“The Fourth Party”
Spencer-Churchill, Balfour, Drummond-Wolff and Gorst as caricatured by Spy (Leslie Ward) in Vanity Fair, 1 December 1880.

Why Did Churchill

Have Britain Fight On After Summer 1940?

It’s Bad News.

Patrick Cleburne • The Unz Review • December 20, 2024 • 6,400 Words • Has Comments
Republished from The Occidental Observer by permission of author or representative

Lady Randolph with her two sons, John and Winston, 1889.

In the high summer of 1940, the politicians who comprised the British Government faced a terrible and momentous problem.

So, on a personal level, did the new British Prime Minister from May 10th, Winston Churchill. More on this later.

At the time, the British Empire is often said to have ruled a quarter of the land surface of the world and upon which the sun never set. It had an appropriate navy. The white Dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa were expected to follow Britain’s lead, and indeed did.

It was a world power.

To everyone’s astonishment, the outbreak of war with Germany in September 1939 had not deadlocked in the static trench warfare of the Western Front in World War I (1914–1918).

Instead, the Germans, starting in April 1940, conquered Norway and Denmark, and then went on to conquer the Netherlands, Belgium and France. Most of the British Army was extricated from France via Dunkirk, but without much heavy equipment.

This admittedly was a stunning emotional blow to Britain’s elite, quite a few of whom (unlike their American counterparts) had fought on the Western Front in World War I and where many of whom had lost relatives.

Britain by the middle of the twentieth Century had had tremendous experience in fighting wars, in an astonishing number of countries (Wikipedia reckons 171). Quite a few of these had been unsuccessful. sometimes humiliatingly so — most notably of course the American War of Independence.

War, to the British, was a business. They were not Crusades. Sometimes you won, sometimes you lost. Then you moved on.

What was so different about 1940?

Operation Sea Lion (the German sea crossing to England) was of course in planning. But it was pro forma. It is clear from the literature that the German Navy — the Kriegsmarine — always said it could not protect cross channel transports from devastating attacks from the then enormous Royal Navy. The Luftwaffe was also not optimistic.

This must also have been the assessment of the British military (never, as far as I know, ever disclosed).

Paradoxically, Britain was probably in a less dangerous position in 1940 than during the several years in the early nineteenth century during which Napoleon controlled the Continent and threatened invasion .

The internal combustion engine had allowed air raids on England, distressing — but with no possibility of being decisive. However it also eliminated the ghastly chance that unfavorable winds would prevent the Royal Navy attacking vulnerable invading vessels. Wind had been a critical element of risk in previous crises. The two most significant successful invasions — William the Conqueror’s in 1066 and William III’s in 1688 — had been able to avoid defending warships because of the chance of wind.

What the British Government had to consider in 1940 was: Why fight on?

Britain had always been against an excessively powerful Continental entity. But this had now happened.

Britain had also in recent centuries become extremely concerned to protect its extensive overseas assets — the British Empire. France had usually been the threat to this — and so, around the turn of the twentieth century, had been Imperial Germany.

But Hitler’s Germany was not a threat. Archival evidence proves that Hitler was absolutely opposed to destroying the British Empire which he saw as a congenial component of an ideal world order. Instead, he was completely focused on the geopolitical threat from the Soviet Russia. This was known at the time.

The geopolitical threat from the Soviet Union was also — or should have been — as great a concern to the British. They had actually borne the brunt of Soviet subversion efforts in their Empire during the interwar years. National Socialism had little intrinsic appeal to the British people, oblivious as they were to the threats and problems which engendered it. But this was far from true with Communism and Socialism. Varieties of these had struck deep roots in British society. The scandalous post-war espionage revelations of the ‘Cambridge Five’ were probably just a hint of the reality.

In August 1940, Britain simply had no path to military victory. During World War I there was always the hope that the next offensive would break through (which indeed did happen in late 1918). France was never knocked out of the war. Fighting on in World War I may not have been sensible, but it was not irrational.

In 1940 this hope was gone. The idea that Britain by itself had any chance of subduing Germany in a continental land war was clearly ridiculous.

There was the alternative of seducing other countries into the war, as with America in 1917.

Experience had proved this was a highly unattractive option. America had brought much strength but little wisdom into World War I, insisting on imposing an unstable redrawing of the European map and creating dangerous problems. Furthermore she had proved a merciless and irresponsible creditor for much of the next two decades.

The fact was that the American elite was endemically Anglophobic and anti-imperialist. They were jealous of the British Empire. Confusingly this was disguised somewhat by often very pleasant interpersonal relationships. And this was before one considered the increasing influence of the tedious Irish and the newly arrived Russian Jews.

On the other hand, the Soviet Union was a flat-out proven danger. Beyond their incessant promotion of their antithetical and blood-soaked doctrines between the wars, the Russians under Stalin’s highly enterprising leadership had made war certain in 1939. By concluding the Ribbentrop Molotov Pact on August 23, 1939, they freed Hitler’s hand in Western Europe. They went on to bolster Germany by supplying large new quantities of raw materials. Even worse, the Soviet seizure of the Baltic States, a large slice of Poland, part of Romania, and a (dearly-bought) fragment of Finland removed all doubt that the USSR was additionally an aggressive predatory power in the old style.

Putting Britain at the mercy of these dangerous parties was not obviously more attractive than coming to an agreement with Germany.

However, before Winston Churchill who became Prime Minister on May 10, 1940, could think about this problem, he had a more pressing crisis to weather.

He was about to become insolvent, which would have forced his retirement from Parliament.

Churchill’s return to office in September 1939 had destabilized his always precarious finances. He could no longer hope to complete various lucrative writing deals on which he had counted. Income taxes, interest on bank loans and many personal debts were falling due at the month end. He did not have the cash to pay them.

As recounted in the extraordinary 2015 book “No More Champagne: Churchill and His Money” by David Lough, Churchill was rescued by a GBP 5,000 check from Sir Henry Strakosch, arranged by Churchill’s ‘fixer’ Brendan Bracken. At the time Bracken was co-owner with Strakosch of the famous magazine “The Economist”. (Derived from Lough’s figures, this would be about GBP 347,000 or some $410,000 today).

…   …   …

Read the full article and reader's comments at The Unz Review  or at The Occidental Observer 

END

Analysing the ‘Special Relationship’ between the US and UK in a Transatlantic Context

———————

Eight Dying Presidents and the Transatlantic Regime -- the Present Danger.

Last night's emergency session was evidently hacked, blowing the meeting apart and effectively preventing my presentation.

By Anton Chaitkin at Anton’s Substack on November 26, 2024

By Anton Chaitkin; Copyright Anton Chaitkin

++++ ++++ ++++

Message from Anton Chaitkin: Last night (11/25/2024) the perfectly reliable Zoom platform failed. I was prepared to blow the whistle on the threat of assassination of the President-elect, and show from history the character of the threat and the identity of the perpetrators.

Under the circumstances, I am going to post here the notes for that aborted discussion.

++++ ++++ ++++

Tonight I will present the pattern from history showing that the danger of assassination comes from the transatlantic regime.

Let me briefly introduce the nature of the grave danger we face.

A transatlantic regime now controls the governments of America, Britain, most of Western Europe, the British dominions, Japan, and South Korea. The heart of the transatlantic regime is Britain’s “special relationship” with the United States, which effectively nullifies the U.S. Constitution. This regime substitutes a globalist model based on the British Empire.

Within the transatlantic regime is an Anglo-American clique of financiers and aristocrats with international power. They are not held to account.

The transatlantic regime opposes national sovereignty and self-government for America and for every other country. It preaches free trade and the “rules-based order.” It dictates terms of trade and credit. It has taken down American industry. It prevents poor countries from industrializing and modernizing. It loots their raw materials. It degrades human culture and education.

The transatlantic regime makes war and chaos, aiming to prevent effective resistance. None of these wars or sanctions can actually win — the constant war and disruption is itself the purpose.

But this transatlantic regime is losing power. It is not popular anywhere. It is losing elections wherever people have some choice. In Europe, new parties are arising and winning elections; they are dedicated to peace with Russia, national sovereignty, the rights and interests of the people under self-government.  

Donald Trump was elected with a mandate to end the war against Russia, and to look to U.S. national interests in preference to globalist objectives.

If Trump overcomes the sabotage in his own party and carries out this mandate, momentum in the world will shift to the power of nations including America, and against Empire. Countries such as Russia and China will then see it in their self-interest to cooperate for everyone’s mutual security and prosperity.

How can the transatlantic regime prevent this dramatic change — prevent the USA from asserting its self-interest? In two ways. First, they can escalate confrontation with Russia, trying to create a situation so hellish that Trump will have no power to interfere. That escalation is already underway. They could also sharply escalate Israel’s wars.

Second, and equally reckless and mad, would be for the transatlantic regime to attempt to murder the President-elect.

In U.S. history, eight Presidents have died in office. Four of them were shot to death. There is a glaring and outrageous pattern in all eight of these cases that can let us quickly understand the threat we now face.

Each of these Presidents who suddenly died faced a confrontation with the transatlantic imperial regime – the same imperial power that has controlled U.S. affairs for this past half a century and will lose control if the U.S. asserts its self-interest.

Tonight, I will focus on the pattern of the clash of interests between the nation and the empire, and thus the motive of the Anglo-American enemy to murder our Presidents and to sabotage their objectives.

Here are the eight cases of our dying Presidents.

++++++++++++

In the early 1800s, the U.S. was trying to catch up to Britain’s industrial development. But the slave plantations were part of the British imperial system. The elite slaveowners did not want U.S. industrialization which would break up their power in America. They exported their cotton to England and imported finished goods.

So the slave-plantation owners blocked federal tariffs, credit and spending to promote industry. And their policies brought a great crash and depression in the late 1830s.

In 1840, the Whig party candidate William Henry Harrison won on a program of federal action to return to prosperity and develop the USA. Harrison died mysteriously after one month in office, supposedly killed by a sudden respiratory infection. The pro-slavery vice president John Tyler took over, betrayed the Whigs and blocked federal action.

In 1848, General Zachary Taylor won for the Whig party, which was dedicated to U.S. industrial buildup by blocking cheap British imports. Elite slaveowners challenged his Presidency by threatening secession. They ran private armies into Mexico and Cuba and the U.S. West, trying to make a slave empire that could overpower the USA. Taylor said he would hang anyone leading secession. Taylor died mysteriously, supposedly from eating cold cherries and milk. His successor compromised with the South, and the secession faction grew.

In 1860, Abraham Lincoln  won for the new Republican Party, promising national action for industrial progress, and no spread of slavery. The southern radicals took their states out of the USA, and Britain built warships for the slaveowners to sink U.S. shipping. While fighting to restore the nation, Lincoln scrapped free trade and brought in high-tariff protectionism and federal infrastructure-building, which made America the world’s greatest power. America would also defy the empire and aid other nations to industrialize. At the end of the Civil War, a team of British and Confederate agents based in the Canada (then a British colony hosting British troops) paid John Wilkes Booth and sent him to attack Lincoln — after President Lincoln’s murder they claimed they had only planned to kidnap him.

In the 1870s the British banking firm of J.P. Morgan came to control Wall Street and federal finances.

In 1880 American nationalists made James Garfield  the President to fight this transatlantic financier power. Garfield supported South Americans fighting for economic development against British imperial domination. Garfield was shot to death only months after taking office. The assassin said he had prevented a U.S. war with England.

In 1896, William McKinley  was elected President on his reputation for civil rights and high tariffs to block imports from British low wage industry. Under McKinley, the U.S. and South America jointly planned modern railroads throughout the hemisphere, and American manufacturing workers made the engines and rails for Russia’s trans-Siberian Railway.

McKinley was shot to death, and his vice president, the pro-imperial Anglo-Saxon race fanatic Teddy Roosevelt took over. Teddy led America into partnership with the British empire, and broke U.S. friendship with Russia. Germany and Japan were turned against Russia and America. World War followed and Russia went Communist.

In 1920, the conservative Warren Harding  was elected with a mandate to return to U.S. national interests. He released political prisoners jailed for opposition to the world war, and Harding spoke out for Black civil rights. Harding’s supporters reached a trade agreement with Soviet Russia that would give the U.S. a naval base in Russia’s far east to defy the Britain-Japan alliance. Harding died of a mysterious illness while on a western speaking tour. His successor Calvin Coolidge favored the absolute power of transatlantic financiers. Led by Morgan and the Bank of England, those financiers sponsored fascism and their speculative orgy led to a great depression.

In 1932, Franklin Roosevelt  was elected to save the country from collapse. Anglo-American financiers reacted by backing Hitler’s January 1933 takeover of Germany. A month before FDR’s inauguration an assassin aimed at FDR but his hand was pushed aside and the shot killed the mayor of Chicago. The Morgan faction tried to get up a coup d’etat but a loyal Marine General exposed the plot.

Roosevelt moved against imperialism, raised living standards and built great infrastructure. His World War 2 leadership inspired independence movements throughout the world. At the war’s end he moved to prevent another one by a strong friendship between the U.S., Russia and China.

FDR died in office. His successor Truman bowed to British and Wall Street power to betray FDR and start a Cold War and nuclear arms race. U.S. intelligence was turned over to imperial globalists openly hostile to the traditional U.S. foreign policy of national sovereignty. Under President Dwight Eisenhower, the Dulles brothers wielded wrecking-power on behalf of the new post-Roosevelt transatlantic regime, power the President could not overcome.

In 1960, John Kennedy  was elected after years of siding with African and Arab nationalism against the European empires. JFK warned that Communists would take southeast Asia unless the U.S. stopped helping imperialism suppress national sovereignty. Pro-imperial leaders in U.S. intelligence and the military acted to trap Kennedy into submitting to their policies by involving the incoming President in a war with Cuba. After he pulled out of their Bay of Pigs trap, he removed the treacherous CIA chief Allen Dulles and Pentagon chief Lyman Lemnitzer from their posts.

Kennedy moved for industrial and scientific greatness for America and international cooperation for peace and prosperity. His enemies Dulles and Lemnitzer were at the center of Kennedy’s assassination, and Dulles guided the government inquiry into the murder.

Afterwards, the Anglo-American establishment trashed the U.S. national mission and heritage of progress. The U.S. was directed into permanent war, while favoring the power of offshore finance, where banking cartels overlap with drug cartels. U.S. industry was closed and living standards fell apart.

It is the Dulles-Lemnitzer faction in intelligence and the military that are leading the world toward nuclear war. It is this faction and their transatlantic sponsors that now pose the threat to the life of the incoming president.  

I believe that without this history, the establishment’s fear of Trump makes little sense. I believe that with this history, we are better equipped to defeat them, and to survive.

———————

Conference Delegates at Pilgrims Dinner
(3 Feb 1930)

The History of the Pilgrims of Great Britain

———————

END