Nazi King Betrayed France

For the gullible, and thoroughly manipulated public, worldwide, British king Edward VIII abdicated because he wanted to marry an American. How silly is that story? Churchill was himself born of an American heiress née Jennie Jerome (who slept all around society high and low, from king Edward VII to all sorts of businessmen, who got much richer as result, some from the colonies). So Winston Churchill was, actually, half American.

The truth about Edward VIII? It is sordid. Edward was a Nazi King. Edward VIII had a romance with Hitler, while the woman he fancied to sleep someday with, got from the Nazi foreign minister, 17 carnations for every time he, the Nazi plutocrat, had slept with her. Ms. Simpson had free access to the king’s residence, while he courted her (and she slept with others, besides Nazi plutocrats). Simpson was widely suspected to be a Nazi spy by Western counterintelligence agencies.

Plutocrats Of The World Unite: The Secret They Want To Hide Absolutely

Plutocrats Of The World Unite: The Secret They Want To Hide Absolutely

[Simpson on the left, Nazi King center, “Guide”, to the right.]

The book was contaminated by some deliberately planted forgeries in national archives, on secondary points, in the hope of discrediting the entire research. It worked. See below.

Speaking of Churchill, he and his entourage, like much of top British society, longed to German style plutocracy (no wonder as Churchill was of plutocratic descent from both sides of the Atlantic). Churchill in 1929 threatened to bomb France, because France had detected secret, unlawful German rearmament programs hidden in Portugal and the USSR, and wanted to do something about it.

In 1935, at the apex of Nazi influence in the UK, Great Britain concluded a treaty violating the Versailles Treaty with Hitler’s dictatorship. France, and the anti-Nazis, were livid. As Admiral Chatfield, main negotiator of the Treaty stated in 1938 “that we might say that we now understood Herr Hitler had in 1935 thought that we had given him a free hand in Eastern and Central Europe in return for his acceptance of the [Treaty]…”

In fact, the secret understanding was of trilateral trade between Germany, Britain and the British Empire. Basically raw materials versus German high tech, in exchange for letting the Nazis carve an empire in the East.

By 1936, the king threatened to abdicate if britain protested the invasion of the Rhineland by Hitler’s army, and then Nazi Germany attacked the Spanish Republic. At that point, things had clearly gone too far, and the anti-Nazis overwhelmed the pro-Nazis in Britain. His delirious Nazism is why the king was thrown out.

The ex-king, as Duke of Windsor, was made Inspector General of the Armed Forces. The Duke, a honorary field marshal, and a major-general, was attached to the British Military Mission in France.[11] In February 1940, the German ambassador in The Hague, Count Julius von Zech-Burkersroda, claimed that the Duke had leaked the Allied war plans for the defence of Belgium.[77] (Consecutively, the Nazi attack plans were changed; to devastating effect.)

However, the Duke was not removed from the military, and spent more than a month inspecting the French fortifications (while communicating with Hitler in several manners).

Not surprisingly, this part of history cannot be found on the Internet. It has been carefully buried by the powers that be. I read the documents on paper, long ago. However the Nazi King was there, inspecting the French defenses, as British Pathe newsreel show.

For now seventy years, all British governments have been involved in a systematic destruction of all and any proofs of Edward VIII’s betrayal (and thus the betrayal of those who supported him strongly, such as Winston Churchill). When one tries to consult Edward VIII’s scrapbooks, there are none surviving, even in the USA, for the period when he was sending “Dear Mr. Hitler” letters to Adolf Hitler. The situation is actually astounding. The British government has admitted that very sophisticated false documents, and forgeries, pertaining to Edward VIII, some made on laser printers, were spread throughout national archives. Still no elucidation of the mystery was made (even documents relative to Himmler’s probable assassination are kept secret).

The advantage that the existence of these official forgeries provide, for those who want to hide the extensive cooperation between the highest Anglo-Saxon authorities and the Nazis, is that, whenever one evokes an inconvenient document or fact, now the authorities claim it may well be a false document (since said false documents were found throughout). This method is used to systematically discredit those who want to expose the relationship between plutocrats and the Nazis (it started with the Simon Warburg affair of 1934, when the French secret services tried to divulge the relationship between American plutocrats, some Jewish, and the Nazis; Anglo-Saxon plutocracy successfully extricated itself from it, by having some Dutch judge call the book inaccurate, and order its destruction, worldwide; only one copy survived in Switzerland).

Edward the Nazi King then communicated the result of his observations to Adolf Hitler, according to Albert Speer, Hitler’s architect, confidante, and minister of armaments. Speer stole a compromising paper signed by “EPW” (“Edward Prince of Wales”; the signature was authentified), from Hitler’s desk. Speer left the document with his son, to be revealed at a time after his death, when the document would not be outright destroyed. In it, the Duke of Windsor recommended to Hitler to attack exactly where the Maginot Line ended, as that was the weak point. Indeed most of the Nazi army was committed there.

So the Duke of Windsor was a serious traitor. He was not the only one. The Treaty with the Nazis of 1935 was signed on the anniversary day of Waterloo, when a British and Prussian coalition defeated the French. So is this why a British armored division arrived too late in May 1940 to make a difference? Or why it took a month after the hostilities started between the Nazis and the French in 1939, for the first British soldier to show up?

In May 1940, France and Britain were defeated, unexpectedly, and astoundingly, by the Nazis. A factor in the defeat had to do with the Nazis having practiced the art of war in Spain and then Poland, for four years. Thus the Nazis knew how to use modern weapon systems.

Another factor in the defeat was sheer luck: most of the German army was on three small roads in the Ardennes mountain, and, although detected by a British pilot, this seemed so unlikely, that he was not believed.

Yet, the main factor in the defeat was an incredible succession of extremely bad, quasi insane decisions at the highest level of command. the entire strategy of throwing the best armies into Belgium, at the risk of an attack at Sedan, exactly as in 1870, was, unbelievably, neglected. Both by the French and British government.

We know the King betrayed. But who else did?

The answer is simple; when too much power is in too few hands, civilization is betrayed. Watch our potentates going around, traveling in style, brainless as they are, secretly deciding the world’s fate, from their whims and greed. A “democratic” system where greed for power is needed to be elected to lead, breeds corruption absolutely: it selects greedsters for leaders.

Patrice Ayme’


Tags: , , , , , ,

22 Responses to “Nazi King Betrayed France”

  1. ianmillerblog Says:

    Patrice, you wrote : (Consecutively, the Nazi attack plans were changed; to devastating effect.) The implication is that but for Edward VIII, the attack through the Ardennes would not have happened. From what I understand, there were always two plans, the second one originating from a then junior staff officer (von Manstein). The plan changed when Hitler heard of the second one, checked with Guderian that in might work, and ordered it to devastating effect. The original plan won Holland about five times. Of course, Hitler still had to interfere with plan 2, so it did not work nearly as well as it might have.

    • gmax Says:

      When the anti-Nazi German ambassador revealed Edward VIII had revealed the plans, Nazis had to change them. The original French plan expected the exact attack Nazis had initially planned. So Edward VIII oughto have HANGED BY NECK KICKING FOR TWENTY MINUTES LIKE VON RIBENTROP did, you know the lover of Simpson who did the French can can at Nuremberg, thanks to an experienced American executioner who knew how to hang top Nazis slowly.

      Now it is the British monarchy which should hang: Charles hates Armenians

      • ianmillerblog Says:

        “When the anti-Nazi German ambassador revealed Edward VIII had revealed the plans, Nazis had to change them.” Um, how did the Nazis know what this ambassador did? As for what the French believed, since they got it wrong, is it not possible they received duplicitous information to put them on the wrong track? Personally, I think the German records are a better guess for why the Germans did what they did.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          I forgot the details. The ambassador thought the Nazis had got nuts, and retired shortly after. However, he confided in some of his colleagues. Moreover, he told the Abwehr (Canaris, etc.), which had its own records, and which concluded Hitler had his personal, incredibly precise source on the French military (Canaris deduced it was Edward VIII). There are OTHER tracks in official German archives of revelations direct from Edward VIII.

  2. gmax Says:

    I am sure some excited English will howl their discontent (Chris Snuggs is not smug!)

    That Britain is a plutocracy is beyond question. But the Lords won’ admit it. If they did, it would be their end

    • dominique deux Says:

      As is clear from Patrice’s recounting, the Nazi monarch in no way represented Britain. In contrast with his idol, who exactly represented Germany. He was kicked out, wasn’t he.
      Churchill, an arch-pragmatist, knew better than to fuel a civil war with public exposure of the king’s felony. There was indeed a large Hitlerian following in Britain’s nobility and plutocracy (pretty much the same thing – no Revolution, please, we’re British). Better to put him out to pasture and replace him under contrived charges. Churchill, like Clemenceau, waged war, and allowed no silly notions of decency or fairness to interfere. I can only be thankful for his ruthlessness, even when France happened to be a convenient target for it.

      • gmax Says:

        Glad to see you back here, Dominique, you are one of the best commenters ANYWHERE!!
        We needed your help!

        The cover-up about the collaboration between Anglo-Saxon Pluto rats and Nazis is the deepest gangrene.

        Hoping your health is fine,

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Glad to see you back, Dominique! Hope your health is good, as GMax said…
        Some of Churchill ruthlessness was accidental: at Mers El Khebir, for reasons never made clear, the French fleet was not told that it could cruise to the Antilles. Churchill’s admirals refused for several hours to fire on their colleagues. So it’s not clear why the alternative of sailing west was not presented.

        There was a colossal Hitler following in higher UK society, although it’s not real clear who followed whom: as I said many times Keynes’ “Economic Consequences of Peace” contains Hitlerian like trash. But it published in 1919, when Hitler was not yet a Nazi. Also, Lord Russell’s opposition to fighting fascism in World War One was outright treacherous (he got jailed 18 months for it), just Pluto solidarity antics…

        Churchill was ready to violate all conventions about poisoning water and air, in case Nazis landed. Could have Nazi landed? I have never read anything on that. The Luftwaffe was more ready than the Panzers. In any case, the fact that the war got started in September 1939, and the sacrifice of the French Army, saved Britain.

        • dominique deux Says:

          Thanks Patrice and Gmax for the well-being wishes.
          Re Mers el Khebir, it has been argued at nauseam and the issue rests ultimately on Churchill’s actual rationale for it. Which will remain open to speculation forever.
          I’ve read a lot on it so I can speculate as well.
          The admirals were certain the risk of seeing the French fleet sail under the Nazi flag was nonexistent, not only because they trusted the French (who, ultimately, did scuttle their fleet rather than let it happen), but on more factual reasons – Hitler did not have the crews and was deeply uninterested in surface combatants. Not to mention interoperability issues. Those vessels which could be salvaged were handed out to Italy for menial duties.
          So Churchill, who had a deep grasp of intelligence, like the admirals, and strategy, unlike them, may have had an ulterior motive. Getting rid of France as a naval power (her fleet was the biggest in the world at the time, a thorn in the heart of any Lord of the Admiralty) may have been one. Nasty, nasty.
          But the explanation I favor, based on circumstance and letter exchanges with Washington, is that Churchill was cruelly aware of the US’ isolationist and pseudo-neutral stance. After the military collapse in Continental Europe, the US population and leadership felt the game was over, and foppish, ineffectual Britain would soon fold. They’d be happy to sit on the sidelines wringing their hands and counting their bucks behind the impregnable Atlantic seawall. So Churchill had to convince them Britain would seriously fight on. The fiery domestic rhetoric was not enough – fiery rhetoric is bread and butter for US worthies, who meet it with a knowing smile. But such an outrageous, ruthless action as sinking an friend’s fleet with all hands aboard, just in case, was a very strong message and it was heard all right (actually celebrated as a victory, which Churchill never had the gall to). The US now knew it could not count on a quiet endgame and had, at least, to weigh its options. Support was lent when it was decisive. Churchill cynical PR ploy was a success and possibly a clincher for the whole war.
          In this light, I grudgingly approve Churchill’s action. What is unconscionable – like the ongoing Eddie cover-up – is the continued obfuscation and propaganda by peacetime governments, with its usual aspersion on French character. But then when Pitt-originated anti-Revolutionary and Napoleon propaganda is still very much alive West of the Channel, what can you expect!

          • Patrice Ayme Says:

            Nice analysis about Churchill’s motivation. Very nice, highly likely. It may also be that Churchill was trying, more generally to look hyper tough. Those who disagreed would be shot.

            The French fleet would have been useful to Hitler, but capturing it was quite unlikely.

            I do not think the French fleet was the largest at the time. The Royal Navy had even aircraft carriers (although one had just been lost through surface action at the end of the Norway campaign). The Bismarck was crippled, forced to turn in circles, after attack by a torpedo equipped Swordfish from the Ark Royal, another carrier. The ancient biplane Swordfishes were going to slow for the automatic fire directors of the Bismarck…

            The largest fleet, by far, was the US Navy. Roosevelt had launched a 24 FLEET carrier program in 1933. That’s just astounding, and speaks volume about the fact FDR knew war was coming, from way back (so the way the USA handled the war in the beginning was a complex manipulation). That formidable fleet defeated the Japs (who lost 5 FLEET carriers at Midway). At some point, the USA was down to one FLEET carrier, the Enterprise, but more were coming soon…
            Including dozens of “escort” carriers.

            The Nazis “Z plan” planned to build up to 8 aircraft carriers (by 1944, or 1948, in various versions). That depended upon getting enough steel from Sweden. That was cut short by the war declaration of France and Britain (whom had decided to destroy Sweden, as deserved).

  3. Alexandros HoMegas Says:

  4. Alexandros HoMegas Says:

    LOL!! Trying to blame a powerless British Monarch for the French military humiliations.

    Germany was fighting the the jewish double-headed beast alone, Soviet Communism and Anglo-American Capitalism, both controlled by the jews.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Mental retards are well known to Laugh Out Loud, because they can’t even read. As Inspector General of the armed forces, and Field Marshall, the ex-Edward VIII had real powers.

      And if you see Jews everywhere, you have a disease. Stalin was not a Jew, and that’s why he was Hitler’s ally. First secretly and then very officially in 1939, 1940, 1941. But sorry to use numbers, that’s probably confusing to you, you are probably LOL by now.

      • Alexandros HoMegas Says:

        The Bolshevik Revolution was made and financed by jews, it had the full support from jews in Wall Street like Jacob Schiff.

        Stalin purged some jews in the 1930s but many remained in positions of power like Lazar Kaganovich who was the architect of the Ukrainian famine.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          One first has to define a “Jew”. In a sense all Christians are Jews. That’s then a lot of Jews, indeed, including Putin. Hitler seemed to confuse “Jews” and “plutocrats”. Certainly most Germans were irate against plutocrats. Calling them “Jews” allowed Hitler to surf a tsunami of enthusiasm.

          Strictly defined Jews constituted maybe 10% of the Roman empire. Still it was Roman, not Jewish. Nowadays there are much fewer plutocratic Jews than plutocrats. And real Jews, ethnically speaking, are no more than a fifth of one percent of the world. If one adds the requirement of believing in the religion, one is talking about much less.

          This being said, “Jews” are more influential than their small numbers. Thus they are smarter. I am not going to hate people because they are smarter, as I never find people smart enough.

          • dominique deux Says:

            I can’t understand why you grace such creepy Nazi rants with a reply, although I agree their publication is an useful tool to expose the survival of the beast.
            Nazis do not understand arguments, except high-velocity, hollow-point ones.

            • Patrice Ayme Says:

              The reason I grace the unexplainable, aside from the reason you gave, a warning, is that I try to find out what makes it click. Nazis, in a way, are Zionists: they grace “Jews” with astounding powers, to a point that makes “Jews” like gods.

              Same with Islamists, and other god-crazies: why so angry, when they are sure god is on their side? Is not god all powerful? Well, the only conclusion is that they don’t really believe it. So Nazis believe “Jews” are supermen, and religious fanatics feel god is weak. At least that’s what I conclude I seem to be observing…

              In the heart of the ugliest beasts, hearts imploded by their contradictions.

  5. John Rogers Says:


    You should check out Scotty Bowers book “Full Service: My Adventures in Hollywood and the Secret Sex Lives of the Stars”.

    Yeah, i know. The problem is that Bowers, apparently the procurer du jour back in the day of Big Hollywood, was acknowledged by Gore Vidal (not known for handing out encomiums) as “if Scotty says it, he knows what he’s talking about”. What he reveals about Eddie and Wallis, would as they say, make a maggot gag.

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hmmm… Savory details? I know Eddie did not sleep with Wallis before they married. Meanwhile, she was sleeping around a lot, as the British and American intelligence services reported…

      • John Rogers Says:

        Can’t find my copy right now, but Bowers said Wallis preferred girls, lots of girls, and Eddie preferred guys. One of the “dates” Bowers fixed her up with said it was the most vigorous workout she’d ever had.
        Bowers has said he’ll only tell on people who are already dead. And apparently he was quite well known – having been blasted at a party by Lucille Ball for arranging “dates” for her husband Desi Arnez.
        Can’t remember if it was Bowers’ book, but Eddie was also big on some fetishistic nonsense with cleaning Wallis’ muddy boots and shoes.

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Wallis was certainly living a life of intrigue, and it’s certainly curious that Edward VIII let such a dissolute woman he did not even sleep with, next to him. It leaves the impression, considering that Wallis was sleeping with the almighty Von Ribbentrop, head of a vast network from his large apartment in London, that there is more to all this than we know. The British monarchy is not talking…

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: