Until you are more specific it is going to be impossible to intellectual engage with you. Why do you use the language of the public school? I prefer to be addressed by my real name. I think that if you acted in a more courteous manner, you would increase your chances of viewers taking your opinions seriously. At the moment you appear to be a silly attention seeker. M<aybe the truth of the matter is that you are still attending public school. By the way, where is your photograph?

Well said John, I wondered how much more you would take before you defended yourself, it was long overdue. A while back "Chappers" made a comment as to "which government" you seemed to understand this vague remark, could you please enlighten me, Thanks.

Well said John, I wondered how much more you would take before you defended yourself, it was long overdue. A while back "Chappers" made a comment as to "which government" you seemed to understand this vague remark, could you please enlighten me, Thanks.

Hi Denis,

I've asked this question twice already...no reply. I hope this thread keeps going strong, it is already a highly viewed thread.

I believe Michael will add relevant and valuable information in time. I suspect he may be having trouble putting his thoughts into coherent posts (codifying knowledge).

The Litvenenko stuff is good, but very slow at the moment. So I have expectations of more from him.

I also await John's next installment, which seems to be a Saturday Morning programme at the minute, which suits me.

And if David can elaborate on some of his interesting posts. I'll have a great weekends study ahead!!

Gary

Yep, I concur. I am not entirely convinced by John S's arguments, but so far all Michael Chapman seems to do is 'dangle' propositions.

Michael, I would love to hear your take on this subject. Could you expand on your posts? So far, I don't really understand where you stand in relation to John S's posts, and if they are contrary, what you are trying to say.

Thanks!

I don't know which governments were being alluded to, but I suspect it had something to do with the fact that the so called "Establishment" many of whom were members of the Right Club and some of whom were members of or closely aligned with the Milner Kindergarden (later came to popularity as the Cliveden Set with the Profumo affair) were in completely opposite camps.

Churchill held 10 Downing Street but knew how powerful the forces arrayed against him were and for most part they were in favour of teaming up with Hitler and going after Stalin. SOE was Churchill's baby because he could not trust MI6 and consequently the two services were in dire combat for most of the war. There are even some who believe that different agents and teams were blown t the Gestapo in this ongoing fued. There is also the interesting Frenchman, Henri Dericourt, who was considered to be a spy placed in SOE but who, after the war, went to work for the SOE and was involved in bullion smuggling in Laos in the 1960's where he apparently died in an airplane crash. So many ex nazis went to work for the US after WWII that one can imagine Dericourt being in this sort of milieu.

There is a further darker episode that concerns the success of the Bolshevik Revolution back in 1917/18 period. And if conspiracy theories are your thing then this is a right up your street. It goes like this (and I got it from a family member who's grandfather was involved). Admiral Kolchek and the White Russians were set to beat the Bolsheviks in the battle for Moscow. Puffing towards Kolchek were hundreds of trains carrying men, material and other supplies that would have assured victory. The Bolsheviks meanwhile, were virtually on their knees. But there was a spanner in the works, namely a Scottish spanner, in the form of a British Army officer who controlled the rail network at the time and who ordered all the trains to turn round and head away from Moscow, a decision that he knew would consign a victory to the Bolsheviks. The officer later disappeared (died?) in a cold winderness. He was born and bred on a Scottish estate...

This, if true (and I actually think it probably is), raises the spectre that the Russian Revolution was designed to succeed - presumably for longrer term goals/ambitions. Of course, it had been part of British imperial policy (the Rhodes-Milner "Group") to ensure that the major powers of Europe were in continual opposition, a strategy based on the old divide and rule rubric, to ensure that they did not gang up on dear old Blighty - who would've had no chance under those conditions. Cynics, like myself, can see that the irruption of the cold war was merely the same ploy in the post WWII world.

When considering this it might be useful to consider a diary entry in Amery's Diary (an inner circle member of Milner's Group) that concerned their longer term thinking in regard to the 1917 Balfour Declaration and the amking of the Jewish homeland in Palestine:

Quote:

"Our ultimate ends, he writes in 1928, "is clearly to make Palestine the centre of a western influence, using the Jews as we have the Scots (my emphasis), to carry the English ideal through the middle east and not merely to make an artificial oriental enclave in an oriental country."

Unquote

Is the "English ideal" code for perpetual conflict, I wonder?

When one looks at the influence the Scots took the America with them, one begins to ponder...

David

Part 9

I have argued that Churchill used the Duke of Kent, the Duke of Hamilton, Samuel Hoare and Lord Halifax to carry out peace negotiations in 1940-41. He used these people for two main reasons: (1) Hitler trusted these people as they had a record of appeasement. (2) Churchill could claim that they were acting independently if the negotiations failed and became public. This gave him two further options. Churchill could argue that (i) they were involved in an act of treason; (ii) they were part of a MI6 sting operation.

One thing is clear, these negotiations ended in failure. I suspect the reason for this is that Churchill and Hitler could not agree about conditions concerning the withdrawal from Western Europe. Churchill’s supporters would no doubt argue that he never intended to reach a deal with Hitler and his main concern was to obtain enough time to allow him to persuade the United States to join in the conflict. If that is the case, Churchill could be criticized for causing the British people a great deal of unnecessary suffering. For example, I am sure the majority of British people would have preferred a negotiated settlement in 1940 that would have maintained the country’s freedom and independence.

I now want to go on at look at the arrival of Rudolf Hess on 10th May 1941. The timing of this flight is extremely important. I think it tells us that Hitler was now desperate to get an agreement then because he wanted to turn on his real enemy, the Soviet Union. Hitler was understandably concerned that he would be defeated if he fought a war on two major fronts. Hitler also knew that the Soviet Union needed to be defeated before the arrival of winter. He was aware of what happened to Napoleon when he had tried to conqueror Russia.

One source of important information on the reasons for the arrival of Hess is the KGB archives. We now know that Kim Philby was spying on Britain for the Soviets during the Second World War. At the time he was officially working for the Special Operations Executive (SOE). He was also working for Stewart Menzies, Director-General of MI6 and by October 1944 he was placed in charge of Section IX (Soviet Affairs). However, as early as 1941 Philby was sending the Soviet Union detailed reports on what the British government was up to. Soon after the arrival of Hess he sent a report to the Soviets claiming that he had come “to confirm a compromise peace” (John Costello, Ten Days that Saved the West, page 441). This makes it clear that these negotiations had been going on for sometime and suggests the last move in the peace plan rather than the first.

Philby also tells the Soviets that soon after arriving in Scotland, Hess was visited by both Anthony Eden and Lord Beaverbrook. This is highly significant as Eden and Beaverbrook were both members of the war cabinet and spanned the range of views on the subject of appeasement.

We also know that on the 12th May Churchill had meetings with the Duke of Hamilton, Sir Stewart Menzies and Lord Beaverbrook. According to Peter Padfield (Hess, The Fuhrer’s Disciple, page 219), Churchill showed Beaverbrook photographs of the airman that had been given to him by the Duke of Hamilton. Beaverbrook confirmed that the man in the photographs was of Hess (the two men had met several times before the war when Beaverbrook was a staunch appeaser).

Philby was not the only Soviet spy working in London. Colonel Frantisek Moravec, chief of the Czech military intelligence, had also fled to London in 1938. Throughout the war he provided important information to the Soviets. In October 1942 Moravec sent a detailed report on the Hess affair to the NKVD. Lavrenti Beria, chief of NKVD, passed this information onto Stalin and Molotov. Moravec claimed that the Duke of Hamilton had been negotiating with Hitler via Hess for some time before May 1941. Morovec made it clear that the intelligence services were fully aware of these negotiations. (The document is printed in full on page 258 of Double Standards).

This is supported by the account of Sergeant Daniel McBride, the soldier who arrived soon after David McLean, of the Home Guard, detained Hess. McLean later was to claim that Hess’ first words were: “My name is Alfred Horn. Please tell the Duke of Hamilton I have arrived.” Shortly afterwards, Daniel McBride and Emyr Morris, reached the scene and took control of the prisoner. Hess’s first words to them were “Are you friends of the Duke of Hamilton? I have an important message for him.” McBride and Morris had a conversation with Hess until the arrival of Lieutenant John Clarke and Lieutenant A. R. Gibson (who was in civilian clothes). Clarke, who had a revolver in his hand, demanded that he should take control of Hess.

After the war Daniel McBride attempted to tell his story of what had happened when he captured Hess. This story originally appeared in the Hongkong Telegraph (6th March, 1947). “Now that I am under no further obligation to HM Forces and Rudolf Hess has been sentenced at the Nuremberg Trials, the true story of Hess’s apprehension after he landed at Eaglesham, Scotland, can be told for the first time.” McBride then went onto say: “The purpose of the former Deputy Fuhrer’s visit to Britain is still a mystery to the general public, but I can say, and with confidence too, that high-ranking Government officials were aware of his coming.”

The reason that McBride gives for this opinion is that: “No air-raid warning was given that night, although the plane must have been distinguished during his flight over the city of Glasgow. Nor was the plane plotted at the anti-aircraft control room for the west of Scotland.” McBride concludes from this evidence that someone with great power ordered that Hess should be allowed to land in Scotland. This story was picked up by the German press but went unreported in the rest of the world.

It is also possible that Hess said something to McBride that convinced him that the government knew about his arrival. McBride died on 7th March 1978. His papers were passed to his daughter, Daniella Royland. In 1996 these were sold by the Royland family at Bonham’s, the London auctioneers. These were purchased by the authors of Double Standards. His papers included a letter from W. B. Howieson, McBride’s superior officer in May 1941. Dated 8th May 1974, Howieson tells McBride to “drop this Hess business”. He adds that “we know what really happened” but if this information became public knowledge it would “stir up a hornets’ nest.” Howieson ends his letter by reminding McBride that he was “still subject to the Official Secrets Act”.

Understandably, the war cabinet wanted to exploit the propaganda value of Hess arriving in the UK to carry out peace negotiations. Churchill refused and the only member of the cabinet who supported him on this was Sir Archibald Sinclair.

It was not until 27th January 1942 that Winston Churchill made a statement in the House of Commons about the arrival of Hess. Churchill claimed it was part of a plot to oust him from power and “for a government to be set up with which Hitler could negotiate a magnanimous peace”. If that was the case, were the Duke of Hamilton and the Duke of Kent part of this plot?

In September, 1943, Anthony Eden, the foreign secretary, admitted in the House of Commons that Hess had indeed arrived in Scotland to negotiate a peace settlement. However, Eden claimed that the British government had been unaware of these negotiations. In fact, he added, Hess had refused to negotiate with Churchill. Eden failed to say who Hess was negotiating with. Nor did he explain why Hess (Hitler) was willing to negotiate with someone other than the British government. The authors of Double Standards accept that Eden is telling the truth and that Hess was negotiating with Hamilton and the royal family, via the Duke of Kent. As we have seen, Hamilton had a meeting with Churchill and Menzies two days after Hess arrived in Scotland. We also know that MI6 was monitoring these negotiations.

If Hamilton was truly a traitor, surely Churchill would have punished him. Instead, along with the Duke of Kent, who were both in the RAF, were promoted by Churchill. In July 1941 Hamilton became a Group Captain and Kent became an Air Commodore.

This did not stop journalists speculating that the Duke of Hamilton was a traitor. In February 1942, Hamilton sued the London District Committee of the Communist Party for an article that appeared in their journal, World News and Views. The article claimed that Hamilton had been involved in negotiating with Nazi Germany and knew that Hess was flying to Scotland. Had this information come from Kim Philby? The case was settled when the Communist Party issued a public apology. Clearly, they could not say where this information came from.

Later that year Hamilton sued Pierre van Paassen, who in his book, That Day Alone, described Hamilton as a “British Fascist” who had plotted with Hess. The case was settled out of court in Hamilton’s favour.

Sir Archibald Sinclair also issued a statement in the House of Commons that the Duke of Hamilton had never met Rudolf Hess.

However, recently released documents show that this was not all it seemed. The Communist Party threatened to call Hess as a witness. This created panic in the cabinet. A letter from the Home Secretary, Herbert Morrison, to Sir Archibald Sinclair, dated 18th June 1941, shows that the government was extremely worried about Hess appearing as a witness in this libel case. Morrison asks Sinclair to use his influence on Hamilton to drop the libel case. It is interesting that this letter was sent to Sinclair as he is the man who made the public statement about Hamilton and Hess, carried out the investigation into the Duke of Kent’s death and whose estate Hess was supposed to be living when the crash took place. Hamilton clearly took Morrison’s advice and this explains why the Communist Party did not have to pay any money to Hamilton over the libel.

The Pierre van Paassen’s case is also not as clear-cut as it appears. Hamilton sued him for $100,000. In fact, all Hamilton got was $1,300. The publisher had to promise that future editions of the book would have to remove the offending passage. However, he did not have to recall and pulp existing copies of the book.

However, it is the third case that tells us most about what was going on. On 13th May 1941 the Daily Express published an article detailing the close relationship between the Duke of Hamilton and Rudolf Hess. The Duke’s solicitor had a meeting with Godfrey Norris, the editor of the Daily Express. The solicitor later reported that Norris appeared willing to print a retraction. While the discussion was taking place Lord Beaverbrook, the proprietor of the Daily Express, arrived. He overruled his editor and stated that the newspaper would stick to its accusation. Beaverbrook added that he could prove that Sir Archibald Sinclair lied when he claimed in the House of Commons that the Duke of Hamilton had never met Rudolf Hess. Understandably, the Duke of Hamilton withdrew his threat to sue the Daily Express. (Anne Chisholm and Michael Davie, Beaverbrook, A Life, pages 409-10)

What is clear about these events is that Churchill and Sinclair made every attempt to protect the reputation of the Duke of Hamilton following the arrival of Hess. However, Beaverbrook, who like Hamilton was a prominent appeaser before the war, let him know that he was not in control of the situation.

After the war the Duke of Hamilton told his son that he was forced to take the blame for Hess arriving in Scotland in order to protect people who were more powerful than him. The son assumed he was talking about the royal family. I suspect he was also talking about Winston Churchill.

John, it would be interesting if Hamilton's name was in the membership roster (Red Book) of the Right Club?

Meanwhile, what you said about Churchill punishing Hamilton if he were a traitor doesn't necessarily follow. It could have caused havoc not to say internecine warfare. Far better to apply pressure behind the scenes and ensure that the so called "appeasers" (actually "traitors" is so much more compelling a description) trod Churchill's path without further dissent.

This point also reminds me of president Roosevelt decision not to punish any of the American businessmen/appeasers who continued to do business with Hitler after the US had entered the war, which he could easily have done under the Trading With The Enemy Act, as this also would've caused huge disruption and would have sent the wrong signal to the enemy.

In boring readers here with my continual mention of the occult (which I shall continue to do from time to time) it is worth noting that it seems the Duke of Hamilton was a member of the occult lodge, the Golden Dawn - the same lodge Aleistair Crowley was a member of before joining the German O.T.O. It is also interesting to note that Hess's teacher, Karl Haushofer, also kept in close touch with members of Britain's Golden Dawn. Haushofer also is said to have been a member of the German occult group, the Vril Society regarded by some as the inner circle of the Thule Society. For further discussion on this aspect see: http://www.intelinet.org/swastika/swasti02.htm

David Guyatt

Archibald Ramsay, the founder of the Right Club died in 1955. It was not until 1989 that the Red Book was found in the safe of Ramsay's former solicitors. The book included the names of 235 people. Unfortunately a lot of the names were in code. However, it did contain the names of several senior Tories including a large number of MPs and peers of the realm. Those named included William Joyce, Anna Wolkoff, Joan Miller, A. K. Chesterton, Francis Yeats-Brown, E. H. Cole, Lord Redesdale, 5th Duke of Wellington, Duke of Westminster, Aubrey Lees, John Stourton, Thomas Hunter, Samuel Chapman, Ernest Bennett, Charles Kerr, John MacKie, James Edmondson, Mavis Tate, Marquess of Graham, Margaret Bothamley, Lord Sempill, Earl of Galloway, H. T. Mills, Richard Findlay and Serrocold Skeels.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWrightclub.htm



I agree about not being punished during wartime but why would Churchill promote someone who was apparently trying to overthrow the government.

David, the occult is anything but boring, but I dont see the relevance of the Duke of Hamilton being a member of the Golden Dawn, either under the leadership of McGregor Mathers or The Beast the G/Dawn was NEVER political.

Denis, I am sure there is relevance as I have mentioned elsewhere in slightly more detail. For example, Hess was also a student of the occult (as was Himmler and numerous other nazis) ditto Hess's mentor Haushofer. By virtue of its secrecy, an occult lodge is an excellent medium for other secret work too. Also occultists and the occult can sometimes be very political. Crowley was, for example. I am told that the Home Office kept a watching brief over the Golden Dawn back at the turn of the last century. There is more here than meets the eye, I think. Also, Martinist lodges are very political and are regarded by some researchers to have been the real authors of the infamous Protocols of Zion that Hitler and co gobbled up so enthusiasticaly -- which raises some interesting questions if true (author Guy Patton is one who has investigated this interesting angle).

Post WWII a lot of other very intrguing facts about the occult appear from time to time. An example is The Augustan Society (AS) that I revealed in my "Princes of Plunder" article that was founded by former OSS officers after the war and which had and has a very strong occult influence (not that they talk about it mind you). Peter Levenda's "Sinister Forces - A Grimoire of American Political Witchcraft" is suggested here also (Volume 1 only, in my view). I am told that the AS still engage in occult rituals held in their HQ in the desert.

I suspect that at some point in the future when MKULTRA (and other subsidiary projects) becomes more clarified (supposing it ever does) it will be seen to have had an extremely potent occult aspect -- mind control, remote viewing, remote influencing, creation of a new religion (UFO's - Grey Aliens), psychologically restructuring society, the setting up of the Priory of Sion and so on. Very far reaching ambitions. For those who can look between the lines, Nick Cook's book "The Hunt for Zero Gravity" is an absolute humdinger and goes a long way to explaining the sudden post war interest by US intelligence circles in the occult.

And for those who consider this is all X-files fantasy, I'll leave you with this thought: Guy Bannister, of JFK assassination fame, when still an acting SAC of the FBI was in charge of the official X-Files - yes the FBI actually had them, known as SM-X - "Security Matters X"...nuff to make you break out in spots isn't it. Bannister used to investigate UFO reports and may have, according to Levenda, investigated the seminal UFO of all time, the Kenneth Arnold sighting of 1947 - from which the words "flying saucer" were first coined.

Hell, several months after Sirhan Sirhan visited Pasadena he came back with a sudden interest in the occult and set about shooting Bobby Kennedy (according to the official script anyway). Located in Pasadena was the Agape Lodge of the OTO, made famous by sorcerer Jack Parsons, a granddaddy of US rocketry (all stolen from the nazis at the end of the war). Pasadena is also the location of the Jack Parsons Labaratory known to the world as NASA's Jet Propulsion Labaratory.

Things quickly begin to get both confusing and complex once this occult apple starts being nibbled.

David

I don't know, but there is that old saying about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer. My guess is that Churchill absolutely needed the aristo's on-side in order to win the war and that, ultimately, their war aims were not so very different.

An elderly Italian gentleman (a restauranteur and organised criminal) told me a few years back how he was in the company of Anthony Eden when the door flew open and someone came in to tell Eden (Churchill's former private secretary) that Hitler had just strated Op. Barbarossa. Eden slapped both his thighs in delight (from a seated position I add) and grinning exclaimed "We've won the war!" Having Germany and Russia grinding each other into the dust was, I think, a long held ambition, equal to Thatcher and her mob supplying arms to both Iran and Iraq during the 1980's, and overall sat in perfect harmony with British imperial policy of divide and rule.

I would add that it is my fuzzy view that Hitler was financed by the UK and America in order for him to develop the necessary forces and material to attack Russia. Hitler's mistake was to turn west first of all and therefore he had to go, in Churchill's view anyway.

David

This is (IMO) one of the most interesting topics on the forum at the moment. Fascinating stuff.

I want to reiterate that the British working class and their socialist symapthies must also be factored in. They would be the ones to fight the Germans in case OP B failed. At home they were being mobilised on many levels and Hitlers battle of Britain served to motivate and marshall the British working class in their masters war. So the British lower classes were locked into a state of war and all the attendant discipline and subservience that accompanies that.

Hitler definitely was financed and provided with resources of minerals etc by US interests.

Another factor is a look at the function of war.

War does, and particularly large scale ones, lower polulations and destroy often obsolete infrastructures, and a war economy with the disciplines imposed on the working classes provides for a drive towards retooling, upgrading technologies and as a tax exempt enforced labor situation does so very economically.

At the end of a war there is a massive new market that has been created with the pre-war unemployment problems solved.

IOW War is a tool that creates markets by killing people and destroying industry, as well as the state of war and concepts such as betrayal and death from desertion serves to keep a tight control over the people.

Had the people been aware of what was going on they may have overthrown their governments and gone the aid of the Soviets much earlier and in the process overthrown Francos regime and dealt Fascism a total death blow.

"Hitler's mistake was to turn west first of all and therefore he had to go, in Churchill's view anyway." this is possibly how Churchill would have it, but if the purpose was to destroy the USSR the they knew that under USSR General Kulchek in the east, against the Japanese, a decisive vitory had been won by the first use of what became known as 'Blitzkrieg'. They also knew how they had failed in the White Russian campaign. IOW it was imperative to have a fall back strategy, which swung into action as soon as the Russians had definitely turned the tide of war and started the inexorable drive towards Berlin and beyond.. Now the role of the British and US soldiery became the drive to meet the Russians and establish territorial boundaries. Hence D-Day folowed shortly on the heels of a Soviet victory in sight.

The aftermath led to a complete retooling of German and Japanese industry and they became the economic powerhouses they are today. IOW, arguably, an aim of Htler was to have Germany ravaged and from that would rise an even stronger Germany. If so it seems to have worked.


EDIT:: Of Interest: Financing the Nazis:
The complete "George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography"
by Webster G. Tarple & Anton Chaitkin
zip file in HTML format
http://www.tarpley.net/bushbook.zip

Wars can also make politician's reputations. Winston Churchill would only be remembered for his major misjudgements if it had not been for the Second World War. Even this was a close run thing. If Hitler had not ordered the invasion of the Soviet Union when he did Churchill would be remembered as a failed war leader who created years of unnecessary suffering for the British people.

You are right about jobs. However, it is significant that Labour won a landslide victory in the 1945 General Election. They still remembered how Churchill and the Conservative Party behaved in the 1920s and 1930s.

I suspect that the underlying motive was not to destroy the Soviets but to have the Germans and the Soviets effectively destroy each other as part of Britain's ongoing imperial strategy. Of course, this strategy moved from Blighty to the US after the war, if one interprets what little information is available about the CFR's War & Peace Study Project that commenced in 1939 and especially the Economic & Financial sub group of that Study. The almost unavoidable deduction is that the US knew it would win the forthcoming war and planned how it would manage the Grand Area in the decades to come (by "manage" I mean dicatate and the plundering of resources). See Chomsky's chapter: http://www.zmag.org/CHOMSKY/sam/sam-1-3.html

I also consider it very likely that the real UK behind-the-scenes political, economic - and quite possibly esoteric influences - in the shape of Milner and his mob simply shifted their emphasis from these shores to the US and let Uncle do the dirty work for the next 100 years. Rhodes and co wanted to bring the US back into the fold - following the US War of Independence - and one way of achieving that ultimate goal was to transfer British values to the US ruling elite and thereafter take a back seat, albeit with a gentle guiding hand on the wheel as and when required.

Just my thoughts...

"Hitler's mistake was to turn west first of all and therefore he had to go, in Churchill's view anyway."

Can anyone please explain this?

Unless the reference is intended to refer to the re-occupation of the Ruhr, in what possible sense did Hitler "turn west first"?

I assume he means Hitler moving West in 1940 (Norway, Holland, Belgium and France). Of course, he originally attacked Czechoslovakia. and Poland in 1939.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWchron.htm

Yes. Forgive my laziness.

David

Hmmm.

But David, your initial remark, in context, was:


Hmmmmmm.

Let's role the historical tape back.

Summar 1939: Germany and Poland in conflict over Danzig corridor.

August 23, 1939: Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact signed

Late August: Poland refuses further negotiations and mobilizes army.

September 1: Germany invades western Poland.

September 3-10: Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada declare War on Germany. (Churchill is a major force in Parliament in favour of war with Germany).

mid-September: USSR invades eastern Poland

So, here's my question.

How on earth is this timeline compatible with your analysis?

If the goal of Britain and America in WW 2 was to destroy the USSR - and the survival of Nazi Germany was a relative non-issue - there was a much easier way to achieve that goal. Ally with Germany against Russia. It seems clear that Germany was keen on this too.

But that's not what happened - and I don't believe the case has been made that the 'real' purpose of the British and American power elite in WW2 was to destroy the USSR (and Germany was not really in their sights). If that was the case, the conspirators sure set about things in a highly convoluted way - and ended up failing to achieve their primary goal in quite spectacular fashion.

I think this is just a post-war myth, popular on the left in Britain and America, but with little or no basis in fact.

Regarding the funding of the Nazis by dark forces in the USA and Britain, it may have happened, but hard evidence would be nice. Do you have any?

Once in power in Germany, Hitler's understanding of Keynesian economic theory liberated him from the impact of the economic boycott imposed on Germany by international finance (especially Jewish banking interests). The German economy grew spectacularly in the five years leading to 1939 - and it's hard to make a case that under-the-carpet external funding was responsible.

However, if you have evidence for that, please bring it on.

Hello Sid,

From reading about Prescott Bush (his autobiography by Tarpley), and some posts John Simkin has included on this site, It is my understanding that while there wasn't overt financing for Germany provided by the UK or US 'Power Elite', there was quite a lot of foreign investment from the US and UK. For example, the ownership of the Upper Silesian Coal and Iron Works (did I get the name correct?), located in Poland but which provided raw materials for German Industry and re-armament, by Harriman and Co. and the Directorship of Prescott Bush.

The oppression of the trade unions by the Nazis provided a low income work force in Germany (the labor rate dropped by 25%). This would have helped IG Farbin and Zeiss Opticals, for example, to secure US investment through the mid 1930's. Ford and ITT invested in German armaments in the 1930's (www. americanheritage.com). Remington Arms Co. supplied the German SA arms during the 1930s (likely done covertly due to the Versaille Treaty. This info from the Prescott Bush Unauthorized Biography, By W. Tarpley).

Your point about Keynesian economics seems correct, as Hitler printed money in excess of any limit required to preclude hyperinflation, but was able to check inflation through other means, i.e. the oppression of the Trade Unions and in the marketplace. Germany printed and sold bonds on a massive scale to fund the purchase of raw materials during the 1930s.

During this period both the UK and the US had offical policies of appeasement (from my recollection of Rise and Fall of the Thiord Reich), although FDR was a staunch anti-nazi (as per his Quarantine speech of 1937) and predicted war with Germany was inevitable, as did Churchill (publicly). Hitler attempted to maintain an image of friendship with the US and the UK, at least until the invasion of Poland occurred (www.americanheritage.com).

So while there wasn't any public or official policy to fund Germany, nor (as far as I know) any organized effort by the US or UK 'Power Elite' to fund Hitler during the mid to late-1930s, there was quite a bit of private monies which helped (enormously-from what I've read) fund the industrialization and re-armament of Germany during this period.

Also, from my recollection, it was Germany who pulled away from the diplomatic talks with Poland, in a dispute over the Upper Silesian Coal and Steel Co. I think that was discussed in John's thread on Prescott Bush (I may be wrong about the source).

RE: turning West? It seems obvious that Hitler and the Nazi 'Elite' believed that war with the West was inevitable. Their financial policies would have been suicidal if not ultimately leading to war. The recapture of territories lost in WW-I (and the treaty of Versailles) was to be a preliminary to the annexation of other lands (Poland, Czechoslovakia, France) in the south and west, needed to buffer the Western border, and to gain additional raw materials and funding. The 'Turn' West was inevitable, and IMO part of Hitler's plan from the beginning.

The British government (ruling class) had several foreign policy objectives in the 1930s. This included the preservation of the British Empire and the destruction of communism in Europe. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Salazar were doing a good job of destroying communism/socialism in their own countries. It was also hoped that Hitler could perform this function in the Soviet Union. However, this is not to say the British were unconcerned by the growing power of Nazi Germany. The British had followed a “balance of power” policy in mainland Europe since the 18th century. That is why it was considered sensible to ally itself with France for the first 40 years of the 20th century.

Concerning the evidence of financial support for Nazi Germany I would suggest the book, “Who Financed Hitler: The Secret Funding of Hitler’s Rise to Power, 1919-1933” by James & Suzanne Pool (1978). For evidence of British support for Hitler I would suggest two books by Richard Griffiths: “Fellow Travellers of the Right: British Enthusiasts for Nazi Germany" (1980) and “Patriotism Perverted” (1998).

The fact that most of the mass circulation newspapers in Britain supported Nazi Germany and the government’s appeasement policy can be seen by looking at back copies of the Times, Sunday Times, Daily Mail, Daily Express, Daily Sketch, Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Telegraph at the Collindale Newspaper Library. Only the Manchester Guardian, Daily Herald and Daily Mirror raised doubts about this policy. This is why appeasement was a very popular policy in Britain in 1937-39. It still had its supporters in 1940. Interestingly, most British newspapers also supported Stalin’s purge of the left in Soviet Union. Reading British newspapers on the Stalin show trials in the Soviet Union is an enlightening experience.

John,

Are you planning to put this into a book for publishing?

To be honest, extended posts lose me. I prefer paper to read and absorb longer text. I can sit back at night, read and consider.

I'd like to see this in paper form. If you are not going to publish, perhaps you'd like to combine your chapters and make them a PDF available for download. That way I can print out the text, and read it at my leisure, giving it the attention it deserves.

No.

I can send you the whole thing in a "Word" document when it is finished.

Oh yes your favorite culprits, they had it in for your hero for absolutely no reason at all! I'm sure you can provide documentation for the above.

And the trains started running on time as well! Was this 'spectacular' economic growth due to his brilliant economic policy or because...?
1) the German economy was in the gutter when Herr Schicklgruber took office and had nowhere to go but up
2) economies around the world started recovering from the depression
3) unions were busted
4) the property of Jews (and other enemies of the Reich) was expropriated
5) massive deficit spending financed by bonds that were only redeemed after the war
6) all of the above

Evan - In the meantime you can copy and paste John's essays into Word and print them

John I don't want to seem impertinent but IMO you've given us enough background for now. Can you tell us why exactly you think Churchill wanted "to off" the Duke? I'd also be interested in 'hearing' any additional evidence you might have that the crash wasn't accidental.

How did it go? Hmmmmmmm...

You are very welcome to promulgate your post war leftist mythos but it seems fairly apparent that you have done very little research or reading in support of your opinion.

The goal, I believe, was for Germany and Russia to pummel each other into the ground, thereby rendering them economically and militarily impotent as a force for the next x number of years decades. Don't get to fixated on the "baddie" communist threat in this respect. The west financed the Bolsheviks too.

I would argue that absense of evidence is not evidence of absense and in sensitive matters such as these we can be pretty damn sure that an awful lot of evidence is designedly absent.

But even so, there is ample evidence for the west funding Hitler (not to mention the Bolsheviks earlier too) and no one seriously doubts it either. Nor was it "dark forces" but was done quite openly by some of the most well known banks, companies and well known individuals in the USA and UK. Look at the Bush family's involvement in Hitler financing, for example.

Also check out Prof. Antony Sutton's books ("Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler" and also "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution" and ""The Best Enemy Money Can Buy" to name just three). Tony sadly died a few years ago but earlier in his life, back during WWII, he was an NCO in the British Intelligence Corp hunting Bormann at Wars end. His four thin volumes on the Skull and Bones were seminal and revealed, for the first time, so far as I am aware anyway, the use of the Hegelian dialectic as a means of covertly manipulating a desired outcome. He also was able to demonstrate that Skull and Bones were linked to the Oxford All Souls set of Milner, Rhodes and co as well as with a German secret society. Meanwhile, it is well established that the Rhodes-Milner Chatham House, are the originating sister organisation of your Council of Foreign Relations, which Tony states has a secret inner core group in exactly the same manner that the Rhodes-Milner was set up. Especially revelavnt to this discussion is his book "How the Order Creates War and Revolution".

Other exceptional authors on the subject are Charles Higham and his books "Trading with the Enemy". He has some other corkers too. For a background on the Rhodes-Milner Group the best beginning source is Carroll Quigley's "Tragedy & Hope" and the "Anglo-American Establishment", but there are a number of books on Milner and the Round Table. What made Quigley's contribution significant was that he was permitted unfettered access to the secret archives of the "Group" and was honest enough (unusually for an insider) to publish some of what he discovered, for which he was thereafter punished -- his publisher refused to publish more than the original print run (2,000 I think it was) despite a high demand, and even went so far as to destroy the printing plates.

There are any number of other books and articles that relate to these subjects.

David

PS, in regard to leaning towards either what is politically "left" or "right" it is as well to remember that both are extremes and their manipulation - individually or collectively - form part of the technical formulae of the mysteries of the occult. You would need to read some of the more obscure books on this subject and they are by no means easily explicated. The best bet, in my view, would be to read Carl Jung's Collected Works with an emphasis on what he has written about the Collective Unconscious. It is heady and difficult stuff but may be of benefit to marshalling greater clarity. That post war US military and intelligence circles undertook such an examination - in all its ramifications it seems - should be cause for the very greatest alarm.

Might I also add another title that may be of interest and that is Charles Levinsons "Vodka Cola". The focus is post WWII but is well worth the read.

David

David

I don't want to divert this thread - any further - from its primary purpose. It was set up by John to outline his new theory about the death of the Duke of Kent. The origins of and responsibility for the Second World War - and the hidden agenda (if any) behind the war - are somewhat relevant, but should probably be debated on another thread.

Suffice it to say that while I don't purport to be an expert in this area of history. I do not believe the case has ever been made for propositions made with remarkable frequency on this forum, such as (1) the real agenda behind WW2 was to destroy Russia (not Nazi Germany or independent Imperial Japan); or that (2) Nazi Germany was really a tool (gone wrong?) of sinister western interests; or that (3) Hitler's agenda was 'obviously' to destroy Britain and its Empire and take over the entire world; or that (4) Hitler's economic policy was suicidal.

When Peter makes claims such as "It seems obvious that Hitler and the Nazi 'Elite' believed that war with the West was inevitable. Their financial policies would have been suicidal if not ultimately leading to war", without adducing a shred of evidence, I play the annoying role of asking for the evidence.

It's a role which, on this thread, we should perhaps more appropriately direct to John's serialized exposition.

Regarding which, I tend to agree with Len.

How about bringing on the punchline?

The topic continues to be almost exclusively about the ruling elite.

Declaration of war has certain consequences that are relevant.

It doesn't necessarily follow that any meaningful war is engaged in.

What it does do is affect the population in the country that has declared war.

Certain rights are suspended and replaced by others. It also reorganises society and the things that people can and cannot do.

A politically conscious British working class that sees the Soviet Union attacked while Britain itself is not at war may use its freedoms to dictate a declaration of war and elect leaders that will support such a declaration and an implementation of a continent invasion much earlier than if the rulers re-empt such a scenario, declares war and consequently gains rights that superced those of its population. Another consequence could be the International Brigades that formed to support the anti Franco-Hitler forces in Spain moving inmto the USSR-NAZI coflict and assure an earlier Soviet victory as well as politisicing the people at home and the pre 1926 near revolutions in the West completed.

Therefore there is not necessarily any contradiction in Churchill declaring war on Germany AND supporting the German drive to destroy the USSR.

In the east, pre OP Barbarossa, the Japanese defeat by Soviet Forces (the first to use what became known as 'BlitzKrieg'), led to a strengthening of the 'Go-South' faction in Japan. The 'Go-North' faction were reassured that a German taking of Moscow was possible. There are indications that Pearl Harbour should not have been a surprise to the USA. The Isolationists were still powerful and there was a divide in the US intelligence community that froze out persons like "Wild Bill" Donovan. He was also incommunicado when Germay invaded Poland as a result of a hunting trip he had been invited to in the wilderness up north USA. What Pearl Harbour did very effectively was to swing public sentiment firmly away from the Isolationists.

Nevertheless, there are opportunistic elements to the war in the Pacific just as pre Pearl Harbour pro British sentiments and Churchills wish to draw the US into the European theatre that took advantage of the situation to exchange obsolete shipping for a number of bases in the Atlantic while selling food to a rationed British. Apart from this US industry got a huge boost with British purchases of war materials.

After the USSR had taken Berlin and won the war and the Germans surrendered to the USSR and also to the Western Allies, the Soviets were ready to join in the attack of Japan. (This was a Japan that was already sending out feelers for a surrender) Truman convinced Stalin to delay for a couple of weeks. Meanwhile the atom bombs were completed, Hiroshima and Nagasaki needlessly followed and the USSR was suddenly faced with a new reality, the atom bomb. This fact then affected the course of events on the Korean peninsula where the Soviets withdrew and the Korean war ensued, establishing an eastern boundary between Communism and Capitalism.

Meanwhile, Europe was carved up with give and take on both sides. Essentially the USSR was denied a warm water port and the West had a firm foothold in west Berlin.

The fortunate leveling of the playing field by people like the Rosenbergs then brought in the era of mutually assured destruction and the tensions of the Cold War. IOW it served to stay the hands of the Hawks.

Well, sorry to digress, but I cannot let this one item go...

Sid, are you really saying that the inflationary tactics of the Third Reich which lead to the predictable sacking of countries, such as Poland, Chechoslovakia, and France, et al, as well as its own 'population' (I won't go into who in the population) did not lead ultimately and unavoidably to War with the West?

Where isn't this documented? Try the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Hitler's Volkstaad, etc., I'm sure any of the books referenced above would provide suitable evidence. As far as written documentation where Hitler had cozied up to the West to allay the West's abhorrance at the Third Reich's political practices while preparing for the inevitable war with the West, as there have been many sources for this (try the Unauthorized Biography of Prescott Bush or americanheritage.com, amoung many locations). This seemed to me to be common knowledge.

As Len asked ... all of the above.

Anyway I qualified the statement with the verbiage "It seems obvious" meaning that I drew a conclusion based upon information readily available. To provide a quote to support the "seemingly obvious" conclusion, would be redundant.

I don’t believe this discussion has gone off topic. It was inevitable. The important thing to remember is the death of the Duke of Kent was part of the cover-up. The cover-up was so successful that the accepted view of the Second World War as portrayed by historians is inaccurate.

I am sorry that you have to do so much reading for me to argue my case. However, it is vitally necessary if I am to convince people that my version of events is correct.



It is not a question of "either or". However, some statements are more correct than others. For example, I think points 1 and 2 are largely correct whereas 3 is inaccuate. Point 4 is too vague to make a comment.

Well, re-assured by John that's he's not annoyed at what might have been perceived as a diversion from the thread's main topic, I'll respond in brief.

In general, Peter, you have a very curious way of providing references.

Why not find exact quotations that back your points and cite them, with sufficient detail about where they come from so an interested reader can follow up the original source?

You take a different approach, something like: "it's all in "The Rise & Fall..." or it's all at the americanheritage.com website... go find it yourself!"

I am disinclined to do that, Peter. If you wish to back up points that you claim are 'obvious' or 'well-known', it should be very easy for you to provide specific references.

It is unhelpful not to do so - and can give rise to the suspicion that they may not exist at all. I've been on enough wild goose chases seeking out non-existent source information to be wary of investing too much time on someone else's vague say-so.

What is "Hitler's Volkstaad", by the way? (excuse my ignorance)

You wrote: "Sid, are you really saying that the inflationary tactics of the Third Reich which lead to the predictable sacking of countries, such as Poland, Chechoslovakia, and France, et al, as well as its own 'population' (I won't go into who in the population) did not lead ultimately and unavoidably to War with the West? "

It's an odd question, Peter. I'm, not entirely sure I understand it - or that it really makes sense.

I'll turn it round to try to clarify your claim.

Are you really saying that the 'inflationary' tactics of the Third Reich led to the predictable sacking of countries, such as Poland, Chechoslovakia, and France, et al, - as well the predictable sacking (?) of groups within its own population - and in turn led unavoidably to War with the West?

What do you mean by 'inflationary' in this context?

I agree entirely with John on this. There is no diversion of topic involved. The future is predicated on the past and therefore, to understand an event in time it is necessary to look backwards.

For those who have (or may) followed my argument about the involvement of the occult in all this, I would also suggest that they google the words "Hegel + occult" and see where that takes them.

For what it may be worth, the following quote is from "Manifesto" published in London in 1934 and which purports to be the manifesto of the Federation of Progressive Society and Individuals that was founded in 1933 (note the timing). In this document there appears the following statement:

Quote:

Then came 1931, and there was an operation planned to bring Germany into the dictatorship-world empire scheme. The British monarchy was behind it; others were behind it; people in New York were behind it. Initially the understanding of the Anglo-American supporters of this fascist project—which was largely based in France, actually, around firms like Lazard Frères and so forth. But the intent of the project was to have the Germans re-arm, and destroy the Soviet Union. While Germany was embedded in Russia, in the process of trying to [defeat] the Soviet Union, then, the allies—France and Britain—intended to jump on Germany's rear, and crush Germany, and be rid of the Soviet Union at the same time, and set up world dictatorship.

Unquote

The manifesto is available here:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0094...%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6

This organisation was set up by Aldous and Julian Huxley amongst others. Aldous Huxley was an active occultist who was taught his "art" by Aleistair Crowley. Julian Huxley was as Hegelian in his thought as Hegel himself and was the first director of UNESCO. Lazards, meanwhile, is one of the principal banks of the Milner group.

Milner waa very much against democracy and culture/civilisation as the governing ideal. He strove for an aristocracy of understanding and purpose based on "collective" self development. Of course, the "collective" would be in the hands of a ruling elite who would guide it through place men and bureacrats. In other words an aristocracy of the elite. This is fascism but at least it is British fascism. So that's okay. ;-> German or Italian fascism was not going to be allowed to dominate Europe. Having men playing both sides of the coin is a well established Hegelian technique. Today, we can regard it not as British fascism but Anglo-American in flavour, as distinct to the model foisted on Europe by Martinists. Not much choice if you ask me!

It is an incredible pity that the only people who are seriously pursuing this sort of research are Lyndon LaRouche and his EIR teams. Personally, I am uncomfortable with them.

David

The following is taken from Hitler’s Volkstaad, published in Germany, note that this was most immediate of items I have read on this topic. There have been many, identifying that Hitler had oversold bonds to raise capitol, which, when called in, could not have been paid, however as Hitler was planning for inevitable war, the overselling of bonds was not an issue. If I'm not mistaken, this was part of Goering's (Schaap's) four year plan. Also Germany was printing money at an hyper-inflationary rate, which means that, unchecked, with too much money floating around, prices would rise at an hyperinflationary rate. Market pricing was controlled by heavy handed oppression, as were the trade union labor rates. I remember reading this information in several sources, although it would take days to cursorily re-read the tremendous volume of materials to find this particular piece of information. I understood it to be common knowledge. Why do you think that Germany sacked Poland, Czechoslovakia, France, the netherlands, scandinavia, etc.? Do you really think that germany had a self sufficient economy capable of funding their own rearmament after the treaty of Versailles and the Great depression, and the sanctions preventing overt arming of their populace?

"When Götz Aly's book Hitlers Volksstaat (Hitler's Volksstaat) was published in Germany a year ago, it apparently struck a nerve among German historians as well as the general reading public. But unlike movies such as Der Untergang (The Downfall) or television features about Albert Speer which were enjoying popularity at the time, Aly's research does not concentrate on the personalities of individual perpetrators during the Nazi dictatorship. Instead, it focuses on the benefits that an average, non-Jewish German wage-earner reaped owing to the policies of the National Socialist regime. Aly's study touches only marginally upon the extent to which the beneficiaries realized the source of their relative prosperity, namely, the rapacious looting of the occupied countries and of Jews who had been deported and murdered. The author leaves it to his readers to draw their own conclusions from the material he presents.
With painstaking diligence the author perused archives and sifted through the records on tax and financial legislation. What were the details of taxation policy during the various phases of Nazi rule? Which income groups were increasingly enlisted to foot the bill for social policies on the one hand and war policies on the other, and at which junctures? How did Hitler's financial policy-makers manage to keep domestic inflation at bay and offload it to the occupied countries?
Aly develops a highly suspenseful approach to examining such supposedly dry questions as financial policy. He scrutinizes the populistic social reforms during the first years of Nazi rule and provides documentation that the broad social safety net for the population exceeded by far the regime's financial resources and therefore soon resulted in excessive debt. The search for new sources of revenue within the country itself led to increased financial repression of the Jewish population, culminating initially in a one billion Reichsmark surcharge, an "atonement payment," that was imposed on Jewish citizens (following the pogrom night of November 9, 1938). As early as December of the same year, however, Göring formulated very concrete steps for converting the assets of German Jews - calculated at some eight billion Reichsmarks - into German State Bonds. The sweep of the plan becomes clear when one considers that even one billion Reichsmarks would already have increased the Reich's revenues by 6 percent.
The author shows how the occupied countries, with the help of well-contrived systems, were saddled with the costs of the occupation and in part also with providing for the German population "within the Reich," thereby wrecking their national economies. Soldiers were issued a type of artificial currency that they could use as tender, for example, in French or Belgian shops. These credit notes were then submitted to the respective national central banks for the ultimate purpose of being redeemed in Germany. Special clearing houses were set up in Berlin which would issue credits for these costs to the occupied countries after the Germans had been victorious. Even young soldiers whose morals were relatively intact found their sense of justice undermined and were corrupted by this system of obfuscation, as Aly demonstrates using the letters that a young Heinrich Böll sent home to his family from France, telling of his hoarding purchases.
Aly researches the various means of financing the national budget that were employed over the entire Nazi period. In addition to the taxation policies mentioned above, he examines the gradually proceeding expropriation and subsequent deportation and annihilation of the Jews, as well as the ransacking of the occupied countries. He proves that the well-known figures such as Hitler, Goebbels, Göring and Himmler were not the only ones to plot and implement the destruction of European Jewry; the regime's financial policy-makers were equally cold-blooded and calculating, as they not only took millions of deaths into account but viewed them as a legitimate means of acquiring additional revenue.
If growing numbers of Jews were deported to Poland shortly after heavy bombing runs on Hamburg, then a clear connection emerges between bombed out non-Jewish citizens and the fully furnished apartments of Jews which now became "vacancies." It is hardly conceivable that no one asked where all the beautiful things came from. It appears more readily believable, however, that average citizens didn't question where the money for expanding social services might have originated. After all, there was no concurrent rise in their tax burden.
Aly's book has been criticized for its central proposition, namely, that the vast majority of average German citizens profited in a personal sense from the crimes of the Nazis. It is said that the author overrates greed as the driving force behind the genocide and thereby assigns too minor a role to the motive of racial hatred. Still, this is not the historian's first book on the National Socialist regime, and he enjoys honing provocative arguments. Since the early nineties he has been publishing works on many different aspects of the Nazi regime, the annihilation of European Jews, and the continuity of certain social elites in German history.
It is no longer necessary to declare that historical explanations must never be one-dimensional. But the ability to portray history, and financial history in particular, in such a suspenseful manner is immeasurably valuable."

"...historical explanations must never be one-dimensional."

Apart from all the other considerations, such as the general focus on the rulingclass in this topic, and some references to the working class who are controlled by a declaration of war, one must remember that the progress to WWII was a series of steps not only in what the rulers did but also in how people are subtly manipulated.

There are many stories that relate individal experiences of a before and after period in interpersonal relations between people in the period leading up to the Nazi Dictatorship. This is applicable in all studies of bigotry.

Jane Elliott explores this process in workshops and a number of videos are available whereby one can view the process. TV occasionally air some of these.

http://www.newsreel.org/guides/blueeyed.htm
2. BACKGROUND: JANE ELLIOTT AND THE "BLUE-EYED/ BROWN-EYED" EXERCISE

"Jane Elliott, a pioneer in racism awareness training, was first inspired to action by the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in 1968. As a third grade teacher in an all-white, all-Christian community, she struggled for ways to help her students understand racism and discrimination. She adopted the "Blue-Eyed/brown eyed" exercise, (in which participants are treated as inferior or superior based solely on the color of their eyes) as a result of reading about the techniques the Nazis used on those they designated undesirable during what is now called the Holocaust."

Ah, you meant Volksstaat (not Volksstaad).

Thanks for clarifying that.

I guess a spell-checker doesn't help with typos of that kind?

I imagine, Peter, that you are not be fluent in German? It's a disadvantage when researching this field, isn't it? I find it so.

However, this first-order disadvantage does not appear to faze some ‘scholars’, such as Debeorah Lipstadt, who purport to be experts in an area of historical knowledge where quite clearly lack of German language skills is a crucial disadvantage. Without it, people like myself and Deborah Lipstadt are forced to rely entirely on secondary sources.

Yet she is an ‘expert’ and I'm not. She makes categorical statements and I don't. How come? Chutzpah? Careerism? Connections? Dishonesty? All of the above? Who knows?

Now, which are you to be? Peter?

A non-expert like me who’s trying to find out the truth? Or a non-expert like Ms Lipstadt who not only purports to know the truth, but proclaims it with a latter day bugle?

If the latter, I fear we may continue to cross swords.

If the former, then let's work together to try to find out what really did happen in that important yet poorly understood historical period (the 1930s and 40s).

If finding out the truth is indeed our common goal, then I suggest fewer definitive statements about what's 'obvious' and 'well known' - and more willingness to consider different ideas and demand documentation for ALL claims about the period (not only claims that are controversial in mainstream discourse).

In your last post, you indicated that you have used, as a key reference for your position, Hitler’s Volkstaad by Götz Aly

Now, Götz's book is an interesting contribution to a historical debate that's now more than half a century old. But I'm not aware it's a consensus view of the period, as you seem to imply.

Actually, I'm not sure really what you are implying when you say: "I qualified the statement with the verbiage "It seems obvious" meaning that I drew a conclusion based upon information readily available. To provide a quote to support the "seemingly obvious" conclusion, would be redundant."

What does that mean, Peter? Plain English please.

If Hitler’s Volkstaad IS a consensus view, I imagine that will come as a surprise to Adam Tooze, who wrote a very clear and well referenced critique of this book in late 2005.

These are complex matters, IMO. It is unhelpful to real analysis when people make strident claims and assert them as "obvious", then shy away when asked for detailed documentation. Part of the reason we know the period so poorly, IMO, is because the very act of discussing it has been so politically loaded to an unprecedented extent from the outset.

In that regard, I return to the point I made elsewhere. WW2 is, arguably, a war that’s still in progress - in the sense that we are still at pains to discuss it rationally. Apparently interests that won out in WW2 still have a lot to gain from trying to enforce their view of that period. That's the main reason, IMO, why we are still so hazy about what really took place. No-one goes to jail - or loses their job - for taking an unpopular view about WW1.

I look forward to the time - very soon - when the same applies to WW2 and we all can approach the task of discovering what happened without fear or favour.

The continued persecution – including incarceration - of people over their historical views is so unacceptable in a civilized society that I shall not miss this opportunity to highlight my utter disgust with those who carry out this abuse.

The simple fact that I do not speak German (I had three years of German, am half German, and unfortunately I cannot speak or read the language fluently). However, this is irrelevant. The book, Hitler’s Volkstaat, was quoted in articles that I had read in the past and discusses the economics of WW II, unfortunately, when I attempted to Google for passages that I had read, I could not find much, and I am not going to spend days searching or rereading books I read years ago to find them.

This information (that Germany overextended their finances preparing for war, fully expecting to gain via the spoils of war) is, I’m sure, contained in several books. This information is contained in the four year plan of 1936 (have you read it? It outlines Germany’s preparation for war) and expanded upon in books such as the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and the book Hitler’s Volkstaat (if I got the spelling right), whether or not I have directly read this book is irrelevant, I have read translated quotes and pertinent critical articles.

Germany went into deep into debt between 1936 and 1939. Do you dispute this? The purpose of the four year plan and the indebtedness that Germany wrought to finance it seem obvious. This has been documented. Has it not? The reason for this is documented in the four year plan, to prepare for war. Do you contend this? This seems obvious to me, maybe you have a different opinion of what 1936 Nazi four year plan did. If so than we will have to agree to disagree.

I won’t be sucked into discussion over ancillary issues, such as Hitler’s morality, the Holocaust, or any Nazi apologist positions. Those topics have nothing to do with what I said.

bumping as none of the later posts have registered in my browser despite a cache refresh

FYI - The last post according to my view is JD's around 12.00 today

This is a new way of arguing a case, Peter.

I asked you to document claims that you'd made previously.

You reply with statements such as "when I attempted to Google for passages that I had read, I could not find much, and I am not going to spend days searching or rereading books I read years ago to find them" and "This information... is, I’m sure, contained in several books" and "This has been documented. Has it not?".

They sound to me like very poorly undocumented assertions.

Sorry to be so harsh, but I think you deserve it in this instance Peter... so far.

Why not provide accurate citations and references?

Part 10

I now want to look in more detail at the evidence that suggests that Churchill and Hitler were carrying out peace negotiations in 1940 and 1941. So far I have provided the following information that suggests peace talks were taking place:

(1) On 10th September 1940, Karl Haushofer sent a letter to his son Albrecht. The letter discussed secret peace talks going on with Britain. Karl talked about “middlemen” such as Ian Hamilton (head of the British Legion), the Duke of Hamilton and Violet Roberts, the widow of Walter Roberts. The Roberts were very close to Stewart Menzies (Walter and Stewart had gone to school together). Violet Roberts was living in Lisbon in 1940. Portugal, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland were the four main places where these secret negotiations were taking place. Karl and Albrecht Haushofer were close friends of both Rudolf Hess and the Duke of Hamilton.

(2) Karl Haushofer was arrested and interrogated by the Allies in October 1945. The British government has never released the documents that include details of these interviews. However, these interviews are in the OSS archive. Karl told his interviewers that Germany was involved in peace negotiations with Britain in 1940-41. In 1941 Albrecht was sent to Switzerland to meet Lord Templewood (Samuel Hoare) the British ambassador to Spain. This peace proposal included a willingness to “relinquish Norway, Denmark and France”. Karl goes onto say: “A larger meeting was to be held in Madrid. When my son returned, he was immediately called to Augsburg by Hess. A few days later Hess flew to England.”

(3) Goebbels recorded in his diary in June 1940 that Hitler told him that peace talks with Britain were taking place in Sweden. The intermediary was Marcus Wallenberg, a Swedish banker.

(4) According to Lieutenant-Colonel Malcolm Scott, Hess had told one of his guards that “members of the government” had known about his proposed trip to Scotland. Hess also asked to see George VI as he had been assured before he left Germany that he had the “King’s protection”.

(5) In 1959, Heinrich Stahmer, Albrecht Haushofer’s agent in Spain, claimed that meetings between Samuel Hoare, Lord Halifax and Rudolf Hess took place in Spain and Portugal between February and April 1941. The Vichy press reported that Hess was in Spain on the weekend of 20/22 of April 1941. The correspondence between British Embassies and the Foreign Office are routinely released to the Public Record Office. However, all documents relating to the weekend of 20/22 April, 1941 at the Madrid Embassy are being held back and will not be released until 2017.

(6) Kim Philby, a KGB agent working for the SOE, sent a report to the Soviets in 1941 that Hess had arrived in the UK “to confirm a compromise peace”. This makes it clear that these negotiations had been going on for sometime and suggests that the visit of Hess signals the last move in the peace plan rather than the first.

(7) Colonel Frantisek Moravec, chief of the Czech military intelligence based in London, was also a KGB spy. In October 1942 Moravec sent a detailed report on the Hess affair to the NKVD. Moravec claimed that the Duke of Hamilton had been negotiating with Hitler via Hess for some time before May 1941.

(8) According to Philby, soon after arriving in Scotland, Hess was visited by both Anthony Eden and Lord Beaverbrook. We also know from official sources that on the 12th May 1941, Churchill had meetings with the Duke of Hamilton, Sir Stewart Menzies and Lord Beaverbrook. These three men were three of the most important figures in the appeasement movement.

(9) Sergeant Daniel McBride, one of the soldiers who detained Hess, claimed in an interview in the Hongkong Telegraph (6th March, 1947). “The purpose of the former Deputy Fuhrer’s visit to Britain is still a mystery to the general public, but I can say, and with confidence too, that high-ranking Government officials were aware of his coming.” The reason that McBride gives for this opinion is that: “No air-raid warning was given that night, although the plane must have been distinguished during his flight over the city of Glasgow. Nor was the plane plotted at the anti-aircraft control room for the west of Scotland.” McBride concludes from this evidence that someone with great power ordered that Hess should be allowed to land in Scotland. The fact that attempts were made to silence McBride as late as 1974 suggests that he had information that was deeply worrying to the establishment.

(10) Evidence that the Duke of Kent was with the Duke of Hamilton at Dungavel House on the day Hess arrived in Scotland. If Hamilton and Kent were traitors, surely Churchill would not have been promoted by Churchill. In July 1941 Hamilton became a Group Captain and Kent became an Air Commodore. After the war the Duke of Hamilton told his son that he was forced to take the blame for Hess arriving in Scotland in order to protect people who were more powerful than him.

I have also argued that there were signs in the summer of 1940 that Hitler made a gesture of good will to get negotiations underway. On 22nd May 1940 some 250 German tanks were advancing along the French coast towards Dunkirk, threatening to seal off the British escape route. Then, just six miles from the town, at around 11.30 a.m., they abruptly stopped. Hitler had personally ordered all German forces to hold their positions for three days. This order was uncoded and was picked up by the British. They therefore knew they were going to get away. German generals begged to be able to move forward in order to destroy the British army but Hitler insisted that they held back so that the British troops could leave mainland Europe. After the war, General Gunther Blumentritt, the Army Chief of Staff, told military historian Basil Liddell Hart that Hitler had decided that Germany would make peace with Britain. Another German general told Liddell Hart that Hitler aimed to make peace with Britain “on a basis that was compatible with her honour to accept”. (Basil Liddell Hart, The Other Side of the Hill, 1948, pages 139-41)

It is therefore important to examine if there were other signs of Hitler’s good will in the summer of 1941. On the very night that Rudolf Hess arrived in Scotland, London experienced its heaviest German bomb attack: 1,436 people were killed and some 12,000 made homeless. (Martin Gilbert, The Second World War, page 182) Many historic landmarks including the Houses of Parliament were hit. The Commons debating chamber – the main symbol of British democracy – was destroyed. American war correspondents based in London such as Walter Lippmann and Vincent Sheean, suggested that Britain was on the verge of surrender. (Walter Lippman, US War Aims, 1944, page 12) and (Vincent Sheean, Between the Thunder and the Sun, 1943, page 245)

Yet, the 10th May marked the end of the London Blitz. It was the last time the Nazis would attempt a major raid on the capital. Foreign journalist based in London at the time wrote articles that highlighted this strange fact. James Murphy even suggested that there might be a connection between the arrival of Hess and the last major bombing raid on London. (James Murphy, Who Sent Rudolf Hess, 1941 page 7)

This becomes even more interesting when one realizes at the same time as Hitler ordered the cessation of the Blitz, Churchill was instructing Sir Charles Portal, Chief of the Air Staff, to reduce bombing attacks on Germany. Portal was surprised and wrote a memorandum to Churchill asking why the strategy had changed: “Since the Fall of France the bombing offensive had been a fundamental principle of our strategy.” Churchill replied that he had changed his mind and now believed “it is very disputable whether bombing by itself will be a decisive factor in the present war”. (John Terraine, The Right Line: The RAF in the European War 1939-45, 1985 page 295)

Is it possible that Hitler and Churchill had called off these air attacks as part of their peace negotiations? Is this the reason why Hess decided to come to the UK on 10th May, 1941? The date of this arrival is of prime importance. Hitler was no doubt concerned about the length of time these negotiations were taking. We now know that he was desperate to order the invasion of the Soviet Union (Operation Barbarossa) in early Spring. According to Richard Sorge of the Red Orchestra spy network, Hitler planned to launch this attack in May 1941. (Leopold Trepper, The Great Game, 1977, page 126)

However, for some reason the invasion was delayed. I suspect that Hitler was desperate to conclude a peace with Churchill before heading East. It was hoped that the arrival in the UK by Hess would force Churchill to sign an agreement. After all, Churchill would have difficulty explaining what Hess was doing in Scotland. In fact, later, Anthony Eden was to admit that Hess had indeed arrived with peace proposals. (Anthony Eden, statement in the House of Commons, 5th September, 1943) By this time the British people had been convinced that Hess had a mental breakdown and that he had not arrived in the UK with the prior approval of the British government. That of course is the story that is commonly believed today.

Hitler eventually ordered the invasion of the Soviet Union on 22nd June, 1941. It would therefore seem that peace negotiations between Germany and Britain had come to an end. However, is this true? One would have expected Churchill to order to resume mass bombing of Germany. This was definitely the advice he was getting from Sir Charles Portal, Chief of the Air Staff. Air Chief Marshal Sir Arthur Harris also took a similar view. In June 1943, Harris was briefing American journalists about his disagreement with Churchill’s policy. ((John Terraine, The Right Line: The RAF in the European War 1939-45, 1985 page 295)

Douglas Reed, a British journalist with a good relationship with Portal and Churchill, wrote in 1943: “The long delay in bombing Germany is already chief among the causes of the undue prolongation of the war.” (Douglas Reed, Lest we Regret, 1943, page 331). One senior army figure told a journalist after the war that Hess’s arrival brought about a “virtual armistice” between Germany and Britain. (Lynn Picknett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior, Double Standards, 2001, page 324)

Is it possible that Churchill did not order the bombing of Germany because he had arranged with Hitler not to do anything that would hinder the defeat of the Soviet Union? That Churchill had resurrected the British foreign objective of the 1930s – the destruction of communism in Europe.

What we do know is that Churchill changed his mind completely about the wisdom of carpet bombing when the Soviet Union had successfully halted the German invasion. It was now Churchill who was urging the complete destruction of German cities, even those like Dresden that posed no threat to the British. Churchill realized that he could longer rely on Nazi Germany to destroy communism in Europe. In fact, the position had been reversed. The Red Army was now in a position to impose communism on Eastern Europe. The policy had to change. It was now vitally important that Allied forces arrived in mainland Europe in order to “liberate” German occupied countries in Western Europe.

John can you provide citations for the above claims? Are ever going to get around to what Sid called “the punch line*”?

* i.e. your theory as to why Churchill would have bumped the Duke off

John Simkin wrote…

Quote:

Is it possible that Churchill did not order the bombing of Germany because he had arranged with Hitler not to do anything that would hinder the defeat of the Soviet Union? That Churchill had resurrected the British foreign objective of the 1930s – the destruction of communism in Europe.

What we do know is that Churchill changed his mind completely about the wisdom of carpet bombing when the Soviet Union had successfully halted the German invasion. It was now Churchill who was urging the complete destruction of German cities, even those like Dresden that posed no threat to the British. Churchill realized that he could longer rely on Nazi Germany to destroy communism in Europe. In fact, the position had been reversed. The Red Army was now in a position to impose communism on Eastern Europe. The policy had to change. It was now vitally important that Allied forces arrived in mainland Europe in order to “liberate” German occupied countries in Western Europe.

Unquote

Since the British were largely instrumental for ensuring the success of the Bolshevik Revolution, it’s fairly clear that they saw the opportunity after WWI for it to become the bitter enemy of a later resurgent Germany and nothing could have been better, from a British perspective, than to set the two at loggerheads, thus dividing Europe to the advantage of Britain.

I think Churchill would’ve used any strategy available to have Hitler turn on the Soviet Union and thereafter get mired down and his forces bled to death, just as had happened to Bonaparte. Paraphrasing the song of Joseph’s coat, “any deceit would do”.

And it worked. Stalingrad changed the shape of the war. After that it was realised inside Germany that the war was lost and as a consequence increasingly large amounts of assets began moving to safe havens – as the rats began preparing their comfy post war boltholes - Including Wallenberg’s native Sweden.

On Wallenberg, Chapter 7 - “Globes of Steel” – of Higham’s book “Trading With the Enemy” is suggested. This clearly reveals the attitude to war and how to profit from it. It also has an interesting para on Lord Selborne (Minister of Economic Warfare and btw, the successor to Lord Milner as head of the Rhodes-Milner “Group”) who, even during the war, was at great pains not to punish the Wallenbergs for aiding the nazis with the provision of essential war materiel (ball bearings) throughout the entire war. Without a regular supply of ball bearings Germany would’ve shuddered to an early halt. Instead Selborne wanted Wallenberg and friends at SKF - the ball-bearing manufacturer - to be financially rewarded. Way to go…

It might also be worth noting that Marcus Wallenberg was a Knight of the Order of Seraphim, Sweden’s highest royal order of chivalry. Seraphim are an order of Angles that appear as fiery serpents (watch out David Icke!). Another Swedish royal distinction is the Order of the Polar Star. Both have tremendous occult significance (sorry …yawn…) see: http://hjem.get2net.dk/333/qabalah/sephiroth.html

I have already provided the sources for the first ten points as they were a summary of previous postings. I have now edited the rest of the post in order that you can check page references.

This background information is all evidence to why Churchill needed to kill the Duke of Kent. What I would like readers to do is to question the logic of what I have posted so far.

Memory. Grrrr. Good point about citing references.

Occult references relating to the Order of the Polar Star google “The Polaires Brotherhood” also “Otto Rahn + Polaires”. On the Order of the Seraphim, simply google the words “seraphim + occult”.

Rahn was an SS officer involved in all sorts of WWII curiosity. He is said to have died during WWII in a skiing accident. I have been assured, however, that he survived the war in the best of health and went about his business in Rome. Principally in the Vatican. The Polaire Brotherhood was a secret occult society that was heavily influenced by Rosicrucian and Martinist-Synarchist teaching. Rahn was believed to have been a member – although he denied this at the time. Never-the-less he did travel with a group of Polaire initiates in France seeking the Grail.

This entire occult Northern European/Scandinavian mythology circles the story of Hyperborea and the “old” pole star – Draco in the Constellation Ursa Major. The star is regarded as a dragon or serpent and thus fits very well with the Swedish royal Order of the Seraphim (i.e., fiery serpent angels).

There is an awful lot of nonsense written on the internet on these subjects and caution is necessary to sift the wheat from the chaff – the latter being in abundance.

John, I don't question the logic. There are issues I'm ignorant of and have learnt about here that largely support my repeatedly, though nowhere as coherent, contention that things were as you write. At the same time 'history is not one dimensional' as someoone else (David?) said, and for me this means a consideration of the British working class as well. By the very early declaring a 'phony war' certain control mechanisms are put in place that essentially disarms the working class in a global political consciousness sense.

David. The areas you refer to are researchable, but appear as a murky slop bucket of non-sense to the casual eye. One needs to separate whether one believes or propagates these mythologies from the fact that there are those who do believe them, and that it exists as a body of work, and also that they serve as a 'don't go there for sake of ridicule' marker or gate. Beyond this gate there are quite likely those who also do not believe in it but see the effective role they play in warding off anyone without the stamina to dispassionately explore these areas. There the fog serves as a strategy, or tactic.

One example: "Orion, the star configuation, was part of the Kennedy assassination."

Google or whatever ORION in this context and one comes across a number of occult type sites that seem designed to appeal to a deranged mind. Hence most people avoid it like the plague.

A step past this non-sense, closer to the real connection is the realisation that ORION is a white supremacy code word meaning Our Race Is Our Nation. Thus anyone suggested to research ORION as related to the Kennedy assassination will recoil from the pervasive widespread superficial, and that will be the point of discussion which essentially for a clear thinking person will mean that a ORION and the Kennedy assassination connection is rubbish.

Maintining focus takes one past this into the world of the KKK and the Invisible Empire. And then again up against and through layers that has a core dissimilar to the superficial. Which, I contend, is its purpose.

I share your views about the class aspects of this story. It is not well known but both Churchill and the royal family received hostile receptions when they toured working class areas during the Blitz. It was well-known that if the Germans had ever invaded, the ruling class would have been flown to Canada before they had to suffer the experience of occupation.

I dont doubt for one moment Churchill was carrying out peace negotiations with Hitler, especially after Dunkirk, the "well fight them on the beaches" etc, etc nonsence was just for the benefit of the plebs. What needs to be established is how serious Churchill was about that peace, was it A) A genuine attempt to stop the war, B) Putting some feelers out, to see if the worse happened peace with honorer was indeed possible, C) An attempt to confuse and give disinformation too the enemy, D) Just a stall for time, E) A combination of all the above. What ever the reason's the negotiations would still need to be top secret. There could be no hint of peace talks as far as the masses were concerned. As for the bombing of enemy cities easing off, that may well be true but the rest of the war theater still carried on, arguably, at a even harder pace. I would have imagined that of all the ways to ease off on Germany, whilst they fought the Russians, the bombing of civilian cities would have been the least helpful.

David, I too share your interest in the occult, not on a practical level you understand, although my knowledge of the subject is far inferior to yours. But do you not agree, that it is all to easy to find key figures in almost any subject, that have links too some weired occult group, after all, the occult has always been the playground of the so called 'intelligentsia'. I'm not convinced there's really any significance. Or are you suggesting that WW2 et al was really all the doing of the Illuminati or something?

P.S. I've linked to some of your sites/articles, fascinating stuff.