Translate

Showing posts with label Winston Churchill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Winston Churchill. Show all posts

Wednesday, 8 March 2017

Why some old timers might think Jews helped whip up the war fever that lost the British their empire





Anti-Semitism discussed from 9:20

From 21st minute: "We can never have a racial policy in Great Britain because we are running a multi-racial empire."















It would be nice to have British historians discussing this, to hear the other side.Will they dare? It is such a political hot potato that historians both Jew or gentile must fear being accused of anti-Semitism whatever they say and however impartial they mean to be towards Jews. 

What I make of The Second Thirty Years' War is explained at http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/poppy-mania-day-prevents-any-rational.html

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2017/03/the-battle-for-barking-revisited.html

"Why did British people die in the Second World War?" one BNP-supporting householder asked.

"They died to let everyone come in and take over."

Secular Koranism is the antidote to anti-Semitism

Are you an anti-Semite just because Jews hate you? 

Why some old timers might think Jews helped whip up the war fever that lost the British their empire
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Sunday, 3 May 2015

David Irving: Churchill destroyed and bankrupted the British Empire.

Poppy Mania Day prevents any rational and impartial analysis of the insanity of UK foreign policy for the past 100 years

British establishment more invested in the idea of punishing David Irving than Zionist Jews

David Irving: If Britain had not fought WW2 it would have kept its empire. Churchill destroyed and bankrupted the British Empire. 




http://irvingbooks.com/xcart/product.php?productid=17896&cat=3&page=1

Churchill's War, vol i: The Struggle for Power

Churchill's War, vol i: The Struggle for Power

Available again for the first time in thirty years. Our amazing reprint. Updated and reaches the USA and Britain later this month. Be first to order now!

David Irving's standard work on the early years of Winston Churchill and his war, based, like his work on Hitler, on and interviews and documents exclusively available to him, and thirty years of research in British and international archives. This first volume chronicles an almost unbroken series of disasters in his life, from Gallipoli and the Chanak crisis to the defeat of France and the military fiasco in Greece. For collectors: Jacketed, case-bound, a limited edition of a de luxe boxed copy with special binding will be available to those who order it early.

The contract for the biography was signed with major British publishers in October 1972. This first volume appeared fifteen years later, in 1987, the second fourteen years after that. It benefits from the release to the public domain of thousands of files, including the most secret, which even the official biographer has been unable to see. In the thirty years of its gestation, the world has turned, the landscape of history has shifted, and entire areas now tremble to the tread of the enforcers of political correctness.

Mr Irving is no longer the enfant gâté of the media. Publishers who fell over themselves in the 1970s to publish him now come under assault from international organisations if they even hint at doing so again. (The secret files of Macmillan Ltd show that in July 1992 - on the same day as the author was returning triumphant from the KGB archives in Moscow with the Goebbels diaries - their editors-in-chief took the decision, under outside pressure, to burn all his remaining works in secret, and not inform him they were doing so.)

Unlikely but true stories dominate this volume: How Churchill clawed his way back into power; how he was used by the Jews, and used them; how he started the saturation bombing war; how he innocently but often exposed himself to young girls and statesmen alike; how he sank the Bismarck, and  sold out the British Empire to the Americans; how his historic speeches were three times broadcast for him by ‘Larry the Lamb’, as he himself was in no condition to broadcast; how he dictated to and dominated his ministers; how his drink problem grew out of control, which did not escape the attention of foreign statesmen.

The human Winston Churchill reaches boldly out of this first volume, as from the second: bullying, bold, incorrigible, and callous, hectoring his own ministers but subservient to both Moscow and Washington and mindlessly sacrificing the British empire's interests when those powers so dictated. The unpalatable picture that emerges of this war leader in Real History is unchallengeable - that he willingly fomented, prosecuted, and indeed prolonged the war against Hitler, not in pursuit of any fundamental British empire interest, for Britain and her empire were never threatened by Hitler's Germany; but to acquire money and power after years in the wilderness and poverty; and that he was undismayed to see the British empire ruined in the process.

The volume reproduces many photographs and documents, many in colour. Vol.2 has been published, and is available from this bookstore. Vol. 3 follows.

 700 pages including notes and index. English buyers can obtain a copy for £35 incl. post and packaging, benefiting from lower postal rates. Send details to Focal Point, Holme Rose, Croy, Inverness, IV2 5PW or focalp@aol.com and payment by BACS to account 7300 7308, sort code 20-00-77.
at No comments:
Labels: ,

Friday, 6 March 2015

The only way to eradicate Islamophobia is to demonstrate the benefits of Secular Koranism


at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, 22 May 2014

What Charles should now say about comparing Putin to Hitler

Proposed Statement from Charles:

"I really don't know what came over me. Of course Putin isn't like Hitler, unless anyone who invades another country is like Hitler, and I do not feel, now that I have thought things through properly, that the British who once had a world empire and is even now behaving in a way that can only be described as an unedifying display of unseemly military aggression disguised as liberal interventionism, is in a position to get on their high horse on this matter. The British are after all these days merely poodles of America.  If the Americans want us to bark at the Russians then we bark at the Russians.

When we fought the Crimean War in 1834 it was was against the Russians, and they have always regarded the Crimea as their backyard.

As for what I said about Hitler, I can only say that I really really really did not mean anything by it.  I was in the presence of a Jewess who was also a Holocaust survivor. This situation made me feel socially obliged to bring Hitler into the conversation to show that I sympathised with her on the one hand, and on the other relate it to something that was topical.  That really was all. Although that tiresome man Edward Lucas has rushed to my defence at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2635617/Hitler-Putin-Charles-right.html there really was no need, and I entirely disagree with him about Winston Churchill, who lost the British their world empire in his fits of drunkenness, depression and the desire to take reckless risks in order to aggrandise himself as a wartime leader.  

If, as A J P Taylor said, WW2 was a continuation of WW1 then what was WW1 really about? Belgian neutrality? Surely not.  The military opportunism the Germans displayed during WW1 was probably because they felt left out in the scramble for Africa and wanted a place in the sun over which they could place their towel, but they are good people really. Perhaps we should blame ourselves for not being more nicer to the Germans who are after all our Teuton cousins who also brew good beer. It seems incredible that the British could have lost their empire over something as trivial as Belgian neutrality.  I suspect the British lost their empire because their policy of being nasty to the Germans for the sake of being nasty to the Germans turned around and bit their sorry asses.  It is now perhaps time to question our political system that allows only fools and knaves to govern us. There.  Why don't you people put that in your pipe and smoke it?"

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Why-not-have-a-one-party-state-if-it-makes-more-sense/353471931432677 
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, 6 June 2013

Why I would be pleased to see the statue of Churchill in Parliament Square pulled down

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/jun/04/boris-johnson-book-winston-churchill

London Mayor Boris Johnson, who said that the Woolwich atrocity is nothing to do with either Islam or UK foreign policy and who is apparently believed by the gullible, those in denial and the cowardly, is now writing a book in praise of Churchill.

Here are some questions for Boris and his fellow Churchill-lovers.


  1. Why did Britain enter WW1?
  2. Was Belgian neutrality worth the sacrifice of so many British lives?
  3. What document provided for Belgian neutrality?
  4. Are you aware of the contents of the Treaty of London 1839?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1839)
  5. Can you discern from its contents what it was that was so important about Belgian neutrality to Britain that made its leaders sacrifice so much over it to so little effect?
  6. Were you aware that the German Ambassador in London was aghast at the British for going to war over what they called "a scrap of paper"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_London_(1839)#.22Scrap_of_paper.22
  7. Are you aware that the British went to war in 1914 over a document signed 78 years before that?
  8. Was Britain the most militaristic nation in Europe?  (A militaristic nation goes to war at the drop of a hat and over scraps of paper.  It is understandable that Germany would go to the aid of Austria if it was being threatened by Russia, if it had recently agreed to do so.  It is understandable that the Russians who are Slavs would go to the aid of the Serbs who are also Slavs if they were being threatened by their Austrian overlords, but what the fuck had Belgian neutrality to do with the British??)
  9. Could it be said that British foreign policy at the time before WW1 and WW2 consisted of being nasty to the Germans for the sake of being nasty to the Germans?
  10. Could it be said that the British policy of being nasty to the Germans for the sake of being nasty to the Germans ended up in the disintegration of the British empire?
  11. Why couldn't Germany have Poland when Britain had its world empire since Germany had completely missed out in the scramble for Africa?
  12. Did you know that Poland had a Saxon ie German king as recently as the 1600s?
  13. Did you know that Germany regarded Poland as its backyard in the same way that Britain regards Ireland as its backyard?
  14. Could it be said that WW2 was a continuation of WW1?
  15. But for WW2, would Britain have lost its world empire?
  16. If WW2 was a continuation of WW1, and Britain lost its world empire as a result of WW2, could it be said that Britain lost its empire over "a scrap of paper"?
  17. Was Hitler's greatest mistake his belief that the British would be reasonable about Poland (which was outside their sphere of influence anyway) when they had already gone to war over the scrap of paper that was Belgian neutrality?
  18. How rational do you think British foreign policy is?
  19. How rational do you think British foreign policy has been in the last hundred years or so?
  20. Did you know that Hitler liked children, was an animal-lover, a vegetarian and was kind to his servants, while Churchill was a drunkard, a depressive and was rude to his servants?
  21. While Hitler was an infamous antisemite, did you know that Churchill thought "Keep England White" was a good slogan?  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Later_life_of_Winston_Churchill#Return_to_power
  22. If you have gone to the trouble of acquiring an empire, shouldn't you at least try to hang on to it for as long as you can?
  23. Could it be said that Churchill gambled away the empire the British, acquired with so much blood, sweat and tears, in a roll of dice?  (What is war but a speculative gamble?)
  24. Are the British fools or knaves for overlooking the enormity of Churchill's folly?
  25. Could British foreign policy be better conducted by Claire Khaw who takes a Palmerstonian view of British interests?  (Palmerston would have taken a dim view of the Special Relationship.  "Therefore I say that it is a narrow policy to suppose that this country or that is to be marked out as the eternal ally or the perpetual enemy of England. We have no eternal allies, and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.")
  26. Is it time for the British to stop being the poodle of America and instead become the Pekingese of the Chinese, which would mean shutting up about Tibet?
  27. Do you think British MPs ever discuss foreign policy in an honest or reasoned way?
  28. Are you are of any serious and detailed discussion taking place as regards UK foreign policy?
  29. If you were a Muslim terrorist committing terrorist atrocities to make the British re-examine their foreign policy, do you think you have done enough?
  30. Do you think the Germans are on the whole quite decent forbearing people considering what they have had to put up with from Hitler and the British?
  31. While Churchill was not the one who in fact declared war on Germany, do you think he more or less bounced Chamberlain into declaring war on Germany?
  32. Do you think Churchill fancied himself as war leader?
  33. Are you aware that tinpot dictators like starting wars so that they can strut around being war leaders?  
at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, 9 September 2012

An evening with David Irving

David Irving and me


https://irvingbooks.com/xcart/product.php?productid=17764&cat=249&page=1&fb_source=message

David Irving is a terrific raconteur. It occurs to me that most historians must have been.

All good historians and history teachers know how to tell a good story.  How I remember dear Miss Young who taught me O level history goose-stepping from the front of the class to the back of the class!

I am agnostic on the Holocaust since I was not there and even if I had been it would have been impossible to tell how many were killed and for what reason in a war situation.

As far as I can see, this Holocaust thing is a hangover of the conflict between Judaism and Christianity, which will one day be resolved when we have Secular Koranism in Britain.   Sadly, not many people understand it, though it is really very simple.

The debate between how history is established and taught will rage on forever more, just like politics.

David Irving makes a point of using only primary sources.  His books are popular and readable because they contain the necessary details to bring it all to life, eg the colour of the wallpaper, the weather on the day.  His books read like novels, I imagine.

He refers to Ian Kershaw as a "conformist historian", and said Kershaw would refer to his books in order to write his conformist version.

David also told us of how a postcard which Hitler sketched himself was stolen by a man who now lives in Tallahasee whose name is Michael Hesse, I think.

He mentioned the "birdy spoon" which his daughter Jennifer used for her cereal, which has been through the dish washer many a time.  I believe it must be something along the lines of the spoons found at http://www.ebay.com/itm/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&_trksid=p4340.l2557&item=170833719843&nma=true&rt=nc&si=atqdK2KCATIogCrl0ZIgpXg5J14%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc#ht_2909wt_699

Anyway, I found it a charming story.

There was a book called ADOLF HITLER with some great photographs of the Fuhrer looking happy and glorious in  it, but it was in German, priced at £100.

Apparently, the Soviets tried to suppress the fact that Hitler shot himself, and claimed he merely poisoned himself like a woman.  The fact was that he did both.  It is also incredibly difficult to shoot yourself in the temple because of the kickback, and he recounted an occasion when a top Nazi attempted it twice and failed, only managing to graze the top of his head.  Someone else had to finish the job for him.

So that is why if you want to do it properly, you put the gun into your mouth.   Hitler managed to successfully shoot himself in the head, in case you were wondering.

He found most of the Hitler's private staff very approachable, though they would not have been quite so to approachable to any other "conformist historian" with an anti-Hitler axe to grind.

The story that charmed me most about Hitler was the one about how a fly saved Hitler's adjutant Fritz Darges's life.  It was high summer and the Russians were about to invade.  Hitler was in a conference with the leaders of the German Armed Forces.   There was a fly bothering Hitler, and he demanded that Fritz  Darges get rid of it.

Fritz Darges's response was that, since it was a creature on wings, it should be the job of the Lutwaffe.

His levity resulted in his being sent to East Prussia as punishment that very day.  Three days later, the bomb that was meant to kill Hitler went off.   If Fritz Dagen had been in his usual place, he would have died.

So there you go, one should have a sense of humour.

This rather indicated to me that Hitler did usually have a sense of humour, or doubtless Fritz Dagen would not have made such a joke under any circumstances.

This rather endears Hitler to me.

I asked what sort of a man Irving thought Hitler was, and, unhesitatingly, he said: "A very kind man.  He was compassionate, incorruptible, honest and decent."

He always asked after the health of the family of his generals and was kind to those who served him.  Indeed, he once demanded the stenographers be given electric heaters so they were not too cold in the draughty huts they had to work in.

I had an idea that he was a kind a man anyway, from Chrita Schroeder's book, which is eminently readable http://www.amazon.co.uk/He-Was-My-Chief-Secretary/dp/1848325363

So there we have it:  Churchill was a warmongering drunk and known for being horrid to his servants, and Hitler was a teetotaller and was kind to his servants and never would have invaded Britain, according to David Irving.

I feel sorry for the British who haven't had a decent foreign policy since the days of Palmerston.   
at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , , ,

Saturday, 8 January 2011

My Churchillian speech about fighting the liberal establishment

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in our homes,
we shall fight in schools and factories, in pubs and churches,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength,
we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender,
to FUCKING LIBERAL SCUM!!!!!

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-is-teaching-establishment-like.html


http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2011/01/in-beginning-there-was-word.html
at 2 comments:
Labels: , , ,

Tuesday, 7 September 2010

Winston Churchill and Adolf Hitler


"The best that can be said about Churchill is that he was a successful failure, while it would be more accurate to describe Hitler as a success who subsequently failed."

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/30/1059480402192.html contains a review of Andrew Roberts' book Hitler and Churchill: Secrets of Leadership.  In it Roberts' suggests that all European Jewry would have been exterminated and the Empire would have been effectively mortgaged to Britain by the grace of Hitler.  Rather hysterical and unlikely, in my view.  Hitler planned to expel the Jews to Madagascar (which, incidentally, makes him a Zionist).  The Madagascar Plan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar_Plan is therefore conclusive evidence that he meant to expel rather than exterminate.  The plan was not carried out due to the fall of Vichy France. Very arguably, if it had not been for the warmongering of Churchill and the fatal diplomatic blunder of France when it declared war on Germany, fewer Jews would have died in WW2.
at 2 comments:
Labels: ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Mark Parker entertains doubts

26:00  Psyop is just another word for state propaganda. 35:39 @DigitalGnosis ​​I dont believe Homer was a person Homer was a pagan. There wi...