Sid Walker

Report from Voltaire.net... Read all about it (in French)

That sounds like a day to mark down in the diary for a possible false flag operation. Al Qaida Goes To Wembley?

Sorry Len. I'm sorry for you. That is a really pathetic fit-up. The evidence against the Birmingham 6 constituted a stronger case than that. It's like the way you once harped on about one of my exasperated expletives and claimed it had lurid implications. Sad. Yes it's suspicious, no I don't know the cause of Thompson's death. If it's rushing to judgment to be suspicious, I plead guilty. Personally I think it's plain common sense.

A note on motivating factors behind the consolidation of Block 1. By August 1939, the seed had been firmly implanted in Roosevelt's mind that (i) a new and unprecedented "weapon of mass destruction" might be possible in the near future: nuclear bombs (ii) Nazi Germany was actually developing nuclear bombs with probable malicious intent. See Einstein's letter of August 2nd 1939.

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 agree. It wasn't just that sympathy for - and positive interest in - Nazi Germany plummeted once war broke out. The British peace movement had also melted by 1939. From the hero days of the Peace Pledge Union to near zero in a couple of years. This dramatic shift was caused by a turnaround in British public opinion about Hitler and Nazi Germany. The expansionism of Germany from the mid 30s was portrayed as a malevolent, impatient quest for world domination at British expense. This line was pushed by elements of the ruling class and by a growing and eventually overwhelming majority on the left. By the turn of the decade, the Hitler = Evil formula was a near universal belief in Britain. Nationalism and common decency overlapped, for once. The way forward was as clear and inevitable as it was terrible... war. A war clearly forced on Britain (not a war started by Britain). A regrettable necessity. A just war. A war that left and right could agree about. A unifying war. That's a very effective propaganda snowball.

It’s not suspicious until we have some minimal details about what happened. Since Piper bragged about being intellectually dishonest on this very forum I wouldn’t take anything he said for granted. See if you dig up any info about this that doesn’t come from a confessed xxxx. Your analogy is fitting, since I think the Diana CT’s are absurd I wouldn’t find the dead suspicious unless there was information from a reliable source suggesting it was. And since Thompson’s tale of the world on the verge of Egypt being nuked and WWIII breaking out equally or even more absurd ditto. His role with the book is unclear to me. One can search its text on Amazon (see your link above) and the only place his name appears once on the last page as sharing the copyright with Hounam but only the latter is cited as the author. How did he claim to come across this information? I’d think if “they” wanted to get rid of him “they” would have done so before he ‘spilled the beans’ not after. If he really had more secrets to disclose he’d be a fool if handn’t left copies with numerous people to be released upon his death Len's reaction to a suspicious death is to run a quick search of Google a few days after the event. If no-one has posted anything noteworthy then it's case closed, "Nothing to see here, folks--move along now". No my reaction to an allegedly suspicious death is to try and get minimal information about it before rushing to judgment. I tried finding more about it on Google but came up empty handed, I imagine if his death were reported at all it would have been in a local newspaper hence my request for more info from Sid.Ennes it seems knew (or at least knew of) Thompson because he addressed a survivors meeting and gave out DVD which you would know if you’d bother to follow the link. I’d be surprised if Ennes weren’t aware of the ‘accident’ and even more surprised if he found it suspicious but made no mention of it on his site Simple Simon Stapleton strikes sagain Can you provide an exact citation for your allegation that Piper "bragged about being intellectually dishonest on this very forum"? As for "rushing to judgment", who's doing that?

I agree that the ‘bloc’ analysis is a gross oversimplification. I also agree that Block 1, as I defined it, was neither homogeneous nor self-evident in 1939. It had to be built. France was in at the start. The dominions were a push-over. Getting the USA onside and at war, on the other hand, was hard work and would take time.. For the key players, consolidating wealth, power and control were crucial motivators. But ideology - in both general and specific ways – clearly played a crucial role. I agree. My last post was not intended to suggest to the contrary. Block 1, in my analysis, had an ideology of “freedom and democracy”. It’s economic base was capitalist. However, it had been forced by circumstances to adopt some Keynesian measures – and to make some accommodation with the power of organized labour and the voting power of ordinary people. Block 3 had an ideological base that was both socialist and universalistic. I understand that Trotsky had lost to Stalin. Nevertheless, the ideology of the USSR was that it was the forerunner of mankind’s future. The economy of the USSR was State socialist – very much a vanguardist, authoritarian version of socialism. Power was highly centralized. The Soviet Union was anathema to most foreign capitalists – although some external capitalist enterprises were able, in circumstances permitted by the regime, to operate profitably. It's ideology had some support base within block 1 - although much of this was rather lukewarm. Even so, the western left as a whole had considerable reserves of sympathy for the USSR. Within Block 2, by contrast, the formerly considerable influence of communist ideology had been decimated during the 1930s. What was the ideology of Block 2? The word usually used by the Nazis themselves was ‘Volkish’. I’m no German linguist, but I understand this could be translated into English as ‘populist’. Not greatly dissimilar, I’d argue, in general terms from the policies of Huey Long, Hugo Chavez or even (more arguably) Putin in Russia today. Nazi Germany did not prohibit foreign capital – but did exercise control over it. In response to a boycott actually initiated by elements of the international Jewish lobby in the early 1930s, it put increasing controls on Jewish capital. Some elements of the ruling elite in Britain and America were not unhappy with the Nazis and enthused about the prospect of a resurgent Germany curbing the USSR and the advance of communism worldwide. However, other elements of the western elite were determined to knock Germany out of the game. For them, the threat from Nazi Germany was more immediate than from the USSR. That’s not only because their interests were increasingly excluded from a major and fast growing chunk of the world economy. They were also concerned that Nazi ideology and economic policy could spread – in local variants – within Block 1 as a whole. That was surely a more likely scenario – in the late 1930s – than popular communist revolutions in Britain and America. Hence the tussle during the 1930s within the western elite, which the war camp eventually won in 1939, consolidating its victory and making it absolute in 1940. Ideology was crucial – because it cut across the sectors. It could change the look of the overall board-game by sudden changes within blocks. Quick flips were possible. Block 1 was especially vulnerable because it had a more open style of society and still ran fair elections with universal suffrage. It had gone through a very tough economic decade. There were high levels of popular dissatisfaction within these countries. There were also strong peace movements. Block 2 ideology was the most threatening to the war camp. It was more likely to be contagious within their existing domains. Block 2 ideology posed a challenge within the west, not because it was hideously unattractive to most people, but because it was potentially rather attractive to most (but not all) people. Here was a government with a strong development agenda and the determination to implement it, irrespective of the injunctions of the banking community. It did not only benefit capital. Broadly speaking, all boats rose on a rising economic tide. It’s true that the former free trade unions were abolished – but it’s also true they were replaced were new, co-operative workplace organizations. These were not utterly toothless and ineffective. In modern times, we might call it ‘industrial reform’. The German working class was not fleeced under Nazi rule in the 1930s. Compared with the previous decade, it prospered. From the perspective of economic interests effectively excluded from Germany, there was an imperative to nail Germany before it could go too far establishing itself as an alternative center of power in the world – and an alternative model for capitalist society. Nailing the USSR would have to wait. And it did. Again, to state the obvious, this is over-simplified analysis. I accept that. Every point is open to debate. Yes, it's impossible to avoid the subject of ideology, but to make it clear, I am not 'taking sides' in a hot war that was fought a long time ago. This is about understanding history. Ideological battles - when they turn into world wars - are fought by power blocks. There is interplay between ideology and material reality. By studying that interplay we approach a reasonably complete understanding of history. Starting around 1940 and continuing to the present day, Block 1 propagandists sneakily managed to spin a version of history in which the contest was fought not between war leaders and powerful vested interests within Block 1 and authoritarian governments in Blocks 2 and 3, but between the great free world and beleaguered Russian people one the one hand - and Evil incarnated on the other. To some extent the mass hallucination of the fake version of the 1930s and World War Two was perpetrated deliberately by vested interests who knew exactly what they were doing. But once the snowball was rolling, almost everyone in western society got involved. So, for that matter, did the Russians and the German and Japanese people themselves. We have all - almost all of us - become enforcers and promulgators of mass hallucinations, at least at some stage in our lives. One is reminded of the Salem witchcraft mass hysteria so ably dramatized by Arthur Miller in The Crucible. After 1945, those in power in both East and West were able to collude in - and share the benefits of - the hallucinatory morality tale of modern times in which Hitler plays the role of The Devil. No-one was left to balance historical evaluation of that period from a Block 2 perspective. Those who tried were treated like latter day witches - and this continues to the present day.

Pornography is a good example of how governments cannot control the internet. For example, it is illegal in the UK and most other countries in the world to view "child pornography". However, a recent report shows that governments are finding it impossible to prevent this from happening. One of the reasons for this is that most of these sites are hosted in places like Russia. It is not true that any "pretty female willing to pose nude can become a millionaire in short order". It is the case that the odd individual like Paris Hilton can achieve great wealth by arranging for explicit films of herself to be posted on the internet. However, she could only do this because she was already a "name" and was extremely wealthy before she started. It is all about market forces. Most of the women who are used by pornographers on the internet come from Eastern Europe. They are the cheapest available and make very little money from the operation. (In the same way that Linda Lovelace made very little money from Deep Throat.) One of the great strengths of capitalism is competition. It is this that will enable freedom of expression to survive on the web. It is not in the interests of governments in the West to price the internet out of existence. This is possible in a state capitalist country like China. However, given the way modern technology works, even a country like China is failing to silence its people. For every blogger it arrests, another five start up. The problem for these political activists is to turn this freedom of expression into political power. It is the same problem that we face in the West. I think this is broadly true and well put. However, the internet does enable mass surveillance of activists. A secret state with sufficient resources is able to keep a close eye on who is saying what, who is planning what etc. The case of pornography is an interesting one. It's correct that it is effectively unbannable on the net - like the sharing of political information via the internet. However, like the latter, much usage is potentially traceable. This gives the secret state a lot of potential blackmail opportunities.

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. I find the overall outline of your last post - concerning the probable negotiations between Hitler and Churchill - plausible. The coincidence between the arrival of Hess and the end of the Blitz is certainly interesting, as is Churchill's decision to throttle back on bombing Germany... for a while. You wrote: I don't think this is quite right. Churchill's goal - and the people who put him into power - was always to destroy Germany (and Imperial Japan). However, they wanted the execution nicely choreographed, in order to have their enemy weaken the USSR as much as possible. I think of the WW2 as three main blocks scheming against each other - the Anglophile Allies (1), the Axis (2) and the USSR (3). Leaving aside ideology, this is about power and control. The world is a big chessboard - even more like the board game 'Risk'. The object is to win. To state the blooming obvious, this is a simplification… The Anglophile Allies are the established elite. At war's start, this block is strongest and in the best position. Arguably, it could take on the rest of the world combined and beat it. But there are problems. First, their own people would not stand for it. An unprovoked attack on the rest of the world would not be a salable policy. Second, although the Anglophile Allies are a potential block, at the beginning of the war the largest single component of this block (the USA) is so anti-war that even its pro-war President can't whip up anything close to enough enthusiasm to join in. However, one does not get to be no 1 power block without a certain guile. Why slug it out with 2 and 3 directly, when 2 & 3 can clobber each other? Simplistically, the least costly option for Block 1 would be to foment war between 2 and 3 - and let them slug it out. The obvious problem with that strategy (from a Block one perspective) is that conflict only between 2 and 3 may end with a new block (2 + 3) that becomes a greater threat to block 1. Hence, it is necessary to have conflict between 2 and 3 - and for that to be the most costly part of the war. However, it's also important that Block 1 gets involved to take at least a share (the best share) of the spoils. In a world with one established rather overfed established Block and two aspiring Blocks who'd like at minimum a bigger slice of the pie, the most logical alliance would be between blocks 2 and 3. That poses the most dangerous threat to 1. Fortunately, (from a Block 1 perspective) there was deep ideological hatred and distrust between the two blocks. Could they overcome this? It seemed possible, in August 1939. Disaster! Within weeks of blocks 2 and 3 forging an economic and security alliance, World War Two began. It began when approximately half of Block 1 declared war on block 2 (sorry Poland - for the sake of this very limited analysis, you don't count - and that I suspect was the truth at the time, in elite pro-war circles in London, New York and Washington). Now Block 1 was always in a weak position until the USA (its largest single component) joined in. That couldn't be done at the beginning, such was the depth of American anti-war sentiment. To fix this would need skillful maneuvering and take a couple of years to achieve. The early part of the war was therefore the most dangerous from a Block 1 perspective. Indeed, it was a close shave. Germany performed with military and strategic brilliance in the opening rounds of the war. It was crucial - for Block 1 - to keep open a promise of peace with Block 2, while working for the eventual desired alignment - a coalescence of the whole of Block 1 into a fighting unit and an alliance with Block 3 to avert and eventually crush an Axis that could have reached across the whole of the Eurasian landmass. (1 + 3) v 2 was the eventual alignment that brought about the total defeat of Block 2... at a very high price. But it wasn't in place until 1942. In the early years of the war, the British leadership took a very high stake gamble and played the clever but cynical game of manipulating Block 2 into not pressing home its advantage on the western front at a time when its eastern front was not under serious threat. In this endeavor, of course, the British leadership was greatly advantaged by the fact that it had Enigma. In war, both Hitler's team and Churchill's team were more than willing to do the equivalent of 'cheating at cards', but the latter did it rather better. So well, indeed, that the British were able to divert troops and resources from homeland defense to wage war in north Africa and the Middle East, at a time when almost everyone thought that Britain was really in peril and needed all the help it could get. Plus a quarter of a million British troops got to sail home unscathed at Dunkirk, to fight again. Sweet! If Poland and Eastern Europe were collateral damage in the war, Japan was a deliberate very juicy co-victim. Sucked into joining Block 2 by economic blockade at a time when it seemed possible Block 2 might prevail, it also had a initial military advances but faced ultimate defeat. Germany & Japan, both swallowed up. Two for the price of one! Perhaps some poker analogies help illustrate the war, from the point of view of the British pro-war elite. In round one (1939) Britain and France did not take the bold and potentially war-winning strategy of attacking Germany at the outset from the west. This might have been a war-winning lunge – especially in alliance with Poland. But it could have got very messy in all sorts of ways... World War One revisited but with no chance of the USA joining in this time? Moreover, the British political leadership was divided. In poker, that when you fold on a good reasonably hand, because you just can’t be certain of winning this time round... and you are about to deal with a deck of marked cards. In round two, (mid-1940 –late 1941) Britain (now led by Churchill and without France), bluffed Hitler. It persuaded him not to attack and follow through his advantage when he had, potentially, a winning hand in the west. The promise of renewed peace between 1 & 2 was a crucial card in this play. In reality, there was no real possibility once Churchill was in power of a negotiated peace with Germany. In poker, that’s a bluff. It helps if you can read the other guys cards. Then you can bluff him rather more effectively. By round three (1942-5), Churchill's team had accumulated a few Aces and out they rolled, with devastating aplomb. At war's end, only two blocks remained. Block 1 effectively absorbed Japan and most of Germany. Eastern Europe was the consolation prize for Block 3. It would take another generation to finish off the USSR and more fully re-open that part of the world to global commercial interests. It goes without saying that the analysis is crass. It leaves out most of humanity (most notably China, India, Africa and South America). But I think it sets out a plausible, Anglo-centric war-winning strategy. It was roughly what was strategized, in my opinion - and it worked. The Second World War - a war in which some 60 million people died - was not inevitable. Blocks 2 and 3 didn't want it, although they were, of course, not run by pacifists. Elements within Block 1 were the most powerful motive force behind the war - and through World War Two they achieved their broad goals, which were far too cynical to be for publication. Very devious. Very nasty. The mainstream view of World War Two has, however, successfully been obscured by a set of myths that are really congealed, 60 year-old war propaganda, serving various over-lapping interests that emerged victorious from World War Two and have consolidated their power to a greater or lesser extent ever since.

I set of my theory, FWIW, in a post earlier on this thread. Personally, I doubt the goal was to trigger a nuclear attack on Eygpt. I have little doubt, on the other hand, that the sinking of the USS LIberty was a false flag operation gone wrong. I know no more about it Len. There would be a parallel, perhaps, if a retired MI6 agent in his seventies drove into a tree on a road in the north of England. He happened to be a major source for stories suggesting that Diana was murdered by elements in the British Intelligence Services (can't get over that name!). He had recently said that he had more info to reveal. Then he died suddendly in a car crash. A few suspicious Anglophobic minds might suspect the hand of British "Intelligence" (there I go misusing that word again! ). Other retired spooks would get the message that this is a topic to avoid. Was Mr Thompson's death an accident? I have no idea. Is it suspicious? Sure it is. Get real.

England - the idiom comes from the catchy, maudlin theme song by the 'Lightening Seeds' for the 1996 European Championships. I will elaborate on all this later - I've just posted my hunch now so I cannot stand accused of being wise after the event. With predictive powers like these, Michael, you must be in demand. Anyhow, thanks for sharing what's sounds like a highly plausible script - and we shall not forget where we heard it first should these things come to pass.

Michael Collins Piper's radio show has covered in Liberty incident in recent days. Last Friday, Piper interviewed several Liberty survivors in person. They were assembling in Washington for a week-end re-union. One of the speakers at that event was a healthy septuagenarian called Richard Thompson. An ex US Naval intelligence officer, he had been a primary source for the recent book 'Operation Cyanide: How the Bombing of the USS Liberty Nearly Caused World War III ' referred to above. It is the book by British journalists Peter Hounam and John Simpson that claims Israel set up the attack on the Liberty as a false flag operation. According to this theory, had the attack succeeded, the War on (Arab) Terror would have come three and a half decades earlier... Thompson was killed in a car crash on his return to Florida. Apparently no other cars were involved. Cause of the accident unknown. The trgic incident was discussed by Piper on his show this Monday.

In this article, the chief counsel to the Navy's Court of Inquiry into the attack on the USS Liberty expresses outrage at the efforts of Israel's apologists to claim this attack was a case of “mistaken identity.

Paul Findley: Subservience To Israel, from the sinking of the Liberty to now Jewish Anti-Zionist activist Jeff Blankfort introduces Paul Findley's recent article about the USS Liberty as follows: Former US Congressman Paul Findley was one of the first members of Congress to be victimized by the Israel lobby for questioning Israel's oppression of the Palestinians and US support for that oppression. Since that time, other members of Congress who have publicly challenged Israel have been targeted for defeat, the most recent being Cynthia McKinney, who like Findley, is continuing to speak out. Unfortunately, the fear of the lobby that Findley describes here, and which has been dismissed as a myth or as an exaggeration by some among us who are engaged in "damage control" for the lobby, is all too real as we see when looking at both houses of Congress today. Whereas there are a number of House members who will occasionally vote against the Israel's lobby wishes, there is not a SINGLE one today in either the House or Senate who will publicly speak out either on the floor of Congress or in public on behalf of the Palestinians. Sad to say, this phenomenon continues to be ignored by most of the organizations that purport to support the Palestinian cause. For those of you who have yet to read it, Findley's "They Dare to Speak Out" is strongly recommended-JB

However, I'll stand my ground on this; there has been lots of discussion, yes. Lots of book, documentaries and movies - sure. But the discussion has been straitjacketed. Views considered too 'pro-Hitler' are cast off to the margins. Which is where pro-Hitler views belong. Since it is conceded that there has been "lots" of discussion, books, documentaries, movies (and psychological, sociological, etc, etc, etc studies), the complaint would seem to come from the vicinity of those inclined to look favorably upon Hitler and the Nazi New Order. Appearing to argue for "balance" on these issues -- after all this time and "lots" of "discussion" -- is necessary to help obscure their real agenda Firstly, what do you mean by ‘pro-Hitler’ views? Which people do you want “cast off to the margins”? Paid up members of the Nazi Party? Or folk of varying politicial persuasions who point out facts you don’t like and opinions you don’t like, facts and analyses that undermine the 100% negative view of Hitler and Nazi Germany you seem so dogmatically determined to promulgate? Secondly, if ANY views are cast off to the margin, it is contorted logic indeed to then argue that those who hold them cannot complain about this – or point out that it’s happening – without having another, darker agenda (that you define). Who are you to put words - and agendas - in other peoiple’s mouths, Daniel? Cheeky, that’s what you are. I’ll try to find time to reply to the rest of your post soon. Sorry, today is busy.

I agree this is very interesting. The Times obituary does mention the Litvinenko connection, and also contains other fascinating curiosities.

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?

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." 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.

Marquis Childs, "Bobby, Bombing and the New Left," Washington Post, 3 March 1967, p.A18: "The issue of Ramparts that blew the role of the CIA with various left-of-center groups, such as the National Student Association...led off with a savage attack on Kennedy. Written by Ramparts managing editor, Robert Scheer, the article...said...'Bobby is believable and for that reason much more serious.' From the viewpoint of the New Left, dangerous could be substituted for serious. The obvious objective is to destroy any middle ground between the demand for withdrawal of American troops from Vietnam and the cry of the hawks for the end of all restraint and total bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong. The Ramparts article charges that Kennedy's involvement with the Vietnam war goes back to the earliest days of the Kennedy Adminsitration, beginning in 1961 when 'he did as much as any man to get us deeply involved there.' Bobby Kennedy's vision of foreign affairs, Scheer writes, 'is standard cold war mythology.'" RFK more responsible for the US assault on Vietnam than, say, Allen Dulles? The strategy is as old as politics; and may yet be used in 2008. Spot on. By the way, a question for Paul (or anyone else). How, in general, did Ramparts cover the RFK campaign in '68? Was it supportive - or did the negativity of the '67 article cited above carry forward?

George Monbiot also posted this Guardian article to the thread ' The Corruption of Tony Blair: Britain’s Watergate?'. I've replied to it HERE

On October 16th 2001, at a time when much of the world was in a frenzy and most of the western mass media were willing to paint any signs of dissent as disloyal treachery, a level-headed British columnist warned in The Guardian against rushing to judgment on the facts. The author reminded us that democracy is sustained by skepticism. Strangely, these days - even though so much more information has since become available indicating the official version of 9-11 is an impossibility - the author of Gagging the Sceptics seems to have changed his mind. He no longer advocates scepticism. He recently wrote two articles in the Guardian dismissing 9-11 sceptics and warning that "9/11 fantasists pose a mortal danger to popular oppositional campaigns." What happened, George? I'm afraid this unexplained flip has so coloured my view of your writing that I now find it hard to credit much that you write. You behave as though you have been warned off inquiring into the veracity of 9-11 (and 7-7). If that's not true, then I and many thousands of other others would appreciate an informed, rational, sufficiently detailed account of why you no longer believe scepticism is appropriate in relation to the official account of 9-11 (and 7-7). No gratuitous ad hominem attacks please. No slippery argumentation in which you avoid the strongest case against the official accounts. That type of thing gets noticed and can damage your reputation. Your views on the collapse of WTC-7 would be especially appreciated - including the BBC's remarkable feat when it reported this unprecedented event on live TV nearly half an hour before it actually happened. In this latest article, you write: "this deal helps ensure Britain is a primary target for terrorism: not because our government acted on principle, but because it acted without it. Blair has invoked all the strategic threats from which he claims to defend us." Your nimble mind flies too fast for a simple guy like me, George. Any chance of clearing up the most basic anomalies about 9/11 and 7/7 for your readers, before inviting us to lock in behind your latest grand assumptions about what stimulates or reduces the incidence of 'terrorism'? As so many contemporary mainstream commentators seem to believe in miracles and other most unlikely events, I think I'll look back to earlier great wits for inspiration and guidance. Voltaire is one of my favourites. We should eschew belief in absurdities.. lest we be seduced into the commission of atrocities.

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? 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. 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?

Much of this article is not easy for me to check. It refers to newspaper reports not easily available here. In part, that's why it's so useful (assuming Michael has done his homework and cited them accurately). Anyhow, as a general comment, so far I've found this presentation on the Litvinenko murder quite fascinating. It seems to me exactly the type of analysis needed in cases of terrorism and other forms of foul play given prominence by the mass media: critical examination of the media coverage, exposing discrepancies in reports and pointing out the way 'spin' changes over time. It's like using the records of mass media reportage to reverse-engineer the truth. Annoying to have to do this. Naively, I used to think it was the job of the media itself to tell the truth. But there's not much alternative as long as the western mass media remains so dishonest and discredited.

Nice of the BBC to assign an unbiased correspondent to report on the USS Liberty anniversary - but surely it would be cheaper and easier for the Beeb to subcontract the entire article to Haaretz or the Jerusalem Post? Having said that, the reference to Peter Hounam's book on the USS Liberty is very useful. I wasn't aware of it before.

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?