Ian Kershaw on Britain

In preparation for the debate over British liberalism, I have been reading a number of sources about pre-war Britain and the road to war. I’m working through Ian Kershaw’s Making Friends with Hitler: Lord Londonderry, the Nazis and the Road to World War II at the moment. Here are a few revealing excerpts worth sharing:

Though Hitler in 1936 would certainly have been prepared to reach agreement with Britain on a non-aggression pact for the subsequent twenty-five years (or some other lengthy period of time), or a more limited air pact, the price would have been the free hand in eastern Europe which he had always wanted. . . .

Irrespective of German intentions, the prospects of Baldwin taking Britain into any wide-ranging accomodation with Hitler’s Reich in the summer of autumn of 1936 were as good as non-existent. (Kershaw, 186)

In 1936, Hitler offered his hand in friendship to the British. He was ready to sign a twenty-five year non-aggression pact with them. Kershaw admits that Baldwin spurned the offer.

In the early years of the Nazi regime, Hitler had repeatedly sought to win British friendship, but had met a cool reception. (Kershaw, 202)

Hitler never wanted a war with the British Empire. Even Ian Kershaw admits that Hitler sought an alliance with Britain on several occasions. It was the British who turned Hitler down again and again.

The current moment, following Prague, was however scarcely propitious, and time would have to be allowed for the dust to settle. Whatever negotiations proved possible would then have to be on the basis which the Nazi leadership had always wanted: recognition of German pre-eminence on the Continent and a free hand for Germany in the each in exchange for what he took to be the unthreatened existence of the British Empire. (Kershaw, 282)

Right down to 1939, Hitler was willing to cut a deal with the British: he would guarantee the security of the British Empire in exchange for a free hand to expand eastward. If the British had accepted his offer, and France had backed down, there never would have been a war in the West. As a consequence, America would never have entered the war.

When Hitler did make an offer – in his speech to the Reichstag on 6 October 1939 – to settle Europe’s problems of peace and security, on his own terms of course, it was half-hearted, and was outrightly rejected by the British government. (Kershaw, 300)

Even after the war had started, Hitler continued to make peace offers to the British government. Hitler was turned down yet again by the British who were bent on war. The onus of the war rests exclusively on the shoulders of the British. The war against the Third Reich was a war of choice.

About Hunter Wallace 12367 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

32 Comments

  1. Cold Equation’s is a retrospective view masquerading as a prospective view. Auschwitz wasn’t operational until 1942. The British continued to deny Jewish refugees bound for Palestine even after WWII ended. And when the World Jewish Congress requested the RAF and USAF, in the summer of 1944, bomb the railways into Auschwitz, they were ignored. If the Allies were disgusted they certainly didn’t show it. Allegedly Britain and France declared war to defend Polish territorial integrity. However, the display of support for such an endeavor (the Saar offensive) was so pitiful, it belies the truth. It was in the interest of the British to set the Nazis and the Soviets against each other, just as they had encouraged the Poles to war with the Soviets in 1920, with little regard for Poland.

  2. “Should Germany have declared war on Britain over its occupation of Northern Ireland?”

    One of Histories more interesting factoids is that Irish politicians were apparently the only Western Leaders to offer condolences upon the death of Leader Hitler! Irish-men most likely would have supported German intervention in ‘The Troubles’!!

    Link:
    Condolences Offered After Hitler’s Death – ( http://articles.latimes.com/2005/dec/31/world/fg-briefs31.1 )

  3. Once of the reasons why I don’t need to have my own blog is that you have a blog, Fade. We’ve been around each other for 8 years or so. Having a blog would just be redundant.

  4. “… It shows that Germany did not persecute Germans of Polish or Baltic extraction, which does not indicate that Germany had friendly intentions towards Eastern Europe …”

    Uh, yeah –

    “By accepting more than one million volunteers from Russia, Ukraine, Croatia, Slovakia, etc. in the Wehrmacht and by allowing half a million non-German European volunteers in the Waffen SS, the German high military command thought it could create its own version of united Europe and successfully fight the war on two fronts.”

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Sunic-RaceIII.html

  5. The British flag still flies over the Cayman Islands, Pitcairn Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands, Virgin Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Falkland Islands, British Indian Ocean Territory, Northern Ireland, Anguilla, Bermuda, Antartica, Gibralter, Montserrat, and Saint Helena. Would the Federal Republic of Germany be justified in declaring war on the United Kingdom in the name of freedom and self determination over these various occupations … or does this proposal just strike you as absurd?

  6. *Interesting how Kulaks in Amerika, who always blame Germany for all the ‘ills’ of the Second War of White Genocide, err, “WW2”, rarely ever remember Stalin and the Red role in fomenting, and indeed STARTING, that conflict –

    ==
    “Mr Kaczynski said Poland had received a “stab in the back” from the former Soviet Union when it invaded and occupied the east of the country as the German army was advancing westwards.

    “He again criticised the non-aggression pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in the early years of the conflict, saying it was about dividing Europe.”

    [Especially how our Kulaks forget or discount the “Rwandan-like” murder of the Polish Officer Corps by the Red hordes] –

    […]

    “Mr Kaczynski recalled the Katyn massacre in which 20,000 Polish officers were killed by Soviet forces, saying it was an act of chauvinism and in revenge for Polish independence.”

    […]

    “Two weeks after the German invasion, the Red Army invaded and annexed eastern Poland under terms agreed in the secret protocol of a Nazi-Soviet pact.

    “In early 1940, the Soviet secret services murdered more than 20,000 Polish officers in the forests around Katyn. For 50 years Moscow blamed the Nazis and only admitted responsibility for the crime in 1990.

    “Russian courts have ruled that Katyn cannot be considered a war crime and Moscow is still refusing to declassify documents about the massacre.”

    […]

    [Ah, and if it is not enough for the Russians/Soviets and their Western supporters to leave well enough alone, the HYPOCRITES have to add this INSULT TO INJURY to the Polish people AND their memory] –

    “The temperature was raised further this week with accusations broadcast on Russian state TV which implied the USSR was justified in its invasion of Poland because Warsaw had been conspiring with Hitler against Moscow.”

    BBC NEWS | Europe | Poland remembers World War start
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8230678.stm
    ==

    “… implied the USSR was justified in its invasion of Poland because Warsaw had been conspiring with Hitler against Moscow.”

    KULAKS NEVER LEARN INDEED!!!

  7. @ Lena, Britain was not fighting a war to help Communism. Bear in mind that Stalin was Allied with Hitler at the start of the war, and that the Communists were agitating against war until Hitler invaded Russia. See here, with the context that the London Daily Worker was the Communist Party’s newspaper:
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,884032,00.html

    When Germany did invade Russia, that made Britain and Russia natural Allies. The war was not going well for Britain, to put it mildly, and they were in no position to turn down allies just because they failed some ideological purity test.

    >It was not Hitler or the Germans that poisoned Nationalism or Socialism, but the Allies and their propaganda that persists today.

    And where has Allied propaganda gotten its juiciest points since WWII? German behavior in Eastern Europe.

    >Perhaps you can share this with your grandma for whom the 60’s never happened! The statistics of brutal beatings and rapes of the elderly at the hands of negro’s might also enlighten her about the sixties and its repercussions.

    What I meant is that she shamelessly holds old-fashioned, realistic views about race, etc.

    @proz
    >Germany’s eastern border was none of Britain’s business. Should Germany have declared war on Britain over its occupation of Northern Ireland?

    Once again you miss the point that this was about containing Germany, not about some ethereal rights or cosmic justice. Germany’s strength increased as its size increased, so Germany’s border was Britain’s business.

    Given that Britain had already conquered Germany once, and was going to do so again if Hitler tried to achieve his goals, Germany did have an interest in Britain’s border in Ireland or anywhere else, because they affected Britain’s ability to interfere with Germany. Germany had no ability to interfere with Ireland, but they did, in fact, invade both Norway and Greece to keep the British out.

    >Would the Federal Republic of Germany be justified in declaring war on the United Kingdom in the name of freedom and self determination over these various occupations … or does this proposal just strike you as absurd?

    Today’s National Masochist Germany has no reason to fear Britain or want to weaken (already weak) Britain. If they did I would expect them to try to reduce British power by whatever means were available.

    @ Desmond
    >Cold Equation’s is a retrospective view masquerading as a prospective view. Auschwitz wasn’t operational until 1942.

    Somebody asked if the public in the allied countries would have supported the war if they had known what we know now, hence the counterfactual. Of course they didn’t actually know about activities in Auschwitz that hadn’t happened yet.

    >If the Allies were disgusted they certainly didn’t show it.

    I was talking about the general public, not the leaders. If you know anybody older than 80 or so, ask them if they were disgusted when they read stuff like this:
    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,797475,00.html

  8. Once again you miss the point that this was about containing Germany, not about some ethereal rights or cosmic justice.

    That’s not how Churchill and his followers presented their case against Germany. They constantly appealed to ostensibly universal liberal principles.

    Germany’s strength increased as its size increased, so Germany’s border was Britain’s business.

    The British Empire was far larger in size than the Third Reich. Why wasn’t Britain’s occupation of 1/4th of the world equally a concern of Germany?

    Today’s National Masochist Germany has no reason to fear Britain or want to weaken (already weak) Britain. If they did I would expect them to try to reduce British power by whatever means were available.

    Neither did Britain in 1939. If the British wanted to compete with Germany, why didn’t they just develop their already vast possessions?

  9. “And where has Allied propaganda gotten its juiciest points since WWII? German behavior in Eastern Europe.”

    I guess the one million former Soviet soldiers (of all races) serving in the Wehrmacht and SS, and in the Russian Liberation Army under the command of General Vlasov, is a ‘testament’ to this, right? It would be more accurate to say ‘Soviet behavior’ in Eastern Europe.

    “Given that Britain had already conquered Germany once, and was going to do so again if Hitler tried to achieve his goals…”

    Really, Britain ‘conquered’ Germany in the First War of White Genocide, er, “WW1”? There was not a single ‘allied’ soldier that ever set foot on German soil following that calamitous waste of a ‘war’ in 1918.

    Now we are going to hear (not necessarily from CE), in a simplistic tale of ‘good vs. bad’, that the ‘Great War’ was Germany’s ‘fault’. Think again –

    […]
    “The alliance system itself can hardly be blamed on Germany; the first alliance of forces that would come to oppose Germany was the Entente Cordial. This treaty was spurred on not so much by German Weltpolitik, but by conflicts breaking out between Britain and France in Africa which had potential to turn into a war between the two countries. In 1898 the Fashoda Incident occurred in Egypt over the Nile and fears whoever controlled the source could dam it. The fact that this almost turned into war supports the hypothesis that the real cause of the outbreak of war in 1914 was not a German action, but growing Imperial tensions – while a war because of these tensions had narrowly being avoided, after Europe had set up into two camps it was harder to do so.

    “While Germany had formed alliances before this point with Austria-Hungary and Italy, they did not encircle France or Russia, and thus posed no threat to the nations unless war broke out. These treaties were also worth only as much as it was in the interests of the countries brokering them to keep them, which is partially shown by the fact that Italy did not go to war in 1914. These alliances were also formed prior to Wilhelm’s ascension to the thrown, and while he could have removed them, this could have caused more tension and led to war breaking out sooner.

    “Germany was encircled by France and Russia, and later in 1907, Britain also fully joined this encirclement, which forced Germany to look for a more aggressive defence if it was to survive in the event of war. This aggressive defence took the form of a plan advocated by General Staff Schlieffen. His plan, formulated after Russia’s defeat by Japan, called on Germany to quickly defeat France before Russia could mobilise. While the Kaiser can be given some responsibility for allowing this plan to take place and be enacted in 1914, the real blame lies in the circumstances of the alliance system which were caused mostly by the agreements between the imperial powers about their spheres of influence and their territories.”
    […]

    http://www.historyempire.com/forums/showthread.php?p=217

    Additionally, it was British historian Niall Ferguson, in his book, “The Pity Of War: Explaining World War I” who felt it was Britain’s (particularly British Secretary for Foreign Affairs Sir Edward Gray) meddling that fomented the tensions on the continent leading up to the outbreak of hostilities in 1914:

    http://www.amazon.com/Pity-War-Explaining-World/dp/0465057128

  10. If you know anybody older than 80 or so, ask them if they were disgusted when they read stuff like this:

    Again, it’s post war. You’re trying to attribute post war perspectives to pre-war. Typhoid ridden skeleton stacks were evident in Andersonville, the Boer War and Japanese POW camps, yet despite them, war diminished little. Anecdotal evidence is of little value in judging public opinion.

  11. … Britain was not fighting a war to help Communism. Bear in mind that Stalin was Allied with Hitler at the start of the war, and that the Communists were agitating against war until Hitler invaded Russia …

    Ah, so Britain did not feel itself worthy to protect the ‘integrity’ of Poland by guaranteeing its sovereignty against an invasion of the Soviet Union. Hypocrites.

  12. “There was not a single ‘allied’ soldier that ever set foot on German soil following that calamitous waste of a ‘war’ in 1918.”

    That would have been news to my late grandfather-in-law who spent most of 1919 and 1920 as part of the British Army of Occupation in the Rhineland.

  13. “That would have been news to my late grandfather-in-law who spent most of 1919 and 1920 as part of the British Army of Occupation in the Rhineland.”

    You know I was referring to them as an invading army, Dan.

    When the fraudulent ‘Armistice’ was agreed upon, the German armies were all still in France. There was never a military surrender, the truppen marched back to Berlin to a hero’s welcome, with even Chancellor Ebert lauding them for never being defeated in battle.

    Of course things were desperate on the German home front, and social turmoil led to the Socialist government agreeing to a ridiculous and grossly unfair Versailles Treaty.

    Again, though, it was not Allied military prowess that forced the civilian German government’s hand, but the British-imposed starvation blockade of Germany, an illegal, genocidal war crime that caused millions to innocently suffer, WHICH LASTED WELL AFTER THE WAR WAS OVER –

    […] VINCENT, C. Paul, The Politics of Hunger: The Allied Blockade of Germany 1915-1919 (Athens OH 1985); (this fantastic book is almost totally unobtainable). Two million Europeans died, mostly in Germany and Austria; the mortality rate was 250% higher than in Great Britain, as a result of the blockage. Vincent makes a direct connection between the illegal blockade and Hitler’s rise to power: psychoanalysis shows the later consequences of mistreatment in childhood; the German “hunger generation” of 1915-1920 became the most radical followers of National Socialism. Britain’s starvation blockade was a “significant factor in the formation of the Nazi character” (in English in the text). […]

    Naval Blockade of Germany after 11 November 1918 a – Great War Forum
    http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=587

  14. Let me just clarify Dan that when I refer to Britain and the unfortunate acts perpetuated by that government, I fully mean just that, the British government … not its great and noble people, the Anglo-Celts, who are kindred brothers and sisters of the German nation.

  15. The sentiment is reciprocated, Herr Kulak. I too have the greatest admiration for the glorious achievements and outstanding personal qualities of our racial cousins across the North Sea. It is the greatest tragedy of the 20th century that an Anglo-German alliance never came to fruition, for which there is ample blame to place on both sides.

    However, that said, it must also be understood that the British antipathy to Hitlerism was not grounded in amorphous liberal principles as Prozium and others are attempting to claim, but rather in a deep-seated and atavistic aversion to continental-style absolutism, of which modern industrialised, aggressive totalitarianism was merely a more efficent variant.

    This article, which recently appeared in the Daily Express, provides a good insight into ‘why we fought’. It was certainly not, as some here would claim, because of a universalist ‘crusade against xenophobia and racism’, much less a reaction to Hitler’s treatment of his own ethnic minorities, but was instead simply motivated by the need to defend our beloved island home against a ruthless aggressor.

    http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/123120/Have-we-forgotten-why-we-fought-in-World-War-Two-

  16. ColdE-

    It is irrelevant that Hitler had a pact with the Soviet Union. There were only two forces at war – International Communism and National Socialism.

    What much of this discussion on the whole seems to be missing is the policies and activities that created this reactionary revolution in Germany. The Bolshevik revolution, the build up to WWI and its aftermath. This is all relevant to the depth of understanding. It is ALWAYS overlooked in modern “academic” studies along with everything that comes out in the press. A deep look at the situation on the ground makes this a do or die revolution. The Germans chose not to be over run and over lorded by jew communists in their native land. This extinguishes any argument of the British or anyone supporting “self determination.” The Germans were prevented from self determination, and they still are, and so are we.

    A hate campaign against Germans took place in the press and manipulated millions. It should be easy to understand how the press can manipulate public opinion.

    Germany lost the war. The proof that the Allies had no intention of fighting communism becomes obvious after the war with Germany. This even eluded the great General Patton along with the never ending hate campaign waged against the defeated population of Germany. It was a campaign of brutality and horror unleashed by cowards who never bothered to show up in the front lines of combat, but stormed Germany after the population was totally defeated to mutilate, torture, rape and rampage – and what was their crime – loosing a war? And the never ending hate campaign persists. I am surprised even one German has managed to survive this never ending psychological torment complete with thinking and speech codes, which are only needed to defend lies.

    Whatever one may choose to believe about the so called “holocaust” – only the most depraved individuals could rationalize punishing crimes against Humanity by committing crimes against Humanity! And the “never forget” to hate Germans is getting fucking old. The celebratory atmosphere that this war seems to fill people with is absolutely revolting.

    What stands out here, is just how few men retaliated against this treatment of the Germans after the war or the civilian bombings that took place. And it stands out even today. And it shows the moral degradation in matters of war and peace.

    My most important question was ignored. How can Socialism exist if it is not National? It is not national it becomes international socialism, and international socialism is Communism.

    Now, I could show that Cultural Marxism and Internal Finance have married and specifically work to hallow out the West, but it should be obvious. It was obvious by a few many years ago as well.

    This is what Francis Parker Yockey wrote in 1951, (six years after the end of the war) – he was one of the few who saw:

    From the Proclamation of London:

    “The message of Hollywood is the total significance of the isolated individual, stateless and rootless, outside of society and family, whose life is simply the pursuit of money and erotic pleasure. It is not the normal and healthy love of man and wife bound together by many children that Hollywood preaches, but a diseased erotic-for-its-own-sake, the sexual love of two grains of human sand, superficial and impermanent. Before this highest of all Hollywood’s values, everything else must stand aside: marriage, honour, duty, patriotism, sternness, dedication of self to a higher aim. This ghastly distortion of the sexual life has created the erotomania which obsesses its millions of victims in America.

    Not only the individuals are the victims of degeneration, but the family and the race are dissolved wherever it touches. Divorce replaces marriage, abortion replaces birth, the home acquires a purely commercial raison d’etre, the family becomes the battleground of individual strife for personal advantage. The erotic-as-its-own-end deliberately reduces the numbers of the race, even as it also disintegrates the higher organism into sand. As a part of the technic, woman is made into a feminist, an unhappy derailed creature who would contest with man in his own domain and seek to lose all the attributes of her polarity which assure her destiny of its unfolding, and guarantee her the natural dignity which is hers. The end of the process is seen in those wide strata in America which have been completely Hollywoodized. Hollywood-feminism has created a woman who is no longer a woman but cannot be a man, and a man who is devirilized into an indeterminate thing. The name given to this process is the “setting free” of woman, and it is done in the name of “happiness”, the magic word of the liberal-communist-democratic doctrine. It accompanies the spreading of inverted Puritanism, which seeks to spread erotomania by surrounding the sexual life with an aura of attractive evil. “

    Well, Yockey did indeed see a lot, but he could not fathom the negro race being unleashed against whites through marxist propaganda of revenge and hate – or the depravity of the homosexual agenda that reaps disease and bears no fruit. He continues:

    “This condition of degeneration, so widespread in America, with its colonial lack of resistance to Culture-disease, and so threatening to Europe under the present American domination, has not arisen by accident. A century ago, the liberal-communist-democrat Karl Marx and his coterie formulated as their programme the destruction of the family, of marriage, and of the Fatherland. They declared a horizontal war against the Western civilization, affirming their aim of disintegrating all social, cultural, and political forms. America is their programme in process of actualization, and its example shows Europe what the liberal-communist-democratic regime of Culture-distortion is preparing for it during the coming generations.”

    The goal of communism is the ripping away at the native fabric, tearing down alters, corrupting marriage and destroying the family and property and creating a class of exploited workers. Why has America done everything in its political power to build up Communist China at the expense of its own people? This is because the political class do not believe in Nationalism, but support international communism and national culture destruction.

    The proof is in the pudding..

  17. DD:”defend our beloved island home against a ruthless aggressor.”

    HA…fancy the British calling others “ruthless aggressors” — as Prozium noted in a recent post or comment (I cannot remember which), the British, who once controlled around 1/4 of the world via a very exploitative international empire, hardly has the right to complain about the “aggressions” or “imperialism” of other nations — especially since Germany has since proven itself as far superior to the UK even though it was almost entirely obliterated during WWII.

  18. Feel free to read Gilbert’s biography of Winnie. Churchill says on hundreds of occasions that the war was fought over human rights, individual rights, freedom, self determination, tolerance, equality, fighting racial discrimination, progress and the like.

  19. You don’t suppose it might be possible that Holocaust specialist Martin Gilbert might have an axe to grind in wanting to claim Churchill for his team as a champion of anti-racism and human rights, do you? Certainly none of Churchill’s other biographers extend similar claims, not even Roy Jenkins who, as Home Secretary in the 1960s, officially instituted multiculturalism as state policy in Britain, goes that far.

    Andrew Roberts, for example, characterises Churchill as a ‘white supremacist’ in ‘Eminent Churchillians’; former Conservative prime minister Harold Macmillan recounts in his diaries how Churchill proposed the slogan ‘Keep Britain White’ for the party manifesto in a cabinet meeting in the 1950s.

    Churchill’s anti-racist credentials would also have come of something as a surprise to Ghandhi, who he once described as ‘a half-naked fakir’. Even David Irving fails to clamber on the ‘Churchill as anti-racist’ bandwagon; in Churchill’s War Vol I, ne notes:

    “Churchill’s own attitude to His Majesty’s coloured subjects was no less old-fashioned. He had opposed Indian sailors joining the navy, arguing that theoretical racial equality would in practise cause great inconvenience, so not too many of them, please.”

    And then in Vol. II, when recounting Felix Frankfurter’s advice that Churchill ‘tone down’ his ‘uncongenial’ rhetoric when addressing the American public, Irving comments:

    “… Not one to mince his language, Churchill’s attitude to empire was inspired as much by racial instincts as by economic imperatives. Why did the prime minister have to talk about ‘White troops,’ lamented Lord Halifax in a letter to Eden, when ‘the British Army in India’ would have done just as well?”

    And later still, at a time when Roosevelt was intent on buttering-up the Chinese (even going so far as to suspend restrictions on future Chinese immigration), Winston blots his copybook yet again:

    “…There were clear racial overtones in Winston’s beliefs. Meeting the empire representatives in the White House later on the twentieth he again described China as a liability and this time added a remark about ‘the yellow races,’ about which India’s Agent-General, Sir Girja S. Bajpai, was less than ecstatic.”

    Then, in regard to racial problems which arose in Britain following an influx of American negro troops:

    “In fact Churchill had already raised the matter with Harry Hopkins and General Marshall during July, stating that there had been serious racial disturbances involving Negro troops in Londonderry in Northern Ireland.
    His own views on the coloured peoples were robust, if primitive. At a cabinet discussion on July 27 on the disciplinary powers to be exercised by Indian army officers he let fly a flood of ‘childish’ objections to allowing the poor, harassed British soldier to be bossed around by ‘a brown man.’”

  20. Churchill’s own words (directly quoted by Gilbert) speak volumes about his liberal political views. The gallery can read the excerpts posted in the most recent thread and draw their own conclusions. He repeatedly attacked NS Germany over its religious and racial persecution of the Jews. He drew a stark contrast between the ‘free world’ and the ‘totalitarian powers.’ He said over and over again that the war against the Third Reich was about ‘individual rights’, ‘tolerance’, ‘progress’, ‘liberty’, ‘equality’ and the like. That’s why the neocons are his biggest fans.

    As for India, Churchill actually defended British rule in India on the grounds that the British were fostering racial equality between the Hindu castes, which he identified with ‘justice’ itself: “Justice has been given – equal between race and race, impartial between man and man. Science, healding or creative, has been harnessed to the service of this immense and, by themselves, helpless population.’” He opposed Dominion status for India on the grounds that the Hindus would end up tyrannizing the Untouchables and Muslims.

    Of course Churchill held some white supremacist views. He isn’t the first major politician (Lincoln) or cultural figure (Emerson) to suffer from double consciousness. As I said in our initial exchange, Churchill was the “midwife” to the anti-racist regime now in place in Britain. He was the major transitional figure. Like Abe Lincoln, Winnie had a foot in both worlds, and his war was responsible for bringing Britain down to its present racial level.

  21. Churchill in 1939:

    “‘This is not a question of fighting for Danzig or fighting for Poland,’ he said. ‘We are fighting to save the whole world from the pestilence of Nazi tyranny and in defence of all that is most sacred to man. This is no war of domination or imperial aggrandisement or material gain; no war to shut any country out of its sunlight and means of progress. It is a war, viewed in its inherent quality, to establish, on impregnable rocks, the rights of the individual, and it is a war to establish and revie the stature of man.’ (Gilbert, Churchill, 623)

    Churchill says explicitly here that the Second World War is an ideological conflict with the Third Reich over liberal principles, not a war for material gain or imperial self interest.

  22. When Churchill was involved in the Boer War he had not the slightest problem with the “Death” camps set up for Boer civilians.

    When Churchill was First Lord of the Admiralty, he showed no inhibition in committing a war of aggression against Turkey.

    When Churchill was Colonial Secretary he had no problem with the bombing and machine-gunning or civilians in the Arab uprisings.

    When Churchill was Chancellor of the Exchequer he had no problem returning to the gold standard upon the advise of jew, “Sir” Otto Niemeyer, and plunging England into depression.

    During the warII Churchill had no problem letting 3 million Indians starve to death.

    The following is taken from Michael Walsh’s Witness to History (downloadable)

    “In the course of the film showing the bombing of German towns from the air, very well and dramatically done, W.C (Winston Churchill) suddenly sat bolt upright and said to me: ‘Are we beasts? Are we taking this too far'” – Personal Experiences, Lord Casey. Constable. London 1962

    “I have read the reviews of the biographies of Sir Arthur Harris with extremely mixed feelings and also Robert Kee’s letter. (8th,July).
    On 13th, February, 1945, I was a navigator on one of the Lancaster bombers which devastated Dresden. I well remember the briefing by our Group Captain. We were told that the Red Army was thrusting towards Dresden and that the town would be crowded with refugees and that the center of the town would be full of women and children. Our aiming point would be the market place.
    I recall that we were somewhat uneasy, but we did as we were told. We accordingly bombed the target and on our way back our wireless operator picked up a German broadcast accusing the RAF of terror tactics, and that 65,000 civilians had died. We dismissed this as German propaganda.
    The penny didn’t drop until a few weeks later when my squadron received a visit from the Crown Film Unit who were making the wartime propaganda films. There was a mock briefing, with one notable difference. The same Group Captain now said, ‘as the market place would be filled with women and children on no account would we bomb the center of the town. Instead, our aiming point would be a vital railway junction to the east.
    I can categorically confirm that the Dresden raid was a black mark on Britain’s war record. The aircrews on my squadron were convinced that this wicked act was not instigated by our much-respected guvnor ‘Butch’ Harris but by Churchill. I have waited 29 years to say this, and it still worries me.” A. Williams, Nottingham; The Observer, August 8th 1984

    The impression created by apologists and propagandists suggest that London (and other British cities) fared equally badly. It is however a fact that more Londoners died in the 1952 smog (combination of fog and pollution) than died during the blitz. (Daily Mail, March 13, 2002.

    KASSEL
    “Kassel suffered over 300 air raids, some carrying waves of 1,000 bombers; British by night, American by day. When on April, 4th, 1945, Kassel surrendered, of a population of 250,000, just 15,000 were left alive.” Jack Bell, Chicago Daily News Foreign Service, Kassel, May 15th 1946

    “Countless smaller towns and villages had been razed to the ground or turned into ghost towns – like Wiener Neustadt in Austria, which emerged from the air raids and the street fighting with only eighteen houses intact and its population reduced from 45,000 to 860.”
    In the Ruins of the Reich, Douglas Botting. George, Allen & Unwin. London. 1985

    “Since the end of the war about 3,000,000 people, mostly women and children and over-aged men, have been killed in Eastern Germany and south-eastern Europe; about 15,000,000 people have been deported or had to flee their homesteads and are on the road. About 25% of these people, over 3,000,000 have perished. About 4,000,000 men and women have been deported to Eastern Europe as slaves. It seems that the elimination of the German population of Eastern Europe – at least 15,000,000 people – was planned in accordance with decisions made at Yalta. Churchill had said to Mikolakczyk when the latter protested during the negotiations to Moscow against forcing Poland to incorporate eastern Germany; ‘Don’t mind the five or more million Germans. Stalin will see to them. You will have no trouble with them; they will cease to exist.'”
    Senator Homer Capehart; U.S Senate February 5th 1946

    On February 1st, 1945 Poland’s General Anders reproached Winston Churchill for not adhering to the English guarantees:

    “What shall we say to our soldiers? Soviet Russia is now confiscating half of our territory and wants the remaining part of Poland to be managed according to her own fashion. We know from experience where that leads.” – General Anders

    CHURCHILL REPLIED
    “You yourself are to blame for that…. we did not guarantee your eastern frontiers. Today we have enough soldiers and do not need your aid. You can remove your divisions. We are not using them anymore!” – Winston Churchill

    “You did not say that during the last few years.” – General Anders

    “Germany is becoming too strong. We must neutralize her.”
    Winston Churchill, November, 1936 to U.S. General Wood

    “If Germany becomes too strong, she will be broken up once again.”
    Winston Churchill, 1937 to German Foreign Minster Von Ribbentrop

    “The Russians… swept the native population clean in a manner that has no parallel since the days of the Asiatic hordes.” – George F. Kennan

    “Expulsion is the method which, so far as we have been able to see, will be the most satisfactory and lasting.” – Winston Churchill, December 15th 1944, House of Commons

    “The transference of several millions of people would have to be effected from the East to the West or the North, as well as the expulsion of Germans – because of what is proposed; the total expulsion of the Germans – from the area to be acquired by Poland in the West and the North.”
    Winston Churchill, House of Commons, December 15th 1944

    “In Eastern Europe now mass deportations are being carried out by our allies o an unprecedented scale, and an apparently deliberate attempt is being made to exterminate many millions of Germans, not by gas, but by depriving them of their homes and of food, leaving them to die by slow and agonizing starvation. This is not an act of war, but as part of a deliberate policy of ‘peace’….”
    Bertrand Russell, The Times, October 19th 1945
    FLEEING THE RED ARMY
    “Sometimes six or eight hours were necessary to cross the ice, sometimes even longer. Exhaustion and exposure took its toll of lives, especially among the very young and the very old. Babies froze and were left by their mothers on the ice, old women fell from their wagons – dead. But a touch of the macabre would still be added by low-flying Russian planes, which mercilessly machine-gunned the refugees and bombed the ice so many a wagon train sank through the broken ice and disappeared in the waters of the Haff. Horses drowned, people drowned. It was an unimaginable trial against despair.” – Alfred deZayas, Nemesis at Potsdam

    Note: The Federal Ministry for Expellees, Refugees and War Victims of the German Government holds eight volumes of 600 – 1,000 pages each, of detailed documentation; eye-witness accounts, many of them backed by neutral observers, which is still ‘classified’ and held in archives with their publication forbidden.

    ALFRED M DeZAYAS, AUTHORITY ON THE EXPULSIONS
    “Although not officially taboo in America or Great Britain, the facts of the German expulsion were never given adequate coverage in the Press. As a consequence, most Americans and Britons do not know that there was an expulsion at all, much less that western authorization of the principle of compulsory population transfers made the American and British Governments accomplices in one of the most inhuman enterprises in the history of Western civilization.”

    “What followed was quite the opposite. More Christian women were raped than has ever before been recorded in world history. The German population was put on a 1300-calorie starvation diet, 15,000,000 German civilians were forcibly deprived of their homes and property; the allies have kept or taken one-fourth of their farmland and their farm implements, and told them to live by farming. And finally they raped and debauched hundreds of thousands of German, Austrian and Hungarian girls and women from eight to eighty. In one year of ‘peace’, they brought to their death five times as many German civilians as died during five years of war.”
    Dr. A.J. App, American authority on the Second World War

    “Frankly, the worst problem comes from our colored troops going with German girls. This stirs bitter hatred among German men. Many of our own soldiers feel almost as strongly about it.”
    Lee Hills, Frankfurt; Chicago Daily News Foreign Service, August 8th 1946

    CIVILIZING HITLER’S GERMANY
    These terrible, tragic events, that for sheer horror find their equal only in the worst excesses of Ghenghis Khan, explains the necessity to supply 50 million condoms to G.I.s in a vain attempt to check rampant venereal disease in a defeated nation in which such afflictions were previously virtually unknown. No less than 20% of G.I.s were carrying venereal disease.

    “In the case of Negro G.I.s the venereal disease rate was 70% infected.”
    – Hal Foust, Berlin, July 22nd 1946

    According to testimony given to the U.S. Senate on July, 17th, 1945, when the French colonial (Negro) troops under his (General Eisenhower) command entered the German city of Stuttgart, ‘they herded German women into the subways and raped some 2,000 of them.” Even a PM reporter, ‘reluctantly confirmed the story in its major details.’ Peace Action, July 1945

    John dos Passos (Life Magazine, January,7th, 1946. p.23) quotes a ‘red-faced major’ as saying: “Lust, liquor and loot are the soldiers’ pay.” A serviceman writes; “Many a sane American family would recoil in horror if they knew how our boys conduct themselves, with such complete callousness in human relations over here.” Time Magazine, October 2nd 1945

    In France, “Some Frenchmen began carrying truncheons at night to protect their wives and sisters from G.I. insults. Such was the reign of terror, the casual street selection for gratuitous sex by a wide diversity of races serving in the allied armies that visiting U.S. Army wives would have to wear uniform. The G.I.s did not want their wives mistaken for frauleins by other occupation troops.”
    INS, January 31st 1946

    “It is a tale of horror, old men starving on the roads, young girls raped in boxcars.”
    Time Magazine, October 2nd 1945

    American occupation troops are, being issued with 50,000,000 prophylactics a month.”
    Time Magazine, September 3rd 1945

    “At home our papers carry articles about how we ‘liberate’ oppressed countries and peoples. Here, our soldiers use the term ‘liberate’ to describe the method of obtaining loot. Anything taken from an enemy home or person is ‘liberated’ in the language of the G.I. Leica cameras are ‘liberated’ (probably the most desired item); guns, food, art. Anything taken without being paid for is ‘liberated’. A soldier who rapes a German woman has ‘liberated’ her.”
    The Diaries of Charles A. Lindbergh, p.953. Harcourt Brace Javanovich, N.Y. 1970

    This is the greatest generation which presided over the sixties and seventies revolution.

    Are you disgusted yet? Is Churchill liberal enough yet for ye?

  23. Churchill, the great humanitarian, had no problem acquiescing to Soviet demands regarding the sovereignty and freedom Poland at the end of W.W.II – the ostensible reasons for that conflict. He was truly a bullshit artist on a grand scale. As with the humanitarian bombing of Serbia in the 1990’s, liberals have no qualms murdering people in the name of higher principles, such as multiculturalism or some other liberal shibboleth.

  24. Yes. That is the whole point – War and Peace? Sovereignty, Freedom, what is it? That is why this searching into the past is relevant today, and the reason I like this blog. Prozium seems to follow his instinct, and his feelings are intuitive and of interest to other people, and that is a very good talent.

    When we reflect on what is being worked out here, we come to the New Victorian – The same confusion leading up to the same questions, the same dogma – Hopefully not the same wars.

  25. Churchill also is responsible for unleashing the Black and Tans on the civilian population in Ireland, then a part of the UK. He also authorised reprisal killings. That means, for example if a British soldier or policemen is killed by the IRA then an Irish civilian can be killed in “revenge” even if though that civilian had nothing with the IRA. Bloody Sunday (1920) in Dublin is a good example of this policy, 14 innocent Irish civilians who were attending the gaelic football match in Corke Park were murdered in reprisal for the assassination of 14 British intelligence agents, the “Cairo Gang”.

    “If a police barracks is burned or if the barracks already occupied is not suitable, then the best house in the locality is to be commandeered, the occupants thrown into the gutter. Let them die there—the more the merrier.

    Should the order (“Hands Up”) not be immediately obeyed, shoot and shoot with effect. If the persons approaching (a patrol) carry their hands in their pockets, or are in any way suspicious-looking, shoot them down. You may make mistakes occasionally and innocent persons may be shot, but that cannot be helped, and you are bound to get the right parties some time. The more you shoot, the better I will like you, and I assure you no policeman will get into trouble for shooting any man.”
    —Lt. Col. Smyth, June 1920

    Nice guys, these Black and Tans, eh?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_and_Tans

  26. Don’t forget, Friedrich, Lena and Felim that since the Second War of White Genocide, oops, “WW2”, was really just a continuation of the First War of White Genocide, err, “WW1”, that Germany still had to respond and deal with the after-effects of what primarily Britain imposed on her, which strained Anglo-German relations — with much of the credit for this going to Sir Winny.

    Beyond the Lusitania tragedy he helped to engineer to get America into the war when he was First Lord of the Admiralty, he also, as F. L. of A., engineered the genocidal British-imposed total starvation blockade of Germany, which did not even permit medicine and foodstuffs to the civilian population.

    (It was for this reason that the German General Staff resorted to unrestricted submarine warfare, to help break the illegal blockade, which of course ‘perfidious albion’ further, and deceitfully, used against them … you know, the ‘barbaric Huns’ aren’t playing ‘fair’ schtick.)

    Again, it was not Allied military prowess that forced the civilian German government’s hand to accept a grossly unfair armistice in November, 1918, leading to the evil Versailles Treaty, but the starvation blockade of Germany, an illegal, genocidal war crime that caused millions to innocently suffer, WHICH LASTED WELL AFTER THE WAR WAS OVER –

    […] VINCENT, C. Paul, The Politics of Hunger: The Allied Blockade of Germany 1915-1919 (Athens OH 1985); (this fantastic book is almost totally unobtainable). Two million Europeans died, mostly in Germany and Austria; the mortality rate was 250% higher than in Great Britain, as a result of the blockage. Vincent makes a direct connection between the illegal blockade and Hitler’s rise to power: psychoanalysis shows the later consequences of mistreatment in childhood; the German “hunger generation” of 1915-1920 became the most radical followers of National Socialism. Britain’s starvation blockade was a “significant factor in the formation of the Nazi character” (in English in the text). […]

    Naval Blockade of Germany after 11 November 1918 a – Great War Forum
    http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=587

  27. KNL-

    I guess in the end of my last post I should have wrote – hopefully, the same delusions will not end up in mass starvation, resulting in a world war. But I fear it will.

    Another aspect of Marxism, is that it must create the circumstances it theoretically claims because they do not exist in reality. It is happening today to spawn a race war. It was not that blacks needed to be “freed” or liberated in any way, but bred into beasts in ghettos under the worst conditions and then be able to “lawfully” commit the most brutal crimes against whites, with no retribution – and then given unmerited and unearned political power to lord over whites – so whites REACT. I am not sure they will because they have not already, but this is the perverted intention.

    White racism as it is historically described does not exist, so the circumstances in which it would occur need to be created. It all goes entirely against nature.

  28. “Churchill also is responsible for unleashing the Black and Tans on the civilian population in Ireland, then a part of the UK. He also authorised reprisal killings. …”
    __

    Felim,

    On that note, check out this sadist, what he did to innocent, kindred Europeans — but notice how this little dweeb comported himself in A REAL BATTLE — being responsible for the LARGEST SURRENDER of British military forces in history!

    […]

    “Percival’s surrender to the invading Imperial Japanese Army force was and remains the largest capitulation in British military history, and it permanently undermined Britain’s prestige as an imperial power in the Far East.”

    “Of Percival, his ‘keenest adversary’, Barry claimed: ‘This officer was easily the most viciously anti-Irish of serving British officers. He was tireless in his attempts to destroy the spirit of the people.’

    “A biographer of Michael Collins relates an allegation in a similar vein that Percival ‘had a habit of driving about the countryside in the mornings in an open touring car so that he could ‘have cock shots at farmers working in the fields’.'”

    […]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Ernest_Percival

  29. Lena:“In Eastern Europe now mass deportations are being carried out by our allies on an unprecedented scale, and an apparently deliberate attempt is being made to exterminate many millions of Germans, not by gas, but by depriving them of their homes and of food, leaving them to die by slow and agonizing starvation. This is not an act of war, but as part of a deliberate policy of ‘peace’….” – Bertrand Russell, The Times, October 19th 1945″

    Yes, the scale of the expulsions of ethnic Germans from Eastern Europe after WWII was terrible. And once those Germans were expelled they ended up being replaced in the professional/merchant classes by a bunch of Soviet Commies who were oftentimes highly exploitative and violent Jews. Truly sickening.

    I am friends with an ethnic German family now living here in the USA who used to live in Hungary; they were expelled from Hungary soon after WWII even though they had done nothing wrong and they fled to Baden-Wuerttemberg where they lived for a few decades before eventually coming to America in the 1980s.

Comments are closed.