Jump to content
The Education Forum

Winston Churchill and the death of Prince George, Duke of Kent


Recommended Posts

In response to various comments made like:

"...the possibility of long-term co-existence between Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, it's an interesting hypothetical."

"I don’t think any serious historians believe Hitler’s Germany would have existed peacefully side by side with Stalin’s Soviet Union indefinitely and war between the two the two nations was inevitable it was only a question of when."

"...the USSR probably would have eventually been invaded..."

"Turning the Soviets and Nazi's against each other..."[/i] - (one's gotta laugh, otherwise cry in despair)

Before Hitler TOOK power, the Nazis only real opposition in Germany were the German Communists/Socialists.

The White Armies had failed, and Hitler, and his backers, real enemy were the Bolschevics.

The first to go in Germany after Hitler becoming Dictator were the German Communists/Socialists.

Trough conquest. Constructing an industrial base with slave labour and western minerals and materials, were all aimed at setting in motion OP Barbarossa.

This was a total war, scorched earth strategy, aimed at destroying the the U.S.S.R.. (C.C.C.P.)

The Wermacht set off for Moscow with a broad Eastern front totalling approximately 18 times the resources it faced the west with.

Following on their heels, were the Einsatzgruppen forces (death squads) that basically just en-masse killed civilians falling under a broad umbrella of predefined enemies, primarily communist members, their sympathisers, and jews. (this turned out a bit uncomfortable for this rather ragtag coalition of psychpaths, so they were 'saved' from some of this distateful activity by the invention of mobile gas vans and later the concentration camp gas chambers and crematoria.)

Nevertheless, the scorched earth policy continued, and when bogged down in Leningrad and Stalingrad where the USSR soldiery eventually turned the tide and the unstoppable drive westward began, showing defeat was in sight for the Germans and their allies, only then, and only then, within a short time, D-Day came and the race for Berlin and other continental European territory began.

The US basically sat back, along with other nations, and made huge amounts of capital by

1. sellining food to a starving Britain

2. Get rid of obsolete shipping in exchange for a number of military bases.

3. (Bush et al) Selling fuel and steel and other minerals to the Axis forces that were then used to kill the US own soldiers, as well as the eastern 'allies'.

Axis Forces

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,Country Pop. Killed/Mising Wounded Total(Military) Civilian (deaths)

Germany..........78m...........3.5 million.....4.6 million.......8.1 million......2million

Italy...................44m.............330,000..........?.................?..............70,000

Japan ................72m...........1.75 million.......?..................?..............350,000

Rumania.............20m............500,000........300,000.........800,000......4

00,000

Bulgaria..............6m.............10,000...............?....................?...........50,000

Hungary..............10m..........120,000.........250,000.........370,000.......

200,000

Finland................4m............100,000...........45,000.........145,000...

....4000

Allied Forces (in order of entry into the war)

......................Country Pop. Killed/Missing Wounded Total(Military) Civilian (deaths)

China ...............450m..........1.3 million.......1.8 million........3.1 million.......9 million

Poland................35m............130,000............200,000.........330,000.

.........2.5million

U.K....................48m............400,000.............300,000........700,000

..........60,000

France................42m.............250,000............350,000.........600,000

........270,000

Australia..............7m.............30,000...............40,000..........70,00

0

India..................360m............36,000...............64,000.........100,0

00

New Zealand.......2m..............10,000..............20,000...........30,000

So. Africa...........10m...............9,000..............14,000...........23,000

Canada...............11m.............42,000..............50,000...........92,000

Denmark.............4m................2,000.................?.....................?...............1,000

Norway...............3m..............10,000.................?.....................?................6,000

Belgium...............8m..............12,000..............16,000...........28,00

0...........100,000

Holland................9m.............14,000................7,000............21,

000...........250,000

Greece.................7m..............90,000.................?....................?...............400,000

Yugoslavia..........15m............320,000.................?....................?.................1.3million

U.S.S.R..............194m..........9 million............18 million.......27 million.,,,,,,,.19 million

U.S.A.................129m...........300,000...............300,000.........600,000 --

"U.S.S.R.: Invaded by Germany in June 1941, the Soviet Union fought a lone, heroic struggle on the European mainland against Nazi Germany and her allies from that date until (After the USSR victory in Leningrad.) the opening of the Second Front in the D-Day invasion in June 1944. She suffered by far the greatest casualties of any country on either side."

"By 1943, in the wake of the climactic victory at Stalingrad, the Red Army drove the Germans out of Russia in a series of giant offensives that ended with the capture of Berlin in May 1945. It may fairly be said that in "bleeding the German army white" the Soviet Union made the greatest contribution to the defeat of Nazi Germany."

___________

By inference, it was the destruction of the USSR that was Hitlers aim.

By the timing and nature of the actions of the so the called USSR 'allies' one can also infer their real agenda.

Quite disgusting really how history has been rewritten in the west.

John Simkin seems to go a long way to redressing this issue.

However, as already pointed out, the control of western working people by being placed in a state of war, phony as it may have been, is a dimension overlooked when focussing on the leaders.

Edited by John Dolva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 338
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

post-5481-1184006872_thumb.jpg

Never smile at a crocodile

No, you can't get friendly with a crocodile

Don't be taken in by his welcome grin

He's imagining how well you'd fit within his skin

Never smile at a crocodile

Never dip your hat and stop to talk awhile

Never run, walk away, say good-night, not good-day

Clear the aisle but never smile at Mister Crocodile

You may very well be well bred

Lots ot etiquette in your head

But there's always some special case, time or place

To forget etiquette

For instance:

Never smile at a crocodile

No, you can't get friendly with a crocodile

Don't be taken in by his welcome grin

He's imagining how well you'd fit within his skin

Never smile at a crocodile

Never dip your hat and stop to talk awhile

Never run, walk away, say good-night, not good-day

Clear the aisle but never smile at Mister Crocodile

Remember folks, crocs dine out on communists, fascists and bleedin' heart liberals - so don't get hung up on ideologies.

Remember also that the male croc is cannibalistic.

There, what bigger clue could I give you about the TRUE cause of WWII?!

(Sorry John, couldn't resist)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was the plane crash that killed General Sikorski not a accident? Other than a vague motive based mostly undocumented claims John only cited one “fact” that would lead us to believe so:

“There was only one survivor, the pilot, Flight Lieutenant Edward Prchal. He survived because he was wearing a life-jacket that he had put on before the aircraft had taken off.”

He didn’t cite a source but cited David Irving’s book about the crash for another claim in the same paragraph:

“Sikorski’s widow claimed that her husband had been assassinated on the orders of Winston Churchill.”

Irving’s credibility aside he contradicts John about the life-jacket:

"Flight Lieutenant Prchal…was dressed in normal R.A.F. flying gear.

He wore no “Mae West” life-jacket, but this surprised nobody who knew him. “The pilot, like nearly all pilots, had his idiosyncrasies,” Mason-Macfarlane recorded later, “and he never under any circumstances wore his Mae West either taking off or landing. He had his Mae West hung over the back of his seat where it would be handy if required.”56 This was not against R.A.F. regulations…"

http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Accident/1967.pdf [pgs 64-5]

According to Irving someone else however, indeed someone from the general’s entourage “was wearing a life-jacket that he” probably “had put on before the aircraft had taken off”:

"…he looked round he saw a body sitting strapped into a tubular steel chair, many feet from the wreckage, in full parachute harness and with an inflated lifejacket around its neck…This was Colonel Victor Cazalet, Sikorski’s political liaison officer … (Lubienski later said that Cazalet always was the nervous type, and always wore both parachute harness and Mae West when flying with Sikorski… "[pgs. 78 – 9 note I left out some graphic details that might bother the squeamish]

As for the general’s widow believing that Churchill had murdered her husband, I wasn’t able to find that in the online version (not that I tried that hard). The pagination of the e-book seems to be different from the print one cited by John.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the general’s widow believing that Churchill had murdered her husband, I wasn’t able to find that in the online version (not that I tried that hard). The pagination of the e-book seems to be different from the print one cited by John.

It is difficult to discuss this issue with someone who is unwilling to read the books I refer to. The internet is a great research tool but it cannot compete with historians who have written in great deal about the subject.

It is true that I do not have the evidence to get Winston Churchill convicted in a court of law. When you are as powerful as a prime minister you make sure that this evidence does not exist. For example, it emerged during the Lord Hutton enquiry that Blair made sure that minutes were not taken during meetings about the proposed invasion of Iraq. Those documents that were produced, for example the Attorney General's legal advice on the invasion, is kept from the public on grounds of national security. Even Hitler took care over leaving too much evidence of his crimes (a point made several times by Sid Walker).

All historicans can do when dealing with these possible conspiracies is to provide the evidence that they can find and to provide possible explanations for the facts that are available. For example, the released classified document that shows that General Sikorski offered the Duke of Kent the Polish throne. (Nicholas Bethell, Sunday Times, 3rd November, 1972) These Foreign Office documents show that Churchill made strenuous efforts to persuade the Duke of Kent to reject this offer. He also advised/ordered the Duke of Kent to cease to be patron to several Polish charities as this positions might eventually “become an embarrassment” to him and the royal family. This of course does not prove anything, but it does raise some interesting possibilities. Especially when both men involved died in air crashes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That’s a bit unfair John, how many people reading this thread even bothered to look at the Irving book? Do you expect the others and me to read the whole book to find the citation for one claim? Now that I’ve provided a link to an online version of the book providing a page # for it should be a simple matter. Not that her opinion in and of itself would prove much unless we know why she felt that way.

You seem to expect everyone to take your word for it that everything you say is correct since you frequently fail document your claims. Not that I believe you’d be intentionally misleading but people can misremember what they read and bias can affect interpretation of the same. Thus you made a claim about Prchal contradicted by Irving’s sources.

Another problem is that many of the sources you cite are not readily available to most members of this forum. For example you frequently cite old newspaper articles. Do you actually have direct access to them or do you have citations to them in other sources? In your latest post you cited a 1972 article from the Times, unfortunately except for certain topics articles from before 1999 are only available by e-mail or regular mail.

Speaking of the Times they ran an interesting article for the 60th anniversary of the crash which points its finger at the Soviets, apparently a Soviet plane was very close to Sikorski’s and security was lax. Also Kim Philby was the head of British intelligence in the region and had be trained in sabotage.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_...icle1073791.ece

You speak of online research and books almost as if they were mutually exclusive but with increasing frequency books are available online especially through Amazon’s “Search Inside This Book” feature.

Edited by Len Colby
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the person who called Mr. Hogan “the Wackford Squeers of the Education Forum” was overly harsh perhaps “the Jonathan Swift of the Education Forum” would be more appropriate though sometimes the satire seems unintentional. Sort of like a bad movie that can be unintentionally funny (hilarious even). On past occasions he has claimed that the sources I cited didn’t back my claims when they clearly did*.

It could well be that the quality of my “research and documentation methods” qualifies me for the (peanut) gallery but much as I respect John for his extensive knowledge base and interesting well written posts on a wide variety of issues his documentation leaves a lot to be desired and can’t be put on a Tiger Woods level. I document most of my claims he doesn’t. Mr. Hogan must have missed what observant readers of this page noticed – one of John’s undocumented claims (Prchal was wearing his life vest when he took off) was contradicted by one of his sources (Irving).

* http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...ost&p=63243

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trevor Cooper played Churchill and Graham Bowe played Sikorski in this modern presentation of Rolf Hochhuth’s

controversial World War Two drama, Soldiers.

http://www.finboroughtheatre.co.uk/archive...ve_soldiers.htm

In Appendix 3 of Churchill's War 2, David Irving returns to the topic of Sikorski's death, the subject of his 1967 book Accident.

His account of the 1969 're-opening' of the case by Harold Wilson - and the 'conclusion' of that episode - as described in archival material subsequently released, is a classic case study of how so-called 'Intelligence Agencies' manage Prime Ministers - a real life prototype for the 'Yes Minister' series.

Appendix III: Sikorski’s Death

In 1967 the german playwright Rolf Hochhuth produced a drama, Soldiers,

about air warfare. Churchill’s role in the 1943 death of the Polish

prime minister Wladyslaw Sikorski was a central element of the play. This

resulted in fierce controversy. After our book Accident was published, David

Frost devoted three special TV programmes to it. A highly defamatory book

appeared, written by one Carlos Thompson: The Assassination of Winston

Churchill. A number of officers and other witnesses contacted us: we spoke

with the widow of the missing second pilot, and an S.O.E. officer based on

the Rock told us what he had seen. Early in 1969 we asked the prime minister,

Harold Wilson, to reopen the 1943 R.A.F. Court of Inquiry, and

Woodrow Wyatt, mp, tabled a parliamentary Question.

The relevant government files were released to the Public Record Office

just before this volume went to press. These reveal that in February 1969

the Intelligence Co-ordinator provided a background memorandum for the

cabinet secretary Sir Burke Trend to forward to Wilson. This concluded

that our book had conveyed as clearly as was possible without risking a libel

suit that the Liberator’s pilot, Edward Prchal, had ‘assisted in the plane’s

sabotage.’ ‘He [David Irving]has clearly done a good deal of research among

people involved in the Gibraltar arrangements and the Court of Inquiry

and among United States and Polish émigré archives.’ In advising the prime

minister to refute the sabotage allegations most robustly, Sir Burke warned

him however to temper his remarks with caution since, not only were High

Court writs flying, but ‘the report of the contemporary R.A.F. court of

inquiry contains some weaknesses which, if it were published, could be

embarrassingly exploited.’ The 1943 inquiry did not ‘exclude the possibility

of doubt’ on the possibility of sabotage, explained the cabinet secretary:

The shadow of doubt is certainly there; and a skilful counsel could

make good use of it. Irving, in his book Accident, points to the weaknesses

in the report, a copy of which he has certainly seen and may possess;

and if challenged he might publish it.

Anything that Wilson might say must therefore be consistent with what

might need to be admitted if the inquiry’s report later came into the public

domain. Meanwhile, as Wilson was informed, the Intelligence community

was limiting its response to providing ‘unattributable’ and ‘discreet’ help

and ‘encouragement’ to those anxious to defend the late Sir Winston Churchill,

notably his grandson, Mr Winston Churchill Jr., his wartime ‘secret

circle,’ and the ‘rather enigmatic’ Argentine author Carlos Thompson (husband

of the actress Lilly Palmer) whom Randolph Churchill had commissioned

to write a book. It was also hoped to destroy both ourselves and the

playwright Hochhuth with legal proceedings (only Hochhuth was eventually

sued). ‘Irving,’ Harold Wilson was advised, ‘has called for a re-opening

of the R.A.F. Court of Inquiry which he (rightly) claims is permissible under

R.A.F. Rules.’ The prime minister was warned:

It would be most unwise to agree, not least because of the weaknesses

in the proceedings of the [1943] Court of Inquiry.

Harold Wilson concurred in this view. He did however inquire in one

minute whether Winston Churchill had in fact ordered the assassination.

He was assured that he had not.

Temporary footnote

55 Sir Burke Trend to Harold Wilson; with attached Memo by Intelligence Co-ordinator,

top secret [Feb 1969]: ‘Irving is a young and prolific British historian, with known

Fascist leanings. He has published other books on the war which are critical of British

leadership and tend to show the Germans in a good light.’ And: ‘There are various

grounds for suspecting, but no real proof, that Hochhuth’s and Irving’s activities are

part of a long-term Soviet “disinformation” operation against the West’ (prem.13/2644).

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

......................

Before Hitler TOOK power, the Nazis only real opposition in Germany were the German Communists/Socialists.

The White Armies had failed, and Hitler, and his backers, real enemy were the Bolschevics.

The first to go in Germany after Hitler becoming Dictator were the German Communists/Socialists.

Trough conquest. Constructing an industrial base with slave labour and western minerals and materials, were all aimed at setting in motion OP Barbarossa.

This was a total war, scorched earth strategy, aimed at destroying the the U.S.S.R.. (C.C.C.P.)

The Wermacht set off for Moscow with a broad Eastern front totalling approximately 18 times the resources it faced the west with.

Following on their heels, were the Einsatzgruppen forces (death squads) that basically just en-masse killed civilians falling under a broad umbrella of predefined enemies, primarily communist members, their sympathisers, and jews. (this turned out a bit uncomfortable for this rather ragtag coalition of psychpaths, so they were 'saved' from some of this distateful activity by the invention of mobile gas vans and later the concentration camp gas chambers and crematoria.)

Nevertheless, the scorched earth policy continued, and when bogged down in Leningrad and Stalingrad where the USSR soldiery eventually turned the tide and the unstoppable drive westward began, showing defeat was in sight for the Germans and their allies, only then, and only then, within a short time, D-Day came and the race for Berlin and other continental European territory began.

The US basically sat back, along with other nations, and made huge amounts of capital by

1. sellining food to a starving Britain

2. Get rid of obsolete shipping in exchange for a number of military bases.

3. (Bush et al) Selling fuel and steel and other minerals to the Axis forces that were then used to kill the US own soldiers, as well as the eastern 'allies'.

.....................

John,

I've shortened some of your post for brevity and bolded the bits I query in particular.

1/ What do you mean by this?: "The White Armies had failed, and Hitler, and his backers, real enemy were the Bolschevics."

2/ I've never heard of "mobile gas vans" before. Please forgive my ignorance. Can you explain what they were, who used them, how they were used - and could I trouble you for a reference?

3/ It has been widely trumpeted in our times that various US business interests traded with the Nazis. However, as I'm sure you know, that activity became illegal once the USA became directly involved in the war.

Contrast the US lend lease program supporting the USSR's war effort. This was assistance on a massive scale, directly targeted at bolstering Soviet Russia's fighting capability.

You mention it as a throwaway. I think it deserves rather more emphasis in a fair account of the war.

Edited by Sid Walker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest David Guyatt

On Mobile Gas vans Sid, see: http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/gas...mbers_vans.html

Delightful contraptions that housed a handful of "undesirables" who were driven around on an "outing" but didn't return on an "ining" due to the fact that the vans exhaust fumes were fed back into the rear compartment and the occupants gassed to death.

Note that SS-Obersturmbannführer Walter Rauff, a cheeky chappie, was one of the SS who was helped to escape down the Vatican SMOM organised, American and British sponsored Ratlines. He and thousands of other cheekie chappies, like Treblinka death camp commandant Franz Stangl, were likewise led to freedom.

It's good to know that justice is not only done, but is seen to be done, don't you think...

David

Sorry to butt in John, but I get a sudden flush and come over all verbal about atrocities like this. Must be my old age showing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3/ It has been widely trumpeted in our times that various US business interests traded with the Nazis. However, as I'm sure you know, that activity became illegal once the USA became directly involved in the war.

yes, it became illegal.....but it wasn't stopped until early '43....after 3 warnings, the last one threatening confiscation of assets and charges of sedition.

sorry, no links, but you all are internet savvy. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry, dbl. post.

Edited by Tom Kutzer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On Mobile Gas vans Sid, see: http://www.deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/gas...mbers_vans.html

Delightful contraptions that housed a handful of "undesirables" who were driven around on an "outing" but didn't return on an "ining" due to the fact that the vans exhaust fumes were fed back into the rear compartment and the occupants gassed to death.

In case you hadn’t picked up on it Sid is our friendly neighborhood Holocaust denier (and Hitler apologist). There was no genocide he insists just some unfortunate deaths due to disease despite the best efforts of the humanitarian staffs at the concentration camps. Auschwitz had a swimming pool. The Shoah was just a hoax to build sympathy for the creation of a Jewish state.

I assume he was “playing dumb” about the vans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...