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

[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"?

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

Hmmm.

But David, your initial remark, in context, was:

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.

Hmmmmmm.

Let's role the historical tape back.

Summar 1939: Germany and Poland in conflict over Danzig corridor.

August 23, 1939: Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact signed

Late August: Poland refuses further negotiations and mobilizes army.

September 1: Germany invades western Poland.

September 3-10: Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada declare War on Germany. (Churchill is a major force in Parliament in favour of war with Germany).

mid-September: USSR invades eastern Poland

So, here's my question.

How on earth is this timeline compatible with your analysis?

If the goal of Britain and America in WW 2 was to destroy the USSR - and the survival of Nazi Germany was a relative non-issue - there was a much easier way to achieve that goal. Ally with Germany against Russia. It seems clear that Germany was keen on this too.

But that's not what happened - and I don't believe the case has been made that the 'real' purpose of the British and American power elite in WW2 was to destroy the USSR (and Germany was not really in their sights). If that was the case, the conspirators sure set about things in a highly convoluted way - and ended up failing to achieve their primary goal in quite spectacular fashion.

I think this is just a post-war myth, popular on the left in Britain and America, but with little or no basis in fact.

Regarding the funding of the Nazis by dark forces in the USA and Britain, it may have happened, but hard evidence would be nice. Do you have any?

Once in power in Germany, Hitler's understanding of Keynesian economic theory liberated him from the impact of the economic boycott imposed on Germany by international finance (especially Jewish banking interests). The German economy grew spectacularly in the five years leading to 1939 - and it's hard to make a case that under-the-carpet external funding was responsible.

However, if you have evidence for that, please bring it on.

Edited June 7, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Peter McKenna]

"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

Hmmm.

But David, your initial remark, in context, was:

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.

Hmmmmmm.

Let's role the historical tape back.

Summar 1939: Germany and Poland in conflict over Danzig corridor.

August 23, 1939: Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact signed

Late August: Poland refuses further negotiations and mobilizes army.

September 1: Germany invades western Poland.

September 3-10: Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada declare War on Germany. (Churchill is a major force in Parliament in favour of war with Germany).

mid-September: USSR invades eastern Poland

So, here's my question.

How on earth is this timeline compatible with your analysis?

If the goal of Britain and America in WW 2 was to destroy the USSR - and the survival of Nazi Germany was a relative non-issue - there was a much easier way to achieve that goal. Ally with Germany against Russia. It seems clear that Germany was keen on this too.

But that's not what happened - and I don't believe the case has been made that the 'real' purpose of the British and American power elite in WW2 was to destroy the USSR (and Germany was not really in their sights). If that was the case, the conspirators sure set about things in a highly convoluted way - and ended up failing to achieve their primary goal in quite spectacular fashion.

I think this is just a post-war myth, popular on the left in Britain and America, but with little or no basis in fact.

Regarding the funding of the Nazis by dark forces in the USA and Britain, it may have happened, but hard evidence would be nice. Do you have any?

Once in power in Germany, Hitler's understanding of Keynesian economic theory liberated him from the impact of the economic boycott imposed on Germany by international finance (especially Jewish banking interests). The German economy grew spectacularly in the five years leading to 1939 - and it's hard to make a case that under-the-carpet external funding was responsible.

However, if you have evidence for that, please bring it on.

Hello Sid,

From reading about Prescott Bush (his autobiography by Tarpley), and some posts John Simkin has included on this site, It is my understanding that while there wasn't overt financing for Germany provided by the UK or US 'Power Elite', there was quite a lot of foreign investment from the US and UK. For example, the ownership of the Upper Silesian Coal and Iron Works (did I get the name correct?), located in Poland but which provided raw materials for German Industry and re-armament, by Harriman and Co. and the Directorship of Prescott Bush.

The oppression of the trade unions by the Nazis provided a low income work force in Germany (the labor rate dropped by 25%). This would have helped IG Farbin and Zeiss Opticals, for example, to secure US investment through the mid 1930's. Ford and ITT invested in German armaments in the 1930's (www. americanheritage.com). Remington Arms Co. supplied the German SA arms during the 1930s (likely done covertly due to the Versaille Treaty. This info from the Prescott Bush Unauthorized Biography, By W. Tarpley).

Your point about Keynesian economics seems correct, as Hitler printed money in excess of any limit required to preclude hyperinflation, but was able to check inflation through other means, i.e. the oppression of the Trade Unions and in the marketplace. Germany printed and sold bonds on a massive scale to fund the purchase of raw materials during the 1930s.

During this period both the UK and the US had offical policies of appeasement (from my recollection of Rise and Fall of the Thiord Reich), although FDR was a staunch anti-nazi (as per his Quarantine speech of 1937) and predicted war with Germany was inevitable, as did Churchill (publicly). Hitler attempted to maintain an image of friendship with the US and the UK, at least until the invasion of Poland occurred (www.americanheritage.com).

So while there wasn't any public or official policy to fund Germany, nor (as far as I know) any organized effort by the US or UK 'Power Elite' to fund Hitler during the mid to late-1930s, there was quite a bit of private monies which helped (enormously-from what I've read) fund the industrialization and re-armament of Germany during this period.

Also, from my recollection, it was Germany who pulled away from the diplomatic talks with Poland, in a dispute over the Upper Silesian Coal and Steel Co. I think that was discussed in John's thread on Prescott Bush (I may be wrong about the source).

RE: turning West? It seems obvious that Hitler and the Nazi 'Elite' believed that war with the West was inevitable. Their financial policies would have been suicidal if not ultimately leading to war. The recapture of territories lost in WW-I (and the treaty of Versailles) was to be a preliminary to the annexation of other lands (Poland, Czechoslovakia, France) in the south and west, needed to buffer the Western border, and to gain additional raw materials and funding. The 'Turn' West was inevitable, and IMO part of Hitler's plan from the beginning.

Edited June 8, 2007 by Peter McKenna

[John Simkin]

If the goal of Britain and America in WW 2 was to destroy the USSR - and the survival of Nazi Germany was a relative non-issue - there was a much easier way to achieve that goal. Ally with Germany against Russia. It seems clear that Germany was keen on this too.

But that's not what happened - and I don't believe the case has been made that the 'real' purpose of the British and American power elite in WW2 was to destroy the USSR (and Germany was not really in their sights). If that was the case, the conspirators sure set about things in a highly convoluted way - and ended up failing to achieve their primary goal in quite spectacular fashion.

I think this is just a post-war myth, popular on the left in Britain and America, but with little or no basis in fact.

The British government (ruling class) had several foreign policy objectives in the 1930s. This included the preservation of the British Empire and the destruction of communism in Europe. Hitler, Mussolini, Franco and Salazar were doing a good job of destroying communism/socialism in their own countries. It was also hoped that Hitler could perform this function in the Soviet Union. However, this is not to say the British were unconcerned by the growing power of Nazi Germany. The British had followed a “balance of power” policy in mainland Europe since the 18th century. That is why it was considered sensible to ally itself with France for the first 40 years of the 20th century.

Concerning the evidence of financial support for Nazi Germany I would suggest the book, “Who Financed Hitler: The Secret Funding of Hitler’s Rise to Power, 1919-1933” by James & Suzanne Pool (1978). For evidence of British support for Hitler I would suggest two books by Richard Griffiths: “Fellow Travellers of the Right: British Enthusiasts for Nazi Germany" (1980) and “Patriotism Perverted” (1998).

The fact that most of the mass circulation newspapers in Britain supported Nazi Germany and the government’s appeasement policy can be seen by looking at back copies of the Times, Sunday Times, Daily Mail, Daily Express, Daily Sketch, Daily Telegraph and the Sunday Telegraph at the Collindale Newspaper Library. Only the Manchester Guardian, Daily Herald and Daily Mirror raised doubts about this policy. This is why appeasement was a very popular policy in Britain in 1937-39. It still had its supporters in 1940. Interestingly, most British newspapers also supported Stalin’s purge of the left in Soviet Union. Reading British newspapers on the Stalin show trials in the Soviet Union is an enlightening experience.

[Evan Burton]

John,

Are you planning to put this into a book for publishing?

To be honest, extended posts lose me. I prefer paper to read and absorb longer text. I can sit back at night, read and consider.

I'd like to see this in paper form. If you are not going to publish, perhaps you'd like to combine your chapters and make them a PDF available for download. That way I can print out the text, and read it at my leisure, giving it the attention it deserves.

[John Simkin]

Are you planning to put this into a book for publishing?

To be honest, extended posts lose me. I prefer paper to read and absorb longer text. I can sit back at night, read and consider.

I'd like to see this in paper form. If you are not going to publish, perhaps you'd like to combine your chapters and make them a PDF available for download. That way I can print out the text, and read it at my leisure, giving it the attention it deserves.

No.

I can send you the whole thing in a "Word" document when it is finished.

[Len Colby]

Once in power in Germany, Hitler's understanding of Keynesian economic theory liberated him from the impact of the economic boycott imposed on Germany by international finance (especially Jewish banking interests).

Oh yes your favorite culprits, they had it in for your hero for absolutely no reason at all! I'm sure you can provide documentation for the above.

The German economy grew spectacularly in the five years leading to 1939

And the trains started running on time as well! Was this 'spectacular' economic growth due to his brilliant economic policy or because...?

1) the German economy was in the gutter when Herr Schicklgruber took office and had nowhere to go but up

2) economies around the world started recovering from the depression

3) unions were busted

4) the property of Jews (and other enemies of the Reich) was expropriated

5) massive deficit spending financed by bonds that were only redeemed after the war

6) all of the above

Evan - In the meantime you can copy and paste John's essays into Word and print them

[Len Colby]

John I don't want to seem impertinent but IMO you've given us enough background for now. Can you tell us why exactly you think Churchill wanted "to off" the Duke? I'd also be interested in 'hearing' any additional evidence you might have that the crash wasn't accidental.

[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

Hmmm.

But David, your initial remark, in context, was:

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.

Hmmmmmm.

Let's role the historical tape back.

Summar 1939: Germany and Poland in conflict over Danzig corridor.

August 23, 1939: Nazi-Soviet Non-Aggression Pact signed

Late August: Poland refuses further negotiations and mobilizes army.

September 1: Germany invades western Poland.

September 3-10: Britain, France, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and Canada declare War on Germany. (Churchill is a major force in Parliament in favour of war with Germany).

mid-September: USSR invades eastern Poland

So, here's my question.

How on earth is this timeline compatible with your analysis?

If the goal of Britain and America in WW 2 was to destroy the USSR - and the survival of Nazi Germany was a relative non-issue - there was a much easier way to achieve that goal. Ally with Germany against Russia. It seems clear that Germany was keen on this too.

But that's not what happened - and I don't believe the case has been made that the 'real' purpose of the British and American power elite in WW2 was to destroy the USSR (and Germany was not really in their sights). If that was the case, the conspirators sure set about things in a highly convoluted way - and ended up failing to achieve their primary goal in quite spectacular fashion.

I think this is just a post-war myth, popular on the left in Britain and America, but with little or no basis in fact.

Regarding the funding of the Nazis by dark forces in the USA and Britain, it may have happened, but hard evidence would be nice. Do you have any?

Once in power in Germany, Hitler's understanding of Keynesian economic theory liberated him from the impact of the economic boycott imposed on Germany by international finance (especially Jewish banking interests). The German economy grew spectacularly in the five years leading to 1939 - and it's hard to make a case that under-the-carpet external funding was responsible.

However, if you have evidence for that, please bring it on.

How did it go? Hmmmmmmm...

You are very welcome to promulgate your post war leftist mythos but it seems fairly apparent that you have done very little research or reading in support of your opinion.

The goal, I believe, was for Germany and Russia to pummel each other into the ground, thereby rendering them economically and militarily impotent as a force for the next x number of years decades. Don't get to fixated on the "baddie" communist threat in this respect. The west financed the Bolsheviks too.

I would argue that absense of evidence is not evidence of absense and in sensitive matters such as these we can be pretty damn sure that an awful lot of evidence is designedly absent.

But even so, there is ample evidence for the west funding Hitler (not to mention the Bolsheviks earlier too) and no one seriously doubts it either. Nor was it "dark forces" but was done quite openly by some of the most well known banks, companies and well known individuals in the USA and UK. Look at the Bush family's involvement in Hitler financing, for example.

Also check out Prof. Antony Sutton's books ("Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler" and also "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution" and ""The Best Enemy Money Can Buy" to name just three). Tony sadly died a few years ago but earlier in his life, back during WWII, he was an NCO in the British Intelligence Corp hunting Bormann at Wars end. His four thin volumes on the Skull and Bones were seminal and revealed, for the first time, so far as I am aware anyway, the use of the Hegelian dialectic as a means of covertly manipulating a desired outcome. He also was able to demonstrate that Skull and Bones were linked to the Oxford All Souls set of Milner, Rhodes and co as well as with a German secret society. Meanwhile, it is well established that the Rhodes-Milner Chatham House, are the originating sister organisation of your Council of Foreign Relations, which Tony states has a secret inner core group in exactly the same manner that the Rhodes-Milner was set up. Especially revelavnt to this discussion is his book "How the Order Creates War and Revolution".

Other exceptional authors on the subject are Charles Higham and his books "Trading with the Enemy". He has some other corkers too. For a background on the Rhodes-Milner Group the best beginning source is Carroll Quigley's "Tragedy & Hope" and the "Anglo-American Establishment", but there are a number of books on Milner and the Round Table. What made Quigley's contribution significant was that he was permitted unfettered access to the secret archives of the "Group" and was honest enough (unusually for an insider) to publish some of what he discovered, for which he was thereafter punished -- his publisher refused to publish more than the original print run (2,000 I think it was) despite a high demand, and even went so far as to destroy the printing plates.

There are any number of other books and articles that relate to these subjects.

David

PS, in regard to leaning towards either what is politically "left" or "right" it is as well to remember that both are extremes and their manipulation - individually or collectively - form part of the technical formulae of the mysteries of the occult. You would need to read some of the more obscure books on this subject and they are by no means easily explicated. The best bet, in my view, would be to read Carl Jung's Collected Works with an emphasis on what he has written about the Collective Unconscious. It is heady and difficult stuff but may be of benefit to marshalling greater clarity. That post war US military and intelligence circles undertook such an examination - in all its ramifications it seems - should be cause for the very greatest alarm.

Edited June 8, 2007 by David Guyatt

[Guest David Guyatt]

Might I also add another title that may be of interest and that is Charles Levinsons "Vodka Cola". The focus is post WWII but is well worth the read.

David

[Sid Walker]

How did it go? Hmmmmmmm...

You are very welcome to promulgate your post war leftist mythos but it seems fairly apparent that you have done very little research or reading in support of your opinion.

The goal, I believe, was for Germany and Russia to pummel each other into the ground, thereby rendering them economically and militarily impotent as a force for the next x number of years decades. Don't get to fixated on the "baddie" communist threat in this respect. The west financed the Bolsheviks too.

I would argue that absense of evidence is not evidence of absense and in sensitive matters such as these we can be pretty damn sure that an awful lot of evidence is designedly absent.

But even so, there is ample evidence for the west funding Hitler (not to mention the Bolsheviks earlier too) and no one seriously doubts it either. Nor was it "dark forces" but was done quite openly by some of the most well known banks, companies and well known individuals in the USA and UK. Look at the Bush family's involvement in Hitler financing, for example.

Also check out Prof. Antony Sutton's books ("Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler" and also "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution" and ""The Best Enemy Money Can Buy" to name just three). Tony sadly died a few years ago but earlier in his life, back during WWII, he was an NCO in the British Intelligence Corp hunting Bormann at Wars end. His four thin volumes on the Skull and Bones were seminal and revealed, for the first time, so far as I am aware anyway, the use of the Hegelian dialectic as a means of covertly manipulating a desired outcome. He also was able to demonstrate that Skull and Bones were linked to the Oxford All Souls set of Milner, Rhodes and co as well as with a German secret society. Meanwhile, it is well established that the Rhodes-Milner Chatham House, are the originating sister organisation of your Council of Foreign Relations, which Tony states has a secret inner core group in exactly the same manner that the Rhodes-Milner was set up. Especially revelavnt to this discussion is his book "How the Order Creates War and Revolution".

Other exceptional authors on the subject are Charles Higham and his books "Trading with the Enemy". He has some other corkers too. For a background on the Rhodes-Milner Group the best beginning source is Carroll Quigley's "Tragedy & Hope" and the "Anglo-American Establishment", but there are a number of books on Milner and the Round Table. What made Quigley's contribution significant was that he was permitted unfettered access to the secret archives of the "Group" and was honest enough (unusually for an insider) to publish some of what he discovered, for which he was thereafter punished -- his publisher refused to publish more than the original print run (2,000 I think it was) despite a high demand, and even went so far as to destroy the printing plates.

There are any number of other books and articles that relate to these subjects.

David

PS, in regard to leaning towards either what is politically "left" or "right" it is as well to remember that both are extremes and their manipulation - individually or collectively - form part of the technical formulae of the mysteries of the occult. You would need to read some of the more obscure books on this subject and they are by no means easily explicated. The best bet, in my view, would be to read Carl Jung's Collected Works with an emphasis on what he has written about the Collective Unconscious. It is heady and difficult stuff but may be of benefit to marshalling greater clarity. That post war US military and intelligence circles undertook such an examination - in all its ramifications it seems - should be cause for the very greatest alarm.

David

I don't want to divert this thread - any further - from its primary purpose. It was set up by John to outline his new theory about the death of the Duke of Kent. The origins of and responsibility for the Second World War - and the hidden agenda (if any) behind the war - are somewhat relevant, but should probably be debated on another thread.

Suffice it to say that while I don't purport to be an expert in this area of history. I do not believe the case has ever been made for propositions made with remarkable frequency on this forum, such as (1) the real agenda behind WW2 was to destroy Russia (not Nazi Germany or independent Imperial Japan); or that (2) Nazi Germany was really a tool (gone wrong?) of sinister western interests; or that (3) Hitler's agenda was 'obviously' to destroy Britain and its Empire and take over the entire world; or that (4) Hitler's economic policy was suicidal.

When Peter makes claims such as "It seems obvious that Hitler and the Nazi 'Elite' believed that war with the West was inevitable. Their financial policies would have been suicidal if not ultimately leading to war", without adducing a shred of evidence, I play the annoying role of asking for the evidence.

It's a role which, on this thread, we should perhaps more appropriately direct to John's serialized exposition.

Regarding which, I tend to agree with Len.

How about bringing on the punchline?

Edited June 9, 2007 by Sid Walker

[John Dolva]

The topic continues to be almost exclusively about the ruling elite.

Declaration of war has certain consequences that are relevant.

It doesn't necessarily follow that any meaningful war is engaged in.

What it does do is affect the population in the country that has declared war.

Certain rights are suspended and replaced by others. It also reorganises society and the things that people can and cannot do.

A politically conscious British working class that sees the Soviet Union attacked while Britain itself is not at war may use its freedoms to dictate a declaration of war and elect leaders that will support such a declaration and an implementation of a continent invasion much earlier than if the rulers re-empt such a scenario, declares war and consequently gains rights that superced those of its population. Another consequence could be the International Brigades that formed to support the anti Franco-Hitler forces in Spain moving inmto the USSR-NAZI coflict and assure an earlier Soviet victory as well as politisicing the people at home and the pre 1926 near revolutions in the West completed.

Therefore there is not necessarily any contradiction in Churchill declaring war on Germany AND supporting the German drive to destroy the USSR.

In the east, pre OP Barbarossa, the Japanese defeat by Soviet Forces (the first to use what became known as 'BlitzKrieg'), led to a strengthening of the 'Go-South' faction in Japan. The 'Go-North' faction were reassured that a German taking of Moscow was possible. There are indications that Pearl Harbour should not have been a surprise to the USA. The Isolationists were still powerful and there was a divide in the US intelligence community that froze out persons like "Wild Bill" Donovan. He was also incommunicado when Germay invaded Poland as a result of a hunting trip he had been invited to in the wilderness up north USA. What Pearl Harbour did very effectively was to swing public sentiment firmly away from the Isolationists.

Nevertheless, there are opportunistic elements to the war in the Pacific just as pre Pearl Harbour pro British sentiments and Churchills wish to draw the US into the European theatre that took advantage of the situation to exchange obsolete shipping for a number of bases in the Atlantic while selling food to a rationed British. Apart from this US industry got a huge boost with British purchases of war materials.

After the USSR had taken Berlin and won the war and the Germans surrendered to the USSR and also to the Western Allies, the Soviets were ready to join in the attack of Japan. (This was a Japan that was already sending out feelers for a surrender) Truman convinced Stalin to delay for a couple of weeks. Meanwhile the atom bombs were completed, Hiroshima and Nagasaki needlessly followed and the USSR was suddenly faced with a new reality, the atom bomb. This fact then affected the course of events on the Korean peninsula where the Soviets withdrew and the Korean war ensued, establishing an eastern boundary between Communism and Capitalism.

Meanwhile, Europe was carved up with give and take on both sides. Essentially the USSR was denied a warm water port and the West had a firm foothold in west Berlin.

The fortunate leveling of the playing field by people like the Rosenbergs then brought in the era of mutually assured destruction and the tensions of the Cold War. IOW it served to stay the hands of the Hawks.

Edited June 9, 2007 by John Dolva

[Peter McKenna]

How did it go? Hmmmmmmm...

You are very welcome to promulgate your post war leftist mythos but it seems fairly apparent that you have done very little research or reading in support of your opinion.

The goal, I believe, was for Germany and Russia to pummel each other into the ground, thereby rendering them economically and militarily impotent as a force for the next x number of years decades. Don't get to fixated on the "baddie" communist threat in this respect. The west financed the Bolsheviks too.

I would argue that absense of evidence is not evidence of absense and in sensitive matters such as these we can be pretty damn sure that an awful lot of evidence is designedly absent.

But even so, there is ample evidence for the west funding Hitler (not to mention the Bolsheviks earlier too) and no one seriously doubts it either. Nor was it "dark forces" but was done quite openly by some of the most well known banks, companies and well known individuals in the USA and UK. Look at the Bush family's involvement in Hitler financing, for example.

Also check out Prof. Antony Sutton's books ("Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler" and also "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution" and ""The Best Enemy Money Can Buy" to name just three). Tony sadly died a few years ago but earlier in his life, back during WWII, he was an NCO in the British Intelligence Corp hunting Bormann at Wars end. His four thin volumes on the Skull and Bones were seminal and revealed, for the first time, so far as I am aware anyway, the use of the Hegelian dialectic as a means of covertly manipulating a desired outcome. He also was able to demonstrate that Skull and Bones were linked to the Oxford All Souls set of Milner, Rhodes and co as well as with a German secret society. Meanwhile, it is well established that the Rhodes-Milner Chatham House, are the originating sister organisation of your Council of Foreign Relations, which Tony states has a secret inner core group in exactly the same manner that the Rhodes-Milner was set up. Especially revelavnt to this discussion is his book "How the Order Creates War and Revolution".

Other exceptional authors on the subject are Charles Higham and his books "Trading with the Enemy". He has some other corkers too. For a background on the Rhodes-Milner Group the best beginning source is Carroll Quigley's "Tragedy & Hope" and the "Anglo-American Establishment", but there are a number of books on Milner and the Round Table. What made Quigley's contribution significant was that he was permitted unfettered access to the secret archives of the "Group" and was honest enough (unusually for an insider) to publish some of what he discovered, for which he was thereafter punished -- his publisher refused to publish more than the original print run (2,000 I think it was) despite a high demand, and even went so far as to destroy the printing plates.

There are any number of other books and articles that relate to these subjects.

David

PS, in regard to leaning towards either what is politically "left" or "right" it is as well to remember that both are extremes and their manipulation - individually or collectively - form part of the technical formulae of the mysteries of the occult. You would need to read some of the more obscure books on this subject and they are by no means easily explicated. The best bet, in my view, would be to read Carl Jung's Collected Works with an emphasis on what he has written about the Collective Unconscious. It is heady and difficult stuff but may be of benefit to marshalling greater clarity. That post war US military and intelligence circles undertook such an examination - in all its ramifications it seems - should be cause for the very greatest alarm.

David

I don't want to divert this thread - any further - from its primary purpose. It was set up by John to outline his new theory about the death of the Duke of Kent. The origins of and responsibility for the Second World War - and the hidden agenda (if any) behind the war - are somewhat relevant, but should probably be debated on another thread.

Suffice it to say that while I don't purport to be an expert in this area of history. I do not believe the case has ever been made for propositions made with remarkable frequency on this forum, such as (1) the real agenda behind WW2 was to destroy Russia (not Nazi Germany or independent Imperial Japan); or that (2) Nazi Germany was really a tool (gone wrong?) of sinister western interests; or that (3) Hitler's agenda was 'obviously' to destroy Britain and its Empire and take over the entire world; or that (4) Hitler's economic policy was suicidal.

When Peter makes claims such as "It seems obvious that Hitler and the Nazi 'Elite' believed that war with the West was inevitable. Their financial policies would have been suicidal if not ultimately leading to war", without adducing a shred of evidence, I play the annoying role of asking for the evidence.

It's a role which, on this thread, we should perhaps more appropriately direct to John's serialized exposition.

Regarding which, I tend to agree with Len.

How about bringing on the punchline?

Well, sorry to digress, but I cannot let this one item go...

Sid, are you really saying that the inflationary tactics of the Third Reich which lead to the predictable sacking of countries, such as Poland, Chechoslovakia, and France, et al, as well as its own 'population' (I won't go into who in the population) did not lead ultimately and unavoidably to War with the West?

Where isn't this documented? Try the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Hitler's Volkstaad, etc., I'm sure any of the books referenced above would provide suitable evidence. As far as written documentation where Hitler had cozied up to the West to allay the West's abhorrance at the Third Reich's political practices while preparing for the inevitable war with the West, as there have been many sources for this (try the Unauthorized Biography of Prescott Bush or americanheritage.com, amoung many locations). This seemed to me to be common knowledge.

As Len asked ... all of the above.

Anyway I qualified the statement with the verbiage "It seems obvious" meaning that I drew a conclusion based upon information readily available. To provide a quote to support the "seemingly obvious" conclusion, would be redundant.

Edited June 9, 2007 by Peter McKenna

[John Simkin]

I don't want to divert this thread - any further - from its primary purpose. It was set up by John to outline his new theory about the death of the Duke of Kent. The origins of and responsibility for the Second World War - and the hidden agenda (if any) behind the war - are somewhat relevant, but should probably be debated on another thread.

I don’t believe this discussion has gone off topic. It was inevitable. The important thing to remember is the death of the Duke of Kent was part of the cover-up. The cover-up was so successful that the accepted view of the Second World War as portrayed by historians is inaccurate.

I am sorry that you have to do so much reading for me to argue my case. However, it is vitally necessary if I am to convince people that my version of events is correct.

Suffice it to say that while I don't purport to be an expert in this area of history. I do not believe the case has ever been made for propositions made with remarkable frequency on this forum, such as (1) the real agenda behind WW2 was to destroy Russia (not Nazi Germany or independent Imperial Japan); or that (2) Nazi Germany was really a tool (gone wrong?) of sinister western interests; or that (3) Hitler's agenda was 'obviously' to destroy Britain and its Empire and take over the entire world; or that (4) Hitler's economic policy was suicidal.

It is not a question of "either or". However, some statements are more correct than others. For example, I think points 1 and 2 are largely correct whereas 3 is inaccuate. Point 4 is too vague to make a comment.

[Sid Walker]

How did it go? Hmmmmmmm...

You are very welcome to promulgate your post war leftist mythos but it seems fairly apparent that you have done very little research or reading in support of your opinion.

The goal, I believe, was for Germany and Russia to pummel each other into the ground, thereby rendering them economically and militarily impotent as a force for the next x number of years decades. Don't get to fixated on the "baddie" communist threat in this respect. The west financed the Bolsheviks too.

I would argue that absense of evidence is not evidence of absense and in sensitive matters such as these we can be pretty damn sure that an awful lot of evidence is designedly absent.

But even so, there is ample evidence for the west funding Hitler (not to mention the Bolsheviks earlier too) and no one seriously doubts it either. Nor was it "dark forces" but was done quite openly by some of the most well known banks, companies and well known individuals in the USA and UK. Look at the Bush family's involvement in Hitler financing, for example.

Also check out Prof. Antony Sutton's books ("Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler" and also "Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution" and ""The Best Enemy Money Can Buy" to name just three). Tony sadly died a few years ago but earlier in his life, back during WWII, he was an NCO in the British Intelligence Corp hunting Bormann at Wars end. His four thin volumes on the Skull and Bones were seminal and revealed, for the first time, so far as I am aware anyway, the use of the Hegelian dialectic as a means of covertly manipulating a desired outcome. He also was able to demonstrate that Skull and Bones were linked to the Oxford All Souls set of Milner, Rhodes and co as well as with a German secret society. Meanwhile, it is well established that the Rhodes-Milner Chatham House, are the originating sister organisation of your Council of Foreign Relations, which Tony states has a secret inner core group in exactly the same manner that the Rhodes-Milner was set up. Especially revelavnt to this discussion is his book "How the Order Creates War and Revolution".

Other exceptional authors on the subject are Charles Higham and his books "Trading with the Enemy". He has some other corkers too. For a background on the Rhodes-Milner Group the best beginning source is Carroll Quigley's "Tragedy & Hope" and the "Anglo-American Establishment", but there are a number of books on Milner and the Round Table. What made Quigley's contribution significant was that he was permitted unfettered access to the secret archives of the "Group" and was honest enough (unusually for an insider) to publish some of what he discovered, for which he was thereafter punished -- his publisher refused to publish more than the original print run (2,000 I think it was) despite a high demand, and even went so far as to destroy the printing plates.

There are any number of other books and articles that relate to these subjects.

David

PS, in regard to leaning towards either what is politically "left" or "right" it is as well to remember that both are extremes and their manipulation - individually or collectively - form part of the technical formulae of the mysteries of the occult. You would need to read some of the more obscure books on this subject and they are by no means easily explicated. The best bet, in my view, would be to read Carl Jung's Collected Works with an emphasis on what he has written about the Collective Unconscious. It is heady and difficult stuff but may be of benefit to marshalling greater clarity. That post war US military and intelligence circles undertook such an examination - in all its ramifications it seems - should be cause for the very greatest alarm.

David

I don't want to divert this thread - any further - from its primary purpose. It was set up by John to outline his new theory about the death of the Duke of Kent. The origins of and responsibility for the Second World War - and the hidden agenda (if any) behind the war - are somewhat relevant, but should probably be debated on another thread.

Suffice it to say that while I don't purport to be an expert in this area of history. I do not believe the case has ever been made for propositions made with remarkable frequency on this forum, such as (1) the real agenda behind WW2 was to destroy Russia (not Nazi Germany or independent Imperial Japan); or that (2) Nazi Germany was really a tool (gone wrong?) of sinister western interests; or that (3) Hitler's agenda was 'obviously' to destroy Britain and its Empire and take over the entire world; or that (4) Hitler's economic policy was suicidal.

When Peter makes claims such as "It seems obvious that Hitler and the Nazi 'Elite' believed that war with the West was inevitable. Their financial policies would have been suicidal if not ultimately leading to war", without adducing a shred of evidence, I play the annoying role of asking for the evidence.

It's a role which, on this thread, we should perhaps more appropriately direct to John's serialized exposition.

Regarding which, I tend to agree with Len.

How about bringing on the punchline?

Well, sorry to digress, but I cannot let this one item go...

Sid, are you really saying that the inflationary tactics of the Third Reich which lead to the predictable sacking of countries, such as Poland, Chechoslovakia, and France, et al, as well as its own 'population' (I won't go into who in the population) did not lead ultimately and unavoidably to War with the West?

Where isn't this documented? Try the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Hitler's Volkstaad, etc., I'm sure any of the books referenced above would provide suitable evidence. As far as written documentation where Hitler had cozied up to the West to allay the West's abhorrance at the Third Reich's political practices while preparing for the inevitable war with the West, as there have been many sources for this (try the Unauthorized Biography of Prescott Bush or americanheritage.com, amoung many locations). This seemed to me to be common knowledge.

As Len asked ... all of the above.

Anyway I qualified the statement with the verbiage "It seems obvious" meaning that I drew a conclusion based upon information readily available. To provide a quote to support the "seemingly obvious" conclusion, would be redundant.

Well, re-assured by John that's he's not annoyed at what might have been perceived as a diversion from the thread's main topic, I'll respond in brief.

In general, Peter, you have a very curious way of providing references.

Why not find exact quotations that back your points and cite them, with sufficient detail about where they come from so an interested reader can follow up the original source?

You take a different approach, something like: "it's all in "The Rise & Fall..." or it's all at the americanheritage.com website... go find it yourself!"

I am disinclined to do that, Peter. If you wish to back up points that you claim are 'obvious' or 'well-known', it should be very easy for you to provide specific references.

It is unhelpful not to do so - and can give rise to the suspicion that they may not exist at all. I've been on enough wild goose chases seeking out non-existent source information to be wary of investing too much time on someone else's vague say-so.

What is "Hitler's Volkstaad", by the way? (excuse my ignorance)

You wrote: "Sid, are you really saying that the inflationary tactics of the Third Reich which lead to the predictable sacking of countries, such as Poland, Chechoslovakia, and France, et al, as well as its own 'population' (I won't go into who in the population) did not lead ultimately and unavoidably to War with the West? "

It's an odd question, Peter. I'm, not entirely sure I understand it - or that it really makes sense.

I'll turn it round to try to clarify your claim.

Are you really saying that the 'inflationary' tactics of the Third Reich led to the predictable sacking of countries, such as Poland, Chechoslovakia, and France, et al, - as well the predictable sacking (?) of groups within its own population - and in turn led unavoidably to War with the West?

What do you mean by 'inflationary' in this context?

Edited June 9, 2007 by Sid Walker

[Guest David Guyatt]

I agree entirely with John on this. There is no diversion of topic involved. The future is predicated on the past and therefore, to understand an event in time it is necessary to look backwards.

For those who have (or may) followed my argument about the involvement of the occult in all this, I would also suggest that they google the words "Hegel + occult" and see where that takes them.

For what it may be worth, the following quote is from "Manifesto" published in London in 1934 and which purports to be the manifesto of the Federation of Progressive Society and Individuals that was founded in 1933 (note the timing). In this document there appears the following statement:

Quote:

Then came 1931, and there was an operation planned to bring Germany into the dictatorship-world empire scheme. The British monarchy was behind it; others were behind it; people in New York were behind it. Initially the understanding of the Anglo-American supporters of this fascist project—which was largely based in France, actually, around firms like Lazard Frères and so forth. But the intent of the project was to have the Germans re-arm, and destroy the Soviet Union. While Germany was embedded in Russia, in the process of trying to [defeat] the Soviet Union, then, the allies—France and Britain—intended to jump on Germany's rear, and crush Germany, and be rid of the Soviet Union at the same time, and set up world dictatorship.

Unquote

The manifesto is available here:

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0022-0094...%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6

This organisation was set up by Aldous and Julian Huxley amongst others. Aldous Huxley was an active occultist who was taught his "art" by Aleistair Crowley. Julian Huxley was as Hegelian in his thought as Hegel himself and was the first director of UNESCO. Lazards, meanwhile, is one of the principal banks of the Milner group.

Milner waa very much against democracy and culture/civilisation as the governing ideal. He strove for an aristocracy of understanding and purpose based on "collective" self development. Of course, the "collective" would be in the hands of a ruling elite who would guide it through place men and bureacrats. In other words an aristocracy of the elite. This is fascism but at least it is British fascism. So that's okay. ;-> German or Italian fascism was not going to be allowed to dominate Europe. Having men playing both sides of the coin is a well established Hegelian technique. Today, we can regard it not as British fascism but Anglo-American in flavour, as distinct to the model foisted on Europe by Martinists. Not much choice if you ask me!

It is an incredible pity that the only people who are seriously pursuing this sort of research are Lyndon LaRouche and his EIR teams. Personally, I am uncomfortable with them.

David

Edited June 9, 2007 by David Guyatt