Douglas Reed
Douglas Reed (1895–1976), British author and journalist, was a penetrating and clear-eyed witness to the course of events in Europe and the West following the First World War. He served in the trenches in that war, and afterwards became a correspondent in the then-arising telephone news services. “I began to pick up the tricks of the journalist’s trade,” he writes in Insanity Fair, the book that made him famous. Insanity Fair was published April 1, 1938 and was a great success. Six months later Reed reported in a Postscript: “Now… on October 1st, I am sitting in Belgrade and read in my newspapers that the book is in its 28th edition and that it has been banned in Germany, and all around me is the tragedy that I have foretold you, the tragedy of faith betrayed… moving with gathering speed.”
There were few tricks either in his moral sense or his prose style. He possessed a rare capacity, seemingly extinct in journalists today, which was a refusal to be deceived. This is a character of the will rather than of the intellect. But he was intellectual astute and had a graceful and highly literary prose style. The titles of many of his works speak to this literary flair: Insanity Fair (1938), Disgrace Abounding (1939), A Prophet At Home (1941), Lest We Regret (1943), From Smoke to Smother (1948).
Reading several of these books — as I have been doing for the past few weeks — brought me into a special state of awareness. My state might be described as “feeling suspended in the historical-prophetic — or “being immersed in a series of ongoing novels-still-happening” or “witnessing events in their prophetic dimensions.” The brightness and clarity of the thoughts corresponded, in some mysterious way, to the brightness of the May air outside the Free Library in Philadelphia, where I was engaged in this reading. (The books, because of their condition, were not to be circulated. It was only later that I discovered a website in which many of these books are available in PDF format.
I would be reading Reed — and at the conclusion of a few hours, return to the world outside, whose very history and prospects revealed and resonated with his pages. In those moments I felt I was in a more-than-physical realm in which revelation and resonance surrounded me.
I was not exactly a stranger to Reed. I had read his book, The Controversy of Zion, which has been posted on the Internet thanks to the labors of a Danish researcher, Knud Erikson, at this link. After the publication of Far and Wide (1951) Reed’s books were all but banned by establishment publishers, according to a brief biography of Reed reproduced on Erikson’s website. Reed “provided readers with elegantly-crafted reporting and analysis based on seasoned but common-sense observations of the international scene.” The second sentence of the brief Wikipedia entry on Reed quotes the Times of London claiming that Reed was a “virulent anti-Semite” — certainly a charge guaranteed to ban his books. The Controversy of Zion is a history of the Jews from the earliest beginnings to the founding of the state of Israel and its history until 1956. Reed devoted much attention to the Jews. The quality of his attention might be painful at times — as light is painful at first when we emerge from a darkened room. But never hateful.
In The Controversy of Zion, Reed traces the beginnings of the people who became known as “Jews” to an incident recounted in Nehemiah 13:37 in what was then the Persian province of Judea. On a day in 458 B.C., there was read, by Ezra of the Levites, what was to become known as the Law. It decreed absolute severance of the people from others, it banned mixed marriages, and it spoke of a vengeful god: “And the people wept when they heard the words of the Law.” This was the start of a “racial creed, the disruptive effect of which on subsequent human affairs may have exceeded that of explosives or epidemics.”
To Reed, the setting up of a tribal god was already regressive as far back as 458 B.C., when the idea of a God for all mankind was beginning to work its way through society. It is important to recall that the tribe of the Levites was not the same people known to history as the ‘Israelites.’ Reed quotes a Dr. Kastein, an avid Zionist, who remarked that “[After the death of Solomon, ~ 937 BC] the two states [Israel and Judah] had no more in common, for good or evil, than any two other countries with a common frontier. From time to time they waged war against each other or made treaties, but they were entirely separate. The Israelites ceased to believe that they had a destiny apart from their neighbors and King Jeroboam made separation from Judah as complete in the religious as in the political sense… [Then, the Judahites] … decided that they were destined to develop as a race apart…. they demanded an order of existence fundamentally different from that of the people about them. These were differences which allowed of no process of assimilation to others. They demanded separation, absolute differentiation.”
This small racially exclusive Levite tribe was supported in the Persian province of Judea with the force of Persian arms. The founding of Israel with the arms and support of the British Government in 1917, is the culmination of a centuries-long pattern in which non-Jewish governments have furthered the goals of what Reed called the “heresy of Judaism.” Reed traces the “heresy” from its origins with the Levites through its metamorphoses to the later Pharisees, Talmudists, and Zionists. This was the core group that maintained its apartness from the rest of humanity, and acted as a constricting force when assimilative tendencies began to manifest in the mass of Jews.
Biographical sketch of Reed accompanying The Controversy of Zion
I believe it is all but impossible to understand the world today without reading The Controversy of Zion, for modern Israel is indeed the result of the Judaic racial doctrine of a “law unto themselves.” The Jews, Reed wrote in A Prophet at Home, are the most complex people in the world and “to claim to know their inmost souls… is fatuous.” “It is much more difficult to define [them.] Dispersed throughout the world, they may themselves best be compared to a sphere of which the steel core is the body of fiercely intolerant, anti-Gentile Jews, while those qualities diminish as you work outwards toward the softer peel.” He believed the Jews of the world to be divided into three main groups: the first group, more or less assimilated, sees itself as mainly religious. The second group comprises the Zionists, with territorial ambitions. The third and last group comprise international Jews, “with boundless aims.” Promotion of the aims of Zionists and internationalists tended to be to the detriment of the first group.
For example, in the earlier books he spoke highly of those British Jews who, in 1917, resisted and opposed the Zionist ambitions, and who resented being lumped in with the Russian Jews who had spawned the Zionist movement. However, by 1945 as the Zionist State was being established with the force of British arms, British Jews had converted en masse to Political Zionism. Reed comments that they immediately turned against Britain once the Second World War was over.
In Lest We Regret (1943) Reed comments that the campaign for a Jewish home in Palestine was “the most stupendous press and political campaign in his experience.” In looking back over the intervening years, he notes that all that remains of the victory in the First World War was the “Jewish triumph” — that is, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the underwriting of the Jewish state by the government of Britain. The great victor of the Second World War was Communism, which brought in its wake the bifurcation of Europe. The two, Communism and Political Zionism, the two victors of 20th-century upheavals, bore down upon the time like pincers. “Both worked hand in hand and promoted each other’s aims during the next thirty years (whether in the third act they will separate and strike at each other, or appear to do so, is a revelation reserved [for later times.]”
He often returned to this theme: the difference between military victories and political defeats — or rather, military victory transformed into political defeat. Truly, the events following the First World War had “far-retching consequences — they make you sick.” The period 1918–1939 he calls “senile” — the decay of manners, the defacing of the countryside, the poor quality of new building, the “fantastic silences” of the English — which are “grotesque and inhuman.” These were the things enshrined as the result of the World Wars.
But Reed thought that the causes of the wars remained concealed: the practice of power wielded in anonymity, e.g., by ‘advisers’; the principle of unaccountability in politics; and the ‘exploitation of unemployment’ and the deference to ‘private enterprise’ which allowed for the shuttering of industries. The principle of unaccountability had enabled Parliament always to promise one thing and do its exact opposite; there seemed to be no difference in the political parties. In A Prophet At Home, 1941, he had seen it coming: “I had remained English; England had become alien; … [it] had the feeling of past participle.”
Sound familiar? Those were the days — I emerged from the Free Library into modern America, whose template, it seems, had been outlined, described, marked, and stamped by this prescient journalist some seventy years ago. We are in the third phase of the story of the triumph of Communism and Zionism after WWII. Communism disappeared suddenly and without fuss, to the consternation of planners and bureaucrats. But the Zionists are still going strong. They celebrated the end of the Cold War with the Neoconservative doctrine of US world hegemony.
The far-retching consequences continue, and Reed’s “third act” is still waiting to be detonated. Maybe it already has — financial catastrophe, Israel’s out-of-control aggression and the fanatical campaign against Iran. Too bad Reed isn‘t around to say “I told you so.”
Caryl Johnston (email her) writes from Philadelphia.
Editor’s note: This article originally appeared on TOO on June 10, 2010 but was lost in the shuffle when TOO got its face lift.
Facing the Future as a Minority
Reed is one of the best writers on the Jewish question. Chapters 23 in his book Disgrace Abounding is the best introduction to the Jewish problem I have ever seen. You can read it here:
http://www.controversyofzion.info/How_Odd_of_God_en.htm
Some of my favorite scenes from The Controversy of Zion. At a press conference for Hitler that Reed is attending is being organized by a fellow journalist from England . The journalist gives Reed a little wave as he is going to the podium. Reed comments that he thought it was funny because the journalist was Jewish.
But the book is such a great read and so entertaining eye opener.
I am sure Reed had a place reserved in heaven after writing it.
Fine article.
Reed was one of the finest modern critical thinkers and his writing always shows the best humanitarian instincts.
A small point: the Kastein whom Reed references in The Controversy of Zion was quite in the mainstream of jew thought and it is misleading to think of him as an extremist except from the non-jew point of view.
A bigger point: critical thinker or not, Reed was a child of his times, and accepted without question much of the wartime propaganda about the National Socialist state. He is a solid reference where he deals in his own observations; he is a better reference when coupled with Stoddard’s “Into the Darkness”.
In a similar vein, it is good to update his biblical observations with something like “The Bible Unearthed”.
I was barely aware of Reed. Caryl, you should write more about his writings, especially this ominous “third act”. I guess it has to be related to a world goverment via WWIII…
Having grown up in the 50s and 60s it is rather frightening that Reed thought England was alien back in 1941 In A Prophet At Home, 1941, he had seen it coming: “I had remained English; England had become alien; … [it] had the feeling of past participle.” Yikes! and I tell people that the world has changed since my youth in the 50s and 60s!! However, today I am on holiday and I look forward to reading at my leisure all the comments raised by Dr Kastein on Judea not being Israel – I guess the Jews know that as they call themselves Israelis rather than the bibical Israelites?
Have people read Reed’s chapter “How Odd of God” describing Jewish and Christian people in Europe in the years prior to 1939?
http://knud.eriksen.adr.dk/howoddofgod.htm
Reed recognized the anti-White Supremacism of Jews and Non-Whites.
He was ahead of his times.
Accusations of White racism should be met with accusations of anti-White Supremacism.
There are still a few Douglas Reed around, Eric Margolis being one, who are keeping fair journalism alive against all odds. The rest of the so-called ‘journalist community’ produce, what I call “Jingoism”.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/journalism-vs-zionist-jingoism/
Far retching? 1983? Edit much?
I rather doubt Reed was taken in by Nazi propaganda – among other things, he WAS on the scene, and hard to take in, it would appear, wherever he was.
Maybe dc arrives at his speculation (above) because he (dc) is taken in by ANTI-Nazi propaganda, of which there remains a greater deal in vigorous circulation among the children and grandchildren of people who survived World War II on the Allied sides.
Thank you for another wonderful introduction. I just read “How Odd of God” and was amazed at his foresight and disheartened by how often we ignore our wise men.
Reed was once a well-respected journalist until he questioned the “6 million” figure in the book Far and Wide. Then he was relegated to the fringe thankfully. I am ashamed of TOO for promoting a revisionist.
@Rolf Kraki: Take your ‘shame’ get lost .
Thank you for the link to Erikson’s site and “The Controversy of Zion”. I copied it and intend to transfer the whole book to CD, as well as to spread the knowledge of this book to others I know who are interested. The other site, however with the link at “a website”, is a bit suspicious. I tried to download some of the PDF’s, but in each case (3 different Reed books), the download would stop after 278 MB and my PC would freeze. One has to be cautious as some of these websites could be “honeypots”. In any case I had to shut my PC down and restart in order to shake the hold that that website had on it. I recommend staying away from that site and try to find Reed’s books elsewhere.
This book is an eye opener . There are facts takes about in this book that won’t go away . Inevitabley the truth wins unless it can be exculpated from history and this is no longer possible . These original are DIRECTLY responsible for most of the carnage of the twentieth century though for the un initiated it seems too incredible to be true but then so might be Hitlers Jewish soldier and Generals and these are also facts .
This book is an eye popper , the cowardly prefer to pull the blind.
@Rolf Kraki:
” Well, I must admit, I have always been open to revision on the holocaust, and I still suspect the numbers are wildly exaggerated…”
Guess who penned this?
@Olaf:
Olaf, that article by Reed was an eye-opener for me. He understood how utterly different Jews are and how dangerous they are when they get on top. A very observant person.
@Rolf Kraki:
If you are “ashamed” of TOO for promoting a revisionist and you are “thankful” that such an insightful man as Douglas Reed has been relegated to the fringe (which says something about Jewish power!),you need some education.Why don’t you go to CODOH.com/ or ihr.org/ and study for yourself? If you want to read a book,try: Thomas Dalton,Debating the Holocaust,see a short description at Amazon.com.
History is full of Big Lies,especially with regard to wars.The holocaust story was part of war atrocity propaganda,concocted by both the Allied Powers (who wanted to hide their own war crimes) and the Jews (who wanted to gain sympathy for the creation of their own state).The whole story is full of absurdities and physical impossibilities that collapse on serious inspection. The fact that questioning the holocaust is punishable by law in various countries (due to Jewish pressure) should ring a bell.Truth need not fear open debate,lies do.
@Rolf Kraki:
I’m with free thinker. The only ‘gas chamber’ in existence is one at Auschwitz and it was admitted the Poles built AFTER WW2 was long over. Get lost already.
@Rolf Kraki:
Reed was once a well-respected journalist until he questioned the “6 million” figure in the book Far and Wide. Then he was relegated to the fringe thankfully. I am ashamed of TOO for promoting a revisionist.
White nationalism is a fringe movement . In time , as with revisionism , it will be mainstream . The truth will triumph .
The only shame is on you .
It’s now official – there’s been no actual shortage of Holocaust Survivors :
Quote from The Holocaust Industry by Norman G. Finkelstein of the City University of New York, published by Verso in the year 2000:
‘The Israeli Prime Minister’s office recently put the number of “living Holocaust survivors” at nearly a million.’ (page 83)
I’ve checked out the six volumes of Churchill’s Second World War and the statement is quite correct – not a single mention of Nazi ‘gas chambers,’ a ‘genocide’ of the Jews, or of ‘six million’ Jewish victims of the war.
Eisenhower’s Crusade in Europe is a book of 559 pages; Churchill’s Second World War totals 4,448 pages; and De Gaulle’s three-volume Mémoires de guerre is 2,054 pages.
In this mass of writing, which altogether totals 7,061 pages (not including the introductory parts), published from 1948 to 1959, one will find no mention either of Nazi ‘gas chambers,’ a ‘genocide’ of the Jews, or of ‘six million’ Jewish victims of the war.
Dirty Little Secrets – the hidden, awkward origins of World War 2 – the unexpected views of four key diplomats who were close to events
Just consider the following:
· Joseph P. Kennedy, U.S. Ambassador to Britain during the years immediately preceding WW2 was the father of the famous American Kennedy dynasty. James Forrestal the first US Secretary of Defense (1947-1949) quotes him as saying “Chamberlain (the British Prime Minister) stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war”. (The Forrestal Diaries ed. Millis, Cassell 1952 p129).
· Count Jerzy Potocki, the Polish Ambassador in Washington, in a report to the Polish Foreign Office in January 1939, is quoted approvingly by the highly respected British military historian Major-General JFC Fuller. Concerning public opinion in America he says “Above all, propaganda here is entirely in Jewish hands…when bearing public ignorance in mind, their propaganda is so effective that people have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs in Europe… It is interesting to observe that in this carefully thought-out campaign… no reference at all is made to Soviet Russia. If that country is mentioned, it is referred to in a friendly manner and people are given the impression that Soviet Russia is part of the democratic group of countries… Jewry was able not only to establish a dangerous centre in the New World for the dissemination of hatred and enmity, but it also succeeded in dividing the world into two warlike camps…President Roosevelt has been given the power.. to create huge reserves in armaments for a future war which the Jews are deliberately heading for.” (Fuller, JFC: The Decisive Battles of the Western World vol 3 pp 372-374.)
· Hugh Wilson, the American Ambassador in Berlin until 1938, the year before the war broke out, found anti-Semitism in Germany ‘understandable’. This was because before the advent of the Nazis, “the stage, the press, medicine and law [were] crowded with Jews…among the few with money to splurge, a high proportion [were] Jews…the leaders of the Bolshevist movement in Russia, a movement desperately feared in Germany, were Jews. One could feel the spreading resentment and hatred.” (Hugh Wilson: Diplomat between the Wars, Longmans 1941, quoted in Leonard Mosley, Lindbergh, Hodder 1976).
· Sir Nevile Henderson, British Ambassador in Berlin ‘said further that the hostile attitude in Great Britain was the work of Jews and enemies of the Nazis, which was what Hitler thought himself’ (Taylor, AJP: The Origins of the Second World War Penguin 1965, 1987 etc p 324).
Etc etc etc etc – more details at http://www.rense.com/general92/dirty.htm
Committee for Open Debate of the Holocaust – breaking the power of taboo
http://www.codoh.com/
Hundreds of key documents, including book-length works such as Germar Rudolf’s Foundations, film and video classics like One Third of the Holocaust, and hundreds more books, essays, and photos on every aspect of the Holocaust for on-line seekers of truth around the world.
and
The world’s largest and liveliest revisionist-moderated on-line discussion of the Holocaust. Wide-ranging, freewheeling, daily controversy on virtually every aspect of the Holocaust debate, with emphasis on breaking news and burning issues. We welcome all views expressed with civility and which are on point.
and
America’s most successful revisionist activist, Bradley Smith, writes simply but strongly on how the Holocaust taboo blinds professors, journalists, politicians, and the human rights community to their responsibilities to encourage a free flow of ideas. In this Blog Smith reveals himself in the light of day in a way that his most vociferous critics would not dream of attempting.
Max Nordau (1849-1923) was the co-founder of the World Zionist Organization together with Theodor Herzl.
Have a look at this Max Nordau quote from Ben Hecht’s book ‘Perfidy’ – which is available for free in PDF format at
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/perfidy.pdf (on page 232 of 261):
Quote:
In the Zionist Congress of 1911, 22 years before Hitler came to power, and three years before World War I, Nordau said, “How dare the smooth talkers, the clever official blabbers, open their mouths and boast of progress. . . . Here they hold jubilant peace conferences in which they talk against war. . . . But the same righteous Governments, who are so nobly, industriously active to establish the eternal peace, are preparing, by their own confession, complete annihilation for six million people, and there is nobody, except the doomed themselves, to raise his voice in protest although this is a worse crime than any war . . .” unquote.
____________________________________________________________________
And take a look at the article from The American Hebrew, October 31 1919 (see attached reproduction below), prophesying a ‘holocaust’ of ‘six million’:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_H._Glynn
http://www.jrbooksonline.com/images/091031crucifixion.gif
The Crucifixion of Jews Must Stop!
By Martin H. Glynn
(Former Governor of the State of N.Y.)
From across the sea six million men and women call to us for help, and eight hundred thousand little children cry for bread.
These children, these men and women are our fellow-members of the human family, with the same claim on life as we, the same susceptibility to the winter’s cold, the same propensity to death before the fangs of hunger. Within them reside the illimitable possibilities for the advancement of the human race as naturally would reside in six million human beings. We may not be their keepers but we ought to be their helpers.
In the face of death, in the throes of starvation there is no place for mental distinctions of creed, no place for physical differentiations of race. In this catastrophe, when six million human beings are being whirled toward the grave by a cruel and relentless fate, only the most idealistic promptings of human nature should sway the heart and move the hand.
Six million men and women are dying from lack of the necessaries of life; eight hundred thousand children cry for bread. And this fate is upon them through no fault of their own, through no transgression of the laws of God or man; but through the awful tyranny of war and a bigoted lust for Jewish blood.
In this threatened holocaust of human life, forgotten are the niceties of philosophical distinction, forgotten are the differences of historical interpretation; and the determination to help the helpless, to shelter the homeless, to clothe the naked and to feed the hungry becomes a religion at whose altar men of every race can worship and women of every creed can kneel. In this calamity the temporalities of man’s fashionings fall away before the eternal verities of life, and we awaken to the fact that from the hands of one God we all come and before the tribunal of one God we all must stand on the day of final reckoning. And when that reckoning comes mere profession of lips will not weigh a pennyweight; but deeds, mere intangible deeds, deeds that dry the tear of sorrow and allay the pain of anguish, deeds that with the spirit of the Good Samaritan pour oil and wine in wounds and find sustenance and shelter for the suffering and the stricken, will outweigh all the stars in the heavens, all the waters in the seas, all the rocks and metals in all the celestian globes that revolve in the firmament around us.
etc etc etc
America Vanquished, PART 1: America as an Israeli colony
http://www.darkmoon.me/2011/america-vanquished-part-1-america-as-an-israeli-colony-by-dr-lasha-darkmoon/
America Vanquished, PART 2: America under Jewish rule
http://www.darkmoon.me/2011/america-vanquished-part-2-america-under-jewish-rule-by-dr-lasha-darkmoon/
I read Controversy of Zion in about 1982 which opened my eyes. Reed was far ahead of his times and something of a propher. His books were in my parents book shelves. A friend of mine’s mother who lived in Durban South Africa said that a a kindly old gentleman – no one knew much about him – used to come and watch the tennis at the local club. DR retired in South Africa and his last book was about Rhodesia and Ian Smith.
Disgrace Abounding, would be a good place for WWII buffs to explore. Douglas Reed remained convinced to his last days of the need for British involvement in the conflicts of Europe. Perhaps he was a product of his times, of the British Empire. Or maybe German might was something to fear. The NSDAP leadership was imperialistic. They were willing to rule over others. It seems to be a pitfall of our species. The line between nationalism and imperialism becomes blurred from those at the top. If only it could have happened differently.
@Jj:
The Poms also had a bit of history when it came to imperialism.
@George:
” I’ve checked out the six volumes of Churchill’s Second World War and the statement is quite correct – not a single mention of Nazi ‘gas chambers,’ a ‘genocide’ of the Jews, or of ‘six million’ Jewish victims of the war.”
George, I suggest that you go back to Churchill’s six volumes and redouble your efforts to find what you (and so many others) claim is not there: then you will discover your claim to be an all too common error.
As for the Eisenhower and de Gaul diaries? I make no comment as I’ve never read them; but would respectfully suggest that you consult them before you rely on what is claimed on the Internet regarding their content.
@Jj: @Jj:
I don’t think the NSDAP even had the vaguest intention of “ruling the world,” although modern-day zionists/marxists of the U.S. media establishment still seem to waste no opportunity to imbue us with such a “scary” notion. Think about it: the world transformed from the British “Redshield” Empire’s paradigm of predatory banking, colonial exploitation and piracy, to the German model of innovation, manufacturing and sensible agrarianism. The horror!
Could a near-landlocked country, such as Germany, even have dreamed of competing against Britain and others for domination of the world and high-seas?? With all troops scattered around the globe, who’d protect Germany against Russia?
Then, of course, there’s Adolf the Great’s own writings, in MK and the “Second Book,” in which he very explicitly criticizes both Austria-Hungary and Wilhelmian Germany for having attempted to rule over “dissimilar peoples.” He seems rather content in allowing Britain to continue her folly down the same path, with no interference from Germany.
As for the reason Reed “feared” Germany, I won’t speculate since I haven’t read the book. But here’s some insight into the origin of the “Evil Nazis want to rule the world” propaganda: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p125_Weber.html
I have all of Read’s books but have never been able to finish Far and Wide. I believe the experience(s) that Reed had while touring the US and which are detailed in ‘Far and Wide’ caused him to suddenly realise that Jewish power had by that time taken hold of America, thereby giving it virtual control (post Breton Woods) of the world economy, along with America’s military machine and its burgeoning arsenal of terrible H(ell) Bombs: and I think this caused Reed to adopt a flat, almost depressing tone in that book. This mood seems to be absent in his earlier works despite his own wartime experience and insights as a published writer who was openly ‘Jew-wise.’
Douglas Reed could see clearly what most others of his generation refused to see. Often in such circumstances, the bottle becomes a crutch, but Reed, like MacDonald, was made of sterner stuff, and chose instead to reach for his pen. Three years later he put down his pen having written one of the greatest works of our age: a benchmark by which all similar works should be judged.
The Controversy of Zion is not perfect and we can all find parts to disagree with. However, I think it should be at the top of every convert’s reading list, especially as it provides such a powerful antidote to the monstrous fabrications of history, which, like debt and taxation, have been pressed upon our people from cradle to grave
@Rudy:
Pat Buchanan’s book, “Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War,” offers compelling evidence of Hitler’s very limited territorial aims. He wasn’t interested in Western Europe at all (France and Great Britain forced him into conflict) and was even willing to cede several historically ethnic German regions (Alsace-Lorraine and South Tyrol) to France and Italy, respectively.
@Rudy:
Link to Buchanan’s book:
http://www.amazon.com/Churchill-Hitler-Unnecessary-War-Britain/dp/0307405168/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1320534787&sr=1-2
@Henry:
Could you cite to where in Churchill’s volumes you found that he he the mass extermination of Jews? I’m not doubting he did, but you seem to have found the cites and it would save me a great deal of time and trouble. Thank you.
@Jordan:
From volume one, The Gathering Storm, p.15 (The Folio Society)
”In the second world war the bond between man and man was to perish. Crimes were committed by the Germans under the Hitlerite domination to which they allowed themselves to be subjected which find no equal in scale and wickedness with any that have darkened the human record. The wholesale massacre by systematized processes of 6 or 7 millions of men, women and children in the German execution camps exceeds in horror the rough-and-ready butcheries of Genghis Khan, and in scale reduces them to pigmy proportions. Deliberate extermination of whole populations was contemplated and pursued by both Germany and Russia in the Eastern war….”
From volume six, Triumph and Tragedy, p. 534, (The Folio Society)
“Prime Minister to Foreign Secretary, 11 July 44
There is no doubt that this [persecution of Jews in Hungary and their expulsion from enemy territory] is probably the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilised men in the name of a great State and one of the leading races of Europe. It is quite clear that all concerned in this crime who may fall into our hands, including the people who only obeyed orders by carrying out the butcheries, should be put to death after their association with the murders has been proved. I cannot therefore feel that this is the kind of ordinary case which is put through the Protecting Power, as, for instance, the lack of feeding or sanitary conditions in some particular prisoners’ camp. There should therefore, in my opinion, be no negotiations of any kind on this subject. Declarations should be made in public, so that everyone connected with it will be hunted down and put to death.”
@Henry:
Thank you Henry. It is interesting though that he highlights the situation in Hungary. I feel that I have been told that Hungary was just one piece in the overall extermination campaign and that similar atrocities were going on with respect to Jews from Germany, the Netherlands, Poland, Russia. (And on a far greater scale. Wasn’t the deported population in Budapest something like 500,000? Compare that to 6 million.) Is this passage implying that wasn’t the case?
@Henry:
The received revisionist opinion about the socalled “holocaust” is that it was a combination of Allied war propaganda (to hide their own war crimes) and Jewish fabrications (to gain sympathy for the creation of their own state).Can we not see war criminal Winston Churchill as engaging in just such war atrocity propaganda and does his own interest in this not discredit him?
Mark also that he uses the impossible number of 6 or 7 million victims and that he advocates mass murder as a fitting punishment.How reliable is this man?
@Rolf Kraki: Anyone who can still claim 6 Million Jews were killed by the Germans during the 2nd world war despite the mountains of concrete evidence to the contrary either has rocks in their head where their brain should be or they are pathological liars, Rolf Kraki.
Which is it with you?
@Franklin Ryckaert:
“The received revisionist opinion about the socalled “holocaust”…”
By describing revisionist opinion as “received,” are you saying that the views held by revisionists are unexamined and taken on faith?
@Jordan:
Perhaps I had better use the expression “accepted after having done some study” instead of “received” (a rather religious term).I used it because most of us have never done any personal research but have read the revisionists and found their arguments convincing and that this opinion is generally accepted by those who have done such study.
But again, how reliable is Winston Churchill?
@Jordan: Jordon,
Jordon, Churchill makes his public position on the so called ”Holocaust” very clear in the first quote:
”…The wholesale massacre by systematized processes of 6 or 7 millions of men, women and children in the German execution camps exceeds in horror the rough-and-ready butcheries of Genghis Khan…”
As you can see he expressly states that 6 or 7 million were murdered in ”German execution camps” so it’s no use us pretending that after the war (when he penned the first quote) he had in mind only the Hungarian Jews mentioned in his July 44 memo (the second quote) to Anthony Eden.
That memo was a response to information that Churchill had received from Eden who earlier had met with a small delegation from the World Jewish Congress, so it must be stressed that Churchill was not responding to information received from official allied sources. As for doubts about what he had been told: Churchill’s next and last entry on the Hungarian matter suggests that he did have them:
Prime minister to Foreign Secretary 6 Aug 44. (The Folio Society, p.549 )
”This seems to be a rather doubtful business [the case of the Hungarian Jews]. These unhappy families, mainly women and children, have purchased their lives with probably nine-tenths of their wealth. I should not like England to seem to be wanting to hunt them down. By all means tell the Russians anything that is necessary, but please do not let us prevent them from escaping.
I cannot see how any suspicion of peace negotiations could be fixed on this miserable affair.”
In this memo Churchill is referring to the activities of Rudolf Kastner and his organisation. After the war Kastner was murdered by a Jew in Israel and it is claimed that the number of Jews who escaped because of him was but a tiny fraction of those who died.
See Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kastner_train
The fact remains however, that within the pages of the book in question there is reference to the alleged ”wholesale massacre….of 6 or 7 millions of men, women and children in the German execution camps” and claiming that Churchill published six volumes without mentioning a word of it does not do the cause of Holocaust denial any good at all.
For the record: I am a Holocaust denier.
@Franklin Ryckaert:
The issue here isn’t the Holocaust it’s the widespread claim that Churchill did not mention one word about it in his six volumes about the second world war, and this is simply wrong!
There are many reasons to cast doubt on Churchill’s memoirs, for instance, much of what’s in them was written by a team of (I think) 14 writers/historians/researchers, including his literary agent, Emery Reves: a Hungarian Jew who was a well known forger (in 1941 Reves forged the book ‘How I Paid Hitler’) and advocate for one world government.
For my own position on the Holocaust see my reply to Jordan.
@Henry:
Thank you, Henry.
If you care to comment on a few further observations regarding what else has been presented here, I will read with interest.
* At the time of Churchill’s July 1944 letter regarding Hungary, according to mainstream history the systematic extermination of Jews had been underway in other parts of Germany’s domain for at least a year and a half, if not more. What do you make then of the shock expressed in Churchill’s letter regarding events in Hungary? His words seem to fail to acknowledge the wider of context of what was happening at the time. This is similar to a point I was trying to make in an earlier post.
* Why were the people in Hungary he referred to mainly women and children? Had the men been killed? Had the escaped?
* What was the Russian interest in these events? I infer from what you have excerpted that Russia opposed any dealings with Germany, even if it meant negotiating a refuge for Jewish Hungarians. But that appears to be at odds with the view, which I have seen expressed in materials posted on TOO, that Soviet Union was very much a Jewish influenced political entity. Did the Russians not view this as a life or death issue for Jewish Hungarians? Did they appreciate the mortal threat, but not care? Etc.?
@Jordan
Q: ”At the time of Churchill’s July 1944 letter regarding Hungary, according to mainstream history the systematic extermination of Jews had been underway in other parts of Germany’s domain for at least a year and a half, if not more. What do you make then of the shock expressed in Churchill’s letter regarding events in Hungary? His words seem to fail to acknowledge the wider of context of what was happening at the time. This is similar to a point I was trying to make in an earlier post.
A: Prior to this date (July 44) there was no evidence of an organized genocide found by official allied sources. All of what had been pushed as evidence had come from the World Jewish Congress (WJC) and was generally taken with a pinch of salt, but in going directly to Anthony Eden and, face to face, assuring him that tens of thousand of Jews were being murdered daily, the WJC went for broke hoping to pull of what Hitler had described so well in Mein Kampf as the ‘Big Lie.’ http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/hitlerlie.html
In fact even today, the only evidence for the Holocaust of six million murdered Jews comes from the WJC.
In the late 1930s, Churchill was placed by Jewish intriguers at the head of the ‘Focus’ and given the secret name of ‘Oscar.’ This name was chosen because it was the old Norse/English word meaning ‘Spear of God.’ Churchill (and the other Christian members) believed absolutely that there existed a covenant between God and the Jews, and that the Jews had chosen him to defend them and maintain this sacred covenant. So when the WJC brought their terrible evidence, including an eye witness, that 500,000 of God’s chosen people had been murdered in only weeks, Churchill would have remembered why he was originally hired by Robert Waley-Cohen, et al, causing his sudden ”shock” and anxiety. In other words: he had a panic attack!
Somewhat cryptically, perhaps: the name of ‘Oscar’ was chosen for Churchill by the German Jewish banker, Eugen Spier.
Q: ”Why were the people in Hungary he referred to mainly women and children? Had the men been killed? Had the escaped?”
A: Churchill is referring to the Jews who were being removed from Hungary under the terms of Kastner’s agreement(s). It’s likely that these trains were being filled as lifeboats are filled when a ship is going down and it was simply a case of ”woman and children first.”
The Jewish men would have been the first to be taken into forced labour but many would already have fled beyond the Soviet lines. The Soviets took in millions of Eastern and Central European Jews. In the Churchill volumes there is mention of an offer that Churchill receives from Stalin, in which, if I remember correctly, Stalin offers 20 divisions of Poles to fight in Palestine. I believe a Soviet infantry division varied between 10,000 and 15,000 men so taken as 12,500 in each division, Stalin was offering 250,000 men.
Churchill does not refer to these ”Poles” as ”Jews” but I think it’s certain they were because he considers the idea of taking them to be a logistical nightmare as their entire families were to go along with them! And I very much doubt that non-Jewish Poles would be interested in an emigration to Palestine, and even less likely, a mission to defend it. The number to be relocated must have been about one million, so Stalin received plenty of Jews into the Soviet Union.
Q: ”What was the Russian interest in these events? I infer from what you have excerpted that Russia opposed any dealings with Germany, even if it meant negotiating a refuge for Jewish Hungarians. But that appears to be at odds with the view, which I have seen expressed in materials posted on TOO, that Soviet Union was very much a Jewish influenced political entity. Did the Russians not view this as a life or death issue for Jewish Hungarians? Did they appreciate the mortal threat, but not care? Etc.?”
The Russians knew that Germany was trying to come to terms with the western allies and part of the German case for settlement was that they would continue the war against the Soviet Union as they assumed the west would be happy to have Germany do today what the west would be forced to do tomorrow, that is: take up arms against the Soviets.
One of the ideas put forward in negotiations between the Nazis and the Jewish agencies (who were putting German offers to the west) was the ‘Trucks for Jews’ deal, whereby the west would give the Germans 10,000 trucks in exchange for one million Jews. The Germans promised that these trucks would only be used in the east against the Soviets. Therefor Churchill would have been anxious that Stalin, who was a known paranoid, might come to see the release of Jews from Hungary as confirmation that the deal between the Nazis and the western allies had finally been struck.
See Here http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,938106,00.html
@Henry:
Thanks Henry. This helps to start to fill in the picture.
I hesitate to request any more of you but … What is the main argument of the Holocaust skeptics/deniers? If I were willing to at least hear their side, are there certain principal arguments, facts, or pieces of evidence that I would look at? Three or four items? One main item/argument? I’m not necessarily asking for a lengthy exposition.
Were you always a skeptic or did you once believe the mainstream account and later change your mind?
@Jordan:
Just remember the Germans let the International Red Cross inspect ALL Camps at any time. Larger camps even had permanent offices in them. Does anyone seriously believe they were gassing 2500 Jews an HOUR 24/7 at Auschwitz and the Red Cross either didn’t notice or didn’t bother mentioning it?
BTW No Red Cross EVER at any of Stalin’s camps, but then ‘Uncle Joe’ was such a good guy, eh? While I’m at it, where are all the gas chambers? and how is it that the ‘Prussian Blue’ (The residue of Cyanide gas which can last for centuries on brick walls) is clearly visible on OUTSIDE walls in places such as Auschwitz while there is none inside?
Is it just possible that the Germans were telling truth all along about delousing clothing and mattresses on OUTSIDE walls with it? And that’s why all the Prussian Blue is found outside, on walls?
@Henry: The quote provided does not specify Jews being killed. Therefore, it is correct to state that the extermination of Jews was not mentioned. The reference to the butchery of Genghis Khan is, of course, in keeping with the time honoured tradition of the English referring to Germans as “Huns”.
Churchill was a drunken buffoon for sale to the highest bidder. He had sought the destruction of Germany years before the war. Here is an interesting article about Churchill’s family.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1083772/Earls-counts-future-King–200-lovers-younger-son-As-new-documentary-reveals-wonder-high-society-wits-called-Winston-Churchills-wayward-mother-Lady-Randy.html
Note that both his mother’s and father’s families were considered to be without morals. The question never answered was how Churchill could afford the upkeep on the family estate, when the only visible source of income was his salary as a Member of Parliament.
As always, I recommend C W Porter as an unconventional source of information on the Hollowco$t. http://www.cwporter.com/
Whenever Judaic peddlers of The Holocaust ® fable start babbling about its ‘uniqueness’, throw them off balance by bringing up Mathew Berman and his kosher comrades-run GULAG where untold millions of innocents perished, and were tossesd into the ground with all the dignity accorded to a stray dog.
@Curmudgeon:
Aptly named I see.
You said:
”The quote provided does not specify Jews being killed. Therefore, it is correct to state that the extermination of Jews was not mentioned.”
I note you didn’t bother to apply your pedantry to the other quote from July 44 where the word ”Jew” is specified in direct relation to Churchill’s opinion that:
”There is no doubt this is probably the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilised men in the name of a great State and one of the leading races of Europe. It is quite clear that all concerned in this crime who may fall into our hands, including the people who only obeyed orders by carrying out the butcheries, should be put to death after their association with the murders has been proved.”
Perhaps Kevin MacDonald will say if he agrees with you that Churchill was not referring to the (alleged) Nazi extermination of Jews in the quotes provided?
@Henry: The July 44 quote may be real, the content is pure fiction. From that perspective, it makes no difference whether his book contained the reference. That would be true of Eisenhower and DeGaulle as well.
Churchill’s statements have no credibility. Ask the Welsh mining communities about Churchill’s honesty. As I have already stated, Churchill was as much a political whore as his mother was. The difference was that she had a higher class clientele. The man blatantly lied to the citizens of the UK stating that Germany had begun bombing English cities first. The psycho “Bomber” Harris and Churchill deliberately bombed housing in German cities days after Churchill became Prime Minister. The German bombing was not perfect, but concentrated on military type targets. London’s East End – the Docklands – was a target, as were Liverpool’s docks. Coventry and Crewe were weapons manufacturing cities.
Remember, the allegations were that 11 million were killed of which 6 million were Jews. That translates into more than 300 people per hour every day for 4 years. Of course the pedal operated brain smashing machines, the vaporizing machines, and other wonderful German inventions helped, but the problem none of the promoters can overcome, is the volume of coal needed to cremate 300 bodies per hour, and the resulting ash. The volumes needed/produced would have been astounding.
The Avalon project at Yale University has the Nuremberg transcripts. Check out the allegations when you want to read some fiction.
Interestingly, Reed commented that he could never understand Hitler. All of his statements about Jews were not matched by his actions. In fact, his actions seemed to help their cause.
@Curmudgeon:
You said:
”’The July 44 quote may be real, the content is pure fiction. From that perspective, it makes no difference whether his book contained the reference. That would be true of Eisenhower and DeGaulle as well.
Churchill’s statements have no credibility.”
You don’t seem to understand the issue here: it’s not the Holocaust or the credibility of Churchill’s statements, it’s the oft made claim that not a word about ‘Jewish persecution, extermination, genocide, etc,’ is mentioned in Churchill’s six volumes.
FFS, what is it that compels people like you to ignore whatever it is that’s starring you in the face, whether it be the truth or not?….Which thought brings me to Carlos Whitlock Porter’s theory about the Holocaust being made in Russia (you promoted him) – This claim is about as accurate as saying the Holocaust was made on the dark side of the moon – Claims like this are one big reason why those who travel aboard the good ship ‘Holocaust’ do so without fear of ever being blown out of the water – so to speak.
The Holocaust wasn’t made in Russia. It was made in Switzerland then quickly transferred to New York via Liverpool then on to Washington until finally, Nuremberg.
What the Russians claimed at Nuremberg came to them from the many connected Jews who had traversed the route given above.
@Henry:
Interesting.I suppose you are talking here about Jewish organizations.Could you please tell us in a few words what happened?
I know that the number of 6.000.000 Jewish victims was mentioned already several times before WW2,during WW1 and even before that. Obviously 6 is for Jews,numerologists that they are,a significant number.I guess that because it is one less than the “sacred” number of 7 it indicates “imperfection” and hence disaster.
Henry has been tirelessly doing yeoman’s work on this thread. My hat’s off to him.
I’m a bit surprised that there is so little familiarity with the absolutely core group of websites doing the hard-nosed scholarly work on the Holocaust-skeptic front. Mr. Ryckaert and George have already mentioned CODOH, and that is certainly the place where anyone new to the issue should start—and stay a good long time, for that matter. However, there are years’ worth of reading to be done at Bradley Smith’s learned-journal site, Inconvenient History, and IHR also has much valuable material. (I myself first learned about almost everything Henry has mentioned from these three sites.) Then, of course, the next goal is to learn all one possibly can of Germar Rudolf, Fred Leuchter, and Ernst Zündel.
All of the foregoing amounts only to the qualifying materials for a B.A. in Holocaust Debunking Studies. Once I get rather farther along toward my own M.A., I’ll be back with more course titles!
For anyone wishing to mock and jeer the filthy hoax :
http://www.vho.org/aaargh/engl/engl.html
@Al Ross: Some excellent links here, Al. Thank you.
Apropos which, are you familiar with Jeff Riggenbach’s book? The chapter titles look very promising, but one never knows what to think about stuff coming from the Mises Institute.
@Jordan:
Thanks for the Buchanan reference. He makes quite an excellent case for Germany NOT having wanted to “rule the world.” From America’s perspective, WW2 was indeed an unnecessary war — or, at very least, one in which America (and Britain) tragically chose the wrong side.
I’ll just add that, Adolf the Great wrote of the propensity for “race mixing” as a good reason to avoid empire and colonizing other countries. I think he viewed a racially mixed society as one that’s incapable of resisting oligarchic rule. He alludes to this in his Danzig Speech, in which he describes Poland as a political entity consisting of many ethnicities (races), ruled by big capital and the policeman’s baton. See YouTube for his very informative speech. It’s 7-parts.
I would say that, it was Adolf’s commitment to non-empire and anti-colonization which helped him win alliances with great peoples of many different races: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5qy-ek1qvE
By the way, the Holohoax is very real. For starters, search in CODOH for the video archive. Regards.
Why does no one ever ask the simple question why should the Germans exterminate the Jews in their (six) millions? What would be the motive in particularly singling out Jews?
I would like to hear some plausible explanations by them without running into a jungle of contradictions.
The next question I would ask is why is any research into that topic forbidden by law in Austria and Germany. Have they got something to hide away?
It would be very interesting to hear their explanation, after all the war is already 65 years ago. It would be a particular high handed cheek to claim one must keep the German Nazi gene in check.
There are a couple of similar questions one can ask without even bothering to start touching on the scientific side of the events (evens, how many, how high, how many holes, gas chambers or poison, witnesses, etc.).
@South African wrote:
Why does no one ever ask the simple question why should the Germans exterminate the Jews in their (six) millions? What would be the motive in particularly singling out Jews?
In a word, anti-Semitism.
Anti-Semetism. Anti-Americanism. Anti-Communism. Anti-France (its traditional enemy. Jews were not the traditional enemy). Anti-the -Allies. Germany had a lot of enemies, not only the Jews.
What so singularly special about the Jews that exactly only they were singled out? What did they do in order to provoke the Germans to such a deed?
There must be a motive and anti-Semetism is just too generalized a term. It tells me nothing. It is like saying the whites created Apartheid because the hated blacks, which patently is untrue.
@South African:
Germany did “single out” (in the sense of fight against) a lot of those other groups, didn’t it? And were not Communists one of the government’s domestic targets?
Also, to the extent that Germans thought that tribal Jews were an important or decisive factor in swinging Britain and the United States against Germany (and I believe that German leaders did hold that view), Germany might have opposed political Jews out of a belief they were addressing a primary cause of hostilities.
I do not mean singling out in terms of fighting, I mean singling out in terms of the particular way it was presumably done to them. The essence of the Holocaust. Why in particular the Jews? Why not burn six million French during the occupation? Six million communists? All the prisoners of war? It does not make sense – in what particular way the concentration camp Jews were so special to be singled out in that particular manner for extermination purposes?
It also holds no water that Jews were an important factor swinging Britain and the US against Germany – would the extermination of them change that fact? The opposite would rather be true – it could elicit a violent reaction against Germany in the event of a lost war.
Modern furnaces require between 2 and 3 hours to consume a human body. While flesh and fluids evaporate fairly quickly, breaking the bones down tends to be a longer affair. In the end you still are likely to end up with up to 5 pounds of bone fragments.
So how did the Auschwitz running Germans with Pharaoh Ramses technology @ their disposal manage to dispose of 4 million Judaic corpses in under 3 years ?
For that was the official narrative throughout much of the Cold War years.
Is it at all surprising that Judaic tribal activists saw to it that questioning this half-assed concocted propaganda garbage by citizens of western ‘democracies’ would land one behind bars ?
And more importantly, how in the hell did they manage to get those laws on the books in European countries where the kosher ones @ best constitute between .25% and .75% of the population ?!?