IRAN —– 10 Million Dead ——- Churchill Nazi —— War Criminal Churchill —– Genocidal Churchill & Evil Churchill killed 10 million Iranian Civilians in Iran between 1917 – 1919 ————– ایران میں چرچل دھشت گردی ——- دنیا کے سب سے بڑے دھشت گرد ، چرچل نازی نے ایران میں 1917 سے 1919 تک ، دس ملیئن لوگوں کو بھوکا مار کر قتل کیا

Posted on December 20, 2016 by churchillnazikilled22millions

Churchill War

World War – II is now called, “Churchil War”, because it was started by Churchill Nazi & Churchill Dracula ( Winston Churchill ), who rejected the peace efforts of Adolf Hitler

These Peace Proposals of Hitler are now called, Hitler’s Peace

ھٹلر ۔ بمقابلہ ۔ چرچل نازی ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔ دوسری جنگ عظیم شروع کرنے کا ذمہ دار ، چرچل نازی اور چرچل ڈریکولا تھا کیونکہ اس نے ھٹلر کے امن کو مسترد کر دیا تھا

Churchill Nazi killed 22 Millions

چرچل نازی ، یک تروریست بود

چرچل نازی دنیا کا سب سے بڑا دھشت گرد اور جنگی مجرم تھا

چرچل نازی نے ایشیا اور افریقہ میں بائیس میلیئن (22) بے گناہ لوگ قتل کیئے

Winston Churhill was a Churchill Nazi, Churchill Fascist, Churchill Terrorist & a Churchill War Criminal

ھٹلر —- بمقابلہ —- چرچل نازی ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔ دوسری جنگ عظیم شروع کرنے کا ذمہ دار , چرچل نازی اور چرچل ڈریکولا تھا , کیونکہ اس نے ھٹلر کے امن کو مسترد کر دیا تھا

The War Criminal Churchill

The Nazi Churchill

The Fascist Churchill

The Terrorist Churchill

The Evil Churchill

The Genocidal Churchill

Curchill Nazi, Winston Churchill used Barbaric Chemical Weapons in Russia & Gaza, Palestine in 1917

Churchill Nazi Killed 22 Millions

Churchill Nazi killed 22 Millions in Asia, Africa & Germany

Churchill Nazi was the BIGGEST Nazi of the World

Churchill Nazi killed 10 Million Civilians in Iran in 1917 – 1919

British Nazi Tanks in Tabriz in 1917

Mirza Kouchak Khan of Iran

Nazi &Fascist, Lord Curzon of Nazi Britain

Reza Shah Pehalvi of Iran

Iran

Churchill-Cide ( Churchill Genocide ) in Iran — 1917 -1919

Churchill Nazi & Genocidal Churchill ( Winston Churchill ) killed 10 Million Iranians in Iran in 1917 – 1919

http://www.Justice4Poland.com/2016/06/27/8-10-million-iranians-died-over-great-famine-caused-by-the-british-in-late-1910s-documents-reveal/

http://www.Khamanei.ir

http://kavehfarrokh.com/iranica/militaria/dr-mohammad-gholi-majd-great-crimes-and-genocide-in-iran-in-1917-1919/

http://www.Veteransnewsnow.com/2013/11/09/iran-as-a-twentieth-century-victim-1900-through-the-aftermath-of-world-war-ii/

By, Sadegh Abbasi — ( An Iranian )

27 June, 2016

Churchill Nazi

Churchill Nazi believed in telling LIES and he told “Churchill Lies” all his Life

Churchill Dog

Dirty Curchill Urinates like a Churchill Dog

The document in the American Archives, reporting the widespread famine and spread of epidemic disease in Iran, estimates the number of the deceased due to the famine to be about 8-10 million.

Sadegh Abbasi — ( An Iranian )

One of the little-known chapters of history was the widespread famine in Iran during World War I, caused by the British presence in Iran. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, Britain became the main foreign power in Iran and this famine or–more accurately–‘genocide’ was committed by the British. The document in the American Archives, reporting the widespread famine and spread of epidemic disease in Iran, estimates the number of the deceased due to the famine to be about 8-10 million during 1917-19 (1), making this the greatest genocide of the 20th century and Iran the biggest victim of World War I (2).

It should be noted that Iran had been one of the main suppliers of food grains to the British forces stationed in the empire’s South Asian colonies. Although bad harvest during these two years made the situation worse, it was by no means the main reason why the Great Famine occurred. Prof. Gholi Majd of Princeton University writes in his book, The Great Famine and Genocide in Persia, that American documents show that the British prevented imports of wheat and other food grains into Iran from Mesopotamia, Asia, and also the USA, and that ships loaded with wheat were not allowed to unload at the port of Bushehr in the Persian Gulf. Professor Majd argues that Great Britain intentionally created genocide conditions to destroy Iran, and to effectively control the country for its own purposes. Major Donohoe describes Iran of that time as a “land of desolation and death” (3). But this event soon became the subject of a British cover up.

Churchill-Cide —- 10 Millions Dead

Churchill Genocide in Iran — 1917 -1919

Britain has a long record of its several attempts to conceal history and rewrite it in their own favor. The pages are filled with conspiracies that were covered up by the British government to hide its involvement in different episodes that would tarnish the country’s image. One of the clear examples is the “Jameson Raid”; a failed coup against Paul Kruger’s government in South Africa. This raid was planned and executed directly by the British government of Joseph Chamberlain under the orders of Queen Victoria (4) (5). In 2002, Sir Graham Bower’s memoirs were published in South Africa, revealing these involvements that had been covered up for more than a century, focusing attention on Bower as a scapegoat for the incident (6).

The records that were destroyed to cover up British crimes around the globe, or were kept in secret Foreign Office archives, so as to, not only protect the United Kingdom’s reputation, but also to shield the government from litigation, are indicative of the attempts made by the British to evade the consequences of their crimes. The papers at Hanslope Park also include the reports on the “elimination” of the colonial authority’s enemies in 1950s Malaya; records that show ministers in London knew of the torture and murder of Mau Mau insurgents in Kenya and roasting them alive (7). These records may include those related to Iran’s Great Famine. Why were these records that cover the darkest secrets of the British Empire destroyed or kept secret? Simply because they might ‘embarrass’ Her Majesty’s government (8).

A famine occurred in Ireland from 1845 until 1852 which killed one fourth of the Irish population. This famine was caused by British policies and faced a large cover up attempt by the British government and crown to blame it on ‘potatoes’ (9). The famine, even today, is famous in the world as the “potato famine” when, in reality, it was a result of a planned food shortage and thus a deliberate genocide by the British government (10).

The true face of this famine as a genocide has been proven by historian Tim Pat Coogan in his book The Famine Plot: England’s Role in Ireland’s Greatest Tragedy published by Palgrave MacMillan (11). A ceremony was planned to take place in the US to unveil Coogan’s book in America, but he was denied a visa by the American embassy in Dublin (12).

Therefore it becomes obvious that Britain’s role in Iran’s Great famine, which killed nearly half of Iran’s population, was not unprecedented. The documents published by the British government overlook the genocide, and consequently, the tragedy underwent an attempted cover-up by the British government. The Foreign Office “handbook on Iran” of 1919 mentioned nothing related to the Great Famine.

Julian Bharier, a scholar who studied Iran’s population, built his “backward projection” estimation of Iran’s population (13) based on reports from this “handbook” and, as a result, ignored the effect of the Great Famine on Iran’s population in 1917. Bharier’s estimations were used by some authors to deny the occurrence of the Great Famine or to underestimate its impacts.

By ignoring Iran’s Great Famine in his estimations, Bharier’s work faces four scientific deficiencies. Bharier does not consider the loss of population caused by the famine in his calculations; he needs to ‘adjust’ the figure of the official census in 1956 from 18.97 million to 20.37 million, and this is despite the fact that he uses 1956 census as his primary building block for his “backward projection” model. He also ignores the official growth rates and uses his personal assumptions in this regard, which is far lower than other estimates. Finally, although Bharier frequently cites Amani’s estimates (14), in the end Bharier’s findings contradict that of Amani’s; notably Bharier’s population estimate for 1911 is 12.19 million while Amani put this figure at 10.94 million.

Despite deficiencies in the population estimates offered by Bharier for the period of the Famine and its earlier period, his article offers useful data for the post-Famine period; this is because these figures are generated from 1956 backward. That is to say, numbers generated from 1956 to 1919 are thus credible because they do not include the period of famine. Moreover, this portion of Bharier’s data are also true to that of the American Legation. For example, Caldwell and Sykes estimate the 1919 population at 10 million, which is comparitive to Bharier’s figure of 11 million.

Gholi Majd was not the first author to refute Bharier’s figures for this period. Gad G. Gilbar, in his 1976 article on demographic developments during the second half of the 19th century and the first decade of the 20th century, also considers Bharier’s estimates inaccurate for the period.

In an apparently biased review of Majd’s work, Willem Floor confirms Bharier’s model (15), despite its apparent deficiencies, and takes a mocking tone toward the well- documented work of Gholi Majd to undermine the devastation caused by the British-instigated famine in Iran, to the point of total denial of the existence of such a genocide. Floor also offers inaccurate or untrue information to oppose the fact that the British deprived Iranians from honey and caviar in the north, as he argues caviar was haram (religiously prohibited), while no such fatwa has ever existed in Shia jurisprudence and all available decrees assert that caviar is halal or permissible under the Islamic law. There was a rumor made up by Russians at the time, saying that Caviar was haram and Britain made full use of this rumor.

Another criticism made by Floor was to question why Majd’s work does not use British archival sources. A more important question is why Majd should have used these sources when they totally ignore the occurrence of the famine in Iran. The fact that Majd used mainly US sources seems to be reasonable on the grounds that the US was neutral toward the state of affairs in Iran at the time, and made efforts to help by feeding them (16).

*Sadegh Abbasi is a Junior M.A. student at Tehran University. As a student in history he has also worked as a contributor to different Iranian news agencies.

قحطي بزرگ و نسل کشي در ايران در فاصله سالهای 1917 تا میلادی 1919

نسل کشی در ایران یا هلوکاست واقعیدکتر محمدقلي مجد- استاد تاريخ دانشگاه پرينستون کانادا- کتابي منتشر کرد با نام « قحطي بزرگ و نسل کشي در ايران در فاصله سالهای 1917 تا میلادی 1919» وی بر مبنای مدارک معتبر موجود در مرکز اسناد ملّی ایالات متحده آمریکا ثابت می کند که قحطی بزرگ در ایران در سده بیستم میلادی، در زمان جنگ جهانی اول رخ داده است او در اين کتاب، پرده از رازي بزرگ برداشت و با تکيه بر مدارک به جامانده از سفر او،کارشناسان آمريکايي و اخبار روزنامه هاي وقت، نشان داد که جمعيت ايران در شروع جنگ جهاني اول20 ميليون نفر بوده است. اين جمعيت طبق محاسبه روند افزايش طبيعي جمعيت در آن زمان، مي بايست ظرف 4 سال جنگ جهاني به 21 ميليون مي رسيده در حالي که طبق همه منابع، جمعيت ايران در پايان جنگ 11 ميليون نفر بوده. اين يعني که 10 ميليون ايراني در جنگ جهاني اول از بين رفته اند.کشور ما در جنگ جهانی اول بیطرف بود اما تلفات از همه کشورهای درگیر جنگ بیشتر بود. جنگ، تورم و گراني شدید قیمت اجناس و اقلام را در پی داشت. ظرف 2 سال قيمت گندم 11 برابر شد. قحطي و بيماري در سراسر کشور شایع گشت.
روزنامه « رعد» ( روزنامه سيد ضياءالدين طباطبايي) در شماره 21 فروردين 1297 خبر عجيبي دارد:« مأموران هشت زن را بازداشت کردند که شماري از کودکان را ربوده، کشته و خورده بودند و بهانه آوردند که گرسنگي، آنها را به اين کار وا داشته بود». دهها هزار نيروی نظامی روسي و انگليسي مستقر در ايران به غذا نیاز داشتند. انگليسي ها تمام غله توليدي کشاورزان را به قيمت بالا مي خريدند و روس ها، به روش خودشان، با زور از مردم آذوقه مي گرفتند. در نتیجه به کاهش شدید مواد غذایی در داخل ایران انجامید. عجیب تر اینکه ارتش بریتانیا مانع از واردات مواد غذایی از بین النهرین و هند و حتی از آمریکا به ایران شد. بر اثر چنین فاجعه عظیمی بود که جامعه ایرانی به شدت فروپاشید و استعمار بریتانیا توانست به سادگی حکومت دست نشانده خود را در قالب کودتای 1299 بر ایران تحمیل کند. مجد چنین نتیجه می گیرد: «هیچ تردیدی نیست که انگلیسی ها از قحطی و نسل کشی به عنوان وسیله ای برای سلطه بر ایران استفاده می کردند.» دکتر مجد در کتابش نشان داده که اين نسل کشي فجيع به خاطر خريد کل غله ايران توسط انگليسي ها بوده. با نسل کشی در ایران یک هلوکاست واقعی رخ داد که هنوز با گذشت نود سال انگلیسی ها حاضر به انتشار اسناد آن نیستند. در نتیجه این نسل کشی در فاصله سال های 1917 تا 1919 میلادی بین هشت تا ده میلیون نفر از جمعیت بیست میلیونی ایران یعنی چهل درصد در اثر قحطی یا بیماری های ناشی از سوءتغذیه از بین رفتند. مجد دولت بریتانیا را عامل و مسبب این نسل کشی مهیب می داند و نشان می دهد که استعمار بریتانیا از سیاست نسل کشی و کشتار جمعی به عنوان ابزاری برای سلطه بر ایران بهره برد. در سال 2003 وزارت دفاع انگليس اعلام کرد اسناد نظامي انگليس در رابطه با ايران در سال هاي 1914 تا 1921 هنوز محرمانه اند و تا 50 سال بعد، يعني سال 2053 منتشر نخواهند شد.( مجد ، 13)
شاهدان عینی در منطقه بختیاری اظهار می دارند در آن سالها چنان قحطی شدیدی حاکم بود که بخشی از عشایر بختیاری دست از زندگی کوچندگی کشیده و برای تهیه لقمه نانی روانه مناطق نفتی شدند. بسیاری از روستاها نیز خالی از سکنه شده و به مناطق نفت خیز مهاجرت کردند.تعداد زیادی از مردن نیز به دلیل سوء تغذیه و بیماری جان خود را از دست دادند

References :

1 )

Majd, Mohammad Gholi. The Great Famine & Genocide in Iran: 1917-1919. Lanham : University Press of America, 2013. p.71: https://books.google.com/books?id=5WgSAAAAQBAJ&pg=PA71&lpg.

2 )

Sniegoski, Stephen J. Iran as a Twentieth Century Victim: 1900 Through the Aftermath of World War II. mycatbirdseat.com. [Online] 11 10, 2013. [Cited: 10 12, 2015.] http://mycatbirdseat.com/2013/11/iran-twentieth-century-victim-1900-aftermath-world-war-ii/.

3 )

Donohoe, Major M. H. With The Persian Expedition. London : Edward Arnold, 1919. p. 76.

4 )

Nelson, Michael and Briggs, Asa. Queen Victoria and the Discovery of the Riviera. London : Tauris Parke Paperbacks, 2007. p. 97: https://books.google.com/books?id=6ISE-ZEBfy4C&pg=PA97&lpg.

5 )

Bower, Graham. Sir Graham Bower’s Secret History of the Jameson Raid and the South African Crisis, 1895-1902. Cape Town : Van Riebeeck Society, 2002. p. xii: https://books.google.fr/books?id=VFYFZKRBXz0C&pg=PR23&lpg.

6 )

Ibid. p. xvii.

7 )

Cobain, Ian, Bowcott, Owen and Norton-Taylor, Richard. Britain destroyed records of colonial crimes . The Guardian. [Online] 03 17, 2012. [Cited: 10 10, 2015.] http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/18/britain-destroyed-records-colonial-crimes.

8 )

Walton, Calder. Empire of Secrets: British Intelligence, the Cold War, and the Twilight of Empire. New York : The Overlook Press, 2013. p. 15: https://books.google.fr/books?id=f2cjCQAAQBAJ&pg=PT15&lpg.

9 )

Warfield, Brian. History Corner: The Great Irish Famine. wolfetonesofficialsite.com. [Online] [Cited: 10 12, 2015.] http://www.wolfetonesofficialsite.com/famine.htm.

10 )

Britain’s Cover Up. irishholocaust.org. [Online] [Cited: 10 12, 2015.] http://www.irishholocaust.org/britain’scoverup.

11 )

Coogan, Tim Pat. The Famine Plot: England’s Role in Ireland’s Greatest Tragedy. New York : Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

12 )

O’Dowd, Niall. Proving the Irish Famine was genocide by the British. IrishCentral. [Online] 08 06, 2015. [Cited: 10 12, 2015.] http://www.irishcentral.com/news/proving-the-irish-famine-was-genocide-by-the-british-tim-pat-coogan-moves-famine-history-unto-a-new-plane-181984471-238161151.html.

13 )

Bharier, Julien. A Note on the Population of Iran, 1900-1966 . Population Studies. 1968, Vol. 22, 2.

14 )

Amani, Mehdi. La population de l’Iran. Population (French Edition). 1972, Vol. 27, 3: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1529398.

15 )

Floor, Willem. Reviewed Work: The Great Famine and Genocide in Persia, 1917-1919 by Mohammad Gholi Majd . Iranian Studies. Iran Facing the New Century, 2005, Vol. 38, 1.

16 )

Fecitt, Harry. Other Theatres of War. westernfrontassociation.com. [Online] 09 29, 2013. [Cited: 10 12, 2015.] http://www.westernfrontassociation.com/the-great-war/great-war-on-land/other-war-theatres/3305-dunsterforce-part-1.html.

Nazi Churchill

Fascist Churchill

Churchill Nazi Killed 22 Millions

Terrorist Churchill

War Criminal Churchill

جنگی مجرم چرچل ، نازی چرچل ، فاشسٹ چرچل ، دھشت گرد چرچل ، دنیا کا خبیث ترین اور بے رحم ترین جنگی مجرم چرچل

The Above Article Ends Here

چرچل نازی ، یک تروریست بود

Churchill Nazi killed 22 Millions

Churchill Nazi ——– War Criminal Churchill —– Genocidal Churchill —– Churchill’s use of Chemical Gas in Russia and Gaza, Palestine in 1917 ———- چرچل نازی —– دھشت گرد چرچل —– ونسٹن چرچل نے روس اور فلسطین میں خوفناک کیمیائی ھتھیار استعمال کیئے

Posted on November 16, 2016 by churchillnazikilled22millions

Churchill War

World War – II is now called, “Churchil War”, because it was started by Churchill Nazi & Churchill Dracula ( Winston Churchill ), who rejected the peace efforts of Adolf Hitler

These Peace Proposals of Hitler are now called, Hitler’s Peace

Churchill Nazi killed 22 Millions

چرچل نازی ، یک تروریست بود

چرچل نازی دنیا کا سب سے بڑا دھشت گرد اور جنگی مجرم تھا

چرچل نازی نے ایشیا اور افریقہ میں بائیس میلیئن (22) بے گناہ لوگ قتل کیئے

Winston Churhill was a Churchill Nazi, Churchill Fascist, Churchill Terrorist & a Churchill War Criminal

The War Criminal Churchill

The Nazi Churchill

The Fascist Churchill

The Terrorist Churchill

The Evil Churchill

The Genocidal Churchill

Curchill Nazi, Winston Churchill used Barbaric Chemical Weapons in Russia & Gaza, Palestine in 1917

Churchill Nazi Killed 22 Millions

Churchill Nazi killed 22 Millions in Asia, Africa & Germany

Churchill Nazi was the BIGGEST Nazi of the World

Churchill Nazi Killed 22 Millions

Ku Klux Churchill killed 22 Millions in Asia, Africa & Germany

چرچل نازی —– دھشت گرد چرچل —– ونسٹن چرچل نے روس اور فلسطین میں خوفناک کیمیائی ھتھیار استعمال کیئے

Churchill Nazi’s ( Winston Churchill’s ) Shocking use of Chemical Weapons in Russia and Gaza in 1917

http://www.Rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/01/winston-churchills-shocking-use-of-chemical-weapons/

By, Giles Milton, The Guardian of UK

Sep 01, 2013

Churchill Nazi

Churchill Nazi believed in telling LIES and he told “Churchill Lies” all his Life

Churchill Dog

Dirty Curchill Urinates like a Churchill Dog

The use of chemical weapons in Syria has outraged the world. But it is easy to forget that Britain has used them – and that Winston Churchill was a powerful advocate for them.

Secrecy was paramount. Britain’s imperial general staff knew there would be outrage if it became known that the government was intending to use its secret stockpile of chemical weapons. But Winston Churchill, then secretary of state for war, brushed aside their concerns. As a long-term advocate of chemical warfare, he was determined to use them against the Russian Bolsheviks. In the summer of 1919, 94 years before the devastating strike in Syria, Churchill planned and executed a sustained chemical attack on northern Russia.

The British were no strangers to the use of chemical weapons. During the third battle of Gaza in 1917, General Edmund Allenby had fired 10,000 cans of asphyxiating gas at enemy positions, to limited effect. But in the final months of the first world war, scientists at the governmental laboratories at Porton in Wiltshire developed a far more devastating weapon: the top secret “M-Device”, an exploding shell containing a highly toxic gas called diphenylaminechloroarsine. The man in charge of developing it, Major General Charles Foulkes, called it “the most effective chemical weapon ever devised”.

Trials at Porton suggested that it was indeed a terrible new weapon. Uncontrollable vomiting, coughing up blood and instant, crippling fatigue were the most common reactions. The overall head of chemical warfare production, Sir Keith Price, was convinced its use would lead to the rapid collapse of the Bolshevik regime. “If you got home only once with the gas you would find no more Bolshies this side of Vologda.”The cabinet was hostile to the use of such weapons, much to Churchill’s irritation. He also wanted to use M Devices against the rebellious tribes of northern India. “I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes,” he declared in one secret memorandum. He criticised his colleagues for their “squeamishness”, declaring that “the objections of the India Office to the use of gas against natives are unreasonable. Gas is a more merciful weapon than [the] high explosive shell, and compels an enemy to accept a decision with less loss of life than any other agency of war.”

He ended his memo on a note of ill-placed black humour: “Why is it not fair for a British artillery man to fire a shell which makes the said native sneeze?” he asked. “It is really too silly.”

A staggering 50,000 M-Devices were shipped to Russia: British aerial attacks using them began on 27 August 1919, targeting the village of Emtsa, 120 miles south of Archangel. Bolshevik soldiers were seen fleeing in panic as the green chemical gas drifted towards them. Those caught in the cloud vomited blood, then collapsed unconscious.

The attacks continued throughout September on many Bolshevik-held villages: Chunova, Vikhtova, Pocha, Chorga, Tavoigor and Zapolki. But the weapons proved less effective than Churchill had hoped, partly because of the damp autumn weather. By September, the attacks were halted then stopped. Two weeks later the remaining weapons were dumped in the White Sea. They remain on the seabed to this day in 40 fathoms of water.

Nazi Churchill

Fascist Churchill

Churchill Nazi Killed 22 Millions

Terrorist Churchill

War Criminal Churchill

جنگی مجرم چرچل ، نازی چرچل ، فاشسٹ چرچل ، دھشت گرد چرچل ، دنیا کا خبیث ترین اور بے رحم ترین جنگی مجرم چرچل

The Above Article Ends Here

چرچل نازی ، یک تروریست بود

Churchill Nazi killed 22 Millions

VIDEO —— Churchill Nazi —- Churchill was the Most Evil Nazi & Fascist of the World —— By, Honourable Mark Weber of Institute of Historical Review ———- چرچل نازی ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔ چرچل نازی کی دھشت گردی کی ویڈیو ، جو ایک امریکی ، مارک ویبر نے پیش کی

Posted on September 18, 2015 by churchillnazikilled22millions

Churchill War

World War – II is now called, “Churchil War”, because it was started by Churchill Nazi & Churchill Dracula ( Winston Churchill ), who rejected the peace efforts of Adolf Hitler

چرچل نازی ، یک تروریست بود

چرچل نازی دنیا کا سب سے بڑا دھشت گرد اور جنگی مجرم تھا

چرچل نازی نے ایشیا اور افریقہ میں بائیس میلیئن (22) بے گناہ لوگ قتل کیئے

Winston Churhill was a Churchill Nazi, Churchill Fascist, Churchill Terrorist & a Churchill War Criminal

The War Criminal Churchill

By,

Honourable Mark Weber of Institute of Historical Review

http://www.IHR.org

Video Length ——- 50 minutes

چرچل نازی ، یک تروریست بود

Churchill Nazi ——– War Criminal Churchill —– Nazi Churchill —– Terrorist Churchill —– by, Alfred Rosenberg ————— جنگی مجرم چرچل ، نازی چرچل ، فاشسٹ چرچل ، دھشت گرد چرچل ، دنیا کا خبیث ترین اور بے رحم ترین جنگی مجرم چرچل ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔ الفرڈ روزنبرگ کے قلم سے

Posted on September 15, 2015 by churchillnazikilled22millions

Churchill War

World War – II is now called, “Churchil War”, because it was started by Churchill Nazi & Churchill Dracula ( Winston Churchill ), who rejected the peace efforts of Adolf Hitler

چرچل نازی ، یک تروریست بود

چرچل نازی دنیا کا سب سے بڑا دھشت گرد اور جنگی مجرم تھا

چرچل نازی نے ایشیا اور افریقہ میں بائیس میلیئن (22) بے گناہ لوگ قتل کیئے

Winston Churhill was a Churchill Nazi, Churchill Fascist, Churchill Terrorist & a Churchill War Criminal

The War Criminal Churchill

The Nazi Churchill

The Fascist Churchill

The Terrorist Churchill

The Evil Churchill

The Genocidal Churchill

Calvin — Minds in the Making

German Propaganda Archives

By, Alfred Rosenberg

http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/schul05.htm

جنگی مجرم چرچل ، نازی چرچل ، فاشسٹ چرچل ، دھشت گرد چرچل ، دنیا کا خبیث ترین اور بے رحم ترین جنگی مجرم چرچل ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔ الفرڈ روزنبرگ کے قلم سے

Background :

This 1944 essay by Alfred Rosenberg analyzes a collection of Churchill’s pre-war essays. Rosenberg concludes that Churchill was long plotting war against Germany, supported from behind the scenes by the Jews. I am using Churchill’s original words from Step by Step: 1936-1939 (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1939). With an occasional exception, the German translation is accurate, though the passages are, as one might expect, chosen selectively.

The Source :

Alfred Rosenberg, “Der Kriegsverbrecher Churchill,” Der Schulungsbrief, (March/April 1944), p. 20-22, 28.

The War Criminal Churchill

By,

Alfred Rosenberg

For many years, the main propagandist against the German people has been Winston Churchill, driven on by influential money from American and Jewish sources. It is therefore instructive to examine the career of this war criminal, using his own words.

Even before he became prime minister, Churchill consistently agitated against Germany in his articles, angrily attacking above all anyone in England who strove for an understanding with Germany. Later, Churchill affirmed this journalistic agitation when he published his essays, only lightly retouched he said, in a book. He titled it Step by Step. It contained his essays written between 1936 and 1939. Step by Step was intended to suggest that the German Reich had intentionally caused the new world war, and that it was really Churchill who warned the so-called civilized nations about it. In fact, Churchill’s hatred of Europe’s Renaissance, and its peaceful order, flows from every line. Let me examine several unintentional admissions more carefully.

One of the central points of Churchill’s thinking has to do with England’s billions of investments in the Far East. Everything centers around the opium trade and similar profitable businesses. Churchill clearly had interested big money in his closest circle, with whose favor and help he wanted to become prime minister of the kingdom of Great Britain. On 3 September 1937, he published an article titled “The Wounded Dragon,” by which he meant China. He wrote:

No single power, except after long preparation, could impose its will upon Japan in the Yellow Sea. If the United States and Great Britain acted together jointly for several years, and if they were supported by Soviet Russia, representations could no doubt be made to which Japan would have to defer. [Rosenberg cuts an intervening section without noting it.]

.

We have created great establishments and businesses in China which have done nothing but good [Rosenberg inserts a “?” here] to the Chinese….. European and American missionaries have carried their message fearlessly into the recesses of China.

.

These words clearly show Churchill’s longing for a grand alliance between England, the USA, and the Soviet Union two years before the war broke out. The Chinese, ruined by England, are mocked when he says that the English provision of opium and missionaries had brought “only good.” Everyone knew that China was the target of Jewish and other high finance, and Churchill’s sanctimonious tone hardly concealed the true reasons for his policies in the Far East. Churchill clearly directed his attentions in 1937 to protecting big business in China, adding in the same sentence: “If Europe wishes to talk to the East, she will have to clean up her home lines first.”

This single sentence reveals Mr. Churchill’s entire war policy. He wants to “clean up” Europe, which means making any kind of common effort impossible that would benefit the entire continent and bring about a new order. He wants to perpetuate the impotence and fragmentation of the civilized European states. After Europe has been “cleaned up,” and after India and the Middle East have been exploited, he wants to bring all of the Far East under the thieving capitalism of the City and Wall Street, as well as subjecting it to the Bolshevist threat.

After this beginning, Churchill reveals how he wants to prepare for the “cleaning up.” It involves the isolation and defeat of the German Reich. When the Führer and the Duce met in fall 1937, Churchill wrote the following on 1 October 1937:

The Western democracies, now armed and arming heavily, have much to give these harassed dictators, if they would only prove that they mean to be the friends and not the bane of our common humanity. If the true concert of Europe were re-established, our collective remonstrances would not go unheeded in the Far East.

.

Churchill thinks only of re-establishing the European concert, which means a situation in which England is the outside choir master. His comment that the Western democracies are armed, and arming heavily, shows that all the latter chatter about being “unprepared” was simply a lie. When Italy, under Mussolini, later took successful steps to secure Africa, Churchill angrily wrote on 4 March 1939:

But this is not the end. The underlying realities and verities of Europe will increasingly assert themselves. In a short time we shall know whether Mr. Chamberlain’s hope of detaching Mussolini from Hitler will be realized. If it is not realized, nothing else that Mussolini could give us is of the slightest value. [Rosenberg omits a section here without noting it.] If Mussolini is willing to separate from Hitler, to take his stand with France and Britain, and help sustain the independence of Austria, there will be an undoubted gain.

.

These words reveal not only Churchill’s policies, but also those of that fine man Prime Minister Chamberlain. We learn from Churchill’s own mouth that the good Mr. Chamberlain used all his strength to separate Mussolini from Adolf Hitler, which leads to the necessary conclusion that the goal was to encircle both of them, “cleaning up” one after the other.

The reference to Austria as the hoped-for launching pad next to Czechoslovakia is more than clear. That is why Churchill fell into such a rage as Ostmark German-Austria jubilantly joined the German Reich. In an article titled “The Austrian Catastrophe” [the actual title was “The Austrian Eye-Opener”] dated 18 March 1938, Churchill wrote of the “seizure and subjugation of Austria,” although this man naturally knew very well that only a small clique of Jews and reactionaries were listening to England and the Jews, whereas the whole decent population of Ostmark [Austria] could hardly contain its joy as the dream of the union of all Germans was fulfilled — as indeed was consistent with the right of self-determination that even theEntente had once proclaimed.

In the same article, he began provocative warmongering to bring about a war coalition against Germany.

The first step is to find out which of the Powers of the second rank in Europe would be willing to join with Great Britain and France for special action, not excluding armed resistance, under the Covenant of the League.

.

It is not without its attractions to establish that world power England immediately tried to discover which of the “smaller” European powers were ready to serve as canon fodder against the German Reich. The remark become even more interesting when he further says: “It must also be made clear that there is no desire to encircle Germany, but only to encircle an aggressor.”

Encirclement! It is well known that British policy always claimed to have no intention of encircling Germany. But now Winston Churchill himself has used the word “encirclement,” and that cannot be erased from the world. He himself affirmed with this word a plan to encircle Germany, which he insolently terms an aggressor. No subsequent attempts at concealment can rescue Churchill the warmonger, who has revealed himself.

Throughout the period, Churchill relied on France as a junior partner, and naturally feared that its various party groups could cause a weakening of its military power. In 1938 he wrote on the newly-formed Daladier government:

If France broke, everything would break, and the Nazi domination of Europe, and potentially of a large part of the world, would seem to be inevitable.

.

This is another bald-faced lie, suggesting that Germany wanted not only to unite all Germans, but bring the whole world under its “tyranny.” He turns next to nasty agitation against all those decent Englishmen who really want peace. Churchill writes:

I wonder whether the French people realize how bitter and persistent is the pro-German propaganda in this island? The strongest point, repeatedly made, is that France is on the verge of collapse. She is portrayed as about to go down the same bloody sewer as Spain has done. All the “Heil Hitler” brigade in London society exploit and gloat over what they are pleased to call “the Parliamentary impotence of the French democracy.”

.

Churchill’s Jewish brigade guided his attempt to make the so-called “Heil Hitler brigade” in London look ludicrous, even though it consisted of far-sighted Englishmen. They financed him, and were also the main agitators behind Roosevelt in the United States. The US-American ambassadors in France and Poland continually and intentionally fanned the world conflagration. After wishing Daladier “all the best,” Churchill mentions Jewish forces in France, writing:

But he has one important political force in reserve. M. Blum will not fail the cause of European freedom. His influence with the Socialist party is commanding. He will certainly give loyal aid.

.

The Jew Blum, of course, was the hope of all Jewish lackeys, and one of the main agitators against an understanding between the German Reich and the French Republic.

Following the essays in chronological order, I come to May 1938. Churchill returns to the presumed difficulties of the Japanese in China, noting in his article of 26 May 1938 that these difficulties are primarily the result of Russian threats:

Here we must recognize the services which Soviet Russia is rendering in the Far East to civilization and also to British and United States interests.

.

On 6 July 1938, Churchill moans once more about the so-called rape of Austria, but he is worried most about the Jews. He complains about the incarceration of the representative of Jewish high finance, Rothschild, about the terrible fact that “Jewish ladies” are forced to clean the streets, then continues:

But 300,000 Jews in Vienna present a problem of large dimensions and intractable quality to a policy of extirpation.”

.

After Churchill has lamented the presumed terrible economic situation of the Jews, he turns, as always, to making threats:

The tale of their tribulation spreads widely through the world, and it is astonishing that the German rulers are not more concerned at the tides of abhorrence and anger which are rising ceaselessly against them through the heavily-arming United States.

.

Churchill sees Jewish rage over the fact that it is not possible to bleed the German Reich dry, since Germany has freed its lands from parasites, as a decisive factor in politics, and therefore unintentionally reveals the extent to which Englanders and Americans have become unable to govern their nations themselves, making their fate and their activities — the “heavily-arming United States” — dependent on the rage and opinions of big Jewish financial parasites and Bolshevist agitators.

This careless statement by Mr. Churchill shows in which direction, and on whose orders, Great Britain’s current prime minister is directing his policies. It is occasionally healthy and good to look at what a war criminal once wrote, and later gathered together in a book. They reveal that his war crimes were systematically planned.

This places all those lying communiqués from whatever world conference he and his buddies have gathered at in their proper light. They show how Churchill strove “step by step” for power, motivated by hatred and pride, supported by Jewish agitation. The plainly stated goal was to turn the Far East into an enormous object of exploitation for the whole of Jewish world plutocracy, “cleaning up” Europe in the process so as to render it powerless, to atomize it into its various parts, splitting it into battling states so that it would keep from involvement in world politics, and ultimately impoverish itself. To this end, he worked together with Mr. Chamberlain to isolate Fascist Italy from Germany, to arrange an alliance of the smaller peoples against the German Reich (meaning, probably Czechoslovakia and Poland, later Belgium and Holland), and to use the “independence” of Austria as a launching pad for an attack of the entire anti-European world conspiracy to subject the German people to Jewish exploitive policies.

Mr. Churchill stands before us today as a war criminal, as a world-class criminal, revealed through his own words. It would be good for so-called neutrals to pay serious attention to his words, and to know the situation in which the German Reich found itself. Then they will understand that this German Reich today is the only force battling the conspiracy of Pan-Jewish Anglo-American biological plans for destruction, and is using its full strength to defend and protect the old Europe, even the lives of those who do not believe that they have to take the war seriously, since they still live in a safe place.

Footnotes & References :

None

چرچل نازی ، یک تروریست بود

Hitler — vs — Churchill Nazi ———- Hitler wanted Peace, but Churchill Nazi wanted war, because he had Genocidal Mentality & wanted to kill humans to satisfy his Murderous Urges ————— ھٹلر ۔ بمقابلہ ۔ چرچل نازی ۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔۔ دوسری جنگ عظیم شروع کرنے کا ذمہ دار ، چرچل نازی اور چرچل ڈریکولا تھا کیونکہ اس نے ھٹلر کے امن کو مسترد کر دیا تھا

Posted on May 6, 2015 by churchillnazikilled22millions

Churchill War

World War – II is now called, “Churchill War”, because it was started by Churchill Nazi, Churchill Fascist, Churchill Terrorist, War Criminal Churchill & Churchill Dracula ( Winston Churchill ), who rejected the peace efforts of Adolf Hitler

چرچل نازی ، یک تروریست بود

چرچل نازی دنیا کا سب سے بڑا دھشت گرد اور جنگی مجرم تھا

چرچل نازی نے ایشیا اور افریقہ میں بائیس میلیئن (22) بے گناہ لوگ قتل کیئے

Winston Churhill was a Churchill Nazi, Churchill Fascist, Churchill Terrorist & a Churchill War Criminal

There was no need for “Churchill War” ( World War II )

World War II was started by Churchill Nazi, Churchill Fascist, Churchill Terrorist, Churchill War Criminal & Churchill Dracula ( Winston Churchill ) , who rejected Hitler’s peace efforts

Churchill Nazi & Churchill Dracula was the biggest War Criminal of the World

http://www.RENSE.com/general63/ride.htm

By, Alex S. Perry, Jr

Rense

There was no need for World War II. Adolf Hitler was doing everything he could to come to peace terms with Britain, but Winston Churchill would not have it. Churchill knew of the many peace offers coming from the German government. He knew that neither Hitler nor any other Nazi leaders wanted to fight Britain.

Winston Churchill wrote to Josef Stalin on January 24, 1944, to tell him that Britain was going to continue the fight to the complete destruction of Germany no matter what. He should have been more exact and said that Britain was going to stay in the war as long as the United States was willing to do most of the fighting and all of the financing. Churchill’s letter read, in part:

We never thought of peace, not even in that year when we were completely isolated and could have made peace without serious detriment to the British empire, and extensively at your cost. Why should we think of it now when victory approaches for the three of us?1

What Churchill meant by “when we were completely isolated” was the time before Russia and the United States became involved. Churchill kept the war going for a purpose. Britain at this time was so weak that Germany could have smashed her within a few weeks. Had Hitler been the kind of man history says he was and had he captured the British army at Dunkirk, which he could easily have done and should have done, he could have written the peace ticket without invading Britain. Churchill’s worried son Randolph asked Churchill a few days after he became the prime minister how could he expect to win this war. Churchill replied, “I shall drag the United States in.”2

And so he did, and he knew he could. And how did he do it? He could not have dragged the United States in had Franklin Roosevelt not wanted to be dragged in, in the first place. He did it by not giving up-that is, by not accepting the peace terms Germany was offering. Roosevelt’s great fear was that the war would be over before America could get in. FDR wanted to go down in history as a wartime president. Roosevelt and Churchill were in secret communication before Churchill became prime minister. This is the reason why Tyler Kent, who worked in the code room in the American Embassy in London beginning in 1939, was thrown in prison as soon as Churchill took office. Kent was sentenced not for anything criminal, but because of what he knew. Roosevelt would not rescue this American citizen from Churchill’s clutches because Kent had proof that FDR was promising the British leader that he would eventually come into the war. Churchill records a conversation he and Harry Hopkins had on January 10, 1941:

The president is determined that we shall win the war together. Make no mistake about it. He has sent me here to tell you that at all costs and by all means he will carry you through, no matter what happens to him. There is nothing that he will not do, so far as he has human power.3

Churchill became prime minister on May 10, 1941. When the Germans captured Poland, they found in the Polish archives the evidence about the part FDR played in getting the fuse of World War II lit. These Polish records were transported to Berlin for safekeeping, and when Germany fell to the Allies, they were shipped to Washington, where they were kept under lock and key for about 20 years so that no one could see them.

David Irving reports in Hitler’s War, what these documents say :

A different aspect of Roosevelt’s policy was revealed by the Polish documents ransacked by the Nazis from the archives of the ruined foreign ministry buildings in Warsaw. The dispatches of the Polish ambassadors in Washington and Paris laid bare Roosevelt’s efforts to goad France and Britain into war with Germany while he rearmed the United States and psychologically prepared the American public for war. . . . n spring of 1939, [Ambassador William C.] Bullitt quoted Roosevelt as being determined “not to participate in the war from the start, but to be in at the finish.” . . . The Warsaw document left little doubt as to what had stiffened Polish resistance during the August 1939 crisis.

Irving quotes Baron von Weizaecker as saying that Hitler “had set his heart on peace” and Hitler as saying “The survival of the British empire is in Germany’s interest too.” Hitler “felt he had repeatedly extended the hand of peace and friendship to the British, and each time they had blackened his eye in reply.”4

Prof. G.C. Tansill’s Back Door to War, Chap. XXIII, states that it was Roosevelt, above all others, who was working unceasingly for war. Tansill cites evidence to show that Roosevelt was using every channel at his disposal to encourage Chamberlain to go to war with Germany. Roosevelt was telling Britain and France that he would come to their aid at once should they go to war against the Germans. Ambassador Joseph P. Kennedy was repeatedly telling Chamberlain that America would rush to the assistance of Britain and France in the event of unprovoked aggression, and Bullitt was encouraging France to believe the same thing.5

Likewise Eleanor Roosevelt reveals that her husband was not surprised nor upset, although he allowed the public to draw the impression that he was, with the attack on Pearl Harbor. The disaster at Pearl “was a great fulfillment” as far as Roosevelt’s worry over the matter was involved, and Mrs. Roosevelt “tells us that he was more ‘serene’ than he had been for a long time.”6

Hitler’s mistake in not capturing Britain right away was based on his belief that he was in contact with a strong peace movement in England. The peace movement was controlled by Churchill, but Hitler did not know this. All the German letters and messages sent to the peace movement were intercepted by the British government. Rudolf Hess was invited to come to Britain by this fake peace movement to discuss and make plans for peace. The sole purpose for this deception of the Germans was to delay the end of the war with Germany until the United States could involve itself.

The peace offer Hitler had in mind, if Britain would assume a neutral position, was such an astounding offer that Herbert Hoover, when he was told of Hitler’s terms from Ambassador Kennedy, gasped: “Why didn’t the British accept?” “Nothing but Churchill’s bullheadedness,” replied Kennedy.7 Kennedy’s statement was enough to condemn Churchill as a war criminal.

At the height of Hitler’s power, the German chancellor offered to withdraw from France, Denmark and Norway.8 He proposed to roll back his army without a shot being fired. He would make peace with England even if England would not agree to return the German colonies, which Britain had taken from Germany at the end of World War I.9

Hitler did not want war. He was so against war that he said it would not do Germany any good, even if Germany won the war, as war would put an end to all his plans. “Hitler was not thinking of war,” Albert Forster, 36-year-old district leader of Danzig, told Churchill, as “the Führer’s immense social and cultural plans would take years to fulfill.”10

Hitler expressed this opinion: “A European war would be the end of all our efforts even if we should win, because the disappearance of the British empire would be a misfortune which could not be made up again.”11 He told the Dutch fascist leader Anton Mussert: “We have not the slightest reason to fight Britain. Even if we win, we gain nothing.”12 Hitler was such an admirer of the British empire that he offered to defend the empire anywhere in the world with German troops should Britain ever need them.13

Hitler did not want to take over the world. This idea is British propaganda. Churchill and Roosevelt wanted war, and they forced it on Germany. Hitler did all he could to be friendly with Britain and France.

The duke of Windsor thought, in July 1940, that the war was allowed to go on only because certain British politicians and statesmen-if they can be called anything that sounds so dignified-had to have a reason to save their faces, even if this meant that the British empire would be bankrupted and shattered.14

Churchill and Roosevelt knew what was going on. Churchill bragged that “War is a game that has to be played with a smiling face.”15 Surely, they must have thought the tricks they were playing on their own countries and the world as something funny. But at the same time, millions of British and American soldiers and civilians were persuaded to look upon this war as something serious. They had no choice.

Misleading the public is truly the mark of a cynical politician and the dishonest news media, in time of war as well as at other times. These two men, Roosevelt and Churchill, instead of saving the world from some great evil, as Tom Brokaw maintains, multiplied the evils the world had to face.

One of the meanest tricks Churchill played on the Ger mans was the trick he played on Hess. On May 10, 1941, Hitler’s right-hand man flew alone to the duke of Hamilton’s estate in Scotland. He expected to land at an airfield nearby. But when he got there, he could not find the airfield and had to bail out. Not knowing how to do this, he had great trouble getting out of the plane. Finally, he turned the plane over and fell out. It was Hess’s first time to use a parachute. Hess was expecting to be received with dignity. Instead, he was seized, thrown into prison and held incommunicado the rest of his life. He was charged with “crimes against peace” at Nuremberg and sentenced to life imprisonment. The last 20 years of his life, he was held in solitary confinement and not allowed to see his wife or son. Hess was given the heaviest sentence possible-a sentence worse than death.

Hess’s flight to Britain was done in the hope that he could convince the British government to make peace with Germany. Because of Hess’s efforts to bring peace to Europe, he became truly a “prisoner of peace.”

The old saw, “All’s fair in war,” can never be applied to Hess. The treatment he received from the Allies from May 10, 1941, until the day he died was a crime.16 Hess would not have made his flight to Britain had not he and Hitler, in their anxiousness for peace, been fooled into believing that they were in contact with a strong peace party in Britain. There had been a strong peace party in Britain at one time, but most of its members had been thrown in jail by Churchill’s administration, and the rest could not express themselves.

Churchill had, so he told his secretary in a discussion about British aid to Russia, “only one purpose: the destruction of Hitler. And my life is much simplified thereby.”17

It would have been much easier and less costly in lives and materials, not only for the British but also for the Germans and Americans, to have encouraged the Germans to eliminate Hitler instead of trying to eliminate both the Germans and Hitler. “Unconditional surrender” sounds melodic, inspiring and dramatic. But this is all the value it had. It led the people in the Allied nations to think the Germans would never give up until they were totally demolished. It prolonged the war and made it even more bitter.

There is a hint that Hitler would have volunteered to retire had his retirement meant that Britain would have assumed a friendly attitude toward Germany. “Days before the beer hall bomb [Munich, November 8, 1939] there was a hint that [Hitler] was prepared to go very far, indeed. Ger man Prince Max Hohenlohe had spoken in Switzerland with representatives of Vansittart, secretary of the British Foreign Office, returning to Germany to report to Göring that peace with England was possible, but only with Hitler and Ribbentrop removed from power. One observer recorded in his diary that Göring replied that Hitler would agree to this.”18

Mary Ball Martinez’s Pope Pius XII, during the Second Churchill War ( 2nd World War ) states :

To their astonishment, the four Jesuit historians came upon records documenting the personal involvement of Pius XII in a plot to overthrow Hitler. In January 1940, he was approached by the agent of a certain clique of German generals, who asked him to tell the British government that they would undertake to “remove” Hitler if they were given assurances that the British would come to terms with a moderate German regime. Pius XII promptly passed along this message to Sir D’Arcy Osborne, Britain’s envoy to the Holy See. The offer was turned down.19

However, on a number of occasions the Germans had offered to remove Hitler from power if they were given reasonable peace terms for doing so. Joseph E. Davies, at a town hall meeting in Los Angeles, January 20, 1943, disclosed that the Germans had offered to retire Hitler in 1940 if the British would make peace with Germany.20 If the Germans could get rid of Hitler anytime they desired, then Hitler’s “total dictatorial control” over Germany was not so total and not so dictatorial as believers in the war propaganda think, and the Germans were not his robotic slaves.

Hans Kohn reviewed John Scott’s Duel for Europe in the December 14, 1942 New Republic (799). He stated, “If Britain had wished to make peace with Ger many, she could have done it easily in 1939, in the summer of 1940, and again in the spring of 1941.” It was not Hitler and Germany who could be described accurately as the war maniacs. The war maniacs were Roosevelt and Churchill and their backers, such as Bernard Baruch and Samuel Untermeyer.

One of the reasons used to justify the destruction of the Nazi system was that Hitler was a dictator. It was assumed that the Germans could not get rid of him. But why should the happiest people in the world, as David Lloyd George spoke of the Germans after Hitler came to power, want to dispose of their leader? The “unconditional surrender” declaration should dispel all thought about Hitler being in absolute command of everything in Germany. It was not the Germans who were forcing Hitler upon themselves. Roosevelt and Churchill were doing it for them, and for the sole purpose of keeping the war going as long as possible.

How did Hitler become the German leader? British history professor A.J.P. Taylor gives the answer in The Origins of the Second World War:

Hitler was appointed chancellor by President Hindenburg in a strictly constitutional way and for solidly democratic reasons.21

Conservative politicians led by Papen . . . recommended him to Hindenburg [and] kept the key posts for themselves.22

He did not “seize” power. He waited for it to be thrust upon him by the men who had previously tried to keep him out. In January 1933, Papen and Hindenburg were imploring him to become chancellor, and he graciously consented.23

Germany never threatened Britain. Hitler had always wanted to be a good neighbor and a good friend to the British. As late as January 29, 1942, after Britain had been at war with Germany for two years and five months, Hitler expressed a desire to help the British by sending them 20 divisions to aid them in throwing the Japanese invaders out of Singapore.24 He bent over backwards in showing his earnestness and generosity. He never would have gone to war against the British if the British had not attacked Ger many, or, as Churchill blazoned, “We entered the war of our free will, without ourselves being directly assaulted.”25

Churchill was not elected-as Hitler was in Germany-to be the prime minister by the British people. Churchill was put in power by the “powers behind the scenes” for the sole purpose of keeping the war going. Churchill’s job was not to make peace but to make war.

In August 1941, Roosevelt and Churchill hypocritically said in the third point of the Atlantic Charter that they respected “the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live.” Unless the words “all peoples” do not mean what they say, then this article clearly applies as much to the Germans as to anyone else.

As soon as the tide of battle began to favor the British empire, Churchill threw off the pretended cloak of righteousness and became openly arrogant. He said in Parliament on September 2, 1943:

The twin roots of all our evils, Nazi tyranny and Prussian militarism, must be extirpated. Until this is achieved, there are no sacrifices we will not make and no lengths in violence to which we will not go.26

Of this Nazi tyranny and Churchill’s eager desire to get rid of it, it should be pointed out that the Germans were not oppressing the British people and if the Germans wanted to live under their “tyrannical” form of government, it was none of Britain’s business. The Atlantic Charter gave the Germans this right. Churchill did not object to Soviet tyranny, for he hailed Russia as a welcome ally when she came into the war.

So it turns out the democracies were at war with Ger many to force Germany to set up a democratic form of government, even though Hitler had been democratically elected and Churchill had not.

The sixth point in the Atlantic Charter called for the “destruction of Nazi tyranny” only and no other tyranny. There fore, according to the charter, other tyrannies could live, thrive and be supported. It may be noted that the sixth point contradicts the third point. The sixth point was the same as a “secret” declaration of war against Germany. There fore, the United States was really in the war against Germany long before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor. Hitler’s declaration of war against the United States was made to keep his promise to Japan and to set things straight in the world as they really were. This declaration made it legal for the German navy to shoot back at the American ships in the Atlantic.

Roosevelt ordered, in April 1941, American warships to seek out and follow German ships and to radio their locations every four hours so British warships could come and open an attack. Roosevelt commanded American warships to “shoot on sight” at German submarines on September 11, 1941.27

Adm. Stark, chief of naval operations, wrote Adm. Hart on November 7, 1941: “The Navy is already in the War of the Atlantic, but the country doesn’t seem to realize it. Apathy, to the opposition, is evident in a considerable section of the press. Whether the country knows it or not, we are at war.”28

All this was in flagrant defiance of Roosevelt’s promise to Americans that we would not enter any war unless we were attacked. These orders made America an aggressor nation. American leaders, with their pretended righteousness, failed in their efforts to be the first “victims,” but this did not prevent them from pretending to be, and the nation from believing they were. American leaders were the victimizers, in many ways.

The war in the Pacific was also kept going much longer than necessary. Before the Germans were allowed to “surrender” and before the atom bombs were dropped, the Japanese were asking for peace. Gen. Douglas McArthur recommended negotiations on the basis of the Japanese overtures. But FDR brushed off this suggestion with the remark: “McArthur is our greatest general and our poorest politician.”29 This is the answer in a nutshell to why the war was allowed to go on and on, when it could have been over any day from 1943 on. It did not even have to have started in the first place, except that FDR wanted it to start.

Clare Booth Luce said at the Republican Party Convention in 1944 that Roosevelt “lied us into the war.” To get America into the war, FDR provoked the Japanese to attack. At the same time, American boys were battling to end World War II, leading American politicians were doing all they could for political reasons to continue the conflict.

President Harry Truman, in early May 1945, informed Herbert Hoover “of the extensive Japanese peace offers and admitted then that further fighting with the Japanese was really unnecessary. But Truman also disclosed to Hoover that he did not feel strong enough to challenge Secretary Stimson and the Pentagon.”

Footnotes & References :

1) Walendy, Udo, The Methods of Reeducation, 3.

2) Kilzer, Louis C., Churchill’s Deception, 20.

3) Churchill, Winston, The Grand Alliance, 23.

4) Irving, David, Hitler’s War, 35.

5) Tansill, G.C., Back Door to War, 450-51.

6) Crocker, George Crocker, Roosevelt’s Road to Russia, 81.

7) Irving, ibid., 418.

8) Kilzer, ibid., 69-70.

9) Kilzer, ibid., 221.

10) Irving, ibid., 121.

11) McLaughlin, Michael, For Those Who Cannot Speak, 10.

12) Irving, ibid., 511.

13) Barnes, Harry Elmer, Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, 162; and Irving, ibid., 371.

14) Irving, ibid., xvi.

15) Walendy, ibid., 3.

16) The Barnes Review, July/August 2001.

17) Churchill, ibid., 370.

18) Kilzer, ibid., 183.

19) Journal of Historical Review, Sept./Oct. 1993, 27.

20) Leese, Arnold, The Jewish War of Survival, 20.

21) Ibid., 97.

22) Ibid., 79.

23) Ibid., 101

24) Irving, ibid., 371.

25) Martin, James J., The Saga of Hog Island, 42.

26) Grenfell, Capt. Russell, Unconditional Hatred, 92.

27) Barnes, ibid., 487.

28) Tansill, ibid., 645.

29) Chamberlin, William Henry, America’s Second Crusade, 219.

چرچل نازی ، یک تروریست بود

قحطي بزرگ و نسل کشي در ايران در فاصله سالهای 1917 تا میلادی 1919

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/schul05.htm

Share this:

Share this: