dimanche 26 septembre 2010

La connexion secrète entre la Première Guerre mondiale et la Déclaration Balfour


Écouter la conférence complète de Ben Freedman ici. Lire la transcription, en version française ici.


La fameuse Déclaration Balfour (du nom du ministre britannique des affaires étrangères) par laquelle l'Angleterre promis la Palestine aux juifs (à Lionel Rothschild) servit en fait à convaincre les Juifs américains de pousser les États-Unis dans la guerre de 1914-17. (Et c'est ainsi que cette sale guerre devint la Première Guerre mondiale.) Ce fait est confirmé par un mémo à la British Commission of Palestine écrit par James Malcolm, qui était intimement lié à cette fameuse lettre. Par ailleurs, l'auteur Samuel Landman (secrétaire du leader sioniste Chaim Weizmann) confirme cette déclaration de Malcolm dans son ouvrage Great Britain, the Jews and Palestine:
La seule manière (ce qui fut démontré par la suite) d'amener les États-Unis à entrer dans cette guerre était de s'assurer la coopération des Juifs sionistes en leur promettant la Palestine, enrôlant et mobilisant ainsi en faveur des alliés le pouvoir jusqu'alors insoupçonné des Juifs sionistes en Amérique et ailleurs, sur la base d'un contrat quid pro quo.

the only way (which proved so to be) to induce the American President to come into the War was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilize the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis.



Extrait de The New Babylon, Michael Collins Piper, 2009:

In a modern context, however, the establishment of Israel in 1948 — and the intrigues surrounding it — go back to the Balfour Declaration and, as we shall see, that involved the effort by the British to get the United States involved in the war in the Old World that became known as World War I.
The Balfour Declaration — dated November 2, 1917 — written by British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour to Britain’s Lord Rothschild asserted a “declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations” and that the British government viewed “with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object.”
In fact, the Balfour Declaration was the consequence of international intrigue that was designed specifically for the purpose of bringing the United States into the war in Europe between Britain and Germany. The intent was to utilize powerful Jewish interests in the United States in pressuring President Woodrow Wilson to provide American blood and treasure to the British war effort. In return for their assistance on behalf of Britain, the Jewish warmongers were promised Britain’s assistance in the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.
Lest anyone believe this is some extraordinary conspiracy theory, please note that in 1936, in a then-confidential memo (long ago made public) to the British Commission on Palestine, James Malcolm, a central figure in the circumstances surrounding the issuance of the Balfour Declaration, stated flatly that the first object in the series of events orchestrating the declaration “was to enlist the very considerable and necessary influence of the Jews, and especially of the Zionist or Nationalist Jews, to help us bring America into the War at the most critical period of the hostilities.”
Writing in Great Britain, the Jews and Palestine, Samuel Landman — who at the period of the negotiations leading to the Balfour Declaration, was secretary to the Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann (and who later served as secretary of the World Zionist Organization) — confirmed Malcolm’s assessment of the circumstances saying:
The only way (which proved so to be) to induce the American President to come into the war was to secure the cooperation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilize the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis.
So what does all of this mean? To put it bluntly, simply: the Jews got the United States involved in World War I. The subsequent events that led to World War II — certainly — and later U.S. involvement in the Middle East can be summarized likewise. In short, Jewish power led to the loss of 53,000 American lives in World War I and 292,131 more in World War II — wars fought largely — if not solely — for Jewish interests. (...)




VIDEO - Alison Weir: Against Our Better Judgment  @46:25: Explications détaillées sur le lien secret entre la Première Guerre mondiale et la création d'Israël...

Voir aussi:
Britain’s Balfour Declaration of 1917, The Barnes Review


Benjamin H. Freedman:

Été 1916 : les Alliés à genoux, l’Allemagne propose la paix
Alors permettez moi de vous raconter ce qui c’est réellement passé tandis nous étions tous endormis. La Première Guerre mondiale survint durant l’été 1914. Il y a ici peu de gens de mon âge qui se souviennent de cela. Cette guerre fut menée d’un coté par la Grande-Bretagne, la France et la Russie, et de l’autre coté par l’Allemagne, l’Autriche-Hongrie et la Turquie. En l’espace de deux ans, l’Allemagne avait remporté la guerre.
Non seulement l’avait remportée nominalement mais aussi réellement. Les sous-marins allemands, qui furent une totale surprise pour le monde, avaient balayé tous les convois de l’océan Atlantique. La Grande-Bretagne se trouvait sans munitions pour ses soldats, avec juste une seule semaine de ravitaillement, et après cela, c’était la famine. Au même moment l’armée française s’était mutinée. Ils avaient perdus 600 000 soldats à la fleur de l’age dans les batailles de défense de Verdun et de la Somme. L’armée russe avait déserté ; ils ne voulaient plus jouer à la guerre et avaient raccroché leur « jouet » pour retourner à la maison ; d’ailleurs ils détestaient leur tsar. Quant à l’armée italienne, elle s’était littéralement décomposée. Durant exactement la même période, pas un seul coup de feu n’avait encore été tiré en territoire allemand, pas un seul soldat ennemi n’avait encore franchi la frontière allemande.
Pourtant, l’Allemagne proposait un accord de paix. Ils offraient à l’Angleterre une paix négociée appelée par les juristes un status quo ante basis, signifiant « cessons le combat et retournons aux conditions d’avant la guerre ».
L’Angleterre envisage la paix, intervention sioniste pour impliquer les États-Unis
Durant l’été 1916, l’Angleterre considérait sérieusement cette proposition. Ils n’avaient d’ailleurs pas le choix. C’était soit accepter cette offre de paix noblement proposée par les allemands, soit aller vers une défaite certaine.
Tandis que cela se discutait, les sionistes de l’Europe de l’Est rencontrèrent le British War Cabinet. Je vais être bref, car ceci est une longue histoire ; mais je détiens tous les documents prouvant mes déclarations. Ils dirent : « Écoutez nous, vous pouvez encore remporter cette guerre… Ne baissez pas les bras…vous n’êtes pas obligé d’accepter la proposition de paix faite par l’Allemagne. Vous pourriez gagner cette guerre si l’Amérique venait à vos cotés en tant qu’alliée. » Les États-Unis étaient alors hors du conflit. Nous étions jeunes, nous étions innocents, nous étions puissants. Ils dirent à l’Angleterre : « Nous vous garantissons d’embarquer les États-Unis contre l’Allemagne dans cette guerre, si vous nous promettiez la Palestine après la victoire. »
En d’autres termes, ils firent ce pacte : « Nous nous chargeons de ramener les Etats-Unis en tant qu’allié ; le prix à payer sera la Palestine, après bien sûr, la défaite de l’Allemagne, Autriche-Hongrie, et Turquie. » L’Angleterre avait autant de légitimité de promettre la Palestine à quiconque, qu’auraient les États-Unis de promettre le Japon à l’Irlande pour quelque raison que ce soit. Il est absolument absurde que la Grande-Bretagne, qui d’ailleurs n’a jamais eu aucun lien en quoi que ce soit ou même un intérêt quelconque, pas plus que de droit par rapport à ce qui est connu en tant que « Palestine », ait à l’offrir comme part du gâteau pour payer les sionistes en service de leurs actions pour impliquer les États-Unis contre l’Allemagne.
Octobre 1916 : les sionistes font entrer les États-Unis en guerre – Déclaration Balfour
En octobre 1916 cette promesse fut faite malgré tout. Peu de temps après cela, je ne sais pas combien d’entre vous s’en souviennent, les États-Unis, qui étaient presque totalement « pro-Allemands », soudainement entraient en guerre aux cotés des Britanniques.
Je répète que les États-Unis étaient quasiment pro-Allemands ; parce que les journaux étaient tous contrôlés par des juifs, les banquiers étaient juifs, toute l’industrie des mass media et de l’information dans ce pays était sous contrôle juif. Et il s’avère que les juifs étaient pro-Allemands. Parce que beaucoup d’entre eux étaient venus d’Allemagne, et ils ne rêvaient que d’une chose, voir les Allemands faire abdiquer le Tsar. De tous temps les juifs n’ont jamais aimé le tsar de Russie et ils ne voulaient pas le voir remporter la guerre. Ces banquiers juifs allemands, comme Kuhn & Loeb, et beaucoup d’autres banques américaines, simplement refusaient de financer la France ou l’Angleterre du moindre sou.
Par contre, ils versèrent des sommes colossales à l’Allemagne. Ils avaient choisi leur camp depuis le début de la guerre. Ils dirent : « Tant que l’Angleterre et la France sont liés avec la Russie, ils n’encaisseront pas le moindre dollar. » Ils procurèrent à l’Allemagne des fonds monétaires pour défaire la Russie.
Donc, ces mêmes banquiers juifs, réalisant la possibilité de décrocher la Palestine, se rendirent en Angleterre et firent ce pacte. À ce moment précis, tout changea, comme un feu rouge qui tournerait au vert. Quand bien même les journaux avaient été tous pro-Allemands, disant à l’opinion publique les difficultés qu’avait l’Allemagne à combattre économiquement la Grande-Bretagne et en d’autres secteurs, soudainement les Allemands devinrent mauvais, tout d’un coup ils étaient horribles, maintenant c’étaient des « Huns » qui se mettaient soit disant à tirer sur les ambulances de la Croix Rouge et découpaient les mains des enfants.
Peu de temps après cela, le président Wilson déclara la guerre à l’Allemagne. Les sionistes de Londres avaient alors envoyé un télégraphe aux États-Unis à l’adresse du juge Brandeis, lui disant : « Occupez vous de Wilson, on a eu ce qu’on voulait de Londres. Débrouillez vous pour engager les États-Unis dans le conflit. » Voila comment les Etats-Unis entrèrent dans la Première Guerre mondiale.
Nous n’y avions aucun intérêt, nous n’avions aucun droit d’être dans ce conflit, pas plus que d’être par exemple ce soir sur la Lune ou en tout autre lieu ailleurs que dans cette salle. Il n’y avait aucune raison pour que la Première Guerre mondiale soit notre guerre. On nous piégea et nous y emmena à notre insu ; on nous parachuta dans ce conflit, ou, si je puis être vulgaire, on nous « aspira » dedans. Nous étions « le dindon de la farce », le pigeon d’une arnaque tendue par le sionisme international ; tout simplement pour qu’il puisse s’accaparer la Palestine.
Ceci est quelque chose dont le public américain n’a jamais entendu parler. Ils ne furent jamais informés de la cause de notre participation à la Première Guerre mondiale. Après avoir fait entrer l’Amérique dans le conflit, les sionistes s’en allèrent au British War Cabinet en Angleterre et tinrent à peu prés ce langage : « Voila que nous avons effectué notre part du marché, nous voudrions avoir quelque garantie écrite prouvant que vous honorerez à votre tour votre part du contrat et donc que vous nous céderez la Palestine ; bien entendu après votre victoire. »
À ce moment précis, personne ne pouvait dire si la guerre allait durer une année ou dix de plus. Donc ils imaginèrent une sorte de facture, un genre de récépissé qui avait la forme d’une lettre écrite en des termes vicieux la rendant mystérieuse et incompréhensible pour tout le monde. Cela a été appelé la « déclaration Balfour ». Cette fameuse déclaration Balfour, dont on a écrit tellement à propos, était simplement la promesse anglaise faite aux sionistes pour l’accord que ces derniers avaient passé pour embarquer les États-Unis dans le conflit. Cette grandiloquente déclaration Balfour dont vous entendez parler abondamment est aussi factice qu’un billet de banque du jeu de Monopoly. Pour essayer d’être plus explicite, c’est la base de toute la crise. Les États-Unis se jetèrent tête baissée dans la Première Guerre mondiale et l’Allemagne fut écrasée ; bien sûr, après cela vous savez ce qu’il advint. À la fin de la guerre les Allemands s’en allèrent pour signer l’armistice à Paris, à la fameuse conférence de paix de 1919 à Versailles.
Il y avait là cent dix-neuf juifs représentant le sionisme international, et à leur tête Bernard Baruch.
J’y étais à cette fameuse conférence de paix à Versailles. Je dois donc de le savoir.

Enregistrement intégral du discours de Benjamin Freedman Partie 1 : Partie2 - Partie 3 - Partie 4 - Partie 5 - Partie 6




The little-known origins and history of the Balfour Declaration

The Landman Document

An excerpt from Count Leon de Poncins State Secrets
http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Others/Others-Doc-Jews/+Doc-Jews-National&InternationalConspiracy&NWO/BalfourDeclarationBroughtUSIntoWWISaysJew.htm

Is it possible, is it even conceivable that the Jews, by sheer weight of their influence alone, could unleash a world war? It is probably unbelievable, and yet this is exactly what has happened three times in the course of the last half century, in 1900, with the Transvaal war, in 1917, with the entrance of the Americans into the war on the side of the Allies, and in 1939, with the commencement of the Second World War.
In this chapter I am simply going to deal with the case of the entry of the United States into the First World War in 1917 on the side of the Allies, and I will show that this contention rests on solid proof.
Let us briefly recall the facts. By 1917 the English-French alliance was in a difficult position and in danger of losing the war against Imperial Germany. The latter, whose hands had been freed from the Russian front by the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917, was about to hurl all its strength against the western front, which was in danger of being swept away by the violence of their attack. The Allies urgently needed American aid.
The United States did not hesitate to enter the war on the Allies' side. The official pretext invoked in favour of this move was the sinking of the English liner, Lusitania, by a German submarine, which resulted in the deaths of a certain number of American passengers.
But the negotiations and pressures which brought about this situation are the subject of this chapter, for the facts which we are about to relate are virtually unknown to the public.
In 1929 a Polish writer, E. Malynski, published a book revealing the unknown facts behind these historic events entitled La Démocratie victorieuse, a work which was subsequently shown to be quite prophetic.
Basing his argument on a profound knowledge of international politics and upon a logical deduction of the facts, Malynski concluded that America's entrance into the war on the side of the Allies was due to Jewish influence.
‘If there had not been the Lusitania affair, the asphyxiating gases, or the intrigues of German and Austrian ambassadors on American territory, in which they were surely not unique, other ways would have been found to achieve the same results. No provocation would have been too severe to obtain them, since democracy was in danger and it urgently needed American intervention to come to its aid.
‘Democracy was in danger, and that is the most important point and indeed the pivot of all contemporary history. The rest is just empty meaningless phrases, fodder which is thrown to beasts who are being led to the slaughter-house.
‘The apparent spontaneity of their enthusiasm for war, which shook the American people, should not astonish those who know America, or who lived there for some years before 1914. For at that time thousands and thousands of non-Jewish people, who had nevertheless been intoxicated by a costly and clever publicity campaign, demanded at the tops of their voices that diplomatic and commercial relations should be broken off with the Tsar's government - a measure which would gravely prejudice the American portfolio - for the sole reason that a mean and obscure little Jew, who was completely unknown in his own town, but whose international ubiquity had organized his defence, had been brought before a court of assize and the regular jury of a provincial city in the Russian empire on a charge, whether justly or unjustly, of committing a ritual murder.
‘On both occasions, the result was exactly the same: the nation which above all others claims to be free and in sovereign command of its own destiny was brainwashed to the hilt.
‘In 1914 any American would have laughed to scorn the idea that in three years time he would be struggling and suffering in France for the sake of affairs which had no connection with those of his own country.
‘And yet, when 1917 came, the same man enlisted enthusiastically. Every soldier whom we happened to interview and questioned as to his personal motives for fighting, invariably replied: 'we are fighting for democracy'. They were one step ahead of their fellow soldiers from other nations, who went for their own country's sake.
‘It is only when we realize that France was invaded by hundreds of thousands of inhabitants from Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Florida, Illinois, Wyoming, California, Louisiana, and subsequently from Ontario, Manitoba, Rhodesia and New South Wales, whose only possible motive was to hasten the triumph of democracy, that we begin to understand something of the power of Israel. The power to stir up a whole nation of solid, egotistical and utilitarian individuals, and to persuade them that their greatest privilege is to set out and get themselves killed at the uttermost ends of the earth, with no hope of gain for themselves or their children and almost without their understanding against or for whom they are fighting, or why, is a simply incredible phenomenon which makes one afraid when one comes to think about it.’ (E. Malynski: La Démocratie victorieuse)
I remember very well showing this book to the director of a big London daily paper, and asking him his opinion of it. He said that British opinion would never accept it, and he did not conceal from me the fact that he thought the author was suffering from a form of mania.
However, in March 1936, a Zionist Jew named Samuel Landman published a work called Great Britain, The Jews and Palestine under the auspices of the Zionist Association, which deals with Zionism and the entry of the United States into the war. As the preface of the book clearly states, the author is a very well-known English Zionist. He was the honorary secretary of the Zionist Council of the United Kingdom in 1912, editor of The Zionist from 1913 - 1914, and author of various Zionist publications which came out during the war. From 1917 - 1922 he was the solicitor and secretary of the Zionist organization, and later became its legal adviser. As a Jewish document, therefore, it may be considered to carry official weight.
Landman's work contains a staggering confirmation of Malynski's thesis. Needless to say, he does not reveal everything, but what he does state reveals a number of stupefying horizons, for he proves in detail that it is the Jews, set in motion, as they themselves admit, by their own exclusively Jewish interests and possessions, who launched America into the world war. The passage which follows is taken without abridgement from the opening pages of Landman's Great Britain, The Jews and Palestine:
‘As the Balfour Declaration originated in the War Office, was consummated in the Foreign Office and is being implemented in the Colonial Office, and as some of those responsible for it have passed away or have retired since its migrations from Department to Department, there is necessarily some confusion or misunderstanding as to its raison d'étre and importance to the parties primarily concerned. It would, therefore, seem opportune to recapitulate briefly the circumstances, the inner history and incidents that eventually led to the British Mandate for Palestine.
‘Those who assisted at the birth of the Balfour Declaration were few in number. This makes it important to bring into proper relief the services of one who, owing above all to his modesty, has hitherto remained in the background. His services however should take their proper place in the front rank alongside of those Englishmen of vision whose services are more widely known, including the late Sir Mark Sykes, the Rt. Hon. W. Ormsby Gore, the Rt. Hon. Sir Ronald Graham, General Sir George Macdonagh and Mr. G. H. Fitzmaurice.
‘In the early years of the War great efforts were made by the Zionist Leaders, Dr. Weizmann and Mr. Sokolow, chiefly through the late Mr. C. P. Scott of the Manchester Guardian, and Sir Herbert Samuel, to induce the Cabinet to espouse the cause of Zionism.
‘These efforts were, however, without avail. In fact, Sir Herbert Samuel has publicly stated that he had no share in the initiation of the negotiations which led to the Balfour Declaration. (England and Palestine, a lecture delivered by Sir Herbert Samuel and published by the Jewish Historical Society, February 1936.) The actual initiator was Mr. James A. Malcolm and the following is a brief account of the circumstances in which the negotiations took place.
‘During the critical days of 1916 and of the impending defection of Russia, Jewry, as a whole, was against the Czarist regime and had hopes that Germany, if victorious, would in certain circumstances give them Palestine. Several attempts to bring America into the War on the side of the Allies by influencing influential Jewish opinion were made and had failed. Mr. James A. Malcolm, who was already aware of German pre-war efforts to secure a foothold in Palestine through the Zionist Jews and of the abortive Anglo-French démarches at Washington and New York; and knew that Mr. Woodrow Wilson, for good and sufficient reasons, always attached the greatest possible importance to the advice of a very prominent Zionist (Mr. Justice Brandeis, of the US Supreme Court); and was in close touch with Mr. Greenberg, Editor of the Jewish Chronicle (London); and knew that several important Zionist Jewish leaders had already gravitated to London from the Continent on the qui vive awaiting events; and appreciated and realized the depth and strength of Jewish national aspirations; spontaneously took the initiative, to convince first of all Sir Mark Sykes, Under-Secretary to the War Cabinet, and afterwards M. Georges Picot, of the French Embassy in London, and M. Goût of the Quai d'Orsay (Eastern Section), that the best and perhaps the only way (which proved so to be) to induce the American President to come into the War was to secure the co-operation of Zionist Jews by promising them Palestine, and thus enlist and mobilize the hitherto unsuspectedly powerful forces of Zionist Jews in America and elsewhere in favour of the Allies on a quid pro quo contract basis. Thus, as will be seen, the Zionists, having carried out their part, and greatly helped to bring America in, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 was but the public confirmation of the necessarily secret 'gentleman's' agreement of 1916 made with the previous knowledge, acquiescence and/or approval of the Arabs and of the British, American, French and other Allied Governments, and not merely a voluntary altruistic and romantic gesture on the part of Great Britain as certain people either through pardonable ignorance assume or unpardonable ill-will would represent or misrepresent.
‘Sir Mark Sykes was Under-Secretary to the War Cabinet specially concerned with Near Eastern affairs, and, although at the time scarcely acquainted with the Zionist movement, and unaware of the existence of its leaders, he had the flair to respond to the arguments advanced by Mr. Malcolm as to the strength and importance of this movement in Jewry, in spite of the fact that many wealthy and prominent international or semi-assimilated Jews in Europe and America were openly or tacitly opposed to it (Zionist movement) or timidly indifferent. MM. Picot and Goût were likewise receptive.
‘An interesting account of the negotiations carried on in London and Paris, and subsequent developments, has already appeared in the Jewish press and need not be repeated here in detail, except to recall that immediately after the 'gentleman's' agreement between Sir Mark Sykes, authorized by the War Cabinet, and the Zionist leaders, cable facilities through the War Office, the Foreign Office and British Embassies, Legations, etc., were given to the latter to communicate the glad tidings to their friends and organizations in America and elsewhere, and the change in official and public opinion as reflected in the American press in favour of joining the Allies in the War, was as gratifying as it was surprisingly rapid.
‘The Balfour Declaration, in the words of Prof. H. M. V. Temperley, was a "definite contract between the British Government and Jewry" (History of the Peace Conference in Paris, vol. 6, p. 173). The main consideration given by the Jewish people (represented at the time by the leaders of the Zionist Organization) was their help in bringing President Wilson to the aid of the Allies. Moreover, officially interpreted at the time by Lord Robert Cecil as 'Judea for the Jews' in the same sense as 'Arabia for the Arabs', the Declaration sent a thrill throughout the world. The prior Sykes-Picot Treaty of 1916, according to which Northern Palestine was to be politically detached and included in Syria (French sphere), was subsequently, at the instance of the Zionist leaders, amended (by the Franco-British Convention of December 1920, Cmd. 1195) so that the Jewish National Home should comprise the whole of Palestine in accordance with the promise previously made to them for their services by the British, Allied and American Governments, and to give full effect to the Balfour Declaration, the terms of which had been settled and known to all Allied and associated belligerents, including Arabs, before they were made public.
‘In Germany, the value of the bargain to the Allies, apparently, was duly and carefully noted. In his Through Thirty Years Mr. Wickham Steed, in a chapter appreciative of the value of Zionist support in America and elsewhere to the Allied cause, says General Ludendorff is alleged to have said after the War that: "The Balfour Declaration was the cleverest thing done by the Allies in the way of propaganda, and that he wished Germany had thought of it first" (vol. 2, p. 392). As a matter of fact, this was said by Ludendorff to Sir Alfred Mond (afterwards Lord Melchett), soon after the War. The fact that it was Jewish help that brought USA into the War on the side of the Allies has rankled ever since in German - especially Nazi - minds, and has contributed in no small measure to the prominence which anti-Semitism occupies in the Nazi programme.’ (S. Landman: Great Britain, The Jews and Palestine, pp. 3-6)
It should be obvious that this is a document of capital importance, and yet the press has kept absolutely silent about it, and it has remained virtually unknown.
In order fully to understand the significance and importance of this confession, let us briefly resume the facts which led to its publication.
In 1917, the Allies were in distress and desperately needed American aid, but all their efforts to bring the United States into the war on their side had failed. It was then that the English commenced secret negotiations with the American Zionists. The latter proposed a deal: "If you will promise to hand over Palestine to us if you are victorious, we will guarantee to bring America into the war on your side." If America was brought into the war, it seemed almost certain that Germany would be unable to resist the strength of the resulting coalition.
The deal was concluded, and the American Zionists fulfilled their part of the bargain, and brought the USA into the war, and by the celebrated Balfour Declaration, the British Government made Palestine into a national home for the Jews.
Up to this moment, everything seemed satisfactory. Both sides had fulfilled their engagements. However, England, in her distress, had not foreseen the consequences of this decision. The Arabs had not been consulted in the course of these negotiations, and it soon became apparent that while one party in the British Government was promising Palestine to the Jews, another branch of the same Government was promising the same land to the Arabs through the intermediary action of Lawrence of Arabia.
These two pledges were manifestly inconsistent, and if England on the one hand was obliged to accommodate the Jews, on the other she had important interests of her own in the Arab countries of the Near East. The Jews had one capital advantage. They were on the spot in both London and New York, whereas the Arabs were a long way away from the centre of action.
At first the British Government played the Jewish card to the full, and endeavoured to maintain a precarious balance between the Jews and the Arabs. At the time of the Balfour Declaration the Jews had promised that they would not infringe the rights of the Arab population, but the whole world knew that it was an impossible undertaking, and one which the Jews had no intention whatever of respecting.
Thus, to start with the British Government was in favour of establishing a Jewish community which would be built up by immigration, but confrontations with the Arabs rapidly became aggravated. Hitler's rise to power, and his anti-Jewish position, brought matters to boiling point. The British tried to calm the Jews, and cut down on the immigration of international Jews to Palestine. But how is one to reason with the Jews when they are in the grip of their messianic fervour? The influx of Jewish aliens drove the Arabs to flight from a country which they could legitimately consider as their own, since they had lived there for centuries, and they piled into refugee camps in which they have since eked out a miserable and hopeless existence. Massacres, such as at Deir Yassin, provoked a general exodus, and hundreds of thousands more fled to these camps. The Arab States, for their part, did nothing to ameliorate the condition of these unfortunate refugees, and consequently the situation became more and more explosive for the English, who were confronted with a Jewish rebellion armed and supported by secret organizations such as the Irgoun and the Stern gang. Palestine was virtually in a state of war with the British.
It was under these conditions that the Anglo-American Zionists published a threatening warning to the British Government by means of the Landman document. Addressing the British Government as if they were speaking to an equal, they said in effect:
"You forget that you did not give us Palestine as an unsolicited gift (Balfour Declaration). It was handed over as the result of a secret bargain concluded between ourselves. We have scrupulously observed our part in bringing America into the war on your side. We call on you to fulfil your obligations in turn. You are aware of our power in the United States: take care that you do not attract the hostility of Israel, otherwise you will come up against grave international difficulties."
The publication of such a serious, revealing and compromising document was grossly imprudent, but it was also a calculated risk. Faced with the terrible menace of Hitler, the Jews were obliged to run risks, but on the other hand they were sure of themselves and of their power over the press in democratic countries. The document had to be published in order to effect the appropriate extortion from the British Government, but it was essential that it should on no account come to the knowledge of the general public. Consequently, the press in the western world kept silence, and the public remained in total ignorance of its existence. If it had been published at large, there might well have been a violent upheaval when it was discovered that the British and American Governments were acting under Israel's orders. The preparation of war against Hitler would have been singularly hindered. It is one thing to fight for the defence of one's own country. Fighting for Israel is another, much less inspiring prospect.
In conclusion, the Landman document demonstrates that the Jews are capable of exerting a considerable influence over public opinion and the American Government, and of bringing the USA into the war. It is a clear-cut case of a well organized minority orientating public opinion and manipulating it to its own liking. The Zionists themselves were surprised at the ease and rapidity with which they succeeded in overturning American opinion. It also shows that the world-wide influence of Jewish organizations vis-à-vis national governments is some considerable factor, since the former were able to discuss matters on an equal level with the Government of the British Empire, and finally conclude a deal with the latter on a reciprocal basis.
Thus the secret history of America's entry into the war in 1917 on the side of the Allies is revealed as the secret history of the creation of a Jewish national home in Palestine - and both these events, it cannot be disputed, are of the utmost importance if one is to understand the evolution of the modern world.
Finally, it is a measure of the value of the press, which is supposed to be a source of objective information, and which is so avid for sensational news, that for thirty years it has maintained a total black-out on a document of absolutely capital importance, so that not so much as a whisper alluding to its existence has been made in the numerous histories of the First World War.
Doubtless, looking back, we may have reason to thank the Jews for pushing America into the war on our side in 1917, but in 1917 it was simply fortuitous that their interests coincided with those of the Allies. Today, in 1975, it is not so reassuring to learn that America's foreign policy is in the hands of a Jewish Zionist of German extraction, Dr. Henry Kissinger, the man who was first of all President Nixon's private adviser, and who was then promoted to Secretary of State.

Count Leon de Poncins, State Secrets, 1977





John Robert - Behind the Balfour declaration

Author : John Robert
Title : Behind the Balfour declaration : Britain's great war Pledge to Lord Rothschild
Year : 2008

Link download : John_Robert_-_Behind_the_Balfour_declaration.zip

Paper Presented to the Fifth International Revisionist Conference. Acknowledgements. To Benjamin H. Freedman, who committed himself to finding and telling the facts about Zionism and Communism. and encouraged others to do the same. The son of one of the founders of the American Jewish Committee, which for many years was anti-Zionist, Ben Freedman founded the League for Peace with Justice in Palestine in 1946. He gave me copies of materials on the Balfour Declaration which I might never have found on my own and encouraged my own research. (He died in April 1984.) The Institute for Historical Review is providing means for the better understanding of the events of our time. Attempts to review historical records impartially often reveal that blame, culpability, or dishonor are not to be attached wholly to one side in the conflicts of the last hundred years. To seek to untangle fact from propaganda is a worthy study, for it increases understanding of how we got where we are and it should help people resist exploitation by powerful and destructive interests in the present and future, by exposing their working in the past. May I recommend to the Nobel Prize Committee that when the influence of this organization's historical review and search for truth has prevailed the societies of its contributors - say about 5 years or less from now - that they consider the IHR for the Nobel Peace Prize. Regrettably, some of the company in that award would be hard to bear ! ...


Barnes Harry Elmer - The causes of the world war

Author : Barnes Harry Elmer
Title : The causes of the world war
Year : 1945

Link download : Barnes_Harry_Elmer_-_The_causes_of_the_world_war.zip

Levels or types of responsibility. In generalizing about responsibility for the World War it is necessary to be specific as to just what is meant by tnis term "responsibility." There are some Revisionists who contend that ail of the Great Powers involved were about equally responsible. There are others who state that France, Russia and Serbia were the only leading powers in 1914 who desired a European war and that they worked cleverly to bring it on the least possible appearance of aggression. Both of these opinions would be correct if one clarifies what is meant. Those who argue for equal responsibility in this sense usually mean that, in regard to the causes of wars in general in Europe from 1870 to 1914, all the Great Powers were about equally responsible for the war system. They do not refer primarily to the crisis of 1914, but rather to the situation lying back of the July clash. Those who contend for the primary guilt of France, Russia and Serbia have in mind the responsibility for unnecessarily forcing the Austro- Serbian dispute of 1914 into a general European conflict. Therefore, it is necessary to know just what one implies when he says that everybody was guilty or that this or that group of nations was guilty. ...

Barnes Harry Elmer - Who started world war one ?

Author : Barnes Harry Elmer
Title : Who started world war one ? An unbiased analysis of the causes and mitigating factors of World War One from the father of historical Revisionism
Year : 2009

Link download : Barnes_Harry_Elmer_-_Who_started_world_war_one.zip

Preface. Wars & the Decline of the West. This pioneering Revisionist work by the doyen of Revisionism, Harry Elmer Barnes, ends with the entrance of the U.S.A. into World War I. Thus, the final gruesome tally of the horrible and unnecessary costs of that war in terms of blood, treasure, and political disaster could not be included. ...


Clark Christopher - The sleepwalkers: How Europe went to war in 1914

Author : Clark Christopher
Title : The sleepwalkers How Europe went to war in 1914
Year : 2013

Link download : Clark_Christopher_-_The_sleepwalkers.zip

Introduction. The European continent was at peace on the morning of Sunday 28 June 1914, when Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie Chotek arrived at Sarajevo railway station. Thirty-seven days later, it was at war. The conflict that began that summer mobilized 65 million troops, claimed three empires, 20 million military and civilian deaths, and 21 million wounded. The horrors of Europe’s twentieth century were born of this catastrophe; it was, as the American historian Fritz Stern put it, ‘the first calamity of the twentieth century, the calamity from which all other calamities sprang’. The debate over why it happened began before the first shots were fired and has been running ever since. It has spawned an historical literature of unparalleled size, sophistication and moral intensity. For international relations theorists the events of 1914 remain the political crisis par excellence, intricate enough to accommodate any number of hypotheses. The historian who seeks to understand the genesis of the First World War confronts several problems. The first and most obvious is an oversupply of sources. Each of the belligerent states produced official multi-volume editions of diplomatic papers, vast works of collective archival labour. There are treacherous currents in this ocean of sources. Most of the official document editions produced in the interwar period have an apologetic spin. The fifty-seven-volume German publication Die Grosse Politik, comprising 15,889 documents organized in 300 subject areas, was not prepared with purely scholarly objectives in mind; it was hoped that the disclosure of the pre-war record would suffice to refute the ‘war guilt’ thesis enshrined in the terms of the Versailles treaty. For the French government too, the post-war publication of documents was an enterprise of ‘essentially political character’, as Foreign Minister Jean Louis Barthou put it in May 1934. Its purpose was to ‘counterbalance the campaign launched by Germany following the Treaty of Versailles’. In Vienna, as Ludwig Bittner, co-editor of the eight-volume collection Österreich-Ungarns Aussenpolitik, pointed out in 1926, the aim was to produce an authoritative source edition before some international body – the League of Nations perhaps? – forced the Austrian government into publication under less auspicious circumstances. The early Soviet documentary publications were motivated in part by the desire to prove that the war had been initiated by the autocratic Tsar and his alliance partner, the bourgeois Raymond Poincaré, in the hope of de-legitimizing French demands for the repayment of pre-war loans. Even in Britain, where British Documents on the Origins of the War was launched amid high-minded appeals to disinterested scholarship, the resulting documentary record was not without tendentious omissions that produced a somewhat unbalanced picture of Britain’s place in the events preceding the outbreak of war in 1914. In short, the great European documentary editions were, for all their undeniable value to scholars, munitions in a ‘world war of documents’, as the German military historian Bernhard Schwertfeger remarked in a critical study of 1929. ...







Michael Collins Piper, YE SHALL KNOW THE TRUTH
(...)