Observations and Reflexions on the Jews

a reply to: ipsedixit

i think it was an "outside job" not an inside job

okay, wow...

www.buzzfeed.... com/jennybagel/they-pretend-to-be-us-while-pretending-we-dont-exist?bffbmain&utm_term=4ldqpgp#.wnKXa00mw

I am Jewish and this article which regards Asians rang home to me the other day when I read it in regards to my experience as a Jewish person in North America.

Caucasians in general seem to have this incredible discomfort with anyone different than them, even though by skin tone I am as white as anybody, being Jewish always has a "reaction" when people find out and some of what the author above says is very true, the sheer discomfort at being no2 is usually greeted by very odd behaviors be it the PC sort or the hate sort the discomfort is so palpable it's nauseating sometimes.

While in all due respect the thread itself it's a positive one I understand OP that what your saying is mainly so far meant to be positive.

But the article above explains some of my feelings in this regard. It devolves into Rothschild bs conspiracies etc... It's people with perspective you are honest and generous about to be fair speaking about others. I have as a Jew always felt a kinship to Hindus and East Asians who I view as having incredibly similar upbringings, the kind the wave of Europeans often had at the turn of the previous century. It's responsible for success and nothing more.

Jews held the no 1 spot in per Capita Ivy League enrollment and income for decades and lowest crime statistics and now Asians have surpassed us to being no2 in all those categories. And Caucasians in general act really weird about it, theories and bs arise, all sorts of stereotypes etc.... In the end, it's how I was and they are raised and fed and the philosophical thinking of the culture nothing more.

The only point i'm making is that it gets old when "others" sit around having debates about you because your mannerisms and culture lead to success especially when it always brings in crazy bs theories to the fray. It's like talking about you when you are in the room as if you are not there. The reality of Jews and now Asians is... they are just people, making a thread about it is odd.

What concerns me is that the Jewish people have so much influence over our government, and the media. Our government is trying to destroy us and Europe with unsupportable and divisive immigration, while the media helps them by constantly pushing the message that the majorities of our nations are bad and minorities are great and if you don't want them to take over the land you're evil. That can't be an accident, it is war and if they aren't the initiators of it they sure do a lot to help it.

a reply to: criticalhit

Thanks for the response to the thread. I agree with what you said. It is odd to make a thread like this, particularly for someone like me, who has numerous Jews, or actually ex-Jews, if one can be an ex-Jew, in my somewhat loose social circle. There is more coming. I think that I and my friends, the average "Jew in the street", have more in common than we might realize and I want to give some of the lesser known, but important, common denominators some exposure.

Anti-semitism is too easy a road and does a lot of completely innocent people a great disservice.

originally posted by: criticalhit
The only point i'm making is that it gets old when "others" sit around having debates about you because your mannerisms and culture lead to success especially when it always brings in crazy bs theories to the fray. It's like talking about you when you are in the room as if you are not there. The reality of Jews and now Asians is... they are just people, making a thread about it is odd.

When I first came to ATS several years ago it was littered with anti-semitism and holocaust denial. You hardly see anything like that nowadays, but it bubbles up from time to time, suggesting it still exists beneath the surface. It is belongs to a pattern of behaviour, in Western culture, that has been highly pervasive for a thousand years, it is difficult to shake something that deeply ingrained into our cultural heritage, off.

I have just read a book on the Medieaval Witchcraze written by (another former SIS professional) Hugh Trevor Roper, written not long after the end of WW2 where he draws a clear line linking the persecution of Jews and conversos, and witches, and to put it simply, they were identified and condemned by their neighbours due to resentment at their difference (and it didn't seem to matter what that difference was), and because the laws of the land allowed the accuser to claim the accused's (if found guilty) possessions. Fear, jealousy and greed in a rapidly changing world is what pretty much all of it comes down to. And torture, but that's another story.

I am sorry that you feel like the elephant in the room, but it isn't just about you, if you see what I mean, all of us need to understand the parts we play in creating as well as tolerating hatred.

Part Four

Some people did not believe that Osama bin Laden did 9/11. His guilt was being sold to the American public, but he and other Arab leaders, including Yasser Arafat and Mullah Omar of the Taliban had immediately issued denials.

Maybe a fall back position had been prepared, at least to muddle the lines of inquiry. Something that might utilize another handy scapegoat.

On the morning of 9/11 a lot of bizarre events took place, that are not known to the general public because they received only a mention in the media that day and then were dropped.

From a distance and in hindsight, they look like a Broadway production titled, The Jews Did 9/11, starring Jews.

For a very full account of Jews with connections to 9/11 go to:

archive.org...

I don't necessarily find it all that unusual that a lot of Jews are connected with 9/11. I don't know if a full religious census was taken of everyone involved with 9/11. I suspect that Christians would predominate in the day's events. However, since large numbers of Jews live in New York and since Jews are prominent in the legal profession and in the then Bush administration, it is hardly surprising that they should pop up all over the 9/11 landscape, as, indeed, Christians do.

Having said that, it is well known that a number of white vans labeled Urban Moving Systems (later named by authorities as a Mossad front company) were reported to have been stopped by police. There is some confusion about the number and location of the vans, A full account is given at the above link. One van was reported to have contained explosives, another was driven by the "dancing Israeli" Mossad assets. The occupants of these vans were arrested and detained for a period before being deported to Israel, ostensibly for immigration violations.

Another truck with a painting of an airplane crashing into the Twin Towers on its side was also stopped and its occupants, two "middle eastern men" who affected not to speak English were also arrested.

Mossad agents impersonating Arabs, specifically Palestinians, while performing mischief wasn't as well known a phenomenon in 2001 as it is now . . . so, at the link given above there is an interesting reference to a statement released to the Washington Times and printed on September 10, 2001.

On September 10, 2001 , the Army School of Advanced Military Studies issued a report written by elite US army officers, which was made public just prior to 9/1 1 . The report gave the following description for the Mossad:

"Wildcard. Ruthless and cunning. Has capability to target US forces and make it look like a Palestinian/Arab act." [Washington Times, 9/10/01]

This press statement is highly interesting. A statement in the Washington Times is certainly not a statement to AMERICA. Therefore, calling this statement a "heads up" to Americans to be on the lookout for mischief from Mossad would be a huge exaggeration, nevertheless, the statement could function, in hindsight, dredged up later, as an "obvious" indication that collaborating with Mossad to attack US interests is something that the American military would "obviously" not be a part of.

I believe that is exactly what they did, however.

If Mossad were interested in conducting a serious operation on US soil, despite their apparent reputation as very loose cannons among US "allies", surely they would not have painted their black ops canvas in such broad and garish colors.

Why would they draw such attention to themselves? Why would the US military issue a statement on 9/10 saying, "Yup, ya gotta keep yer eye on them fellas from Mossad."

Well, with your eyes on Mossad and of course, thanks to spillover from the vast reservoir of historical antisemitism, THE JEWS, the US government and its reckless collaborator could make sure that a whole lot of other things were never looked at. Friends will help you move but real friends will help you move the blame.

Presumably the thinking in the corridors of power in Israel was that the long term benefit of helping to shift American policy into belligerency in the Middle East was worth the cost of applying another coat of antisemitic shellac to the reputation of Jews world wide.

Jews world wide seem to be viewed, if my observations and reflexions are accurate, as terrific shock absorbers by . . . other Jews.

In the next part I am going to take a look at an incident where the Israeli military did attack the United States, astonishing as that might seem, and we know that they did it, because they owned up to it.

Part Five A

The story of the USS Liberty is not as well known as it should be and that is because when it occurred it was the subject of an intense media blackout.

A vivid retelling of the story is available on YouTube at the following link:

www.youtube.com...

In brief, the Liberty was a ship outfitted for electronic eavesdropping on radio communications. It was "state of the art" in 1967. It was cruising in international waters off the Egyptian coast during the Six Day War listening to radio traffic. It had satellite links to NSA headquarters.

en.wikipedia.org...(AGTR-5)#Israeli_attack

On the afternoon of 8 June 1967, while in international waters off the northern coast of the Sinai Peninsula, Liberty was attacked and damaged by the Israel Defense Forces; 34 crewmen were killed and 174 wounded. Although severely damaged with a 39-foot-wide (12 m) by 24-foot-high (7.3 m) hole amidships and a twisted keel, Liberty’s crew kept her afloat, and she was able to leave the area under her own power.

There was a lot of behind closed doors political wrangling in the wake of this event. The Israelis conducted inquiries into what had led to such a bizarre occurrence. The Americans wanted answers.

They got "positions", moveable positions that moved as more became known about the incident. The final mutually acceptable position, after a series of unacceptable positions, was that the Israelis tried to sink the Liberty because of a tragic series of blunders. The suspicion was also voiced to the public (by a US Navy Admiral) that they didn't want the Americans to know, with two days left in a six day war, that they were going to grab the Golan Heights in defiance of America's expressed preference that they not do that.

Israel and it's supporters were extremely concerned about the situation. A withdrawal of support for Israel by the US would be catastrophic for that country.

An incredible amount of political (financial) pressure was brought to bear on office holders in the United States with a view to the upcoming elections in 1968. Israel, very graciously, made the Americans a gift of a Russian (Think ARVN, as the North Vietnamese were shooting American pilots down with them in Vietnam.) SAM missile launcher, complete with manuals and cheat sheets (we are told).

The American sailors who survived were awarded medals on the QT and widows and wounded given meagre financial settlements. The Israelis paid for the ship at a fraction of its quoted value.

People were bitter and suspicious. Time passed. Israeli/American relations continued as before, with the American tax payer footing a lot of Israel's military expenses to the tune of billions of dollars a year.

Inquiring minds are left wondering why Israel attacked the USS Liberty, and make no mistake about it, they wanted to send it to the bottom . . . with all hands.

Who machine guns the life rafts before they are even launched? The British? The Nazis? Who drops napalm on a naval vessel? Lunatics?

The "blunder", if that's what it was, was prosecuted with extreme prejudice.

Part Five B

Remember, this occurred during the closing phase of a very intense and hot war, and is most often cited as a fog of war incident compounded by mistakes and incompetence, and sometimes, though not really credibly, as an attack that occurred because Israel did not want the United States to learn about Israel's intention to seize the Golan Heights.

In any event on the basis of confusion as to the cause of the incident and on the negotiation of innumerable unknown quid pro quos, Israeli/American relations proceeded as before.

The following web page has a very thorough exposition of the evolution of the Israeli explanation for the attack. It's worth a read, if for no other reason than it gives quite a list of American officials who did not believe the explanation. It also give a flavor of the very wordy, falsely frank, "Let's lead Barney to the ballroom," style one sometimes encounters among persuaders in the law courts and in business.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org...

One assertion is of particular interest.

Among the more far-fetched theories that have been suggested is the possibility that the Liberty was attacked because it had learned of the Israeli execution of Egyptian POWs; . . . But no document, American or Israeli, contains any reference to prisoner executions; neither are they mentioned in any Arabic source that has come to light to date.44

Contrast this with the following:

www.newworldencyclopedia.org...

In an August 16, 1995, interview for Israel Radio, Aryeh Yitzhaki of Bar-Ilan University, who had worked previously in the IDF history department, accused IDF units of killing up to 1,000 Egyptians who had abandoned their weapons and fled into the desert during the war. . . .

Although Yitzkhaki’s claim that up to 1,000 prisoners had been killed was not substantiated, in an ensuing highly-controversial national debate in Israel, more soldiers came forward to say that they had witnessed the execution of unarmed prisoners and a long-suppressed public reckoning began.

A June 11, 1967, general-command IDF order specifically forbade killing prisoners, clarifying the official Israeli position. However, no official Israeli documents that would allow the scale of the killings to be accurately assessed have been released.

According to a New York Times report of September 21, 1995, the Egyptian government announced that it had discovered two shallow mass graves in the Sinai at El Arish (see map, my note) containing the remains of 30-60 Egyptian prisoners shot by Israeli soldiers during the 1967 war. Israel reportedly offered compensation to the families of the victims.

According to Israeli official records, 4,338 Egyptian soldiers were captured by IDF.

Very short shrift is given by Israeli spokespersons to this matter, but isn't it apparent that this reason, the execution of prisoners, unlike others put forward, actually evenly matches cause with effect, the attempt to sink the spy ship monitoring a war crime?

We know, from eyewitness testimony about the ship's flag and from the release of parts of tapes recorded by the Israeli ATC tower, controlling the warplanes, that there was no doubt about the identity of the Liberty. The IDF knew they were attacking an American ship.

Transcripts of the tapes that have been published, particularly in the Jerusalem Post, reflected erasures and did not conclusively demonstrate certitude, timely certitude that the IDF air traffic controllers knew the Liberty was an American ship, but in 2007 witnesses came forward who had read teletype versions of the transmissions from the ATCs in the area, in 1967.

Part Five C

www.globalresearch.ca...

The transcript published by the Jerusalem Post bore scant resemblance to the one that in 1967 rolled off the teletype machine behind the sealed vault door at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha, where Steve Forslund worked as an intelligence analyst for the 544th Air Reconnaissance Technical Wing, then the highest-level strategic planning office in the Air Force.

“The ground control station stated that the target was American and for the aircraft to confirm it,” Forslund recalled. “The aircraft did confirm the identity of the target as American, by the American flag.

“The ground control station ordered the aircraft to attack and sink the target and ensure they left no survivors.”

Forslund said he clearly recalled “the obvious frustration of the controller over the inability of the pilots to sink the target quickly and completely.”

“He kept insisting the mission had to sink the target, and was frustrated with the pilots’ responses that it didn’t sink.”

Nor, Forslund said, was he the only member of his unit to have read the transcripts. “Everybody saw these,” said Forslund, now retired after 26 years in the military.

Forslund’s recollections are supported by those of two other Air Force intelligence specialists, working in widely separate locations, who say they also saw the transcripts of the attacking Israeli pilots’ communications.

One is James Gotcher, now an attorney in California, who was then serving with the Air Force Security Service’s 6924th Security Squadron, an adjunct of the NSA, at Son Tra, Vietnam.

“It was clear that the Israeli aircraft were being vectored directly at USS Liberty,” Gotcher recalled in an e-mail. “Later, around the time Liberty got off a distress call, the controllers seemed to panic and urged the aircraft to ‘complete the job’ and get out of there.”

Six thousand miles from Omaha, on the Mediterranean island of Crete, Air Force Capt. Richard Block was commanding an intelligence wing of more than 100 analysts and cryptologists monitoring Middle Eastern communications.

The transcripts Block remembered seeing “were teletypes, way beyond Top Secret. Some of the pilots did not want to attack,” Block said. “The pilots said, ‘This is an American ship. Do you still want us to attack?’

“And ground control came back and said, ‘Yes, follow orders.’”

The Liberty had a satellite link to the National Security Agency and was monitoring the war in real time for them, undoubtedly, but what else were they picking up? We are told that their mission was to monitor signals related to Russian activity in the theatre of war. We are told that they were not listening to the Israelis, but this cannot be true.

Undoubtedly they were vacuuming up all radio traffic and recording it.

It is likely that nobody on board would have been aware of recording radio transmissions from ground commanders related to Egyptian prisoners. The American technicians would have been keeping things working smoothly on the technical level and probably only had a sporadic awareness of details being recorded, if any awareness at all.

It seems to me that it is not far fetched at all to assume that in the eyes of the IDF, there was an urgent requirement, in the light of some unknown event or some unknown radio transmission, likely to have been recorded by the Liberty, to send her to the bottom ASAP, which they tried to do.

They had been jamming the Liberty's radio signals including the international distress frequency, which is a violation of international law.

The only thing that prevented the sinking of the vessel was a jerry rigged antenna, through which the Liberty managed to send a distress signal to the 6th Fleet. According to sailors on board the Liberty, the Israelis immediately broke off the attack when the radio transmission went out.

Part Six will be a short, light hearted story, for the "Jew in the street", as told to me by one of my "Jew in the street" friends. You're going to love it. It just occurred to me that I have a one degree separation between myself and General Moshe Dayan!

Note: Relative to the SAM missile launcher, the acronym of the North Vietnamese Army should be NVA, not ARVN. I apologize for the error.

a reply to: ipsedixit

I honestly think you need to see a doctor for what looks like a simple diagnosis of 'Jews on the brain.' Judging from your Jew obsessional behaviour it looks like you have this illness. Best wishes, I wish you well in recovery from this disease you seem inflicted with, picked up over the span of your life.

a reply to: ufoorbhunter

Thanks for the kind wishes. Googling each of the following produced these results:

Muslims: 166,000,000 hits.

Jews: 99,000,000 hits.

Hindus: 42,000,000 hits.

Catholics: 28,000,000 hits.

Atheists: 14,000,000 hits.

Protestants: 13,000,000 hits.

Here is a ranking of the size of the major religious groupings:

en.wikipedia.org...



This means that a group that comprises .2% of the religious people in the world is getting 27.5% (very roughly) of the internet comment obtained by googling names of religious denominations.

Come to your own conclusions. In my personal experience most Jews do absolutely nothing to draw attention to themselves, but despite their best efforts, the religion is getting noticed. Is that just the fault of people with Jews on the brain, or are there other factors at work? Personally, I think the latter.

a reply to: ipsedixit

The Jews may be getting 27.5% of internet comment, but a large proportion of planet Earth is probably obsessed by them. Muslims are obsessed because they have seen their mighty coalition armies smashed to pieces on a regular basis by the Jewish state of Israel. There's a good proportion of our population. The former Soviet Union has seen its economy dominated by Jews since 1991, so again there's a fairly large population that will be interested in this tiny minority. As far as the Amerians go, well there's a high proportion of Jews in prominent positions within various parts of the economy and politics so there's a reason or the USA internet hits. I know all this because of reading about the Jews and the state of Israel through internet and books Lol i'm a prime example

originally posted by: ufoorbhunter

Lol i'm a prime example

What can I say?

I think the ordinary Jew has many of the same problems that everybody else has, particularly as it relates to the shenanigans of the oligarchs who dominate international policy as it relates to Jews. Non Jews have exactly the same problems, sometimes with the very same people, but with others too. Just because the Rothschilds, for example, control some financial sector doesn't mean that the Jew in the street is going to get a higher interest rate on his savings account or reduced service charges because he is a Jew. He is going to get screwed over just as badly as anyone else.

As I go along I hope to make that point clearer and hint at the reasons for it.

Part Six

I have to apologize again.

I have decided not to tell my friend's story about his "frank and forthright" meeting with General Dayan. (It happened in 1972 in Munchréal, I believe) I was really going to lay it on, with a character sketch of my friend highlighting the high esteem in which he held both the general and . . . himself. I was going to show the skill of my friend in psychology and the clever ruse he employed to gain close, across the table, access to the Israeli war hero and I was going to end the story abruptly, in dramatic fashion, as, in fact, the meeting had ended, almost as soon as it started, with the general blowing his stack as my friend sat down, and shouting at his (duped) bodyguard to get my friend the hell out of there.

article.wn.com...



Sometimes loyalty to a friend precludes telling a story anonymously that might become the cause of embarrassment.

Zionism in Germany and the redefinition of anti-semitism:

It is difficult to see Zionism in perspective from the point of view of the present day. Zionists of our time are using the instruments of a national state, Israel, to characterize Zionism as being integral to Judaism and to characterize one who is opposed to Zionism as being the equivalent of an antisemite. A special category of "mental imbalance" is reserved for anti-Zionist Jews. There are anti-Zionist Jews, even anti-Zionist rabbis. Zionists label them "self-hating" Jews and consider them emotionally or mentally unbalanced.

Zionism could be described as the socio-political theory that guided the founders of the state of Israel. Most Jews would probably say that the Zionists were activists known for efforts undertaken in the early part of the twentieth century to secure the establishment, in what was then known as Palestine, of a "homeland" for the Jews. Few people in the general population, Jewish or otherwise, know much detail about the activities of the Zionists.

People who publish awkward details about these activities are generally labeled anti-semites, even if what they are publishing is demonstrably true. David Irving is the most famous historian to be labelled an anti-semite, it would seem, for simply publishing well documented facts.

Of course he does make some mistakes. Who doesn't? He has been called tendentious in the direction of sympathy for Nazism, but that in itself might be slander. Sympathy and empathy and advocacy are like salt and pepper in food. Whether any is present in too great a quantity is very often a matter of individual sensitivity.

I've read some of Mr. Irving's work. There is no question in my mind that the Nazis would never consider him for employment in their propaganda department. They would never have allowed his work to be published in Nazi Germany. There is too much unpleasant truth in it.

Mr. Irving is not sympathetic to the Nazis, in my opinion. If one had to characterize his attitude to the Nazis, I think it might be described as scholarly empathy. He is certainly not an advocate for Nazism. I think he empathizes with the Nazis, in an effort to understand them clearly. This is a little like the poet Keats's use of what he called "negative capability", to get his preconceptions out of the way of an accurate perception of things.

Perhaps it wasn't publishing facts alone that got Mr. Irving his notoriety. After all, numerous books have been written about Zionism, some critical, and not all of the authors have been labeled anti-semitic. Most of these authors publish in the academic press. Irving has had the "misfortune" to have a readership from both the academic community and from the wider public. It's the second group that is the problem. They vote in much larger numbers than academics and are notoriously easily led.

The Establishment, whether here, in Israel, or in Germany would prefer that any leading of the public be from the top down. They don't like it when alternatives, no matter how well sourced and documented, to the official historical narrative, conflict with that carefully vetted version.

One of the unpleasant truths that might be considered "anti-semitic", today, that is published in one of Mr. Irving's books, is only anti-semitic if one equates that term, as modern Zionists do, with anti-Zionism.

The information is not explicitly anti-Zionist. It is simply accurate information, but the implications of it raise serious questions about the judgment of German Zionists in the 1920s and early 1930s.

Here is the quote from Chapter 11, p.133, of Churchill's War, Vol 1,Part 1 by David Irving (bolding and italics are mine):

There were other eclectic visitors to Chartwell early that September (1938). Through an indiscretion of Clemmie’s sister, leaked in the Daily Express, we know that under a personal guarantee of secrecy Dr Heinrich Brüning, the last of the Weimar chancellors, had come down from Oxford, where he was a deeply respected research fellow at Queen’s College. Anti-Nazis had asked him to get Churchill to influence No.10 to ‘speak plainly to Hitler.’

We have no note on what they discussed; but perhaps this is the place to mention that ten years later Dr Brüning wrote to Churchill’s publishers, enjoining them not to publish a letter he had written to Winston on August 28, 1937 about the tragic error of those guilty of funding Hitler before his rise to power. Industrialist Friedrich Flick and the I.G. Farben company had been forced to contribute only after the Nazis came to power, he said, but he knew from bitter inside knowledge as chancellor that others, including the French secret service, had voluntarily financed the Nazis into office:

I did not (Brüning wrote to the editors of Life, prohibiting the use of his letter, in 1948), and do not even today, for understandable reasons, wish to reveal that from October 1928 the two largest regular contributors to the Nazi Party were the general managers of two of the largest Berlin banks, both of Jewish faith, and one of them the leader of Zionism in Germany.25 *

Of course hindsight is 20/20 and it is obvious that for either of the French Secret Service or the Zionists to have actually financed the rise of Adolf Hitler indicates an appalling lack of prudence. What were they thinking?

In the case of the Zionists, they were thinking of how they could, with as much dispatch as possible, move the Jewish population of Germany to the historic home of the Jews led out of Egypt, by Moses, thousands of years ago.

I won't comment personally on that idea, but one can't help but feel that a very great many German Jews, who were well off and comfortable in Germany, must have viewed an enterprise like that as quaint and completely impractical.

Note:

Just to make the point that I am not an idiot in thrall to the bewitching and dangerous writings of David Irving, I want to point out a couple of mistakes I have found in his writings. They are not central to the thrust of the works I am citing, but they do show that even if one is a researcher as assiduously attentive to detail as Mr. Irving is, one can still be tripped up occasionally by gremlins.

These particular mistakes are all the more unfortunate for being so easily caught, even by an amateur like me.

On Page 464 of volume one of Churchill's War Mr Irving says that Mr. Churchill had worn a bowler hat at the "Siege of Sidney Street", a shoot out between anarchists and police assisted by military personnel that had occurred in 1911, at a time when Mr. Churchill was Home Secretary.

In fact Churchill wore a top hat, which can be seen in a photograph taken at the incident.

en.wikipedia.org...



The hat, famously, was hit by a bullet during the stand off.

On page 231 of Hitler's War, Mr. Irving tells us that German Army General Kurt von Briesen lost an arm during a counter attack led by him personally, during the Battle of Bzura in Poland in 1939. Wikipedia says that Briesen's arm had been wounded earlier in the battle. (He led the counter attack with a wounded arm.)

In their article on von Briesen, Wikipedia includes photographs of the General with Hitler at the front, showing his arm in a dressing, and then later on horseback during the army's entry into Paris, saluting troops from horseback with the now healed arm.

en.wikipedia.org...



Briesen's horseback salute is from well known newsreel footage and Churchill's ventilated hat is also well known to historians of that political period.