Excerpts from the Author's Introduction to the flawed
classic Advance to Barbarism
with comments by Gerry Frederics (in italics)
Tardily professional historians have at last begun to
realise that the
events of the first half of the 20th century have presented them
with a
problem of unique difficulty.
From the first it was apparent that 1914 was certain
to be a memorable
date in history because in that year began a war in which a vast
number
would be doomed to die violent deaths and which would certainly
lead to
sweeping changes to the map of Europe if only for the worse. For
a decade
historians limited themselves to investigating the origins of the
struggle
which they explained to their own satisfaction by attributing it
to the
chance that Germany was ruled by an emperor who was obsessed by
an insane
ambition to conquer the world. From patriotic motives, at first
to assist
the war effort and later to justify the dictated terms of peace,
professional historians, many of them men of great eminence and
learning,
laboured to confirm and endorse the Wicked Kaiser Myth. Once
however this
had been exposed as an impudent propaganda fiction, they failed
to find
any generally acceptable explanation for the blind homicidal
frenzy which
seized the nations of Europe during the period, 1914-1918, and
ultimately
they became resigned to leaving the problem for solution to the
psychologists and psychiatrists. Thus the First World War came to
be
regarded as a bizarre episode of history, mainly of significance
as a grim
warning to posterity of the consequences of allowing greed and
pugnacity
to overcome reason.
The conclusion that the great struggle which broke out
in Europe in 1914
resulted from a pathological wave of hysteria which afflicted the
most
advanced nations of mankind in that year is now held up for
admiration as
the most remarkable achievement of modem historical research. But
this
diagnosis was first put forward over thirty years ago by
Field-Marshal
Lord Allenby who bluntly declared, "The Great War was a
lengthy period of
general insanity."1 The view that the beginning of this
struggle in 1914
and still more that its continuation after 1916 were essentially
the
result of an irrational and compulsive urge was accepted as
self-evident
and undeniable throughout the thirty-nine weekly televised
programmes
entitled 'The Great War' broadcast by the B.B.C. in 1965.
(Comment by Gerry Fredrics:
These statements are no more than pure obfuscations. The war was
planned as early as 1904
by the British in concert wth France - The Entente Cordial - in
order to eliminate a strong
German world with which neither nation could hope to compete on a
level playng field. The german
emperor Wilhelm did make the mistake in trying to equall the
British fleet (in retrospect the question
arises `What for?´) thereby arousing in the colonizing nations a
sense of danger, which in reality
did not exist, sine the Kaiser only wanted that which under
examnation must be considered `fair and square´.)
Not until after 1939 when another world war broke out,
rendered inevitable
by the terms of peace imposed on the vanquished after the First
World War,
was it realised how profound were the effects which the latter
struggle
had had on the character, outlooks and ethics of the average
Western
civilized man. Since the times when the Dark Ages had gradually
evolved
into the Middle Ages, the story of civilization in Europe had
been one of
slow but steady upward progress. The advance of civilization
apart from
occasional fluctuations remained continuous until the beginning
of the
20th century, by which time it had come to be regarded as an
established
law of nature that progress was an automatic process of unending
duration.
(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
War did not `break out´. War was created by a hostile Britain in
concert with an insanely jeaulos
France who used pitiful, forever chauvanistic Poland led by a
latter-day Ghengis Kahn
(only without the intelligence) to ignite it. The untimey death
of Marshall Pilsudski hastened and in fact
enabled the vile underhanded machinations of the British and
French governments. The Americans under
Roosevelt also played a vital role in encouraging Polish
politicians and the catholic clergy into transgressing
every rule of decency vis-á-vis the German minority popution;;
namely the prohibition of the German language,massive job
discrimination, institutionalized murder predictably never solved
by the investigating Polish police, the prohibition of German
language newspapers and church services, the physical hunting
down
of ethnic Germans after inflammatory catholic church services and
the subsequrnt beatings and murders
on Polish streets, right out in the open (!) on sundays and I
could easily go on and on --ALL of it documented by amongst other
organizations the International Red Cross! )
As the late Dean Inge observed, belief in Progress
became a kind of
religion with most educated men. Apart from the steady
accumulation of
scientific knowledge, arbitrary violence had gradually become
controlled
by the rule of law, manners had become milder and in warfare
primitive
savagery had become modified by the tacit adoption at the end of
the 17th
century of an unwritten code of restrictions and restraints which
later
codified at the conventions of Geneva and the Hague, became known
as the
Rules of Civilized Warfare. The fundamental principle of this
code was
that hostilities should be restricted to the armed and uniformed
forces of
the combatants, from which followed the corollary that civilians
must be
left entirely outside the scope of military operations. It was
widely
believed that war, being an essentially barbarous method of
settling
international disputes, was bound ultimately to die out. With
seemingly
full justification the outlook at the beginning of the 20th
century was
one of unclouded optimism.
As early as 1770, by which time the horrors of the
Thirty Years War had
become generally forgotten, the Comte de Guibert could express
the already
prevailing complacency by writing:-
'Today the whole of Europe is civilized. We have
become less cruel. Save
in combat no blood is shed; prisoners are respected; towns are no
more
destroyed; the countryside is no more ravaged; conquered peoples
are
only obliged to pay some sort of contributions which are often
less than
the taxes they pay to their own sovereign.'
In the 19th century this happy state of affairs was
taken for granted: no
one dreamed that it would shortly come to an abrupt end. To us it
seems
fantastically unreal, now that prisoners of war are faced with
the
prospect of being subjected to war-crimes trials at the pleasure
of their
captors, or of being sent to work indefinitely as slave labour;
towns with
their inhabitants are obliterated by terror bombing; conquered
peoples are
uprooted from their homelands and mass-deported abroad; and the
property
of the vanquished is either appropriated as a matter of course by
the
victors or systematically destroyed.
The war which broke out in Europe in 1914 seemed at
first
indistinguishable from the civil wars which previously had
periodically
devastated that continent. During the struggle, however, quite
unforeseen
by any one, civilization began a retrograde movement without a
parallel in
history. While the struggle lasted this retrograde movement was
not
generally perceived but after the wave of optimism generated by
the
creation of the League of Nations had faded, the realization
dawned that
somehow the times had become out of joint. Working below the
surface a
profound psychological change had been taking place. Many of the
men then
living in obscurity who in the next decade were to rise to power
and fame
– for example Yagoda, Stalin's chief of the G.P.U. during
the Great Purge,
Heinrich Himmler, the S.S. leader, and Adolf Eichmann, the
organiser of
systematic genocide – might have been reincarnations of men
who had
flourished the times of the Merovingian Kings. Even the outlook
of so
irreproachable a character as Air Marshal Sir Hugh Trenchard with
his then
novel recipe for victory – "bomb the enemy civilian
population until they
surrender" – was nearer akin to that of an Iroquois war
chief than to that
of a professional European soldier of the 19th century.2
(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
To lump together men like Himmler, Eichmann and Yagoda and to
refer to them collectively
as `organizers of genocide´ per se is unfair to an extreme,
since that sobriquet certanly fit
the jewish Yagoda but neither Himmler nor Eichmann as is
evidenced by the historical facts,
rather than the historical FICTION which has been foisted in
mankind as truth.)
Hardly perceptible for twenty-one years, when
hostilities were resumed in
1939 the reversion to primitive practices in warfare soon became
headlong
until at last all pretence of complying with the Rules of
Civilized
Warfare was abandoned and both sides* tacitly adopted the
principle that
any act was justifiable if it held out even a remote hope that it
might
stave off the frightful consequences of defeat.
(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
*This is a vile lie. It is well documented that the German armed
forces were meticulousy correct
toward the civilian populations and that those cities which were
in fact bombed, were indeed well
defended military targets - this according to the British
military historian Capt. Basil Liddell Hart.
In addition, Rotterdam as well as Warsaw were given ample warning
and plenty of time to either
surrender or to evaxcuate their populations. The fact that
neither offer was accepted pionts to the
criminal negligence of the city governments on the one hand and
the chivalrous behavior of the
German military on theother. As far as the bombing of London
goes, it commenced after 6 months
of British air attacks on undefended German civilian targets,
incessant taunts and insults by Churchill
and every vileness know to man. This is referred to in The Jewish
Encyclopedia as `the cunning of Churchill´
caused by his jewish genes; in addition, Hitlers SPECIFIC orders
were to AVOID civilian casualties at
all costs and to select only military and industrial
installations in London.
And I Quote: `I saw no evidence whatsoever of any
German military abuse of the French civilian population.
In fact, the French were very sullen and the question arose
whether they wanted to be liberated at all´.
Source - John Eisenhower (!) Jr. as quoted by David Irving in his
book ´- The War of the Generals-)
An explanation is clearly needed to account for the
fact that governments
composed of educated men, reared in the 19th century and brought
up to
accept as a matter of course the standards of conduct then
accepted by
everyone, should have so quickly and easily overcome their
natural
repugnance and adopted and carried out such enormities as the
systematic
extermination of a defenceless minority on account of its racial
origin,
the mass-deportation of enemy populations numbering millions, and
the
deliberate slaughter of enemy civilians by terror bombing in
order to
generate among the survivors a disposition to surrender
unconditionally.
It was many years after hostilities had ceased in 1945
before historians
realized that this problem existed. In Germany the thinking
powers of
historians were for long paralysed by the ruthless brainwashing
to which
they with the rest of their countrymen were subjected in 1945 to
force
them to accept the propaganda fictions of the victors. In Britain
and the
United States historians were so preoccupied investigating the
crimes
against humanity committed by the vanquished that they overlooked
the
background of concentrated terror bombing against which these
crimes had
been committed. They failed to realize that genocide and terror
bombing
were not isolated phenomena but symptoms of the same retrograde
movement
which had mysteriously overtaken Western civilization.
(Comment
by Gerry Frederics:
No, no, no. The concentrated terror bombings had been meticulousy
planed as early as the 1920´s
when England developed long-distance bombers, time-delay bombs,
phospor bombs, block-buster bombs
cluster bombs and started producing and storing massive
quantities of anthrax. Pray tell Mr. Veale,
whom were the Anglo-American world planning to annihlate then,
Lichtenstein perhaps, or Andorra?
And how one of about Roosevelts very first acts as president in
1932, the order to develope long-distance
bombers which were to be so well armed as to be called `Flying
Fortresses´?)
It is commonly assumed that genocide and terror
bombing were accepted
respectively by the governments of Germany and Britain without
protest or
opposition from those they ruled who, it is assumed, were as
completely
subject to the spirit of the times as their rulers. The facts as
now
disclosed do not support either assumption but the subject
remains
uninvestigated.
(Comment
by Gerry Frederics:
This is another lie. The `subject´ has been investigated in
great detail and it is quite clear, that
the Hitler government never even envisioned terror bombing. In
fact, Hitler found the allegation that the British were planning
such a thing impossible to believe, since he and millions of
other brain-washed Germans insisted, the English were the Germans
cousins and would never lower themselves to such barbarity.)
Taking first the case of Germany, a strict censorship
enforced by drastic
penalties controlled the publication of news and the expression
of
opinion. It is impossible to determine the number of those who
expressed
opposition to the regime as any who so ventured came to an
untimely end.
(Comment
by Gerry Frederics:
That is untrue. We have precise records of how many dissidents
were incarcerated/and/or executed
under what circumstances and according to which laws, laws which
hold water far better than those
under which dissidents in the democracies were and are being
harassed, prosecuted and jailed today in the year 2008)
One cannot protest effectively in secret and to
protest publicly was
equivalent to suicide. It is doubtful also whether any specific
information was available consuming what was taking place behind
barbed
wire in the concentration camps, most of which were in remote
occupied
territory, inaccessible to civilians.* It has been contended that
it would
have been impossible to put to death millions of persons without
some
facts about it becoming generally known. Estimates of the number
of
victims vary from ten millions to less than a quarter of a
million, and
the larger the estimate accepted the stronger this contention
becomes. It
will always be a subject for regret that the victorious Allies
did not put
the question beyond dispute by appointing in 1945 a commission
composed of
impartial judges selected, from neutral countries to investigate
the
facts. The findings of such a body would have been accepted by
posterity
as final. The Allies however deliberately rejected this obvious
course.
(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
This is essentially a falsehood. At Auschwitz, the alleged death
camp, Polish ramers were plowing
their fields which ended at the barbed wire fences. Not one ever
reported anything amiss. The allies
flew reconnaissance missions throughout the war never seeing
anything amiss. Furtherore, the
concentration ams were neither in remote regions nor inacessble,
since many were located near
population centers and the International Red Cross had UNFETTERED
access to ALL of them throughout
the war years. This is in stark contrast to the American Camps
(REAL death camps) AFTER the war,
to which the International Red Cross was denied acces, or to the
the one in Danmark in which over
10.000 German refugee children were deliberately allowed to die
of starvatin while the Danes looked
the other way , etc., etc. etc.)
The findings of the Nuremberg Tribunal are of course
worthless: a court
which convicted Admiral Dönitz against whom the prosecution had
failed to
produce even the shadow of a prima facie case was clearly
incapable of
deposing even of the simplest problem. After the kidnapping of
Adolf
Eichmann in 1961 another opportunity arose to dispose of this
question by
an enquiry by an impartial tribunal. Once again this course was
emphatically rejected, a fact which in itself is highly
significant.. It
remains therefore impossible to say with confidence whether the
German
people consented without protest to the departures from civilized
standards by its rulers during the Second World War.
(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
I fail to see exactly where Germany´s rulers during WW-2
departed from civilized standards.
The rulers who emphatically did were Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin
and the entire leadership,
including the catholic clergy of Poland. The rounding up and the
expulsion of the jews occurred after
many years of freely allowed and encouraged emigration and after
world jewry had officially
declared war on Germany (in 1933) and had done everything
possible to destroy Germany during
all (!) the decades since 1900).
Recently indeed several books have appeared disclosing
that throughout the
war there was an active underground resistance movement in
Germany. Those
who participated however seem to have been mainly political
rivals of
Hitler, jealous of his rise to power and intent on bringing about
the
downfall of his regime so as to be able to replace it by a regime
of their
own. His crimes against humanity do not seem behave greatly
concerned
them.
(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
The anti-Hitler movement in Germany was indeed made up mostly by
political rivals,
but by far the worst and most traitorous were the religiously
extreme crypto-jews led by Pastors
Bohnhöffer and Niemöller, lay-Pastor Count von Moltke as well
as a number of traditional
military men, mostly steming from ancient Prussian blue-blood
families, who resented a former
Corporal having bested them in every conceivable way. As far as
`his crimes against humanity´ go
it all depends what one considers a `crime against humanity´. It
has been documented beyond a doubt
that these alleged crimes occurred rarely and by far more
frequent and severe amongst the allies led
by Churchill, Roosevelt and other
demonstrably criminal elements.
e.g., in the Pacific theatre of war, Americans
officaly (!) took no prisoners but murdered ever Japanese who
had surendered - hence the fight to the bitter end of the
Japanese.
Colonel Lindbergh noted in his diary his feelings of shame and
rage at being an American after
witnessing some Amerian atocities which very literally defy
descriptions. During the waning days of
the war in Europe, German POW´s were routinely murdered in the
following way: A Sgt. would
order a Corporal or Private to march the column of `Krauts´ back
to Paris - some 500 miles removed -
and report back in 10 minutes. The soldier would then march then
behind the next curve on the road
and execute them with his sub-machine gun. German prisoners of
war were routinely beaten to death
upon surrender such as it happened in April 1945 in Ellwangen ad
nauseam and American troops robbed
German troops of their decorations, insignia, wrist watches and
cameras. Those who refused were
beaten to death or shot outright (if lucky). This happened to the
3rd. SS Armored Division at the hands of
the 11th. US Armored Division. There is NO record of any
Wehrmacht troops engaging in any of such
activities; not even when they had absolutey nothing to lose,
they adhered to the Geneva conventions.)
The situation in Britain was very different. There was
no official
prohibition on expressions of opinion as such, but persons who
ventured to
express opinions which the authorities deemed might hamper the
war effort
were put in prison without a trial or even without a specific
complaint
against them. With regard to the bombing of the enemy civilian
population,
everyone knew that civilians in Germany were being slaughtered
wholesale
but it was believed that this was an unavoidable by-product of an
air
offensive against military objectives. The comforting reflection
was
accepted that the German civilian population could at any moment
bring its
sufferings to an end by surrendering unconditionally.
(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
I fail to see the difference. In Germany it was not allowed to
voice dissent and if one did so,
one was jailed. Hm, sort of like today, no? In England one was
allegedly allowed to voice dissent
but if one did one was jailed. Hm, not only that, one was jailed
without trial, had ones properties
confiscated and career and family ruined. Hm, the only difference
here is that in Germany it was
according to the law prevailing, a law which was far more fair
than todays repressive laws, none
of which have any basis in truth! In addition, people who were
openly opposed to the regime almost
invariably called for the violent overthrow of it (WHEREAS AS THE
FOLKS IN BRITAIN DID NOT, BUT
RATHER SIGNED PETITIONS AGAINST THE WAR ETC). The opposition in
germany, such as it existed,
engaged in unlawful acts includng actual sabotage and open calls
for rebellion crimes in any nation,
at any time. Let us not forget, that over 95% of the German
population was enthusiastically supportive
of the regime! In addition, many of the oppositon were running
around free for years, such as Pastor
Bohnöffer who, had the Gestapo had enough manpower (as todays
secret police certainly have) would
have been arrested as early as 1938 and jailed as a traitor of
the first order.)
It would not indeed be correct to say that what was
officially termed "the
strategic bombing offensive" was carried out to the last day
of the war
without opposition, protest or misgivings. Questions were asked
in
Parliament as to the character of this air offensive which were
fully
reported in the Press with the answers given. Certainly it cannot
be said
that the Ministers of the Crown upon whom fell the duty of
answering these
questions, resorted to evasion or equivocation. In accordance
with the
British tradition they kept a stiff upper lip and gave clear and
emphatic
replies, without any signs of embarrassment such as might have
been
expected from them having regard to the fact that as recently as
March
1942 Mr. Churchill's War Cabinet had accepted the plan laid
before it by
Professor Lindemann by which 'top priority' as an objective for
air attack
was in future to be given to "working-class houses in
densely populated
residential areas."
(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
The British attitude of murdering other people and then
justifying it with a `stiff upper lip´ seems to be
historic; see the Boer wars, the Chinese Opium wars fought on
behalf of the jewish Sassoon family which paid
obscene anounts of tribute to the Royals who in turn turned
England into the the only nation on earth
which has ever been an official drug cartel, the bombing of
Kurdish villages in the north of Iraq in 1924
with bombs which contained mustard gas - so ordered by,
surprise!, surprise!, Winston Churchill, the
planned genocidal mass murder of the North American Indian
population by amongst other things
small pox-infected blankets, making the English nation the first
one to use biological weapons against
an entire defenseless people, the dropping of dynamite-filled
dolls and fountain pens over German
cities (especially Hanau with its famed Children´s Hospital)
causing many a little German girl to have
her arms severed by the ensuing explosion when she picked up that
pretty doll, the machine-gunning of
women and children who were trying to escape the insane barbarous
air attack on Dresden, the beating
to death of unarmed 16 and 17 year old Hitler-Youth boys who had
bravely defended their very homes
and mothers, all with a `stiff upper lip´. NONE of those things
at which the Anglo-American world excelled
were EVER done by a German, NONE.)
This decision of the War Cabinet was kept a closely
guarded secret from
the British public for nearly twenty years until it was
unobtrusively
revealed in 1961 in a little book entitled Science and Government
by the
physicist and novelist, Sir Charles Snow, in which occurred the
following
oft-quoted passage which was immediately translated and published
in every
language in the world:
'Early in 1942 Professor Lindemann, by this time Lord Cherwell
and a
member of the Cabinet, laid a cabinet paper before the Cabinet on
the
strategic bombing of Germany. It described in quantitative terms
the
effect on Germany of a British bombing offensive in the next
eighteen
months (approximately March 1942 – September 1943). The
paper laid down
a strategic policy. The bombing must be directed essentially
against
German working-class houses. Middle-class houses have too much
space
round them and so are bound to waste bombs; factories and
"military
objectives" had long since been forgotten, except in
official bulletins,
since they were much too difficult to find and hit. The paper
claimed
that – given a total concentration of effort on the
production and use
of aircraft – it would be possible, in all the larger towns
of Germany
(that is, those with more than 50,000 inhabitants), to destroy 50
per
cent of all houses.' (pp. 47-48.)
(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
I suppose the `stiff upper lip´ played a role in this, for the
very thoughts expressed let ones blood run cold.
It also pays to remember that Lindemann was jewish; he had
emigrated from Germany to England in 1929.)
Terror bombing as proposed in the Lindemann Plan was a
novelty in warfare
rendered possible by the conquest of the air during the first two
decades
of the 20th century. Genocide, on the other hand, was only the
revival of
an ancient practice, once probably worldwide, which had long been
abandoned in Europe and which barely survived, in company with
cannibalism, among the savages of Africa. It has never seriously
been
contended by anyone that either genocide or terror bombing were
in
accordance with the moral standards accepted at the time by all
civilized
peoples.
(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
My, my. A NOVEL idea. Isn´t that a quaint way to express
mass-murdering intent! - and NO, it was not made
possible by the conquest of the air, it was made possible by
criminal minds who masqueraded as men.)
We do not know what were the thoughts in private of
Hitler's colleagues
concerning his "final solution of the Jewish Problem."
(Comment by Gerry Fredrics:
This is statement is astounding since massive amounts of
documents were recovered after the German
surrender detailing precisely what their attitude was and that
the `final solution´ was no more
than the decision to remove all jews from all parts of Europe
controlled by Germany - no more, no less.
It appears Mr. Veale is talking with, to use an ancient Sioux
phrase, `with forked tongue´).
Some of them surely must have found it at least
disturbing that the Führer should have
recourse to a practice which had only recently been stamped out
in Africa
by European Colonialism as the first step towards introducing
civilization
into that continent.
(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
THIS is an outrageous statement, it is plainly vile. People as
diverse as Lord Rothmere, David Lloyd
George, King Edward the 8th., Knut Hamsun and George Bernard Shaw
commented on the extremely
high level of culture AND the trustworthiness of Adolf Hitler. To
accuse him of all people of having
re-introduced barbaric practices identified with black behavior
is utterly unsubstantiated and dishonest,
it is slanderous to an extreme and makes one wonder in whose
services Mr. Veale indeed labored
in the first place.
In addition any alleged `genocide´ allegedly practiced by
Germany during WW-2 has been thoroughy
debunked and only the stranglehold word jewry exercises over all
western nations coupled with the
guilty feelings of exactly these nations regarding their odious
role in the destruction of the arguably
most vibrant, creative people Europe has ever produced makes such
a statement possible.
Furthermore colonisation, I suppose includes the mass murder
under circumstances which were more than
inhumane, which were outright barbaric on every level by the
British of the Boer settlers
- most of whom in fact were ethnic Germans toting a bible and a
hoe - who indeed had brought
civilization to a part of the world which heretofore had been
uncivilized on a pre-historic level
as well as having been practically devoid of any population).
We know however that the members of the British War
Cabinet who accepted
the Lindemann Plan fully realized its enormity because
concurrently with
its acceptance it was decided that on no account must any inkling
of its
terms reach the public. The following extracts from the
parliamentary
reports of Hansard are set out verbatim here immediately after
the passage
quoted above, not to suggest that British politicians are
exceptionally
mendacious – politicians whatever their nationality have
never been
renowned for veracity – but to establish that those
responsible for the
acceptance of the Lindemann Plan were conscious of a feeling of
guilt.
They instructed those entrusted with the task of
answering questions on
the subject to give emphatic and unambiguous denials designed to
stifle
all further enquiries, as the following passages from Hansard
show. Some
or indeed most of them may have replied in the innocence of their
hearts
without personal knowledge of the truth but credulously believing
what
they were told by their departments.
On the 11th March, 1943 (a year after the acceptance
of the Lindemann
Plan) in the House of Commons, Mr. Montague, a Labour Member,
having
expressed the hope that our air raids on Germany were still being
concentrated, as he believed they were, on military and
industrial
objectives, Captain Harold Balfour, Under-Secretary for Air,
replied that
he could give the House "an assurance that our objectives in
bombing the
enemy were industries, transport and war potential. There is no
change in
our policy. We were not bombing women and children wantonly for
the sake
of so doing. It is not for us to turn back. If innocent people,
women and
children suffer in the execution of our policy in Germany the
remedy lies
with the German men and women themselves."3
(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
It is difficult to fathom that these bald-faced lies were
accepted as fact by the British politicians.
What happeed here is, that they WANTED to believe these things.)
On the 30th March, 1943, in reply to the Labour
Member, Richard Stokes,
the Secretary for Air, Sir Archibald Sinclair, replied blandly
that, "The
targets of Bomber Command are always military but night-bombing
of
military objectives necessarily involves bombing the area in
which these
are situated."4
On the 9th February, 1944, in the House of Lords, Dr.
Bell, the Bishop of
Chichester, in a memorable speech demanded a statement of the
Government's
policy "in regard to the bombing of enemy towns with special
reference to
the effect of such bombing on civilian life." Viscount
Cranbourne,
Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, replied for the
Government that
he was "very ready to give an assurance that the aim of our
intensive
attacks on German cities was to hamper and, if possible, to bring
to a
standstill enemy war production and not aimlessly to sprinkle
bombs with
the object of spreading damage among the enemy population. The
R.A.F. had
never indulged in purely terror raids."5
The last and most illuminating debate on the subject
of terror bombing
took place in the House of Commons on the 6th March, 1945, only
three
weeks after the ghastly mass air raid on Dresden on the 13th
February,
1945.
This debate was initiated by the irrepressible Richard
Stokes who demanded
to be told the truth concerning an authorised report, issued
regarding
this raid by the Associated Press Correspondent from Supreme
Allied
Headquarters in Paris which gloatingly described "this
unprecedented
assault in daylight on the refugee-crowded capital, fleeing from
the
Russian tide in the East," and declared it showed that
"the long-awaited
decision had been taken to adopt deliberate terror-bombing of
German
populated centres as a ruthless expedient to hasten Hitler's
doom."
(Comment by Gerry Fredrics:
This is strange, since Churchill had OPENLY stated as early as
1940 that the war was an English one and that the aim was to
eradicate German industrial might, that it did not matter who
ruled Germany and
that the merciless, barbaric mass murder of the German population
would go ahead `even if
a Jesuit priest were to be German chancellor´.)
Mr. Stokes began by reading this report which he
reminded the House had
been widely published in America and had been broadcast by Paris
Radio. In
Britain on the morning of the 17th February it had been released
by the
Censor but in the evening of that day it had been suppressed from
publication, presumably as a result of the indignant protests
which it had
aroused.
Mr. Stokes insisted on being told, "Is terror
bombing now part of our
policy? Why is it that the people of this country who are
supposed to be
responsible for what is going on, the only people who may not
know what is
being done in their name? On the other hand, if terror bombing be
not part
of our policy, why was this statement put out at all? I think we
shall
live to rue the day we did this, and that it (the air raid on
Dresden)
will stand for all time as a blot on our escutcheon."
Here a private member, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter,
interposed with the
fatuous observation that "all targets are very carefully
planned by the
Bombing Committee. The Committee go into each target which is of
military
importance, necessitating the carrying out of this bombing."
Commander Brabner, Joint Under-Secretary for Air, then
spoke on behalf of
the Government. "May I conclude on a note of denial,"
he observed
apologetically. "The report which has just been read stated
that the
Allied Commanders had adopted a policy of terror bombing. This is
absolutely not so. This has now been denied by Supreme Allied
Headquarters
and I should like to have an opportunity of denying it here. We
are not
wasting our bombers or time on purely terror tactics. Our job is
to
destroy the enemy. It does not do the Hon. Member justice to come
to this
House and try to suggest that there are a lot of Air Marshals or
pilots or
anyone else sitting in a room trying to think of how many German
women and
children they can kill. We are concentrating on war targets, and
we intend
to remain concentrated on them until Germany gives up."
(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
These comments were outright lies. Air Marshall Harris stated
quite bluntly, that the aim of the
bombing had never been industrial tagets (with the sole exception
of the city of Essen*), but
rather the genocidal elimination of the German civilian
population. Instructions to British and
American bombing crews repeated these sentiments. * Air Marshall
Harris assidously forgot to
mention the industrial city of Wuppertal which was bombed in a
horrendous attack on -----
The CIVILIAN sector of the city, ignoring the industrial part
almost entirely!)
Quite unabashed by this expression of official
disapproval, Mr. Stokes
asked two supplementary questions, "If the report issued
with the
authority of Allied Headquarters in Paris was untrue, why when
protest was
made against it was this not stated at once, and why was it said
at first
that it was impossible to suppress a report approved by Allied
Headquarters stating its official policy, although in fact it was
immediately afterwards suppressed?"
Sir Archibald Sinclair, the Secretary for Air, had
pointedly left the
House when Mr. Stokes began to read this report so imprudently
approved by
Supreme Headquarters in Paris. No doubt by this time he knew the
contents
of this compromising production by heart. Realising that
Commander
Brabner's rambling evasions of the questions put to him, instead
of
disposing of them, would be more likely to arouse curiosity as to
the
truth and so lead to further enquiries, he decided to dispose of
the
subject finally himself. "This report," he declared,
"is certainly not
true. The Hon. Member can take that from me. How it was handled,
what
newspapers published it, and whether publication was authorised,
are
matters which the Hon. Member had better discuss with the
Ministry of
Information."6
(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
Ah---------ministry of information. Hm-----was that run by a
Sefton Delmer Wanna-be? I thought
there was `feedom of speech´ on England; if so, why have an
official government organization
managing the information given to the public?)
In passing it may be noted that this denial was in a
sense true. No
decision, long-awaited, had just been reached to adopt deliberate
terror
bombing of German main centres of population. The decision to do
this had
been reached three years before when in March 1942 the Lindemann
Plan was
accepted by the British War Cabinet. Ever since then it had been
ruthlessly carried into effect: the Dresden massacre was merely
the
culmination of this policy.
Referring to the above quoted report issued from
Allied headquarters, the
subject of the above debate, David Irving in his book, The
Destruction of
Dresden, published in 1963, observes complacently, "What
might be termed
the 'mask' of the Allied Bomber commands for one extraordinary
moment
appears to have slipped." It was however only a brief
moment.7 "The debate
on the 6th March, 1945," he writes proudly, "was the
last wartime debate
on Bomber Command's policy: the British Government was able to
preserve
its secret from the day when the first area raid had been
launched on
Mannheim, the 16th December, 1940, right up to the end of the
war."
(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
Mr. Irving´s book is flawed insofar as he minimizes the horrors
inflicted on Dreden, a citadel of European
civilization comparable to Florence as well minimizing the number
of victims. Nevertheless, he did a great
service writing the book in the first place.)
The apparent indifference of the British public to the
adoption of terror
bombing as a method of waging war may be explained by the fact
that the
emphatic denials of the Ministers of the Crown were almost
universally
accepted as true. Officially this problem did not exist, hence
the public
apathy which certainly contrasts strangely with the frenzied
moral
indignation professed in Britain and elsewhere in 1966 when the
Americans
began to bomb communist troop concentrations, oil depots and
ammunition
dumps in Vietnam on the ground that bombs which missed their mark
might
endanger civilian life. The distinction between these cases is
that the
outcry in 1966 was perhaps more an expression of anti-American
feeling
than of a humanitarian regard for human life. In 1945 the death
of German
civilians troubled few people in Britain simply because the
victims were
Germans.
(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
Indeed this is correct. The British population has since around
1890 been so indoctrinated with
German-hatred that it is hardly conceivable to a normal human
being. This anti-German hatred
has in the meantime spread from the jewish controlled newspapers
and government (according
to British authors Hilaire Belloc, Nesta Webster and many others)
to the British public school system,
were children are systematically taught German-hatred via insane
anti-German propaganda of the
most odious nature. German exchange students are warned NOT to
speak German in public, lest
they be physically attacked (this in the year 2006). This
well-organized vileness also explains the
horrid behavior of British football hooligans while visiting the
World Cup games held in Germany).
Be this as it may, the worldwide outcry of 1966
certainly tends to support
the view that Winston Churchill and his colleagues were justified
in
fearing in 1942 that if the terms of the Lindemann Plan were made
known to
the public, an outcry, similar to that which arose in 1966, was
to be
expected.
Long afterwards in 1961 H.M. Stationery Office
described in four volumes
with a wealth of horrifying details the terror bombing offensive
against
Germany carried out from March 1942 to May 1945 in accordance
with the
Lindemann Plan.8
(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
Lindemann was a jew with a graduate degree from Darmstadt
University, anther city incinerated
according to his plan. Darmstadt was purely civilian, a citadel
of modern cuture and
civilization and devoid of military value; the bombing caused
such a fire-storm, that the tar on the
streets melted and caught fire (!) and that the telephone poles
melted and looked like cooked spaghetti.
Thousands of victims were recovered from basements where their
bodies had shrunk due to the
hellish heat to such a degree that they fit into a normal size
suitcase. )
Immediately after hostilities had ceased in 1945,
various aspects of the
Second World War began to be subjected in print to unqualified
condemnation. With regard to terror bombing, the eminent military
critic,
Captain Liddell Hart*, in a little book entitled The Evolution of
Warfare,
published in 1946, declared that victory had been achieved
"through
practising the most uncivilized means of warfare that the world
had known
since the Mongol devastations."9 Adverse criticism was at
first mainly
directed to the adoption of the novel system of 'war-crimes
trials' as a
method of disposing of enemy prisoners of war. Widely reported
with gusto
in the Press these so-called trials were soon in progress all
over Europe
and in the Far East**. With regard to them therefore no question
arises, as
in the cases of genocide and terror bombing, whether an innocent
public
was kept in ignorance of what was happening. It cannot be denied
that this
particular reversion to barbarism was accepted by the public with
astonishingly few misgivings.
(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
* After the publishing of his book `The History of the 2nd. World
War´ , his military career took a sudden
nose dive and went into a tail-spin never to recover. He had been
the top graduate (!) of his class at
Sandhurst Military College, held a Graduate Degree in history
from (I think Oxford) and was considered
to be a future commander of the Royal Armed Forces or possibly a
Prime Minister. The books he wrote
however exonerated Germany (and thereby Hitler, even if only by
implication) and that was the
`kiss of death´ of his career.
**The war crimes trials in the far East were exceedngly limited
(as well as absolutey disgusting) but despite that can in no way
be compared (as Veale does) to the heinous Inquisition of the
Nürnberg Trials, where men were tortured and executed on
manufactured evidence straight out if the devils kitchen - the
propaganda machines of the Soviet Union (head: Ilyia Ehrenburg, a
Jew), England (head: Sefton Delmer, a Jew) and the USA (who
headed their machine has assidously been left unreported, but an
important part of it were Hollywood films and German disgraces
such as Marlene Dietrich - the matress of the American Officers
Corps - and Thomas Mann as well as his entire family of gifted
writers or Ingrid Bergmann who owed everything she was to the
once magnificent German film industry.
Amongst other things used at Nürnberg were
inhumane sleeping accomodations - men were ot allowed to sleep
except in ONE position, with their arms exposed at all times,
with lights on at all times and with guards (mosty black
soldiers) waking them up whenever they so decided. The diet was
intentionally so poor, that the accussed could not think properly
and were unable to form any defense; defense attorneys were
routinely harassed and had their defense motions thrown out. No
cross-examination was permitted and hear-say evidence of people
no one seemed to know was accepted as fact. The most foul
propaganda movies made by the US Army Signal Corps using jewish
movie directors such as Billie Wilder were presented as
`proof´.. The men were eventually not hanged, but strangled
slowly to death - their bodies were hurriedly cremated and the
ashes thrown into the Isar river, their families never even
receiving a notification. No, no, no Mr. Veale is being dishonest
here. This is only the tip of the ice berg; there are
tens-of-thousands of Germans thusly murdered, all real `legal´.
Junior Senator McCarthy was one who discovered many of these
things reporting them enraged to the US Senate, only to be
ignored in 1949. In the 1990´s the Russian government ordered a
re-examination of ALL war-crimes trials of German soldiers held
on Soviet territory after the war. The result --- so far all have
been found to have been illegal murders by the Soviet machinery
and ALL German soldiers thusly tortured to death have been
officially rehabilitated. Predictably the western press has not
reported even one such case!)
Nevertheless there were occasional faint and
disregarded protests. A
booklet written by the present author twenty years ago provides
the core
of this book.
Notes:
1. See Lord Allenby's Rectorial Address to Edinburgh
University on the
28th April, 1936, three weeks before his death.
2. "Sir Hugh Trenchard, Chief of the Air Staff
from 1919 to 1929, had a
decisive influence on the future of the R.A.F." wrote Sir
Charles Webster
and Dr. Noble Frankland, the joint authors of The Strategic Air
Offensive
against Germany (H.M. Stationery Office, London, 1961, Vol. 1, p.
42).
They explain that the essence of his policy was that "future
wars would be
won by producing such moral effect on the enemy civilian
population that
its government would have to sue for peace. The advantage of
destroying
military installations and factories was recognised but he
maintained that
it was easier to overcome the will to resist among the workers
than to
destroy the means to resist" (p. 86).
3. Hansard, 12 March 1943.
4. Hansard, 31 March, 1943.
5. Hansard, 10 February, 1944.
6. Hansard, March 7th, 1945.
7. The Destruction of Dresden by David Irving, London, Kimber, 1963..
8. The Strategic Air Offensive, H.M. Stationery Office, London, 1961.
9. The Evolution of Warfare, by B. H. Liddell Hart,
London, Faber & Faber,
1946, p. 75.
F. J. P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism: The Development
of Total Warfare
From Serajevo to Hiroshima. Mitre Press (London) 1968, pp. 13-23.
Freedom
isn't free! To insure the
continuation of this website and the survival of its creator in
these financially-troubled times, please send donations directly to the Birdman at
PO Box 66683, St Pete Beach FL 33736-6683
"The smallest good deed is worth the grandest intention."
Please
contribute today - buy our books - and spread the word to all
your friends!
Remember: Your donation = our survival!
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *