Daily Beast: Winston Churchill did “an inside job” to get America into World War II

“In the days just prior to the July 4th holiday, a threat had been phoned into the British Pavilion switchboard operator, warning her to ‘get out of the building. We’re going to blow it up.’ "

The three amigos of the twentieth century

…by Jonas E. Alexis

 

The Zionist Media and other news outlets are slowly but surely catching up with the actual historical account about World War II. The Daily Beast in particular has recently reported that Winston Churchill did “an inside job” in order to get America into World War II. We have been saying this for years.

Churchill knew that the vast majority of Americans did not want the United States to get into a bloody war with Germany, therefore he forged all kinds of fabrications and conducted numerous covert operations in order to seduce the masses.

One of those operations involved the bombing of the British Pavilion in New York in July of 1940. This took the lives of two policemen. One New York City Police Lieutenant Bernard Whalen later declared that “There was a massive investigation at the time. The FBI was involved. You could draw the conclusion that it was an inside job.”[1]

One ought not to be surprised at all, for Churchill was drunk with power and money long before World War I started. As we have argued in the past, Churchill was ultimately responsible for the deaths of millions of Germans and Indians. Churchill was the man who would do just about anything for money; the Jewish oligarchs put him power, therefore he had to kill for them. He had to save them from Hitler. And nothing was going to stop him from accomplishing his mission. Nothing.

If you doubt this statement, then take it from Churchill himself. When civilians were being killed by the thousands during World War I, Churchill did not hesitate to say: “I know this war is smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment—and yet—I cannot help it—I love every second I live.”

If Churchill couldn’t care less about the lives of millions of civilians during World War I, then killing a couple of people in New York to get America into World War II was a piece of cake. “At one point the NYPD suspected as much,” says the Daily Beast, “but were stopped from getting to the bottom of the case.” Well, history repeats itself, doesn’t it? Don’t we witness the same thing after the 9/11 attack? The Daily Beast:

“Certainly, there was no better target at the time for a terror attack designed to cause large numbers of casualties and draw national public attention than the British Pavilion at the World’s Fair. It was in some respects the World trade Center of its moment.

“Beginning in the spring and summer of 1939 and again in 1940, a total of 44,000,000 visitors—at a time when the population of the entire country was just 120,000,000 people—flocked to the New York World’s Fair in Flushing Meadows, Queens.

“Three years in the making and spread across 1,216 acres of what had previously been an open-air garbage dump – the ash heap of F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby – the biggest exposition ever held cost $160 million to complete (equivalent to $2.3 billion today), not including a specially constructed elevated subway line and other new infrastructure, a phenomenal expenditure during the Great Depression.

“World’s Fair visitors saw “The World of Tomorrow,” the fair’s theme, including early television, self-driving cars, and robots, and strolled fairgrounds and pavilions dominated by futuristic icons and symbols, the Trylon and Perisphere, a 700-foot spire and an orb as wide as a city block through which visitors on a moving stairs viewed a model of the city of the future.”[2]

So, if Churchill and his henchmen could end up blowing that place up and blame it on Germany, then decent Americans would have no choice but to engage in a bloody war with Germany. Now here is the rub:

“In the days just prior to the July 4th holiday, a threat had been phoned into the British Pavilion switchboard operator, warning her to ‘get out of the building. We’re going to blow it up.’ Security thus was extra tight on Independence Day. However, according to Whalen, the Pavilion’s guard ‘wasn’t run-of-the-mill security.’ All security staff were British staffers who had present or past British military affiliations, he says. City policemen remained outside.”[3]

Right after the bombing, the masses moved to “London’s enemies…Americans were now forced to pay attention to the war that they had hoped to ignore.”[4] Whalen, according to the Daily Beast, wasn’t happy about what seemed to be a covert operation.

“His suspicions of an ‘inside job’…were aroused by reports he read in the police investigation files with. He says, ‘indications that police could not speak to security staff without permission, which was not freely granted. If I wanted to solve a crime, I wouldn’t impede investigators in any shape or form.’

“He says, ‘It could have just been the stuffy British attitude, but the authorities at the Pavilion were interfering’ with police efforts to interview security staff members, according to the files he read. Even the U.S. government seems not to have followed up on leads. While he has seen file copies of FBI letterhead material about the investigation, his request to the FBI for files related to the bombing investigation came back empty. The FBI told him they had nothing.”[5]

The interesting thing about all this is that after more than seventy years of the event, the Daily Beast is now trying to set the record straight. Why don’t they write something about 9/11 as well? Will it take them another seventy years to get things straight? And why don’t they tell their readers Churchill’s real masters?


[1] Marc Wortman, “Did Brits Kill New York City Cops to Get U.S. into WWII?,” Daily Beast, July 15, 2017.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

*

Related Posts:



The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on July 23, 2017, With 1742 Reads Filed under Military. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

FaceBook Comments

16 Responses to "Daily Beast: Winston Churchill did “an inside job” to get America into World War II"

  1. mb.  July 26, 2017 at 1:07 pm

    I’m sure it was all planned in advance.

  2. Dr. Abu-Bakr Susta  July 23, 2017 at 1:25 pm

    Jonas & Ian: Although I’m sometimes critical of Jonas’ articles, this article was good but not great. Jonas can do much better. “Quality versus Quantity” is the key question & area for improvement (IMHO).

    Saying that ‘Jane Harmon’s Daily Beast is finally catching up with history (in part)’ is not a ‘sin.’ However, Jonas’ failure to point out or emphasize the Daily Beast’s omission of Churchill’s financial backers (and similar Jonas omissions) might/should make some/most Daily Beast & Jonas articles suitable lining for electronic bird cages.

    If/Since Congress & MSM are RKM-owned and/or -controlled, citing an MSM or Congressional source is difficult at best. However, until we get some in MSM & Congress to speak/act on the truth about Trump’s prior & continuing ‘Kosher Nostra’ supporters, about WW2 & all wars and about 9/11, we will be stuck with Trump; we will continue senseless wars; and we will continue WW3 warmongering momentum of 9/11.

    VT’s audience is persuadable decision makers (and the clandestine community). Ian’s articles usually speak to this audience. Jonas’s articles usually do not (IMHO). Jonas, you can do better… 😉

    • Jonas E. Alexis  July 23, 2017 at 4:19 pm

      “Jonas’ failure to point out or emphasize the Daily Beast’s omission of Churchill’s financial backers (and similar Jonas omissions) might/should make some/most Daily Beast & Jonas articles suitable lining for electronic bird cages.” I did not mention Churchill’s backers this time because I have already mentioned them almost half a dozen times in previous articles. That would would have been redundant and there was no need to duplicate here.

  3. JohnZ  July 23, 2017 at 7:13 am

    Thanks Jonas, your articles on this sordid little mental cripple,proves that not only was Churchill a fiscal failure but a moral failure as well for allowing himself to be sucked into the zionist web. Churchill was a man driven by his own delusions of self importance and greatness. The use of alcohol was no doubt a factor but was it also because Churchill himself was a bastard child and he probably knew it?
    What ever can be said about the Yalta conference and those three stooges who attended it, has been exposed as a massive failure for the British empire. In truth because of the lunatic idiocy of Churchill, his hatred of the German people and paranoia that Germany just might become an economic power to rival Britain, drove him to make some disastrous mistakes.
    I believe the book Pat Buchanan authored, :Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War” might also offer some insights.
    The sordid history of this sorry little man is finally being unraveled for all to see

    • JohnZ  July 23, 2017 at 12:04 pm

      The above picture should be titled “The Three Stooges of Yalta”.
      Curly Joe Stalin, Winston Moehill and Franklin Larryfeld.

    • Henry77  July 24, 2017 at 9:01 am

      JohnZ: No way was Stalin Curley. He was Moe. To survive in the wasp hive of Soviet Union you need to be firing on all cylinders at ALL TIMES.

      Winston is Curley 🙂

  4. Chris Paul  July 23, 2017 at 5:22 am

    “Jewish Oligarchs needed Churchill to save them from Hitler”. Let’s take the case of Brown Brothers Harriman, originally Brown Shipley of London, a Rothschild Agency. During the Blitz, Averill Harriman was in London shagging Churchill’s daughter-in-law Pamella Trollope and holding the drunk Churchill’s hand. When Hitler attacked Russia he went to Moscow to hold Stalin’s hand when he started cracking up. In 1942, Prescott Bush, Chairman of Brown Brothers Harriman was convicted of Trading With The Enemy for supplying Nazi Germany with Money and Materiel. Three Peat for the Intertnational Banker’s Cartel. You cannot make this stuff up. Go back to your Logos and it is all about the Aristos and the Hoi Poloi – even amongst “Jewish” (really a Great Big Snake Pit of Diverse Low Lives) Bankers. In WW1, one of the Warburg Brothers was head of German Intelligence (the Frankfurt Based ones that Shrimpton refers to even today) and the other brother set up the Federal Reserve in 1913 to pay for the War. They don’t care about other Jews or anyone outside their circle – in fact they used WW2 to advance emigration for their Zionist Israel Project – also well documented, not that you would know amongst the stream of Team Building Victimhood propaganda.

    • Ian Greenhalgh, Managing Editor  July 23, 2017 at 5:43 am

      Well said Chris, you have obviously studied the subject well. Sadly, the source of this story is the Daily Beast, run by Jewish Zionist Jane Harman, an Israeli agent who, during her time in Congress covered up the crimes of the Bush administration, covered up the Invasion of Afghanistan, got Israeli spies off the hook for treason plus many more crimes on behalf of her Israeli masters. Under Harman, the Daily Beast is nothing more than an Israeli propaganda mouthpiece and disinfo operation; therefore any story they publish has to be viewed with the utmost suspicion. Yes, Churchill was in the pay of a secret group of mostly Jewish bankers, businessmen and politicans, they were known as The Focus. David Irving has done the best research and writing on this subject and I highly recommend his book ‘Churchill’s War’ which is available to download as a PDF from Irving’s website: http://www.fpp.co.uk/books/Churchill/1/

      What we should really be asking is why did an Israeli disinfo operation publish this story? What false narrative are they trying to create and why?

    • Jonas E. Alexis  July 23, 2017 at 6:43 am

      I appreciate again the contention and would agree with some of what is said here. With respect to the Daily Beast, I don’t admire them anymore than you do. In fact, I co-wrote an entire article last year exposing their bias (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/04/29/the-closing-of-the-zionist-mind-interview-with-former-us-senate-candidate-mark-dankof/.)

      But we have to be very careful so that we do not fall into the genetic fallacy. Sometimes (not always) it is a categorical mistake in logic to invalidate a person’s idea by simply tracing how it originated. For example, suppose I pick up a comic book from a trashcan and it does say that the earth is round. Does that mean that the idea is false because I got the comic book from an unworthy source or place? Obviously not.

    • Jonas E. Alexis  July 23, 2017 at 6:43 am

      Ian for example does not necessarily agree with everything that Haaretz produces, but he does agree that sometimes they tell some truth. I myself was very thankful that Ian did point out the Haaretz article for us earlier. http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/07/16/the-de-facto-coup-detat-when-moshe-dayan-tried-to-steal-israels-first-nuclear-device/. The Jerusalem Post is also a Zionist outlet, but Ian again believes that they sometimes tell the truth on certain issues: http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/05/08/us-finances-israeli-radiation-cure-bring-spectre-of-nuclear-war-closer/.

      What we need to do in these cases is to ask ourselves whether a statement or an article or even an idea is historically accurate; we also have to check to see if it has explanatory power, explanatory scope, plausibility, etc. I would also encourage people to read David Irving’s Churchill War. I think that the book will strengthen what I said in the article.

    • Ian Greenhalgh, Managing Editor  July 23, 2017 at 9:05 am

      Irving’s work answers the questions you posit about who Churchill worked for, as I wrote, it was a group called The Focus, they paid off Churchill’s debts at a time when he was both out of mainstream politics, despised by both sides of the house and close to bankruptcy. He had been forced to put his Chartwell mansion up for sale and was painting forgeries of old paintings which he sold in a Paris gallery, something which FDR knew about. FDR also knew that Churchill was an incompetent drunk, so it is highly unlikely that Churchill was able to trick FDR into anything, let alone entering WW2. The Daily Beast story stinks to high heaven, it just not ring true at all and coming from such a source, would only be something I would entertain if verified from completely independent, unrelated sources, which is what I always do before using anything from sources such as Haaretz or the Jerusalem Post; otherwise, we are failing to meet the standards that VT aspires to. There are dozens of websites where you can find endless conspiracy drivel, VT strives to be a cut above the rest and we do that by making sure we have verified the facts we publish. We do so by consulting a whole host of experts, a network we have built up over many years, real experts who have actual, legitimate standing, including many current and former senior intelligence officers in a number of countries. Furthermore, because VT has standing in the community, we can turn to people like David Irving and Ernst Zundel and they are happy to help us because we are not just another internet conspiracy site. Both Irving and Zundel have helped me with articles before, and I would have consulted Irving at the very least before even contemplating publishing this Daily Beast story because without such background checking and verification, it remains no more than a story, might be true, might not.

    • Jonas E. Alexis  July 23, 2017 at 6:55 am

      One of the issues that I did not discuss in the article is that the Daily Beast never pointed out who was supporting Churchill. This seems really bizarre because Churchill did not work in isolation during World War I and World War II. If there is a “conspiracy” going on, then we can say that the Daily Beast was trying to dump some of the causes of the wars on Churchill alone, making it almost impossible to trace the real sources. It’s like blaming the Bush administration only for the Iraq War when we all know that the war was an essentially Neoconservative enterprise. Numerous scholarly studies have already written on this topic alone.

    • Jonas E. Alexis  July 23, 2017 at 3:14 pm

      Thanks again for the input, Ian. As I always say, iron sharpens iron. I agree totally with the principle that sources must be verified and examined carefully with other sources in order to figure out discrepancies and other errors. I can even concede the idea that the story could be false, as many other stories about World War II turned out to be hoaxes and frauds and fabrications. As you adequately point out, there ought to be some skepticism when dealing with issues like this. But I was essentially comparing the story with what we already know about Churchill, and it doesn’t appear to be inconsistent with Churchill’s long history of manipulating the United States.

    • Jonas E. Alexis  July 23, 2017 at 3:15 pm

      By the way, I did contact both Ernst Zundel and David Irving to get their input on this issue. Here is Irving’s response: “Churchill was capable of doing anything to get the Americans into the war.” Here is what Zundel said: “I would put my faith in the NyPD dectective who was not allowed to pursue all the leads at the time….he figured it was an inside job!” I have also contacted several other historians, who agree that the story is quite plausible. One historian declared that it probably was a “false flag attack to attack Germany.” I am really surprised that you said that “”FDR also knew that Churchill was an incompetent drunk, so it is highly unlikely that Churchill was able to trick FDR into anything, let alone entering WW2.” Irving actually makes references to these issues in several parts of his book. In any event, thanks again for the trenchant response. The story challenges us both to even use our critical mind more carefully. Keep up the good work, my friend! We all certainly need some checks and balances in our work, and you have done exactly that.

    • Ian Greenhalgh, Managing Editor  July 23, 2017 at 4:37 pm

      If you contacted them then why didn’t you include that information in your article? It is that sort of addition that would make a good article rather than a poor, unsubstantiated one.

    • Jonas E. Alexis  July 23, 2017 at 7:25 pm

      I did not include Irving’s and Zundel’s conclusions in the article because I was trying to keep my correspondence with them private. I simply cannot include every single conversation or correspondence I had with other people in articles like this because such an enterprise would be dangerous. In fact, some people ask me to keep their correspondence private. But since you did bring in Irving and Zundel in the equation, I thought it was wise to point out what they think as well. And if any reader doubts whether I did contact them, they can contact Irving and Zundel themselves and ask them whether a man named Jonas E. Alexis did inquire about their opinions on the Daily Beast article.

You must be logged in to post a comment Login


TOP 50 READ ARTICLES THIS MONTH
From Veterans Today Network