Churchill & Hitler

On WW2 - Engdahl and Irving

Following on from the Neema Parvini lecture about The Octopus where he outlines, only slightly tongue in check, the Spectrum of Allowable Dissent (min. 24.40), you will see that right at the bottom of the table, the most disallowed item is WW2 revisionism, in fact he frames it as 200% not allowed.

So, with that invitation in mind, let’s look at some WW2 “revisionism”, or more accurately let’s look at some history from honest historians rather than the propaganda we have been fed our whole lives.

We’ll start with Engdahl and an excerpt from A Century of War as he clearly outlines how the British financed (created) Hitler. Not something you will find in any mainstream history book. I’ve read Shirer’s tome, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and there is no mention of it there.

Next, we’ll look at a David Irving lecture on Churchill.

Most people do not know who Irving is, and the few that do, know him as a “denier”, a smaller group still who have read and listened to him know that he is one of the greatest WW2 historians that The Regime decided to cancel. In fact, he is one of the very first of the “cancelled.”

He is fluent in German and would typically spend 10 years studying original German documents and archives to then write and publish a single book.

You can find all his books here. Don’t bother with Amazon.

Hardcover Archives | Irving Books

I better understand now why Churchill is so lionized by The Regime’s Hollywood machine. It’s another complete inversion of reality.

The standout points for me from the Irving lecture are Churchill’s “financing” and how he paid his bills. And also, his rejection of peace offers in 1940. Besides my summary of the lecture below, I strongly recommend just listening to the man.

To the extent there may seem to be contradictions between Engdahl and Irving, they are squared in my mind through Mackinder’s Heartland Theory.

Mackinder viewed Germany's potential alliance with Russia as a significant threat to British interests. He believed that if Germany and Russia were to combine their resources — Germany's technological and industrial prowess with Russia's vast natural resources and manpower — this alliance would challenge and possibly overcome the maritime dominance of Britain and its allies. Such a German-Russian bloc could exploit the Heartland's geographic advantages to its benefit, making it a formidable force against the maritime powers.

Throughout his career, Mackinder's theories evolved, but the core idea remained that the geopolitical stability of Europe, and by extension the world, hinged significantly on the relationship between Germany and Russia. His work influenced not only geopolitical thought but also the strategic policies of Western powers, particularly in their efforts to prevent any single power from dominating the Heartland region. This perspective was evident in the Cold War era's containment policies and continues to influence geopolitical strategies today.

Daniel Natal

Hitler seems to have been created to take on the Russians and in one masterstroke destroy both Germany and Russia, British Empire’s two primary challengers.

To me, that would explain why Churchill rejected peace in 1940, as The Regime’s goals were not yet achieved. It would also explain why Hitler attacked Russia in 1941 creating an Eastern front, apparently for no good reason seeing that they had just signed (1939) a non-aggression pact.

I think it’s true, to understand WW2 as a British Empire engineered demolition of its two main rivals, Germany and Russia. Which is exactly what they also did in WW1. They were both really one war with an intermission. Empire’s goals were achieved.

With thanks to Engdahl and Irving.

---

---

The Hitler Project

From A Century of War by F. William Engdahl

In March 1930, some months before the credit cutoff against Germany was imposed by the Anglo-American bankers, Reichsbank president Hjalmar Schacht surprised the government by handing in his resignation. The actual issue he resigned over was the offer of an emergency stabilization credit of 500 million Reichsmarks, which the Berlin government had been offered by the Swedish industrialist and financier, Ivar Kreuger, the famous Swedish ‘match king.’ Kreuger and his American bankers, Lee Higginson & Co., were major lenders to Germany and other countries that had been cut off by the London and New York banks. But Kreuger’s loan offer of early 1930 had explosive and unacceptable political consequences for the long-term strategy of Montagu Norman’s friends. German Finance Minister Rudolf Hilferding urged Schacht, who, under the terms of the Dawes reparations plan, had to approve all foreign loans, to accept the Kreuger loan. Schacht refused and on March 6 handed Reichspresident von Hindenburg his resignation. Schacht had other duties to tend to.

Kreuger himself was found dead some months later, in early 1932, in his Paris hotel room. Official autopsy registered the death as suicide, but detailed inquiry by Swedish researchers decades later made a conclusive case that Kreuger had been murdered. The persons who stood to gain most from Kreuger’s death were in London and New York, though the actual details will likely remain buried along with Kreuger. With Kreuger’s death ended also Germany’s hope for relief. She was totally cut off from international credit.14

For his part, Schacht was anything but idle after his resignation from the Reichsbank. He devoted his full energies to organizing financial support for the man he and his close friend, Bank of England governor Norman, agreed was the man for Germany’s crisis.

Since 1926 Schacht had secretly been a backer of the radical National Socialist German workers’ Party (NSDAP) or Nazi party of Adolf Hitler. After resigning his Reichsbank post, Schacht acted as a key liaison between powerful, but skeptical, German industrial leaders, the so-called ‘Schlotbarone’ of the Ruhr, and foreign financial leaders, especially Britain’s Lord Norman.

British policy at this juncture was to create the ‘Hitler Project,’ knowing fully what its ultimate geopolitical and military direction would be. As Colonel David Stirling, the founder of Britain’s elite Special Air Services, related in a private discussion almost half a century later, ‘The greatest mistake we British did was to think we could play the German Empire against the Russian Empire, and have them bleed one another to death.’

The British support for the Hitler option reached to the very highest levels. It included Britain’s prime minister, Neville Chamberlain, the man infamous for the 1938 Munich appeasement which set Hitler’s armies marching to Sudetenland in the east. Philip Kerr (later Lord Lothian), of the Cecil Rhodes Round Table group which we met earlier, was a close adviser to Neville Chamberlain. Lothian backed the Hitler project as part of the infamous Cliveden set in Brirish circles, as did Lord Beaverbrook, the most influential British press magnate of the day, who controlled the mass-circulation Daily Express and Evening Standard. But perhaps the most influential backer of Hitler’s movement at this time in Britain was the Prince of Wales, who became Edward VIII in early 1936, until his abdication at the end of the same year.

Certain influential American establishment figures were hardly ignorant of what the Hitler movement was about. Leading Wall Street and U.S. State Department circles had been informed from an early stage. Even before the ill-fated 1923 Munich ‘beer hall putsch,’ a

U.S. State Department official stationed in Munich as part of the Versailles occupation of Germany, Robert Murphy, later a central figure in the postwar Bilderberg group, personally met the young Hitler through General Erich Ludendorff. Murphy, who had served under Allen Dulles in Berne during the First World War, gathering intelligence on the German Reich, was in Munich with another influential U.S. government official, Truman Smith, assigned to U.S. Army intelligence occupying Germany.

In his memoirs, Smith later recalled his arrival in Munich in late 1922:

I talked at length about National Socialism with the Munich Consul, Mr. Robert Murphy (later a very distinguished American Ambassador), General Erich Ludendorff, Crown Prince Rupert of Bavaria and Alfred Rosenberg. The latter later became the political philosopher of the Nazi party. On this visit I also saw much of Ernst

F.S. (‘Putzi’) Hanfstaengl, of the well-known Munich art family. ‘Putzi’ was a Harvard graduate and later became Hitler’s foreign press chief … My interview with Hitler lasted some hours. The diary I kept in Munich indicates I was deeply impressed by his personality and thought it likely that he would play an important part in German politics.

In his November 1922 report to his superiors in Washington, Smith filed the following recommendation regarding his evaluation of the tiny Hitler group. Speaking of Hitler, Smith said:

His basic aim is the overthrow of Marxism … and the winning of labor to the nationalist ideals of state and property … The clash of party interests has … demonstrated the impossibility of Germany’s rescue from her present difficulties through democracy. His movement aims at the establishment of a national dictatorship through non-parliamentary means. Once achieved, he demands that the reparations demands be reduced to a possible figure, but that done, the sum agreed on to be paid to the last Pfennig, as a matter of national honor. To accomplish this the dictator must introduce universal reparations service and enforce it with the whole force of the state. His power during the period of fulfillment cannot be hampered by any legislature or popular assembly …

To ensure that his colleagues in Washington’s Division of Military Intelligence got the point, Smith added his personal evaluation of Hitler: ‘In private conversation he disclosed himself as a forceful and logical speaker, which, when tempered with a fanatical earnestness, makes a very deep impression on a neutral listener.’

In late autumn of 1931, a man arrived at London’s Liverpool Street railway station from Germany. His name was Alfred Rosenberg. Rosenberg met with the editor in chief of the influential London Times, Geoffrey Dawson. The Times gave Hitler’s movement invaluable positive international publicity in the coming months. But the most important meeting Rosenberg had during this first England visit in 1931 was with Montagu Norman, governor of the Bank of England, and arguably the most influential figure of the day in world finance. Norman had three hatreds, according to his trusted personal secretary—the French, the Catholics and the Jews. Norman and Rosenberg found no difficulty in their talks together. The introduction to Norman had come through Hjalmar Schacht. From their first meeting in 1924, Schacht and Norman developed a friendship which lasted until Norman’s death in 1945.

Rosenberg concluded his fateful London visit with a meeting with a leading person of the London Schroeder Bank, which was affiliated with J.H. Schroeder Bank in New York and with the Cologne-based private bank, J.H. Stein of Baron Kurt von Schroeder. The man whom Rosenberg met from Schroeder Bank in London was F.C. Tiarks, who was also a member of the Bank of England directorate and a close friend of Montagu Norman.

As Baron von Schroeder and Hjalmar Schacht went to leading German industrial and financial figures to secure support for the NSDAP after 1931, the first question of nervous and skeptical industrialists was, ‘How does international finance, and especially Montagu Norman, regard the prospect of a German government under Hitler?’ Was Norman prepared to come in with financial credit for Germany in such an event? The reality is that at this critical juncture, when Hitler’s NSDAP had little more than 6 million votes in the 1930 elections, the international backing of Montagu Norman, Tiarks and friends in London was decisive.

On January 4, 1932, at the Cologne villa of Baron Kurt von Schroeder, Adolf Hitler, von Papen and the Cologne banker, von Schroeder, secretly arranged financing of Hitler’s NSDAP, at that time de facto bankrupt with huge debts, until the planned seizure of power by Hitler. Another meeting between Hitler and Franz von Papen took place on January 4, 1933, at von Schroeder’s Cologne villa, at which the plan was finalized to topple the weak government of Schleicher and build a right-wing coalition. On January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler became chancellor of the Reich.

The final London visit of Alfred Rosenberg was in May 1933, this time as one of the inner figures in the new Hitler government. He went directly to the country home in Buckhurst Park in Ascot of Sir Henri Deterding, the head of Royal Dutch Shell and arguably the world’s most influential businessman. According to English press accounts, the two had a warm and eventful discussion. Rosenberg had first met Deterding during his 1931 London trip. Royal Dutch Shell had intimate contact with, and provided support for the German NSDAP. Though the details were kept secret, reliable British reports of the day were that Deterding had provided substantial financial support to the Hitler project in its critical early phases.

While Norman and the Bank of England had adamantly refused to advance a pfennig of credit to Germany at the critical period in 1931 (thus precipitating the banking and unemployment crisis which made desperate alternatives such as Hitler even thinkable to leading circles in Germany), as soon as Hitler had consolidated power, in early 1933, the same Montagu Norman moved with indecent haste to reward the Hitler government with vital Bank of England credit. Norman made a special visit to Berlin in May 1934 to arrange further secret financial stabilization for the new regime. Hitler had responded by making Norman’s dear friend Schacht his minister of economics as well as president of the Reichsbank. The latter post Schacht held until 1939.

---

David Irving on the Churchill Myth

27 Questions & Answers

Question 1: What financial troubles did Churchill face during the 1930s, and how did he attempt to resolve them?

Churchill faced severe financial difficulties in the 1930s, struggling to maintain his lifestyle while out of political office. His investments in stocks fluctuated wildly, and in 1938, the second Wall Street crash wiped out a significant portion of his wealth. At the same time, he had a large estate, Chartwell, with considerable expenses, including staff and maintenance, which his modest parliamentary salary couldn’t cover.

To resolve these issues, Churchill turned to writing, which became one of his main sources of income. He was paid to condense classic novels for American newspapers and syndicates, and although this work was considered beneath a man of his stature, it provided a steady stream of income. He was also accused of faking paintings, passing them off as works of a deceased French painter to sell them for higher prices.

Question 2: How did Churchill generate income through writing, and what accusations were made regarding his artwork?

Churchill generated income during his financial struggles by writing and editing classic novels for syndication. He would condense famous works such as War and Peace into digestible articles, earning substantial sums for each. Despite being a talented writer, this work was seen as “potboiler” material, not fitting for someone of his reputation, but it helped him stay afloat financially.

In addition to writing, Churchill faced accusations of art forgery. It was alleged that he painted works in the style of a French impressionist artist, Charles Maurin, and then signed Maurin’s name to the paintings. These forged artworks were sold in Paris at higher prices than Churchill's own paintings could fetch at the time.

Question 3: What was "The Focus," and how did it shape Churchill’s political career in the 1930s?

"The Focus" was a secret pressure group formed in 1936, primarily funded by wealthy Jewish financiers who were concerned about the rise of Nazi Germany. The group’s purpose was to support Winston Churchill’s political career, as he was one of the most outspoken critics of Adolf Hitler in British politics at the time. Churchill’s ability to speak powerfully against Nazism made him a valuable ally to the group.

The Focus provided Churchill with substantial financial backing, helping him maintain his political platform and continue his warnings about the dangers of Nazi Germany. This financial support was crucial, as Churchill was not in a strong financial position during this period, and it allowed him to dedicate more time and effort to his political activities.

Question 4: How did Martin Gilbert’s role as Churchill's official biographer impact the objectivity of his work?

Martin Gilbert was chosen by the Churchill family to be the official biographer, which came with significant restrictions. As the designated biographer, Gilbert had exclusive access to Churchill’s private archives, but this also meant that he was constrained in what he could reveal, especially when it came to unflattering or controversial aspects of Churchill’s life. Gilbert had to balance his role as a historian with the expectations of the Churchill family, which may have prevented him from offering a fully critical account of Churchill’s life and actions.

The fact that Gilbert was selected by Churchill’s family created a conflict of interest, as it is difficult for an authorized biographer to maintain full objectivity while preserving the family’s legacy. This has led to criticisms that Gilbert’s work does not adequately address some of the more controversial elements of Churchill’s career.

Question 5: How did Churchill’s views on Zionism evolve, and what was his relationship with Chaim Weizmann?

Churchill’s views on Zionism evolved significantly over the course of his political career. In the early 1920s, he wrote articles that were considered anti-Semitic, reflecting common prejudices of the time. However, by the 1930s, his stance had shifted dramatically. This change coincided with his increasing reliance on financial support from Jewish backers and his growing opposition to Nazi Germany, which made him an advocate for Jewish causes.

Churchill developed a close relationship with Chaim Weizmann, a leading Zionist and later the first President of Israel. Their correspondence from the 1930s onward reveals Churchill’s private support for Zionism, in contrast to some of his public statements, which were more carefully worded to appeal to a broader audience. Weizmann’s influence and the financial backing of Jewish supporters played a significant role in Churchill’s alignment with Zionist causes.

Question 6: What were Churchill’s key contributions to the British war effort during WWII, and what controversies surrounded his leadership?

Churchill’s key contributions to the British war effort included his powerful oratory skills, which rallied the nation during its darkest hours, particularly during the Blitz. His speeches, such as "We shall fight on the beaches" and "Their finest hour," helped solidify his leadership and maintain public morale. Additionally, his decision to continue fighting after the fall of France, despite the strong possibility of British defeat, is seen as one of his most critical contributions.

However, his leadership was not without controversy. Churchill was criticized for several strategic missteps, including the disastrous Gallipoli campaign during WWI, and in WWII, his decision to prioritize the bombing of German cities raised ethical questions. One of the most debated decisions was his handling of the Coventry bombing, where it was alleged that he knew of the impending attack but allowed it to happen to protect the secret of the British codebreakers’ success with Enigma.

Question 7: How did Churchill’s relationship with Franklin D. Roosevelt affect Britain's financial situation during WWII?

Churchill's relationship with Franklin D. Roosevelt was complex and had a significant impact on Britain’s financial situation. While Roosevelt provided essential military aid through programs like Lend-Lease, which supplied Britain with arms and other goods, it came at a financial cost. Roosevelt is said to have leveraged Britain’s dire wartime needs to extract all available British gold reserves, foreign investments, and assets, reducing Britain to near financial ruin by the end of the war.

This relationship created a dynamic where Churchill had to walk a fine line between maintaining British sovereignty and relying heavily on American support. Despite receiving vital assistance, Churchill was aware that Roosevelt’s actions were diminishing Britain's economic independence, a reality that became clear in the post-war years when Britain lost its status as a global superpower.

Question 8: What were the circumstances of the Coventry bombing, and what moral questions are raised about Churchill’s prior knowledge?

The Coventry bombing occurred on the night of November 14, 1940, when the German Luftwaffe launched a devastating raid on the city, causing widespread destruction and killing hundreds of civilians. It was later revealed that Churchill had advance knowledge of the bombing due to intercepted German communications decoded by British intelligence using the Enigma machine. Despite this knowledge, he chose not to evacuate the city or increase its defenses, as doing so would have risked revealing to the Germans that their codes had been broken.

The moral questions surrounding this decision focus on whether it was justifiable for Churchill to sacrifice Coventry to protect the larger strategic advantage gained from the Enigma decrypts. His decision prioritized long-term military success over immediate civilian lives, leading to debates on whether such actions can be considered morally defensible in the context of war.

Question 9: What criticisms are made of academic historians, and how does this relate to WWII and the Holocaust?

The lecture criticizes academic historians for relying too heavily on each other’s work, perpetuating myths, and failing to engage in original research. This “academic echo chamber” is seen as creating a situation where widely accepted narratives, particularly surrounding WWII and the Holocaust, are not critically examined. Historians are accused of quoting each other’s works without conducting independent investigations, leading to the reinforcement of potentially flawed or exaggerated stories.

This critique extends to the study of the Holocaust, where the lecture suggests that the accepted narrative has been built up over time without adequate scrutiny. Irving raises questions about the role of Adolf Hitler in directly ordering the extermination of Jews and challenges some of the foundational elements of the mainstream Holocaust narrative, arguing that certain parts of history have been mythologized.

Question 10: How does the narrative of Hitler’s involvement in the Holocaust come into question?

The narrative of Hitler’s involvement in the Holocaust is questioned by examining the lack of direct evidence that Hitler personally ordered the extermination of millions of Jews. The lecture points to intercepted documents and statements, such as Hitler’s supposed order to postpone the "solution of the Jewish problem" until after the war, as evidence that he may not have been centrally involved in planning the mass killings at the time they occurred.

This re-examination of Hitler’s role suggests that the atrocities may have been carried out by lower-level officials without his explicit orders, or that the intent was initially to deport Jews rather than exterminate them. Irving implies that this gap in evidence has led to a mythologized version of events, which has been perpetuated by historians who have not adequately explored alternative explanations.

Question 11: How did Churchill manipulate public opinion during the war, particularly through his relationships with the press?

Churchill was highly adept at manipulating public opinion, using both his speeches and his relationships with influential media proprietors to shape the national narrative during the war. He famously said, "There is no such thing as public opinion; there is only published opinion," indicating his awareness that controlling media output could sway public perception. Churchill maintained close ties with powerful media figures like Lord Beaverbrook, who owned major British newspapers, and used these connections to ensure positive coverage of his leadership and the war effort.

Churchill’s speeches were also crafted to inspire and reassure the British public, particularly during times of crisis like the Blitz. His ability to create a sense of shared struggle and resilience was crucial in maintaining public morale. This use of the media and his rhetorical skill helped solidify his status as a wartime hero, even when the reality of his decision-making was more complex and controversial.

Question 12: How did Churchill’s alcoholism impact his leadership and decision-making during the war?

Churchill’s alcoholism is a recurring theme in critiques of his leadership, with reports of him frequently drinking heavily, even during critical moments of the war. There are accounts of Churchill being intoxicated during important meetings and making decisions that would have significant consequences for Britain and its allies. His drinking habits were known among close associates, including Franklin D. Roosevelt, who is said to have referred to Churchill as a “drunken bum” in private conversations.

Despite these concerns, Churchill’s supporters argue that his drinking did not interfere with his ability to lead effectively, attributing his successes to his brilliance as a strategist and communicator. However, his critics contend that his alcoholism may have clouded his judgment during pivotal events, such as his handling of the sinking of the French fleet and his decision-making regarding the bombing of Coventry.

Question 13: How did Churchill shift British war aims, and how was this presented to the public?

Churchill’s war aims shifted multiple times throughout the conflict. Initially, Britain entered the war to defend Poland from German aggression, but after Poland’s defeat in 1939, this aim became irrelevant. Churchill then reframed the war as a fight to defend the British Empire from Nazi expansion. However, by the time the United States entered the war, it became clear that American support was not motivated by a desire to protect British imperial interests.

At this point, Churchill subtly shifted the narrative again, presenting the war as a moral struggle against the evils of Nazism and a fight for “civilization” and “freedom.” This allowed Churchill to align Britain’s war effort with broader democratic values and ensured continued American support, even though the war had evolved beyond the defense of the British Empire. This reframing of the war aims was successfully sold to the public through his speeches and the media.

Question 14: What is the significance of Churchill’s diaries, and how has the absence of certain documents affected historical understanding?

Churchill’s diaries are of immense historical significance because they provide a detailed, first-hand account of his daily activities, thoughts, and decision-making processes during WWII. However, some of these diaries were stolen or withheld, particularly in the final months of the war, when his Scotland Yard bodyguard, Commander Tommy Thompson, took them. The loss of these documents has left significant gaps in the historical record, preventing historians from fully understanding Churchill’s motivations and actions during critical moments of the war.

The absence of these and other missing documents, such as certain sections of the British war cabinet minutes, has led to speculation about what Churchill may have said or done in private. Without access to these records, historians have had to rely on incomplete accounts, which has contributed to the mythologization of Churchill’s wartime leadership.

Question 15: How did Jewish financiers support Churchill’s political efforts in the 1930s?

Jewish financiers played a crucial role in supporting Churchill’s political career during the 1930s, particularly as he became one of the leading voices opposing Nazi Germany. These financiers were concerned about the rise of Hitler and saw Churchill as a valuable ally who could rally Britain against the Nazi threat. The Focus group, which was largely funded by Jewish donors, was formed specifically to back Churchill during this period, providing him with the financial resources he needed to continue his political work and maintain his public profile.

This support helped Churchill remain active in politics during a time when he was not holding any significant government office and was facing personal financial difficulties. The financial backing he received from the Jewish community allowed him to dedicate more time to his anti-Nazi efforts and helped shape his transformation from an isolated politician to a central figure in Britain’s wartime leadership.

Question 16: How did Churchill’s wartime decisions contribute to Britain’s post-war decline, particularly the loss of the Empire?

Churchill’s wartime decisions, while focused on achieving victory, had long-term consequences for Britain, particularly its financial stability and global standing. His reliance on American support, especially through the Lend-Lease program, came at a significant economic cost. The U.S. demanded that Britain deplete its gold reserves, sell off overseas assets, and dismantle its economic advantages in exchange for much-needed military aid. By the end of the war, Britain had exhausted its financial resources, leading to its post-war decline.

Additionally, Churchill’s focus on defeating Nazi Germany rather than preserving the British Empire meant that after the war, the Empire’s ability to maintain its global influence was severely diminished. The financial and military toll of the war accelerated decolonization, and within a few decades, much of the British Empire had dissolved. Britain’s weakened post-war position left it unable to retain its status as a global superpower, which Churchill himself acknowledged as an unavoidable outcome of the conflict.

Question 17: What are the allegations regarding Churchill’s involvement in art forgery, and how did he use this to make money?

During the 1930s, Churchill was accused of forging paintings to generate income while he was experiencing financial difficulties. The allegations suggest that Churchill painted in the style of the French impressionist artist Charles Maurin, signing his name to these works in an effort to sell them at a higher price than his own paintings would have fetched. These forged paintings were allegedly sold in Paris, where Maurin’s work was well-known and could command significant sums.

Churchill was a competent painter in his own right, but his financial struggles led him to take unconventional measures to make money. The art forgery accusations, while controversial, point to the lengths he was willing to go to maintain his lifestyle during the period when he was politically isolated and facing economic hardship.

Question 18: How does the lecture describe the academic echo chamber, particularly in the context of Holocaust studies?

The lecture criticizes the academic community for creating an echo chamber, particularly in the field of Holocaust studies. It argues that academics tend to cite and reinforce each other’s work without conducting original research or critically examining existing narratives. This process leads to the perpetuation of myths and inaccuracies, as historians rely on each other’s conclusions rather than investigating primary sources themselves.

In the context of Holocaust studies, the lecture suggests that certain aspects of the narrative surrounding Hitler’s involvement and the scale of the atrocities have become accepted as fact without sufficient scrutiny. Irving contends that historians have added layers of mythology around the Holocaust, which has been perpetuated by a cycle of mutual reinforcement within the academic community, making it difficult to challenge or revise the accepted version of events.

Question 19: What challenges are raised to the established Holocaust narrative, particularly regarding Hitler’s role?

The lecture raises several challenges to the established Holocaust narrative, particularly questioning Adolf Hitler’s direct role in ordering the mass extermination of Jews. It points to the lack of direct evidence showing that Hitler personally commanded the genocide, suggesting instead that lower-level officials may have carried out the atrocities independently or without explicit instructions from the top.

One piece of evidence cited is a document from 1942 in which Hitler allegedly ordered the “solution of the Jewish problem” to be postponed until after the war, contradicting the view that the Holocaust was a centrally orchestrated plan from the start. This alternative perspective implies that the Holocaust, while a real and tragic event, may not have unfolded in the way the mainstream narrative has traditionally portrayed, and it invites re-examination of the historical evidence.

Question 20: How did Churchill use orchestrated crises, such as the bombing of London, to maintain his popularity and political standing?

Churchill is portrayed as having used orchestrated crises, such as the bombing of London during the Blitz, to bolster his popularity and reinforce his leadership. The lecture suggests that Churchill deliberately provoked or allowed certain events to occur, knowing that they would increase public sympathy for him and unify the nation under his leadership. For instance, the bombing of London, which began in 1940, gave Churchill an opportunity to position himself as the steadfast leader who could rally the country in the face of adversity.

His speeches during and after these events, combined with his public appearances in bombed areas, contributed to his image as a courageous leader who shared in the people’s suffering. This cultivated image helped Churchill maintain high approval ratings throughout the war and solidified his status as a national hero, even when some of his decisions—such as allowing the Coventry bombing—remained highly controversial.

Question 21: What was Hitler’s peace offer in 1940, and how did Churchill respond to it?

In the summer of 1940, after the fall of France, Adolf Hitler extended a peace offer to Britain, suggesting that the two nations could avoid further conflict. Hitler’s terms implied that Britain could keep its empire intact if it agreed to cease hostilities and recognize Germany’s dominance on the European continent. This offer came at a time when Britain was in a vulnerable position, with much of its military equipment lost in the evacuation from Dunkirk and facing the threat of invasion.

Churchill decisively rejected Hitler’s peace overture, believing that any agreement with Nazi Germany would be morally and strategically disastrous. He feared that accepting the offer would leave Britain subservient to Hitler’s regime and allow Germany to consolidate its power over Europe. Churchill’s refusal to negotiate with Hitler, despite the precarious state of Britain’s defenses, marked a turning point in the war and demonstrated his determination to continue the fight against Nazism.

Question 22: What were the circumstances surrounding the sinking of the French fleet, and what translation error led to this event?

The sinking of the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir in July 1940 was one of the most controversial episodes of WWII. After France signed an armistice with Nazi Germany, Churchill feared that the powerful French navy, based at the port of Mers-el-Kébir in Algeria, would fall into German hands and be used against Britain. To prevent this, Churchill ordered the British Royal Navy to issue an ultimatum to the French fleet: either join the British forces, sail to a neutral port, or scuttle their ships. When the French refused these terms, the British attacked, sinking much of the fleet and killing over 1,000 French sailors.

A key factor in the event was a translation error, which caused the French to misunderstand the severity of Britain’s demands. The French believed they were still in negotiations when the British opened fire. This misunderstanding led to a diplomatic crisis between Britain and Vichy France, severely damaging relations between the two former allies and contributing to anti-British sentiment in France for years to come.

Question 23: How did Churchill use intelligence from Enigma-decoded German messages to influence the war effort?

Churchill had access to some of the most sensitive intelligence of WWII through the British codebreakers at Bletchley Park, who had successfully cracked the German Enigma code. This allowed him to intercept and decode German military communications, giving Britain an unprecedented advantage in anticipating enemy moves. Churchill used this intelligence to make critical strategic decisions, such as deploying forces to key areas and preparing for German offensives before they occurred.

However, Churchill had to carefully balance the use of this intelligence with the need to keep the source of the information secret. For example, in the case of the Coventry bombing, Churchill’s prior knowledge of the attack, gained through Enigma decrypts, raised moral and strategic questions. He often had to decide when to act on intelligence and when to withhold action to avoid alerting the Germans to the fact that their communications had been compromised. This secrecy played a vital role in maintaining the effectiveness of Britain’s intelligence operations throughout the war.

Question 24: What was Churchill’s relationship with U.S. Presidents like, and how did it shape the course of WWII?

Churchill had a particularly close relationship with U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, which was crucial to Britain’s survival during WWII. Churchill worked tirelessly to secure American support, knowing that Britain’s resources were stretched to their limits. Roosevelt initially provided assistance through the Lend-Lease program, which allowed Britain to receive war supplies without immediate payment. This support was vital in keeping Britain in the fight, especially during the early years of the war when the country stood alone against Nazi Germany.

Despite their cooperation, Churchill and Roosevelt did not always see eye-to-eye. Roosevelt, while supportive of the war effort, pursued policies that left Britain financially dependent on the United States. Their post-war negotiations also revealed tensions, as Roosevelt sought to ensure American dominance in the new world order, while Churchill wanted to preserve the British Empire. Nevertheless, their personal friendship and political alliance were key factors in shaping the Allied strategy and securing eventual victory over the Axis powers.

Question 25: How does Churchill’s public image differ from the reality of his private actions and decisions during the war?

Churchill’s public image was that of a courageous, steadfast leader who inspired the British people with his powerful speeches and indomitable spirit. His public persona, crafted through carefully timed appearances and media coverage, presented him as a symbol of national resilience and unity. This image was essential in maintaining public morale during the darkest periods of the war, particularly the Blitz and the Battle of Britain.

However, the reality of Churchill’s private actions and decisions was far more complex. He made several controversial choices that were hidden from public view at the time, including allowing the Coventry bombing to proceed to protect intelligence sources and ordering the sinking of the French fleet at Mers-el-Kébir. Churchill also had a reputation for being difficult to work with, often clashing with military leaders and colleagues. His alcoholism and erratic behavior during certain moments of the war have also raised questions about his leadership behind the scenes. The gap between Churchill’s public heroism and his private decision-making highlights the complexities of his wartime leadership.

Question 26: What role did Churchill’s speeches play in inspiring the British public during WWII?

Churchill’s speeches were pivotal in rallying the British public during WWII. His powerful oratory, particularly during times of crisis such as the fall of France and the Blitz, inspired hope and determination in a population facing seemingly insurmountable odds. His speeches, like "We shall fight on the beaches" and "This was their finest hour," conveyed resilience and the belief that Britain could withstand and overcome Nazi aggression, despite being outnumbered and outgunned.

These speeches were not just about boosting morale; they also served to unify the nation around the war effort and to communicate the gravity of the situation in a way that encouraged collective endurance. Churchill’s use of rhetoric, combined with his ability to convey strength and optimism, played a crucial role in maintaining public support for the war and bolstering national confidence during the most difficult phases of the conflict.

Question 27: How has a mythology been built around Churchill’s legacy, and how has it shielded his flaws from public view?

A mythology has been built around Churchill’s legacy, primarily focusing on his role as the hero who saved Britain during its darkest hour in WWII. This narrative has been reinforced through books, films, and public commemorations that highlight his speeches, leadership, and defiance against Nazi Germany. His successes, particularly his ability to inspire and lead the nation, are often emphasized, while his more controversial actions and decisions are downplayed or omitted.

This mythologized version of Churchill has shielded many of his flaws from public view. For instance, his heavy drinking, contentious decisions (such as allowing the Coventry bombing to proceed), and the sometimes harsh measures he took during the war have been largely overshadowed by the focus on his wartime heroism. The creation of this mythology has allowed Churchill’s legacy to remain largely untarnished, despite the complexities and moral ambiguities of his leadership during the war.

---

---

I appreciate you being here.

If you've found the content interesting, useful and maybe even helpful, please consider supporting it through a small paid subscription. While everything here is free, your paid subscription is important as it helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. It also helps keep it free for those that cannot afford to pay.

Please make full use of the Free Libraries.

Unbekoming Interview Library: Great interviews across a spectrum of important topics.

Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Concise summaries of important books.

Stories

I'm always in search of good stories, people with valuable expertise and helpful books. Please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com

For COVID vaccine injury

Consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.

Baseline Human Health

Watch and share this profound 21-minute video to understand and appreciate what health looks like without vaccination.