Advance to Barbarism, by F. J. P. Veale

Thanks Gerry Frederics

 

 

Excerpts from the Author's Introduction to the flawed classic Advance to Barbarism

with comments by Gerry Frederics (in italics)

Tardily professional historians have at last begun to realise that the
events of the first half of the 20th century have presented them with a
problem of unique difficulty.

From the first it was apparent that 1914 was certain to be a memorable
date in history because in that year began a war in which a vast number
would be doomed to die violent deaths and which would certainly lead to
sweeping changes to the map of Europe if only for the worse. For a decade
historians limited themselves to investigating the origins of the struggle
which they explained to their own satisfaction by attributing it to the
chance that Germany was ruled by an emperor who was obsessed by an insane
ambition to conquer the world. From patriotic motives, at first to assist
the war effort and later to justify the dictated terms of peace,
professional historians, many of them men of great eminence and learning,
laboured to confirm and endorse the Wicked Kaiser Myth. Once however this
had been exposed as an impudent propaganda fiction, they failed to find
any generally acceptable explanation for the blind homicidal frenzy which
seized the nations of Europe during the period, 1914-1918, and ultimately
they became resigned to leaving the problem for solution to the
psychologists and psychiatrists. Thus the First World War came to be
regarded as a bizarre episode of history, mainly of significance as a grim
warning to posterity of the consequences of allowing greed and pugnacity
to overcome reason.

The conclusion that the great struggle which broke out in Europe in 1914
resulted from a pathological wave of hysteria which afflicted the most
advanced nations of mankind in that year is now held up for admiration as
the most remarkable achievement of modem historical research. But this
diagnosis was first put forward over thirty years ago by Field-Marshal
Lord Allenby who bluntly declared, "The Great War was a lengthy period of
general insanity."1 The view that the beginning of this struggle in 1914
and still more that its continuation after 1916 were essentially the
result of an irrational and compulsive urge was accepted as self-evident
and undeniable throughout the thirty-nine weekly televised programmes
entitled 'The Great War' broadcast by the B.B.C. in 1965.

(Comment by Gerry Fredrics:
These statements are no more than pure obfuscations. The war was planned as early as 1904
by the British in concert wth France - The Entente Cordial - in order to eliminate a strong
German world with which neither nation could hope to compete on a level playng field. The german
emperor Wilhelm did make the mistake in trying to equall the British fleet (in retrospect the question
arises `What for?´) thereby arousing in the colonizing nations a sense of danger, which in reality
did not exist, sine the Kaiser only wanted that which under examnation must be considered `fair and square´.)

Not until after 1939 when another world war broke out, rendered inevitable
by the terms of peace imposed on the vanquished after the First World War,
was it realised how profound were the effects which the latter struggle
had had on the character, outlooks and ethics of the average Western
civilized man. Since the times when the Dark Ages had gradually evolved
into the Middle Ages, the story of civilization in Europe had been one of
slow but steady upward progress. The advance of civilization apart from
occasional fluctuations remained continuous until the beginning of the
20th century, by which time it had come to be regarded as an established
law of nature that progress was an automatic process of unending duration.

(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
War did not `break out´. War was created by a hostile Britain in concert with an insanely jeaulos
France who used pitiful, forever chauvanistic Poland led by a latter-day Ghengis Kahn
(only without the intelligence) to ignite it. The untimey death of Marshall Pilsudski hastened and in fact
enabled the vile underhanded machinations of the British and French governments. The Americans under
Roosevelt also played a vital role in encouraging Polish politicians and the catholic clergy into transgressing
every rule of decency vis-á-vis the German minority popution;; namely the prohibition of the German language,massive job discrimination, institutionalized murder predictably never solved by the investigating Polish police, the prohibition of German language newspapers and church services, the physical hunting down
of ethnic Germans after inflammatory catholic church services and the subsequrnt beatings and murders
on Polish streets, right out in the open (!) on sundays and I could easily go on and on --ALL of it documented by amongst other organizations the International Red Cross! )

As the late Dean Inge observed, belief in Progress became a kind of
religion with most educated men. Apart from the steady accumulation of
scientific knowledge, arbitrary violence had gradually become controlled
by the rule of law, manners had become milder and in warfare primitive
savagery had become modified by the tacit adoption at the end of the 17th
century of an unwritten code of restrictions and restraints which later
codified at the conventions of Geneva and the Hague, became known as the
Rules of Civilized Warfare. The fundamental principle of this code was
that hostilities should be restricted to the armed and uniformed forces of
the combatants, from which followed the corollary that civilians must be
left entirely outside the scope of military operations. It was widely
believed that war, being an essentially barbarous method of settling
international disputes, was bound ultimately to die out. With seemingly
full justification the outlook at the beginning of the 20th century was
one of unclouded optimism.

As early as 1770, by which time the horrors of the Thirty Years War had
become generally forgotten, the Comte de Guibert could express the already
prevailing complacency by writing:-

'Today the whole of Europe is civilized. We have become less cruel. Save
in combat no blood is shed; prisoners are respected; towns are no more
destroyed; the countryside is no more ravaged; conquered peoples are
only obliged to pay some sort of contributions which are often less than
the taxes they pay to their own sovereign.'

In the 19th century this happy state of affairs was taken for granted: no
one dreamed that it would shortly come to an abrupt end. To us it seems
fantastically unreal, now that prisoners of war are faced with the
prospect of being subjected to war-crimes trials at the pleasure of their
captors, or of being sent to work indefinitely as slave labour; towns with
their inhabitants are obliterated by terror bombing; conquered peoples are
uprooted from their homelands and mass-deported abroad; and the property
of the vanquished is either appropriated as a matter of course by the
victors or systematically destroyed.

The war which broke out in Europe in 1914 seemed at first
indistinguishable from the civil wars which previously had periodically
devastated that continent. During the struggle, however, quite unforeseen
by any one, civilization began a retrograde movement without a parallel in
history. While the struggle lasted this retrograde movement was not
generally perceived but after the wave of optimism generated by the
creation of the League of Nations had faded, the realization dawned that
somehow the times had become out of joint. Working below the surface a
profound psychological change had been taking place. Many of the men then
living in obscurity who in the next decade were to rise to power and fame
– for example Yagoda, Stalin's chief of the G.P.U. during the Great Purge,
Heinrich Himmler, the S.S. leader, and Adolf Eichmann, the organiser of
systematic genocide – might have been reincarnations of men who had
flourished the times of the Merovingian Kings. Even the outlook of so
irreproachable a character as Air Marshal Sir Hugh Trenchard with his then
novel recipe for victory – "bomb the enemy civilian population until they
surrender" – was nearer akin to that of an Iroquois war chief than to that
of a professional European soldier of the 19th century.2

(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
To lump together men like Himmler, Eichmann and Yagoda and to refer to them collectively
as `organizers of genocide´ per se is unfair to an extreme, since that sobriquet certanly fit
the jewish Yagoda but neither Himmler nor Eichmann as is evidenced by the historical facts,
rather than the historical FICTION which has been foisted in mankind as truth.)

Hardly perceptible for twenty-one years, when hostilities were resumed in
1939 the reversion to primitive practices in warfare soon became headlong
until at last all pretence of complying with the Rules of Civilized
Warfare was abandoned and both sides* tacitly adopted the principle that
any act was justifiable if it held out even a remote hope that it might
stave off the frightful consequences of defeat.

(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
*This is a vile lie. It is well documented that the German armed forces were meticulousy correct
toward the civilian populations and that those cities which were in fact bombed, were indeed well
defended military targets - this according to the British military historian Capt. Basil Liddell Hart.
In addition, Rotterdam as well as Warsaw were given ample warning and plenty of time to either
surrender or to evaxcuate their populations. The fact that neither offer was accepted pionts to the
criminal negligence of the city governments on the one hand and the chivalrous behavior of the
German military on theother. As far as the bombing of London goes, it commenced after 6 months
of British air attacks on undefended German civilian targets, incessant taunts and insults by Churchill
and every vileness know to man. This is referred to in The Jewish Encyclopedia as `the cunning of Churchill´
caused by his jewish genes; in addition, Hitlers SPECIFIC orders were to AVOID civilian casualties at
all costs and to select only military and industrial installations in London.

And I Quote: `I saw no evidence whatsoever of any German military abuse of the French civilian population.
In fact, the French were very sullen and the question arose whether they wanted to be liberated at all´.
Source - John Eisenhower (!) Jr. as quoted by David Irving in his book ´- The War of the Generals-)

An explanation is clearly needed to account for the fact that governments
composed of educated men, reared in the 19th century and brought up to
accept as a matter of course the standards of conduct then accepted by
everyone, should have so quickly and easily overcome their natural
repugnance and adopted and carried out such enormities as the systematic
extermination of a defenceless minority on account of its racial origin,
the mass-deportation of enemy populations numbering millions, and the
deliberate slaughter of enemy civilians by terror bombing in order to
generate among the survivors a disposition to surrender unconditionally.

It was many years after hostilities had ceased in 1945 before historians
realized that this problem existed. In Germany the thinking powers of
historians were for long paralysed by the ruthless brainwashing to which
they with the rest of their countrymen were subjected in 1945 to force
them to accept the propaganda fictions of the victors. In Britain and the
United States historians were so preoccupied investigating the crimes
against humanity committed by the vanquished that they overlooked the
background of concentrated terror bombing against which these crimes had
been committed. They failed to realize that genocide and terror bombing
were not isolated phenomena but symptoms of the same retrograde movement
which had mysteriously overtaken Western civilization.

(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
No, no, no. The concentrated terror bombings had been meticulousy planed as early as the 1920´s
when England developed long-distance bombers, time-delay bombs, phospor bombs, block-buster bombs
cluster bombs and started producing and storing massive quantities of anthrax. Pray tell Mr. Veale,
whom were the Anglo-American world planning to annihlate then, Lichtenstein perhaps, or Andorra?
And how one of about Roosevelts very first acts as president in 1932, the order to develope long-distance
bombers which were to be so well armed as to be called `Flying Fortresses´?)

It is commonly assumed that genocide and terror bombing were accepted
respectively by the governments of Germany and Britain without protest or
opposition from those they ruled who, it is assumed, were as completely
subject to the spirit of the times as their rulers. The facts as now
disclosed do not support either assumption but the subject remains
uninvestigated.

(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
This is another lie. The `subject´ has been investigated in great detail and it is quite clear, that
the Hitler government never even envisioned terror bombing. In fact, Hitler found the allegation that the British were planning such a thing impossible to believe, since he and millions of other brain-washed Germans insisted, the English were the Germans cousins and would never lower themselves to such barbarity.)

Taking first the case of Germany, a strict censorship enforced by drastic
penalties controlled the publication of news and the expression of
opinion. It is impossible to determine the number of those who expressed
opposition to the regime as any who so ventured came to an untimely end.

(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
That is untrue. We have precise records of how many dissidents were incarcerated/and/or executed
under what circumstances and according to which laws, laws which hold water far better than those
under which dissidents in the democracies were and are being harassed, prosecuted and jailed today in the year 2008)

One cannot protest effectively in secret and to protest publicly was
equivalent to suicide. It is doubtful also whether any specific
information was available consuming what was taking place behind barbed
wire in the concentration camps, most of which were in remote occupied
territory, inaccessible to civilians.* It has been contended that it would
have been impossible to put to death millions of persons without some
facts about it becoming generally known. Estimates of the number of
victims vary from ten millions to less than a quarter of a million, and
the larger the estimate accepted the stronger this contention becomes. It
will always be a subject for regret that the victorious Allies did not put
the question beyond dispute by appointing in 1945 a commission composed of
impartial judges selected, from neutral countries to investigate the
facts. The findings of such a body would have been accepted by posterity
as final. The Allies however deliberately rejected this obvious course.

(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
This is essentially a falsehood. At Auschwitz, the alleged death camp, Polish ramers were plowing
their fields which ended at the barbed wire fences. Not one ever reported anything amiss. The allies
flew reconnaissance missions throughout the war never seeing anything amiss. Furtherore, the
concentration ams were neither in remote regions nor inacessble, since many were located near
population centers and the International Red Cross had UNFETTERED access to ALL of them throughout
the war years. This is in stark contrast to the American Camps (REAL death camps) AFTER the war,
to which the International Red Cross was denied acces, or to the the one in Danmark in which over
10.000 German refugee children were deliberately allowed to die of starvatin while the Danes looked
the other way , etc., etc. etc.)

The findings of the Nuremberg Tribunal are of course worthless: a court
which convicted Admiral Dönitz against whom the prosecution had failed to
produce even the shadow of a prima facie case was clearly incapable of
deposing even of the simplest problem. After the kidnapping of Adolf
Eichmann in 1961 another opportunity arose to dispose of this question by
an enquiry by an impartial tribunal. Once again this course was
emphatically rejected, a fact which in itself is highly significant.. It
remains therefore impossible to say with confidence whether the German
people consented without protest to the departures from civilized
standards by its rulers during the Second World War.

(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
I fail to see exactly where Germany´s rulers during WW-2 departed from civilized standards.
The rulers who emphatically did were Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin and the entire leadership,
including the catholic clergy of Poland. The rounding up and the expulsion of the jews occurred after
many years of freely allowed and encouraged emigration and after world jewry had officially
declared war on Germany (in 1933) and had done everything possible to destroy Germany during
all (!) the decades since 1900).

Recently indeed several books have appeared disclosing that throughout the
war there was an active underground resistance movement in Germany. Those
who participated however seem to have been mainly political rivals of
Hitler, jealous of his rise to power and intent on bringing about the
downfall of his regime so as to be able to replace it by a regime of their
own. His crimes against humanity do not seem behave greatly concerned
them.

(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
The anti-Hitler movement in Germany was indeed made up mostly by political rivals,
but by far the worst and most traitorous were the religiously extreme crypto-jews led by Pastors
Bohnhöffer and Niemöller, lay-Pastor Count von Moltke as well as a number of traditional
military men, mostly steming from ancient Prussian blue-blood families, who resented a former
Corporal having bested them in every conceivable way. As far as `his crimes against humanity´ go
it all depends what one considers a `crime against humanity´. It has been documented beyond a doubt
that these alleged crimes occurred rarely and by far more frequent and severe amongst the allies led

by Churchill, Roosevelt and other demonstrably criminal elements.

e.g., in the Pacific theatre of war, Americans officaly (!) took no prisoners but murdered ever Japanese who
had surendered - hence the fight to the bitter end of the Japanese.
Colonel Lindbergh noted in his diary his feelings of shame and rage at being an American after
witnessing some Amerian atocities which very literally defy descriptions. During the waning days of
the war in Europe, German POW´s were routinely murdered in the following way: A Sgt. would
order a Corporal or Private to march the column of `Krauts´ back to Paris - some 500 miles removed -
and report back in 10 minutes. The soldier would then march then behind the next curve on the road
and execute them with his sub-machine gun. German prisoners of war were routinely beaten to death
upon surrender such as it happened in April 1945 in Ellwangen ad nauseam and American troops robbed
German troops of their decorations, insignia, wrist watches and cameras. Those who refused were
beaten to death or shot outright (if lucky). This happened to the 3rd. SS Armored Division at the hands of
the 11th. US Armored Division. There is NO record of any Wehrmacht troops engaging in any of such
activities; not even when they had absolutey nothing to lose, they adhered to the Geneva conventions.
)

The situation in Britain was very different. There was no official
prohibition on expressions of opinion as such, but persons who ventured to
express opinions which the authorities deemed might hamper the war effort
were put in prison without a trial or even without a specific complaint
against them. With regard to the bombing of the enemy civilian population,
everyone knew that civilians in Germany were being slaughtered wholesale
but it was believed that this was an unavoidable by-product of an air
offensive against military objectives. The comforting reflection was
accepted that the German civilian population could at any moment bring its
sufferings to an end by surrendering unconditionally.

(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
I fail to see the difference. In Germany it was not allowed to voice dissent and if one did so,
one was jailed. Hm, sort of like today, no? In England one was allegedly allowed to voice dissent
but if one did one was jailed. Hm, not only that, one was jailed without trial, had ones properties
confiscated and career and family ruined. Hm, the only difference here is that in Germany it was
according to the law prevailing, a law which was far more fair than todays repressive laws, none
of which have any basis in truth! In addition, people who were openly opposed to the regime almost
invariably called for the violent overthrow of it (WHEREAS AS THE FOLKS IN BRITAIN DID NOT, BUT
RATHER SIGNED PETITIONS AGAINST THE WAR ETC). The opposition in germany, such as it existed,
engaged in unlawful acts includng actual sabotage and open calls for rebellion crimes in any nation,
at any time. Let us not forget, that over 95% of the German population was enthusiastically supportive
of the regime! In addition, many of the oppositon were running around free for years, such as Pastor
Bohnöffer who, had the Gestapo had enough manpower (as todays secret police certainly have) would
have been arrested as early as 1938 and jailed as a traitor of the first order.)

It would not indeed be correct to say that what was officially termed "the
strategic bombing offensive" was carried out to the last day of the war
without opposition, protest or misgivings. Questions were asked in
Parliament as to the character of this air offensive which were fully
reported in the Press with the answers given. Certainly it cannot be said
that the Ministers of the Crown upon whom fell the duty of answering these
questions, resorted to evasion or equivocation. In accordance with the
British tradition they kept a stiff upper lip and gave clear and emphatic
replies, without any signs of embarrassment such as might have been
expected from them having regard to the fact that as recently as March
1942 Mr. Churchill's War Cabinet had accepted the plan laid before it by
Professor Lindemann by which 'top priority' as an objective for air attack
was in future to be given to "working-class houses in densely populated
residential areas."

(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
The British attitude of murdering other people and then justifying it with a `stiff upper lip´ seems to be
historic; see the Boer wars, the Chinese Opium wars fought on behalf of the jewish Sassoon family which paid
obscene anounts of tribute to the Royals who in turn turned England into the the only nation on earth
which has ever been an official drug cartel, the bombing of Kurdish villages in the north of Iraq in 1924
with bombs which contained mustard gas - so ordered by, surprise!, surprise!, Winston Churchill, the
planned genocidal mass murder of the North American Indian population by amongst other things
small pox-infected blankets, making the English nation the first one to use biological weapons against
an entire defenseless people, the dropping of dynamite-filled dolls and fountain pens over German
cities (especially Hanau with its famed Children´s Hospital) causing many a little German girl to have
her arms severed by the ensuing explosion when she picked up that pretty doll, the machine-gunning of
women and children who were trying to escape the insane barbarous air attack on Dresden, the beating
to death of unarmed 16 and 17 year old Hitler-Youth boys who had bravely defended their very homes
and mothers, all with a `stiff upper lip´. NONE of those things at which the Anglo-American world excelled
were EVER done by a German, NONE.)

This decision of the War Cabinet was kept a closely guarded secret from
the British public for nearly twenty years until it was unobtrusively
revealed in 1961 in a little book entitled Science and Government by the
physicist and novelist, Sir Charles Snow, in which occurred the following
oft-quoted passage which was immediately translated and published in every
language in the world:
'Early in 1942 Professor Lindemann, by this time Lord Cherwell and a
member of the Cabinet, laid a cabinet paper before the Cabinet on the
strategic bombing of Germany. It described in quantitative terms the
effect on Germany of a British bombing offensive in the next eighteen
months (approximately March 1942 – September 1943). The paper laid down
a strategic policy. The bombing must be directed essentially against
German working-class houses. Middle-class houses have too much space
round them and so are bound to waste bombs; factories and "military
objectives" had long since been forgotten, except in official bulletins,
since they were much too difficult to find and hit. The paper claimed
that – given a total concentration of effort on the production and use
of aircraft – it would be possible, in all the larger towns of Germany
(that is, those with more than 50,000 inhabitants), to destroy 50 per
cent of all houses.' (pp. 47-48.)

(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
I suppose the `stiff upper lip´ played a role in this, for the very thoughts expressed let ones blood run cold.
It also pays to remember that Lindemann was jewish; he had emigrated from Germany to England in 1929.)

Terror bombing as proposed in the Lindemann Plan was a novelty in warfare
rendered possible by the conquest of the air during the first two decades
of the 20th century. Genocide, on the other hand, was only the revival of
an ancient practice, once probably worldwide, which had long been
abandoned in Europe and which barely survived, in company with
cannibalism, among the savages of Africa. It has never seriously been
contended by anyone that either genocide or terror bombing were in
accordance with the moral standards accepted at the time by all civilized
peoples.

(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
My, my. A NOVEL idea. Isn´t that a quaint way to express mass-murdering intent! - and NO, it was not made
possible by the conquest of the air, it was made possible by criminal minds who masqueraded as men.)

We do not know what were the thoughts in private of Hitler's colleagues
concerning his "final solution of the Jewish Problem."

(Comment by Gerry Fredrics:
This is statement is astounding since massive amounts of documents were recovered after the German
surrender detailing precisely what their attitude was and that the `final solution´ was no more
than the decision to remove all jews from all parts of Europe controlled by Germany - no more, no less.
It appears Mr. Veale is talking with, to use an ancient Sioux phrase, `with forked tongue´).

Some of them surely must have found it at least disturbing that the Führer should have
recourse to a practice which had only recently been stamped out in Africa
by European Colonialism as the first step towards introducing civilization
into that continent.

(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
THIS is an outrageous statement, it is plainly vile. People as diverse as Lord Rothmere, David Lloyd
George, King Edward the 8th., Knut Hamsun and George Bernard Shaw commented on the extremely
high level of culture AND the trustworthiness of Adolf Hitler. To accuse him of all people of having
re-introduced barbaric practices identified with black behavior is utterly unsubstantiated and dishonest,
it is slanderous to an extreme and makes one wonder in whose services Mr. Veale indeed labored
in the first place.
In addition any alleged `genocide´ allegedly practiced by Germany during WW-2 has been thoroughy
debunked and only the stranglehold word jewry exercises over all western nations coupled with the
guilty feelings of exactly these nations regarding their odious role in the destruction of the arguably
most vibrant, creative people Europe has ever produced makes such a statement possible.
Furthermore colonisation, I suppose includes the mass murder under circumstances which were more than
inhumane, which were outright barbaric on every level by the British of the Boer settlers
- most of whom in fact were ethnic Germans toting a bible and a hoe - who indeed had brought
civilization to a part of the world which heretofore had been uncivilized on a pre-historic level
as well as having been practically devoid of any population).

We know however that the members of the British War Cabinet who accepted
the Lindemann Plan fully realized its enormity because concurrently with
its acceptance it was decided that on no account must any inkling of its
terms reach the public. The following extracts from the parliamentary
reports of Hansard are set out verbatim here immediately after the passage
quoted above, not to suggest that British politicians are exceptionally
mendacious – politicians whatever their nationality have never been
renowned for veracity – but to establish that those responsible for the
acceptance of the Lindemann Plan were conscious of a feeling of guilt.

They instructed those entrusted with the task of answering questions on
the subject to give emphatic and unambiguous denials designed to stifle
all further enquiries, as the following passages from Hansard show. Some
or indeed most of them may have replied in the innocence of their hearts
without personal knowledge of the truth but credulously believing what
they were told by their departments.

On the 11th March, 1943 (a year after the acceptance of the Lindemann
Plan) in the House of Commons, Mr. Montague, a Labour Member, having
expressed the hope that our air raids on Germany were still being
concentrated, as he believed they were, on military and industrial
objectives, Captain Harold Balfour, Under-Secretary for Air, replied that
he could give the House "an assurance that our objectives in bombing the
enemy were industries, transport and war potential. There is no change in
our policy. We were not bombing women and children wantonly for the sake
of so doing. It is not for us to turn back. If innocent people, women and
children suffer in the execution of our policy in Germany the remedy lies
with the German men and women themselves."3

(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
It is difficult to fathom that these bald-faced lies were accepted as fact by the British politicians.
What happeed here is, that they WANTED to believe these things.)

On the 30th March, 1943, in reply to the Labour Member, Richard Stokes,
the Secretary for Air, Sir Archibald Sinclair, replied blandly that, "The
targets of Bomber Command are always military but night-bombing of
military objectives necessarily involves bombing the area in which these
are situated."4

On the 9th February, 1944, in the House of Lords, Dr. Bell, the Bishop of
Chichester, in a memorable speech demanded a statement of the Government's
policy "in regard to the bombing of enemy towns with special reference to
the effect of such bombing on civilian life." Viscount Cranbourne,
Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs, replied for the Government that
he was "very ready to give an assurance that the aim of our intensive
attacks on German cities was to hamper and, if possible, to bring to a
standstill enemy war production and not aimlessly to sprinkle bombs with
the object of spreading damage among the enemy population. The R.A.F. had
never indulged in purely terror raids."5

The last and most illuminating debate on the subject of terror bombing
took place in the House of Commons on the 6th March, 1945, only three
weeks after the ghastly mass air raid on Dresden on the 13th February,
1945.

This debate was initiated by the irrepressible Richard Stokes who demanded
to be told the truth concerning an authorised report, issued regarding
this raid by the Associated Press Correspondent from Supreme Allied
Headquarters in Paris which gloatingly described "this unprecedented
assault in daylight on the refugee-crowded capital, fleeing from the
Russian tide in the East," and declared it showed that "the long-awaited
decision had been taken to adopt deliberate terror-bombing of German
populated centres as a ruthless expedient to hasten Hitler's doom."

(Comment by Gerry Fredrics:
This is strange, since Churchill had OPENLY stated as early as 1940 that the war was an English one and that the aim was to eradicate German industrial might, that it did not matter who ruled Germany and
that the merciless, barbaric mass murder of the German population would go ahead `even if
a Jesuit priest were to be German chancellor´.)

Mr. Stokes began by reading this report which he reminded the House had
been widely published in America and had been broadcast by Paris Radio. In
Britain on the morning of the 17th February it had been released by the
Censor but in the evening of that day it had been suppressed from
publication, presumably as a result of the indignant protests which it had
aroused.

Mr. Stokes insisted on being told, "Is terror bombing now part of our
policy? Why is it that the people of this country who are supposed to be
responsible for what is going on, the only people who may not know what is
being done in their name? On the other hand, if terror bombing be not part
of our policy, why was this statement put out at all? I think we shall
live to rue the day we did this, and that it (the air raid on Dresden)
will stand for all time as a blot on our escutcheon."

Here a private member, Rear-Admiral Sir Murray Sueter, interposed with the
fatuous observation that "all targets are very carefully planned by the
Bombing Committee. The Committee go into each target which is of military
importance, necessitating the carrying out of this bombing."

Commander Brabner, Joint Under-Secretary for Air, then spoke on behalf of
the Government. "May I conclude on a note of denial," he observed
apologetically. "The report which has just been read stated that the
Allied Commanders had adopted a policy of terror bombing. This is
absolutely not so. This has now been denied by Supreme Allied Headquarters
and I should like to have an opportunity of denying it here. We are not
wasting our bombers or time on purely terror tactics. Our job is to
destroy the enemy. It does not do the Hon. Member justice to come to this
House and try to suggest that there are a lot of Air Marshals or pilots or
anyone else sitting in a room trying to think of how many German women and
children they can kill. We are concentrating on war targets, and we intend
to remain concentrated on them until Germany gives up."

(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
These comments were outright lies. Air Marshall Harris stated quite bluntly, that the aim of the
bombing had never been industrial tagets (with the sole exception of the city of Essen*), but
rather the genocidal elimination of the German civilian population. Instructions to British and
American bombing crews repeated these sentiments. * Air Marshall Harris assidously forgot to
mention the industrial city of Wuppertal which was bombed in a horrendous attack on -----
The CIVILIAN sector of the city, ignoring the industrial part almost entirely!)

Quite unabashed by this expression of official disapproval, Mr. Stokes
asked two supplementary questions, "If the report issued with the
authority of Allied Headquarters in Paris was untrue, why when protest was
made against it was this not stated at once, and why was it said at first
that it was impossible to suppress a report approved by Allied
Headquarters stating its official policy, although in fact it was
immediately afterwards suppressed?"

Sir Archibald Sinclair, the Secretary for Air, had pointedly left the
House when Mr. Stokes began to read this report so imprudently approved by
Supreme Headquarters in Paris. No doubt by this time he knew the contents
of this compromising production by heart. Realising that Commander
Brabner's rambling evasions of the questions put to him, instead of
disposing of them, would be more likely to arouse curiosity as to the
truth and so lead to further enquiries, he decided to dispose of the
subject finally himself. "This report," he declared, "is certainly not
true. The Hon. Member can take that from me. How it was handled, what
newspapers published it, and whether publication was authorised, are
matters which the Hon. Member had better discuss with the Ministry of
Information."6

(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
Ah---------ministry of information. Hm-----was that run by a Sefton Delmer Wanna-be? I thought
there was `feedom of speech´ on England; if so, why have an official government organization
managing the information given to the public?)

In passing it may be noted that this denial was in a sense true. No
decision, long-awaited, had just been reached to adopt deliberate terror
bombing of German main centres of population. The decision to do this had
been reached three years before when in March 1942 the Lindemann Plan was
accepted by the British War Cabinet. Ever since then it had been
ruthlessly carried into effect: the Dresden massacre was merely the
culmination of this policy.

Referring to the above quoted report issued from Allied headquarters, the
subject of the above debate, David Irving in his book, The Destruction of
Dresden, published in 1963, observes complacently, "What might be termed
the 'mask' of the Allied Bomber commands for one extraordinary moment
appears to have slipped." It was however only a brief moment.7 "The debate
on the 6th March, 1945," he writes proudly, "was the last wartime debate
on Bomber Command's policy: the British Government was able to preserve
its secret from the day when the first area raid had been launched on
Mannheim, the 16th December, 1940, right up to the end of the war."

(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
Mr. Irving´s book is flawed insofar as he minimizes the horrors inflicted on Dreden, a citadel of European
civilization comparable to Florence as well minimizing the number of victims. Nevertheless, he did a great
service writing the book in the first place.)

The apparent indifference of the British public to the adoption of terror
bombing as a method of waging war may be explained by the fact that the
emphatic denials of the Ministers of the Crown were almost universally
accepted as true. Officially this problem did not exist, hence the public
apathy which certainly contrasts strangely with the frenzied moral
indignation professed in Britain and elsewhere in 1966 when the Americans
began to bomb communist troop concentrations, oil depots and ammunition
dumps in Vietnam on the ground that bombs which missed their mark might
endanger civilian life. The distinction between these cases is that the
outcry in 1966 was perhaps more an expression of anti-American feeling
than of a humanitarian regard for human life. In 1945 the death of German
civilians troubled few people in Britain simply because the victims were
Germans.

(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
Indeed this is correct. The British population has since around 1890 been so indoctrinated with
German-hatred that it is hardly conceivable to a normal human being. This anti-German hatred
has in the meantime spread from the jewish controlled newspapers and government (according
to British authors Hilaire Belloc, Nesta Webster and many others) to the British public school system,
were children are systematically taught German-hatred via insane anti-German propaganda of the
most odious nature. German exchange students are warned NOT to speak German in public, lest
they be physically attacked (this in the year 2006). This well-organized vileness also explains the
horrid behavior of British football hooligans while visiting the World Cup games held in Germany).

Be this as it may, the worldwide outcry of 1966 certainly tends to support
the view that Winston Churchill and his colleagues were justified in
fearing in 1942 that if the terms of the Lindemann Plan were made known to
the public, an outcry, similar to that which arose in 1966, was to be
expected.

Long afterwards in 1961 H.M. Stationery Office described in four volumes
with a wealth of horrifying details the terror bombing offensive against
Germany carried out from March 1942 to May 1945 in accordance with the
Lindemann Plan.8

(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
Lindemann was a jew with a graduate degree from Darmstadt University, anther city incinerated
according to his plan. Darmstadt was purely civilian, a citadel of modern cuture and
civilization and devoid of military value; the bombing caused such a fire-storm, that the tar on the
streets melted and caught fire (!) and that the telephone poles melted and looked like cooked spaghetti.
Thousands of victims were recovered from basements where their bodies had shrunk due to the
hellish heat to such a degree that they fit into a normal size suitcase. )

Immediately after hostilities had ceased in 1945, various aspects of the
Second World War began to be subjected in print to unqualified
condemnation. With regard to terror bombing, the eminent military critic,
Captain Liddell Hart*, in a little book entitled The Evolution of Warfare,
published in 1946, declared that victory had been achieved "through
practising the most uncivilized means of warfare that the world had known
since the Mongol devastations."9 Adverse criticism was at first mainly
directed to the adoption of the novel system of 'war-crimes trials' as a
method of disposing of enemy prisoners of war. Widely reported with gusto
in the Press these so-called trials were soon in progress all over Europe
and in the Far East**. With regard to them therefore no question arises, as
in the cases of genocide and terror bombing, whether an innocent public
was kept in ignorance of what was happening. It cannot be denied that this
particular reversion to barbarism was accepted by the public with
astonishingly few misgivings.

(Comment by Gerry Frederics:
* After the publishing of his book `The History of the 2nd. World War´ , his military career took a sudden
nose dive and went into a tail-spin never to recover. He had been the top graduate (!) of his class at
Sandhurst Military College, held a Graduate Degree in history from (I think Oxford) and was considered
to be a future commander of the Royal Armed Forces or possibly a Prime Minister. The books he wrote
however exonerated Germany (and thereby Hitler, even if only by implication) and that was the
`kiss of death´ of his career.
**The war crimes trials in the far East were exceedngly limited (as well as absolutey disgusting) but despite that can in no way be compared (as Veale does) to the heinous Inquisition of the Nürnberg Trials, where men were tortured and executed on manufactured evidence straight out if the devils kitchen - the propaganda machines of the Soviet Union (head: Ilyia Ehrenburg, a Jew), England (head: Sefton Delmer, a Jew) and the USA (who headed their machine has assidously been left unreported, but an important part of it were Hollywood films and German disgraces such as Marlene Dietrich - the matress of the American Officers Corps - and Thomas Mann as well as his entire family of gifted writers or Ingrid Bergmann who owed everything she was to the once magnificent German film industry.

Amongst other things used at Nürnberg were inhumane sleeping accomodations - men were ot allowed to sleep except in ONE position, with their arms exposed at all times, with lights on at all times and with guards (mosty black soldiers) waking them up whenever they so decided. The diet was intentionally so poor, that the accussed could not think properly and were unable to form any defense; defense attorneys were routinely harassed and had their defense motions thrown out. No cross-examination was permitted and hear-say evidence of people no one seemed to know was accepted as fact. The most foul propaganda movies made by the US Army Signal Corps using jewish movie directors such as Billie Wilder were presented as `proof´.. The men were eventually not hanged, but strangled slowly to death - their bodies were hurriedly cremated and the ashes thrown into the Isar river, their families never even receiving a notification. No, no, no Mr. Veale is being dishonest here. This is only the tip of the ice berg; there are tens-of-thousands of Germans thusly murdered, all real `legal´. Junior Senator McCarthy was one who discovered many of these things reporting them enraged to the US Senate, only to be ignored in 1949. In the 1990´s the Russian government ordered a re-examination of ALL war-crimes trials of German soldiers held on Soviet territory after the war. The result --- so far all have been found to have been illegal murders by the Soviet machinery and ALL German soldiers thusly tortured to death have been officially rehabilitated. Predictably the western press has not reported even one such case!)

Nevertheless there were occasional faint and disregarded protests. A
booklet written by the present author twenty years ago provides the core
of this book.


Notes:

1. See Lord Allenby's Rectorial Address to Edinburgh University on the
28th April, 1936, three weeks before his death.

2. "Sir Hugh Trenchard, Chief of the Air Staff from 1919 to 1929, had a
decisive influence on the future of the R.A.F." wrote Sir Charles Webster
and Dr. Noble Frankland, the joint authors of The Strategic Air Offensive
against Germany (H.M. Stationery Office, London, 1961, Vol. 1, p. 42).
They explain that the essence of his policy was that "future wars would be
won by producing such moral effect on the enemy civilian population that
its government would have to sue for peace. The advantage of destroying
military installations and factories was recognised but he maintained that
it was easier to overcome the will to resist among the workers than to
destroy the means to resist" (p. 86).

3. Hansard, 12 March 1943.

4. Hansard, 31 March, 1943.

5. Hansard, 10 February, 1944.

6. Hansard, March 7th, 1945.

7. The Destruction of Dresden by David Irving, London, Kimber, 1963..

8. The Strategic Air Offensive, H.M. Stationery Office, London, 1961.

9. The Evolution of Warfare, by B. H. Liddell Hart, London, Faber & Faber,
1946, p. 75.

F. J. P. Veale, Advance to Barbarism: The Development of Total Warfare
From Serajevo to Hiroshima. Mitre Press (London) 1968, pp. 13-23.


 

Freedom isn't free! To insure the continuation of this website and the survival of its creator in these financially-troubled times, please send donations directly to the Birdman at
PO Box 66683, St Pete Beach FL 33736-6683

"The smallest good deed is worth the grandest intention."

Please contribute today - buy our books - and spread the word to all your friends!
Remember: Your donation = our survival!

* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *