"To achieve the extermination of Nazi tyranny
there are no lengths of violence to which we will not go."
Churchill, September 1943
An Unsettled Legacy
idealization of Churchill is part and parcel of a drastically misleading view of the
Second World War that Americans have been fed for decades. One
common deceit is to give the
thatHitler sought war against Britain and France, and that Germany aggressively
attacked those two countries ... Churchill's enduringly stellar image is all the more
his views on a range of issues were, by today's standards,
hopelessly backward and politically incorrect ... Along with most Britons
(and Americans) of his era, he was also an unabashed racist.
US-Saudi Starvation Blockade
Our aim is to "starve
the whole population - men, women, and children, old and young, wounded and sound - into submission,"
said First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill. He was speaking
of Germany at the outset of the Great War of 1914-1918.
Americans denounced as inhumane this starvation blockade that would eventually take the lives of a million German
After the Armistice of
Nov. 11, 1918, however, the starvation blockade was not lifted until Germany capitulated to all Allied
demands in the Treaty of Versailles. As late as March 1919, four
months after the Germans laid down their arms, Churchill
arose in Parliament to exult, "We are enforcing the blockade with rigor, and Germany is very near starvation."
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)
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
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
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.”
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.”
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.
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
As a result of
these controversial recommendations for getting rid of criminal deviants, Carrel has been dubbed “Father of the Gas
(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
also exhibited a strong hatred for Mahatma Gandhi and his campaign of peaceful resistance, which he saw as threat to the
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.
— § —
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).
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)
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
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).
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
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!
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.
When Churchill was antisemitic
On December 26th, 1918, Winston Churchill wrote to the recently re-elected British PM David Lloyd-George
Here is the letter about the new Government which you have asked me to write you. ... there is a point
about Jews which occurs to me—you must not have too many of them. ... Three Jews among only 7 Liberal cabinet ministers
might I fear give rise to comment. 1
On June 6th, 1919 Churchill telegraphed General Gough stationed with the British Army in Helsinki, Finland:
In view of prominent part taken by Jews
in Red terror and regime there is special danger of Jewish pogroms and this danger must be combatted strongly.
On October 10th, 1919, Churchill wrote to British PM David Lloyd-George:
There is a very bitter feeling throughout Russia
against the Jews, who are regarded as being the main instigators of the ruin of the Empire, and who, certainly have
played a leading part in Bolshevik atrocities. 3
On November 6, 1919, Winston Churchill, Secretary of State for War, stated the following during a late
night debate in the House of Commons:
Lenin was sent into Russia by the Germans in the same way that you might send a phial containing a culture
of typhoid or of cholera to be poured into the water supply of a great city, and it worked with amazing accuracy. No
sooner did Lenin arrive than he began beckoning a finger here and a finger there to obscure persons in sheltered retreats
in New York, in Glasgow, in Berne, and other countries, and he gathered together the leading spirits of a formidable sect,
the most formidable sect in the world, of which he was the high priest and chief. With these spirits around him he set to
work with demoniacal ability to tear to pieces every institution on which the Russian State and nation depended. Russia
was laid low. Russia had to be laid low. She was laid low to the dust. 4
On January 3, 1920, during a speech in
Sunderland, Churchill attacked British socialists, saying:
want to destroy all the religious beliefs that console and inspire humanity. They believe in the international Soviet
of Russian and Polish Jews. We continue to believe in the British Empire. 5
On January 25, 1920, Churchill wrote
to his friend Herbert Albert Fisher:
I am afraid the facts established only too clearly the predominance
of Jews in the Bolshevik movement ... it is my firm belief that the Jews in this country would be well to admit
the facts more openly than they do and to rally to the support of those forces in Russia which give some prospect of setting
up a strong and impartial government. 6
On February 8th, 1920, the Illustrated
Sunday Herald, published Winston Churchill's
Zionism versus Bolshevism. In which he stated:
this same astounding race (Jews) may at the present time be in the actual process
of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not
arrested, would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel
of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious
race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical. ...
From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky
(Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for
the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence,
and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster,
has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has
been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary
personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair
of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.
There is no need to exaggerate the part
played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these
international and for the most part atheistical Jews, it is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all
others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal
inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. ... The same evil prominence was obtained by
Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented
in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration
of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish
revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing. ... Trotsky
... his schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination ... 7
On September 24th, 1921,
during a speech in Dundee, Churchill stated:
We have seen how
completely they (Socialists/Communists/Bolsheviks) have destroyed Russia, so that that once great, wealty Empire,
one of the world's greatest granaries, has been reduced through four years of Socialism and Bolshevism to absolute starvation.
More people may well die this winter in Russia than perished in the whole four years of the war. This awful catastrophe
has been brought about by a gang of professional revolutionaries, mostly Jews, who have seized on the wretched Russian
nation in its weakness and in its ignorance, and have applied to it with ferocious logic all those doctrines of Communism
which we hear spouted so freely in this country. In Russia they have put them into practice. They have, indeed, turned
words into deeds; and they have killed without mercy anyone who opposed them. 8
On December 24th,
1921, Churchill wrote to Lord Curzon:
I see the gravest objections ... to giving all this help and countenance to the
tyrannic Government of Jew Commissars, at once revolutionary and opportunist, who are engaged not only in persecuting
the bourgeoisie, but are carrying on a perpetual and ubiquitous warfare with the peasants of Russia. ... We want to nourish
the dog and not the tapeworm that is killing the dog. 9
1. Gilbert, Martin. Winston S. Churchill,
Volume IV 1917-1922. Heinemann; London. 1975. pp.176-177.
2. Gilbert, Martin. Winston S. Churchill, Volume IV 1917-1922. Heinemann; London. 1975. p.293.
3. Gilbert, Martin. Winston S. Churchill,
Volume IV 1917-1922. Heinemann; London. 1975. p.342.
4. Winston S. Churchill: His Complete Speeches, 1897-1963, Volume III.
Publishers, London. 1974. p.2783. And here
4. House of Common's Debates: November 5, 1919: http://yourdemocracy.newstatesman.com/parliament/orders-of-the-day/HAN2457102
5. Defries, Harry. Conservative Party Attitudes to
Jews, 1900-1950. Frank Cass Publishers; Southgate, England. 2001. p.82.
5. Poliakov, Léon. The
History of Anti-Semitism: Suicidal Europe, 1870-1933. University of Pennsylvania Press. 2003. p.207.
6. Defries, Harry. Conservative Party Attitudes to Jews, 1900-1950. Frank Cass Publishers; Southgate, England. 2001. p.82.
7. Illustrated Sunday Herald
8th, 1920, p.5. http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.html
8. Western Gazette (Somerset, UK) - Friday 30 September 1921, p.12
Gilbert, Martin. Winston S. Churchill, Volume IV 1917-1922. Heinemann; London. 1975. pp.760-761.
"Jews and Bolshevism : By Winston Churchill"
Above is a facsimile of the masthead of the Illustrated Sunday Herald,
February 8, 1920, the edition which features the famous Churchill article 'Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the
Soul of the Jewish People'.
Two weeks prior to the 'Zionism
versus Bolshevism' article appearing, the ISH published another Churchill article on Bolshevism, in which he wrote:
"It is, in fact, coming to be understood in the United
States and Switzerland, at any rate—and possibly the conviction is growing in England too—that our present
civilisation, which is all we have been able to build up through the sufferings, the perils and the splendid achievements
of so many centuries, is the object of a deliberate world-wide, profoundly-conceived conspiracy.
All over the world, in every country,
and in almost every class of society, there exist the members of the formidable Jacobin or Bolshevik sect and confederation.
This is the same force as that which perverted the glorious achievements of the French Revolution, and, having rendered
unavailing the sacrifices which all classes had made to accomplish the modernisation of France and of Europe, marched through
a welter of butchery to the establishment of a military dictatorship.
It is this same force which overthrew the Russian Republic three years ago,
while the Allies gaped ignorantly at their action, and which robbed the Russian people of the free constitution they had
at last won, and the peace and victory which were almost within their grasp. It is the same force
that at this moment is striving to overturn the German Republic and deprive that nation of its chance of self-redemption
among the States of Christendom."
- "The Red Fever: A Way to Deal with Our Bolshevists: Segregate Them!"
by Winston Churchill, Illustrated Sunday Herald, January 25, 1920, page 5.
The economic background to the war is necessary for a fuller understanding, before
casting judgement on the originators of these viewpoints.
the end of the First World War, Germany was essentially tricked [see Paul Johnson "A History of the Modern World"
(1983) p24 and H Nicholson Peacemaking 1919 (1933) pp13-16] into paying massive reparations to France and other economic
competitors and former belligerent countries in terms of the so-called Treaty of Versailles, thanks to the liberal
American President Woodrow Wilson. Germany was declared to be solely responsible for the war, in spite of the fact
that "Germany did not plot a European war, did not want one, and made genuine efforts, though too belated, to avert
one." (Professor Sydney B Fay The Origins of the World War (vol. 2 p 552)).
"As a result of these massive enforced financial reparations, by 1923 the situation in Germany
became desperate and inflation on an astronomical scale became the only way out for the government. Printing presses were
engaged to print money around the clock. In 1921 the exchange rate was 75 marks to the dollar. By 1924 this had become about
5 trillion marks to the dollar. This virtually destroyed the German middle class, reducing any bank savings to a virtual
zero." (Koestler The God that Failed p 28)
Sir Arthur Bryant the British historian (Unfinished Victory (1940 pp. 136-144):
was the Jews with their international affiliations and their hereditary flair for finance who were best able to seize such
opportunities. They did so with such effect that, even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic
legislation and persecution, they still owned, according to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something like a third of
the real property in the Reich. Most of it came into their hands during the inflation. But
to those who had lost their all this bewildering transfer seemed a monstrous injustice. After prolonged sufferings
they had now been deprived of their last possessions. They saw them pass into the hands of strangers, many of whom had not
shared their sacrifices and who cared little or nothing for their national standards and traditions. The Jews obtained
a wonderful ascendancy in politics, business and the learned professions (in spite of constituting) less than one
percent of the population. The banks, including the Reichsbank and the big private banks, were practically controlled
by them. So were the publishing trade, the cinema, the theatres and a large part of the press all the normal
means, in fact, by which public opinion in a civilized country is formed. The largest newspaper combine
in the country with a daily circulation of four millions was a Jewish monopoly. Every year it became harder
and harder for a gentile to gain or keep a foothold in any privileged occupation. At this time it was not
the 'Aryans' who exercised racial discrimination. It was a discrimination that operated without violence. It was
exercised by a minority against a majority. There was no persecution, only elimination. It was the contrast between
the wealth enjoyed and lavishly displayed by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the poverty and misery of native Germans,
that has made anti-Semitism so dangerous and ugly a force in the new Europe. Beggars on horseback are seldom popular,
least of all with those whom they have just thrown out of the saddle."
gracious, Sir Arthur! What made you get out of the wrong side of the bed? Strangely
enough, a book unexpectedly published by Princeton University Press in 1984, Sarah Gordon (Hitler, Germans
and the "Jewish Question") essentially confirms what Bryant says. According to her, "Jews were
never a large percentage of the total German population; at no time did they exceed 1% of the population during the years
1871-1933." But she adds "Jews were over-represented in business, commerce, and public
and private service. They were especially visible in private banking in Berlin, which in 1923 had 150 private
Jewish banks, as opposed to only 11 private non-Jewish banks. They owned 41% of iron and scrap iron firms and 57%
of other metal businesses. Jews were very active in the stock market, particularly in Berlin, where in 1928 they comprised
80% of the leading members of the stock exchange. By 1933, when the Nazis began eliminating Jews from prominent
positions, 85% of the brokers on the Berlin Stock exchange were dismissed because of their 'race'. At least a quarter of
full professors and instructors (at German universities) had Jewish origins. In 1905-6 Jewish students comprised 25% of the
law and medical students. In 1931, 50% of the 234 theatre directors in Germany were Jewish, and in Berlin the number was
80%. In 1929 it was estimated that the per capita income of Jews in Berlin was twice that of other Berlin residents."
Arthur Koestler confirms the Jewish over-involvement
in German publishing. "Ullstein's was a kind of super-trust; the largest organization of its kind
in Europe, and probably In the world. They published four daily papers in Berlin alone, among these
the venerable Vossische Zeitung, founded in the eighteenth century, and the B.Z. am Mittag, an evening paper. Apart
from these, Ullstein's published more than a dozen weekly and monthly periodicals, ran their own news service, their own
travel agency, etc., and were one of the leading book publishers. The firm was owned by the brothers Ullstein
- they were five, like the original Rothschild brothers, and like them also, they were Jews." (The God
that Failed (1950) ed. RHS Crossman, p 31).
Edgar Mowrer, Berlin correspondent
for the Chicago Daily News, wrote an anti-German tract called 'Germany Puts the Clock Back' (published as a Penguin
Special and reprinted five times between December 1937 and April 1938). He nevertheless notes "In the all-important
administration of Prussia, any number of strategic positions came into the hands of Hebrews. A telephone
conversation between three Jews in Ministerial offices could result in the suspension of any periodical or newspaper in the
state. The Jews came in Germany to play in politics and administration that same considerable part that
they had previously won by open competition in business, trade, banking, the Press, the arts, the sciences and the intellectual
and cultural life of the country. And thereby the impression was strengthened that Germany, a country
with a mission of its own, had fallen into the hands of foreigners."
Mowrer says "No one who lived through the period from 1919 to 1926 is likely to forget the
sexual promiscuity that prevailed. Throughout a town like Berlin, hotels and pensions made vast fortunes by letting rooms
by the hour or day to baggageless, unregistered guests. Hundreds of cabarets, pleasure resorts and the like served for purposes
of getting acquainted and acquiring the proper mood." (pp. 153-4). Bryant describes throngs of child prostitutes
outside the doors of the great Berlin hotels and restaurants. He adds "Most of them (the night clubs and vice-resorts)
were owned and managed by Jews. And it was the Jews among the promoters of this trade who were remembered in after years."
(pp. 144-5). Douglas Reed, Chief Central European correspondent
before WWII for the London Times, was profoundly anti-German and anti-Hitler. But nevertheless he reported: "I
watched the Brown Shirts going from shop to shop with paint pots and daubing on the window panes the word 'Jew', in dripping
red letters. The Kurfürstendamm was to me a revelation. I knew that Jews were prominent in business life, but
I did not know that they almost monopolized important branches of it. Germany had one Jew to one hundred gentiles,
said the statistics; but the fashionable Kurfürstendamm, according to the dripping red legends, had about one gentile
shop to ninety-nine Jewish ones." (Reed Insanity Fair (1938) p. 152-3). In Reed's book Disgrace Abounding of the
following year he notes "In the Berlin (of pre-Hitler years) most of the theatres were Jewish-owned or
Jewish-leased, most of the leading film and stage actors were Jews, the plays performed were often by German, Austrian or
Hungarian Jews and were staged by Jewish film producers, applauded by Jewish dramatic critics in Jewish newspapers. The
Jews are not cleverer than the Gentiles, if by clever you mean good at their jobs. They ruthlessly exploit the common feeling
of Jews, first to get a foothold in a particular trade or calling, then to squeeze the non-Jews out of it. It is not true
that Jews are better journalists than Gentiles. They held all the posts on those Berlin papers because the proprietors and
editors were Jewish" (pp238-9).
The Jewish writer
Edwin Black notes "For example, in Berlin alone, about 75% of the attorneys and nearly as many of the doctors were
Jewish." (Black, The Transfer Agreement (1984) p58.
To cap it all, Jews
were perceived as dangerous enemies of Germany after Samuel Untermeyer, the leader of the World Jewish Economic Federation,
declared war on Germany on August 6 1933. (Edwin Black The Transfer Agreement: the Untold Story of the Secret Pact between
the Third Reich and Palestine (1984) pp272-277) According to Black, "The one man who most embodied the potential
death blow to Germany was Samuel Untermeyer." (p 369). This was the culmination of a worldwide boycott of German
goods led by international Jewish organizations. The London Daily Express on March 24, 1933 carried the headline "Judea
Declares War on Germany". The boycott was particularly motivated by the German imposition of the Nuremberg Laws, which
ironically were similar in intent and content to the Jewish cultural exclusivism practiced so visibly in present-day Israel
(Hannah Arendt Eichmann in Jerusalem p 7).
Hitler saw the tremendous
danger posed to Germany by Communism. He appreciated the desperate need to eliminate this threat, a fact that earned him
the immense hatred and animosity of the Jewish organisations and the media and politicians of the west which they could
influence. After all, according to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant, although Jews formed less than five percent of Russia's
population, they formed more than fifty percent of its revolutionaries. According to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant in
his book The Jews (1977, chapter 8):
"It must be added
that most of the leading revolutionaries who convulsed Europe in the final decades of the last century and the first decades
of this one, stemmed from prosperous Jewish families. They were perhaps typified by the father of revolution, Karl Marx.
Thus when, after the chaos of World War I, revolutions broke out all over Europe, Jews were everywhere at the helm; Trotsky,
Sverdlov, Kamenev and Zinoviev in Russia, Bela Kun in Hungary, Kurt Eisner in Bavaria, and, most improbable of all, Rosa
Luxemburg in Berlin .
outside observers, the Russian revolution looked like a Jewish conspiracy, especially when it was followed by Jewish-led
revolutionary outbreaks in much of central Europe. The leadership of the Bolshevik Party had a
preponderance of Jews. Of the seven members of the Politburo, the inner cabinet of the country, four,
Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinoviev (Radomsky), Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Sverdlov, were Jews."
Other authors agree with this:
"There has been a
tendency to circumvent or simply ignore the significant role of Jewish intellectuals in the German Communist Party, and
thereby seriously neglect one of the genuine and objective reasons for increased anti-Semitism during and after World War
1. The prominence of Jews in the revolution and early Weimar Republic is indisputable, and this
was a very serious contributing cause for increased anti-Semitism in post-war years. It is clear then that the stereotype
of Jews as socialists and communists. led many Germans to distrust the Jewish minority as a whole and to brand Jews as enemies
of the German nation." (Sarah Gordon, "Hitler, Germans and the Jewish Question", Princeton University
Press (1984) p 23).
"The second paroxysm of strong anti-Semitism
came after the critical role of Jews in International Communism and the Russian Revolution and during the economic crises
of the 1920s and 30s. Anti-Semitism intensified throughout Europe and North America following the perceived
and actual centrality of Jews in the Russian Revolution. Such feelings were not restricted to Germany,
or to vulgar extremists like the Nazis. All over Northern Europe and North America, anti-Semitism became the norm
in 'nice society', and 'nice society' included the universities." (Martin Bernal, Black Athena vol. 1
pp. 367, 387).
"The major role Jewish leaders played in the November
(Russian) revolution was probably more important than any other factor in confirming (Hitler's) anti-Semitic beliefs."
(J&S Pool, Who Financed Hitler, p.164).
Truthseeker Archive: More proof that the Jews started WWII - Testimony from distinguished diplomats
to powerful. We have to crush it." - Winston Churchill (November 1936, to US-General Robert E. Wood)
"We will force this war upon
Hitler, if he wants it or not." - Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast)
"This war is an English war and its goal is the destruction of Germany." -
Winston Churchill (Autumn 1939 broadcast)
Although Churchill's harshly anti-Hitler rhetoric is well known, as late as 1937,
in his book Great Contemporaries, he was extolling the German leader's "patriotic ardor and love of country."
The story of Hitler's struggle, Churchill went on, "cannot be read without admiration for the courage, the
perseverance, and the vital force which enabled him to challenge, defy, conciliate, or overcome, all the authorities
or resistances which barred his path." [See note] In another publication from that same year Churchill wrote: "One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his
patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore
our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations."
Churchill's War, Triumph in Adversity (review)
In Churchill's first
address as prime minister -- the famous "blood, toil, tears, and sweat" speech of May 13, 1940 -- he proclaimed
his goal in the war: "You ask, What is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is Victory -- victory at all costs,
victory in spite of all terror; victory, however long and hard the road may be." Did those who thrilled to such
defiant rhetoric fully grasp what this meant? Were they really willing to support victory "at all costs"? As it
turned out, the cost was very high indeed.
During the war
Churchill made clear his simple aim in the great conflict: "I have only one purpose, the destruction
of Hitler, and my life is much simplified thereby. If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable
reference to the Devil in the House of Commons." [See note] In keeping with that aim, Churchill refused even to consider Hitler's repeated offers of peace, thereby condemning the
people of Britain, and Europe, to years of horrific warfare.
In the early 1950s, historian
Francis Neilson produced a stern portrait of the British leader, The Churchill Legend, which remains worth reading
despite the passage of years:
Churchill had but one aim; only one desire. In The Grand Alliance he states, "I
have only one purpose, the destruction of Hitler, and my life is much simplified thereby." It is his life that
is to be satisfied. England? Europe? Are they merely the arenas that provide the accessories of the conflict? His life is
to be "simplified" by throwing the world into chaos again. His purpose is the destruction of one man; and the last
chance to maintain the culture of a thousand years must be abandoned because a politician's life is to be "simplified."
Alan Clark -- historian and one-time British defense minister
-- more recently handed down a similarly harsh verdict of Churchill's war policy:
There were several occasions when a rational leader
could have got, first reasonable, then excellent, terms from Germany ... The war went on far too long, and when Britain
emerged the country was bust. Nothing remained of assets overseas. Without immense and punitive borrowings from the U.S.
we would have starved. The old social order had gone forever. The empire was terminally damaged. The Commonwealth countries
had seen their trust betrayed and their soldiers wasted ... [See note]
"Victory at all cost" also meant accepting the
Allied "United Nations" principles of egalitarianism and liberal democracy, which laid the groundwork for the dismantling
of empire and for a massive influx of former imperial subjects, ushering in drastic changes in every area of life in Britain
(and the rest of Europe) in recent decades.
In 1945, at the end of the terrible five-and-a-half-year
conflict, Britain did not "win" -- it merely emerged on the victorious side, together with the two great powers
that really did "win" the war: Soviet Russia and the United States.
writer Peter Millar echoed this assessment a few years ago:
... The accepted view that his [Churchill's] "bulldog breed" stubbornness led Britain
through its "finest hour" to a glorious victory is sadly superficial ... In no sense, other than the moral one,
can Britain be said to have won. She merely survived. Britain went to war ostensibly to honour an alliance with Poland.
Yet the war ended with Poland redesigned at a dictator's whim, albeit Stalin's rather than Hitler's, and occupied, albeit
by Russians rather than Germans. In reality Britain went to war to maintain the balance of power. But the European continent
in 1945 was dominated by a single overbearing power hostile to everything Britain stood for. Britain, hopelessly in hock
to the United States, had neither the power nor the face to hold on to her empire.
"We could have, if we had intended so, prevented this war from breaking out without doing
one shot, but we didn't want to." - Winston Churchill to Truman (March 1946)
"Germany's unforgivable crime before the second world war
was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's trading system and to create her own exchange mechanism
which would deny world finance its opportunity to profit." - Winston Churchill (letter to Lord Robert Boothby)
"The wonderful exertions which Israel is making in these
times of difficulty are cheering to an old Zionist like me." - Winston Churchill (1951)
"I am, of course, a Zionist, and have been ever since the Balfour
Declaration." - Winston Churchill (1956)
« Meanwhile, the war against the Soviet Union has allowed us to dispose of new territories for the final
solution. Consequently, the Führer has decided to displace the Jews not towards Madagascar but towards the East. Thus,
there is no longer any need to consider Madagascar for the final solution. »
- Franz Rademacher, Feb. 10th 1942, Nuremberg Doc. NG-3933
are just the messengers, the stupid impossibility of the 'Holocaust' story line is the message. »
- Hannover (CODOH)
Zionism versus Bolshevism
- ZIONISM versus BOLSHEVISM.
- A STRUGGLE FOR THE SOUL OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE.
the Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill.
Caption of accompanying photograph:
“Mr. Churchill inspecting his old regiment, the 4th Hussars, at Aldershot last week”
SOME people like Jews and some do not;
but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most
and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.
Disraeli, the Jew Prime Minister of England, and Leader of the Conservative Party, who was always true to his race
and proud of his origin,
said on a well-known occasion: “The Lord deals
with the nations as the nations deal with the Jews.” Certainly when we look at the miserable
state of Russia, where of all countries in the world the Jews were the most cruelly treated, and contrast it with
the fortunes of our own
country, which seems to have been so providentially
preserved amid the awful perils of these times, we must admit that nothing that has
happened in the history of the world has falsified the truth of Disraeli’s confident assertion.
between good and evil which proceeds unceasingly in the breast of man nowhere reaches such an intensity as in the Jewish
The dual nature of mankind is nowhere more strongly or more terribly exemplified.
We owe to the Jews in the Christian revelation a system of
ethics which, even
if it were entirely separated from the supernatural, would be incomparably the most precious possession of mankind, worth
in fact the fruits of all other wisdom and learning put together. On that system
and by that faith there has been built out of the wreck of the
Roman Empire the
whole of our existing civilisation.
And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual
process of producing another system of morals
and philosophy, as malevolent as
Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested, would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered
possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were
destined to originate among the same people; and
that this mystic and mysterious
race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical.
There can be no
greater mistake than to attribute to each individual a recognisable share in the qualities which make up the national
character. There are all sorts of men – good, bad and, for the most part, indifferent
– in every country, and in every race. Nothing is
more wrong than to deny
to an individual, on account of race or origin, his right to be judged on his personal merits and conduct.
In a people of peculiar genius like the Jews, contrasts are more vivid, the extremes are more
widely separated, the resulting
consequences are more decisive.
At the present fateful period there
are three main lines of political conception among the Jews, two of which are helpful and hopeful in a
very high degree to humanity, and the third absolutely destructive.
First there are the Jews who, dwelling in every country throughout
the world, identify themselves with that country, enter into its national life,
while adhering faithfully to their own religion, regard themselves as citizens in the fullest sense of the State which has
Such a Jew living in England would say, “I am an Englishman
practising the Jewish faith.” This is a worthy conception, and useful in the
degree. We in Great Britain well know that during the great struggle the influence of what may be called the “National
many lands was cast preponderatingly on the side of the Allies;
and in our own Army Jewish soldiers have played a most distinguished
rising to the command of armies, others winning the Victoria Cross for valour.
The National Russian Jews, in spite of the disabilities under which
they have suffered, have managed to play an honourable and useful
part in the
national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia’s
resources and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable
organisations, the Russian Co-operative Societies. In politics their
has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholders
friendship with France and Great Britain.
In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish
effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy
are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their
race. Most, if not all,
of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers,
and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among
the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia),
Bela Kun (Hungary),
Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States),
this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the
of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.
It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely
recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution.
It has been the mainspring
of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities
from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people
by the hair of their heads and have become
practically the undisputed masters
of that enormous empire.
There is no need
to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution
by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great
one; it probably outweighs all others. With the
notable exception of Lenin, the
majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from
the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the
influence of Russians
like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the
power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd),
of Krassin or Radek – all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And
the prominent, if
not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied
by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution
has been taken
by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period
of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in
Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far
as this madness has been allowed to prey
upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there
are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in
proportion to their
numbers in the population is astonishing.
Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge
have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people. Wherever General Denikin’s
authority could reach, protection was always accorded to the Jewish population, and strenuous efforts were made
by his officers to prevent
reprisals and to punish those guilty of them. So much
was this the case that the Petlurist propaganda against General Denikin denounced
as the Protector of the Jews. The Misses Healy, nieces of Mr. Tim Healy, in relating their personal experiences in Kieff,
that to their knowledge on more than one occasion officers who
committed offences against Jews were reduced to the ranks and sent out of
city to the front. But the hordes of brigands by whom the whole vast expanse of the Russian Empire is becoming infested
do not hesitate
to gratify their lust for blood and for revenge at the expense
of the innocent Jewish population whenever an opportunity occurs. The brigand
the hordes of Petlura and of Gregorieff, who signalised their every success by the most brutal massacres, everywhere found
the half-stupefied, half-infuriated population an eager response to anti-Semitism
in its worst and foulest forms.
The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the
Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has
tended more and more to associate
the Jewish race in Russia with the villainies which are now being perpetrated. This is an injustice on millions
of helpless people, most of whom are themselves sufferers from the revolutionary regime. It
becomes, therefore, specially important to foster
and develop any strongly-marked
Jewish movement which leads directly away from these fatal associations. And it is here that Zionism has
such a deep significance for the whole world at the present time.
Zionism offers the third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race. In
violent contrast to international communism, it presents
to the Jew a national
idea of a commanding character. It has fallen to the British Government, as the result of the conquest of Palestine,
to have the opportunity and the responsibility of securing for the Jewish race all over the
world a home and a centre of national life. The
statesmanship and historic sense
of Mr. Balfour were prompt to seize this opportunity. Declarations have been made which have irrevocably
decided the policy of Great Britain. The fiery energies of Dr. Weissmann, the leader, for practical purposes, of
the Zionist project, backed
by many of the most prominent British Jews, and supported
by the full authority of Lord Allenby, are all directed to achieving the success
of this inspiring movement.
Of course, Palestine is far too small to accommodate more than a fraction of the Jewish race, nor do the majority
of national Jews wish to go
there. But 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 would have occurred in the
history of the world which would,
from every point of view, be beneficial, and
would be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire.
Zionism has already become a factor in the political convulsions of
Russia, as a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the
communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally,
and Dr. Weissmann in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him
in no doubt that his schemes of a world-wide communistic
State under Jewish domination
are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every
land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal. The struggle which is now
beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik
Jews is little less than a struggle
for the soul of the Jewish people.
It is particularly important in these circumstances that the national Jews in every country who are loyal to the
land of their adoption should
come forward on every occasion, as many of them
in England have already done, and take a prominent part in every measure for combating
the Bolshevik conspiracy. In this way they will be able to vindicate the honour of the Jewish name and make it
clear to all the world that the
Bolshevik movement is not a Jewish movement,
but is repudiated vehemently by the great mass of the Jewish race.
But a negative resistance to Bolshevism in any field is not enough.
Positive and practicable alternatives are needed in the moral as well as
the social sphere; and in building up with the utmost possible rapidity a Jewish national centre in Palestine which may become
a refuge to the oppressed from the unhappy lands of Central Europe,
but which will also be a symbol of Jewish unity and the temple of Jewish
a task is presented on which many blessings rest.
CHURCHILL HANDLER - THE EVIL PROFESSOR FREDERICK LINDEMANN
Political puppets like Winston Churchill generally
have a personal buffer between themselves and the really big masters of the New World Order.
For example, Woodrow Wilson had
Edward Mandell House; and FDR had Henry Morgenthau.
For the British Mad Dog, the personal handler was Frederick
A. Lindemann a physicist whose German-Jewish family arrived in England
when he was about 14 years old. He was known
to friends as "the Prof" in reference to his position at the University of Oxford,
and as "Baron Berlin" to his many
detractors because of his German accent and haughty aristocratic manner.
Lindemann believed that a small circle of elites should run the
world, resulting in a stable society, "led by supermen and served by helots."
Lindemann concludes that science could yield a
race of humans blessed with “the mental makeup of the worker bee.”
The mad Professor
Frederick Lindemann – one of the most powerful “Englishman” that you never heard about.
In Lindemann's Jewish supremacist worldview, the "worker bees" would
be mixed race and the "supermen" would no doubt
be the Jewish Globalist elite. Naturally, before this New
World Order could emerge, the 'White Man' would have to first "abdicate"
his leading position on
Europe and America. A brief excerpt from 'The Prof'
--one of the many the biogarphies written about Lindemann:
Frederick Lindemann, the Chief Advisor to Winston Churchill and
the inspiration and architect of the air crucifixion of Germany
was in a reflective mood after the war. Toward the end
of his life, Lindemann made a remark on more than one occasion with such an air of
seriousness that he seemed to regard
it as his testament of wisdom, and I accordingly feel it incumbent upon me to
record it here,
although not.in.perfect.sympathy with it.
'Do you know,' he asked, 'what
the future historians will regard as the most important event of this age?’
what is it?’
'It will not be Hitler and the Second World War; it will not be
the release of nuclear energy; it will not be the menace of Communism.'
negatives seemed very comprehensive. He put on an expression of extreme severity
and turned down the corners of his lips:
will be the abdication of the White man.’ Then
he nodded his head up and down several times to drive home his proposition."
The Prof’ -- R.F Harrod, McMillan, 1959. Page 261/2. A Personal Memoir Lord Cherwell
saw the White Man's "abdication to "diversity" ™
coming a long time ago.
France 1994 --- France 2006
Europe's National Football teams have abdicated
to "diversity." ™
to "diversity." ™
Captain America has
"abdicated" to "diversity." ™
School System has "abdicated" to "diversity." ™
Spider Man has
mythical place of Asgard has "abdicated"
to "diversity." ™ (Heimdall
Little Orphan Annie
When Churchill was named Secretary of the Exchequer
(Treasury) in 1924 (an appointment which proved disastrous),
Lindemann and Brendan Bracken
(both bachelors and homosexuals) became close friends with Winnie (himself a poofter)
and would remain so
for 35 years – with the brilliant and sober Lindemann becoming Churchill's guru.
In 1932, (months before Hitler was even elected) Lindemann joined
Churchill on a trip throughout Europe. When the warmongering
British Mad Dog returned, he wrote: "A
terrible process is astir. Germany is arming." All throughout Churchill’s
1930’s exile (the Wilderness Years),
the German-hating Lindemann continued to advise Churchill,
and call for a campaign for rearmament in the face of the non-existent “German threat.”
When Churchill became the wartime Prime Minister in 1940,
he appointed Lindemann as the British government's leading scientific adviser.
In this capacity, Lindemann attended
meetings of the War Cabinet and accompanied Churchill on conferences. He spoke with Churchill
almost daily for the duration of the
war and wielded more influence than any other adviser. General Hastings Ismay,
an important military aid
to Churchill who also worked with Lindemann, later recalled:
“Churchill used to say that the Prof's brain was a beautiful piece of mechanism, and the
Prof did not dissent from that judgment. …..
In his appointment as Personal Assistant to the Prime Minister
no field of activity was closed to him. He was as obstinate as a mule,
and unwilling to admit that there was any problem under
the sun which he was not qualified to solve. …..He hated Hitler and all his works,
and his contribution to Hitler’s
downfall in all sorts of odd ways was considerable.”
Lindemann was described as having:
".. an almost pathological hatred
for Nazi Germany, and an almost medieval desire for revenge was a part of his character."
In addition to the Air Ministry Area
Bombing Directive, Lindemann presented a paper on "delousing" to Churchill, which calculated
effects of bombardment by a massive bomber force of German cities to break the spirit of the people.
Lindemann’s argument that
"bombing must be directed to working class houses -- because --
middle class houses have too much space round them, so are bound to waste bombs"
led to the horrible deaths of as many as 1.5 million German civilians.
The Mad Professor also insulted many figures in the British government.
But Churchill protected him zealously. An agitated Churchill
once snapped at a Member of Parliament
who questioned his bizarre reliance on Lindemann:
me, love my dog, and if you don't love my dog, you damn well can't love me….Don't you know that he is one of my oldest
and greatest friends?"
In the grand scheme of things, the obscure Lindemann outranked the famous Churchill by several
levels. Just the fact that a 20th
century personage of such historical significance and uncanny foresight remains virtually unknown
-- except to a few scholars
and history buffs interested in that era -- constitutes strong evidence that the true power players
of history have always
and continue to remain "behind the scenes."
Let's make Lindemann a bit more well known -- in a bad way -- by sharing this piece.
Lindemann (Image 1, on left next to Winnie)--
not the subordinate Churchill -- was the true architect of the Hamburg,
Berlin and Dresden fire-bombing
Holocausts of innocent Germans --- all part of the "abdication" of "The White Man" to his
Winston the spendaholic: He teetered on the brink
of bankruptcy and was saved by secret backhanders.
Yet a new book on Churchill's
finances reveals he spent £40,000 a year on casinos and £54,000 on booze
- Churchill spent most
of his life swimming in a mountain of personal debt
equivalent of £40,000 a year on holidays to the south of France
- Had £54,000 bill from his wine merchant, including £16,000 for Champagne
- Secret benefactor gave him £1million in 1940 as he became Prime Minister
The confession was
a startling one, in light of the great man he became. ‘The only thing that worries me in life is — money,’
wrote Winston Churchill, then aged 23, to his brother, Jack. ‘Extravagant tastes, an expensive style of living, small
and diminished resources — these are fertile sources of trouble.’
Indeed they were. For the qualities that were to make Churchill a great war leader came
very close to destroying him time and again during his career, as manic optimism and risk-taking plunged him repeatedly into
In the Thirties,
when he was a married man with four dependent children and already borrowing more than £2.5 million in today’s
money, he would gamble so heavily on his annual holiday in the South of France that he threw away the equivalent of on average
£40,000 every year.
Qualities that were to make Churchill
a great war leader came very close to destroying him time and again during his career, as manic optimism and risk-taking
plunged him repeatedly into colossal debt. But he became one of Britain's greatst heroes and is here receiving the Honorary
Freedom of the City of Westminster
In my own career, advising families on tax affairs and investments, I have never encountered addiction to risk on
such a scale as his.
biographer, one of Churchill’s most convenient characteristics is that he left his own bank statements, bills, investment
records and tax demands in his archive, despite the evidence of debt and profligate gambling they reveal.
In contrast to his well-documented periods of anxiety and depression,
when the ‘black dog’ struck him, there were phases when he gambled or traded shares and currencies with such
intensity that he appeared to be on a ‘high’ — devoid of inhibition, brimming with self-confidence and
As a result, he left behind a trail of financial failures that required numerous bailouts by friends, family and admirers.
And it was only by a wildly improbable
intervention, almost an act of God, that he wasn’t bankrupt in 1940 instead of Prime Minister: as war loomed, a secret
benefactor wrote two cheques for well over £1 million to clear Churchill’s debts.
His inventive efforts at tax avoidance would spell scandal if attempted
by any politician today.
In the Thirties, when he was a married
man with four dependent children and already borrowing more than £2.5 million in today’s money, he would gamble
so heavily on his annual holiday in the South of France that he threw away the equivalent of on average £40,000 every
One of Churchill’s
most convenient characteristics is that he left his own bank statements, bills, investment records and tax demands in his
archive, despite the evidence of debt and profligate gambling they reveal. He's pictured here riding in a motor lauch
in the harbor at Safi, Morocco
Though he wrestled to control his spending all his life, the defining disaster of Winston’s financial career
was the Wall Street Crash of 1929.
Churchill always told his friends his losses in the Stock Market collapse amounted to $50,000 — or £500,000
today. But that is only part of the story.
These were Winston’s years in the wilderness when, having served for a term as Chancellor of the Exchequer,
he was suddenly out of power.
was not without its benefits, for at last he was able to devote time to writing books and churning out newspaper columns
to keep the bank at bay.
result, he left behind a trail of financial failures that required numerous bailouts by friends, family and admirers.
return for his high fees as a journalist, Churchill’s friends among the press proprietors expected colourful copy
that ran against the conventional political wisdom. He delivered it, but his trenchant commentaries made rehabilitation
within the political establishment very difficult.
The problems began when he embarked on a North American tour to promote his book on World War I,
The World Crisis, accompanied by his brother Jack and son Randolph.
He travelled through Canada by private
railcar, sleeping in a double bed on board with a private bathroom. ‘There is a fine parlour with an observation room
at the end,’ he wrote to his wife Clemmie, ‘and a large dining room which I use as the office. The car has splendid
wireless installation, refrigerators, fans, etc.’
Surrounded by these modern marvels, Churchill began to trade again in shares and commodities. He
was intoxicated by Canada’s money-making opportunities, especially in exploration for oil and gas.
investment fever as he reached the prairies, he wired his publisher to demand an advance on his royalties, boasting of the
profits he could grasp if he acted without delay.
To allay Clemmie’s concerns, he told her of the cash he was making by selling his book at public appearances
— 600 copies in Montreal alone — and casually announced he had ‘found a little capital’ with which
he ‘hoped to make some successful investments’.
He plunged tens of thousands of dollars
into oilfields and rolling stock, assuring his bankers that, ‘I do not expect to hold these shares for more than a
In the States,
he stayed with media tycoon William Randolph Hearst and bought stakes in electrical ventures and gas companies, before heading
to California where he indulged in late-night parties with Hollywood’s movie elite and toured the studios.
to his well-documented periods of anxiety and depression, when the ‘black dog’ struck him, there were phases
when he gambled or traded shares and currencies with such intensity that he appeared to be on a ‘high’ —
devoid of inhibition, brimming with self-confidence and energy.
After lunch with Charlie Chaplin on the set of his latest film, City
Lights, Churchill boarded Hearst’s yacht and wrote to Clemmie that he had banked £1,000 (£50,000 today)
by cashing in some shares in a furniture business called Simmons.
‘You can’t go wrong on a Simmons
mattress,’ he crowed — but failed to mention that he had $35,000 (a third of a million pounds today) still invested
His buying had spiralled out of control. Everything he could raise was plunged into U.S.
stocks, in businesses from foundries to department stores.
His brokers sounded warnings by telegraph:
‘Market heavy. Liquidating becoming more urgent. Will await your telephone. Your bank still losing gold & there
are rumours of increase in bank rate.’
Churchill ignored them. In four days he bought and sold $420,000 in shares — or more than £4 million-worth
It was like a drug to him. ‘In every hotel,’ he told Clemmie, ‘there is a stock
exchange. You go and sit and watch the figures being marked up on slates every few minutes.’
The crash was inevitable. At the opening bell in the New York Stock
Exchange on Thursday, October 24, 1929, prices fell by an average of 11 per cent.
to control his spending all his life, the defining disaster of Winston’s financial career was the Wall Street Crash
of 1929. Churchill told his friends his losses in the Stock Market collapse amounted to $50,000 — or £500,000
today. But that is only part of the story. Pictured in 1958 with hipping magnate Aristotle Onassis.
Churchill kept buying, confident of recouping
his losses, right up to the moment he boarded an Atlantic liner to return home. By the time he reached Chartwell, his home
in Kent, he was poorer by $75,000 (£750,000).
But instead of pulling in his horns, he tried to recoup — and
within six months had lost another $35,000 (£350,000).
His efforts to cling to some kind of solvency
became desperate. He borrowed money wherever he could — from his brother, his bank, his brokers, his publishers and
newspaper editors. He arranged another speaking tour in America and took out insurance against its cancellation — then
used the General Election of 1931 as an excuse for postponing and claiming his £5,000 (£250,000) indemnity.
He traded the insurers one of his oil paintings, in a deal he described
as ‘highly confidential’.
Once the election was behind him, he set off to America — but, in his fraught state, stumbled into disaster.
Having arranged to meet a business associate in New York, he grabbed a taxi. But in his hurry, he forgot to take
the man’s address. After a fruitless hour trying to find the building, he climbed out of the cab — and was hit
by a car.
Winston’s years in the wilderness when, having served for a term as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was suddenly out
of power. This was not without its benefits, for at last he was able to devote time to writing books and churning out newspaper
columns to keep the bank at bay.
Even this was used as a means to scrape money together. He wrote a newspaper article about
the accident, syndicated it worldwide for £600 (£30,000) and then claimed medical insurance on the spurious grounds
he was ‘totally disabled’.
When the underwriters protested that he was still able to earn money
from journalism, his broker retorted that he could not physically write — the article had been dictated to a secretary.
Mere talking, he insisted, should not be classed as work. The insurers paid up.
Such sharp practice was not confined to
his insurance claims. He told the Inland Revenue he had retired as an author, which entitled him to defer a large income
To avoid paying tax on book royalties,
he sold the rights and successfully argued that the money he received was not income but capital gains, which at the time
was exempt from tax.
He borrowed money from his children’s trusts, and even cut down his drinking —
not to curb his expenses, but to win a bet with the press baron Lord Rothermere, who wagered him £600 that Churchill
would not drink any brandy or undiluted spirits for a whole year.
Churchill took the bet, reasoning to Clemmie
that money won gambling was not subject to tax. But he turned down a bigger bet, £2,000 [£100,000], that he
could not remain teetotal for 12 months.
‘I refused,’ he explained, ‘as I think life would
not be worth living.’
In fact, his accumulated bills for alcohol came to £900 (£54,000).
His gambling was even more costly — 66,000 francs (about £50,000) in a single holiday at a casino in Cannes
in 1936, for example.
Clementine’s excesses were little better. That year, her bill at Harrods ran to more
than 80 pages, with accounts, too, at Selfridge’s, Harvey Nichols, Peter Jones, Lillywhite’s and John Lewis.
a £900 [£54,000 today] demand from his wine merchants Randolph Payne & Sons in 1936, Churchill checked the
bill and found the total came to even more — £920.
Attempts at economising were feeble. Three servants were dismissed,
with a saving of £240 [£14,400] and the same amount was cut from the laundry bill. The temperature of the swimming
pool at Chartwell was also reduced in a bid to halve heating costs.
But by 1938, as the European situation
with Hitler and Mussolini became critical, Churchill had run out of resources. Both Chartwell and his house in London were
up for sale but had attracted no buyers.
454 BOTTLES OF BUBBLY IN JUST TWO MONTHS
Faced with a £900 [£54,000 today]
demand from his wine merchants Randolph Payne & Sons in 1936, Churchill checked the bill and found the total came to
even more — £920 [£55,200], including £268 [£16,080] spent on champagne: ten magnums, 185 bottles
and 251 pints of it.n At the outbreak of World War I, Churchill was smoking a dozen
cigars a day, at about £13 a month [£1,300] — and he had not paid his suppliers, J Grunebaum & Sons,
for five years.
Swimming in personal debt (about £1.5m today), Churchill announced some drastic household cutbacks in 1926,
the year of the General Strike. The cost of food, servants and running a car were to be halved. ‘No champagne is to
be bought,’ he warned his wife. ‘Only white or red wine will be offered at luncheon or dinner. No more port
is to be opened without special instructions. Cigars must be reduced to four a day.’ The economy drive lasted less
than three months.
On his way home from a Mediterranean cruise in 1927, Churchill — then Chancellor of the Exchequer — dropped
in on the casino at Dieppe and, playing baccarat, lost £350 — the equivalent of £17,500 today.
in the South of France 12 times during the Thirties and always gambled at the casinos. He came home a winner only once.
During World War
II, his personal spending on wine, spirits and cigars was £1,650 a year [£66,000].
In a two-month spell in 1949, Churchill and his house
guests at Chartwell drank 454 bottles of champagne, 311 bottles of wine, 69 bottles of port, 58 bottles of brandy, 58 bottles
of sherry and 56 bottles of Black Label whisky.
journalism could no longer even cover his back-taxes, and he had borrowed to the limit against his life insurance policies.
Creditors were clamouring on all sides.
His overdraft had reached £35,000 (more than £2million)
and his brokers were demanding an immediate payment of £12,000 (£720,000). His attempts to bargain were ignored.
‘For a while,’ he admitted, ‘the dark waters of
despair overwhelmed me. I watched the daylight creep slowly in through the windows and saw before me in mental gaze the
vision of Death.’
came from an unexpected quarter. Churchill turned to his friend Brendan Bracken, co-owner of The Economist, to find him
a rescuer. Bracken, in turn, approached his business partner, Sir Henry Strakosch, who was a fervent admirer of Churchill.
He was also immensely wealthy.
earlier, at Bracken’s request, Churchill had visited Sir Henry at his house in Cannes. The 68-year-old, who had made
his fortune at the helm of South Africa’s gold-mining Union Corporation, had been unwell and Bracken described him
as a ‘lonely old bird’.
This slightest of introductions paid colossal dividends.
Sir Henry, a naturalised Briton born in
Austria, regarded Churchill as the one politician in Europe with the vision, energy and courage to resist the Nazi threat.
He had no hesitation in paying off £12,000 (about £660,000 today) of his share-trading debts.
Neither man ever spoke publicly about the rescue. Churchill kept knowledge of it to a very tight circle that did
not include his bank or his lawyers.
Sir Henry’s only reward was to be nominated for The Other Club,
the dining society based at the Savoy in London that Churchill had founded with his fellow political maverick F. E. Smith.
At the outbreak of war in 1939, Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admirality, with a salary of £5,000
(£250,000 today) — exactly what it was when he was last given this Cabinet post, 25 years earlier in 1912. The
pay, though substantial, was nowhere near enough to cover his expenditure, let alone the interest on his outstanding loans,
which totalled £27,000 [£1.6 million].
For years he had been working on his three-volume History Of The
English-Speaking Peoples, but despite his prodigious output, he had been unable to deliver the finished manuscript and collect
his fee. The book had got no further than the American Civil War, but undaunted, Churchill declared it to be finished.
personal debt (about £1.5m today), Churchill announced some drastic household cutbacks in 1926, the year of the General
Strike. The cost of food, servants and running a car were to be halved. ‘No champagne is to be bought,’ he warned
his wife. ‘Only white or red wine will be offered at luncheon or dinner.
His publisher, Cassell’s, was dismayed
at such an abrupt ending.
All protests were dismissed: Churchill was too busy to write any more. Reluctantly, Cassell’s
paid up, which enabled him to pay £2,000 (£100,000 today) of overdue taxes and settle wine merchants’ bills
that topped £3,000 (£150,000).
On May 10, 1940, as Hitler’s armies surged through Holland and
Belgium, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain resigned, and by evening King George VI had asked Churchill to form a government.
Today, the choice of man seems inevitable, but at the time there was consternation.
can a Prime Minister have taken office with the Establishment so dubious of the choice and so prepared to find its doubts
justified,’ wrote one of Downing Street’s private secretaries, Jock Colville.
salary as PM might have doubled to £10,000 (£500,000), but with the highest rate of income tax standing at 97.5
per cent, virtually all of it went to the Inland Revenue.
Just two weeks after the Dunkirk evacuation,
in June 1940, the Prime Minister was facing an ultimatum from Lloyd’s Bank for interest on his £5,602 overdraft
Once again, Sir Henry came to the rescue with a cheque for £5,000 (£250,000).
The receipts show a flurry of payments to shirt-makers, watch-repairers and, naturally, wine merchants.
food and drink flowed at Chequers, the Prime Minister’s official residence. King George sent pheasant and venison from
Balmoral, and the Admiralty agreed to double the wine budget, providing that all consumption was for diplomatic purposes.
On his way
home from a Mediterranean cruise in 1927, Churchill — then Chancellor of the Exchequer — dropped in on the casino
at Dieppe and, playing baccarat, lost £350 — the equivalent of £17,500 today.
That condition proved no problem: Churchill
was determined to enlist the military might of the United States and American guests became frequent visitors to Chequers.
To pare back the tax demands, Churchill tried every possible ruse, even assigning some of his earnings as an author
to his son Randolph, who was taxed at a lower rate.
This subterfuge could save £1,500 (£75,000) but it made
Churchill uneasy — not least because Randolph’s gambling was even more reckless than his own.
What finally rescued Churchill’s finances, and put him on a stable footing for the rest of his life, was Hollywood.
In 1943, an Italian immigrant film producer paid him £50,000 (£2.5million) for the movie rights to his
biography of his ancestor, the military genius Lord Marlborough.
The death of Sir Henry Strakosch in October
1943 brought a legacy of £20,000 (£1million) as well as cancelling a loan.
As D-Day approached,
Churchill was solvent for the first time in 20 years. By the end of the war, he had collected another £50,000 (£2.5million)
for the film rights to his History Of The English-Speaking Peoples.
And a further colossal bonus came when
he was unexpectedly ousted from Downing Street by the voters in July 1945: on the day of his resignation, offers began to
flood in from publishers around the world for his war memoirs.
in the South of France 12 times during the Thirties and always gambled at the casinos. He came home a winner only once.
generals and admirals who won great victories were rewarded by Parliament. Earl Haig, the Army’s commander-in-chief
during World War I, was awarded £100,000 (£500,000) in 1918.
There could be no such payment for an ex-Prime
Minister. But a group of his admirers came up with a scheme to buy Chartwell for the National Trust, then rent it back to
the Churchills for a nominal sum. Churchill was delighted.
Despite this unaccustomed security, he was
not above seizing a chance to bypass the taxman.
As bidding for his memoirs topped $1 million (£12.5million)
from an American consortium, Churchill was investigating another scheme: by gifting his entire personal papers, including
future memoirs and diaries, to a trust in his children’s name, he figured he could avoid most tax on his writings.
He planned to pen his books for a smaller fee, under the pretext of ‘editing’ them.
proved to be thirsty work. When Churchill decamped to Marrakech in Morocco to work on the manuscript in 1947, his entourage’s
drinks bill for five weeks came to more than £2,100 (£73,500).
In a two-month
spell in 1949, Churchill and his house guests at Chartwell drank 454 bottles of champagne, 311 bottles of wine, 69 bottles
of port, 58 bottles of brandy, 58 bottles of sherry and 56 bottles of whisky.
One of his secretaries wrote home: ‘The
money here aren’t ’arf going!’
It continued to ‘go’ for the rest of his life. By the
time he became PM again in 1951, his annual expenses were about £40,000 (£1 million), much of it on a staff
of Swiss nurses and footmen, all of them vetted by MI5.
But now the honours flowed in. He won the
Nobel Prize for Literature, a tax-free £12,000 (£300,000). He turned down a dukedom on the grounds that a dukedom
without a great landed estate would be an embarrassment.
When he died aged 90 on January 24, 1965,
the world mourned. But some had a particular reason to regret his passing: they would never see such a customer again.
In France, Madame Odette Pol-Roger instructed that a black band of mourning should be placed around the label of
every bottle of her family’s champagne.
Click on this text to listen to Winston Churchill's article on the Jews, Zionism, Bolshevism, Soviet Jewish Control on Youtube.
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 
been undertaken by a revisionist operation in Australia. Nearing completion is the first volume of Irving's new book Churchill's
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
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
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
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 the 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 German 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.
The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1986 (Vol. 7, No. 4), pp. 498 ff.
Churchill Urged America to Nuke Russia to Win Cold War, Secret FBI Memo Reveals
Winston Churchill urged the United States to launch a nuclear attack
on the Soviet Union to win the Cold War, a newly released document reveals.
The previously unseen memorandum
from the FBI archives details how Britain’s wartime leader made his views known to a visiting American politician
a pre-emptive strike on Stalin might be the only way to stop Russia conquering the West.
The note, written by an FBI agent, reports that Churchill urged Right-wing
Republican Senator Styles Bridges to persuade President Harry Truman to launch a nuclear attack which would ‘wipe out’
the Kremlin and make the Soviet Union a ‘very easy problem’ to deal with.
The Russians would have been defenceless against a nuclear attack at that
time – they did not successfully test their own atomic bomb until 1949.
Britain and the Soviet Union had been allies in the Second World War until
1945, the year Churchill lost office as Prime Minister. But he was one of the first international statesmen to recognise
the post-war threat posed by the USSR, and in 1946 made a famous speech in Fulton, Missouri, about an ‘iron curtain’
having descended across Europe as Joseph Stalin consolidated his grip on the eastern half of the continent.
The FBI document
shows Churchill’s belligerence towards Britain’s former wartime ally ran so deep that he was prepared to tolerate
the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Russian civilians in a nuclear strike.
The memo claims Churchill ‘stated that the only salvation for the
civilisation of the world would be if the President of the United States would declare Russia to be imperilling world peace
and attack Russia’.
note continues: ‘He pointed out that if an atomic bomb could be dropped on the Kremlin, wiping it out, it would be
a very easy problem to handle the balance of Russia, which would be without direction.
‘Churchill further stated that if this was not done, Russia will
attack the United States in the next two or three years when she gets the atomic bomb and civilisation will be wiped out
or set back many years.’
memo is published for the first time in a book called When Lions Roar: The Churchills And The Kennedys, by award-winning
investigative journalist Thomas Maier. John F. Kennedy regarded Churchill as his hero and made him an honorary American
citizen in 1963 – the first person to be given such an accolade.
The two families shared friends, such as Greek shipping magnate Aristotle Onassis,
who married Jacqueline Kennedy after her husband’s assassination.
Maier said: ‘Churchill had been a great historian of warfare. He saw the last
great cavalry charge during the First World War and championed the development of tanks.
‘I think he saw a nuclear strike as just another progression of conventional
warfare, until he realised there was a lot more devastation with nuclear weapons.’
Maier said Churchill was more ‘bellicose’ when out of office.
After he returned to power in 1951, a nuclear attack against the USSR was never mentioned again.
'The British Mad Dog'
By ... M S King
THE PLAGIARIST AND ALSO THE USER OF GHOSTWRITERS
In light of his alcoholism, his high positions, his journalism, and his record
of academic mediocrity (at best), one has got to wonder how this puffed-up “literary
giant” was able to muster the time and discipline necessary to author so many books. Well, you
see, the “prolific” multi-millionaire writer not only has the help of “literary assistants”, (ghostwriters)
but he is also a plagiarist!
A young historian Maurice Ashley contributes heavily to Churchill’s
1937 ‘A History of the English-Speaking Peoples’. Years later, another historian
named William Deakin pens an enormous amount of material for Churchill, including
most of the text of his “widely acclaimed” series on World War II. The military narratives
are supplied by a retired general, Sir Henry Pownall.
By the 1950’s, an aging and alcohol-addled Churchill is relying upon an entire team of writers
to do much more than just research, contribute, and edit, but really take over his work.
The multi-million pound one-man literary enterprise that was Winston Churchill was not a one man
show after all. -- Ashley, Deakin and Pownall.
to his reliance upon ghostwriting historians, the imitation intellectual also engaged in gross plagiarism.
British historian Max Hastings, writing in The Telegraph, November
2, 2004, informs us:
“Pownall, ironically enough, had often confided
to his own wartime diary rage and frustration about Churchill's intemperate interferences in military
operations. Now, for a salary of £1,000 a year, along with a less influential naval counterpart,
he played a key role in the fortification of the Churchill legend.
Churchill skillfully injected into the narrative just sufficient rolling phrases in his own inimitable
style to put a personal stamp upon the published version. The opinions and judgments expressed were,
of course, entirely his own. But, from the delivery of the first volume onwards, some critics,
including Life magazine which had paid vast sums for serial rights, expressed misgivings about countless pages of contemporary
documents rendered verbatim in the text, to make up the weight.
By the time of the third volume, Life's Henry Luce was growling: "The
old boy is chiseling on us. If he were younger, we'd kick him in the shins." Churchill
narrowly averted litigation for plagiarism from Samuel Morison, an American naval historian whose narrative
of the Pacific sea battles was recycled in the former Prime Minister's volumes.” (7)
Henry Luce, the legendary founder of LIFE Magazine,
came to understand that Churchill was a money-grubbing plagiarist.
CHURCHILL THE FORGER -- BROKE AND DESPERATE,
RESORTS TO SELLING FAKE PAINTINGS
how desperate was Churchill’s financial situation during the 1930’s? Noted British historian
and master document digger David Irving informs us:
of course is no stranger to counterfeit art. In dire financial straits in the 1930s he took to faking
the paintings of the deceased French impressionist Charles Maurin because Maurin's signature sold somewhat
better in the Left Bank boutiques in those days than did his own.
President Franklin D Roosevelt spotted the little deception,
and wrote him a joshing letter about it in February 1942. For some reason those letters never made it
into the official volumes of Churchill Roosevelt correspondence -- an omission I have rectified in
"Churchill's War", vol. ii: "Triumph in Adversity". Now that's Real History. Spreads
like Butter.” (8)
Roosevelt had come to learn of the scam from a fine arts expert in Washington
DC. Irving, in another article, quotes from the teasingly friendly 1942 letter in which Roosevelt writes
to Churchill as though it is not known who the forger is:
“Dear Winston --- these people who go around under
assumed names render themselves open to all kinds of indignity and suspicion.” (9)
Roosevelt mischievously added:
“The British Embassy was asked for
verification and I suppose the matter has been to Scotland Yard and back again.” (10)
In ‘Churchill’s War: Triumph in Adversity’,
historian David Irving uncovers a 1942 letter from FDR to Churchill in which the former teases the British
Mad Dog - a mediocre painter - about a 1937 scam in which Churchill put impressionist Charles
Maurin’s names to his paintings – and then sold them to boutiques!