Tell the Truth & Shame the Devil

by Tell the Truth

  At this hour of crisis a dark and mysterious figure entered Churchill’s life: he was Henry Strakosch, a multimillionaire Jew who had acquired a fortune speculating in South African mining ventures after his family had migrated to that country from eastern Austria. (Strakosch was chairman of The Economist between 1929 and 1943. His involvement in the payment of the private debts of Sir Winston Churchill, in 1938, was later cited in Nazi propaganda as evidence of Jewish involvement in British politics. Strakosch had supplied Churchill with figures on German arms expenditure during the latter’s political campaign for rearmament against the Nazi regime, and the financial arrangement enabled Churchill to withdraw his home Chartwell from sale at a time of financial pressures. (Wikipedia) Strakosch stepped forward, advanced the aging demagogue a “loan” of 150,000 pounds just in time to save his estate from the auctioneer, and then quietly slipped into the background again. In the years that followed, Strakosch served as Churchill’s adviser and confidant but miraculously managed to avoid the spotlight of publicity which thenceforth illuminated Churchill’s again-rising political career.

  Churchill immediately became the sharpest Parliamentary critic of his own party’s (at that time he had once again switched from the Liberals back to the ruling Conservatives) policy of detente with National Socialist Germany. He took up the Jewish cry, “Delenda est Germania – Germany must be destroyed,” and urged his government, in a series of jingoistic and bloodthirsty speeches, to join the Jewish “holy war” against Hitler. This was the same Churchill who, in September 1937, had said of Hitler: “If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.” (The Buying of Mr. Churchill, Dr. William Pierce)

  Memo from today: Jewish supporters of Winston Churchill are to unveil a bust of the British wartime leader in Jerusalem this weekend in what they say is a long-overdue recognition of his staunch and unwavering support of the Jewish cause and their desire for a homeland. (The Independent, November 3, 2012)

  On the morning of 16 July 1936, George Andrew McMahon (real name Jerome Bannigan) produced a loaded revolver as King Edward VIII rode on horseback near Buckingham Palace. He was spotted by police and apprehended. In the scuffle that followed, the revolver landed in the road, hitting the hind leg of the King’s horse. In the subsequent court case at the Old Bailey in September 1936, McMahon was charged with “producing a revolver with intent to alarm his Majesty” (The National Archives). “At Bannigan’s trial, he alleged that ‘a foreign power’ had approached him to kill Edward, that he had informed MI5 of the plan, and that he was merely seeing the plan through to help MI5 catch the real culprits. The court rejected the claims and sent him to jail for a year. It is now thought that Bannigan had indeed been in contact with MI5 but the veracity of the remainder of his claims remains open.” (newworldencyclopedia.org)

  ***

  Throughout his time in prison, McMahon continued to maintain his claims of an international conspiracy. He was released on 12 August 1937 and immediately began a campaign to clear his name (The National Archives).

  ***

  He addressed a letter of apology to the Duke of Windsor, on August 27, 1937. On April 4, 1938, the International News Service reported that the Duke of Windsor had given “a considerable sum of money” to Bannigan and helped to establish him in business, and “expressed a desire to meet him.” “According to him he had been approached in October the previous year by an English intermediary who introduced him to representatives of “a foreign power” outside their embassy...A close friend of a small group of German speaking Austrian émigrés, May (Galley) and her associates were seen with McMahon on several occasions. At least one of her émigré friends had been a member of the Austrian Communist party and would briefly come to the attention of MI5 two years later in connection with Soviet espionage activities at Woolwich Arsenal. It is clear from the notes McMahon gave to Kerstein about the ‘foreign power’ that he was referring to Nazi Germany. However, none of the names he wrote down match any on the German diplomatic list for 1936 or any other German individuals residing in Britain who were known to be associated with the regime. It would therefore seem that those named were either figments of his imagination or were alternatively individuals posing as Germans. If the ‘Nazis’ McMahon was in contact with were in fact Austrians, a whole new complexion is cast on the story” (The Guardian, January 3, 2003).

  If Bannigan was recruited outside the Austrian Embassy, by German-accented people, he could have assumed that his co-conspirators were Austrians, rather than certain people with German accents for whom the location was convenient.

  Surrounded by rabid Germany-haters like Sir Robert Vansittart, Eden and Duff Cooper, Churchill resolutely rejected all Hitler”s offers for peace and committed Britain to a war in which it had no national interest and which bankrupted it. “How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches and trying on gas-masks here because of a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing. It seems still more impossible that a quarrel that has already been settled in principle should be the subject of war.” Chamberlain, radio broadcast, 27 September 1938 (Faber, David (2008). Munich: The 1938 Appeasement Crisis. Simon & Schuster, p. 375-76)

  The tragedy was that Hitler’s instincts had been right. His initial attraction to the German Worker’s Party (DAP) in 1919 had been partly based on Gottfried Feder’s publication “Der Deutsche Staat auf nationaler und sozialer Grundlage”/”The German State on a Nationalist and Socialist Foundation” (1923), which postulated an end to the “slavery of interest”—”the movement’s catechism,” as Hitler called it in his preface.

  Today, governments are entirely dependent on large loan capital and in relation to their peoples are only the interest collectors for their anonymous masters in Wall Street, The City of London and Paris. (Gottfried Feder, opus cit. p. 22)

  ***

  In my eyes Feder’s merit consisted in having established with ruthless brutality the speculative and economic character of stock exchange and loan capital, and in having exposed its eternal and age-old presupposition which is interest. His arguments were so sound in all fundamental questions that their critics from the start questioned the theoretical correctness of the idea less than they doubted the practical possibility of its execution. But what in the eyes of others was a weakness of Feder’s arguments, in my eyes constituted their strength. (Hitler, Mein Kampf)

  ***

  “The main goal of the National Socialist state is: the state without taxes.” (Feder op. cit., p.128) Having proved that “today almost all taxes are devoured just by interest payment,” Feder explains with figures,how in the state of Bavaria, the 1911 income from various state businesses would almost entirely have sufficed to offset the state expenses—had it not been for the interest payments on the state debt (opus cit. pp. 130-131).

  ***

  The basis of Feder’s ideas was that the state should create and control its money supply through a nationalized central bank rather than have it created by privately owned banks, to whom interest would have to be paid. From this view derived the conclusion that finance had enslaved the population by usurping the nation’s control of money (The Lost Science of Money, Stephen Zarlenga, quoted in Web of Debt, Ellen Brown, Third Millennium Press, 2007, p. 235)

  Some claim that Hitler emerged from Landsberg prison in 1924 a changed man; one more attuned to expediency. Whatever the case, Feder’s reforms were considered by Reichsbank President Hjalmar Schacht to be too radical to be implemented in their entirety as conceived, as they risked alienating certain interests whose support was essential, and Feder was sidelined, but there is no way of knowing how Germany might eventually have adapted to such precepts if war had not intervened. However, there is no doubting that Hitler put an entire nation on its feet and that he was genuinely beloved by his people. He had regenerated a country brought low by a vindictive alliance and assure
d sustenance to a population of which at least 700,000 had perished from starvation. The swiftness with which unemployment had been reduced and the workforce put back to work convinced many previous Communists to join the NSDAP (Albert Krebs, Tendenzen und Gestalten der NSDAP. Erinnerungen an die Frühzeit der NSDAP, p.74).

  For a man who had never guided a country, his success was little short of miraculous. However, the inexperience which enabled him to take risks without being hindered by convention also led him to carry political brinkmanship too far.

  During the fall of 1938 Hitler achieved one of his greatest political triumphs. The return of the predominantly German Sudetenland was achieved without war. The anxiety of the people in Berlin during the Munich Conference was extremely high because the arrival of the Czech air force was expected at any minute. Their flying time to Berlin was less than half an hour and Germany was, at that time, totally unprepared for any major military confrontation. I shall never forget the evening Hitler returned from Munich. The relief and jubilation were without bounds. The anti-aircraft batteries in and around Berlin, some eighty guns, had been lined up along Hitler’s route from the railroad station to the chancellery and I was standing behind a good friend of mine who fired the electrically connected guns simultaneously with the push of one button. The roar of that salute was indescribable. (Heinz Weichardt, Under Two Flags)

  The question could be posed whether war could have been avoided had he been satisfied with the return of the Sudetenland and not taken possession of Prague (Chamberlain’s “Peace for our time,” September 30, 1938; an echo of Disraeli’s “I have returned from Germany with peace for our time,” 1878.). “Chamberlain’s conduct towards Germany . . . had never been dictated by a consciousness of military weakness but exclusively by the religious idea that Germany must have justice, and that the injustice of Versailles must be made good.” (Prime Minister Chamberlain’s Press Officer).

  (The decision to invade and appropriate the rest of Czechoslovakia also resulted in the extinction of the Anglo-German Fellowship, a phony organisation, pervaded by persons with hidden agendas; compare with Archibald Ramsay’s “Right Club,” a truly patriotic association.)

  However, Germany considered the Czech-Soviet alliance of 16 May 1935 as being “unilaterally and exclusively directed against Germany.” It gave substance to the German fear that Czechoslovakia was a “Soviet aircraft carrier.”

  More importantly, in view of the Franco-Soviet Pact, which had been concluded two weeks earlier, France, Russia and Czechoslovakia now constituted... a single political and military instrument; as such the Czech-Soviet treaty was an event of decisive importance for Germany. (Lorna Waddington, Hitler’s Crusade)

  ***

  As regards future policy, it seems to me that there are really only two possible alternatives. One of them is to base yourself upon the view that any sort of friendly relation, or possible relations, shall I say, with totalitarian States are impossible, that the assurances which have been given to me personally are worthless, that they have sinister designs and that they are bent upon the domination of Europe and the gradual destruction of democracies. Of course, on that hypothesis, war has got to come, and that is the view--a perfectly intelligible view--of a certain number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen in this House….

  If that is hon. Members’ conviction, there is no future hope for civilisation or for any of the things that make life worth living. Does the experience of the Great War and of the years that followed it give us reasonable hope that if some new war started that would end war any more than the last one did? No. I do not believe that war is inevitable. Someone put into my hand a remark made by the great Pitt about 1787, when he said:

  “To suppose that any nation can be unalterably the enemy of another is weak and childish and has its foundations neither in the experience of nations nor in the history of man.”

  It seems to me that the strongest argument against the inevitability of war is to be found in something that everyone has recognized in every part of the House. That is the universal aversion from war of the people, their hatred of the notion of starting to kill one another again….I do indeed believe that we may yet secure peace for our time, but I never meant to suggest that we should do that by disarmament, until we can induce others to disarm too. (Neville Chamberlain, Prime Minister, the parliamentary debate on the Munich Agreement, House of Commons, October 5, 1938)

  During this debate, Churchill spoke in his usual mocking manner, disregarding the evidence of Hitler’s repeated attempts to come to terms with Britain. The “universal aversion from war of the people, their hatred of the notion of starting to kill one another again” was and is incontrovertible. But a democratic system is no guarantee that the opinions of those forced to risk their lives in totally unwarranted wars should count.

  Indeed, on the subject of democracy:

  They invented and successfully promoted Socialism, Communism, human rights and democracy so that persecuting them would appear to be wrong, so they may enjoy equal rights with others. With these they have now gained control of the most powerful countries and they, this tiny community, have become a world power. We cannot fight them through brawn alone. We must use our brains also. (Prime Minister of Malaysia Dr. Mahathir, opening the 10th Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC) Summit at Putrajaya Convention Centre, October 16, 2003, author’s emphasis)

  Dr. Mahathir’s ellipsis omits the evolution of democracy since the 6th century BC and its often changeable character. He may be presumed to have meant that modern representative democracy is the easiest system to influence.

  “Equal rights” is merely the levelling of all peoples and cultures. This kind of equality is not earned but legally enforced. It is subjugation.

  Dr. Mahathir also said:

  1.3 billion Muslims cannot be defeated by a few million Jews. There must be a way. And we can only find a way if we stop to think, to assess our weaknesses and our strength, to plan, to strategize and then to counter-attack. We are actually very strong. 1.3 billion people cannot be simply wiped out. But today the Jews rule this world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them.

  ***

  The Germans are a very patient people. I cannot imagine even for an instant, that Great Britain would have calmly watched for twenty years, how three and a half million Britons could live under the scourge of a thoroughly detestable people that speaks a foreign language and has a completely different national outlook. If I know my fellow countrymen, they would have intervened after a few years against such a violation. (Daily Mail, May 6, 1938)

  ***

  I am asking neither that Germany be allowed to oppress three and a half million Frenchmen, nor am I asking that three and a half million Englishmen be placed at our mercy. Rather I am simply demanding that the oppression of three and a half million Germans in Czechoslovakia cease and that the inalienable right to self-determination take its place. (Hitler speech at the NSDAP Congress 1938)

  An agreement was signed between Germany (Hitler) and Great Britain (Neville Chamberlain) which suggested a peaceful revision of the wrongs committed by the Treaty of Versailles. A four-power conference was suggested which would preserve the peace. The four powers were Great Britain, Germany, France and Italy. The paper Truth of 5 January 1952 stated that Mr. Oswald Pirow, South African Minister of Defence, was sent on a mission to Germany in 1938 by General Smuts to ease the tension on the Jewish issue. The British Prime Minister told Pirow that pressure of International Jewry was one of the principal obstacles to an Anglo-German accommodation and that it would greatly help him resist that pressure if Hitler could be induced to moderate his policy towards the German Jews. Pirow stated that Hitler viewed this idea with favour and an Anglo-German agreement was in sight; the effect would have been, in the event of war, to limit the conflict to Germany and Russia, with the other great powers intervening to enforce their own terms when the combatants were exhausted. However, the Four Nations Pact was not to be. (Kenneth McK
illiam, from a pre-1993 edition of John Tyndall’s Spearhead magazine)

  On November 7, 1938, a few weeks after the Munich Agreement and shortly before the journey to Paris of the German Foreign Minister, Von Ribbentrop, German legation counselor Ernst vom Rath was shot in Paris, by a 17 year old Polish Jew called Grynzpan. On November 9, anti-Jewish riots broke out in Germany, supposedly in response to this assassination. So many contradictory factors have been identified that the usual story cannot any longer hold true. For one thing, this ostensibly penniless, reportedly good-for-nothing could not have afforded to buy the gun he used, nor to live in a hotel, which happened to be near the Paris headquarters of the International League Against Anti-Semitism (LICRA), the legal counsel of which turned up immediately to defend him.

  Not only did Grynzpan survive the war, but he returned to Paris afterwards. It is alleged that, in Germany, on the previous day, a number of unknown men had appeared and tried to stir up anti-Jewish feeling all over the country. A few may have disguised themselves as SA- and SS-men and to give orders to destroy Jewish property (Ingrid Weckert, Feuerzeichen).

  The date was well-chosen, being the annual commemoration of the 1923 Putsch, when all important SA and SS officers as well as leading politicians were in Munich and unavailable to confirm these orders. Moreover, the grassroots organization required to instigate such riots or motivate the masses among the normally peaceable, law-abiding citizenry could not have been created at such short notice, neither would the murder of a minor diplomat have sufficed to fuel such anger. Not only did Goebbels not make an instigatory speech, as claimed, he was totally ignorant of the event. Goebbels’ political authority did not permit him to give commands outside his district of Berlin. The five bullets fired put an end to the peaceful resolution of the European conflict envisioned by the Munich Agreement and of the effort to revise the Treaty of Versailles. According to Karl Wilhelm Krause, Hitler’s personal valet, Hitler exclaimed “What have you done? ...and I will be blamed for this again later”(Hitlers Kammerdiener, youtube, about minute 32 onwards).