World Wars, 20th Century, Zio Anglo American War Profiteers


WWI Jewish War Profiteers
Kuhn, Loeb, Bernard Baruch, J.P. Morgan, Eugene Meyer;
Paul Warburg, Max Warburg, Jacob Schiff, Louis Brandeis, Alfred Rothschild

’Twas a long, long Money Trail a-winding

By 1914, as we have already seen, the interests of Britain and the Anglo-Persian Oil Company had become inseparable, and British foreign policy and the Rothschild Banking family foreign policy became one and the same. During this period of purported U.S. neutrality from 1914 to 1917, American sentiment was shifted gradually but inexorably toward a pro-Ally, pro-war position, first because of the sophisticated British propaganda campaign, and later from the increasing pressure from business and corporate elite on both sides of the Atlantic who had a financial and commercial stake in a British and French victory.
American business was soon booming from the war in Europe. Between 1914 and 1917, the American GNP was up 20% and manufacturing was up 40%. Allied Powers purchased over 3 billion dollars in wartime orders and borrowed over 2 billion dollars in bonds, compared to twenty million in Central power bonds. The British surface naval blockade of Germany ensured that American trade was almost exclusively with the Allies.

As early as 1915, the United States, not yet involved in the War, had loaned France and Great Britain millions of dollars through American banks. Had Germany won, those bonds held by American bankers would have been worthless. By the spring of 1917, American bankers had loaned the Allies almost $3 billion dollars plus another $6 billion for exports, and the steel, munitions, chemical and agricultural industries had all become dependent on the war for profit. Lastly, some of the democrats (and Woodrow Wilson’s biggest financial backers) had vested personal financial interests with Britain and France. How did this happen?

The financial aspect of the conflict which became known as World War One is too vast to relate here with the respect the subject deserves, but let it suffice to point out that World War One elevated approximately 21,000 US investors into the brackets of millionaires and billionaires. The Rockefellers alone, who displayed great eagerness for the US to enter World War One on the British side, made in excess of $200,000,000 from that conflict, and in just one afternoon during the war, Bernard Baruch, Wilson’s Czar of American Industry and part of the commission that handled all purchasing for the Allies during the war, made a personal profit of $750,000.

The Federal Reserve System, which began operations in 1914, was the vehicle which in effect forced the American people, without them even knowing it, to lend the Allies twenty-five billion dollars in loans which went unpaid, although the interest on the loans was indeed paid... to New York bankers. The cartel of the Rothschilds and the Bank of England and other London banking houses which ultimately controlled the Federal Reserve Banks through their controlling amounts of bank stock (along with that of their subsidiary firms in New York, J.P. Morgan Co. and Kuhn, Loeb & Co., etc.) directed the successful campaign to have the plan enacted into law by Congress. These very firms had their principal officers appointed to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Advisory Council in 1914.

The banking and business elites salivating for war included J. Henry Schroder Banking Company, the Rockefellers, the Eugene Meyer family, J.P. Morgan, Alex Brown & Sons, Kuhn Loeb & Co., the Rothschilds, the Warburgs, the Baruch and Guggenheim families and a few others who weaved a tightly connected web of power, money, arms and influence for their own financial gains. Their mutual influence on world affairs often crossed as they financed all sides for a continual, profit rendering conflict.

J. P. Morgan, Jr., one of the signatories to the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913, played a prominent role in the financial aspects of war-mongering. It was he who made the first loan of $12,000,000 to Russia, and in 1915, a loan of $50,000,000 to the French Government. All of the munitions purchases in the United States by the British were made through one of his firms, and he organized a syndicate of about 2,200 banks and floated a loan of $500,000,000 to the Allies.

J.P. Morgan also received the proceeds of the First Liberty Loan to pay off $400,000,000 which he in turn advanced to Great Britain at the outbreak of war. By 1917, the Morgans and Kuhn, Loeb Company had floated a billion and a half dollars in loans to the Allies. The bankers also financed a slew of pro-war (disingenuously named “peace”) organizations which prodded US citizens to become involved in the War. The “Commission for Relief in Belgium” made up grisly atrocity stories against the Germans, while a Carnegie organization called the “League to Enforce Peace” (later, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace) agitated in Washington for US entry into war.

Sometimes, the bankers financed both sides. The Rothschilds’ agents, the Warburg banking house, were financing the Kaiser. Paul Warburg, a naturalized citizen from Germany who had been decorated by the Kaiser in 1912, was vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. He had also handled large sums furnished by Germany for Lenin and Trotsky while his brother Max (who was Kaiser Wilhelm’s personal banker) was the leader of the German espionage system! It was this brother, Max, who authorized Lenin’s train to pass through the lines and execute the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. Jacob Schiff, like the Warburgs, also had two brothers in Germany during the war, Philip and Ludwig, who also were active as bankers to the German Government.

The Rothschilds meanwhile bought the German news agency, Wolff, to further control the flow of information to the German people and what the rest of the world would hear from inside Germany. One of the leading executives of Wolff was none other than Max Warburg! The Rothschilds would later buy an interest in the Havas news agency in France and Reuters in London. The tentacles of the banking families reached deep into the power elites: Dr. von Bethmann Hollweg, was the son of Moritz Bethmann from the Frankfurt banking family of Frankfurt, a cousin of the Rothschilds.

Kuhn, Loeb & Co. represented the Rothschild interests in the US, and along with the Harrimans, the Goulds and the Rockefellers, became the dominant powers in the railroad and America financial world while they war-mongered to fatten themselves even more. The first available appointment on the Supreme Court of the United States which Woodrow Wilson filled was given to Kuhn-Loeb lawyer Louis Brandeis who had been selected by Jacob Schiff to carry on war agitation. Through marriage, the Kuhn Loeb Company managed to twine itself throughout the U.S. Food Administration, the British Secret Service and the Wilson White House. And on and on and on it went, like a ball of twine, tangling and tying the bankers, their progeny and their friends together for war and profits.

On October 13, 1917, Woodrow Wilson stated: “It is manifestly imperative that there should be a complete mobilization of the banking reserves of the United States. The burden and the privilege (of the Allied loans) must be shared by every banking institution in the country. I believe that cooperation on the part of the banks is a patriotic duty at this time, and that membership in the Federal Reserve System is a distinct and significant evidence of patriotism.”

That “patriotism” served the bankers and their cronies well, although it did little for the people of America who sacrificed their sons, fathers, brothers and husbands to a bloody, needless war.


Transcription of a talk given to the London 9/11Keeptalking Group on March 3rd. 2016

by Nick Kollerstrom, PhD


Chapter 1 World War One Chapter 2 World War Two

Part One –  World war one

I LIGHT-HEARTEDLY GAVE this topic to Ian last summer, "How Britain initiated both world wars" and he's been going on since about me doing it, so I could not back out now ... We have done the idea of First World War initiation before[1], and will be recalling that. This isn't about the history of the wars, it isn't about who are the good guys guy s and who are the bad b ad guys, it is the concept of initiating a world war - a very extraordinary concept concep t - and who wanted it, who wanted it to happen. We do not accept that it just happened by itself, and I will try and argue that a will to war-initiation came from this country, and not some other country. Let's start off in the months coming up to the First World War, May of 1914, when an American statesman reported back to America after a tour o f Europe. He said, “The situation is extraordinary, jingoism run stark mad” - he was talking about the instability of the European nations - there was no way of o f avoiding this awful cataclysm, no-one in Europe can do it, it's locked into too many jealousies, and “… whenever England consents, France and Russia Russia will [2] close in on Germany and Austria.”  [See slide 2, on page 27]  Now that is a very good summary of what happened, France and Russia would 'close in.' Let's have a look at the map here, how Austria-Hungary was about to be 'closed in' by Russia and

France. [slide 3] Those were two nations which both wanted war -they believed they had territories they could only get back from Germany by war. The other nation that wanted war was Serbia, but  not  not with Germany - it wanted war with Austria, because it had dreams of a greater  Serbia, and it believed that war was a way of getting this, and it believed that, although it was smaller, Russia would support it. So those were the countries that actually wanted war, and the situation was, that Russia would never have dared to go to war with Germany, unless it believed that France was supporting it, and France wouldn't have dared to support Russia in war against Germany, unless it believed that Britain was supporting it. Britain had as such no motive for going to war with Germany, unlike France or Russia. So the Question is, did Britain want to do it? Did it initiate this situation, this cataclysm? It all depended on a French-English Entente which was secretive. This was woven from about 1905 onwards: a deal that if war broke out, France - which had been for centuries the traditional enemy of Britain - if war broke out, we would support France. Edward Grey secretly assured Poincarè that Britain would support France and Russia as an obligation of honour, if war broke out.[3] It was supposed to be a defensive alliance, but as this excellent book makes clear, Hidden clear, Hidden  History, Secret Origins of the First World World War  by  by Docherty & McGregor, it was really functioning as an offensive war-generating alliance [4]. This is the best book on the subject. Bertrand Russell recalled how he was shocked by how happy people seemed to be, when war  was declared, around the beginning of August[4]. Also, he always noticed how carefully Edward Grey concealed what he was doing [5] as he secretly committed us to war. The Government and the Cabinet and the people pe ople didn't realise this. We have here the concept of a secret elite: is it  possible that a secret elite can drag this country into war? Belgium was founded on a treaty of perpetual neutrality, which was supposed to guarantee that it would not take sides in a European war, but actually it had been making detailed war-plans with Britain in the event of war breaking out. Such things as stockpiles of cannon balls of the British standard not French, and coats co ats for the soldiers, were found in Belgium, and when the Germans invaded Belgium they found agreements a greements with Britain in the Belgian palace of go vernment.[5] So Belgium was actually not neutral at all. There was a deal for the hundred thousand British soldiers to be transported across to France a nd Belgium immediately when war broke out. Detailed plans had been made. So this meant that Germany realised that it was surrounded by not three but four hostile nations - it was totally surrounded. This was the terrific deep fear and panic that built up and couldn't c ouldn't really be resolved. Who was the Kaiser, Kaiser Wilhelm? He had quite a reputation as a peacemaker in Europe here is the New the New York Times’ Times’ judgment, made a year before, June 1913. [7] 'Now he is acclaimed everywhere as the greatest factor for peace that our time can show. It was he, again and again, who threw the weight of his personality into the balance for peace, whenever whene ver war-clouds gathered over Europe.” That is quite fulsome praise. I would describe him as a wise peacemaker. Let's have another verdict, by a former US president, just before the war broke out: “…the

critically important part which has been his among the nations, he has been for the last quarter of  a century, the single greatest force in the practical maintenance of peace in the world.” There was a BBC program, a centenary tribute to him which talked about his love of England and his deep attachment to Queen Victoria: the two Royal families shared the same ancestry with Queen Victoria. In twenty-five years on the throne, he'd never gone to war and the German army hadn't fought a  battle in nearly half a century. So it’s reasonable to say that this was quite a pacific nation, whereas Britain and America had been to war quite a lot. He had a certain confidence in being able to use the strength of Germany to resolve issues of war and peace in Europe. If I may give you one more quote, from a very influential American statesman, Colonel House, he wrote a letter after visiting in July 1914, just before the war broke out. His letter to the Kaiser after his tour of Europe [10] recalled the wonderful wonde rful conversations they had together: about how he the Kaiser had wanted to bring about a better understanding between the great powers: "because of  your well-known desire to maintain peace, I came as your Majesty knows directly to Berlin. I can never forget the gracious acceptance ac ceptance of the general purposes of o f my mission, the masterly exposition of the world-wide political conditions as they exist today, and the prophetic forecast for the future.” And he felt confident: "I live happy in the belief that your y our majesty's great influence was thrown on behalf of peace and the broadening of the world's commerce.” So we have had several judgments of the Kaiser, of him understanding how - if anyone could maintain peace in Europe - how it could be done. And then we get, just before the cataclysm, a friendly visit of the British Royal Navy to Germany. The new Dreadnoughts came to Kiel Harbour, and the Kaiser inspects a British ship wearing a British admiral uniform, to stress his connection with the British royal family. So we wonder, how on earth could cataclysmic war break out, under these circumstances,  between two nations that had been friendly for a thousand years? The assassination came at the end of June of the Austrian Arch-Duke, and it takes a while before anything happened then. All the Serbian newspapers were rejoicing at this assassination, so Austria has to respond. The problem leading to both world wars, was that the geographical definition of Germany is smaller than the extent of the Germanic people. pe ople. People who feel they are German, are wider than the boundary of what is fixed as Germany in 1871. For the first World War, that very much applies to Austria. The ruling family of Germany, since Mediaeva l times had been in Austria the Habsburgs - and so there was a deep connection of Austria and Germany. Austria wanted to  be part of Germany but wasn't allowed to: so this was in a sense what dragged Germany into the First World war. Let's look at the development of the cataclysm, the sequence. Austria gives a severe ultimatum to Serbia, a ten-point ultimatum, what it’s got to do - and, to everyone's surprise, Serbia nearly accepts them all, nine out of ten. But Austria is still angry, it was '"You've got to accept them all." The Kaiser insists: "This is capitulation, of the most humiliating sort, with it disappears every reason for war - every cause ca use for war now falls to the ground". He tells Austria to accept that Serbian acquiescence. But he does not succeed in stopping - things happen too quickly now -

he doesn't succeed in stopping Austria from shelling Belgrade in Serbia on 28th July. One historian reckoned that they did it right away because they reckoned that, if they waited any longer, the Kaiser would have stopped them.[6] They were furious with Serbia and wanted to start shelling. The cataclysm begins, and the Kaiser angrily says, “Stop in Belgrade!" – that, this must not happen. He explains exp lains very clearly what has to happen now: this is the third time the Austrian army has been mobilized, so one has to do something - you can't just tell them to stand down. So he says, let the Austrian army go into Serbia and stand there and do nothing else. Just occupy  part of Serbia, until the attempt to ascertain who did the assassination assassination has been carried out satisfactorily, and then come back. No war - don't kill anybody, the army just goes in and stays there, it’s a show of strength. He says: "On this basis, I'm prepared to mediate for peace". [13] And I think you'll yo u'll find that Grey said something rather similar. So, if there was time - if  we  we had time - that would have been the  peace formula. Which was what the Kaiser kind of assumed was going to happen, how to de-fuse it. However, someone else on the scene had a different agenda. There's a long-predicted war agenda coming up, with Churchill in charge of the British navy, and the British navy has just been displayed to the King on the 26th of July. On his own initiative, he sends up - this is the largest fleet in the world - he sends it up u p to Scapa Flow north of o f Scotland, right outside Germany - and then, as the Kaiser said in his memoirs, he knew then that the war was coming. That's about the 28th of July: he knew that, once the British fleet is up there, that is the signal to all the warmongers in Europe - this is it, it’s going to happe n. The world's biggest navy cannot canno t be sent up there without anything happening.

Churchill: the First Sea-Lord We note the psychology of Winston Churchill, the terrific happiness he felt as the war was approaching. All the other Cabinet members, the Liberals, they are all ashen-faced and despairing, with all the principles they have worked for all their life ... peace ... going out the window, as they are dragged into horrible war. Whereas Churchill was exultant, and he wrote to his wife Clementine, "My Darling, everything tends towards catastrophe and collapse, but I am

geared up and happy, is it not horrible to be built like that?" To someone else, a year later, he says, "Why, I would not be out of this glorious, delicious war for anything the world could give me." He gets a terrific thrill from managing it, moving the ships around and managing the war. [15] He loves war more than anything else, more even than brandy, or the sound of his own voice - he loves the war, and he gets on with it. You'll find omitted, in a lot of WW1 books, book s, the fact that the entire Royal Navy was sent up  North, by Churchill's own initiative. How amazing is that? This is not the the Prime Minister. This is the decisive war-initiating act. When we come to the Second World War, you'll find him as Prime Minister ringing up Bomber Command, on his own initiative, without having to tell anyone else. On his own initiative, he can send the fleet right up to its wartime base, in full  battle-readiness. The whole of Europe was in a condition of fear, and there was the horrible argument that the war is going to happen anyway, so one might as well be first. The Rothchilds have to come into this story somewhere, don't they? Nathaniel Rothschild visits Prime Minister Asquith to advise him of the preparations that the bank had put into place, to  prepare for war.[17] This is late in July, and the meeting is 'to prepare for war,' war,' to make sure that the Prime Minister has got the money and bank reserves available. There is the 'secret elite' Grey, Asquith, Haldane and Churchill - these are people who are preparing for the coming war they have said that it's going to happen, and how are they going to manage it? Parliament doesn't know a thing about this. The great modern Revisionist, Henry Elmer Barnes, wrote in the 1950s - see the Barnes the Barnes Review in memory of his work – he was a wonderful pioneer of modern Revisionism. What he called: "The moment when the horrors ho rrors of war were specifically unchained in Europe" [18] - he puts on the 29th July, when Poincarè and Izvolski - these were the ministers of defence of France and Russia - met together, to finalise that they were going to war. The Czar of Russia doesn't doe sn't quite know about this, he is very feeble, he keeps trying to tell the Kaiser that he isn't going to war, but he doesn't have the strength to resist it.  Hidden History says, History says, the War was “deliberately and wilfully begun by Sazonov, Poincarè and Sir  Edward Grey, at the bequest of the Secret Elite in London” [18] - I'm defending that thesis here, that they would not have had the nerve to do d o it without the Secret Elite in London telling them to do it. Here is a great Revisionist masterpiece, which should be on all your shelves really, by Patrick Buchanan, the wise American: Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War , and this is the one mainstream book which Revisionists like and approve of. It’s been a best-seller. Here is what he says: “By secretly committing Britain to war for France, these three - Grey, Churchill and Asquith - left the Kaiser in the dark, da rk, unaware that a war with France meant war with the British Empire.” He had not been told that. The German plan was to go quickly into France, beat France, and then fight Russia, because it couldn't fight the two of them together. That Th at was the Schlieffen Plan. They weren't sure whether  Britain would come in too - if Britain had said, yes we will come in too, then nothing would have happened - that would have stopped it from happening. Thereby the European war was turned into a world War. There was a conflict going on in Eastern Europe, between Serbia and Austria,

one backed by Russia and the other backed by Germany, and that was a local conflict, and the Kaiser was hoping to keep it local. But once the British fleet appeared on the Western coast of  Germany, the Kaiser realized that this wasn't a local conflict, it was a conflict that didn't have any meaning other than Germany being done in. Britain had a choice here: there was as it were nothing impelling Britain to do this - I think that's very important. On the 30th July, the Kaiser was still desperately telegramming the Czar, imploring him to stop mobilization. A million Russian troops had been mobilized, and there's a lot of debate, did mobilisation mean war? Well it makes it pretty damn likely. And he's begging him not to mobilize any more. "Serious preparations for war on my Eastern frontier. In my endeavours to maintain the peace of the world, I have gone to the utmost limit possible." [20] Germany was the last country to mobilise in Europe - if anyone tells you Germany started this war, the other  countries all mobilised before Germany did.[7] "The responsibility for the disaster which now threatens the whole civilized world will not be laid at my door. In this moment it still lies in your   power to avert it," he is saying to the Czar - which is technically quite true. "My friendship for  for  you and your empire, transmitted to me by my Grandfather on his deathbed, has always been sacred to me, and I have always honestly backed up Russia when she was in serious trouble." So he's reminding how he'd helped Russia in the past. "The peace of Europe may still be maintained  by you" - if he [the Czar] could stop the military build-up. He's still believing that he can maintain the peace of Europe. This is right at the end of July. The timetable of the disaster [21] shows how Russia is mobilising right at the e nd of July: the Kaiser sends his telegram to the Czar, and around the end of July we get the irrevocable French decision to support Russia, that is shown in [French] telegrams, which can be documented. France was kind of pretending, it kept its troops ten miles from the border, it was trying to tell Britain that it wasn't going to war, that it wasn't committed, but I think documents show that it was. On the first of August we get a vital conversation of the German ambassador Lichnovsky with Grey in London. This is as it were the last attempt by the Kaiser to get a peace deal with Britain. All the Cabinet except Grey and Churchill are in favor of total neutrality, that if war breaks out Britain does not come in. In a way, you could say that the war came because Britain didn't make its position clear: if it had clearly said, No we're not coming into the war, then France and Russia would not have gone into it. So it was the ambivalence of Britain which kind of led to this disaster. Right at the end of July Kaiser Wilhelm writes in despair in his diary - he realises he's trapped, he realises he cannot stop the war, there's nothing he can do: "The most frightful war, of which the ultimate aim is the overthrow of Germany" - so it’s not a question of maintaining peace  between Serbia and Austria, it’s a war against Germany. because people want to do in Germany. in Germany. In a way, it hasn't got a rational purpose, that's the terrible thing, that's why diplomats couldn't resolve it. "I no longer have any doubt, that England, Russia and France have agreed amongst themselves, knowing that our treaty obligations compel us to support Austria, to use the AustriaSerb conflict as a pretext for waging a war of annihilation against us.” He alludes to, "A purely

anti-German policy which England has been scornfully pursuing" - Germany can't escape from it. [22] Grey is very duplicitous - he's an honest-sounding ho nest-sounding fellow, and he had a terrific reputation as Britain's Foreign Secretary, but he had this duplicitous role. Here's the writer H.G. Wells making his final judgment: "I think Grey wanted the war, and I think he wanted it to come when it did." The great paradox is, that everyone in Europe after the war said, We didn't want it, no, we did our best to avoid it. So you've got, nine million people die, then everybody in Europe says they didn't want it - afterwards. “The charge is, that he did not definitely warn Germany, that we would certainly come into the war. He was sufficiently ambiguous, to let them take the risk, and he did this deliberately." That is a final judg ment of H.G.Wells, which I think is pretty sound. August 1st, people begin to realise, suddenly, of some disaster impending, that someone's going to pull us into this war, of which we've had no notice. The Daily The Daily News says, News says, "The greatest calamity in our history is upon us. At this moment our fate is being sealed by hands we know not, by motives alien to our interests, and by influences which, if we knew, we would certainly repudiate.” [24] How true! That sums up the way in which hidden forces made the deal, that  pulled Britain into war. There is a very good author, Morel, Truth and the War , and he referred to "Those dreadful fields of senseless carnage" as the soldiers were fighting each other on the fields of Flanders. We were fighting a country which had never ever threatened us in our entire history, and the flower of  British youth was dying there. And what the hell was it for? As Morel so clearly said of the alliance with France: "While negative assurances had been given to the House of Commons,  positive assurances diametrically opposed had been concocted by the War Office and the Admiralty. All the obligations of an alliance had been incurred by dangerous and an d subtle methods, in such a way as to leave the Cabinet free to deny d eny its existence." Here is Albion speaking with a double tongue! It's a two-forked language, whereby Parliament was constantly being told, we have no obligation for war - no of course not - but actually, detailed war-plans have been made, all ready to be activated – which very soon happened. Another good book is How is How the War Came by Came by Lord Loreburn (1919). Let me say, there is virtually no modern book on this subject which I recommend, except for the Hidden the Hidden History which has come out recently. These are old, Revisionist classics which I'm recommending here, which manage to, I think, get the ambiguity of what really happened. "Edward Gray slipped into a new policy, but without either Army, or treaty, or warrant of parliamentary approval. This country has a right to know its own obligations, and when the most momentous decision of our  whole history had to be taken, taken , we were not free to decide… de cide… A war to which were committed  beforehand in the dark..." [26] Parliament was only told on the 3rd! Parliament first heard about the coming war, by means of a stirring speech by Edward Grey on August 3rd and then - no questions, no discussion! No discussion! Does it remind you of the Iraq war, or what? Parliament is suddenly given this emotionally traumatic announcement: because of  an invasion of Belgium that has not yet happened , that is due to happen, we've got to go, we have to start a war, quickly! After giving his masterly talk, Grey then walks out - No sorry, we can't

discuss the matter. And that was the way of informing the country and parliament, by that speech. So, as Lord Loreburn says here, "Parliament found itself at two hours’ notice, unab le, had it so desired, to extricate itself from this fearful predicament.”[8] Belgium was invaded the next day on the 4th, so the talk was in anticipation of  this  this event. I came to this story in my youth, reading the Austrian philosopher Rudolf Steiner, who ha d been giving talks in December, 1916. So S o I heard the German point of view, it was the only time I'd ever heard a German point of view concerning the War. And that was terribly moving, because December 1916 was when Germany had offered a peace deal to Britain, which was being declined. Germany said, Look, whatever whateve r the point of this war is, can we just stop? Can we just go home, and be friends again? It’s called Status quo ante ante - and even the American government encouraged this, they said, It’s a good peace deal, why doesn't Europe stop fighting? But no, we had to go on, because .. well, why? Let's not go into why, I'm sure we all have our own views, as to why Britain could not accept the peace deal. I remind you that we are only concerned with the initiation of war - who wanted  who wanted  to  to start the war? That's all we are looking at today. today . Steiner made the very outrageous outrageou s statement, that "With a single sentence, this war in the West would not have taken place:" that, if Grey had given a straight answer to Lichnovsky, then we could have avoided the catastrophe that took place. Here is the event which is missed out from just about every book on WW1. Any book you've got on your shelf, have a look at it and it won't have this event, on the first of August – but  it  it cannot be written out of history, because Grey sent off a letter that same afternoon, saying exactly what you read here - and it went into the British White Book, the record of war documents.[9] It’s in there, you can read it.  No one can deny that Grey summarized the meeting in this way: "Lichnovski asked me whether, if Germany gave a promise not to violate Belgian neutrality, we would engage to remain neutral." Huh, what more do you want? "I replied that we could not say that, our hands must be free." No commitment - even though the British fleet has gone up North - no commitment! So, "We could not give a promise on that condition alone". That is an amazing, staggering offer that Lichnovsky makes, to avoid war with Britain. And, he then asks a further question: “he then  pressed me on what conditions, on which we would remain neutral” - any conditions, on which Britain would remain neutral. “He even sugge sted the integrity of France and her colonies might  be guaranteed.” Well, what more do you want? Not only did Grey refuse to reply, but - get this he didn't mention this interview to Parliament. When he gave his speech he made no mention of  the fact that this interview with the German ambassador had taken place just before. And he tried to pretend that he thought it was just a personal meeting. This was the final attempt by the Kaiser, and there is a story that he heard the news back from Lichnovsky, and he misunderstood it. He thought there was a deal made mad e - this is late afternoon of  the 1st of August - he said, let's open op en a bottle of champagne, or something, there's some hope. And he thought there was some sort of agreement. And he told von Moltke, head of his military Stop! The troops were already going towards the Belgian border, and he said, stop them! And von Moltke said, We can't do that, that is impossible. Von Moltke was totally traumatized that

day. Then later the King of England contacted the Kaiser and told him, no there had been no agreement, it was a misunderstanding.[10] And that was as it were the end of the Kaiser's role in the war, and basically the end of the German royal family, it was the last royal d ynasty. He didn't really play any further role in the war once his final struggle to avoid war had h ad been defeated and outwitted. He'd been outwitted by the British, by this clever double entendre of, entendre of, will we / won't we. Various people on the Continent have discussed and evaluated that meeting - not in Britain of  course, you won't find any historians discussing that meeting on August 1st in any British college, it just gets deleted from the books, except for this one recently[11], this is the only one that has it. "Prince Lichnovsky asked if Britain would agree to remain neutral if Germany refrained from violating German neutrality. Sir Edward Grey refused. Would he agree if Germany was to guarantee the integrity of both France and her colonies? No." [29] Now, No w, that is a fair summary of  what Germany asked, as a way of avoiding the war. So if there had been a will to avoid the war, can we agree that that is the last possible date on which an answer could have been given that could have avoided the war? Nine million people need not have died, if Grey had given a straight answer: 'Yes that sounds like a great deal, let's shake on it.' That was the last possible moment on which the catastrophe could have been avoided, which extinguished all the bright hopes and optimism of European civilization. Here is a nice simple summary of the enigma, e nigma, which a US President gave, years later, when the war was all over: "We know for a certainty that, if Germany had thought for a moment that Great Britain would go in with France and Russia, she would never have undertaken the enterprise.” [30] Now you should all appreciate, the enterprise here was the Schlieffen Plan - that if you are threatened by attack from Russia, which Germany was, you go into France, beat France, and then you can take on Russia - which sounds sort of horrific now, but that was the plan. It was a defensive plan, the only one they had. So, going into Belgium was Germany's defensive war plan. This is what one might call an early conspiracy-theory view, of what caused the war, that the  people visible in Britain, namely Churchill and Grey and Asquith, who were making the war  happen, were puppets., and behind them was an influential group. Rudolf Steiner said that this war was not wanted by people in Germany, there was not a force for war in Germany, that would  be unthinkable.[12] Germany wanted cultural growth and trade. He said: "Behind those who were in a way the puppets, there stood in England a powerful and influential group of people, who  pushed matters doggedly towards a war with Germany, and through whom the way was paved for the World War that had always been prophesied. How powerful was the group, who like an outpost of mighty impulses stood before the puppets in the foreground. These latter are perfectly honest people, yet they are a re puppets, and now they will vanish into obscurity." He is saying that  people, who we might nowadays call the international bankers, or the Illuminati or freemasons or  whatever, were behind these public figures. Reply to floor comment: The Kaiser desperately wanted a friendship friendship deal with Britain, Britain, where Germany was the main land-power and Britain rules the waves: couldn't there be some peace deal between them? He was very baffled that it couldn't be, and it couldn't be

 because of what we may call the Churchillian doctrine, that Britain always had to oppose the strongest power in Europe: an everlasting-war policy. That was the grounds on which Britain said, no we can't have a deal of security and peace with Germany. So tragically that couldn't happen. We're on the 3rd of August now, n ow, and this is the day when whe n Grey makes his speech to the Commons, on the grounds of Germany going into Belgium. Germany had politely asked Belgium if it could go through into France - a gentleman here [in the audience] says it was an invasion of Belgium, but there were legal precedents, of Britain asking permission to go through a country, to go to war - on being asked that, Belgium immediately contacted the British government to say it had been be en asked by Germany if it could c ould go through, and it was all-important for Britain that Belgium said, No, you cannot canno t go through, as that was going to be the grounds on which Britain could declare war. Here is what Bernard Shaw said: "The violation of Belgian neutrality by the Germans was the mainstay of our righteousness. I guessed that, when the German account of our dealings with Belgium reached the United States, it would b e found that our own account of the neutrality of Belgium was as little compatible with neutrality as the German invasion[13]."[33] We did not have a very righteous position in alluding to the [Belgian] Treaty of Perpetual  Neutrality, because as mentioned Britain had already violated it. Britain’s Prime Prime Minister  Asquith made a speech explaining why Britain had entered the war (on August 6th) based on the lie that that that treaty obliged us to come c ome to the rescue of Belgium. That Tha t Treaty had no clause whatever obliging countries to come to the defence of Belgium if it was invaded. If I may quote again from Hidden from Hidden History: History: "Germany offered Belgium friendly neutrality, if a safe passage

35 US poster, The Phantom Menace

could be allowed, because in its defence against France it had to have passage across Belgium." [34] There were precedents: in the Boer war British troops were permitted passage across neutral Portuguese territory, to fight in South Africa, so this was regarded a s having a legal precedent. It isn't just an invasion - though in a sense, because Belgium said no, there was fighting. What we may call the ‘Phantom Menace’ appears here as a horrific h orrific image of Germany, as if it were liable to come up onto on to the shores of America – atrocity propaganda for America, "Destroy this mad brute!" Massive lies were created by Britain's Ministry of Information, and it was found after the war that none of it had been true. Audience Comment: They shredded the archives of the lie-factory at the end of o f the war. This is a book which I recommend, Propaganda recommend, Propaganda for War , it’s very much from an American point of view. It's an excellent book about the atrocity propaganda from the first World War. (An earlier book, is the old classic Unconditional Hatred  by  by Captain Grenfell.) I'll just quote from it: "As passions cooled after the war, the gigantic lies created by American and British propaganda, were one by one exposed to the light." There is only o nly one authenticated atrocity story from the First World War, and that was the illegal blockade of Germany, which extended till after the war, so that about seven hundred thousand people died of starvation, that was the one authenticated atrocity of the First World War. Furthermore -you don't have to agree with me here - I would say that there was an asymmetry here, whereby the atrocity propaganda was mainly on the British

and American and somewhat French side, but not on the German side. The Germans didn't have the same concept of fabricating untruths to motivate their troops. Audience comment: A week before, on July 25th, the British treasury began printing special notes that were marked 'for war expen ses.'[14] Many believed that a mistake made by Germany leading to the war, was its building up a navy to rival Britain's, which led to an arms race, a huge military arms race. Germany said, we've got colonies, so we have to have a navy - some people said that was the great disaster, that they should not have done it. So here's a view from 1925, if you'll excuse me quoting Adolf Hitler, looking at what he thought was the terrible mistake which needed to be avoided. He was wondering, how friendship with Britain could be achieved, and why had it failed so badly in the war? "No sacrifice should have been too great … We should have renounced colonies and sea power, spared British industry our competition.” [37] Germany should remain a land power. Renunciation of a German war-fleet and power of the land army - that would, he reckoned, be the key to not aggravating Britain, whereby they could have peaceful, friendly relations in the future. Finally, here is a review of a hundred years of friendship and enmity of Germany and England  Best of Enemies, Enemies, by Richard Milton. He referred to Britain's propaganda machine as “An infernal engine created in war but impossible to switch off in peace." We may reflect upon the main thing to have come out from the First World War, in his view: The indelible memory of atrocity stories that had taken place only in the imaginations of British propaganda agents proved to be stronger and more persistent than any facts.


Slides used 1 Image: Your Country Needs You

2 Report by Col. Mandell House, May 1914: The situation is extraordinary. It is jingoism run stark mad. Unless someone acting for you [Wilson] can bring about a different understanding, there is coming some day an awful cataclysm. No one in Europe can do it. There is too much hatred, too many jealousies. Whenever England consents, France and Russia will close in on Germany and Austria.’

4 French position: Under Poincaré, the nature of the Franco-Russian alliance was fundamentally committed to war, not defence. Thus he visited Sazonov in St Petersburg to reassure him of French and British commitment to war with Germany… Edward Grey secretly assured Poincaré that Britain would support France and Russia as ‘an obligation obligation of honour’ should the Balkan trouble trouble lead to a European war.’ - Docherty & McGregor, Hidden McGregor, Hidden History, History, 2013, p.209, 236

5 Bertrand Russell’s Autobiography ‘I had noticed during previous years how carefully Sir Edward Grey lied in order to prevent the  public from knowing the methods by which he was committing us to the support of France in the event of war.’

6. Belgian non-neutrality: According to evidence later published in New York, the Belgians were advised in November  1912 by the British military that as soon as a European war broke out, 160,000 men would be transported to Belgium and northern France, with or without the permission of the Belgian government - Hidden - Hidden History, History, p.237

7. Kaiser as peacemaker  ‘Now ... he is acclaimed everywhere as the greatest factor for peace that our time can show. It was he, we hear, who again and again threw the weight of his dominating personality, backed by the greatest military organisation in the world – an organ isation built up by himself – into the  balance for peace wherever war clouds gathered over Europe.’ - New York Times, Times, ‘William II, II, King of Prussia and German Emperor, Kaiser 25 years a ruler, hailed as chief peacemaker’, 8 June 1913

8. Kaiser as peacemaker – 2 A former US President, William Howard Howard Taft, said of him: ‘The truth of history requires the verdict that, considering the critically important part which has been his among the nations, he has been, for the last quarter of a century, the single greatest force in the practical maintenance of peace in the world .’ In 1960 a BBC centenary centena ry tribute to the Kaiser was permitted to say: ‘Emphasis was placed on his love of England and his deep attachment to Queen Que en Victoria,’ his grandmother. Never had the Kaiser gone to war in 25 years on the throne, nor had the German army fought a battle in nearly half a century.

9 Kaiser Wilhelm

10 Colonel House’s view view of the Kaiser, 8 July 1914 Sir! Your Imperial Majesty will doubtless recall our conversation at Potsdam, and that with the President’s consent and approval I came to Europe for the purpose of ascertaining whether or not it was possible to bring about a better be tter understanding between the Great Powers … Because of the commanding position your Majesty occupies, and because of your well-known desire to maintain peace, I  came, as your Majesty knows, directly to Berlin. I can never forget the gracious acceptance of the general g eneral purposes of my mission, the masterly exposition of the orld-wide political conditions as they exist today and the prophetic forecast as to the future which your Majesty then made. I received every reasonable assurance of your  Majesty’s cordial approval of he President’s purpose, and I left Germany happy in the belief  that your Majesty’s great influence would be thrown in behalf of peace and the broadening of the world’s commerce … Edward House

11 Friendship Fest

June 23, 1914: Royal Navy battle squadron with new dreadnoughts dreadnou ghts sails into Kiel harbour. The Kaiser, wearing British British admiral uniform, inspects the King the King George V . June 28: assassination of Archduke Ferdinand.

12 Austria’s Ultimatum 24 July: Austria gives ultimatum to Serbia 26 July: Serbia accepts 9 out of 10 of Austrian demands. The Kaiser: ‘It was capitulation of the most humilating humilating sort. With it disappears every reason for war … Every cause for war now falls to the ground.’


Austria declares war.


Belgrade is shelled.

The Kaiser writes: ‘Stop in Belgrade!’

13 The Kaiser’s Advice

The Kaiser advocated a temporary military occupation: occupation: Let the Austrians occupy Belgrade until  Serbia accepts their demands – but stop at that. History, p.290 ‘On this basis, I am prepared to mediate for peace.’ -  Hidden History,

15 A Happy Man ‘Churchill was the only minister to feel any sense of e xultation at the course of events’ (his biographer John Charmley, on the days d ays leading up to the War) Churchill to his wife Clementine: ‘My darling one & beautiful. Everything tends towards catastrophe and collapse. I am interested, geared up and happy. Is it not horrible to be  built like that?’

‘Why I would not be out of o f this glorious delicious war for anything the world could give me.’ (Margot Asquith’s diary, January 1915)

16 Churchill sends British fleet to Germany on 28 July On July 26th, a ‘Test Mobilisation’ of the entire Royal Navy pa raded before the King at Spithead, after which the Navy was held in full battle-readiness. ‘Churchill, upon his own responsibility and against the express decision of the Cabinet, ordered the mobilisation of the Naval Reserve. ’ On the 27th, ‘the fleet [was] sent North’ Hugh Martin, Battle, Martin, Battle, the Life-story of the Rt Hon. Winston Churchill, 1937. Churchill secretly ordered the core of the fleet to move north to its protected wartime base .. riding at top speed and with its lights out, it tore through the night up the North sea.’ Adam Hochschild, To End All Wars, 2011, p.85.

17 To Prepare for War   Lord Nathaniel Rothschild made an unscheduled visit to Prime Minister Asquith to advise him on the preparations that his bank had put in place to prepare for war (Late July, 1914) - Hidden  History, p.290.  History, p.290. The Secret Elite meet:

29th July: Grey, Asquith, Haldane and Churchill had a meeting to discuss what Asquith called ‘the coming war.’

18 Harry Elmer Barnes, on war-initiation  The secret conference of Poincaré, P oincaré, Viviani and Messimy, in consultation with Izvolski, on the night of 29th of July, marks the moment momen t when the horrors of war were specifically unchained in Europe. - Barnes, The Genesis of the World War 1926 p.242 Compare: War was ‘deliberately, wilfully begun by Sazonov, Poincare and Sir Edward Grey, all a ll at the  behest of the secret elite in London.’ - Hidden History, p.297 History, p.297

19 The Secret Deal By secretly committing Britain to war for France, Grey, Churchill and Asquith left the Kaiser in the dark, unaware that a war with France meant war with the British empire. Britain turned the European war of August 1 into a world war… For Britain, World War 1 was was not a war war of necessity but a war war of choice.’  Buchanan,  -Buchanan, The Unnecessary War pp.50, War pp.50, 64

20 Kaiser telegrams Czar, 30 July I now receive authentic news of serious preparations for war on my Eastern frontier. … In my endeavours to maintain the peace of the world I have go ne to the utmost limit possible. The responsibility for the disaster which is now threatening the whole civilized world will not be laid at my door. In this moment it still lies in your po wer to avert it… My friendship for you and your  empire, transmitted to me by my grandfather on his deathbed has always been sacred to me and I have honestly often backed up Russia when she was in serious trouble e specially in her last war. The peace of Europe may still be maintained by you , if Russia will agree to stop the military measures which must threaten Germany and Austro-Hungary.

21 Timeline of war-outbreak  26th July: King reviews British fleet at Spithead, Churchill instructs it not to disperse. 27th Grey tells tells parliament he will resign, if Cabinet does not support his go-to-war-for-France go-to-war-for-France  policy. Churchill orders British fleet up to Scapa Flow. 29th Russia mobilised 30th Kaiser telegrams Tzar, ‘The ‘The peace of Europe may still still be maintained…’ st 31 Evening: French government ‘irrevocably decides’ to support Russia. French troops enter  Belgium 1st August, 1 am: French Govt. cables Russia, its war-support Noon: Grey – Lichnowsky conversation in London Night: Germany Germany declares war on Russia and mobilises 1st-2nd All Cabinet except Grey & Churchill are pro- British neutrality. 2nd Grey gives France the assurance of war-support. French planes flying over Belgium, German govt. warning to Belgium over neutrality violation violation th Tuesday 4 Germany invades Belgium, UK declares war on Germany, and then cuts the trans-Atlantic telephone cables from Germany 6th 200,000 of British Expeditionary Force to France

22 Kaiser Wilhelm’s diary 30-31st of July Frivolity and weakness are going to plunge the world into the most frightful war of which the ultimate object is the overthrow of Germany. For I no longer have any doubt that England, Russia and France have agreed among themselves – knowing that our treaty obligations compel us to support Austria – to use the Austro-Serb conflict as a pretext for waging a ar of annihilation against us.. . In this way the stupidity and clumsiness c lumsiness of our ally [Austria] is turned into a noose. So the celebrated encirclement of Germany has finally become an accepted fact... The net has suddenly been closed over our heads, and the purely anti-German policy hich England has been scornfully pursuing all over the world has won the most spectacular victory which we have proved ourselves powerless to prevent while they, having got us despite our struggles all alone into the net through our loyalty to Austria, proceed to throttle our political and economic existence. A magnificent achievement, which even those for whom it means disaster are bound b ound to admire.

23 H.G.Wells on Grey’s role ‘I think he (Gray) wanted the war and an d I think he wanted it to come when it did ... The charge is, that he did not definitely warn Germany, that we should certainly come into the war, that he was sufficiently ambiguous to let her take a risk and attack, and that he did d id this deliberately. I think  that this charge is sound. Autobiography

24  Daily News, News, August 1 ‘The greatest calamity in history is upon us … At this moment our fate is being sealed by hands that we know not, by motives alien to our interests, by influences that if we k new we should certainly repudiate

25 “Those dreadful fields of senseless carnage” ‘It came therefore to this. While negative assurances had been given to the House of Commons,  positive acts diametrically opposed to these assurances had been concerted by the War Office and the Admiralty with the authority of the Foreign Office. All the obligations of an alliance had  been incurred, but incurred by the most dangerous and subtle methods; incurred in such a way as to leave the Cabinet free to deny the existence of any formal parchment recording them, and free to represent its policy at home and abroad as one of contractual detachment d etachment from the rival Continental groups. - E.D. Morel, Truth and the War, 1916 War, 1916

26 The Secret Deal with France ‘The final mistake was that when, on the actual crisis arising, a decision one way o r the other  might and, so far as can be judged, would have averted the Continental war altogether ... The mischief is that Sir Edward Grey slipped into a new policy, but without either Army, or treaty, or  warrant of Parliamentary approval ... This country has a right to know its own obligations and  prepare to meet them and to decide its own destinies. When the most momentous decision of our  whole history had to be taken we were not free to decide. We entered a war to which we had  been committed beforehand in the dark, and Parliament found itself at two hours’ notice unable, had it desired, to extricate us from this fearful predicament... predicament... - The Earl Lorenburn, How Lorenburn, How the War Came, Came, 1919

27 ‘With a single sentence’ ‘A single sentence and the war in the West would not have taken place … It is really true that Sir Edward Grey could have prevented it with a single sentence… History will one d ay show that the neutrality of Belgium would never have h ave been violated if Sir Edward Grey had made the declaration which it would have been quite easy for him to make.’ Rudolf Steiner in December, 1916, concerning the meeting on August 1, 1914: The Karma of Untruthfulness

28 Grey, on his meeting with Lichnowsky, 1 August ‘He asked me whether, if Germany gave ga ve a promise not to violate Belgian neutrality we would engage to remain neutral. I replied that I could not say that: our hands h ands were still free, and we were considering what our attitude should be....I did not think that we could give a promise on that condition alone. The ambassador pressed me as to whether I could formulate conditions on which we would remain neutral. He even suggested that the integrity of France and her colonies might be guaranteed. I said that I felt obliged to refuse definitely any promise to remain neutral on similar  terms, and I could only say that we must keep our hands free.’ - Britain’s ‘Blue Book,’ HMSO, 1926, p.261.

29 A Summary of the August 1 meeting 'Now Prince Lichnowsky, the German Ambassador Ambassador in London, asked whether England would agree to remain neutral if Germany refrained from violating Belgium’s neutrality. Sir Edward Grey refused. Britain wanted to retain ‘a free hand’ (‘I did not think we could give a promise of  neutrality on that condition alone’). Would he agree if Germany were to guarantee the integrity of both France and her colonies? No.’ - Georg Brandes Farbenblinde Brandes Farbenblinde Neutralität, Zurich Neutralität, Zurich 1916 [15]

30 US President Woodrow Wilson, March 1919 ‘We know for a certainty that if Germany had h ad thought for a moment that Great Britain would go in with France and Russia, she would never have undertaken the enterprise.’

31 Rudolf Steiner, December 1616 Let me merely remark, that certain things happe ned from which the only sensible conclusion conc lusion to  be drawn later turned out to be the correct one, namely that behind those who were in a way the  puppets there stood in England a powerful and influential group of people

32 Poster: Remember Belgium

ho pushed matters doggedly towards a war with Germany and through whom the way as paved for the world war that had always been prophesied. For of course the way can be  paved for what it is intended should happen. is impossible to avoid realising how powerful was the group who like an outpost of mighty impulses, stood behind the puppe ts in the foreground. These latter are of course, perfectly honest people, yet they are puppets, and now they will vanish into obscurity. The Karma of Untruthfulness Vol.1, p84.

33 Bernard Shaw on Belgium ‘The violation of Belgian neutrality by the Ge rmans was the mainstay of our righteousness; and we played it off on America for much more than it was worth. I guessed that when the German account of our dealings with Belgium reached the United states, backed with an array of  facsimiles of secret diplomatic documents discovered by them in Brussels, it would be found that our own treatment of Belgium was as little compatible with neutrality as the German invasion. 34 Belgian ‘  Belgian ‘ invasion’ invasion’ 3 August: Germany offered Belgium friendly neutrality if German troops were offered safe  passage. ‘Germany would, by necessity, have to cross Belgium in its defence against France. Su ch temporary use of a right of way…There were precedents: during the Boer War, British troops were permitted passage across neutral Portuguese territory to fight in South Africa.’ - Hidden History, p. History, p. 326

36 Aftermath: the lies emerge

‘As passions cooled after the war, the gigantic lies created by Great Britain’s and America’s  propaganda were one by one exposed to the light. ‘The one true and perfectly pe rfectly authenticated ‘atrocity’ in the World War, and the situation which  produced by far the greatest suffering and death among the civilian population was the illegal  blockade of Germany, continued for many months after the armistice’. Stewart Ross, Propaganda Ross, Propaganda for War 2009, pp.24,47 2009, pp.24,47

37 An Ardent Anglophile on the Error that led to War  ‘No sacrifice should have been too great for winning England’s willingness. We should have renounced colonies and sea power, and spared English industry our competition. Only an absolutely clear orientation could lead to such a goal: renunciation of world trade and an d colonies; renunciation of a German war fleet; concentration concen tration of all the state’s instruments of power on the land army. The result to be sure would have been a momentary limitation but a great and mighty future.’ - Hitler, Mein Hitler, Mein Kampf (1925)

38 The Engine of Propaganda ‘…Britain’s propaganda machine, an infernal engine created in war, but impossible to switch off in peace.’

‘The indelible memory of atrocity stories that had taken place only in the imaginations of  British propaganda agents  proved to be stronger and more persistent than any facts. This curious discovery, the power of myths over facts, was the real legacy of the First World War.’ - Richard Milton, Best Milton, Best of Enemies, 2007, p.68.

Part II of ‘How Britain Initiated both World Wars’ *** World War Two

AGAIN WE LOOK AT THE IDEA of who wanted to start a world war. This might be too disturbing: if it is, we don't want to cause an y breach of the peace, peace , so we'll just back off and just have a chat, if anybody finds what I'm going to say now too disturbing: because, we're all heavily  programmed with this - the ultimate good guy Winston Churchill, Man of the Century, and the ultimate bad guy Adolf Hitler. I'm not concerned with judgments about who's good and who's  bad here. We're trying to talk about the idea of wanting a war to start. This is not the history of  the war, it’s the process of initiation. In 1936, Bomber Command comes co mes into existence and long-range bombers start to be constructed. Spaight of the Air Ministry explained: "The whole raison d'etre of Bomber  Command was to bomb Germany, should she be our enemy."[16] [See slide No.1] So if you  believe that wars happen in accordance with the technology that exists, the manufacturing of  these long-range bombers indicates some new intention - Bomber - Bomber Command  by  by Max Hastings says, the Lancasters were "heavy bombers which no other country in the world could match" and Germany and France had lighter bombers, primarily for air-support. They didn't build planes with the intention of bombing cities - whereas British planes could fly high and drop their   bombs, and had a long range. This begins in 1936. While researching my book [17], I came across quite a lot of statements by Jews about the fact that a World War was going to happen, happe n, a war against Germany. We all know that Jews declared economic warfare against Germany in 1933, and I'm not being judgmental - what Hitler had written in Mein in Mein Kampf , you can appreciate that they'd be annoyed. But as well as this, there are statements that a war is going to come: "Hitler will have no war, but we will force it on him, not this year but soon" and "We will trigger a spiritual and material war of all the world against Germany" and "Our Jewish interests demand the complete destruction of Germany." [3] You might say that no truer words were ever spoken in the 20th century – that country’s breeding and

reproduction rate is presently at a low level which cannot possibly recover, and it may be inevitable now that German culture will fade away. So it's "a spiritual and material war" that is here blueprinted, and we may reflect on what happened at Nuremberg, when monstrous accusation were formulated against Germany, after it had been pulverised and destroyed. Later on, when war was declared, de clared, we get statements like these: "Israeli people around the world declare economic and financial war, holy war against Hitler's people" and "Even if we Jews are not bodily with you in the trenches, we are nevertheless with you. This is o ur war, and you are fighting it for us" - in other words, the Jews are glad to have the goyim goy im fighting each other one more time. There is a frightening book by b y a Tory MP Captain Archibald Ramsey calledThe called The ameless War   - which you might find hard to get - and he was put in jail throughout the war by Churchill, for his anti-war activity, and he said: “International Judaism has demonstrated by the course of the 20th century, that it could start a war” and destroy Germany, by a "spiritual and material war." [5] That obviously is very politically incorrect view. But if yo u ask, Who in the 1930s wanted another war, when nearly all the world was praying desperately that it should not happen? you do find these sources. After the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was kind of chopp ed up, the peoples who felt they were German had been separated into different nations, like a jellyfish chopped up into different bits, and they were wanting to come together again, the different bits were wanting to reconnect. At  Nuremberg it was declared, that these were wars of aggression, aggression, when Hitler went into different countries -they said he invaded Austria, he invaded Czechoslovakia and he invaded Poland. But, I want to try and put a different point of view here: these were Germanic people who were German and wanted to re-join Germany. When the German troops went into Austria, they were greeted with flowers being thrown in their path, an d there was no military action, there was rejoicing, and I believe the same happened when they went into the Sudetenland, which was a  part of Czechoslovakia, that they were greeted by people who wanted to be part of Germany. Germany had been immensely successful in the 1930s, with its prodigious economic recovery, and that became a motive for peoples wanting to be a part of Germany. There was division around Danzig between people who felt they were German, in land that had  been given to Poland. This became a terrible provocation which soon led to the war. There was a  policy enunciated at Chatham House, which one could argue was being pursued by Germany.[8] After WW1, Britain and America had been talking about the right of determination of small nations, self-determination, that was a kind of mantra, and the Americans especially liked it as their formula for dismantling the British Empire -the right of self-determination of small nations. People were trying to think of, what wha t had been the point po int of the first World War? Ah yes, it was Belgium's right of self-determination. Could that formula also be applied to, say, Austria, or to German-speaking people in different countries? Let's hear what was said by Lord Lothian, who addressed Chatham House in 1927: If the principle of self-determination were applied on behalf of Germany, in the way that it was applied against them, it would mean the re-entry of Austria into Germany, the union of Sudetenland, Danzig, and of Memel in and at least certain adjustments of  Poland and Silesia in the Corridor.

The key question here is, did Germans, people who feel they are German, have a right to gather  together into one country? This was what wha t Hitler called the 'Reich,' the idea of that togetherness, that would be larger than what was originally defined as Germany in 1871. Did they have that right - or, would that threaten other European countries? That is here the question. Let’s focus especially on what happened to Poland in 1939. Land had been ripped away from Germany by the Treaty of Versailles at the end of the war, and given to Poland. What was defined as Poland had at most 50% of native Polish people in it, and they were trying to assert a national identity, very much by getting rid of people who they felt were outsiders, ou tsiders, and this was having catastrophic consequences. The historian A.J.P. Taylor said, "Danzig was the most justified of German grievances - a city of  exclusively German population, which wished to return to the Reich, and Hitler himself  restrained only with difficulty”.[9] Germany asked: Can we build a railway and road connecting Germany with Danzig? Poland did not even reply. Britons were concerned about German expansion, they said, you're grabbing this and you're grabbing that, and so the fatal war-guarantee was given to Poland. That led to even more truculent behavior by Poland, once Chamberlain had given it his unconditional war-guarantee. In A.J.P. Taylor’s view, there had been no intention to intention to invade Poland - I think that's important. [9] Everyone nowadays believes in Hitler's bad faith, but he said, with the Czechoslovak deal, that was his last demand for land. He didn't intend to go into Poland. I want to suggest that - or  rather, A.J.P. Taylor is saying that - he wanted Germany and Poland to remain on good terms. We recall that a non-aggression pact had been signed in 1934 between Germany and Poland. Here the philosophy was, that in the last war, there had been mutual defence agreements all round Europe that had somehow flipped over to become offensive. Countries signed up to what they said was a defensive agreement, and it all went horribly wrong. So, Germany and Poland instead tried to make a non-aggression pact, which was valid for ten years. It was simply a  promise, we will not invade each other. At that time, the Polish army was much bigger than the German army. That was allright, until Poland had a change in chancellor cha ncellor in the mid-thirties, who rejected that and took a totally different view as we'll see. The land in question grabbed by Poland had traditionally been German land - militarily-governed  by Poland long after the truce in 1918, to the newly-made state of Poland. So what was regarded as German aggression and the cause of WW2 - going into Poland - you could say this was just traditional German land being taken back. The non-aggression pact that Germany and Poland made did not allow any reporting of Polish atrocities against minority Germans. That caused the emigration of a million Germans. This is a story which you'll ge nerally find missed-out of history  books: the fate of Germans living in what had become Poland, since the Treaty of Versailles. Late in 1938 Hitler made this offer to Poland Po land [11], - it would have guaranteed gu aranteed its boundaries and  protected it against Soviet Russia. It had the German free state of Danzig given a road and rail connection, as it desired to be a part of Germany. And then - this is a bit more controversial - a  plebiscite would be given to West Prussia, as to who they wanted to belong to. Poland is

guaranteed an open sea-port, and they would then continue with the non-aggression pact. Poland didn't respond to that deal at all - very truculent behavior. My understanding - which you may disagree with – is that a hundred thousand Germans had to flee to the woods; or be under  shelling from Polish troops from over the borders; “more than seventy thousand refugees had to  be housed in German refugee camps. The aggression against Germans increased on a daily  basis." [11] It may be hard to believe this, but Poland was wanting  war  war with Germany. [14] It published a map of Europe showing a whole lot of Germany carved out and having become Poland. This  became far worse when in March, 1939, Chamberlain gave this unconditional war-guarantee to Poland. It had had a non-aggression pact with Germany, and that was rejected, and instead there was a war-guarantee: which said that in any war with Germany, even if Poland starts it, Britain it, Britain would come in. That was just what Poland wanted because it did want war. Poland intensified its persecution of the German minority. Speaking German in public was  prosecuted - this is land that had been German, up until 1918. German-associated newspapers were suppressed, and so forth. The Germans felt this nullified the agreement which they had made at Munich in September 1938 for Britain and Germany to work closely together to maintain the peace. Chamberlain had felt he wanted to do something, but what was he going to do? Buchanan in his The Unnecessary War  tends  tends to regard it as the most foolish act of statesmanship in British history - the war-guarantee given to Poland. People just couldn't believe that Britain had done such a thing. I recommend that book as the best possible analysis of this catastrophic moment, which precipitated the truculent Polish behavior. When we look back at the way the war broke out, we may wonder, could not Germany have just done nothing for a few years? y ears? After all, Czechoslovakia and Austria, weren’t they enou gh? Couldn't it have just stayed that way, just left it, left the Danzig problem, just let everything calm down - couldn't it have just done nothing? Well, let us suppose there were people who wanted war - if we suppose that - once that British war-guarantee had been given, all they had to do was intensify the persecution of Germans in that part of Poland, until Germany had to do something about it. So, here is a German view I've got - and it's difficult to get a German view on the subject, isn't it? You hardly h ardly get books [18] translated from the German available. I got this from a we bsite  - ‘The British promise to wage war against Germany, if only Poland would succeed to get Germany into the war, even by aggression’ - so Poland's rabid incitement against Germany was escalated, Polish newspapers demand the occupation of Danzig, all of East Prussia, they advocate Poland should push its  border all the way to the river, maybe annexing Berlin. They felt they'd got the superior army, and this was kind of truculent behavior, and the new President of Poland said (1939) “Poland wants war with Germany, and Germany will not be able to avoid it, even e ven if she wants to”. That was true enough. Poland seems to have thought that a cavalry charge could somehow manage against the German tanks. Nobody quite knew how … yes?

Audience comment: …’Roosevelt was on the phone pho ne continually in this pre-war period, [19] encouraging the Poles to act intransigently.’  Yes thank you for that. You will not readily find that in the history books, for example this one, [The [The Unnecessary War, Buchanan] excellent though it is, gives no accounts of the open terror, murder and rape in the months preceding September ’39. This may be something where one has to get so-called ‘farright’ Revisionist books [i.e., books that will attend to Germany’s viewpoint] to find a mention. On my understanding that is why Germany had to do something, had ha d to take some sort of action. Here’s a British ex-pat giving a testimony[20]:[15] “Terrorists began murdering civilians in large numbers. On the nights of August 25th to August 31, that is just days day s before the war, there are authenticated acts of armed violence against ag ainst German officials and property. These incidents took   place on the border or inside German territory.” So, deliberate provocation was going on. “Mobs were assaulting thousands of men, women and children” – so Germany was I would suggest coming to the rescue of these Germans who were being done in. On August 30th, Poland orders total mobilisation – under the Protocols of the League of Nations, that is equivalent to a declaration of war [21]. [17] One could argue that it was Poland that effectively declared war and Germany had to respond. Germany then goes in, at the beginning of  September, to the pre-Versailles German areas given to Poland. Was that aggression? I’m saying that there was a reason for Germany having to do this, and that it was not part of the original  plan. They had originally asked for Danzig to be returned, for a connection to be made with Danzig. If England had wanted to avoid the war, it could have leant on Poland, to give some sort of rights to the German minorities there. And, it could have leant on Poland to agree to a railway  being built. I’d have thought that these were reasonable demands, that if Anglo-German friendship had been desired, that could have been done, as far as I can see, to remove this immediate cause of war. Germany thought that by going in with the Soviet Union, that would somehow not activate the British guarantee to Poland – that, with those two going in together, Britain would not declare d eclare war on both of them. Upon entering Danzig, the German army are showered are showered with flowers. Here flowers. Here is a comment from a German commander, about that reception. “It was like this everywhere – in the Rhineland, in Vienna, in the Sudeten territories and in Memel – do you still doubt the mission of the Fuhrer?” [18] That is greatly missed out from modern accounts, that there was rejoicing amongst the German people, when a connection was made with the motherland of Germany. At Nuremberg, these were describe as wars of aggression – aggression – he’s gone in here, he’s gone in there,  but another way of looking at it, is that there were different populations who felt they were German wanting to live together and wanting to be together, and the whole Second World War  was about that not  being  being permitted. No, that greater expanse of Europe, of people wanting to be German together, cannot be permitted. Here is as it were the greater Germany that tried to come together, [19] and everybody e verybody decided it

could not be allowed. Czechoslovakia was very outrageously occupied. Hitler went into Prague –  that was (I suggest) the terrible, catastrophic error that he made, o f going into Prague where he had no business to be. Czechoslovakia (1918-1993) was what we would nowadays call a failed state. It was coming apart in 1938. It was patched together in the Treaty of Versailles from divers  bits of Europe that didn’t want to be together. Instead of just saying, this is is outrageous German aggression, we could say, Sudetenland wanted to be part of Germany, and likewise the Poles in Czechoslovakia wanted to be part of Poland. So it kind of broke up. I may not be defending what the Germans did, of going into Czechoslovakia. France invaded Germany on September 7th, to eight kilometres. We’re always told how wicked it is for Germany to have occupied France, so let’s just point out that France did invade Germany a week after Britain declared war. I want to look at the subject of German peace-offers, I think this is relevant to the question of  who was responsible for the war and who wh o started the war. Possibly the best book on the subject is  Himmler’s Secret War  by  by Martin Allen – I had ha d quite a bit to do with investigating this book.[22] It describes the cascade of German peace-offers peac e-offers that kept appearing, right through the war [23], and how Churchill first of all forbade anyone to look at them, and then, towards the end of 1940 the British black-ops started to use the peace offers, to manipulate Ge rmany, by making them think  they would take them seriously, while actually they just wanted the appearance of using u sing them for   purposes of deception. Let’s have a quote. Hitler said, “I’ve always expressed to France my desire to bury forever our  ancient enmity, and bring together these two nations, both of which have such glorious pasts… I have devoted no less effort to an achievement of Anglo-German understanding, no more than that, of Anglo-German friendship. At no time and a t no place have I ever acted contrary to British interests… Why should this war in the West be fought ?” ?” [21] Two main German peaceoffers came in October 1939 and July 1940, both dismissed by Britain. Are you surprised if I say that Hitler always had a deep admiration for Britain, always wanted friendship with Britain, is that surprising? Hitler’s Mein Hitler’s  Mein Kampf  was  was totally banned during the War, because it had a major theme, of the tremendous importance of goo d relations with Britain. He would watch films of say the British in India, a nd he would say, there, that’s the master-race, that’s what the master-race was like. If I may quote Richa rd Milton’s fine book, Best book, Best of Enemies: Enemies: “The leader of the resurgent German nation and the Nazi party was a self-professed Anglophile, whose primary foreign–policy aim was an alliance with Britain.” [22] This may remind us of the Kaiser yearning for a deal of friendship that co uld never happen. Let’s quote from David Irving, his Hitler’s his Hitler’s War. (His War. (His first book on Dresden had been be en an international bestseller). He was well-known, respected and liked, and then he did ten years’ yea rs’ research on Hitler’s on Hitler’s War , using original sources, from people who know him and so forth, and again it sold rather well - but Macmillan pulped all his books and he suddenly found himself  ersona non grata. grata. Anyway here’s a quote from him. Rudolf Hess asked him, ‘“Mein Fuhrer, are your views about the British still the same?” Hitler gloomily sighed, “If only the British knew how little I little I ask of them.” How he liked to leaf through the glossy pages of Tatler, studying the

British aristocracy in their natural habitat! Once he was overheard to say, “Those are valuable specimens, those are the ones I’m going to make peace with”’. [23] So he was scheming how to make peace with Britain, but he never quite made it. Terrific non-stop fantasizing goes on about Germany having wanted to invade Britain. I see the magazine History magazine History Today this Today this week has got a big item on it. The British were being given gas masks etc to prepare for when this wicked man would come to take over our country. If I may quote two quite respected sources [24]: Sir Basil Hart, Revolution Hart, Revolution in Warfare, Warfare, and History of 2nd World War- There was “a but faintly imagined and conditional plan to invade Britain in the summer of 1940”. Basically, they just wanted to get up to Biggin Hill and stop the bombers taking off. I suggest that any desire to invade Britain was motivated by a desire to stop those  bomber planes taking off, that were incinerating the cities of Germany. Also, “At no time did this man Hitler pose or intend a real threat to Britain or to the Empire” - that was David Irving’s view, that I suggest we should accept. A.J.P. Taylor, the renowned historian, has well de scribed the Second World War in which sixty million people died as “Less wanted by nearly everybody than almost any other war in history.” Was it even less wanted less wanted than the First World War? We here h ere pose the question, who wants it to happen, who makes it happen? ha ppen? Once again Winston Churchill was the First Sea-Lord, the same  position as he held in the First World War. Initially Initially he held that position, then he became Prime Minister. We listen to his Reasons for War, as to why there should be another war with Germany. Back in  November 1936 he said: “Germany is becoming too powerful, we have to crush it”. That’s years  before any war breaks out. David Irving discovered – unhappily for his reputation – that the group Focus was set up in 1936 by the Chair of the Board of Jewish Deputies, basically Churchill’s bills. [27] As a membership group, ‘The Anti-Nazi League’, or the Focus, it  promoted and supported Churchill, and its imperative was – quoting David Irving – “first of all, all, the tune that Churchill had to play was, fight Germany”. Churchill’s debts from gambling and heavy boozing – and he had been a hospitalized alcoholic, let’s bear that in mind – all his bills for brandy would be paid, and his stately home would not be auctioned off, thanks to this group, The Focus.

Let’s have a few more of Churchill’s Chu rchill’s Reasons for War. In 1939, “This war is an English war, and its goal is the destruction of Germany”. What kind of war-aim is that? Normally wars are fought for some land-purpose, or because you are annoyed, or somebody has insulted you, or you need some raw materials. But no - this is a goal which does not permit any negotiation. nego tiation. Diplomats cannot resolve this, if the guy in charge says the goal is the destruction d estruction of Germany - this being the mightiest nation in the centre of Europe, this being the Christian heart of Europe. The two strongest nations in Europe inevitably are going to be Britain and Germany, because they have got the iron and coal underneath the ground. They are inevitably the strongest. Anyone who wants to foster war between Britain and Germany, can only be wanting the destruction of  Europe, or the undermining and disintegration of Europe, that’s (I suggest) the only possible motive. Then Churchill said, “You must understand, this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism,  but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all.” [28] What kind of statement is that? I suggest that you will not find in the utterances of Winston Churchill, any trace of ethics or morality. This is the Man of the Century and it’s just my interpretation. Again Churchill: “The war is not just a matter of elimination of fascism in Germany, but rather about obtaining German sales markets.” Huh? Then again: “Germany’s unforgiveable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy from out of the world trade system and build up an independent exchange system from which the world finance could not profit any more.” The ever-glorious eve r-glorious achievement of Nazi Germany in the 1930 s was to manage its own banking system, away from the tentacles of Rothschild control. It printed its own money at source, that’s why it had that terrific economic recovery, that no other European country could match. No other country before or since in Europe managed that in the 20th century, escaping from the clutches of international ba nkers. Churchill is seeing that as a Reason for War. Those are the reasons given by Churchill, which you may or may not find much sense in.

He gets elected on May 10th ,and on the next day May 11th city bombing begins. This is the most terrible crime ever conceived by the mind of man, to ignite cities full of people. How can anyone  be so wicked as to want to do such a thing? It begins with cities like Hamburg, Duesberg, and these are not reported in the British newspapers. Let’s hear from an important philosophical book   by Veale, Advance Veale, Advance to Barbarism, the Development of Total Warfare: “The “The raid on the night of  th May 11 , 1940, was an epoch-making event, since it was the first deliberate breach of the fundamental rule of civilized warfare, that hostilities must only be waged against enemycombatant forces.” You don’t hear a lot about this in official accounts of the war. Floor comment about German bombing of the Spanish town Guernica in 1930s. It was less than a hundred deaths, Communists were retreating, I d on’t think that’s in any way comparable to what’s happening here. This then continues, with Churchill wanting to provoke Hitler to return the bombing, and he’s frustrated that it doesn’t happen. Starting on May 11th, there was a pretence that it was against the Ruhr’s industrial targets, but actually the planes are flying high, dropping their bombs whenever they see the lights of a city - it is city-bombing. AJP Taylor was a brilliant and very successful historian, who could never ever get to lecture at Oxford University again, after these words of his were published: “The almost universal belief that Hitler started the indiscriminate  bombing of civilians, whereas it was started by the directors of British British strategy, as some of the more honest among them have boasted.” To what was he alluding? The first carpet-bombing of a German city was Duesberg on 15th May, followed by Hamburg on the 16th, as not  reported  reported in British newspapers. The British people don’t know this is happening, that is my impression. Churchill defines the point of the war in the House of Commons on May 13th, as Britain’s new Prime Minister. He says “our aim, in one word is victory, victory at all costs”. [32] What could victory mean, over a country coun try that has never ever wanted to fight Britain, always wanted friendship with Britain? It’s triggered by Poland, a country that did not then exist, having been swallowed up by Germany and the Soviet Union, so what would victory mean? Victory I suggest means what he has earlier defined, viz. the destruction of Germany. I suggest that is the war-aim that is implied, when he says victory at all costs. What he here means by victory, implies that any negotiation is pointless. There’s nothing to negotiate about, he just wants to smash Germany. I would suggest that Churchill’s foreign policy is fully expressed in three words, wreck, smash, destroy. destroy. That’s just a personal impression of course. He ge ts a thrill out of all this. He’s very good at organizing. He creates the terrific fantasy - which British people still believe to this day that a monstrous fiend wanted to invade this island. Why? Because it wanted world-domination. That is the ‘evil monster’ he was fighting against – which Britons still believe, to this day. What happened at Dunkirk has, ha s, for the first time, appeared into a mainstream book [Buchanan, The Unnecessary War ] – before that it had been be en just a few weirdo revisionists who believed it.[24] The British army had been totally routed and was cornered on the beaches of Dunkirk. It was totally at the mercy of the German troops, who were about to wipe them out, and then suddenly an order came from the top level, to stop. No, you’re not allowed to wipe out these British troops? Why not? The generals didn’t believe it, they said, this must be a mistake. And they started to close in, then another order came. Then Hitler himself turned up. [33]

Here was the most terrible row that Hitler had with Rudolf Hess, his c hief advisor and soul-mate in all of this. Hess said, for God’s sake go in, you’ve got to wipe them out, it’s the only way, if  you want to win the war. And he said, ‘No, I will not do d o it, I will not attack these British troops’. Why not? Let’s read what he said. Here is one report, of an astounded general having Hitler  himself lecturing him. “He, Hitler, astonished us by speaking with ad miration of the British Empire” – this is at Dunkirk, right? “Of the n ecessity for its existence, and of the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church.” The two institutions he admired most in the world were the Catholic Church and the British Empire, as being forces for stability. The things he ha ted most were the Bolsheviks and international finance. “He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church, they were both essential elements of stability in the world. All he wanted from Britain, was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in difficulties anywhere.” I believe that the Kaiser did that too – both Kaiser and Hitler made the offer, that they would be happy to lend German troops in support, should there be anywhere that the British Empire needed support. In WW2 Britain had a very clear choice, of Germany in favour of the British Empire and supporting it, and praising it and admiring it, whereas America had a clear policy of   breaking up the British Empire because it wanted its own. That was a very clear choice Britain had, whom to ally with. Here is another astonished general remembering from Dunkirk, who had Hitler explaining to him why Brits stranded on the beach there should not be wiped out, but instead they should all be allowed to return to England. [34] He cherished the vain and absurd a bsurd hope that this would lead to some sort of friendship or acceptance of a deal for ending the war. But Bu t instead, Churchill just made up his own story about abou t it, and it was more or less forgotten. Hitler had then explained: “The blood of every single Englishman is too valuable to be shed … Our two people belong together racially and traditionally. This is and always has been my aim.” We are Anglo-Saxons and the Germans are Saxons. How is it possible that we should be fighting ea ch other? Floor comment – Speak for yourself, I am Celtic. This is at the end of May when Churchill has come into power, and has initiated the bombing of  German cities. So this Dunkirk episode happens – I feel there is a contrast here of o f sanity and madness – with Hitler saying that Germany and Britain should never fight each other, and wanting some kind of friendship. What he wa s up against was what we may call the ‘Phantom Menace,’ the demonised enemy image: here is the arch-fiend who wants world-domination and so on. We can’t do a deal, and Germans are so wicked that we’ve just got to bomb their cities the most unbelievably horrific concept. Here is a chap who worked for the British Air Ministry. He is explaining – and there aren’t many  books which frankly describe how the RAF started bombing cities - the “Strategic Bombing Offensive.” [35] Quoting from his book called Bombing called Bombing Vindicated : “We have shrunk from th giving our great decision of May 11  the publicity which it deserved.” He explained that Hitler

had not wanted the mutual bombing to go on: “Again and again the German official reports applauded the reprisal elements in the actions o f the Luftwaffe … If you stop bombing us, we’ll stop bombing you.” To this day, British people do not believe that, do they? They will admire the heroism of the Battle of Britain and the Blitz, but will not believe that a peace offer was always on the table: If you stop bombing b ombing us, we’ll stop bombing you. This one-sided on e-sided bombing of  German cities went on for three whole months, before the Germans responded. The Luftwaffe finally bombed London, on September 6th. Peace-leaflets were dropped over London in June 1940, called “an appeal to reason,” quoting Hitler that, “I can see no reason why this war must go on” [34]. He talked about the enemy who “for the second time has declared war upon us for no reason whatever.” A crucial moment when Churchill killed the peace offensive in England, Irving said, was July 1940. Here is a quote from Mein from Mein Kampf  showing  showing Hitler’s admiration of Britain, of what he sees as the tough quality of the British people, whereby they got their empire. [Slide 38]. What we might call David Irving’s thesis, as I’m not aware of any other historian who has  backed this up, has British city-bombing start on 11th May and that carries on, with massive massive  bombing of Berlin for example in August as a hundred planes go over and start bombing Berlin, repeatedly, whereas only on the 6th September does the Luftwaffe come and bomb London. Then East London goes up in flames, and Churchill finally gets what he wants. At last he can sit back  and enjoy another lovely war! He leaves London whenever he gets intelligence in advance that the bombing is going to come. He is perfectly safe, then returns the next morning and wanders round, greeting people amidst the wreckage of their homes. They say, Good old Winnie, we knew you’d stand by us! He has brought on the bombing of London by this manipulation. Let’s be aware that, as Prime Minister, he can simply ring up Bomber Command: ‘I want a hundred bombers go over to Berlin’ – he doesn’t have to go through Parliament or anything. It is staggering and horrific that a Prime Minister can do that, can more or less get a war going of his own initiative. On what one might call David Irving’s thesis, Luftwaffe that drop bombs on London town are reprimanded,  because only military targets are allowed, and that is a strict policy; whereas by mistake, mistake, on August 24th, some bombers go too far and drop stuff on London - that mistake enables ena bles the big response, that Churchill wants. That is Irving’s theme which seems quite likely. This is just echoing what we have just said, a peace message did come through from Sweden, Victor Mallett [39] and the War Cabinet gave instructions to ignore it. What was called the Blitz began on the 6th September, when the Luftwaffe set East Londo n alight. Let me quote a great g reat modern revisionist Arthur Butz, in The Hoax of the 20th Century  (1976): “The British people were not permitted to find out that the government could cou ld have stopped the German raids at any time, merely by stopping the raids on Germany.” [41] People are thrilled by the suffering, with the Blitz being regarded as our finest hour, ‘We survived the Blitz.’ One should rather ask people, Why did you want to have that? What was the point of   bombing Germany so that you could have a Blitz in London? Was it just so Churchill could

enjoy his war, or was there some other o ther purpose, apart from devastating cities in Europe?

Image: The Blitz Peace offers were coming though the King of Sweden, through the Pope, all sorts of people were giving these, all being ignored. Let me cite one of these, in November 1940. [43] This one was so good it was quite difficult for the British government to ignore it: All these countries in in Europe – Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, France to be independent and free states. The political independence and national identity of a Polish state to be restored – remember  Poland had been swallowed up. So Germany would do its bit to restore it, it couldn’t do anything about what Russia had. Czechoslovakia would not be prevented from developing her national character” – so if  there were bits of Czechoslovakia that wanted to be together, Germany would not prevent that. It would like some German colonies restored, and greater European economic solidarity to  be pursued. That was the crux of this offer that came in November 1940. His book has been very much attacked and denounced by the British establishment, and Martin Allen, I surmise he’s been  bumped off actually, or he is no longer around. We tried to contact him, after he came out with this book and they tried to discredit it, by claiming that letters he used in the National Archive were forged – I won’t go all that – but I don’t think he’s around a round anymore.[25] He described this as “a peace offer so generous that it left most of Britain’s war aims sounding utterly hollow.” This rather refutes, I suggest, the idea that Germany sought world-domination. I think that is rather  refuted. Such peace offers being just dismissed may tend to show, who wanted the war. Two million tons of bombs were dropped in this ghastly process, reducing to rubble the wonderful cultural heritage of Europe - by Britain and America. People say, how terrible, what the Nazis did to Coventry, how wicked! [45] But they never appreciate the ratio of tonnage of   bombs dropped by each side, a twenty-to-one ratio: twenty-to-one ratio: the tonnage of bombs dropped on Germany, compared to what they dropped on Britain. Here’s an analysis of it, showing a mere five percent of total bombs dropped fell on Britain.

David Irving argued that what happened with the attack on Warsaw was not comparable to what Britain did with city bombing: then, notice was given, leaflets were dropped warning the civilian  population, and every effort was made, I think, to resolve the situation amicably before war   broke out. Then a formal ultimatum was given. Bombardment of a city is allowed under these conditions under the Hague Conventions. [46] I would say that Germany fought both wars in accord with the Hague Conventions, which you can’t say for this country. I’m asking you the question really, we’ve looked at two different world wars, do you feel there was anything in common regarding the way they were initiated and the motives for them? Have I completely distorted things in saying that Germany didn’t want these wars and was very much the victim? ..

* * * * * **

Slides Used

1 Bomber command 1936: ‘Bomber Command’ comes into existence, a nd long-range bomber planes start to be constructed. Its purpose was candidly described by J.M.Spaight of the Air Ministry: ‘The whole raison d’etre of d’etre of Bomber Command was to bomb Germany should she be our enemy.’ So, those who wanted war started planning for it.

2 Plans for City Bombing Bombing The Lancasters were ‘heavy bombers which no other country in the world could match.’ Germany and France had lighter bombers ‘primarily for air support,’ or ‘tactical air power.’ Max Hastings, Bomber Hastings, Bomber Command  1979,  1979, 50.

3 Jews Declare War  “We Jews are going to bring bring a war on Germany.” D.A. Brown, National Chairman, United United Jewish Campaign,1934 “Hitler will have no war (does not want war), but we will force it on him, not this year, but soon” Emil Ludwig Cohn in Les in Les Annales, June 1934 ‘We will trigger a spiritual and material war of all the world against Germany’s ambitions to  become once again a great nation, to recover lost territories and colonies. But our Jewish interests demand the complete destruction destruction of Germany.’ - Vladimir Jabotinsky (founder of terror  group, Irgun Zvai Leumi) in Mascha in Mascha Rjetsch, Rjetsch, January 1934

4 “The Israeli people around the world world declare economic and financial war against Germany…

holy war against Hitler’s people.” 8 Sept 1939, Jewish 1939, Jewish Chronicle, Chronicle, declared by Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist leader  “Even if we Jews are not bodily b odily with you in the trenches, we are nevertheless morally with you. This is OUR WAR, and you are fighting it for us.” —   Les Nouvelles Litteraires, Litteraires, 10 February 1940

5 Captain Ramsey’s View  “International Judaism has demonstrated by the cou rse of the 20th century that it could cou ld start war” and destroy Germany by “a spiritual spiritual and material war.” - Tory MP Captain Archibald Ramsay, The Nameless War (1952)

Captain Ramsey

7 Chatham House policy, 1927  German policy adhered closely to the opinions of Lord Lothian in an address in 1927 at Chatham House said: ”Now, if the principle of self-determination were applied on behalf of  Germany, in the way that it was applied against them, it would mean the re-entry of  Austria into Germany, the union of Sudetenland, Danzig, and probably Memel with Germany and at least certain adjustments with Poland in Silesia and in the Corridor” - Fish, H., FDR: H., FDR: The Other Side of the Coin, Coin, 1976, p108 6 Germany after Versailles

9 A.J.P. Taylor’s view ... Danzig was the most justified of German grievances: a city of exclusively German population which manifestly wished to return to the Reich and which Hitler himself restrained only with difficulty… The destruction of Poland had been no part of his original project. On the contrary, he had wished to solve the question of Danzig so that Germany and Poland could remain on good terms...” Origin of 2nd  WW


Polish ‘corridor’

10 Polish border  The “Peace Makers” in Versailles granted most of the German land militarily conquered

 by Poland long after the truce in 1918 to the newly made state of Poland. Under the nonaggression treaty German newspapers were not allowed to report on Polish atrocities against the minority Germans, which led to the emigration of a million Germans.

11 Offer to Poland October 1938 • Guarantee of its boundaries, even to protect it against Soviet Russia. • Return of the German free State of Danzig, with road & rail connection • Plebiscite to be given to West Prussia. Poland gets open-sea port • Extend polish-German non-aggression pact Polish Response: a hundred thousand Germans h ad to flee to the woods, or, under shelling from Polish soldiers, over the borders. Between March and August more than 70.000 refugees had h ad to  be housed in German refugee camps & the aggression against Germans increased on a daily  basis.

12 British War-Guarantee The British war-guarantee of 31 March 1939 gave Poland carte blanche in its dealings with Germany. Poland intensified its persecutions of the German minority. Abductions beca me common, speaking German in public was proscribed, German associations and newspapers were suppressed, the German consul in Krakow was murdered, etc. This nullified the Munich agreement of September 1938 for Britain & Germany to work closely together to avoid war; also the Polish-German-Polish Declaration of non-aggression (1934).

13 Effect of British war-guarantee The British promised to wage war against Germany, if only Poland would succeed to get Germany into the war, even by aggression! This immediately escalated Poland’s rabid incitement against Germany. Polish newspapers demanded the occupation of Danzig, all of  east Prussia, in fact they advocated that Poland should push its border all the way to the Oder River, some again advocated the annexation of Berlin and even Hamburg William J. Scott, Deutsche Scott, Deutsche Staatszeitung , March 20, 2010

14 Poles demand war  “Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it even if she wants to.” - Poland’s President Edward Rydz-Smigly, Daily Rydz-Smigly, Daily Mail , August 6th, 1939.[26] The German minority had been disfranchised in the 1920s, and in the 1930s it was subjected to open terror, murder and rape, especially in the months preceding September 1939.

15 Polish terror attacks Terrorists begin murdering German civilians in large numbers. A British ex-Pat named William Joyce describes the events:

"On the nights of August 25 to August 31 inclusive, there occurred, besides innumerable attacks on civilians of German blood, 44 perfectly authenticated acts of armed violence ag ainst German official persons and property. These incidents took place either on the border or inside German territory. 16 Of all the the crimes of World War II, one never hears about the wholesale massacres that occurred in Poland just before the war. Thousands of German men, women and children were massacred in the most horrendous fashion by press-enraged mobs. Hitler decided to halt the slaughter and he rushed to the rescue. Young German boys, when captured by the Poles, were castrated. - Léon Degrelle Since dawn today, we are shooting back ... A. Hitler

17 War   August 30th: Poland orders total mobilization - under the Protocols of the League of Nations this is equal to a declaration of war. Polish troops were numerically stronger  September 1940: Germany reclaimed the pre-Versailles German areas given to Poland. H’s speech at Danzig harped on o n the sadistic treatment of Poles to the German minorities: ‘Tens of thousands were deported, maltreated, killed in the most bestial fashion.’

18 Showered with flowers  Danzig, September 1939: ‘It was like this this everywhere.. in the Rhineland, in Vienna, Vienna, in the Sudetan territories, territories, and in Memel: do you still doubt the mission mission of the Fuhrer?’ - Comment by Schmundt, Irving Hitler’s Irving Hitler’s War p.226 War p.226

20 France invades Germany The French invade Germany on September 7th, 1939, advancing 8 km before stopping.

21 German peace offers Hitler: "I have always expressed to France my desire to to bury forever our ancient enmity and  bring together these two nations, both of which have such glorious pasts. ....I have devoted no less effort to the achievement of Anglo-German understanding, no, more than that, of an AngloGerman friendship. At no time and in no n o place have I ever eve r acted contrary to British interests...Why should this war in the West be fought?“ 6th October . Two German peace offers to Britain came in October 1939, after defeating Poland, and in July 1940, after defeating France, both spurned. - Captain R. Grenfell, Unconditional Hatred, German War guilt and  the Future of Europe, NY Europe, NY 1954, 201

19 Map of ‘Greater Germany’, 1939

22 Admiration for Britain During and after the war, it was hard to obtain an English translation of Hitler’s Mein Hitler’s Mein Kampf, ’a Kampf, ’a central theme of which was Hitler’s admiration for and longing for friendship with Great Britain’ - Captain Arthur Ramsey, The Nameless War , p. 49 (in jail through the war.) ‘From the outset, the leader of the resurgent German nation and Nazi party was a self-confessed Anglophile whose primary foreign policy aim was an alliance with with Britain.’ - Richard Milton,  Best of Enemies, Enemies, 2007, p.169

23 An Anglophile  Early 1940, Rudolf Hess once enquired, ‘Mein Fuhrer, are your views about the British still the same? Hitler gloomily sighed, sighed, ‘ If only the British knew how little I little I ask of them! How he liked to leaf through the glossy pages of The Tatler, studying the British aristocracy in their natural habitat! Once he was overheard o verheard to say, ‘Those are valuable specimens – those are the ones I am going to make peace with.’ David Irving, Hitler’s Irving, Hitler’s war.

24 Invasion of UK? ‘A but faintly-imagined and conditional German plan to invade Britain in the summer of 1940’ Sir Basil Liddell Hart, The Revolution in Warfare, Warfare, 1946, pp.212-222 (see also his History his History of the nd   1970, pp.93-6) 2  World War  1970,  "the discovery.. that at no time did this man (Hitler) pose or intend a real threat to Britain or the Empire.” – David Irving, foreword to his book The Warpath (1978) Warpath (1978)

25 Who wanted another war? The war of 1939 was ‘less wanted by nearly everybody than almost any other war in history.’ A.J.P. Taylor

27 A Reason Reason for War  "Germany becomes too powerful. We have to crush it." - Winston Churchill November 1936 speaking to US - General Robert E. Wood The Churchill pressure group The Focus was established in 1936 by Sir Waley Cohen (Chair of  the Board of Jewish Deputies) who gave fifty thousand pounds. ‘The purpose was – the tune that Churchill had to play was – fight Germany’ – David Irving.

28 Reasons for War – 2 "This war is an English war and its goal is the destruction of Germany."  - Churchill, Autumn 1939 broadcast "You must understand that this war is not against Hitler or National Socialism, but against the strength of the German people, which is to be smashed once and for all, regardless of whether it is in the hands of Hitler or a Jesuit priest." - Churchill (Emrys Hughes in Winston Churchill - His Career in War and Peace, Peace, page 145)

29 Reasons for War - 3 “The war was not just a matter of elimination of fascism in Germany, but rather obtaining German sales markets” Churchill, March March 1946 "Germany’s unforgivable crime before WW2 was its attempt to loosen its economy out of the world trade system and to build up an independent exchange system from which the worldfinance couldn’t profit anymore." -Churchill, The Second World War   - Bern, 1960.

30 Churchill elected Churchill ousts Chamberlain as Prime Minister on May 10th 1940, and next day the city-bombing  begins. ‘This raid on the night of May 11 th , 1940, although although in itself itself trivial, was was an epoch-marking  epoch-marking  event since it was the first deliberate breach of the fundamental rule of civilised warfare that  hostilities must only be waged against enemy combatant forces. Veale Advance Veale Advance to Barbarism, The Development of Total War ,1970, ,1970, 170 For 12th May, War Cabinet minutes note on ‘Bombing Policy,’ that the Prime Minister was ‘no longer bound by our previously-held scruples as to initiating “unrestricted” air warfare.’

31 City bombing in WW2 ‘ … the almost universal belief that Hitler started the indiscriminate bombing of civilians, whereas it was started by the directors of British strategy, as some of the more honest among them have boasted.’ - A.J.P. Tayler   , Origins of 2nd  World War,1972, War,1972, 16. The first carpet bombing of a German city was in the night from 15 to 16 May 1940 in Duisburg; followed by repeated air attacks on German cities - bombing of Hamburg on May 16th.

32 What was the point? Churchill, May 13th 1940: You ask, what is our aim? aim? I can answer in one word. word. It is victory,  victory at all costs.’

33 Dunkirk: May 1940 "He (Hitler) then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. ....He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany's position on the Continent. The return of Germany's colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should  be involved in difficulties anywhere.“ - General Gunther von Blumentritt, at Dunkirk.

34 At Dunkirk - 2 “The blood of every single Englishman is too valuable to be shed,” Hitler told his friend Frau Troost. “Our two people belong together racially and traditionally – this is and always has be en my aim even if our generals can’t grasp it.” - Patrick Buchanan,The Buchanan, The Unnecessary War, 2008,  p.326.

35 Strategic Bombing Initiated ‘ Because Because we were doubtful about abou t the psychological effect of the distortion of the truth that it was we who started the strategic bombing offensive, we have shrunk from giving our great decision of May 11th 1940 the publicity which it deserved. That surely was a mistake.’- J.M. Spaight, Assist. Sec. to the Air Ministry, Bombing Ministry, Bombing Vindicated 1944.

36 German desire desire for for peace  ‘Hitler assuredly did not want the mutual bombing to go on. … Again and again the German official reports applauded the reprisal element in the actions of the Luftwaffe … ‘If you stop  bombing us, we’ll stop bombing you.’ - Spaight, Bombing Spaight, Bombing Vindicated, 1944 43. 1944 43.

37 Peace offer June 1940  June 1940: Luftwaffe drop "peace leaflets" over London with "an appeal to "reason". Hitler: ‘I o f the sacrifices it will claim. can see no reason why this war must go on.  I am grieved to think of I should like to avert them. As for my own people, I know that millions of German men, young and old alike, are burning with the desire to settle accounts with the enemy who for the second time has declared war upon us for no reason whatever.’ Irving: ‘The crucial moment when he [Churchill] managed to kill this peace offensive in England was July 1940’

38 Praise for Albion  ‘England has always possessed whatever armament she happened to need. She always fought with the weapons which success demanded. demanded . She fought with mercenaries as long as mercenaries sufficed; but she reached down into the precious blood of the whole nation when only such a sacrifice could bring victory; but the determination for victory, the tenacity and ruthless pursuit of this struggle, remained unchanged.’ Hitler, Mein Hitler, Mein Kampf,1925 39 From 11 May to 6 September  July 20: Prime minister Winston Churchill hears of latest German peace offer (US-to-Berlin decode) & instructs Lord Halifax to block it. He then asks Bomber Command if they can do a ‘savage attack upon Berlin.’ August 24: German planes by mistake hit East Ea st London. H. issues command that any aircrew that drops bombs on London will be severely reprimanded, with only the RAF, dockyards, etc. e tc. as targets. August 26: a hundred heavy bombers sent to hit Berlin September 4: (after 7 raids) raids) Hitler formulates another peace offer => Victor Mallet in Stockholm, who replies he is ‘not allowed’ to hear it. September 6: Luftwaffe bomb London - David Irving video, ‘Churchill’s War’

40 No peace deal ‘The War Cabinet instructed Mallet to ignore the message. But it is the clearest indication that Hitler’s words in Mein Kampf were not mere rhetoric. He believed profoundly that an Anglo-German alliance was essential and was prepared to go the last mile to try to conclude such an agreement. Now he was compelled to realise that there would be no negotiated peace.’ Richard Milton, Best Milton, Best of Enemies, 2007 Enemies, 2007 p.222.

41 ‘The Blitz’ On 25 August, 81 bombers made night raids over Berlin, then on 6th September the Luftwaffe replied. Only after six surprise attacks upon Berlin in the previous fortnight did the Blitz begin, and thus Germany justifiably called it a reprisal. ‘The British people were not permitted to find out that the Government could have stopped the German raids at any time merely by stopping the raids on Germany.’ -Professor Arthur Butz. The Butz. The th  Hoax of the 20  Century, 1976,  Century, 1976, 70

42 Image: The Blitz

43 November 1940 peace offer Via the Pope: •  Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium and France to be independent free states,

• the political independence and national na tional identity of a ‘Polish state’ to be restored  • Czechoslovakia would ‘not be prevented from developing her national character’  • Some German colonies restored, etc. • Greater European economic solidarity to be pursued   ‘A peace offer offer so generous that it left left most of Britain’s war aims sounding sounding utterly hollow’ –  Martin Allen, Himmler’s Allen, Himmler’s Secret War, 2005, p.100

44 Two million tons “Many of the most beautiful cities of Europe and the world were systematically pounded into nothingness, often during the last weeks of the war, among them: Wuerzburg, Hildesheim, Darmstadt, Kassel, Nürnberg, Braunschweig.” - Dr Wesserle, Wesserle, The Journal of Historical   Review, 1981,  Review, 1981, vol. 2, 381-384.

45 The 1:20 ratio, ratio, tons of bombs Anglo-American strategic bombers dropped 2690 kilotons of bombs on Europe (1,350kt on Germany, 590kt France, 370 kt Italy, etc), while Germany dropped 74 kt of bombs including V-1 and V-2 rockets on Britain in WWII: a mere 5%, or one-twentieth as much - Dr Wesserle The  Journal of Historical Review, 1981, Review, 1981, vol. 2, 381-384.

46 Warsaw bombing – a comparison ‘In fact the bombardment of Warsaw did not begin until September 26, 1939, after all the military niceties had been observed: warning leaflets dropped o n to the civilian population, open routes provided for the Polish civilians to leave before the timed hour of bombardment, a formal ultimatum to the commandant of the fortress Warsaw to capitulate before the bombardment  began, which was rejected’. Irving, Hitler’s Irving, Hitler’s War , 1977, 2001, 239

Select Biblio WW1 Barnes, Harry Elmer, The Genesis of the World War an Introduction to the Problem of War  Guilt, 1926

Steiner, Rudolf The Karma of Untruthfulness: Secret Societies, the Media and Preparations Preparations for  the Great War  December  December 1916 lectures, 1988,2005. Milton, Richard Best Richard Best of Enemies Britain and Germany: 100 years of Truth and Lies 2007 Lies 2007 Ross, Stewart Halsey, Propaganda Halsey, Propaganda for War, How the United States Was Conditioned to Fight  the Great War of 1914-18, 1914-18, 2009

Docherty, Gerry and MacGregor, Jim Hidden Jim Hidden History The Secret Origins of the First World World War, 2013.


Hoggan, David, The Forced War , (online) 1961,1989. Buchanan, Patrick Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War, How Britain lost its empire and  the West lost the world , 2008. Bradberry, Benton, The Myth of German Villainy 2012. Wallendy, Uno The Truth for Germany (online), 2012 King, Mark , The Bad War The truth Never Mentioned about World War 2. 2015.

Postscript: Will of the Warmongers ·


Harry Elmer Barnes (1889-1968)  Blasting the Historical Historical Blackout, 1963: Blackout, 1963:

‘In no country has the historical blackout been more intense and effective than in Great Britain. Here it has been ingeniously christened The Iron Curtain of Discreet Silence. Virtually nothing has been written to reveal the truth about British responsibility for the Second World War and its disastrous results. The primary and direct responsibility for the European war, which grew into the Second World War, was almost solely that of  Great Britain and the British war group, made up of both Conservatives and Labourites. If Britain had not gratuitously given Poland a blank cheque, which was not needed in the slightest to assure British security, Poland surely might not have risked a war with Germany. Nevertheless, there would still have been no justification for British intervention in such a war or for the provocation of a European war... The fact is that the only real offer of security which Poland received in 1938 and 1939 emanated from Hitler. He offered to guarantee the boundaries laid down in the Versailles Treaty against every other country. Even the Weimar Republic had not for a moment taken this into consideration. Whatever one may think of Hitler's government or foreign policy, no doubt exists on this  point; his proposals to Poland Poland in 1938/39 were reasonable and just and the most moderate of all which which he made during the six six years of his efforts to revise the Versailles Treaty by peaceful means… means …


Liddell Hart (1895-1969)  History of the Second Second World War, 1970:

‘The precise effect of the Mutual Assistance Pact was to give Poland a clear signal that aggression and belligerency was tolerable and a warning to Germany that any retaliation would be met by force…

The last thing Hitler wanted was to produce another great war. His people, and particularly his generals, were profoundly fearful of any such risk - the experiences of World War One had scarred their minds.


David Hoggan (1923-1988) The (1923-1988) The Forced War , 1989:

‘The secret British shift to a war policy in October 1938, when Halifax took over control of British foreign policy from Chamberlain, was followed by the public proclamation of this new policy by Chamberlain himself at Birmingham on March 17, 1939. This culminated, in turn, in the launching of the new "crusade" against Germany on September 3, 1939

Halifax in London succeeded in imposing a deliberate war policy on the British Government in 193 8-1939 despite the fact that most of the leading official British experts on Germany favored a policy of Anglo-German friendship. Beck in Warsaw adopted a  position of full cooperation cooperation with the war plans of Halifax despite the the numerous warnings he received received from Poles aghast at the  prospect of witnessing their their country hurtle down the road road to destruction. Many Many efforts were made by German, German, French, Italian, Italian, and other European leaders to avert the catastrophe, but these efforts eventually failed, and the Halifax war policy, with the secret  blessings of President Roosevelt Roosevelt and Marshal Marshal Stalin, emerged emerged triumphant. The British Government, after October 1938, repeatedly evaded acceptance of any of the commitments in the Bohemian area hich had been suggested at Munich. The British Government, according to both Chamberlain and Halifax, had no right to be consulted about the Hitler-Hacha treaty of March 15, 1939, which represented, as Professor A.J.P. Taylor put it, a conservative solution of the Bohemia-Moravian Bohemia-Moravian problem. The actual British foreign policy moves after March 31, 1939, were directed unrelentingly toward war. Everything possible was done to undermine several excellent opportunities for a negotiated settlement of the German-Polish dispute, and for the negotiation of a new Czech settlement based on international guarantees. Instead of working for a satisfactory agreement with Germany -- Hitler was willing to be moderate and reasonable in dealing with both the Polish and the Czech questions -- Halifax concentrated on intimidating Italy and bullying France because they both favored peace instead of war. The Polish Government as advised by Halifax to reject negotiations with Germany, and Warsaw was constantly assured that British support would be available for any war. The numerous requests of the German Government for mediation between Germany and Poland, or for a direct Anglo-German agreement, were either answered with deceptions or ignored. A maximum effort was made to present the American leaders with a distorted picture of the actual situation in Europe. All of these British moves had their roots in the obsolete, traditional policy of the balance of power.  Nevertheless, there there was no time before the British declaration declaration of war on September September 3, 1939, when Hitler would would have opposed a negotiated solution with Poland. An indication of this was shown by his favorable response to the Italian conference plan on September 2, 1939, and his willingness at that time to consider an immediate armistice in Poland. His peace policy failed because the British Empire decided to challenge Germany before Hitler had completed his program of arriving at amicable understandings ith his immediate neighbors The motives of Halifax in 1939 were clearly derived from the ancient tradition of maintaining British superiority over the nations of Western and Central Europe. He had never questioned the role of his kinsman, Sir Edward Grey, in promoting World War I. Halifax did not propose to tolerate the existence in 1939 of a German Reich more prosperous and more influential than the Hohenzollern Empire which had been destroyed in 1918. It was for the prestige of Great Britain rather than for such mundane considerations as national security or immediate British interests that Halifax became a prop onent of war in 1938. The traditional British aim to dominate policy in Continental Europe was the underlying reason why the world experienced the horrors of World War II.’ - p. 288 & Conclusion


Jurgen Rieger (1946-09) justice4germans.c (1946-09) om,, 2009

‘The four-power Munich agreement, signed in September 1938: an agreement by all parties that the Sudeten Germans rightfully  belonged "Heim ins Reich" Reich" (back home in the Reich.) In March March 1939 both the Slovaks and the Ruthenians Ruthenians declared independence, whereupon the Poles invaded Czechoslovakia and occupied the Olsa Region, which was populated by Poles. The Hungarians did the same, occupying the border areas that were populated by Hungarians.

Since Czechoslovakia had ceased to exist, its President Hacha flew to Berlin on 15 March 1939 and placed the remainder of his country under the protection of the Reich. The Reich then formed the Protectorate of Bohemia and Maeren, which provided for  exclusive Czech administration in all areas except military and foreign policy. Chamberlain condemned the "German invasion" [entry of German troops in Prague on 15 March 1939] in his Birmingham speech of 17 March 1939; and on 31 March 1939 he signed an agreement with the Polish government in which Great Britain  promised to support Poland in the the event of war. It is irrelevant whether Poles or Germans attacked the Gleiwitz transmitting transmitting station (whoever reads the White Book of the German-Polish war will find countless undisputed murders and assaults committed by the Poles in the weeks and months  preceding 1 September 1939) "Poland wants war with Germany and Germany will not be able to avoid it, even if it wants to." - Rydz-Smigly, Chief inspector  of the Polish army in a public speech in front of Polish officers (In June 1939,) The fact that Chamberlain, knowing of the Polish, French and American desire for war, gave a free hand to Polish war policies and did not urge Poland to accept the moderate German demands can be explained only by the fact that he also wanted war on 1

September 1939.

Another indication of this is the fact that in Britain the evening edition of the newspaper DAILY MAIL for 31 August 1939 was confiscated. The edition had carried the story of Germany's proposals concerning the Polish Corridor as well as Poland's [27] response, which was general mobilization. The newspaper was compelled to publish a different evening edition. Following 15 March 1939, Roosevelt exerted strong pressure on the British government to "finally exert opposition" against "Nazi tyranny" or else he would apply methods of coercion against Great Britain. It is impossible to determine precisely what threats he made, since their correspondence is still off-limits to historians (Note: According to the usually very well informed Washington journalists Drew Pearson and Robert S. Allen "the President warned that Britain could expect no more support, moral or material through the sale of airplanes, if the Munich policy continued.") September 1, 1939: Mussolini proposes a suspension of ho stilities and the immediate immediate convening of a Conference of the Big Powers, Poland included, to discuss terms for a peaceful settlement. Germany, France and Poland immediately accept Mussolini's  proposals. Britain categorically categorically rejects rejects any negotiations negotiations and demands withdrawal of German troops from all occupied Polish territory (30 kilometers deep). Note: Britain does not consult with Warsaw before making its decision.’


Steve F., Background to the Munich Munich Agreement:

‘The dismemberment of Germany following the Great War meant that the Sudetenland (Bohemia and Moravia), part of Germany for 700 years and with a population of over 3 million Germans, were moved -- against their wishes -- out of their h omeland to  become part of a newly-created newly-created country, populated populated mainly by Czechs and Slovaks, which was to to be called Czecho-Slovakia. Czecho-Slovakia.

The Sudeten Germans suffered greatly under Czech rule. On March 4th, 1919, public meetings calling for self determination ere brutally broken up and 52 German civilians were murdered. Lord Rothermere described Czechoslovakia Czechoslovakia as a 'swindle.'

Conditions imposed upon the Sudeten-Germans were so harsh that during 1919, 600,000 were forced to leave their settlements settlements of  centuries. Throughout the ensuing y ears, the Czech President, M. Benes, saw to it that conditions became so intolerable that even England and France felt it necessary to concede this injustice of Versailles and agreed to its return to Germany.

"The worst offence was the subjection of over three million Germans to Czech rule." -- H.N Brailsford, Leading left wing commentator

The Czech administration which wanted the German territory but not its population, agreed, but refused to do so and instead  began a reign of terror aimed aimed at driving the German German population over the borders into Hitler's Germany Germany in a program that has since  been termed ethnic cleansing.

When under the terms of the Versailles Treaty, a large part of Germany and its German population was awarded to Poland, so  began an anti-German racist racist pogrom resulting in in widespread murder and mayhem mayhem resulting in over a million million Germans being being 'ethnically cleansed' from their homelands of centuries. Hitler's Germany could no longer act as bystanders to the grim unfolding tragedy. When German troops re-entered their former  territory, the Sudetenland, there was was rejoicing in the streets.’ - CODOH page ‘Hitler’s Peace offers vs Unconditional surrender’, April 2016, in the WW2 section, quoted with kind permission.

· Udo Walendy Walendy (1927 -) Who Started World War Two? truth for a war-torn world, 2014. Permission to quote kindly given by Castle Hill Press. ‘Poland was not going to wait for the outcome of the Versailles Peace conference that was stretching over many months and, instead, used the armistice of Germany to occupy the Posen region and parts of western Prussia … The Versailles Peace conference accepted from Poland the fait accompli, with the stipulation, however, that the transfer of territory was made

dependent on the Polish obligation of having to guarantee to the German and Jewish minorities far-reaching independence and the preservation of their national culture and traditional way of life’ (p.134) Clearly that did not happen so even under the terms of the Versailles Treaty the Polish occupation of that land was unlawful. At Versailles, the British Prime Minister Minister Lloyd George had remarked: “I tell you once more, we would never have thought of  giving to Poland a province that had not been Polish for the last 900 years… The proposal of the Polish Commission that we should place 2,100,000 Germans under the control of a people which is of a different religion and which has never proved its capacity for stable self-government throughout its history, must, in my judgment, lead sooner or later to a new war in the East of  Europe...” Compare this with Woodrow Wilson’s words of 7 April 1919: “France’s only real interest interest in Poland was to weaken Germany by giving the Poles areas to which they had no claim.” The U.S. Secretary of State, Robert Lansing, remarked on 8 May 1919: “Do examine the treaty and you will find that whole populations, against their will, were delivered into the power of those ho hated them, while their economic resources were snatched away and handed over to others.’ - p.134-6  NK: This unfair Versailles Versailles treaty was was not the cause of a world war. It was the cause only of a local local conflict between between Poland and Germany - It was the British will, that transformed a local European conflict, here deemed by Lloyd George to have been inevitable, into a world war – or, such has here been my argument.

[1]  See N.K., ‘On the Avoidability of WW1’ Inconvenient WW1’  Inconvenient History, History, 2011,3, online. [2]  For this letter by US diplomat and presidential advisor Colonel E.House, concerning the pacific philosophy of the Kaiser, after a visit he paid in July 1914, see Buchanan, The Unnecessary War , p.22. [3]  Grey was Britain’s Foreign Secretary 1905-16 and Poincaré was the President of France 1913-20. [4]  Bertrand Russell, Autobiography, Russell, Autobiography, Vol.  Vol. 1, 1967, p.239. [5]  ‘Britain and Belgium had been deeply involved in joint military preparations against Germany for at least eight years.’  Hidden History, p.325. History, p.325. [6] Harry Elmer Elmer Barnes, The Genesis of the World War an Introduction to the Problem of War Guilt , 1926, p.211 (2013 online):  pressure from the Kaiser Kaiser upon Austria for ‘suspension of military military activities activities and the opening of negotiations negotiations with Russia’ Russia’ as th starting on 27  July. [7]  Hidden History: History: “Germany was the last of the continental powers to take that irrevocable step [of mobilization]” p.321. [8]  Loreburn, 1919, pp.16. [9]  British documents on the the origins of the war 1898-1914, Vol 1898-1914, Vol XI, HMSO 1926. [10]  Hidden History, History, p.321. [11]  Ibid, p.322. [12]  Steiner, Karma  Steiner, Karma,, pp.84-5 [13]  Ross, p.42. [14]  ‘The Bankers secretly devised a scheme by which their obligations could be met by fiat money (so-called treasury notes)’ to  pay for the war: ‘The decision decision to use treasury treasury notes to fulfil the bankers’ liabilities liabilities was made as early early as July 25 The first first treasury th notes were run off the presses …on the following Tuesday July 28 , at a time when most politicians believed that Britain would stay out of the war.’ Carroll Quigley in Tragedy and Hope, a History of the World in Our Time, 1966, Time, 1966, p.317 (Thanks to J.W. for  this reference). [15]  Quoted in Steiner, Karma Steiner,  Karma of Untruthfulness, Untruthfulness, p.18. Brandes was Danish. [16]  J.M. Spaight, Bombing Spaight, Bombing Vindicated , 1944, 60; N.K. How N.K. How Britain Initiated Initiated City Bombing, CODOH. Bombing, CODOH. [17]  N.K., Breaking  N.K., Breaking the Spell, the Holocaust Myth and Reality 2014 Reality 2014 [18]  William J. Scott Deutsche Scott  Deutsche Staatszeitung , March 20, 2010 [19], Mark Weber, ‘President Roosevelt's Campaign to Incite War in Europe, The Secret Polish Documents.’ [20] William  William Joyce Twilight over England  [21]  On mobilisation as legally signifying war, see Hidden see  Hidden History, p.278. History, p.278. [22] N.K.,, [22]  N.K.,, The “Ministry of Truth” at Britain's National Archives: The Attempt to Discredit Martin Allen, Inconvenient Allen,  Inconvenient History, History, 2014, 6. [23]  ‘… sixteen German peace offers in the first two years of the Second world War’ – Martin Allen, Himmler’s Allen, Himmler’s Secret War, the covert peace negotiations of Heinrich Himmler, 2014, p.55.

[24]  But see also the British account of 2001: ‘The miracle’ of Dunkirk’, in Double in Double Standards, The Rudolf Hess cover-up, cover-up, by Lynn Pickett, Clive Prince and Stephen Prior, pp.116-120. [25]  See refs 21,22. [26] th  There is a problem with this widely-quoted remark, that 6  August was a Sunday: there was no Sunday edition of the Mail. the Mail. [27]  I have not been able to verify this, NK

Table of Contents [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27]

� 2018 All Rights Reserved. All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. We are not responsible for content written by and hosted on third-party websites. The information on this site is provided for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended as a substitute for professional advice of any kind. We assume no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. All trademarks, registered trademarks and servicemarks mentioned on this site are the property of their respective owners. .......Tags: "israel nuked wtc" 9-11 Truth jfk assassination "cultural marxism" "holocaust hoax" "fake news" "fake history" fed censorship "mind control" tavistock holohoax auschwitz deep state kabbalah talmud bush obama clinton trump russiagate spygate israel britain saudi arabia middle east rothschild cold war comey brennan clapper yellow vests populism nuclear demolition communism marxism socialism pedophiliacontact: