Hitler pour la paix, contre la guerre de Churchill

La fable convenue de l’histoire est encore une fois confrontée à la dure réalité. L’histoire officielle ne peut plus nier que Rudolf Hess, condamné au procès de Nuremberg pour des crimes de guerre qu’il n’a pu commettre (puisqu’il était emprisonné par les Anglais durant toute la durée de la guerre!) et assassiné en prison, avait l’autorisation d’Hitler pour se rendre Angleterre en mission spéciale proposer un traité de paix. Mais Hess est tombé dans un piège tendu par les services secrets britanniques. Churchill aurait vu tous ses projets s’écrouler si Hitler avait réussi à éviter cette guerre inutile contre les démocraties. Churchill était l’instrument du groupe de financiers juifs The Focus, depuis qu’ils l’avaient sorti de sa banqueroute financière.

http://blanrue.blogspot.com/2013/10/vol-de-rudolf-hess-suite-churchill.html

samedi 26 octobre 2013

Vol de Rudolf Hess, suite : Churchill a refusé l’offre de paix de Hitler. Pour des « raisons morales » !

LIEN

(American Free Press)

Nobel Peace Prize for Hitler? Holocaust® Lobby Burned Up Over Two New Books

It’s been news in Israel and in Britain for weeks now, but the American media is keeping under wraps the advent of a new book by a leading British historian which affirms that Adolf Hitler sought peace with Britain in 1941 but that Hitler’s offer was rejected by Prime Minister Winston Churchill.
Israel’s Ynet as well as The Daily Telegraph and The Daily Mail (both of London) reported this revelation that changes the “official” history of WWII and confirms what independent revisionist historians have said for years.
In Hess, Hitler and Churchill (FREE PDF!), renowned writer Peter Padfield affirms that the legendary “peace mission” to Britain in May 1941 by Hitler’s loyal deputy, Rudolf Hess, was indeed approved by Hitler and that Hess carried an offer from Hitler to withdraw German forces from occupied nations in Western Europe in return for Britain’s support for (or otherwise not frustrating) an impending German attack on Soviet Russia, the date of which (five weeks hence) was disclosed.
Hitler’s proposal—in the formal language of a peace treaty (typed on Hitler’s official stationery)—guaranteed Britain’s maintenance of its independence, its empire and all of its military forces.
The treaty proposed what translates into English as a state of “well-wishing neutrality” between Germany and Britain, something Hitler long endorsed.
Although, as The Telegraph noted, Hess’s journey has traditionally been dismissed as “the deranged solo mission of a madman,” independent writers have contended for years (based on data ignored or suppressed by the elite media and academia) that Hitler chose to deny his foreknowledge of the mission—in agreement in advance with Hess—if the mission failed, which it did.
Having evacuated his plane over Scotland, Hess expected to meet with British dignitaries interested in peace with Germany, only to be taken into custody by Churchill’s agents and held in solitary confinement for 46 years.
The details of his mission were suppressed by the Churchill government. Padfield contends Hess was the victim of a British intelligence operation, approved by Churchill, that was designed to lure the German peacemaker to Britain.
Padfield’s template reflects what others have described as a classic “double-cross” of the type British intelligence has long demonstrated an expertise in executing.
According to Padfield, one of his sources was an unnamed English academic. Along with others, Padfield was called in to translate the treaty for Churchill who (although presented with an English translation carried by Hess) wanted a translation produced by his own operatives.
The Telegraph reported, “There is no mention of the treaty in any of the official archives which have since been made public, but Mr. Padfield believes this is because there has been an ongoing cover-up to protect the reputations of powerful figures,” noting Padfield has “also assembled other evidence to support the existence of the treaty and its contents—as well as the subsequent cover-up.”
Padfield claims Churchill made a “moral choice” to reject Hitler’s peace offer, noting Churchill had a fervent desire to go to war against Hitler and to bring the United States into the conflict.
In contrast, Churchill’s critics have said that his determined push for war against Hitler—in the face of widespread opposition among the English people and even within the British royal family—is attributable to the fact that, some years before (having been virtually bankrupt and facing the loss of his beloved ancestral home), Churchill was rescued from penury by a group of Jewish financiers—known as “the Focus”—who paid Churchill’s debts in return for doing their bidding.
In any case, as Padfield notes, public exposure of the peace mission by Hess would have undercut Churchill’s agitation for war. Hess was tried and convicted of “war crimes” at the post-war Nuremberg Tribunal despite the fact he was in no position to have committed any war crimes, having been in British custody throughout the war.
Sentenced to life in prison, Hess died at the Spandau prison in Germany in 1987, officially declared a suicide, though new evidence confirms that, as many long believed, the old man was actually murdered by the British. For more, see the article on page 19.  (American Free Press, Sept. 21, 2013)

Au vu de l’échec de la mission, Hitler prétend alors que Hess est devenu fou et a agi en renégat. L’historien Joachim Fest dans son livre Les Maîtres du IIIe Reich y voyait alors une «désobéissance constructive » de Hess, estimant que l’homme avait agi de sa propre volonté, sans l’accord du Führer.Une théorie que vient complètement contredire Padfield. L’historien s’appuie sur les témoignages de traducteurs ayant eu accès au document:

«Ce n’était pas un complot renégat. Hitler a envoyé Hess et il a ramené avec lui un traité de paix très détaillé pour l’Allemagne concernant l’évacuation de tous les pays occupés à l’Ouest.»

Ce n’est pas la première fois que cette théorie fait son apparition. En 2011, un document de 28 pages a été découvert dans les archives russes rapportant qu’Hitler était au courant de la mission, précise le Daily Mail. Ecrit en 1948 par le Major Karlheinz Pintsch, longtemps adjudant de Hess, il mentionne qu’Hitler souhaitait «qu’un accord avec les Anglais aboutisse».

Dans les mêmes archives, l’interrogatoire de Pintsch montre qu’Hitler n’était pas surpris en apprenant l’arrestation de son représentant officiel. Le Führer aurait alors lu à voix haute un passage d’une lettre envoyée par Hess:

«Et si le projet… se termine par un échec… il vous sera toujours possible de nier toute responsabilité. Dites simplement que j’avais perdu mes esprits.»

Plus récemment, au début du mois de septembre, un document de 300 pages rédigés par Hess pendant sa détention à Londres a refait surface avant d’être mis sans succès aux enchères. Les termes de l’accord de paix présenté à Churchill y sont inclus, mais quant à savoir si ceux sont proposés par Hitler, c’est un mystère.

Hitler, le nazisme et la 2e guerre mondiale

Netanyahou au NYT : « Herzl et Churchill étaient plus isolés plus moi »

VIDEO – Himmler assassiné sous ordre de Churchill: un témoin gênant selon Arthur Butz

Plutocracy Thrives on War

 • Your fellow Americans need the truth found in AMERICAN FREE PRESS
By Willis A. Carto
And now the geniuses who run our foreign policy tell us that we must have troops in Afghanistan until 2024. After all, don’t we have to bring “democracy” to these mountaineers who like their country just the way it’s been for many centuries?
Afghanistan has never started any war with the United States. The Afghans just want to be left alone. But we can’t have that, now, can we?
The Afghans raise a lot of poppies. It’s a pretty flower. The fact that opium is made from poppies wouldn’t have anything to do with our foreign policy, would it? Or can it be that this profitable fact has something to do with our foreign policy? You wouldn’t suppose that some of the patriotic gents who run our foreign policy have their filthy hands in the till, would you?
This relatively minor situation can hardly be compared with our intervention into the European war that became World War I by our stupid intervention.
We lost 116,708 American men in that needless adventure, not tomention spending some $32 billion. The interest on that debt is accumulating and is now perhaps in the hundreds of billions of dollars, but who’s counting?
And then there was the European war that started when Winston Churchill declared war on a Germany that tried everything to avoid such a calamity. Franklin Roosevelt told us that we had to stop that madman, Adolf Hitler, before he conquered the world although that was not Hitler’s plan at all—all he wanted was to stop the communist aggressor, Josef Stalin. He even sent his deputy, Rudolf Hess, to Britain with a written peace offer for Churchill. But Hess was locked up and held in solitary confinement by Churchill for the rest of his life for having the boldness to try to stop the war. For Roosevelt, this was the golden opportunity he needed to get a third and even a fourth term. A good war has many advantages for criminal politicians.
Why can’t Americans realize that the political establishment feeds on war and rumors of war?
The war industry is extremely profitable for the makers of tanks, warplanes, battleships, uniforms, etc. They never have to worry about payment for their paraphernalia for war; the government always pays with your tax money or more national debt. And the latter has the advantage of bearing interest that the bankers and bondholders love.
Can the American people wake up and stop acting like children? Why doesn’t the rest of the media say what AMERICAN FREE PRESS does?
Since the rest of the media can’t be trusted to tell the American people what they need to know, the people’s only alternative is AFP. For that reason alone AFP should have at least a million subscribers.
So why doesn’t AFP have a million subscribers?
I am not sure, but let’s do something about it right now. . . .
On page 8 of this issue is a coupon offering 16 weeks of AFP to a friend for just $15. All you have to do is fill out the form, enclose $15 and send the form along with the address of the gift recipient to AFP. I will personally match every subscription that comes in from this coupon out of my own pocket. If every subscriber would do that, we could double our numbers overnight, and I’ll be happily applying for a loan at the bank.
——
Willis A. Carto is a longtime national editor and publisher. In 1955, Carto founded LIBERTY LOBBY, the first all-American, pro-middle class lobby group. In 1975 he launched The Spotlight newspaper which at one time had 375,000 subscribers. Currently he is the editor and publisher of THE BARNES REVIEW Revisionist history magazine. For a free sample issue and brochure, please contact TBR, P.O. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003. Anyone who wants a free copy of Carto’s booklet A Straight Look at the SecondWorldWar need only send $1 to the above address. TBR also has a website carrying books that relate to the subjects covered above. These include Smedley Butler’s War Is a Racket, Joachim Hoffman’s Stalin’s War of Extermination, Victor Suvorov’s The Chief Culprit, David Irving’s Churchill’s War, Abdallah Melaouhi’s Rudolf Hess: His Betrayal and Murder and PerpetualWar for Perpetual Peace, edited by Harry Elmer Barnes. See more at www.barnesreview.com.

Lovin’ on Hitler

By Ryan Lenz

Nearly 70 years after Adolf Hitler’s death, you would think the record would be straight on the Third Reich and the Holocaust. After all, few periods in history have been subjected to as much detailed scholarly review as Hitler’s reign.
But then the denizens of The Barnes Review (TBR), a bimonthly journal dedicated to historical revisionism and denial of the Holocaust, aren’t really scholars. So it’s only a mild surprise that they’re now turning themselves inside out to make Hitler into a stand-up guy — the unfortunate victim of a slanderous campaign waged by those who worship at the “altar of the Holocaust industry.”
In TBR’s January/February issue, under the unambiguous title of “In Defense of Adolf Hitler,” the editors have thrown themselves behind the führer with all the enthusiasm of a Better Homes and Gardens special section dedicated to growing the best tulips. But even they understand they’ve crossed a line — a fact that Michael Collins Piper, a contributing editor, concedes in the lead editorial.
“[W]e should acknowledge that many of our new readers may, frankly, be startled by the theme of this issue, which — right up front — declares itself as standing ‘In Defense of Adolf Hitler,’” Piper wrote. “There aren’t many magazines anywhere — maybe we should say ‘there aren’t any magazines anywhere’ — that would take that position. Well, TBR does, without hesitation and with no apology.”
Well, color us unsurprised. When it comes to the distortion of facts in order to manipulate history, TBR remains in a class of its own. And it has pretty well always operated without hesitation or apologies.
Named after Harry Elmer Barnes, a prominent 20th-century anti-Semite and Holocaust denier, TBR was started and is still published by Willis Carto, who also founded the extreme-right Liberty Lobby and the Holocaust-denying Institute for Historical Review. Its mission over 20 years has been to bring “history into accord with the facts” in all kinds of cases. But in reality, it is obsessed with denying the Holocaust and denouncing the alleged evils of Jews. Today, it sells an “official” version of Hitler’s Mein Kampf, along with dubious books like Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence and The Work of All Ages: The Ongoing Plot to Rule the World From Biblical Times to the Present.
TBR even once suggested that Hitler was unfairly overlooked as a candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize. Seriously.
Now, with its special issue defending “one of the most misrepresented figures in all of history,” you might expect a nice collection of intriguing questions from TBR’s intrepid editors. When he wasn’t plotting world domination, wasn’t Hitler an avid lover of animals? When he wasn’t dealing with the “Jewish question,” didn’t he have a reputation for being great with kids? What was his personal recipe for Wiener Schnitzel, anyway? They might even have offered an article on Nazi grooming — “The Toothbrush Moustache: Time to Bring it Back?”
But they didn’t. When you look closely, TBR’s defense of the Nazi mass murderer relies on criticizing the enemies of the Third Reich and lionizing Hitler’s programs. There’s an attack on the “air terrorism” of the British. There’s a defense of the “loving and caring” Lebensborn program for unwed mothers, where “pure” Aryan women were encouraged to mate with SS officers and which included the kidnapping of perhaps a quarter million children from their parents.
The same issue also carries “The Hitler Youth Vindicated,” by Daniel W. Michaels, a former Defense Department official who says the paramilitary group merely instructed children in “the promotion of love of country and people; enjoyment of honest and open combat and of healthy physical activity; veneration of ethical and spiritual values; the placing of the common good ahead of individual gain; and the rejection of all values originating from Jewry.”
Still, even TBR admits that Hitler had a drawback.
“His major fault, if he can be criticized for that, is that he cared for and loved his own people, the German working class, who were deprived and robbed of their wealth and capital by the international bankers,” Cassian d’Ornellas, a retired teacher, wrote in one essay. D’Ornellas’ comment comes in an article that contains an important and never-before-reported fact: Contrary to what readers of TBR might think, Hitler was not, in fact, secretly funded by the Rothschilds.

Le paradoxe des commémorations du débarquement allié

Vidéo, le débarquement de Normandie: La face cachée des libérateurs

The Lessons of History: In 1966 President De Gaulle Said No to US-NATO

Pourquoi De Gaulle a refusé d’assister au 20e anniversaire du débarquement en 1964

The Post War II New World Order Map: A Proposal to Re-arrange the World after an Allied Victory

La Seconde Guerre mondiale aurait pu prendre fin en 1943 Au fur et à mesure que les Anglo-Saxons étendent leur influence en Europe centrale et orientale, intégrant les anciens États du Pacte de Varsovie dans l’Union européenne et l’OTAN, ils procèdent a une révision historique de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. L’objectif de Londres et de Washington est de s’arroger l’exclusivité de la victoire contre le nazisme, de se poser en parangons de la démocratie, et d’assimiler communisme et nazisme dans une même opprobre. Les crimes du stalinisme sont placés en équivalence avec ceux de l’hitlérisme, tandis que ceux de la colonisation sont purement effacés.