Jump to content
Wednesday, July 12, 2017

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Ron Walker said:

Indeed, and one of the citations I provided [ http://lander.odessa.ua/doc/Fighting_to_Lose_The_German_Intelligence_Service_i.pdf ] included what I think is a potentially crucial piece of evidence:

 

Post war, there was a government inquiry as to just HOW the disaster at Pearl Harbour had been able to take place, but this book covers an aspect that the inquiry carefully managed to avoid. After FDR had been at a meeting with Churchill and UK military and Intelligence chiefs, suddenly, and without explanation, the Service heads in Hawaii were taken off the distribution list for "MAGIC" (The US equivalent of the UK's "ULTRA" - top secret decrypts of enemy traffic.) Nobody else was removed from the lists.One could almost believe that FDR WANTED Pearl Harbour to be unready for an attack. Apparently, Cordel Hull had also been in negotiations with the Japanese...who had offered to withdraw their forces from IndoChina, if the USA would resume its exports of gasoline and Iron.Mr Hull's response was apparently to "prevaricate". So, it looks to me suspiciously as if (1) the USA could have avoided war with Japan - but in fact provoked it (2) they did so as a way to wind up at war with Germany. (3) The attack was going to have to be spectacular - a "Day of Infamy". But maybe I'm just cynical?

That rather ties-in with the notion that Churchill deliberately allowed the Luftwaffe to virtually destroy the City of Coventry in 1940 rather than risk revealing that Britain was privy to German operational communications through ULTRA.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Philip Whitehouse said:

That rather ties-in with the notion that Churchill deliberately allowed the Luftwaffe to virtually destroy the City of Coventry in 1940 rather than risk revealing that Britain was privy to German operational communications through ULTRA.

Strange coincidence. I looked up "Bodyguard of Lies" on Amazon (having commended it so highly, it seemed only fair to check that it was either still in print, or available second hand at an affordable price!) And one reviewer took specific issue with Brown on the issue of Coventry. Brown agrees with you, one of the reviewers didn't. I've subsequently discovered that Brown started writing his book (his first book) as far back as the 1960's, based on interviews with still-living intelligence operatives. He couldn't publish it until the information was declassified... and documents that were declassified even later sometimes contradicted Brown's narrative. (Check out "Bodyguard of Lies" on Wikipedia!)

Quote

The book received mixed reviews; particularly with regards to Brown's focus on minutiae, which received both positive and negative comment. Later reviewers also criticised the factual basis of the work – describing it as containing "a multitude of errors of detail" – with some reviewers rejecting Brown's analysis.[1]One such error that Brown relates was a then-widely held theory that Churchill had known of German intentions to bomb Coventry in November 1940, but that the British leader had hidden the information to avoid giving up the secrets of Ultra (intercepted German communications). By 1976, declassified records showed that the intelligence was in fact more vague than popular myth had suggested.[6] Writing in 1996, reviewer Russell J. Bowen ascribes this to Brown's reliance on secondary sourcing and oral interviews (describing the book as an "outstanding example of scholarly investigative journalism applied to the field of oral military history").[1]

Nonetheless, Given the timing of its release, Brown's book was my introduction into the world of "Dezinformaziya" The KGB had a complete department devoted to it (but not as efficiently as the Brits had been - the preparations for the (2nd) Battle of El Alamein make professional conjurors look like beginners. We made tanks look like trucks, and trucks look like tanks,We positioned vast amounts of (not very good) fake artillery where the Germans could see it. And then swapped it for the real thing. When the attack started - mostly from places where the Germans KNEW we couldn't be, it shook them rigid. In fact, the VIII Army was advised by a real live stage conjuror.) I was lucky enough, back when the Cold War was winding down, to  be in a position to have a brief conversation with a GRU major (Russian Military Intelligence,) who suggested that his side had always been scared by the British, and their "How the F**K did they manage to get THERE?" habits.) Research down the intervening years shows that the roots of this hidden talent go back to WW1, and the connection between most of them seems to be Winston Churchill, who (during WW1) built up a kind of "club" of people capable of thinking outside the box. They staged a reunion at the beginning of WW2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/16/2017 at 4:22 AM, Stephen N Russell said:

Ideas, comments, thoughts.

Arising from a completely different thread...

The key point here is the DATE at the start of the videoclip: 18th February 1943.That's shortly AFTER  the collapse of von Paulus's VI Army, only a few days after Rommel's defeat at El Alamein,And the Russian push-back had just retaken Kharkov. Bombs were falling on Germany 24/7. This (18th Feb) day marks the point at which - for the first time(!) Germany decided that maybe it was time to divert 100% of the country's resources to fighting the war. It was ALREADY LOST!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×