This is a topic I have been pondering upon for quite some while now, and have eventually decided to take by the horns. If you are troubled by having your assumptions challenged or by hearing things which are at odds with the mainstream and conventional view of historical reality as we have had it handed down to us, I would suggest that you refrain from reading any further.
Since you have now begun to read further I hope I may assume that you will confine yourself to rational examination and analysis of the questions which I will put and the data which I will refer to. I do welcome comments, but if you make a different interpretation of the evidence than I do I trust you will couch your responses in reasonable terms. The mere fact that I ask a particular question, or draw certain conclusions does not in itself make me a bad person. I may make poor logical inferences, and if so, I will accept that this has been pointed out, if I am convinced that that is indeed the case. Asking open ended questions can only be considered ‘Politically Incorrect’ by people who are afraid of what the answers might be.
I make this lengthy caveat because I have noticed a disturbing tendency amongst certain leftist and ‘social justice warrior’ communities to freak out and have emotional tantrums when they see something that doesn’t conform to their own desired view of reality. I’m thinking here of the students who claim to have been traumatised by seeing a Confederate flag. Get over it kids, there are far worse things out there than memories of a world that passed away more than a century and a half ago.
Okay, enough preamble.
I was brought up in a world where Winston S. Churchill, former Prime Minister of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as well as the victorious war leader of World War II had effectively been deified. Of course in the fading Christian world of the post-war era we did not think of it in such terms, but had this been Rome, he would have been declared a god and temples would have been built in his honour from the spoils of war. Not that there was much of in the way of spoils in 1945.
Nonetheless, his position as National Hero was unquestioned and unquestionable in the mood which was to reign, although he is now perhaps beginning to fade since he no longer can be deployed quite so effectively.
I well recall how at my boarding school on a cold grey Saturday morning in February of 1965 my class were gathered in a teacher’s living room to watch the funeral on the standard blurry black and white television of the era. We heard Richard Dimbleby detail the progress of the cortege and saw the cranes dip their heads to half mast as the barge went along the river. The Queen and Royal Family stood, dressed in black, showing respect, a model for the nation. Even now I find it moving to recall.
And so the ritual was embedded in the national psyche. Almost twenty years after the end of the war it was finally put to bed before the eyes of the next generation, enshrined as inviolable in our hearts, akin to Nelson.
Hagiographies were written, and in time even some critical works. These usually confined themselves to his earlier failures and more reprehensible actions, such as the Dardanelles incident or the gassing of the Kurds in the 1920s, and if they encroached on the Second World War limited themselves to tactical errors such as the ill fated Norway raid of 1940. He might have made mistakes, but his over arching greatness, his fidelity to his nation, his achievement in saving the British Empire, and indeed as he himself had claimed, Christendom itself, from the barbarism of Germanic expansionism, could not be doubted.
And so the legend, having been created, built myth upon itself so that to doubt was to be condemned as mad, a follower of the Enemy. So well has this edifice been maintained and consolidated that even those who did doubt or who sought to challenge it while it was being constructed were so marginalised that they are almost unknown to most.
I gradually began to become aware that such a thing as revisionism of the accounts of World War II existed in the mid-90s. This seemed absurd to me, and, automatically assuming for the conventional view, didn’t bother to look into the claims of David Irving, the only name I was aware of. The internet was just being born at the time, and it would be almost a couple of decades before I was to come back to the subject with the advantage of a vastly proliferated web and research resources that one could barely have imagined in the old century.
And so my curiosity slept. I recall that as recently as early 2014 I had had conversations in which the assumption of the absolute moral rectitude and honesty of Churchill was implicitly embedded.
But material had already passed across my screen which I should have thought more upon. As long ago as late 2012 I saw the David Cole videos which he had made in Auschwitz about twenty years earlier. David Cole was a young Jewish man who had concerns about the official accounts of the Auschwitz story and had gone there with a video camera and plenty of questions. I won’t detail his findings here, as it is much better that you look at his primary evidence first hand, rather than through the lens of my reporting of it. I will say however, that as a person of Jewish heritage he was able to gain access to accounts which expand upon the accepted narrative a little.
More information on this was probably available at the time, but I neglected to research it further, partly I suppose because the implications were so massive.
Then, in 2014, something more than a year ago, a whole bunch of new material started coming into the orbit of my internet surfing. Curious facts would surface, such as that Stalin’s USSR invaded and annexed eastern Poland some two weeks after Hitler’s Germany had annexed the western side of that country. I found myself wondering why this had never been mentioned in all the years that I had seen documentaries on WWII or read about it. Perhaps it was mentioned occasionally, but it certainly never achieved anywhere near the prominence of the German actions which had allowed Britain to declare war against them on September 3rd 1939. The basis for this was the recently established pact between Britain and Poland in which the greater power guaranteed to come to the aid of the lesser in the event of military aggression against her. And yet Britain did not follow by declaring war on the Soviet Union, when they picked up the remaining part of Poland, thereby failing in her treaty obligation.
The USSR was implicated again when I came across the Suvarov evidence from the '90s which exposed the high probability that Germany's attack on Russia in 1941 was prompted by intelligence that Stalin was planning to attack Germany and that this was a pre-emptive attack which otherwise would not have taken place. The Red Army records of the huge numbers of tanks and troops which had already been massing show only maps and plans for forward engagement, not purely defensive action as had always been claimed.
I am fortunate enough to own a complete set of Churchill’s The Second World War (6 vols) in the first edition, which I inherited from my father, who played his own part in that conflict. The presence of this work on the bookshelf as I grew up was a perpetual reinforcement of the zeitgeist into which I was born.
And yet in vol I: The Gathering Storm (p351), Churchill quotes at length from a paper he gave to the Cabinet on Sept 25th of 1939 in which he is explicit that ‘the Russians were guilty of the grossest bad faith’ nonetheless he goes on to state that ‘Of course we should prefer that all these countries [Russia, Roumania, Yugo-Slavia] should fall upon the common foe, Nazi Germany.’
Hang on a moment. Wasn’t the pact with Poland intended for the defence of that country rather than as a means to harass Germany? Why was there not an equal complaint against Stalin as there was against Hitler? Why would not Britain declare war on Russia for its annexation of east Poland?
Declaring war on Russia would have been a dangerous and risky move, but it is not that simple. It is clear from his own paper to Cabinet, in his own account of the War, that is considered definitive, that despite actions in bad faith, Churchill sees Russia as a potential ally, and is already seeking to leverage it into the service of his own agenda. So I think we should understand that Poland, who as a nation have long expressed their gratitude to Britain for its position in 1939, was actually nothing more than a tool in Churchill’s employ for the purpose of the destruction of Germany. Not that war was Churchill’s decision since he was not yet PM, but he had been beating the war drum for so long that Chamberlain was cornered by the war party. Poland, which did not see freedom and independence in 1945, but servitude to Stalin’s Soviet Union, was sacrificed on the way to the greater objective, having been entrapped by the British hawks, tempted by the offer of the treaty alliance.
I am reminded at this point of the famous saying ‘History is written by the victors’, which I only recently discovered was made by WS Churchill himself and none other. And the six volume History of the Second World War was long considered the definitive work on that historical period. But I feel that he gives himself away with what is nothing more nor less than a boast. ‘I wrote the history, and my version, the one that justifies all my actions and glorifies me as the hero, is the one that will go down as what is remembered.’ It is ironic to me that his arch enemy, Adolf Hitler, wrote, (before the previous quotation was made I assume) ‘The victor will not be asked if he told the truth.’ Sour grapes from the one who could see he was about to lose, many might say, but a true statement regardless, and a curious counterpoint to Churchill’s remark. Or perhaps Churchill’s was a deliberate riposte to his enemy's?
One thing about Churchill’s magnum opus is his thorough documentation. Obviously he had written many of the documents himself and was present at all War Cabinet meetings and so forth, so he already knew the material and had private clearance even though he was no longer Prime Minister during the late forties when he wrote the work. And so it is that sometimes he can’t avoid letting slip the truth of his position. He has been banging on the drum of war against Germany for so long that he has ignored and is ignoring the great threat of the Russian Bear.
Let us review the Big Picture. War was declared on Germany to defend Poland. Russia also annexes half of Poland or so. And yet, when the war is all over and the dust settles, not only has Poland now been entirely occupied by the USSR, but also most of eastern Europe along with it, who had all been autonomous nations in the inter war period following the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the end of the Second Reich but are now Soviet satellites states which will have to wait some 44 years for their liberation. The five years of hot war were followed by the decades of the Cold War.
This then was a factor that I saw from a different perspective. And Stalin is somehow exonerated of Poland, even though he has it as prize.
But this was only the first step in my questioning process.
At the beginning of volume VI Triumph and Tragedy, there is a note from the author that the book had been completed in 1951 but not ready for publication because his ‘other duties’ (as Prime Minister 1951-55) had confined him to the ‘general supervision of the process of checking the statements of fact contained in these pages’.
As I have already suggested, this work is thoroughly referenced. There are detailed maps of campaigns and military movements, Appendices in each volume of correspondence and documents, as well as a full index to each as well. Whatever one may think of Churchill as a person, as a politician, one cannot argue with the fact that he was a phenomenal intellect and writer. He was awarded the Nobel Prize for this work when it was finally completed, and a stupendous work it is too.
However, the very comprehensive and rigorously documented nature of this work in itself betrays some of the weaknesses in the legacy of the official narrative that we have all had handed down to us in the intervening years.
So now we come to the great politically incorrect controversy that I have spent so long hedging around. About a year ago or so I saw it stated somewhere that there is no reference in The Second World War, anywhere, to anything pertaining to the Holocaust as it is now known. Nothing. A rather surprising fact when one holds in mind that this event is considered by many today to be the greatest crime that has ever taken place in world history. They like sometimes to forget the Holodomor or the Armenian Genocide, but those are getting back on the map these days at least, as documented occurrences.
Now I won’t claim to have read the entire 4,000 pages or so of Sir Winston’s text, but I am aided in my research by detailed précis at the beginning of each chapter and a copious index. There is no mention of Auschwitz, Belsen, Treblinka or any other concentration camp that I have ever heard the name of.
Now I am not for one moment suggesting that these places did not exist. However it does surprise me that Churchill, who took every available opportunity to denigrate Hitler, the National Socialist regime and even the German people and nation generally, made absolutely no mention of them whatsoever. (Forgive me if I imagine myself saying that in my best Maggie Smith Miss Jean Brodie voice.)
The concentration camps may not have been part of the military campaigns or the political wranglings before, during or after the war, but it is astonishing that they simply are not mentioned. I do feel strongly that Churchill would have made a meal of this had he chosen to, but he chose not to.
Perhaps his near obsession with documentation has something to do with it. The history ends with the Potsdam Conference at which point he bowed out after losing the General Election of July 25th 1945, and so the Nuremberg trials are not covered.
Had there been documents which he could have referred to about the liberation of the camps and the conditions found therein, or even simple news reports which would have supported the historical view which has come to be accepted, there can be little doubt that he would have used them. There were some newsreels but these were vague and failed to distinguish between deliberate deaths, starvation and the results of the typhus epidemics which apparently had been raging in the camps for some time with shortages of medicine and foods. But he was wise enough not to refer to them as he doubtless knew that documentation could be tracked and examined. Probably better just to leave out material that might be questionable.
His partiality becomes more obvious when one scratches a little further at the veneer he created. In Chapter XXXIII, The Liberation of Western Europe, the penultimate paragraph of less than a page ‘The Onslaught of Our Strategic Air Forces’ makes no mention of the fire bombing of cities such as Hamburg, Dresden and others. He does however make reference to the bombing of transportation and industry.
The actual holocaust of Dresden is an historical event at which even now apologists for Allied war crimes will blanch and try to change the subject. They have attempted to change the numbers of dead repeatedly over the years, claiming that the figure of some 25,000 bodies identified immediately afterwards is the total figure, when it is quite plain that tens of thousands more at least perished in such a way that they were reduced to dust in the firestorm which raged following the deliberate fire bombing and could not be counted. Churchill had authorised ‘Bomber’ Harris in this crime.
One reason which comes to mind as to why he may have wished to minimise the thoughts of the reader when it came to the bombing of Germany is that the transportation and supply routes to the concentration camps were badly hit and so the camps suffered from a dearth of food and materials. Certainly it is no secret that German civilians suffered from food shortages in the later stages of the war. But Churchill steers clear of subjects which might prove awkward, and leaves them aside perhaps hoping that they will not be noticed or picked up.
I am of the understanding that there are historians who have found other holes in Churchill’s work, mostly in pointing out omissions. However the absence of the ‘Death Camps’ is surely the most egregious of these.
It is somewhat more surprising then, to read that apparently the ‘Holocaust’ as it has come down to us today, was not referred to as such until after 1970. Although the Jewish Encyclopedia of 1970 mentions concentration camps and gives numbers of deaths (less than six million) the words Holocaust and Shoah are not mentioned.
Similar is the case with the Encyclopaedia Britannica of a couple of years later. Certainly it is the case that when I was at school in the 1960s and ’70s I don’t recall hearing about it other than that people had died in the concentration camps. So what we are witnessing from this evidence is that there has been considerable mythologizing of the event, despite the fact that after the early nineties fall of the USSR the figures for those who died in the camps were seriously revised downwards. (See David Cole material.)
This is all a bit troubling if one is concerned for historical sources and accuracy, since there were definitely people found guilty of mass murder in the Nuremberg Trials immediately following the war. This in itself turns out to be something of a rabbit hole since it was declared at the beginning of the tribunal that normal judicial rules of evidence would be waived. Combined with a now widespread recognition that many confessions were extracted from German prisoners under duress of torture. The methods used are so vile that I shan’t detail them here, you can research the subject yourself if you are curious about the detail. Also it is disappointing to find that long debunked horror stories such as lampshades made of human skin and soap made from rendered bodies are still being circulated by people who should know better.
So an alternate picture begins to emerge. Evidence which was not subject to normal judicial standards, and which was extracted under torture was accepted in the trial against the accused. Churchill takes advantage of the fact that the trials were made after he had left office and makes no mention of the camps which were liberated whilst he was still Prime Minister, as well as avoiding mentioning his own war crimes against civilians which contributed to starvation at the camps.
‘History is written by the victor’. Indeed. At the very least we can see that Churchill excuses himself, and avoids evidence which might look bad for his own side, while letting slip that his principle objective was to bring down Germany rather than to protect his allies. Indeed his vendetta against Germany led him to press for the betrayal of Poland to the Soviet Union, something he consolidated later. Despite not being PM until May 1940 he clearly sees himself as a major mover and shaker behind the scenes, if only in shaping the narrative, and when he had the opportunity
He also sidesteps issues which could get complicated if the evidence were to be examined too closely. Better to let the evolving narrative deal with such matters in the newspapers, the newsreels and the emerging new medium of television, where, as Orwell suggested writing his landmark 1984 in 1948, the narrative could be rewritten every time it was needed, and so evolved by a tiptoe of inches at a time from what was a somewhat speculative original, to the solidity of that we have come to know through endless reiteration.
There is much more to explore about Winston S Churchill and his curious relationship with Uncle Joe Stalin, but I shall leave that for another time. This man, who is foundational to the modern world has a host of hidden sides and shadowy faces that are rarely seen by the world today, and it will help us to understand many things if we can peek behind the mask and gain some insights into his deeper motivations, which I suggest were not as noble as he liked to avow. He said that it was his great life’s mission to protect and save the British Empire and Christian civilisation, yet the former was gone within his lifetime, and he did little for the latter.
His was a hollow victory for all of Europe.
You can purchase a paper or e-book version of my account of my shamanic rite of passage at The Hundredth Monkey Camp ‘Waking The Monkey! ~ Becoming the Hundredth Monkey’ (A Book for Spiritual Warriors) at
Waking the Monkey ebook
My other blogs
Exerpts from my book and articles around cutting edge ideas related to consciousness and the human struggle for survival.
My original blog with full 2014 Leeds Trolleybus Public Enquiry online audio recording links and reportage from most days at the Enquiry and other material.