CAREFULLY "CHOSEN" HISTORICAL ACCOUNTS

By Brave Heartbillguru1@gmail.com

In Chapter 15 of his book "The Unnecessary War", entitled "America Inherits The Empire" Patrick Buchanan lays the blame squarely on Great Britain for converting two European wars into world wars. He writes:

"In the twin catastrophes of Western civilization, World Wars One and Two, Britain was the indispensable nation and Churchill the indispensable man.

It was Britain's secret commitment to fight for France of which the Germans were left unaware, that led to the world war with a Kaiser who never wanted to fight his mother's country…

It was Britain that converted a Franco-German-Russian war into a world war of four years that brought down the German, Russian, Ottoman, and Austro-Hungarian empires and gave the world Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, and Hitler.

It was Britain whose capitulation to U.S. pressure and dissolution of her twenty-three year pact with Japan in 1922 insulted, isolated, and enraged that faithful ally, leading directly to Japanese militarism, aggression and World War Two in the Pacific."

This is quite a list. But note what Buchanan does not say:

"It was Britain which issued a declaration sponsoring a Jewish 'national home' in Palestine, ostensibly as a quid pro quo for getting the U.S. into the war through Zionist help.

It was Britain which betrayed Prince Feisal and the Arabs who had fought for Britain against the Ottoman Turks.

It was Britain who sacrificed Sheriff Hussein of Mecca after he had served his purpose in provoking the Arab revolt.

It was Britain which subdivided Arabia into the mandates of Palestine, Transjordan and Iran and gave Syria and Lebanon to the French as mandates. Britain thus betrayed its war time pledge of a unified Arab state post-war to Sheriff Hussein.

It was Britain which appeased the Zionists at Paris with the Palestinian mandate – and which installed Feisal on the throne of Iraq and his brother Abdullah as emir of Transjordan as a sop for the betrayal of the Palestinian Arabs."

Patrick Buchanan does not say these things. Instead he merely includes the destruction of the Ottoman Empire with the other empires being destroyed. That gloss over conceals many things, Since Buchanan is very hard on Churchill it is interesting that he does not mention Churchill's early 1920's stint as Colonial Secretary. In the year of 1921-1922 Churchill issued a White Paper under his name in which he denied that the Balfour Declaration intended either the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine in the immediate future or the dispossession of the Arabs of Palestine. He stated that he intended for Zionism "to be good for both the Arabs and the Jews". These words are like so many of Winston Churchill – they make for ironic reading indeed in light of subsequent developments. (Some may object that the deceitful words were not really written by Churchill; they were written by Sir Herbert Samuel, the first High Commissioner of Palestine. But Churchill signed his name to the document. And, as subsequent events verified, he endorsed those sentiments.) Patrick Buchanan may object that his book deals with Churchill and two world wars. That is true. But the Middle East and Palestine in particular were vastly affected by these two wars, especially the First. Since Churchill and his relationship to things Jewish plays such an important role in the development of Palestinian problems, why does Patrick Buchanan not mention it? In 1921 it was still possible for Britain to back off the Balfour declaration. It was not yet writ in stone. Indeed, there was considerable agitation in the House of Lords in that very year against the Balfour Declaration. Lord Islington had led a successful motion demanding that the Balfour Declaration be repudiated as inconsistent with the pledges made to the Sheriff Hussein on October 24-25, 1915. Winston Churchill's decision as Colonial Secretary in 1921-1922 to reaffirm the Balfour Declaration played a key role in quelling the very powerful opposition to it which existed in Parliament and the British military at that time. Patrick Buchanan, a very erudite and well read man, knows these facts perfectly. But he knows that to investigate Churchill's career as Colonial Secretary would, once again, require delving into those anti-Semitic "myths" of Jewish manipulation of Great Britain and America behind the scenes in World War One.

No one should criticize Patrick Buchanan for his reluctance to "come clean" on the totality of hushed up facts. He knows the limits of candid discourse. It is the price of getting his books published. But the careful reader of Buchanan will note his similarities with the old John Birch Society. The Birchers always knew who the real enemy was, but rather than use the dread three letter word they would always hide behind circumlocutions like "The Insiders", the Illuminati and the like. Patrick knows better than to make himself ridiculous. But like the extreme right of the nations better days, he knows exactly who it really is. That is the only explanation for his carefully "chosen" omissions in otherwise impeccably researched historical accounts.

Peace.

Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
Call anytime: 917-974-6367
ReporterNotebook@Gmail.com
Amazon's: DEBATING THE HOLOCAUST: A New Look At Both Sides by Thomas Dalton

__._,_.___

Attachment(s) from ReporterNotebook

1 of 1 File(s)