The Battle of France
First published September 28, 2019
Rommel and his men hunting snipe
by Miles Mathis
The question I asked today was “How could Germany defeat France in just five days at the start of WWII?” Is that at all believable? No. Everything we read about that makes absolutely no sense. Prime Minister of France Reynaud telephoned Churchill five days in, saying they were already beaten, and England decided to do. . . pretty much nothing. Churchill had been Prime Minister for how many days at that point? Five. Five days. Churchill was appointed Prime Minister May 10 and Germany attacked France via Belgium on May 10. Just a wacky coincidence, right? France was a country of 40 million people, but they had no more troops to send to the front? The Allies let France fall without an extended fight?
Remember, Germany won this “war” not by blitzkrieging Paris or other major French cities by air. No, it supposedly blitzkrieged by driving tanks through the mountainous and heavily forested Ardennes of Belgium. The “historians” at Wikipedia tell us the Germans won so fast by
trapping the bulk of the Allied forces in a cauldron on the Franco-Belgian border near Lille.
Really? And you believe that? You believe these German tanks drove all the way across Belgium, around the top end of the Maginot Line, over hills and rivers, and did that in less than five days? Have you ever watched a tank move? It is not a great vehicle for a blitzkrieg, since its top speed is something like 20mph. In the Ardennes, its top speed would have been about 5mph, at best. Actually, its top speed in the Ardennes would have been close to. . . zero, since tanks can’t just drive through major rivers and forests. They have to use bridges, you know. The German tanks were neat and all, but they weren’t submergible or amphibious. They also can’t drive over entire forests. Yes, a tank can
drive over a small tree, but it can’t just power through a forest of big trees. A tank has to drive around most trees. Also, that part about trapping the Allied forces in a cauldron near Lille? Why would the Allied forces all be hanging out in a small area near Lille? Are we supposed to think the cafes were just really top-notch there, or that all the officers were there drinking absinthe?
We are supposed to believe the Allies were caught off-guard, and weren’t prepared. But they had prepared the Maginot Line, hadn’t they? The Germans had to go around that to the north, which means, logically, that line between Germany and France must have been well-defended somehow. Otherwise the mighty Germans would have just plowed right through it with their magical tanks, right? But if France and the Allies had the wherewithal to create that successful defense, how could they not have the wherewithal to defend further north? Once the German tanks left Germany and hit Luxembourg, say, why didn’t the French shift their defenses north? Why didn’t the Allied air forces attack the advancing German army?
As a measure of how absurd the history is here, we get the story about the French soldier committing suicide, but taking the time to write a postcard to the President of France, stating that he was brave and all, but he couldn’t fight tanks with a rifle. That never happened, you can be sure. That’s a made-up story if there ever was one. Do you think a soldier on the front needs to commit suicide? No, all he needs to do is run out into the field: he will be dead soon enough. And if he is going to do that, he isn’t going to write a postcard to the President first.
How backward are we supposed to believe the French army was? Why not just tell us this soldier was armed with a bow and arrow? Do you really think the Allies had no tanks or other advanced weaponry? We are about five years away from the (fake) atomic bomb here, but we are supposed to believe France is still in the dark ages, I guess, fighting with breech-loaders or cannons. Next they will tell us the French lost because the wooden pins in their catapults had gotten eaten by termites.
Again, Reynaud’s call to Churchill is highly suspicious, because by May 15, France wasn’t beaten at all. Even if we believe the mainstream story, at that point Germany had only beaten parts of Belgium, so why would France think it was all over? That would be like the US surrendering because the Soviet Union had defeated Canada.
You may also want to ask yourself this nagging little question that no “real” historian ever asks: since the Germans had attacked west through Belgium and Holland both in WWI (1914) and the Franco- Prussian War (1870), why were the French and English so sure they wouldn’t do it again in 1940? Why did they end the Maginot Line at Luxembourg, leaving the Belgian and Holland borders open?
Germany borders both Belgium and Holland, and some of Germany’s largest cities are right there near the border, including Essen, Cologne, Bonn, Dusseldorf, Dortmund, Wiesbaden, Mainz, and Frankfurt. So why no Maginot line there? In fact, the German border north of Luxembourg is more than twice as long as the border south to Basel, so why would the Allies all but ignore that border? Because of the Ardennes, we are told. But the Ardennes blocked only about the southern quarter of that border with Germany, so the Germans could easily drive around it. You shouldn’t be hearing about the Ardennes at all here, and the fact that it is mentioned so prominently is just proof this is all a lie.
If you ask this question at Quora.com, you find this as the top ranked answer (by Joshua Millins):
The gaps were an allied neutral nation (Belgium), Then there was the seemingly impenetrable ardennes forest that was impassable to armored vehicles. Neither was thought to be of any use in another mass offensive from the east. But they discounted ingenuity and extreme aggression from the Germans.
You see the poor misdirection. First, ignore Holland. Second, call Belgium neutral, although they had been ransacked in WWI and knew they couldn’t be neutral. Third, mention the Ardennes, which blocked only about 1⁄4 of that long border. Fourth, pretend the Allies were shocked by the ingenuity of a German command that thought to stroll across a long unprotected border a few miles from their major industrial cities.
In the first paragraph in the Maginot Line page at Wikipedia, we find this:
Constructed on the French side of its borders with Italy, Switzerland, Germany, and Luxembourg, the line did not extend to the English Channel due to the then alliance with Belgium. Unfortunately when the Second World War began in the West on May 10th, 1940, Belgium had become a neutral nation in an effort along with the Netherlands, to appease Adolf Hitler and his ever more aggressive Third Reich.
You see why I am gagging on this? The line didn’t extend north due to the alliance with Belgium?
Whose alliance are they talking about? It almost seems like they are implying a German/Belgian alliance, since that is the only way this makes any sense. If those two countries were allies, then Belgium wouldn’t need a line of defense, right? But since Belgium had been chewed up by Germany in WWI and the Franco-Prussian War, it couldn’t have been a German ally. In fact, it was an ally of England and France, as you would expect. Which means it should have built a line of defense against Germany. In fact, given the events of the previous century, it should have been far more scared of Germany than France was. Belgium should have been spending a large part of its GNP to build a Great Wall of China along that border, with huge subsidies from France and England to accomplish it. Same for Holland. Instead, we are told Belgium did almost nothing along that border, preferring to talk the Germans down with words of neutrality. Again, that makes no sense. It isn’t credible, and so is just more proof this is all a lie. The very fact that Belgium, Holland, France, and England would leave that border completely open is all the proof you should ever need that this was staged from the first shot.
We are told the Germans defeated Belgium so fast due to air superiority. The luftwaffe allegedly destroyed Belgian resistance in less than a week, even though Belgium should have been backed up immediately by French and British air support. The question begged at this point is. . . if Germany was so superior on both land and air, why did they need to come in through Belgium? Why not fly right over the Maginot Line and attack Paris directly? Why not attack London directly on May 10? Why even bother with the stupid Belgians or Dutch? Even better, why bother building all those tanks at all? Why not spend all their money on the air force, and attack London and Paris directly with that? As soon as the Americans entered the war, Hitler should have flown to the US and firebombed New York and DC off the map. The US allegedly flew all the way to Japan just a couple of years later to complete a similar trick, so if we could fly all the way across the Pacific, don’t you think Hitler could have flown across the much smaller Atlantic? So why didn’t he?
Same reason Hirohito flew all the way across the Pacific, but for some reason decided to attack the nothing target of Pearl Harbor. Why not attack Los Angeles or San Francisco? When we attacked Japan, did we target some little island far off the coast? No, we allegedly attacked Tokyo and major military targets. But the Japanese were just confused, I guess. Maybe they had been told that Honolulu was the capital of the US.
But back to Europe. The Battle of Sedan began on May 12, just two days after the beginning of the Battle of France. We are told that by then the Germans were already closing in on Amsterdam and Rotterdam. Really? Note that they aren’t telling us German planes had landed near there or something. They are telling us the German army, including tanks, were there. In Belgium the Germans were already near the Dyle river, just east of Brussels. So we are supposed to believe huge German armored divisions, including tanks, had travelled 150 miles through mountainous and wooded enemy territory in just two days?
Also remember that we are told the invading forces were divided into group A and B, with B being diversionary. Group A was the real invading force, moving south through Luxembourg and the Ardennes (which made the trip even longer, of course). Also, group A was composed of the heavier Panzer III and IV types, which were slower and less maneuverable. As such, they should have been harder to get through forests and over mountains and across rivers. Just so you know, there are thirty rivers in the Belgian Ardennes, and very few bridges over them that could support the traffic of 1,700 heavy tanks. So do you still believe all this happened in just two days? Even if the luftwaffe drove off all Allied air forces that would naturally be attacking this advance, there is still no way all these tanks could cross that area in two days.
We are told two competing stories to explain this. In the first, the French estimated it would take the German army two weeks to cross the Ardennes to the Meuse, and were just wrong by about 12.5 days. In the second, we are told General Pretelat ran some exercises in the Ardennes in 1938 with tank brigades, finding the French were not prepared for such attacks. According to Evans, the result was so bad “the wisdom of publishing it was questioned, lest it damage morale”. Again, that story sounds manufactured. It isn’t believable at all. We are supposed to believe the French knew the Ardennes were easily penetrable, but didn’t tell their Allies, didn’t publish the information, and didn’t extend the Maginot Line north to deal with it? They just left their northern flank open, because closing it would have been “bad for morale”? Who believes this stuff?
Remember, the French or Belgians wouldn’t have had to fortify the entire Ardennes. All they would have to do is post a handful of people at important bridges with dynamite. They could have stalled the entire German army with nothing more than that. But they decided not to do that, because it would have been bad for morale.
You will tell me a traveling army can repair bridges on the run, which is true. But they can’t repair them instantly, especially bridges that have to carry 1,700 heavy tanks. So the locals didn’t need to fight German tanks with rifles. They only needed to destroy a few bridges. This is especially true regarding the Meuse. The German army should have never been able to get across the Meuse in that two-day time period, since while they were rambling through the Ardennes, the locals would have been blowing all the bridges across the Meuse. This wouldn’t even require the French army to coordinate, just a few local people. So the idea the Germans would be all the way to the Dyle in two days is absurd. It is written for readers who don’t know the first thing about. . . well, anything.
I will be told the Germans used pontoon bridges, but again, pontoon bridges don’t put themselves up instantly. You don’t just pull a cord and they inflate. You have to build them, and if you are building them on enemy territory, you are open to local fire. By their nature, they are even easier to destroy than real bridges. Amusingly, Wikipedia has a page on pontoon bridges, with sections on US, British, and Soviet bridges. Notice anything missing? No German bridges. Down the page we get a couple of pictures of German bridges during WWII, but they are from the battles of Kiev and Uman in 1941. Nothing from Belgium.
Plus, you may wish to remind yourself of a little thing called the Schlieffen Plan, by which the Germans began WWI by attacking France from the north, through Belgium. Yes, that was World War ONE. In the FIRST World War the Germans had done pretty much the same thing, using Belgium as a battle ground, coming in through the Ardennes. But we are supposed to believe that just 25 years later, the Germans snuck up on France and Belgium through the Ardennes? French generals thought the Ardennes were “impenetrable”, though the Germans had just penetrated them in 1914?
That’s from the Wikipedia page on WWI. See all the red arrows going through the Ardennes? Do you still believe they don’t think you are stupid?
So, as usual, we have no continuity in these war stories. They just make up stuff as they go along, with no concern for whether it makes any sense. This is what they do: they hire some writers to yap for a few hundred or thousand pages, since they no one will read it closely. Neatness doesn’t count. It is a say-anything history for the logically impaired.
As more proof of that, see the Halder plan, which was pretty much the Schlieffen plan moved forward to 1940. But we are told this:
When Hitler raised objections to the plan and instead advocated for a decisive armoured breakthrough as had happened in the invasion of Poland, Halder and Brauchitsch attempted to dissuade him, arguing that while the fast-moving mechanised tactics were all well and good against a “shoddy” Eastern European army, they would not work against a frst-rate military like the French.
See a little contradiction there? Even the Germans knew the French army wasn’t just a group of natives with slingshots. German high command expected it to take two years to get into France. So how did it happen in five days? We are also told the French had 2,500 tanks on the line, which they used in the Phoney War leading up to the Battle of France. But I guess all these tanks got bogged down in the mud outside Metz? Later we are told the French armor was actually better than the German armor, even on
the tanks. But when Gouderian is racing ahead with his Panzers, that story is forgotten. The French fold up immediately.
The question of bridges being blown and stopping the German advance is supposed to be answered by the story of Fort Eben-Emael, but this is one of the stupidest of the whole war. Although the Fort was the most modern in the area and was manned by 1,200 Belgian troops, it was supposedly neutralized in a few minutes by 78 Germans in gliders:
On 10 May 1940, 78 paratroopers of the German 7th Flieger (later 1st Fallschirmjäger Division) landed on the fortress with DFS 230 gliders, armed with special high explosives to attack the fortress and its guns. Most of the fort’s defenses were lightly manned and taken by complete surprise. Much of the fort’s defensive armament was destroyed in a few minutes. The attackers were unable to penetrate inside the underground galleries, but the garrison was unable to dislodge them from the surface of the fort. The fortress surrendered one day later, when the paratroopers were reinforced by the German 151st Infantry Regiment. While 1,200 soldiers were authorized to be at the fort on any given day, only 650 were there, with an additional 233 troops six km away at the time of the German assault.
Does that make any sense to you? Gliders? Why not come in on chicken wings and drop eggs? In other places we are told the Belgians knew the Germans were coming. The Allies had reconnaissance just like the Germans and saw all the massing of troops near the border on May 9. And yet here, we are supposed to believe only about half the soldiers were there, with many of them on picnic or something. Plus, the numbers don’t add up. If 233 were out picking flowers and eating gouda, where were the other 317? On furlough in Antwerp, fondling hookers? And why couldn’t this heavily armored and manned fort dislodge a few paratroopers from the surface? A single infantry regiment shows up and the Fort surrenders, because it had some gliders land on its roof? C’mon! And even if this happened, how does that allow the entire German army and its tanks to proceed on to Brussels and beyond? This fort is way to the north, not even on the path of the main division allegedly moving through Luxembourg and the Ardennes, so its fall doesn’t even address the question. These divisions still needed to get across the Meuse, and we aren’t told how they did that.
Next, they admit the Allies won battles against German tanks at Hannut and Gembloux, which again doesn’t explain how the Germans got to Brussels so fast. We are told the Battle of Sedan explains it all, but it doesn’t. I have already asked how the Germans got to Sedan in just two days, and there is no answer to that. Once we get to Sedan, the story doesn’t start making sense, either. Instead, we get this fairy tale:
The French defences at Sedan were weak and neglected. The French had long believed that the German Army would not attack through the Sedan sector as part of their concentrated effort, and only Brigadier General Pierre Lafontaine’ s French 55th Infantry Division, a category B division, was allocated to this sector. The Maginot Line ended 20 kilometres (12 mi) east of Sedan at La Ferté, where Fort No. 505 constituted its most westerly position. Sedan was a part of the extended Maginot Line that ran north behind the Meuse river. Between Sedan and La Ferté lay the Stenay gap, which was a stretch of unprotected terrain not covered by French defences or natural obstacles. This was the reason a signifcant number of French generals insisted on strengthening this sector, while ignoring Sedan.
So those stupid Allies just missed by 12 miles, ending their Maginot Line there and not considering the Germans might notice that big hole. To answer this, we are again fed the strange story that the top French generals like Hunziger didn’t think the Germans would attack through the Ardennes and over the Meuse. You mean like they did in WWI? No, they wouldn’t try that old trick again. Plus, note the
name of that general. No one thought that was a red flag? A German general in the French army, eh? Nothing to see there. But of course the Belgians and French could not have overlooked Sedan, since that is where the bridge was. The history you are fed by the mainstream sidetracks you into twenty different stories, but everything centered on that bridge. It would have been knocked out before the Germans ever arrived, and the battle would have been over the pontoon bridge the Germans would have tried to erect. This would be almost impossible for the Germans to defend, since only one Allied plane could knock it out. The luftwaffe wouldn’t just have to keep beating the Allies, they would have to continue a total win for days on end.
Next we get this:
On 13–14 May, the Germans were vulnerable. A strong attack at this point by the French armoured units could have prevented Guderian from breaking out of the Meuse bridgeheads and changed the outcome of the campaign. However, the French commanders, already deeply schooled and versed in the rather staunchly defensively-focused broad, generalized doctrine of methodological warfare, were located far to the rear, which meant they lacked a real-time and up- to-date picture of the battle. The French forces in the area were also hindered by mistaken intelligence-reports of which suggested that German tanks had already crossed the Meuse river, several hours before when the frst German tank actually crossed the Meuse river. When intelligence did flter through, it was out-of-date. This was to prove fatal, especially coupled with the case of the matter that the French generalship at large was expecting a considerably more prolonged process of initial German assault phase and overall attack effort as a whole.
More ridiculous handwaving to explain why the French failed to do what any normal person would have done. The French commanders were located to the rear, so they didn’t know what was going on? I guess they lacked radios. And telescopes. Maybe they were relying on smoke signals as part of their generalized doctrine of methodological warfare. It was windy and the smoke signals got blown away. That would make as much sense as this gobbledygook about out-of-date intelligence reports “filtering through”. Filtering through what? Were the French commanders swimming in a vat of brie? You should be able to tell just by the style of writing here you are being snowed. No one telling you the truth writes like this.
Here’s your next clue. By May 17, one week after the start of the Battle of France, Rommel had taken 10,000 prisoners with only 36 losses. Right. Guderian was so giddy, he allegedly ignored orders to stop and continued on, planning to drive his tanks to the English channel until they ran out of fuel. That would have been smart. And of course it begs the question: since the Germans did race on ahead, why didn’t they run out of fuel? In the mainstream story, these big tanks just keep racing ahead, defeating more and more of the Allied army, ignoring orders, and racing on again. But remember, they couldn’t just stop at a Belgian gas station and gas up. So again, the story breaks down. The writers, in their haste to get France to collapse as soon as possible, just keep yapping, taking no care to tell a believable war story.
Again, the call from Reynaud to Churchill on May 15 is such a huge red flag it is really the only clue you need that this was all managed and faked. Of course the people involved is the other gigantic clue. I have hit Reynaud before in my paper on Obama’s Genealogy. They don’t admit he was Jewish, though he obviously was. His father had made a fortune in the textile industry, so Reynaud was from textile billionaires. After banking, textiles is Jewish trade number two. Reynaud had been preceded as Prime Minister by two other Jews: Edouard Daladier and Leon Blum. At least they admit Blum was Jewish. They tell us Daladier was the son of a baker. That is the usual joke. Just add an “n” and baker becomes. . . banker. Blum came out of the SFIO, the Socialist Party, which tells us all we need
to know about him. But all these Prime Ministers were basically fronts. They want your eyes on them so that your eyes are not on the real governors. Remember, the President of France remained the same during all these Phoney Prime Ministers: his name was Albert Lebrun. The Phoney historians tell you the President was a weak position in this decade, but that is just to keep your eyes off Lebrun. We can tell this just by looking at Lebrun’s Wiki page, which is just a stub compared to that of the other players at the time. They don’t want to tell you anything about him. He has almost no personal bio and his genealogy is not available. But the strange thing is that while the Prime Ministers and Parlement are sold to us as left and Socialist in the 1930s, President Lebrun was actually far right. So he needed these fake Socialists out front to fool the people into thinking France was progressive in some way. It never was and still isn’t. It was and is run by trillionaire banking interests: the Phoenician navy.
Amazingly, they give you the clue on Lebrun’s Wiki page, at the bottom, where they list all the heads of state of France back to the year 500. That list includes Clovis, Charlemagne, Philip I, Charles V, Louis XII, Henry VI of England, Louis XIV, and Napoleon. But they want you to believe the position is “weak”. How could the head of state be a weak position? It is a clue because Lebrun is closely related to all these people.
The Lebruns are heavily scrubbed online, but they have been one of the top families of Europe since the time of Charlemagne. They have been running the country from behind the scenes since time immemorial. What is amazing is how visible Albert Lebrun allowed himself to be here. These people normally prefer to be far more in the shadows, but this Lebrun was a peacock.
He couldn’t remain invisible, because he was so in love with his own reflection. But some digging tells us who these people were. Burke’s peerage tells us on the pages for surname Oranmore that Godfrey Lebrun came over to England with William the Conqueror, being of the same family as the Counts of Marche. Later, Hugh Lebrun married Isabel of Angouleme, widow of King John. Their son William of Valence was created Earl of Pembroke by Henry III. These Lebruns also went to Ireland, where they became Brownes, later Barons of Oranmore and Browne. After the Civil War, the Brownes moved to Mayo, where they built Castle Macgarrett.
If we take this information to thepeerage.com, we find Hugh Lebrun was AKA Hugues de Lusignan.
This links us to Guy de Lusignan, King of Jerusalem in 1186, who married the daughter of Almaric I. This takes us back to the Counts of Anjou as well as Morfia of Armenia—which of course takes us again to the Komnenes. See my paper on the Crusades for more on this. Anyway, these lines take us directly to the Capetian kings of France as well as the Plantagenet and Tudor Kings of England. They also lead us to the Earls of Derby, since Hugh XI Lusignan’s daughter married Robert de Ferrers, 6th Earl. This leads us to the Beauchamps and Willoughbys, as well as the Stanleys, who of course later became the Earls of Derby. Remember, Thomas Stanley, 1st Earl of Derby third creation, married late in life Margaret Beaufort, mother of King Henry VII (whom Stanley had put on the throne). Her mother was a Beauchamp, which links us back to the Ferrers. So it is one big family, as usual. We are told Stanley married Beaufort for her own convenience, so that should could remain at court. Absurd, since the real reason he married her is to take her lands and other wealth.
So you begin to see who these Lebruns really were, and are. They weren’t just artists (see Charles Lebrun and Elisabeth Vigee Lebrun). They were aristocracy. Somewhat like the Stanleys, they existed in the shadows, letting others be kings. But Albert Lebrun was related to the Lebruns, Dukes of Plaisance. See the 1st Duke, who was Napoleon’s Third Consul. His son Anne [yes, Anne, that is not a typo] Charles Lebrun was one of Napoleon’s generals. The 3rd Duke married the daughter of Berthier, Prince Wagram, Marshal and Vice-Constable of the Empire under Napoleon. His wife’s mother was the Princess of Zweibrücken, who was the sister of King Maximilian I Joseph of Bavaria. She was also the great-grandmother of Empress Elisabeth of Austria (who was also Queen of Hungary). Her nephew was Archduke Franz Ferdinand (Habsburg), whose [fake]** death allegedly precipitated WWI. So you see how closely related Albert Lebrun was to all that. We also link to the Tsars of Russia, since Maximilian’s daughter Elisabeth married Frederick William IV of Prussia, whose sister Charlotte was the wife of Nicholas I of Russia.
That’s the Duchess Elisabeth, note the Jewish nose and the Habsburg jaw.
At any rate, we can tell Albert Lebrun was instrumental in the quick surrender of France to Germany in 1940, since it is he who accepted the resignation of Reynaud and “enacted/promulgated” the Constitutional Law of 10 July, 1940, establishing the regime of Vichy and appointing Philippe Petain as de facto dictator. Just ask yourself why a President of France or a Parlement of France would vote into law such a thing. How does a President “appoint” a dictator? Does it make any sense? No, it goes against the very definitions of words and of positions. Presidents and Parlements do not create
dictators, by definition. This effectively destroyed the French Constitutional Laws of 1875, ending that fake Republic. Petain was empowered to create a new Constitution. But again, dictators cannot create Constitutions, by definition. Constitutions are written as a protection against dictators, not as recipes for them. We are supposed to believe Petain was really appointed by Hitler, I guess, or that Lebrun and the Parlement were just doing the bidding of Germany, with a gun to their heads. But that isn’t what history tells us, is it? You would expect the occupied French government to fold, and to be replaced by a German government of some sort. That is what happened when Germany fell, you know. The Allies didn’t install a puppet and have the Reichstag pretend to pass laws. No, the Donitz government was arrested and the Allied Control Council took over. But in France, nothing like that happened. Marshal of France and WWI war hero Petain was appointed dictator by Lebrun, and Parlement authorized a new constitution. Very weird. Petain the French dictator sometimes seemed like a Nazi puppet and sometimes like a patriotic Frenchman doing his best, but no one to this day can really figure it out. If he had been a Nazi puppet, why wasn’t he later executed for high treason? Why did he keep his rank? Why did Truman and England support him? If he was a patriotic Frenchman doing his best, why didn’t the Nazis install one of their own people? Like the rest of this, none of it makes a bit of sense. It only makes sense if we choose door number three: Vichy France wasn’t being run either by Petain or by the Nazis. It was being run by trillionaire bankers who were running some project or testing some theory. They wanted France to collapse in 1940, so it did.
This story of Petain fronting Lebrun is an exact analogy of the story we were told in Italy, where King Victor Emmanuel III created Mussolini as his dictator, though of course a King doesn’t need a dictator in front of him. A King already is a dictator. Emmanuel was himself a front for more powerful people in his family, hidden behind him, so we have a series of fronts here. But it was the same families in either case, since Emmanuel was a Savoy and a Habsburg, taking us back to Jerusalem and Armenia again: the Phoenician navy.
We see the fake again on Lebrun’s page, where we are told Petain replaced Lebrun as head of state, although Lebrun never actually resigned. The dissolution of the National Assembly left no one to accept Lebrun’s resignation. So on August 9, 1944, Lebrun suddenly popped up, said he was still legally President and always had been, and acknowledged de Gaulle’s leadership. Very strange, as I think you will admit. Victor Emmanuel did the same thing in Italy about the same time, popping up at the fall of Mussolini and “resuming his full constitutional powers”. Droll, since kings don’t have constitutional powers. Constitutions were invented to limit the powers of kings, not to give them powers.
According to the mainstream lists, there was no President of France from 1940 to 1947, when Auriol took the position. I suggest Lebrun was President of France the whole time, which means he ruled France from 1932 to 1947. We just saw Lebrun himself claiming he was still technically President in 1944, so why not 1947? De Gaulle was never President during that time, being titled Chairman of the Provisional Government. As usual, very strange. We will look more closely at de Gaulle below.
Why would Lebrun need to acknowledge de Gaulle’s leadership? Because, as I am showing you, it was all another conjob. Even the date is a clue, since it is August 9. The date of the Tate/Manson murders as well as the date of Nixon’s resignation. Just a coincidence, right? No, there are no coincidences of that sort.
We are told that Lebrun was captured by the Germans in 1943, but that was three years after he allegedly fled to Vizille. Since he was probably at the Chateau de Vizille (below), giving orders from there, we have to say it was nice of the Germans to let him do that.
We are told he was in Itter Castle for a couple of months as a war prisoner, but we can be sure that never happened. I bet we don’t have any pictures of him there.
Petain was always just a front for Lebrun, and that is easy to see since although Petain was later tried for treason, he was allowed to wear his Marshal uniform at trial. Although convicted and sentenced to death, the sentence was ignored and he went to Ile d’Yeu, a resort town. Like Lebrun, he was never stripped of his rank! He died a French Field Marshal. So although we are supposed to believe Petain was a puppet of the Nazis, he was actually a puppet of those behind the French government, including Lebrun. He was just following French orders from the beginning, as should now be clear. His trial wasn’t just a show trial, it was a completely fake Hollywood trial. But so was his whole career. Like Hitler, he was just a guy in suit reading from cue cards. You may remember Petain didn’t even sign the armistice—another clue in the same direction. Hunziger signed it for him. Hunziger, the French general with a German name.
Also remember that Queen Mary, the Duke of Windsor, Truman, and Franco all asked for Petain’s release. You really need to ask yourself if that fits other parts of the story. I guess we can see why Franco would speak out for Petain, since murdering dictators stick together. But why would Truman petition for Petain, or Queen Mary? Shouldn’t that have conflicted with the mainstream story of Petain, or tarnished Truman and Mary? In hindsight, we can see what these petitions were all about: they confirmed the story of Petain’s “incarceration”. We are supposed to believe he was incarcerated by the French at Ile d’Yeu, as if he was held in chains somewhere. When the truth is he was just walking on the beach, sunning himself at the cafe, or playing golf.
Here’s another bold contradiction, paraded in plain sight at Wiki:
France had spent a higher percentage of its GNP from 1918 to 1935 on its military than other great powers and the government had added a large rearmament effort in 1936.
Hmmm. So how was France beaten in a matter of days? To explain it, the next sentence mentions the hollow years in France, where population fell. But that ended in 1919, twenty years earlier. By 1920 France was already back to pre-war levels, going from 31 million in 1919 to 39 million in 1920. France’s population was actually very steady from 1885 to 1950, when it began climbing. So the only hollow years were 1914 to 1919. The strange statistics come from Germany, which had a population of about 70 million in 1940.
For rest of article click link. Who was De Gaulle?