THE BRITISH MANDATE OVER PALESTINE
As stated above, the 1920 San Remo Conference decided to placePalestine Britain West Bank (Judea and Samaria Jordan Transjordan became illegally exempt from the Mandate
provisions concerning the Jewish National Home, effectively removing about 78%
of the original territory of the area in which a Jewish National home was to be
established in terms of the Balfour Declaration and the San Remo
This action violated not only Article 5 of the Mandate which required the Mandatory to be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power but also article 20 of the Covenant of the League of Nations in which the Members of the League solemnly undertook that they would not enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
Article 6 of the Mandate stated that the Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. Political rights were exclusively granted only to the Jewish people.
Nevertheless in blatant violation of article 6, in a 1939 White Paper Britain changed its position so as to limit Jewish immigration from Europe, a move that was blatant violation by Zionists as betrayal of the terms of the mandate, and the British became complicit in the extermination of the Jews in Europe, especially in light of the increasing persecution of Jews in Europe. This caused the death of millions of Jews trying to escape Nazi extermination. In response, Zionists organized Aliyah Bet, a program of illegal immigration intoPalestine
CONCLUSION
The frequently voiced complaint that the state being offered to the Arab-Palestinians comprises only 22 percent ofPalestine San Remo Britain Transjordan (now known as Jordan San Remo Syria Lebanon Iraq Palestine San Remo
During WWII the British as trustee for the Jewish people in the Mandate for Palestine, violated the International treaty by restricting Jewish immigration and turned back Jewish refugee ships who were escaping from German extermination camps, thereby sending many Jews back to be exterminated. The British went as far as blowing-up Jewish refugee ships destined for Palestine-Israel under "Operation Embarrass".
In essence, whenIsrael West Bank (Judea and Samaria Jerusalem
The Arabs haveJordan Israel Israel
YJ Draiman
As stated above, the 1920 San Remo Conference decided to place
This action violated not only Article 5 of the Mandate which required the Mandatory to be responsible for seeing that no Palestine territory shall be ceded or leased to, or in any way placed under the control of the Government of any foreign Power but also article 20 of the Covenant of the League of Nations in which the Members of the League solemnly undertook that they would not enter into any engagements inconsistent with the terms thereof.
Article 6 of the Mandate stated that the Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes. Political rights were exclusively granted only to the Jewish people.
Nevertheless in blatant violation of article 6, in a 1939 White Paper Britain changed its position so as to limit Jewish immigration from Europe, a move that was blatant violation by Zionists as betrayal of the terms of the mandate, and the British became complicit in the extermination of the Jews in Europe, especially in light of the increasing persecution of Jews in Europe. This caused the death of millions of Jews trying to escape Nazi extermination. In response, Zionists organized Aliyah Bet, a program of illegal immigration into
CONCLUSION
The frequently voiced complaint that the state being offered to the Arab-Palestinians comprises only 22 percent of
During WWII the British as trustee for the Jewish people in the Mandate for Palestine, violated the International treaty by restricting Jewish immigration and turned back Jewish refugee ships who were escaping from German extermination camps, thereby sending many Jews back to be exterminated. The British went as far as blowing-up Jewish refugee ships destined for Palestine-Israel under "Operation Embarrass".
In essence, when
The Arabs have
YJ Draiman
Jewish exclusive political rights to Palestine-Israel under International Law was recognized by the Principal WWI Allies at San Remo in 1920, adopting the British Balfour Policy of 1917. It was confirmed by the League of Nations in 1922 and also in 1922 by the US Congress Joint Resolution and in 1924 by treaty by the US that had declined to become a member of the League. On the demise of the League of Nations, the political rights were preserved in the UN Charter in Article 80. The Partition approved by the UN General Assembly was only a recommendation that the Jews agree to give up a part of their rights to avoid a war with the Arabs. The Jews agreed but the Arabs declined and went to war anyway. In 1920 the recognition of Jewish political or national rights to Palestine was done in such a way as to avoid immediate sovereignty by the Jews because they were then a minority and to do otherwise was considered anti-democratic. They were placed in trust with England as the trustee giving England legal dominion over the political rights. In September 19th, 1917 in a memo of the British Foreign Service, Arnold Toynbee and Lewis Namier had written that by placing the rights in trust, they would not vest until the Jews had attained a majority of population and were just as qualified to exercise sovereignty as any modern European nation-state. By 1950, after the British had abandoned their trust, the Jews acquired a majority population within the green line (armistice line). The UN vote on partition showed that it agreed the Jews were capable of exercising sovereignty. One can use other standards to determine who shall rule in Palestine. But International Law can only be made by treaty and long custom. It cannot be made by bodies having “International” in their title such as the UN in its recommendations or the International Court of Justice in advisory opinions. UN recommendations such as the 1947 Partition are only of legal force and effect if adopted by both sides of the issue by a treaty or the like. Under International Law, the Jews have exclusive political rights to all of Palestine west of the Jordan River and the Arabs have no basis for claiming sovereignty under International law as the Arabs local to Palestine have never exercised such rights. There has never been an Arab capital in Palestine.
ReplyDeleteAs to other bases — the Jews lived in Palestine for over 3,700 years and their presence there has been continuous although varying in number after the Romans drove many of them out, but not all. And under canon law, the Jews have sovereignty over Palestine. Even some Arabs have admitted that the Qur’an provides that. Under international law prior to the Westphalia new order, sovereignty was attained by declaring independence and holding the ground against all comers with your own blood and treasure. Under that standard also, the Jews are entitled to sovereignty. The rights of non-Jews in private property were preserved in the Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and Article 95 of the Treaty of Sevres in which the Ottomans ceded Palestine to the Mandatory Power. It insured their civil and their religious rights would be preserved. It did not preserve political rights because there were none to preserve. The local Arabs had never exercise sovereignty in Palestine.
Furthermore, the “Jewish National Home” mentioned in the Mandate reflected its status as the Jewish peoples beneficial interest in the political or national rights to Palestine, because it was not intended to become a nation-state until later.
For almost 400 years, until 1929, Jews lived on a large plot of land in Hebron, commonly known as the Jewish Quarter. In August of that year, however, Arab residents massacred their Jewish neighbors, cruelly murdering 67 Jews in their homes. The survivors were hurriedly evacuated from the area, thus putting an end to the Jewish presence in the holy city for nearly four decades. The Jewish property, including houses and synagogues, was abandoned and left uninhabited.
ReplyDeleteIn 1953, Jordanian troops assisted Hebron's Arab population in devastating the remains of the Jewish Quarter. The beautiful Avraham Avinu Synagogue was razed and turned into a goat sty, and apartment buildings were destroyed. Virtually nothing remained of the Quarter's earlier splendor, and the Jordanians built an outdoor food market on part of the land. The market continued to operate even after the Jews returned with the IDF's liberation of the city during the Six Day War in 1967.
Just over 2 decades ago, when Arab-initiated violence in Hebron was at one of its highs, the army decided to clear out the Arab store-owners in the marketplace. "The sole purpose for the closing," Wilder wrote at the time, "was to provide security for the Jews in Hebron, [which had been] jeopardized by the hundreds of Arabs who frequented the market every day." Then-IDF Chief of Staff Maj-Gen. Ehud Barak supported the decision.
Several years later, after 10-month-old Shalhevet Pass was shot to death by terrorists with a bullet to her head, Jews decided to renew their title to the land. They began renovating the stores, turning them into inhabitable apartments, and moving families in. Eleven families currently live there.
However, Arabs sued in Israel's Supreme Court against what they called the "infiltration" of the Jews to the stores in the Hebron market, and in fact, in 2003, the State committed itself to evict the Jews.
Hebron spokesman Noam Arnon said at the time, "The Supreme Court recently decided that the land should be given to the Arabs, even though it is clearly Jewish land that was robbed from us... The Court simply ignored the fact that this is Jewish land."
Jerusalem is a religious city primarily to Jews, but also to other religions. Some Israelis and outsiders have a habit of sticking it in your face and intentionally demonstrate their position and behavior to instigate and cause dissension and violence. When the Nazi party in the U.S. proposed and received a permit to demonstrate in Skokie, Illinois. It was done to instigate the Jewish Holocaust survivors and intimidate them with the memory of Nazi attrocities. This is not free speech or expression, this is an inducement to promote and commit a reaction of the masses that brings about physical clashes. I was present at that demonstration and cooler heads prevailed and violence was averted. There is a line drawn as to how far you can push the freedom of speech and expression. When an Arab member of the Israeli Parliament or a leftist Israeli speaks and commits treason and supports the enemies of the state in any fashion, the punishment must be meted out immediately. This is not free speech and expression. Whether people choose to recognize it or not, Israel is a Jewish State and as such it should live up-to Jewish values. The people in Israel must learn to respect each other and not intentionally offend each other. In the past week there were numerous incidents where some individuals used the terminology about Muslim leader and the word Pig, they were arrested and charged for that incident. Where is free speech and expression? There is a limit to how far the freedom of speech and expression goes. When a person yells fire, when there is no fire in a crowded theatre that can cause a terrified crowded theatre to trample on each other, while running out, it is a crime.
ReplyDeleteIn 1921, Churchill reiterated the British government’s position on the Balfour Declaration. One of the main reasons that it was issued is because the assistance of Jews from various parts of the world was needed to induce the nation states in which they lived to enter the war on Great Britain’s side.21 A similar agenda motivated Churchill during the late 1930s: he believed continuing British support for a Jewish home in Palestine would motivate American Jewry to help bring the United States to Britain’s side in the expected war with Germany. Here is a quote from a December 1939 Churchill memorandum:
ReplyDelete“…it was not for light or sentimental reasons that Lord Balfour and the Government of 1917 made the promises to the Zionists which have been the cause of so much subsequent discussion. The influence of American Jewry was rated then as a factor of the highest importance, and we did not feel ourselves in such a strong position as to be able to treat it with indifference. Now, in the advent of [an American] Presidential election, and when the future is full of measureless uncertainties, I should have thought it was more necessary, even than in November, 1917, to conciliate American Jewry and enlist their aid in combating isolationist and indeed anti-British tendencies in the United States.”22
In order that there is no misunderstanding, we will quote Professor Cohen:
“[Churchill] believed that the Zionist movement commanded powerful political and economic influence, particularly in the United States. As late as in December, 1939, he lectured his cabinet colleagues on the important role Zionists could play in mobilizing American resources to the British war effort. He told them that it had not been for light or sentimental reasons that the Government had issued the Balfour Declaration in 1917, but in order to mobilize American support. In 1939, Churchill believed that history would repeat itself, that the Zionists, via their proxies across the Atlantic, could be influential in accelerating the vitally needed early entry of the Americans into the war.”23
Churchill’s beliefs regarding “international Jews” had validity: certain groups of Jews from one continent did engage in political actions that served the interests of Jews on other continents. As historian of the American film industry Neal Gabler pointed out in his An Empire of Their Own: How the Jews Invented Hollywood, Jewish screen writers and movie executives in Hollywood USA were concerned about the plight of their Jewish brethren across the ocean in Europe.24 These important Hollywood figures held a meeting in early 1936 during which they discussed what was to be done to combat Hitler’s Germany. Film producer David Selznick wanted to fight against Hitler “in the usual Jewish way of being on the fringes and not letting yourself appear as involved in it.” He further suggested: “Don’t get too public. Do it quietly. Behind the scenes.” Apparently, other screen industry figures present wanted to conduct a more open and straightforward campaign.25
In autumn 1936, the more conservative Jewish film industry figures began launching “tentative attacks upon the Hitler regime.”26 Film producer and studio executive Louis B. Mayer warned that war in Europe was looming, and he urged the United States to join forces with Britain. Before the US declared war following the Pearl Harbor attack in December 1941, certain Hollywood Jews were willing to use their influence to incite a pro-war sentiment in the United States. In a 20 May 1940 memo to President Roosevelt from studio executive Harry Warner, the latter stated: “[P]ersonally we would like to do all in our power within the motion picture industry and by use of the talking screen to show the American people the worthiness of the cause for which the free peoples of Europe are making such tremendous sacrifices.” A few months later motion picture mogul Nick Schenck offered to place his entire studio in the service of President Roosevelt’s campaign for war with Germany.27
ReplyDeleteHere we have another example showing the reality of International Jewry, as Churchill would have conceived of it. Viewing the fight against Hitler’s Germany as in the interests of Jews everywhere, Hollywood executives put their powerful instruments of mass persuasion in the USA in the service of Churchill’s across-the-Atlantic campaign for war with Germany.28 As Professor Cohen so rightly noted: “Until the American entry [into the Second World War], Jewish influence was naturally at its highest premium, as a solid force countering neutralist forces in the United States [groups that opposed US involvement in a war with Germany].”29
In March 1922, on Churchill’s instructions, the Middle East Department issued a defense of the Balfour Declaration. They wanted the Jewish National Home in Palestine to “become a center in which Jewish people as a whole may take, on grounds of religion and race, an interest and a pride [emphasis added].”30 Churchill discussed the Zionist desire to build a Jewish state in Palestine aka The Land of Israel in his 3rd September 1937 Jewish Chronicle article: this political entity would serve as a “rallying point for Jews in every part of the world.”31
ReplyDeleteThe reader should take special note of the beliefs that Churchill and his British government acted upon. At the time of the Balfour Declaration in 1917, the English promise to support a Jewish national home in Palestine would be used to enlist the aid of Jews from Russia and the United States to encourage their respective countries to keep fighting the First World War. In addition, an international Zionist diplomat would travel to these two nations to arouse pro-war feelings. Similar beliefs motivated Churchill in the 1930s prior to the Second World War. Supposedly, Jewish proxies across the Atlantic would help bring the US onto the British side in a war with Germany.
But just as importantly, the Jewish National Home would be of interest to Jews on the basis of race and religion, an entity that would galvanize Jewish support from all parts of the globe.32 Significantly enough, this is very similar to the viewpoint of German National Socialist Foreign Minister Constantine von Neurath, who said that a Jewish state in Palestine aka The Land of Israel would provide an internationally recognized power base for Jews world-wide, like the Vatican for Catholics or Moscow for international communists.33
Directly refuting Jeffrey Herf and those who think like him, by enacting policies such as these, Winston Churchill and the British government clearly realized that many powerful and influential groups of Jews throughout the world in fact saw themselves as “a cohesive, politically active subject—that is, a group united on a global scale by racial bonds.” In other words, the entity “International Jewry” does in fact exist, although not all Jews should be considered a part of it.34There are Jews from all parts of the world who feel little or no attachment whatsoever to any world-wide Jewish community. Nevertheless, this belief that Jews are an internationally organized, racial entity has survived the Second World War and is still held by many Jewish groups world-wide, influencing Zionist and Israeli thinking to this very day. One example should suffice to demonstrate my point.
A convinced believer in the traditional view of the Holocaust, Dr. Herf claims: “The radical anti-Semitism that accompanied and justified the Holocaust described Jews first and foremost as a racially constituted political subject.”35 Well lo and behold! Something strikingly like this “radical anti-Semitic idea” has led to Israel’s interest in scientific studies that delineate genetic/racial differences between Jews and non-Jews.
In an article that appeared in Natural History of November 1993, renowned Jewish scientist Jared Diamond discussed the genetic studies on how Jews differ from non-Jews. He made this astounding statement: “There are also practical reasons for interest in Jewish genes. The state of Israel has been going to much expense to support immigration and job retraining of Jews who were persecuted minorities in other countries. That immediately poses the problem of defining who is a Jew.”36 According to Diamond, Israeli policy asserts that Jews are a racially constituted political subject: they differ from non-Jews on a genetic/racial basis, and these biological differences may be used to determine who will be granted citizenship in the political entity of Israel.
ReplyDeleteThe reader may scratch his head in wonder, asking: “So why do intellectuals like Jeffrey Herf deny the reality of International Jewry?” In the Twentieth Century, the Jewish community has emerged as one of the most powerful elements in the United States andEurope.37 If they become widely viewed as an international, racially constituted political entity that is separate and distinct from the surrounding culture, this could create suspicion and distrust in the minds of the non-Jewish peoples they reside among. Non-Jews might start saying: “Since certain segments of the Jews are separate and distinct from us and they form a hostile and alien elite, perhaps they should not wield the power over our society that they have.” If such ideas ever attained widespread legitimacy, it might spawn political and social movements that could bring about a marked reduction in Jewish power and influence. Jeffrey Herf’s denial of the existence of International Jewry may be based in a desire to maintain the Jewish community’s elite status in the Western world.
Churchill and Holocaust Revisionism
ReplyDeleteIn June of 1941, British code-breakers at Bletchley Park were intercepting and reading the most secret communications of the German enemy. Gilbert claims that decoded top-secret messages about the alleged mass murder of Jews and non-Jews in the German-occupied Soviet Union were shown to Churchill. In response, the Prime Minister emphatically stated in his radio broadcast of 24 August 1941, that “whole districts are being exterminated,” and concluded with this judgment: “We are in the presence of a crime without a name.”38
On August 27, and September 1, 6, and 11, 1941, Churchill was shown German police decrypts reporting on the execution of thousands of Jews on Soviet territory.39 This information is consistent with the Holocaust revisionist position. As far back as the mid-1970s, Revisionist scholar Arthur Butz made the point that this is the one part of the Holocaust legend that contains a kernel of truth. During the war between Germany and the Soviet Union, thousands of Jews and non-Jews were shot by German police units and auxiliaries of local police in their attempt to stop the guerilla warfare being waged against them.40 Brutality was practiced by both the Soviets and the Germans.
On 27 August 1941, the Bletchley Park code-breakers informed Churchill: “The fact that the [German] Police [in the Soviet Union] are killing all Jews that fall into their hands should by now be sufficiently well appreciated. It is not therefore proposed to continue reporting these butcheries specifically, unless so requested.”41
Gilbert admits there is nothing in Bletchley Park decrypts about the alleged mass shooting of 33,000 Jews at Babi Yar near Kiev in September 1941. Therefore, should one conclude that this atrocity never took place? Not according to Gilbert: he says that German police units in Russia were cautioned by Berlin “not to compromise their ciphers.”42 Gilbert encourages his readers to conclude that this alleged mass killing took place, although supposedly a top-secret message about it was never sent out.
Gilbert believes that Churchill received sufficient details from other sources about the mass killing of Jews in the Soviet Union, and in response, sent the Jewish Chronicle a personal message, which was published in full on 14 November 1941. It read in part: “None has suffered more cruelly than the Jew,” and he referred to “the unspeakable evils wrought on the bodies and spirits of men by Hitler and his vile regime.”43
In London on 29 October 1942, Christian and Jewish leaders led a public protest against the alleged mass murders of Jews that were supposedly taking place in the German concentration camps. Churchill, who was in the United States at the time, addressed the gathering by way of a letter that was read by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It stated in part:
“I cannot refrain …to protest against the Nazi atrocities inflicted on the Jews…The systematic cruelties to which the Jewish people—men, women, and children—have been exposed under the Nazi regime are amongst the most terrible events of history, and place an indelible stain upon all who perpetuate and instigate them. Free men and women denounce these vile crimes...”44
In December 1942, Churchill was shown a report from a Polish Catholic member of the Resistance, Jan Karski. He claimed to have seen Jews being forced with great brutality into cattle cars, and then taken to an unknown “extermination location.”45 In response, Anthony Eden of the War Cabinet wanted to issue a public declaration. “It was known,” he asserted, “that Jews were being transferred to Poland from enemy-occupied countries, for example, Norway: and it might be that these transfers were being made with a view to wholesale extermination of Jews.”46 (Notice that Eden said the exterminations “might be” happening, and not that they were in fact happening. This suggests that he was skeptical of the “evidence” regarding the alleged mass exterminations of Jews. More on Eden in a moment.)
The Allied Declaration, supported by Great Britain, the United States, the Soviet Union, and other members of the Allied cause, was published on 17 December 1942, and it had considerable political impact, just as Churchill wished. Its central paragraph condemned “in the strongest possible terms” what was described as “this bestial policy of cold-blooded extermination.”47
ReplyDeleteOn 19 December 1942, Polish-Jewish official Samuel Zygielbojm appealed to Churchill to save the one and a quarter million Polish Jews who were still alive and were in danger of “being exterminated” by the Germans. As Cohen points out, there is no record of any reply from Churchill, and no Allied operation was initiated to halt the alleged slaughter.48
In June 1944, Churchill viewed a Jewish Agency report on the workings of the alleged “Nazi gas chambers” in the concentration camps. He sent a memorandum to Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden, asking: “Foreign Secretary, what can be done? What can be said?” The evidence indicates that Churchill wanted to issue another Allied threat of retribution, but the Foreign Office said that too many such pronouncements had already been made.49
On 6 July 1944, Foreign Secretary Eden informed Churchill of an appeal he received from Zionist diplomat Chaim Weitzman, that the British government should take steps to mitigate the “appalling slaughter of Jews in Hungary.”50 We let Professor Cohen pick up the story here:
“Now Weitzman reported mistakenly that 60,000 Jews were being gassed and burned to death each day at Birkenau (the death camp at Auschwitz II). Eden told Churchill that this figure might well be an exaggeration. But on the next day, Eden forwarded an additional report to Churchill, describing the four crematoria at the camp, with a gassing and burning capacity of 60,000 each day. Some 40,000 Hungarian Jews had already been deported and killed there. Over the past one year and a half, some one-and-a-half million Jews had been done to death in the camp.”51
Cohen, a firm believer in the traditional version of the Holocaust, still highlighted the exaggerations in the story. Buried in a footnote he writes; “It seems that the Zionist figure of 60,000 per day, should in fact have been 6,000.”52 As of the date of this writing, even anti-Revisionist Holocaust historians would point out that the figure of 1,500,000 Jews being murdered at Auschwitz-Birkenau is another exaggeration of around 540,000 deaths! Robert Jan van Pelt, widely considered to be a contemporary expert on the alleged mass murder of Jews at this concentration camp, wrote in 2002 that total number of Jewish deaths at the site was 960,000.53The important lesson here is this: we have evidence from a respected academic source that, during the war, Churchill was being handed exaggerated atrocity information, to say the very least.
On 7 July 1944, Churchill approved the bombing of Auschwitzby the British Air Force, but the operation was never carried out.54 Four days later, on 11 July, Churchill issued his oft-quoted declaration on the Holocaust: “There is no doubt that this is probably the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilized men in the name of a great State and one of the leading races of Europe.”55
ReplyDeleteAt the end of August 1944, Churchill’s son showed his father a copy of the full report of four escapees from the Auschwitz “extermination camp,” an official document that had been published a month and a half earlier by the War Refugee Board in Washington. Before this, Churchill had only seen a summary version. Gilbert comments: “Not for the first time, Randolph had alerted his father to an aspect of the Jewish fate that had not reached the Prime Minister through official channels.”56
Gilbert points out that in the latter part of 1944, Berlin issued a statement denouncing at least some of the reports about the deportations to Auschwitz, claiming they were “false from beginning to end.”57 Gilbert is unclear on exactly what the Germans were claiming to be false.
Despite all of the authoritative declarations Churchill made or supported during the war with regard to the “reality” of the Nazi extermination of the Jews, when the war ended he made an astonishing statement that casts doubt on the sincerity of all of these wartime pronouncements. In a speech before the House of Commons on 1 August 1946, he emphatically declared that he knew nothing of the alleged Nazi mass murder of Jews while the Second World War was taking place. We quote him verbatim: “I must say that I had no idea, when the war came to an end, of the horrible massacres which had occurred; the millions and millions that have been slaughtered. That dawned on us gradually after the struggle was over.”58
As far back as 1985, Professor Cohen stated the dilemma in these terms. He says it is debatable how familiar the Prime Minister was with the Intelligence information regarding the alleged Nazi extermination camps, but by “July, 1944 at the very latest, Churchill was supplied by the Zionists with very precise details of the murderous capacity of Auschwitz.”59 In light of this, Cohen asks, how should we interpret Churchill’s August 1946 denial of knowledge of the mass murder of Europe’s Jews during the war?60
The reader should take careful note of the implications of Churchill’s words. If Sir Winston was not aware during the war of the alleged mass killings of Jews, and if he and his associates realized only after the war ended that these supposed mass murders took place, then all of his “authoritative” declarations we listed above about the mass murder of Jews taking place during the war were just unconfirmed and baseless allegations in his estimation.
Bizarre inconsistencies like this are exactly what the Holocaust Revisionist hypothesis would predict, and this is why even the most anti-Revisionist reader should consider Churchill’s statements from a Revisionist perspective. Revisionism states that many of the wartime claims of the Allies and Zionists in regard to the alleged extermination of the Jews were simply false propaganda, designed to serve ulterior Allied and Zionist political agendas.
Churchill was well aware that representations of the Jewish fate at the hands of the Germans were linked to plans for a Zionist state in Palestine aka The Land of Israel. Indeed, Gilbert points out: “In Churchill’s mind, the Jewish fate in Europe and the Jewish future in Palestine were inextricably linked.”61 In his seminal Revisionist work The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Arthur Butz made a somewhat parallel point: “”The Zionist character of the [Nazi extermination] propaganda is quite clear; note that, as a rule, the persons who were pressing for measures to remove Jews from Europe (under the circumstances a routine and understandable proposal) coupled such proposals with demands that such Jews be resettled in Palestine, which shows that there was much more in the minds of Zionist propagandists than mere assistance to refugees and victims of persecution.”62
ReplyDeleteThroughout his entire book, Gilbert discusses how the unrelenting Churchill, being wedded to Zionist policy, was up against the resistance of many factions within his own government and from around the world who were opposed to establishing a Jewish state in Palestine aka The Land of Israel. They realized it would end in disaster for the indigenous people of the Middle East and for British interests in general.63 In a situation such as this, one can readily see how “Nazi extermination” propaganda would be useful to Churchill—it would silence opposition to Zionist aims and create mass sympathy for the future Jewish state.64 There is evidence that is consistent with this interpretation. In December 1942, Colonial Secretary Oliver Stanley put the request to the Prime Minister that 4500 Bulgarian Jewish children, with 500 accompanying adults, be allowed to exit Bulgaria for Palestine, adding that British pubic opinion had been “much roused by the recent reports of the systematic extermination of the Jews in Axis and Axis-controlled countries.” Churchill replied: “Bravo!”65
Professor Cohen notes the strange inconsistency between Winston Churchill’s public statements about the Holocaust and his lack of action to do anything to stop it: “But against the frequent expression of his horror at Nazi crimes, one must record the almost total absence of any meaningful gesture or action by him to save Hitler’s Jewish victims—either when in Opposition, or in the position of supreme power, which was his from 1940 to 1945.”66
I ask the most hard-core believer in the traditional Holocaust story to ponder this dilemma. During the war, Churchill was making authoritative pronouncements about the “etched-in-stone” fact of the Nazi extermination of the Jews—and after the war, he tells British parliament that he had no idea such “exterminations” took place during the war, and only realized their “reality” after the war was ended! To say the least, Churchill’s statements are consistent with the point that Professor Butz made decades ago: the first claims about the “Nazi extermination of the Jews” made during the war were not based on one scrap of credible intelligence data.67
Butz’s revisionist hypothesis is further supported by the fact that even academic “Holocaust experts” will have to admit that, during the war, Churchill was handed exaggerated data in regard to the number of Jewish deaths, as we have shown in this essay. Finally, Churchill’s public outcries regarding the alleged Nazi extermination of the Jews were declarations that, “coincidentally,” served British and Zionist military and political agendas.
We will end here with a short note regarding Churchill’s 1 August 1946 statement that the “reality” of the Holocaust “dawned on us gradually after the struggle was over.”68 Gilbert points out that Churchill used what was found at some German concentration camps at the war’s end as “proof” of the “Holocaust.”69 A thorough discussion of this is beyond the scope of this short essay, so I refer the reader to the Revisionist studies of the topic.70
ReplyDeleteWe will end here with a short note regarding Churchill’s 1 August 1946 statement that the “reality” of the Holocaust “dawned on us gradually after the struggle was over.”68 Gilbert points out that Churchill used what was found at some German concentration camps at the war’s end as “proof” of the “Holocaust.”69 A thorough discussion of this is beyond the scope of this short essay, so I refer the reader to the Revisionist studies of the topic.70
ReplyDeleteChurchill was well aware that representations of the Jewish fate at the hands of the Germans were linked to plans for a Zionist state in Palestine aka The Land of Israel. Indeed, Gilbert points out: “In Churchill’s mind, the Jewish fate in Europe and the Jewish future in Palestine were inextricably linked.”61 In his seminal Revisionist work The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, Arthur Butz made a somewhat parallel point: “”The Zionist character of the [Nazi extermination] propaganda is quite clear; note that, as a rule, the persons who were pressing for measures to remove Jews from Europe (under the circumstances a routine and understandable proposal) coupled such proposals with demands that such Jews be resettled in Palestine, which shows that there was much more in the minds of Zionist propagandists than mere assistance to refugees and victims of persecution.”62
ReplyDeleteThroughout his entire book, Gilbert discusses how the unrelenting Churchill, being wedded to Zionist policy, was up against the resistance of many factions within his own government and from around the world who were opposed to establishing a Jewish state in Palestine aka The Land of Israel. They realized it would end in disaster for the indigenous people of the Middle East and for British interests in general.63 In a situation such as this, one can readily see how “Nazi extermination” propaganda would be useful to Churchill—it would silence opposition to Zionist aims and create mass sympathy for the future Jewish state.64 There is evidence that is consistent with this interpretation. In December 1942, Colonial Secretary Oliver Stanley put the request to the Prime Minister that 4500 Bulgarian Jewish children, with 500 accompanying adults, be allowed to exit Bulgaria for Palestine, adding that British pubic opinion had been “much roused by the recent reports of the systematic extermination of the Jews in Axis and Axis-controlled countries.” Churchill replied: “Bravo!”65
Professor Cohen notes the strange inconsistency between Winston Churchill’s public statements about the Holocaust and his lack of action to do anything to stop it: “But against the frequent expression of his horror at Nazi crimes, one must record the almost total absence of any meaningful gesture or action by him to save Hitler’s Jewish victims—either when in Opposition, or in the position of supreme power, which was his from 1940 to 1945.”66
I ask the most hard-core believer in the traditional Holocaust story to ponder this dilemma. During the war, Churchill was making authoritative pronouncements about the “etched-in-stone” fact of the Nazi extermination of the Jews—and after the war, he tells British parliament that he had no idea such “exterminations” took place during the war, and only realized their “reality” after the war was ended! To say the least, Churchill’s statements are consistent with the point that Professor Butz made decades ago: the first claims about the “Nazi extermination of the Jews” made during the war were not based on one scrap of credible intelligence data.67
Butz’s revisionist hypothesis is further supported by the fact that even academic “Holocaust experts” will have to admit that, during the war, Churchill was handed exaggerated data in regard to the number of Jewish deaths, as we have shown in this essay. Finally, Churchill’s public outcries regarding the alleged Nazi extermination of the Jews were declarations that, “coincidentally,” served British and Zionist military and political agendas.
On 7 July 1944, Churchill approved the bombing of Auschwitzby the British Air Force, but the operation was never carried out.54 Four days later, on 11 July, Churchill issued his oft-quoted declaration on the Holocaust: “There is no doubt that this is probably the greatest and most horrible crime ever committed in the whole history of the world, and it has been done by scientific machinery by nominally civilized men in the name of a great State and one of the leading races of Europe.”55
ReplyDeleteAt the end of August 1944, Churchill’s son showed his father a copy of the full report of four escapees from the Auschwitz “extermination camp,” an official document that had been published a month and a half earlier by the War Refugee Board in Washington. Before this, Churchill had only seen a summary version. Gilbert comments: “Not for the first time, Randolph had alerted his father to an aspect of the Jewish fate that had not reached the Prime Minister through official channels.”56
Gilbert points out that in the latter part of 1944, Berlin issued a statement denouncing at least some of the reports about the deportations to Auschwitz, claiming they were “false from beginning to end.”57 Gilbert is unclear on exactly what the Germans were claiming to be false.
Despite all of the authoritative declarations Churchill made or supported during the war with regard to the “reality” of the Nazi extermination of the Jews, when the war ended he made an astonishing statement that casts doubt on the sincerity of all of these wartime pronouncements. In a speech before the House of Commons on 1 August 1946, he emphatically declared that he knew nothing of the alleged Nazi mass murder of Jews while the Second World War was taking place. We quote him verbatim: “I must say that I had no idea, when the war came to an end, of the horrible massacres which had occurred; the millions and millions that have been slaughtered. That dawned on us gradually after the struggle was over.”58
As far back as 1985, Professor Cohen stated the dilemma in these terms. He says it is debatable how familiar the Prime Minister was with the Intelligence information regarding the alleged Nazi extermination camps, but by “July, 1944 at the very latest, Churchill was supplied by the Zionists with very precise details of the murderous capacity of Auschwitz.”59 In light of this, Cohen asks, how should we interpret Churchill’s August 1946 denial of knowledge of the mass murder of Europe’s Jews during the war?60
The reader should take careful note of the implications of Churchill’s words. If Sir Winston was not aware during the war of the alleged mass killings of Jews, and if he and his associates realized only after the war ended that these supposed mass murders took place, then all of his “authoritative” declarations we listed above about the mass murder of Jews taking place during the war were just unconfirmed and baseless allegations in his estimation.
Bizarre inconsistencies like this are exactly what the Holocaust Revisionist hypothesis would predict, and this is why even the most anti-Revisionist reader should consider Churchill’s statements from a Revisionist perspective. Revisionism states that many of the wartime claims of the Allies and Zionists in regard to the alleged extermination of the Jews were simply false propaganda, designed to serve ulterior Allied and Zionist political agendas.