Back to HOW WARS ARE MADE | Issues index | CDR Home

     Germany and England

by: Nesta Webster

     Prefatory comments by Jackie P.

     THIS is the little book that opened my eyes about the mass of massive lies we've all been told about Germany under National Socialism, and specifically it's Chancellor, Adolf Hitler.

     To my mind the greatest lie was that "Adolf Hitler planned to conquer the world and enslave the inhabitants of all nations". In reality the ones making those accusations are the ones who plan to conquer the world. The defeat of Germany was a defeat for all the inhabitants of the world, just as Adolf Hitler predicted.

    The group promulgating that big lie was successful in its efforts to instill a deep sense of both fear and hatred of the man who wanted only to restore some of the areas of land that had been sliced out of Germany by the Versailles Treaty after WWI, bring the German people back into the fold of their natural country borders, and protect western Europe from the Communist/Bolshevik tyranny threatening to wreak its havoc throughout the continent, and the world.

     In another small book titled, The Nameless War, Captain A. H. M. Ramsay gives convincing evidence of the above statement. For some of our readers this will be a turning point (as it was for me). The more lies you uncover, the more truth you desire. Those of you who would rather remain blissfully ignorant will leave now. Those of you who know the truth and hate the truth will be frothing at the mouth that the lies are being exposed.

     Captain Ramsay was a veteran of the first World War, a former member of His Majesty's Guard, and -- at the time of his arrest and imprisonment -- a member of the British Parliament. He was arrested without formal charges and thrown into Brixton Prison for nearly three years because he discovered and attempted to reveal the culprits who were clamoring for, orchestrating and promulgating what became the Second World War.

     Nobody wanted war in England or Germany except Winston Churchill and the War Hawks who controlled him and the press (just like in the U.S. of A. then and today). When Prime Minister Chamberlain returned from a trip to Germany where he had entered into one-on-one conversations with Chancellor Hitler, he announced to the Parliament and the British people that "there will be no war".

     Behind the exuberant celebrations of the people in both Germany and England, the planners went to work. Inside of one week, the controlled press was printing lies about the Prime Minister and began clamoring for his resignation. He was blamed for a military blunder that had actually been committed under Churchill's orders as Admiral of the Navy. Instead of Churchill standing accused, it was Mr. Chamberlain.

     Chamberlain was out; Churchill was in, and on the very evening of the day Churchill became Prime Minister (May 11, 1941), England began indiscriminate bombing of Germany. . . homes, churches, schools, hospitals, slaughtering defenseless men, women and children (just like the U.S. has done in Afghanistan, Iraq, and dozens of other nations).

     The situation is the same now as it was then, and the same unseen hand at work today is the same force behind every revolution and war carried out since time immemorial. . . the English Revolution in the 1600's (which resulted in the entrenchment of the Bank of England); the French Revolution, Russian Revolution (creation of the U.S.S.R), and the foiled (thanks to Mussolini and Hitler) Spanish revolution which Mrs. Webster relates in this book.

     Germany and England was presented to me by a friend in her senior years, along with several boxes of books she had been accumulating over the past four decades. As I sat reading this book, in the privacy of my home, I was silently (and sometimes audibly) gasping in shock at the revelations herein.

     First, Mrs. Webster's reference to the 'Jews' who controlled the U.S.S.R. and whose minions were over-running western Europe and literally running Germany under the Weimar Republic created a first-impression that she was "anti-Semitic". Until that time, any information sent or given to me about the Jews, was set aside without a glance, believing that the givers of this information were 'Jew haters'. I wasn't. And I'm not today.

     However, there is no denying that the plan for World Dominion is a millenia-old plan, and those born into the 'religion' of Talmudism (they call themselves Jews) are being used by their Elders to push the plan -- along with tens of millions of "Christian-Zionists". The word 'religion' is emphasized, because Judaism is not a religion, according to Moses Mendelsohn, a learned Jew well-known and respected by Jews. Mendelsohn said that:

"Judaism is not a religion, it is a LAW, religionized".

     While researching and writing the book-in-progress titled "Jewish Persecution", it became clear that Mendelsohn meant what he said, and it is true. There is no such religion as Judaism anyway; the religion is 'Talmudism' or 'Pharisaism'. It IS a LAW which contains the plan for World Dominion, and it is well-hidden 'neath its cloak of religion.

     Second, Mrs. Webster's comments about and quoted statements by Adolf Hitler presented an absolutely shocking portrait of an individual whose words -- and more importantly, his actions -- spoke volumes for his love of Germany and her people, as well as his abhorrence for the Jews who had spoiled Germany mentally, emotionally and morally, while totally devastating the economy and well-being of the German population. They controlled the banks (economy), the government, education, the press, and entertainment (just like today in America).

     Unfortunately, their 'lesser brethren' Jews were always the brunt of the machinations of their Elders, as told by Benjamin Freedman in his speech to a group of people in the late 1960's. When you read that speech, if you haven't already, you see parts of it could have been a speech made fairly recently. He mentioned the forces building toward World War III by the orchestrated unrest in the Middle East.

     The historical preview given at the beginning of the first chapter was confusing and little understood by me on the first reading. That is because I had NO knowledge or understanding of the history of the meddlesome creatures who call themselves Jews, and who have succeeded in infiltrating every government and nation that has ultimately been destroyed by their machinations.

     If the reader takes a look at the names and backgrounds of individuals in very high places in the U.S. (and now state governments) today, it will become obvious that Jews -- who purportedly constitute only 3% of the U.S. population -- hold disproportionate numbers of positions of great power and influence in administrative, legislative and judicial branches of government, as well as all branches of the military under the Department of Defense. Not only that, they are advisors, speech-writers, and so forth, to non-Jews in high places.

    If our reader is in the beginning stages of awakening to the lies, it may be helpful to return to the beginning of chapter one for a re-read after finishing the book.  That may be totally unnecessary and maybe I only suggest it because I realized on the second reading that I had not fully understood those first few pages of pre-history review the first time 'round.

     We present Germany and England for your reading with deep gratitude to Karen A., who transcribed it for us. . . for you.

     The book from which this was transcribed showed no publication date. It was apparently taken from the paper or newsletter Mrs. Nester published, titled "The Patriot" (as referenced below the title). In this writing she alluded to the "England of 1938. . ." as well as a quote by Adolf Hitler in October, 1938, so we are fixing the date of writing in late 1938 or very early 1939.  

-- Jackie

July 11th, 2003

P.S. Just before sending this to our webmaster (and he IS a "master" webmaster), Darren Weeks, we received a forward from a BBC item on the death of a Lord Shawcross, who led the British prosecution at the Nuremberg war crimes tribunal. The following statement attributed to Shawcross is relevant and confirms the information Mrs. Webster presents in Germany and England. We have not seen the speech given at Stourbridge. If our reader has access to the entire speech we would appreciate notification. Thank you.

July 28th, 2003


Sir Hartley Shawcross, said in a speech at Stourbridge, March 16, 1984

"Step by step, I have arrived at the conviction that the aims of communism in Europe are sinister and fatal. At the Nuremberg Trials, I, together with my Russian colleagues condemned Nazi Aggression and Terror. I believe now that Hitler and the German People did not want war.

But we [England] declared war on Germany, intent on destroying it, in accordance with our principle of Balance of Power, and we were encouraged by the 'Americans' around Roosevelt.

We ignored Hitler's pleading, not to enter into war. Now we are forced to realize that Hitler was right. He offered us the co-operation of Germany: instead, since 1945, we have been facing the immense power of the Soviet Empire. I feel ashamed and humiliated to see that the aims we accused Hitler of, are being relentlessly pursued now, only under a different label."


Germany and England

By Nesta H. Webster

Reprinted from THE PATRIOT, OCTOBER and NOVEMBER, 138, and Revised.



     For the benefit of the younger generation or of foreigners who, never having read “Trilby,” may fail to understand the meaning of the frontispiece to the book, it should be explained that the famous novel of this name, written and illustrated by the late George du Maurier, which appeared in 1894, described the history of an artist’s model named Trilby in the Quartier Latin of Paris, who, without any natural voice, was hypnotized to sing by a clever Jewish musician named Svengali, and fell completely under his power.

     The point in reproducing it here is to show that the British people are being hypnotized to repeat the phrases put into their mouths at the wave of a conductor’s baton.

Herr Hitler in October, 1938 [said]:

“England would be well advised to stop governessing Europe.”



     To the dispassionate observer who happens to possess a memory, nothing is more extraordinary than the paroxysm of fury and suspicion with regard to Germany’s intentions which broke out last spring in our country where -- until five years ago -- pro-Germanism was de rigueur in “intellectual” and so-called “advanced” circles.

     This kind of pro-Germanism was of long standing. It was seen after the Franco-Prussian War when The Times of 18 November, 1870, gave prominence to Carlyle’s letter deploring the “cheap pity and newspaper lamentation over fallen and afflicted France” and ending with the fervent hope that “noble, patient, deep, pious and solid Germany should be at length wielded into a nation and become Queen of the Continent.”

     Before the Great War [WWI] when the hostile intentions of Germany toward the British Empire were clearly evident; when German officers were drinking to “der Tag,” [the Day] whilst German writers openly committed their plans for world power to paper and incident after incident showed that war was inevitable, all those who warned our country were derided or insulted. It was even suggested that Lord Roberts should be deprived of his pension for conducting his campaign for National Service.

     The Day -- when it at last arrived -- was hailed with rapture by the German people. The women threw their hats into the air with joy and the Daily Mail of 3 August 1914, published a photograph of a whole London street filled with young Germans cheering for war.

     Meanwhile the same sort of crowds of Socialists and Pacifists who have recently been parading London shouting for war with Germany were then agitating for non-resistance to German aggression.

     Even when the grey legions of Germany were marching through Belgium and Flanders on their way to these shores, the Socialists held meetings of protest against national defence, and the reluctance to fight engendered by their propaganda proved a serious check to recruiting. All this when we were at war with an autocracy headed by an Emperor with a ruling caste of Junkers to whom Socialism in any form was abhorrent!

     This anti-patriotic campaign was maintained throughout the War and the fifteen years that followed it. Socialists, Communists and Pacifists continued to clamour for greater gentleness to be shown to Germany, declaring that we had “been mad to fight” her and that the Treaty of Versailles should be torn up.

     In Liberal, and even in Conservative circles, the same sentiments were frequently expressed –

“the Germans are our natural allies; in the next war we hope we shall be marching with them against France.”

     It must be admitted that the incivility sometimes shown to British travelers to France had something to do with these sentiments. Indeed, towards 1930, especially after Mr. Philip Snowden accused France of “bilking her obligations,” feelings between the two countries had become so bitter that those of us who loved France lived in dread of an open rapture with her.

     It was but natural that France, having suffered twice within fifty years from invasion by German armies, should fear and distrust Germany’s further intentions more profoundly than England whose soil had never been trodden by a foreign foe since 1066 and that she [France] found some difficulty in believing that Germany had undergone that “change of heart” of which our Socialists and Pacifists spoke with so much assurance.

     For, as all well-informed people in this country were aware, the spirit of militarism had not been crushed in Germany. Military associations were openly drilling, secret societies aiming at a war of revenge were formed, stores of ammunition were being secretly piled up.

     At the same time close co-operation took place between the “Eastern” school of German militarists and Soviet Russia, Bolshevik propaganda emanated from Berlin as well as from Moscow, the Communist Party of Germany was the largest in the world outside Russia and in all countries Communism aimed particularly at the destruction of France and of the British Empire.

     All this was shown in my Surrender of an Empire (in 1931) against which a boycott was organised in the Press. In those days it was “French militarism” which had become the bogey of our Pacifists just as in France the perfidy of England became the theme of certain French writers.

     I remember during that period attending a meeting in London of a certain association which purported to arrange debates and discussions on world politics from a non-party point of view, which, as usual, meant that only “Left” views were given a fair hearing.

     On this occasion a German had been invited to speak, and be held forth at great length on the grievances of Germany, observing that, although he himself was not a Nazi, Nazi-ism was but the natural outcome of German resentment at the policy of disarmament imposed on Germany by the Allies.

     This was received with sympathy by the audience, a member of which rose at the end of the address and said:

“I am the Bishop of ____ and I am sure that everyone here must feel ashamed of the way in which we are disarming Germany whilst we ourselves are continuing to arm.”

     As no one dissented it was evident that this sentiment was shared by all those present. Not one person in that crowded hall rose to observe that we had just scrapped a number of cruisers and were disarming – as is now generally admitted – to the point of danger.

     Now, today a leading official of that same association is trumpeting an appeal for an increased national defence against the German menace!

     If Germany at the present time considers she has grievances, and that the Treaty of Versailles should be scrapped in favour of a policy more in accord with calm judgment and altered circumstances, how can she be blamed by those who formerly encouraged her to think she had greater grievances than those she now puts forward?

     Either they were wrong then or they are wrong now; in either case we should not be guided by their opinion.

     Now we -- who were never pro-Germans in the sense of seeking peace at any price and of endangering the security of our own country, but who held, on the contrary, that in view of the disturbed state of Europe we must remain fully armed -- nevertheless recognised that many errors had been made in the Peace Treaties. It is clear that the policy of forcing Germany with the sword at her throat to admit war guilt, and the absurdity of incorporating the Covenant of the League of Nations in the Treaty of Versailles, could never lead to lasting peace.

[note: the “League of Nations”, formerly the 'League to Enforce Peace', is now known as the “United Nations”]

     Again and again revisions of the Treaties were demanded by the Germans and their friends in this country but when Hitler, finding that nothing was to be gained by arbitration, decided to take the law into his own hands, the Socialists and Pacifists who from 1914 to 1933 had pleaded the cause of Germany, raised a howl of execration and declared that the Treaties must now be enforced even at the cost of war.

     What happened to bring about their change of front? The accession of Hitler to power. Now Hitler had in the past shown himself, at moments, as a fire-brand. But how often have we been told in the case of our own Socialists that office “sobers”?

     It certainly seemed to do so in the case of Hitler, who, once in control of his country, abandoned his aggressive attitude toward the Allies. But at the same time he put down Bolshevism and took the control of Germany out of the hands of the Jews.

     By these measures it was not only Germany that profited but the two greatest dangers to our country were removed. For the support given to Germany by “International Finance,” which would have enabled her to defray the cost of another war at any moment, was withdrawn and the link between Germany and Soviet Russia was broken.

     The floods of Bolshevist propaganda flowing from Berlin into all parts of the British Empire were checked at their source. The resentment of the German people towards the Allies as the cause of all their sufferings gave way to passionate enthusiasm for a leader who set out to restore their country by constructive methods.

     The old Pan-German dream of world power was replaced by a Nationalist scheme for the union of all German peoples under one head, leaving the peoples of other countries to work out their own destinies.

     Then was the moment for the ending of war hates and of peace between the nation which, throughout thirteen years of endless congresses and assemblies, had been the professed aim of European statesmen, of the talkers at Geneva and countless Pacifist associations.

     Then was the moment for the whole civilized world, which for fifteen years had been tossed on the waves of unrest set in motion by Moscow, to see in Hitler, as it should have seen in Mussolini, a saviour from the greatest enemy of the human race – the hideous system of tyranny which threatened to spread itself into every country, well stigmatized by Mr. Winston Churchill at its onset as “the bloody baboonery” of Bolshevism.

     Instead of this Hitler was reviled, as Mussolini had been reviled after he had saved Italy from the grip of the Red octopus. Such is the power of the Press, and of mass hypnotism exercised over the minds of the British public that they were now made to regard Hitler as their mortal enemy.

     Yet in the place of an autocratic Emperor at the head of a military caste and of a warlike German nation, we were faced by a ruler who, although a dictator, represents the will of 90 per cent of the population, a plain man of the people, an ardent social reformer, too Socialistic for us but clearly sincere, a leader who whilst restoring the confidence and self-respect of the German people has quelled in them the spirit of hatred towards our country.

    Instead of young Germans cheering for war in the streets of London we have had the youth of Germany cheering Mr. Chamberlain as the messenger of peace through the streets of Munich.

     And this was the moment when we were told that a world war was inevitable in order to crush the “German menace.”

Next - Chapter 2:  "Governessing England"

Back to HOW WARS ARE MADE | Issues index | CDR Home