Everything People Believed about Hitler’s Intentions Toward Britain was a Myth Created by Churchill

It’s good that the UK Government is going to pardon the thousands of Army deserters who enlisted in the British forces during World War Two.

Of course, no army can allow desertion; however, these men were not court-martialled, but were subject to a blanket ban on state employment that deprived them of their constitutional right to due process. The vast majority of them deserted from June 1941 onward, when the theoretical possibility of a German invasion had all but vanished.

The men who deserted did so after being effectively cheated into becoming soldier-serfs, cutting turf on the Bog of Allen.

That was the second great lie of their young lives. The first one was that Ireland ever faced a serious threat of invasion by Germany, which was the spawn of an even vaster falsehood — that in 1940, Hitler wanted to invade Britain. But he didn’t. He actually admired the British Empire, with its inherent presumption of racial superiority. We know from the diaries of Lord Halifax, the British foreign minister, that Hitler offered terms that did not involve German control of Britain. Churchill refused to allow these terms to be read to the cabinet, and they remain prudently concealed under the 100-year rule.

Instead, Churchill’s determination to keep Britain at war turned what had been merely a continental defeat of its army into the enduring myth that in 1940, Britain faced a war for national survival.

But the German naval leader, Raeder, had repeatedly forbidden his staff from planning an invasion of Britain. And far from wanting to continue the war, in June 1940, Hitler ordered 20pc of his army to be demobilised, in order to get the German economy going again. The “invasion fleet” that the Nazis began to assemble that summer was no more capable of invading Britain than it was Hawaii. It was war by illusion: its purpose was to get the British to the negotiating table.

This “fleet” consisted of 1,900 canal barges, only one- third of which were powered, to be towed cross-channel, in clusters of three, by just 380 tugs. These barges had tiny keels, blunt prows and small rudders, with just two feet of freeboard: the distance between the water and the top of the hull. They would have been swamped during even a direct crossing of the English Channel, a shallow and violent waterway linking the raging North Sea and Atlantic. But an invasion would not be direct. The barges, with their untrained crews, would be able to make only about three knots, from the three “invasion” centres: Rotterdam, Le Havre and Boulogne. These ports are, respectively, from any south-coast landing beaches, at best, 200 miles and 60 hours, 100 miles and 30 hours, and 50 miles and 15 hours, with seasick soldiers crammed into keel-less floundering barges without toilets or water. What army would be fit to fight after a journey like that? And then there’s the 55,000 horses that the Wehrmacht would need: its transport was still not mechanised.

All being well, and that really is a relative term, the first “wave” would take 10 days to land, with the barges plying to and from those three distant ports, requiring tides that would have to obey the demands of the Fuehrer rather than the older ones of the sea, in convoy, often at night, and always without navigation lights.

Why no lights? Ah: the Royal Navy. This is where matters become quite phantasmagorical. In August 1940, the British Home Fleet ALONE consisted of 140 destroyers, 40 cruisers and frigates, five battleships and two aircraft carriers.

The entire German navy, the Kriegsmarin, consisted of just seven destroyers, one cruiser with unreliable engines, two working cruisers, no aircraft carriers, and no battleships or battle cruisers: the Bismarck and Tirpitz were still building, and the Gneisenau and Scharnhorst were damaged and out of action until the following winter.

What about the Luftwaffe? Well, it had no torpedo-carrying aircraft, whereas the British had two (the Beaufort and the Swordfish, both of which were later to show their mettle in disabling German capital ships), and air-bombing vigorously defended warships accurately over an open sea is incredibly difficult, even for dive-bombers: Stuka bomb sights were calibrated for stationary targets. All right, but were not British shores defenceless in 1940? No — aside from a largely intact British army, two fully-equipped Canadian divisions arrived that summer, as did 200,000 rifles from the US on the ‘SS Britannic’.

This doesn’t diminish the validity of the allied cause, or the later decision of the nearly 7,000 Army deserters who enlisted in it, for they were taking arms against one of the most evil regimes in world history.

Nonetheless, just about everything that people believed about Hitler’s intentions towards Britain in 1940 — and still believe today — was a myth created by Churchill, which he probably came to believe himself. Consider all the facts above, and then consider how that myth has endured, despite them. Makes you wonder, no?


Assad advisor: The intentions of the U.S. in Syria was not to fight terrorism at all

There isn’t a grain of truth in John Kerry’s statement the Assad government isn’t trying to stop ISIS; the Syrian army has been fighting terrorists, while the West watched the country being destroyed, says Syrian presidential adviser Bouthaina Shaaban

RT: Russia has joined the fight against Islamic State. How long have you been negotiating the move with Moscow?

Bouthaina Shaaban: The dialogue between us [Damascus] and Moscow has been ongoing since the beginning of the crisis. And, as you noticed, that Russia and China took a double veto four times against all that the West was trying to impose on Syria. Because the West didn’t understand what’s happening in Syria, while Russia understood all the way along. So, the dialogue between Damascus and Moscow is ongoing… [since] a decade ago; but during this crisis it has been intensive, it has been real, it has been continuous.

RT: Is the involvement of Russian aviation a game changer in the fight against IS?

BS: Well, there are no Russian troops on the ground as you heard Putin and Lavrov [saying] – “our assistance is only [fighter jets].” But it’s not only against IS. I don’t know why people… forget about Jabhat Al-Nusra, although the [UN] Security Council resolution spoke about or considered both Al-Nusra and ISIL as terrorist organizations.

Besides these, there are tens of terrorist organizations in Syria. There are thousands of mercenaries and terrorists coming from all over the world. So, we certainly hope that with the help of the Russian assistance we will be able to undermine terrorism in Syria and we’ll be able to restore peace and security in our country.

RT: The Pentagon accuses Russia of targeting not IS, but Western-backed rebels’ positions without providing any evidence behind that. How plausible are these allegations?

BS:What I know is that the way Russia did things, that it did it both in full cooperation with the Syrian government, in consultation with the entire world; Putin was asking any country in the world to join in fighting terrorism. Therefore, I think the style of fighting terrorism is very convincing by the Russians, while the alliance that was made by the US and the West did not either follow the rules of international legitimacy or coordinate with the Syrian government, and didn’t really mean to fight terrorism. Because they had been around for a few months and they weren’t really effective at all. I don’t think the intention of the other [US] alliance is to fight terrorism at all.

RT: The issue was high on the agenda of the UN Security Council and the US once again spoke of its reluctance to work with President Assad. US Secretary of the State John Kerry accused the Syrian government of not trying to stop terrorists on their territory while they are “raping, enslaving and murdering civilians” and that they “focused all of its military power on moderate opposition groups who were fighting for a voice in Syria.” How fair are those allegations?

BS: I think there’s no grain of truth in what John Kerry has said about Syria. I mean, could you imagine that the government wouldn’t target terrorist and would target the moderate opposition. After all, the Pentagon announced today that they’re not going to arm the opposition anymore because they discovered that this opposition [that] they have been arming were selling or giving arms to Al-Nusra and probably to ISIL.

Once you are in a terrorist area you’ll never be able to know who is who, whether this is Al-Nusra or ISIL, or whatever. One thing that is true is that all those carrying arms against the Syrian people, against the Syrian institutions are terrorists, and the Syrian army has been fighting them for the last five years, while the West is looking at our country being destroyed – at our hospitals, at our schools; our archeological heritage being absolutely destroyed. It’s very easy to sit in New York and talk about concepts, but it’s very different – the truth in Syria. And the reality is very different from what the Americans and from what John Kerry is saying.

RT: Why is West allowing their opinion of Assad to hinder the anti-IS effort?

BS: What needs to be done is to fight ISIL and to fight terrorism in Syria. You know, I really would love the West to review all their policies in Syria. The problem right from the beginning was not Assad – the target wasn’t Assad. Just as Libya is destroyed now and they were talking about Gaddafi, and Iraq is destroyed and they were talking about Saddam Hussein or about mass destruction weapons. These concepts, if you want, floated in the media. They are only used in order to destroy our countries; in order to destroy our civilization; in order to destroy our people. I really believe that the West should wake up and see what’s happening on the ground. I feel… all the Arab people feel that the Russians understand what’s going on in Syria; understand what’s going on in the Arab world and they’re committed to international legitimacy and to respect our country’s sovereignty. And that’s why I feel that the Russians are going to succeed what the West didn’t or didn’t want to succeed, probably – I’m not sure.

Kansas City shooter: ‘I had a patriotic intent to stop genocide’


(JTA) — The white supremacist charged with killing three people outside two Jewish facilities in a suburb of Kansas City, Kansas, told a jury he is not guilty because he merely was trying to “defend my people against genocide.”

If convicted in the April 2014  shootings outside the JCC of Kansas City and the Village Shalom assisted-living facility in Overland Park, Kansas, Frazier Glenn Miller, also known as Frazier Glenn Cross, could face the death penalty.

Miller, 74, is representing himself in the capital trial in Olathe, Kansas. On Friday, after the prosecution completed its arguments, he admitting to killing three people, and acknowledged trying to shoot more,Reuters reported.

Claiming that Jews have committed genocide against white people and that they control both the media and Wall Street, Miller said, “I had no criminal intent, I had a patriotic intent to stop genocide against my people.”

“I hate Jews,” Miller said, according to Reuters. “They are the ones who destroy us.”

Miller made similar claims in his opening statements on Monday, which the judge interrupted midway through, saying his views were not relevant at that stage of the trial.

Miller is charged with killing Reat Underwood, 14, and Underwood’s grandfather, 69-year-old William Corporon, outside the JCC, as well as Terri LaManno, 53, outside a nearby Jewish assisted-living facility. None was Jewish, but Miller assumed they were Jewish when he shot them.