonard Dinnerstein was born on May 5, 1934, in the Bronx to Abraham Dinnerstein, a Jewish immigrant from what is now Belarus, and Lillian (Kubrick) Dinnerstein, a homemaker and the daughter of Jewish immigrants from Austria and Romania. His father worked in his in-laws’ grocery store in the East Bronx and later at the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard.

After graduating from Theodore Roosevelt High School in the Bronx, Leonard received a bachelor’s degree in history in 1955 from City College of New York and a master’s and doctorate in American history from Columbia University, where his adviser was the historian William E. Leuchtenburg.

He first taught at the New York Institute of Technology and at Fairleigh Dickinson University in New Jersey before moving to the University of Arizona, where he was a professor of history from 1970 through 2004 and director of Judaic Studies from 1993 through 2000.

Among his other books are “Ethnic Americans: A History of Immigration and Assimilation” (1975), with David M. Reimers; “Natives and Strangers: Ethnic Groups and the Building of Modern America,” with Roger L. Nichols and David M. Reimers (1979); and “America and the Survivors of the Holocaust” (1982). In addition to his daughter, he is survived by his wife, Myra (Rosenberg) Dinnerstein, a historian; their son, Andrew; a sister, Rita Kabasakalian; and a granddaughter.

* * *

Appendix 3:
The Leo Frank Case: A Pseudo-History

by Elliot Dashfield
The American Mercury

by Elliot Dashfield

a review of The Leo Frank Case by Leonard Dinnerstein, University of Georgia Press

IN 1963, nearly a half century after the sensational trial and lynching of Leo Frank become a national cause célèbre, a graduate student named Leonard Dinnerstein (pictured) decided to make the Frank case the subject of his PhD thesis. Three years later, Dinnerstein submitted his dissertation to the political science department of Columbia University — and his thesis became the basis of his 1968 book, The Leo Frank Case. Dinnerstein’s book has undergone numerous tweaks, additions, and revisions over the years – more than a half dozen editions have been published. His latest version, published in 2008, is the culmination of his nearly 50 years of research into the Leo Frank affair.

Readability: two out of five stars

Dinnerstein lacks eloquence. He produces flat, cardboard-colored “social history.” The language is stale, bland, and dated. If it weren’t for the fascinating topic, the book would be an intolerable and impossible-to-finish bore. I do wonder how many readers pick up this book and never finish it.

Honesty, Integrity and Reliability: one out of five stars

Given the many decades Leonard Dinnerstein has spent studying the Leo Frank case, and assuming Dinnerstein is a scholar, I find it almost impossible to understand the sheer number of conspicuous errors, misquotes, fabrications, misrepresentations, and shameless omissions made in every edition of this book from 1968 to 2008.

Examining Dinnerstein’s 1966 PhD dissertation, I discovered the probable explanation. Dinnerstein’s central thesis – and his motivation for a half century of work – is his belief that “widespread anti-Semitism” in the South was the reason Leo Frank was indicted and convicted. Dinnerstein takes this as his position – and makes it his mission to convince us of its truth – despite the consensus, among Jewish and Gentile historians alike, that anti-Semitism was virtually unknown in the South, and despite the fact every level of the United States legal system from 1913 to 1986 let stand the verdict of the 1913 Leo Frank jury trial that unanimously convicted Leo Frank of murder – and despite the fact that the Fulton County Grand Jury that unanimously indicted Leo Frank had three Jewish members.

The question that naturally arises in the mind of any unbiased reader is: What compelled these men to vote unanimously to indict and convict Frank, and what compelled our leading jurists to let his conviction stand after the most intensely argued and well researched appeals? Was it the facts, testimony, and evidence presented to them? Or was it anti-Semitism?

Was the Georgia Supreme Court anti-Semitic when it stated affirmatively that the evidence presented at the Leo Frank trial sustained his conviction? Was the United States Supreme Court anti-Semitic when its decision went against Leo Frank?

The answer can be found in the official unabridged Leo Frank Trial Brief of Evidence, 1913 – a legal record which Leonard Dinnerstein went to great lengths to obfuscate and distort. And Dinnerstein did not even bother telling the reader what the Georgia Supreme Court records revealed about how Leo Frank’s legal defense fund was utilized.

This is what makes every edition of Dinnerstein’s The Leo Frank Case so disappointing: In order to maintain his position of “anti-Semitism was behind it all,” he had to omit or misrepresent the most relevant facts, evidence, and testimony from the trial.

Dinnerstein’s myopic view of Jewish-Gentile relations first revealed itself in his 1966 PhD thesis. Ironically, his lack of objectivity itself seemed to propel him upward in the politically-charged worlds of academia and the mass media. That Leo Frank was innocent – and that Southern, white, anti-Semitic haters were exclusively to blame for his conviction – fit the narrative that the leaders in these fields had internalized and wished to propagate as “history.” Dinnerstein’s book was perfect for its intended market – the new intelligentsia that has come to dominate the academy. His book was also seminal in shaping the popular perception of the Leo Frank case. It helped to transform a well-documented true crime case into a semi-fictionalized myth of a stoic Jewish martyr who was framed by a vast anti-Semitic conspiracy.

Leonard Dinnerstein vs. Every Level of the United States System of Justice

Leonard Dinnerstein writes in his 2008 preface, “I have no doubts: Frank was innocent.” This statement, which sets the dominant tone of his book, goes against the majority decisions of every single level of the United States legal system. More than a dozen experienced judges – incomparably more qualified than Dinnerstein to sift the evidence – reviewed the evidence and arguments put forth by Frank’s own legal team, along with the Leo Frank trial testimony, affidavits, facts, and law pertaining to the case – and all came to the same conclusion: They sustained the guilty verdict of the jury.

If a person was subpoenaed to testify at a criminal trial involving a 29-year-old man accused of bludgeoning, raping, and strangling a 13-year-old girl, and this witness knowingly falsified and withheld evidence about the defendant – that’s called perjury. If the witness provided perjured testimony and this was later proven beyond a reasonable doubt by a trial jury, that witness would likely find himself in prison for a number of years. But when an academic spends 40 years of his life muddling facts, withholding evidence, fraudulently manipulating the official legal records and testimony of a real criminal case, we call him not perjurer, but “historian.”

I have read nearly everything written by Leonard Dinnerstein – not just his books, but his numerous magazine and journal articles. I purchased every edition of Leonard Dinnerstein’s books. I took the time to read, cross reference, and compare his works against the sources he cites in his bibliographies. The only conclusion I am able to come to is that Leonard Dinnerstein shows an unrelenting pattern of inventing facts, misquoting, dramatizing, befogging, embellishing, overstating, and oversimplifying incidents in his books. Dinnerstein’s books – supposedly non-fiction – are filled with a fairly skillful, though flat and boring, simulation of academic analysis and research. They can be, and are indeed designed to be, persuasive to those who don’t bother to read the original sources or do any fact-checking.

For those who have carefully studied the three major Atlanta dailies (Georgian, Constitution and Journal) through the years 1913 to 1915, learning about the Leo Frank case through their day-by-day accounts – and then cross-referencing them with the official legal records of the Leo Frank trial and appeals – Leonard Dinnerstein’s book is a colossal letdown, a failure, and a disgrace.

Evidence of Dishonesty

In his article in the American Jewish Archive Journal (1968) Volume 20, Number 2, Dinnerstein makes his now-famous claim that mobs of anti-Semitic Southerners, outside the courtroom where Frank was on trial, were shouting into the open windows “Crack the Jew’s neck!” and “Lynch him!” and that members of the crowd were making open death threats against the jury, saying that the jurors would be lynched if they didn’t vote to hang “the damn sheeny.”

But not one of the three major Atlanta newspapers, who had teams of journalists documenting feint-by-feint all the events in the courtroom, large and small, and who also had teams of reporters with the crowds outside, ever reported these alleged vociferous death threats. And certainly such a newsworthy event could not be ignored by highly competitive newsmen eager to sell papers and advance their careers. Do you actually believe that the reporters who gave us such meticulously detailed accounts of this Trial of the Century, even writing about the seating arrangements in the courtroom, the songs sung outside the building by folk singers. and the changeover of court stenographers in relays, would leave out all mention or notice of a murderous mob making death threats to the jury? During the two years of Leo Frank’s appeals, none of these alleged anti-Semitic death threats were ever reported by Frank’s own defense team. There is not a word of them in the 3,000 pages of official Leo Frank trial and appeal records – and all this despite the fact that Reuben Arnold made the claim during his closing arguments that Leo Frank was tried only because he was a Jew.

The patently false accusation that European-American Southerners used death threats to terrorize the jury into convicting Leo Frank is a racist blood libel, pure and simple. Yet, thanks to Leonard Dinnerstein, this fictional episode has entered the consciousness of Americans of all stations as “history” – as one of the pivotal facts of the Frank case. It has been repeated countless times, in popular articles and academic essays, on stage and on film and television, and, as the 100th anniversary of the case approaches, it will be repeated as many times again – until there is not a single man, woman, or child who is unaware of it. That is anti-history, not history. I would say shame on Leonard Dinnerstein – if I thought him a being capable of shame.

Dinnerstein, who supported himself almost his entire life by writing about anti-Semitism, would surely know better than anyone else that if such an incident had actually happened, it would have been the stuff of lurid headlines long before 1918, to say nothing of 1968. His contempt for us – his firm belief that we will not check any of his claims – is palpable.

More Deception

Leonard Dinnerstein was interviewed for the video documentary The People vs. Leo Frank (2009). In that interview, he makes statements that he must know to be untrue about the death notes found on Mary Phagan’s body.

The documentary shows us a dramatization of the interrogation of Jim Conley by the Atlanta Police in May, 1913 – and Dinnerstein then states:

“They [the Atlanta police] asked him [Jim Conley] about the notes. He said ‘I can’t read and write.’ That happened to come up in a conversation between the police and Frank, and Frank said, ‘Of course he can write; I know he can write, he used to borrow money from me and sign promissory notes.’ So Conley had not been completely honest with the police.” (The People vs. Leo Frank, 2009).

This Dinnerstein segment has been posted on YouTube and the documentary is commercially available. Notice that Dinnerstein’s clear implication is that Leo Frank blew the whistle on Jim Conley’s false claim of being illiterate, and that Frank was the instrument of this discovery. But that is a bald-faced lie.

Leo Frank was arrested on April 29, 1913 and Jim Conley was arrested two days later, on May 1. Leo Frank never admitted to the police that he knew Jim Conley could write until weeks after that fact was already known to investigators. Pinkerton detective Harry Scott was informed that Jim Conley could write by an operative who spoke to a pawnbroker – not by Leo Frank. On May 18, 1913, after two and a half weeks of interrogation, Atlanta police finally got Conley to admit he wrote the Mary Phagan death notes — but Conley revealed he did so at the behest of Leo Frank. After several successive interrogations, the approximate chain of events became clear.

Leo Frank kept completely quiet about the fact that Jim Conley could read and write for more than two weeks, even though Jim Conley – working as a roustabout at the factory – had done written inventory work for Frank. Leo Frank also allowed Jim Conley to run a side business out of the National Pencil Company, wheeling and dealing pocket watches under questionable circumstances. In one of these deals, Conley was said to have defrauded Mr. Arthur Pride, who testified about it at the Leo Frank trial. Frank himself vetted and managed Conley’s pocket watch contracts, keeping them locked in his office safe. Leo Frank would take out small payments from Conley’s weekly wages and pay down the pawnshop owner’s loans. Leo Frank didn’t tell investigators he was overseeing Conley’s watch contracts until it was far too late, after the police had found out about it independently.

I encourage people to read the official Leo Frank trial Brief of Evidence, 1913, to see for themselves whether or not Leo Frank informed the police about Jim Conley’s literacy immediately after he was arrested – or if he only admitted to that fact after the police had found out about it through other means weeks later. This is something that Leonard Dinnerstein, familiar as he has been – for decades – with the primary sources in the case, must have known for a very long time. Yet in this very recent interview, he tries to make us believe the precise opposite of the truth – tries to make us believe that Frank was the one who exposed this important fact. There’s a word for what Dinnerstein is, and it’s not “historian.”

One of the Biggest Frauds in the Case

Dinnerstein knowingly references claims that do not stand up to even minimal scrutiny. For example, he uncritically accepts the 1964 hoax by hack writer and self-promoter Pierre van Paassen, who claimed that there were in existence in 1922 X-ray photographs at the Fulton County Courthouse, taken in 1913, of Leo Frank’s teeth, and also X-ray photographs of bite marks on Mary Phagan’s neck and shoulder – and that anti-Semites had suppressed this evidence.. Van Paassen further alleged – and Dinnerstein repeated – that the dimensions of Frank’s teeth did not match the “bite marks,” thereby exonerating Frank.

Here’s the excerpt from van Paassen’s 1964 book To Number Our Days (pages 237 and 238) that Dinnerstein endorses:

“The Jewish community of Atlanta at that time seemed to live under a cloud. Several years previously one of its members, Leo Frank, had been lynched as he was being transferred from the Fulton Tower Prison in Atlanta to Milledgeville for trial on a charge of having raped and murdered a little girl in his warehouse which stood right opposite the Constitution building. Many Jewish citizens who recalled the lynching were unanimous in assuring me that Frank was innocent of the crime.

“I took to reading all the evidence pro and con in the record department at the courthouse. Before long I came upon an envelope containing a sheaf of papers and a number of X-ray photographs showing teeth indentures. The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled. But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth of which several photos were included. If those photos had been published at the time of the murder, as they should have been, the lynching would probably not have taken place.

“Though, as I said, the man died several years before, it was not too late, I thought, to rehabilitate his memory and perhaps restore the good name of his family. I showed Clark Howell the evidence establishing Frank’s innocence and asked permission to run a series of articles dealing with the case and especially with the evidence just uncovered. Mr. Howell immediately concurred, but the most prominent Jewish lawyer in the city, Mr. Harry Alexander, whom I consulted with a view to have him present the evidence to the grand jury, demurred. He said Frank had not even been tried. Hence no new trial could be requested. Moreover, the Jewish community in its entirety still felt nervous about the incident. If I wrote the articles old resentments might be stirred up and, who knows, some of the unknown lynchers might recognize themselves as participants in my description of the lynching. It was better, Mr. Alexander thought, to leave sleeping lions alone. Some local rabbis were drawn into the discussion and they actually pleaded with Clark Howell to stop me from reviving interest in the Frank case as this was bound to have evil repercussions on the Jewish community.

“That someone had blabbed out of school became quite evident when I received a printed warning saying: ‘Lay off the Frank case if you want to keep healthy.’ The unsigned warning was reinforced one night or, rather, early one morning when I was driving home. A large automobile drove up alongside of me and forced me into the track of a fast-moving streetcar coming from the opposite direction. My car was demolished, but I escaped without a scratch….”

Dinnerstein references these pages in his book (page 158 of the 2008 edition), saying “In 1923, at the height of the Ku Klux Klan’s power, a foreign journalist, working for The Atlanta Constitution, became interested in Leo Frank and went back to study the records of the case. He came across some x-rays showing teeth indentations in Mary Phagan’s left shoulder and compared them with x-rays of Frank’s teeth; but the two sets did not correspond. On the basis of this, and other insights garnered from his investigation, the newspaperman wanted to write a series ‘proving’ Frank’s innocence. One anonymous correspondent sent him a printed note: ‘Lay off the Frank case if you want to keep healthy,’ but this did not deter him.”

Since Dinnerstein is such a lofty academic scholar and professor, perhaps he simply forgot to ask a current freshman in medical school if it was even possible to X-ray bite marks on skin in 1913 – or necessary in 2012, for that matter – because it’s not. In 1913, X-ray technology was in its infancy and never used in any criminal case until many years after Leo Frank was hanged. Was Leo Frank’s lawyer named “Harry Alexander” or Henry Alexander? Why would the famous attorney who represented Leo Frank during his most high-profile appeals say he didn’t have his trial yet?! Leo Frank was not lynched on his way to trial in Milledgeville – he wasn’t on his way to anywhere, and it happened in Marietta, 170 miles away. And it defies the laws of physics, and all logic and reason, to believe that any person driving a motor vehicle in 1922 – when there were virtually no safety features in automobiles – could suffer a direct collision with a “fast-moving streetcar” and survive “without a scratch.” Oddly, Dinnerstein says van Paassen “was not deterred” from writing the supposed series of articles, though even the hoaxer himself clearly implies that he was indeed deterred. (Even the most basic online research would also have shown that van Paassen is a far from credible source who once publicly claimed to have seen supernatural “ghost dogs” which could appear and disappear at will.)

Not only did Dinnerstein completely fail to point out the obviously preposterous nature of van Paassen’s account, but he blandly presents his claims as established historical fact. If this is scholarship, then Anton LaVey is the Pope.

Surely Leonard Dinnerstein has had, and continues to have, access to the primary sources in this case. Certainly he can read the official legal documents online at the State of Georgia’s online archive known as the Virtual Vault, as I have done without difficulty.

It is hard to fathom the deep contempt that Leonard Dinnerstein must have for his readers. Did he think that these official legal records, once buried in dusty government vaults, would never make their way online? Did he think that Georgia’s three major newspapers from 1913 to 1915, the Atlanta Constitution, Atlanta Journal, and Atlanta Georgian, would never make their way online? Or does his contempt run even deeper – did he think that, online or not, none of us would ever check up on his claims?

Covering Up the Racial Strategy of the Defense

What one can most charitably call Leonard Dinnerstein’s lack of candor is apparent not only in sins of commission, but also of omission. In his book, Dinnerstein completely fails to mention the well-known strategy of Leo Frank’s defense team to play on the racial conflicts present in 1913 Georgia and pin the murder of Mary Phagan on, successively, two different African-American men.

The first victim was Newt Lee, the National Pencil Company’s night watchman. After that intrigue fell apart, Frank’s team abruptly changed course and tried to implicate the firm’s janitor – and, according to his own testimony, Frank’s accomplice-after-the-fact – James “Jim” Conley. Leo Frank’s defense team played every white racist card they could muster against Jim Conley at the trial, and continued doing so through two years of appeals. Frank’s own lawyer, addressing the jury, said “Who is Conley? Who was Conley as he used to be and as you have seen him? He was a dirty, filthy, black, drunken, lying nigger…Who was it that made this dirty nigger come up here looking so slick? Why didn’t they let you see him as he was?” Had this been said at trial by anyone other than Leo Frank’s defense attorney, it would have been thoroughly denounced by any academic with even half the normal quota of flaming outrage against white racism. But as for Dinnerstein…. Well, with only 40 years to study the case, I suppose he just overlooked it.

A Mockery

Leonard Dinnerstein’s The Leo Frank Case is a mockery of legal history. Dinnerstein intentionally leaves out volumes of damaging evidence, testimony, and facts about the case. His glaring omissions are documented in, among many other sources, the Georgia Supreme Court’s Leo Frank case file. Leonard Dinnerstein misleads the reader, rewriting the case almost at will, and incorporating long-discredited and nonsensical half-truths that would never stand up to even the most elementary scrutiny.

Dinnerstein has created a book that will be remembered by history as a shameless, over-the-top attempt to create a mythology of Leo Frank as a “martyr to anti-Semitism.” In doing that, he seems to care not at all that he may be rehabilitating the image of a serial pedophile, rapist, and strangler. To Dinnerstein, the fact that Leo Frank is Jewish, and his belief that Southern whites were anti-Jewish, are all-important realities – far more important than the facts of the case, which he presents very selectively to persuade us that his ethnocentric view is the only correct one. Leonard Dinnerstein’s partisanship borders on the pathological, and his integrity is, like Pierre van Paassen’s, essentially nonexistent.

The definitive, comprehensive, objective book on the Leo Frank case has, unfortunately, never been written. But as an antidote to Dinnerstein’s myth-making, you might want to read The Murder of Little Mary Phagan by Mary Phagan Kean. Although her book is amateurishly written, she did make a refreshingly honest effort to present both sides of the case in an unbiased manner.

This doesn’t mean I haven’t found errors in Kean’s book – I have – but compared to all the major Leo Frank authors (Oney, Dinnerstein, Alphin, Melnick, the Freys, and Golden) who have written about the case in the last 99 years, Mary Phagan Kean made the best and most honest attempt to be fair, balanced, and neutral, despite her belief in Leo Frank’s guilt. The same cannot be said for Leonard Dinnerstein.

I have closely studied the several thousand pages of the Leo Frank trial and appeal records (1913 – 1915), read every book (1913 – 2010) on the subject, and reviewed, more than once, the three primary Atlanta newspapers, the Journal, Constitution, and Georgian (1913 – 1915), concerning their coverage of the Leo Frank case. I believe the jury made the correct decision in the summer of 1913.

But regardless of my opinion on any matter, with which reasonable men and women may well disagree, there is no doubt whatever that the accusations of anti-Jewish shenanigans, threats, and jury intimidation at the Leo Frank trial, promoted by Leonard Dinnerstein and repeated by many others, are flat-out lies. His creation and perpetuation of such tales amounts to perjury. And his is an especially vile kind of perjury, made by one who is pathologically obsessed with anti-Semitism and who imagines persecution where none exists. His is a perjury that creates injustice not just for one victim and one perpetrator, but, by twisting and distorting our view of the past, for our entire society.

___

REFERENCES:

Leonard Dinnerstein’s original dissertation

The People v. Leo Frank

To Number Our Days by Pierre van Paassen

* * *

Appendix 4:
The National Alliance’s Four-Part Series on Dinnerstein and His Legacy

American Dissident Voices broadcast of April 28, 2018

by Kevin Alfred Strom

“WHO CONTROLS the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

So said George Orwell in his 1984, meaning that those who rule over us decide what is written about history — what is omitted, what is emphasized, and what is utterly fabricated — and that, by thus altering our perception of the past, they constrain or control what we think and what we do in the present. And what we think and do determines our future. Therefore our future is effectively under the control of those who write history.

A somber anniversary

This week marks the 105th anniversary of the death of 13-year-old factory girl Mary Phagan, who was found strangled to death and likely raped in the basement of Atlanta’s National Pencil Company, the Jewish-owned sweatshop where she worked for a few cents an hour. Her boss, factory superintendent Leo Max Frank, was convicted of her murder — and later lynched by a committee of prominent Georgians when a corrupt governor commuted Frank’s sentence from death to life in prison. Frank was a Jew — and a prominent one, being head of the Atlanta B’nai B’rith, the influential Jewish fraternal organization. His death has been cited as perhaps the only case of a Jew being lynched in Southern history — something that, even if not unique, is certainly extremely rare. The Frank case was a major factor in the creation of the Anti-Defamation League (or ADL), still one of the most powerful Jewish pressure groups. The Jewish power structure organized and exerted itself in depth, like never before, in order to exonerate Frank — an effort that still persists to this day.

2018 also marks the 50th anniversary of the publication in book form of Leonard Dinnerstein’s The Leo Frank Case. His book is based on his 1966 dissertation thesis, which may be read online. Dinnerstein is Jewish. Dinnerstein is a purported scholar. Dinnerstein is presented by the controlled media as a “respected historian.” Dinnerstein is one of those who, through his own efforts and those of his fellow tribesmen, control our perception of the past. Dinnerstein’s book is one of the central texts upon which the Jewish power structure’s “received narrative” about the Leo Frank case rests.

A false narrative

That narrative tells us that Leo Frank was investigated, indicted, and convicted — and had that conviction upheld during multiple appeals that went all the way to the United States Supreme Court — all because of “anti-Semitism.” It’s a false narrative. And, as we’ve shown here on National Vanguard, a preposterously false narrative.

By controlling the publishing industry and dominating the academic establishment, the Jewish power structure was, for almost the entire century following the trial and conviction of Leo Frank, able to get away with whopper after whopper about the Frank case — Dinnerstein’s prominent among them — with hardly anyone noticing, much less objecting. But since the age of the Internet began, the people have been able to bypass the Jewish gatekeepers and find the facts for themselves. Real independent investigative journalism has arisen. What we do here at National Vanguard is a part of that.

Now that original source material on the Leo Frank case is only a few keystrokes away, what Leonard Dinnerstein could get away with in 1968 is a huge embarrassment for the Jews in 2018.

So let’s take a critical look at Leonard Dinnerstein’s half-century-long war with the facts.

“History” with a purpose

Dinnerstein is a University of Arizona “Professor Emeritus of Judaic Studies.” Almost his entire career has been focused on the Frank case, Jewish identity, and the “immigrant experience.”

The whole premise of Leonard Dinnerstein’s book, The Leo Frank Case, is to 1) smear the people of the South with the charges of gross corruption and supposed “anti-Semitism”; 2) attempt to frame a long-dead Black man who cannot defend himself — Jim Conley, a prominent witness against Frank — for the murder; and 3) shamelessly rehabilitate the image of Atlanta’s B’nai B’rith president, Leo M. Frank, who has been shown by court records, sworn evidence, and multiple judges and juries to be the pedophile strangler and child killer who was guilty of bludgeoning, garroting, and ordering the burning of the body of 13-year old Mary Anne Phagan on April 26, 1913.

The general conclusion of Dinnerstein’s book is that, in the White racial segregationist and separatist Atlanta of 1913, White Southern Gentiles were so filled with anti-Jewish hate that they knowingly and willingly set free a guilty Black man who had just a few weeks before pounded his fists into the face of a little 13-year-old White girl, just before raping, strangling, and mutilating her. These White jurists and detectives and prosecutors and policemen and jurors, Dinnerstein claims, knowingly let the guilty Black rapist and strangler go free so they could intentionally frame an innocent Jew for the crime. Topping it all off, Solicitor General Hugh M. Dorsey, the Atlanta police and detectives, and even the Pinkerton detective agency hired by Frank’s own company, all worked together to coach James “Jim” Conley to repeat, like a trained parrot, a very complex story in order to trick the trial jury and unjustly convict Leo Frank.

For five decades now, the organized Jewish community regularly gave kudos and accolades to Dinnerstein for his anti-Gentile propaganda books. Many described Dinnerstein as the “definitive author” of the Leo Frank “epic saga.”

Leonard Dinnerstein’s “hate crime” hoax

Dinnerstein perpetuates the hoax — repeated by Abraham Foxman of the ADL and by dozens of media and academic hacks — that mobs of angry people were screaming “racist anti-Semitic death threats” at the jury through the courtroom windows during Leo Frank’s trial. These alleged mobs were claimed to have screamed at the jurors “Hang the Jew or we’ll hang you!” and other threats. (See “Leo Frank and the American Jewish Community” in the American Jewish Archive Journal, 1968, volume 20 number 2.)

Interestingly, none of the local Atlanta newspapers, some of whom took a pro-Frank stance — and who had teams of reporters inside and outside the courtroom — ever mention this alleged incident, which surely would have been instant grounds for a mistrial. It was also never mentioned during the trial by Frank’s own high-powered and expensive legal team, who surely would have jumped at the chance to gain a new trial in a new venue for their well-connected client.

The Jewish ADL still uses Dinnerstein’s “hang the Jew” hoax as a major part of its “outreach” on the Leo Frank case.

“Bite marks”? You’ve got to be kidding! But Dinnerstein seriously expects us to believe.

Dinnerstein’s book does not stand up to even the most basic fact checking.

As pointed out by reviewer Elliot Dashfield, Leonard Dinnerstein also perpetuates the Pierre van Paassen 1964 “bite mark” hoax in his book:

For example, he uncritically accepts the 1964 hoax by hack writer and self-promoter Pierre van Paassen, who claimed that there were in existence in 1922 X-ray photographs at the Fulton County Courthouse, taken in 1913, of Leo Frank’s teeth, and also X-ray photographs of bite marks on Mary Phagan’s neck and shoulder [as if one needs to take X-rays of bite marks!] – and that anti-Semites had suppressed this evidence. Van Paassen further alleged – and Dinnerstein repeated – that the dimensions of Frank’s teeth did not match the “bite marks,” thereby exonerating Frank.

Here’s the excerpt from van Paassen’s 1964 book To Number Our Days (pages 237 and 238) that Dinnerstein endorses:

“The Jewish community of Atlanta at that time seemed to live under a cloud. Several years previously one of its members, Leo Frank, had been lynched as he was being transferred from the Fulton Tower Prison in Atlanta to Milledgeville for trial on a charge of having raped and murdered a little girl in his warehouse which stood right opposite the Constitution building. Many Jewish citizens who recalled the lynching were unanimous in assuring me that Frank was innocent of the crime.

“I took to reading all the evidence pro and con in the record department at the courthouse. Before long I came upon an envelope containing a sheaf of papers and a number of X-ray photographs showing teeth indentures. The murdered girl had been bitten on the left shoulder and neck before being strangled. But the X-ray photos of the teeth marks on her body did not correspond with Leo Frank’s set of teeth of which several photos were included. If those photos had been published at the time of the murder, as they should have been, the lynching would probably not have taken place.

“Though, as I said, the man died several years before, it was not too late, I thought, to rehabilitate his memory and perhaps restore the good name of his family. I showed Clark Howell the evidence establishing Frank’s innocence and asked permission to run a series of articles dealing with the case and especially with the evidence just uncovered. Mr. Howell immediately concurred, but the most prominent Jewish lawyer in the city, Mr. Harry Alexander, whom I consulted with a view to have him present the evidence to the grand jury, demurred. He said Frank had not even been tried. Hence no new trial could be requested. Moreover, the Jewish community in its entirety still felt nervous about the incident. If I wrote the articles old resentments might be stirred up and, who knows, some of the unknown lynchers might recognize themselves as participants in my description of the lynching. It was better, Mr. Alexander thought, to leave sleeping lions alone. Some local rabbis were drawn into the discussion and they actually pleaded with Clark Howell to stop me from reviving interest in the Frank case as this was bound to have evil repercussions on the Jewish community.

“That someone had blabbed out of school became quite evident when I received a printed warning saying: ‘Lay off the Frank case if you want to keep healthy.’ The unsigned warning was reinforced one night or, rather, early one morning when I was driving home. A large automobile drove up alongside of me and forced me into the track of a fast-moving streetcar coming from the opposite direction. My car was demolished, but I escaped without a scratch….”

Dinnerstein references these pages in his book (page 158 of the 2008 edition), saying “In 1923, at the height of the Ku Klux Klan’s power, a foreign journalist, working for The Atlanta Constitution, became interested in Leo Frank and went back to study the records of the case. He came across some x-rays showing teeth indentations in Mary Phagan’s left shoulder and compared them with x-rays of Frank’s teeth; but the two sets did not correspond. On the basis of this, and other insights garnered from his investigation, the newspaperman wanted to write a series ‘proving’ Frank’s innocence. One anonymous correspondent sent him a printed note: ‘Lay off the Frank case if you want to keep healthy,’ but this did not deter him.”

Since Dinnerstein is such a lofty academic scholar and professor, perhaps he simply forgot to ask a current freshman in medical school if it was even possible to X-ray bite marks on skin in 1913 – or necessary [today], for that matter – because it’s not. In 1913, X-ray technology was in its infancy and never used in any criminal case until many years after Leo Frank was hanged. Was Leo Frank’s lawyer named “Harry Alexander” or Henry Alexander? Why would the famous attorney who represented Leo Frank during his most high-profile appeals say he didn’t have his trial yet?! Leo Frank was not lynched on his way to trial in Milledgeville – he wasn’t on his way to anywhere, and it happened in Marietta, 170 miles away. And it defies the laws of physics, and all logic and reason, to believe that any person driving a motor vehicle in 1922 – when there were virtually no safety features in automobiles – could suffer a direct collision with a “fast-moving streetcar” and survive “without a scratch.” Oddly, Dinnerstein says van Paassen “was not deterred” from writing the supposed series of articles, though even the hoaxer himself clearly implies that he was indeed deterred. (Even the most basic online research would also have shown that van Paassen is a far from credible source who once publicly claimed to have seen supernatural “ghost dogs” which could appear and disappear at will.)

Not only did Dinnerstein completely fail to point out the obviously preposterous nature of van Paassen’s account, but he blandly presents his claims as established historical fact. If this is scholarship, then Anton LaVey is the Pope.

Leonard Dinnerstein’s book and other works on the Leo Frank case are of laughably poor quality, and his falsehoods are growing thinner and thinner, and less believable, with each passing year. Yet Dinnerstein is still cited as a source by the ADL on their Web site, and his work is even a part of a “Teaching Guide” used to inculcate the Jewish narrative in the minds of American children.

Remember Orwell: “Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

We’ll have more about Dinnerstein and his role as a falsifier of the past next week, right here on American Dissident Voices.

* * *

You’ve been listening to American Dissident Voices, the radio program of the National Alliance. The National Alliance is working to educate White men and women around the world as to the nature of the reality we must face — and organizing our people to ensure our survival and advancement. We need your help to continue. Please send the largest contribution you can afford to National Alliance, Box 4, Mountain City, TN 37683 USA. You can also help us by visiting natall.com/donate. Make your life count. Once again, our postal address is Box 4, Mountain City, TN 37683 USA. Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you to keep on thinking free.

PART 2

American Dissident Voices broadcast of May 5, 2018

by Kevin Alfred Strom

“WHO CONTROLS the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.”

So said George Orwell of the history-twisters in his novel 1984, and today we’ll continue our look at a history-twister of our own day, Leonard Dinnerstein. Dinnerstein’s specialty, to which most of his life has been devoted, is rehabilitating the image of Jewish sex killer Leo M. Frank.

One piece of information that Leonard Dinnerstein kept secret was the attitude of the man who engineered the nationwide publicity campaign to exonerate Frank during the last two years of his life — between his conviction and his lynching. That man was Jewish advertising kingpin Albert Lasker, the man who has the dubious distinction of being the one who convinced millions of American women to take up the filthy habit of cigarette smoking. Dinnerstein researched Lasker for a special piece he did for the American Jewish Archives (AJA). He went into details of Lasker’s private correspondence. Yet nowhere does he reveal that Lasker disliked Frank after having met him, nowhere does he reveal that Lasker said Frank impressed him as a sex pervert, and nowhere does he state that Lasker deliberately used cagey language when the subject of Frank’s supposed innocence came up.

As I wrote on last year’s anniversary of the death of Mary Phagan:

The head of [the pro-Frank] propaganda campaign was a Jewish advertising and public relations executive named Albert Lasker. He handled the money-men — Jews like Wall Street financier Jacob Schiff and Julius Rosenwald of Sears — and directed the efforts of innumerable writers, editors, and publishers from those working for small local weeklies to giant metropolitan dailies like Adolph Ochs’ New York Times. Lasker was the head of Lord & Thomas, the largest advertising agency in the world.

Over the next several years, Lasker would run the largest and most sophisticated Jewish disinformation campaign ever seen in America, transforming Leo Frank in the gullible public’s mind from a perverted sex killer of a 13-year-old girl to a noble, innocent martyr and the victim of unreasoning and pervasive Southern hatred of Jews.

That Lasker was a Jewish supremacist is clear. He said

The Jews are a superior people. I have a hard time hiding that; I believe we should be patient with non-Jews…. I deeply believe that no Christian civilization can last that removed from it the Jews. That it is the Jew that brings them the pollen.

Lasker’s campaign was wildly successful in changing the minds of Americans — at least Americans who were far from Atlanta and who had not read the day-to-day reporting on the investigation and trial and so were quite ignorant of the facts of the case. Lasker “sold” the American people on the idea of Southern “anti-Semitism” and the “persecution” of “innocent” Frank — just as he sold millions of Americans on the virtues of smoking Lucky Strike cigarettes.

Later in life, though, Lasker regretted making “Southern anti-Semitism” the focus of his propaganda efforts, since Georgians resented the lie greatly and that may have contributed to a new resentment and distrust of Jews — and to Frank’s lynching itself. He said:

[We] indicted the whole people of Georgia; well, then, as was natural, in any group, you solidify…. We put the whole state of Georgia on trial and we did what is so often done, in the cure that we gave for the disease, we increased the disease.

…I made a great mistake. Georgia, which had kept it quiet, resented the pressure from outsiders…. Yes. I want to make up to Georgia for what I did to them then, because there is where our greatest mistake was when we took and flashed this all over the country.

[What I should have said to the newspapermen was: We] don’t want you to print a word; we want you to tell this to people who have economic connections in Georgia, and we want them to talk to the economic leaders of the South. We want them to go down to Washington and talk to them quietly as if nothing was going on…. If we had done that I think we would have saved the boy’s life, but when we put this tremendous pressure on all of them, the state was indicted and there came a unanimous opinion in Georgia that he was guilty; so I handled it badly…. We didn’t understand the psychology…. The boy was commuted and lynched. I got him lynched instead of hung, that is all that happened.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking that such second thoughts indicate that Lasker had a guilty conscience about deceiving the people — on the contrary, his regrets are simply based on his failure to save Frank, the B’nai B’rith president and therefore a representative of Jews generally. Lasker’s lack of conscience and cold, cynical value system is demonstrated in one of his first acts on behalf of Frank’s Jewish supporters: he traveled, along with influential Hearst chain newspaper editor Arthur Brisbane, on a strategy-planning mission to Atlanta to meet the Frank defense team, the prosecution team, and Frank himself. He thought little of Frank and even suspected him of sex perversion based on his appearance and manner — but nevertheless carried through the utterly cynical campaign to make him a martyr. Lasker stated:

[N]either Brisbane nor I liked Frank. From our interviews, we found him a supercilious egotist who was enjoying this notoriety. We took a great prejudice against him and we could see… how it would add to the psychology of those against him who didn’t have an open mind.

Both he and I took a tremendous prejudice against the prisoner [Frank]. Like so many, all this publicity had gone to his head — he became a megalomaniac… So we disliked our principle very much, but we determined in our minds that he was innocent and that this was a big frame-up….

Later, Lasker and Brisbane met with detective William J. Burns and Atlanta Georgian editor Keats Speed and together interviewed Frank. Lasker privately stated of this meeting:

It was very hard for us to be fair to him, he [Frank] impressed us as a sexual pervert.

Keats Speed described Lasker’s reaction after the interview with Frank:

And when we got out and started down the courthouse steps — Lasker hated him — he said [of Frank], “Well, I hope he gets out… and when he gets out I hope he slips on a banana peel and breaks his neck.”

The quotes from Lasker can be found in private letters, interviews, and in his biography, The Man Who Sold America.

So there you have it. The Jewish boss of the campaign to exonerate Frank in the public’s mind was disgusted by Frank, thought him a sexual pervert (and likely a murderer), but nevertheless, in loyalty to his tribe, “determined in his mind that he was innocent” and cynically pushed the image of Frank as a martyr to evil White bigotry, “bigotry” which Lasker well knew never existed. Can you bring to mind any person of your acquaintance who more thoroughly embodies living a lie?

But Dinnerstein tells us none of that. His is a sanitized Lasker, nobly fighting for the truth and to free an innocent, angelic Frank. As he says in his AJA piece:

The amount of assistance given Frank by influential Jews cannot be overestimated. Aside from Marshall, perhaps the most energetic worker for Frank’s cause was Albert D. Lasker, the advertising wizard from Chicago. Personally informed of Frank’s plight by relatives, he conducted his own investigation in Atlanta. Interviews with Frank and his lawyers convinced Lasker that a monstrous mistake had been made and that the terrible injustice had to be eradicated. Taking a year’s leave from his business, Lasker marshalled nationally prominent people to the defendant’s aid, directed lawyers and investigators in search of new evidence, secured funds from diverse acquaintances, and personally contributed more than $1oo,ooo of his own money to help secure justice.

In his dissertation on the Frank case, Dinnerstein says of Lasker:

In addition to Louis Marshall and other members of the American Jewish Committee, Albert D. Lasker, the Jewish advertising genius from Chicago, contributed his services. Lasker, too, had heard of Frank’s plight and, according to his biographer, John Gunther, “Every instinct he had for justice and fair play, for racial tolerance, for dignity in the courts and good citizenship, was aroused.” He went to Atlanta, interviewed Frank and his friends, and returned to Chicago determined to aid the cause.

Just reading this fluff from Dinnerstein — while knowing the truth about Lasker — leaves a very bad taste in the mouth.

Dinnerstein is so sloppy that he gets the name of a president of the United States wrong, referring to Benjamin Harrison as “President Benjamin Harris.”

In addition to editing out important facts that don’t match his agenda, Dinnerstein’s work is shoddy, unscientific, illogical, and full of unsupported assertions. The very beginning of Dinnerstein’s dissertation, on which his book was based — the very first paragraph — is a good example:

At the beginning of the twentieth century rural Georgians migrated to Atlanta to enjoy the heralded advantages of industrialization. To their chagrin they found harsh working conditions and squalid living quarters. Southern traditions, which glorified the Anglo-Saxon Protestant heritage, and the bitter memories of the Lost Cause, complicated the newcomers’ reactions to urban life. Unable to retaliate against the industrialists whose colossal indifference caused them many hardships, the new urbanites vented their pent-up aggressions upon Negroes and other vulnerable ethnic groups.

…With the continued influx of immigrants, the new urbanites blamed the aliens for the uncontrollable forces now shaping their lives. The people found it impossible to assume responsibility for their own failure, and were unable to attribute their problems to impersonal forces or to groups with whom they identified. Hence, in a fashion characteristic of those unwilling to face reality, they responded to their difficulties with xenophobic outbursts. . …they seized upon one individual [Leo Frank] to pay for all of the crimes, real or fancied, which they believed had been inflicted upon them by northerners, industrialists, and Jews.

From the very beginning of his work, the highly-cited and fêted (and fetid) Dinnerstein wants us to see the Leo Frank case as an example — not of a perverted sex killer’s lust and rage ending the life of an innocent 13-year-old girl — but as a case of the deep psychological disturbances of “bitter” White Southerners “venting their pent-up aggressions” on “vulnerable ethnic groups.” Some of these mentally disturbed Whites, according to Dinnerstein, then “seized upon” Leo Frank and charged him with the murder of Mary Phagan in order to make him “pay for all of the crimes, real or fancied” that they imagined in their fevered, cracked brains. Can anyone still in possession of his or her senses take such psychobabble seriously, let alone regard it as “scholarly analysis” or see it as actual evidence in a serious criminal case?

Dinnerstein goes on and on about the vicious “anti-Semitism” of White people in Georgia for literally dozens of pages.

Dinnerstein typifies the Jewish fakers of history who honeycomb the academy and the media in the West. The man is vicious. He is prolific. He is verbose. He is backed by all the money there is and by a fake news and real publicity machine par excellence. But he is not credible and he is not even careful. And the courageous truth-tellers of National Vanguard and other alternative media have made major inroads in exposing his lies and the lies of the Jewish power structure.

Censorious, Jewish-run Google has been so enraged by our success in getting the truth out that they have tweaked their algorithms to demote our results when people use their search engine to find out about the Leo Frank case and other issues. Two years ago, our articles were appearing — even starting to dominate — Google searches on the case. Now they don’t. Worthless Dinnerstein does, though. Google has demoted truth-tellers and promoted Dinnerstein. On some non-Google search engines which haven’t (yet) instituted politically- and racially-motivated censorship, truth-tellers’ pages still appear on the first page of “Leo Frank case” search results.

We are making a difference. The frauds, like Leonard Dinnerstein, are being relentlessly exposed. Our children now have a chance, if we keep up the fight, to know their true history and the truth about the enemies who want to kill them. With your help, our work can continue.

* * *

You’ve been listening to American Dissident Voices, the radio program of the National Alliance. The National Alliance is working to educate White men and women around the world as to the nature of the reality we must face — and organizing our people to ensure our survival and advancement. We need your help to continue. Please send the largest contribution you can afford to National Alliance, Box 4, Mountain City, TN 37683 USA. You can also help us by visiting natall.com/donate. Make your life count. Once again, our postal address is Box 4, Mountain City, TN 37683 USA. Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you to keep on thinking free.

PART 3

Wherein we discover what “Judenrating” is.

American Dissident Voices broadcast of May 12, 2018

by Kevin Alfred Strom

WHEN THE JEWS ran the administration of their own ghettos in German-occupied territories during World War 2, that administration was called the Judenrat. Among Jews, there’s quite a controversy over the actions of the Judenrat, since although some of these councils covertly impeded German efforts, including efforts to segregate Jews, others fully cooperated with the Germans in many things, some even helping to arrange for the identification and location of subversive or criminal Jews and arranging for their deportation — and Jews today generally allege that deportation was a synonym for extermination. Jews themselves therefore acknowledge that Judenrat leaders are guilty of exactly the same crimes against Jews for which Germans have been imprisoned, executed, and made to pay reparations for seven tenths of a century now with no end in sight. Yet neither the Judenrat leaders nor their beneficiaries or descendants have spent a single day in jail for what even the Jews admit they did — they in fact have benefited just as much as any other Jew from the “Holocaust” racket that has been paying off plentifully since 1945.

A correspondent of mine has suggested, and I concur, that we should propose a new term — Judenrating, or let us perhaps Anglicize it to Judenrating — for the Jews’ inveterate habit of accusing Gentiles of the crimes of which they themselves are guilty — and guilty in the extreme. Leonard Dinnerstein and other Jews accuse Whites and other Gentiles of “hate” — but hate of non-Jews is the watchword of Jewish psychology — and of Judaism’s texts from the Torah to the Talmud — and of the mass media controlled by secular Jews who push hard for White genocide in every possible way.

Leonard Dinnerstein is the modern prophet of Judenrating. His work, beginning in the 1960s, reiterated and publicized, and clothed in pretended scholarship, the claim that Atlanta B’nai B’rith president Leo Max Frank was prosecuted and convicted of the sex murder of his sweatshop employee, 13-year-old Mary Phagan, solely because of pervasive Southern anti-Semitism. Despite his shoddy research and outright fraud, Dinnerstein has been massively influential in shaping the media’s portrayal and the public’s perception of Leo Frank, the murder case against him, and Southern White society.

Where Dinnerstein left off, others have taken up the Judenrating with enthusiasm.

Let’s look at one particularly ridiculous claim stemming from the Leo Frank case. It’s Dinnerstein’s disciples, not Dinnerstein himself as far as I have been able to discover, who have promoted this claim. The earliest evidence of it that I have seen comes from the New York Times and the Nashville Tennessean circa 1982, during the first promotion of the Alonzo Mann hoax, but if any intrepid researchers can find an earlier example, please let me know. The one man linking the Times and Tennessean pieces is one Wendell Rawls, Jr., who, like Dinnerstein, secured fame and “made” his career by being an advocate for the Jewish narrative on the Leo Frank case. Rawls received numerous awards and eventually rose to be the head of the leftist and Soros-linked “Center for Public Integrity.”

We’ve already established that “widespread Southern anti-Semitism” — supposedly so powerful and pervasive that it inspired Southern Whites to convict an innocent Jew and let a guilty Black murderer of a White girl go free — actually did not exist, and that outside of Israel there is no place, then and now, more philo-Semitic than the American South. Yet Dinnerstein’s disciples continue to vend the story that, in the wake of the Leo Frank case, literally half of the Jews in Georgia fled the state out of fear for their lives.

• A Jew named Neil Silberblatt in reviewing a work by another Jew, The Lynching of Leo Frank by Zvi A. Sesling, says “Frank’s lynching was the impetus for the creation of B’nai B’rith’s Anti-Defamation League in October 1913. It also resulted in the exodus of around half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews.” (Note also that they don’t even bother to research how many Jews were in Georgia at the time, which was more than three times the number claimed. They also place the lynching two years before it actually took place, and make a 1915 event the “impetus” for a 1913 “founding.”)

• The Jewish-controlled New York Times told us as long ago as 1982 that after Frank’s death, “In the aftermath of terror, about half the 3,000 Jews in Georgia left the state.”

• The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports that, after the Frank case, “Armed anti-Semitic mobs roamed the streets of Atlanta, forcing Jewish shopkeepers to board up their places of business. Jewish businesses were boycotted and about half the state’s 3,000 Jews reportedly moved away. Those events led to the formation of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith.”

• The Times of Israel claims that “Half of the state’s Jews fled Georgia following the lynching.”

• A supposed encyclopedia of crime, Murderpedia, claims, echoing Wikipedia, that “After Frank’s lynching, approximately half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state.”

• The Writer’s Theatre states in their “The Trial That Divided America,” that “After the trial, 3,000 Jews fled Georgia out of fear.” This is really remarkable, because it would mean, if we accept the Jewish press’s fake Jewish population statistics, that every single Jew in Georgia fled the state!

• In a piece on the 100th anniversary of Leo Frank’s death, Jewish writer Greg Bluestein tells us in Georgia’s big newspaper, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, that “As many as a half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews fled after the hanging.”

• The Jewish newspaper Haaretz ups the ante even more, stating in a piece on Jewish history, “More than half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state after Frank’s killing.” [emphasis added]

• A publication called Jewish Currents tells us, “The lynching led to the exodus from the state of about half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews.”

• In 1994, Hadassah magazine’s travel guide for the state of Georgia made the claim too, saying “half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews fled the state.”

• Author Hal Erickson, ethnicity unknown, immediately after quoting Leonard Dinnerstein in his book Any Resemblance to Actual Persons, breathlessly informs us “Those not directly connected with the [Frank] case did their part by fomenting so much anti-Semitic vitriol that nearly half of the 3000 Jews in Atlanta moved out of the city.” (Now all 3,000 are in Atlanta alone! How confusing, and Orwellian, it is to accept all these mutually contradictory claims.)

• Criminology Professor Randy Blazak of Portland State University states in his video on Frank that “half of 3,000 Jews who lived in Georgia fled the state.”

I am beginning to get the impression that all of these people are reading from the same script, have an agenda that doesn’t include fidelity to the truth, and don’t give a damn whether the script is true or not.

Jewish activists hover constantly over the Leo Frank page on Wikipedia, lest any truth-tellers add any information exposing the Jewish frauds and exaggerations vended by Dinnerstein and his ilk. Such deviations from the Jewish narrative about Frank are quickly and ruthlessly deleted, sometimes within minutes of being posted. Wikipedia repeats the lie about half of Georgia’s Jews having to flee the state (and that lie has been on Wikipedia for years without being deleted). Wikipedia states flatly that:

After Frank’s lynching, around half of Georgia’s 3,000 Jews left the state.

Wikipedia’s claimed “source” for this claim is a book by an evidently non-Jewish historian, Athan Theoharis, and another probable non-Jew, John Stuart Cox , entitled The Boss: J. Edgar Hoover and the Great American Inquisition. But an examination of this “source” indicates that it is ludicrously unreliable and flat-out wrong even in its brief summation of the Frank case.

The authors say that Leo Frank “was convicted in 1915” — wrong: He was convicted in 1913, two years earlier. The authors say Mary Phagan was fourteen when she died — wrong: She was thirteen. The authors say Frank was convicted on the “sole testimony” of Jim Conley — wrong: There were dozens of witnesses. The authors declare without even mention of proof as if it was established fact that Conley “was in fact the killer” — wrong: There is a great deal of controversy, even among Frank apologists, surrounding that claim. Four whoppers in just two sentences — Cox and Theoharis may not be Jews, but they are hacks, and they obviously know on which side their bread is buttered. Such is the legacy of Dinnerstein’s corruption of scholarship, and Jewish corruption of scholarship generally. Such trash would deserve a grade of “F” as a high school essay, yet it is published by Temple University Press, and its author sits as a “professor of history emeritus” at Marquette University.

Well, what of this widespread claim that half of Georgia’s Jews left the state in fear for their lives after the “horrific outbreak” of anti-Semitism evidenced by Leo Frank’s “terrible persecution”? Is this claim backed up by evidence? Is there even a hint anywhere besides among Leonard Dinnerstein’s Judenrating disciples that it might be true?

Let’s look at the American Jewish Year Book, published in 1921, which gives population statistics for every state in the Union for the years 1907 — before the Frank case happened — and 1918, three years after his lynching. According to the Year Book, in 1907 there were 9,300 Jews in Georgia. Eleven years later, in 1918, there were 22,414 Jews in the state — well over a 100 per cent. increase! If the Jewish claims are true and there were about 10,000 Jews at the outset of the Leo Frank case — and half of them fled Georgia to save their lives after Frank was lynched — and considering that Jewish immigrants arriving in Georgia were only around 200 per year — then those 5,000 Jews supposedly left behind in 1915 would have to have had more than 15,000 children in three years, more than quadrupling their numbers in 36 months! That would be like the average American family going from a man and a wife and a child this year to a man, a wife, and ten children in just three years’ time. That cannot happen. The Jews have been caught in a brazen lie again.

Is it beginning to dawn on you that you’ve been conned? Is it beginning to become obvious that the entire Jewish narrative on the Leo Frank case — the case that began the modern Jewish assault on truth and on the minds and souls and consciences of White Americans — is a tissue of easily-disproven lies?

On our next program about Jewish history distortion, we’ll discuss the Jewish weaknesses exposed by their repeated pattern of the falsification of news and the falsification of history. That’s all right here on American Dissident Voices.

* * *

You’ve been listening to American Dissident Voices, the radio program of the National Alliance. The National Alliance is working to educate White men and women around the world as to the nature of the reality we must face — and organizing our people to ensure our survival and advancement. We need your help to continue. Please send the largest contribution you can afford to National Alliance, Box 4, Mountain City, TN 37683 USA. You can also help us by visiting natall.com/donate. Make your life count. Once again, our postal address is Box 4, Mountain City, TN 37683 USA. Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you to keep on thinking free.

PART 4

American Dissident Voices broadcast of May 19, 2018

by Kevin Alfred Strom

LEONARD DINNERSTEIN is called an “historian” by the media and the academy. There are better words to describe him. The main focus of his life has been to indict, try, and convict the White people of the South of hysterical, unreasoning, anti-Jewish hatred — and blame these psychologically damaged White people for charging and prosecuting an innocent, angelic Jewish sweatshop operator, Leo Frank, for the sex murder of a 13-year-old White girl, Mary Phagan, in one of the most significant murder cases of the 20th century.

Leonard Dinnerstein, with the help of his fellow tribesmen in the media and elsewhere, got away with his falsification of history — his Judenrating — for half a century. But now that we the people can easily do our own research and read contemporary accounts and original documents for ourselves, we can see that there is a great deal of evidence — overwhelming evidence — that Leo Frank, who was president of Atlanta’s B’nai B’rith, was in the habit of treating the mostly teenage girls who worked in his sweatshop as his sexual playthings, and that Mary Phagan was killed by him when she resisted his advances. An additional problem for Leonard Dinnerstein is that — even though he is lauded by his fellow tribesmen as the “great expert” on the Leo Frank case — he is so slapdash and careless in his lies and fabrications that in the end his legacy will be 1) to irreparably harm the cause of Leo Frank he so passionately wanted to help, and 2) to help awaken millions of people to the distortions of history perpetrated, not just by Dinnerstein, but by the entire Jewish power structure.

Dinnerstein does his dirty work mostly in print, but in 2009 he appeared on camera in a pro-Frank (what else could it be?) documentary called The People v. Leo Frank. It’s viewable on YouTube. (Interestingly, a large number of the comments on the video and its trailer show beyond all doubt that people are waking up.) A review of the film states in part:

In this documentary Leonard Dinnerstein is caught red-handed falsifying legal records on camera, about Leo Frank being the first in telling the police [that factory sweeper] Jim Conley could write. [This is important because it eventually came out that Jim Conley wrote, at Leo Frank’s request, the notes that were found by the body.] The official Leo Frank trial Brief of Evidence (1913) and the Leo Frank Georgia Supreme Court Case records provide definitive proof [of how the police found out about Conley’s literacy]. . . .

Leonard Dinnerstein in a video interview segment [at approximately 22 minutes into the film], makes authoritative[-sounding] comments on the interrogation of Jim Conley by the Atlanta Police. Dinnerstein states to Director Ben Loeterman [who is also a Jew]: “They [the Atlanta Police] asked [Jim Conley] about the notes; he said, ‘I cant read and write.’ That happened to come up in a conversation between the police and Frank, and Frank said, ‘of course he can write, I know he can write, he used to borrow money from me and sign promissory notes’ — so Conley had not been completely honest with the police.”

Dinnerstein is clearly implying that Leo Frank was the one who told police that Conley could write, thus putting a major break in the case right in the hands of the detectives. He does the same thing in his book, though the alleged quote from Leo Frank is entirely different, stating on page 22:

The authorities had not considered Conley a serious suspect until they discovered that he could write. The Negro sweeper had originally denied his ability to read and write, but the news that he could eventually reached Harry Scott of the Pinkertons because of a chance remark made in front of Leo Frank. “I know he can write,” Frank said, “I have received many notes from him asking me to loan him money.” Scott immediately confronted Conley with this information. Forced to write, the Negro penned a duplicate of the murder notes that appeared almost identical to the originals.

The problem for Dinnerstein, now that people can read original, contemporary accounts of the case from people who were there, is that his made-up stories can easily be debunked. Here’s the real story of how detective Harry Scott found out that Jim Conley could write, as reported by journalist Britt Craig, who personally interviewed the people directly involved, for the Atlanta Constitution of July 13, 1913:

Conley had maintained that he was illiterate—couldn’t even write his name, and as this seemed the only vulnerable spot in his story, Scott told him he probably was a liar.

At least, it was the only thing about the negro that could plausibly be discredited. On the theory that every negro who owns a wife and home as Conley owned, possesses furniture bought on the installment plan, the two sleuths cast about for some contract to which the black man could possibly have attached his signature.

They visited third-rate furniture stores, business houses and jewelry shops. The search was fruitless. The signature of Conley was as missing as the secret of the sphinx. Scott was prepared to abandon his hunch on the doorsteps of failure, when Fate—not a thirst—took them to the vicinity of a saloon near Five Points.

Providence—and not the bouncer—urged a gentleman in Panama and white shoes, and with the oily air of a collector, gently through the doorway. He stepped to the sidewalk and recognized Black. He greeted and shook a disconsolate hand.

“You’ve got a nigger down at police station I’d certainly like to see,” he announced.

“What nigger?” said Black, promoting conversation.

“That Conley nigger?”

Something bright and dazzling flashed through Scott’s hunch-ridden brain as he noticed the batch of bills carefully folded in the person’s coat pocket.

The hunch told him to collar the oily individual and search his batch of bills. He did, at the oily one’s consent. A single glance revealed a contract issued to Jim Conley. A second glance revealed the negro’s name, scrawled in a characteristic hand all over the signee’s line.

Scott’s hunch had been fulfilled. It had guided him to a specimen of the black sweeper’s handwriting—two words in barely legible script that proved the negro a liar three ways from breakfast. It has since proved the means of lifting the Phagan secret from the mire of mystery.

The contract was signed by Conley more than twelve months ago for a watch he had bought from a jewelry firm. It is now in possession of the solicitor general, and likely will be produced as evidence in the coming trial of Leo Frank.

What followed its discovery was the most successful third degree ever operated at police headquarters. Scott and Black showed the signature to the solicitor general, detective chief and Chief Beavers.

Then, they showed it to Conley.

It was on a Sunday afternoon. Police station was dull and drowsy and a sleepy atmosphere pervaded the building. Even the inevitable newspaper reporter was absent. Scott and Black took the prisoner into the little 6×8 “sweat box” and sat him where the light could play full on his face.

Scott locked the door and threw the key over the transom. Black pulled off his coat, let down his suspenders and put cigarettes conveniently near. Conley blinked at the light and wondered what was coming off.

Scott pulled a mysterious something from his pocket and laid it on the table. It was a folded bit of paper, and he smiled significantly as it left his hand. Conley grimaced and shifted a leg.

“Well, Jim, we’ve got the deadwood on you. Better cough up and tell us something.”

“Honest, white folks, I swear ’fore God and High heaven I don’t know a thing.” His plea was pathetic in its apparent sincerity.

“But we know better. The quicker you tell, the better off you’ll be. Kick in, Jim—kick in. It’s the best for you.”

“I can’t kick,” protested the negro. “I ain’t got nothin’ to kick for.”

Scott stepped to the table and pointed at the folded slip.

“You see that! It’s enough to hang you. You don’t know what it is, and you couldn’t guess in a year. It’s dead-wood, nigger. It’s dead-wood. You’d better kick through or we’ll pull it on you.”

The negro studied the slip intently. He was sorely puzzled. Great drops of sweat rolled down his face and his fingers twitched nervously. His very air betrayed guilt.

“Listen,” said Scott. “Can you write?”

“Naw, sir, I can’t. I never could.”

“Will you swear it?”

“I shore will.”

“Do you know the penalty for perjury?”

“Naw, sir—what is it?”

“Twenty years in the gang—maybe more.”

“What’s perjury?”

“Swearing a lie.”

“But I ain’t goin’ to swear no lie.”

“You will if you swear you can’t write. Here! Look at this.”

The Pinkerton man unfolded the mysterious slip. It was the contract. The negro noted the signature with a betraying flash of recognition.

“How could you sign this if you couldn’t write?”

Conley was wordless for minutes. He stared dumbly out the window and twisted his fingers. Suddenly, he exclaimed:

“White folks, I’m a liar!”

(Besides the bill collector, another person who told the police that Jim Conley could write — long before Leo Frank mentioned it — was E.F. Holloway, the day watchman at Frank’s pencil factory.) You will note that there is nothing whatever in the account about Leo Frank being the great hero and letting the police know that Conley could write. It was only later that Frank admitted as much — he and his allies had initially been trying to frame Newt Lee and had been very, very silent about Jim Conley, since they knew Conley was an accessory in the case and could hurt Frank. Frank kept Conley’s literacy a guarded secret until well after Harry Scott had found out about it. When the Frank forces failed to frame Lee and began to frame Conley, however, there was no longer anything to be gained by silence. Reading Leonard Dinnerstein’s supposedly exhaustive and authoritative works, you would learn nothing of this. Dinnerstein is hiding the truth from us.

Dinnerstein also states at about the 52-minute mark in the People v. Leo Frank documentary:

No one in the Jewish community in Atlanta publicly commented about Frank’s innocence or guilt, or about the nature of the trial, even though the Jewish community was incensed.

That’s yet another sloppy and easily-debunked lie from Dinnerstein. Anyone who has read the newspaper coverage in the Atlanta daily newspapers, before and during and after the trial of Leo Frank for the murder of Mary Phagan, knows that there are innumerable cases of Jews stating publicly that that Frank was innocent and “couldn’t be guilty,” including some statements made in open court, and including the public statements of Atlanta’s Rabbi Marx who was quoted in the documentary just seconds after Dinnerstein’s whopper — and in fact, in one case the very Jewish Rhea Frank, Leo Frank’s mother, called prosecutor Hugh Dorsey a “Gentile dog” in open court because she objected to a line of questioning that suggested that Leo Frank might have made inappropriate sexual advances on the young girls in his employ. This episode was widely reported and certainly Leonard Dinnerstein knows about it (and all the others). It was even documented by some of the less reckless Jewish authors, such as Harry Golden.

Why are Jews like Dinnerstein so careless and incompetent in their falsifications? Why so brazen? The simple answer is that they overestimate their own considerable abilities, and they massively underestimate us. Many of us are smart enough to figure out their game. Their own hatred and contempt for non-Jews blinds them to the intelligence and discernment and dedication and persistence of the better class of Whites. Their own unjustified hatred and contempt will be their own undoing, as it has been in the past.

So, after learning how a Jewish “academic,” Leonard Dinnerstein, can brazenly lie to you about an important episode in your history — after learning of his shoddy research and his glaring, deliberate omissions, and his laughably unconvincing arguments — after seeing that such a man, whose work doesn’t even justify a passing grade in high school, enjoying a half-century-long career in the history departments of accredited universities (whose faculties and administrations are famously honeycombed with disproportionate numbers of members of his tribe) — after you see such a bumbler and liar treated for decade upon decade as though he is not only an authority, but the leading authority on the Leo Frank case, constantly quoted and re-quoted in books, films, newspapers, magazines, and academic journals (almost all of which are, again, overwhelmingly owned or dominated by members of his tribe) — are you finally willing to admit that there is a Jewish effort here — ham-handed as it may be, but relentless and ubiquitous as it certainly is — to control your thinking and force you to come to conclusions about the Leo Frank case that are starkly opposed to the facts?

What does it tell you about the magnitude of this Jewish effort — or, let’s be totally honest and call it a conspiracy, for what they have done and are doing fully deserves that word — what does it tell you about the magnitude and power and entrenchment of that conspiracy when you see that it began in 1913, half a century before Leonard Dinnerstein became its leading light, and continues to this very day — another 50 years later — with no sign of stopping? What does it tell you about that conspiracy when you realize that until very recently — before the National Alliance and the American Mercury and the Leo Frank Case Research Library and now the Nation of Islam started telling the truth about it — everything you had ever heard or seen or read or been taught about the Leo Frank case was essentially a grotesque inversion of reality? — that you were systematically denied important facts about our history and taught — falsely — that your people, White people, are congenitally psychologically disturbed, hateful, and even murderously evil; that you were prevented from hearing the other side of the case, the side of the juries and the judges in every single court of jurisdiction in the land right up to United States Supreme Court? What kind of power can suppress the point of view even of the leading jurists of this country and prevent you from hearing from them? — prevent you from hearing the evidence that convinced them?

I’ll tell you what kind of power: power in the service of evil. People who will deliberately lie to you about your own history do not have your best interests at heart. And when you realize that this same group — this same tribe — Leonard Dinnerstein’s tribe — is also behind the hushing up of horrible crimes against White people; is also behind the push for open borders; is also behind the “migrant” invasion which constitutes replacement migration — replacement of us with Third Worlders in our own lands; is also behind the demonization and criminalization of any who resist their efforts; is also behind the push to convince our young people to engage in abortion, race-mixing, and sex perversion — to engage in any kind of abnormal sex, so long as it does not result in the birth of White children; when you realize all of these things, when you see the evil that is being done, and you are a man or woman of quality, integrity, and responsibility — you will join with us to fight that evil.

* * *

You’ve been listening to American Dissident Voices, the radio program of the National Alliance. The National Alliance is working to educate White men and women around the world as to the nature of the reality we must face — and organizing our people to ensure our survival and advancement. We need your help to continue. Please send the largest contribution you can afford to National Alliance, Box 4, Mountain City, TN 37683 USA. You can also help us by visiting natall.com/donate. Make your life count. Once again, our postal address is Box 4, Mountain City, TN 37683 USA. Until next week, this is Kevin Alfred Strom reminding you to keep on thinking free.

* * *

Appendix 5:
Leonard Dinnerstein’s Official Resume from the University of Arizona

About Leonard Dinnerstein

We are truly sorry to hear of the loss of our colleague, Leonard Dinnerstein, on Tuesday, January 22, 2019.

I. TEACHING

University of Arizona

• 1970-2004 Professor of History
• 1993-2000 Director, Judaic Studies

University of Colorado Summer, 1985
Visiting Professor New York University 1969-70; Summers: 1982, 1986
Columbia University Summers: 1969, 1972, 1974, 1981, 1987, 1989
Fairleigh Dickinson University 1967-1970 Assistant Professor

II. EDUCATION

City College of New York 1951-1955 B.S.S., 1955
Columbia University 1958-1966 M.A.,1960; Ph.D, 1966

III. PUBLICATIONS

1. Books

a. Author

• Antisemitism in America . New York : Oxford University Press, 1994; paperback, 1996. Winner: National Jewish Book Award, History, 1994.
• Uneasy at Home: Antisemitism and the American Jewish Experience . Columbia University Press, 1987 (a collection of my own previously published essays).
• America and the Survivors of the Holocaust . Columbia University Press, 1982; paperback, 1986.
• Natives and Strangers: Ethnic Groups and the Building of Modern America . Coauthored with Roger L. Nichols and David M. Reimers. Oxford University Press, 1979; 2nd edition, 1990; 3rd edition, 1996; 4 th edition, 2003.
• Ethnic Americans: A History of Immigration and Assimilation . Coauthored with David M. Reimers. Dodd, Mead, 1975. 2nd edition, Harper & Row, 1982; 3rd edition, 1988; 4 th edition, Columbia University Press, 1999.
• The Leo Frank Case . Columbia University Press, 1968; paperback, University of Georgia Press , 1987. Notable Trials Library edition, 1991. Co-Winner: Saturday Review’s Anisfield-Wolf Award, 1969.

b. Editor

• America Since World War II: Historical Interpretations . Coedited with Jean Christie. Praeger, 1976.
• Decisions and Revisions: Interpretations of 20th Century American History . Coedited with Jean Christie. Praeger, 1975.
• Jews in the South . Co-edited with Mary Dale Palsson. Louisiana State University Press, 1973.
• Antisemitism in the United States . Holt, Reinhart & Winston, 1971.
• American Vistas . Co-edited with Kenneth T. Jackson. Oxford University Press 1971. 2nd edition, 1975. 3rd edition, 1979. 4th edition, 1983. 5th edition, 1987; 6th edition, l99l; 7th edition, 1995.
• The Aliens: A History of Ethnic Minorities in America . Co-edited with Fred Jaher. Appleton , Century, Crofts, 1970. 2nd edition published by Oxford University Press, 1977, under the title, Uncertain Americans .

Book Chapters

• “A History of American Antisemitism,” in Michael W. Grunberger, ed., From Haven to Home: 350
• Years of Jewish Life in America ,” Library of Congress, 2004, pp. 163-177.
• “The Leo Frank Murder Case,” in True Stories From The American Past , edited by William Graebner. New York : McGraw-Hill Companies, 2nd edition, 1997; 3 rd edition, 2003.
• “The Democratic Party, 1993-2001,” in Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., History of U.S. Political Parties, 1972-2001” The Politics of Consensus ( Philadelphia : Chelsea House, 2002), pp. 4297-4322.
• “Britische und amerikanische DP-Politic,” in Fritz Bauer Institut, Uberlebt und unterwegs: Judische Displaced Persons im Nachkriegsdeutschland , Jahrbuch 1997 zur Geschichte und Wirkung des Holocaust. Frankfurt : Campus Verlag, 1997.
• “Introduction,” Liberation . Washington : United States Holocaust Museum , 1996, pp. 11-22.
• “Who Were the Displaced Persons,” in Michael D’Innocenzo and Josef P. Sirefman, eds., Immigration and Ethnicity . Westport , CT : Greenwood Press, 1992.
• “Antisemitism in Crisis Times in the United States : The 1920s and 1930s,” in Sander L. Gilman and Steven Katz, editors, Anti-Semitism In Times of Crisis . New York : New York University Press, 1991.
• “From Desert Oasis to the Desert Caucus: The Jews of Tucson ,” in Moses Rischin and John Livingston, eds., Jews of the American West . Detroit : Wayne State University Press, 1991.
• “The United States and the Displaced Persons,” in SHE’ERIT HAPLETAH , 1944-1948 : Rehabilitation and Political Struggle. Proceedings of the Sixth Yad Vashem International Historical Conference, Jerusalem , October, 1985. Edited by Yisrael Gutman and Avital Saf. Jerusalem : Yad Vashem, 1990.
• “Franklin D. Roosevelt, American Jewry, and the New Deal,” in Wilbur J. Cohen, ed., The Roosevelt New Deal: A Program Assessment Fifty Years After . Austin , TX : Lyndon Baines Johnson Policy School of Public Affairs, 1986.
• “Harry S. Truman and the Displaced Persons (1945-1949),” in William F. Levantrosser, ed., Harry S. Truman: The Man From Independence . Westport , CT : Greenwood Press, 1986.
• “American Jewish Organizational Efforts to Combat Antisemitism in the United States Since 1945,” in Michael Curtis, editor, Antisemitism in the Contemporary World . Boulder , Colorado : Westview Press, 1986.
• “The Funeral of Rabbi Jacob Joseph,” in David A. Gerber, ed., Anti-Semitism in American History , Urbana : University of Illinois Press, 1986.
• “Ethnic Movements,” in Jack P. Greene, ed., Encyclopedia of American Political History: Studies of the Principal Movements and Ideas . 3 volumes. New York : Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1984.
• “Education and the Advancement of American Jews,” in Bernard J. Weiss, ed., American Education and the European Immigrant: 1840-1940 . Urbana : University of Illinois Press, 1982.
• “German Attitudes Toward the Jewish Displaced Persons (1945-50),” in Hans L. Trefousse, editor, Germany and America: Essays on Problems of International Relations and Immigration . New York : Brooklyn College Press, 1980.
• “The East European Jewish Migration to the United States ,” in Leonard Dinnerstein and Frederic Cople Jaher, editors, Uncertain Americans . New York : Oxford University Press, 1977.
• “The Gilded Age,” with George Lankevich, in The Study of American History . 2 volumes. Dushkin Publishing Group, 1973.
• “The Progressive and States Rights Parties of 1948,” in A. M. Schlesinger, ed., History of United States Political Parties . 4 volumes. New York : Chelsea House, 1973.
• “The Election of 1880,” in A. M. Schlesinger, ed., History of American Presidential Elections . 4 volumes. New York : Chelsea House and McGraw-Hill, 1971; revised and republished in Arthur M. Schlesinger, ed. Running for President . 2 volumes. New York : Simon and Schuster, 1994.
• “Joseph Rucker Lamar,” in Leon Friedman and Fred L. Israel, eds., The Justices of the United States Supreme Court, 1789-1969: Their Lives and Major Decisions . 4 volumes. New York : Chelsea House and R. R. Bowker Co., 1969.
• “ Atlanta in the Progressive Era: A Dreyfuss Affair in Georgia ,” in F. C. Jaher, ed., The Age of Industrialism in America . New York : The Free Press, 1968.

Articles

• “John Higham and Immigration History,” coauthored with David M. Reimers. Journal of American Ethnic History , 24 (Fall, 2004), 3-25.
• “Is There a New Anti-Semitism in the United States ?” Society , 41 (January/February 2004), 53-58.
• “Immigration After World War II, 1945-48,” co-authored with David M. Reimers, Insights on Law and Society , Spring, 2001, pp. 7-9.
• “Judaic Studies at the University of Arizona ,” transversal. Zeitschrift des David-Herzong-Centrums fur Judische Studien, January, 2001.
• “The Presidents and the Jews,” Reform Judaism , November, 2000.
• “Jews in the ‘Old Southwest,'” Journal of the West , 38 (January, 1999),
• Winner of best “About the West” essay in journal in 1999.
• “The Fate of Leo Frank,” American Heritage , October, 1996, pp. 98-109.
• “Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Jews: Another Look,” Dimensions , 10(1), (1996), 3-8.
• “Our Fellow Americans: The Place of Immigration in the United States History Survey,” Perspectives (AHA Newsletter), 33 (January 1995), 3-6.
• “Antisemitism in the 1990s: A Symposium,” Patterns of Prejudice , 25 (Winter, 1991), 20-22.
• “When Henry Ford Apologized to the Jews,” Moment , 15 (February, 1990), 20-27, 54-55.
• “Antisemitism in the United States Today,” Patterns of Prejudice , 22 (Autumn, 1988), 3-14.
• “Strangers in the Land: Then and Now,” American Jewish History , 76 (December, 1986), 107-116. Coauthored with David Reimers.
• “The Origins of Black Antisemitism,” American Jewish Archives , 38 (November, 1986), 113-122.
• “The Supreme Court and the Rights of Aliens,” This Constitution , #8 (Fall, 1985), pp. 25-35.
• “The Historiography of American Antisemitism,” Immigration History Newsletter , XVI (November, 1984), 2-7; revised, expanded and reprinted in Uneasy At Home , l987; revised, expanded and reprinted again in Michael Brown, ed., Approaches to Antisemitism (New York: The American Jewish Committee, 1994), pp. 318-328.
• “Immigration,” Humanities (NEH publication), 4 (August, 1983), 12-13, 27.
• “Jews and the New Deal,” American Jewish History , 72 (June, 1983), 461-476.
• “Editing a Reader,” The History Teacher , 16 (February, 1983), 209-217.
• “Anti-Semitism Exposed and Attacked, 1945-1950,” American Jewish History , 71 (September, 1981), 134-149.
• “ America , Britain , and Palestine : The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry and the Displaced Persons, 1945-1946,” Diplomatic History , 4 (Summer, 1980), 283-302.
• “The United States Army and the Jews: Policies Toward the Displaced Persons After World War II,” American Jewish History , 68 (March, 1979), 353-366.
• “Anti-Semitism in the 80th Congress: the Displaced Persons Act of 1948,” Capitol Studies [now Congress and the Presidency ], VI (Fall, 1978), 11-26. Reprinted in Joel H. Silbey, ed., The Congress of the United States , 1789-1989. 3 volumes. Brooklyn , New York : Carlson Publishing, Inc., 1991, III, 693-708.
• “Jews and the Desegregation Crisis in the South,” American Jewish Historical Quarterly , LXII (March, 1973), 231-241.
• “A Neglected Aspect of Southern Jewish History,” American Jewish Historical Quarterly , lXI (September, 1971), 52-68.
• “A Note on Southern Attitudes Toward Jews,” Jewish Social Studies , XXXII (January, 1970), 43-49.
• “Leo M. Frank and the American Jewish Community,” American Jewish Archives , XX (November, 1968), 107-126. Reprinted in Maurianne Adams and John Bracey, eds., Strangers & Neighbors: Relations between Blacks & Jews in the United States . Amherst : University of Massachusetts Press, 1999, pp. 271-282.
• “The Senate’s Rejection of Aubrey Williams as Rural Electrification Administrator,” The Alabama Review , XXI (April, 1968), 133-43. Reprinted in Sarah Wiggins, ed., From Civil War to Civil Rights: Alabama , 1860-1960 (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1987).
• “The Accession of John Tyler to the Presidency,” Virginia Magazine of History and Biography , 70 (October, 1962), 447-58.
• “The Impact of Tammany Hall on State and National Politics in the 1880s,” New York History , XlII (July, 1961), 237-52.

4. Book Reviews in the following publications:

AJS , American Historical Review , American Jewish Historical Quarterly , American Jewish History , American Journal of Education , American Journal of Sociology , Arizona and the West , Business History Review , Colorado Heritage , Congress Monthly , Congressional Studies , Diplomatic History , East Central Europe , Florida Historical Quarterly , Georgia Historical Quarterly , Hispanic American Historical Review , The Historian , History: Review of New Books , History of Education Quarterly , Immigrants and Minorities , International Migration Review , Jewish Social Studies , Journal of American Ethnic History , Journal of American History , Journal of Ethnic Studies , Journal of Social History, Journal of Southwest Georgia History , Journal of Southern History , Journal of the Early Republic , Journal of the West , Journal of Social History , Labor History , Midstream , Mississippi Quarterly , Montana , Near East Journal , New Jersey History , New York History , Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography , The Philadelphia Inquirer , The Register of the Kentucky Historical Society, Religious Studies Review , Reviews in American History , Shofar , Simon Wiesenthal Center Annual , Southwestern Historical Quarterly , Western Historical Quarterly .

PAPERS/TALKS/CONFERENCE PARTICIPATION

• “Is There a New Antisemitism in the United States ?” Conference on 350th Anniversary of American Jewish History? Tutzig , Germany , May 24, 2005.
• “How America Has Been Different for Jews,” at conference on “Why is America Different?” Elie Wiesel Center for Judaic Studies, Boston University , October 27, 2004.
• “FDR and the Jews During World War II,” conference sponsored by Judaic and Holocaust Studies, FDR AND THE HOLOCAUST, Youngstown State University , April 15, 2004.
• ‘Leo Frank: Was Jewishness a Factor in His Demise?” session on “Religion and Violence in ‘New South’ Georgia ,” Southern Historical Association, 69 th Annual Meeting, Houston , Texas , November 7, 2003.
• Participant in Center for Advanced Holocaust Studies Interdisciplinary Workshop on the Holocaust for Jewish Studies Scholars, Washington , D.C. : U. S. Holocaust Museum , August 25-28,2003.
• “Antisemitism in the South: Real and Perceived,” Organization of American Historians, Memphis , April, 2003.
• “The United States : Is there a New Antisemitism?” at conference on “ ANTISEMITISM: The Politicization of Prejudice in the Contemporary World,” University of Toronto , Munk Centre, February 10-11,2003.
• “Primary Issues Facing Jewish Americans,” President and Provost’s Diversity Lecture Series, Ohio State
• University, May 15, 2002.
• “ America and the Survivors of the Holocaust,” at program on “Life Reborn,” Houston Holocaust Museum , Houston , Texas , April 8, 2002.
• Panelist for symposium on “A Journey in Common: The Immigrant, The Theatre and The Community,”
• Denver Center for Performing Arts, Denver, CO., February 10-11, 2002.
• “ America and the Survivors of the Holocaust,” Florida Atlantic University , December 2, 2001.
• Chair for session, “Creating American Jewish Identity,” Midwest Jewish Studies Association Meeting,
• Chicago , October 28, 2001.
• Moderator for session, “Racial Science, Radical Theology, And Raunchy Pop Culture: Cultural
• Constructions of Jews and Race in Germany , 1870-1945,” German Studies Conference, Washington , D. C., October 5, 2001.
• “ Jews and Other Americans in the Interwar Period (1919-1941).” Workshop Session, Trading Cultures, Nordic Association of American Studies Conference, Copenhagen , August 8-11, 2001.
• “German and East European Jews: The Complexities of a Relationship, 1890-1948,” Distinguished Humanist Lecture, Melton Center for Jewish Studies, Ohio State University , May 20, 2001.
• Commentator for session, “American Jewish-Christian Relations in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries,” American Historical Association, Boston , January 7, 2001.
• “Antisemitism in America .” In Twelfth Annual Resnick Lecture Series, Program for Jewish Studies, SUNY-New Paltz, October 4, 2000.
• ” America and the Survivors of the Holocaust.” The Baumler-Kaplan Holocaust Commemoration Lecture. University of Minnesota , Duluth . April 17, 2000.
• Chair and Commentator for “Liberation and Interracial Coalition,” Organization of American Historians meeting, St. Louis , March 30, 2000.
• “Antisemitism in America , 1942-1945,” at University of Michigan ‘s Annual Conference on the Holocaust, March 23, 2000.
• “American Responses to the Holocaust, 1942-1945,” California State University Long Beach , March 21, 2000.
• “Allied Policies Toward the Displaced Persons: the United States ,” at LIFE REBORN: Jewish Displaced Persons, 1945-1951. Conference sponsored by United States Holocaust Memorial Museum , Washington , D,C., January 14-17, 2000.
• “Making it in America : German Jewish Immigrants and Russian Jewish Immigrants in the Twentieth Century.” Third Stein Lecture, Emory University , October 26, 1999.
• “The Decline of American Antisemitism Since 1945,” for conference on “Dynamics of Antisemitism in the Second Half of the Twentieth Century”, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, June 13-16, 1999.
• “American Jews in Palestine , 1939-1948,” for conference on “New Records – New Perspectives: World War II, the Holocaust, the Middle East and the Rise of the State of Israel,” December 15, 1998, Tel Aviv , Israel .
• Chair and Discussant for session on “Causes and Consequences of Immigration-Related Policies,” Annual meeting of Social Science History Association, Chicago , November 22, 1998
• “Jew as ‘Other’” in session on “Jews in America ,” for conference on “Jews Around the World: Cultural Intersections,” Arizona State University Department of Religious Studies, Tempe , Arizona , November 16, 1998.
• Panel discussant for “Leo Frank: The Case That Will Not Die,” Southern Jewish Historical Society Meeting, Nashville , Tennessee , November 14, 1998.
• “The Jews: A Minority or Not a Minority,” Purdue University Jewish Studies Program, October 8, 1998; repeated at Temple Emeth, Teaneck, New Jersey, November 1, 1998.
• Chair for session on “The Foundations of West Coast Jewry,” at American Historical Association – Pacific Coast Branch, “ San Diego , August 9, 1998.
• Chair and commentator for “Post-War Jewish Identities,” Third Scholars’ Conference on American Jewish History, June 10-12, 1998, Cincinnati .
• “The Jew as Other,” in panel on “Jews and Muslims as the ‘Other’” in A Symposium Presented by the Henry R. Luce Forum in Abrahamic Religions entitled “Jews and Muslims in American Society,” University of Hartford and Hartford Seminry, November 10, 1997.
• Chair of Book Session on ‘Ewa Morawska: Insecure Prosperity ,” Social Science History Association, Washington , D.C. , October 17, 1997.
• “Jews in the American Southwest,” 12 th World Jewish Studies Conference, Jerusalem , August 3, 1997.
• Chair for session, “Jews in the Slave Trade,” Western Jewish Studies Association Conference, Tucson , AZ , April, 1997.
• Panelist and Moderator for session on “Nazi Medical Ethics,” at Conference on The Ethics of Health Care and Healing, University of Arizona, April 3, 1997.
• “Jews in the United States during World War II,” at conference on Ethnic Groups in the United States during World War II, New York University, March 9-10, 1997.
• Chair and commentator for session, “American Jews and Political Conservatism,” American Historical Association meeting, New York City , January, 1997.
• “American Jews and the Challenge to Racial Intolerance in the United States ” at Presidential Forum on Turning Points in History, “Nazism, the Holocaust and the Genesis of the Modern Civil Rights Movement, Mississippi State University November 12-14, 1996.
• Chair, “Economics,” Midwest Jewish Studies Association, Chicago , October, 1996.
• “Jews in the American Southwest,” at conference on Jewries At The Frontier , University of Cape Town , August 13, 1996.
• Chair and Commentator for session on “Jews and Blacks – Mutual Images,” Second Scholars Conference on American Jewish History, New York City , June, 1996.
• Chair, for session on “Philanthropy In America,” Western Jewish Studies Association Conference, Denver , April 28, 1996.
• “Displaced Persons and Anglo-American and Palestinian Politics,” at conference on Uberlebt und Unterwegs , Munich , July 19-21, 1995.
• Commentator for session on “Memory and Politics: the United States and Central Europe,” Society for Historians of American Foreign Relations meeting, Annapolis , June 23, 1995.
• “Antisemitism in America Today.” Commencement speech at Baltimore Hebrew University , May 18, 1995.
• ” America and the Survivors of the Holocaust.” Robert Siegel Memorial Lecture, Western Jewish Studies Conference, San Diego , April 3, 1995.
• “Antisemitism in the South,” South Carolina Jewish Historical Society, Charleston , March 19, 1995.
• “Antisemitism in America .” The Hotchkiss School, Lakeville, CT., November 2, 1994; repeated at Tucson Jewish Federation DISCOVERY series, January 30, 1995; Phoenix’s JEWISH PASSAGES XVIII, February 26, 1995.
• “A Perspective on the State of Antisemitism in America Today,” National Commission Meeting of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, New York City , June 10, 1994.
• “Leo Frank — Again?” Banquet speaker at Immigration History Society Dinner, Atlanta , April, 1994.
• “Black Antisemitism,” at Remembering for the Future II Conference , Berlin , Germany , March, 1994.
• ” America and the Survivors of the Holocaust,” U.S. Holocaust Museum , Washington , D.C., February 3, 1994.
• Chair for session on “Anti-Semitism and the Fight Against It In America,” Association for Jewish Studies meeting, Boston , December,1993.
• Commentator for session on “Holocaust Survivors and the Untied States : A Comparative Analysis,” American Historical Association, Washington , D.C. , December 30, 1992.
• Commentator for session, “Beyond Black and White: Jews and Asians in the South,” Southern Historical Association, Atlanta , November 6, 1992.
• Commentator for session, “Cultural Ideology and Recent American Foreign Relations,” Duquesne Forum, Pittsburgh , October 24, 1992.
• “Antisemitism in the United States Since the New Deal,” Humanities Lecture Series, University of Fairfield , Fairfield CT , March 4, 1992.
• “Anti-Semitism in the United States During the Depression” for a session on “American Jews and the Great Depression,” Association for Jewish Studies Annual Meeting, Boston , December, 1991.
• “The State of Antisemitism in America ,” at ADL International Conference on Antisemitism, Montreal , November 3, 1991.
• Chair and Commentator for session on “Groups, Identity, and Power in Germany , 1941-1945,” Duquesne History Forum, Pittsburgh , October, 1991.
• Chair and commentator for session on “Immigrants and Modern America,” Mid-America Conference on History, Springfield , Missouri , September, 1991.
• Chair and commentator for session on “Right to Left: Barry Goldwater, Frank Church and the Politics of the Cold-War Era,” American Historical Association — Pacific Coast Branch, Hawaii , August 18, 1991.
• Chair for session on “Registering Aliens and Civilians in World War II,” American Historical Association – – Pacific Coast Branch, Hawaii , August 17, 1991.
• “The Study of Antisemitism in American History,” for workshop on University Teaching of Antisemitism in the Contemporary Context. International Center for University Teaching of Jewish Civilization, Jerusalem , July, 1991.
• “Racism and Antisemitism in American History,” concluding lecture in series on “Racism, Genocide, and the Holocaust,” University of California , La Jolla , June 5, 1991.
• “The Fedorenko Case,” at a session on “American Justice and Nazi Crimes,” American Historical Association, New York City , December, 1990.
• “Anti-Semitism in America ,” Center for Jewish Studies, University of Florida , October 24, 1990.
• “Anti-Semitism During World War II,” at a conference on National and Racial Minorities In Total War, University of Keele (England), September, 1990.
• Chair and commentator for session on “Ethnic Mobility in the South,” Organization of American Historians Meeting, March, 1990, Washington , D.C.
• “Anti-Semitism in Historical Perspective,” for session on “Anti-Semitism in America as We Enter the 1990s,” plenum session of the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council, Phoenix , Arizona , February 20, 1990.
• Commentator for session on “Mendicants, Menace and Spies: Hawaii ‘s Anti-Japanese Movement,” Organization of American Historians, St. Louis , April, 1989.
• “Jews in Tucson ,” at session on “Ethnic Groups and the Rise of the Sunbelt,” Organization of American Historians, St. Louis , April, 1989.
• “Christian-Jewish Relations in the United States, 1920s-1940s,” at a session on “American Christians and Jews,” American Historical Association, Cincinnati , December, 1988.
• “ America and the Survivors,” at a symposium on “The Holocaust: A Retrospective 50 Years after Kristallnacht,” Arizona State University , November, 1988.
• Banquet Speaker, “Leo Frank: The Case that Will Not Die,” Southern Jewish Historical Society Conference on “New Perspectives on Southern Jewish History,” Birmingham , Alabama , November, 1988.
• “Antisemitism in the United States, 1920-1945,” at a conference entitled, “Remembering for the Future: The Impact of the Holocaust and Genocide on Jews and Christians,” Oxford University , Oxford , England , July 10-13, 1988.
• Keynote Address on “The Morality of the American Response to the Holocaust, 1933-1950,” at 7th Annual Conference on the Holocaust, Millersville University, Millersville, Pennsylvania, April 17, 1988.
• “Gentleman’s Agreement and Anti-Semitism in America ,” at Minneapolis Jewish Community Center Book Festival, November 7, 1987.
• Commentator, session on “The Dominant Culture and the Immigrant Minorities,” Duquesne History Forum, Pittsburgh , October 31, 1987.
• “Whom Shall We Welcome? Refugees and Displaced Persons in the Holocaust Era,” at conference on “New Americans and Our Changing Constitution: Dream and Reality for Immigrants to America ,” William Paterson College , Wayne , N.J. , October 23, 1987.
• “Who Were the Displaced Persons?” at Hofstra Conference, “Immigration and Ethnicity, American Society: `Melting Pot’ or `Salad Bowl’?” Hofstra University , Hempstead , N.Y. , October 8, 1987.
• “Jews in the South: A Different Heritage,” at conference entitled “South of Hester Street: Reflections on Three Centuries of Southern Jewry.” Sponsored by Duke Office of Continuing Education and the Durham County Library, September, 1987.
• “The Allies and the Displaced Persons,” at Yeshiva University ‘s Conference on “The Survivors of Nazism and the Reconstruction of Jewish Communities in the Early Post War Years, 1945-1950,” New York City , November 2, 1986.
• Panelist for discussion section on John Higham’s STRANGERS IN THE LAND, Duquesne Forum, Pittsburgh , October 31, 1986.
• “From Oasis in the Desert to the Desert Caucus: The Evolution of the Tucson Jewish Community,” Conference of Rocky Mountain Jewish Historical Society on “The Jewish Experience in America : A View From the West,” Denver , May, 1986.
• “Jewish Immigrants to the United States, 1945-1952,” at a conference on “A Nation of Immigrants,” New York State Historical Society, New York City , May, 1986.
• “The Origins of Black Antisemitism,” at a session on “Black Antisemitism,” Organization of American Historians, New York , April, 1986.
• “Anti-Semitism in Times of Crisis in America ,” at conference on Anti-Semitism in Times of Crisis, Cornell University, April 8-10, 1986.
• “Jews, the Supreme Court and Released Time,” at a session on “The Jews, The Courts, and Religion,” American Historical Association, New York , December, 1985.
• “Jews and Blacks in the Civil Rights Era: The Jewish Perspective,” Conference on Black-Jewish Relations in the United States, Center for Applied Research and Urban Policy, University of the District of Columbia, Washington, D.C., November, 1985.
• “Tom Watson and the Jews,” Southern Historical Association, Houston , November, 1985.
• “The United States and the Displaced Persons,” at a conference on “The Image and Activities of the Surviving Remnant After World War II,” Yad Vashem , Israel , October, 1985.
• “The Leo Frank Case,” Organization of American Historians, Minneapolis , April, 1985.
• “The Funeral of Rabbi Jacob Joseph: Ethnic Conflict in Urban America ,” American Historical Association, Chicago , December, 1984.
• Commentator for “American Jewish Response to 19th Century America ,” Duquesne Forum, Pittsburgh , November, 1984.
• “American Jewish Efforts to Combat Antisemitism in the U. S. Since World War II,” at conference on Anti-Semitism in the Contemporary World, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, N.J., November, 1983.
• “The Historical Background of the D. P. Experience,” for conference on “The D. P. Experience: Ukrainian Refugees After World War II,” sponsored by the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies and the Multicultural History Society of Ontario, St. Michael’s College, University of Toronto, November, 1983.
• Discussant for session on “ Pawns of Yalta by Mark Elliot,” Duquesne History Forum, Pittsburgh , Pa. , October, 1983.
• “Jews and the New Deal,” a conference on The New Deal: Fifty Years After, LBJ Library, Austin , Texas , March 2, 1983.
• “American Jews and the New Deal,” American Historical Association, Washington , D.C. , December, 1982.
• “Antisemitism in the United States in the 1940s,” at the York University Conference, “Anti-Semitism: A Historical and Contemporary Perspective,” Toronto , November, 1982.
• Commentator on “Emigration and Immigration,” Western History Association, Phoenix , October, 1982.
• “Editing a Textbook: Problems of Content, Audience, and Publication,” Organization of American Historians, Philadelphia , April, 1982.
• “The United States and the Displaced Persons, 1945-1948” American Historical Association, Los Angeles , December, 1981.
• “American Antisemitism Exposed and Attacked, 1945-1950,” Duquesne History Forum, Pittsburgh , October, 1981.
• “From the DP Camps to the USA , 1945-1952,” YIVO Institute Annual Conference, New York City , November, 1980.
• “The Voluntary Agencies and the Displaced Persons, 1945-1952,” Duquesne History Forum, Pittsburgh , October, 1980.
• “Nazism in the D. P. Camps: The Harrison Report,” Organization of American Historians, San Francisco , April, 1980.
• “America and the Survivors of the Holocaust,” Southern Jewish Historical Association, Charleston, S.C., November, 1979; repeated at Columbia University American Studies Seminar, November, 1979; repeated at the Tauber Institute, Brandeis University, October, 1981; repeated at the University of Illinois, February, 1982; repeated at the Judaic Studies Program breakfast, Arizona State University, September, 1982; repeated at the Jack P. Eisener Institute for Holocaust Studies, CUNY Graduate Center, NYC, October, 1982; repeated at the Rocky Mountain Jewish Historical Society, July, 1985; repeated at Suffolk County (New York) Community College, October, 1985.
• “German Reactions to Jewish Displaced Persons, 1945-1950,” Carl Schurz Conference on German American Relations and Immigration, Brooklyn College , October, 1979.
• “The Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry,” American Historical Association, San Francisco , December, 1978.
• “Education and the Advancement of East European Jews,” Duquesne History Forum, Pittsburgh , October, 1978.
• “Anti-Semitism in the 80th Congress: The Displaced Persons Act of 1948,” Duquesne History Forum, Pittsburgh , October, 1977.
• Discussant for “Nativism in the 1930s: Gerald L. K. Smith as a Test Case,” at Southwestern Social Science Association, Dallas , Texas , April, 1977.
• Commentator on “Native Blacks and Immigrants in the South, 1865-World War I,” Southern Historical Association, Washington , D.C. , November, 1975.
• “The East European Jewish Migration to the United States , 1880-1924,” XIV International Congress of Historical Sciences, San Francisco , August, 1975.
• Commentator on “Jewish Strategy for Minority Survival,” American Historical Association, Chicago , December, 1974.
• Moderator for panel on “Americanization and the Immigrant Experience,” Duquesne History Forum, Pittsburgh , October, 1974.
• “Jews and the Desegregation Crisis in the South, 1954-1970,” Southern Historical Association, Houston , Texas , 1971.
• “Jews in the Antebellum South,” American Historical Association-Pacific Coast Branch Meeting, San Diego , August, 1969.
• “Jews in the South,” Southern Baptist-Jewish Scholars Conference, Louisville , Kentucky , August, 1969.

V. HONORS AND AWARDS

• Fulbright German Studies Seminar Participant, 2002: International Migration and National Identities
• Distinguished Humanist Award from Ohio State University , May, 2001.
• Member, Academic Council, American Jewish Historical Society, 1980-
• Member, Executive Council, Immigration History Society, 1980-1983.
• Judge, category of biography/autobiography, Kenneth B. Smilen Present Tense Literary Awards, 1984.
• Chairman, Program Committee, Immigration History Society, 1980-1982.
• Chair, Program Committee, American Historical Association— Pacific Coast Branch, 1998.
• National Endowment for the Humanities Fellowships: 1970 (Summer); 1977 (Summer); 1978 (Calendar Year); 1985 (Travel Grant); 1987 (Summer); 1989 (Travel Grant); 1991-1992 (academic year).
• National Endowment for the Humanities, Director, Summer Seminar for College Teachers: “Minorities in the Southwest,” University of Arizona , Summers, 1980, 1983.
• Referee, Division of Fellowships, NEH, 1982, 1983, 1992, 1994.
• Consultant , US Holocaust Museum , 1994.
• University of Arizona : Social and Behavioral Sciences Research Professor, 1990
• Research Grants from the Immigration History Research Center (1975), Harry S. Truman Library (1976), Eleanor Roosevelt Institute (1977), University of Arizona Foundation (1979), Herbert Hoover Library (1979), American Philosophical Society (1979, 1982), University of Arizona (1971, 1972, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1988, 1989); American Jewish Archives (1992).
• Scholar-in-Residence, Temple Beth-Israel, Phoenix , February 27, 1987-March 1,1987.