Denis Pointing

If you watch Kennedy's head in the Zapruder film in slow motion, you can see that his head never moves far enough down to allow his chin to touch his chest. Instead, his hole body slumps (bends) forward from the waist.

Gil, I took your suggestion that I look at the Zapruder film in slow motion, in fact I did one better and found a site where you can view it frame by frame. Now, I dont intend to be argumentative but Ive looked at these frames for over two hours now and if you care to look for your self I'm sure you'll agree Kennedy's head IS actually laying on his chest immediately before the third shot hits. Remember, I'm not stating that the head DOES bounce back after hitting the chest, just that its a possible explanation. The site is:http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/ frames 312/313 are particular interesting. Denis.

Gil,

As a sidebar to all of that:

In reference to the video showing the execution of Pietro Caruso, there was plenty of smoke emitted from the rifles used. I added this given there was a discussion some time back about whether or not witnesses would have seen gunsmoke from behind the fence area on the knoll.

James

Or the backwards head snap was caused by a shot fired from the front.

Witnesses who claimed to have seen photos of the autopsy before they were leaked to the public claimed that those photos and videos showed an entry wound at the front of the skull near the hairline.

One of the autopsy photos we see today seems to have a "black square" where the entry hole was alleged to be:

in another photo, the "black square" is missing:

and in the gaping hole pic showing the rear entry wound in all its glory, a visible entry wound can be seen in the front at about where the witnesses placed it:

Or the backwards head snap was caused by a shot fired from the front.

Witnesses who claimed to have seen photos of the autopsy before they were leaked to the public claimed that those photos and videos showed an entry wound at the front of the skull near the hairline.

One of the autopsy photos we see today seems to have a "black square" where the entry hole was alleged to be:

in another photo, the "black square" is missing:

and in the gaping hole pic showing the rear entry wound in all its glory, a visible entry wound can be seen in the front at about where the witnesses placed it:

Possibly there is a (deliberate, not by you Gil, but by the proponents of the effect) to use a proven effect by the US military in late 1940's studies using high speed (1200 fps) films to show the blowback caused by the explosive cavitation effect where matter in not insignificant amounts are being expelled back towards the direction the bullet came from. Here a steel ball is fired down into water:

(film)

Also there is a pause upon impact when the force of the impact is absorbed and RELATIVELY the object impacting and the object impacted upon is, if one considers the impacting object as stationary, the object impacted upon RELATIVELY moves in the direction the impacting object comes from:

(gif)

Obviously the jet effect theory is ridiculous but there is another theory which IMO makes more sense, I'm not saying its correct, just that its not as crazy as the jet theory: After the second shot Kennedy's head is slumped forward ,chin laying on chest, the third shot causes the head to try to go forward but as its 'weged' on the chest this causes the head to 'bounce' backward , it basically has no where else to go.

Point taken Lee, Thanks for the help, Denis.

It shows a gaping hole at rear of skull (as witnessed by the Parkland

and autopsy witnesses) and a tiny hole at front near the hairline.

http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/13a0xoPw...Qp5Fd3Ig=_l.jpg

"Frontal stare" photo shows the extent to which the US government went to cover

up that entrance wound by painting a "black square" over it.

http://links.pictures.aol.com/pic/13a0xoPw...Qp5Fd3Ig=_l.jpg

Denis.

, Denis.

John, I'm rather surprised at that last statement! I thought a large part of your thesis revolved around the ruling classes supporting the Nazis, why would they need to flee the country?

They would have only been forced to flee the country if these negotiations were unsuccessful and Germany successfully invaded the UK. Hitler was willing to do deals with the British ruling class but if they resisted and lost, he would have been unwilling to share power with them.

Sorry John but I'm not convinced, the ruling classes would still be useful, if only as a puppet government. The fact that there were indeed secret plans for the aristocracy to flee ( I assume this information has only relatively recently been released) would surly imply that although at the beginning ,they may have had some sympathy with the Nazis, after the war started in earnest most of them were totally loyal, otherwise, why would they need a secreat escape plan ? I am in no way a royalist but I cant help but wonder if your not giving the royals a raw deal deal with this one. I know from my own late grandfather that many soldiers had a lot of sympathy with the Nazis polices, but that in no way implies that when push came to shove, every man Jack of them did their duty and put personal feelings aside.

I believe there is a major difference between being sympathetic to the Nazis and being willing to be puppet rulers. I am not particularly fond of the royal family but I do not think that King George VI would have been willing to do that. Nor do I believe Winston Churchill would have played the role of a Quisling leader. (Vidkun Quisling ruled Norway on behalf of Hitler between 1940 and 1945). This was not an option for Hitler because of Churchill public resistance to Nazi Germany. In fact, some people believed the reason that these peace negotiations failed was because both sides were insisting that both Hitler and Churchill stood down as leaders of their respective countries.

In the event of invasion George VI and Churchill would have fled to Canada. If Germany had successfully invaded the UK in 1940, Hitler would have wanted a high profile figure to be a Quisling leader. It has usually been assumed that the Duke of Windsor would have played that role. Another possibility is that the Duke of Kent would have held the post. The prime minister would probably have been Sir Archibald Ramsay. He had been the head of the secret organization, the Right Club. He explained the objectives of the organization in his autobiography, The Nameless War:

"The main object of the Right Club was to oppose and expose the activities of Organized Jewry, in the light of the evidence which came into my possession in 1938. Our first objective was to clear the Conservative Party of Jewish influence and the character of our membership and meetings were strictly in keeping with this objective."

The Right Club had been infiltrated by the intelligence services from the beginning (Joan Miller, Marjorie Amor and Helem de Munck). In fact, some of the leaders of MI5 and MI6 like Sir Stewart Menzies and Maxwell Knight shared the views of this secret organization. Churchill knew about the activities of the Right Club via Desmond Morton.

Soon after the outbreak of the Second World War the government passed a Defence Regulation Order. This legislation gave the Home Secretary the right to imprison without trial anybody he believed likely to "endanger the safety of the realm" On 22nd September, 1939, Oliver C. Gilbert and Victor Rowe, became the first members of the Right Club to be arrested.

In the House of Commons Ramsay attacked this legislation and on 14th December, 1939, asked: "Is this not the first time for a very long time in British history, that British born subjects have been denied every facility for justice?"

In the House of Commons Ramsay was the main critic of having Jews in the government. He began a campaign to have Leslie Hore-Belisha sacked as Secretary of War. In one speech on 27th April 1938 he warned that Hore-Belisha "will lead us to war with our blood-brothers of the Nordic race in order to make way for a Bolshevised Europe."

Ramsay continued his campaign against Leslie Hore-Belisha after the war started and even distributed free copies of right-wing magazines that included articles attacking the Secretary of War. Eventually Neville Chamberlain decided to remove Hore-Belisha as Secretary of State for War and appoint him as Minister of Information. Lord Halifax objected, claiming that it was "inappropriate to have a Jew in charge of publicity." In January 1940 Hore-Belisha was sacked as Secretary of State for War.

On 20th March, 1940, Ramsay asked the Minister of Information a question about the New British Broadcasting Service, a radio station broadcasting German propaganda. In doing so he gave full details of the wavelength and the time in the day when it provided programmes. His critics claimed he was trying to give the radio station publicity. Two Labour Party MPs, Ellen Wilkinson and Emanuel Shinwell, made speeches in the House of Commons suggesting that Ramsay was a member of a right-wing secret society. In fact, we now know he was leader of that society.

By this time Ramsay was being helped in his work by two women, Anna Wolkoff and Joan Miller. Unknown to Ramsay, Miller was a MI5 agent. Wolkoff was the daughter of Admiral Nikolai Wolkoff, the former aide-to-camp to the Nicholas II in London. Wolkoff ran the Russian Tea Room in South Kensington and this eventually became the main meeting place for members of the Right Club.

In the 1930s Anna Wolkoff had meetings with Hans Frank and Rudolf Hess. In 1935 her actions began to be monitored by MI5. Agents warned that Wolkoff had developed a close relationship with Wallis Simpson (the future wife of Edward VIII) and that the two women might be involved in passing state secrets to the German government.

In February 1940, Wolkoff met Tyler Kent, a cypher clerk from the American Embassy. He soon became a regular visitor to the Russian Tea Room where he met other members of the Right Club including Ramsay. Wolkoff, Kent and Ramsay talked about politics and agreed that they all shared the same political views.

Kent was concerned that the American government wanted the United States to join the war against Germany. He said he had evidence of this as he had been making copies of the correspondence between President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. Kent invited Wolkoff and Ramsay back to his flat to look at these documents. This included secret assurances that the United States would support France if it was invaded by the German Army. Kent later argued that he had shown these documents to Ramsay in the hope that he would pass this information to American politicians hostile to Roosevelt.

On 13th April 1940 Wolkoff went to Kent's flat and made copies of some of these documents. Joan Miller and Marjorie Amor were later to testify that these documents were then passed on to Duco del Monte, Assistant Naval Attaché at the Italian Embassy. Soon afterwards, MI8, the wireless interception service, picked up messages between Rome and Berlin that indicated that Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, head of German military intelligence (Abwehr), had seen the Roosevelt-Churchill correspondence.

Soon afterwards Anna Wolkoff asked Joan Miller if she would use her contacts at the Italian Embassy to pass a coded letter to William Joyce (Lord Haw-Haw) in Germany. The letter contained information that he could use in his broadcasts on Radio Hamburg. Before passing the letter to her contacts, Miller showed it to Maxwell Knight, the head of B5b, a unit within MI5 that conducted the monitoring of political subversion.

On 18th May, Knight told Guy Liddell about the Right Club spy ring. Liddell immediately had a meeting with Joseph Kennedy, the American Ambassador in London. Kennedy agreed to waive Kent's diplomatic immunity and on 20th May, 1940, the Special Branch raided his flat. Inside they found the copies of 1,929 classified documents, including the secret correspondence between Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. Kent was also found in possession of what became known as Ramsay's Red Book. This book had the names and addresses of members of the Right Club and had been given to Kent for safe keeping.

Anna Wolkoff and Tyler Kent were arrested and charged under the Official Secrets Act. The trial took place in secret and on 7th November 1940, Wolkoff was sentenced to ten years. Kent, because he was an American citizen, was treated less harshly and received only seven years.

Ramsay was surprisingly not charged with breaking the Official Secrets Act. Instead he was interned under Defence Regulation 18B. Ramsay now joined other right-wing extremists such as Oswald Mosley and Admiral Nikolai Wolkoff in Brixton Prison. Some left-wing politicians in the House of Commons began demanding the publication of Ramsay's Red Book. They suspected that several senior members of the Conservative Party had been members of the Right Club. Some took the view that Ramsay had done some sort of deal in order to prevent him being charged with treason.

The Home Secretary refused to reveal the contents of Ramsay's Red Book. He claimed that it was impossible to know if the names in the book were really members of the Right Club. If this was the case, the publication of the book would unfairly smear innocent people. In reality it was because Churchill did not want the British public to know that several senior members of the Conservative Party, including several members of the House of Lords, were supporters of Nazi Germany.

The government found it difficult to suppress the story and in 1941 the New York Times claimed that Ramsay had been guilty of spying for Nazi Germany: " Before the war he (Ramsay) was strongly anti-Communist, anti-semitic, and pro-Hitler. Though no specific charges were brought against him - Defence Regulations allow that - informed American sources said that he had sent to the German Legation in Dublin treasonable information given to him by Tyler Kent, clerk to the American Embassy in London."

Ramsay sued the owners of the New York Times for libel. In court Ramsay argued that if there had been any evidence of him passing secrets to the Germans he would have been tried under the Official Secrets Act alongside Anna Wolkoff and Tyler Kent in 1940. The newspaper owners were found guilty of libel but the case became a disaster for Ramsay when he was awarded a farthing in damages. As well as the extremely damaging publicity he endured, Ramsay was forced to pay the costs of the case.

Although detained in Brixton Prison he was allowed to submit questions in the House of Commons. This enabled him to continue to make racist comments. For example, on 23rd February, he asked for details of the Jews fighting in the British armed forces. On 3rd August, 1944, he complained about the music of "Oriental and African music" being played on British radio.

That was absolutely fascinating John, thank you. I didn't realize there was so much OPEN hostility towards Jews by politician's back then. Hard to belive it was only sixty odd years ago.

John, I'm rather surprised at that last statement! I thought a large part of your thesis revolved around the ruling classes supporting the Nazis, why would they need to flee the country?

They would have only been forced to flee the country if these negotiations were unsuccessful and Germany successfully invaded the UK. Hitler was willing to do deals with the British ruling class but if they resisted and lost, he would have been unwilling to share power with them.

Sorry John but I'm not convinced, the ruling classes would still be useful, if only as a puppet government. The fact that there were indeed secret plans for the aristocracy to flee ( I assume this information has only relatively recently been released) would surly imply that although at the beginning ,they may have had some sympathy with the Nazis, after the war started in earnest most of them were totally loyal, otherwise, why would they need a secreat escape plan ? I am in no way a royalist but I cant help but wonder if your not giving the royals a raw deal deal with this one. I know from my own late grandfather that many soldiers had a lot of sympathy with the Nazis polices, but that in no way implies that when push came to shove, every man Jack of them did their duty and put personal feelings aside.

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.

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.

John, I'm rather surprised at that last statement! I thought a large part of your thesis revolved around the ruling classes supporting the Nazis, why would they need to flee the country?

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

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.

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.

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, 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, 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.

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

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

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.

Simmo,

As my Big Issue seller tells me,'never allow scholarship to get in the way of common sense.' You'll have to be some sort of intellectual Houdini to get out of the knots you're tying yourself in.

PS Winston used the term 'appeasement' as code for something much nastier. In reality there never was a 'policy of appeasement.' It's what pseuds call a'post hoc rationalisation.'

PPS My Big Issue seller tells me you won't go far wrong if you read 'Kim' and 'Greenmantle.' As long as you don't tie yourself up in intellectual knots beforehand that is...

Regards,

Chappers

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.

I am a contracts manager for a small construction company. Married, with a 14 year old son. In my spare time I study history. I currently belong to 2 internet history groups, one dedicated to classical history, the other Japanese history. I regularly post on both these sites.