When Britain Declared War in 1939 Was it Helping a Friend or a Foe?

In history everything becomes “narrative” — a smoothed-down facsimile of more complicated and ambiguous truths. This is almost always ‘weaponised’ to point in one direction for a political benefit. World War II is notorious for this, and nothing makes this clearer than the initial act of the war, which was the British declaration of war on Germany for its aggression against Poland.

According to that hallowed narrative, Hitler was a relentless aggressor while Poland was a fine, upstanding country, fully deserving of Britain’s unstinting help, its blood and its treasure.

While it is difficult to argue against the first part of the narrative given Hitler’s rather explicit calls for lebensraum in “Mein Kampf” and his gung-ho approach to European diplomacy in the years leading up the war, the second part is directly questionable.

Of course, from the “woke” perspective of today, nothing would be easier — or more trite — than to point to Poland’s relative lack of democracy or the existence of anti-Semitic attitudes in Polish society. Both of these, especially the latter, are “unforgivable crimes” in the modern West. In fact, the modern Left suffers from an extreme form of chronocentrism, whereby every single historical state, except the most socially liberal modern-day Western one, is considered an abomination. (The statistical oddity this presents, however, tells you what the true abomination is!)

So, rather than pointing to the fact that Poland may or may not have had an anti-Semitism problem and was far from a perfect democracy, what other evidence is there that Poland was not a worthy cause for British blood to be spilled in what turned out to be a devastating war?

What if I told you that Britain’s “noble Polish allies” had spent the last few years before the war sending large amounts of weapons to “terrorists” in British territory? Yes, exactly the same thing that Colonel Gadaffi was blamed for when he sent shipments of Semtex and Kalashnikovs to the IRA.

The evidence of Poland’s support for terrorism in British-ruled territory is little known because it simply does not fit the narrative. I found out about it in a roundabout way.

On March 1st, 2018, The Jerusalem Post published an article titled, “1946 US document reveals Poles treated Jews as badly as Germans did.” The document in question was an Intelligence Research Report, dated May 15, 1946, and distributed by the US Office of Intelligence Coordination and Liaison. It was declassified in 1983. According to the report many Jews preferred to flee Poland after the war, even to Germany!

So violent have been the antisemitic incidents reported – and so widespread is the fear for their lives among the handful of Jewish survivors – that some Polish Jews have been reported seeking to escape to the American Zone in Germany rather than remain in Poland. Others, who have gone back to Poland, are reported to be returning to Western Germany after only a short stay.

This article in The Jerusalem Post, interesting as it was, prompted an even more fascinating response, published a couple of weeks later, titled “Poland’s contribution to building Israel.” This was written by the relatively well-known Polish political philosopher and theorist Włodzimierz Julian Korab-Karpowicz, who blamed the perception of post-war anti-Semitism in Poland on deliberate Soviet policy:

The Jews are the nation that was subjected to the greatest extermination during WWII. On the other hand, Poland is the country which [was] the greatest WWII victim. The Nazi German occupation, which cost so many Polish lives and which was so destructive, was followed by the Soviet occupation. The Soviet Communists played their double game. They wanted to keep Poland within the sphere of their influence, and at the same time to change its image from the heroic country which never surrendered to one which was shamefully antisemitic, a nation that treated Jews as badly as Germans did.

In this way they sought to undermine Poland’s patriotic resistance movement, particularly the Home Army, and Poland’s government in exile, and diminish its potential support from the Allies.

Unfortunately, many historians, as well as politicians, have not yet understood this game. They have not recognized provocations and falsifications. The Jedwabne case was built on the testimonies of people who were in fact forced by the Communist police to confess something that did not really happen. Those were not Polish neighbors who murdered the local Jewish population on June 10, 1941, but special units of German Gestapo. What happened on July 5, 1946, in Kielce was also orchestrated by the Communist security forces. The goal was to ruin Poland’s reputation and make us, Jews and Poles, into enemies.

This is fascinating, of course, but Korab-Karpowicz, in his haste to show us what a good friend Poland had been to the Jews, also ends up revealing what an undeserving recipient it was for Britain’s support in 1939 when it was attacked by Germany.

Let me start with a little known and perhaps even surprising fact. Poland, which is so sadly and so often accused today of antisemitism, was probably the first country in the world to support the founding of Israel. Its support for the Jews having their own independent state dates to late 1930s, when Great Britain, which administered Palestine at the time, was still largely hostile to the idea.

On September 9, 1936, representatives of the Jewish freedom organizations, led by Zionist leader Ze’ev Jabotinsky, met in Warsaw with the members of Poland’s government. As the result of this meeting, both the Hagana and Irgun received from Poland weapons and training. Until the German invasion in September 1939 and the outbreak of World War II, as many as 3,000 rifles, 220 machine guns, 10,000 grenades and three million pieces of ammunition were smuggled from Poland through the British-controlled Palestinian border to supply these Jewish paramilitary organizations. In addition, about 10,000 members of Betar received military training. All this was organized by Polish military intelligence.

The idea that 1930s Poland — normally seen as an anti-Semitic country — was acting in this way needs explaining. The historian Timothy Snyder has dealt with this in his holocaust history “Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning,” where he explains that the Polish government saw in the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine a solution to its own problems.

He summarised his views in an interview with Edward Delman of The Atlantic in 2015:

Delman: You mention that Nazi Germany was not the only anti-Semitic regime in power at the time—Poland, Hungary, and Romania were all governed by anti-Semitic regimes. How did Polish official anti-Semitism, for example, differ from Hitler’s, and how did that affect their decision-making and policies?

Snyder: So in the Nazi case, you have a leader who is much more radical than his population, right? Hitler’s goal is to spread anti-Semitism within the German population, and he succeeds in doing that, but he comes to power much more radical than the population, and he comes to power in part by concealing just how anti-Semitic he is. In Poland, you have something like the opposite situation … The government is less anti-Semitic than the population, and for the government anti-Semitism is a kind of problem—and it’s a problem at a time of the Great Depression, let’s not forget, when rural unemployment in Poland was higher than 50 percent and lots of people in Poland actually wanted to leave. Not just Poles, not just Jews, but actually mainly Polish peasants, but [they] couldn’t because the world immigration was such, U.S. laws were such, that no one could actually go anywhere. And, of course, Jews couldn’t go to Palestine either. So everyone was stuck where they were. And the Polish government tries to handle this problem—that no one can immigrate and that there’s quite considerable local anti-Semitism—by this pro-Zionist policy, by supporting right-wing Zionists, by training them, so that they can work against the British in Palestine with the goal of creating some kind of Jewish state, so that in the fairly short run millions of Polish Jews can go there.

The situation in the British mandated territory of Palestine was complicated, and, indeed, much of the blame for that goes to Britain itself for its own ambivalence following the 1917 Balfour Declaration. This, as is well known, gave an ill-defined affirmative to the idea of Jewish settlement in the area. But this doesn’t change the fact that the Polish government was colluding with — and arming — illegal organisations effectively plotting terrorist actions on British-controlled territory.

Once again the “official narrative” has been very busy here. Hagana and Irgun are routinely presented nowadays as heroic defenders of innocent settlers. But even a cursory examination of the historical record will show that they participated in what are commonly called terrorist attacks.

While most of the attacks were against Arabs and in retaliation for similar attacks against Jews, the situation in Palestine was far from lawless, with the British firmly controlling and policing the territory. Also, it was not just Arabs who were killed in these attacks. British personnel were also killed, as in these three attacks by Irgun mentioned on Wikipedia.

On April 12th, 1938, two Arabs and two British policemen were killed by a bomb on a train in Haifa.

On June 12th, 1939, a British soldier was killed trying to defuse a bomb in a post-office in Jerusalem.

On August 27th, 1939, two British officers were killed by a mine in Jerusalem.

Given the large amount of weapons sent by the Poles, there is every chance that these five British victims, along with many innocent Arabs and even a few Jews, were killed by Polish weapons. This is without mentioning the much larger number of British victims in the post-war period, when, I assume, much of the munitions sent by Poland were still usable?

The fact that the Polish government was operating in this extremely underhanded way to a country it would later call upon to defend its sovereignty should, of course, not be seen as justification for Hitler’s actions. But the myth enshrined in the public consciousness that the Polish state was some whiter-than-white victim in 1939 should be shot down in flames.

59 replies
  1. cecil1
    cecil1 says:

    There is no reason for people of different genetics, religions, and cultures to live together in a single society or state. None whatsoever.

    The whole point of the nation-state is to permit the different nations to live in peace according to their own distinct and particular preferences.

    Judaizing requires the DESTRUCTION of every kind of identity that is not the preservation of Jews. Our destruction is a natural consequence, a fundamental hostile DEMAND, of the Jewish outlook on life.

    That’s evil – PERIOD.

    For OUR racial and other identities to survive, we must stop people who are judaizing us in our own nations.

    Most of them today are NOT Jews.

    There should be a place for Jews. It should be a place where they will stop controlling US and can ONLY spread that hostility to each other.

    Poland understands this too. Good.

    • Horst D. Flemmer
      Horst D. Flemmer says:

      There is Madagascar. Of course, there are indigenous people, but the vastness of this island and its low numbers of people allows for 15 million Jews to settle there. It was Poland who had this idea in the first place. This would free
      the white, western and Christian nations to come to terms with the present situations – and they would.

  2. Curmudgeon
    Curmudgeon says:

    “While it is difficult to argue against the first part of the narrative given Hitler’s rather explicit calls for lebensraum in “Mein Kampf” and his gung-ho approach to European diplomacy in the years leading up the war, the second part is directly questionable.”

    It’s difficult to argue, only if you accept that the Treaty of Versailles had any basis in international law, or that it’s imposition was related, in any way shape or form, to Wilson’s “14 Points” which formed the basis of the Armistice.
    Hitler’s “gung-ho approach to European diplomacy” included, days before the outbreak of WWII, a proposal to resolve the Danzig question, that was substantially what the late Polish dictator General Pilsudski, had wanted, subsequent to signing the non-aggression pact with Germany in 1934. Would Mein Kampf have been written were it not for the perfidious Triple Entente who bowed, according to Benjamin Freedman, to the wishes of (((the bankers)))?
    As for “The Jews are the nation that was subjected to the greatest extermination during WWII….” the narrative is not supported by facts. The Haavara Agreement, Red Cross camp records, and even the dreaded Wannsee Conference minutes, tell a different story.

  3. Wael Ahmad
    Wael Ahmad says:

    The Jews who rejected Christ are still the Jewish tribe in modernity, the Jews who ACCEPTED Christ as a Messiah are today’s Christians. Although the two groups were enemies to each other, and the Christians blames the crucifixion of Jesus on Jews, but what brings them together in my opinion, is their common hatred of Muslims and Arabs as a race and religion, and it doesn’t matter who’s responsible for destroying Palestine and it’s people, the British, the Poles, or the Americans, or others, they’ll always bind together in their haltered of Islam, and their racist ideology of choosiness and superiority.

    • Rob Bottom
      Rob Bottom says:

      And what about the Saudis who are Jewish stooges? They have the manpower and the nukes to stop the Israelis, they could do it tomorrow if they wanted to. Do they get a pass from you because they are Arab Muslims?

    • Eric
      Eric says:

      Wael Ahmad: Many Palestinians are Christians, so it’s not as simple as Christians/Jews vs. Arab Muslims.

      For more than 300 years before the first Crusade, Muslims were attacking Christian Europe. So it’s also not as simple as Evil Christians vs. Innocent Muslims.

    • Blue Bell
      Blue Bell says:

      I’m pretty sure most christians don’t hate muslims.

      It seems to me that the Pole’s wanted the jews out of Poland and, apparently, certain people in the British government were offered a deal that jews in America would bring America into WWI in exchange for enabling jews to immigrate to Palestine.

      Muslims have been known to think that muslims and islam is superior as well.

    • moneytalks
      moneytalks says:

      Christianity is ultimately a religion of self-enslavement to the chosenite jewmasters except for a very few disobedient minor denominations .

      “” Servants obey in all things your masters according to the flesh ; not with eyeservice , as menpleasers ; but in singleness of heart , fearing God :
      And whatsoever ye do , do it heartily , as [ if ] to the Lord , and not unto men [ those whom actually are your masters ] ; …””

      The above quote is from The Christian NT Holy Bible , KJV , Book of Colossians , chapter 3 , verses 22 & 23 where bracketed [ ] terms indicate my clarifying edits .

      Much of christian animosity toward muslims is a consequence of obedient servitude to the jewmasters ( all of whom are minions of the Synagog of Satan ) of the christians ; since muslims are the only ones presently actually resisting the jewmasters consummatory monopolization of ALL global resources ( which includes people , money , oil , land , food , water , housing , education , technology , entertainment , legal services , financial services , medical resources , clothing , political ideologies , religions , law enforcement , war agencies , telecommunications , computerizations , etc. etc. ) .

  4. Mari
    Mari says:

    One question; were the Poles who sent weapons and terrorists to British mandate Palestine real Poles or jews who lived in Poland.

    Most of the Jewish histories of Israel and the Zionist movement claim that all those Poles and other E Europeans who sent arms, terrorists and settlers to Israel were Jews not Poles

    The same article could be written about American Jews betraying America’s ally England by sending money arms settlers and terrorists to Israel 1930 right up to 1948.

  5. Carolyn Yeager
    Carolyn Yeager says:

    The title of this essay may be provocative, but it is historically awkward along with the entire article. Most kindly described as “too little too late,” it represents the lack of historical knowledge of Scotsman and Britain-advocate Colin Liddell. Not only is this “new information” for the author who has had his head buried in the sand up til now, but it is only a tiny part of the story of Allied fiction concerning WWII which he continues to accept. He depends totally upon a March 1st, 2018 (((Jerusalem Post))) article which he presents as new information, as in calling it “little-known support by Poland for terrorism in British-ruled territory,” and also (((Timothy Snyder))) in the far-left “Atlantic” magazine from 2015. This is revisionist?!

    Back in February 2011 (almost 9 years ago), I published information from the website http://www.etzel.org.il/english/ac16.htm, as part of a four-part article “Elie Wiesel and the Mossad.” [http://www.eliewieseltattoo.com/elie-wiesel-and-the-mossad-part-ii/] All four parts are very well worth your reading.

    Here is some brief but informative excerpts from that (((etzel.org))) page:
    ““More than three million Jews, concentrated mainly in the large towns, lived in Poland in the 1930s. In Warsaw, for example, Jews constituted one-third of the population. The Polish government, worried by the increase in Jewish influence in the country, not only did nothing to hinder the illegal immigration movement [to Palestine] which the Revisionists (Zionist faction of Jabotinsky – Irgun) organized in Poland, but actively assisted it.
    “In 1936, Jabotinsky met with the Foreign Minister, Josef Beck, and created the infrastructure for collaboration. The Polish government hoped that the establishment of a Jewish state would lead to mass emigration of Jews, thus solving the Jewish problem in Poland.
    “In March 1939, senior Irgun commanders from Eretz Israel participated in a course held in the Carpathian Mountains, instructed by Polish army officers. The course took place under conditions of great secrecy […] The trainees received military training and were taught tactics of guerilla warfare.
    “September 1, 1939 cut short the extensive activity of the Irgun in Poland and Lithuania. Most of the arms which the Irgun had received were returned to the Polish army and Irgun activity ceased.
    After the war, the Irgun General Headquarters decided to renew activity in Europe and to launch a “second front”. The first base was established in Italy, […] As a result of arrests in Italy, Irgun Headquarters in Europe were transferred to Paris. Meanwhile, branches had been set up in various parts of Europe, and attempts were made to strike at British targets. A train transporting British troops was sabotaged, and an explosion occurred in the hotel in Vienna which housed the offices of the British occupation force. However, the blowing up of the British embassy in Rome remained the pinnacle of Irgun operational activity in Europe.
    In January 1947, Eliyahu Lankin reached Paris after his successful escape from internment in Africa. Lankin was a member of the Irgun General Headquarters before his arrest and had also served as commander of the Jerusalem district. The French government, which knew of his escape from British custody, gave him an entry visa, and when he reached Paris he was appointed Commander of the Irgun in Europe.
    Shmuel Ariel, sent to Paris by the Irgun in early 1946 […] succeeded in negotiating with the French Ministry of Interior the granting of 3,000 entry visas to Jewish refugees . Some 650 of them left aboard the Ben Hecht, 940 on the arms vessel Altalena, and the remainder were transferred to a ship organized by the Haganah. Thanks to Ariel’s close contacts with the French authorities, the Irgun General Headquarters was permitted to operate in Paris without interruption, and to supervise activity in the many branches all over Europe.”

    • Arlene Johnson
      Arlene Johnson says:

      Europe wasn’t the only locale in which the Irgun operated for it operated in the Holy Land too before Israel became a state. I have this information in the biography I wrote of the Shah of Iran, comments of which you can read at https://owg.livejournal.com by people who have read my book which I published in 2018. Ships worldwide by myself.

      Arlene Johnson

  6. Dana
    Dana says:

    Hoovewr published this book FIFTY years after he died. He was avoiding retribution to his family.
    Herbert Hoover p. 818 in his long history of the Second World War ‘Freedom Betrayed’

    said Kennedy, the Ambassador to Great Britain, told Hoover that FDR lobbied incessantly for Britain to give a war guarantee to Poland, thus steeling the Polish resolve and causing Britain to be drawn into a war that would lose its Empire.“Kennedy said that after the Germans had occupied Prague and the great cry of appeasement had sprung up in the world and after the Germans had pressed their demands for Danzig and an passage through the Corridor, that Roosevelt and Bullitt were the major factors in the British making their guarantees to Poland and becoming involved in the war. Kennedy said that Bullitt, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the Poles not to make terms with the Germans and that he Kennedy, under instructions from Roosevelt, was constantly urging the British to make guarantees to the Poles. Kennedy said he had received a cable from Roosevelt to “put a poker up Chamberlain’s back and make him stand up.” Kennedy saw Chamberlain on numerous occasions, urging him in Roosevelt’s name to do all this with the implication that the United States would give the British support. He said that after Chamberlain had given these guarantees, Chamberlain told him(Kennedy) that he hoped the Americans and the Jews would now be satisfied but that he(Chamberlain) felt that he had signed the doom of civilization.”

  7. Cam OT
    Cam OT says:

    If the Polish population was more anti-Semitic than the Polish government, then surely Poland itself (if not it’s leading politicians) were more worthy of any support, not less.
    Spilling your own people’s blood to support another nation is clearly only acceptable if it’s in your interest to provide allied assistance, but of course Polish anti-Semitism and being “worthy of support” had nothing to do with it; Britain’s Jew overlords wanted to defeat an anti-Semitic German government and Britain/France didn’t need another imperial power to compete with, hence their assurance to Poland (i.e. their ambition to contain an empire-building Germany). The article says that the Polish government would “call upon” Britain to defend Poland, but weren’t the British and French offers unsolicited? Correct me if I’m wrong on this one.
    Also, trying to get rid of Jews by assisting them with weapons against the British doesn’t make Poland any less of a victim of German imperial ambitions. On a related note, is it really better for whites if Britain controls other people’s homelands (including that of whites, speaking of the IRA too) or if Jews go back to the desert they came from?
    To me, the saddest aspect of all this is neither the British choosing to help Poland despite any – perceived – interest clashes around Israel, nor the Polish government helping Israel to get rid of Jews, but the fact that it’s still not mandatory for all Jews to go back. And of course, the modern-day groveling in front of Jews by the likes of Korab-Karpowicz, who blame anti-Semitism on anything except historical and modern Jewish behavior in their countries.
    Also, I don’t think that perceptions would be less favorable to Poland if this became widely known. Michael Collins was a “terrorist” too, but only until he won; the Jews also won on that land eventually. Sure, if Palestine would rule that land now, people would judge Poland for this, but that’s not how it ended.

    • Blue bell
      Blue bell says:

      I don’t think that there is enough room in Israel/Palestine for all the jews in the world, that’s probably part of the problem…

      • Eric
        Eric says:

        Israel is a lot bigger than the New York metro area, which contains 25 million people. Jews just don’t want to live there. And why would they when they can make more money and gain more power by ruling over the goyim in North America, Great Britain, continental Europe, Australia and New Zealand — not to mention Russia.

        As Norman Finkelstein’s mother said in the documentary “Defamation”, Jews who moved to Israel might have to break a sweat working for a living instead of doing their usual huckstering. The tricks that work for them in dealing with non-Jews wouldn’t work with their knowing fellow Jews.

        • ChilledBee
          ChilledBee says:

          Your comment rings so true to me. I have known many Israelis in the US over the years and they are extremely savvy when it comes to extracting money from people. I have also seen on many occasions their fellow countrymen teach them the ropes of a certain business and within a very short space of time, they move on to work for themselves proclaiming they are now experts on a given business. I have never known of a long-term Israeli employee. In my experience with them – they are utterly obsessed with money. So much so that whenever you hear them talking about anybody they will always feel the need to tell you what their financial status is. I have never seen this with any other nationality.

  8. Eric
    Eric says:

    This article needs to be put in a larger context, one that is much less sympathetic to the Allies in WW II.

    1. Poland was partitioned in 1795 and divided up between Prussia, Russia and Austria-Hungary. It ceased to exist until it was recreated by the western powers at the end of WW I in 1918. This was accomplished by taking land away from Germany. Czechoslovakia did not even exist until after WW I. Again, it was created by taking land away from Germany, as well as by dissolving the mainly-German-ruled Austro-Hungarian Empire. Additional land was taken from Germany and given to France, Belgium and Denmark.

    The justification for breaking up Germany was that it had started WW I. But it had only done so after it became clear that the Russians were planning to invade from the east while the British and French were preparing to invade from the west. Hitler was right to demand that the territory unfairly taken be given back to Germany. He was successful in negotiating the return of the Sudetenland. But his efforts with regard to the part of Germany given to Poland were unavailing. Based on credible reports that ethnic Germans were being persecuted in Poland, he invaded that country.

    2. Britain was “outraged” enough by Hitler’s attack on Poland to declare war on Germany. Why wasn’t it equally “outraged” when, several weeks later, the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the east and — in addition — invaded and occupied the Baltic States while conducting a war of aggression against Finland?

    How interesting that the capitalist West sided with the communist East against a man (Hitler) who wanted to disempower Jews and who rejected both capitalism and communism. This alliance of capitalist West with communist East has only one credible explanation: Jews were in charge of the capitalist West as well as the communist East. The two sides supported each other up until the point that Stalin turned on the Jews and rejected the internationalism that characterizes both communism and capitalism in favor of nationalism (“socialism in one country”). The overriding Jewish goal was globalism — a one world government controlled by Jews — and it didn’t matter to them whether it was accomplished through capitalism or communism.

    3. Jews spent centuries shaking down peasants in Europe and allying themselves with unscrupulous rulers as well as expressing considerable contempt for the goyim. So of course they were hated in a relatively poor country like Poland. At the end of WW II, Poland not only got its land back but another large portion of eastern Germany as well. The Polish government, with the permission of the Soviets, then proceeded to take revenge on the Germans living in Poland. Over 1,000 concentration camps were set up in which German men, women and children were tortured and murdered. So we need to make a distinction here between what governments do and what the governed do. Poles still hated and attacked Jews. At the same time, their government — which was dominated by Jews — persecuted non-Jews who happened to be German.

    4. The notion that the post-war communist and largely Jewish-run government of Poland, which answered to the Soviet Union, wanted Poles to be perceived as anti-Semitic doesn’t strike me as credible. The official line would have been that Poland was now a model communist state in which “the people” were united. There would have been no effort by the communist government to create bad PR by soiling this ideal image of the “new paradise.” As for the new communist government possibly claiming that the Poles were anti-Semitic before the war, this claim, if it was made, is essentially innocuous. European peasants were anti-Semitic for good reason, whether in Poland or in other countries. But why even talk about it? The new Poland would not have such problems.

    5. In my view, Hitler was justified in taking back the lands unjustly taken away from Germany after WW I. Most — but not all — of the “Lebensraum” sought by Hitler would have been provided by restoring the Germany that existed prior to 1914. The “Lebensraum” problem was essentially a food problem. Germany, even before WW I, did not have enough arable land to feed its population. Which is why Germany had colonies and sought to protect its merchant fleet by increasing the size of its navy prior to WW I. This was unacceptable to Britain, which felt threatened by Germany’s increasing power and its superior industrial and technological prowess. World War I was caused not by Germany, but by Britain with its secret Triple Entente with France and Russia. The Treaty of Versailles and associated treaties were put together by Jewish bankers and advisers who had successfully gotten into the cat bird seat in both the United States and Britain. The result was inevitable: WW II.

    Woodrow Wilson was surrounded by Jews: Louis Marshall, Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter, Eugene Meyer, Samuel Untermeyer, Jacob Schiff, Paul Warburg and Rabbi Stephen Wise. Dr. Chaim Weizmann, through Col. House, was the link between the Jews in America and the Jews in England, many of whom had married into the British aristocracy. These Jews were the driving force behind both world wars, the creation of the Federal Reserve, the passing of the federal income tax, the creation of the State of Israel, and the thankfully abortive (but not before it killed millions of innocent people) Morgenthau Plan, which set out to starve the Germans after WW II and turn Germany into a shill for white self-hatred and white genocide.

    “…not be seen as justification for Hitler’s actions…” I find that these words considerably weaken the article.

    • Arlene Johnson
      Arlene Johnson says:

      Christopher Jon Bjerknes has written a book entitled Adolf Hitler Bolshevik and Zionist Volume 1 Communism which I’m reading right now. ISBN: 9781091493568 Who would have known that Hitler was a Communist? We all accepted the lies we were fed. Hitler had Jews as friends and staff members, and according to Henneke Kardel’s book entitled Hitler: Founder of Israel, Christopher Jon Bjerknes’ book is correct.

      As for WW I and WW II, see the following:

      From Vatican Assassins by Eric Jon Phelps on page 336 and Morals and Dogma by Albert Pike, “Pike also spoke of the Invisible Empire´s plan to ignite three World Wars, the third to be fought in the Middle East involving the taking of Jerusalem´s Temple Mount.”

      Also very good:

      1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQmpqCDR8u8 4:03
      2. http://beforeitsnews.com/eu/2016/08/governments-preparing-for-big-global-event-putin-is-now-dismantling-russian-central-bank-and-alongside-rothschild-the-petrodollar-rothschild%c2%b4s-hegelian-war-dialectics-at-work-2610485.html?currentSplittedPage=0
      This one shows how Rothschild cleverly carries it out.
      3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0Y6fynpNiw 14:11 David Icke adds info regarding the police’s role in the UK before WW III. He refers to Albert Pike.


      Arlene Johnson
      To access the rest of my e-zine editions, click on the icon that says Magazine.

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        “Christopher Jon Bjerknes has written a book entitled Adolf Hitler Bolshevik and Zionist Volume 1 Communism which I’m reading right now. ISBN: 9781091493568 Who would have known that Hitler was a Communist? We all accepted the lies we were fed. Hitler had Jews as friends and staff members, and according to Henneke Kardel’s book entitled Hitler: Founder of Israel, Christopher Jon Bjerknes’ book is correct.”

        Brain-dead Arlene, pushing her website.
        “Hitler was a Communist” … “according to Henneke Kardel” (a fake name, no such person ever existed) … “Christopher Jon Bjerknes [has] written in a book” … [therefore] “C.J.B.’s book is correct.”

        Doesn’t matter that Christopher Jon Bjerknes is a Jew and proud of it, and a long-time Hitler hater, as are all real, honest-to-God Jews, even those who pretend not to. One thing a Jew can never do is to absolve the German Fuehrer. Did you know that, Arlene?

      • Eric
        Eric says:

        Christopher Jon Bjerknes is either confused or — more likely — a Jewish agent.

        “Hitler was a communist” falls into the same category as “Hitler had one testicle”, “Hitler was a Jew” and “Hitler was a Rothschild.”

        Such statements demean the one man (apart from Jesus) who really stood up to the Jews — the one man who tried to defend Christian Western Civilization (and Western Europe) from Jewish subversion.

        Hitler rejected both communism and capitalism as Jewish ideologies that undermined national sovereignty (as they both do today) and the well-being of the people — all the people. And he was right on both counts.

        Bjerknes’s statements are designed to sow confusion in the goyim.

        Hitler was a Zionist only in the sense that he wanted to rid Europe of Jews, and Palestine was a convenient place to send them up until the war broke out.

    • Castiglia
      Castiglia says:

      You manage to write in the same breath that Germany has divided up Poland with other powers in 1795, and that Hitler was trying to get back historical German land “unjustly” taken away from them. You don’t seem to see any contradiction between those statements, which, with all due respect, is baffling. I mean, your comment about the Lebensraum being “mostly just Germany before 1914”, well maybe you just haven’t read Mein Kampf, or did other research. Ditto for Czechoslovakia, I’d guess you just don’t know much about the history of Bohemia and other regions (I wouldn’t blame you either). But you do know about that partition and… still? How?

      • Carolyn Yeager
        Carolyn Yeager says:

        Slavs had moved into that area, sometimes using force against it’s inhabitants, after Germanic people had lived there a long time, developed its resources, created infrastructure, then began migrating West, leaving opportunities for newcomers to move in. These ignorant tribes were organized as ‘Poles’ by the Catholic Church and taught a new language and religion. Thus did Poland come about. So the original people of that land were the same ones who became Germans later. Your history is something that you have agreed to, that is all.

        As for reading Mein Kampf and “doing other research,” I don’t think you can support your beliefs with that.

      • Eric
        Eric says:

        Poland disappeared in 1795 and only reappeared in 1918. That covers a period of 123 years. Did it reappear because the Poles rose up and took back their lands? No, it reappeared because the Western powers wanted to punish Germany. Sorry, after 123 years, that land was German land. It was won fair and square in a war that the Poles lost.

        I don’t know why you say “ditto for Czechoslovakia,” given that there was no such country at all until 1918.

        As for “Mein Kampf,” please quote the relevant sections.

        • Framp
          Framp says:

          Poland, and polish people, christianed 1050 years ago, owes nobody nothing. We are here to stay, no matter what Prussia-lovers have to say.
          All those beautiful Germans: Saxons, Bavarians, Westphalians and other germanic tribes west of river Oder lost nothing to Poland, only Prussia did. And the ungreatful, aggresive viper of Prussia, whose creation was due to benignancy of Poland, was doomed to fail as all artificial creatins do, including USA. In both cases, Prussia and USA, were created on the basis of genocide and USA will go down the drain as Prussia has. It’s only a matter of time. No technological achievents can replace ancient bond to the land.
          How could one explain existence of nation states of Latvia and Estonia despite 800 hundred years of pressure from Sweden, Prussia and Russia? Only a people connected to its land will survive in the very long run.
          Prussia existed for 700 years and is gone, USA is a contemporary version of Prussia, but as history accelerated, thus USA is on a downfall after only 300 years of existence, a much shorter time comparing to Prussia. And good riddance to both.

          • Eric
            Eric says:

            Poland, thanks to its geographical location, has always been a toy for the major powers to play with — Russia, Germany, Prussia, Sweden, Britain, the United States, and — of course, the Jews.

            Poles could make their situation better by practicing some diplomacy, but that doesn’t appear to be their strong point (as your comment so well demonstrates). They could have settled things with Hitler. Instead, they listened to the British, who had already shown that they would sacrifice the little guy and start major wars while pretending to be the innocent victim.

            Now Poland is NATO’s “canary in the coal mine” as NATO presses up against Russia’s border.

            At the same time, the Poles allow Jews from Israel to come into their country and insult them. All so that they can demonize Germany. Tsk-tsk.

          • Carolyn Yeager
            Carolyn Yeager says:

            I would love to see both the USA and the western European state stop giving money/support to Poland, as has been done since the “Second Polish Republic” was created after the Great War in 1919. Then we would see how Poland “owes nobody nothing.”

          • Cam OT
            Cam OT says:

            Every nation (or almost every nation) got it’s land (or most of it’s land) involving violence and injustice. Not an excuse for further robbing, but it doesn’t mean those nations will “go down the drain” either… every nation would in that case. American hostilities to red tribes are also exaggerated by… can you guess?
            The white race and all it’s nations ought to survive like Latvia et al., despite all the pressure from Jews today.

      • Cam OT
        Cam OT says:

        Whoa, there’s a whole lot of German bias here.
        Poland lost a war that had two fronts, and the Jews were heavily involved in their eventual fall. Surely, if we take away the “they initiated the whole war to gain resources” bit (or most of it in WW1), that must sound familiar to any Germans. How is losing your homeland in a two-to-three frontal war to a completely foreign power-play involving four empires any more “fair and square” to you than losing two double-frontal wars initiated (largely or fully) by you, trying to carve out your own empire and Lebensraum and whatnot? That’s impossible to rationalize, no matter how hard you try. Or is your problem that England et al. gave the land to Poland rather than taking it themselves, as the “fair and square” victors?
        And yes, it is your land if the previous inhabitants moved out voluntarily. It’s not your land if you robbed it from a people still alive and living there. When Poles took land by force from Germans, that was not theirs. Ditto in reverse, regardless of how they got it back.
        By the way, in case you haven’t noticed, it’s not like whites are rising up en masse and defeating the Jewish enemy oppressing them (trying to take our lands too, along with the whole world). Unlike Poland or Germany, we are not surrounded by two fronts either. Neither are we vastly outnumbered by the Jews, like Poland and Germany by, say, the Russians. We’re still the majority in our lands even with their proxy pets, who are not even occupant soldiers armed to the teeth and stuff. But hey, we are not rising up/cannot rise up to free ourselves, so now this world is officially Jewish property, eh? Surely now we must either be enslaved or exterminated, at least subjugated. The Jews clearly have more verbal intelligence and are way better at resource competition, so it’s all fair and square, after all. Sure, they skimmed Europe for centuries and used the wealth to entrench themselves in power, were not surrounded in any homeland of theirs, have media monopolies that cannot be dissolved within the current system, but that’s no bigger advantage than that of any imperial coalition against a surrounded country, like in 1795. We just deserve all this, plain and simple.
        Or maybe not. Maybe the fact that they can control us is no excuse for them to do so, and we’re right to want our freedom back.
        If you oppose Jewish wrongdoing against yourself, but are all right with moving in on a surrounded country and dividing it up, you’re being hypocritical.
        “Jews shouldn’t try to exterminate us, because hey, that’s just evil. But it suits us to just go around dividing up Poland, invading the French and Dutch, et cetera – they lose the war, so f. them!”
        (As for Czechoslovakia, the Czech part did exist before German/Austrian control, iirc.)

        • Eric
          Eric says:

          Which wars are you talking about? 1795, 1914 or 1939? If you don’t attach dates to the wars you mention, then your statement is incoherent.

          In international affairs, might makes right. That hasn’t changed, even with the League of Nations and, subsequently, the United Nations. But if you want to introduce morality into the equation, Hitler certainly had a moral right to take back land that had been German for 123 years. By the same token, Palestinians now have the moral right to take the Holy Land back from the Jews. Native Americans have the moral right to take back American land from the Europeans. Mexico has the moral right to take back a large chunk of the United States. The Palestinians, Native Americans and Mexicans have these moral rights, but they don’t have the military ability to exercise those rights.

          You could also say that the Poles who lost their country in 1795 had a moral right to take it back if they could. But they couldn’t, so that was that.

          History went on, then the Treaty of Versailles and associated treaties recreated Poland out of land largely taken from Germany. Given that it had been German land for 123 years, and given that the reason for taking it away was entirely unjustified (Germany being falsely blamed for starting WW I), Hitler had a right — nay, a duty — to take it back if he could. And that’s just what he did.

          As for Czechoslovakia, I guess I have to keep repeating myself: There was no such country prior to the end of WW I.

          I don’t know why you bring up Jews in your argument. They are rootless international parasites that infiltrate, subvert and manage to govern — directly or indirectly — many nations. The only Jewish state is Israel.

          If you’re suggesting that we expel the Jews from our nations, I’m all for it.

          If you’re suggesting that we invade and take over Israel, turning it into a Christian nation and driving out all of the Jews, I’m all for that, too.

          • Cam OT
            Cam OT says:

            (I’ve only seen your reply now too, for some reason.)

            I was talking about the “contested” territory in general, and whether Hitler was right trying to take it back.

            I brought up Jews because if we go with the might-makes-right morality, then based on how things are right now, Jews have the most might (precisely because of their parasitic tactics), which would make it “right” for them to do what they do to us, including, if we fail do defeat them, to enslave or exterminate us. Though that does make sense from an evolutionary perspective, I must admit that. I just don’t like the idea. I’d prefer the “enlightened self-interest that includes elements of mutuality and reciprocity” written by someone on this site the other day. The difference between more traditional tactics (like that of, say, Prussia) and Jewish tactics, is the degree of sophistication and the risk-reward profile. That’s why I don’t see England et al. giving land back to Poland any worse than if they took it for themselves; I wouldn’t want my land taken from me Prussian-style the same way I don’t want Jews to enslave me (or my grandchildren). Regardless of any superior evo tactics, let alone geographical advantages.
            As for the US, until the Jews use non-whites against whites everywhere, I personally don’t care about any non-white grievances. In the New World, though, people and nations often bought and sold their own land; even a deal with Mexico would make sense in such a context. Even the Native Americans often sold land, and while they did have hostilities, our beloved Jews love to exaggerate them like they do everything else. Then again, every other nation took land by force too initially and the world will never be a fairy tale either; my point was just that I’d no less despise a Prussia/Hitler-style taking of my country as I despise the Jewish regime and it’s parasitic tactics now (and that to accept one, but not the other, sounds biased and hypocritical).

          • Eric
            Eric says:

            You’re equating “moral right” with “might makes right.” Or rather, you’re suggesting that I equate them, which I do not. The Jews manifestly don’t have a moral right to do what they do. Their actions as a group are almost entirely immoral — for example, allying themselves with unscrupulous rulers in order to exploit and oppress ordinary people, endless lying about their true motives, etc.

            But you make an interesting point: From a “might makes right” point of view, the Jews have been far more effective in getting what they want than any other group. We — their victims — have a moral right to stop them. And the way to stop them is by exercising our might as the majority.

            Of course, they will whine that we are being “immoral” if we expel or otherwise constrain them. But, in addition to be wrong about that (we have the moral right to oppose immoral behavior), there would be nothing they could do about it if we effectively used our superior might.

            And it’s high time we did just that. If we don’t, then the Jews really are “right”, not on a moral basis, but on a “might” basis.

      • Eric
        Eric says:

        Incidentally, it wasn’t Germany that divided Poland up with other powers in 1795, it was Prussia.

        Germany didn’t even exist as a nation until the late 1800s.

        • Cam OT
          Cam OT says:

          Yes, the German people had different states back then; the one involved was Prussia, the biggest geopolitical player among them. Didn’t insist otherwise.

          • Eric
            Eric says:

            I wasn’t arguing with you. I was clarifying something I said earlier.

            I didn’t even see your comment (above) until after I made my comment.

        • Carolyn Yeager
          Carolyn Yeager says:

          But there was a German nation since the year 800, when the Frankish king Charlemagne (my ancestry is Frankish) was crowned emperor by Pope Leo III. The Holy Roman Empire of the German nation, was a multi-ethnic complex of territories in Western and Central Europe that developed during the Early Middle Ages and continued until its dissolution in 1806 during the Napoleonic Wars.[6] The largest territory of the empire after 962 was the Kingdom of Germany, though it also included the neighboring Kingdom of Bohemia and Kingdom of Italy, plus numerous other territories, and soon after the Kingdom of Burgundy was added. (Wikipedia, Holy Roman Empire)

          So we see that after it dissolved, the modern German nation was created with Prussia.

    • Charles Frey
      Charles Frey says:

      Great overall and accurate perspective.

      01 At Versailles, Czechoslovakia was to be positioned like an aircraft carrier, with its bow pointing at the heart of Germany.

      02 Poland levied a fee of 50,000 Reichsmarks on every freight and passenger train crossing its in any case illegal Corridor to reach East Prussia, the enclave; to keep it humanly and commercially viable.

      03 Many districts which voted to remain with Germany, pursuant to the Wilsonian plebiscite, were given to Poland despite votes to go with Germany. [ Sound modern ?]

      04 Two Warburgs negotiated for Germany at Versailles, the other two for the US.

      05 The Vorvertrag or agreement on how to agree, included, that Germany not be saddled with the sole war guilt blame. The Allies changed the goal posts in midstream, Germany walked out, the British blockaded the Atlantic coast, 800,000 Germans, mostly women, children and the elderly starved after the War as a direct result. According to a Royal Navy White Paper.

      06 In Berlin-Mitte’s predominantly Jewish Scheunenviertel [ Barn District ] on Mutzistrasse, German women of all ages were lined up for the mainly Jewish Johns, by their degree of pregnancy. Depraved ? Certainly ! But also understandable when they had husbands at home, mutilated in limb, heart and mind, to feed. Or their own children.

      Prostituting themselves to that very element responsible for the stab in the back, with their original KPD. Far from merely the
      ” Dolchstoss Legende “.

      As always: Disregard Labels – Analyze Function !

        • Pierre de Craon
          Pierre de Craon says:

          Indeed, brilliantly said.* Bravo, Charles!
          *Charity dictates the assumption that the locution “changing goal posts in midstream” was present solely to underscore the boundlessness of the Allies’ depravity.

  9. Vehmgericht
    Vehmgericht says:

    British people are often dismayed at how little gratitude some Jews and many Israelis bear the UK for fighting the ruinous Second Workd War. If anything the former may be aggrieved that so little was done to stop the Holocaust in its tracks.

    On the other hand they express great resentment against the British administration of Mandatory Palestine for preventing Jewish refugees from emigrating after the war had ended (the ‘Exodus Affair’) and for clinging on to the territory in the face of Zionist terrorism.

    This cuts across the traditional narrative of the Noble British sacrificing their Empire to take down the Nazi Scourge, but a glance at the historical record will confirm that the Zionist’s perspective is based upon actual events.

    The recent fixation on the horror of the Holocaust as the central event of WWII, if not 29th Century Western History, is more recent. Indeed after the deadly Irgun bombing campaign that and the ‘Affair of the Sergeants’ in post-war Manadatory Palestine there were antisemitic riots across England.

    A far cry from the incense-shrouded narrative of Schindler’s List and Righteous Gentiles promoted to schoolchildren.

    • Arlene Johnson
      Arlene Johnson says:

      I have 251 people who know that no 6 million Jews were gassed during WW II, one of whom is this man:
      230. Gerard Menuchin is a Jewish writer and the son of a famous violinist Yahudi Menuchin. “The Holocaust is the biggest lie in history. Germany has no blame for the Second World War.” https://europeansworldwide.wordpress.com/2018/02/18/tv-host-demolishes-the-holocaust-myth/
      He’s just one of 17 Jewish people who know it didn’t happen.

      Arlene Johnson
      To access my e-zine, click on the icon that says Magazine.

      • Vehmgericht
        Vehmgericht says:

        I am sorry, I cannot agree you. I do not believe, as some would tell us, that the Holocaust cancels western civilisation or makes white ethnonationalism a moral abomination.

        But I do believe that it happened, that it was horrific even amidst the barbarism of WWII and that it is an ineradicable blot on the reputation of the Third Reich.

        Here is not really the place to debate this: I would refer you to Claude Lanzmann’s Shoah. Watch it and the ask yourself if all the testimony therein could have been fabricated.

        • Cam OT
          Cam OT says:

          AFAIK, there were labor camps, but the overall story was exaggerated for political gains (victim status and censorship of discussing Jewish hostilities). The Anne Frank story is a proven lie, for instance.

        • Eric
          Eric says:

          I’ve seen “Shoah” and other Holocaust propaganda, and it doesn’t stand up under scrutiny.

          Read “The Great Holocaust Trial” by Michael Hoffman. Find out what people said when they were put under oath and subjected to cross examination in a court of law.

          • David Ashton
            David Ashton says:

            “Shoah” was critically analysed by the late Professor Faurisson; still accessible online.
            I watched this long film carefully with an open mind and a notebook. It had some strange features such as the boat with a singer and the story of successive haircutting next to the gas-chamber. It did not have much solid evidence, such as can be found in recent books by (say) Cesarani and various specialist monographs. Re this thread, I was left with the overall impression that the movie was directed at Christian Poles.
            Roger Moorhouse, “First to Fight” (2019), gives an account of German “war crimes” in Poland. Hitler broadcast a tribute to the bravery of ordinary Polish soldiers.

        • Trenchant
          Trenchant says:

          @ Vehmgericht:
          Watch Irene Zisblatt’s Holocaust witness statement and ask yourself the same question. More importantly, think of the logistics and mechanics of such an enterprise and don’t let performance cloud objectivity.

  10. Fathers Initiative
    Fathers Initiative says:

    I can look at things from a different angle. let’s suppose the AXIS had won the war. IF so, then the USA and Europe would be a much nicer place today. That doesn’t mean, I would defend The Axis. Hitler was evil. BUT, he wasn’t as bad as our allies. Think about it. Where would The U.K. be today, if they were defeated by Hitler. It would’ve been the same as Britain in the 1960’s. Other countries, such as The USA, Sweden, and Ireland would be much, much better today. I don’t buy the claim that “we’d all be speaking German”. No. things would be pretty much the same. Now, our “allies” are proving to be the worst frienemies.

    • David Ashton
      David Ashton says:

      I am not sure that eastern Europe would have been a nicer place; I await revisionist analysis of the Generalplan Ost. If the Germans had maintained a liberation rather than colonial role, the outcome would have been better.

      There was a strong case for Mosley’s position from 1932 to 1940 to maintain impregnable defences for the British Isles and Empire against attack of any kind from any quarter, but not to start or interfere in foreign wars unless they directly harmed Britain. The “guarantee” to Poland was a self-defeating fake which only reinforced Polish refusal to accept German requests over Danzig. It was not the British fascists that risked invasion and occupation, but their opponents who had not fully prepared us against attack and who relied on France which collapsed. Meanwhile, the Soviets invaded not one country but six, with impunity, and from 1939 to 1941 undermined western defences against Germany.

  11. D.I. Fan
    D.I. Fan says:

    Many of Vladimir Jabotinsky’s early young Zionist warriors who fought in Irgun etc were of Polish extraction. Over the 18th and 19th centuries many of the followers of Jacob And Eva Frank who had converted (?) from Judaism to Roman Catholicism entered service in the Polish military classes, and this likely influenced Polish involvement with Zionism. Arthur Mandel’s ‘The Militant Messiah’ is recommended reading on this subject.

    • Carolyn Yeager
      Carolyn Yeager says:

      “Many of Vladimir Jabotinsky’s early young Zionist warriors who fought in Irgun etc were of Polish extraction.”

      What is “Polish extraction” when speaking of Jews? You Poles and Poland-boosters are the most confused lot in all Europe. You want to be both the best friends and saviors of Jews, and the world’s greatest antisemites! But no matter how much you want it, other people aren’t buying it. Just as they’re not buying Arthur Mandel’s “The Militant Messiah,” it appears. You may be him.

      • Charles Frey
        Charles Frey says:

        There are several photos on the net depicting Jabotinsky’s Betar boys marching, small band and all, through the streets of Berlin, dated 1938.

        Dressed in the fashion of the Hitler Youth, with of course different colors, but also carrying flags with the star of David.

        To get an accurate picture of that time it is essential to at least read about the Haavara Agreement on Wikipedia; which comports with Edwin Black’s exhaustive and exhausting book, The Transfer Agreement.

        I have never read another history book so packed with reliably sourced, fascinating facts as by this Jewish author, who was ostracized for years by his own family for writing about Nazi-Zionist courteous, even helpful Gestapo relations. An absolute must.

        • Trenchant
          Trenchant says:

          “Zionism in the Age of the Dictators” by Lenni Brenner is another work that covers the collaboration between Zionist factions and the NS regime. It’s easy enough to find online.

  12. Ole C G Olesen
    Ole C G Olesen says:

    Polish Marshall Rydz-Smigley
    as reported in DAILY MAIL August 8th , 1939

    The Marshall got what he wanted ..
    and so did the Polish people …
    and they PAID ..for their STUPIDITY

    Will the Polish People be equally STUPID once again
    by allowing Zio Anglosaxon Missiles on their Borders to Russia ?

  13. Stig
    Stig says:

    I agree, the quotes do not look good considering how it all ended.
    The polish government fled the country one week after the war started so this shows what caliber these people were. But the real instigators of the war were the “good guys” and it is almost certain that polish-german issues, as complex as they were, were only a convenient pretext for the war.

    I cannot decide if it is stupidity or chutzpah on the part of the author to ask the question he did in the title of the article. How did they help their polish allies? Was it the leaflets over Germany in September 1939 or the trade to Stalin’s paradise after the war?

  14. Charles Frey
    Charles Frey says:

    @ Stig.
    01 Your last sentence says it all.
    02 One can even say, that GB declared War on Poland, since it was undoubtedly complicit in assassinating its ‘ Government In Exile in London ‘ leader Sikorski.
    03 The swinish, traitorous ” Cambridge Four ” have now become the Five.
    04 One swine, Kim Philby, was in the upper echelons of MI6: [ buried, none too soon, in Moscow, in 73 ].
    05 This unrepentant Soviet spy, was stationed in Barcelona, to direct their activities in the entire Iberian Peninsula.
    06 In October, 43, Sikorski and his military staff, accompanied by senior British government garbage, stopped over in Gibraltar, for dinner with its Governor.
    07 They were returning from an inspection trip in the ME, searching for his soldiers, missing since the Soviet invasion shortly after Hitler’s. [ Katyn and all !!! ]
    08 Their US, B-24 was on the tarmac, purportedly guarded by two men. [ So was Epstein ].
    09 Earlier, on the very same day, Soviet Ambassador to GB [[[ Maiski ]]] also showed up; his plane parked aside that of Sikorski & Co.
    10 The Governor told the GB guests to sleep in and hustled Maiski off at 11 am.
    11 Of course we have to remember the famous photograph of Sikorski and Staff, standing before Stalin, list in hand, demanding to know the whereabouts of his tens of thousands of troops, who had disappeared behind Soviet lines; without trace. [ Hence, his said ME trip searching for them ].
    12 At 11 pm, their B-24 took off into the dark over the sea, returning to London, climbed a few seconds, then crashed. Only the Czech pilot was fished out alive, wearing his fully secured life vest, which he was well known to have never worn before.
    13 Fellow-swine Churchill, who had his astronomical liquor bills paid by the Jewish Focus Group, was rid of this ” meddlesome Priest “. Of course this did not prevent him, shortly thereafter, from concocting his Operation Unthinkable; the invasion of the SU, including the use of Wehrmacht units, commencing east of Dresden, the RN in the Baltic and the US by air. Despite very considerable Soviet superiority in men and materiel; thanks to Lend Lease and the DC Kabal.
    14 The mechanical investigations into the purported failure of the B-24’s control stick and linkage, as always, raised more questions than answers. As with MH 17, etc., etc.

    None of the above is to be construed as my dislike of the British people, whom I consider the most decent in the world; having lived there for months. But they must shed their beliefs in their assholes-in-chief; based solely on Ox-cam refined speech patterns.

Comments are closed.