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

[Sid Walker]

I'd like to hear more from John about the motive he believes Churchill would have had for killing the Duke of Kent in 1942.

By then the war party was firmly ensconced in power in Britain, with Churchill at the helm of the British State at War. I'm unaware of any significant, organized 'peace camp' in Britain by that stage in the war.

Why, in your view, would Churchill have wanted the Duke's death so much?

Sikorski was a very different case. His refusal to accept Allied propaganda about Katyn and his concurrence with Hitler's demand for a Red Cross Inquiry into the mass slaughter of Polish officers in eastern Poland was deeply embarrassing to the allied leaders.

But what, in your view, was the threat posed by the Duke of Kent to Churchill and his interests?

To explain Churchill’s motive we have to understand British foreign policy in the 1920s and 1930s. As I said earlier, the main fear during this period was the spread of communism. After the First World War the political attitudes of people in Europe moved to the left. This was partly due to the perceived success of the government in the Soviet Union. ..................

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

As I said earlier, Hitler had failed to grasp that Chamberlain and his right-wing government, was not a dictatorship and he was forced to declare war as a result of the actions of opposition MPs and a growing number of Tories who had begun to support Churchill.

Even so, declaration of war on Germany was followed by the “phoney war”. Both sides continued to take part in secret negotiations. However, when these broke down Hitler took the bold decision to invade Norway. Chamberlain was now put under pressure to resign. Chamberlain approached Clement Attlee, the leader of the Labour Party, to help form a National Government. Attlee refused to serve under Chamberlain. That night, the German Army invaded Holland and Belgium.

Chamberlain then went to Buckingham Palace and offered his resignation. The king suggested that Lord Halifax, the arch-appeaser, should takeover as prime-minister. Chamberlain said that was his choice as well, but that Attlee had made it clear that the Labour Party would be unwilling to serve under Halifax. Chamberlain admitted that the only possible candidate for the job was Churchill.

When the House of Commons met on 13th May, 1940, Tory MPs rose to cheer Chamberlain. When Churchill stood up to speak, the only cheers came from Labour MPs. Tories were only too aware that Churchill had gained power by betraying a policy that he had agreed with. They believed it was only a matter of time before he began secret negotiations with Hitler. They were right. (more later)

Without debating (for now) the detail of your presentation, John, I'll state the obvious.

What you have outlined does not constitute a motive for Churchill to murder the Duke of Kent in 1942.

Perhaps more is coming...?

Edited May 31, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Len Colby]

Without debating (for now) the detail of your presentation, John, I'll state the obvious.

What you have outlined does not constitute a motive for Churchill to murder the Duke of Kent in 1942.

Perhaps more is coming...?

I couldn't agree more

[John Simkin]

Without debating (for now) the detail of your presentation, John, I'll state the obvious.

What you have outlined does not constitute a motive for Churchill to murder the Duke of Kent in 1942.

Perhaps more is coming...?

Saturday morning.

[John Simkin]

Part 7

In his first speech as prime minister (13th May) Winston Churchill said: “I have nothing to offer but blood, toil, tears and sweat. You ask, ‘What is our policy?’ I will say: It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us… You ask, ‘What is our aim?’ I can answer in one word. Victory – victory at all costs.”

This speech is now seen as a turning point in the war. The appeasement policy of Chamberlain’s government had been completely rejected. Victory over Nazi Germany was the only objective. British people now read this speech with pride. Churchill is seen as a symbol of British grit and determination whereas the photograph of Chamberlain waving his Munich agreement with Hitler leaves us feeling a sense of shame. Churchill enabled the British people to feel good about themselves. By praising Churchill they pat themselves on the back. Churchill showed us that the British people are special. In contrast to those other Western Europeans who quickly surrendered when faced with the military might of the German military machine.

There are good emotional reasons for the British people to believe that Churchill really meant what he was saying on 13th May. However, I believe that Churchill was involved in a public relations exercise and that behind the scenes his representatives were negotiating with Nazi Germany. There is of course documentary evidence that negotiations were taking place between representatives of the two countries. However, virtually all British historians have argued that these talks were taking place without Churchill’s knowledge. In fact, the authors of “Double Standards” even go as far as to say that when Churchill discovered details of these talks he arranged the death of the Duke of Kent.

An objective study of Churchill’s speech would reveal that he could not possibly have been telling the truth when he said that his objective was “victory at all costs”. Victory if it meant placing Britain in pawn to the United States? Victory if it meant giving up the British Empire? Victory if it meant Soviet domination of Eastern Europe? Victory if it meant Britain would no longer be a major economic power? Well, that is what it did mean, even if we did win the war.

Remember, Churchill’s foreign policy for most of the 1930s had been the same as his Conservative colleagues. He had two main objectives: the destruction of communism and the preservation of the British Empire. After the outbreak of the war, he had a third major objective, to keep Britain free from German control. How was Churchill going to achieve these three objectives? One was by negotiating a peace deal with Hitler. The problem for Churchill is that he had achieved power by constantly criticizing Chamberlain for doing just this. He therefore needed an agreement that he could sell to the British people.

Within a month of taking power the situation had got dramatically worse. The day after the speech quoted above, the Netherlands surrendered. It soon became clear that Belgium, Norway and Denmark were in no position to resist the takeover of their countries. On 23rd May, General Gerd von Rundstedt and the German Army pierced the French defences at Sedan and the French and British armies began their retreats. France was clearly close to surrender and the British soldiers were desperately trying to leave mainland Europe.

On 4th June Winston Churchill makes his famous: “We shall fight on the beaches” speech. In a recent article, Simon Schama argues that before this speech Churchill was seen as a politician who was guilty of “showy shallowness, his inconstancy, his addiction to hyperbole.” But according to Sharma, with this speech “a lifetime of rhetorical education and mercurial performance finally paid off.” In fact, the speech showed that nothing had changed. It was a speech that appealed to nationalistic sentiment in order to cover up what, as Churchill later admitted, was the “greatest military disaster in our long history”. This disaster had taken place at a time when Churchill was prime minister. However, Churchill was not about to take any responsibility for this. In the same way as he refused to accept the blame for his disastrous policies in Norway. As A. J. P. Taylor pointed out in “English History: 1914-1945” (pages 574-575), in describing the British defeat in Norway that was to bring down Chamberlain: “The failure had solid technical reasons: inadequate forces, lack of air power. This is not how English people saw it. They blamed the men at the top. Their wrath turned against Chamberlain; their enthusiasm towards Churchill. This was wrongheaded in terms of the immediate past. Churchill had far more to do than Chamberlain with the Norwegian campaign.” It was like Geoff Hoon replacing Tony Blair as prime minister because of the disastrous invasion of Iraq. Of course, Hoon has always been terrible at making speeches.

Winston Churchill was being completely dishonest when he said in his 4th June speech that Britain would achieve “victory at all costs”. He added: “That is the resolve of His Majesty’s government – every man of them.” In reality, the cabinet was discussing the best terms they could get by surrendering to Germany.

In his recent book, “Fateful Choices: Ten Decisions that Changed the World” (2007), the historian, Ian Kershaw, discussed the debate that took place in Churchill’s cabinet in May 1940. He points out that French leaders wanted to approach Mussolini to discover what Hitler’s terms would be. Kershaw provides documentary evidence that the British war cabinet came very close to doing this. Churchill argued that if these negotiations did take place it was vitally important that this information did not enter the public domain. The reason for this was that by asking about the conditions of surrender would undermine attempts to persuade the British people to fight if the terms were unacceptable. Kershaw assumes from these exchanges, that Churchill finally won his war cabinet over to the idea of “victory at all costs”. However, there is evidence that Churchill did use others to carry out negotiations with Hitler. In fact, it would have been irresponsible for Churchill not to have done this. By June, 1940, defeat looked inevitable if Britain decided to carry on the war alone. At the same time, Churchill knew that Hitler had no desire to continue the war with Britain. Both men agreed that the real enemy was the Soviet Union.

Hitler was aware that Germany would suffer heavy casualties if it attempted to invade Britain. He could not use his successful blitzkrieg tactics against an island. Even if Germany eventually subdued the British population (would the British have behaved any differently to the French, Dutch, Norwegians, etc.?) it would have been in no fit state to launch an attack on the Soviet Union. Even worse, Stalin might have taken the opportunity to attack German forces that had been weakened by the invasion of Britain.

It therefore made sense for both Hitler and Churchill to enter into negotiations. Hitler, like Stalin, had studied previous empires. The real problem for anyone who wants to build a large empire concerns the size of your armed forces. How, for example, was it possible for fairly small countries such as Italy and the UK, to control such large areas of the world? The only way this can be done is by recruiting the support of the people that live in the country that has been conquered. In fact, you need to convince the host population to acquiesce to their subjection. The Romans were the first people to show how this was done (it was the model followed by the British in the 18th and 19th centuries).

That was the sensible strategy for Hitler to follow in Western Europe. In fact, that is what he did when he helped create Vichy France. On 22nd June France signed an armistice with Germany. The terms of the agreement divided France into occupied and unoccupied zones, with a rigid demarcation line between the two. The Germans would directly control three-fifths of the country, an area that included northern and western France and the entire Atlantic coast. The remaining section of the country would be administered by the French government at Vichy under Marshal Henri-Philippe Petain. Other provisions of the armistice included the surrender of all Jews living in France to the Germans. The French Army was disbanded except for a force of 100,000 men to maintain domestic order. The 1.5 million French soldiers captured by the Germans were to remain prisoners of war. The French government also agreed to stop members of its armed forces from leaving the country and instructed its citizens not to fight against the Germans. Finally, France had to pay the occupation costs of the German troops.

Over the next four years Henri-Philippe Petain led the neo-fascist government of Vichy France. The famous revolutionary principles of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" were replaced by "Work, Family, Fatherland".

Churchill’s negotiators would have suggested that the “Vichy” model could be spread to other parts of occupied Western Europe. This would have freed up troops for the intended invasion of the Soviet Union. After the arrest and internment of all anti-fascists, removal of the rights of trade unionists, the control of the mass-media, in other words, all the things that had taken place in Nazi Germany, the people of France, Holland, Belgium, etc. could be allowed the freedom to hold elections. The results would have been the same as in Nazi Germany, an elected fascist government.

In return for this agreement, Britain would sign a peace agreement and a non-aggression pact with Germany. The removal of most of the German armed forces from Western Europe would be seen as a “victory” rather than a “betrayal”. Britain would be able to keep her empire but other governments in Western Europe would have to negotiate their own deals.

This kind of deal was popular with the whole of the British establishment. It would achieve all their foreign policy objectives that they had held so passionately in the 1930s.

When Churchill took office he did not sack the arch-appeaser as foreign secretary, Lord Halifax. Instead he was allowed to hold onto his job. This was Churchill’s way of showing Hitler that he was willing to negotiate an end to the war. Churchill nominated Chamberlain as Leader of the House of Commons. Labour members of the war cabinet complained about this decision and so he became Lord President of the Council. However, he still remained in the government. So also did Sir John Simon, the third of the guilty men, who was given the job of Lord Chancellor.

Historians often claim that they only man to lose his job as a result of his appeasement policies was Samuel Hoare. Responsible for the Hoare-Laval Pact in 1935, he was forced to resign when the scheme was widely denounced as appeasement of Italian aggression. Hoare returned to the government under Chamberlain as Secretary of State for the Home Office. On the outbreak of the war in 1939 he joined the War Cabinet as Lord Privy Seal. Hoare lost this post when Churchill took power. However, Churchill sent Hoare to be British ambassador in Madrid. It was here that he carried out negotiations with the Nazis.

Duff Cooper, the man who resigned from the government over Munich only got the Ministry of Information. Yet, Lord Beaverbrook, who had used his newspaper empire to advocate appeasement right up to the outbreak of the war, was brought into the war cabinet as minister of aircraft production. Beaverbrook, who was considered to be Churchill’s most important adviser, was the leading figure, along with Lord Halifax, of what became known as the “Peace Party”. Beaverbook made it clear to friends in 1939 that the “British Jews were pushing the country into an unnecessary war” (Anne Chisholm and Michael Davie, Beaverbrook: A Life, page 347) and that entry into war was “mistaken and unnecessary” (A. J. P. Taylor, Beaverbrook, page 231).

Churchill also allowed Sir Stewart Menzies to remain as head of MI6. Menzies had been a strong advocate of appeasement. Menzies, like others on the far-right, believed the real enemy was communism and argued that Churchill should form a military alliance with Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union. As head of MI6 Menzies “had the right of access at any time of the day or night to the King, Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, making him the most powerful men in the country.” (Anthony Cave Brown, Bodyguard of Lies, pages 13-14). According to Scott Newton (Profits of Peace: The Political Economy of Anglo-German Appeasement, pages 124-127), Menzies was at the very centre of the peace group in Britain in 1940.

Nazi appeasers were still in control of Britain in 1940. Why then, was no peace agreement negotiated with Hitler in 1940/41? And what is this all to do with the death of the Duke of Kent? I will try to answer those questions in my next posting.

[John Simkin]

Part 8

I want to look at the evidence that suggests that Hitler and the British government were carrying out secret peace negotiations in 1940/41.

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.

Some historians have argued that this is an example of another tactical error made by Hitler. However, the evidence suggests that this was part of a deal being agreed between Germany and Britain. 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”. (The Other Side of the Hill, pages 139-41)

According to Ilse Hess, her husband was told by Hitler that the massacring of the British army at Dunkirk would humiliate the British government and would make peace negotiations harder because of the bitterness and resentment it would cause.

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.

We know from other sources that Churchill was under considerable pressure to finish off the peace talks that had been started by Chamberlain. This is why George VI wanted Lord Halifax as prime minister instead of Churchill. There is an intriguing entry into the diary of John Colville, Churchill’s private secretary, on 10th May. In discussing Churchill’s talks with the king about becoming prime minister Colville writes: “Nothing can stop him (Churchill) having his way – because of his powers of blackmail”. What kind of information would Churchill have that could hurt the king?

We know that George VI was bitterly opposed to Churchill becoming prime minister. He tried desperately to persuade Chamberlain to stay on in the job. When he refused he wanted to use his royal prerogative to appoint Lord Halifax as prime minister. Halifax refused as he feared this act would have brought the government down and would put the survival of the monarchy at risk. (John Costello, Ten Days that Saved the West, pages 46-47).

In fact, George VI was playing an important role in preserving the European monarchy. Virtually all the remaining heads of the royal houses were in exile in Britain, including the royal families of Norway, the Netherlands, Albania, Yugoslavia and Luxembourg.

I believe Churchill was blackmailing the king about his dealings with Nazi Germany. I suspect his information came from Major Desmond Morton, who was Churchill’s informant from within MI6. Morton was at the centre of Churchill’s personal spy network, and had been leaking secret MI6 reports to him before he gained power in May 1940.

Sir Stewart Menzies was head of MI6 and the head of the “Peace Party”. Menzies was using Frederick Winterbottom, head of MI6’s Air Intelligence Section, to carry out negotiations with Baron de Ropp. Alfred Rosenberg reported to Hitler that Winterbottom “was entirely convinced that Germany and England must move together to ward off the Bolshevik danger.” (Scott Newton, Profits of Peace, 142-43)

Two of MI6’s agents, Major Richard Stephens and Captain Sigismund Payne-Best, had several secret meetings with the German chief of foreign counter-intelligence in November 1939. Churchill was not the only one to have spies in MI6. The KGB had penetrated MI6 during the 1930s (their agents had first joined far-right groups in Britain before being recruited into MI6). It is there evidence that tells us so much about what MI6 and the royal family were up to in 1939-41.

On 8th June 1940, one Labour MP suggested in the House of Commons that Churchill should instigate an inquiry into the “appeasement” party with a view to prosecuting its members. Churchill replied this would be foolish as “there are too many in it”. That of course included himself.

Churchill was under considerable pressure to do a deal with Hitler in June 1940. Hugh Dalton, Minister of Economic Warfare, recorded in his diary that the “appeasement party” was so powerful within the Conservative Party that Churchill faced the possibility of being removed as prime minister.

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.

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.

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.”

When Hess arrived in Scotland he asked to be taken to the Duke of Hamilton. The “middleman” mentioned in the earlier letter. In fact, Hamilton lived close to where Hess landed.

If Hamilton was the “middleman” who was he acted for. Was it George VI or Winston Churchill? Or were they working together on this? We also know that Samuel Hoare and Lord Halifax acted as middleman in 1940-41. Hoare was Churchill’s ambassador to Spain. Is it possible that Churchill had not given permission for these talks to take place? If not, Hoare and Halifax were guilty of treason. The same claim could be made against the Duke of Hamilton.

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”. As I said earlier, according to the authors of “Double Standards” (2001) the Duke of Kent was with Hamilton at his home (Dungavel House) on the night that Hess arrived in Scotland.

Was the Duke of Kent acting as the representative of the king or prime minister? The authors of Double Standards, who accept the view that Churchill remained a strong opponent of appeasement, believe the Duke of Kent, the Duke of Hamilton, Samuel Hoare and Lord Halifax, were all working for George VI. They point out that Hamilton, as Keeper of the Royal Household, was very close to the king. However, is it credible that this is the case? For example, Duke of Kent and the Duke of Hamilton both served in the RAF during the war. Churchill arranged for both to be promoted soon after the arrival of Hess. By this time Churchill was either aware that both men were traitors or were acting on behalf of the government. Churchill’s actions following the arrival of Hess suggest the second of these two options.

[Guest David Guyatt]

It is my opinion that the evidence suggests that the Sunderland flying boat was not off course. That Goyen/Mosley intended to take a route over land. This is also implied in the official report when it says: “Captain of aircraft changed flight-plan for reasons unknown and descended through cloud without making sure he was over water and crashed.” The report does not say that the Sunderland had deviated from its flight plan. At what stage did Goyen/Mosley changed the flight-plan? Was it changed before the flying boat took off? Is this why the original flight-plan has not been released?

As I said earlier, the squadron record book states that the Sunderland took off at 13.10 and crashed at 14.00. However, the crash site is only 25 minutes from Invergordon. What was the aircraft doing in the other 25 minutes? This increases to 55 minutes if you take into account a report that appeared in the John o’ Groat Journal (28th August, 1942). It included an interview with David Morrison (the farmer who raised the alarm). Morrison stated he heard the explosion at 2.30 p.m. He sent his son, Hugh, on motorcycle to raise the alarm in nearby Braemore. Hugh returned at about 3.00 with military personnel. They then formed a search-party and it took them another hour to find the wreckage.

Considering the fact that an extra body was counted at the scene of the crash it would seem that the missing 55 minutes could be accounted for by picking up a passenger. The idea of an extra person is supported by a news item in the John o’ Groat Journal (28th August, 1942). After describing the funeral of the Duke of Kent it states that the bodies of ten of the airmen had been sent south by train and four others had been taken to Oban. That of courses makes 15 bodies rather than the official number of 14.

In the John o’ Groat Journal (4th September, 1942) the newspaper reported that Andy Jack was the: “sole survivor of the plane crash in which the Duke of Kent and 14 others lost their lives.” On 14th September George VI visited the scene of the crash. A local newspaper reported that the King asked about the “15 victims of the crash” and also made “special enquiries about the progress of Flight Sergt. Jack, the only survivor.” A local history book, Caithness – and the War, 1939-1945 by Norman Glass, that was based on reports from local newspapers, also said that 15 people died when the Sunderland Flying Boat crashed on 25th August 1942.

Then we have evidence that the Duke of Kent was involved in a “special mission”. This has been claimed by the Duchess of Kent and the relatives of some of those killed in the crash. It was also confirmed by Sir Samuel Hoare, who told friends at a meeting in Madrid in October 1942 that at the time of the Duke’s death he was undertaking a special mission on his behalf. (I will return to the activities of Hoare later).

Could the flying boat have landed on an inland body of water? According to Robert Brydon, who has carried out an in-depth study of this case, there are only three possible landing sites. The main one is Loch More that is two miles long and a third of a mile wide. This was on the land of Sir Archibald Sinclair. Yes, the same Archibald Sinclair, who was the air minister at the time and the man who set up the inquiry into the crash and delivered its report in the House of Commons. Loch More lies about eight miles to the north of the crash site. It is the middle of Sinclair’s family estate and is not overlooked by the public.

By the side of Loch More are two cottages owned by the Sinclair family (Braemore Lodge and Lochmore Cottage). Sinclair’s son, Robin (Lord Thurso), claims that when he was a boy his father used flying boats on the loch. A S-25 Sunderland Mk III Flying Boat needs three-quarters of a mile to take-off and even less to land. It was therefore possible for Goyen/Mosley to pick up a passenger from someone staying at one of these two cottages.

The Sunderland would have approached from the south and landed towards the deeper end near Braemore Lodge. It would then take off in a southerly direction. To get back the official flight-plan, it would have needed to head for the coast. The safest route would have been to follow Berriedale Water. That would have taken it over Eagle Rock, the scene of the crash.

But who was the passenger? Lord Thurso told the historian Stephen Prior, that according to his mother, Rudolf Hess was kept at Braemore Lodge during the summer of 1942. This story is supported by the testimony of Lady ‘Bunty’ Gunn, who lived in Caithness during the war.

If Hess was one of those killed in 1942, who was the man who was murdered in Spandau Prison on 17th August, 1987? Is Hess the first man to be murdered twice?

John,

Hugh Thomas, in his excellent book on Hess reveals that during the time that he (Thomas) was acting as Hess's British doctor at Spandau prison, he discovered that the person he was treating was not the real Hess. Thomas is a highly regarded forensic specialist, who was able to present first hand testimony of what he learned. The man in Spandau was not Hess.

Likewise, his book on Himmler (SS-1) also strongly demonstrates that the body of Himmler that was buried in an unmarked grave by the British and thus "lost" forever, was also not the real Himmler. Add to that mix the fact that the best available evidence (again Thomas's book Doppleganger) shows that Bormann did escape after the war and later died of cancer following a long agonising battle against the disease. His body was buried in Ascunsion in 1959.

What we have here is a highly organised and long-term cover-up of what really happened to leading nazis at war's end. The USA and Britain are complicit in this to the largest possible degree. I also think - as do you, I believe - that all this connects to the cold war. However, there are some as yet unpublished facts about the Bolshevik Revolution and particularly how it succeeded thanks to certain vital interventions, that strongly point towards the possibility that even this was part of a much grander, long-term strategy.

It may also be interesting that Martin Frost contacted me when I first published my Princes of Plunder article/hypothesis to read what he had to say on the subject. He very clearly infers that his father was involved in this event. However, despite several exchanges of emails Martin repeatedly evaded my request (citing illness, tiredness etc) to provide me with a copy of the membership roster of the Right Club (the Red book) that he claimed to have a copy of. I do believe he has a copy but did not wish it to be placed in my hands as he knew I'd publish it. Like so many in the secret world of security and intelligence, Martin is a high occultist (a Rosicrucian to be completely accurate).

I mention this somewhat curious and very much under-researeched subject (i.e., occultism) because it is germane to these subjects. Firstly, we should recall that the first member of Her majesty's Secret Service, Sir Francis Walsingham was a Rosicrucian as was his confidante, Dr. John Dee - a Rosicrucian initiate and the original "007". Both Hess and Himmler had tremendous interests in occult subjects. Himler's SS, (SchutzStaffel - meaning "Protective Squadron") is said to have a secret secondary meaning for the lightning runes "SS" which is "Scharze Sonne" , meaning "Black Sun" a symbol of immense occult significance. Visitors to the SS castle at Wewelsburg can see the mosiac on the floor depicting the stylised Black Sun Wheel of nazi occult lore, for example.

Btw, I have a very nice photo of a young looking Churchill during his investiture at the Albion Lodge of the Ancient Order of Druids at Blenheim Palace on 15th August 1908.

David Guyatt

[Guest David Guyatt]

Mr Simkin,

I await your promised posts on the Duke of Kent's 'accident' and Churchill's 'real intentions' with interest. At the moment it looks like you can't see the wood for the trees. Perhaps this little chestnut might aid your vision:

In the late '20's a new Tory MP took exception to Churchill's continual grizzling duing his maiden speech. Churchill finally snapped when the young Turk referred to Labour members as 'the enemy.'

'You fool' said Churchill, 'that's the opposition, the enemy is behind you!'

Now Mr Simkin, ask yourself these questions:

1) What was the real reason behind the formation of the SOE?

2) Ditto the CIA?

Remember, the universe consists largely of DARK matter...

Very adroit Mr. Chapman. I have always found it interesting that Churchill appointed Lord Selborne as head of SOE and when one begins digging into Selborne's background and post-war interests, several intriguing connections appear.

I do believe we are on the same page.

Churchill was hated by the high Tories who considered him fickle and untrustworthy. being half American may have added to that distrust.

Indeed, DARK space and DARK matter make up for the vast majority of the universe. Occult-wise, a "DARK SUN" is said to rule these DARK forces -- ergo Himmler's "SS-Scharze Sonne".

David Guyatt

[John Dolva]

One thing that stands out here is that the milieu within which the events unfold is within the ruling class. Concurrent with this is the history of the British working class and its traditional socialist sympathies.

The Churchill-Hitler alliance makes sense.

The Nazis throwing 18 times its miltary might in the direction of Moscow than in the directions of its supposed Allies served to draw the Western Allies into position to move in and halt any Soviet expansion should OP Barbarossa fail.

Britain at this early stage had an outclassed military. In order to help Hitler two particular things needed to happen. Britain needed time to bring its armies into readiness both in armamanets and motivation. Meanwhile the Soviets, having successfully repulsed the Japanese in the east, were left alone on the continent to face the Nazis. The timing of D-Day with the turning of the tide in the Eastern Front is no coincidence IMO. To assure D-Day, quite possibly, Hitler, staying the hands of his Generals at Dunkirk, contributed to the arming and training of British forces.

In Italy, the successful assault on Anzio had a window of opportunity that could have resulted in the fall of Rome and an advance north and an alliance between the Italian partisans who were largely socialist. Through some odd as yet unexplained events this opportunity was not taken, and the Germans and the Black Prince's fascist army were allowed to move into position to effectively turn Anzio into one of the greatest Western Allies debacle of the war. (OP Gladio and Angleton taking the Prince under his wings and the strategy of tension, that continues today, followed.) This is likely not unrelated to the later events in Dallas as well.

Meanwhile the British, German, USA, Italian, Japanese lower classes, and particularly the Soviets continued to follow orders into the meat grinder of WWII.

As the Nazis were quite possibly aware of the breaking of Enigma as early as 1943 one can see these events from a different perspective. How many high ranking Nazis fled east following Op Clausewitz?

[Guest David Guyatt]

I hope that anyone investigating Churchill will consider carefully this anecdote by Fletcher Prouty:

http://www.prouty.org/coment11.html

Keep in mind, Prouty is simply relating what Stalin (who was probably not reliable) told Roosevelt's son.

Prouty has been unfairly maligned. He is a careful scholar and an important eyewitness to many of these events.

Prouty was not "a careful scholar," as the link you provided demonstrates. Here is the truth about the John Swinton whom Prouty misrepresents (which doesn't surprise me at all):

http://www.rense.com/general20/yes.htm

I believe you'll find that when Prouty wrote that "commentary" he was an ill man who was soon to die. I don't even know if he'd ever have bothered stepping into the worldwide web had it not been for Len Osanic dedicating the website it to him. In his prime I believe he was a devil-is-in-the-detail type. Declining health and memory have a tendency to effect concentration adversely and we must hope this is something we can, ourselves, avoid (although I can feel the breath of it on the back of my neck too). At a time when there was very, very little material available on the web (back in the mid-late 1990's in the time of Windows 3.1 no less and "google" was a dream in someones eyes!) he certainly helped to educate me. And for that and his courage to stand up and speak out on those very sensitive issues he had personal knowledge of, I for one, am indebted.

David

[Michael Chapman]

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

[John Simkin]

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?

[Denis Pointing]

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.

[Denis Pointing]

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.

Edited June 5, 2007 by Denis Pointing

[Guest Gary Loughran]

A while back "Chappers" made a comment as to "which government" you seemed to understand this vague remark, could you please enlighten me, Thanks.

Hi Denis,

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

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

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

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

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

Gary

Edited June 6, 2007 by Gary Loughran
spelling

[Evan Burton]

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

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

Thanks!