AN EXCERPT FROM "THE BRITISH MAD DOG"

BY M S KING
 
 
 

MAY 25, 1915      ADMIRALTY LORD CHURCHILL IS HUMILIATED AND DEMOTED

 

 

The disaster of Gallipoli forces the Liberal Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith, to form a coalition government.

One of the conditions, as laid down by the Conservative Party, is that Churchill be relieved of his

post as Lord of the Admiralty. By now thoroughly humiliated and demoralized, Churchill hands in

his resignation from the coalition government.

 

The once untouchable Golden Boy is appointed to the meaningless post of Chancellor of the

Duchy of Lancaster and also remains an MP. Although he whines, “I am finished,”

(20) Churchill is already scheming of a way to redeem himself.

 

 

 

 

Not even his family name and freemason connections could save the

reckless drunken loser’s career after Gallipoli – or so it seemed at the time.

 

 

 

JANUARY 1916 – MARCH 1916 

 

  THE 2-MONTH ARMY CAREER OF ‘COLONEL CHURCHILL’

IS JUST A SCHEME TO REJOIN THE GOVERNMENT

 

 

In order to make a political comeback, Churchill has no choice but to become a soldier / war hero.

He is given command of a Battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers with the rank of lieutenant colonel.

By adding the role of a fake war hero to his already fake resume, Churchill positions himself for a return to government.

 

In March, 1916, after only two months of mingling with his inferiors in the field, Churchill

resigns from the Army, returns to London to tell of his mythical battlefield exploits, and shamelessly

requests to be allowed back into the decision-making hierarchy of the war effort! But things do not

go according to plan. Nobody wants anything to do him, but Churchill’s lobbying is relentless.

 

In December 1916, Prime Minister Asquith is replaced as the coalition’s Prime Minister by

David Lloyd George. The new boss is a reasonable man who had never really wanted to go to war

with Germany and wants nothing to do with the likes of Churchill. In a scathing letter,

written in response to Churchill’s pathetic plea to get back in, Prime Minister George unloads on little Winnie:

 

"You will one day discover that the state of mind revealed in (your) letter is the reason why you

do not win trust even where you command admiration. In every line of it, national interests are

completely overshadowed by your personal concern.” (21)

 

It is not clear, at least to your author here, to which letter George was referring. But there was

another letter, written by the disgraced Churchill to Asquith’s daughter in 1916, in which the

insane warmonger really bared not only his insanity, but also his black heart, writing about the war:

 

“I think a curse should rest on me — because I love this war. I know it’s smashing and shattering

the lives of thousands every moment, and yet, I can’t help it, I enjoy every second of it.”

 

(22) Finally, in July 1917, despite protests and strong disapproval from the Conservative Party,

the hated clown is appointed Minister of Munitions; but it is still a post outside the cabinet and

his duties there are mainly administrative.

 

 

      

The fake volunteer soldier boy put in two months in France before scurrying back to London.

 

 

 

Prime Minister Lloyd George saw right through Churchill’s insanity.

 

 

 

Image result for churchill world war 1

 Churchill

 

 

 

 “I love this war. I know it’s smashing and shattering the lives of thousands

every moment, and yet, I can’t help it, I enjoy every second of it.”

 

 

 

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


Winston Churchill: An Unsettled Legacy
 
 

The well-entrenched 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
impression thatHitler sought war against Britain and France, and that Germany aggressively
attacked those two countries ... Churchill's enduringly stellar image is all the more remarkable
considering that 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.
 
 
___________________________________________
 

The 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."
 
 
__________________________________________________________________________
 
 
Winston Churchill's Wartime Document Showing His Plans to Carve up Europe With Stalin Goes on Display

The so-called 'naughty document' on which Winston Churchill carved up Europe with Josef Stalin is set to go on public
display for the first time. Britain's wartime leader made the secret pact with Moscow in 1944 as the Allies closed in on
victory over Nazi Germany. The sheet of paper showed the percentages of Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Romania and
Yugoslavia which would be under Soviet or British control. It is going on display at London's National Archives in an
exhibition called Britain's Cold War Revealed ... The phrase 'naughty document' was coined by Churchill himself,
who recognised that it could come over as 'callous'. Churchill said his American allies would be 'shocked if they saw
how crudely he had put it' ... 'It's potentially incredibly significant - the fate of
millions being decided with the stroke of a pen as a result of a casual meeting.'
 
 
Time to Foreclose on the Churchill Cult
 
Paul Gottfried - The American Conservative

... As First Lord of the Admiralty [during the First World War], he imposed on Imperial Germany a starvation blockade that resulted in hundreds of thousands of deaths. This blockade wasn't lifted until several months after the hostilities had ended. In the Second World War Churchill supported the terror bombing of German cities, at a time when these population centers could no longer defend themselves and when the war was all but lost ... At Yalta the prime minister worked to preserve the British Empire by shamelessly praising Stalin and the Soviet Empire ... Throughout his life, he stood for the British Empire, British independence, and an "anti-socialist vision of England." In the end, Churchill watched all three vanish.   

The Enduring, Dangerous Legacy of Winston Churchill

Winston Churchill, Britain's premier during World War II, is honored for his stubborn "bull dog" hostility toward Hitler and Nazism,
and his important role in ultimately destroying Third Reich Germany. In fact, his policies brought death and destruction on a mass scale,
Soviet domination of central and eastern Europe, a shattered British empire, and Britain itself exhausted and bankrupt.
The well-polished image of Churchill as a courageous and principled defender of freedom is based on a deceitful and ultimately dangerous narrative of history.
Myths About Britain's 'Finest Hour'

There's a myth now about the British hanging together in those dark days [of 1939-1941]. "London can take it," Ed Murrow
told America in his CBS broadcasts. Actually, morale was appalling. Most people correctly had little confidence in the
competence of their government and thought Germany was going to win. In the Channel Islands, which the Nazis did take over,
the people greeted them hospitably and turned in Jews with zest. The British Ministry of Information employed 10,000
people to read people's mail surreptitiously, intercepting about 200,000 letters a week,
and discovered that people were deeply pessimistic, and thought Churchill was "played out."
 

 

Author Unknown,
sourced from The Week.

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

However, it “has been long disputed whether Churchill personally

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

But some commentators have echoed McDonnell’s views.

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

—   §   —

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

LD: A side note on eugenics. Many White Nationalists see nothing wrong with eugenics and point out

correctly that Darwin himself would have approved of eugenics, as would (naturally)

his supergenius cousin Sir Francis Galton, known as the “father of eugenics“.

 

Many eminent thinkers have believed in eugenics, including H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw,

Alexander Graham Bell, Helen Keller, and DNA Nobel prizewinner Francis Crick.

The fact that Hitler believed in eugenics does not make eugenics unacceptable or invalid.

 

Crick notes in a letter: “The main difficulty is that people have to start thinking out eugenics in a different way.

The Nazis gave it a bad name and I think it is time something was done to make it respectable again.”

 

Crick went on to suggest that “irresponsible people” who were “poorly endowed genetically” should be

stopped from having “large numbers of unnecessary children”. The best way to do this — “sterilization is the only answer” —

is to bribe them by paying them cash. He points out that the Indian government had

bribed its people to stop breeding like rabbits by offering them free transistor radios.

 

Another Nobel prizewinner, Alexis Carrel, had been even more extreme in his advocacy of eugenics,

suggesting in 1935 that “deviant” human beings should be suppressed

so that the “hereditary biological aristocracy” could increase.

 

In his book, Man, The Unknown Carrel writes: “A euthanasia establishment, equipped with a suitable gas,

would allow the humanitarian and economic disposal of those who have killed, committed

armed robbery, kidnapped children, robbed the poor or seriously betrayed public confidence,” 

 

As a result of these controversial recommendations for getting rid of

criminal deviants, Carrel has been dubbed “Father of the Gas Chamber”. (LD) 

 

 

(The article continues) 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

 

Source

—   §   —

Endnote by Lasha Darkmoon

Winston Churchill: Zionist Puppet

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

Machiavelli would have chortled at this Churchillian logic.

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

knighthood from the British government.

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Sir Henry Strakosch … was an Austrian-born British banker and businessman. His parents were the

merchant Edward Strakosch and his wife Mathilde, (née Winters). He was born at 

Hohenau, Austria, and educated at the Wasa Gymnasium in Vienna and privately in England.

 

He entered banking in the City of London in 1891, then began working for the Anglo-Austrian Bank

of South Africa in the 1895. Strakosch became a naturalized British citizen in 1907.

 

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

 

Strakosch being a Jew and his involvement in the payment of the private debts of Sir Winston Churchill,

in 1938, has been cited as evidence of Jewish involvement in British politics in the run up to World War Two.

Strakosch had supplied Churchill with figures on German arms expenditure during the latter’s political

campaign for rearmament against the Nazi regime, and the financial arrangement enabled

Churchill to withdraw his home Chartwell from sale at a time of financial pressures.

 

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

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

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

 

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

 

All debts paid.

 

No need to repay the debts!

 

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

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

 

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

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

 

 

How Zionist was Churchill?

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

by Laurent Guyénot

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

 

Churchill’s Jewish friends

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

 

Churchill and Weizmann

 

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

most active Zionist lobbyist during the thirty years preceeding the foundation

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

1922 White Paper was debated in the House of Commons,

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

Buy on Amazon.com – Drawing on a wide range of archives and private papers, speeches, newspaper coverage, and
wartime correspondence, Churchill’s official biographer, Sir Martin Gilbert, explores the origins, implications, and results
of Churchill’s determined commitment to European Jewish rights, opening a window on the politician’s life and career.
 
 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

He declared during the House of Commons

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

Churchill’s Zionist policy

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

 

Resources:

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

 

 
 

 
 
 
 
 
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. 2

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:

They 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. ...
[INDENT

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.
[/INDENT]


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





Sources quoted:

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.
Chelsea House 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
,
February 8th, 1920, p.5.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.html

8. Western Gazette (Somerset, UK) - Friday 30 September 1921, p.12

9.
Gilbert, Martin. Winston S. Churchill, Volume IV 1917-1922. Heinemann; London. 1975. pp.760-761.






Quote:
"Jews and Bolshevism : By Winston Churchill"


Above is a facsimile of the masthead of the Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920, the edition which features the famous Churchill article 'Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People'.



Two weeks prior to the 'Zionism versus Bolshevism' article appearing, the ISH published another Churchill article on Bolshevism, in which he wrote:
"It is, in fact, coming to be understood in the United States and Switzerland, at any rate—and possibly the conviction is growing in England too—that our present civilisation, which is all we have been able to build up through the sufferings, the perils and the splendid achievements of so many centuries, is the object of a deliberate world-wide, profoundly-conceived conspiracy.
All over the world, in every country, and in almost every class of society, there exist the members of the formidable Jacobin or Bolshevik sect and confederation. This is the same force as that which perverted the glorious achievements of the French Revolution, and, having rendered unavailing the sacrifices which all classes had made to accomplish the modernisation of France and of Europe, marched through a welter of butchery to the establishment of a military dictatorship.
It is this same force which overthrew the Russian Republic three years ago, while the Allies gaped ignorantly at their action, and which robbed the Russian people of the free constitution they had at last won, and the peace and victory which were almost within their grasp. It is the same force that at this moment is striving to overturn the German Republic and deprive that nation of its chance of self-redemption among the States of Christendom."
- "The Red Fever: A Way to Deal with Our Bolshevists: Segregate Them!" by Winston Churchill, Illustrated Sunday Herald, January 25, 1920, page 5.




Quote:

The 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)).

"As a result of these massive enforced financial reparations, by 1923 the situation in Germany became desperate and inflation on an astronomical scale became the only way out for the government. Printing presses were engaged to print money around the clock. In 1921 the exchange rate was 75 marks to the dollar. By 1924 this had become about 5 trillion marks to the dollar. This virtually destroyed the German middle class, reducing any bank savings to a virtual zero." (Koestler The God that Failed p 28)

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):

"It must be added that most of the leading revolutionaries who convulsed Europe in the final decades of the last century and the first decades of this one, stemmed from prosperous Jewish families. They were perhaps typified by the father of revolution, Karl Marx. Thus when, after the chaos of World War I, revolutions broke out all over Europe, Jews were everywhere at the helm; Trotsky, Sverdlov, Kamenev and Zinoviev in Russia, Bela Kun in Hungary, Kurt Eisner in Bavaria, and, most improbable of all, Rosa Luxemburg in Berlin .


"To 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
"Germany becomes 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)

Quote:

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)
Quote:

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:
Quote:

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.

British 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

« Revisionists are just the messengers, the stupid
impossibility of the 'Holocaust' story line is the message. »
- Hannover (CODOH)

  
 

Zionism versus Bolshevism

Zionism Versus Bolshevism  (1920)

by Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill

Illustrated Sunday Herald (London), February 8, 1920, pg. 5

 

 

 

ZIONISM versus BOLSHEVISM.
A 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.

 

Good and Bad Jews.

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 existing civilisation.

 

And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals

and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested, would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered

possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people; and

that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical.

 

"National" Jews.

There can be no greater mistake than to attribute to each individual a recognisable share in the qualities which make up the national

character. There are all sorts of men – good, bad and, for the most part, indifferent – in every country, and in every race. Nothing is

more wrong than to deny to an individual, on account of race or origin, his right to be judged on his personal merits and conduct.

In a people of peculiar genius like the Jews, contrasts are more vivid, the extremes are more widely separated, the resulting

consequences are more decisive.

 

At the present fateful period there are three main lines of political conception among the Jews, two of which are helpful and hopeful in a

very high degree to humanity, and the third absolutely destructive.

 

First there are the Jews who, dwelling in every country throughout the world, identify themselves with that country, enter into its national life,

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.

 

International Jews.

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 empire.

 

Terrorist Jews.

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 is astonishing.

 

"Protector of the Jews."

Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people. Wherever General Denikin’s

authority could reach, protection was always accorded to the Jewish population, and strenuous efforts were made by his officers to prevent

reprisals and to punish those guilty of them. So much was this the case that the Petlurist propaganda against General Denikin denounced

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.

 

A Home for the Jews.

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.

 

Duty of Loyal Jews.

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.

 _____________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

 

CHURCHILL HANDLER - THE EVIL PROFESSOR FREDERICK LINDEMANN

By Mike King

 

Political puppets like Winston Churchill generally have a personal buffer between themselves and the really big masters of the New World Order.

For example, Woodrow Wilson had Edward Mandell House; and FDR had Henry Morgenthau.

 

For the British Mad Dog, the personal handler was Frederick A. Lindemann a physicist whose German-Jewish family arrived in England

when he was about 14 years old. He was known to friends as "the Prof" in reference to his position at the University of Oxford,

and as "Baron Berlin" to his many detractors because of his German accent and haughty aristocratic manner.

 

Lindemann believed that a small circle of elites should run the world, resulting in a stable society, "led by supermen and served by helots." 

Lindemann concludes that science could yield a race of humans blessed with “the mental makeup of the worker bee.”

 

 

 

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41PRgC5rPdL._SX298_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

 

The mad Professor Frederick Lindemann – one of the most powerful “Englishman” that you never heard about.

 

In Lindemann's Jewish supremacist worldview, the "worker bees" would be mixed race and the "supermen" would no doubt

be the Jewish Globalist elite. Naturally, before this New World Order could emerge, the 'White Man' would have to first "abdicate"

his leading position on Europe and America. A brief excerpt from 'The Prof' --one of the many the biogarphies written about Lindemann:

 

 

 *****************

“Professor Frederick Lindemann, the Chief Advisor to Winston Churchill and the inspiration and architect of the air crucifixion of Germany

was in a reflective mood after the war. Toward the end of his life, Lindemann made a remark on more than one occasion with such an air of

seriousness that he seemed to regard it as his testament of wisdom, and I accordingly feel it incumbent upon me to record it here,

although not.in.perfect.sympathy with it.     

                                 

'Do you know,' he asked, 'what the future historians will regard as the most important event of this age?

 

‘Well, what is it?’

 

'It will not be Hitler and the Second World War; it will not be the release of nuclear energy; it will not be the menace of Communism.'

 

These negatives seemed very comprehensive. He put on an expression of extreme severity and turned down the corners of his lips:

‘It will be the abdication of the White man.’ Then he nodded his head up and down several times to drive home his proposition."

 

* The Prof’ -- R.F Harrod, McMillan, 1959. Page 261/2. A Personal Memoir Lord Cherwell

 

*****************

 

Lindemann saw the White Man's "abdication to "diversity" coming a long time ago.

 

http://res.cloudinary.com/footballfactz-com/image/upload/v1464529162/amgjt0hw2owaplfbbsuf.jpg http://static.sportskeeda.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/dhorasoo-2030355.jpg
France 1994 --- France 2006
Europe's National Football teams have abdicated to "diversity."
 
*
 
http://img.lum.dolimg.com/v1/images/character_disneyprincess_cidnerella_fbe77f43.jpeg?region=0,0,300,300 http://lh5.ggpht.com/-bo-m9ZV3KR4/T0LlsDYXuxI/AAAAAAAAAEg/2ZOJN4sksSc/s9000/CinderellaDonedone.jpg
Cinderella has "abdicated" to "diversity."
 
*
 
http://i.annihil.us/u/prod/marvel//universe3zx/images/0/0d/MikeFichera--Cap-Classic-red-white-blue.jpg http://media.comicbook.com/uploads1/2014/07/sam-as-cap-102099.jpg
Captain America has "abdicated" to "diversity."
 
*
 
http://www.suttonbeauty.org.uk/suttonhistory/robins_lane_school1/index_files/robins_lane_junior_school.jpg http://www.libertygb.org.uk/sites/default/files/blog/birmingham-school.jpg

The British School System has "abdicated" to "diversity."
 
*
 
http://ifanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/petercostume.jpg http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03349/milesmorales_3349206b.jpg 
Spider Man has "abdicated" to "diversity."
 
*
 
http://i.annihil.us/u/prod/marvel//universe3zx/images/d/d1/Heimdall-OHOTMUME.jpghttp://www.scifinow.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Thor-The-Dark-World-Heimdall.png 
Thor's Viking's mythical place of Asgard has "abdicated" to "diversity." (Heimdall the Gatekeeper).
 
*
 

https://d3rm69wky8vagu.cloudfront.net/photos/original/1.179929.jpg http://www.brooklynvegan.com/files/img/bv/annie-soundtrack.jpg
Little Orphan Annie has "abdicated" to "diversity."
 
*

When Churchill was named Secretary of the Exchequer (Treasury) in 1924 (an appointment which proved disastrous),

Lindemann and Brendan Bracken (both bachelors and homosexuals) became close friends with Winnie (himself a poofter)

and would remain so for 35 years – with the brilliant and sober Lindemann becoming Churchill's guru.

 

In 1932, (months before Hitler was even elected) Lindemann joined Churchill on a trip throughout Europe. When the warmongering

British Mad Dog returned, he wrote:  "A terrible process is astir. Germany is arming."  All throughout Churchill’s 1930’s exile (the Wilderness Years),

the German-hating Lindemann continued to advise Churchill, and call for a campaign for rearmament in the face of the non-existent “German threat.”

 

When Churchill became the wartime Prime Minister in 1940, he appointed Lindemann as the British government's leading scientific adviser.

In this capacity, Lindemann attended meetings of the War Cabinet and accompanied Churchill on conferences. He spoke with Churchill

almost daily for the duration of the war and wielded more influence than any other adviser. General Hastings Ismay,

an important military aid to Churchill who also worked with Lindemann, later recalled:

 

“Churchill used to say that the Prof's brain was a beautiful piece of mechanism, and the Prof did not dissent from that judgment. …..

In his appointment as Personal Assistant to the Prime Minister no field of activity was closed to him. He was as obstinate as a mule,

and unwilling to admit that there was any problem under the sun which he was not qualified to solve. …..He hated Hitler and all his works,

and his contribution to Hitler’s downfall in all sorts of odd ways was considerable.”

 

Lindemann was described as having:

 

 ".. an almost pathological hatred for Nazi Germany, and an almost medieval desire for revenge was a part of his character."

 

In addition to the Air Ministry Area Bombing Directive, Lindemann presented a paper on "delousing" to Churchill, which calculated

the effects of bombardment by a massive bomber force of German cities to break the spirit of the people. Lindemann’s argument that

"bombing must be directed to working class houses -- because -- middle class houses have too much space round them, so are bound to waste bombs"

led to the horrible deaths of as many as 1.5 million German civilians.

 

The Mad Professor also insulted many figures in the British government. But Churchill protected him zealously. An agitated Churchill

once snapped at a Member of Parliament who questioned his bizarre reliance on Lindemann:

 

"Love me, love my dog, and if you don't love my dog, you damn well can't love me….Don't you know that he is one of my oldest and greatest friends?"
 
 
In the grand scheme of things, the obscure Lindemann outranked the famous Churchill by several levels. Just the fact that a 20th
century personage of such historical significance and uncanny foresight remains virtually unknown -- except to a few scholars
and history buffs interested in that era -- constitutes strong evidence that the true power players of history have always
been and continue to remain "behind the scenes."
 
 
Let's make Lindemann a bit more well known -- in a bad way -- by sharing this piece.
Related image Image result for dresden firebombing https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13530646_f496.jpg

Lindemann (Image 1, on left next to Winnie)-- not the subordinate Churchill -- was the true architect of the Hamburg,

Berlin and Dresden fire-bombing Holocausts of innocent Germans --- all part of the "abdication" of "The White Man" to his Tribe.

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

Winston the spendaholic: He teetered on the brink of

bankruptcy and was saved by secret backhanders.

Yet a new book on Churchill's finances reveals he spent

£40,000 a year on casinos and £54,000 on booze

  • Churchill spent most of his life swimming in a mountain of personal debt
  • Gambled equivalent of £40,000 a year on holidays to the south of France
  • Had £54,000 bill from his wine merchant, including £16,000 for Champagne
  • Secret benefactor gave him £1million in 1940 as he became Prime Minister 

The confession was a startling one, in light of the great man he became. ‘The only thing that worries me in life is — money,’ wrote Winston Churchill,

then aged 23, to his brother, Jack. ‘Extravagant tastes, an expensive style of living, small and diminished resources — these are fertile sources of trouble.’

Indeed they were. For the qualities that were to make Churchill a great war leader came very close to destroying him time and again during his career, as manic optimism and risk-taking plunged him repeatedly into colossal debt.

In the Thirties, when he was a married man with four dependent children and already borrowing more than £2.5 million in today’s money,

he would gamble so heavily on his annual holiday in the South of France that he threw away the equivalent of on average £40,000 every year

.Qualities that were to make Churchill a great war leader came very close to destroying him time and again during his career, as manic optimism and risk-taking plunged him repeatedly into colossal debt. But he became one of Britain's greatst heroes and is here receiving the Honorary Freedom of the City of Westminster

Qualities that were to make Churchill a great war leader came very close to destroying

him time and again during his career, as manic optimism and risk-taking plunged him

repeatedly into colossal debt. But he became one of Britain's greatst heroes

and is here receiving the Honorary Freedom of the City of Westminster

 

In my own career, advising families on tax affairs and investments, I have never encountered addiction to risk on such a scale as his.

To a biographer, one of Churchill’s most convenient characteristics is that he left his own bank statements, bills, investment

records and tax demands in his archive, despite the evidence of debt and profligate gambling they reveal.

In contrast to his well-documented periods of anxiety and depression, when the ‘black dog’ struck him, there were phases when he gambled or traded

shares and currencies with such intensity that he appeared to be on a ‘high’ — devoid of inhibition, brimming with self-confidence and energy.

As a result, he left behind a trail of financial failures that required numerous bailouts by friends, family and admirers.

And it was only by a wildly improbable intervention, almost an act of God, that he wasn’t bankrupt in 1940 instead of

Prime Minister: as war loomed, a secret benefactor wrote two cheques for well over £1 million to clear Churchill’s debts.

His inventive efforts at tax avoidance would spell scandal if attempted by any politician today

.In the Thirties, when he was a married man with four dependent children and already borrowing more than £2.5 million in today’s money, he would gamble so heavily on his annual holiday in the South of France that he threw away the equivalent of on average £40,000 every year

In the Thirties, when he was a married man with four dependent children and already

borrowing more than £2.5 million in today’s money, he would gamble so heavily on his

annual holiday in the South of France that he threw

away the equivalent of on average £40,000 every year

One of Churchill’s most convenient characteristics is that he left his own bank statements, bills, investment records and tax demands in his archive, despite the evidence of debt and profligate gambling they reveal. He's pictured here riding in a motor lauch in the harbor at Safi, Morocco

One of Churchill’s most convenient characteristics is that he left his own bank statements,

bills, investment records and tax demands in his archive, despite the evidence of debt and

profligate gambling they reveal. He's pictured here riding in a motor lauch in the harbor at Safi, Morocco

Though he wrestled to control his spending all his life, the defining disaster of Winston’s financial career was the Wall Street Crash of 1929.

Churchill always told his friends his losses in the Stock Market collapse amounted to $50,000 — or £500,000 today. But that is only part of the story.

These were Winston’s years in the wilderness when, having served for a term as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was suddenly out of power.

This was not without its benefits, for at last he was able to devote time to writing books and churning out newspaper columns to keep the bank at bay

. As a result, he left behind a trail of financial failures that required numerous bailouts by friends, family and admirers

 As a result, he left behind a trail of financial failures that required numerous bailouts by friends, family and admirers.

 

In return for his high fees as a journalist, Churchill’s friends among the press proprietors expected colourful copy that ran against the conventional

political wisdom. He delivered it, but his trenchant commentaries made rehabilitation within the political establishment very difficult.

The problems began when he embarked on a North American tour to promote his book on World War I, The World Crisis, accompanied by his brother Jack and son Randolph.

 

He travelled through Canada by private railcar, sleeping in a double bed on board with a private bathroom. ‘There is a fine parlour with an observation room at the

end,’ he wrote to his wife Clemmie, ‘and a large dining room which I use as the office. The car has splendid wireless installation, refrigerators, fans, etc.’

Surrounded by these modern marvels, Churchill began to trade again in shares and commodities. He was intoxicated by Canada’s money-making opportunities, especially in exploration for oil and gas.

 

Gripped by investment fever as he reached the prairies, he wired his publisher to demand an advance

on his royalties, boasting of the profits he could grasp if he acted without delay.

To allay Clemmie’s concerns, he told her of the cash he was making by selling his book at public appearances — 600 copies in Montreal alone —

and casually announced he had ‘found a little capital’ with which he ‘hoped to make some successful investments’.

 

He plunged tens of thousands of dollars into oilfields and rolling stock, assuring his bankers that, ‘I do not expect to hold these shares for more than a few weeks’.

In the States, he stayed with media tycoon William Randolph Hearst and bought stakes in electrical ventures and gas companies,

before heading to California where he indulged in late-night parties with Hollywood’s movie elite and toured the studios

.In contrast to his well-documented periods of anxiety and depression, when the ‘black dog’ struck him, there were phases when he gambled or traded shares and currencies with such intensity that he appeared to be on a ‘high’ — devoid of inhibition, brimming with self-confidence and energy


In contrast to his well-documented periods of anxiety and depression, when the ‘black dog’

struck him, there were phases when he gambled or traded shares and currencies with such

intensity that he appeared to be on a ‘high’ — devoid of inhibition, brimming with self-confidence and energy.

 

After lunch with Charlie Chaplin on the set of his latest film, City Lights, Churchill boarded Hearst’s yacht and wrote to Clemmie that he had banked £1,000 (£50,000 today) by cashing in some shares in a furniture business called Simmons.

 

‘You can’t go wrong on a Simmons mattress,’ he crowed — but failed to mention that he had $35,000 (a third of a million pounds today) still invested with them.

 

His buying had spiralled out of control. Everything he could raise was plunged into U.S. stocks, in businesses from foundries to department stores.

 

His brokers sounded warnings by telegraph: ‘Market heavy. Liquidating becoming more urgent. Will await your telephone. Your bank still losing gold & there are rumours of increase in bank rate.’

Churchill ignored them. In four days he bought and sold $420,000 in shares — or more than £4 million-worth now.

 

It was like a drug to him. ‘In every hotel,’ he told Clemmie, ‘there is a stock exchange. You go and sit and watch the figures being marked up on slates every few minutes.’

The crash was inevitable. At the opening bell in the New York Stock Exchange on Thursday, October 24, 1929, prices fell by an average of 11 per cent.

He wrestled to control his spending all his life, the defining disaster of Winston’s financial career was the Wall Street Crash of 1929. Churchill told his friends his losses in the Stock Market collapse amounted to $50,000 — or £500,000 today. But that is only part of the story. Pictured in 1958 with hipping magnate Aristotle Onassis

He wrestled to control his spending all his life, the defining disaster of Winston’s financial career

was the Wall Street Crash of 1929. Churchill told his friends his losses in the Stock Market

collapse amounted to $50,000 — or £500,000 today. But that is only part

of the story. Pictured in 1958 with hipping magnate Aristotle Onassis.

 

Churchill kept buying, confident of recouping his losses, right up to the moment he boarded an Atlantic liner to return home. By the time he reached Chartwell, his home in Kent, he was poorer by $75,000 (£750,000).

 

But instead of pulling in his horns, he tried to recoup — and within six months had lost another $35,000 (£350,000).

 

His efforts to cling to some kind of solvency became desperate. He borrowed money wherever he could — from his brother, his bank, his brokers, his publishers and newspaper editors.

He arranged another speaking tour in America and took out insurance against its cancellation — then used the General Election of 1931 as an excuse for postponing and claiming his £5,000 (£250,000) indemnity.

 

 

He traded the insurers one of his oil paintings, in a deal he described as ‘highly confidential’.

Once the election was behind him, he set off to America — but, in his fraught state, stumbled into disaster.

 

Having arranged to meet a business associate in New York, he grabbed a taxi. But in his hurry, he forgot to take the man’s address. After a fruitless hour trying to find the building, he climbed out of the cab — and was hit by a car.

These were Winston’s years in the wilderness when, having served for a term as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he was suddenly out of power. This was not without its benefits, for at last he was able to devote time to writing books and churning out newspaper columns to keep the bank at bay

These were Winston’s years in the wilderness when, having served for a term as Chancellor

of the Exchequer, he was suddenly out of power. This was not without its benefits, for at last

he was able to devote time to writing books and churning out newspaper columns to keep the bank at bay.

 

Even this was used as a means to scrape money together. He wrote a newspaper article about the accident, syndicated it

worldwide for £600 (£30,000) and then claimed medical insurance on the spurious grounds he was ‘totally disabled’.

 

When the underwriters protested that he was still able to earn money from journalism, his broker retorted that he could not physically writ

e — the article had been dictated to a secretary. Mere talking, he insisted, should not be classed as work. The insurers paid up.

 

Such sharp practice was not confined to his insurance claims. He told the Inland Revenue he had retired as an author, which entitled him to defer a large income tax bill.

 

 

To avoid paying tax on book royalties, he sold the rights and successfully argued that the money he received was not income but capital gains, which at the time was exempt from tax.

 

He borrowed money from his children’s trusts, and even cut down his drinking — not to curb his expenses, but to win a bet with the press

baron Lord Rothermere, who wagered him £600 that Churchill would not drink any brandy or undiluted spirits for a whole year.

 

Churchill took the bet, reasoning to Clemmie that money won gambling was not subject to tax. But he turned down a bigger bet, £2,000 [£100,000], that he could not remain teetotal for 12 months.

 

‘I refused,’ he explained, ‘as I think life would not be worth living.’

 

In fact, his accumulated bills for alcohol came to £900 (£54,000). His gambling was even more costly — 66,000 francs (about £50,000) in a single holiday at a casino in Cannes in 1936, for example.

 

Clementine’s excesses were little better. That year, her bill at Harrods ran to more than 80 pages, with accounts, too, at Selfridge’s, Harvey Nichols, Peter Jones, Lillywhite’s and John Lewis.

Faced with a £900 [£54,000 today] demand from his wine merchants Randolph Payne & Sons in 1936, Churchill checked the bill and found the total came to even more — £920

Faced with a £900 [£54,000 today] demand from his wine merchants Randolph Payne & Sons in 1936,

Churchill checked the bill and found the total came to even more — £920.

 

Attempts at economising were feeble. Three servants were dismissed, with a saving of £240 [£14,400] and the same amount was

cut from the laundry bill. The temperature of the swimming pool at Chartwell was also reduced in a bid to halve heating costs.

 

But by 1938, as the European situation with Hitler and Mussolini became critical, Churchill had run out of resources. Both Chartwell and his house in London were up for sale but had attracted no buyers.

 

CHURCHILL SANK 454 BOTTLES OF BUBBLY IN JUST TWO MONTHS


Faced with a £900 [£54,000 today] demand from his wine merchants

Randolph Payne & Sons in 1936, Churchill checked the bill and found the

total came to even more — £920 [£55,200], including £268 [£16,080] spent

on champagne: ten magnums, 185 bottles and 251 pints of it.n At the

outbreak of World War I, Churchill was smoking a dozen cigars a day, at

about £13 a month [£1,300] — and he had not paid his

suppliers, J Grunebaum & Sons, for five years.

 

Swimming in personal debt (about £1.5m today), Churchill announced some drastic household cutbacks in 1926, the year of the General Strike. The cost of food, servants and running

a car were to be halved. ‘No champagne is to be bought,’ he warned his wife. ‘Only white or red wine will be offered at luncheon or dinner. No more port

is to be opened without special instructions. Cigars must be reduced to four a day.’ The economy drive lasted less than three months.

 

On his way home from a Mediterranean cruise in 1927, Churchill — then Chancellor of the Exchequer — dropped in on the casino at Dieppe and, playing baccarat, lost £350 — the equivalent of £17,500 today.

 

Winston holidayed in the South of France 12 times during the Thirties and always gambled at the casinos. He came home a winner only once.

 

During World War II, his personal spending on wine, spirits and cigars was £1,650 a year [£66,000].

 

In a two-month spell in 1949, Churchill and his house guests at Chartwell drank 454 bottles of champagne, 311 bottles of wine, 69 bottles of port, 58 bottles of brandy, 58 bottles of sherry and 56 bottles of Black Label whisky.

 

His journalism could no longer even cover his back-taxes, and he had borrowed to the limit against his life insurance policies. Creditors were clamouring on all sides.

 

His overdraft had reached £35,000 (more than £2million) and his brokers were demanding an immediate payment of £12,000 (£720,000). His attempts to bargain were ignored.

 

 

‘For a while,’ he admitted, ‘the dark waters of despair overwhelmed me. I watched the daylight creep slowly in through the windows and saw before me in mental gaze the vision of Death.’

Salvation came from an unexpected quarter. Churchill turned to his friend Brendan Bracken, co-owner of The Economist, to find him a rescuer.

Bracken, in turn, approached his business partner, Sir Henry Strakosch, who was a fervent admirer of Churchill. He was also immensely wealthy.

 

 

Two months earlier, at Bracken’s request, Churchill had visited Sir Henry at his house in Cannes. The 68-year-old, who had made his

fortune at the helm of South Africa’s gold-mining Union Corporation, had been unwell and Bracken described him as a ‘lonely old bird’.

This slightest of introductions paid colossal dividends.

 

Sir Henry, a naturalised Briton born in Austria, regarded Churchill as the one politician in Europe with the vision, energy and courage to resist the Nazi threat.

 

He had no hesitation in paying off £12,000 (about £660,000 today) of his share-trading debts.

 

Neither man ever spoke publicly about the rescue. Churchill kept knowledge of it to a very tight circle that did not include his bank or his lawyers.

 

Sir Henry’s only reward was to be nominated for The Other Club, the dining society based at the Savoy in London that Churchill had founded with his fellow political maverick F. E. Smith.

 

At the outbreak of war in 1939, Churchill was appointed First Lord of the Admirality, with a salary of £5,000 (£250,000 today) — exactly what it was when he was last given this

Cabinet post, 25 years earlier in 1912. The pay, though substantial, was nowhere near enough to cover

his expenditure, let alone the interest on his outstanding loans, which totalled £27,000 [£1.6 million].

 

For years he had been working on his three-volume History Of The English-Speaking Peoples, but despite his prodigious output, he had been unable to deliver

the finished manuscript and collect his fee. The book had got no further than the American Civil War, but undaunted, Churchill declared it to be finished.

Swimming in personal debt (about £1.5m today), Churchill announced some drastic household cutbacks in 1926, the year of the General Strike. The cost of food, servants and running a car were to be halved. ‘No champagne is to be bought,’ he warned his wife. ‘Only white or red wine will be offered at luncheon or dinner

Swimming in personal debt (about £1.5m today), Churchill announced some drastic

household cutbacks in 1926, the year of the General Strike. The cost of food, servants

and running a car were to be halved. ‘No champagne is to be bought,’ he

warned his wife. ‘Only white or red wine will be offered at luncheon or dinner.

 

His publisher, Cassell’s, was dismayed at such an abrupt ending.

 

All protests were dismissed: Churchill was too busy to write any more. Reluctantly, Cassell’s paid up, which enabled him

to pay £2,000 (£100,000 today) of overdue taxes and settle wine merchants’ bills that topped £3,000 (£150,000).

 

 

On May 10, 1940, as Hitler’s armies surged through Holland and Belgium, Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain resigned, and by evening King

George VI had asked Churchill to form a government. Today, the choice of man seems inevitable, but at the time there was consternation.

 

‘Seldom can a Prime Minister have taken office with the Establishment so dubious of the choice and

so prepared to find its doubts justified,’ wrote one of Downing Street’s private secretaries, Jock Colville.

 

Churchill’s salary as PM might have doubled to £10,000 (£500,000), but with the highest

rate of income tax standing at 97.5 per cent, virtually all of it went to the Inland Revenue.

 

Just two weeks after the Dunkirk evacuation, in June 1940, the Prime Minister was

facing an ultimatum from Lloyd’s Bank for interest on his £5,602 overdraft (£280,100).

 

Once again, Sir Henry came to the rescue with a cheque for £5,000 (£250,000). The

receipts show a flurry of payments to shirt-makers, watch-repairers and, naturally, wine merchants.

 

Despite rationing, food and drink flowed at Chequers, the Prime Minister’s official residence. King George sent pheasant and venison

from Balmoral, and the Admiralty agreed to double the wine budget, providing that all consumption was for diplomatic purposes.

On his way home from a Mediterranean cruise in 1927, Churchill — then Chancellor of the Exchequer — dropped in on the casino at Dieppe and, playing baccarat, lost £350 — the equivalent of £17,500 today

On his way home from a Mediterranean cruise in 1927, Churchill — then Chancellor of the Exchequer —

dropped in on the casino at Dieppe and, playing baccarat, lost £350 — the equivalent of £17,500 today.

 

That condition proved no problem: Churchill was determined to enlist the military might of the United States and American guests became frequent visitors to Chequers.

 

To pare back the tax demands, Churchill tried every possible ruse, even assigning some of his earnings as an author to his son Randolph, who was taxed at a lower rate.

 

This subterfuge could save £1,500 (£75,000) but it made Churchill uneasy — not least because Randolph’s gambling was even more reckless than his own.

 

What finally rescued Churchill’s finances, and put him on a stable footing for the rest of his life, was Hollywood.

 

In 1943, an Italian immigrant film producer paid him £50,000 (£2.5million) for the movie rights to his biography of his ancestor, the military genius Lord Marlborough.

 

The death of Sir Henry Strakosch in October 1943 brought a legacy of £20,000 (£1million) as well as cancelling a loan.

 

As D-Day approached, Churchill was solvent for the first time in 20 years. By the end of the war, he had collected another £50,000 (£2.5million) for the film rights to his History Of The English-Speaking Peoples.

 

And a further colossal bonus came when he was unexpectedly ousted from Downing Street by the voters in July 1945: on the day of his resignation, offers began to flood in from publishers around the world for his war memoirs.

 Winston holidayed in the South of France 12 times during the Thirties and always gambled at the casinos. He came home a winner only once

Winston holidayed in the South of France 12 times during the Thirties and

always gambled at the casinos. He came home a winner only once.

 

Traditionally, generals and admirals who won great victories were rewarded by Parliament. Earl Haig,

the Army’s commander-in-chief during World War I, was awarded £100,000 (£500,000) in 1918.

 

There could be no such payment for an ex-Prime Minister. But a group of his admirers came up with a scheme to buy

Chartwell for the National Trust, then rent it back to the Churchills for a nominal sum. Churchill was delighted.

 

 

Despite this unaccustomed security, he was not above seizing a chance to bypass the taxman.

 

As bidding for his memoirs topped $1 million (£12.5million) from an American consortium, Churchill was investigating another scheme: by gifting

his entire personal papers, including future memoirs and diaries, to a trust in his children’s name, he figured he could avoid most tax on his writings.

 

He planned to pen his books for a smaller fee, under the pretext of ‘editing’ them.

 

This editing proved to be thirsty work. When Churchill decamped to Marrakech in Morocco to work on

the manuscript in 1947, his entourage’s drinks bill for five weeks came to more than £2,100 (£73,500).

In a two-month spell in 1949, Churchill and his house guests at Chartwell drank 454 bottles of champagne, 311 bottles of wine, 69 bottles of port, 58 bottles of brandy, 58 bottles of sherry and 56 bottles of whisky

In a two-month spell in 1949, Churchill and his house guests at Chartwell drank 454 bottles

of champagne, 311 bottles of wine, 69 bottles of port, 58 bottles

of brandy, 58 bottles of sherry and 56 bottles of whisky.

 

One of his secretaries wrote home: ‘The money here aren’t ’arf going!’

 

It continued to ‘go’ for the rest of his life. By the time he became PM again in 1951, his annual expenses were

about £40,000 (£1 million), much of it on a staff of Swiss nurses and footmen, all of them vetted by MI5.

 

But now the honours flowed in. He won the Nobel Prize for Literature, a tax-free £12,000 (£300,000). He turned

down a dukedom on the grounds that a dukedom without a great landed estate would be an embarrassment.

 

When he died aged 90 on January 24, 1965, the world mourned. But some had a

particular reason to regret his passing: they would never see such a customer again.

 

In France, Madame Odette Pol-Roger instructed that a black band of mourning should be placed around the label of every bottle of her family’s champagne.

 

 

______________________________________

 

 

Click on this text to listen to Winston Churchill's article on the Jews, Zionism, Bolshevism, Soviet Jewish Control on Youtube.

Irving on Churchill

 

Dismantling Churchillian Mythology

 

Theodore J. O'Keefe

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

Then Irving let out an electrifying piece of information:

 

The details which I will tell you today, you will not find published in the Churchill biography. For example, you

won't even find them published in Churchill's own biography because there were powers above him who were so

powerful that they were able to prevent him publishing details that even he wanted to

publish that he found dirty and unscrupulous about the origins of the Second World War.

 

For example, when I was writing my Churchill biography, I came across a lot of private papers in the files of the

Time/Life organization in New York. In Columbia University, there are all the private papers of the chief editor of

Time/Life, a man called Daniel Longwell. And in there, in those papers, we find all the papers relating to the original

publication of the Churchill memoirs in 1947, 1949, the great six-volume set of Churchill memoirs of the Second

World War. And I found there a letter from the pre-war German chancellor, the man who preceded Hitler, Dr. Heinrich

Brüning, a letter he wrote to Churchill in August 1937. The sequence of events was this: Dr. Brüning became the

chancellor and then Hitler succeeded him after a small indistinguishable move by another man. In other words,

Brüning was the man whom Hitler replaced. And Brüning had the opportunity to see who was backing Hitler.

Very interesting, who was financing Hitler during all his years in the wilderness, and Brüning knew.

 

Brüning wrote a letter to Churchill after he had been forced to resign and go into exile in England in August 1937,

setting out the names and identities of the people who backed Hitler. And after the war, Churchill requested

Brüning for permission to publish this letter in his great world history, The six-volume world history. And Brüning

said no. In his letter, Brüning wrote, 'I didn't, and do not even today for understandable reasons, wish to reveal from

 October 1928, the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two

of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany."

 

Now there is a letter from Dr. Heinrich Brüning to Churchill in 1949, explaining why he wouldn't give permission to

Churchill to publish the August 1937 letter. It was an extraordinary story, out of Churchill's memoirs. Even Churchill

wanted to reveal that fact. You begin to sense the difficulties that we have in printing the truth today. Churchill, of

course, knew all about lies. He was an expert in lying himself. He put a gloss on it. He would say to his friends,

"The truth is such a fragile flower. The truth is so precious, it must be given a bodyguard of lies." This is the way Churchill put it.

 

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

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

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

 

Irving on the Focus:

 

The Focus was financed by a slush fund set up by some of London's wealthiest businessmen -- principally,

businessmen organized by the Board of Jewish Deputies in England, whose chairman was a man called

Sir Bernard Waley Cohen. Sir Bernard Waley Cohen held a private dinner party at his apartment on July 29, 1936.

This is in Waley Cohen's memoirs ... The 29th of July, 1936, Waley Cohen set up a slush fund of 50,000 pounds

for The Focus, the Churchill pressure group. Now, 50,000 pounds in 1936, multiply that by ten, at least, to get

today's figures. By another three or four to multiply that into Canadian dollars. So, 40 times 50,000 pounds --

about $2 million in Canadian terms -- was given by Bernard Waley Cohen to this secret pressure group of

Churchill in July 1936. The purpose was -- the tune that Churchill had to play was -- fight Germany. Start

warning the world about Germany, about Nazi Germany. Churchill, of

course, one of our most brilliant orators, a magnificent writer, did precisely that.

 

For two years, The Focus continued to militate, in fact, right through until 1939. And I managed to find the secret

files of The Focus, I know the names of all the members. I know all their secrets. I know how much money they

were getting, not just from The Focus, but from other governments. I use the word "other governments" advisedly

because one of my sources of information for my Churchill biography is, in fact, the Chaim Weizmann Papers in

the State of Israel. Israel has made available to me all Churchill's secret correspondence with Chain Weizmann,

all his secret conferences. It is an astonishing thing, but I, despite my reputation, in a kind of negative sense with

these people, am given access to files like that, just the same as the Russian Government has given me complete

access to all of the Soviet records of Churchill's dealings with Ivan Maisky, Joseph Stalin, Molotov and the rest of

them. I am the only historian who has been given access to these Russian records. It is a kind of horse trading

method that I use when I want access to these files, because it is

in these foreign archives we find the truth about Winston Churchill.

 

When you want the evidence about his tax dodging in 1949 and thereabouts, you are not going to look in his own

tax files, you're going to look in the files of those who employed him, like the Time/Life Corporation of America.

That's where you look. And when you're looking for evidence about who was putting money up for Churchill when

he was in the wilderness and who was funding this secret group of his, The Focus, you're not going to look in his

files. Again, you're going to look in the secret files, for example, of the Czech

government in Prague, because that is where much of the money was coming from.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

that Churchill had deliberately caused the fiasco to bring down Neville

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

 

Irving spoke of Dunkirk:

 

In May 1940, Dunkirk, the biggest Churchill defeat of the lot. It wasn't a victory. It wasn't a triumph. Nothing for the

British to be proud of. Dunkirk? If you look at the Dunkirk files in the British archives now, you will find, too, you're

given only photocopies of the premier files on Dunkirk with mysterious blank pages inserted. And you think, at

first, how nice of them to put these blank pages in to keep the documents apart. Not so. The blank pages are

the ones that you really want to be seeing. In some cases, of course, the blank pages are genuinely censored with

intelligence matters. But the other blank pages are letters between Churchill and the French Prime Minister,

Paul Reynaud, which revealed the ugly truth that Churchill, himself, gave the secret order to Lord Gort, the

British General in command of the British expeditionary force at Dunkirk, "Withdraw, fall back," or as Churchill put it,

"Advance to the coast." That was Churchill's wording. "And you are forbidden to tell any of your neighboring

allies that you are pulling out. The French and the Belgians were left in the dark that we were pulling out.

 

I think it's the most despicable action that any British commander could have been ordered to carry out, to pull out

and not tell either his allies on his left and right flanks that he was pulling out at Dunkirk. The reason I knew this

is because, although the blanks are in the British files, I got permission from the French Prime Minister Paul Reynaud's

widow. His widow is still alive. A dear old lady about 95, living in Paris. And guiding her trembling hand, I managed

to get her to sign a document releasing to me all the Prime Minister's files in the French National Archives in Paris.

And there are documents, the originals of the documents which we're not allowed to see in London. and there we

know the ugly truth about that other great Churchill triumph, the retreat to Dunkirk. If peace had broken out in

June of 1940, Churchill would have been finished. No brass statue in Parliament Square for Mr. Winston Churchill.

He would have been consigned to the dustbin of oblivion, forgotten for all time and good riddance I say, because t

he British Empire would have been preserved. We would, by now, have been the most

powerful race -- can we dare use the word, the British race, the most powerful race on Earth.

 

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

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

 

The crucial moment when he managed to kill this peace offensive in England was July 1940. If we look at the one

date, July the 20th, this I think was something of a watershed between the old era of peace, the greatness of the

British Empire and the new era, the new era of nuclear deterrent and the holocaust, the nuclear holocaust.

July 20, 1940: Mr. Churchill is lying in bed that Sunday out in Chequers, when he gets a strange message. It's an

intercept of a German ambassador's telegram in Washington to Berlin. It's only just been revealed, of course, that

we were reading all of the German codes -- not only the German Army, Air Force and Navy Codes, but also the G

erman embassy codes. And if you're silly enough to believe everything that's written in the official history of British

Intelligence, you will understand that the only reason that they released half of the stories is to prevent us from

trying to find out the other half. And what matters is that we are reading the German diplomatic codes as well. On

July 20th, the German ambassador in Washington sent a message to Berlin saying that the British ambassador

in Washington had asked him very quietly, very confidentially, just what the German peace terms were. This, of

course, was the one thing that Churchill could never allow to happen, that the British find out what Hitler's peace

terms are. He sends an immediate message to the foreign office, to Lord Halifax, saying, "Your ambassador in

Washington is strictly forbidden to have any further contacts with the German

ambassador, even indirectly." They were communicating through a Quaker intermediary.

 

Now, on the same day, Churchill sent a telegram to Washington ordering Lord Lothian, the British ambassador in

Washington, to have nothing to do with the German ambassador. And the same day, he takes a third move to

ensure that the peace moves in Britain are finally strangled at birth. He orders Sir Charles Portal to visit him at

Chequers, the country residence of British prime ministers. Sir Charles Portal was Commander in Chief of Bomber

Command. Now what is the significance? Well, the significance is this. Up to July 1940, not one single German

bomb has fallen on British towns. Hitler had given orders that no British towns are to be bombed and, above all,

bombing of London is completely forbidden and embargoed. Churchill knows this, because he's reading the

German code. He's reading the German Air Force signals, which I can now read in the

German files. Churchill is reading the signals, and he knows that Hitler is not doing him the favor.

 

Hitler is still hoping that this madman in England will see reason or that he will be outvoted by his cabinet colleagues.

So he's not doing Churchill the favor of bombing any English towns. Churchill is frantic because he thinks he's being

outsmarted by Hitler. On July the 20th he sends for Sir Charles Portal, the Chief of Bomber Command, and he says

to Sir Charles Portal, as we know from records from Command to the Air Ministry, "When is the earliest that you could

launch a vicious air attack on Berlin?" Sir Charles Portal replies to Winston, "I'm afraid we can't do it now, not until

September because the nights aren't long enough to fly from England to Berlin and back in the hours of darkness.

September, perhaps, and in September we will have the first hundred of the new Sterling bombers ..." But he also

says, "I warn you, if you do that, the Germans will retaliate. At present they're not bombing English targets, they're

not bombing civilian targets at all and you know why. And if you bomb Berlin, then Hitler will retaliate against

English civilian targets." And Churchill just twinkles when he gets this reply, because he knows what he wants.

 

We know what he wants because he's told Joe Kennedy, the American Ambassador - Joseph P. Kennedy, father of

the late President - "I want the Germans to start bombing London as early as possible because this will bring the

Americans into the war when they see the Nazis' frightfulness, and above all it will put an end to this awkward and

inconvenient peace movement that's afoot in my own Cabinet and among the British population." I've opened

Kennedy's diary. I've also read Kennedy's telegrams back to the State Department in Washington. They're buried

among the files. You can't find them easily, but they are worth reading, and you see in detail what Churchill was

telling him. What cynicism. Churchill deliberately provoking the bombing of his own capital in order to kill the peace

movement. He's been warned this would be the consequence, but he needs it. And still Hitler doesn't do him the favor.

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 _______________________________________________________________

 

 

Churchill Urged America to Nuke Russia to Win Cold War, Secret FBI Memo Reveals

 

 

Winston Churchill urged the United States to launch a nuclear attack on

the Soviet Union to win the Cold War, a newly released document reveals.

(Daily Mail)

 

The previously unseen memorandum from the FBI archives details how Britain’s

wartime leader made his views known to a visiting American politician in 1947.

 

Churchill believed a pre-emptive strike on Stalin might

be the only way to stop Russia conquering the West.

 

The note, written by an FBI agent, reports that Churchill urged Right-wing Republican Senator

Styles Bridges to persuade President Harry Truman to launch a nuclear attack which would

‘wipe out’ the Kremlin and make the Soviet Union a ‘very easy problem’ to deal with.

 

The Russians would have been defenceless against a nuclear attack at that time

– they did not successfully test their own atomic bomb until 1949.

 

Britain and the Soviet Union had been allies in the Second World War until 1945, the year

Churchill lost office as Prime Minister. But he was one of the first international statesmen

to recognise the post-war threat posed by the USSR, and in 1946 made a famous speech

in Fulton, Missouri, about an ‘iron curtain’ having descended across Europe

as Joseph Stalin consolidated his grip on the eastern half of the continent.

 

The FBI document shows Churchill’s belligerence towards Britain’s former wartime ally

ran so deep that he was prepared to tolerate the deaths of

hundreds of thousands of Russian civilians in a nuclear strike.

 

The memo claims Churchill ‘stated that the only salvation for the civilisation of the world

would be if the President of the United States would declare Russia to be imperilling world peace and attack Russia’.

 

The note continues: ‘He pointed out that if an atomic bomb could be dropped on the Kremlin,

wiping it out, it would be a very easy problem to handle the balance of Russia, which would be without direction.

 

‘Churchill further stated that if this was not done, Russia will attack the United States in the

next two or three years when she gets the atomic bomb and civilisation will be wiped out or set back many years.’

 

The memo is published for the first time in a book called When Lions Roar: The Churchills

And The Kennedys, by award-winning investigative journalist Thomas Maier. John F. Kennedy

regarded Churchill as his hero and made him an honorary

American citizen in 1963 – the first person to be given such an accolade.

 

The two families shared friends, such as Greek shipping magnate Aristotle Onassis,

who married Jacqueline Kennedy after her husband’s assassination.

 

Maier said: ‘Churchill had been a great historian of warfare. He saw the last great

cavalry charge during the First World War and championed the development of tanks.

 

‘I think he saw a nuclear strike as just another progression of conventional warfare,

until he realised there was a lot more devastation with nuclear weapons.’

 

Maier said Churchill was more ‘bellicose’ when out of office. After he returned to

power in 1951, a nuclear attack against the USSR was never mentioned again.

 

 

___________________________________________________

 
Excerpts from 'The British Mad Dog'
 
By ...  M S King
CHURCHILL THE PLAGIARIST AND ALSO THE USER OF GHOSTWRITERS
In light of his alcoholism, his high positions, his journalism, and his record of academic mediocrity
(at best), one has got to wonder how this puffed-up “literary giant” was able to muster the time
and discipline necessary to author so many books. Well, you see, the “prolific” multi-millionaire
writer not only has the help of “literary assistants”, (ghostwriters) but he is also a plagiarist!
A young historian Maurice Ashley contributes heavily to Churchill’s 1937 ‘A History of the
English-Speaking Peoples’. Years later, another historian named William Deakin pens an enormous
amount of material for Churchill, including most of the text of his “widely acclaimed”series on
World War II. The military narratives are supplied by a retired general, Sir Henry Pownall.
By the 1950’s, an aging and alcohol-addled Churchill is relying upon an entire team of
writers to do much more than just research, contribute, and edit, but really take over his work.
http://www.history.ac.uk/makinghistory/historians/images/gallery/Aston_Trevor.jpghttp://www.most.ba/096/william_deakin.jpghttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e6/Henry_Royds_Pownall.jpg/220px-Henry_Royds_Pownall.jpg
The multi-million pound one-man literary enterprise that was Winston Churchill was not a one man show after all. -- Ashley, Deakin and Pownall.
 
In addition to his reliance upon ghostwriting historians, the imitation intellectual also engaged in
gross plagiarism. British historian Max Hastings, writing in The Telegraph, November 2, 2004,
informs us:“Pownall, ironically enough, had often confided to his own wartime diary rage and
frustration about Churchill's intemperate interferences in military operations. Now, for a salary
of £1,000 a year, along with a less influential naval counterpart, he played a key role in the
fortification of the Churchill legend. Churchill skillfully injected into the narrative just sufficient
rolling phrases in his own inimitable style to put a personal stamp upon the published version.
The opinions and judgments expressed were, of course, entirely his own. But, from the delivery of
the first volume onwards, some critics, including Life magazine which had paid vast sums for
serial rights, expressed misgivings about countless pages of contemporary documents rendered
verbatim in the text, to make up the weight. By the time of the third volume, Life's Henry Luce
was growling: "The old boy is chiseling on us. If he were younger, we'd kick him in the shins."
Churchill narrowly averted litigation for plagiarism from Samuel Morison, an American naval historian
whose narrative of the Pacific sea battles was recycled in the former Prime Minister's volumes.” (7)
 
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2010/04/25/books/review/Keller-t_CA0/Keller-t_CA0-articleInline.jpghttps://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/46/de/97/46de971d759058b17fbe76f8eb9175b7.jpg
Henry Luce, the legendary founder of LIFE Magazine, came to understand that Churchill
was a money-grubbing plagiarist.MID 1930's CHURCHILL THE FORGER -- BROKEAND
DESPERATE,  RESORTS TO SELLING FAKE PAINTINGSJust how desperate was Churchill’s
financial situation during the 1930’s? Noted British historian and master document digger
David Irving informs us:“Churchill of course is no stranger to counterfeit art. In dire financial
straits in the 1930she took to faking the paintings of the deceased French impressionist
Charles Maurin because Maurin's signature sold somewhat better in the Left Bank
boutiques in those days than did his own. President Franklin D Roosevelt spotted the little
deception, and wrote him a joshing letter about it in February 1942. For some reason those
letters never made it into the official volumes of Churchill Roosevelt correspondence -- an
omission I have rectified in "Churchill's War", vol. ii: "Triumph in Adversity".
 
Now that's Real History. Spreads like Butter.”
 
(8) Roosevelt had come to learn of the scam from a fine arts
expert in Washington DC. Irving,in another article, quotes from the teasingly friendly 1942
letter in which Roosevelt writes to Churchill as though it is not known who the forger is:
 
Dear Winston --- these people who go around under assumed names render themselves
opento all kinds of indignity and suspicion.” (9) Roosevelt mischievously added:
“The British Embassy was asked for verification and I suppose the matter has been to Scotland Yard and back again.” (10)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4a/David_Irving_1.jpg http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/std/jackets/WSC2_150.gifhttps://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Charles_maurin.jpg
In ‘Churchill’s War: Triumph in Adversity’, historian David Irving uncovers a 1942 letter from
FDR to Churchill in which the former teases the British Mad Dog - a mediocre painter -
about a 1937 scam in which Churchill put impressionist Charles Maurin’snames to his paintings – and then sold them to boutiques!