AN EXCERPT FROM "THE
BRITISH MAD DOG"
BY M S KING
MAY 25, 1915
LORD CHURCHILL IS HUMILIATED AND DEMOTED
The disaster of Gallipoli forces the Liberal
Prime Minister, Herbert Asquith, to form a coalition government.
of the conditions, as laid down by the Conservative Party, is that Churchill be relieved of
post as Lord of the Admiralty. By now thoroughly humiliated and demoralized, Churchill hands in
resignation from the coalition government.
The once untouchable Golden Boy is appointed to the meaningless post of Chancellor
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
JANUARY 1916 – MARCH
THE 2-MONTH ARMY CAREER OF ‘COLONEL
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
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.
December 1916, Prime Minister Asquith is replaced as the coalition’s Prime Minister by
Lloyd George. The new boss is a reasonable man who had never really wanted to go to
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.
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
"To achieve the extermination of Nazi tyranny
there are no lengths of violence to which we will not go."
Churchill, September 1943
An Unsettled Legacy
idealization of Churchill is part and parcel of a drastically misleading view of the
Second World War that Americans have been fed for decades. One
common deceit is to give the
thatHitler sought war against Britain and France, and that Germany aggressively
attacked those two countries ... Churchill's enduringly stellar image is all the more
his views on a range of issues were, by today's standards,
hopelessly backward and politically incorrect ... Along with most Britons
(and Americans) of his era, he was also an unabashed racist.
US-Saudi Starvation Blockade
Our aim is to "starve
the whole population - men, women, and children, old and young, wounded and sound - into submission,"
said First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill. He was speaking
of Germany at the outset of the Great War of 1914-1918.
Americans denounced as inhumane this starvation blockade that would eventually take the lives of a million German
After the Armistice of
Nov. 11, 1918, however, the starvation blockade was not lifted until Germany capitulated to all Allied
demands in the Treaty of Versailles. As late as March 1919, four
months after the Germans laid down their arms, Churchill
arose in Parliament to exult, "We are enforcing the blockade with rigor, and Germany is very near starvation."
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.
Myths About Britain's 'Finest Hour'
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,
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.
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
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
and discovered that people were
deeply pessimistic, and thought Churchill was "played out."
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’.
to quick-fire questions at the end of a live video interview with Politico, McDonnell was asked if
Churchill was a hero or a villain, to which he replied: “Tonypandy — villain.” (See picture)
was referring to a series of violent confrontations between striking coal miners and the police in the
Welsh town of Tonypandy in 1910. One miner was killed and hundreds injured in the clashes. Churchill’s decision,
as then-home secretary, to send the Army to reinforce police “caused considerable
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
— § —
“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
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…
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.”
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,
allow the humanitarian and economic disposal of those who have killed, committed
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”.
(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”
the use of gas as a weapon. “I am strongly in favour of using
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,”
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
in 1920. The unit became known for vicious attacks on civilians
and violent reprisals.
Historian Peter Hart described it as an “astoundingly counterproductive” move by
Churchill, according to The Independent. “IRA violence only increased,” he said.
Churchill was also
known for his strong anti-union sentiment. In 1910, he ordered the Army to intervene when striking miners
staged riots in Wales, and again the next year in Liverpool – where soldiers fired their weapons,
killing two people. Nine years later he deployed 10,000 troops to Glasgow amid strike-related
also exhibited a strong hatred for Mahatma Gandhi and his campaign
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.
— § —
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,
that Frau Merkel is Hitler’s illegitimate daughter. All this, I think, must be taken with a pinch of salt.
Stalin was certainly
no Jew. Still less was Hitler. If they were, then here we have two Jewish titans inflicting severe wounds
on each other, wiping out in the process allegedly six million other Jews. Which is not the way the Jews work.
Jews always work together, networking closely, so as to advance the Jewish agenda.
This is the secret of their survival.
Jews didn’t rise to the top
of the totem pole, to the peak of the power pyramid,
by tearing each other
apart. That’s what the goyim do, united only in their disunity.
What would most people think if you told them that the father of England’s
greatest hero of all time, Winston Churchill,
was Jack the Ripper? —
Yes, Jack the Ripper! — They would laugh out loud and roll their eyes in wonder. And yet,
there is a sensational article to be found on the internet giving us all the gory details about Churchill’s
dad carving up
prostitutes in the Whitechapel district of London’s East
End in the time of good
Queen Victoria! (See “Jack the Ripper” was Winston Churchill’s Father).
if this were true and if Churchill were the son of the Ripper, iconic serial killer of all time, it’s hard to
Churchill himself can be held responsible for what his dreadful dad did
under the flickering gas lamps of foggy London town in the late 19th century.
There is more than
enough evidence to show that Churchill was a Zionist shill. That he was on the Jewish payroll.
But this does not make him a Jew. It makes him a shabbos goy, a loyal servitor of the Jews.
Churchill has no problem praising the Jews lavishly whenever he can. (See this picture quote)
Churchill behind them, the Jews would have found it much harder to steal Palestine from the Arabs.
Churchill’s rhetoric played right into Jewish hands. In 1920 he declared: “If, as may well happen,
there should be
created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish
State under the protection of the British Crown,
which might comprise three or
four millions of Jews, an event will have
occurred in the history of the world
which would from every point of view be 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
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
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
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,
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
on his doorstep demanding £54,000, including £16,000
just for Champagne. In 1940, when he rose to become
Prime Minister of Britain,
he received a mysterious “gift” of £1million from a secret benefactor called
Sir Henry Strakosch, a naturalised Briton born in Austria who had made his money in the South African mines.
An article in the Daily
Mail, which reveals all these sensational details about Churchill, curiously forgets to mention
the all-important fact that Churchill’s rescuer from ruin was a Jew — an Austrian Jew
who had managed to pick up a
knighthood from the British government.
(For full details of Churchill’s obsessive-compulsive gambling, spendaholic and alcoholic
habits, see here).
Henry Strakosch’s unflagging generosity to Churchill in bailing him out and paying his extravagant debts —
not once but several times — came at a high price. It seems there was a quid pro
quo. Sir Henry, the munificent
Jewish financier, would pay off Churchill’s
mounting debts if Churchill agreed
to toe the Jewish line and did exactly what
he was told to do by international Jewry.
Proof that Sir Henry Strakosch was Jewish is found in a separate article in Wikipedia on Strakosch:
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.
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.
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?
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,
“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
Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship, published in 2007. “It switched on a light for me,” he said.
It did the very same for me.
For those who have not read this highly informative book, I will here summarize the
which seem to me of major importance for understanding the background for the foundation of Israel.
first chapters, dealing with Winston’s early years, are of course not the most important. Yet, given Churchill’s
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.”
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
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’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
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,
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,
Churchill was appointed Minister of Munitions, then Secretary of State
for War en 1919.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.”
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
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:
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,
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
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.”
In a memorandum that he wrote
for the War Cabinet on Christmas Day 1939, Churchill expressed his
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
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.” 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,
“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
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
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.
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:
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
“for expansion in the desert regions to the southwards
which they would gradually reclaim.”
In December 1939, as Weizmann
was planning a trip to the USA, the Foreign Office sent a telegram to the British
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
“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.”
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):
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.” 
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. 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
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
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
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
the Zionists declared the founding of the State of Israel, immediately recognized
by the US and the Soviet Union.
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
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.
-  Catrina Stewart, “Sir Winston Churchill: Zionist hero,” The Independent Online, November 3, 2012,
-  Unless stated otherwise, all quotes are from Martin Gilbert, Churchill and the Jews: A Lifelong Friendship, Henri
Holt & Company, 2007, kindle edition.
-  Alfred Lilienthal, What Price Israel? (1953), Infinity Publishing, 2003, p. 21, 18.
-  Martin Gilbert, “Winston Churchill and the foundation of Israel,” May 2, 2016, www.martingilbert.com/blog/winston-churchill-and-the-foundation-of-israel/
-  Martin Gilbert, “Winston Churchill and the foundation of Israel,” May 2, 2016, www.martingilbert.com/blog/winston-churchill-and-the-foundation-of-israel/
-  Alan Hart, Zionism, vol. 1, op. cit., p. 115-116, 155-159.
-  Martin Gilbert, “Winston Churchill and the foundation of Israel,” May 2, 2016, www.martingilbert.com/blog/winston-churchill-and-the-foundation-of-israel/
-  David Irving, Churchill’s War, vol. 2: Triumph in Adversity, Focal Point Publications,
2001, p. 76-77.
-  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.
On October 10th, 1919, Churchill wrote to British PM David Lloyd-George:
There is a very bitter feeling throughout Russia
against the Jews, who are regarded as being the main instigators of the ruin of the Empire, and who, certainly have
played a leading part in Bolshevik atrocities. 3
On November 6, 1919, Winston Churchill, Secretary of State for War, stated the following during a late
night debate in the House of Commons:
Lenin was sent into Russia by the Germans in the same way that you might send a phial containing a culture
of typhoid or of cholera to be poured into the water supply of a great city, and it worked with amazing accuracy. No
sooner did Lenin arrive than he began beckoning a finger here and a finger there to obscure persons in sheltered retreats
in New York, in Glasgow, in Berne, and other countries, and he gathered together the leading spirits of a formidable sect,
the most formidable sect in the world, of which he was the high priest and chief. With these spirits around him he set to
work with demoniacal ability to tear to pieces every institution on which the Russian State and nation depended. Russia
was laid low. Russia had to be laid low. She was laid low to the dust. 4
On January 3, 1920, during a speech in
Sunderland, Churchill attacked British socialists, saying:
want to destroy all the religious beliefs that console and inspire humanity. They believe in the international Soviet
of Russian and Polish Jews. We continue to believe in the British Empire. 5
On January 25, 1920, Churchill wrote
to his friend Herbert Albert Fisher:
I am afraid the facts established only too clearly the predominance
of Jews in the Bolshevik movement ... it is my firm belief that the Jews in this country would be well to admit
the facts more openly than they do and to rally to the support of those forces in Russia which give some prospect of setting
up a strong and impartial government. 6
On February 8th, 1920, the Illustrated
Sunday Herald, published Winston Churchill's
Zionism versus Bolshevism. In which he stated:
this same astounding race (Jews) may at the present time be in the actual process
of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not
arrested, would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel
of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious
race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical. ...
From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky
(Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for
the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence,
and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster,
has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has
been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary
personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair
of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.
There is no need to exaggerate the part
played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these
international and for the most part atheistical Jews, it is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all
others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal
inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. ... The same evil prominence was obtained by
Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented
in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration
of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish
revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing. ... Trotsky
... his schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination ... 7
On September 24th, 1921,
during a speech in Dundee, Churchill stated:
We have seen how
completely they (Socialists/Communists/Bolsheviks) have destroyed Russia, so that that once great, wealty Empire,
one of the world's greatest granaries, has been reduced through four years of Socialism and Bolshevism to absolute starvation.
More people may well die this winter in Russia than perished in the whole four years of the war. This awful catastrophe
has been brought about by a gang of professional revolutionaries, mostly Jews, who have seized on the wretched Russian
nation in its weakness and in its ignorance, and have applied to it with ferocious logic all those doctrines of Communism
which we hear spouted so freely in this country. In Russia they have put them into practice. They have, indeed, turned
words into deeds; and they have killed without mercy anyone who opposed them. 8
On December 24th,
1921, Churchill wrote to Lord Curzon:
I see the gravest objections ... to giving all this help and countenance to the
tyrannic Government of Jew Commissars, at once revolutionary and opportunist, who are engaged not only in persecuting
the bourgeoisie, but are carrying on a perpetual and ubiquitous warfare with the peasants of Russia. ... We want to nourish
the dog and not the tapeworm that is killing the dog. 9
1. Gilbert, Martin. Winston S. Churchill,
Volume IV 1917-1922. Heinemann; London. 1975. pp.176-177.
2. Gilbert, Martin. Winston S. Churchill, Volume IV 1917-1922. Heinemann; London. 1975. p.293.
3. Gilbert, Martin. Winston S. Churchill,
Volume IV 1917-1922. Heinemann; London. 1975. p.342.
4. Winston S. Churchill: His Complete Speeches, 1897-1963, Volume III.
Publishers, London. 1974. p.2783. And here
4. House of Common's Debates: November 5, 1919: http://yourdemocracy.newstatesman.com/parliament/orders-of-the-day/HAN2457102
5. Defries, Harry. Conservative Party Attitudes to
Jews, 1900-1950. Frank Cass Publishers; Southgate, England. 2001. p.82.
5. Poliakov, Léon. The
History of Anti-Semitism: Suicidal Europe, 1870-1933. University of Pennsylvania Press. 2003. p.207.
6. Defries, Harry. Conservative Party Attitudes to Jews, 1900-1950. Frank Cass Publishers; Southgate, England. 2001. p.82.
7. Illustrated Sunday Herald
8th, 1920, p.5. http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.html
8. Western Gazette (Somerset, UK) - Friday 30 September 1921, p.12
Gilbert, Martin. Winston S. Churchill, Volume IV 1917-1922. Heinemann; London. 1975. pp.760-761.
"Jews and Bolshevism : By Winston Churchill"
Above is a facsimile of the masthead of the Illustrated Sunday Herald,
February 8, 1920, the edition which features the famous Churchill article 'Zionism versus Bolshevism: A Struggle for the
Soul of the Jewish People'.
Two weeks prior to the 'Zionism
versus Bolshevism' article appearing, the ISH published another Churchill article on Bolshevism, in which he wrote:
"It is, in fact, coming to be understood in the United
States and Switzerland, at any rate—and possibly the conviction is growing in England too—that our present
civilisation, which is all we have been able to build up through the sufferings, the perils and the splendid achievements
of so many centuries, is the object of a deliberate world-wide, profoundly-conceived conspiracy.
All over the world, in every country,
and in almost every class of society, there exist the members of the formidable Jacobin or Bolshevik sect and confederation.
This is the same force as that which perverted the glorious achievements of the French Revolution, and, having rendered
unavailing the sacrifices which all classes had made to accomplish the modernisation of France and of Europe, marched through
a welter of butchery to the establishment of a military dictatorship.
It is this same force which overthrew the Russian Republic three years ago,
while the Allies gaped ignorantly at their action, and which robbed the Russian people of the free constitution they had
at last won, and the peace and victory which were almost within their grasp. It is the same force
that at this moment is striving to overturn the German Republic and deprive that nation of its chance of self-redemption
among the States of Christendom."
- "The Red Fever: A Way to Deal with Our Bolshevists: Segregate Them!"
by Winston Churchill, Illustrated Sunday Herald, January 25, 1920, page 5.
The economic background to the war is necessary for a fuller understanding, before
casting judgement on the originators of these viewpoints.
the end of the First World War, Germany was essentially tricked [see Paul Johnson "A History of the Modern World"
(1983) p24 and H Nicholson Peacemaking 1919 (1933) pp13-16] into paying massive reparations to France and other economic
competitors and former belligerent countries in terms of the so-called Treaty of Versailles, thanks to the liberal
American President Woodrow Wilson. Germany was declared to be solely responsible for the war, in spite of the fact
that "Germany did not plot a European war, did not want one, and made genuine efforts, though too belated, to avert
one." (Professor Sydney B Fay The Origins of the World War (vol. 2 p 552)).
"As a result of these massive enforced financial reparations, by 1923 the situation in Germany
became desperate and inflation on an astronomical scale became the only way out for the government. Printing presses were
engaged to print money around the clock. In 1921 the exchange rate was 75 marks to the dollar. By 1924 this had become about
5 trillion marks to the dollar. This virtually destroyed the German middle class, reducing any bank savings to a virtual
zero." (Koestler The God that Failed p 28)
Sir Arthur Bryant the British historian (Unfinished Victory (1940 pp. 136-144):
was the Jews with their international affiliations and their hereditary flair for finance who were best able to seize such
opportunities. They did so with such effect that, even in November 1938, after five years of anti-Semitic
legislation and persecution, they still owned, according to the Times correspondent in Berlin, something like a third of
the real property in the Reich. Most of it came into their hands during the inflation. But
to those who had lost their all this bewildering transfer seemed a monstrous injustice. After prolonged sufferings
they had now been deprived of their last possessions. They saw them pass into the hands of strangers, many of whom had not
shared their sacrifices and who cared little or nothing for their national standards and traditions. The Jews obtained
a wonderful ascendancy in politics, business and the learned professions (in spite of constituting) less than one
percent of the population. The banks, including the Reichsbank and the big private banks, were practically controlled
by them. So were the publishing trade, the cinema, the theatres and a large part of the press all the normal
means, in fact, by which public opinion in a civilized country is formed. The largest newspaper combine
in the country with a daily circulation of four millions was a Jewish monopoly. Every year it became harder
and harder for a gentile to gain or keep a foothold in any privileged occupation. At this time it was not
the 'Aryans' who exercised racial discrimination. It was a discrimination that operated without violence. It was
exercised by a minority against a majority. There was no persecution, only elimination. It was the contrast between
the wealth enjoyed and lavishly displayed by aliens of cosmopolitan tastes, and the poverty and misery of native Germans,
that has made anti-Semitism so dangerous and ugly a force in the new Europe. Beggars on horseback are seldom popular,
least of all with those whom they have just thrown out of the saddle."
gracious, Sir Arthur! What made you get out of the wrong side of the bed? Strangely
enough, a book unexpectedly published by Princeton University Press in 1984, Sarah Gordon (Hitler, Germans
and the "Jewish Question") essentially confirms what Bryant says. According to her, "Jews were
never a large percentage of the total German population; at no time did they exceed 1% of the population during the years
1871-1933." But she adds "Jews were over-represented in business, commerce, and public
and private service. They were especially visible in private banking in Berlin, which in 1923 had 150 private
Jewish banks, as opposed to only 11 private non-Jewish banks. They owned 41% of iron and scrap iron firms and 57%
of other metal businesses. Jews were very active in the stock market, particularly in Berlin, where in 1928 they comprised
80% of the leading members of the stock exchange. By 1933, when the Nazis began eliminating Jews from prominent
positions, 85% of the brokers on the Berlin Stock exchange were dismissed because of their 'race'. At least a quarter of
full professors and instructors (at German universities) had Jewish origins. In 1905-6 Jewish students comprised 25% of the
law and medical students. In 1931, 50% of the 234 theatre directors in Germany were Jewish, and in Berlin the number was
80%. In 1929 it was estimated that the per capita income of Jews in Berlin was twice that of other Berlin residents."
Arthur Koestler confirms the Jewish over-involvement
in German publishing. "Ullstein's was a kind of super-trust; the largest organization of its kind
in Europe, and probably In the world. They published four daily papers in Berlin alone, among these
the venerable Vossische Zeitung, founded in the eighteenth century, and the B.Z. am Mittag, an evening paper. Apart
from these, Ullstein's published more than a dozen weekly and monthly periodicals, ran their own news service, their own
travel agency, etc., and were one of the leading book publishers. The firm was owned by the brothers Ullstein
- they were five, like the original Rothschild brothers, and like them also, they were Jews." (The God
that Failed (1950) ed. RHS Crossman, p 31).
Edgar Mowrer, Berlin correspondent
for the Chicago Daily News, wrote an anti-German tract called 'Germany Puts the Clock Back' (published as a Penguin
Special and reprinted five times between December 1937 and April 1938). He nevertheless notes "In the all-important
administration of Prussia, any number of strategic positions came into the hands of Hebrews. A telephone
conversation between three Jews in Ministerial offices could result in the suspension of any periodical or newspaper in the
state. The Jews came in Germany to play in politics and administration that same considerable part that
they had previously won by open competition in business, trade, banking, the Press, the arts, the sciences and the intellectual
and cultural life of the country. And thereby the impression was strengthened that Germany, a country
with a mission of its own, had fallen into the hands of foreigners."
Mowrer says "No one who lived through the period from 1919 to 1926 is likely to forget the
sexual promiscuity that prevailed. Throughout a town like Berlin, hotels and pensions made vast fortunes by letting rooms
by the hour or day to baggageless, unregistered guests. Hundreds of cabarets, pleasure resorts and the like served for purposes
of getting acquainted and acquiring the proper mood." (pp. 153-4). Bryant describes throngs of child prostitutes
outside the doors of the great Berlin hotels and restaurants. He adds "Most of them (the night clubs and vice-resorts)
were owned and managed by Jews. And it was the Jews among the promoters of this trade who were remembered in after years."
(pp. 144-5). Douglas Reed, Chief Central European correspondent
before WWII for the London Times, was profoundly anti-German and anti-Hitler. But nevertheless he reported: "I
watched the Brown Shirts going from shop to shop with paint pots and daubing on the window panes the word 'Jew', in dripping
red letters. The Kurfürstendamm was to me a revelation. I knew that Jews were prominent in business life, but
I did not know that they almost monopolized important branches of it. Germany had one Jew to one hundred gentiles,
said the statistics; but the fashionable Kurfürstendamm, according to the dripping red legends, had about one gentile
shop to ninety-nine Jewish ones." (Reed Insanity Fair (1938) p. 152-3). In Reed's book Disgrace Abounding of the
following year he notes "In the Berlin (of pre-Hitler years) most of the theatres were Jewish-owned or
Jewish-leased, most of the leading film and stage actors were Jews, the plays performed were often by German, Austrian or
Hungarian Jews and were staged by Jewish film producers, applauded by Jewish dramatic critics in Jewish newspapers. The
Jews are not cleverer than the Gentiles, if by clever you mean good at their jobs. They ruthlessly exploit the common feeling
of Jews, first to get a foothold in a particular trade or calling, then to squeeze the non-Jews out of it. It is not true
that Jews are better journalists than Gentiles. They held all the posts on those Berlin papers because the proprietors and
editors were Jewish" (pp238-9).
The Jewish writer
Edwin Black notes "For example, in Berlin alone, about 75% of the attorneys and nearly as many of the doctors were
Jewish." (Black, The Transfer Agreement (1984) p58.
To cap it all, Jews
were perceived as dangerous enemies of Germany after Samuel Untermeyer, the leader of the World Jewish Economic Federation,
declared war on Germany on August 6 1933. (Edwin Black The Transfer Agreement: the Untold Story of the Secret Pact between
the Third Reich and Palestine (1984) pp272-277) According to Black, "The one man who most embodied the potential
death blow to Germany was Samuel Untermeyer." (p 369). This was the culmination of a worldwide boycott of German
goods led by international Jewish organizations. The London Daily Express on March 24, 1933 carried the headline "Judea
Declares War on Germany". The boycott was particularly motivated by the German imposition of the Nuremberg Laws, which
ironically were similar in intent and content to the Jewish cultural exclusivism practiced so visibly in present-day Israel
(Hannah Arendt Eichmann in Jerusalem p 7).
Hitler saw the tremendous
danger posed to Germany by Communism. He appreciated the desperate need to eliminate this threat, a fact that earned him
the immense hatred and animosity of the Jewish organisations and the media and politicians of the west which they could
influence. After all, according to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant, although Jews formed less than five percent of Russia's
population, they formed more than fifty percent of its revolutionaries. According to the Jewish writer Chaim Bermant in
his book The Jews (1977, chapter 8):
"It must be added
that most of the leading revolutionaries who convulsed Europe in the final decades of the last century and the first decades
of this one, stemmed from prosperous Jewish families. They were perhaps typified by the father of revolution, Karl Marx.
Thus when, after the chaos of World War I, revolutions broke out all over Europe, Jews were everywhere at the helm; Trotsky,
Sverdlov, Kamenev and Zinoviev in Russia, Bela Kun in Hungary, Kurt Eisner in Bavaria, and, most improbable of all, Rosa
Luxemburg in Berlin .
outside observers, the Russian revolution looked like a Jewish conspiracy, especially when it was followed by Jewish-led
revolutionary outbreaks in much of central Europe. The leadership of the Bolshevik Party had a
preponderance of Jews. Of the seven members of the Politburo, the inner cabinet of the country, four,
Trotsky (Bronstein), Zinoviev (Radomsky), Kamenev (Rosenfeld) and Sverdlov, were Jews."
Other authors agree with this:
"There has been a
tendency to circumvent or simply ignore the significant role of Jewish intellectuals in the German Communist Party, and
thereby seriously neglect one of the genuine and objective reasons for increased anti-Semitism during and after World War
1. The prominence of Jews in the revolution and early Weimar Republic is indisputable, and this
was a very serious contributing cause for increased anti-Semitism in post-war years. It is clear then that the stereotype
of Jews as socialists and communists. led many Germans to distrust the Jewish minority as a whole and to brand Jews as enemies
of the German nation." (Sarah Gordon, "Hitler, Germans and the Jewish Question", Princeton University
Press (1984) p 23).
"The second paroxysm of strong anti-Semitism
came after the critical role of Jews in International Communism and the Russian Revolution and during the economic crises
of the 1920s and 30s. Anti-Semitism intensified throughout Europe and North America following the perceived
and actual centrality of Jews in the Russian Revolution. Such feelings were not restricted to Germany,
or to vulgar extremists like the Nazis. All over Northern Europe and North America, anti-Semitism became the norm
in 'nice society', and 'nice society' included the universities." (Martin Bernal, Black Athena vol. 1
pp. 367, 387).
"The major role Jewish leaders played in the November
(Russian) revolution was probably more important than any other factor in confirming (Hitler's) anti-Semitic beliefs."
(J&S Pool, Who Financed Hitler, p.164).
Truthseeker Archive: More proof that the Jews started WWII - Testimony from distinguished diplomats
to powerful. We have to crush it." - Winston Churchill (November 1936, to US-General Robert E. Wood)
"We will force this war upon
Hitler, if he wants it or not." - Winston Churchill (1936 broadcast)
"This war is an English war and its goal is the destruction of Germany." -
Winston Churchill (Autumn 1939 broadcast)
Although Churchill's harshly anti-Hitler rhetoric is well known, as late as 1937,
in his book Great Contemporaries, he was extolling the German leader's "patriotic ardor and love of country."
The story of Hitler's struggle, Churchill went on, "cannot be read without admiration for the courage, the
perseverance, and the vital force which enabled him to challenge, defy, conciliate, or overcome, all the authorities
or resistances which barred his path." [See note] In another publication from that same year Churchill wrote: "One may dislike Hitler's system and yet admire his
patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore
our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations."
Churchill's War, Triumph in Adversity (review)
In Churchill's first
address as prime minister -- the famous "blood, toil, tears, and sweat" speech of May 13, 1940 -- he proclaimed
his goal in the war: "You ask, What is our aim? I can answer in one word: It is Victory -- victory at all costs,
victory in spite of all terror; victory, however long and hard the road may be." Did those who thrilled to such
defiant rhetoric fully grasp what this meant? Were they really willing to support victory "at all costs"? As it
turned out, the cost was very high indeed.
During the war
Churchill made clear his simple aim in the great conflict: "I have only one purpose, the destruction
of Hitler, and my life is much simplified thereby. If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable
reference to the Devil in the House of Commons." [See note] In keeping with that aim, Churchill refused even to consider Hitler's repeated offers of peace, thereby condemning the
people of Britain, and Europe, to years of horrific warfare.
In the early 1950s, historian
Francis Neilson produced a stern portrait of the British leader, The Churchill Legend, which remains worth reading
despite the passage of years:
Churchill had but one aim; only one desire. In The Grand Alliance he states, "I
have only one purpose, the destruction of Hitler, and my life is much simplified thereby." It is his life that
is to be satisfied. England? Europe? Are they merely the arenas that provide the accessories of the conflict? His life is
to be "simplified" by throwing the world into chaos again. His purpose is the destruction of one man; and the last
chance to maintain the culture of a thousand years must be abandoned because a politician's life is to be "simplified."
Alan Clark -- historian and one-time British defense minister
-- more recently handed down a similarly harsh verdict of Churchill's war policy:
There were several occasions when a rational leader
could have got, first reasonable, then excellent, terms from Germany ... The war went on far too long, and when Britain
emerged the country was bust. Nothing remained of assets overseas. Without immense and punitive borrowings from the U.S.
we would have starved. The old social order had gone forever. The empire was terminally damaged. The Commonwealth countries
had seen their trust betrayed and their soldiers wasted ... [See note]
"Victory at all cost" also meant accepting the
Allied "United Nations" principles of egalitarianism and liberal democracy, which laid the groundwork for the dismantling
of empire and for a massive influx of former imperial subjects, ushering in drastic changes in every area of life in Britain
(and the rest of Europe) in recent decades.
In 1945, at the end of the terrible five-and-a-half-year
conflict, Britain did not "win" -- it merely emerged on the victorious side, together with the two great powers
that really did "win" the war: Soviet Russia and the United States.
writer Peter Millar echoed this assessment a few years ago:
... The accepted view that his [Churchill's] "bulldog breed" stubbornness led Britain
through its "finest hour" to a glorious victory is sadly superficial ... In no sense, other than the moral one,
can Britain be said to have won. She merely survived. Britain went to war ostensibly to honour an alliance with Poland.
Yet the war ended with Poland redesigned at a dictator's whim, albeit Stalin's rather than Hitler's, and occupied, albeit
by Russians rather than Germans. In reality Britain went to war to maintain the balance of power. But the European continent
in 1945 was dominated by a single overbearing power hostile to everything Britain stood for. Britain, hopelessly in hock
to the United States, had neither the power nor the face to hold on to her empire.
"We could have, if we had intended so, prevented this war from breaking out without doing
one shot, but we didn't want to."
Churchill to Truman (March 1946)
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
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)
war against the Soviet Union has allowed us to dispose
of new territories
for the final solution. Consequently, the Führer has decided
displace the Jews not towards Madagascar but towards the East. Thus,
is no longer any need to consider Madagascar for the final solution. »
- Franz Rademacher, Feb. 10th 1942, Nuremberg Doc. NG-3933
are just the messengers, the stupid
impossibility of the 'Holocaust'
story line is the message. »
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.
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
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
which seems to have been so providentially preserved amid the awful perils of these times, we must admit that nothing that
since happened in the history of the world has falsified the truth of Disraeli’s
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
as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested, would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has
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
mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical.
There can be no
greater mistake than to attribute to each individual a recognisable share in the qualities which make up the national
character. There are all sorts of men – good, bad and, for the most part, indifferent
– in every country, and in every race. Nothing is
more wrong than to deny
to an individual, on account of race or origin, his right to be judged on his personal merits and conduct.
In a people of peculiar genius like the Jews, contrasts are more vivid, the extremes are more
widely separated, the resulting
consequences are more decisive.
At the present fateful period there
are three main lines of political conception among the Jews, two of which are helpful and hopeful in a
very high degree to humanity, and the third absolutely destructive.
First there are the Jews who, dwelling in every country throughout
the world, identify themselves with that country, enter into its national life,
while adhering faithfully to their own religion, regard themselves as citizens in the fullest sense of the State which has
Such a Jew living in England would say, “I am an Englishman
practising the Jewish faith.” This is a worthy conception, and useful in the
degree. We in Great Britain well know that during the great struggle the influence of what may be called the “National
many lands was cast preponderatingly on the side of the Allies;
and in our own Army Jewish soldiers have played a most distinguished
rising to the command of armies, others winning the Victoria Cross for valour.
The National Russian Jews, in spite of the disabilities under which
they have suffered, have managed to play an honourable and useful
part in the
national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia’s
resources and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable
organisations, the Russian Co-operative Societies. In politics their
has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholders
friendship with France and Great Britain.
In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish
effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy
are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their
race. Most, if not all,
of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers,
and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among
the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia),
Bela Kun (Hungary),
Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States),
this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the
of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.
It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely
recognisable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution.
It has been the mainspring
of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities
from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people
by the hair of their heads and have become
practically the undisputed masters
of that enormous empire.
There is no need
to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution
by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews. It is certainly a very great
one; it probably outweighs all others. With the
notable exception of Lenin, the
majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from
the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the
influence of Russians
like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the
power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd),
of Krassin or Radek – all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And
the prominent, if
not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied
by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution
has been taken
by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period
of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in
Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far
as this madness has been allowed to prey
upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there
are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in
proportion to their
numbers in the population is astonishing.
Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge
have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people. Wherever General Denikin’s
authority could reach, protection was always accorded to the Jewish population, and strenuous efforts were made
by his officers to prevent
reprisals and to punish those guilty of them. So much
was this the case that the Petlurist propaganda against General Denikin denounced
as the Protector of the Jews. The Misses Healy, nieces of Mr. Tim Healy, in relating their personal experiences in Kieff,
that to their knowledge on more than one occasion officers who
committed offences against Jews were reduced to the ranks and sent out of
city to the front. But the hordes of brigands by whom the whole vast expanse of the Russian Empire is becoming infested
do not hesitate
to gratify their lust for blood and for revenge at the expense
of the innocent Jewish population whenever an opportunity occurs. The brigand
the hordes of Petlura and of Gregorieff, who signalised their every success by the most brutal massacres, everywhere found
the half-stupefied, half-infuriated population an eager response to anti-Semitism
in its worst and foulest forms.
The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the
Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has
tended more and more to associate
the Jewish race in Russia with the villainies which are now being perpetrated. This is an injustice on millions
of helpless people, most of whom are themselves sufferers from the revolutionary regime. It
becomes, therefore, specially important to foster
and develop any strongly-marked
Jewish movement which leads directly away from these fatal associations. And it is here that Zionism has
such a deep significance for the whole world at the present time.
Zionism offers the third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race. In
violent contrast to international communism, it presents
to the Jew a national
idea of a commanding character. It has fallen to the British Government, as the result of the conquest of Palestine,
to have the opportunity and the responsibility of securing for the Jewish race all over the
world a home and a centre of national life. The
statesmanship and historic sense
of Mr. Balfour were prompt to seize this opportunity. Declarations have been made which have irrevocably
decided the policy of Great Britain. The fiery energies of Dr. Weissmann, the leader, for practical purposes, of
the Zionist project, backed
by many of the most prominent British Jews, and supported
by the full authority of Lord Allenby, are all directed to achieving the success
of this inspiring movement.
Of course, Palestine is far too small to accommodate more than a fraction of the Jewish race, nor do the majority
of national Jews wish to go
there. But if, as may well happen, there should be
created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection
of the British Crown, which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event would have occurred in the
history of the world which would,
from every point of view, be beneficial, and
would be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire.
Zionism has already become a factor in the political convulsions of
Russia, as a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the
communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally,
and Dr. Weissmann in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him
in no doubt that his schemes of a world-wide communistic
State under Jewish domination
are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every
land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal. The struggle which is now
beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik
Jews is little less than a struggle
for the soul of the Jewish people.
It is particularly important in these circumstances that the national Jews in every country who are loyal to the
land of their adoption should
come forward on every occasion, as many of them
in England have already done, and take a prominent part in every measure for combating
the Bolshevik conspiracy. In this way they will be able to vindicate the honour of the Jewish name and make it
clear to all the world that the
Bolshevik movement is not a Jewish movement,
but is repudiated vehemently by the great mass of the Jewish race.
But a negative resistance to Bolshevism in any field is not enough.
Positive and practicable alternatives are needed in the moral as well as
the social sphere; and in building up with the utmost possible rapidity a Jewish national centre in Palestine which may become
a refuge to the oppressed from the unhappy lands of Central Europe,
but which will also be a symbol of Jewish unity and the temple of Jewish
a task is presented on which many blessings rest.
CHURCHILL HANDLER - THE EVIL PROFESSOR FREDERICK LINDEMANN
Political puppets like Winston Churchill generally
have a personal buffer between themselves and the really big masters of the New World Order.
For example, Woodrow Wilson had
Edward Mandell House; and FDR had Henry Morgenthau.
For the British Mad Dog, the personal handler was Frederick
A. Lindemann a physicist whose German-Jewish family arrived in England
when he was about 14 years old. He was known
to friends as "the Prof" in reference to his position at the University of Oxford,
and as "Baron Berlin" to his many
detractors because of his German accent and haughty aristocratic manner.
Lindemann believed that a small circle of elites should run the
world, resulting in a stable society, "led by supermen and served by helots."
Lindemann concludes that science could yield a
race of humans blessed with “the mental makeup of the worker bee.”
The mad Professor
Frederick Lindemann – one of the most powerful “Englishman” that you never heard about.
In Lindemann's Jewish supremacist worldview, the "worker bees" would
be mixed race and the "supermen" would no doubt
be the Jewish Globalist elite. Naturally, before this New
World Order could emerge, the 'White Man' would have to first "abdicate"
his leading position on
Europe and America. A brief excerpt from 'The Prof'
--one of the many the biogarphies written about Lindemann:
Frederick Lindemann, the Chief Advisor to Winston Churchill and
the inspiration and architect of the air crucifixion of Germany
was in a reflective mood after the war. Toward the end
of his life, Lindemann made a remark on more than one occasion with such an air of
seriousness that he seemed to regard
it as his testament of wisdom, and I accordingly feel it incumbent upon me to
record it here,
although not.in.perfect.sympathy with it.
'Do you know,' he asked, 'what
the future historians will regard as the most important event of this age?’
what is it?’
'It will not be Hitler and the Second World War; it will not be
the release of nuclear energy; it will not be the menace of Communism.'
negatives seemed very comprehensive. He put on an expression of extreme severity
and turned down the corners of his lips:
will be the abdication of the White man.’ Then
he nodded his head up and down several times to drive home his proposition."
The Prof’ -- R.F Harrod, McMillan, 1959. Page 261/2. A Personal Memoir Lord Cherwell
saw the White Man's "abdication to "diversity" ™
coming a long time ago.
France 1994 --- France 2006
Europe's National Football teams have abdicated
to "diversity." ™
to "diversity." ™
Captain America has
"abdicated" to "diversity." ™
School System has "abdicated" to "diversity." ™
Spider Man has
mythical place of Asgard has "abdicated"
to "diversity." ™ (Heimdall
Little Orphan Annie
When Churchill was named Secretary of the Exchequer
(Treasury) in 1924 (an appointment which proved disastrous),
Lindemann and Brendan Bracken
(both bachelors and homosexuals) became close friends with Winnie (himself a poofter)
and would remain so
for 35 years – with the brilliant and sober Lindemann becoming Churchill's guru.
In 1932, (months before Hitler was even elected) Lindemann joined
Churchill on a trip throughout Europe. When the warmongering
British Mad Dog returned, he wrote: "A
terrible process is astir. Germany is arming." All throughout Churchill’s
1930’s exile (the Wilderness Years),
the German-hating Lindemann continued to advise Churchill,
and call for a campaign for rearmament in the face of the non-existent “German threat.”
When Churchill became the wartime Prime Minister in 1940,
he appointed Lindemann as the British government's leading scientific adviser.
In this capacity, Lindemann attended
meetings of the War Cabinet and accompanied Churchill on conferences. He spoke with Churchill
almost daily for the duration of the
war and wielded more influence than any other adviser. General Hastings Ismay,
an important military aid
to Churchill who also worked with Lindemann, later recalled:
“Churchill used to say that the Prof's brain was a beautiful piece of mechanism, and the
Prof did not dissent from that judgment. …..
In his appointment as Personal Assistant to the Prime Minister
no field of activity was closed to him. He was as obstinate as a mule,
and unwilling to admit that there was any problem under
the sun which he was not qualified to solve. …..He hated Hitler and all his works,
and his contribution to Hitler’s
downfall in all sorts of odd ways was considerable.”
Lindemann was described as having:
".. an almost pathological hatred
for Nazi Germany, and an almost medieval desire for revenge was a part of his character."
In addition to the Air Ministry Area
Bombing Directive, Lindemann presented a paper on "delousing" to Churchill, which calculated
effects of bombardment by a massive bomber force of German cities to break the spirit of the people.
Lindemann’s argument that
"bombing must be directed to working class houses -- because --
middle class houses have too much space round them, so are bound to waste bombs"
led to the horrible deaths of as many as 1.5 million German civilians.
The Mad Professor also insulted many figures in the British government.
But Churchill protected him zealously. An agitated Churchill
once snapped at a Member of Parliament
who questioned his bizarre reliance on Lindemann:
me, love my dog, and if you don't love my dog, you damn well can't love me….Don't you know that he is one of my oldest
and greatest friends?"
In the grand scheme of things, the obscure Lindemann outranked the famous Churchill by several
levels. Just the fact that a 20th
century personage of such historical significance and uncanny foresight remains virtually unknown
-- except to a few scholars
and history buffs interested in that era -- constitutes strong evidence that the true power players
of history have always
and continue to remain "behind the scenes."
Let's make Lindemann a bit more well known -- in a bad way -- by sharing this piece.
Lindemann (Image 1, on left next to Winnie)--
not the subordinate Churchill -- was the true architect of the Hamburg,
Berlin and Dresden fire-bombing
Holocausts of innocent Germans --- all part of the "abdication" of "The White Man" to his
Winston the spendaholic: He teetered on the
bankruptcy and was saved by secret backhanders.
Yet a new book on Churchill's finances reveals he spent
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,
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
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
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
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.
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
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
equivalent of on average £40,000 every year
One of Churchill’s
most convenient characteristics is that he left his own bank statements,
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.
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.
through Canada by private railcar, sleeping in a double bed on board with a private bathroom. ‘There is a fine parlour
with an observation room at the
end,’ he wrote to his wife Clemmie, ‘and a large dining room which I use as the office. The car has splendid
wireless installation, refrigerators, fans, etc.’
Surrounded by these modern marvels, Churchill began to trade again in shares and commodities. He
was intoxicated by Canada’s money-making opportunities, especially in exploration for oil and gas.
investment fever as he reached the prairies, he wired his publisher to demand an advance
on his royalties, boasting of the profits he could grasp if he acted
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
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
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
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
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.
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).
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)
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
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.
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.
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.
Attempts at economising were feeble. Three
servants were dismissed, with a saving of £240 [£14,400] and the same amount was
cut from the laundry bill. The temperature of the swimming pool at
Chartwell was also reduced in a bid to halve heating costs.
But by 1938, as the European situation
with Hitler and Mussolini became critical, Churchill had run out of resources. Both Chartwell and his house in London were
up for sale but had attracted no buyers.
454 BOTTLES OF BUBBLY IN JUST TWO MONTHS
Faced with a £900 [£54,000 today]
demand from his wine merchants
Payne & Sons in 1936, Churchill checked the bill and found the
total came to even more — £920 [£55,200], including £268 [£16,080]
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
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.
in turn, approached his business partner, Sir Henry Strakosch, who was a fervent admirer of Churchill. He was also immensely
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.
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
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
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
cutbacks in 1926, the year of the General Strike. The cost of food, servants
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
pay £2,000 (£100,000 today) of overdue taxes and settle wine merchants’ bills that topped £3,000
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
Once again, Sir Henry came to the rescue with a cheque for £5,000 (£250,000).
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.
That condition proved no problem: Churchill
was determined to enlist the military might of the United States and American guests became frequent visitors to Chequers.
To pare back the tax demands, Churchill tried every possible ruse, even assigning some of his earnings as an author
to his son Randolph, who was taxed at a lower rate.
This subterfuge could save £1,500 (£75,000) but it made
Churchill uneasy — not least because Randolph’s gambling was even more reckless than his own.
What finally rescued Churchill’s finances, and put him on a stable footing for the rest of his life, was Hollywood.
In 1943, an Italian immigrant film producer paid him £50,000 (£2.5million) for the movie rights to his
biography of his ancestor, the military genius Lord Marlborough.
The death of Sir Henry Strakosch in October
1943 brought a legacy of £20,000 (£1million) as well as cancelling a loan.
As D-Day approached,
Churchill was solvent for the first time in 20 years. By the end of the war, he had collected another £50,000 (£2.5million)
for the film rights to his History Of The English-Speaking Peoples.
And a further colossal bonus came when
he was unexpectedly ousted from Downing Street by the voters in July 1945: on the day of his resignation, offers began to
flood in from publishers around the world for his war memoirs.
in the South of France 12 times during the Thirties and
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
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
champagne, 311 bottles of wine, 69 bottles of port, 58 bottles
58 bottles of sherry and 56 bottles of whisky.
One of his secretaries wrote home: ‘The money here aren’t
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
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
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
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
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
who has been churning out meticulously researched historical bestsellers
for a quarter of a century. As has been pointed
out in recent issues of the IHR
Newsletter, Irving's challenges to the reigning orthodoxy have become so unbearable to
the Establishment that both these major houses refused to print the books as written. The task has now  been
undertaken by a revisionist operation in Australia. Nearing completion is the
first volume of Irving's new book Churchill's War.
Last year David Irving made a world-wide speaking tour, visiting
North America (the U.S. and Canada), Australia,
South Africa, and Europe. He
lectured on a wide range of topics pertaining to the troubled history of our century,
with his customary flair for the pointed phrase and the telling anecdote. During one of his lectures, delivered
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
be published by his company, over his dead body." Clearly Lord Stockton's recent demise didn't alter things at MacMillan,
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
in New York. In Columbia University, there are all the private papers of the chief editor of
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.
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
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.
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
and 1939 by a slush fund emanating from a secret pressure group known as
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
powerful race -- can we dare use the word, the British race, the most powerful race on
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
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
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
is strictly forbidden to have any further contacts with the German
ambassador, even indirectly."
They were communicating through a Quaker intermediary.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
movement. He's been warned this would be the consequence, but he needs it. And still Hitler
doesn't do him the favor.
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
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
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
Flrst Sea Lord, Admiral Cunningham, wrote, according the Irving:
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
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
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
the Soviet Union to win the Cold War, a newly released document
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.
and the Soviet Union had been allies in the Second World War until 1945, the year
lost office as Prime Minister. But he was one of the first international statesmen
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
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.’
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
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.
think he saw a nuclear strike as just another progression of conventional warfare,
he realised there was a lot more devastation with nuclear weapons.’
Maier said Churchill was more ‘bellicose’ when out of office. After he
power in 1951, a nuclear attack against the USSR was never mentioned
'The British Mad Dog'
By ... M S King
THE PLAGIARIST AND ALSO THE USER OF GHOSTWRITERS
In light of his alcoholism, his high positions, his journalism,
and his record of academic mediocrity
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.
pound one-man literary enterprise that was Winston Churchill was not a one man show after all. -- Ashley,
Deakin and Pownall.
to his reliance upon ghostwriting historians, the imitation intellectual also engaged in
gross plagiarism. British
historian Max Hastings, writing in The Telegraph, November 2, 2004,
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
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
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
whose narrative of the Pacific sea battles was recycled in the former Prime Minister's volumes.” (7)
Henry Luce, the legendary founder of LIFE Magazine, came to understand that Churchill
was a money-grubbing plagiarist.MID 1930's CHURCHILL THE FORGER -- BROKEAND
RESORTS TO SELLING FAKE PAINTINGSJust how desperate
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
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".
that's Real History. Spreads like Butter.”
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)
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!