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 civilians ...
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."
Zionism versus Bolshevism
- ZIONISM versus BOLSHEVISM.
STRUGGLE FOR THE SOUL OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE.
- By 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 formidable 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 since happened in the history of the world has falsified the
truth of Disraeli’s confident assertion.
The conflict between good and evil which proceeds unceasingly in the breast of man nowhere
reaches such an intensity as in the Jewish race. 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
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
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, and, while adhering faithfully
to their own religion, regard themselves as citizens in the fullest sense of the State which has received them. 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 highest degree. We in Great Britain well know that during the great struggle the influence of what may
be called the “National Jews” in many lands was cast preponderatingly on the side of the Allies; and in our
own Army Jewish soldiers have played a most distinguished part, some 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 economic resources and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable organisations,
the Russian Co-operative Societies. In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive
movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholders of 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 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 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
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), or 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
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 him as the Protector of the Jews. The Misses Healy, nieces of Mr. Tim Healy, in relating their
personal experiences in Kieff, have declared that to their knowledge on more than one occasion officers who committed offences
against Jews were reduced to the ranks and sent out of the 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 Makhno, the hordes of Petlura
and of Gregorieff, who signalised their every success by the most brutal massacres, everywhere found among 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 international 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 in the social sphere; and
in building up with the utmost possible rapidity a Jewish national centre in Palestine which may become not only 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 glory, a task is presented on which many blessings rest.
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 famous article 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.
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.
economic background to the war is necessary for a fuller understanding, before casting judgement on the originators
of these viewpoints.
At 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)).
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)
According to Sir Arthur Bryant the British historian
(Unfinished Victory (1940 pp. 136-144):
"It 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."
Goodness 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." etc etc.
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):
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 .
many 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." [See note]
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)
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 War.
Last year David Irving made a world-wide speaking tour, visiting North America (the U.S.
and Canada), Australia, South Africa, and Europe. He lectured on a wide range of topics pertaining to the troubled history
of our century, with his customary flair for the pointed phrase and the telling anecdote. During one of his lectures, delivered
at Vancouver, British Columbia, on March 31, 1986, Irving offered a series of mordant new facts and insights on the life
and career of Winston Churchill.
At the outset of his lecture, Irving remarked that the late Harold MacMillan (Lord Stockton),
recently targeted by Nikolai Tolstoy (The Minister and the Massacres) for his role in the forcible deportation of
tens of thousands of anti-Communist Cossacks, Byelorussians, Ukrainians, and others to the U.S.S.R. after World War lI,
had stated that Irving's Churchill book would "not be published by his company, over his dead body." Clearly Lord
Stockton's recent demise didn't alter things at MacMillan, however.
Then Irving let out an electrifying piece of information:
The details which I will
tell you today, you will not find published in the Churchill biography. For example, you won't even find them published
in Churchill's own biography because there were powers above him who were so powerful that they were able to prevent him
publishing details that even he wanted to publish that he found dirty and unscrupulous about the origins of the Second World
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."
there is a letter from Dr. Heinrich Brüning to Churchill in 1949, explaining why he wouldn't give permission to Churchill
to publish the August 1937 letter. It was an extraordinary story, out of Churchill's memoirs. Even Churchill wanted to reveal
that fact. You begin to sense the difficulties that we have in printing the truth today. Churchill, of course, knew all
about lies. He was an expert in lying himself. He put a gloss on it. He would say to his friends, "The truth is such
a fragile flower. The truth is so precious, it must be given a bodyguard of lies." This is the way Churchill put it.
Irving went on to describe several sources of secret
financial support enjoyed by Churchill. In addition to money supplied by the Czech government, Churchill was financed during
the "wilderness years" between 1930 and 1939 by a slush fund emanating from a secret pressure group known as the
on the Focus:
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
Journal of Historical Review, Winter 1986 (Vol. 7, No. 4), pp. 498 ff.