Ernst
Zündel Ernst
Zündel Great Britain did not and does not benefit from the status quo pertaining
to the Holocaust Myth, but certain sectors of the elite of the United Kingdom
did - and do.
British involvement in World War II and subsequent gain, such as it was,
must be seen in the historical context of the last two wars.
Britain was not much different from the rest of the countries that did
the bidding of International Finance and took up arms against their Aryan
brothers. This country has excused and camouflaged its action ever since.
Every year for more than half a century, Britain has observed anniversaries
of the war's major events with many media stories, and ringing speeches
by dignitaries within the context of elaborate commemorative ceremonies.
Cable TV stations run documentaries on the war - week after week in endless
"military victory" self-congratulations. If the stations broadcasting
this ancient propaganda were operated directly by the government, these
documentaries would probably more readily be recognized for what they are
- propaganda writ large - but since they are not, they are often mistaken
for "objective" reporting of history.
Three generations after the end of W.W.II, almost all of the people who
led the world into the most destructive war in history are dead. Winston
Churchill was one of them. In a few years, those old enough to remember
the war will follow them. One has to ask oneself: What was the point? What
IS the point? Why such relentless media assault when hardly anybody cares?
Why are the British people exposed to this continuous slop when other historical
events, much more important to the welfare of the British populace, remain
largely ignored? Surely there is as much film footage on the "police
action" in Vietnam, or Korea, or any number of conflicts of this century?
Yet these don't get the constant air play and attention W.W.II does - with
all of its sickening "Holocaust" stories.
The easy explanation for this phenomenon is that W.W.II is regarded by
many in Britain as a "good war"--maybe the best war ever. It
is a tactic to bind up some very serious sores.
Before Germany began its recovery from the Versailles treaty in the 1930's,
Britain was considered a great power, especially a sea power, because her
empire stretched around the world. When all was said and done, England
was broke and her colonies began leaving the empire at a rapid rate.
Then why was it "worth it" to Britain?
The benefits to the U.S., to Israel and organized Jewry, and to the former
U.S.S.R are pretty obvious. These Allied powers emerged from the blood
bath as global superpowers leaving those who considered themselves ten
years earlier to be "great powers" to fall into the political
pull of either the Russians or the Americans (and to the covert control
of organized Jewry) and began to orbit around either of these giants--all
the while hoping the two overt giants, confronting each other in the Cold
War, would not collide and start a hot war after all.
So where is the good in all that?
There isn't any - but the English elite have established a W.W.II fantasy
world that serves its interests, which is to keep itself in power. Skeletons
need to be hidden. That, for the English elite, is what matters. There
is emotional, financial and political coinage to be mined. The "good"
names of old families need to be protected at any cost, no matter how hurtful
for Britain. (That's why, incidentally, the Rudolf Hess file will only
be opened in 2017 - if ever!)
But why?
World War II was certainly the bloodiest and most destructive of all wars.
Why would anyone consider it "good"? In order to answer this
question the war must be examined from the perspective of the beneficiaries
of W.W.II. Certainly someone had to benefit for a war to be considered
"good".
The obvious place to look for likely beneficiaries is among the victorious
Allies whose major partners were the British, the Soviets, the Americans
and, to a smaller extent, China and France. In order to understand the
lie the British power structure is living, one has to go back to Neville
Chamberlain's Prime Ministership in the 1930's.
The outcome of W.W. I had left the European continent a politically unstable
place. The borders which were drawn in the formation of the Treaty of Versailles
left many ethnic minorities stranded and unhappy in countries now dominated
by newly nationalistic majorities. After Hitler came to spectacular power
in Germany, the unstable structure set up twenty years before began crumbling.
The German chancellor took this opportunity to acquire or recover territory
containing German-speaking majorities that had once belonged to Germany,
including the Sudetenland. He incorporated them back into Germany.
England at this point was in no position to stop this revision of European
borders on its own, and France was reluctant to put its neck out for Czechoslovakia,
for instance, which was not a politically viable entity anyway. Chamberlain,
who could see that the traditional balance of power strategy England pursued
on the continent was no longer viable either, agreed to the German annexation
of the Sudetenland, a region which had a German majority.
Winston Churchill opposed Chamberlain's agreement with Hitler and accused
him of following a policy of appeasement. The situation England found itself
in was one in which she could not fight Germany alone and had no ally willing
to fight Germany with her. The balance of power strategy in Europe, which
had sought to prevent the creation of a single politically dominant state,
was now obsolete with the rise of Germany under Adolf Hitler.
The closest ally Britain could hope to find to successfully oppose Germany
in Europe in the 1930's was Communist Russia - but such an alliance would
have to be on Russia's, not England's terms. England's days as an independent
power, prepared to throw its weight behind any country in Europe in order
to prevent any other country from becoming dominant, were now behind her.
Chamberlain understood the situation. Churchill did not.
Once Germany started with the invasion of Poland, England replaced Chamberlain
with Churchill as prime minister. After the defeat of France, Churchill
looked to the United States to save his "valiant little England"
from Germany.
One of the outcomes of this move was that Winston Churchill succeeded in
bringing the U.S. officially into the war on England's side in 1941. Four
years later, England was "victorious" over Germany once more.
That was a heady moment. But at what price?
England had expended all of its wealth and prestige in the process. Its
"victory" was purely nominal. Though Germany was defeated, Stalin
controlled all of eastern Europe, including Poland, for which England had
ostensibly gone to war in the first place. Stalin controlled all that,
save Greece, and even there British influence was being challenged by Marxists,
taking their cues from Moscow. Churchill had fought Germany to defend the
balance of power in Europe, but now Russia had replaced Germany in domination
and England had no ally on the continent to oppose a total Communist takeover
of Europe.
Churchill's cagey new strategy at that point was to form a "special
relationship" with the U.S. In blunter words, he rode on America's
coat tails. His belief was that Britain with all of her ancient prestige
and experience in international affairs could get the United States to
act as the brawn behind England's brains. England would be America's "mentor
and guide" in the complicated world of international relations.
It was the myth of this new relationship with which England consoled itself
as a "has-been" great power - and has consoled itself ever since.
It was, and is, a pyrrhic victory at best.
But what alternatives did Britain have to the suicidal course it took?
Several recent books on British policy have examined this question and
have suggested that it would have been much better to have come to terms
with Germany after the defeat of France, or even before, and to have tried
to salvage the Empire. America - with all its shady forces behind America
- now calls the shots, and Britain is little more than a "has-been"
and knows it. Since Russia replaced Germany as the dominant force on the
continent and England had lost everything anyway and now depended on America,
just what had England gained?
For one, it had gained NATO.
To meet the new threat to Europe, NATO was formed - designed, according
to one English official, to "keep the Americans in, the Russians out,
and the Germans down."
The first had to be done in order to accomplish the other two. Though Germany
was literally dead as a political entity, the need for American forces
in Europe did not go away. So Churchill's "special alliance"
with the U.S. was, and is, clung to by the English who could not face the
new challenges alone.
When discerning people look at England now, it's question piled on question.
Why couldn't England have come to terms with Hitler? Nearly any argument
against dealing with Hitler could also be made against dealing with either
Stalin or Roosevelt.
In dealing with Hitler, the Empire might have been spared.
Britain MUST argue today that dealing with Hitler was out of the question
on moral grounds because the Nazi regime was "intolerably evil".
By arguing this line, one easily bypasses the question as to just precisely
what it was that made Hitler and the Nazis more evil than that mass murderer,
Josef Stalin, and who was England's Soviet ally.
The answer is, of course, the "Holocaust".
Watch late night cable TV re-broadcasts of the BBC-produced "The World
At War" long enough and it becomes pretty obvious. According to the
wartime propaganda, Nazi Germany was "out to conquer to world"
and was a threat to everyone. In addition, the Nazis were aiming to kill
everyone they didn't like in concentration camps equipped with gas chambers.
Reams of gruesome footage of dead bodies in concentration camps are shown
over and over to demonstrate that charges of the unparalleled evil of the
Germans is true and was well worth an empire.
So the Holocaust story props up British foreign policy which was responsible
for England's disastrous fratricidal war on the continent and ushered in
its decline. It protects its policies and policy makers from critical examination
and analysis. The "death camps" put Hitler post-humously beyond
the pale and the British power elite beyond very justified criticism.
This is one view, and it is well worth pondering. A more truthful and tragic
view advanced by historians like David Irving is that Churchill himself
was a victim of blackmail whose gambling and stock market debts were canceled
by Jewish money lenders and bankers like Stoakosh and Baruch. Winston Churchill
was therefore beholden to the Shadow Government and flushed the interests
of his country and his people down into the sewers of International Finance,
to save his own miserable self from bankruptcy and exposed as an international
forger of famous painters.
Understanding the saga of World War II is important. The roles major powers
play today are embedded in that war. The justification for the roles and
policies of the powers in the postwar era is rooted in the war and how
the war is viewed.
========
Two good books about British society and foreign policy are "Churchill's
Grand Alliance" by John Charmley (1995) Harcourt Brace & Co. and
"Brain Wash: The Cover-up Society" by Guy Arnold (1992) Virgin
Books.
"Churchill's War Volume I" by David Irving (1987) and "Churchill:
The End of Glory" by John Charmley (1993) are also very good works
which cover the formation of the Anglo-American "special relationship."
=======
November 16, 1996