The Blitz was a fraud

I no longer believe the German Air Force attacked England during WWII, and I am here to tell you
why. I have hit this briefly in previous papers, but I will hit it with much more gusto here.
We will start with a quote from the history books, one I already used in that previous paper.
British wartime studies concluded that most cities took 10 to 15 days to recover when hit severely,
but some, such as Birmingham, took three months.
That should make your head turn hard. Two weeks to recover from a “severe” German bombing raid?
These raids and bombs must not be what we think they were. Let’s compare to other bombing raids we
are sold in the same war.

When the US attacked Japanese cities with incendiary bombing raids, did the Japanese cities recover in
two weeks? No, they didn’t recover at all, allegedly, until the US itself came in after the war and spent
billions rebuilding them. But when the famous German Luftwaffe attacks the much nearer England,
damage is minimal. Those blind Germans can’t seem to hit anything of import. They always seem to
bomb some slums that already needed clearing and that had already been evacuated. Amazing.
The raid was focused on a part of the city that contained many non-residential buildings, such as
churches, offices, and warehouses. Many of these were locked and were not covered by the Fire
Watchers Order of September 1940. . . .
Yeah, why watch major buildings downtown? Plus, it is again fortuitous the Germans targeted locked
buildings not covered by Fire Watchers. Were the Fire Watchers sending text updates to the Germans?
But the London officials couldn’t have torched a few derelict buildings themselves, right, and then
blamed it on German raids?

But the people heard planes flying over! They heard explosions.
The raid was at night. They couldn’t tell a German plane from a British plane. And it is easy to stage
explosions. Haven’t you ever seen a movie?
To see what I mean, let’s visit the Wikipedia page for “Second Great Fire of London”, supposedly
caused by the German bombing raid of December 30, 1940. Here is the first “photo” we get of that:
It is titled “A House Collapsing on Two Firemen, Shoe Lane”. The problem? It isn’t a photo, it is a
painting. Pretty obvious, since you can see the artist’s signature. Leonard Rosoman. They admit that,
but in the main text, not in the text under the photo. Rosoman was supposed to have been one of the
firemen there, traumatized by the event. But why would they publish that on this page? Because it’s all
they have. Hard to photograph a fake back then, since they didn’t have CGI like now.

My first thought was that Rosoman wasn’t really a fireman, so I researched that. I couldn’t find him in
the peerage under that name, but they may have changed it. May have been something like Leonard
Rose or Ross or Rosen. Jewish regardless, including Rosoman. They do mention his best friend and
fellow fireman William Sansom, though, and he pretty much blows their cover on his own. This guy
who is supposed to be one of the two fireman in that famous painting just happened to be from a
wealthy and connected family. Before the blitz, this William Norman Trevor Sansom was an
international banker. In 1943 he appeared in Humphrey Jennings’ famous propaganda film, Fires Were
Started. Yes, they were, as I am showing you, so that title is a bit revelatory, isn’t it?

Why would you
name a film about firemen during the Blitz Fires Were Started? No really, ask yourself that and
demand a sensible answer. Humphrey Jennings was a filmmaker working for the Ministry of
Information, an Orwellian title you have to admit. It would have been better called the Ministry of
Disinformation. In 1937 Jennings started Mass-Observation, a major government spying project
disguised as an art form.
Mass-Observation originally aimed to record everyday life in Britain through a panel of around 500
untrained volunteer observers who either maintained diaries or replied to openended questionnaires (known as directives). The organisation also paid investigators to anonymously
record people’s conversation and behaviour at work, on the street and at various public occasions,
including public meetings and sporting and religious events.
Any questions? That project pretty much outs itself.

In Fires Were Started, Jennings sold re-enactments as documentary footage. They admit that but call it
“blurring the line” instead of lying. William Sansom played himself in the film, and he is the fireman
playing the piano. Right, because all firemen are rich ex-bankers and future famous authors who play
classical piano. Right after the war Sansom became a full-time propaganda writer, being heavily
promoted and publishing many books. He married the famous Jewish actress Ruth Grundy, as you do
when you are firefighter. The Grundys are in the peerage, related to the Ingram baronets and the
Stirlings. Also related to the Walkers of Manchester and the Piers baronets. As for Sansom, they are
also peerage, related to the Tottenhams and Ponsonbys, taking us to the Loftus Marquesses, who link
us back forward to the Grahams and Spencers, and through them to everybody at the top.

Pretty much proving the whole firefighter painting was staged, as well as the film. Which indicates the
entire event was staged.
Then we get that famous photo, called “St. Paul’s Survives”. Yeah, it would survive that, since it is just
another pathetic paste-up. Pretty easy for a building to survive a paste-up. Forward layer of burned
buildings, middle ground of smoke to hide the seam, St. Paul’s pasted in the background. Photo-faking
101. Same for the photo under title, though that one is a bit better. It is harder to see the seams. But
the seam is where the shadows go from black to grey. That photo is basically two photos married, with
the seam horizontal right down the middle.
Amazingly, on the Wiki page for Second Great Fire of London, they have a section on that last photo,
but don’t show it to you. After my paper of a few years ago where I tear it up as a fake, they are hiding
it, for what I think are obvious reasons. Instead, they just show you a generic photo of St. Pauls. In
that section, we find this:
The camera is believed to have been a Van Neck on a quarter plate glass negative. The Royal
Photographic Society magazine Photographic Journal, remarked on the brightness of the scene,
[9] saying that “The light that was available for an instantaneous exposure is an indication of the
fierceness and extent of the fire.”

Why are they telling you what camera and plate was used? Because they want you to forget this
happened at night. Photographer Herbert Mason allegedly took that photo in the middle of the night, so
many people have asked how St. Paul’s is in full sunlight. Pretty good question, right? Has the Royal
Photographic Society answered it for you? I didn’t think so.
That’s all we get on that page, other than the usual in-your-face numerology. We are told each German
bomber was equipped with 180 incendiary bombs. Aces and eights. Over 100,000 bombs were
dropped, but only 1,500 fires were started in London that night. Hmmm. Little mismatch in the math
there, eh?
We are told that 160 people died that day in London. From 100,000 bombs? But wait, how many
people die in London everyday? Today, about 150. In 1940, about 130. So thirty excess deaths that
day from 100,000 bombs, in a city of eight million? Twelve of those were allegedly firefighters, so
they don’t really count, not being killed by bombs. So 18 excess deaths from a major bomb attack?

Doesn’t really add up, does it? Already you can see why I am suspicious.

This Great Fire raid was one of the biggest three German raids on London, and we have already seen
the story evaporates on any close inspection. If it was faked or managed, that indicates the entire Blitz
was a fraud.

Ernie Pyle just happened to be in London for the Great Fire that night, perched on top of one of the
buildings downtown. What luck!

I guess he too was getting email updates from the German Air Force. Here is how he described it:
Into the dark shadowed spaces below us, while we watched, whole batches of incendiary bombs fell. We saw
two dozen go off in two seconds. They flashed terrifically, then quickly simmered down to pin points of dazzling
white, burning ferociously… The greatest of all the fires was directly in front of us. Flames seemed to whip
hundreds of feet into the air. Pinkish-white smoke ballooned upward in a great cloud, and out of this cloud there
gradually took shape—so faintly at first that we weren’t sure we saw correctly—the gigantic dome of St Paul’s
Cathedral. St Paul’s was surrounded by fire, but it came through. It stood there in its enormous proportions—
growing slowly clearer and clearer, the way objects take shape at dawn. It was like a picture of some miraculous
figure that appears before peace-hungry soldiers on a battlefield.[8] So poetic, right? Peace-hungry soldiers on a battlefield! What a man! I’m all choked up. As you may
know, Pyle allegedly died in Okinawa right at the end of the war, at age 45. But you may not know his
wife, same age, died at the very same time in New Mexico. That’s convenient, right? They faked their
deaths at the same time, so they could disappear together. That’s never been done before. No, wait,
yes it has. We have seen it hundreds of times. It is a favorite Phoenician trick.

Pyle and his wife Geraldine Siebolds are sold to us as average middle class people, coming from
nowhere, but as usual it isn’t true. Siebold(s) is another Jewish name, and she came from the wealthy
Siebolds of Minnesota. Her bio is fudged all over the place, with her father being given three different
birth years in the first three results that come up on a search. She had four siblings, but two of them are
hidden everywhere. They admit her father was born in Germany, but don’t say where, perhaps to
prevent us from connecting him to the aristocratic von Siebolds of Wurzburg. More indication these
Siebolds of Minnesota were wealthy is their early connection to the Stotesburys, who were and still are
very wealthy. See for example actress Carolyn Stotesbury of that area, descended from this same
family. And guess what, she married a Levens, Jewish, confirming what I already told you. You could
say her family are tenant farmers, but you would be lying again, since they are billionaire ranchers and
vintners. They sold their cattle acreage in Montana to open a big winery in Napa Valley, see Ladera

As for Pyle, he is supposed to be from a family of tenant farmers, with parents who had never gotten
past eighth grade. One problem: at Findagrave, they admit this Pyle family weren’t tenant farmers, but
wealthy landowners who also did some farming. They were among the most prominent citizens of that
area. They were descended from the Hammonds, Hoods, Bogarts, and Simmons. On his mother’s side,
Pyle was descended from Asburys, Whaleys and Talbots of Virginia. So Pyle’s mainstream bio is the
usual pile of stinking horse manure we always get from these people. But we should have known that
going in, since a guy doesn’t come out of nowhere to become the premier war propagandist in the

But back to London. This is strange:
The publishing industry bore heavy losses in the raid. Ave Maria Lane and Paternoster Row, an
area known since the 19th century as the centre of the London publishing and book trade, [10][11] [12][13] were badly hit, and the buildings and stock of 20 publishing houses were totally or partially
destroyed. Stationers’ Hall, neighbouring offices, the book wholesalers Simpkin Marshall, and
several bookshops were lost. An estimated five million books were lost in the fires caused by tens
of thousands of incendiary bombs
Why would the German bombers target bookshops and publishers? Were there munitions factories next
door? No. They wouldn’t, so this is some other conjob. And another clue. It is easy to unwind if you
think about it for a moment. They need highly flammable materials to manufacture these fires, right?
What better than books? And the bookstores always have unsalable stock on hand, that they would
love to write off as a fire loss. A perfect fit, isn’t it? This is why the fires just happened to center
themselves on Paternoster Row. Besides the fact that very few people were living there, so fewer
witnesses to the arson. You can be sure no real books were destroyed, just the usual Phoenician pulp.
I encourage everyone to read the Wikipedia page The Blitz, since by the end you will agree with me the
whole thing was staged by British Intelligence. The propaganda goes transparent in dozens of places,
and it is easy to see this isn’t what we were told it was. It also contradicts itself over and over, so much
so that I think it does so on purpose, to stir your brain. At one point it says
the Luftwaffe favoured a model of joint inter-service operations, rather than independent strategic air

That is footnoted to Corum, 1997. But in another place we are told this:
In 1940 and 1941, Göring’s refusal to co-operate with the Kriegsmarine denied the entire Wehrmacht
military forces of the Reich the chance to strangle British sea communications, which might have had a
strategic or decisive effect in the war against the British Empire.
Strangely, that is also footnoted to Corum, so apparently he forgot to hire a continuity editor. He just
told us the Luftwaffe favoured cooperation with other parts of the military, but now he turns around and
tells us it refused to cooperate with the navy. The usual Phoenician mindfick.
And who is this Corum? That would be Lt. Col. James Corum, a graduate of Oxford and fellow of All
Souls College there, later professor of military history at US Army Command, Ft. Leavenworth.
The whole section on “Hitler, Goring and Air Power” is a mess, it being impossible to make sense of it
and almost impossible to read it. Here is the first paragraph, for instance:
Hitler paid less attention to the bombing of opponents than air defence, although he promoted the
development of a bomber force in the 1930s and understood it was possible to use bombers for
strategic purposes. He told OKL in 1939 that ruthless employment of the Luftwaffe against the heart of
the British will to resist would follow when the moment was right. Hitler quickly developed scepticism
toward strategic bombing, confirmed by the results of the Blitz. He frequently complained of the
Luftwaffe’s inability to damage industries sufficiently, saying, “The munitions industry cannot be
impeded effectively by air raids … usually, the prescribed targets are not hit”.
That is footnoted to Overy, 1980, so they didn’t just make it up. But it means that Overy must be
borderline illiterate, like Ernie Pyle’s fake parents. Notice how he goes back and forth in each
sentence. In the first sentence Hitler is not interested in bombing. In the second sentence he is. In the
third sentence he isn’t. And the last sentence is just a tack-on, to explain after the fact why the bombing
of Britain was such a magnificent bust. But if Hitler really said or believed that, then why target
British munitions?
Here’s the next paragraph, equally absurd:
While the war was being planned, Hitler never insisted upon the Luftwaffe planning a strategic bombing
campaign and did not even give ample warning to the air staff that war with Britain or even Russia was a
possibility. The amount of firm operational and tactical preparation for a bombing campaign was
minimal, largely because of the failure by Hitler as supreme commander to insist upon such a

So Hitler and all his generals just blew off making any plans, attacking England by the seat of their
pants? Because that’s the way those whacky Nazis are. They can’t concentrate on anything for more
than five minutes.
As you see already, this is history for those who can’t read, by those who can’t write. And you can’t
blame it on pimply volunteer editors at Wiki. We just saw this is the history being sold in mainstream
books. If you think I am cherry picking, I beg you to continue reading at Wiki, where that section goes
on and on, not getting any better. I could quote the entire thing, since it doesn’t once start making
sense. Or buy those books in the footnotes and get back to me. They are just as bad as this or worse.

Here’s a big problem, from the Wiki page “Battle of Britain”:
The RAF responded to Luftwaffe developments with its 1934 Expansion Plan A rearmament scheme, and
in 1936 it was restructured into Bomber Command, Coastal Command, Training Command and Fighter
Tell me what the problem is there. Well, if the Allies had forbidden Germany from re-arming after
WWI, why would they respond to the Nazis beginning a huge manufacturing project of fighters and
bombers in 1933 by their own re-armament scheme? They didn’t need a re-armament scheme, did
they, since they were already armed. No one had ruled they couldn’t re-arm after WWI, so the US,
France, and England should have had armies, navies and air forces already suited up and ready to go,
like now. And we know they did. Would the US have to “re-arm” in the event of a major war now?
No, since we have been spending a trillion a year on arming all along. So if any of this were real, we
wouldn’t expect the Allies to sit there and watch Germany build a bunch of bombers in 1933. The last
quote above indicates the RAF knew about Luftwaffe developments, so if they knew why didn’t they
immediately respond by bombing all those factories into dust? Germany couldn’t have stopped them
since they admit Germany didn’t yet have the capability. Germany couldn’t have any air defense until
after they re-armed, right? So why would the Allies sit there and watch it happen? No one ever asks
that, do they, and they certainly never answer it, since there is no good answer for it. The Allies just
give the Nazis eight years of freedom to build whatever massive military they want? Most of the big
German munitions factories were within walking distance of the Dutch/Belgian border, so the Allies
could have marched in and stopped this any time between 1933 and 1940, but they preferred to stay
home and post diplomatic letters of this sort: “Hey Herr Hitler, we know you are re-arming. Please
stop. Oh, and please keep making beer and sausages, tra-la.”

This brings us up to 1940, and the ridiculous proposition I have already ridiculed in my paper on the
Battle of France, that being that England was already beaten by June of that year. The Luftwaffe that
Hitler supposedly cared so little for had already beaten Norway overnight and then destroyed the RAF
over Belgium. Germany was so sure of victory in the West it was already looking East at Russia. We
are always supposed to wonder at the ability of the Germans to rebuild their military so fast, but that
isn’t what I wonder at. What I wonder at is why the rest of Europe let them do it, after outlawing that
very thing just 15 years earlier. It makes no sense, and blaming Neville Chamberlain for it is the
stupidest feint in the history of historians. Chamberlain wasn’t running France, Norway, Sweden,
Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, or the US, and even in England he was just the Prime Minister, who is
appointed by the King and answers to Parliament. So the idea that Chamberlain was naive or soft on
Germany is a non-starter. What we see in this period isn’t Chamberlain acting limp, it is all the WWI
Allies pretending they are dead asleep, for some reason never explained to us. WWI is sold to us as the
worst war in history, with tens of millions of deaths, but we are supposed to believe that afterwards the
Allies just fell asleep and let Germany rearm, so that they could do it all over again twenty years later?
I am not buying it, and you see why. You will say human history and war don’t make sense, so my
complaint is naive. But that isn’t my point. My point is that, even admitting that people are irrational,
history should have some amount of continuity. It shouldn’t be sensible in that everything should be
rational. It should be sensible in that the sequence of events we are taught should be consistent, not
contradicting itself every fourth word. The same people should not be strict one moment and dead
asleep the next. We should not be told that national military expenditures were high one moment, and
that the same nations had no planes or bombs the next moment. It has to be one or the other. Hitler
cannot be prioritizing the Air Force one moment and ignoring it the next. Germany cannot have air
superiority on one page, and England have it on the next page. It has to be one or the other. But what
we see in the Battle of Britain is what we have become accustomed to seeing: war writers who will say
anything in the moment, to sell you whatever lie they currently have in their mouths, with absolutely no
concern for continuity. They think your memory is so feeble you won’t remember what they just said
in the previous paragraph, or the previous sentence. We see the same thing in these written histories
that we have seen in the photographic histories, where one moment Hitler is the same height as the very
short Mussolini and the next moment he is taller than the very tall Neville Chamberlain. A complete
disrespect for the intelligence of their audience.
That is the “sensible” I am talking about. I am talking about telling me a history that doesn’t sound
made up by some highschool boys on weed.

Here’s another big clue: From the history we are taught in school, you would think everyone was down
in the Underground during bombing raids, but they now admit that less than 150,000 did at any one
time, meaning less than 2% of Londoners were down there. And that’s assuming the numbers aren’t
still inflated, which wouldn’t be my assumption. We are told the government began to build more
underground shelters after October 1940, due to public demand, but they admit they weren’t done in
time and weren’t used. But it was much worse than that, as we find out in the section called Blitz
According to Anna Freud and Edward Glover, London civilians surprisingly did not suffer from
widespread shell shock, unlike the soldiers in the Dunkirk evacuation.[72] The psychoanalysts were
correct, and the special network of psychiatric clinics opened to receive mental casualties of the attacks
closed due to lack of need. The number of suicides and drunkenness declined, and London recorded
only about two cases of “bomb neurosis” per week in the first three months of bombing. Many civilians
found that the best way to retain mental stability was to be with family, and after the first few weeks of
bombing, avoidance of the evacuation programmes grew. [73] [74][75] The cheerful crowds visiting bomb sites were so large they interfered with rescue work.[70] Pub visits
increased in number (beer was never rationed), and 13,000 attended cricket at Lord’s. People left
shelters when told instead of refusing to leave, although many housewives reportedly enjoyed the break
from housework. Some people even told government surveyors that they enjoyed air raids if they
occurred occasionally, perhaps once a week.[76] Official histories concluded that the mental health of a nation may have improved, while panic was rare.

[81] You see what I mean, they are just admitting this makes no sense. So the Londoners must have known
something you don’t, right?
There’s another fake photo to go with your fake history. Could that look more staged? Everyone is
smiling, so overjoyed that they saved a couple of plants and a clock from the rubble of their home. The
kids and dogs and budgies are dead, but thank God for the clock!
We can see the contradiction again here:
The attitude of the Air Ministry was in contrast to the experiences of the First World War when German
bombers caused physical and psychological damage out of all proportion to their numbers.
So in WWI, German bombing in England caused major psychological damage, but in WWII people
were in better mental health during the bombing than before it. The bombing actually made them less
suicidal. Miraculous really, that the English changed 180 degrees in just 20 years. Despite all the
scary stories in the news about Hitler and the Nazis, the English couldn’t care less, continuing down to
the pub for their pints.
Next we get to the problem of night bombing runs. We are told the Germans soon switched to night
bombing runs, because back then the bombers were easy to shoot down during the day. But these night
bombing runs were even more difficult to explain, since it is not clear how they were able to target in
the dark in 1940 with no tech. To explain this, the fake historians and scientists have come up with a
longwinded story they call the Battle of the Beams, by which the Germans used radio beams to guide
their planes to the target at night. Problem is, the story still doesn’t make any sense. They just hope
you won’t be able to figure that out. In the 1930s and 40s, the planes did not have advanced systems.
Even landing at night was a problem. That was solved at the time by Lorentz beams, which guided the
plane into the runway. But those beams were strictly local, having a range of only 30 miles. So they
tell us stronger transmitters were created, which could send Lorentz beams from near Denmark to
London. Over 600 miles. What they don’t tell you is that the beams spread out as they travelled,
making them useless for this purpose. You have to cross the beams to signal the spot of a bomb drop,
but with the spread there was no way to know where the beams actually crossed. Plus, these beams
could be jammed by transmitters in England, so the whole thing was a wash. None of the methods
should have worked, so we know this is all another complex fiction. It was manufactured to explain
the unexplainable: how Germany was able to bomb Britain at night with 1940 technology.

Actually, they do admit the spread elsewhere. That is an illustration of the smaller landing Lorentz
beams, and you can see how much they spread over just a few miles. Imagine how much that would
spread over 600 miles. Then try crossing those two beams. The cross section of the meeting would be
hundreds of square miles, useless for any targeting purposes.
The beam from a single transmitter would guide the bombers towards the target, but could not tell them
when they were over it. To add this ranging feature, a second transmitter similar to the first was set up
so its beam crossed the guidance beam at the point where the bombs should be dropped. The aerials
could be rotated to make the beams from two transmitters cross over the target. The bombers would fly
into the beam of one and ride it until they started hearing the tones from the other (on a second
receiver). When the steady “on course” sound was heard from the second beam, they dropped their
That’s all the usual garbage, since even if they had been able to focus the beams down to a few meters,
at the time they didn’t have any way to confirm the beams were crossing over the target. They didn’t
have GPS or satellites, so they had no way to know the precise coordinates of a building in a town.
They also had no way of precisely calculating where their beams were crossing, since, again, that
would have required precise relative coordinates of all three positions, including the two home towns of
the beams. Calculations of that sort weren’t possible until recently. They pretty much admit that here:
Knickebein was used in the early stages of the German night-bombing offensive and proved to be
fairly effective, but the tactics for using the system in a widespread bombing effort were not yet
developed, so much of the early German night bombing offensive was limited to area bombing.

The RAF said it didn’t matter, since they ran night bombing campaigns and claimed they were accurate
without help from beams. But they now admit that wasn’t true. The English night bombing campaigns
in 1940 were utter failures, almost never hitting a target except by pure accident.
Here’s another logical problem of this beam story. Say they had focused the beams down to a few
meters, and that they could cross the beams right over a target. We give them that. So how did they
detect the second crossing beam until they hit it? If it was only a few meters wide, they wouldn’t know
of it until they hit it. You can’t detect a beam from the side until you hit it. Or is the beam also sending
out a beam sideways? There is no such thing as a steady “on course” sound from a perpendicular
beam in front of you. That would only come from a guiding beam or parallel beam.
So, if the beams are crossed over the target, and the plane can’t detect the crossing beam until it hits it,
then the bomb will be dropped late every time. It will land long every time. Logic.
Here’s another clue: one of the most common planes used on these (fake) night bombing runs was
allegedly the Junkers 88, which they abbreviated as Ju 88. Do I have to explain that joke to you? The
Ju 88 was designed by Ernst Zindel, Jewish.
Remember, the Junkers was built by Deutsche Lufthansa, which was run by Field Marshal Erhard
Milch (below), who they now admit was Jewish. He is one of the field marshals outed as Jewish by
Jewish author Bryan Rigg in his book Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers.
The Luftwaffe was led by Lt. Gen. Walther Wever, Jewish (son of a bank director), up until his death in
1936, when he was replaced by Field Marshal Albert Kesselring, also Jewish. His father was named
Adolf, his sister married a Volz, and he married a Keyssler. Kesselring is well scrubbed, with his
mother’s maiden name scrubbed everywhere, but it doesn’t matter, we can tell he was Jewish just from
that. He went from lieutenant colonel to lieutenant general in less than three years, prior to 1936.
That’s four steps in under three years, not during war time. He didn’t learn to fly until 1933, when he
was 48, which is strange for the head of the Air Force. Kesselring didn’t think night bombing raids
could be done in 1939, but we are told he was proved wrong. As I am showing you, he was right. But
like the Moon Landing, it didn’t matter. They made it happen one way or another, if only on paper.
Here’s a ridiculous photo of Kesselring with Speidel and Goring in 1940.
How fat was Goring! And what’s with the stripes on Kesselring’s pants? Never seen that before.
Apparently these guys could just choose whatever uniforms they wanted, like a costume party. He also
has on two jackets and is flourishing a long baton. Maybe he is about to lead a parade.
Those are the field marshals at the 1940 field marshal ceremony. There are supposed to be twelve but
for some reason we only see nine. But no stripes on the pants. Hitler has no rank, as usual. Still a
lance corporal I guess. These guys have all been promoted to the same rank, so why does the second
guy have a different collar than the rest? The theater department ran out of decs? And the uniforms
don’t match in another way: count buttons on the front. Some have six, some have four. I don’t think
they are even there. See how they seem to float over the carpet? Another paste-up.

Next, we move to the “Hardest Day” page, which was a German attack on August 18, 1940. Aces and
eights, of course. [The Battle of Britain was 17 days earlier, on August 1, also aces and eights.] Here
is the proving photo they lead with there.
That’s suspicious already, since the damage is very light for a plane that was allegedly shot down over
England. It looks to me like they just trucked it in there, set it down, and then burned out the cockpit.
Then told someone to go stand by it for a photo. It doesn’t look like it was shot down to me. It looks
like maybe someone was smoking in the cockpit. Regardless, a very strange proving photo, since it
proves nothing. This one is even worse:
That is supposed to be German planes flying in over the channel, but as usual it looks like some sort of
poor paste-up, slapped together by the geniuses at Lookout Mountain. You can barely tell what it is
supposed to be. I can’t make any sense of that first plane. They may have flown in low, but my guess
would be they wouldn’t fly six feet above the water like that. That’s just asking for trouble.
Those are the best photos on the page, telling us they don’t have anything better. Amazing that no
photos or film were taken from the bases allegedly being attacked.
The writing on this page is much better, but it still has huge holes in it, and the usual tells.
German fighter pilot Siegfried Bethke said that German aircraft that crashed into the Channel were not
counted in the official figures and that one aircraft in his unit that was damaged by 88 hits was broken
up and taken back to Germany and not added to the loss record.
We need to know how many hits why? Just so they can get that number 88 in there one more time,
although the Ju 88 is already mentioned on the page 22 times.

It is here that we are introduced to Operation Sea Lion, sold to us as Hitler’s last resort against England
if they failed to surrender. Except for one thing: this couldn’t be a last resort, since the war in the West
had just started. The one-month Battle of France had just ended in June, and although the RAF had
been involved, the British Navy and Army hadn’t, to any appreciable extent. So any talk of a last resort
against England in 1940 is ridiculous.
This whole story makes no sense from the first word, so it doesn’t matter if they hired a better writer
here. All these fake historians selling us the Battle of Britain and the Blitz always forget to mention the
British Navy, which was the real deterrent against any invasion, not the British Air Force. Hitler and
Goring could have destroyed the RAF down to the last man and plane and it wouldn’t have made the
slightest possible difference as far as any invasion was concerned. The Germans would still have to get
their army across the channel, and the British Navy would never allow that to happen. Hitler, like
everyone else over the age of eight, had to know that, so Operation Sea Lion should have been renamed
Operation Pie in the Sky. The whole idea was so idiotic no war historian or writer with any scruples
would have stooped to try to sell it to the world. Which worked out because no war historian or writer
ever had any scruples. They would sell poisoned pacifiers to babies, and no doubt have.
These fake historians and writers have to keep your eyes off the Navy, which is why they never have
the Luftwaffe attacking naval bases in these stories. They would prefer you forget there are any naval
bases in the British Isles, or anywhere else. On the very long Hardest Day page, a search on “navy”
pulls up two results, and neither is meaningful. In the second, we are told a patrol boat fired on planes
crossing the channel but missed. The navy was not a target that day.
Plus, you probably forgot the English had aircraft carriers, right? But I remind you this was WWII, the
same war where the US and Japan (supposedly) fought big battles from aircraft carriers. England also
had a huge navy in 1940, including many aircraft carriers. But the Blitz stories ignore that completely.
They would prefer you forget it. But we are reminded of it by that ridiculous shot of German bombers
flying six feet over the channel. In 1940 the channel would have been simply bristling with British
navy ships. They would have shot down or intercepted many of these incoming planes, especially
those flying low. Instead, we are told one patrol fired at a plane and missed. You really have to laugh.
Ask yourself this: what if this story was real and the Luftwaffe had beaten the RAF in 1940? What
then? Would England have surrendered? Of course not, since they still had a huge unbeaten army and
navy. In that case England would have called in its alliances with the US, Russia, and Turkey, and we
would have skipped ahead a few years. Ground forces from all those places would have swamped
Germany and ended the war four years early. But the scriptwriters couldn’t have that, since this war
was intended to last for many years, spending trillions of taxdollars.
Which just reminds us again how stupid and unbelievable the whole plot for WWII was from the
beginning. It was always worse than any bad Hollywood script. Germany, taken over by a madman,
would secretly re-arm overnight and try to take over the entire northern hemisphere, attacking
simultaneously both East and West. With only piddly Italy as its fake ally, Germany would take on the
combined forces of France, England, Poland, Russia, Sweden, Norway, Netherlands, Belgium, Turkey,
and of course the US waiting in the wings, as in WWI. Germany knew the US was there and would
never ally to them, and what’s more that the US was larger and more powerful than in 1914 or 1918.
So there was never any possibility Germany would win. In answer to that we are told again that Hitler
was a madman and that all of Germany had gone mad. That’s convenient for the scriptwriters, isn’t it?
Everytime someone points out a big hole in the story, they can explain it as “Hitler was a madman”.
But that reply doesn’t even begin to answer the question. Especially now that we know Hitler wasn’t a
madman. He was an actor hired to front this vast theater production.


6 Responses to “The Blitz was a fraud”

  1. pete fairhurst 2 says:

    You have to laugh, there is no other possible reaction, the official story is so stupid

    But what about the many implications resulting from all this? We inevitably end up at the usual place, coordinated BS to create fear and loathing, divide and rule as usual, from the usual suspects as ever

    Has anything really changed 83 years later? Seems doubtful. So it makes you question everything that they tell us. For example Gaza, how much of that current story is definitely real? We’ve no idea, we’ve no way of knowing, unless you are actually there. And even then…. did that building collapse due to a bomb or was it demolished from internal explosives by design? Who knows, certainly not any of us

    I have noticed one thing in the mainstream Gaza photos pumped out by the Beeb though, the lack of anything definitive. Often distance shots with a big cloud of smoke on the horizon next to lots of buildings and some rubble. Often calm looking middle eastern looking folk in front of piles of rubble. Lots of the people photos look posed to me, I’ve noticed that from the get go

  2. Tapestry says:

    good parallel Pete

  3. ian says:

    I’ve never been a fan of Mathis. Comparing bamboo and paper houses to bricks and mortar buildings is hardly a suitable comparison. I believe the following. The Germans were so successfully destroying the military air bases in England, that it was decided to bomb civilian areas in Berlin, in order to entice a similar reaction from them. It was successful. They bomber the docklands and large swathes of poorer areas of the cities. The bombs were generally just HE and had a very limited effective area and were also very inaccurate by up to several hundred yards due to the height they flew to avoid accurate flak. As the planes entered Britain, by basic triangulation by spotters, it was possible to calculate their altitude, which meant they got some stick. Posh areas wouldn’t be very productive to bomb due to the lower density of buildings. My father’s half brother was a conschi’ , ie conscientious objector and was sent to be a fireman during the Blitz, and said it all depended where you were, but the flack was just about as dangerous as the bombs.

    As I said, this is some of what I believe, and Mathis as usual does little to alter that. I agree it is possible that he is correct, but I don’t think so.

    • Tapestry says:

      Interesting Ian. The controllers know how the human mind works. First they engineer the emotional state. Once fear is established in the mind, it is possible to make you believe the most unlikely things are real. Equally once we buy into a joke, we are far more susceptible to being fed a line. It can be many decades later, if ever, that we can see the topics involved objectively. Once we are had, we find it almost impossible to be unhad. They can convince people that war situations are far worse than they actually are, and the opposite.

      • ian says:

        Yes I’ll agree that it’s possible Henry.

      • pete fairhurst 2 says:

        Wise words Tap. They are maestros of psychology and they know exactly which buttons to press for maximum effect

        I see your point Ian, your bombing summary is pretty well what David Irving said in his book “Churchills War” if I recall correctly. He is very convincing, a real historian, unlike so many of the “official” ones. But still, how will we ever really know with so many charlatans in the field

        I was most interested in what Mathis had to say about the wider arc of the WW2 back story and early war events. They really can’t keep their story straight can they? I had quite a few lol moments reading this essay. I usually do when reading him. For example, from this post:

        Operation Pie in the Sky

        “It is here that we are introduced to Operation Sea Lion, sold to us as Hitler’s last resort against England if they failed to surrender. Except for one thing: this couldn’t be a last resort, since the war in the West had just started. The one-month Battle of France had just ended in June, and although the RAF had been involved, the British Navy and Army hadn’t, to any appreciable extent. So any talk of a last resort against England in 1940 is ridiculous……..

        All these fake historians selling us the Battle of Britain and the Blitz always forget to mention the British Navy, which was the real deterrent against any invasion, not the British Air Force……..

        Operation Sea Lion should have been renamed Operation Pie in the Sky.”