Churchill Quote - is it authentic?
A Historian
Churchill, with a cited source, but I am unable to determine if the citation
is accurate and the quoted statement is genuinely attributable to Churchill.
"Germany's unforgivable crime before the second world
war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's trading
system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world
finance its opportunity to profit." .
The original source, Propaganda in the Next War (International propaganda
and communications) by Sidney Rogerson, was published in 1938, and is
according to the Amazon website out of print, however I have heard that a
second edition was published in 2001, and that in this later edition the
quote appears in the foreword as a quote of remarks made by Churchill to
Lord Robert Boothby.
Clearly if the remark is genuine Churchill, it accords well with the view
held by an increasing number of historians, including myself, that WW2 was
in essence fought mainly for economic reasons at the instigation of global
financiers. That it was a planned continuation of WW1. There is a very
considerable body of historical information supporting this view and
although not popular with many traditional or conventional historians it is
gaining wider acceptance.
Can any reader offer any corroboration of the authenticity of the cited
source please.
A historian.
John...@tricolour.queensu.ca
> I have come across the following quotation which is attributed to Winston
> Churchill, with a cited source, but I am unable to determine if the citation
> is accurate and the quoted statement is genuinely attributable to Churchill.
>
> "Germany's unforgivable crime before the second world
> war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's trading
> system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world
> finance its opportunity to profit." .
>
> The original source, Propaganda in the Next War (International propaganda
> and communications) by Sidney Rogerson, was published in 1938,
Either there is something wrong with this date or Churchill was a much
greater prophet than I had realised.
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
Brad Meyer
<ahist...@nwo.co.de> wrote:
>Clearly if the remark is genuine Churchill, it accords well with the view
>held by an increasing number of historians, including myself, that WW2 was
>in essence fought mainly for economic reasons at the instigation of global
>financiers.
I don't think that is at all clear. Any free market model will show a
flight of investment money from places of poor or no profit to places
of greater profit. That is in fact pretty much what the Nazi's did,
and the result was that by three years into thier rule they had to
rape some group to replaced the flown investment money. The Jews, the
the Austrians, then the Czechs, the Poles, etc., etc., etc. All this
follows without any intervention on the part of "global financiers".
Geoffrey Sinclair
>I have come across the following quotation which is attributed to Winston
>Churchill, with a cited source, but I am unable to determine if the citation
>is accurate and the quoted statement is genuinely attributable to Churchill.
>
>"Germany's unforgivable crime before the second world
>war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's trading
>system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world
>finance its opportunity to profit." .
>
>The original source, Propaganda in the Next War (International propaganda
>and communications) by Sidney Rogerson, was published in 1938, and is
>according to the Amazon website out of print, however I have heard that a
>second edition was published in 2001, and that in this later edition the
>quote appears in the foreword as a quote of remarks made by Churchill to
>Lord Robert Boothby.
A simple analysis of the quote makes it clear if it was ever said it
was done well after 1938. Simple things like the naming of the war
for example, the use of past tense. After all a book published in
1938 would be finalised at least a year before the Second World
War began
A search of the quote on the internet reveals the following.
1) It is a favourite of the conspiracy crowd, the Illuminati appear to
he the preferred bad guys in this case.
2) All the users point back to the one source, the modern reprint
of the Sydney Rogerson book, and usually make it clear they are
referring to the foreword.
The foreword to the book can be seen here,
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:JJzysxXWkbcJ:www.searchingsecure.com/cgi-bin/nph-securesearch.cgi/http://www.whatreallyhappened.
com/PROPAGANDA_IN_THE_NEXT_WAR_FOREWORD.html+%22David+M+Pidcock%22+%22rational+economics%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Sorry for any URL wrap.
The quote is given there without any source. So it is not in the
original book, but a modern piece added to the front.
The writer is apparently David M Pidcock from The Institute For
Rational Economics, it endorses the conspiracy theories for
Pearl Harbor and appears to do the same for the 2001 attacks
on New York amongst other things.
Putting the author name and title into a search engine gives,
http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/ipb-archive/people/david.htm
Which is the British Islamic Party.
He has apparently translated a book into English that claims
Napoleon converted to Islam and therefore the code
Napoleon is based on Islamic law.
Pidcock is apparently a co-founder and director of the institute.
>Clearly if the remark is genuine Churchill, it accords well with the view
>held by an increasing number of historians, including myself, that WW2 was
>in essence fought mainly for economic reasons at the instigation of global
>financiers. That it was a planned continuation of WW1. There is a very
>considerable body of historical information supporting this view and
>although not popular with many traditional or conventional historians it is
>gaining wider acceptance.
Ah yes the editorial about yet another conspiracy theory. Erase the
Nazis, erase their aggression, erase their crimes, just have Adolf the
Peaceful who woke up one morning at war with the world.
No doubt "A Historian" will actually give their name and the names
of the other historians together with their published works. Instead
of the usual editorial about how right it is without supplying any
evidence.
All you have to do is ignore the reality the Second World War was
a clash between the 3 political systems that came out of the 19th
century. Fascism, Communism and Capitalist democracy. The
Fascists had Mussolini (relatively sane but wanted a large politically
reliable military, which meant it was not very effective), the Japanese
militarists (when losing double the bet and stay ignorant of what the
world is really like) and Hitler and the Nazis (who added radical
Eugenics to the fascist mixture and went to war early before they
had "controlled" the military).
Oh yes Hitler wanted Germany self sufficient in war making materials,
not all materials and despite the great attraction of guaranteed
contracts in Germany some Germans still exported, not enough to
avoid the foreign exchange problems but they still exported. Also
there was foreign investment in Germany, the usual other charge with
the US accused of helping the Nazis, as opposed to being part of
the global conspiracy to hurt the Germans.
German imports and exports came to around 26,277,000,000 marks
in 1928, just before the depression, the low point was in 1935 at
8,249,000,000 marks, it then recovered to over 11,000,000,000 marks
in 1937 and over 10,000,000,000 marks in 1938 and 1939.
By 1935 gold and foreign exchange reserves had declined to 70,000,000
marks versus 2,405,500,000 marks in 1938.
The Germans did not withdraw from the world trading system, the
world trading system suffered a major contraction in the 1930s.
For example the value of Australian trade (imports plus exports)
in the 1936/37 financial year was around 250,000,000 Australian
pounds, 1937/38 was around 270,000,000 Australian pounds and
1938/39 was 230,000,000 pounds. Imports in 1934/35 were
around 70,000,000 pounds sterling, growing to 97,000,000 pounds
sterling in 1938/39. Exchange rate 100 pounds sterling = 125
Australian pounds.
>Can any reader offer any corroboration of the authenticity of the cited
>source please.
The quote is not found in any other work on Churchill, not even those
who wrote unflattering biographies of him given the source of the
claimed quote on the internet.
Contact Mr Pidcock and ask for his source.
Geoffrey Sinclair
Remove the nb for email.
The Mind
news:1137187261.6...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Either there is something wrong with this date or Churchill was a much
> greater prophet than I had realised.
>
> John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
Quite so!
Perhaps I phrased it badly. The quote is supposed to appear in the preface
of the second edition of the book, ( Propaganda in the Next War
(International Propaganda and Communications) by Sidney Rogerson, reportedly
published in 2001, although Amazon don't list a reprint date. The date
Churchill is supposed to have made the remarks isn't clear. The original
edition of the book was published in 1938 according to the Amazon website. I
erroneously made it sound like the quote appeared in the original edition.
A Historian.
Duwop
> A Historian cut and pasted:
> > "Germany's unforgivable crime before the second world
> > war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's
trading
> > system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world
> > finance its opportunity to profit." .
> >
> > The original source, Propaganda in the Next War (International
propaganda
> > and communications) by Sidney Rogerson, was published in 1938,
> Either there is something wrong with this date or Churchill was a much
> greater prophet than I had realised.
>
Not only that, but Rogerson died in 1939.
Typical website using this quote is:
http://www.etherzone.com/2005/mako072505.shtml
Which makes much of "the Illuminati", and jews of course.
Or this one, which buys into just about every conspiracy, pretty good stuff
really. If you have an eye for the unusual:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PROPAGANDA_IN_THE_NEXT_WAR_FOREWORD.html
It appears our dear honest truthful and upright A Historian lifted his bit
from:
http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/quotations/quotations01.html
So really, it's no fault of his for hisorical impossibilities, he's just
repeating them as true. You know, like real historians so often do. Really.
A Historian, thanks for another one of your "interesting" questions. I look
forward to the next. You know, since there's so many hidden truths and all
still. Many of us depend on your keen insight and rigorous critical thinking
and research to help us see the truth.
Alan Meyer
news:43c745d7$0$2255$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
> ...
> Clearly if the remark is genuine Churchill, it accords well with the view held by an
> increasing number of historians, including myself, that WW2 was in essence fought mainly
> for economic reasons at the instigation of global financiers.
I doubt very much of the quote is from Churchill. However
even if it was, I see no reason to believe that it provides
any support whatsoever for your hypothesis.
1. Churchill didn't start the war, Hitler did.
2. If Churchill said this (which I doubt) it is only one statement
by him. He made many other statements which make it
absolutely clear that he thought Britain should go to war
because of German aggression, not for economic reasons.
3. Even if Churchill said it (which I still doubt), it doesn't mean
it's true.
Finally, I have a question. Is "global financiers" a code word for
"Jews"? I presume it is and consider it to be a typical case of
blaming the victim for the crimes of the criminal.
Alan
val...@btconnect.com
> I have come across the following quotation which is attributed to Winston
> Churchill, with a cited source, but I am unable to determine if the citation
> is accurate and the quoted statement is genuinely attributable to Churchill.
>
> "Germany's unforgivable crime before the second world
> war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's trading
> system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world
> finance
i.e. Jews, yes? I think I'm catching your drift ...
its opportunity to profit." .
>
> The original source, Propaganda in the Next War (International propaganda
> and communications) by Sidney Rogerson, was published in 1938, and is
> according to the Amazon website out of print, however I have heard that a
> second edition was published in 2001, and that in this later edition the
> quote appears in the foreword as a quote of remarks made by Churchill to
> Lord Robert Boothby.
Why don't you get hold of this 2001 edition, if you're interested?
>
> Clearly if the remark is genuine Churchill, it accords well with the view
> held by an increasing number of historians, including myself,
Yes, I have come across you and your posts before. Your portentous
moniker speaks volumes. Are you and David Irving by any chance related?
that WW2 was
> in essence fought mainly for economic reasons at the instigation of global
> financiers. That it was a planned continuation of WW1. There is a very
> considerable body of historical information supporting this view and
> although not popular with many traditional or conventional historians it is
> gaining wider acceptance.
>
> Can any reader offer any corroboration of the authenticity of the cited
> source please.
>
> A historian.
It's one of the most unconvincing alleged Churchill quotes I ever saw.
Honey, if you can't be bothered to authenticate it, why should anyone
else? Could it be that your question is in fact not a real question?
Roman Werpachowski
> Clearly if the remark is genuine Churchill, it accords well with the view
> held by an increasing number of historians, including myself, that WW2 was
> in essence fought mainly for economic reasons at the instigation of global
> financiers. That it was a planned continuation of WW1. There is a very
> considerable body of historical information supporting this view and
> although not popular with many traditional or conventional historians it is
> gaining wider acceptance.
Do you mean those global financiers who wanted to get hold of the
Polish customs post on the Westerplatte in Danzig, and thus persuaded
Hitler to aim the guns of "Schlezwig-Holstein" on it?
David Thornley
A Historian <ahist...@nwo.co.de> wrote:
>I have come across the following quotation which is attributed to Winston
>Churchill, with a cited source, but I am unable to determine if the citation
>is accurate and the quoted statement is genuinely attributable to Churchill.
>
>"Germany's unforgivable crime before the second world
>war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's trading
>system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world
>finance its opportunity to profit." .
>
made up. It doesn't sound particularly like Churchill, and nobody
has pointed to any contemporary reference. It is indeed possible that
Churchill said that, and that it was not kept in many sources, but
it is also possible that the person presenting this quote was, in fact,
lying. Given the style and content of the quote, and the number of
liars in the world for which this would be convenient, I'm betting
on the lattar.
>The original source, Propaganda in the Next War (International propaganda
>and communications) by Sidney Rogerson, was published in 1938, and is
>according to the Amazon website out of print, however I have heard that a
>second edition was published in 2001, and that in this later edition the
>quote appears in the foreword as a quote of remarks made by Churchill to
>Lord Robert Boothby.
>
If so, then there should be some record from Churchill or Boothby,
and finding that would be a good start. It would be also good to
check the likely truthfulness and accuracy of the recorder.
>Clearly if the remark is genuine Churchill, it accords well with the view
>held by an increasing number of historians, including myself, that WW2 was
>in essence fought mainly for economic reasons at the instigation of global
>financiers. That it was a planned continuation of WW1.
Except that it wasn't. WWII in Europe was a direct result of armed
German expansionism directed by Adolph Hitler. Had Hitler not forced
the issue with Poland, Britain and France would have left him with
his territorial gains up until then. They wouldn't have been happy
with that, but they seem to have been reluctant enough to go to war
in any case.
Therefore, if WWII was planned and executed by "global financiers",
whatever the heck they might be in that period, it is clear that
Adolph Hitler was their tool. Since I have never read anything that
suggests that Hitler was a tool of global financiers, I do doubt that
such financiers, if they even existed, got WWII going.
There is a very
>considerable body of historical information supporting this view and
>although not popular with many traditional or conventional historians it is
>gaining wider acceptance.
>
Okay, in that case it should not be difficult for you to tell us how
the "global financiers" (and I'd like an explanation of exactly what
they were - I distinctly remember speculation on the "global economy"
and what it would mean, and I was born several years after WWII), and
it should not be difficult for you to tell us how they managed to get
Hitler to attack Poland.
>Can any reader offer any corroboration of the authenticity of the cited
>source please.
>
I've given you my opinion: it's completely bogus. It doesn't sound
like Churchill, and there's no solid evidence given that he said that.
--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
da...@thornley.net | If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-
A Historian
news:1137274828....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> "Germany's unforgivable crime before the second world
>> war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's
>> trading
>> system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world
>> finance
>
> i.e. Jews, yes? I think I'm catching your drift ...
The quote is attributed to Churchill, if he said it maybe some of the people
he referred to were, so what?
>
> its opportunity to profit." .
>
> Why don't you get hold of this 2001 edition, if you're interested?
Because clearly that does not help to authenticate the quote. The book does
not cite a further source. However it refers to the remark being made to
Lord Robert Boothby, who Churchill knew for a long time, that may lead to
another source of the quote.
>> Clearly if the remark is genuine Churchill, it accords well with the view
>> held by an increasing number of historians, including myself,
>
> Yes, I have come across you and your posts before. Your portentous
> moniker speaks volumes. Are you and David Irving by any chance related?
I am no relation at all, however I regard it as absurd most members of this
group all seem to be eager to condemn him totally. Now when you don't like
what I post you think I'm his brother do you? Very seldom do any of you
attack his work, with the exception of the one noted controversial area. The
reason being his sources are too good and his citation of authorities and
unusual use of a high proportion of original source documents leaves little
room for dispute, So as is the usual tactic in such cases you spin doctors
attack and smear the man instead of debating or criticizing his work. It
makes no sense that because you may violently disagree with his views in
one area, that you condemn the totally unrelated vast majority of his work,
by personal abuse and scoffing, because the historical facts he presents in
most matters are almost irrefutable. If it wasn't for the Holocaust issues,
he would be regarded as one of the most outstanding historians of the
twentieth century, and it is folly beyond absurdity to condemn the totality
of his work because you believe him to be wrong on one issue.
>
>
> It's one of the most unconvincing alleged Churchill quotes I ever saw.
So how are you ever convinced that a quote is "genuine" except by finding
the original source, or a number of independent corroborative pieces of
evidence.
So far all you experts haven't found a thing beyond the source I referred
to, the 2001 edition and that has to be quoting a prior source. The fact
that it mention the quote being made to Boothby must be a pointer to where
some corroboration may be found, and that's what I looking for.
> Honey, if you can't be bothered to authenticate it, why should anyone
> else? Could it be that your question is in fact not a real question?
Don't you realise that is exactly what I am endeaverouring to do. So far all
you lot of mugs can do is wail about the fact that some internet sites use
the same quote in connection with "shock, horror" conspiracy theories.
That's not an argument, that's just pointless mudslinging because you have
nothing more useful to add.
Yes it was a genuine question, but because you don't like the subject matter
all that is coming back is irrelevant waffle, instead of any answers.
A Historian.
Roman Werpachowski
been posed. Basically, you said that Churchill remarked A to Lord
Boothby, and ask "is it true?", without even giving the period in which
Churchill was supposed to say it. Then you expect people to give a
yes/no answer. Do you see why this is a very unfair question? I have a
similar question to you. Is it true that Hitler once said to Ribbentrop
"You mother was a hamster"?
martinc...@blueyonder.co.uk
And that is the beauty of "A Historian's" question. Because he won't
be satisfied until someone finds a quote which says "I can
categorically state that Churchill did not say...",. And that is
unlikely to happen - especially as it seems exceedingly unlikely that
Churchill ever did say it. There isn't a website of things people
DIDN'T say.
The other tack to counter such a question is that of Mr Sinclair, who
has noted that the "quote" is a later addition to the forword, and has
identified the writer, and some of his previous attempts at writing
history. So far, that hasn't convinces "A historian", judging by his
post of Jan 16th.
By his own words "A historian" says "So how are you ever convinced that
a quote is "genuine" except by finding the original source, or a number
of independent corroborative pieces of evidence?" As Geoffrey Sinclair
has pointed out, there doesn't seem to be any corroborative evidence,
and no one has been able to find the original source. So, until more
conclusive evidence is unearthed, I wouldn't stake a penny on this
being a true quote of Churchill.
Judging by past posts by "A historian", I'm sure he'll reveal the real
motive behind raising this "question", for those who can be bothered to
wait around to find out. I can't!
A Historian
news:1137442971....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
I did not SAY that at all. I indicated that the quote was attributed to
Churchill the preface to a book published in second edition in 2001. I
stated the source. Others have confirmed the same source does use the quote.
The fact that the source I cited is NOT an authoritative source is the very
reason I am seeking corroboration.
I gave NO indication of expecting people to give a yes or no answer. I asked
for any information that might offer corroborative evidence that the quote
is genuine, YOU made up the interpretation that I expected a yes or no
answer.
Being unable to offer any useful information on the matter you now pose an
obviously ridiculous made up question of your own.
You act more like a disinformation agent than a historian. Apparently you
know nothing on the matter in question, but don't like the matter being
raised, in case anyone brings forth information about the original source,
(so far no one has) which might lend some authority to the quote. That you
wouldn't like to see, because if it were a genuine Churchill quote it does
not fit well with the view of history that you want to present. You are not
objective, so you obfuscate and introduce irrelevancies to divert attention
from the matter in question. Typical propaganda tactics. Historians are
objective, propaganda agents have a totally rigid view to project.
I am well aware that it is logically impossible to prove that someone did
not say something. That is why I asked for any corroborative evidence, that
he said it, not a YES or NO answer.
You don't like the question, so you bleat that it is '"very unfair", and
totally misrepresent it as demanding a yes or no answer.
Your rhetorical question is not a similar question. It is merely an absurd
illustration of your lack of objectivity to consider a point of view that
opposes your own rigid mind set.
A Historian.
Geoffrey Sinclair
>"Roman Werpachowski" <roman.wer...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1137442971....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Something needs to be said about the style in which your question has
>> been posed. Basically, you said that Churchill remarked A to Lord
>> Boothby, and ask "is it true?", without even giving the period in which
>> Churchill was supposed to say it. Then you expect people to give a
>> yes/no answer. Do you see why this is a very unfair question? I have a
>> similar question to you. Is it true that Hitler once said to Ribbentrop
>> "You mother was a hamster"?
>
>I did not SAY that at all. I indicated that the quote was attributed to
>Churchill the preface to a book published in second edition in 2001.
No actually your opening paragraph was open to the interpretation
the quote was from the 1938 edition.
You also said it was from a cited source which a foreword to a book
is usually not. The source would be an original record of the quote.
By the way can you check to see if Hitler ever told Ribbentrop
"You mother was a hamster"? If he did it would completely change
our view of the relationship, especially if it was said pre 1939. It
could open up a whole new vista to the diplomacy of the 3rd
Reich and so on, just add a few paragraphs based on the idea
the quote is correct.
Should be simple for one who asks others to verify quotes.
>Others have confirmed the same source does use the quote.
>The fact that the source I cited is NOT an authoritative source is the very
>reason I am seeking corroboration.
It took me around 10 minutes in a search engine to find the text
of the foreword and the details of the writer of the foreword.
>I gave NO indication of expecting people to give a yes or no answer. I asked
>for any information that might offer corroborative evidence that the quote
>is genuine, YOU made up the interpretation that I expected a yes or no
>answer.
You asked for others to do the work of finding the source of the
quote, instead of you finding a copy of the book, either paper
or electronic then tracking down the author.
How about simply looking up the publisher and using them to
contact the relevant author? A simple library search would
give the details of the book and therefore the publisher.
As far as the internet is concerned the only source of the quote
is the foreword of the modern edition of the book and the author
of the foreword is given.
>Being unable to offer any useful information on the matter you now pose an
>obviously ridiculous made up question of your own.
Being unable to do the work yourself you now spend most of your
posts abusing people who clearly disagree with you when a fraction
of the work put into the posts would take you to the source.
>You act more like a disinformation agent than a historian.
Ah yes, this from someone who complains they receive abuse
when presenting their theories.
>Apparently you
>know nothing on the matter in question, but don't like the matter being
>raised,
What I like is the way conclusions are drawn about another person
without any evidence.
>in case anyone brings forth information about the original source,
>(so far no one has) which might lend some authority to the quote.
I gave the author of the foreword and included the information you
need to contact him.
Now all you need to do is follow it up instead of actually spending
time implying it is someone else's job to do it.
The author wants to be found, he is campaigning against many
claimed conspiracies. He has a web site and even gives his
basic address as part of the foreword.
So go ask him where he found the quote.
>That you
>wouldn't like to see, because if it were a genuine Churchill quote it does
>not fit well with the view of history that you want to present.
Yet again we have no evidence but lots of conclusions being drawn.
>You are not
>objective, so you obfuscate and introduce irrelevancies to divert attention
>from the matter in question.
Ah yes, this from someone who complains about the abuse they
receive.
>Typical propaganda tactics. Historians are
>objective, propaganda agents have a totally rigid view to project.
Ah yes, more abuse and a touching idea people who call themselves
historians are objective.
>I am well aware that it is logically impossible to prove that someone did
>not say something. That is why I asked for any corroborative evidence, that
>he said it, not a YES or NO answer.
You were told where to track down the source of the quote and
this could have been done with less effort than the postings
abusing others.
>You don't like the question, so you bleat that it is '"very unfair", and
>totally misrepresent it as demanding a yes or no answer.
Alternatively he points out your standard of proof as presented to
the group is for others to disprove it, not for you to prove it.
>Your rhetorical question is not a similar question. It is merely an absurd
>illustration of your lack of objectivity to consider a point of view that
>opposes your own rigid mind set.
As far as I can tell around 80% of the reply is basically abuse, no
evidence but lots of conclusions.
Cub Driver
wrote:
>Okay, in that case it should not be difficult for you to tell us how
>the "global financiers" (and I'd like an explanation of exactly what
>they were -
While I agree with your analysis of the "Churchill" quote and the
motives behind the question, I think we can fairly assume that he
meant to say "international financiers", meaning bankers and
industrialists who operated across national borders. There was for
example a tie of some sort between Agfa in Germany and Kodak in the
U.S.
-- all the best, Dan Ford
email: usenet AT danford DOT net
Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com
Bill Shatzer
-snip-
> While I agree with your analysis of the "Churchill" quote and the
> motives behind the question, I think we can fairly assume that he
> meant to say "international financiers", meaning bankers and
> industrialists who operated across national borders. There was for
> example a tie of some sort between Agfa in Germany and Kodak in the
> U.S.
I really don't think so, except, perhaps, for some cross-licensing
of patents and the like.
Agfa was a wholely separate corporation and, indeed, rather vigorously
competed with Kodak.
Agfa's US subsidary was seized by the Alien Property Office and the
corporation re-emerged post-war as the wholely US-owned GAF corporation.
Cheers,
wolf...@gmail.com
(Churchill to Lord Robert Boothby, quoted in the Foreword, 2nd Ed. Sydney Rogerson, 'Propaganda in the Next War' 2001, orig. 1938.
Don Phillipson
news:3ae95d68-124c-4f77...@googlegroups.com...
> . . . quotation which is attributed to Winston Churchill . . .
>> "Germany's unforgivable crime before the second world
>> war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's
>> trading
>> system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world
>> finance its opportunity to profit." .
> (Churchill to Lord Robert Boothby, quoted in the Foreword, 2nd Ed. Sydney
> Rogerson, 'Propaganda in the Next War' 2001, orig. 1938.
economics (which he never studied except on the job) and the
idea that "world finance" should profit seems unlikely in his lexicon.
No less to the point, this "unforgivable" crime is here ranked
ahead of activities like the Roehm murders, Nuremburg Laws,
concentration camps and the annexation of Bohemia.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Dave Smith
earlier? I did some searching because it certainly didn't sound like
anything else Churchill had said about Hitler and Germany. The
accuracy of this quote has been questioned and it seems to lead back to
to an Englishman by the name of David Pidcock, a convert to Islam and
founder of the Islamic Party of Britain. Apparently Pidcock gave no
citation for the quote, though it has been quoted in various neo Nazi
sites.
Dave Smith
> <wolf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> "Germany's unforgivable crime before the second world
>>> war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's
>>> trading
>>> system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world
>>> finance its opportunity to profit." .
>
>> It is:
>> (Churchill to Lord Robert Boothby, quoted in the Foreword, 2nd Ed. Sydney
>> Rogerson, 'Propaganda in the Next War' 2001, orig. 1938.
>
> This seems unlikely. Churchill seldom expressed opinions about
> economics (which he never studied except on the job) and the
> idea that "world finance" should profit seems unlikely in his lexicon.
the mind of an Islamic convert was referencing those nasty Jews who the
Nazis blamed for all their problems. Churchill had apparently read Mein
Kamph and had some understanding of Hitler's attitude toward Jews, but
the fate of the Jews was not well known until the Allies started
liberating the concentration camps.
> No less to the point, this "unforgivable" crime is here ranked
> ahead of activities like the Roehm murders, Nuremburg Laws,
> concentration camps and the annexation of Bohemia.
Versailles after another. Britain had appeased them. They were not in a
position to go to war. They had lost a generation of young men in WWI
and had been through a depression. They knew that they could not count
on the US to come to their aid to enforce the terms of a treaty.
There were lots of good reasons for Britain to try to keep Germany under
control and I don't think there is any reason to think that Churchill
would think it necessary to go to war to protect Jewish bankers.
Militarizing the Rhineland would have been a good reason. Annexing
Austria would have been a good reason. Annexing the Sudetenland would
have been a good reason. Annexing the rest of Czechoslovakia would have
been a good reason. Protecting the ability of Jewish bankers???? I sure
don't see that Churchill. What we have here is a questionable "quote"
invented by an Islamist.
wolf...@gmail.com
Dave Smith
>> Can any reader offer any corroboration of the authenticity of the cited
>> source please.
>>
>> A historian.
>
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/PROPAGANDA_IN_THE_NEXT_WAR_FOREWORD.html
>
M Pidcock (M for Musa) is a Muslim convert and head of the Islamic
Party of Britain. It is curious that someone could quote such a line
from a private conversation.
For some reason, this questionable stuff keeps surfacing after long
periods. I suppose that someone subscribes the the idea that if you
repeat a lie often enough people start to believe it and it becomes true.
Rich Rostrom
> On Friday, January 13, 2006 at 2:16:13 PM UTC-7, A Historian wrote:
> > I have come across the following quotation which is attributed to Winston
> > Churchill, with a cited source, but I am unable to determine if the citation
> > is accurate and the quoted statement is genuinely attributable to Churchill.
> >
> > system and to create her own exchange mechanism which would deny world
> > finance its opportunity to profit."
> > The original source, Propaganda in the Next War (International propaganda
The actual source is a foreword inserted in a later edition.
Which is rather obvious, as in 1938, Churchill could not have
been quoted about something "before the second world war".
> > Can any reader offer any corroboration of the authenticity of the cited
> > source please.
the foreword, which was added to Rogerson's book in 2001.
> > A historian.
>
> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/PROPAGANDA_IN_THE_NEXT_WAR_FOREWORD.html
This site is the personal website of a conspiracy crank:
"a proud member of Obama's secret death list", an anti-vaccine
crank, a Pearl Harbor conspiracy nut, a 9-11 Truther, and so on.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.
http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Dave Smith
>
> IOW, the JOOSS did it!
>
>>> The original source, Propaganda in the Next War (International
>>> propaganda and communications) by Sidney Rogerson, was published
>>> in 1938...
>
> The actual source is a foreword inserted in a later edition. Which is
> rather obvious, as in 1938, Churchill could not have been quoted
> about something "before the second world war".
>
>>> Can any reader offer any corroboration of the authenticity of the
>>> cited source please.
>
> No. The "quotation" is a fake. The only source for it is the
> foreword, which was added to Rogerson's book in 2001.
>
>>> A historian.
>>
>> http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/PROPAGANDA_IN_THE_NEXT_WAR_FOREWORD.html
>
>>
> This site is the personal website of a conspiracy crank: "a proud
> member of Obama's secret death list", an anti-vaccine crank, a Pearl
> Harbor conspiracy nut, a 9-11 Truther, and so on.
>
September replying to "A Historian", the same identity that provides the
cite for the source. It appears to be a strange sort of factoid that he
is trying to pass off as truth, quoting one person who claims to be
citing another and, as it turns out, the author is has no credibility.
It would appear that this fellow is under the impression that if he
presents this lie as fact and then cites an unreliable source as proof,
and does so once in a while it will provide the seeds of credibility.
In Mein Kampf, Hitler accused the Jews of "the big lie" . Make it a big
lie, make it simple, keep repeating it and people will believe you.
That is exactly what appears to be happening here. The man has created
a quote that is supposed to have been based on a private conversation
that is supposed to expose Churchill as an anti Semite, and it pops up
frequently. There is the big, simple lie and the repetition.