by Captain A.H.M. Ramsay


The urgent alarm sounded in 1918 by Mr. Oudendyke in his letter to Mr. Balfour, denouncing bolshevism as a Jewish plan, which if not checked by the combined action of the European Powers, would engulf Europe and the world, was no exaggeration. By the end of that year the red flag was being hoisted in most of the great cities of Europe. In Hungary the Jew Bela Kuhn organised and maintained for some time a merciless and bloody tyranny similar to the one in Russia. In Germany, the Jews Leibknecht, Barth, Scheidemann, Rosa Luxemburg, etc., made a desperate bid for power. These and other similar convulsions shook Europe; but each country in its own way just frustrated the onslaughts.

In most countries concerned a few voices were raised in an endeavour to expose the true nature of these evils. Only in one, however, did a political leader and group arise, who grasped to the full the significance of these happenings, and perceived behind the mobs of native hooligans the organisation and driving power of world Jewry. This leader was Adolf Hitler, and his group the National Socialist Party of Germany.

Never before in history had any country not only repulsed organised revolution, but discerned Jewry behind it, and faced up to that fact. We need not wonder that the sewers of Jewish vituperation were flooded over these men and their leader; nor should we make the mistake of supposing that Jewry would stick at any lie to deter honest men everywhere from making a thorough investigation of the facts for themselves. Nevertheless, if any value liberty, and set out to seek truth and defend it, this duty of personal investigation is one which they cannot shirk.

To accept unquestioningly the lies and misrepresentations of a Jew-controlled or influenced press, is to spurn truth by sheer idleness, if for no worse reason. To act on such unverified a basis is to sin against the Light. In the case of Germany and Hitler the task of research is not difficult. We have it on many authorities that Hitler's book, Mein Kampf, stated fully and accurately the author's observations and conclusions concerning all these vital matters. Quite false pictures have been propagated deliberately about this book, by quoting passages out of their context, distorting meanings, and downright misrepresentation. Having read many of these unscrupulous diatribes, it was with no little surprise that I read this book for myself not so very long ago.

From many conversations I had heard and taken part in, I now realise that most members of the public were as ignorant as I of the real nature of this remarkable book. I propose, therefore, to try and give a true picture of its spirit and purport by quotations from its two main themes: Firstly realisation and exposure of the Jewish scheme for world Marxism; and secondly, admiration of, and longing for friendship with Great Britain.

Writing of the days before 1914, Hitler states: "I still saw Jewry as a religion . . . Of the existence of deliberate Jewish hostility I had no conception . . . I gradually realised that the Social Democratic Press was preponderantly controlled by Jews . . . There was not a single paper with which Jews were connected which could be described as genuinely national . . . I seized all the Social Democratic pamphlets I could get hold of, and looked up the names of their authors—nothing but Jews."

As he pursued the study of these questions, Hitler began to perceive the main outlines of the truth:- "I made also a deep study of the relation between Judaism and Marxism . . . The Jewish State never had boundaries as far as space was concerned; it was unlimited as regards space, but bound down by its conception of itself as a race. That people, therefore, was always a State within a State . . . The Jewish doctrine of Marxism rejects the aristocratic principle in nature. . . denies the value of the individual among men, combats the importance of nationality and race, thereby depriving humanity of the whole meaning of existence."

"Democracy in the west today is the forerunner of Marxism, which would be inconceivable without Democracy." "If the Jew, with the help of his Marxian creed, conquers the nations of the world, his crown will be the funeral wreath of the human race . . ." "Thus did I now believe," he writes of the days of 1918, "that by defending myself against the Jews I am doing the Lord's work."

At the end of 1918 there came the revolution in Germany organised behind the unbroken army in the field. Concerning this Hitler wrote:- "In November sailors arrived in lorries, and called on us all to revolt, a few Jewish youths being the leaders in that struggle for the 'freedom, beauty and dignity of our national life'. Not one of them had ever been to the Front."

"The real organiser of the revolution and its actual wire-puller the International Jew . . . The revolution was not made by the forces of peace and order; but by those of riot, robbery and plunder."

"I was beginning to learn afresh, and only now (1919) came to a right comprehension of the teachings and intentions of the Jew Karl Marx. Only now did I properly understand his 'Kapital'; and equally also the struggle of Social Democracy against the economics of the nation; and that its aim is to prepare the ground for the domination of the truly international Kapital." Emperor to offer the hand of friendship to the leaders of Marxism . . . While they held the Imperial hand in theirs the other hand was already feeling for the dagger." "With the Jew there is no bargaining; there is merely the hard 'either, or'."

Later on Hitler gives in great detail the outlines of the Jewish disruptive machine. "By means of the Trades Unions which might have been the saving of the nation, the Jew actually destroys the nation's economics."

"By creating a press which is on the intellectual level of the least educated, the political and labour organisation obtains force of compulsion enabling it to make the lowest strata of the nation ready for the most hazardous enterprises."

"The Jewish press . . . tears down all which may be regarded as the prop of a nation's independence, civilisation and its economic autonomy. It roars especially against characters who refuse to bow the knee to Jewish domination, or whose intellectual capacity appears to the Jew in the light of a menace to himself."

"The ignorance displayed by the mass . . . and the lack of instinctive perception of our upper class make the people easy dupes of this campaign of Jewish lies."

"But the present day is working its own ruin; it introduces universal suffrage, chatters about equal rights, and can give no reason for so thinking. In its eyes material rewards are the expression of a man's worth, thus shattering the basis for the noblest equality that could possibly exist."

"It is one of the tasks of our Movement to hold out prospects of a time when the individual will be given what he needs in order to live; but also to maintain the principle that man does not live for material enjoyment alone."

"The political life of today alone has persistently turned its back on this principle of nature" (i.e. quality) . . . "

"Human civilisation is but the outcome of the creative force of personality in the community as a whole, and especially among its leaders . . . the principle of the dignity of the majority is beginning to poison all life below it; and in fact to break it up."

"We now see that Marxism is the enunciated form of the Jewish attempt to abolish the importance of personality in all departments of human life; and to set up the mass of numbers in its place . . . "

"The principle of decision by majorities has not always governed the human race; on the contrary, it only appears during quite short periods of his tory, and those are always periods of decadence in nations and States."

"We must not forget that the international Jew, who continues to dominate over Russia, does not regard Germany as an ally, but as a State destined to undergo a similar fate."

On the last page and in almost the last paragraph of Mein Kampf is the following:- "The party as such stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession. It combats the Jewish materialistic spirit within us and without us." Looking round the world for help in the battle against this terrible menace of Jew directed bolshevism, Hitler's mind constantly reverted to Britain and the British Empire. He always longed for their friendship. Always declared Britain to be one of the greatest bulwarks against chaos; and that her interests and those of Germany were complementary and not contrary to one another.

"It was not a British interest," he wrote, "but in the first place a Jewish one to destroy Germany." And again:- "Even in England there is a continual struggle going on between the representatives of British state interests and the Jewish world dictatorship."

"Whilst England is exhausting herself in maintaining her position in the world, the Jew is organising his measures for its conquest . . . Thus the Jew today is a rebel in England, and the struggle against the Jewish world menace will be started there also."

"No sacrifice would have been too great in order to gain England's alliance. It would have meant renunciation of the colonies and importance at sea, and refraining from interference with British industry by competition."

In later years these two themes were ceaselessly expounded; viz., the Jewish Marxist menace, and the eagerness for friendship with Britain. Even down to, and including Dunkirk, Hitler pressed the latter idea on all and sundry; even on his highest Generals, to their astonishment. Nor did he stop at words, as will be shown later when, as Liddell Hart informs us, he saved the British Army from annihilation by halting the Panzer Corps, informing his Generals the while, that he regarded the British Empire and the Catholic Church as necessary bulwarks of peace and order which must be safeguarded.*

Mein Kampf was first published in October 1933. Before it had left the printers, the floodgates of Jewish hatred and lies had been full-opened against Hitler and the Third Reich all over the world. English-speaking people everywhere were deluged with fabrications, distortions and atrocity stories, which drowned the voices of the few who understood the real situation.

Forgotten in the turmoil was Marx's slogan that before bolshevism could triumph the British Empire must be destroyed; and totally suppressed as far as the British people were concerned was Hitler's repeated declaration of his willingness to defend the British Empire if called upon to assist by force of arms if necessary.

*"The Other Side of the Hill," Chap. X, by Liddell Hart.


The English edition of Mein Kampf was still in the process of printing and publication when Jewry declared war on the national Socialist regime, and started an intensive blockade against Germany.

The International Jewish Boycott Conference was assembled in Holland in the summer of 1933 under the Presidency of Mr. Samuel Untermeyer, of the U.S.A., who was elected President of the World Jewish Economic Federation formed to combat the opposition to Jews in Germany. On his return to the U.S.A., Mr. Untermeyer gave an address over Station W.A.B.C., the text of which, as printed in the New York Times of August 7th, 1933, I have before me. Mr Untermeyer referred in the opening phrases to: "The holy war in the cause of humanity in which we are embarked"; and proceeded to develop the subject at great length, describing the Jews as the aristocrats of the world. "Each of you, Jew and Gentile alike, who has not already enlisted in this sacred war should do so now and here." Those Jews who did not join in he denounced, declaring: "They are traitors to their race."

In January 1934 Mr. Jabotinsky, founder of Revisionist Zionism, wrote in Natcha Retch: "The fight against Germany has been carried out for months by every Jewish community, conference, trade organisation, by every Jew in the world . . . we shall let loose a spiritual and a material war of the whole world against Germany."

This is perhaps the most confident assertion extant on the Jewish claim, set out in the Protocols of Zion, that they can bring about war.

Protocol Number 7 states: "We must be in a position to respond to every act of opposition by a State by war with its neighbour. If these should venture to stand collectively, by universal war." It should be remembered here that a copy of these Protocols was filed in the British Museum in 1906.

By 1938 the Jewish war was in full swing; and already through their influence or pressure many Gentile persons and groups were being drawn into the vortex. Various members of the British Socialist Party were openly advocating joining in this cold war; and a vigorous and uncompromising clique was growing in all Parties under the leadership of Messrs. Churchill, Amery, Duff, Cooper and others. "Hitler will have no war, but he will be forced to it, not this year, but later on,' screamed the Jew Emil Ludwig in the June copy of Les Aniles 1934.

On June 3rd, 1938, matters were carried a long step further by an article in the American Hebrew, the weekly organ of American Jewry. This article, which opened by showing that Hitler never deviated from his Mein Kampf doctrine, went on to threaten the direst retaliation. "It has become patent that a combination of Britain, France and Russia will sooner or later bar the triumphant march (of Hitler) . . . Either by accident or design, a Jew has come to a position of foremost importance in each of these nations. In the hands of non-Aryans lies the fate and the very lives of millions . . . In France the Jew of prominence is Leon Blum . . . Leon Blum may yet be the Moses who will lead . . . Maxim Litvinoff, Soviet super salesman, is the Jew who sits at the right hand of Stalin, the little tin soldier of communism . . . The English Jew of prominence is Leslie Hore-Belisha, Tommy Atkins' new boss."

Later in this article we read: "So it may come to pass that these three sons of Israel will form the combine that will send the frenzied Nazi dictator to hell. And when the smoke of battle clears . . . and the man who played the swastikaed Christus . . . is lowered into a hole in the ground . . . as the trio of non-Aryans intone a ramified requiem . . . a medley of the marseillaise, God Save the King, and the Internationale, blending with a proud and aggressive rendering of Eili Eili."

Two points in the above extract are worthy of special note. Firstly, it is taken for granted that these three Jews will not for one moment think or act as anything but Jews; and can be relied upon to guide their Gentile dupes to ruin in a plainly Jewish war; secondly, should be noted the contemptuous reference to the "swastikaed Christus," which Jewry looks forward to burying; and which reveals by its classification the Jewish hatred of Christianity.

Meantime Jewish pressure was exerted to the utmost to incite clashes between Sudeten, Czechs, Poles and Germans. By September of 1938 matters had reached a desperate pass. Mr. Chamberlain himself flew out to Munich and achieved the historic settlement with Hitler. It seemed as though the war mongers had been frustrated, and Europe saved. Rarely had such scenes and evidences of spontaneous delight and thankfulness been evoked as were witnessed throughout Britain and Europe at that triumph.

Those who knew the power of the enemy, however, knew that Mr Chamberlain's work was certain to be swiftly sabotaged. I remember remarking, on the very evening of his return from Munich, that within a week every newspaper in this country and the war mongers in Parliament, would be attacking Mr. Chamberlain for having secured peace; regardless of the fact that in so doing they were contemptuously flouting the real wishes of the people. This remark was only too true, as events proved.

Nowhere was the Jewish fury so obvious, of course, as in Moscow. I have before me a leaflet of my own designing put out in October 1938. It runs:-

"Are you aware that Mr. Chamberlain was burnt in effigy in Moscow as soon as it was known that he had secured peace; Showing very clearly Who Wanted War, and who are still ceaselessly working to stir up strife all the world over."* The attempt to provoke war over Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia having failed, there remained only the detonator in the Polish Corridor, that monstrosity born of the unholy Versailles Conference, and denounced by honest men from Marshal Foch and Arthur Henderson, from that time onwards.

One feature about the Versailles Conference has been kept secret by those who possess the power to keep things from the public or to proclaim things from the house tops. It is this: All important decisions were taken by the "Big Four" - Britain, France, Italy and the U.S.A., represented respectively by Mr. Lloyd George, M. Clemencau, Baron Sonino and President Wilson. So much is known. What is not known is that the secretary of Mr. Lloyd George was the Jew Sassoon; of M. Clemencau the Jew Mandel Rothschild, now known as Mandel; Baron Sonino was himself half a Jew: and President Wilson had the Jew Brandeis; the interpreter was another Jew named Mantoux; and the Military Adviser yet another Jew called Kish.

It is known that Mr. Lloyd George and others were hazy about geography. Their Jewish secretaries, however, were on the contrary very much on the spot on such matters. These Jews met at 6 p.m. in the evenings; and mapped out the decisions for the following day's conference of the "Big Four."

The results were disastrous from the point of view of all decent people, who hoped for an honourable treaty, with terms which, though they might be stringent, would at least be just and thereby secure lasting peace. *See Appendix 4.

Foch himself loudly denounced the treaty; declaring that it contained the certain makings of another war and deprecating in particular the provision relating to Danzig and the Corridor. Arthur Henderson and many public men joined in the denunciation; but all to no avail.

From the point of view of men planning another war, however, nothing could have been better than this treaty. All sorts of glaring injustices were ingrained in its text. In addition to the Corridor, and the position at Danzig, a bastard State was brought into being, in which Germans, Slovaks, etc., together forming a majority of the country, were put under the tyrannical control of the Czech minority, an element which had thrown in its lot with the bolshevik Jews and fought against the Allies in 1918.

The design of this State was such geographically that it was styled, and correctly styled, a dagger pointed at the heart of Germany. It received the outlandish name of Czechoslovakia. The whole of the industrial life from the huge Skoda arsenal downwards was controlled by Jewish banking interests; while we have it on the evidence of Lord Winterton that practically all the land was mortgaged to the Jews (Hansard, October 1936). Under this Messianic domination were enslaved huge sections of populations, belonging to other nations, henceforward condemned to be held down by force until some country should grow strong enough to champion them.

This eventuality was, in my opinion, visualised and actually fostered as we know by the huge loans to Germany from international banking interests. * Let it not be forgotten that while Jewish bankers were pouring money into Germany which was rebuilding the Wehrmacht on a bigger scale than ever, a colossal campaign for peace and disarmament was launched in this country. This not only succeeded in substantially disarming us; but in creating an atmosphere in which Mr. Baldwin had to admit that he dared not go to the country asking for more armaments, vital though he knew our needs in sea, air and land forces to be.

*All prior of course to the rise of Hitler.

To anyone who made a study of the personalities and powers behind this so-called peace propaganda, as I did, there can be no doubt as to whence the real drive and finance emanated. To anyone appreciating the attitude of the press at that time, and realising that had this disarmament propaganda been distasteful to those who influence our publicity services, there would have blared forth a torrent of invective against our "peace ballotters"; there is additional proof that this campaign had the support of international Jewry, as had the rearmament of Germany. But why? the simple will ask.

The answer is fairly simple, if once the purpose behind the Jewish plan is understood. "Out of the last war we brought the Soviet States of Russia; out of the next war we will bring the Soviet States of Europe," had been the pronouncement at a world meeting of communist parties about 1932.

To make the next war possible, therefore, the see-saw must be balanced again; German strength built up, and British strength whittled down. Then the Europeans can fight each other to the death of one and complete exhaustion of the other. A dramatic surprise is in store for both sides.

Neither is to be the real winner. The real winner is quite a different army. This army is the one that will receive the real attention. For 25 years it will be built up under conditions of the greatest secrecy. Its leaders will not show their strength until the conflict is well under way. Not until a critical moment in the war will the European armies be permitted to guess at the existence of the huge factories beyond the Urals, or of the colossal proportions of the heavily mechanised hordes which will then commence to roll westwards over Europe under the red flag of Marxism.

In March 1939 a British guarantee to Poland was given by Mr Chamberlain on the strength of a false report to the effect that a 48-hour ultimatum had been delivered by Germany to the Poles. This report subsequently turned out to be quite untrue. The guarantee had been given, however, and the decision of peace or war was now no longer in British hands. Jewry had the ball at its feet. Can we doubt but that Poland was encouraged to ignore the German note of March which set forth eminently reasonable suggestions for a peaceful solution of the problem of the Corridor?

Month after month no reply was vouchsafed by Poland to the German note. Meanwhile, insult and outrage occurred with suspicious frequency all along the German frontier, similar to the technique to which the Jews later introduced the British in Palestine. Day after day the British public was deluged with war propaganda and misrepresentation of the situation. Finally their minds were closed against any further regard to the demands of justice or reason by a new slogan, "You cannot trust Hitler's word." With this lie the British public was finally stampeded into throwing all reason and judgement to the winds and accepting at their face value the war propaganda in the press.

This slogan was founded upon a misrepresentation of Hitler's assurance given on more than one occasion after a "putsch" such as that into Sudetenland, that he "intended to make no further demands." The misrepresentation lay in the fact that the press steadily obscured the major fact, that the "demands" to which Hitler referred were all along five fold in character; and covered those five areas taken from Germany by a dictated peace in which the population was overwhelmingly German, i.e. Sudetenland, part of Czechoslovakia, parts of Poland, the Corridor and Danzig.

As German troops occupied each successive section, it is, I believe, accurate to say that Hitler declared, that he had no additional demands to make. But here it must be clearly stated in the interests of justice that he never said that this entailed reducing the demands which he had originally very clearly delineated, and repeated on many occasions, namely, the five areas in question.

The British public was deluded by its press into supposing that when Hitler said he had no further demands, that there had never been any statement of his full demands, some of which were still unfulfilled. They were led to believe that Hitler either never had any other demands, or that he had abandoned the rest as soon as he had obtained some of them. When, therefore, the next instalment was added, the press built on this misunderstanding the fallacy that Hitler's word could not be trusted.

Honest dealing needs no such trickery and deception. Such methods are only necessary to bolster up bad or unjust causes. Fortunately we have the calm and dispassionate judgement in this matter by no less a person than the late Lord Lothian, recently British Ambassador to the U.S.A. In his last speech at Chatham House on this subject he remarked: "If the principle of self-determination had been applied in Germany's favour, as it was applied against her, it would have meant the return of Sudetenland, Czechoslovakia, parts of Poland, the Polish Corridor, and Danzig to the Reich."

Here is a very different presentment of the case to the one which was foisted upon the British public in 1939; and it is the true one. Small wonder that these facts had to be withheld from the ordinary citizen.

Had the British public realised the truth, that each of these demands of Hitler's rested on a foundation of reasonable fairness, the people of this island would have ruled out any question of war; and it was war, not truth or justice, upon which international Jewry was resolved.


Though a state of war was declared to exist between Britain and Germany in September of 1939, it very soon became apparent that no war was being conducted by Germany against this country. This was no surprise to those who knew the facts of the case. Hitler had again and again made it clear, that he never intended to attack or harm Great Britain or the British Empire. With the Siegfried Line strongly held, and no German intention of appearing west of it, stalemate in the west, or the "Phoney War," as it came to be called, must, in the absence of bombing of civilian populations ultimately peter out altogether. No one was quicker to perceive this than the pro-Jewish war mongers; and they and their friends inside and outside the House of Commons very soon began exerting pressure for this form of bombing of Germany to be started.

On 14th January, 1940, The Sunday Times gave prominence to a letter from an anonymous correspondent, who demanded to know why we were not using our air power "to increase the effect of the blockade." "Scrutator," in the same issue, commented on this letter as follows:- "Such an extension of the offensive would inevitably develop into competitive frightfulness. It might be forced on us in reprisals for enemy action, and we must be in a position to make reprisals if necessary. But the bombing of industrial towns, with its unavoidable loss of life among the civilian population—that is what it would come to—would be inconsistent with the spirit, if not the actual words of the pledges given from both sides at the beginning of the war."

The above quotation is taken from a book entitled Bombing Vindicated, which was published in 1944 by Mr. J. M. Spaight, C.B., C.B.E., who was the principal assistant secretary at the Air Ministry during the war. As its title suggests, this book is an attempt to justify the indiscriminate use of bombers against the civil population. In it Mr. Spaight boasts that this form of bombing "saved civilisation": and reveals the startling fact that it was Britain that started this ruthless form of war on the very evening of the day on which Mr. Churchill became Prime Minister, May 11th, 1940.

On page 64 of his book, Mr. Spaight gives a further piece of information, which renders this sudden change of British policy all the more astonishing; for he states that a declaration was made by the British and French Governments on 2nd September, 1939, that "Only strictly military objectives in the narrowest sense of the word would be bombarded."

This declaration, of course, was made in the days of Mr Chamberlain's Premiership; and no single fact perhaps could demarcate and differentiate more clearly the difference in the character and behaviour between Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Churchill.

On the 27th January, 1940, thirteen days after the letter in The Sunday Times already quoted, The Daily Mail endorsed editorially the views which had been expressed in that issue by "Scrutator"; and it devoted a leading article, writes Mr. Spaight, to combating the suggestion of Mr. Amery and others that we should start the bombing of Germany. Sir Duff Cooper had written on the previous day in the same paper that "there would appear to exist a kind of unwritten truce between the two belligerents, according to the tacit terms of which they do not bomb one another."

In view of the declaration by Britain and France of September 2nd, 1939, that they would "only bomb military objectives in the narrowest sense of the word," Sir Duff Cooper's verbiage about "a kind of unwritten truce," seems to me gravely obscurantist, if honest.

Inside the House of Commons, the pro-Jewish war mongers were now becoming more and more intransigent; and more and more set on sabotaging the chances of turning the "phoney war" into a negotiated peace. This in spite of the fact that Britain had nothing to gain by further and total war, and everything to lose. The Jews, of course, had everything to lose by a peace which left the German gold-free money system and Jew-free Government intact, and nothing to gain.

It seemed clearer to me every day that this struggle over the question of civilian bombing was the crux of the whole matter; and that by this method of warfare alone could the Jews and their allies cut the Gordian knot of stalemate leading to peace; and probably later on to a joint attack on Jewish Bolshevism in Russia.

Accordingly, on 15th February, 1940, I put down the following question to the Prime Minister:-

Captain Ramsay asked the Prime Minister:- "Whether he will assure the House that H.M. Government will not assent to the suggestions made to them, to abandon those principles which led them to denounce the bombing of civilian populations in Spain and elsewhere, and embark upon such a policy themselves?"

Mr Chamberlain himself replied in outspoken terms:-

"I am unaware of the suggestions to which my honourable and gallant friend refers. The policy of H.M. Government in this matter was fully stated by myself in answer to a question by the honourable Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr Dalton) on 14th September last. In the course of that answer I said that whatever be the length to which others may go, H.M. Government will never resort to the deliberate attack on women and children, and other civilians, for purposes of mere terrorism. I have nothing to add to that answer."

Both this question and the reply were evidently distasteful in the extreme to the war mongers, so I resolved to carry the matter a stage further.

On 21st February I put down another question on the subject:-

Captain Ramsay asked the Prime Minister:- "Whether he is aware that the Soviet aeroplanes are carrying on a campaign of bombing civil populations, and whether H.M. Government have despatched protests on the subject similar to those despatched during the Civil War in Spain in similar circumstances?"

Mr. Butler replied for the Prime Minister:- "Yes, Sir. The Soviet Air Forces have pursued a policy of indiscriminate bombing, which cannot be too strongly condemned. H.M. Government have not, however, lodged any protest, since there are unfortunately no grounds for supposing that such action would achieve the result desired."

There can be little doubt but that these two downright answers crystallised the resolves of the war mongers to get rid of a Prime Minister whose adherence to an upright and humane policy must inevitably frustrate their plans, seeing that Hitler wished no war with Britain, and would therefore never start civilian bombing himself.

The machinery of intrigue and rebellion against Mr. Chamberlain was set in motion. Ultimately he was saddled with the blame for the Norway blunder; and this pretext was used by the Churchillian-cum-Socialist caucus to secure his downfall.

It should be remembered in this connection that prior to and during the Norway gamble, Mr. Churchill had been invested with full powers and responsibilities for all Naval Military and Air operations; and if anyone therefore deserved to be broken over that second Gallipoli (pursued in defiance of high naval authority warning that, without control of the Cattegat and Skaggerack it could not possibly succeed) it should have been the Minister responsible.

He however was not only unbroken, he was acclaimed Prime Minister. The man who would tear up the British pledge of September 2nd, 1939, and start bombing the civilians of Germany was the man for the war mongers who now ruled the roost.

And so civilian bombing started on the evening that the architect of the Norwegian fiasco became Prime Minister, viz., May 11th, 1940.


Captain Liddell Hart, the eminent military critic, wrote a book on the military events of 1939-45, which was published in 1948, and entitled The Other Side of the Hill. Chapter 10—which deals with the German invasion of France down to and including Dunkirk—bears the somewhat startling title, "How Hitler beat France and saved Britain." The reading of the chapter itself will astound all propaganda-blinded people, even more than the title: for the author therein proves that not only did Hitler save this country; but that this was not the result of some unforeseen factor, or indecision, or folly, but was of set purpose, based on his long enunciated and faithfully maintained principle.

Having given details of how Hitler peremptorily halted the Panzer Corps on the 22nd May, and kept them inactive for the vital few days, till, in fact, the British troops had got away from Dunkirk, Captain Liddell Hart quotes Hitler's telegram to Von Kleist:-

"The armoured divisions are to remain at medium artillery range from Dunkirk. Permission is only granted for reconnaissance and protective movements."

Von Kleist decided to ignore the order, the author tells us. To quote him again:-

"Then came a more emphatic order, that I was to withdraw behind the canal. My tanks were kept halted there for three days."

In the following words the author reports a conversation which took place on May 24th (i.e. two days later) between Herr Hitler and Marshal Von Runstedt, and two key men of his staff:-

"He then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilisation that Britain had brought into the world . . . He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church—saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany's position on the continent. The return of Germany's lost colonies would be desirable, but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops, if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere. He concluded by saying that his aim was to make peace with Britain, on a basis that she would regard compatible with her honour to accept."

Captain Liddell Hart comments on the above as follows:-

"If the British Army had been captured at Dunkirk, the British people might have felt that their honour had suffered a stain, which they must wipe out. By letting it escape, Hitler hoped to conciliate them."

"This conviction of Hitler's deeper motive," he continues, "was confirmed by his strangely dilatory attitude over the subsequent plans for the invasion of England."

"He showed little interest in the plans," Blumentritt said, "and made no effort to speed up the preparation. That was utterly different to his usual behaviour. Before the invasion of Poland, of France, and later of Russia, he repeatedly spurred them on; but on this occasion he sat back."

The author continues:-

"Since the account of his conversation at Charleville, and subsequent holding back, comes from a section of the Generals, who had long distrusted Hitler's policy, that makes their testimony all the more notable."

And later he goes on to say:-

"Significantly their account of Hitler's thoughts about England at the decisive hour before Dunkirk, fits in with much that he himself wrote earlier in Mein Kampf; and it is remarkable how closely he followed his own Bible in other respects.

Anyone who has read Mein Kampf will immediately appreciate the accuracy of the above statement. It is indeed if anything an understatement. Throughout that remarkable book runs two main themes, as I have shown in an earlier chapter—the one, a detailed delineation and denunciation of the Jewish Capitalist-Revolutionary machine; the other, admiration for and eagerness for friendship with Britain and the Empire.

It is a pity, indeed, that so few persons in this island have read this book for themselves; and it is a tragedy that they have instead swallowed wholesale, the unscrupulous distortions and untrue propaganda on the subject, served up to them by Jewish publicity machinery, operating through our press and radio. Let these people but try and obtain a copy of that book; and when they find they cannot, let them reflect, that if indeed its contents confirmed the lies that they have been told concerning it and its author, the powers behind our publicity would ensure that everyone should be able to secure a copy at the cheapest possible rate.

In any event, I would urge my countrymen to ponder most earnestly the following facts.

The Jew Karl Marx laid it down, that Bolshevism could never really succeed till the British Empire had been utterly destroyed.

Hitler laid it down, that the British Empire was an essential element of stability in the world; and even declared himself ready to defend it with troops, if it should be involved in difficulties anywhere.

By unscrupulous propaganda on an unprecedented scale this country was led into destroying those who wished to be her friends, and offered their lives to defend her; and exalting those, who proclaimed that her destruction was a necessary preliminary to the success of their ideology, forfeiting her Empire and her economic independence in the process.


If the new-found knowledge of Hitler's anxiety to preserve the British Empire has come as a surprise recently to many people in this country, it must surely have come as a real shock to them to learn that President Roosevelt, on the other hand, was its inveterate enemy; that he was not only a pro-communist of Jewish origin, but that before he brought America into the war he made it clear that he wished to break up the British Empire.

His son, Colonel Elliot Roosevelt, makes this last point very clear in his book, As He Saw It, recently published in the U.S.A.

On pages 19 to 28 of this book, Colonel Roosevelt tells us that in August 1941, his Father, having given out to the American people that he was going off on a fishing trip, actually proceeded to a meeting with Mr. Churchill on board a warship in Argentia Bay. Lord Beaverbrook, Sir Edward Cadogan, and Lord Cherwell (Professor Lindeman of doubtful race and nationality), and Mr. Averil Harriman were present, he says. On page 35 he quotes his Father as saying, "After the war . . . there will have to be the greatest possible freedom of trade . . . no artificial barriers." Mr. Churchill referred to he British Empire Trade Agreements, and Mr. Roosevelt replied, "Yes. Those Empire Trade Agreements are a case in point. It's because of them that the peoples of India, Africa, and of all the Colonial Near East are still as backward as they are . . . I can't believe that we can fight a war against Fascist slavery, and at the same time not work to free people all over the world from a backward colonial policy." "The peace," said Father firmly, "cannot include any continued despotism."

This insolent talk against the British Empire became so pronounced that on page 31 Colonel Roosevelt reports Mr.Churchill as saying, "Mr.President, I believe you are trying to do away with the British Empire." This comment was very near the mark, as the President had been talking about India, Burma, Egypt, Palestine, Indo-China, Indonesia, and all the African Colonies having to be "freed."

On page 115, the Colonel reports his Father as saying, "Don't think for a moment, Elliot, that Americans would be dying in the Pacific tonight if it hadn't been for the short-sighted greed of the French, the British and the Dutch. Shall we allow them to do it all over again?"

These were not at all the reasons, however, given for the war, and for which Americans thought they were dying; nor indeed does the President make any reference as to the pretexts given to his countrymen for the war.

The British, dying in greater numbers, have on the contrary been told that they are dying to defend their Empire from Hitler's wicked plans. Little do they suspect, that it is their so-called ally who plans its destruction.

"When we've won the war," the President is reported as saying on page 116, "I will see that the U.S.A. is not wheedled into any plans that will aid or abet the British Empire in its Imperialist ambitions."

And a few pages later:

"I have tried to make it clear to Winston and the others . . . that they must never get the idea that we are in it just to help them hang on to the archaic and medieval Empire ideas."

Those who sup with the devil need a long spoon. Mr. Churchill, the self-styled "constant architect of the Jews' future," now found himself playing second fiddle to an even more trusted architect; so eminent, in fact, that he did not make any silly pretensions of respect for the British Empire. The earlier Moses, Karl Marx, had denounced the Empire long ago, and in the year 1941, it was only foolish opponents of Judaism and Marxism, like Herr Hitler, who were anxious to stand by that Empire, because they recognised it as a bulwark of Christian civilisation.

Although, as we have seen, Mr. Churchill is shown in this book as getting a little petulant from time to time over the President's pronouncements regarding the liquidation of the Empire, this did not prevent him from announcing himself later to the House of Commons as "Roosevelt's ardent lieutenant." Under what special circumstances the King's Prime Minister could be an ardent lieutenant of a Republican President, whose design it was to destroy that Monarch's Empire, Mr. Churchill did not explain; nor has he yet done so. On another occasion, Mr. Churchill made an equally cryptic remark: "It is no part of my duties," he assured the House of Commons, "to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire."

No, indeed! Nor was it any part of his duties, on being told that it was to be liquidated, to pronounce himself to be the ardent lieutenant of the would-be liquidator. Nor, we might add, when Minister of Defence, with Admiralty and other codes at his disposal, was it any part of his duties, as Mr. Chamberlain's lieutenant, albeit not very ardent, to conduct a personal correspondence of the nature which he did conduct with President Roosevelt by means of the top secret code of the American Foreign Office.


In my Statement to the Speaker and Members of the House of Commons concerning my detention (see Appendix 1) I summed up at the end of Part 1, the considerations which led me to inspect the secret U.S. Embassy papers at Mr. Tyler Kent's flat in the last weeks of Mr. Chamberlain's Premiership.

The first two of these six considerations were as follows:-

Together with many members of both Houses of Parliament, I was fully aware that among the agencies both here and abroad, which had been actively engaged in promoting bad feeling between Great Britain and Germany, organised Jewry, for obvious reasons, had played a leading part.

I knew the U.S.A. to be the headquarters of Jewry, and therefore the real, though not apparent, centre of their activities.

It was not until 1948 that corroborative evidence of the foregoing from unimpeachable American sources came into my hands; but when it did come, however, the authentic and fully documented character of the work left nothing to be desired. I refer to the book by Professor Charles Beard entitled President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War 1941, which was published by the Yale University Press in April 1948.

This book, which comes with all the authority of its eminent author, is nothing less than a tremendous indictment of President Roosevelt on three main issues.

Firstly, that he got himself elected on the strength of repeated promises, to the effect that he would keep the U.S.A. out of any European war; secondly, that he incessantly and flagrantly disregarded not only his promises to the American people, but all the laws of neutrality; thirdly, that at a predetermined moment he deliberately converted this cold war, which he had been conducting, into a shooting war, by sending the Japanese an ultimatum, which no one could imagine could result in anything but immediate war.

From many instances given relating to the first issue, I quote one:- "At Boston on October 30th, 1940, he (F.D.R.) was even more emphatic, for there he declared:

'I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars';

and on December 29th:

'You can therefore nail any talk about sending armies to Europe as deliberate untruth'."

Professor Beard goes on to prove that while Mr. Roosevelt was making these speeches, he was treating international laws of neutrality with total disregard, and in the interests only of those who were fighting the Jews' battles. The two main forms of non-shooting intervention were the convoying of U.S. ships of ammunition and supplies for the allies, and the Lend Lease Act.

Whatever be our sentiments in appreciating the help of the U.S. arsenals and navy under these two cold war decisions of Mr Roosevelt, no one can pretend that they were either in accordance with his pledges to the American people, or the fundamentals of international law regarding neutrality.

Some very plain speaking went on in Congress over these acts of the President's.

Representative U. Burdick, of North Dakota, said: "All our aid to Britain may mean anything . . . To sell her supplies is one thing . . . to sell her supplies and convoy them is another thing, to have actual war is the last thingi—the last thing is inevitable from the first thing!"

Representative Hugh Paterson, of Georgia, said: "It is a measure of aggressive war."

Representative Dewey Short, of Missouri, said:

"You cannot be half-way in war, and half-way out of war . . . You can dress this measure up all you please (Lend, Lease), you can sprinkle it with perfume and pour powder on it . . . but it is still foul and stinks to high heaven."

Representative Philip Bennett, of Missouri, declared:

"This conclusion is inescapable, that the President is reconciled to active military intervention if such intervention is needed to defeat the Axis in this war. But our boys are not going to be sent abroad, says the President. Nonsense, Mr Chairman; even now their berths are being built in our transport ships. Even now the tags for identification of the dead and wounded are being printed by the firm of William C. Ballantyne and Co., of Washington."

Professor Beard proves the third point at great length, showing how at the appropriate moment President Roosevelt forced the Japanese into war by an ultimatum demanding instant compliance with terms, which could never have been accepted by any country.

"The memorandum which Senator Hull, with the approval of President Roosevelt, handed to Japan on 26th November, 1941 . . . amounted to the maximum terms of an American policy for the whole Orient." writes Professor Beard, and goes on to say:

"It required no profound knowledge of Japanese history, institutions, and psychology to warrant . . . first that no Japanese Cabinet 'liberal or reactionary,' could have accepted the provisions." and again later:

"The Japanese agent regarded the American memorandum as a kind of ultimatum. This much at least Secretary Hull knew on November 26th."

Thus was the period of maximum intervention short of a shooting war terminated, and a save-face forged for Roosevelt to ship U.S. boys overseas without apparently breaking the spirit of his many promises.

As the war proceeded the real policy and sympathies of the President became more and more apparent. His deception of the British and their Allies was no less flagrant than his deception of the American people.

As Professor Beard points out on page 576:-

"The noble principles of the Four Freedoms, and the Atlantic Charter were for practical purposes discarded in the settlements, which accompanied the progress and followed the conclusion of the war. To the validity of this statement the treatment of the people of Esthonia, Lithuania, Poland, Roumania, Yugoslavia, China, Indo-China, Indonesia, Italy, Germany and other places of the earth bear witness."

Some great driving force was clearly at work to induce a President of the United States so to act. We have seen from a previous chapter that it was not the preservation of the British Empire, nor the French Empire, nor the Dutch, that swayed the President. On the contrary, he had advised his ardent lieutenant, Mr. Churchill, at an early stage in the cold war that these must be liquidated. It was not Europe, nor the countries of Europe, nor their liberties, nor rights under the Atlantic Charter of Four Freedoms which weighed with him. We know now that the British and American armies were actually halted by General Ike Eisenhower under Mr. Roosevelt's rulings at the Yalta Conference, so that the Red Army of Jewish Bolshevism might overflow half Europe and occupy Berlin.

To quote again from Professor Beard:-

"As a consequence of the war called necessary to overthrow Hitler's despotism,' another despotism was raised to a higher pitch of power."

In conclusion, Professor Beard condenses the many indictments of the President set forth in his book, into 12 major counts, and declares:-

"If these precedents are to stand unimpeached, and to provide sanctions for the continued conduct of America affairs—the Constitution may be nullified by the President and officers who have taken the oath and are under moral obligation to uphold it. For limited Government under supreme law they may substitute personal and arbitrary government—the first principle of the totalitarian system against which it has been alleged that World War II was waged—while giving lip service to the principle of constitutional government."

When we reflect upon the astounding contents of Professor Beard's book, and consider them in conjunction with the revelations in Colonel Roosevelt's As He Saw It, the question arises: whom, and which interests did President Roosevelt not betray. To this query I can only see one answer, namely, those people and their interests who planned from the start the use of United States arsenals and Forces to prosecute a war which would annihilate a Europe which had freed itself from Jewish gold and revolutionary control: people who planned to dissolve the British Empire, to forge chains of unrepayable debt, wherewith to coerce Britain to this end; and to enable the Soviets to "bestride Europe like a colossus,"* in other words, International Jewry.

*These very words were used by General Smuts, who added words to the effect that he welcomed such a prospect. It should be remembered that General Smuts was formerly chief legal adviser to the Zionist Organisation in S. Africa.

(The concluding episode of this expose of subverted history is in itself most revealing and deserves much careful reading and contemplation.

However, as mentioned within the episode by Captain Ramsay, not all Jews want to be or are embroiled in this international ploy but in fact are suffering as much as anyone else because of the actions of 'the few'. It should be stressed yet again, that it doesn't matter whether people are white, black or brindle, Jew, Muslim or Christian there are always the few 'elite' at the top or in control who make the plans and take the actions that affect the total population(s) of this sadly misled world. Editor, The Strategy).

. . ./Next Page

. . ./Back to Contents