The Nameless War ~ Chapters 7 – 10
“Phoney War” Ended by Civilian Bombing; Dunkirk and After; Shape of Things to Come; President Roosevelt’s Role
by Captain Achibald. H. Maule Ramsay
THE NAMELESS WAR
by Captain Achibald. H. Maule Ramsay
Britons Publishing Company
Reprinted 1956, 1977. Other reprints in Australia and elsewhere.
Sometimes with abridgements
COMPLETE TEXT SIMILAR TO THE PRINTED EDITION.
THE AUTHOR: Captain Archibald Maule Ramsay was educated at Eton and the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, and served with the 2nd Battalion Coldstream Guards in the First World War until he was severely wounded in 1916 — thereafter at Regimental H.Q. and the War Office and the British War Mission in Paris until the end of the war.
From 1920 he became a Member of H.M. Scottish Bodyguard.
In 1931 he was elected a Member of Parliament for Midlothian and Peeblesshire.
Arrested under Regulation 18b on the 23rd May, 1940, he was detained, without charge or trial, in a cell in Brixton Prison until the 26th September, 1944. On the following morning he resumed his seat in the House of Commons and remained there until the end of that Parliament in 1945.
1. THE BRITISH REVOLUTION
2. THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
3. THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION
4. DEVELOPMENT OF REVOLUTIONARY TECHNIQUE
5. GERMANY BELLS THE CAT
6. 1933: JEWRY DECLARES WAR
7. “PHONEY WAR” ENDED BY CIVILIAN BOMBING
8. DUNKIRK AND AFTER
9. THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME
10. PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT’S ROLE
11. REGULATION 18B
12. WHO DARES?
“PHONEY WAR” ENDED BY CIVILIAN BOMBING
Though a state of war was declared to exist between Britain and Germany in September of 1939, it very soon became apparent that no war was being conducted by Germany against this country. This was no surprise to those who knew the facts of the case. Hitler had again and again made it clear, that he never intended to attack or harm Great Britain or the British Empire. With the Siegfried Line strongly held, and no German intention of appearing west of it, stalemate in the west, or the “Phoney War,” as it came to be called, must, in the absence of bombing of civilian populations ultimately peter out altogether. No one was quicker to perceive this than the pro-Jewish war mongers; and they and their friends inside and outside the House of Commons very soon began exerting pressure for this form of bombing of Germany to be started.
On 14th January, 1940, The Sunday Times gave prominence to a letter from an anonymous correspondent, who demanded to know why we were not using our air power “to increase the effect of the blockade.” “Scrutator,” in the same issue, commented on this letter as follows;
“Such an extension of the offensive would inevitably develop into competitive frightfulness. It might be forced on us in reprisals for enemy action, and we must be in a position to make reprisals if necessary. But the bombing of industrial towns, with its unavoidable loss of life among the civilian population — that is what it would come to — would be inconsistent with the spirit, if not the actual words of the pledges given from both sides at the beginning of the war.”
The above quotation is taken from a book entitled Bombing Vindicated, which was published in 1944 by Mr. J. M. Spaight, C.B., C.B.E., who was the principal assistant secretary at the Air Ministry during the war. As its title suggests, this book is an attempt to justify the indiscriminate use of bombers against the civil population. In it Mr. Spaight boasts that this form of bombing “saved civilisation”: and reveals the startling fact that it was Britain that started this ruthless form of war on the very evening of the day on which Mr. Churchill became Prime Minister, May 11th, 1940.
On page 64 of his book, Mr. Spaight gives a further piece of information, which renders this sudden change of British policy all the more astonishing; for he states that a declaration was made by the British and French Governments on 2nd September, 1939, that, “Only strictly military objectives in the narrowest sense of the word would be bombarded.”
This declaration, of course, was made in the days of Mr Chamberlain’s Premiership; and no single fact perhaps could demarcate and differentiate more clearly the difference in the character and behaviour between Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Churchill.
On the 27th January, 1940, thirteen days after the letter in The Sunday Times already quoted, The Daily Mail endorsed editorially the views which had been expressed in that issue by “Scrutator”; and it devoted a leading article, writes Mr. Spaight, to combating the suggestion of Mr. Amery and others that we should start the bombing of Germany. Sir Duff Cooper had written on the previous day in the same paper that, “there would appear to exist a kind of unwritten truce between the two belligerents, according to the tacit terms of which they do not bomb one another.”
In view of the declaration by Britain and France of September 2nd, 1939, that they would “only bomb military objectives in the narrowest sense of the word,” Sir Duff Cooper’s verbiage about “a kind of unwritten truce,” seems to me gravely obscurantist, if honest.
Inside the House of Commons, the pro-Jewish war mongers were now becoming more and more intransigent; and more and more set on sabotaging the chances of turning the “phoney war” into a negotiated peace. This in spite of the fact that Britain had nothing to gain by further and total war, and everything to lose. The Jews, of course, had everything to lose by a peace which left the German gold-free money system and Jew-free Government intact, and nothing to gain.
It seemed clearer to me every day that this struggle over the question of civilian bombing was the crux of the whole matter; and that by this method of warfare alone could the Jews and their allies cut the Gordian knot of stalemate leading to peace; and probably later on to a joint attack on Jewish Bolshevism in Russia.
Accordingly, on 15th February, 1940, I put down the following question to the Prime Minister;
Captain Ramsay asked the Prime Minister;
“Whether he will assure the House that H.M. Government will not assent to the suggestions made to them, to abandon those principles which led them to denounce the bombing of civilian populations in Spain and elsewhere, and embark upon such a policy themselves?”
Mr Chamberlain himself replied in outspoken terms;
“I am unaware of the suggestions to which my honourable and gallant friend refers. The policy of H.M. Government in this matter was fully stated by myself in answer to a question by the honourable Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr Dalton) on 14th September last. In the course of that answer I said that whatever be the length to which others may go, H.M. Government will never resort to the deliberate attack on women and children, and other civilians, for purposes of mere terrorism. I have nothing to add to that answer.”
Both this question and the reply were evidently distasteful in the extreme to the war mongers, so I resolved to carry the matter a stage further.
On 21st February I put down another question on the subject;
Captain Ramsay asked the Prime Minister:
“Whether he is aware that the Soviet aeroplanes are carrying on a campaign of bombing civil populations, and whether H.M. Government have despatched protests on the subject similar to those despatched during the Civil War in Spain in similar circumstances?”
Mr. Butler replied for the Prime Minister;
“Yes, Sir. The Soviet Air Forces have pursued a policy of indiscriminate bombing, which cannot be too strongly condemned. H.M. Government have not, however, lodged any protest, since there are unfortunately no grounds for supposing that such action would achieve the result desired.”
There can be little doubt but that these two downright answers crystallised the resolves of the war mongers to get rid of a Prime Minister whose adherence to an upright and humane policy must inevitably frustrate their plans, seeing that Hitler wished no war with Britain, and would therefore never start civilian bombing himself.
The machinery of intrigue and rebellion against Mr. Chamberlain was set in motion. Ultimately he was saddled with the blame for the Norway blunder; and this pretext was used by the Churchillian-cum-Socialist caucus to secure his downfall.
It should be remembered in this connection that prior to and during the Norway gamble, Mr. Churchill had been invested with full powers and responsibilities for all Naval Military and Air operations; and if anyone therefore deserved to be broken over that second Gallipoli (pursued in defiance of high naval authority warning that, without control of the Cattegat and Skaggerack it could not possibly succeed) it should have been the Minister responsible.
He however was not only unbroken, he was acclaimed Prime Minister. The man who would tear up the British pledge of September 2nd, 1939, and start bombing the civilians of Germany was the man for the war mongers who now ruled the roost.
And so civilian bombing started on the evening that the architect of the Norwegian fiasco became Prime Minister, viz., May 11th, 1940.
DUNKIRK AND AFTER
Captain Liddell Hart, the eminent military critic, wrote a book on the military events of 1939-45, which was published in 1948, and entitled The Other Side of the Hill. Chapter 11 — which deals with the German invasion of France down to and including Dunkirk — bears the somewhat startling title, “How Hitler beat France and saved Britain.” The reading of the chapter itself will astound all propaganda-blinded people, even more than the title: for the author therein proves that not only did Hitler save this country; but that this was not the result of some unforeseen factor, or indecision, or folly, but was of set purpose, based on his long enunciated and faithfully maintained principle.
Having given details of how Hitler peremptorily halted the Panzer Corps on the 22nd May, and kept them inactive for the vital few days, till, in fact, the British troops had got away from Dunkirk, Captain Liddell Hart quotes Hitler’s telegram to Von Kleist;
“The armoured divisions are to remain at medium artillery range from Dunkirk. Permission is only granted for reconnaissance and protective movements.”
Von Kleist decided to ignore the order, the author tells us. To quote him again;
“Then came a more emphatic order, that I was to withdraw behind the canal. My tanks were kept halted there for three days.”
In the following words the author reports a conversation which took place on May 24th (i.e. two days later) between Herr Hitler and Marshal Von Runstedt, and two key men of his staff;
“He then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilisation that Britain had brought into the world … He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church — saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the continent. The return of Germany’s lost colonies would be desirable, but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops, if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere. He concluded by saying that his aim was to make peace with Britain, on a basis that she would regard compatible with her honour to accept.”
Captain Liddell Hart comments on the above as follows;
“If the British Army had been captured at Dunkirk, the British people might have felt that their honour had suffered a stain, which they must wipe out. By letting it escape, Hitler hoped to conciliate them.”
“This conviction of Hitler’s deeper motive,” he continues, “was confirmed by his strangely dilatory attitude over the subsequent plans for the invasion of England.”
“He showed little interest in the plans,” Blumentritt said, “and made no effort to speed up the preparation. That was utterly different to his usual behaviour. Before the invasion of Poland, of France, and later of Russia, he repeatedly spurred them on; but on this occasion he sat back.”
The author continues;
“Since the account of his conversation at Charleville, and subsequent holding back, comes from a section of the Generals, who had long distrusted Hitler’s policy, that makes their testimony all the more notable.”
And later he goes on to say;
“Significantly their account of Hitler’s thoughts about England at the decisive hour before Dunkirk, fits in with much that he himself wrote earlier in Mein Kampf; and it is remarkable how closely he followed his own Bible in other respects.”
Anyone who has read Mein Kampf will immediately appreciate the accuracy of the above statement. It is indeed if anything an understatement.
Throughout that remarkable book runs two main themes, as I have shown in an earlier chapter — the one, a detailed delineation and denunciation of the Jewish Capitalist-Revolutionary machine; the other, admiration for and eagerness for friendship with Britain and the Empire.
It is a pity, indeed, that so few persons in this island have read this book for themselves; and it is a tragedy that they have instead swallowed wholesale, the unscrupulous distortions and untrue propaganda on the subject, served up to them by Jewish publicity machinery, operating through our press and radio. Let these people but try and obtain a copy of that book; and when they find they cannot, let them reflect, that if indeed its contents confirmed the lies that they have been told concerning it and its author, the powers behind our publicity would ensure that everyone should be able to secure a copy at the cheapest possible rate.
In any event, I would urge my countrymen to ponder most earnestly the following facts.
The Jew Karl Marx laid it down, that Bolshevism could never really succeed till the British Empire had been utterly destroyed.
Hitler laid it down, that the British Empire was an essential element of stability in the world; and even declared himself ready to defend it with troops, if it should be involved in difficulties anywhere.
By unscrupulous propaganda on an unprecedented scale this country was led into destroying those who wished to be her friends, and offered their lives to defend her; and exalting those, who proclaimed that her destruction was a necessary preliminary to the success of their ideology, forfeiting her Empire and her economic independence in the process.
THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME
If the new-found knowledge of Hitler’s anxiety to preserve the British Empire has come as a surprise recently to many people in this country, it must surely have come as a real shock to them to learn that President Roosevelt, on the other hand, was its inveterate enemy; that he was not only a pro-communist of Jewish origin, but that before he brought America into the war he made it clear that he wished to break up the British Empire.
His son, Colonel Elliot Roosevelt, makes this last point very clear in his book, As He Saw It, recently published in the U.S.A.
On pages 19 to 28 of this book, Colonel Roosevelt tells us that in August 1941, his Father, having given out to the American people that he was going off on a fishing trip, actually proceeded to a meeting with Mr. Churchill on board a warship in Argentia Bay. Lord Beaverbrook, Sir Edward Cadogan, and Lord Cherwell (Professor Lindeman of doubtful race and nationality), and Mr. Averil Harriman were present, he says. On page 35 he quotes his Father as saying, “After the war … there will have to be the greatest possible freedom of trade … no artificial barriers.” Mr. Churchill referred to the British Empire Trade Agreements, and Mr. Roosevelt replied;
“Yes. Those Empire Trade Agreements are a case in point. It’s because of them that the peoples of India, Africa, and of all the Colonial Near East are still as backward as they are … I can’t believe that we can fight a war against Fascist slavery, and at the same time not work to free people all over the world from a backward colonial policy.” “The peace,” said Father firmly, “cannot include any continued despotism.”
This insolent talk against the British Empire became so pronounced that on page 31 Colonel Roosevelt reports Mr.Churchill as saying, “Mr. President, I believe you are trying to do away with the British Empire.” This comment was very near the mark, as the President had been talking about India, Burma, Egypt, Palestine, Indo-China, Indonesia, and all the African Colonies having to be “freed.”
On page 115, the Colonel reports his Father as saying;
“Don’t think for a moment, Elliot, that Americans would be dying in the Pacific tonight if it hadn’t been for the short-sighted greed of the French, the British and the Dutch. Shall we allow them to do it all over again?”
These were not at all the reasons, however, given for the war, and for which Americans thought they were dying; nor indeed does the President make any reference as to the pretexts given to his countrymen for the war.
The British, dying in greater numbers, have on the contrary been told that they are dying to defend their Empire from Hitler’s wicked plans. Little do they suspect, that it is their so-called ally who plans its destruction.
“When we’ve won the war,” the President is reported as saying on page 116, “I will see that the U.S.A. is not wheedled into any plans that will aid or abet the British Empire in its Imperialist ambitions.”
And a few pages later:
“I have tried to make it clear to Winston and the others … that they must never get the idea that we are in it just to help them hang on to the archaic and medieval Empire ideas.”
Those who sup with the devil need a long spoon. Mr. Churchill, the self- styled “constant architect of the Jews’ future,” now found himself playing second fiddle to an even  more trusted architect; so eminent, in fact, that he did not make any silly pretensions of respect for the British Empire. The earlier Moses, Karl Marx, had denounced the Empire long ago, and in the year 1941, it was only foolish opponents of Judaism and Marxism, like Herr Hitler, who were anxious to stand by that Empire, because they recognised it as a bulwark of Christian civilisation.
Although, as we have seen, Mr. Churchill is shown in this book as getting a little petulant from time to time over the President’s pronouncements regarding the liquidation of the Empire, this did not prevent him from announcing himself later to the House of Commons as “Roosevelt’s ardent lieutenant.” Under what special circumstances the King’s Prime Minister could be an ardent lieutenant of a Republican President, whose design it was to destroy that Monarch’s Empire, Mr. Churchill did not explain; nor has he yet done so. On another occasion, Mr. Churchill made an equally cryptic remark: “It is no part of my duties,” he assured the House of Commons, “to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire.”
No, indeed! Nor was it any part of his duties, on being told that it was to be liquidated, to pronounce himself to be the ardent lieutenant of the would-be liquidator. Nor, we might add, when Minister of Defence, with Admiralty and other codes at his disposal, was it any part of his duties, as Mr. Chamberlain’s lieutenant, albeit not very ardent, to conduct a personal correspondence of the nature which he did conduct with President Roosevelt by means of the top secret code of the American Foreign Office.
PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT’S ROLE
In my Statement to the Speaker and Members of the House of Commons concerning my detention (see Appendix 1) I summed up at the end of Part 1, the considerations which led me to inspect the secret U.S. Embassy papers at Mr. Tyler Kent’s flat in the last weeks of Mr. Chamberlain’s Premiership.
The first two of these six considerations were as follows;
1. Together with many members of both Houses of Parliament, I was fully aware that among the agencies both here and abroad, which had been actively engaged in promoting bad feeling between Great Britain and Germany, organised Jewry, for obvious reasons, had played a leading part.
2. I knew the U.S.A. to be the headquarters of Jewry, and therefore the real, though not apparent, centre of their activities.
It was not until 1948 that corroborative evidence of the foregoing from unimpeachable American sources came into my hands; but when it did come, however, the authentic and fully documented character of the work left nothing to be desired. I refer to the book by Professor Charles Beard entitled President Roosevelt and the Coming of the War 1941, which was published by the Yale University Press in April 1948.
This book, which comes with all the authority of its eminent author, is nothing less than a tremendous indictment of President Roosevelt on three main issues.
Firstly, that he got himself elected on the strength of repeated promises, to the effect that he would keep the U.S.A. out of any European war; secondly, that he incessantly and flagrantly disregarded not only his promises to the American people, but all the laws of neutrality; thirdly, that at a predetermined moment he deliberately converted this cold war, which he had been conducting, into a shooting war, by sending the Japanese an ultimatum, which no one could imagine could result in anything but immediate war.
From many instances given relating to the first issue, I quote one;
“At Boston on October 30th, 1940, he (F.D.R.) was even more emphatic, for there he declared;
‘I have said this before, but I shall say it again and again and again: Your boys are not going to be sent into any foreign wars’;
and on December 29th;
‘You can therefore nail any talk about sending armies to Europe as deliberate untruth’.”
Professor Beard goes on to prove that while Mr. Roosevelt was making these speeches, he was treating international laws of neutrality with total disregard, and in the interests only of those who were fighting the Jews’ battles.
The two main forms of non-shooting intervention were the convoying of U.S. ships of ammunition and supplies for the allies, and the Lend Lease Act.
Whatever be our sentiments in appreciating the help of the U.S. arsenals and navy under these two cold war decisions of Mr Roosevelt, no one can pretend that they were either in accordance with his pledges to the American people, or the fundamentals of international law regarding neutrality.
Some very plain speaking went on in Congress over these acts of the President’s.
Representative U. Burdick, of North Dakota, said;
“All our aid to Britain may mean anything … To sell her supplies is one thing … to sell her supplies and convoy them is another thing, to have actual war is the last thing — the last thing is inevitable from the first thing!”
Representative Hugh Paterson, of Georgia, said;
“It is a measure of aggressive war.”
Representative Dewey Short, of Missouri, said;
“You cannot be half-way in war, and half-way out of war … You can dress this measure up all you please (Lend Lease), you can sprinkle it with perfume and pour powder on it … but it is still foul and stinks to high heaven.”
Representative Philip Bennett, of Missouri, declared;
“This conclusion is inescapable, that the President is reconciled to active military intervention if such intervention is needed to defeat the Axis in this war.
But our boys are not going to be sent abroad, says the President. Nonsense, Mr Chairman; even now their berths are being built in our transport ships. Even now the tags for identification of the dead and wounded are being printed by the firm of William C. Ballantyne and Co., of Washington.”
Professor Beard proves the third point at great length, showing how at the appropriate moment President Roosevelt forced the Japanese into war by an ultimatum demanding instant compliance with terms, which could never have been accepted by any country.
“The memorandum which Senator Hull, with the approval of President Roosevelt, handed to Japan on 26th November, 1941 … amounted to the maximum terms of an American policy for the whole Orient.”
writes Professor Beard, and goes on to say;
“It required no profound knowledge of Japanese history, institutions, and psychology to warrant … first that no Japanese Cabinet ‘liberal or reactionary,’ could have accepted the provisions.”
and again later;
“The Japanese agent regarded the American memorandum as a kind of ultimatum. This much at least Secretary Hull knew on November 26th.”
Thus was the period of maximum intervention short of a shooting war terminated, and a save-face forged for Roosevelt to ship U.S. boys overseas without apparently breaking the spirit of his many promises.
As the war proceeded the real policy and sympathies of the President became more and more apparent. His deception of the British and their Allies was no less flagrant than his deception of the American people.
As Professor Beard points out on page 576;
“The noble principles of the Four Freedoms, and the Atlantic Charter were for practical purposes discarded in the settlements, which accompanied the progress and followed the conclusion of the war. To the validity of this statement the treatment of the people of Esthonia, Lithuania, Poland, Roumania, Yugoslavia, China, Indo-China, Indonesia, Italy, Germany and other places of the earth bear witness.”
Some great driving force was clearly at work to induce a President of the United States so to act. We have seen from a previous chapter that it was not the preservation of the British Empire, nor the French Empire, nor the Dutch, that swayed the President. On the contrary, he had advised his ardent lieutenant, Mr. Churchill, at an early stage in the cold war that these must be liquidated. It was not Europe, nor the countries of Europe, nor their liberties, nor rights under the Atlantic Charter of Four Freedoms which weighed with him. We know now that the British and American armies were actually halted by General Ike Eisenhower under Mr. Roosevelt’s rulings at the Yalta Conference, so that the Red Army of Jewish Bolshevism might overflow half Europe and occupy Berlin.
To quote again from Professor Beard;
“As a consequence of the war called necessary to overthrow Hitler’s despotism,’ another despotism was raised to a higher pitch of power.”
In conclusion, Professor Beard condenses the many indictments of the President set forth in his book, into 12 major counts, and declares;
“If these precedents are to stand unimpeached, and to provide sanctions for the continued conduct of America affairs — the Constitution may be nullified by the President and officers who have taken the oath and are under moral obligation to uphold it. For limited Government under supreme law they may substitute personal and arbitrary government — the first principle of the totalitarian system against which it has been alleged that World War II was waged — while giving lip service to the principle of constitutional government.”
When we reflect upon the astounding contents of Professor Beard’s book, and consider them in conjunction with the revelations in Colonel Roosevelt’s As He Saw It, the question arises; whom, and which interests did President Roosevelt not betray. To this query I can only see one answer, namely, those people and their interests who planned from the start the use of United States arsenals and Forces to prosecute a war which would annihilate a Europe which had freed itself from Jewish gold and revolutionary control; people who planned to dissolve the British Empire, to forge chains of unrepayable debt, wherewith to coerce Britain to this end; and to enable the Soviets to “bestride Europe like a colossus,” (8) in other words, International Jewry.
(8) These very words were used by General Smuts, who added words to the effect that he welcomed such a prospect. It should be remembered that General Smuts was formerly chief legal adviser to the Zionist Organisation in S. Africa.
Click to go to >> The Nameless War – Chpt 1 & 2
Click to go to >> The Nameless War – Chpt 3 & 4
Click to go to >> The Nameless War – Chpt 5 & 6
Click to go to >> The Nameless War – Chpt 7 – 10
Click to go to >> The Nameless War – Chpt 11 & 12
Click to go to >> The Nameless War – Epilogue
Click to go to >> The Nameless War – Appendixes
PDF of this blog post. Click to view or download.
PDF of entire book:
Version 3: Sep 5, 2019 – Re-uploaded images and PDFs for katana17.com version.
Version 2: Formatting links added – Sep 27, 2014
Version 1: Published Feb 11 2014