Custom Search
The Zionist Influence Over Winston Churchill
Peter Myers
Watch Here: http://youtu.be/6BpENdKqu0U
Churchill deliberately provoked the bombing of London; Hitler's Second Book (sequel to Mein Kampf)
David Irving's material (items 1-3) exposes Churchill's efforts to get Britain into a hot war against Germany.
When Hitler's Second Book is considered (items 4-5), and Suvorov's material is added (Icebreaker, + video from a recent bulletin), the picture emerges more clearly:
- Hitler wanted an alliance with Britain (British Empire), but war with Russia
- Stalin wanted to turn Hitler's armies westwards; then launch an attack to "liberate" Europe (ie impose Communism), pinning Hitler between two fronts. The encirclement of Russia (by the anti-Comintern countries) would be replaced by the encirclement of Germany.
- Churchill rejected Hitler's overtures, and engineered the bombing of London, by first bombing Berlin. His purpose was to inflame public anger in Britain, and get the US into the war
- Jewish lobbies promoted Churchill in Britain, and campaigned for US entry into the war
Item 6 is from Stalin's great-grandson Jacob Jugashvili (who is on this mailing list). It's very long, so I edited out the less relevant material. The author claims that Stalin did not invade Poland in 1939, three weeks after Hitler, because, by that time, the Polish Government had fled to Romania, and thus there was no Polish state - it was terra nullius. An untenable argument, in my view.
But the article does make some interesting points:
- Britain and France did not declare war on the USSR for invading Poland
- the League of Nations did not expel the USSR for invading Poland
- the Roosevelt Government did not list the USSR as a belligerent power for invading Poland
- after WWII, the USSR retained the part of Poland that it had occupied in 1939 (and Belarus/Ukraine still do).
(1) David Irving on Weizmann's letter to Churchill of 10 September 1941
(2) Britain's Jewish lobby funded Churchill; he bombed Germany to get Hitler to bomb Britain
(3) Churchill deliberately provoked the bombing of his own capital, to kill the peace movement
(4) Hitler's Second Book (sequel to Mein Kampf) - ally with Britain, colonize Russia, possible conflict with US
(5) Hitler's Second Book: The Unpublished Sequel to Mein Kampf (Bk. 2)
(6) Stalin's great-grandson says "the USSR did not invade Poland in September, 1939"
(1) David Irving on Weizmann's letter to Churchill of 10 September 1941
The Zionist Influence Over Winston Churchill http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BpENdKqu0U&skipcontrinter=1
Weizmann's letter to Churchill of 10 September 1941 is also in
Churchill and the Jews, by Michael J. Cohen, Routledge 1985, p. 220-1.
(2) Britain's Jewish lobby funded Churchill; he bombed Germany to get Hitler to bomb Britain
Focus on Winston Churchill
June 21st, 2009 by Syd Walker
By the 1930s, it seemed the long political career of Winston Churchill was all but over.
He was a man out of time – an old imperial War Horse in an era when the patience of the British people for war-mongering was wearing thin. While Winston fulminated against Indian independence and beat the old imperial drum for more military spending, the world seemed to be moving on.
Winston Churchill: catspaw for Zionist interests?
The Great War of 1914-18 had bled the British people dry. Gandhi's non-violent campaign for Indian independence was earning widespread respect. The peace movement was on the ascendant, having won support from some of the country's finest intellects such as Aldous Huxley. Many hoped the age of British militarism was drawing to a close – and a slow, dignified decolonisation process lay ahead. In that scenario, Britain would remain a prosperous, productive and uniquely well-connected society – but a nation at peace.
Yet by May 1940, Britain was again at war and Churchill was Prime Minister. Rejecting German peace overtures, he immediately committed the British Empire to a 'no holds barred' fight-to-the-death: total war with the Axis powers. Eventually, after forging alliances with the USA and Soviet Union, Churchill led an exhausted, bankrupt nation to 'victory' five years later.
Winston Churchill suffered decisive electoral defeat in the 1945 post-war general election, then returned to power in 1951 for an undistinguished finale as Prime Minister.
Iranians have a special reason for remembering Churchill's leadership; he was the prime mover behind Britain's invasion in the 1940s – and in the British meddling in Iranian internal affairs after nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Oil company in the early 1950s.
When next you hear about the Anglo-American sponsored 'coup' against Prime Minister Mossadeq in 1953, for which US President Obama recently made a public apology, think of Winston Churchill (and Gordon Brown, yet to apologize to Iran for his own country's imperial malfeasance).
But I digress. I intended to focus on one of modern history's puzzles… How did Winston Churchill get a new lease of political life in the late 1930s?
David Irving, the British historian who's allegedly so dangerous that the Australian Government won't even let him visit his daughter in Brisbane, has been suggesting an answer for some time. His comments about the 'Weizman letter' of 1941 are of particular interest:
I don't have an exact date for the video <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BpENdKqu0U&skipcontrinter=1>, but it was probably filmed during one of Mr Irving's 1990s north American tours.
In 1986, Harvard-trained historian Ted O'Keefe wrote a fascinating article entitled Irving on Churchill <http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v07/v07p498_Okeefe.html>. O'Keefe relates some of the British historian's findings about Churchill, after he's undertaken an extensive trawl through original source documents from the 1930s and 40s while researching a biography of the British wartime leader. Not all of Britian's official archives from the period were available at that time for scrutiny; significantly, that remains the case to this day – more than 60 years after the end of World War Two!
The entire article by O'Keefe is intriguing. Here's an excerpt on Churchill's mysterious financial backers, which in the 1930s centered around 'The Focus':
Irving on the Focus:
{quote}
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 Bemard 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 Gennany, 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 Pocus, but from other governments. I use the word “other governments” advisedly because one of my sources of information for my Churchill biography is, in fact, the Chaim Weizmann Papers in the State of Israel. Israel has made available to me all Churchill's secret correspondence with Chain Weizmann, all his secret conferences. It is an astonishing thing, but I, despite my reputation, in a kind of negative sense with these people, am given access to files like that, just the same as the Russian Government has given me complete access to all of the Soviet records of Churchill's dealings with Ivan Maisky, Joseph Stalin, Molotov and the rest of them. I am the only historian who has been given access to these Russian records. It is a kind of horse trading method that I use when I want access to these files, because it is in these foreign archives we find the truth about Winston Churchill.
When you want the evidence about his tax dodging in 1949 and thereabouts, you are not going to look in his own tax files, you're going to look in the files of those who employed him, like the Time/Life Corporation of America. That's where you look. And when you're looking for evidence about who was putting money up for Churchill when he was in the wilderness and who was funding this secret group of his, The Focus, you're not going to look in his files, again you're going to look in the secret files, for example, of the Czech government in Prague, because that is where much of the money was coming from.
{endquote}
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 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.
There's further background on this rather important nuance of recent history in David Irving's Churchill's War vol i – Struggle for Power. Refused publication by MacMillan, this book was first published in Australia in 1987, where it stayed for some weeks on the Sydney Morning Herald best-seller list including a spell at No. 1 (not a fact you're likely to be reminded about anytime soon by Australia's mainstream media.)
Churchill's War vol i was subsequently published by Hutchinson (Arrow Books, London) and Avon Books (New York). It's available via Amazon.com – or through Mr Irving's website, either in printed or electronic form as a free download. You won't however, find it in mainstream booksellers in Australia these days. The anti-free speech Zionist Lobby has seen to that.
Why?
Is it possible that the very public Zionist angst over 'The Holocaust' is something of a smokescreen to forestall re-opening broad-ranging discussion about the real origins and history of World War Two?:
Here's more about that memorable letter from Zionist leader Chaim Weizman to Prime Minister Churchill in September 1941, a letter mentioned in the video above and discussed in Triumph in Adversity, Volume ii of Irving's Churchill biography:
Excerpt from Chapter 5: 'We Did It Before – and We Can Do It Again!
On September 10th 1941, Weizmann therefore wrote an outspoken letter to the prime minister in which he recalled how the Jews of the United States had pulled their country into war before; he promised that they could do it again – provided that Britain toed the line over Palestine. Two years had passed since the Jewish Agency had offered the support of the Jews throughout the world – the Jewish 'declaration of war' on Germany; a whole year had passed, he added, since the P.M. had personally approved his offer to recruit Jews in Palestine for service in the Middle East or elsewhere.
For two years the Agency had met only humiliation. Ten thousand Palestinian Jews had fought in Libya, Abyssinia, Greece, Crete, and Syria, he claimed, but this was never mentioned. 'Tortured by Hitler as no nation has ever been in modern times,' Weizmann continued, 'and advertised by him as his foremost enemy, we are refused by those who fight him the chance of seeing our name and our flag appear among those arrayed against him.'Artfully associating anti-Zionists with the other enemies populating Churchill's mind, Weizmann assured him that he knew this was not of his doing – it was the work of those responsible for Munich and the ???? White Paper on Palestine. 'We were sacrificed, in order to win over the Mufti of Jerusalem and his friends who were serving Hitler in the Middle East.'
Then Weizmann came to his real sales-pitch: 'There is only one big ethnic group [in the USA] which is willing to stand, to a man, for Great Britain, and a policy of “all-out aid” for her: the five million Jews. From Secretary Morgenthau, Governor [of New York State] Lehmann, Justice [Felix] Frankfurter, down to the simplest Jewish workman or trader, they are conscious of all that this struggle against Hitler implies.' British statesmen, he reminded Churchill, had often acknowledged that it was these Jews who had brought the United States into the war in 1917. 'They are keen to do it – and may do it – again.' All that he and the Jews of the United States were asking for, therefore, was the formation now of a Jewish Fighting Force
Finally, two mere footnotes re: 'other losses' during World War Two
'Other Losses' by James-Bacque is mentioned in the video above.
See also An Eye for an Eye by John Sack.
In total, more than 50 million human beings died as a direct result of World War Two.
Never again!
(3) Churchill deliberately provoked the bombing of his own capital, to kill the peace movement
Irving on Churchill
Dismantling Churchillian Mythology
Theodore J. O'Keefe
The Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1986 (Vol. 7, No. 4), pp. 498 ff.
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 War.
Last year David Irving made a world-wide speaking tour, visiting North America (the U.S. and Canada), Australia, South Africa, and Europe. He lectured on a wide range of topics pertaining to the troubled history of our century, with his customary flair for the pointed phrase and the telling anecdote. During one of his lectures, delivered at Vancouver, British Columbia, on March 31, 1986, Irving offered a series of mordant new facts and insights on the life and career of Winston Churchill.
At the outset of his lecture, Irving remarked that the late Harold MacMillan (Lord Stockton), recently targeted by Nikolai Tolstoy (The Minister and the Massacres) for his role in the forcible deportation of tens of thousands of anti-Communist Cossacks, Byelorussians, Ukrainians, and others to the U.S.S.R. after World War lI, had stated that Irving's Churchill book would "not be published by his company, over his dead body." Clearly Lord Stockton's recent demise didn't alter things at MacMillan, however.
Then Irving let out an electrifying piece of information:
{quote}
The details which I will tell you today, you will not find published in the Churchill biography. For example, you won't even find them published in Churchill's own biography because there were powers above him who were so powerful that they were able to prevent him publishing details that even he wanted to publish that he found dirty and unscrupulous about the origins of the Second World War.
For example, when I was writing my Churchill biography, I came across a lot of private papers in the files of the Time/Life organization in New York. In Columbia University, there are all the private papers of the chief editor of Time/Life, a man called Daniel Longwell. And in there, in those papers, we find all the papers relating to the original publication of the Churchill memoirs in 1947, 1949, the great six-volume set of Churchill memoirs of the Second World War. And I found there a letter from the pre-war German chancellor, the man who preceded Hitler, Dr. Heinrich Brüning, a letter he wrote to Churchill in August 1937. The sequence of events was this: Dr. Brüning became the chancellor and then Hitler succeeded him after a small indistinguishable move by another man. In other words, Brüning was the man whom Hitler replaced. And Brüning had the opportunity to see who was backing Hitler. Very interesting, who was financing Hitler during all his years in the wilderness, and Brüning knew.
Brüning wrote a letter to Churchill after he had been forced to resign and go into exile in England in August 1937, setting out the names and identities of the people who backed Hitler. And after the war, Churchill requested Brüning for permission to publish this letter in his great world history, The six-volume world history. And Brüning said no. In his letter, Brüning wrote, 'I didn't, and do not even today for understandable reasons, wish to reveal from October 1928, the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany."
Now there is a letter from Dr. Heinrich Brüning to Churchill in 1949, explaining why he wouldn't give permission to Churchill to publish the August 1937 letter. It was an extraordinary story, out of Churchill's memoirs. Even Churchill wanted to reveal that fact. You begin to sense the difficulties that we have in printing the truth today. Churchill, of course, knew all about lies. He was an expert in lying himself. He put a gloss on it. He would say to his friends, "The truth is such a fragile flower. The truth is so precious, it must be given a bodyguard of lies." This is the way Churchill put it.
{endquote}
Irving went on us 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:
{quote}
The Focus was financed by a slush fund set up by some of London's wealthiest businessmen -- principally, businessmen organized by the Board of Jewish Deputies in England, whose chairman was a man called Sir Bernard Waley Cohen. Sir Bernard Waley Cohen held a private dinner party at his apartment on July 29, 1936. This is in Waley Cohen's memoirs ... The 29th of July, 1936, Waley Cohen set up a slush fund of 50,000 pounds for The Focus, the Churchill pressure group. Now, 50,000 pounds in 1936, multiply that by ten, at least, to get today's figures. By another three or four to multiply that into Canadian dollars. So, 40 times 50,000 pounds -- about $2 million in Canadian terms -- was given by Bernard Waley Cohen to this secret pressure group of Churchill in July 1936. The purpose was -- the tune that Churchill had to play was -- fight Germany. Start warning the world about Germany, about Nazi Germany. Churchill, of course, one of our most brilliant orators, a magnificent writer, did precisely that.
For two years, The Focus continued to militate, in fact, right through until 1939. And I managed to find the secret files of The Focus, I know the names of all the members. I know all their secrets. I know how much money they were getting, not just from The Focus, but from other governments. I use the word "other governments" advisedly because one of my sources of information for my Churchill biography is, in fact, the Chaim Weizmann Papers in the State of Israel. Israel has made available to me all Churchill's secret correspondence with Chain Weizmann, all his secret conferences. It is an astonishing thing, but I, despite my reputation, in a kind of negative sense with these people, am given access to files like that, just the same as the Russian Government has given me complete access to all of the Soviet records of Churchill's dealings with Ivan Maisky, Joseph Stalin, Molotov and the rest of them. I am the only historian who has been given access to these Russian records. It is a kind of horse trading method that I use when I want access to these files, because it is in these foreign archives we find the truth about Winston Churchill.
When you want the evidence about his tax dodging in 1949 and thereabouts, you are not going to look in his own tax files, you're going to look in the files of those who employed him, like the Time/Life Corporation of America. That's where you look. And when you're looking for evidence about who was putting money up for Churchill when he was in the wilderness and who was funding this secret group of his, The Focus, you're not going to look in his files. Again, you're going to look in the secret files, for example, of the Czech government in Prague, because that is where much of the money was coming from.
{endquote}
Irving then revealed further details of Churchill's financing by the Czechs, as well as the facts of Churchill's financial rescue by a wealthy banker of Austro-Jewish origins, Sir Henry Strakosch, who, in Irving's words, emerged "out of the woodwork of the City of London, that great pure international financial institution." When Churchill was bankrupted overnight in the American stock market crash of 1937-1938, it was Strakosch who was instrumental in setting up the central banks of South Africa and India, who bought up all Churchill's debts. When Strakosch died in 1943, the details of his will, published in the London Times, included a bequest of £20,000 to the then Prime Minister, eliminating the entire debt.
Irving dealt with Churchill's performance as a wartime leader, first as Britain's First Lord of the Admiralty and then as Prime Minister. The British historian adverted to Churchill's "great military defeat in Norway, which he himself engineered and pioneered," and mentioned the suspicion of Captain Ralph Edwards, who was on Churchill's staff at the time, that Churchill had deliberately caused the fiasco to bring down Neville Chamberlain and replace him as prime minister, which subsequently happened.
Irving spoke of Dunkirk:
{quote}
In May 1940, Dunkirk, the biggest Churchill defeat of the lot. It wasn't a victory. It wasn't a triumph. Nothing for the British to be proud of. Dunkirk? If you look at the Dunkirk files in the British archives now, you will find, too, you're given only photocopies of the premier files on Dunkirk with mysterious blank pages inserted. And you think, at first, how nice of them to put these blank pages in to keep the documents apart. Not so. The blank pages are the ones that you really want to be seeing. In some cases, of course, the blank pages are genuinely censored with intelligence matters. But the other blank pages are letters between Churchill and the French Prime Minister, Paul Reynaud, which revealed the ugly truth that Churchill, himself, gave the secret order to Lord Gort, the British General in command of the British expeditionary force at Dunkirk, "Withdraw, fall back," or as Churchill put it, "Advance to the coast." That was Churchill's wording. "And you are forbidden to tell any of your neighboring allies that you are pulling out. The French and the Belgians were left in the dark that we were pulling out.
I think it's the most despicable action that any British commander could have been ordered to carry out, to pull out and not tell either his allies on his left and right flanks that he was pulling out at Dunkirk. The reason I knew this is because, although the blanks are in the British files, I got permission from the French Prime Minister Paul Reynaud's widow. His widow is still alive. A dear old lady about 95, living in Paris. And guiding her trembling hand, I managed to get her to sign a document releasing to me all the Prime Minister's files in the French National Archives in Paris. And there are documents, the originals of the documents which we're not allowed to see in London. and there we know the ugly truth about that other great Churchill triumph, the retreat to Dunkirk. If peace had broken out in June of 1940, Churchill would have been finished. No brass statue in Parliament Square for Mr. Winston Churchill. He would have been consigned to the dustbin of oblivion, forgotten for all time and good riddance I say, because 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.
{endquote}
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.
{endquote}
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.
(4) Hitler's Second Book (sequel to Mein Kampf) - ally with Britain, colonize Russia, possible conflict with US
The Zweites Buch (German, "Second Book") is an unedited transcript of Adolf Hitler's thoughts on foreign policy written in 1928; it was written after Mein Kampf and was never published in his lifetime.
[...] Hitler attacked Stresemann for his goal of restoring Germany to its pre-1914 position. In Hitler's view, merely overthrowing the Treaty of Versailles and restoring Germany to its pre-1914 borders was only a temporary solution. In Zweites Buch, Hitler stated his belief that Germany's real problem was the lack of sufficient Lebensraum ("Living space") for the German people. In Hitler's view, only states with large amounts of Lebensraum were successful. In Zweites Buch, Hitler announced that overthrowing the "shackles" of Versailles would be only the first step in a Nazi foreign policy, whose ultimate objective was to obtain the desired Lebensraum in the territory of Russia.
[edit]Discovery
Only two copies of the original 200-page manuscript were made, and only one of these copies has ever been made public. Zweites Buch was not published in 1928 as Mein Kampf was not selling well, and Hitler's publisher informed him that having two books out would depress sales even further. By the time Mein Kampf started to sell well after the September 1930 Reichstag elections, Hitler decided that Zweites Buch revealed too much of his foreign policy goals. Kept strictly secret under Hitler's orders, the document was placed in a safe inside an air raid shelter in 1935, where it remained until its discovery by an American officer in 1945. The authenticity of the book was verified by Josef Berg—a former employee of the Nazi publishing house Eher Verlag—and by Telford Taylor, the former Brigadier General U.S.A.R. and Chief Counsel at the Nuremberg war-crimes trials. The book was neither edited nor published during the Nazi Germany era and remains known as Zweites Buch (lit. "Second Book"). The Zweites Buch was first discovered in the Nazi archives being held in the U.S. by the German-born Jewish American historian Gerhard Weinberg in 1958. Unable to find an American publisher, Weinberg turned to his Jewish mentor Hans Rothfels and his associate Martin Broszat at the Institute of Contemporary History in Munich, who published Zweites Buch in 1961 in German. Rothfels wrote the foreword to the 1961 edition. A pirated edition was translated into English and published in New York in 1962. The first authoritative English edition was not published until 2003 as Hitler's Second Book: The Unpublished Sequel to Mein Kampf. It has also been published under the title "Hitler's Secret Book".
[edit]Zweites Buch and Mein Kampf
[...] There are a number of similarities and differences between Zweites Buch and Mein Kampf. As in Mein Kampf, Hitler declared that the Jews were his eternal and most dangerous opponents. As in Mein Kampf, Hitler outlined what the German historian Andreas Hillgruber has called his Stufenplan ("stage-by-stage plan"). Hitler himself never used the term Stufenplan, which was coined by Hillgruber in his 1965 book Hitlers Strategie. Briefly, the Stufenplan called for three stages. In the first stage, there would be a massive military build-up, the overthrow of the "shackles" of the Treaty of Versailles, and the forming of alliances with Fascist Italy and the British Empire. The second stage would be a series of fast, "lightning wars" in conjunction with Italy and Britain against France and whichever of her allies in Eastern Europe—such as Czechoslovakia, Poland, Romania and Yugoslavia—chose to stand by her. The third stage would be a war to obliterate what Hitler considered to be the "Judeo-Bolshevik" regime in the Soviet Union.
In contrast to Mein Kampf, in Zweites Buch Hitler added a fourth stage to the Stufenplan. He insinuated that in the far future a struggle for world domination might take place between the United States and a European alliance comprising a "new association of nations, consisting of individual states with high national value".[1] Zweites Buch also offers a different perspective on the U.S. than that outlined in Mein Kampf. In the latter, Hitler declared that Germany's most dangerous opponent on the international scene was the Soviet Union; in Zweites Buch, Hitler declared that for immediate purposes, the Soviet Union was still the most dangerous opponent, but that in the long-term, the most dangerous potential opponent was the U.S.[2]
[edit]Ideas on international relations
Of all Germany's potential enemies, Hitler ranked the U.S. as the greatest and most dangerous. By contrast, Hitler saw the UK as a fellow "Aryan" power that in exchange for Germany's renunciation of naval and colonial ambitions would ally itself with Germany. France, in Hitler's opinion, was rapidly "Negroizing" itself. In regard to the Soviet Union, Hitler dismissed the Russian people as being Slavic Untermenschen ("sub-humans") incapable of intelligent thought. Hitler consequently believed that the Russian people were ruled over by what he regarded as a gang of bloodthirsty but inept Jewish revolutionaries. By contrast, the majority of Americans were in Hitler's view "Aryans", albeit Aryans ruled by what Hitler saw as a Jewish plutocracy. In Hitler's point of view, it was this combination of "Aryan" might, coupled with a more competent "Jewish rule" which made the U.S. so dangerous.
[edit]United Kingdom
In Zweites Buch, Hitler called for an Anglo-German alliance based on political expediency as well as the notion that the two Germanic powers were natural allies. In Zweites Buch, Hitler tried to explain away the contradiction between his view of the British striving for a balance of power leading to an Anglo-German alliance, and his goal of Germany being the dominant continental power by arguing it was wrong to believe that "England fought every hegemonic power immediately", but rather was prepared to accept dominant states whose aims were "obviously and purely continental in nature".[3] Hitler went on to write that "Of course no one in Britain will conclude an alliance for the good of Germany, but only in the furtherance of British interests."[4] Nonetheless, because Hitler believed that there was an ongoing struggle between the "Jewish invasion" against "old British tradition" for the control of Britain, Hitler believed the chances for Anglo-German alliance to be good provided the “Jewish invasion” was resisted successfully.[5] Hitler hedged somewhat, however, by claiming that
The instincts of Anglo-Saxondom are still so sharp and alive that one cannot speak of a complete victory of Jewry, but rather, in part the latter is still forced to adjust its interests to those of the English. If the Jew were to triumph in England, English interests would recede into the background.... [But] if the Briton triumphs then a shift of England's attitude vis-à-vis Germany can still take place."[5]
[edit]United States
This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (May 2011)
In Mein Kampf, Hitler rarely mentioned the U.S. and when he did, it was in a tone of deep contempt. In Mein Kampf, Hitler portrayed the U.S. as a "racially degenerate" society on its way to self-destruction. By contrast, in Zweites Buch, Hitler portrayed the U.S. as a dynamic, "racially successful" society that practiced eugenics and segregation and followed what Hitler considered to be a wise policy of excluding "racially degenerate" immigration from eastern and southern Europe. What promoted the change in Hitler's views between 1924 and 1928 is not known. By 1928, Hitler seems to have heard about the U.S.'s massive industrial wealth, the Immigration Act of 1924, segregation, and the fact that several American states had eugenics boards to sterilize people who were considered mentally defective, and was favorably impressed.[citation needed] Hitler proclaimed his admiration for these sorts of policies and expressed his wish that Germany would do similar things, albeit on a much greater scale. ...
This page was last modified on 15 December 2011 at 21:51.
(5) Hitler's Second Book: The Unpublished Sequel to Mein Kampf (Bk. 2)
Gerhard L. Weinberg (Editor), Krista Smith (Translator)
The first complete and annotated edition of the book Hitler dictated just before his rise to power. Contains startling, revealing ideas that became his programme once in power but that he didn't want publicised. New here is the much broader, 'open' vision Hitler gave of his foreign policy views and the fact that all were oriented toward war and aggression. Perhaps the most unnerving vision is the terrifying future Hitler offered, one of continuous warfare, with new wars being carried out in a kind of chain-reaction until the final inevitable clash with the United States. These statements are wrapped in the trademark rhetoric and with many references to people and events, which are fully explained by Dr Weinberg's annotations. An essential document, unavailable until now, for a deeper understanding of the Nazi period and its dismal list of horrors.
88 of 99 people found the following review helpful:
MEIN FLOPF, July 28, 2006
By DAVID BRYSON (Glossop Derbyshire England)
[...] We would have known about Lebensraum, but the blatancy of his endorsement of territorial conquest simply for the purpose of protecting the German food-supply is rather breathtaking. ... The rest of the text is mainly concerned with his attitude towards other European nations, France being seen as a traditional and irreconcilable foe, Italy and even England as potential allies. ...
Indeed Hitler is nothing if not candid in this work about the prime importance of carrying the sword to ensure his precious breathing-space. Economic superiority was in his view futile - a robust and healthy Germany should not shirk the task, staringly necessary to him, of suppression of its neighbours by force of arms, the basic reasoning being that a nation that is not the hammer will end up being the anvil. The familiar enemies and bogies are paraded too - Jews, Marxists, freemasons, pacifists and the weak-kneed campaigners for a restoration of the pre-1914 borders of Germany, which seemed to Hitler a paltry substitute for the massive expansion of his dreams. ...
62 of 69 people found the following review helpful:
The historical truth of this book, October 17, 2005
By Saramugsy "saramugsy" (NC United States)
After reading the reviews of this book I think serious history buffs need to know the history, the facts of this book. Weinberg discovered the original manuscript while working with captured war documents in Wash. D.C. after the war. It was published in German by Bavaria who owned the copyright to such things in 1961 with Weinbergs notes and introduction. Grove Press with Telford Taylor pirated it and issued a very poor translation and even used Weinbergs notes. Put the 2 books together and you will see that. That book quickly bombed as scholars and serious history buffs recognized the poor translation. Weinberg's Hitler's Second Book is a top notched translation of Hitler's words and contain well researched notes and introduction by Weinberg and this edition is being used by schools and Universities ---the pirated edition never was. Thus far, Bavaria has not given anyone or any country permission to translate this manuscript besides Weinberg. If one wants to compare this translation, the only true way is to get the original German edition. Otherwise, trust the professional literary reviews.
(6) Stalin's great-grandson says "the USSR did not invade Poland in September, 1939"
From: Jacob Jugashvili <jacob@jugashvili.com> Date: 16.01.2011 04:56 AM
Did the Soviet Union Invade Poland in September 1939?
The answer: No, it did not...
By Grover Furr
Every historian I have read, even those who do not conform to Cold War paradigms, state unproblematically that the Soviet Union invaded Poland in September 1939.
But the truth is that the USSR did not invade Poland in September, 1939.
Did the Soviet Union Invade Poland on September 17, 1939? Why ask? "We all know" this invasion occurred. "You can look it up!" All authoritative sources agree. This historical event happened. ...
The Soviets Wanted to Protect the USSR – and therefore to Preserve Independent Poland
It is conventionally stated as fact that the Nonaggression Pact between the USSR and Germany (often called the "Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact" or "Treaty" after the two foreign ministers who signed it) was an agreement to "partition Poland", divide it up.
This is completely false..
No doubt a big reason for this falsehood is this: Britain and France did sign a Nonaggression Pact with Hitler that "partitioned" another state -- Czechoslovakia. That was the Munich Agreement of September 30, 1938.
Poland too took part in the "partition" of Czechoslovakia too. Poland seized a part of the Cieszyn area of Czechoslovakia, even though it had only a minority Polish population. This invasion and occupation was not even agreed upon in the Munich Agreement. But neither France nor Britain did anything about it.
Hitler seized the remaining part of Czechoslovakia in March 1939. This had not been foreseen in the Munich Agreement. But Britain, France, and Poland did nothing about it.
So the anticommunist "Allies" Britain, France, and Poland really did participate in the partitioning of a powerless state! Maybe that's why the anticommunist "party line" is that the USSR did likewise? But whatever the reason for this lie, it remains a lie.
The Soviet Union signed the Nonaggression Pact with Germany not to "partition Poland" like the Allies had partitioned Czechoslovakia, but in order to defend the USSR.
The Treaty included a line of Soviet interest within Poland beyond which German troops could not pass in the event Germany routed the Polish army in a war.
The point here was that, if the Polish army were beaten, it and the Polish government could retreat beyond the line of Soviet interest, and so find shelter, since Hitler had agreed not to penetrate further into Poland than that line. From there they could make peace with Germany. The USSR would have a buffer state, armed and hostile to Germany, between the Reich and the Soviet frontier.
The Soviets -- "Stalin", to use a crude synecdoche (= "a part that stands for the whole") -- did not do this out of any love for fascist Poland. The Soviets wanted a Polish government -- ANY Polish government -- as a buffer between the USSR and the Nazi armies.
The utter betrayal of the fascist Polish Government of its own people frustrated this plan.
As far as the rest of the world was concerned, the Polish government had two alternatives in the event its army was smashed by an attacking army.
1. It could stay inside the country, perhaps moving its capital away from the invading army. From there it could have sued for peace, or surrendered.
2. The Polish government could have fled to an allied country that was at war with Germany: either France or England.
The governments of all other countries defeated by Germany did one or both of these things. The Polish government -- racist, anticommunist, hyper-nationalist, -- in short fascist, as bad as they get -- didn't do either. Rather than fight the Polish government fled into neighboring Rumania.
Rumania was neutral in the war. By crossing into neutral Rumania the Polish government became prisoners. The legal word is "interned". They could not function as a government from Rumania, or pass through Rumania to a country at war with Germany like France, because to permit them to do that would be a violation of Rumania’s neutrality, a hostile act against Germany.
The USSR did not invade Poland - and everybody knew it at the time
When Poland had no government, Poland was no longer a state.
What that meant was this: at this point Hitler had nobody with whom to negotiate a cease-fire, or treaty.
Furthermore, the M-R Treaty’s Secret Protocols were void, since they were an agreement about the state of Poland and no state of Poland existed any longer. Unless the Red Army came in to prevent it, there was nothing to prevent the Nazis from coming right up to the Soviet border. ...
How do we know the USSR did not commit aggression against, or "invade", Poland when it occupied Eastern Poland beginning on September 17, 1939 after the Polish Government had interned itself in Rumania? Here are nine pieces of evidence:
1. The Polish government did not declare war on USSR.
The Polish government declared war on Germany when Germany invaded on September 1, 1939. It did not declare war on the USSR.
2. The Polish Supreme Commander Rydz-Smigly ordered Polish soldiers not to fight the Soviets, though he ordered Polish forces to continue to fight the Germans.
3. The Polish President Ignaz Moscicki, interned in Rumania since Sept. 17, tacitly admitted that Poland no longer had a government.
4. The Rumanian government tacitly admitted that Poland no longer had a government. ...
5. Rumania had a military treaty with Poland aimed against the USSR. Rumania did not declare war on the USSR.
6. France did not declare war on the USSR, though it had a mutual defense treaty with Poland.
7. England never demanded that the USSR withdraw its troops from Western Belorussia and Western Ukraine, the parts of the former Polish state occupied by the Red Army after September 17, 1939.
On the contrary, the British government concluded that these territories should not be a part of a future Polish state. Even the Polish government-in-exile agreed!
8. The League of Nations did not determine the USSR had invaded a member state.
Article 16 of the League of Nations Covenant required members to take trade and economic sanctions against any member who "resorted to war".
No country took any sanctions against the USSR. No country broke diplomatic relations with the USSR over this action.
However, when the USSR attacked Finland in 1939 the League did vote to expel the USSR, and several countries broke diplomatic relations with it.
A very different response! which tells us how the League viewed the Soviet action in the case of Poland.9. ...
9. All countries accepted the USSR’s declaration of neutrality.
All, including the belligerent Polish allies France and England, agreed that the USSR was not a belligerent power, was not participating in the war. In effect they accepted the USSR’s claim that it was neutral in the conflict.
See FDR’s "Proclamation 2374 on Neutrality", November 4, 1939:
"…a state of war unhappily exists between Germany and France; Poland; and the United Kingdom, India, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa,…" - http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15831&st=&st1=
- also "152 - Statement on Combat Areas" – defines
"belligerent ports, British, French, and German, in Europe or Africa…" - http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=15833&st=&st1=
The Soviet Union is not mentioned as a belligerent.That means the USA did not consider the USSR to be at war with Poland. ...
--
Peter Myers
381 Goodwood Rd
Childers Qld 4660
Australia
ph. in Australia: 07 41262296
from overseas: +61 7 41262296
website: http://mailstar.net/index.html
Skype Name: petermyersaus . Or search for Peter Gerard Myers
To unsubscribe, reply with "Unsubscribe" in the Subject line. Allow one day.