Churchill Archives - Information on The Focus
A Historian
Has any reader had the opportunity to peruse information in the Churchill
archives relatively recently released, although I don't know exactly when,
probably a few years back, which deals with Churchill's involvement with The
Focus.
Until recently some researchers attempted to deny the existence of The
Focus, but it seems that eventually the truth will out..
A few members of The Gocus group have reportedly been identified by other
historians and allegedly included General Spears, Henry Strakosch and
Wickham Steed, although there names are but a few of reportedly considerably
larger membership.
I understand that The Focus was a secret financial support group established
in the last years of peace, and the fact of its existence is now confirmed
by Charmley and documented by papers now available in the Churchill
archives.
Historian Maurice Cowling is also reported to have viewed The Focus as a
rather insidious clandestine group, writing of it as a broad
range of conspirators some of whom were concerned primarily with Jewish
persecution, one of whom Wickham Steed was in the pay of the
Czech government.
Can any reader post any extract of the relevant material in the Churchill
Archives?
Can you provide the specific citation for Cowling's writings on the matter?
Can any reader provide any information of who other members of this group
may have been?
Is it known if the group kept any records or minutes of proceedings?
Please reply to the newsgroup.
A. Historian.
--
Andrew Clark
"A Historian" <nogatnut...@bogcreek.com> wrote
> Has any reader had the opportunity to peruse information
in the Churchill
> archives relatively recently released, although I don't
know exactly when,
> probably a few years back, which deals with Churchill's
involvement with The
> Focus.
The online catalogue of the Churchill Archive at Churchill
Colledge, Cambridge, UK, lists several file series about the
"Focus in Defence of Freedom and Peace", all of which have
been open access since 1995. There are also numerous other
open archives of the group's papers in other museums.
> Until recently some researchers attempted to deny
> the existence of The Focus, but it seems that
> eventually the truth will out..
This is no more than conspiracy theory nonsense invented by
and perpetuated by David Irvine (yes, again). The group was
a registered public political group at the time of its
operation, appeared regularly in the public press, held open
public meetings at such venues as the Albert Hall and
generally was no more secretive or sinister than any other
right-wing political lobby group of the 1930s.
It has been subsequently presented by Irving and others as a
secret instrument of the Jewish international conspiracy
fantasy to which he and other noe-Nazis are committed, which
dragged poor peace-loving Germany and Hitler into war. Most
of the facts reported by "A Historian" are from documents
produced by such groups:
> A few members of The Gocus group have reportedly
> been identified by other historians and allegedly
> included General Spears, Henry Strakosch and
> Wickham Steed, although there names are but
> a few of reportedly considerably larger membership.
There are several dozen names listed in the open access
papers in the Churchill archives.
> I understand that The Focus was a secret financial
> support group established in the last years of peace,
> and the fact of its existence is now confirmed
> by Charmley and documented by papers now
> available in the Churchill archives.
Then you understand wrong. It was a public political
pressure and lobby group campaigning on a broadly right wing
agenda of British and European rearmament and opposition to
Nazism, Fascism, anti-Semitism and communism. It did not
make grants or loans of money to anyone. One of its
prominent members, a noted philanthropist, did loan
Churchill money, as was made clear at the time.
> Historian Maurice Cowling is also reported to
> have viewed The Focus as a rather insidious
> clandestine group, writing of it as a broad
> range of conspirators some of whom were
> concerned primarily with Jewish persecution,
> one of whom Wickham Steed was in the pay of the
> Czech government.
So clandestine that it held public meetings in the Albert
Hall and took out advertisements in The Times? Rubbish.
> Can any reader post any extract of the relevant material
in the Churchill
> Archives?
It is copyright. It is, however, freely available on request
from the Churchill Archives.
--
A Historian
so far as it is accurate, in particular for the information about the
contents of the Churchill archive.
However in stating that my contention that some researchers have until
recently denied the existence of The Focus Mr Clark posted :-
> This is no more than conspiracy theory nonsense invented by
> and perpetuated by David Irvine (yes, again). The group was
> a registered public political group at the time of its
> operation, appeared regularly in the public press, held open
> public meetings at such venues as the Albert Hall and
> generally was no more secretive or sinister than any other
> right-wing political lobby group of the 1930s.
Here I cannot help wondering why he brings Irving into the matter, and I do
not accept the opinion of Mr Clark, because in a previous posting in this
newsgroup dated October 7 2002 Mr Clark himself states in response to
statement by one Peter Zwinkas concerning Churchill that :-
"He (Churchill) did have firm connections with a antifascist society in
London called the Focus Group"
And Andrew Clark responds :-
"This is an unproven and much disputed claim by the
anti-Semite Holocaust-denying reuined historian David
Irvine. "
So it seems that Mr Clark was at one time, (only recently in 2002), one of
the very researchers claiming in effect that the Focus group was non
existent or at least its existence was "unproven". Yet he now states the
Churchill archives released documents in 1985 which show Churchill was
involved with it.
Now he takes me to task for saying that until recently some researchers
denied its existence, and says that I am echoing a "conspiracy theory" by
so doing.
As proof of this refer to the posting of Clark archived at Google.
Andrew Clarks article of 7 Oct 2002 may be found at
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/soc.history.war.world-war-ii/messages/f7a650c8c1e5da68,9d9446e97365d271,ce822af99f362145,2b59f24b993ac781?thread_id=
5449541d22307766&mode=thread&noheader=1&q=%22The+Focus%22+author:Andrew+auth
or:Clark#doc_ce822af99f362145
Why is it so?
As to the Focus holding public meetings, can Mr Clark or any other reader
supply any reference to show that was so, press reports, posters, phamphlets
etc, because as I begin, in my armature way, to look into the matter, I am
led to the view that the Focus used or supported front organizations such as
the New Commonwealth Society and the Anti Nazi League, rather than holding
meetings in its own name. If this is so perhaps the view of Maurice Cowling
that it was a somewhat clandestine group, which Clark dismisses as rubbish
has some foundation.
If as Andrew Clark suggests The Focus held public meetings in the Albert
Hall and took out newspaper adverts, (in its OWN NAME?? ) can he or any
other reader point specifically to documentary evidence of such. Because if
it did, that would support the view that the Focus was not a "clandestine"
organisation with perhaps a hidden agenda, and would support Mr Clark's
perhaps rather bluntly put contention that the view of Cowling I echoed is
in fact "rubbish".
--
Andrew Clark
(snips)
> Here I cannot help wondering why he
> brings Irving into the matter...
Because Irving is the author of the allegations that
Churchill was financially indebted to prominent Jews and
that this situation amounted to a Jewish conspiracy to
control Churchill.
> So it seems that Mr Clark was at one time,
> (only recently in 2002), one of the very
> researchers claiming in effect that the
> Focus group was non existent or at
> least its existence was "unproven".
Nice try but no biscuit. My remark in 2002 was directed
specifically to Irving's allegation that Churchill was
financially indebted to prominent Jews through the Focus in
Defence of Freedom and Peace group. It was not directed to
the existence of the group itself. This is obvious when the
original poster's whole paragraph is read in context.
> As to the Focus holding public meetings,
> can Mr Clark or any other reader
> supply any reference to show that was so,
> press reports, posters, phamphlets
> etc...
As I said, you need to contact Churchill College who hold
several boxes of such material. Additionally, you may wish
to consult Gilbert's biography of Churchill.
> because as I begin, in my armature way,
> to look into the matter, I am led to the view
> that the Focus used or supported front
> organizations such as the New Commonwealth
> Society and the Anti Nazi League, rather than
> holding meetings in its own name.
Both happened. A multiplicity of relatively small lobby
groups with overlapping aims and objectives, and often
membership, co-operated with one another. This is very
common in political circles then and now. Only conspiracy
theorists regard it as sinister.
(snip repetition)
--
Michele Armellini
news:d19ocl$ltr$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
Mr Clark himself states in response to
> statement by one Peter Zwinkas concerning Churchill that :-
>
> "He (Churchill) did have firm connections with a antifascist society in
> London called the Focus Group"
>
> And Andrew Clark responds :-
>
> "This is an unproven and much disputed claim by the
> anti-Semite Holocaust-denying reuined historian David
> Irvine. "
>
> So it seems that Mr Clark was at one time, (only recently in 2002), one of
> the very researchers claiming in effect that the Focus group was non
> existent or at least its existence was "unproven".
Or maybe it seems he just said that Churchill's "firm connections" with it
were "unproven". If one reads closely. And objectively.
--
A Historian
firm connections" with the Focus.
On this Andrew Clark clearly stated:-
> "This is an unproven and much disputed claim by the
> > anti-Semite Holocaust-denying reuined historian David
> > Irvine. "
I can accept the view that this may not amount to a denial that the Focus
group existed,
but it is clearly not a frank statement of the position, as it can be easity
intrpreted that way, and is incorrect and misleading
Churchill obviously had connections of some sort as evidenced by the fact
that there are papers in the archives about the Focus group.
Clark now says "My remark in 2002 was directed
specifically to Irving's allegation that Churchill was
financially indebted to prominent Jews through the Focus in
Defence of Freedom and Peace group."
But in the particular statement to which he was replying there was no
mention of Churchill being "financially indebted to prominent Jews through
the Focus", (although the Strakosh matter did arise elsewhere in the thread
or a subsequent one) Zwinkas merely stated that Churchill had "strong
connections" with the group.
Strakosh was also a member of The Focus, and that the connections with him
included financial ones seems to have been clearly proven by the will of Sir
Henry Strakosh (details as published in the Times of London) and the
specific date of that publication was cited by another corespondent in a
similar thread. If Andrew Clark disputes that no doubt I can find it for
him.
I don't know what embellishments Irving is supposed to have made to the
facts, and whatever they may be they have nothing to do with what Zwinkas
said about "firm connections". Andrew Clark now seems to be wriggling around
to narrow the scope of his old response.
If you Goggle search the subject the Focus looks a fairly shadowy sort of
lobby group, and as a wartime Prime Minister was a member of it, was
indebted to the then huge sum of 20,000 Pounds (Strakosh's will , Times of
London) to one of it's members, at a time when he had to put his house up
for sale and was apparently close to bankruptcy, it seems to be something
well beyond the run of the mill lobby group that Mr Clark indicates it was.
If a lobby group can exert too strong an influence on an elected official
the very foundations of democracy are undermined.
A recent Television documentary showed Churchill was a very heavy drinker,
often drunk and almost incoherent at meetings with military officers and
government officials and ministers. The more that is revealed about him the
more flawed a character he appears to be, an alcoholic, close to bankruptcy,
indebted to a political lobbyist and as self proclaimed Zionist I wonder how
his decisions were affected by such a divided loyalty.
I am not in a position to go to the Churchill archives, I just wanted some
information on what those papers contain about the Focus, and would still
appreciate it if someone who has researched them could shed a little more
light on the matter.
--
rdu...@pdq.net
mentioned his involvement with the Focus group. And virtually all of
them have mentioned his financial difficulties and the role of Sir
Henry Strakosh. Why any of this should now be seen as something
recently "uncovered" or "shadowy" is beyond me. Besides, Churchill was
very consistent, over decades and in public, in his opposition to
anti-semitism and aggressive dictatorships - long before there was a
Focus group.
If one is intent on seeing a powerful cabal around Churchill and
the anti-Hitler movement in the late 1930s, it seems to me that a good
explanation is needed for why it was so in-effective.
And you learned on TV that Churchill liked to drink? Wow, you are
quite the scholar of that era. The drinking habits of WSC were a
subject of concern in those days, for sure. There is a school of
thought that holds that he was given the PM job in May 1940 with the
expectation that he would fail dismally but in so doing remove him from
blocking the inevitable deal-making with Hitler. But somehow, between
alcohol comas, he wrote and delivered a series of the most effective
speeches ever given in the English language and beat Hitler instead. So
now if you will excuse me, I think I will have a drink.
--
A Historian
pay of the Czech Government ?
The evidence pointing to this is I believe in a collection of Czech papers
at Boston University in the USA which relate to telephone conversations
between the Czech Ambassador to the UK Mr. Jan Masaryk in 1938 to his
superiors in Prague, indicating that Churchill was being paid by them, and
was asking for more and more money. The same collection also contains
personal diaries of the wife of General Sir Edward Spears, MP, she was also
known as the American novelist called Mary Borden, her diary shows Speers
was being bribed by the Czechs to the tune of 2000 Pounds a year. There is
evidence that there was a network of bribery and corruption amongst British
MPs.
Do those well known biographies also point out that the Focus was
specifically set up to fund Churchill, and that in the AUTHORISED biography
of Sir Robert Waley Cohen, chairman of Britsih Shell, published in 1966 by
Colonel Robert David Quixano Henriques (b. 11 Dec, 1905; d. 22 Jan, 1967),
of Winson Mill Farm, Cirencester, Gloucestershire. (Henriques also wrote a
biography of the 1st Visc Bearsted in1960) According to that authorised
biography Sir Robert Wahley Cohen quite openly boasted that at a dinner
party on July 22, 1936, it was put to Winston Churchill by various
influential businessmen that they would finance him. They put up £50,000
pounds to finance a secret group to support him, which was the Focus,
provided he turned his magnificent oratorical skills and his brilliant
writing talents away from his targets at the time, which were India and
Defence, and direct his efforts squarely upon their enemy, Nazi Germany.
Do those well known biographies tell you there was already a declaration of
war if force when The Focus was formed, that war was first declared against
Germany on Friday March 24th 1933, and reported in the London papers, among
them the Daily Express. Look it up. Do they tell you that Churchill was
chosen as a pawn in the game to bring Britain to war and give a practical
military force to the economic and political conflict already raging?
Do those well known biographies explain how without a secret income
Churchill could have afforded his mansion Chartwell with its staff of
gardeners, nurses, secretaries, and chauffeurs etc. All of these people
could not have been paid out of his 500 Pounds per year salary as a Member
of Parliament.
The "major" biographies are keeping alive the illusion of Churchill, the
illusion of how and why Britain ever became involved in war with Germany,
and more and more information is coming available that shows that what they
tell is an incomplete fabrication, selectively ignoring critical aspects of
the real story. What has been found in the Russian archives, the thousand
and umpteen University archives, the myriad of memoirs and personal diaries
of those who knew the truth, all of this is being collated, compared, cross
referenced and indexed in a way never before possible, it is the way of the
Internet. Lies can't live in this environment anymore, so the real story of
our times is gradually becoming known. Churchill and The focus are but a
speck of sand on a beach compared to the whole of the matter of truth in
history.
Many historians are bound by the chains of propaganda, because they are
confining their research to the so called official sources, biographies and
the various British archives and document collections, and are constrained
by political correctness, refusing to go where research inevitably leads, to
the truth.
Now we can ALL find that information, thanks to the internet, we no longer
are confined to what '"official" biographies choose to tell us, we are no
longer confined to the information supplied by a controlled press. The truth
is out there, seek and you will find it. And when you do, cry again for the
embroiled masses.
And have another drink, you are going to need it!
A Historian.
<rdu...@pdq.net> wrote in message news:d1f1v1$jso$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu
...
--
Andrew Clark
"A Historian" <nogatnut...@bogcreek.com> wrote
> But do those well known biographies also reveal
> that Churchill was in the pay of the Czech Government ?
No, because this is no more than another of David Irving's
lies about Churchill, which no self-respecting biographer
would give credence.
> The evidence pointing to this is I believe in
> a collection of Czech papers at Boston
> University in the USA which relate to
> telephone conversations between the
> Czech Ambassador to the UK Mr.
> Jan Masaryk in 1938 to his superiors
> in Prague, indicating that Churchill was
> being paid by them, and
> was asking for more and more money.
Irving has been unable to give a detailed citation for this
supposed document, and other historians looking for it in
the archives at Boston have been unable to find it. So it
looks like a barefaced lie.
> The same collection also contains
> personal diaries of the wife of General Sir
> Edward Spears, MP, she was also
> known as the American novelist called
> Mary Borden, her diary shows Speers
> was being bribed by the Czechs to the
> tune of 2000 Pounds a year.
This is amusing as an illustration of the depths of foolish
twisting of facts to which Irving will go. Spears was a MP,
and MPs at the time got a salary and allowances amounting to
Ł2000. Spears simply feared that he would lose his seat at a
general election called on the issue of Czechoslovakia, and
that was all the diary entry meant.
> There is evidence that there was a network
> of bribery and corruption amongst British
> MPs.
There is no "evidence". There are merely allegations by a
known neo-Nazi, anti-Semite and liar.
> Do those well known biographies also
> point out that the Focus was
> specifically set up to fund Churchill,
No, because it wasn't. The Focus in Defence of Freedom and
Peace, under similar names, was actually established and
active long before Churchill became a member and at a time
when he was not in acute financial difficulty. Irving failed
to mention that.
(snip)
> According to that authorised
> biography Sir Robert Wahley Cohen quite
> openly boasted that at a dinner
> party on July 22, 1936, it was put to Winston
> Churchill by various influential businessmen
> that they would finance him. They put up Ł50,000
> pounds to finance a secret group to support
> him, which was the Focus...
The Common's Register of Members Interests from 1933 - 39
mentions numbers of payments by several groups supporting
MPs hostile to the Nazi regime in Germany and its racist and
expansionist policies. There was nothing illegal or secret
about the 1930's anti-Nazi movement or its quest for
Parliamentary support, and naturally, given the persecution
of Jews by Nazi Germany, Jewish groups and individuals were
prominent in that movement. There is nothing sinister or
underhand except in the minds of those with a neo-Nazi
revisionist agenda, like Irving.
Churchill was *already* a prominent Zionist and advocate of
Jewish rights long before Nazi Germany stated persecuting
Jews, so it is palpably nonsense to claim that he was
influenced by any of these payments.
> provided he turned his magnificent
> oratorical skills and his brilliant writing
> talents away from his targets
> at the time, which were India and
> Defence, and direct his efforts
> squarely upon their enemy, Nazi Germany.
This is amusing foolishness.
Firstly, as the record shows, Churchill continued to make
passionate speeches in defence of his view on India right up
until and indeed after the war. It was a principle cause of
his enstrangement from the Conservative party leadership.
Secondly, "Defence" and "Nazi Germany" are the same issue.
Churchill wanted rearmament against the threat of Nazi
Germany.
> Do those well known biographies tell you
> there was already a declaration of
> war if force when The Focus was formed,
> that war was first declared against
> Germany on Friday March 24th 1933,
> .
Above, you wrote that Cohen boasted that the Focus was
formed on 22 July 1936 to support Churchill. Now you are
claiming that the Focus was already in existence on 24 March
1933. Looks like you can't keep your facts straight.
Anti-Semites and Jewish conspiracists have long alleged that
"the Jews declared war on Germany" on 24 March 1933, the day
of the emergency legislation that gave Hitler complete power
in Germany. Leese, the fascist anti-Semite imprisoned in the
UK during WW2, perpetuated the idea in his 1945 book.
> and reported in the London papers, among
> them the Daily Express. Look it up.
No detailed citation for this supposed press article has
ever been produced, and those looking in the archives of the
Daily Express have not found it.
> Do they tell you that Churchill was
> chosen as a pawn in the game to
> bring Britain to war and give a practical
> military force to the economic and political
> conflict already raging?
Now we see the Jewish conspiracist nonsense coming out.
> Do those well known biographies explain
> how without a secret income Churchill
> could have afforded his mansion Chartwell
> with its staff of gardeners, nurses,
> secretaries, and chauffeurs etc. All of these
> people could not have been paid out
> of his 500 Pounds per year salary as a Member
> of Parliament.
Firstly, Chartwell was not a mansion, but a rather modest
country home. Churchill built much of the gardens and
outbuildings himself. Neither did it have a large staff
until after WW2.
Secondly, Churchill was constantly in debt in the interwar
years. The Chartwell household accounts, preserved by the
National Trust, indicate a lot of unpaid bills and angry
tradesmen.
Thirdly, Churchill earned most of his income - occasionally
considerable - as an author of articles and books. He was
not dependent on his salary as an MP, any more than the
other 655 MPs were.
Fourthly, Churchill's finances have been dealt with very
openly by his biographer, Gilbert. Why don't you read him?
Or, like Irving, do you see him as part of the Jewish world
conspiracy too?
> The "major" biographies are keeping alive the
> illusion of Churchill, the illusion of how and
> why Britain ever became involved in war with Germany,
That's right. Tens of thousands of academics from all over
the world, of every nationality, race and religion, are all
wrong! Only David Irving, a man proved in court to be a
liar, is right!
(snip)
> ...it is the way of the Internet.
It is certainly the case that neo-Nazis have set out to
systematically fill the Internet with as much of their lies
and nonsense as possible in the hope of perpetuating their
drivel.
> Lies can't live in this environment anymore,
> so the real story of our times is gradually
> becoming known.
Lies cannot survive on the Internet. Remember, folks, you
read it here first, and without even a trace of irony.
(snip)
--
Andrew Clark
"A Historian" <nogatnut...@bogcreek.com> wrote
> Clark now says "My remark in 2002 was directed
> specifically to Irving's allegation that Churchill was
> financially indebted to prominent Jews through the Focus
in
> Defence of Freedom and Peace group."
>
> But in the particular statement to which he was
> replying there was no mention of Churchill
> being "financially indebted to prominent Jews through
> the Focus", (although the Strakosh matter did
> arise elsewhere in the thread or a subsequent
> one) Zwinkas merely stated that Churchill had "strong
> connections" with the group.
Don't imagine that silly textual games of this sort are not
going to be noticed. The original poster wrote a whole
paragraph and I responded to the sense of the whole
paragraph. As I said, and you cut: "This is obvious when the
original poster's whole paragraph is read in context".
> Strakosh was also a member of The Focus,
> and that the connections with him included
> financial ones seems to have been clearly
> proven by the will of Sir Henry Strakosh
> (details as published in the Times of London)
> and the specific date of that publication was
> cited by another corespondent in a
> similar thread. If Andrew Clark disputes
> that no doubt I can find it for him.
It is amusing that all the neo-Nazi sites misspell "Sir
Henry Strakosh" (the true spelling is Strakosch).
To repeat: Sir Henry Strakosch was a noted multimillionaire
philanthropist and made thousands of loans or gifts during
his lifetime and in his will to many people and
organisations, including politicians of all colours,
schools, hospitals, medical schools and laboratories. In
1937, through the offices of Brendan Bracken, he loaned
Churchill a large sum of money at commercial rates to help
cover the latter's continuing extravagant lifestyle. At the
time, loans to MPs at commercial rates of interest were not
required to be published in the House of Commons Register of
Members' Interests. In 1944, Sir Henry's will converted the
loan into a gift, along with thousands of other such loans
to all sorts of people and institutions. As required,
Churchill declared the gift to the House of Commons and the
details have been in the public domain Register of Members'
Interests ever since.
In the early 80's, David Irving alleged that Churchill was
"Churchill was financed during the "wilderness years"
between 1930 and 1939 by a slush fund emanating from a
secret Jewish pressure group known as the Focus" of which
Strakosch was a member, and that "The purpose was, the tune
that Churchill had to play was, fight Germany. Start warning
the world about Germany, about Nazi Germany". This
allegation has been comprehensively dismissed, not least at
Irving's trial. Only the tired Internet revisionists keep
wheeling it out with monotonous regularity.
> I don't know what embellishments Irving is
> supposed to have made to the facts, and
> whatever they may be they have nothing to
> do with what Zwinkas said about "firm connections".
Facile nonsense. Irving invented a lie for his own neo-Nazi
reasons, and you are perpetuating it by repeating Irving's
lies.
> Andrew Clark now seems to be wriggling around
> to narrow the scope of his old response.
The original poster wrote a whole paragraph and I responded
to the sense of the whole paragraph. No wriggling there.
> If you Goggle search the subject the Focus
> looks a fairly shadowy sort of lobby group,
Only on the neo-Nazi revisionist sites quoting Irving, of
course. If you look at reputable academic sites, like that
of Churchill College Cambridge, part of Cambridge
University, it is revealed that Irving is a liar and that
the group was a registered public political group at the
time of its
operation, appeared regularly in the public press, held open
public meetings at such venues as the Albert Hall and
generally was no more secretive or sinister than any other
right-wing political lobby group of the 1930s.
> and as a wartime Prime Minister was a member
> of it, was indebted to the then huge sum of 20,000
> Pounds (Strakosh's will , Times of London) to
> one of it's members, at a time when he had
> to put his house up for sale and was
> apparently close to bankruptcy, it seems
> to be something well beyond the run of
> the mill lobby group that Mr Clark indicates it was.
More Irving rubbish culled from revisionist websites - note
spelling of Strakosh!
In the first place, no-one has ever proved that Churchill
did anything in return for Strakosch's or anyone else's
money, not even Irving. The idea that he was 'bought by the
Jews' is pure Irving anti-Semitism.
Secondly, rich and titled people tend to loan and give each
other money when they get into financial difficulty rather
than going to banks or the bankrupty court like poorer
mortals. Because they are rich, the sums tend to be large.
There is nothing sinister in Churchill's friends loaning and
giving him money at a time of difficulty - it was an
accepted practice of the time.
And the Focus in Defence of Freedom and Peace group never
loaned or gave Churchill any money. Some of Churchill's
friends who, like him, were members of that group, made
loans and gifts. It was Irving who wrongly identified a
lobby group with the activities of some of its members.
And, finally, £20,000 in 1944 would have the same purchasing
power as about £550,000 today. That isn't a "huge sum" in
the circles into which Churchill was born and in which he
lived.
> If a lobby group can exert too strong
> an influence on an elected official
> the very foundations of democracy
> are undermined.
If lying historians falsely attack politicians, "the very
foundations of democracy are undermined".
> A recent Television documentary showed
> Churchill was a very heavy drinker,
> often drunk and almost incoherent
> at meetings with military officers and
> government officials and ministers.
And yet none of the hundreds of Churchill biographers and
commentators have ever found any evidence to this effect,
except of course David Irving. Those who worked with him in
WW2, including his own doctor, specifically deny that,
except on a very few occasions, Churchill was drunk or
incoherent. Churchill drank, certainly, but lightly except
at some meals.
> The more that is revealed about him the
> more flawed a character he appears to
> be, an alcoholic, close to bankruptcy,
> indebted to a political lobbyist and as
> self proclaimed Zionist I wonder how
> his decisions were affected by such
> a divided loyalty.
The more you read David Irving, the more you realise how big
a liar he is. This anonymous poster is doing no more than
repeat Irving's thirty year old and equally long-discredited
neo-Nazi story about Churchill being a tool of a Jewish
international conspiracy. Did he think no-one would notice?
> I am not in a position to go to
> the Churchill archives,
You can phone or e-mail them.
> I just wanted some information on
> what those papers contain about the Focus,
> and would still appreciate it if someone
> who has researched them could shed
> a little more light on the matter.
Martin Gilbert had full access to them when writing
Churchill's biography. Try reading it.
--
A Historian
"Andrew Clark" <acl...@deletethisstarcott.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d1n83n$o7v$1...@gnus01.u.washington.edu...
>
> "A Historian" <nogatnut...@bogcreek.com> wrote
>
Re Czech papers in Boston U archive - Churchill bribery allegations.
> Irving has been unable to give a detailed citation for this
> supposed document, and other historians looking for it in
> the archives at Boston have been unable to find it. So it
> looks like a barefaced lie.
Now that's a good response from Andrew Clark.
If as you say other historians have looked for this information in Boston U
archives and been unable to find it, can you point to any published
statement from them, with of course a detailed citation, which states that
they have done so. Also the dates (year at least) in which they searched. If
several historians confirm that the papers are not there now, I'll be happy
to believe them..
It is of course possible that the papers could have been removed from the
archives once their content was publicised. If Irving did see then, it was
before 1990 as he referred to them in a speech to the Clarendon Club that
year, also he is known to be in the habit of taking copies, and may be able
to produce them.
Perhaps we should ask Irving to give a detailed citation, and produce a
copy?
Are you game to try it?
(I shan't be able to follow up your answer for about three months, going on
holls, no internet access )
> > The same collection also contains
> > personal diaries of the wife of General Sir
> > Edward Spears, MP, she was also
> > known as the American novelist called
> > Mary Borden, her diary shows Speers
> > was being bribed by the Czechs to the
> > tune of 2000 Pounds a year.
>
> This is amusing as an illustration of the depths of foolish
> twisting of facts to which Irving will go. Spears was a MP,
> and MPs at the time got a salary and allowances amounting to
> £2000. Spears simply feared that he would lose his seat at a
> general election called on the issue of Czechoslovakia, and
> that was all the diary entry meant.
So you are confirming that such a diary exists at Boston U. Have you seen
it too? The entry reportedly refers to money "from the Czechs" not to Speers
parliamentary salary. So if you have actually examined the papers I'd be
inclined to give your differing interpretation more weight.
> > Do those well known biographies also
> > point out that the Focus was
> > specifically set up to fund Churchill,
>
> No, because it wasn't. The Focus in Defence of Freedom and
> Peace, under similar names, was actually established and
> active long before Churchill became a member and at a time
> when he was not in acute financial difficulty. Irving failed
> to mention that.
>
> (snip)
>
> > According to that authorised
> > biography Sir Robert Wahley Cohen quite
> > openly boasted that at a dinner
> > party on July 22, 1936, it was put to Winston
> > Churchill by various influential businessmen
> > that they would finance him. They put up £50,000
> > pounds to finance a secret group to support
> > him, which was the Focus...
>
Here I see something very significant. You don't comment on the authorised
Sir Robert Waley Cohen biography by Colonel Robert David Quixano Henriques,
I have a record of Henriques's marriage at West London Synagogue, Upper
Berkeley Street, which was announced in The Times 12 Oct 1928:
"The marriage took place yesterday [11 Oct 1928] at the of Mr. Robert David
Quixano Henriques,
Royal Artillery, son of Mr. and Mrs. Julian Q. Henriques, of 20,
Oxford-square, and Alchornes, Nutley, and Miss Vivien Doris Levy, youngest
daughter of the late Major W. H. Levy, D.S.O., and the Hon. Mrs. Levy, of
54, Lowndes-square. )
This authorised biography is where the claim of 50,00 Pounds, and The Focus
being specifically up to fund Churchill comes from, not from Irving.
Instead you go off into what amounts to a justification of the situation by
referring to:-
> The Common's Register of Members Interests from 1933 - 39
> mentions numbers of payments by several groups supporting
> MPs hostile to the Nazi regime in Germany
The Group Known as The New Commonwealth Society was set up by Lord Davies a
few years earlier, and The Focus used it's name and held meetings under its
name, but "The Focus" was set up at the time and for the specific purpose of
funding Churchill as Henriques claims. Although it may have also involved a
name change from a group called the ANC Anti Nazi Council, which was
established about 1933 at the instigation and with support from the wealthy
American Samuel Untermeyer. This is still being researched. The Focus is
known to have had some connection with the ANC which "disappeared" about the
time of The Focus being set up, and may have merged into the newly named
group to support Churchill.
The Robert Waley Cohen biography by Colonel Robert David Quixano Henriques
is an independent source entirely form Irving, but it confirms his claims
about the purpose of The Focus, maybe Irving got it from Henriques.
> > Do those well known biographies tell you
> > there was already a declaration of
> > war if force when The Focus was formed,
> > that war was first declared against
> > Germany on Friday March 24th 1933,
> .
>
> Above, you wrote that Cohen boasted that the Focus was
> formed on 22 July 1936 to support Churchill. Now you are
> claiming that the Focus was already in existence on 24 March
> 1933. Looks like you can't keep your facts straight.
I do NOT say the Focus was already in existence on 24th March 1933, I said
there was already a declaration of war in place when it was formed.
>
> Anti-Semites and Jewish conspiracists have long alleged that
> "the Jews declared war on Germany" on 24 March 1933, the day
> of the emergency legislation that gave Hitler complete power
> in Germany. Leese, the fascist anti-Semite imprisoned in the
> UK during WW2, perpetuated the idea in his 1945 book.
>
> > and reported in the London papers, among
> > them the Daily Express. Look it up.
> No detailed citation for this supposed press article has
> ever been produced, and those looking in the archives of the
> Daily Express have not found it.
Well here we have a HEAD ON crash of facts, because there are on the
Internet numerous facsimiles of the front page of the London Daily Express
of 24th March 1933 with the headline "Judea Declares War on Germany". No
citation beyond the date of the paper is necessary. Now either the copies of
the paper are complete forgeries or what you say is nonsense.
Here is the URL of one site showing it
http://www.rodoh.us/documents/images/judeawar there are others too.
Have a look at it and if that is not the front page of the London Daily
Express of 24th March 1933 I will take your point seriously.
Again can you give a reference to any published historian who has looked for
this newspaper article in the files of the London Daily Express archives and
states that the London Daily Express of that date has been found to not be
identical with the newspaper shown in the above Internet URL.
If the paper for 24 March 1933 isn't in the archives any longer it is
because it has been removed to cloud the issue and falsify history.
(Remember don't expect an answer until July 2005, then I'll be interested to
dig your response out of Goggle and see what you have to say about it)
A Historian.
--
rdu...@pdq.net
A Historian wrote:
> But do those well known biographies also reveal that Churchill was in
the
> pay of the Czech Government ?
> The evidence pointing to this is I believe in a collection of Czech
papers
> at Boston University in the USA which relate to telephone
conversations
> between the Czech Ambassador to the UK Mr. Jan Masaryk in 1938 to
his
> superiors in Prague, indicating that Churchill was being paid by
them, and
> was asking for more and more money. The same collection also contains
> personal diaries of the wife of General Sir Edward Spears, MP, she
was also
> known as the American novelist called Mary Borden, her diary shows
Speers
> was being bribed by the Czechs to the tune of 2000 Pounds a year.
There is
> evidence that there was a network of bribery and corruption amongst
British
> MPs.
It is probably impossible to prove whether or not that WSC and
others were paid some money for some reason by the Czech government. It
would not surprise me if it happened. Then, as ever, governments were
willing to reward their supporters in various ways in hopes of gaining
influence. To the despair of his admirers, WSC was never overly
concerned with who paid for things. But that is a long way from being
actually bribed. For one thing, WSC was right about Hitlers designs
regarding Chechoslavakia when whole rooms full of sober, independently
wealthy politicians were wrong.
Keep in mind that the German government (prewar) pushed every sort
of reward and favor onto Western politicians that they saw as friendly.
So did they black-mail them with wire-tapped personal secrets.
All of this was business as usual. Remember C. Lindberg? The Nazis
gave him a nice medal in appreciation of his advocacy of their
interests. Was Lindberg bribed??
>
> Do those well known biographies also point out that the Focus was
> specifically set up to fund Churchill, and that in the AUTHORISED
biography
> of Sir Robert Waley Cohen, chairman of Britsih Shell, published in
1966 by
> Colonel Robert David Quixano Henriques (b. 11 Dec, 1905; d. 22 Jan,
1967),
> of Winson Mill Farm, Cirencester, Gloucestershire. (Henriques also
wrote a
> biography of the 1st Visc Bearsted in1960) According to that
authorised
> biography Sir Robert Wahley Cohen quite openly boasted that at a
dinner
> party on July 22, 1936, it was put to Winston Churchill by various
> influential businessmen that they would finance him. They put up
£50,000
> pounds to finance a secret group to support him, which was the Focus,
> provided he turned his magnificent oratorical skills and his
brilliant
> writing talents away from his targets at the time, which were India
and
> Defence, and direct his efforts squarely upon their enemy, Nazi
Germany.
The notion that WSC was influenced decisively by whatever support he
received from the Chechs or the Focus gang needs to be balanced against
the fact that he was forced to work flat-out as a journalist all
through the late 30s just to pay his bills. He was rarely able to
attend parliment and his anti-Hitler efforts had to be squeezed in
amongst his constant writing chores merely to stay ahead of his many
creditors. Indeed, he continued to spend lots of time finishing up
contracted-for manuscripts even after the outbreak of war and his
taking over at the Admiralty. This irritated many who knew about it but
WSC insisted on doing so.
This was all a big diversion from what the Focus group allegedly
wanted him to be about. If he were so effectively bought, one would not
expect to have seen him pump out reams of articles for the popular
media on bullshit topics just to pay his bills. But he did and that is
one reason he was not taken entirely seriously by the poltical
establishment.
Besides, the India matter was effectively closed by 36-37.
>
> Do those well known biographies tell you there was already a
declaration of
> war if force when The Focus was formed, that war was first declared
against
> Germany on Friday March 24th 1933, and reported in the London papers,
among
> them the Daily Express. Look it up. Do they tell you that Churchill
was
> chosen as a pawn in the game to bring Britain to war and give a
practical
> military force to the economic and political conflict already raging?
All notions that G. Britain wanted a war with Germany fall apart
when one considers the fact that they had not bothered to prepare to
fight it. And the co-conspiritors in the USSR (you know who -right?)
also failed to unite with G.B. in an anti-Hitler coalition in August
1939. Without an Eastern front and with the USSR now supplying German
war needs - that was not a very smart time to instigate a war against
Germany.
>
> Do those well known biographies explain how without a secret income
> Churchill could have afforded his mansion Chartwell with its staff of
> gardeners, nurses, secretaries, and chauffeurs etc. All of these
people
> could not have been paid out of his 500 Pounds per year salary as a
Member
> of Parliament.
Of course not. But no one at the time thought that it would either.
WSC was one of the busiest, most prominent and highest paid journalists
in the world in those days. Sort of the opposite of a secret life, if
you think about it.
>
> The "major" biographies are keeping alive the illusion of Churchill,
the
> illusion of how and why Britain ever became involved in war with
Germany,
> and more and more information is coming available that shows that
what they
> tell is an incomplete fabrication, selectively ignoring critical
aspects of
> the real story. What has been found in the Russian archives, the
thousand
> and umpteen University archives, the myriad of memoirs and personal
diaries
> of those who knew the truth, all of this is being collated, compared,
cross
> referenced and indexed in a way never before possible, it is the way
of the
> Internet. Lies can't live in this environment anymore, so the real
story of
> our times is gradually becoming known.
By all means, more facts are always good. But the truth about the
Nazi era and the Wests response to it were always there in plain sight.
Nazi ambition was unlimited and malignant and therefore war (or
surrender) was inevitable. Everything else is noise in comparison.
--
Andrew Clark
"A Historian" <nogatnut...@bogcreek.com> wrote
> If as you say other historians have looked for this
information in Boston U
> archives and been unable to find it, can you point to any
published
> statement from them, with of course a detailed citation,
which states that
> they have done so.
You made a claim relying on the existence of these
documents. So, you substantiate it, with a detailed citation
of library or archive and a document or shelf/box reference.
I, on the other hand, won't hold my breath.
> Perhaps we should ask Irving to give a detailed
> citation, and produce a copy? Are you game to try it?
I am quite happy for you to contact him. After all, you
clearly read and copy material from his website...
> (I shan't be able to follow up your answer
> for about three months, going on
> holls, no internet access )
How extraordinarily convenient.
> So you are confirming that
> such a diary exists at Boston U.
There is an extant document, yes.
> Have you seen
> it too?
No. Sadly, I am unable to travel to Boston to look at
primary sources, like most people. That's why trusted
secondary sources are so important. Note that word
"trusted": Iving is not a trusted source.
> The entry reportedly refers to money
> "from the Czechs" not to Speers
> parliamentary salary.
That's not what the extract says which you yourself posted
on this NG.
> So if you have actually examined
> the papers I'd be inclined to give
> your differing interpretation more weight.
The matter was dealt with during Irving's recent libel case.
Suggesting that only those who actually see a document with
their own eyes can be trusted is a typical Irving strawman
argument.
> Here I see something very significant.
> You don't comment on the authorised
> Sir Robert Waley Cohen biography by
> Colonel Robert David Quixano Henriques,
But I have done so in another post in this thread to which
you have not replied.
(snip points dealt with in that post)
> I do NOT say the Focus was already in existence
> on 24th March 1933, I said there was already
> a declaration of war in place when it was formed.
I note your post-facto clarification.
> Have a look at it and if that is not the
> front page of the London Daily
> Express of 24th March 1933 I will
> take your point seriously.
No. It's an infamous neo-Nazi forgery which has been exposed
a thousand times.
--
hanc...@bbs.cpcn.com
> The "major" biographies are keeping alive the illusion of Churchill,
the
> illusion of how and why Britain ever became involved in war with
Germany,
> and more and more information is coming available that shows that
what they
> tell is an incomplete fabrication, selectively ignoring critical
aspects of
> the real story
Churchill and his political colleagues and opponents are all long
dead. There is no reason whatsoever that substantiated accurate
facts would be widely publicized upon discovery. It is solely
your unsubstantiated opinion, without specific authoritative
citations that there is an "illusion" about Churchill or how
Britain got involved in war.
> What has been found in the Russian archives
Hmmm
>, the thousand
> and umpteen University archives,
"Thousands" of universities? That's quite a bit!
> Many historians are bound by the chains of propaganda, because they
are
> confining their research to the so called official sources,
biographies and
> the various British archives and document collections, and are
constrained
> by political correctness, refusing to go where research inevitably
leads, to
> the truth.
How can you discredit one official source (Britain) yet accept
another "official source" (Russia)? How can you discredit British
archives and document collections yet accept "unmpteen University
acrhives and personal memoirs"?
It seems awfully strange how you reject some sources but welcome
others, especially when virtually everyone else feels the opposite
about said sources.
You also speak of finding some yet unkown "truth". Since it is
not as yet known, how will you know it is "truth" when you find it?
Seems to me this is not historically accurate. Rather, it seems
you are looking for some far-fetched tidbits for pre-conceived notions.
--