Winston Churchill and His JEW Handler: An Unsettled Legacy

Author Unknown,
sourced from The Week.

Abridged by Lasha Darkmoon
with added commentary and an extended endnote,
“Winston Churchill: Zionist Puppet”

“To achieve the extirpation of Nazi tyranny
there are no lengths of violence to which we will not go.”
— Winston Churchill, September 1943

British shadow chancellor John McDonnell, an avowed Communist, has come under fire for calling Winston Churchill a ‘villain’.

Responding to quick-fire questions at the end of a live video interview with Politico, McDonnell was asked if

Churchill was a hero or a villain, to which he replied: “Tonypandy — villain.” (See picture)

McDonnell was referring to a series of violent confrontations between striking coal miners and the police in the

Welsh town of Tonypandy in 1910. One miner was killed and hundreds injured in the clashes. Churchill’s decision,

as then-home secretary, to send the Army to reinforce police “caused considerable ill-feeling towards

him in south Wales and with some in the trade union and Labour movement”, says Politico.

However, it “has been long disputed whether Churchill personally

sanctioned the decision” to deploy troops, reports The Guardian.

The response to McDonnell’s comments has been swift and severe, with Churchill’s grandson

Nicholas Soames telling the Daily Telegraph: “Frankly, it’s a very foolish and stupid thing to say.”

British Tory MP Soames added: “I think my grandfather’s reputation can

withstand a publicity seeking assault from a third-rate, Poundland Lenin.”

Former foreign secretary Boris Johnson, who has written a Churchill biography, told the newspaper that the wartime

prime minister “saved this country and the whole of Europe from a barbaric fascist and racist tyranny, and our debt

to him is incalculable. McDonnell should be utterly ashamed of his remarks, and should withdraw them forthwith”.

But some commentators have echoed McDonnell’s views.

The Guardian’s Owen Jones tweeted a list of major indiscretions by Churchill, who worked as a soldier and a journalist

before entering politics. Labour MP Steve Reed also weighed in with criticism of the late leader. “My grandad hated him,”

he said, and wouldn’t hear his name spoken because he sent in troops to shoot striking miners.”

In 2002, Churchill was voted “the greatest Britain who ever lived”, beating Shakespeare and Darwin to the top spot.

However, when closely questioned, few of those voters had read a Shakespeare play or

could quote a single line written by the Bard. And half of them had never heard of Darwin. (LD)

— § —

“There’s a danger in Churchill gaining a purely iconic status because that actually takes away from his humanity,”

Allen Packwood, director of the Churchill Archives Centre, told the BBC.

Many fellow historians agree. John Charmley argues that it is important to remember that

“great men can commit great mistakes, and Churchill’s are on the same gargantuan scale as his achievements”.

Churchill was a keen supporter of eugenics, something he had in common with the leaders of Nazi Germany, where an

estimated 400,000 disabled people were forcibly sterilised. He once said that “the multiplication of the feeble-minded

is a very terrible danger to the race”, and drafted a highly controversial piece of legislation which

mandated that those suffering from mental illness be sterilised, according to the New Statesman.

Many historians also refuse to forgive Churchill for his views on race. The Guardian reports that he once said: “I do not admit…

that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia…

by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race… has come in and taken its place.”

LD: A side note on eugenics. Many White Nationalists see nothing wrong with eugenics and point out
correctly that Darwin himself would have approved of eugenics, as would (naturally)
his supergenius cousin Sir Francis Galton, known as the “father of eugenics“.

Many eminent thinkers have believed in eugenics, including H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw,
Alexander Graham Bell, Helen Keller, and DNA Nobel prizewinner Francis Crick.
The fact that Hitler believed in eugenics does not make eugenics unacceptable or invalid.

Crick notes in a letter: “The main difficulty is that people have to start thinking out eugenics in a different way.
The Nazis gave it a bad name and I think it is time something was done to make it respectable again.”

Crick went on to suggest that “irresponsible people” who were “poorly endowed genetically” should be
stopped from having “large numbers of unnecessary children”. The best way to do this — “sterilization is the only answer” —
is to bribe them by paying them cash. He points out that the Indian government had
bribed its people to stop breeding like rabbits by offering them free transistor radios.

Another Nobel prizewinner, Alexis Carrel, had been even more extreme in his advocacy of eugenics,
suggesting in 1935 that “deviant” human beings should be suppressed
so that the “hereditary biological aristocracy” could increase.

In his book, Man, The Unknown Carrel writes: “A euthanasia establishment, equipped with a suitable gas,
would allow the humanitarian and economic disposal of those who have killed, committed
armed robbery, kidnapped children, robbed the poor or seriously betrayed public confidence,”

As a result of these controversial recommendations for getting rid of
criminal deviants, Carrel has been dubbed “Father of the Gas Chamber”. (LD)

(The article continues)

The announcement in 2013 that Churchill would feature on the new £5 note (see picture) was met with anger by

Labour candidate Benjamin Whittingham, who called the late leader a “racist and white supremacist”, according to the Daily Mail.

When the Kurds rebelled against British rule in 1920, Churchill said he did not understand the “squeamishness”

surrounding the use of gas as a weapon. “I am strongly in favour of using

gas against uncivilised tribes,” he said. “[It] would spread a lively terror.”

“Many of the wounds Churchill inflicted have still not healed,” argues Johann Hari in

The Independent. “You can find them on the front pages any day of the week.”

Hari blames Churchill for arbitrarily locking together warring ethnic groups in Iraq that “have been bleeding ever since”.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict can also be traced back to Churchill’s decision to hand over the “Over-Promised Land”

to both Arabs and Jews, even though “he seems to have privately felt racist contempt for both,” says Hari.

When Barack Obama took office in the White House, he returned a bust of Churchill to Britain. “It’s not hard to guess why,” says Hari.

“His Kenyan grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was imprisoned without trial for

two years and was tortured on Churchill’s watch, for resisting Churchill’s empire.”

As secretary of state for war, Churchill sent in the infamous Black and Tans to fight the IRA

in 1920. The unit became known for vicious attacks on civilians and violent reprisals.

Historian Peter Hart described it as an “astoundingly counterproductive” move by

Churchill, according to The Independent. “IRA violence only increased,” he said.

Churchill was also known for his strong anti-union sentiment. In 1910, he ordered the Army to intervene when striking miners

staged riots in Wales, and again the next year in Liverpool – where soldiers fired their weapons,

killing two people. Nine years later he deployed 10,000 troops to Glasgow amid strike-related unrest.

Churchill also exhibited a strong hatred for Mahatma Gandhi and his campaign

of peaceful resistance, which he saw as threat to the British Empire.

He once raged that Gandhi “ought to be lain bound hand and foot at the gates of Delhi,

and then trampled on by an enormous elephant with the new Viceroy seated on its back”.

LD : “I hate Indians,” Churchill remarked on one occasion. “They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”

I’m sure the Vedic sages who gave us the Upanishads and the Bhagavad-Gita would be amused to hear that.

Source

— § —

Endnote by Lasha Darkmoon

Winston Churchill: Zionist Puppet

Conspiracy theorists sometimes like to assert that Churchill was a Jew because everything he did served Jewish interests.

They say the same about Hitler, Stalin, and Angela Merkel. They provide weird genealogical details, giving elaborate family trees,

“proving” that Frau Merkel is Hitler’s illegitimate daughter. All this, I think, must be taken with a pinch of salt.

Stalin was certainly no Jew. Still less was Hitler. If they were, then here we have two Jewish titans inflicting severe wounds

on each other, wiping out in the process allegedly six million other Jews. Which is not the way the Jews work.

Jews always work together, networking closely, so as to advance the Jewish agenda. This is the secret of their survival.

Jews didn’t rise to the top of the totem pole, to the peak of the power pyramid,

by tearing each other apart. That’s what the goyim do, united only in their disunity.

What would most people think if you told them that the father of England’s greatest hero of all time, Winston Churchill,

was Jack the Ripper? — Yes, Jack the Ripper! — They would laugh out loud and roll their eyes in wonder. And yet,

there is a sensational article to be found on the internet giving us all the gory details about Churchill’s dad carving up

prostitutes in the Whitechapel district of London’s East End in the time of good

Queen Victoria! (See “Jack the Ripper” was Winston Churchill’s Father).

Even if this were true and if Churchill were the son of the Ripper, iconic serial killer of all time, it’s hard to see how

Churchill himself can be held responsible for what his dreadful dad did

under the flickering gas lamps of foggy London town in the late 19th century.

There is more than enough evidence to show that Churchill was a Zionist shill. That he was on the Jewish payroll.

But this does not make him a Jew. It makes him a shabbos goy, a loyal servitor of the Jews.

Churchill has no problem praising the Jews lavishly whenever he can. (See this picture quote)

Without Churchill behind them, the Jews would have found it much harder to steal Palestine from the Arabs.

Churchill’s rhetoric played right into Jewish hands. In 1920 he declared: “If, as may well happen, there should be

created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown,

which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event will have

occurred in the history of the world which would from every point of view be beneficial”.

Churchill thought the Arab population of Palestine was a “lower manifestation” and argued that the “dog in a manger

has no final right to the manger”. Meaning that the Arabs had no automatic right to Palestine just because Palestine had

been their ancestral home for centuries. Not if a superior race like the Jews managed to occupy their homelands and turf them out.

In England, where Churchill lived, the land belonged by law to the landowners; in the Middle

East, where the Arabs lived, the land belonged by force of arms to the land grabbers.

Machiavelli would have chortled at this Churchillian logic.

For his services to Zionism, Churchill was to have a statue erected in Jerusalem in 2012 as a thank you gift.

Churchill, like Machiavelli before him, was all for the doctrine of Might is Right, the ius gladii (“law of the sword”) of the

Ancient Romans. If you could steal something, it was yours if you managed to keep it. “Finders, keepers,” to quote the

slogan all schoolboys love to chant as they nick each other’s possessions. Many Jews who arrived in Palestine in 1948,

penniless, walked straight into sumptuous Arab houses and took them over,

including the furniture, cutlery, crockery, bed linen, and the paintings on the walls.

No great wrong, Churchill believed, had “been done to the Red Indians of America or the black people of Australia”

by the anglo-Saxon settlers who felt like parking their wagons on someone else’s parking space. “I do not admit that a

wrong has been done to these people,” Churchill opined, “by the fact that a stronger race,

a higher-grade race, a more worldly wise race, has come in and taken their place”.

We now know that Churchill was a chronic alcoholic, spendaholic and gambler who ran up enormous debts and faced

bankruptcy and ruin on multiple occasions. He would spend £40,000 a year in French casinos. A wine bill once landed

on his doorstep demanding £54,000, including £16,000 just for Champagne. In 1940, when he rose to become

Prime Minister of Britain, he received a mysterious “gift” of £1million from a secret benefactor called

Sir Henry Strakosch, a naturalised Briton born in Austria who had made his money in the South African mines.

An article in the Daily Mail, which reveals all these sensational details about Churchill, curiously forgets to mention

the all-important fact that Churchill’s rescuer from ruin was a Jew — an Austrian Jew who had managed to pick up a

knighthood from the British government.

(For full details of Churchill’s obsessive-compulsive gambling, spendaholic and alcoholic habits, see here).

Sir Henry Strakosch’s unflagging generosity to Churchill in bailing him out and paying his extravagant debts —

not once but several times — came at a high price. It seems there was a quid pro quo. Sir Henry, the munificent

Jewish financier, would pay off Churchill’s mounting debts if Churchill agreed

to toe the Jewish line and did exactly what he was told to do by international Jewry.

Proof that Sir Henry Strakosch was Jewish is found in a separate article in Wikipedia on Strakosch:

Sir Henry Strakosch … was an Austrian-born British banker and businessman. His parents were the
merchant Edward Strakosch and his wife Mathilde, (née Winters). He was born at
Hohenau, Austria, and educated at the Wasa Gymnasium in Vienna and privately in England.

He entered banking in the City of London in 1891, then began working for the Anglo-Austrian Bank
of South Africa in the 1895. Strakosch became a naturalized British citizen in 1907.

Strakosch was knighted in 1921 … He was chairman of The Economist between 1929 and 1943.

Strakosch being a Jew and his involvement in the payment of the private debts of Sir Winston Churchill,
in 1938, has been cited as evidence of Jewish involvement in British politics in the run up to World War Two.
Strakosch had supplied Churchill with figures on German arms expenditure during the latter’s political
campaign for rearmament against the Nazi regime, and the financial arrangement enabled
Churchill to withdraw his home Chartwell from sale at a time of financial pressures.

Here then was a man, Winston Churchill, who was a compulsive gambler whose monetary problems were compounded

by his chronic alcoholism. He was to face financial ruin on several occasions. He was

repeatedly at his wit’s end, literally tearing his hair out. With the bailiffs banging at his door.

On each occasion, it was a Jewish moneylender who came to Churchill’s rescue.

All debts paid.

No need to repay the debts!

This particular Jewish moneylender didn’t need cash. He was rolling in it. He had enough cash to

last him twenty lifetimes. What Sir Henry needed in exchange for his money was political favours.

Like, for example, a Jewish state in Palestine for his fellow Jews.

______________________________________________________________________

How Zionist was Churchill?

A review of Martin Gilbert’s book, Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship, Henri Holt & Company, 2007

by Laurent Guyénot

In 2012, a giant bust of Churchill was inaugurated in Jerusalem in recognition of his staunch and unwavering support

of the Jewish cause. Anthony Rosenfelder, a trustee of the Jerusalem Foundation responsible for the project,

declared: “As a passionate Zionist all his life and a philo-semite, Churchill has been under-recognised.”

He explained that his understanding of Churchill’s support to the Zionist cause had been enhanced by Martin Gilbert’s

book, Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship, published in 2007. “It switched on a light for me,” he said.[1]

It did the very same for me. For those who have not read this highly informative book, I will here summarize the

points which seem to me of major importance for understanding the background for the foundation of Israel.

Churchill’s Jewish friends

The first chapters, dealing with Winston’s early years, are of course not the most important. Yet, given Churchill’s later role,

it is interesting to learn that: “his father Lord Randolph Churchill was noted for his friendship with individual Jews.”

“The Jews whom his father knew and invited to dine were men of distinction and achievement. One was ‘Natty’ Rothschild,

1^st Baron Rothschild, the head of the British branch of the Rothschild banking family, who in 1885 became the first Jew

to become a member of the House of Lords. Another was the banker Sir Ernest Cassel,

born in Cologne, a close friend of the Prince of Wales, later King Edward VII.”[2]

The Churchills were also close to another Rothschild branch, the family of Leopold Rothschild. After Lord Randolph Churchill’s

death in 1895, these wealthy Jews continued their friendship with young Winston: “Lord Rothschild, Sir Ernest Cassel and

Baron de Hirsch frequently invited him to their houses.” Cassel, in particular, looked after Churchill’s finances.

When Churchill spent his 1906 summer holiday in Europe, his three hosts were Sir Ernest Cassel in the Swiss Alps,

Lionel Rothschild (son of Leopold) in Italy, and Baron de Forest at Castle Eichstatt in Moravia, all Jews. Yet, Churchill’s son

Randolph would later write, ironically: “Churchill did not confine his quest for new and interesting personalities

and friends to Jewish households. During this period he was sometimes invited into Gentile society.”

Churchill and Weizmann

Among Churchill’s Jewish friends, few can claim to have had more influence on his policy than Chaim Weizmann, the

most active Zionist lobbyist during the thirty years preceeding the foundation

of the Jewish State, of which Weizmann would become the first President.

Churchill and Weizmann had first met in April 1903, during a protest meeting against Russian pogroms in Manchester.

Churchill, then Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, had spoken “against the appalling

massacres and detestable atrocities recently committed in the Empire of Russia.

”During WWI, as First Lord of the Admiralty, Churchill approached Weizmann, a chemist engineer working at the

University of Manchester (Churchill’s constituency), asking him to help solve the shortage of acetone, necessary for

making cordite, the essential naval explosive. Weizmann worked on this for two years and delivered,

which, he would recall in his memoirs, “was to have consequences which I did not foresee.”

In 1917, Weizmann became president of the Zionist Federation of Great Britain, while

Churchill was appointed Minister of Munitions, then Secretary of State for War en 1919.

Churchill and Weizmann’s thoughts on Palestine, Churchill once said in 1942, were “99 per cent identical.”

Indeed Gilbert shows that, as early as 1919, Churchill often consulted Weizmann in private meetings.

In September 1919, he carried through Weizmann’s suggestion to appoint as the new Chief Administrator

of the British military administration General Wyndham Deedes, considered sympathetic to Zionism.

In May 1939, when the new White Paper which was to replace Churchill’s

1922 White Paper was debated in the House of Commons,

Churchill invited Weizmann to lunch with him at his London apartment and, as Weizmann recalled in his memoirs,

“produced a packet of small cards and read his speech out to us; then he asked me if I had any changes to suggest.”

During WWII, Churchill met Weizmann less regularly, because, he confided to Parliament Member Robert Boothby,

“he found him so fascinating that he would spend too much of his time talking to him”. To which Boothby responded:

“Weizmann gives a very different reason: […] he said that the reason you would not see him was because,

for you, he was ‘Conscience.’” A very telling expression of Weizmann’s own vision of his influence on Churchill.

On 15 April 1944, Churchill suggested that Weizmann be the new British High Commissioner in Palestine. He said to the

Colonial Secretary, Oliver Stanley: “You can depend on Weizmann. He would not take on

a job if he did not mean to stick to the conditions which would have to be imposed.”

Buy on Amazon.com – Drawing on a wide range of archives and private papers, speeches, newspaper coverage, and

wartime correspondence, Churchill’s official biographer, Sir Martin Gilbert, explores the origins, implications, and results

of Churchill’s determined commitment to European Jewish rights, opening a window on the politician’s life and career.

It was only after the foundation of Israel that Churchill made his coming-out as “an old Zionist.” “As a Zionist from the

days of the Balfour Declaration, I have watched with admiration the courageous effort of Israel to establish her

independence and prosperity,” he declared at Carnegie Hall in New York on 29 April 1952 on the fourth anniversary of

the independence of Israel, in a message read by his daughter. “I am, of course, a Zionist, and

have been ever since the Balfour Declaration,” he wrote to US President Eisenhower in 1956.

These were not mere opportunistic claims, aimed at securing for himself a place in Jewish sacred history. To understand

Churchill’s involvement in Zionist policy is to understand how the letter written by Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour to Lord

Lionel Walter Rothschild on November 2, 1917 (the year Weizmann became president of the Zionist Federation of

Great Britain), known somewhat deceptively as “the Balfour Declaration”, became such a cornerstone of that policy.

The terms of Balfour’s letter, resulting from tense preliminary discussions with the Zionists, were deliberately ambiguous:

the British government, Balfour wrote, “view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish

people.” What that meant had always been understood in different ways. On the one side, there were those who claimed,

like Prime Minister Lloyd George in 1938, that the idea was “some form of British,

American or other protectorate to give Jews a real center of national culture.”[3]

On the opposite side were those who insisted that a “national home” could only mean a state. Churchill’s unwavering

goal has been to enforce the second interpration. And he had not hesitation at saying loud what others would have

preferred to keep implicit: that the pledge to support the Zionist agenda had been made in exchange for the Zionists’

commitment to mobilize public opinion in the United States in favor of America joining the war. Since

the Zionists had fulfilled their part of the deal, Churchill insisted, Great Britain was obliged to fulfill hers.

He declared during the House of Commons

debate on the Palestine Mandate, on July 4, 1922:

“Pledges and promises were made during the War, and they were made not only on the merits, though I think the

merits are considerable. They were made because it was considered they would be of value to us in our struggle

to win the War. It was considered that the support which the Jews could give us all over the

world, and particularly in the United States, and also in Russia, would be a definite palpable advantage.”

When on March 12, 1937, Churchill was called before the Palestine Royal Commission,

headed by Lord Peel and known as the Peel Commission, he repeated the argument:

“I insist upon loyalty and upon the good faith of England to the Jews, to which I attach the most enormous importance,

because we gained great advantages in the War. We did not adopt Zionism entirely out of altruistic love of starting a

Zionist colony: it was a matter of great importance to this country. It was a

potent factor on public opinion in America and we are bound by honour…”

Churchill further explained that he had always believed that the intention of the Balfour Declaration

was that Palestine might in the course of time become “an overwhelmingly Jewish State.”[4]

In a memorandum that he wrote for the War Cabinet on Christmas Day 1939, Churchill expressed his

opposition to the restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine by reminding his Cabinet colleagues that:

“it was not for light or sentimental reasons that Lord Balfour and the Government of 1917 made the promises to the

Zionists which have been the cause of so much subsequent discussion. The influence of American Jewry was rated

then as a factor of the highest importance, and we did not feel ourselves

in such a strong position as to be able to treat it with indifference.”

With a Presidential election only a year away, Churchill went on to say, “and when the future is full of measureless

uncertainties, I should have thought it was more necessary, even than in November 1917, to conciliate

American Jewry and enlist their aid in combating isolationist and indeed anti-British tendencies in the United States.”

Churchill’s Zionist policy

In 1921 Churchill was appointed Secretary of State for the Colonies, with special responsibility for Britain’s two Mandates,

Palestine and Mesopotamia (Iraq). That is when, according to Gilbert, “Churchill’s own efforts to help establish a Jewish

national home in Palestine were at their most intense.”[5] Churchill was instrumental in

obtaining from Hussein’s eldest son, Emir Feisal, that he abandon all claims on Palestine.

Thirty-four years later, in 1955 his friend James de Rothschild,

recalling “our stay in Jerusalem in 1921”, he wrote:

“you laid the foundation of the Jewish State by separating Abdullah’s Kingdom from the rest of

Palestine. Without this much-opposed prophetic foresight there would not have been an Israel today.”

In 1922, Churchill issued a White Paper which was ostensibly meant to reassure the Arabs, whose apprehensions,

it said, “are partly based upon exaggerated interpretations of the meaning of the [Balfour] Declaration. By “a Jewish National Home in Palestine,”

the Declaration “does not mean a Jewish government to dominate Arabs. […] We cannot tolerate the expropriation of one

set of people by another.” Yet that White Paper imposed no limitation to Jewish immigration in Palestine, nor to the

purchase of lands by Jews, which were the great concerns of the Arabs. It simply said, in terms alarmingly vague:

“For the fulfilment of this policy it is necessary that the Jewish community in Palestine should be able to increase its

numbers by immigration. This immigration cannot be so great in volume as to exceed whatever may be the economic

capacity of the country at the time to absorb new arrivals. It is essential to ensure that the immigrants should not

be a burden upon the people of Palestine as a whole, and that they should not deprive any section

of the present population of their employment. Hitherto the immigration has fulfilled these conditions.”

Moreover, if Churchill’s White Paper said that Jews will not rule over Arabs, it could be understood to

mean that they will rule in a land free of Arabs. It was, therefore, “Carte Blanche” for the Zionist plan.

In 1939, a new Labour majority undermined Churchill’s influence in Parliament. A new White Paper was voted for by a

large majority, which limited Jewish immigration to 75,000 for the next five years, with the stated purpose of preserving

an Arab majority in Palestine. This was a serious reversal of policy regarding Zionism: the 1939 White Paper was

unequivocally against letting Palestine become a Jewish State. This provoked not only a strong protest from Ben-Gurion’s

Jewish Agency, but also the mobilization of military groups (Haganah,

and its offshoot the Irgun) against the British authorities in Palestine.[6]

Churchill fought relentlessly against this 1939 White Paper, which he regarded as a betrayal of Great Britain’s

commitment to the Balfour Declaration. During a debate in the House of Commons on 1 August 1949, he would say:

“I have never altered my opinion that the White Paper constituted a negation of Zionist policy which, the House

must remember, was an integral and indispensable condition of the Mandate. That is the view which I hold today.”

In Gilbert’s words, Churchill “refused to allow the 1939 White Paper, despite its passage into law by an overwhelming

majority of Members of Parliament, to come into effect. This was certainly unconstitutional.” In a secret memorandum

dated 19 May 1941, Churchill expressed his hope for the establishment after the war of a “Jewish State of Western

Palestine” with the fullest rights for immigration and development, and with provision

“for expansion in the desert regions to the southwards which they would gradually reclaim.”[7]

In December 1939, as Weizmann was planning a trip to the USA, the Foreign Office sent a telegram to the British

Ambassador in the USA, Lord Lothian, reiterating the guidelines of the new White Paper. Churchill protested to his

War Cabinet colleagues that this would undermine Weizmann’s mission to mobilize American Jewry in favour of the war:

“I am sure that it is his whole desire to bring United States opinion as far as he possibly can on to our side, but the

line indicated in the draft telegram may well make his task impossible, and he will find himself confronted with

the active resentment of American Jewry. Their anger may become public and be readily exploited by all unfavourable

elements in the United States. This may do us great harm there; and when the repercussions of this outcry reach

this country the Government will have to face a debate in the House of Commons

which will be not only embarrassing, but dangerous and damaging to our common interest.”

Churchill and Weizmann had, obviously, decided to reiterate the winning strategy of the deal which led to the

Balfour Declaration. On 10 September 1941, Weizmann wrote to Churchill (in a letter not mentioned by Gilbert):

“I have spent months in America, traveling up and down the country […]. There is only one big ethnic group which

is willing to stand, to a man, for Great Britain, and a policy of ‘all-out-aid’ for her: the five million American Jews. […]

It has been repeatedly acknowledged by British Statesmen that it was the Jews who, in the last war, effectively

helped to tip the scales in America in favour of Great Britain. They are keen to do it—and may do it—again.”^[8]

Weizmann went on to suggest the formation of an official “Jewish Army” among the Allied troops. This “Jewish Army”

had been an idea of Vladimir Jabotinsky for WWI, which he renewed in his 1940 book The War and the Jew.[9] The

purpose, of course, was to use this official Jewish army after the war as an argument

for the foundation of Israel, for whoever has an army must necessarily have a state.

In 1930, Jabotinsky had been imprisoned then banished from Palestine by the British for the illegal militaristic activity

of his “Zionist Revisionist” movement. This did not prevent Churchill from meeting Jabotinsky at James de Rothschild’s

Waddesdon Manor in July 1937. Churchill would endorse Jobotinsky and Weizmann’s idea of enlisting a Jewish regiment for the war.

In September 1939, after Neville Chamberlain appointed Churchill First Lord of the Admiralty, Churchill dined with

Weizmann dined and asked him to prepare “a list of requirements” with regard to the participation of the Palestinian

Jews in the British war effort. Weizmann said that 75,000 young Jewish men and women were ready to fight as

part of the British armed forces. Churchill proposed to arm them, but his proposal was rejected by the War Cabinet.

In 1940, Churchill was again supportive of Weizmann’s proposal for a Jewish division of about 12,000 men, with its own

insignia and flag. In February of that same year, he told the War Cabinet that “the sound policy for Great Britain at the

beginning of the war would have been to build up, as soon as possible, a strong Jewish armed force in Palestine.”

In this way, he explained, the Jews would “be capable of providing for their own defence” against the Arabs.

In 1945, Churchill was defeated by a Labour majority. The new Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, appointed Ernest Bevin

as Foreign Secretary, a man not well disposed toward Zionism. Churchill understood that the British

new government will stick by the 1939 White Paper, and that the hopes of Zionism now rest on the USA.

He then took a stand for the UK to give up on “a responsibility which we are failing to discharge and which

in the process is covering us with blood and shame,” and to return the Mandate to the United Nations.

This the British Labour Government did on January 31, 1947. As soon as the British handed the Mandate back to the UN,

the Zionists declared the founding of the State of Israel, immediately recognized by the US and the Soviet Union.

Churchill then attacked the British Government’s continual refusal to recognize the

State of Israel. Speaking in the House of Commons on 10 December, he said:

“The Jews have driven the Arabs out of a larger area than was contemplated in our partition schemes. They have

established a Government which functions effectively. They have a victorious army at their disposal and they have

the support both of Soviet Russia and of the United States. These may be unpleasant facts, but can they be in any

way disputed? Not as I have stated them. It seems to me that the Government of Israel

which has been set up at Tel Aviv cannot be ignored and treated as if it did not exist.”

In 1955, Churchill supported a suggestion by James de Rothschild that Israel, the nation that had ousted Great Britan from

Palestine by terrorism in order to gain its independence, should now be admitted to the British Commonwealth: “It would

be a wonderful thing”, he said during a lunch at Buckingham Palace. “So many people want to leave us; it might be the turning of the tide.”

He also supported the desire of the Jews to have Jerusalem as their capital, although the United Nations had ruled that

it should be an international city. He even became one of the very few non-Jewish subscribers

for a large ornamental candelabra in front of the new parliament building in Jerusalem.

Resources:

[1] Catrina Stewart, “Sir Winston Churchill: Zionist hero,” The Independent Online, November 3, 2012,
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/sir-winston-churchill-zionist-hero-8277918.html
[2] Unless stated otherwise, all quotes are from Martin Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship, Henri Holt & Company, 2007, kindle edition.
[3] Alfred Lilienthal, What Price Israel? (1953), Infinity Publishing, 2003, p. 21, 18.
[4] Martin Gilbert, “Winston Churchill and the foundation of Israel,” May 2, 2016, www.martingilbert.com/blog/winston-churchill-and-the-foundation-of-israel/
[5] Martin Gilbert, “Winston Churchill and the foundation of Israel,” May 2, 2016, www.martingilbert.com/blog/winston-churchill-and-the-foundation-of-israel/
[6] Alan Hart, Zionism, vol. 1, op. cit., p. 115-116, 155-159.
[7] Martin Gilbert, “Winston Churchill and the foundation of Israel,” May 2, 2016, www.martingilbert.com/blog/winston-churchill-and-the-foundation-of-israel/
^[8] David Irving, Churchill’s War, vol. 2: Triumph in Adversity, Focal Point Publications, 2001, p. 76-77.
[9] Vladimir Jabotinsky, The War and the Jew, Dial Press, 1942 (archive.org).

Irving on Churchill

Dismantling Churchillian Mythology

Theodore J. O'Keefe

World-class historian David Irving is no stranger to readers of the IHR's Journal of Historical Review. His address to

the 1983 International Revisionist Conference, which appeared in the Winter 1984 Journal of Historical Review ("On

Contemporary History and Historiography"), was something of a primer on Irving's revisionist historiographical method.

It was spiced as well with tantalizing hints of new directions in Irving's research and new book possibilities arising from them.

Not the least among Irving's revelations were those that touched on Winston Churchill, descendant of one of England's

greatest families and leader of his nation and its empire (as he still thought it) at what many of his countrymen and many

abroad still regard as Britain's "finest hour." Readers will recall that Irving exposed several instances of Churchill's

venality, cowardice and hypocrisy, including Churchill's poltroonish posturing at the time of the German air raid

against Coventry and the facts of Churchill and his cronies' secret subvention by the Czech government.

It will also be recalled that in his lecture Irving spoke of his projected book on Winston Churchill, which at the time was

to be published in the U.S. by Doubleday and in Great Britain by MacMillan, two great firms entirely worthy of an author

who has been churning out meticulously researched historical bestsellers for a quarter of a century. As has been pointed

out in recent issues of the IHR Newsletter, Irving's challenges to the reigning orthodoxy have become so unbearable to

the Establishment that both these major houses refused to print the books as written. The task has now [1986] been

undertaken by a revisionist operation in Australia. Nearing completion is the first volume of Irving's new book Churchill's War.

Last year David Irving made a world-wide speaking tour, visiting North America (the U.S. and Canada), Australia,

South Africa, and Europe. He lectured on a wide range of topics pertaining to the troubled history of our century,

with his customary flair for the pointed phrase and the telling anecdote. During one of his lectures, delivered at Vancouver,

British Columbia, on March 31, 1986, Irving offered a series of

mordant new facts and insights on the life and career of Winston Churchill.

At the outset of his lecture, Irving remarked that the late Harold MacMillan (Lord Stockton), recently targeted by Nikolai Tolstoy

(The Minister and the Massacres) for his role in the forcible deportation of tens of thousands of anti-Communist Cossacks,

Byelorussians, Ukrainians, and others to the U.S.S.R. after World War lI, had stated that Irving's Churchill book would

"not be published by his company, over his dead body." Clearly Lord Stockton's recent demise didn't alter things at MacMillan, however.

Then Irving let out an electrifying piece of information:

The details which I will tell you today, you will not find published in the Churchill biography. For example, you
won't even find them published in Churchill's own biography because there were powers above him who were so
powerful that they were able to prevent him publishing details that even he wanted to
publish that he found dirty and unscrupulous about the origins of the Second World War.

For example, when I was writing my Churchill biography, I came across a lot of private papers in the files of the
Time/Life organization in New York. In Columbia University, there are all the private papers of the chief editor of
Time/Life, a man called Daniel Longwell. And in there, in those papers, we find all the papers relating to the original
publication of the Churchill memoirs in 1947, 1949, the great six-volume set of Churchill memoirs of the Second
World War. And I found there a letter from the pre-war German chancellor, the man who preceded Hitler, Dr. Heinrich
Brüning, a letter he wrote to Churchill in August 1937. The sequence of events was this: Dr. Brüning became the
chancellor and then Hitler succeeded him after a small indistinguishable move by another man. In other words,
Brüning was the man whom Hitler replaced. And Brüning had the opportunity to see who was backing Hitler.
Very interesting, who was financing Hitler during all his years in the wilderness, and Brüning knew.

Brüning wrote a letter to Churchill after he had been forced to resign and go into exile in England in August 1937,
setting out the names and identities of the people who backed Hitler. And after the war, Churchill requested
Brüning for permission to publish this letter in his great world history, The six-volume world history. And Brüning
said no. In his letter, Brüning wrote, 'I didn't, and do not even today for understandable reasons, wish to reveal from
October 1928, the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two
of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany."

Now there is a letter from Dr. Heinrich Brüning to Churchill in 1949, explaining why he wouldn't give permission to
Churchill to publish the August 1937 letter. It was an extraordinary story, out of Churchill's memoirs. Even Churchill
wanted to reveal that fact. You begin to sense the difficulties that we have in printing the truth today. Churchill, of
course, knew all about lies. He was an expert in lying himself. He put a gloss on it. He would say to his friends,
"The truth is such a fragile flower. The truth is so precious, it must be given a bodyguard of lies." This is the way Churchill put it.

Irving went on to describe several sources of secret financial support enjoyed by Churchill. In addition to money supplied

by the Czech government, Churchill was financed during the "wilderness years" between 1930

and 1939 by a slush fund emanating from a secret pressure group known as the Focus.

Irving on the Focus:

The Focus was financed by a slush fund set up by some of London's wealthiest businessmen -- principally,
businessmen organized by the Board of Jewish Deputies in England, whose chairman was a man called
Sir Bernard Waley Cohen. Sir Bernard Waley Cohen held a private dinner party at his apartment on July 29, 1936.
This is in Waley Cohen's memoirs ... The 29th of July, 1936, Waley Cohen set up a slush fund of 50,000 pounds
for The Focus, the Churchill pressure group. Now, 50,000 pounds in 1936, multiply that by ten, at least, to get
today's figures. By another three or four to multiply that into Canadian dollars. So, 40 times 50,000 pounds --
about $2 million in Canadian terms -- was given by Bernard Waley Cohen to this secret pressure group of
Churchill in July 1936. The purpose was -- the tune that Churchill had to play was -- fight Germany. Start
warning the world about Germany, about Nazi Germany. Churchill, of
course, one of our most brilliant orators, a magnificent writer, did precisely that.

For two years, The Focus continued to militate, in fact, right through until 1939. And I managed to find the secret
files of The Focus, I know the names of all the members. I know all their secrets. I know how much money they
were getting, not just from The Focus, but from other governments. I use the word "other governments" advisedly
because one of my sources of information for my Churchill biography is, in fact, the Chaim Weizmann Papers in
the State of Israel. Israel has made available to me all Churchill's secret correspondence with Chain Weizmann,
all his secret conferences. It is an astonishing thing, but I, despite my reputation, in a kind of negative sense with
these people, am given access to files like that, just the same as the Russian Government has given me complete
access to all of the Soviet records of Churchill's dealings with Ivan Maisky, Joseph Stalin, Molotov and the rest of
them. I am the only historian who has been given access to these Russian records. It is a kind of horse trading
method that I use when I want access to these files, because it is
in these foreign archives we find the truth about Winston Churchill.

When you want the evidence about his tax dodging in 1949 and thereabouts, you are not going to look in his own
tax files, you're going to look in the files of those who employed him, like the Time/Life Corporation of America.
That's where you look. And when you're looking for evidence about who was putting money up for Churchill when
he was in the wilderness and who was funding this secret group of his, The Focus, you're not going to look in his
files. Again, you're going to look in the secret files, for example, of the Czech
government in Prague, because that is where much of the money was coming from.

Irving then revealed further details of Churchill's financing by the Czechs, as well as the facts of Churchill's financial

rescue by a wealthy banker of Austro-Jewish origins, Sir Henry Strakosch, who, in Irving's words, emerged "out of the

woodwork of the City of London, that great pure international financial institution." When Churchill was bankrupted overnight

in the American stock market crash of 1937-1938, it was Strakosch who was instrumental in setting up the central banks

of South Africa and India, who bought up all Churchill's debts. When Strakosch died in 1943, the details of his will,

published in the London Times, included a bequest of £20,000 to the then Prime Minister, eliminating the entire debt.

Irving dealt with Churchill's performance as a wartime leader, first as Britain's First Lord of the Admiralty and then as

Prime Minister. The British historian adverted to Churchill's "great military defeat in Norway, which he himself engineered

and pioneered," and mentioned the suspicion of Captain Ralph Edwards, who was on Churchill's staff at the time,

that Churchill had deliberately caused the fiasco to bring down Neville

Chamberlain and replace him as prime minister, which subsequently happened.

Irving spoke of Dunkirk:

In May 1940, Dunkirk, the biggest Churchill defeat of the lot. It wasn't a victory. It wasn't a triumph. Nothing for the
British to be proud of. Dunkirk? If you look at the Dunkirk files in the British archives now, you will find, too, you're
given only photocopies of the premier files on Dunkirk with mysterious blank pages inserted. And you think, at
first, how nice of them to put these blank pages in to keep the documents apart. Not so. The blank pages are
the ones that you really want to be seeing. In some cases, of course, the blank pages are genuinely censored with
intelligence matters. But the other blank pages are letters between Churchill and the French Prime Minister,
Paul Reynaud, which revealed the ugly truth that Churchill, himself, gave the secret order to Lord Gort, the
British General in command of the British expeditionary force at Dunkirk, "Withdraw, fall back," or as Churchill put it,
"Advance to the coast." That was Churchill's wording. "And you are forbidden to tell any of your neighboring
allies that you are pulling out. The French and the Belgians were left in the dark that we were pulling out.

I think it's the most despicable action that any British commander could have been ordered to carry out, to pull out
and not tell either his allies on his left and right flanks that he was pulling out at Dunkirk. The reason I knew this
is because, although the blanks are in the British files, I got permission from the French Prime Minister Paul Reynaud's
widow. His widow is still alive. A dear old lady about 95, living in Paris. And guiding her trembling hand, I managed
to get her to sign a document releasing to me all the Prime Minister's files in the French National Archives in Paris.
And there are documents, the originals of the documents which we're not allowed to see in London. and there we
know the ugly truth about that other great Churchill triumph, the retreat to Dunkirk. If peace had broken out in
June of 1940, Churchill would have been finished. No brass statue in Parliament Square for Mr. Winston Churchill.
He would have been consigned to the dustbin of oblivion, forgotten for all time and good riddance I say, because t
he British Empire would have been preserved. We would, by now, have been the most
powerful race -- can we dare use the word, the British race, the most powerful race on Earth.

Irving pointed out that Churchill rejected Hitler's peace offers in 1939, 1940, and 1941. (Irving supports the thesis

that Rudolf Hess's flight to Scotland was ordered by the Führer). Irving pinpointed one critical moment, and supplied the background:

The crucial moment when he managed to kill this peace offensive in England was July 1940. If we look at the one
date, July the 20th, this I think was something of a watershed between the old era of peace, the greatness of the
British Empire and the new era, the new era of nuclear deterrent and the holocaust, the nuclear holocaust.
July 20, 1940: Mr. Churchill is lying in bed that Sunday out in Chequers, when he gets a strange message. It's an
intercept of a German ambassador's telegram in Washington to Berlin. It's only just been revealed, of course, that
we were reading all of the German codes -- not only the German Army, Air Force and Navy Codes, but also the G
erman embassy codes. And if you're silly enough to believe everything that's written in the official history of British
Intelligence, you will understand that the only reason that they released half of the stories is to prevent us from
trying to find out the other half. And what matters is that we are reading the German diplomatic codes as well. On
July 20th, the German ambassador in Washington sent a message to Berlin saying that the British ambassador
in Washington had asked him very quietly, very confidentially, just what the German peace terms were. This, of
course, was the one thing that Churchill could never allow to happen, that the British find out what Hitler's peace
terms are. He sends an immediate message to the foreign office, to Lord Halifax, saying, "Your ambassador in
Washington is strictly forbidden to have any further contacts with the German
ambassador, even indirectly." They were communicating through a Quaker intermediary.

Now, on the same day, Churchill sent a telegram to Washington ordering Lord Lothian, the British ambassador in
Washington, to have nothing to do with the German ambassador. And the same day, he takes a third move to
ensure that the peace moves in Britain are finally strangled at birth. He orders Sir Charles Portal to visit him at
Chequers, the country residence of British prime ministers. Sir Charles Portal was Commander in Chief of Bomber
Command. Now what is the significance? Well, the significance is this. Up to July 1940, not one single German
bomb has fallen on British towns. Hitler had given orders that no British towns are to be bombed and, above all,
bombing of London is completely forbidden and embargoed. Churchill knows this, because he's reading the
German code. He's reading the German Air Force signals, which I can now read in the
German files. Churchill is reading the signals, and he knows that Hitler is not doing him the favor.

Hitler is still hoping that this madman in England will see reason or that he will be outvoted by his cabinet colleagues.
So he's not doing Churchill the favor of bombing any English towns. Churchill is frantic because he thinks he's being
outsmarted by Hitler. On July the 20th he sends for Sir Charles Portal, the Chief of Bomber Command, and he says
to Sir Charles Portal, as we know from records from Command to the Air Ministry, "When is the earliest that you could
launch a vicious air attack on Berlin?" Sir Charles Portal replies to Winston, "I'm afraid we can't do it now, not until
September because the nights aren't long enough to fly from England to Berlin and back in the hours of darkness.
September, perhaps, and in September we will have the first hundred of the new Sterling bombers ..." But he also
says, "I warn you, if you do that, the Germans will retaliate. At present they're not bombing English targets, they're
not bombing civilian targets at all and you know why. And if you bomb Berlin, then Hitler will retaliate against
English civilian targets." And Churchill just twinkles when he gets this reply, because he knows what he wants.

We know what he wants because he's told Joe Kennedy, the American Ambassador - Joseph P. Kennedy, father of
the late President - "I want the Germans to start bombing London as early as possible because this will bring the
Americans into the war when they see the Nazis' frightfulness, and above all it will put an end to this awkward and
inconvenient peace movement that's afoot in my own Cabinet and among the British population." I've opened
Kennedy's diary. I've also read Kennedy's telegrams back to the State Department in Washington. They're buried
among the files. You can't find them easily, but they are worth reading, and you see in detail what Churchill was
telling him. What cynicism. Churchill deliberately provoking the bombing of his own capital in order to kill the peace
movement. He's been warned this would be the consequence, but he needs it. And still Hitler doesn't do him the favor.

Irving then gave a detailed account of the cynical maneuverings of Churchill to escalate the aerial campaign against

Germany's civilian population to the point at which Hitler was driven to strike back against Britain's cities, supplying the

spurious justification for the R.A.F.'s (and later the U.S. Army Air Force's) monstrous

terror attacks against centuries-old citadels of culture and their helpless inhabitants.

The British historian further expanded on a theme he had touched on in his address to the IHR's 1983 conference:

Churchill the drunkard. Irving substantiated his accusation with numerous citations from diaries and journals, the

originals of which often differ from heavily laundered published editions. He concluded his address with an anecdote

of a ludicrous incident which found Churchill pleading with William Lyon Mackenzie King, wartime prime minister

of Canada, to shift production in his country's distilleries from raw materials for the war effort to whiskey and gin,

twenty-five thousand cases of it. According to Mackenzie King's private diary, the Canadian prime minister tore up

Churchill's memorandum on the subject at precisely twenty-five minutes to eight on August 25, 1943, and Sir Winston

had to soldier on through the war with liquid sustenance from other lands and climes. As Irving emphasized, Churchill's

drunken rantings, often during cabinet meetings, disgusted many of his generals, as when, at a meeting on July 6, 1944,

the prime minister told his commanders to prepare to drop two million lethal anthrax bombs on German cities. Of this

meeting Britain's Flrst Sea Lord, Admiral Cunningham, wrote, according the Irving:

"There's no doubt that P.M. is in no state to discuss anything, too tired, and too much alcohol."

Irving's demolition of the Churchill myth, based on a wealth of documentary evidence, most of which has been

studiously avoided by the keepers of the Churchill flame, may constitute his most important service to Revisionism.

The legendary V-for-victory- waggling, cigar-puffing "Winnie" is for many of a centrist or conservative bent the symbol

and guarantee that Britain and America fought and "won" the Second World War for traditional Western

values, rather than to bleed Europe white and secure an enormous geopolitical base for Communism.

Irving's Churchill biography promises to make trash of such authorized studies as that of Martin Gilbert (which has already

been described in private by one Establishment historian as "footnotes to Churchill's war memoirs"). The publication

of the first volume of Churchill's War later this year should be an historiographical event of the first importance.

From The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1986 (Vol. 7, No. 4), pp. 498 ff.

9 People You Will Definitely Meet in Hell - an Indian Perspective

Let's Be Honest - Stalin Was Less of a Criminal Than Churchill, Truman, and LBJ

World War II: The Foundational Lie of Our Era

Hitler Saved Europe: Ron Unz on How the Western Allies Almost Went to War Against the USSR

The Mental Condition of Winston Churchill

Churchill Had Stalin Killed, US Bombed Russian Far East in 50s - Top Russian Official (Video - Mikhail Poltoranin)

78 Years Ago Today Churchill Incinerated 100,000 Defenseless Civilians in Dresden

Churchill Sent 2 Mil Russian Refugees to Certain Death at End of WWII

Endnote by Lasha Darkmoon

Winston Churchill: Zionist Puppet

How Zionist was Churchill?

A review of Martin Gilbert’s book, Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship, Henri Holt & Company, 2007

Zionism versus Bolshevism

CHURCHILL SANK 454 BOTTLES OF BUBBLY IN JUST TWO MONTHS

_______________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________

Sir Winston Churchill may be one of Britain's greatest wartime leaders,

The Ugly Briton