England, Churchill added, needed to fight “against the foul baboonery of Bolshevism.” Moreover, those who supported Bolshevism were “typhus-bearing vermin.”[36]

But Churchill ended forging a dubious alliance with the very diabolical force which sought to bring down Western civilization. So, was Churchill a “typhus-bearing vermin” for making an alliance with the greatest mass murderer (Stalin) in the history of warfare?

As Christ declared, one way to test whether a tree is good or bad is by looking at its fruit. You simply cannot say that an orange tree is good if it keeps producing rotten oranges.

What, then, was the fruit of the fraudulent alliance with Stalin? Was it really good? Or did it bring misery to the Germans who, according to Churchill himself, were less culpable than the Bolsheviks? The answer is yes.

Churchill, then, proved that you cannot be a flaming Zionist without living in the state of confusion and contradiction. He was like a squirrel that cannot decide to go right or left. Historian Ralph Raico himself points out that “Churchill never had a principle he did not in the end betray”[37] and was known as an “opportunist.”[38] Raico continues,

“He had twice changed his party affiliation—from Conservative to Liberal, and then back again…

“As head of the Board of Trade before World War I, he opposed increased armaments; after he became First Lord of the Admiralty in 1911, he pushed for bigger and bigger budgets, spreading wild rumors of the growing strength of the German navy, just as he did in the 1930s about the buildup of the German Air Force.

“He attacked socialism before and after World War I, while during the War he promoted war socialism, calling for nationalization of the railroads, and declaring in a speech: ‘Our whole nation must be organized, must be socialized if you like the word…





“He was an early and fervent opponent of Bolshevism. For years, he—very correctly—decried the ‘bloody baboons’ and ‘foul murderers of Moscow.’

“In an Italy teetering on the brink of Leninist revolution, II Duce had discovered the one formula that could counteract the Leninist appeal: hypernationalism with a social slant.

“Churchill lauded ‘Fascimo’s triumphant struggle against the bestial appetites and passions of Leninism,’ claiming that ‘it proved the necessary antidote to the Communist poision.’

“Yet the time came when Churchill made his peace with Communism. In 1941, he gave unconditional support to Stalin, welcomed him as an ally, embraced him as a friend…He repeatedly announced, of Stalin: ‘I like that man.’

“Obsessed not only with defeating Hitler, but with destroying Germany, Churchill was oblivious to the danger of a Soviet inundation of Europe until it was far too late.

“The symbolic climax of his infatuation came at the November, 1943, Teheran conference, when Churchill presented Stalin with a Crusader’s sword.”[39]

Yet as he began to see that the destruction of Dresden was a lot worse than he could ever have imagined, the same Churchill began to distance himself from his own ideological/Zionist notion. He wrote,

“It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed.

“The destruction of Dresden remains a serious query against the conduct of Allied bombing. . . . I feel the need for more precise concentration upon military objectives . . . rather than on mere acts of terror and wanton destruction.”[40]

In nutshell, Churchill was politically a Zionist puppet who ended up prostrating before the Dreadful Few. In return, they reciprocally gave him virtually political and lucrative leverage.

“Churchill had been a strong Zionist practically from the start, holding that Zionism would deflect European Jews from social revolution to partnership with European imperialism in the Arab world.

“Now, in 1936, he forged links with the informal London pressure group known as The Focus, whose purpose was to open the eyes of the British public to the one great meanace, Nazi Germany.

“‘The great bulk of its finance came from Jewish businessmen such as Sir Robert Mond (a director of several chemical firms) and Sir Robert Waley-Cohn, the managing director of Shell, the latter contributing 50,000 [pounds].”[41]

Churchill, Raico writes,

“exaggerated the extent of German rearmament, formidable as it was, and distorted its purpose by harping on German production of heavy bombers.

“This was never a German priority, and Churchill’s fabrications were meant to demonstrate a German design to attack Britain, which was never Hitler’s intention until after the war began.”[42]


 In America, Roosevelt was working night and day to convince the American people that a war against Germany was in the interest of the United States. He declared privately,

“I would like to see the Germans on the breadline for fifty years.”[43]

When the Japanese finally attacked the U.S. in 1941—and Roosevelt and top military and policy advisors knew that the attack would happen[44]—Roosevelt’s dream actually came true: America must get involved in World War II.

Robert S. Stinnett, who went to World War II as a naval photographer and who later found out that Roosevelt had deceived the American people, declared that

“The decision he [Roosevelt] made, in concert with his advisors, was to provoke Japan through a series of actions into an overt act: the Pearl Harbor attack.”[45]

When the dust finally was settled, the holy trinity—Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt—was covertly planning to destroy Germany and reduce the whole country to ashes. But Stalin had to pretend that he was only fighting against war criminals:

“Lest anyone doubt Stalin’s intentions once his legions gained control in Germany, the reality was made crystal clear at the Teheran Conference in 1943.

“Lifting his glass of vodka for the ‘umpteenth toast,” the communist leader suddenly announced, ‘I propose a salute to the swiftest possible justice for all of Germany’s war criminals—justice before a firing squad.

“‘I drink to our unity in dispatching them as fast as we capture them, all of them, and there must be at least 50,000 of them.’

“When Churchill, well into his cups, angrily protested—‘The British people will never stand for such mass murder. . . . without a proper trial!’—Stalin smiled, his eyes twinkled and overall he seemed ‘hugely tickled.’

“‘Perhaps,’ the American president interrupted, ‘we could say that instead of summarily executing 50,000 we should settle on a smaller number. Shall we say 49,500?’”[46]

Why must there be at least 50,000 of them? Wasn’t Stalin presupposing that those prisoners of war were all guilty?

But the sad part was that both Roosevelt and Churchill later called Stalin “Uncle Joe”[47] and then added,

“He is a man who combines a tremendous, relentless determination with a stalwart good humor.

“I believe he is representative of the heart and soul of Russia; and I believe that we are going to get along very well with him and the Russian people—very well indeed.”[48]


 The next time you meet a screaming propagandist from the Holocaust establishment, ask him about the German Holocaust—most specifically the German civilians.  (I had a private interaction with Michael Shermer a few years ago and I certainly was surprised to see that the man breaths and lives in contradictions.[49])

The same historical machination is happening in France as well. Catherine Monfajon, author of a documentary, lamented,

“That silence is amazing and amazed me. France was the third country most bombed by the Allies after Germany and Japan and it is hardly mentioned in our history books.”[50]

If the propagandist still wants specific examples, ask him what Ilya Ehrenburg meant when he knew very well that German civilians had been raped by the thousands. Ehrenburg unambiguously said:

“The Germans have been punished, but not enough, The Fritzes are still running, but not lying dead.Who can stop us now? . . . The Oder? The Volksturm?

“No, it’s too late Germany, you can whirl around in circles, and burn, and howl in your deathly agony; the hour of revenge has struck!”[51]

Ehrenburg, by the way, was just implementing what Stalin had previously done to the peasants in 1932 and 1933.

So, whenever representatives of the Holocaust establishment start meowing day and night, you can simply ignore them, since no one has yet to douse them with a bucket of water.

For example, listen to how Jewish ideologue Daniel Greenfield indirectly defended what happened after World War II:

“By the time World War II was over entire cities had been devastated and hundreds of thousands of civilians had been killed by the Allies in one of the last wars whose virtue we were all able to agree on….

“To the professional pacifist these numbers appear to disprove the morality of war, any war, but they were the blood price that had to be paid to stop two war machines once they had been allowed to seize the strategic high ground.

“There was no other way to stop the genocide that Germany and Japan had been inflicting on Europe and Asia except through a way of war that would kill countless civilians.

“A refusal to fight that war would not have been the moral course. It would have meant that the Allies would have continued to serve as the silent partners in genocide. The same thing is true today.”[52]

Next Page

Author Details
Read Jonas Alexis’s latest posts here >>>

Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, history of Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.
ATTENTION READERS
Due to the nature of independent content, VT cannot guarantee content validity.
We ask you to Read Our Content Policy so a clear comprehension of VT's independent non-censored media is understood and given its proper place in the world of news, opinion and media.

All content is owned by author exclusively. Expressed opinions are NOT necessarily the views of VT, other authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners or technicians. Some content may be satirical in nature. All images within are full responsibility of author and NOT VT.

About VT - Read Full Policy Notice - Comment Policy