The Balfour Declaration and its Cost in Lives

By Andrew S. MacGregor © 2017 all rights reserved

Prelude: To write this article I have basically used two other articles, mostly "The Washington Report" by John Cornelius, and "Behind the Balfour Declaration" from the 'Institute for Historical Review' by Robert John. I have also read the articles "Benjamin Freedman Speaks, A Jewish Defector Warns America" and "Pawns in the Game" by William Guy Carr.

What prompted me to write this article was that the Zionists are celebrating the centenary of the odious Balfour Declaration of the 9th of November 1917 without a skerrick of thought to the deceit, the lies, the treacheries that all combined to require a British government to announce to the world the price the world paid to give a small sect of Jews, the Zionists, their thirty pieces of silver, a 'Homeland' in Palestine.

But in this centennial what is happening? Woodrow Wilson won the presidential race in 1916 by promising to keep the boys home and out of the 'War to end all wars,' but once the race was won he worked hard to ensure that the American boys would fight and die in Flanders fields.

In 2016, Donald Trump won the presidential race by promising to 'make America great again,' and beat the war horse Hillary Clinton, but in the background instead of Louis D. Brandeis and Chaim Weizmann there was Jared Kushner and Bibi Netanyahu (who has said, "Once we squeeze all we can out of the United States, it can dry up and blow away"). Has the prelude to another 'Great War' started?

That Odious Deceit, The Balfour Declaration

Chaim Weizmann

The Balfour Declaration was announced to the world on the 9th of November 1917 by Chaim Weizmann (left). When one considers that the 'Balfour Declaration' was written as a 'private letter' from the British Foreign Secretary, Arthur James Balfour to Lord Walter Rothschild, one would have to question how Mr. Weizmann came into possession of such a private letter; when was the letter written and why was it left to Chaim Weizmann to make the announcement rather than a member of the British War Cabinet, which had made the decision to release the Balfour Declaration?

The answer was 'politics', and it was not a decision that the British War Cabinet was prepared to announce to the world as they and their American colleagues had only recently decided on the 'final draft' of this very private and personal letter penned on the 2nd of November of 1917.

Once the amount of scrutiny that had been pored over this supposedly 'private' letter is realised, then it becomes obvious that this was an extremely obscure method for the British War Cabinet to announce their bribery to the outside world. And Chaim Weizmann was able to demonstrate his superiority over the 'Assimilationist Jews'.

Portrait of Lord Lionel Walter RothschildArthur James Balfour The events of the time though should also be considered, after all General Allenby's troops had not yet entered Jerusalem to finalise the capture of Palestine. In fact Lord Allenby declined the news of this letter to be released in Palestine until after the war.

However other events, very close to the heart of most Zionists had already occurred, being the abdication of the Czar of Russia on the 16th of March, Lenin returning to Russia on the 16th of April after Trotsky was arrested and held at Halifax until British Intelligence ordered his release. Then despite the failed uprising on the 16th of April the Czar and his family were transported to Siberia on the 30th of September. And on the 7th of November 1917 the Bolsheviks overthrew the Kerensky Provincial government in Petrograd, two days prior to Chaim Weizmann making his victory speech.

Once it is realised that this Bolshevik revolution had been financed by the Jewish New York Bankers the very same bankers who instigated the American Federal Reserve also under President Woodrow Wilson in 1913, the same bankers who had openly supported Germany up until late 1916, and then switched sides to fully support Britain and the 'Allies'; then there appear to be connections with the Bolsheviks, the Balfour Declaration and the Russian Zionists, who were in fact a small sect within the Jewish community.

Theodor HerzylThe Jewish dream of 'Zion' had been around since 1881 but it wasn't until Theodore Herzl put it into writing that he and Zionism gained universal importance. Herzl met with the Kaiser in 1902 and was offered German West Africa as a 'Jewish Homeland'. Britain's Balfour government via the Minister for the Colonies, Joseph Chamberlain offered British East Africa, later considered the Uganda proposal. In the end both, offers were rejected in the favour of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine.

In 1902 Herzl was invited to appear before the British Royal Commission on Alien Immigration in regards to the number of Jews migrating to Britain.

Between 1881 and 1905, there was an immigration of some 100,000 Eastern Jews. Though cut by the Aliens Bill of the Balfour Government, which became law in the summer of 1905, immigration continued so that by 1914 there was a Jewish population in England of some 300,000. A leader of the fight against the Aliens Bill and against tightening up naturalization regulations in 1903-1904 was the Jew, Winston S. Churchill. Eastern Jews referred to each other as "Litvaks" (Lithuania), "Galizianers" (Galicia), "Polaks," "Hungarians," and geographical regions of their ancestral origin, e.g., "Pinskers"; but never by the term Jew. (1)

Herzl also had meetings with the Sultan of Turkey, who had this to say; when offered money for Palestine, the Sultan replied that his people had won their Empire with blood, and owned it. "The Jews may spend their millions. When my Empire is divided, perhaps they will get Palestine for nothing. But only our corpse can be divided. I will never consent to vivisection." (2)

Where did Herzl obtain the finances to make this offer to the Sultan of Turkey? "In his diary Herzl describes submitting his draft proposals to the Rothschild Family Council, noting: "I bring to the Rothschilds and the big Jews their historical mission. I shall welcome all men of goodwill—we must be united—and crush all those of bad." (3)

But there is nothing anywhere to suggest that Herzl met with any Rothschild in London, there is only this: in a message to a Jewish conference in London, Herzl wrote "the first moment I entered the Movement my eyes were directed towards England because I saw that by reason of the general situation of things there it was the Archimedean point where the lever could be applied." Herzl showed his desire for some foothold in England, and also perhaps his respect for London as the world's financial centre, by causing the Jewish Colonial Trust, which was to be the main financial instrument of his Movement, to be incorporated in 1899 as an English company. (4)

Why would a German Sephardic Jew decide to base his main financial instrument in London? Again, the date of 1899 suggests a visit prior to Herzl's appearance at the 1902/3 Royal Commission on Immigration. Could Herzl's decision to use London as his financial centre be based on a covert relationship with Lord Walter Rothschild?

Herzl met the Papal Nuncio in Vienna and promised the exclusion of Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth from the Jewish state. He started a Zionist newspaper, Die Welt, and was delighted to hear from the United States that a group of rabbis headed by Dr. Gustave Gottheil favoured a Zionist movement. All this, in a few months. It was Herzl who created the first Zionist Congress at Basel, Switzerland, 29-31 August 1897. (5)

In 1903, after the offer from the British government via Joseph Chamberlain, Herzl authorized the preparation of a draft scheme for settlement in East Africa. This was prepared by the legal firm of Lloyd George, Roberts and Company, on the instructions of Herzl's go-between with the British Government, Leopold Greenberg. Herzl urged acceptance of the "Uganda scheme," favouring it as a temporary refuge, but he was opposed from all sides, and died suddenly of heart failure on 3 July 1904. Herzl's death rid the Zionists of an "alien," and he was replaced by David Wolffsohn (the Litvak). (6)

The first thought that crosses my mind after looking at Theodore Herzl's short life is; would he have survived longer had he not deviated from Rothschild's plan for Palestine by accepting the British 'Uganda' solution?

We have only the slightest of records from Herzl in regards to the Rothschilds, with never a hint of him ever meeting either Baron, but I believe we can safely assume that he did meet with at least the 'British' Lord Lionel Walter Rothschild. It should be mentioned that the Rothschilds conducted all of their major operations in the United States through the New York banking house of Kuhn, Loeb & Co.

Again there is mention of Herzl's meetings with Joseph Chamberlain, who was Arthur James Balfour's Minister for the Colonies, and Herzl appearing before the British Royal Commission into 'Alien Immigration', but never any meeting with Balfour himself, and yet Herzl did have meetings with both the Kaiser and with a papal delegate. This being so, then it is a wonder that Herzl felt so warmly about 'England'.

The Zionists did business with the Law firm, Lloyd George, Roberts and Co. And thus Herzl would have met the senior partner, David Lloyd George, another keen Zionist, and finally there is never any mention of Herzl meeting with a young Winston S. Churchill who was another very keen Zionist, and who at the time was strongly opposing the reduction of Jewish migration into Britain.

Theodore Herzl was told by the Sultan of Turkey that there was no way that Jewish money could buy Palestine from the Ottoman Empire, thus there was only one other way for Herzl and the Zionists to obtain Palestine and that was by force, by a war with the Ottoman Empire, but who would fight that war for them? There is now only one other aspect to look at.

In the Zionist Congress of 1911, (22 years before Hitler came to power, and three years before World War I), Nordau said, "How dare the smooth talkers, the clever official blabbers, open their mouths and boast of progress . . . Here they hold jubilant peace conferences in which they talk against war . . . But the same righteous governments, who are so nobly, industriously active to establish the eternal peace, are preparing, by their own confession, complete annihilation for six million people, and there is nobody, except the doomed themselves, to raise his voice in protest although this is a worse crime than any war . . ." (7)

What Max Nordau, a Hungarian Jewish physician and author, who delivered a polemic against assimilated Jews, is telling us is that the Europeans were holding 'Peace Conferences', but were ignoring the Jews. But if these European countries were 'ignoring the Jews' then just exactly how could Max Nordau accuse those very same countries of the 'annihilation of six million Jews?

Reference to the 6 million is a major key, and that it was up to these 'suffering Jews' to bring reprisals to the non-Jew. Once we consider this and the continuous assassinations of royalty and government officials by the Jewish anarchists and terrorists, do we see the destabilising effects wrought by the Russian Jews and their ilk. It is though the mention of the 'jubilant peace conferences' that tells us most. The Europeans and the 'Assimilationist Jews' did not want war, but Max Nordau and his ilk delighted in it!

There is another phrase that is also extremely telling; "the same righteous governments, who are so nobly, industriously active to establish the eternal peace." To counter this 'eternal peace' there had to be "The war to end all wars!" Then we are told this!

In conversation with a delegate at the First Congress, Litman Rosenthal, Herzl said, "It may be that Turkey will refuse or be unable to understand us. This will not discourage us. We will seek other means to accomplish our end. The Orient question is now the question of the day. Sooner or later it will bring about a conflict among the nations. A European war is imminent. The great European War must come. With my watch in hand do I await this terrible moment. After the great European war is ended the Peace Conference will assemble. We must be ready for that time. We will assuredly be called to this great conference of the nations and we must prove to them the urgent importance of a Zionist solution to the Jewish Question. We must prove to them that the problem of the Orient and Palestine is one with the problem of the Jews—both must be solved together. We must prove to them that the Jewish problem is a world problem and that a world problem must be solved by the world. And the solution must be the return of Palestine to the Jewish people." [American Jewish News, 7 March 1919]. (8)

Here, in 1919, we have the Zionists specifically Litman Rosenthal, telling us that in 1897, that is the year of the first Zionist Conference in Basel, Switzerland that Herzl was predicting that 'A European war is imminent' and this is so wrong. For a start WWI did not start until 17 years later. Secondly, had Herzl believed that a European war was imminent, then why was he running around talking to all the various parties such as the Sultan of Turkey, Pope Pius X and the Roman Catholic Church, the Kaiser, Joseph Chamberlain, and of course the Rothschilds? Finally if this was the case, then why did Herzl adopt the 'Uganda' offer of Joseph Chamberlain of the Balfour British government in 1903? This has to be an attempt to rewrite history by the Zionists in 1919, to cover their misdeeds. What we should look at now is the connection with Zionism and Great Britain.

Zionism in England

Chaim Weizmann was born in Motal in Belarus, a part of Russia. In 1892 he moved to Germany to study Chemistry at Darmstadt. In 1894 he moved to Berlin, and in 1897 he moved to Switzerland to the University of Fribourg. In 1901 he was appointed 'Assistant Lecturer' at the University of Geneva.

Chaim Weizmann migrated to Britain in 1904 and became a Chemistry lecturer at the University of Manchester, which was in the constituency of Arthur James Balfour, who was the Prime Minister from 1902 to 1905, when he lost the Prime Ministership, and his seat, but regained his seat in a by-election. Balfour was a Zionist with very strong beliefs in the Jewish homeland in Palestine. Another politician who also sought votes in the strongly Jewish areas of Manchester was Winston S. Churchill, and in the background there was David Lloyd George.

Weizmann attended all but the first Zionist Conferences and in 1907 travelled to Palestine to push his beliefs to create the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, all on the wages of a university lecturer. It was the Germans though who were responsible for creating this university as well as Russia in protecting the Jews in Palestine.

Chaim Weizmann had met and became friends with Arthur James Balfour in 1904 as well as Winston S. Churchill and assisted both politicians in their political career by utilising the strong Jewish vote in Manchester. Again the Zionists legal representative in England was the firm Lloyd George, Roberts and Co. And thus there can be little doubt that Weizmann would have met that firm's senior partner, David Lloyd George, and these three politicians are all strong Zionists. So for ten years these politicians and Chaim Weizmann have a cordial relationship, and that brings us to 1914 and the start of 'The War to End All Wars'.

With the death of Herzl in 1904 David Wolffsohn replaced Herzl. The Hungarian Jew Max Nordau was another prominent member of the Zionist Council, but it is Chaim Weizmann, the English representative that appears to make all the right decisions. The Zionist Council was based in Berlin, but as Germany was now at war with so many other Zionist countries, a neutral country had to be found.

Influential Zionists outside the Central Powers were anxious for the Zionist movement not to be compromised. Weizmann's advice was that the central office be moved from Berlin and that the conduct of Zionist affairs during the war should be entrusted to a provisional executive committee for general Zionist affairs in the United States. At a conference in New York on 30 August 1914, this committee was set up under the chairmanship of Louis D. Brandeis, with the British-born Dr. Richard Gottheil and Jacob de Haas, Rabbi Stephen Wise and Felix Frankfurter, among his principal lieutenants. (9)

It is Louis D. Brandeis that is the most interesting of this group. Brandeis had total control of the American President, Woodrow Wilson.

[Woodrow Wilson was described as being "attached to Brandeis by ties of peculiar hardness," a cryptic reference to the story that Wilson had been blackmailed for $40,000 for some hot love letters he had written to his neighbour's wife when he was President of Princeton. He did not have the money, and the go-between, Samuel Untermeyer, of the law firm of Guggenheim, Untermeyer & Marshall, said he would provide it if Wilson would appoint to the next vacancy on the Supreme Court a nominee selected by Mr. Untermeyer. The money was paid, the letters returned, and Brandeis had been the nominee.

Wilson had written to the Senate, where opposition to the nominee was strong: "I have known him. I have tested him by seeking his advice upon some of the most difficult and perplexing public questions about which it was necessary for me to form a judgment. When Brandeis had been approved by the Senate, Wilson wrote to Henry Morgenthau: "I never signed any commission with such satisfaction." "Relief" might have been a more appropriate word. (Behind the Balfour Declaration)]. (10)

England Goes to War

Lord KitchenerWinston S. Churchill

Lord Kitchener, who had left London at 11:30 on the morning of 3 August to return to Egypt after leave, was stopped at Dover and put in charge of the War Office. At the first meeting of the War Council he warned his colleagues of a long struggle which would be won not at sea but on land, for which Britain would have to raise an army of millions of men and maintain them in the field for several years. When the defence of Egypt was discussed at the meeting, Winston Churchill suggested that the ideal method of defending Egypt was to attack the Gallipoli Peninsula which, if successful, would give Britain control of the Dardanelles. History also records that Winston Churchill and Lord Kitchener had quarrelled seriously over military policy during 1914–1916. Lord Kitchener had bitterly opposed Churchill's idea of sending the Naval Division to Antwerp in 1914. He had also opposed Churchill's plan to capture the Dardanelles. Both ventures proved to be costly mistakes.

When Churchill insisted that the naval forces attack the Dardanelles alone he notified the enemy of intended strategy. After Churchill had committed the initial blunder the army was ordered to participate. Lord Kitchener's objections were overruled. His advice was ignored. The allied military forces committed to the assault on the Dardanelles were insufficient in numbers, improperly trained, poorly equipped for such a task, and badly supported both in regard to provisions, medical aid, and reinforcements. They were forced to attack first class troops whose leaders had been alerted to their danger. The allied military and naval forces were required to overcome military and naval obstacles that had not been in existence when Churchill ordered the first naval assault. The Dardanelles campaign was doomed to failure from the start. (11)

What we have to look at here is the 'Gallipoli Campaign' itself. The 'Allied Navy' bombarded the Gallipoli Peninsula on the 19th of February 1915, thus warning the Turks of the eventual landings and gave the Turks sufficient time to prepare for the British landings that occurred in April.

The first landing at Gallipoli took place at Anzac Cove on the 25th of April 1915, and consisted of the ANZAC troops. The main British force landed at Helles on the 1st of May 1915. Again the ANZACS left Anzac Cove on the 20th of December 1915 and the main British forces left Helles in January 1916.

We should now consider these events and the actual times in regards to the career of Winston Churchill. Churchill resigned from his position as the First Lord of the Admiralty in May of 1915, after the Lusitania sinking on the 7th of May 1915 and Arthur Balfour was then given that position. Churchill then retired from the government in November 1915 supposedly because of his bungling of the Gallipoli campaign. I personally do not accept that part of history.

[I remember in the 1960s reading the story that Churchill was required to set up a 'Royal Commission.' He asked one judge to preside over this commission, but the first judge declined. Another judge was asked and accepted the position. After the commission that judge apparently told Churchill, "Don't you ever do that to me again!" The trouble is I cannot find any evidence of this incident.]

I did though find these comments in regard to Churchill's arrival at the Western Front:

Churchill at Western Front, WWI

"On the 20th November 1915, two days after arriving in France after just resigning from the government the Rt. Hon. Winston L.S. Churchill was attached to the 2nd Battalion Grenadier Guards."

"On Monday, 3 January 1916, that Lieutenant Colonel Winston Churchill set off from St. Omer to join the men of the 6th (Service) Battalion, Royal Scots Fusiliers."

"One officer, F.G. Scott noted Churchill's arrival as: "A limber filled with Churchill's luggage much more than the 35 pounds allowed weight. In the rear half we saw a curious contraption: a long bath and boiler for heating the bath water.'

His insistence on the availability of alcohol for officers did seem to increase his popularity (and is probably the reason for his transfer from the 2nd Battalion Grenadier Guards which was a "dry" Regiment!)"

"Constantly rushing off to London when an opportunity arose to do a bit of political lobbying." "Churchill unashamedly used the military communications system to bring him political gossip from London." "His next brief experience of wearing a uniform was 16 years later, when he was forced to resign as First Sea Lord of the Admiralty in November 1915 as a result of the Gallipoli caper."

"The War Diary of the 6 Royal Scots Fusiliers is remarkably restrained and mentions W. S. Churchill only once. In the entry for 7 May 1916, Colonel W. S. Churchill left the Battalion today. Churchill decided that politics was, after all, his first love, and was permitted to leave the army provided that he did not apply for military command again—a stipulation insisted on by the Secretary of State for War, Field Marshall Lord Kitchener."

So why was Winston Churchill forced to resign from the Asquith government and his position as First Lord of the Admiralty? He didn't resign his seat though. Forget about the Gallipoli disaster as that debacle was not then completed. How about the RMS Lusitania sinking? More than likely. Why would I suggest this? Because Churchill didn't go to the Western Front for the fun of it, he went to retain his position in politics. In any Commission that would have called for Churchill to appear as a witness, that summons would not have been served because Churchill was 'fighting' at the Western Front!

And then after the Commission hearing, after his 'retiring' from the Royal Scots Fusiliers on the 7th of May 1916, Churchill resumed his political career. Just a fortnight after Churchill took command of the 6th Royal Scots Fusiliers, on the 18th of January 1916, the last of the English 'lads' (Royal Marines) were leaving 'Helles' on the Gallipoli Peninsula, and thus we know that Churchill's sojourn at the Western Front had nothing to do with the 'Gallipoli Campaign' but with saving his political career.

[In Trial and Error Weizmann states that in March 1916 he was summoned to the British admiralty in connection with a chemical process he had developed and was subsequently brought into the presence of "the First Lord of the Admiralty, who was at that time Mr. Winston Churchill." (The First Lord of the Admiralty at that time was Arthur James Balfour)]. (11)

But why was Churchill and Co so set upon initiating a campaign at the Dardanelles? We know that the Royal Navy initially attacked Gallipoli on the 19th of February 1915, and we know that it would take time for the Royal Navy to sail to the Dardanelles, and we also realise that there would have been some planning involved, which would suggest that the original planning would have begun in 1914, so it is rather telling to have this:

"On January 28th, 1915, Mr. Asquith, Prime Minister of England wrote in his diary: "I just received from Herbert Samuel a memorandum headed The Future of Palestine . . . He thinks we might plant in this territory about three or four million European Jews." (12)

In other words the British Zionists were rather presumptive!
But for the British themselves worse was to follow.

Once we read of the 'disagreements' between the subaltern Churchill and the Field Marshall Kitchener, especially over the Antwerp and Gallipoli campaigns, and then the 'stipulation' Kitchener put on Churchill's retirement from the 6th RSF one could be forgiven in thinking that there may have been some 'animosity' between the two men. Even so, for Churchill to have had his way in overriding Kitchener in the War Office, he must have had some serious support such as Balfour and Lloyd George as well as the Prime Minister. The problem for these politicians was just how could they get rid of Lord Kitchener?

The British Government was aware of the serious conditions brewing in regard to Russia. This is proved by the fact that the matter was discussed by the cabinet and a decision was reached to send Lord Kitchener to Russia for the purpose of re-organizing the Russian military forces. Lord Kitchener sailed from Scapa Flow aboard the H.M.S. Hampshire. She was mysteriously sunk during the night of June 5th, 1916. Lord Kitchener was lost with all but a dozen of the crew. (13)

The British Government announced H.M.S. Hampshire was sunk by a German U-boat or a German mine. This has been proved to be a lie. General Erich Von Ludendorff (who was Chief of Staff and shared with General Hindenburg the leadership of Germany's military might), also studied the circumstances surrounding the loss of H.M.S. Hampshire and Lord Kitchener's death. He states positively "Action by German naval units, either U-boats or mine-layers, had nothing to do with the sinking of the ship." (14)

The port of Scapa Flow was in the Orkney Islands. H.M.S. Hampshire sunk off the Orkneys with the sole lifeboat coming ashore on the Orkney Islands. No German submarine would have ventured so close to the main naval port and even if the Germans had laid mines in the vicinity they would have been detected and removed. Thus the explosion that sunk HMS Hampshire had to come from within the ship itself and that would not have been an accident.

But worse was to happen for the British war effort. The Battle of the Somme started on the 1st of July 1916, and that was the worst of any disaster previously. The Battle of the Somme lasted until November 1916 and the 'Allies' lost 650,000 men, while the Germans lost 500,000, and the Western Front was still on French soil.

"Once it became clear, in the fall of 1916, that the battle of the Somme would not result in the German army's being forced out of France, the British, with their resources approaching exhaustion, had to consider what to do next. Herbert Asquith, who had been prime minister since 1908, had begun, reluctantly, to consider a negotiated peace." (15)

The British Prime Minister Herbert Asquith had begun to consider a 'Negotiated Peace'.

1916 was a disastrous year for the Allies. "In the story of the war" wrote Lloyd George, "the end of 1916 found the fortunes of the Allies at their lowest ebb. In the offensives on the western front we had lost three men for every two of the Germans we had put out of action. Over 300,000 British troops were being immobilized for lack of initiative or equipment or both by the Turks in Egypt and Mesopotamia, and for the same reason nearly 400,000 Allied soldiers were for all purposes interned in the malarial plains around Salonika." (16)

German submarine activity in the Atlantic was formidable; nearly 1½ million tons of merchant shipping had been sunk in 1916 alone. As for paying for the war, the Allies at first had used the huge American debts in Europe to pay for war supplies, but by 1916 the resources of J.P. Morgan and Company, the Allies' financial and purchasing agents in the United States, were said to be nearly exhausted by increased Allied demands for American credit. (17)

Lord Robert Cecil stated to the British Cabinet: "France is within measurable distance of exhaustion. The political outlook of Italy is menacing. Her finance is tottering. In Russia, there is great discouragement. She has long been on the verge of revolution. Even her man-power seems coming near its limits." (18)

Half a million Frenchmen were lost in the first four months of war, 1 million lost by the end of 1915, and 5 million by 1918. Who can imagine that the Allies lost 600,000 men in one battle, the Somme, and the British more officers in the first few months than all wars of the previous hundred years put together?

The German losses at Verdun alone were 325,000 killed or wounded.

By this time a soldier in one of the better divisions could count on a maximum of three months' service without being killed or wounded, and the life expectancy for an officer at the front was down to five months in an ordinary regiment and six weeks in a crack one. The reports reaching England of impending dissolution of the Russian state practically removed the need for Russian endorsement of Zionist aims, but made French and Italian acceptance even more urgent. This at any rate was the belief of Sykes, Balfour, Lloyd George and Winston Churchill. (19)

Lloyd George, an earnest and powerful demagogue, was now prepared to oust Asquith, his chief, by a coup de main. In this manoeuvre he was powerfully aided by the newspaper proprietor Northcliffe, who turned all his publications from The Times downwards to depreciate Asquith, and by the newspaper-owing M.P., Max Aitken (later Lord Beaverbrook).

With public sympathy well prepared, Lloyd George demanded virtual control of war policy. It was intended that Asquith should refuse. He did. Lloyd George resigned. Asquith also resigned to facilitate the reconstruction of the Government. The King then sent for the Conservative leader, Bonar Law, who, as prearranged, advised him to offer the premiership to Lloyd George. Asquith and Grey were out; Lloyd George and Balfour were in. (20)

David Lloyd GeorgeLloyd George then quickly imposed a war dictatorship, and direction of the war was entrusted to a "War Cabinet" of five members, including himself as prime minister and Balfour as foreign minister. Mark Sykes was named secretary. (21)

On Dec. 18, 1916, the American ambassador to Britain conveyed an "offer of peace" on behalf of the Central Powers to the Allies. On the following day, David Lloyd George, in his first speech to Parliament as prime minister, heaped scorn on the peace proposal and vowed that Britain and its allies would fight on until victory.

In retrospect, it seems clear that this speech was a bluff and was meant to goad the Germans into resuming unrestricted submarine warfare. That this was indeed the case is indicated by a series of messages from the U.S. ambassador to Britain, Walter Page, to President Wilson and the secretary of state, written in June 1917. These messages make it clear that Britain was on the verge of financial collapse, and that only American support could avert disaster." These messages were made public only in 1925 and are, in my opinion, too little known. (The date of June 1917 seems out of place as America entered the war on the side of 'the Allies in April 1917). (22)

But Lloyd George's speech was never a bluff. The German 'Peace Offering' from Zimmerman came with the promise of no peace then there would be 'unrestricted submarine warfare'. It is at this time that we must consider the Balfour Declaration in all of its various connotations.

Balfour Declatation

As Arthur Koestler wrote that of the letter; "one nation solemnly promised to a second nation the country of a third." More than that, the country was still part of the Empire of a fourth, namely Turkey.

In December of 1916 the George Lloyd Cabinet now has four men, Lloyd George, Arthur James Balfour, Winston S. Churchill, and Sykes who are all Zionists and connected to Chaim Weizmann. It is these men who will deliver Palestine to the Zionists! This is the promise that initiates the Jewish New York Bankers to 'switch sides and now support 'the Allies'. George Lloyd no longer needs to concern himself about finances; Weizmann and the Zionists have that under control. The Jewish newspapers also switch sides, again for the Zionist's promise of Israel just as the British newspapers did for Lloyd George.

General Allenby is brought in from the Western Front to replace General Murray of the Egypt Expeditionary Force. Allenby is given all the men he requires to fulfill the taking of Palestine. There can be no possibility of peace until after the taking of Palestine.

There is concern about the possibility of German troops from the Eastern front moving to the Western Front after the collapse of Russia, but this is countered by the introduction of American troops.

Again though, to get the American troops, America has to be brought into the war. This is done by another 'British' fake operation, the Zimmerman Telegram.

Arthur Zimmermann Count Johann Heinrich von Bernstorff Count Heinrich von Eckardt

The 'Zimmermann telegram'

["We intend to begin on the first of February unrestricted submarine warfare. We shall endeavour in spite of this to keep the United States of America neutral. In the event of this not succeeding, we make Mexico a proposal of alliance on the following basis: make war together, make peace together, generous financial support and an understanding on our part that Mexico is to reconquer the lost territory in Texas, New Mexico, and Arizona. The settlement in detail is left to you. You will inform the President of the above most secretly as soon as the outbreak of war with the United States of America is certain and add the suggestion that he should, on his own initiative, invite Japan to immediate adherence and at the same time mediate between Japan and ourselves. Please call the President's attention to the fact that the ruthless employment of our submarines now offers the prospect of compelling England in a few months to make peace." Signed, ZIMMERMANN]

"The texts of the two versions of the ZT, the Berlin-to-Washington (7500) version and the Washington-to-Mexico City (13042) version, were identical, but they had different preambles. The preamble of the 7500 version was "For your Excellency's personal information and to be forwarded to the Imperial Minister in Mexico by a safe route." The preamble of the 13042 version was simply "The foreign office telegraphs on January 16." (From 'The Washington Report'). (23)

To initiate the 'Zimmermann Telegram' hoax, the British must first make preparations to remove any possibility of disclosure.

Admiral Reginald The first change was in the leadership of Room 40, the name given the British codebreaking organization. Room 40 was destined to play a key role in the vast deception to follow, and it was necessary to have a trusted actor at its head. Room 40 was first set up in the fall of 1914 under the direction of Alfred Ewing, who retained that position until October 1916. At that time Ewing was replaced by Captain Reginald 'Blinker' Hall, director of naval intelligence. Balfour found a suitable position for Ewing in academia.

Von Jagow was replaced by Arthur Zimmermann, undersecretary for foreign affairs since 1911. Before 1914, Berlin was the centre of Zionist activity, and in 1912 the organization which was to become the Technion, or Israel Institute of Technology, in Haifa had placed itself under the protection of Germany, and Zimmermann had arranged with the Turkish government for the purchase of land and the erection of a building. Zimmermann clearly enjoyed good relations with German Zionists and was thus susceptible to Zionist influence. (24)

(German respect for Jewish goodwill enabled the Constantinople Zionist Agency from December 1914 to use the German diplomatic courier service and telegraphic code for communicating with Berlin and Palestine. On 5 June 1915 Victor Jacobson was received at the German Foreign Office by the Under-Secretary of State (Zimmerman) and regular contact commenced between the Berlin Zionist Executive (Warburg, Hantke and Jacobson) and the German Foreign Office). (25)

[What we must consider here is that 'The Constantinople Zionist Agency had from December 1914 access to the German diplomatic 'telegraphic code' (13042). So just how did the British 'Room 40' acquire the two German codes (7500 &13042) used for the 'Zimmerman Telegram hoax'?] (Wikipedia: At Room 40, Nigel de Grey partially deciphered the telegram by the next day.[7] Room 40 had previously obtained German cipher documents, including the diplomatic cipher 13040 (captured in Mesopotamia), and naval cipher 0075, retrieved from the wrecked cruiser S.M.S. Magdeburg. [9])

We are told that the German Diplomatic cipher 13042 (13040) was 'captured in Mesopotamia', or as we know it, Iraq, but the British forces did not take Bagdad until 1918. But what is particularly interesting is that the German naval cipher code 0075, also called code 7500 was retrieved from the S.M.S. Magdeburg by the Russian navy in August 1914.

So here is a question for you! Why would the German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmerman use a 'naval code', that being code 0075 or 7500, to send his ZT to the German Ambassador in Washington? He wouldn't! Zimmermann was not authorised to use the German navel code, nor would Zimmermann hand a German navel coded message to the American Embassy where it could be used for deciphering purposes.

[From Wikipedia: The British knew that the German Embassy in Washington would relay the message by commercial telegraph, so the Mexican telegraph office would have the ciphertext.]

How could the British know that???
Better still, how would the British get their Ambassador to the correct telegram office in time to buy the 'Morse Code' tape of the telegram on the day it was sent? There is no other choice but to accept that the Zimmermann Telegram was a 'British/American plot'.

Date unknown—What would come to be known as the Zimmermann telegram was concocted in London. My source for this information is a letter to the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, written in response to my first (1997) article, by author Russell Warren Howe.12 Howe stated that he had been taught at Cambridge that the ZT was "concocted in London to encourage Washington to join the Allies against the Central Powers." My first reaction to this letter was doubt—because Zimmermann subsequently accepted responsibility for the ZT. But of course he had to, because he was responsible, even if the idea came from someone else. Howe states that Britain broke code 7500 (he calls it 0075) "a few weeks before the ZT." By "broke," he presumably means "acquired." (26)

So Russell Warren Howe tells us that the code 7500 was broken by Room 40 just a few weeks before the ZT, but Wikipedia tells us that Room 40 obtained the code from the Russian Navy in 1914. I believe the Wikipedia version for several reasons, the main being that the British would not waste a 'newly obtained' code on a subterfuge.

However, it was the German 'diplomatic code' that was essential for this false flag, and that could only have been obtained via the German Zionists in Constantinople. Now do you understand why the British Foreign Minister, Arthur Balfour got rid of Alfred Ewing the person in command of 'Room 40' and replaced him with Reginald 'Blinker' Hall of Naval Intelligence!

[From Wikipedia: However, any doubts as to the authenticity of the telegram were removed by Arthur Zimmermann himself. First at a press conference on 3 March 1917, he told an American journalist, "I cannot deny it. It is true." Then, on 29 March 1917, Zimmermann gave a speech in which he admitted the telegram was genuine.]

So two days after President Wilson released the 'English' version of the 'Zimmermann telegram' to the press, an American journalist gets an admission from Zimmermann. But which 'telegram' was Zimmermann talking about? Did the American journalist have a copy of the ZT or was Zimmermann actually referring to the coded telegram he sent in regard to the continuation of the submarine warfare?

Did Zimmerman actually accept responsibility for sending the ZT (Zimmerman telegram)? The ZT emanated from the American Embassy in Berlin, and thus it could not have been sent by Zimmerman or any of his staff. The ZT was in code (7500)! President Wilson had only granted permission for the Germans to use the American telegraphic services on the proviso that (1) the telegram was in regard to President Wilson's 'Peace negotiations' and (2) that the telegram was in plain language, not in code! The only person who had the authority to send the ZT was the American Ambassador to Germany James W. Gerard, not Zimmerman!

The Germans had other telegraphic services available to them, including Sweden where 'coded' messages had previously been sent directly to the German Embassy in Mexico, so why would the Germans use the 'American services' to instigate a war between America and Mexico? Just exactly how many telegrams did Germany send from 1914 to 1916 after the English had severed their cable in the Atlantic? Too numerous to count, but this then brings us to the next question; how many codes did the Germans have?

We know the German Navy had their code, 0075 (7500) which the British had received a copy from the Russians in 1914. That is one code. The German Consulate had their code, 13040 (13042) which the British obtained a copy from Mesopotamia at an unknown date, but they must have had a copy of this code by October 1916. It is fair to say that the German army would also have their own code, but that is not known and not relevant, but what is relevant is that two major German codes were known to the British at the time of the Zimmermann Telegram. So in a normal situation which code would the German Foreign Secretary use to contact his various embassies? Their consulate code 13040 (2) of course.

But this then creates a problem if the message is to be passed on, as two similar telegrams in the same code could allow the code to be broken, and thus other measures would have been taken to 'protect' that code. For the British to suggest that one code, code 13040 (2) was less secure than another is not correct; it is misleading, and it is an excuse to explain the use of a 'foreign' code, supposedly by the German Consulate. This is why the 'telegram from Washington to Mexico City was in the 'correct' consulate code 13040 and that this was the partially deciphered message that Arthur Balfour gave to Walter Page in February 1917.

To our knowledge, Zimmerman sent one telegram via the American Embassy that was applicable to President Wilson's Peace Moves; that being the telegram received by The American Ambassador to Britain, Walter Page, which he duly handed over to the British government and PM Lloyd George replied to it in a speech on the 19th of December 1916. "Merry Christmas to all the troops on the Western Front from David Lloyd George".

British wounded, Bernafray Wood, 19/07/1916 Western Front-1916

Let us consider the 'trail' made by the so-called 'Zimmermann telegram'. This telegram was sent from the American Embassy in Berlin to Washington on the 16th of January, 1917. Since we are not told the actual destination of this telegram in Washington, one must presume that it would have been to the Federal 'Department of State'.

Once it had reached its destination, the telegram which was sent in Morse Code, would be required to be typed out on the normal 'telegram form' and then delivered to its final destination. What does this mean? It means that the ZF which was supposedly in code 7500 would again raise certain questions and again come under scrutiny as it was not in plain language and thus was not approved by President Woodrow Wilson, and yet we are told that the ZF telegram was delivered to the German Embassy in Washington. In actual fact there is no corroboration that the ZT was ever received by the German Embassy.

Three days later, on the 19th of January, the ZT now in the form of code 13042 was sent via telegram to the German Embassy in Mexico City. Again, once the telegram reached its destination a telegraphist would have typed out the telegram from the 'Morse Code' into the required code 13042, and then given it to a delivery boy on a bicycle to deliver the telegram to the German Embassy.

So answer this question: Who had control of the telegram from Berlin to Washington and from Washington to Mexico City? Please do not tell me the Germans had control. Nor can you tell me that the British had control.

President Woodrow Wilson is getting the Americans into the War to end all wars.

PresidentWoodrow Wilson Louis D. Brandeis

The author of the 'Washington Report' then tells us this and again we must consider very carefully what we are being told.

On Jan. 16, 1917, two telegrams were sent sequentially, by cable, from Foreign Minister Zimmermann, in Berlin, to the German ambassador in Washington, Count Bernstorff. The first, which both Zimmermann and Bernstorff considered to be by far the more important, informed Bernstorff of the decision to resume unrestricted submarine warfare on Feb. 1, 1917, and gave him instructions on when and how to inform the American government. The second was what has come to be known as the Zimmermann telegram. This second telegram was relayed to the German Embassy in Mexico City on Jan. 19, 1917. (27)

What is wrong here? Firstly, the first telegram from Zimmerman to Count Bernstorff is the instructions for Bernstorff in regard to the submarine warfare resumption. This tells us that this telegram had to be in code so that the Americans are not aware of the actions that the Germans are going to take. This also tells us that this telegram could not and would not be sent by Zimmermann via the American Embassy in Berlin, but rather via the Swedish Embassy. Please remember this; America has always been assisting Great Britain in the war effort, and Germany understands this very well, so why would Germany trust the American government? It didn't, and that is why the Germans sank ships that were carrying American war supplies to Britain.

Secondly, we can now conclude that Count Bernstorff did not receive the ZT telegram. Bernstorff would have become extremely agitated on receipt of the ZT. Why? Because the sending of such a telegram broke every rule and protocol within the diplomatic order.

Zimmermann had no right to use the German navel code! Nor would Zimmermann send to Bernstorff a coded message meant for Heinrich von Eckardt in Mexico City. Not only that but Count Bernstorff would have been well aware that Zimmermann had spent most of his early days in China and would have been very much aware of the 'Asian Face'! For Mexico to invite Japan to change sides, would represent a major loss of face to the Japanese. Again for Zimmermann to invite Mexico to go to war against America, when Mexico had been siding with America since the first days of the war was ludicrous. Had Count Bernstorff received the ZT, he would have immediately realised that it was phoney; not only that but at the very least the naval code 7500 had been badly compromised!

Again, had the German Ambassador to Mexico, Heinrich von Eckardt seen the ZT, he too would have immediately realised that it was phoney and that the 13042 code had been compromised, and would have immediately contacted both Count Bernstorff and Zimmermann to report the matter.

It gets better! Let us assume that von Eckardt did receive the ZT, and followed the instructions. The instructions stated that Eckardt was only to approach the Mexican President, Venustiano Carranza, once America's entry into the war was 'certain', and thus there is no evidence that Eckardt did in fact approach the Mexican President, however;

[Mexican President Venustiano Carranza assigned a military commission to assess the feasibility of a Mexican takeover of their former territories. The general concluded that it would not be possible or even desirable. (Wikipedia)]

Do you think that the German High Command would not have known that? Do you think the German Ambassador, Heinrich von Eckardt would not have known that? Do you think that Zimmermann would not have known that? Do you think the Reginald 'Blinker' Hall and Arthur James Balfour did not know that?

Can you imagine a 'Foreign Secretary' being so stupid as to send such a telegram to his Mexican Ambassador? Yet what we have is President Venustiano Carranza reacting to a German proposition he has never received!

Zimmermann had been trying to make peace, not war. It was Zimmermann's offer to Britain in December 1916 to end the war, but the British had not yet captured Palestine, and so couldn't afford any 'peace treaty'. And thus the Zionists would have to vilify Zimmermann!

The author of the 'Washington Report' then gives us the following three points: "It should be noted that Zimmermann sent the ZT on his own authority. Neither the Kaiser nor Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg knew anything of it until it was made public in America. After seeing these cables, Bernstorff attempted to have the German government rescind the unrestricted submarine warfare decision, but was unsuccessful." (28)

Exactly when did the Kaiser and Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg find out about the Zimmermann Telegram, which was released on the 1st of March 1917? When the German Ambassador, Count Bernstorff was stuck on the liner Frederich VIII in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean?

The first point (It should be noted that Zimmermann sent the ZT on his own authority.) is that Zimmermann did not have the authority to incite Mexico to go to war against America. Nor did Zimmermann have the authority to request Mexico to approach Japan with the ludicrous suggestion of changing sides. Zimmermann was a career diplomat of over twenty years and would never have even considered such 'proposals'. Thus the ZT has to be considered a forgery.

The second point (Neither the Kaiser nor Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg knew anything of it until it was made public in America.) confirms that the ZT was a forgery, as just exactly why would a very senior diplomat even consider inciting two other countries, both Mexico and Japan to change sides in a major war? If the Kaiser and Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg didn't know of the ZT, then neither did Arthur Zimmermann!

The third point is extremely telling (After seeing these cables, Bernstorff attempted to have the German government rescind the unrestricted submarine warfare decision). What we read here is Count Bernstorff reacting to the cable he has received in regard to the unrestricted submarine warfare decision, but there is not one iota of concern of the ludicrous plot to invite both Mexico and Japan to change sides. Had Count Bernstorff actually received the ZT then he would have reacted extremely loudly and strongly to the ludicrous plan. Count Bernstorff was not aware of the Zimmermann telegram!

What we have at the moment is:

  • 1. The Kaiser was not aware of the Zimmermann telegram.
  • 2. Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg was not aware of the ZT.
  • 3. Count Bernstorff was not aware of the ZT.
  • 4. Ergo, Heinrich von Eckardt could not have been aware of the ZT.

How can I come to such a conclusion? It is easy; Zimmerman did not have the authority to invite another country into the Great War, or to propose that country ask another to swap sides. Had von Eckardt received the ZT then he would have immediately queried the telegram and that would have alerted the Kaiser, Chancellor Bethmann-Hollweg, Count Bernstorff and finally Arthur Zimmermann concerning the British/American plot.

More importantly, it would have also alerted these people to the fact that the diplomatic code 13042 was known to the British and was no longer safe. For the Americans, there is only one more impediment that they have to remove, Count Bernstorff. On the 31st of January, 1917 Count Bernstorff informs the American government that the unrestricted submarine warfare against Britain would resume on the following day as Britain had refused to consider the 'peace offer'. Please note there is no mention of the British blockade of the German ports.

Three days later America broke off diplomatic ties with Germany and Count Bernstorff was ordered to leave America. As the Washington Report tells us:

Jan. 31, 1917—Bernstorff informed the U.S. government that unrestricted submarine warfare would commence the following day.
Feb. 3, 1917—The U.S. broke off diplomatic relations with Germany, Bernstorff told to leave the U.S.
Feb. 14, 1917—Bernstorff left New York on the Danish steamer Friedrich VIII to return to Germany. Safe conduct had been granted by the British.
Feb. 16, 1917—The Friedrich VIII entered Halifax, Nova Scotia harbor. Bernstorff remained incommunicado for almost two weeks.
Feb. 26, 1917—The State Department received a telegram from the American ambassador in London containing the plain language text of the ZT.
Feb. 27, 1917—Friedrich VIII permitted to sail from Halifax.
March 1, 1917—Text of ZT published in U.S. (29)

Count Bernstorff is the only impediment to the plot to bring America into the 'Great War'. On the 14th of February Bernstorff leaves America on the Danish steamer, 'Friedrich VIII, which has been granted 'safe conduct' by the British. That however did not stop the British from holding Count Bernstorff in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on the Friedrich VIII until the 27th of February, the day after the State Department receives the 'English text' of the ZT.

This holding action ensures that Count Bernstorff is on the high seas when two days later on the 1st of March that President Woodrow Wilson releases the 'English' text of the ZT to the American press, the very same press that had a 'journalist' obtain a 'confession' from Zimmermann two days later again whilst Zimmermann's alibi, Count Bernstorff was still on the High Seas.

So just what exactly do we have at this stage?

We have the ZT transmitted from the American Embassy on the 16th of January, 1917 in the German naval code 7500, which had come into the British hands from the Russian sinking of the S.M.S. Magdeburg in August 1914. This means that the British had the German naval code which could have been used to locate German submarines off the Irish coast in May 1915 in regards to the sinking of the Lusitania. Again there is absolutely no evidence to even suggest that the German Foreign Minister, Arthur Zimmermann, was the author of this telegram, and in fact there is sufficient evidence to suggest that he could not have been the author.

The ZT arrives in Washington, and is supposedly decoded and then written in the German Diplomatic code 13042 (or 13040) before being sent via the American Telegram system to Mexico City, on the 19th of January 1917, where the British Ambassador, Sir Thomas Hohler was then able to purloin a copy of the telegram. Again, the British 'Room 40' had a copy of the cipher supposedly captured in Mesopotamia. From the 'Washington Report' we have this:

[Our first book is The Life and Letters of Walter H. Page by Burton J. Hendrick. Walter Page was a long-time (since 1881) friend of President Woodrow Wilson and was appointed by him to be U.S. ambassador to Great Britain, serving from 1913 until his death in 1918.

Hendrick relates that in late February 1917 Balfour personally handed Page a copy of the document which has come to be known as the Zimmermann telegram. It is the version of the telegram that was forwarded by the German Embassy in Washington to the German Embassy in Mexico City on Jan. 19, 1917. Balfour stated that the telegram had not been obtained in Washington but had been bought in Mexico City.

ZT-Hendrick appears nowhere else than in Hendrick's book. It seems to be something the British gave Page, with an indication that it was an early, partial, decipherment of ZT-2 made sometime before Page was given the completely deciphered version. It is evident, however, that ZT-Hendrick is derived from ZT-1, not ZT-2.] (30)

Had the Zimmermann telegram been factual, then it would have been impossible for the British Ambassador to Mexico, Sir Thomas Hohler to have been able to purloin a copy of the telegram without having full knowledge of the contents of the original telegram. Again that Arthur Balfour handed Walter Page a supposedly partial deciphered copy of the telegram a month after they had supposedly intercepted the telegram is not that important until one realises just exactly where the German Ambassador to America was at that time, stuck on the Friedrich VIII at Halifax. This removes the responsibility of President Woodrow Wilson of having to ask Count Bernstorff about the ZT.

A month later, President Woodrow Wilson puts his proposal to the American Congress that America should declare war against Germany on the 2nd of April 1917. On the 6th of April, Congress passed the motion and America had entered the 'War to end all wars'.

Prime Minister David Lloyd George moves quickly and brings in General Allenby from the Western Front to replace General Murray of the Egyptian Expeditionary Army, and the move is on to capture Palestine. Then once General Allenby is in Palestine, but before he can capture Jerusalem the Balfour Declaration is announced by Chaim Weizmann on the 6th of November 1917.

Now a person would imagine that the 'Balfour Declaration' was a purely British concern, and related solely to correspondence between Lord Walter Rothschild and Arthur James Balfour. So why was it required to be read and approved of by President Wilson's inner sanctum?

Brandeis was in Washington during the summer of 1917 and conferred with Secretary of State Robert S. Lansing from time to time on Turkish-American relations and the treatment of Jews in Palestine. He busied himself in particular with drafts of what later became the Balfour Declaration and the British Mandate for Palestine, and in obtaining American approval for them. A considerable number of drafts were made in London and transmitted to the United States, through War Office channels, for the use of the American Zionist Political Committee. Some were detailed, but the British Government did not want to commit itself to more than a general statement of principles.

On 18 July, such a statement, approved in the United States, was forwarded by Lord Rothschild to Lord Balfour. It read as follows:

His Majesty's Government, after considering the aims of the Zionist Organization, accepts the principle of recognizing Palestine as the National Home of the Jewish people and the right of the Jewish people to build up its national life in Palestine under a protectorate to be established at the conclusion of peace following the successful issue of war.

His Majesty's Government regards as essential for the realization of this principle the grant of internal autonomy to the Jewish nationality in Palestine, freedom of immigration for Jews, and the establishment of a Jewish national colonization corporation for the resettlement and economic development of the country.

The conditions and forms of the internal autonomy and a charter for the Jewish national colonizing corporation should, in the view of His Majesty's Government, be elaborated in detail, and determined with the representatives of the Zionist Organization.

It seems possible that Balfour would have issued this declaration but strong representatives against it were made directly to the Cabinet by Lucien Wolf, Claude Montefiore Sir Mathew Nathan, Secretary of State for India Edwin Montagu, and other non-Zionist Jews. It was significant they believed that "anti-semites are always very sympathetic to Zionism," and though they would welcome the establishment in Palestine of a center of Jewish culture, some—like Philip Magnes—feared that a political declaration would antagonize other sections of the population in Palestine, and might result in the Turks dealing with the Jews as they had dealt with the Armenians. The Jewish opposition was too important to ignore, and the preparation of a new draft was commenced. At about this time, Northcliffe and Reading visited Washington and had a discussion with Brandeis at which they undoubtedly discussed Zionism.

Multiple pressures at key points led Lord Robert Cecil to telegraph to Col. E.M. House on 3 September 1917: "We are being pressed here for a declaration of sympathy with the Zionist movement and I should be very grateful if you felt able to ascertain unofficially if the President favours such a declaration." House, who had performed services relating to Federal Reserve and currency legislation for Jacob W. Schiff and Paul Warburg, and was Wilson's closest adviser, relayed the message, but a week later Cecil was still without a reply. (31)

Jacob De Haas (1911)Then there is this: (Jacob) De Haas continues:
Then one morning Baron Furness, one of England's unostentatious representatives, brought to 44 East 23rd Street, at that time headquarters of the Zionist Organization, the final draft ready for issue. The language of the declaration accepted by the English Zionists based as it was on the theory of discontent was unacceptable to me. I informed Justice Brandeis of my views, called in Dr. Schmarya Levin and proceeded to change the text. Then with Dr. Wise, I hurried to Colonel House. By this time he had come to speak of Zionism as "our cause." Quietly he perused my proposed change, discussed its wisdom and promised to call President Wilson on his private wire and urge the change. He cabled to the British Cabinet. Next day he informed me that the President had approved. I had business that week-end in Boston and it was over the long distance wire that my secretary in New York read to me the final form as repeated by cable from London. It was the text as I had altered it. (32)

So just exactly who was the author of the document that the world knows as 'The Balfour Declaration'? Was it Arthur James Balfour, Lord Walter Rothschild or possibly the American Zionist Jews, De Haas or Louis D. Brandeis?

The Balfour Declaration was the price paid by not just the British, but the whole world so the British could conquer Palestine and hand it to the Zionist Jews.

It is now legitimate to consider that the First World War, known at the time as "The War to end all wars," as a primary tool to instigate the British takeover of Palestine, as per the Zionist agenda, and this is supported by the actions of the politician, Winston S. Churchill, not only in his attacks on the Gallipoli Peninsula but also his involvement in the sinking of the Lusitania in 1915.

But even if one does not consider the initial 1914 – 1916 war, there can be no doubt whatsoever that the only impediment in continuing the Great War from 1916 after the German proposal of 'Peace Treaties' to end to the war was Zionism, and the British, with the help of Woodrow Wilson, then used subterfuge to bring in the Americans to the great slaughter for the booty called Palestine.

The Hungarian Jew, Max Nordau made comment in 1911 of the suffering 6 million Jews, but never batted an eyelid on the cost of the Great War of 17 million Europeans, but the slaughter didn't stop at the end of the 'Great War', it continued.

The Bolshevik revolution in Russia in 1917 was another Jewish success, but the many revolutions in other European countries including Hungary and Germany up until 1923 were not so successful, but they did cause the Kaiser to abdicate and flee to Holland.

That these smaller revolutions didn't succeed was secondary, as by the end of the Second World War most of those countries were controlled by the Communists, and as Rabbi Stephen Wise was quoted in 1923, "Some call it communism, but I call it Judaism." As for the other countries, including America, Britain and its Commonwealth, they were all controlled by another form of Judaism, called Capitalism, and controlled by none other than the Rothschilds.

The final question that now arises is just exactly how were these Zionists so successful? Their first tool was money, but as the Sultan of Turkey stated Palestine was not for sale, so the Zionists had to resort to war. To initiate such a war, the Zionists needed corrupt politicians. They found those corrupt politicians as in Winston Churchill, that most corrupt and easily purchased tool.

young Winston ChurchillWhen Winston Churchill suffered a hard time at the Sandhurst Military College, he cried to his mother Jenny Jerome, the American Jewess, who immediately attacked anybody who her son named. When Winston Churchill finished his studies at Sandhurst and was posted to a 'cavalry regiment' with a pretty uniform, he immediately took leave and visited his mother's friends in New York. When he was told to report to his regiment, he stopped off at a couple of little 'hot spots' and reported to the local British military and led a couple of tours, but when the real fighting came as in the Boer War, he bought his commission then worked for his mother's friends as a journalist.

Arthur James Balfour was another politician, a cousin to Lord Robert Cecil, and nephew to Lord Salisbury who on retiring from the office as Prime Minister in 1902, handed the job to his nephew Arthur. Now normally politicians retired after being voted out of the office of Prime Minister, but good old Arthur stayed in there and continually served the Zionist agenda, even after retiring from office.

David Lloyd George, the Zionists' solicitor who by stealth removed Herbert Asquith as Prime Minister and then gave his constituents the deadliest Christmas present ever in December 1916 when he refused the peace offerings from Germany. Then there was Herbert Samuels who in 1915 presented his Prime Minister Herbert Asquith with his memorandum on 'The future of Palestine' in January of 1915, and finally, Mark Sykes the messenger boy and secretary (who represented Great Britain in the so-called Sykes-Picot negotiations (1915–16) concerning the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire after World War I).

And finally we have the compromised American President, Woodrow Wilson who was totally controlled by the Zionists via his relationship with Louis D Brandeis, who not only permitted the Jewish 'Federal Reserve' to be implemented in 1913, but then against all of his electoral promises had congress declare war on Germany on the 6th of April 1917.

There is one last piece of information that demonstrates the type of ego these corrupt politicians were dealing with; which comes from the American, William Yale.

William Yale*William Yale was a 'Special Agent of the State Department in the Near East during the First World War. "When I (Robert John) had dinner with him on 12 May 1970 at the Biltmore Hotel in New York, I asked him if Weizmann had told him how the special mission had been aborted. He replied that Weizmann said that the Governor of Gibraltar had held a special banquet in their honour, but at the end all the British officials withdrew discretely, leaving the four Jews alone. "Then," said Weizmann, "we fixed it."

Yale said he had a talk with Weizmann "somewhere in the Mediterranean in 1919," and asked him what might happen if the British did not support a national home for the Jews in Palestine. Weizmann thumped his fist on the table and the teacups jumped, "If they don't," he said, "we'll smash the British Empire as we smashed the Russian Empire." (Behind the Balfour Declaration) (33)

It doesn't really matter as Weizmann's war broke Great Britain, and she was never able to recover from the costs of that 'Great War'.

Is there any difference between a Jewish Communist, Bolshevik, Fascist or Zionist? I would doubt it as they all seem to display that megalomaniacal desire to destroy.

And now, 100 years after President Woodrow Wilson lied to the American people and then hoodwinked them into the 'War to end all wars', we have another President who seems prepared to lead America into the next world war of Zionist desires. What President Trump must consider is the cost that the once 'Great Britain' paid for fighting that first Zionist war!

Andrew S. MacGregor

1-9. Behind the Balfour Declaration by Robert John
10-11. The Washington Report; The hidden history of the Balfour Declaration by John Cornelius
12-14. Pawns in the game by William Guy Carr
15. The Washington Report
16-21. Behind the Balfour Declaration
22-32 The Washington Report
33. Behind the Balfour Declaration

Origins of the Balfour Declaration by James A. Malcolm (1944).
Lloyd George on the Balfour Declaration by the late Peter Myers