Jules Cambon, the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and the Balfour Declaration: Exposing Jewish Machinations in World War I
The Sykes-Picot agreement map, signed in May 1916, with the proposed dividing line, once the Ottoman empire is defeated, between A = French zone, B = British zone (yellow, the «Jewish reservation in Palestine)
The Balfour declaration consists of 129 words, including the date and the polite formula, so why has it not fallen into oblivion, being little more than similar agreements between General Custer and Sitting Bull to define a reservation limit?
Take it easy, this short article is not meant to set the records straight for the sake of fairness, nor is it a matter of French willing to take credit for a Balfour-like declaration. There is nothing to be proud of there. But, the thing is, should the declaration of the unfortunate Jules Cambon have not fallen into oblivion — that is, if people were aware that a very similar declaration was made in two different countries in the same year within a five-month time period, perhaps the international wheeling and dealing of the Jews would become obvious to everyone.
Besides, the two declarations may have a common origin. The secret Sykes-Picot agreement signed on May 16, 1916 — in the same context of the First World war as the Balfour Declaration. From a French point of view, the link is crystal clear: while it was Jules Cambon who made a declaration similar to the Balfour Declaraion, it was his younger brother, Paul Cambon, who assisted Picot during the negotiations with Sykes, and their project was colonial in nature, not Zionist.
I. We know the English version of the Balfour declaration:
It was meant to thank the chemist Chaim Weizmann – who would later be the first president of Israel for a crucial discovery he made for the Royal Navy; according to Wikipedia:
While serving as a lecturer in Manchester Weizmann became known for discovering how to use bacterial fermentation to produce large quantities of acetone. Acetone was used in the manufacture of cordite explosive propellants critical to the Allied war effort. Winston Churchill became aware of the possible use of Weizmann’s discovery in early 1915, and David Lloyd George, as Minister of Munitions, joined Churchill in encouraging Weizmann’s development of the process. The importance of Weizmann’s work gave him favour in the eyes of the British Government; this allowed Weizmann to have access to senior Cabinet members and utilise this time to represent Zionist aspirations.
One of these senior members was none other than Sir Arthur Balfour, who took over Churchill as First Lord (i.e. The head of the Royal Navy), and as such, equally aware of the importance of the Weizmann contribution to the fleet.
Dr. Chaim Weizmann invented a fermentation process that converted starch — a poly-sugar readily available from corn and potatoes — into acetone and butyl alcohol, facilitated by a bacteria, Clostridium acetobutylicum, that Dr. Weizmann had previously isolated.
But why should the United Kingdom care about the fate of Palestine whilst engaged in a struggle with its survival at stake?
II. We also know the Benjamin Freedman theory:
The Balfour declaration was the result of bargaining between Great Britain and American Jews, the latter pledging to make use of their influence on the US government and public to push them into war in exchange for Palestine, we refer to the speech by Freedman to the Marine cadets in 1974:
…when Germany was winning the war, the Jews were very happy, because they didn’t want Russia to come out the winner, with France and England, because they thought it would be tougher for the Jews in Russia. So, they were all pro-German. What happened? When the Germans trotted out the submarines, … General Haig, in London, warned the English, “We have less than two week’s food supply for the whole nation of 55,000,000 people.”… So, England was offered a Peace Treaty by Germany. … It was on the desk of the British War Cabinet, ready to be signed. … What happened? The Khazar Jews in New York, Washington, led by Brandeis, made this promise through Fleischman & Sockloff in London. They went to the British War Cabinet and they said, “You don’t have to make peace—which is tantamount to surrender. We can show you how you can win the war, if, when you defeat Germany, and carve up the Ottoman Empire (or Turkey) you will give us Palestine.
This version is not flawless since it doesn’t fit the chronology of events; the Balfour declaration is dated November 2, 1917. However, by this date, the transfer of American troops to Europe was already well underway, the declaration of war by the United States on Germany itself dating back to April 6, 1917.
Of course, we could just say that we shouldn’t worry about getting an exact chronology. It is enough to say that by the end of 1917, England had other fish to fry and that this Balfour declaration doesn’t make sense except for the bargain Freedman was hinting at.
III – But we have better than that now: the French Jewish version:
On June 4, 1917, Jules Cambon, General Secretary at the Quai d’Orsay, published an open letter to Nahum Sokolov, representative of the World Zionist Organization in France:
You were good enough to present the project to which you are devoting your efforts, which has for its object the development of Jewish colonization in Palestine.You consider that, circumstances permitting, and the independence of the Holy Places being safeguarded on the other hand, it would be a deed of justice and of reparation to assist, by the protection of the Allied Powers, in the renaissance of the Jewish nationality in that Land from which the people of Israel were exiled so many centuries ago.
The French Government, which entered this present war to defend a people wrongfully attacked, and which continues the struggle to assure the victory of right over might, can but feel sympathy for your cause, the triumph of which is bound up with that of the Allies.
I am happy to give you herewith such assurance
Two top French diplomat: left, Paul Cambon who took part in the Sykes-Picot negotiations signed on May 16, 1916, and right, his elder brother, Jules Cambon, who made a declaration favouring the creation of Israel on June 4, 1917.
With this letter, the timing and the rationale are perfect. Here are two entries from the Raymond Poincaré diary, the French President during the war:
June 13, 1917 Pershing arrival in Paris:
American General Pershing arrived in Paris at the end of the afternoon. Colonel Renoult, my military attache, went to meet him at the station. He tells me that the welcome was very warm.
July 4 1917, review of a first American battalion on the American national holiday:
In the morning, courtyard of the Invalides, review of an American battalion, which has just arrived in Paris. Painlevé picks me up at the Élysée and we both leave in a «Victoria». General Duparge, Colonel de Rieux and Commander Helbronner follow us in a landau. On the Alexandre III bridge and on the esplanade, a very dense and unanimously enthusiastic crowd.
We arrive in front of the Hôtel des Invalides and we dismount. We are received by General Pershing and General Dubail. We enter the courtyard, around which are ranged the American soldiers and a French company.
Under the arcades and on the first floor, in the galleries, many spectators applauding. We pass the troops who look very good in their khaki uniforms.
In other words, Pershing and the first American detachment arrive after Jules Cambon’s declaration of June 4, 1917. Note how Combon points out in his statement that “your cause, the triumph of which is bound up with that of the Allies” — and how one wants to add “and vice versa”.
Strangely enough since Poincaré also served as a noted minister of Foreign Affairs before the war, a critical period, we found nothing in his memoirs about the Cambon letter, whether it be because, as many politicians of that time (including former president William Howard Taft in America) believed, he didn’t realise the importance of the rise of the Jewish power, or whether it be, on the contrary, as with President Wilson, that he didn’t dare speak about it openly. The fact is that the immediate situation was very bad for France on the frontline with the ongoing mutiny and the arrival of German reinforcements from the East. From Poincaré’s diary:
June 3, 1917:
[…] In a secret committee, Augagneur, so firm and so optimistic at the start of the war, gave a speech of discouragement and immediate peace, repeating that there was no longer anything to count on with Russia and that America would arrive too late, that all was lost. However, he was applauded by a good fifth of the House.
[…] New painful incidents on the front. Colonel Fournier informs me that a division of the 21st Corps has deliberated on the point whether it would consent to go up to the trenches and resume the offensive. She decided to go to the trenches, but to stand on the defensive; another division, that of the 7th Corps, refused to go to the trenches. General Pétain is looking for the ringleaders, whom he believes to be connected with the General Confederation of Labour, and he will not regain his command unless action is taken against pacifist propaganda.
It was therefore about time for the Americans to arrive, fortunately, the negotiations had started even earlier, here is again the chronology found in Poincaré’s memoirs:
May 15, 1916:
Victor Basch, whom I asked to come to my office, gives me his impressions of America. He found the Israelites there very hostile to Russia but favorable to France; he succeeded in penetrating among them; he lectured to them; he acquired the assurance that the house of Jacob Schiff would agree to place a loan of 250 million dollars for the Allies, if Russia granted some advantages to the Israelites.
1. Poincaré does not specify it, but Victor Basch is himself a Jew, on June 4, 1898. In the wake of the Dreyfus affair, he was one of the founders of the League of Human Rights and he would become its fourth president. Take note: League of Human Rights, not League of French Rights, there is a nuance.
2. What are these advantages that Russia should grant to the Israelites? The right to emigrate to Palestine, maybe?
3. It is plausible, since on May 15, we are precisely on the eve of the signing of the Sykes/Picot agreement. Poincaré, with his relative frankness, especially when it comes to the Israelites, does not breathe a word about it, yet this secret agreement is undoubtedly at the origin of the two declarations, that of Cambon and that of Balfour.
On the map that draws the dividing line between the French zone of influence and the English one, we notice a small but ominous yellow spot on the bottom left where before there was nothing special, nothing else that a small part of the Ottoman Empire had not even identified; it seems almost obvious that the two subjects — Sykes-Picot and Cambon-Balfour – one year apart, between the same two countries, in the same context of the First World War, are not entirely disconnected. Besides here is a very interesting entry in this regard, again from Poincaré ,three weeks after these Sykes-Picot agreements:
June 8, 1916
Edmond de Rothschild talks to me about the Jews of Russia. He tells me that before taking an interest in them, he wants to safeguard the alliance, but he noticed that Mr. Protopopoff was quite ready to improve their lot and he would like the French government, with all the necessary prudence, to intervene in their favor.I insist on the delicate nature of this intervention. I tell him, however, that I will bring the conversation to this subject when I see Mr. Protopopoff again, but he is not a minister yet; he can only become one.
1 . Note how the Jews have easy access to the President of the Republic. Moreover, they are ablve to intervene directly in foreign policy in wartime, while at the same time, a finicky secularism prevents him from meeting so easily the Catholic hierarchy; see 1917 : le Rond-point Poincaré.
2. The question remains, was “the Jews of Russia” the sole purpose of Edmond de Rothschild? Was it not rather “the Jews of Russia being transferred to Palestine”? As if by chance, Balfour handed out his declaration to a Rothschild in London.
Let’s end with these few entries during the rushing hours, still from Poincaré’s diaries:
February 4, 1917:
Jules Cambon telephones the Élysée that Mr. Sevastopoulo has received from the Russian ambassador in Washington notice that President Wilson has assembled a commission made up of a few friends and that he has examined three points there:
1 – negotiations between the United States and Germany
2 – waiting for a new torpedo before any decision
3 – immediate severance of diplomatic relations.
Wilson would have chosen the latter course. Press cables say that he sent a new message to the Senate and declared that he was going to hand over his papers to the German ambassador and make an appeal to the neutrals.If this news is correct, the assistance of the United States will be an invaluable moral support for us.
What a pity, Poincaré does not give us the names of the “friends” in question, but we are starting to get a little idea for ourself …
March 31, 1917, meeting with the Prince Sixtus who, with a view to possible peace negotiations, delivered a message from the Emperor Charles of Austria to Poincaré and Cambon (general secretary of the Quai d’Orsay), Sixtus of Bourbon-Parma leaves them also a personal note alluding to regime change in Petrograd:
Until the change of regime which has just taken place in Petrograd, Russian opinion seemed, in fact, unanimous in demanding the possession of Constantinople as an essential condition for the development of the Muscovite Empire. But the feelings of the current Russian government already show differences in this regard. If the Foreign Minister, Mr. Milioukov, maintains the previous point of view, which was that of an annexation of Constantinople to Russia, his colleague, Mr. Kerensky, reflects the new opinion that Russia must renounce any enlargement: in this case, Turkey could keep its capital, the regime of which would simply have to be combined with a European international status.
April 5, 1917, exchange of telegrams between Poincaré and Wilson:
The Chamber of Deputies adopted a resolution similar to that of the Senate. To protect the Americans against the attacks with which they remain threatened, Wilson had torpedo boats armed which were directed towards American waters. One of them has just been sunk in the English Channel by a German submarine.
Ribot delivers a highly acclaimed speech in the Chamber on American determination.
I telegraph, for my part, to President Wilson. Mr. William Martin communicates the telegram that I wrote to Ribot, who gives his full support:
At the moment, when under the generous inspiration of your Excellency, the great American Republic, faithful to its ideal and its traditions, is preparing to defend by arms the cause of justice and freedom, the French people quivered with brotherly emotion. Allow me to renew to you, Mr. President, at this grave and solemn hour, the assurance of the feelings of which I recently addressed the testimony to you and which finds in the present circumstances an increase in strength and ardor. I am sure to express the thoughts of all of France by telling you, to you and to the American nation, the joy and the pride that we feel to feel our hearts beating, once again, in unison with yours. This war would not have had its full meaning if the United States had not been induced by the enemy himself to take part in it. From now on, it appears more than ever to any impartial mind that German imperialism, which wanted, prepared and declared war, had conceived the insane dream of establishing its hegemony over the world. He succeeded only in revolting the conscience of humanity. You have made yourself before the universe, in an unforgettable language, the eloquent interpreter of outraged law and threatened civilization. Honor to you, Mr. President, and to your noble country.
Please believe in my devoted friendship.
Raymond Poincaré
Wilson’s response:«His Excellence Raymond Poincaré, President of the Republic, Paris.
In this trying hour when the destinies of civilized mankind are in the balance, it has been a source of gratification and joy to me to receive your congratulations upon the step which my country has been constrained to take, in opposition to the relentless policy and course of imperialistic Germany. It is very delightful to us that France who stood shoulder to shoulder with us of the western world in our struggle for independence, should now give us such a welcome into the lists of battle as upholders of the freedom ant the rights of humanity. We stand as partners of the noble democraties whose aims and acts make for the perpetuation of the rights and freedom of man and for the saveguarding of the true principales of human liberties in the name of the american people. I salute you and your illustrious countrymen.
Woodrow Wilson»
Conclusion
The common point of the three versions of the Balfour declaration, the English, the American and the French, is, of course, the international Jew, the three versions already push aside the Sykes – Picot agreement and its colonial prospect, and anyway, only one version will prevail before history. On February 10, 1918, through its own Foreign Minister, Stephen Pichon, France associated itself with the declaration before Parliament by Lord Arthur Balfour, British Foreign Minister, which is officially consecrated by the Treaty of Sèvres , in August 10, 1920.
On that day, Raymond Poincaré still thought that the Jews were only pawns in his war against Germany and, with the extension of the French colonial empire in the Middle East, he could not imagine that it would turn out to be the other round: France, Germany, UK and the USA as being pawns in the history of Israel.
And so it was, after two world wars, that the state of Israel came to light. Think of the consequences:
1 – No First World war, no Balfour declaration and no fall of the Ottoman empire (a prerequisite for the setting of a Jewish state in Palestine).
2 – No Second World war, no Israel.
* * *
Appendix, the Balfour Declaration
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild,
I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.
“His Majesty’s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour
Weizmann learned chemistry in Germany to use it against her, an instance of Jewish gratefulness and loyalty – unless we might consider as a kind of loyalty his not speaking about a highly sensitive subject in his memoirs, written after WWII, a subject of which he must have been well aware as a chemist.
01 None of the post-War memoirs of the Allies’ wartime-leaders mentioned the sensitive chemical matter either, ” that he [they] must [would] have been well aware of “.
02 After all, the chemical matter became the main reason for the Allies’ entry into the War: but not until the sixties.
03 For now, I’ll forego my other three hundred pages of this Reply.
The Rothschild and the Schiff links were firmly rooted in the past, according to Naomi W. Cohen in her book on Jacob Schiff p.2:
For Many years the early Schiffs shared ownership of a two-family house with the Rothschilds. Located in the old Jewisch quarter [in Frankfurt], the house was marked on the Schiff side by a ship and on the Rothschild side by a red shield, symbols from which the surnames of the two families had originally derived.
01 Their duplex in Frankfurt’s Ghetto, on JUDENGASSE [ Jew Lane or Passage ], shared a common escape tunnel to the rear of their property.
02 Cyrus Adler, Schiff’s close friend, in 1928, authored JACOB SCHIFF: HIS LIFE AND LETTERS.
03 In it, he mentioned a conference of top bankers in Paris, where, at dinner, Schiff was ” coincidently ” seated next to the Japanese Plenipotentiary, [ just prior to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5 ].
04 Generous War Credits were extended to Japan but withheld from Russia at this Conference.
05 Said Plenipotentiary became PM of Japan, his teenage daughter invited by Schiff to NY, to learn English.
06 Ca. 20 years ago I spent days at the NATIONAL ARCHIVES IN OTTAWA, to study their file on Trotsky’s incarceration at Amherst, Nova Scotia’s POW camp, after having been taken off the SS KRISTIANIAFJORD on April 3, 1917, at port of call Halifax, N.S. [ enroute NY-Oslo]
07 Halifax was run by the RN, as the starting point for their vital convoys. Captain Maikin, RN, arrested T, his wife, two young sons and five cohorts. A contingent of British Secret Service had shadowed them since NY.
08 T’s wife and two sons were taken in by Dr. of Dentistry HOROWITZ.
09 A few days later, they were released due to London and NY banker pressure through the London Foreign Office and Washington.
10 They sailed for Norway, thence by ship and rail to Finland and St. Petersburg’s Finland Station.
11 Note, that both he and Lenin were injected AFTER the Russians had been duped into dismissing Tzar Nicholas II, by their just prior “liberal” February Revolution. A liberal revolution supported by the many, followed by the one-two punch of dictatorship of the proletariat, sealed and delivered by October. Great ” marketing “.
12 My National Archives research prompted me to search the OTTAWA CENTRAL PUBLIC LIBRARY for any reliable book on Schiff.
13 Simply unbelievably, their ACQUISITIONS CLERK asked me ” WHO’S JACOB SCHIFF ! ”
14 The library acquired it; I took it out and returned it after two weeks. As usual, it raised more questions than it answered, so I returned later to check it out once more.
15 It was missing, without having been checked out in the interval. B’nai Brith Canada, is five minutes walk removed.
16 Ergo, Schiff never existed: simply airbrushed out of their version of History.
17 Schiff was a fastidious dresser, with particular attention to his neck area. He often wore ascot ties. There is a photo of Schiff, wearing a v-neck white tennis sweater, with Lenin in a wheelchair, his wife Krupskaya behind him; dated 1923. But ne’er a mention of Schiff traveling to the SU at that, or any time.
18 PUNISHABLE ” PATTERN RECOGNITON throughout, anyone ???
Start from the references in the Wikipedia entry & work from there, taking in Sutton, Futrell, Possony & Max Parry en route. “Search and ye shall find” (not always what you thought).
01 What a splendid suggestion.
02 Did they all write about what I experienced and shared here ?
@ Charles Frey
They supplement it, as do studies on Trotsky in NY, Helphand, Ganetsky, Aschberg. See also online: Seth Frantzman, “Was the Russian Revolution Jewish?” Jerusalem Post, February 7, 2018; & John Simkin, “Lenin’s Sealed Train,” Spartacus Educational, plus full biography.
Communism as a revolutionary conspiracy that attracted very many Jews is not the same as a Jewish ethnic “conspiracy” that attracted some Gentiles, which better defines Zionism.
Shiff-ted away 😉
For French readers, a quick overview:
https://jeune-nation.com/kultur/culture/le-bouclier-rouge
and
https://jeune-nation.com/kultur/culture/jacob-et-la-toute-premiere-hysterie-mediatique-antirusse-1910
(but nothing new for you, Charles)
Film tip for today: “Last
Hippie Standing” (2001)
https://linkmix.co/16316016
“LSD and the Rabbis”
https://linkmix.co/16310811
Significant that Jews were main-
ly responsible for Vietnam War
as well as for the hippie culture
and the popularization of LSD.
https://linkmix.co/16311188
https://linkmix.co/16316781
Although they are clearly and undoubtedly
the main operators of “pop culture”, at the
same time they dare to appear as its “critics”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_industry
In this regard, watch also Damm-
beck’s “The Net” and Jew Brok-
man’s dubious appearance in it.
https://linkmix.co/16315380
“Brockman’s authors include Steven Pin.
ker, Alan Guth, Stephen Jay Gould, Jaron
Lanier, Lee Smolin, and David Gelernter.”
Dammbeck’s film “Time of the Gods”
(1992) about Arno Breker (a few re-
views in the links). Quite interesting.
In it an interview with Ernst Jünger.
https://linkmix.co/16315893
Film tip for today: “Last
Hippie Standing” (2001)
https://linkmix.co/16316016
“LSD and the Rabbis”
https://linkmix.co/16310811
Significant that Jews were main-
ly responsible for Vietnam War
as well as for the hippie culture
and the popularization of LSD.
https://linkmix.co/16311188
https://linkmix.co/16316781
Although they are clearly and undoubtedly
the main operators of “pop culture”, at the
same time they dare to appear as its “critics”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_industry
In this regard, watch also Damm-
beck’s “The Net” and Jew Brok-
man’s dubious appearance in it.
https://linkmix.co/16315380
“Brockman’s authors include Steven Pin-
ker, Alan Guth, Stephen Jay Gould, Jaron
Lanier, Lee Smolin, and David Gelernter.”
Dammbeck’s film “Time of the Gods”
(1992) about Arno Breker (a few re-
views in the links). Quite interesting.
In it an interview with Ernst Jünger.
https://linkmix.co/16315893
T E Lawrence (better known as Lawrence of Arabia) became disheartened and disgusted by the duplicitous nature of the British government and its dealings with Jews. I’m sure he would have felt the same way about France. Some people claim that the government of the UK was behind his death.
https://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=12183
.The writer Henry Williamson was hoping that Lawrence would join him in a public Peace Mission to Hitler, but the latter was mysteriously injured on the way to their meeting.
Addendum: The homosexual Rahn, whom Dammbeck quotes in the Breker film as having worshipped “Lucifer” (as if this had been an expression of the SS Ahnenerbe), is of course a complete lie, just to make that clear afterwards.
This is the sick impression Dammbeck undoubtedly wants to create. After all, Dammbeck’s later cinematic work clearly carries the implied knowledge about the power of the Jewish world ruler. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otto_Rahn
Yes, Jews got their homeland out of World War 1.
But Christians (Armenians, Assyrians, Greeks) got nothing in spite of the fact they were genocided by Turkey in that same period.
The Treaty of Sevres (1920) was to restore ancient Armenian land in what is now eastern Turkey, but it was not to be.
Same with Greek lands in the eastern region of present day Turkey.
German, American, Danish and other Christian missionaries in Turkey at that time testified to the butchery by the Turks at that time.
Now, much smaller and landlocked Christian Armenia is surrounded by Turkics (Turkey and Azerbaijan) who wish to annihilate it.
During WW 1, this is what the Allies announced but it was not to be fulfilled:
>>>For about a month the Kurd and Turkish populations of Armenia has been massacring Armenians with the connivance and often assistance of Ottoman authorities.
Such massacres took place in middle April (new style) at Erzerum, Dertchun, Eguine, Akn, Bitlis, Mush, Sassun, Zeitun, and throughout Cilicia. Inhabitants of about one hundred villages near Van were all murdered. In that city Armenian quarter is besieged by Kurds.
At the same time in Constantinople Ottoman Government ill-treats inoffensive Armenian population.
In view of those new crimes of Turkey against humanity and civilization, the Allied governments announce publicly to the Sublime Porte that they will hold personally responsible [for] these crimes all members of the Ottoman government and those of their agents who are implicated in such massacres.[5][11][1]>>>
Christians get betrayed, while Jews and Israel win out.
Now, Israel is allies with Turkey and Azerbaijan, enemies of Armenia and Christianity.
What does the “Christian West” do to help? Practically nothing.
Don’t just rail against Israel. Support Christians.
Very interesting parallel you are drawing, indirectly, it teaches us a lot about Jews behaviour:
As mentioned in the article, they met with top politicians in France, UK and the USA, but never Armenians had done so.
In his 10 volumes of memoirs, Poincaré never mention an encounter with an Armenian.
But not only the Armenians have a ground to complain about Poincaré, but the French themselves too:
did you know that in 1913, he opposed the Balkanic wars, i.e. he was dead against the Serbians, the Bulgarians and the Greeks will of independence from the Ottoman Empire, i.e., he supported the muslims against the Whites Christians, saying, in 1913, prey, that “France was a great muslim nation”
https://jeune-nation.com/kultur/culture/raymond-poincare-et-les-debuts-de-lislam-en-france
The Christian genocide in Turkey (perpetrated against Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks) was planned, organized and instigated by Turkish Sabbatean crypto-Jews mainly from Thessaloniki (also known as Dönmeh), one of whom was Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk).
Chaim Weizmann agrees with Benjamin Freedman. In a letter dated September 10, 1941, to Winston Churchill, Weizmann wrote the following:
‘There is only one big ethnic group which is willing to stand, to a man, for Great Britain, and a policy of “all-out-aid” for her: the five million American Jews. From Secretary Morgenthau, Governor Lehman, Justice Frankfurter, down to the simplest Jewish workman or trader, they are conscious of all that this struggle against Hitler implies.
It has been repeatedly acknowledged by British Statesmen that it was the Jews who, in the last war, effectively helped to tip the scales in America in favour of Great Britain. They are keen to do it – and may do it – again . But you are dealing with human beings, with flesh and blood, and the most elementary feeling of self respect sets limits to service, however willing, if the response is nothing but rebuffs and humiliations. American Jewry waits for a word – a call – from His Majesty’s Government.’
The original letter can also be viewed. David Irving made copies of all the correspondence between Churchill and Weizmann that is located at the Weizmann Archives in Israel, and they can all be viewed at this link. I believe this research was for his book, Churchill’s War. I think I recall him saying something about them being upset after they realized what they gave him access to.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/History/Churchill/Weizmann_Zionists/WSC_100941.html
“I think I recall him saying something about them being upset after they realized what they gave him access to.”
I hate when you, or anyone, says things like this, Peter, and you do it a lot. The words “think I recall” and “something about” are completely nullifying. Either look it up and say for sure or don’t say it. Indulging in hearsay and uncertainty is a wasted effort.
Dear Miss Yeager,
I agree with you one hundred per cent. To-day more than ever, with regard to whatever the subject, or even a simple conversation, exactness of language is called for. Precise words give us facts! God Bless, Eric Galati
Hear, hear!
We forge ahead Liosnagcat! Pensiero Ed Azione! God Bless, Eric Galati
Thank you Eric, and Liosganat too. I truly appreciate the support. I do worry about coming across as a harridan by speaking what I see as the truth. Bless you both!
Dear Carolyn,
You are most welcome. Please always say what you think for you never express yourself unwisely. If any one thinks you’re a harridan then they are an example of one who actually has no conversation with others and unfortunately lacks a philosophical base. One more bit of advice: knock off the idea of being old! You’re always full of youthful dynamics when you COMMENT. God Bless, Eric
Churchill and U.S. Entry Into World War II
By David Irving (at his best!)
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p261_Irving.html
The insidious rise of anti-Semitic feeling was something which Churchill could not ignore. So no matter how often Zionists came to him, Churchill couldn’t knuckle under and say, “Very well then, you can have your own Jewish state. I promise to make a public declaration in that respect, and we will already start arming a Jewish army.” There were Jewish units in the British army. They fought very well in certain areas, but he was not prepared to pay more than lip-service to the Zionists at this time.
Now, I’ve had private access to the private papers of Chaim Weizmann, who was the first president of the State of Israel and who was the head of the Jewish agency. And it’s very interesting to see from these private papers and the records of his meetings with Churchill throughout the war years, precisely how this bargaining, haggling, and blackmail, in fact, went on.
On August 27, 1941, Weizmann hinted for the first time of the leverage the Americans Jews could exert on President Roosevelt. He reminded Oliver Harvey, who was Eden’s secretary, that the Jews were an influential ethnic lobby in the United States. (Quoi de neuf? as the French say: What’s new!). The U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau Jr., was particularly keen, he said, that Britain should allow more Jews to settle in Palestine. “[The] president’s entourage is very Jewish,” noted Harvey, who made a careful note of Weizmann’s remarks. However, the Zionist leader could not get near Mr. Churchill. (Ike got Churchill’s appointment cards. I rented them from the man who stole them, and we can see how often Weizmann didn’t get to see Churchill.)
By September 10, 1941, Weizmann was writing an extraordinarily outspoken letter to Prime Minister Churchill in which he again recalled how the Jews of the United States had pulled their country into war before, and could do it again — provided that Britain toed the Zionist line over immigration into Palestine. He reminded Churchill that two years had passed since the Jewish Agency had offered to Britain the support of the Jews in Palestine and throughout the world. A whole year had passed, he added, since the prime minister had personally approved his offer to recruit Jews in Palestine. But for two years, Weizmann complained, the Jewish Agency had met only rebuffs and humiliation.
“Tortured by Hitler as no nation has ever been in modern times,” he continued, “and advertised by him as his foremost enemy, we are refused by those who fight him the chance of seeing our name and our flag appear amongst those arrayed against him.” Artfully associating the anti-Zionists with the other enemies populating Mr. Churchill’s mind, Weizmann assured him that he knew this exclusion was not of his own [Churchill’s] doing. “It is the work of people who were responsible for Munich and for the 1939 White Paper on Palestine.” After describing his four-month tour in the United States, Weizmann came to his real sales pitch. There’s only one big ethnic group which is willing to stand to a man for Great Britain and a policy of all-out aid to her: the five million American Jews. From Secretary Morgenthau, Governor Lehman [of New York State], Justice Felix Frankfurter, down to the simplest Jewish workman or trader, they are conscious of all that this struggle against Hitler implies.” British statesmen themselves, he reminded Churchill, had often acknowledged that it was those Jews who has effectively brought the United States into the war in 1917. “They are keen to do it, and may do it again.”
“But,” he admonished, “you are dealing with human beings, with flesh and blood. And the most elementary feeling of self- respect sets limits to service, however willing, if the response is nothing but rebuffs and humiliation.” All that he was asking for now was a formation of a Jewish fighting force. That would be signal enough for the Jews of the United States.
This is the kind of blackmail that Churchill had to put up with from the Zionists throughout the Second World War. And of course, when the blackmail didn’t work they set about assassinating our people in the Middle East. It’s an odd thing that is often forgotten by the admirers of Begin and Shamir and the rest of them, that when the rest of the world was fighting Hitler the Zionists in the Middle East were fighting us! They had nothing better to do with their time!
Felix Frankfurter, in fact, crops up in the Japanese intercepts. Sure enough, on November 18, 1941, the Japanese found a man called Schmidt who had gone and had a long talk with Justice Felix Frankfurter. The message intercepted (by the U.S. Navy and decoded by them) is a telegram in code from Nomura in Washington to Tokyo describing his talks with Schmidt, who had seen Frankfurter on the evening of the eighteenth. Schmidt had said that only Hitler would benefit if a U.S.-Japanese war broke out. If Japan made the first move, the war would be popular in America. Frankfurter, however, said: “Germany had been smart in that she has consistently done everything possible to prevent arousing the United States. Therefore, regardless of how much the President tries to fan the anti-German flame, he cannot make the desired headway.”
Now what a scandalous statement that is! Here’s the one country, Germany, trying to prevent a war and the other country — Roosevelt, neutral — trying to fan the flames of anti-German feeling to fuel the war. Yet it is the Germans who are called the criminals, and the Americans who do the prosecuting. And it all turns up in this Japanese signal about Frankfurter and another Austrian Jew called Schmidt.
“[Weizmann] … recalled how the Jews of the United States had pulled their country into war before, and could do it again.”
[…]
“There’s only one big ethnic group which is willing to stand to a man for Great Britain and a policy of all-out aid to her: the five million American Jews.” … Weizmann
Five million (!) could pull America into war … because they stood together as one. “Standing together as one” was Adolf Hitler’s idea for Germany, and he would have succeeded if he had not had the entire White European Christian world outside Germany against him! Now, because of timidity and lack of exercising ‘will’, White Europeans/Americans, etc still cannot stand together as one against our greatest enemy. We all have to have a separate opinion. As we can see, it doesn’t work.
General Albert Coady Wedemeyer was on the side of Charles Lindbergh, but he planned the invasion of Germany.
Patton was fiercely anti-semite, but he led the Third army across Europe.
They thought that Germany was a greater threat to the US than the Jewish.
The Jews play the ones against the other, but after all, this was the game of the British on the continent too!
And nowadays, what about the White nationalists fighting for Zelensky?
01 Key in ZELENSKY PLAYING PIANO WITH HIS PENIS.
02 Note the audience with young children on their mothers’ knees.
03 Actually there are two different performances.
04 Enjoy both and pass the joy around !
05 I fail to understand his comparison with Churchill, except that both are two-faced and bear more than one heart in their chests, and Churchill once received a male guest official, exiting from his shower, housecoat open in the front.
Dear Monsieur X,
The answer to the paradoxical thoughts and actions of Generals George Smith Patton Junior, Four Star and Albert Coady Wedemeyer was not because they thought Germany was a greater threat than anything Jewish, is the disconcerting fact, sometimes frightening, that military men like police law enforcement at all levels, will obey whatever orders they’re given. Whatever principles they have, lacking is a spiritual factor of What Is? Authentic morality is inexistent, ergo righteous principles for their negative egocentricity, which is also cowardice, is what comes first. General Patton Junior learned this too late after World War II. The analogy are police officers who might claim to be Pro-Life but will join hand in hand the authorities in arresting anti-Abortionists. Or more recently the cowardly faggot police, who just stood armed better than an army and looked on while Anti-Fascist and Black Lives Matter, amongst others,burned down our cities, destroyed,murdered, and raped from 2016 till this very day, just like England in 2011. And let us not omit American Southerners who did nothing and do nothing about the desecration, destruction, and removal of anything Confederate, as well as Christians just looking on while statues of Christ Our Lord and Our Lady The Queen Of Heaven are mocked physically and smashed to pieces.
My friend Monsieur X: most of our fellow human beings are weaklings who are mentally and physically saps and slobs. And these latter, the average good person, shall be your most dangerous enemy. No different than the Italians in Blackshirts who suddenly embraced Christian Democracy and Communism, and we know what happened to Il Duce Benito Mussolini, Misses Clara Petacci and others who remained loyal to Fascism. Be brave my friend for perhaps the worst is yet to come for us. God Bless, Eric Galati
Nazi White Nationalists acting as storm troopers for ZOG in Ukraine has to be the end of any idea that white nationalism is going to save us.
As much as we all admire the pluck and the ascetics of these people – their hearts are in the right place, it has to be obvious to everyone now they are just too retarded to do any good.
The Kiev regime couldn’t be any more Jewish.
Hitler’s operations against Poles (as well as Jews) inside occupied Poland provoked hostility from the Christian world outside Germany, and he might have won the war in the USSR if the Russians, Ukrainians and others who welcomed the end of bolshevism had been treated in a more Christian manner.
@ Great Aunt Carolyn
Your hero Hitler was not keen on opinions separate from his own, although variations in philosophy and politics have characterised the European mind since Plato.
Hitler’s European Order excluded not only Jews but Slavs, and not very nicely either. Spengler warned the National Socialists against three fatal errors: a ring-fence around Germany, a Napoleonic adventure in Russia, and a “zoological” antisemitism; and sadly he proved right, as he has proved right about the current war of “color” and the “underclass” that could finish off the white world.
And there there is Jan Smuts who had his finger in all sorts of pies – including the Balfour Declaration
ACH (2134) Dr. Peter Hammond – The Real Story Of Stephen Mitford Goodson’s Expose Of Globalist General Jan Smuts South Africa’s Worst Prime Minister (And Why He Wasn’t Assassinated) – Part 3
https://andrewcarringtonhitchcock.com/2023/04/27/ach-2134-dr-peter-hammond-the-real-story-of-stephen-mitford-goodsons-expose-of-globalist-general-jan-smuts-south-africas-worst-prime-minister-and-why-he-wasnt-assassinated-part-3/
The United Kingdom should dissolve, as should the United States. These empires ended up being our own undoing. The most fiercely patriotic citizens of these countries today are the anti-whites themselves. In their words, ‘I didn’t move here to live in a rump of this country.’ They want to experience 100-percent of it. That’s why nonwhites are the greatest shills of neoliberalism. Whites withdrawing into apathy would undercut the ability of our Jewish overlords to project globalism. So even though some of these separatists (Scotland, Ireland, Catalonia etc) are degenerates, on a long enough timeline they will eventually eschew this woke epoch yet still be independent.
Leftwing Jews have been prominent in advocating UK dismemberment and/or republicanism; e.g. Jonathan Freedland.
Wasn’t it the “Jew Bolshevik” regime that discovered and disclosed the secret details of the “Jew British” Sykes-Picot agreement? Just fancy that.
Don’t forget Samuel Landman’s “Great Britain, the Jews & Palestine” and Sharman Kadish’s “Bolsheviks & British Jews”.