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

[Guest David Guyatt]

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

Unquote

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

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

David

[John Simkin]

Part 9

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Guest David Guyatt]

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

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

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

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

David Guyatt

[John Simkin]

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

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

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

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

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

[Denis Pointing]

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

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

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

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

David Guyatt

[Denis Pointing]

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

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

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

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

David Guyatt

[Denis Pointing]

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

[Guest David Guyatt]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David

[Guest David Guyatt]

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

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

Obviously, there were other copies available and I tried to obtain one just a couple of years ago - to no avail. I shall only be satisfied when I am able to marry up what is actually in it with what is said to be in it. Names in code, of course, is what Gelli's P2 masonic lodge used to cloak the idnetities of some of their more noteworthy members. Gelli was an ardent fascist during WWII, btw.

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

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

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

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

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

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

David

[John Dolva]

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

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

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

Another factor is a look at the function of war.

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

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

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

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

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

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

EDIT:: Of Interest: Financing the Nazis:

The complete "George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography"

by Webster G. Tarple & Anton Chaitkin

zip file in HTML format

http://www.tarpley.net/bushbook.zip

Edited June 7, 2007 by John Dolva

[John Simkin]

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

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

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

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

[Guest David Guyatt]

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

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

EDIT:: Of Interest: Financing the Nazis:

The complete "George Bush: The Unauthorized Biography"

by Webster G. Tarple & Anton Chaitkin

zip file in HTML format

http://www.tarpley.net/bushbook.zip

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

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

Just my thoughts...

[Sid Walker]

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

Can anyone please explain this?

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

[John Simkin]

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

Can anyone please explain this?

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

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

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

[Guest David Guyatt]

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

Can anyone please explain this?

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

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

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

Yes. Forgive my laziness.

David