The Babylonian Talmud, the Emperor Titus and Rabbinical anti-Roman Propaganda

 

Source: https://www.renegadetribune.com/the-babylonian-talmud-the-emperor-titus-and-rabbinical-anti-roman-propaganda/

 

by Karl Radl

 

I recently covered the jewish claim in Tractate Gittin of the Babylonian Talmud that the jews were responsible (directly or indirectly) for the death of the Roman Emperor Titus in 81 A.D. (1)

 

As an extension of that article, I wanted to situate the story of Titus’ death within the context of the Babylonian Talmud’s commentary on (and use of) Titus in general in its pages.

 

To begin with let’s remind ourselves of the Babylonian Talmud’s account of the death of Titus found in folio 56 of Tractate Gittin.

 

To wit:

 

‘It is further related about Titus that he was once traveling at sea and a wave rose up against him and threatened to drown him. Titus said: It seems to me that their God, the God of Israel, has power only in water. Pharaoh rose against them and He drowned him in water. Sisera rose against them and He drowned him in water. Here too, He has risen up against me to drown me in water. If He is really mighty, let Him go up on dry land and there wage war against me. A Divine Voice issued forth and said to him: Wicked one, son of a wicked one, grandson of Esau the wicked, for you are among his descendants and act just like him, I have a lowly creature in My world and it is called a gnat.

 

The Gemara resumes its story about Titus. The Divine Voice continued: Go up on dry land and make war with it. He went up on dry land, and a gnat came, entered his nostril, and picked at his brain for seven years. Titus suffered greatly from this until one day he passed by the gate of a blacksmith’s shop. The gnat heard the sound of a hammer and was silent and still. Titus said: I see that there is a remedy for my pain. Every day they would bring a blacksmith who hammered before him. He would give four dinars as payment to a gentile blacksmith, and to a Jew he would simply say: It is enough for you that you see your enemy in so much pain. He did this for thirty days and it was effective until then. From that point forward, since the gnat became accustomed to the hammering, it became accustomed to it, and once again it began to pick away at Titus’s brain.

 

It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Pineḥas ben Arova said: I was at that time among the noblemen of Rome, and when Titus died they split open his head and found that the gnat had grown to the size of a sparrow weighing two sela. It was taught in another baraita: It was like a one-year-old pigeon weighing two litra.

 

Abaye said: We have a tradition that its mouth was made of copper and its claws were fashioned of iron. When Titus was dying, he said to his attendants: Burn that man, i.e., me, and scatter his ashes across the seven seas, so that the God of the Jews should not find me and stand me for judgment.’ (2)

 

Now we already know this story likely has a grain of truth in it given that Suetonius recounts how Titus died from a fever (3) and it is reasonable to suppose that the ‘gnat’ of the Babylonian Talmud is in fact a reference to a mosquito which possibly gave Titus the malaria (i.e., the fever) which in turn killed him in 81 A.D.

 

However, it is also clear that the way that the rabbis of the Babylonian Talmud discuss this event that they view their people – the jews – as being directly or indirectly responsible for Titus’ death. So, either Yahweh killed Titus with the ‘gnat’ on behalf of the jews or there was a jewish tradition – which the rabbis of the Babylonian Talmud are presumably simply repeating – that the jews themselves killed Titus. This would possibly be by poison as that is the alternative account of how Titus died which is related by Philostratus around a century after Suetonius wrote his near contemporary account of Titus’ death. (4)

 

Going over this ground again is important because of what the rabbis of the Babylonian Talmud say around this description of the jews being directly or indirectly responsible for Titus’ death.

 

Namely earlier in Tractate Gittin we read the rabbis stating:

 

‘What did Titus do when he conquered the Temple? He took a prostitute with his hand, and entered the Holy of Holies with her. He then spread out a Torah scroll underneath him and committed a sin, i.e., engaged in sexual intercourse, on it. Afterward he took a sword and cut into the curtain separating between the Sanctuary and the Holy of Holies. And a miracle was performed and blood spurted forth. Seeing the blood, he mistakenly thought that he had killed himself. Here, the term himself is a euphemism for God. Titus saw blood issuing forth from the curtain in God’s meeting place, the Temple, and he took it as a sign that he had succeeded in killing God Himself. As it is stated: “Your enemies roar in the midst of Your meeting place; they have set up their own signs for signs” (Psalms 74:4).’ (5)

 

With the following additional rabbinic commentary attached to it:

 

‘Vespasian went back to Rome and sent Titus in his place. The Gemara cites a verse that was expounded as referring to Titus: “And he shall say: Where is their God, their rock in whom they trusted?” (Deuteronomy 32:37). This is the wicked Titus, who insulted and blasphemed God on High.’ (6)

 

Now what the rabbis of the Babylonian Talmud are claiming here is that Titus took a prostitute – whether she was jewish or non-jewish is not stated and either could be true – into the Holy of Holies in the Second Temple in Jerusalem. Spread out a Torah scroll and then had sex with the prostitute on it to defile both the Written Torah and the jewish temple itself.

 

Naturally this didn’t in fact happen since know from Josephus for example that when this allegedly going on the sanctuary in the Temple – where the Holy of Holies was – it was subject to a raging out-of-control fire started by the Roman soldiers during the siege of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. (7) So therefore this story is almost certainly untrue and is likely to be apocryphal anti-Roman propaganda from a later period, which may have had a role in promoting jewish anti-gentile sentiment and anti-Roman terrorism that triggered the multiple other jewish revolts in Judea and across the Mediterranean in the Roman and Byzantine eras such as the Kitos War and the Bar Kokhba Revolt.

 

Then the rabbis of the Babylonian Talmud go on to then claim that Titus decided – for reasons that aren’t made clear – to cut the ceremonial curtain separating the sanctuary and the Holy of Holies in the Second Temple – again this would likely have been completely burnt to a crisp in the raging fire at the sanctuary recounted by Josephus in his chronicle of the jewish revolt – with his sword – the Roman gladius was rather uniquely made for stabbing not cutting and as such its main edges were not usually very sharp, but the rabbis were apparently unaware of that little detail – and then a ‘miracle’ occurred whence ‘blood spurted forth from the curtain all over Titus’ and (we may assume) the prostitute that he had brought into the Holy of Holies in order to have sex.

 

How Titus then assumed that ‘he’d killed himself’ – Titus was a seasoned soldier so would have been very used to getting a lot of human and animal blood on his hands and body – is not explained, but the fact that is story is simply an apocryphal attempt to make Titus ‘learn his lesson’ courtesy of Yahweh – in a similar way to the story of Titus’ death via the ‘gnat’ entering his brain via his ear – is obvious.

 

Given of course that the rabbis of the Babylonian Talmud immediately linked the ‘anti-Titus miracles’ they are relating back to ‘prophecy in the Written Torah and the Tanakh’, which again showcases the fact that these passages in the Babylonian Talmud are simply jewish anti-gentile (and specifically anti-Roman) propaganda. That also seek to make the events of the first jewish revolt fit into a linear narrative of jewish prophecy from the Written Torah and the Tanakh, which would then – in turn – allow later rabbis and jewish religious radicals to promote a second jewish revolt (as in fact happened in 132-135 A.D.) using this earlier rabbinic interpretation to ‘explain’ why the first jewish revolt failed as well as why ‘it had to fail in order for their new revolt to succeed’.

 

What the Babylonian Talmud is relating here is a good example of early jewish atrocity propaganda directed at a hated enemy (the Roman) and which is very similar to the atrocity propaganda directed by later jews at the Tsarist Russian government in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as well as against Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich from 1933 to present.

 

We can see this same modus operandi in what the rabbis write next in Tractate Gittin, which is as follows:

 

‘What else did Titus do? He took the curtain and formed it like a large basket, and brought all of the sacred vessels of the Temple and placed them in it. And he put them on a ship to go and be praised in his city that he had conquered Jerusalem, as it is stated: “And so I saw the wicked buried, and come to their rest; but those that had done right were gone from the holy place, and were forgotten in the city; this also is vanity” (Ecclesiastes 8:10). Do not read the word as “buried [kevurim].” Rather, read it as collected [kevutzim]. And do not read the word as “and were forgotten [veyishtakeḥu].” Rather, read it as: And they were praised [veyishtabeḥu]. According to this interpretation, the verse speaks of those who will gather and collect items “from the holy place,” the Temple, and be praised in their city about what they had done.

 

There are those who say that the verse is to be read as written, as it is referring to items that were actually buried. This is because even items that had been buried were revealed to them, i.e., Titus and his soldiers, as they found all of the sacred vessels.’ (8)

 

In the above passage we can see that there is no additional attempt to attack or smear Titus, but rather the passage is concerned with trying to show how Titus’ ransacking of the vast wealth of the Second Temple – famously illustrated on the Arch of Titus in Rome – that in turn largely paid for the construction of the Flavian Amphitheatre (aka the Coliseum) in Rome was in fact ‘the fulfillment of divine prophecy’ specifically from the book of Ecclesiastes (the traditional Hebrew name for the book is ‘Kohelet’) and as such was not a national humiliation for the jews, but instead a ‘necessary evil’ that would – in time – allow the jews to successfully revolt against (and then rule) the Roman Empire, which then in turn became one of the later rabbinical justifications for the jewish revolt led by Simon bar Kokhba in 132-135 B.C.

 

The next and last passage in the Babylonian Talmud that deals with the Emperor Titus is a very famous one namely:

 

‘The Gemara relates: Onkelos bar Kalonikos, the son of Titus’s sister, wanted to convert to Judaism. He went and raised Titus from the grave through necromancy, and said to him: Who is most important in that world where you are now? Titus said to him: The Jewish people. Onkelos asked him: Should I then attach myself to them here in this world? Titus said to him: Their commandments are numerous, and you will not be able to fulfill them. It is best that you do as follows: Go out and battle against them in that world, and you will become the chief, as it is written: “Her adversaries [tzareha] have become the chief” (Lamentations 1:5), which means: Anyone who distresses [meitzer] Israel will become the chief. Onkelos said to him: What is the punishment of that man, a euphemism for Titus himself, in the next world? Titus said to him:

 

That which he decreed against himself, as he undergoes the following: Every day his ashes are gathered, and they judge him, and they burn him, and they scatter him over the seven seas.’ (9)

 

Now you are probably wondering what I mean by ‘this passage is famous’, but it is easily explained by pointing out it is the first part of the famous passage in the Babylonian Talmud where we are told that Jesus is both ‘boiling in excrement’ and ‘boiling in semen’ in hell.

 

Namely:

 

‘[Onkelos the son of Kalonymos, nephew of the Roman general and emperor Titus, who desired to become a proselyte] called up Balaam [from the world of the dead] by necromancy. He said to him, ‘Who is honored in this world?’ He [Balaam] replied, ‘Israel.’ ‘What about [my] joining them?’ He replied, ‘You shall not seek their peace or their prosperity all your days’ (Deut. 23:6) He said to him, ‘What is your punishment?’ He replied, ‘To be in boiling semen.’

 

He called up Jesus by necromancy. He said to him, ‘Who is honored in this world?’ He [Jesus] replied, ‘Israel.’ ‘What about joining them?’ He replied, ‘Seek their good, do not seek their harm. Injuring them is like injuring the apple of your own eye.’ He said, ‘What is your punishment?’ He replied, ‘To be in boiling excrement.’ As a teacher has said, ‘Everyone who mocks the words of the wise is punished by boiling excrement.’ (10)

 

For the sake of clarity ‘Balaam’ in this passage – who is ‘boiling in semen’ – is an earlier coded jewish reference to Jesus, (11) which a later rabbinical writer has not understood as such and has simply added in another insulting reference to Jesus – directly this time – who he has ‘boiling in excrement’ instead. (12)

 

This is outside the strict purview of this article (13) but I think will help the reader to locate the commentary in regard to Titus, because before the shade of Jesus is summoned from hell by Titus’ nephew Onkelos – a ‘God-Fearer’ – (14) the shade of Titus is summoned from hell by Onkelos to testify about just how much he was being ‘punished for wronging the jews’ and how the ‘jewish people were the most important [people] in the world.’

 

Titus is even made to start quoting passages from the Tanakh (specifically from the book of Lamentations) in support of this as well as preaching how ‘their [the jewish] commandments are [so] numerous [that] you will not be able to fulfil them.’

 

The latter is a coded reference to the concept of the ‘God-Fearer’ (aka the ancestor concept to the modern Noahide in Judaism) in that jews are required to fulfil the 613 mitzvot (‘613 commandments’; hence ‘their commandments are numerous’), but because Onkelos has been born a non-jew (being Titus’ nephew and thus a Roman) he is incapable of doing this because non-jews are biologically inferior to jews – this is also implicit in Titus’ statement that ‘jewish people are the most important in the world’ – so the Yahweh (and the jews) only require them to fulfil 7 mitzvot (‘7 commandments’; hence ‘you will not be able to fulfil them’ with the implied ‘but you can fulfil these 7 commandments because you aren’t jewish’) instead of 613 mitzvot.

 

The purpose of the ‘God-Fearer’ concept in antiquity was to recruit and then weaponize non-jews – who had been seduced by jewish proselytism into wanting to become jews but could not because they were not born jewish – into actively helping the jews subvert and then conquer Rome (among other civilizations and states) using a mix of religious subversion and attempted popular as well as palace coups, (15) which you see almost explicitly stated by Titus in the passage when he is made to declare by the rabbis of the Babylonian Talmud that:

 

‘It is best that you do as follows: Go out and battle against them in that world, and you will become the chief, as it is written: “Her adversaries [tzareha] have become the chief” (Lamentations 1:5), which means: Anyone who distresses [meitzer] Israel will become the chief.’ (16)

 

This passage might seem paradoxical but remember that Onkelos is said to want to convert to Judaism and Titus has just told him that such a course of action is impossible for him because he was born a non-jew.

 

So, what Titus is in fact stating here is that in order for Onkelos to best serve the jewish people – as a would-be convert to Judaism who can only become a ‘God-Fearer’ – is that he should pretend to be an enemy of the jews in order to get into power in Rome (i.e., become Emperor) and then the jews will rule from behind the scenes using Onkelos as their patsy and/or then the jews can take direct power from Onkelos and rule Rome and its empire from Jerusalem.

 

Indeed, this is almost exactly what the jews in Rome tried to do in the time of the Julian Emperors – notably Tiberius, Claudius and Nero – (17) and then proceeded to try and do again during the reign of Titus himself before they were crushed again by Titus’ brother and successor Domitian. (18)

 

So thus what we can actually see in this passage concerning Onkelos summoning the shade of Titus (and then Jesus) – which is in conscious imitation of the famous passage in the eleventh book of Homer’s ‘Odyssey’ when Odysseus descends into the underworld and summons various shades (such as that of his friend Achilles) who he then converses with – is intended as anti-Roman propaganda, strategic advice on how jews should subvert the Roman Empire (which later morphed into the Byzantine Empire) from within via the use of ‘God-Fearers’ (think of them as the ‘Sayanim’ that the Mossad uses in modernity but in classical antiquity) and also explicitly preaches jewish racial superiority over non-jews.

 

In summary then we can see that the Babylonian Talmud’s commentary on the Emperor Titus is focused on doing several things at once:

 

A) Smearing Titus as an extremely evil man and proto-Hitler via spreading atrocity propaganda stories about him such as claiming that he did things (e.g., having sex with a prostitute on a Torah scroll in the Holy of Holies) that he almost certainly never did.

 

B) Making the events of jewish history (i.e., the first jewish revolt) fit within ‘jewish prophecy’ from the Written Torah and Tanakh. So as to explain away the jewish defeat by the Romans as a ‘necessary evil’ that ‘had to happen’ and ‘come before’ the jews were ultimately victorious and conquered Rome and her empire, which they would then proceed to rule from Jerusalem and/or via a ‘God-Fearer’ ruling in their name on the imperial throne in Rome itself.

 

C) Preaching the biological superiority of every jew over every non-jew.

 

D) Advising other jews on how they should go about conquering Rome and its empire by recruiting and using ‘God-Fearers’ to subvert it from within.

 

Does that sound familiar?

 

Because it should.

 

Thanks for reading Semitic Controversies! This post is public so feel free to share it.

---

References

 

(1) On this please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/the-death-of-the-emperor-titus-and

 

(2) Babylonian Talmud, Tractate Gittin 56b (Sefaria Translation)

 

(3) Suet., Tit., 9-11

 

(4) Philostrat., Vit. Apol. Tyan., 6:32

 

(5) Op. Cit., Gittin 56b

 

(6) Idem.

 

(7) Josep., Bel. Jud., 6:4-5

 

(8) Op. Cit., Gittin 56b

 

(9) Ibid., 56b-57a

 

(10) Ibid., 57a; see Robert E. Van Voorst, 2000, ‘Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence’, 1st Edition, William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, pp. 110-111

 

(11) On this please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/validating-the-jesus-is-boiling-in-470

 

(12) On this please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/validating-the-jesus-is-boiling-in

 

(13) For a detailed academic discussion of this passage and why it can only refer to the Christian Jesus not ‘some other person called Jesus’ see Peter Schaefer, 2007, ‘Jesus in the Talmud‘, 1st Edition, Princeton University Press: Princeton, pp. 85-90.

 

(14) What we’d now call a ‘Noahide’ following Moses Maimonides modification of the ‘God-Fearer’ of classical antiquity into the ‘Noahide’ of the medieval period and modernity.

 

(15) I have traced the history of the jewish plot to subvert and takeover Rome and its empire in the following article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/the-acta-hermaisci-on-the-jews as well as discussed how that applies to the period around the rule of the Emperors Vespasian and Titus in my more recent article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/the-death-of-the-emperor-titus-and. Alternatively see John Allegro, 1971, ‘The Chosen People: A Study of Jewish History from the time of the Exile until the Revolt of Bar Kocheba’, 1st Edition, Hodder and Stoughton: London which attempts to do much the same thing.

 

(16) Op. Cit., Gittin 56b

 

(17) On this please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/the-acta-hermaisci-on-the-jews

 

(18) On this please see my article: https://karlradl14.substack.com/p/the-death-of-the-emperor-titus-and

 

via Semitic Controversies

Caricatures from "Der Stürmer" - translated in English and colourized - The Year 1936 – Part 6!

 The Year 1936 – Part 6

Dr. William Luther Pierce – White Middle Class Deserves What They Get

Inconvenient History - Volume 15

 

DOWNLOAD THE BOOK IN PDF FORMAT.

 

Inconvenient History seeks to revive the true spirit of the historical revisionist movement; a movement that was established primarily to foster peace through an objective understanding of the causes of modern warfare.

New World Order - Communism by the Backdoor - Part 9

By Denis Wise

The “Miracle of Dunkirk”

 

Source: https://codoh.com/library/document/the-miracle-of-dunkirk/

 

by John Wear

August 21, 2026

 

The Battle of Dunkirk occurred from May 26, 1940 to June 4, 1940. Approximately 338,000 British Expeditionary Force (BEF) and other Allied troops were evacuated from Dunkirk, France to England as German forces closed in on them. This massive military operation, which involved hundreds of naval and civilian vessels, became known as the “Miracle of Dunkirk.” This largely successful evacuation of most of Britain’s trained troops proved to be a key moment in the victorious Allied war effort.[1]

 

Germany’s offensive against Dunkirk was halted by Adolf Hitler’s order on May 24, 1940. A controversy has developed as to why Hitler issued this order which enabled so many British troops to escape to England. Many historians claim that Hitler issued this order solely because of his military incompetence. Other historians state that Hitler halted his troops as a peace offering to prevent an irreparable breach between Britain and Germany.

 

This article discusses the evidence as to why Hitler ordered the German offensive at Dunkirk stopped, thereby allowing hundreds of thousands of British troops to be evacuated from Dunkirk.

 

Hitler’s Alleged Military Incompetence

 

Most mainstream historians state that military incompetence was the reason Hitler ordered his troops to halt before reaching Dunkirk. For example, German historian Volker Ullrich writes about Hitler’s decision:[2]

 

“What is certain is that his order to halt the advance was not his decision alone, but rather came after an intensive discussion with Colonel-General von Rundstedt. During the morning of 24 May, the dictator met with the commander of Army Group A in his headquarters in Charleville to discuss how to proceed. There, he learned that Rundstedt had already ordered German troops to halt so that motorized units and infantry divisions could catch up with the battle-worn tank groups.

 

Hitler agreed with Rundstedt about the situation. The dictator was already looking ahead to the next phase of the campaign and wanted to conserve his tank force for coming operations. To this end, he explicitly left it up to Rundstedt when the advance would continue. Thus, Hitler’s actions were guided by military considerations. A few days later, however, when it became clear that he had made a serious error, he cited an ex post facto political reason, claiming that he had purposely let the British expeditionary corps escape so as to preserve the possibility of a peace settlement with Britain.”

 

Ullrich writes that there is no truth in the idea that Hitler wanted to take it easy on the British. On the contrary, Ullrich writes that Hitler trusted Göring’s assurances that the Luftwaffe would easily be able to stop an evacuation of the BEF by sea.[3]

 

British historian Ian Kershaw writes:[4]

 

“Post-war suggestions that Hitler was deliberately allowing the British troops to get away as an act of generosity to encourage Britain to come to the peace table with its armies intact are far-fetched. Hitler himself was alleged to have told his entourage a fortnight or so later that ‘the army is the backbone of England and the Empire. If we smash the invasion corps, the Empire is doomed. Since we neither want to nor can inherit it, we must leave it the chance. My generals haven’t grasped that.’ Such sentiments, if they were indeed expressed in those terms, were no more than a self-justification for a military mistake. For the decision not to move on Dunkirk was taken for military reasons, and on military advice.”

 

German Gen. Heinz Guderian wrote about Dunkirk:[5]

 

“Winston Churchill, in his memoirs of the Second World War, says that some of the German generals suggested that by holding up his tanks outside Dunkirk Hitler was hoping either to give the English an opportunity to sue for peace or to increase Germany’s chances of negotiating a settlement. Neither then nor at any later period did I ever hear anything to substantiate this suggestion. Churchill’s guess that Rundstedt may have himself decided to hold up the armor is also wide of the mark. As the commander on the spot, I am able, moreover, definitely to state that the heroic defense of Calais, although worthy of the highest praise, yet had no influence on the development of events outside Dunkirk. Churchill assumes, quite correctly, that Hitler and above all Goering believed German air supremacy to be strong enough to prevent the evacuation of the British forces by sea. This belief was a mistake pregnant with consequence, for only the capture of the British Expeditionary Force could have influenced the English towards making peace with Hitler or could have created the conditions necessary for a successful German invasion of Great Britain.”

 

Hitler explained his Dunkirk decision at Brussels, where Gen. Fedor von Bock had assembled his senior generals:[6]

 

“Gentlemen, you will have wondered why I stopped the armored divisions outside Dunkirk. The fact was I could not afford to waste military effort. I was anxious lest the enemy launch an offensive from the Somme and wipe out the Fourth Army’s weak armored force, perhaps even going so far as Dunkirk. Such a military rebuff might have had intolerable effects in foreign policy.”

 

After Hitler ordered his tank forces to hold back on May 24, 1940, Hermann Göring announced that his Luftwaffe would take care of the British: “Our air force is to mop up the British. I’ve persuaded the Führer to hold the army back.” Göring stated to German Gen. Erhard Milch, “The Führer wants us to give them a lesson they’ll never forget.”[7]

 

Historian Hans-Adolf Jacobsen writes about Dunkirk:[8]

 

“Frequently in the earlier literature one finds the idea put forward that Hitler issued the ‘Halt-Order’ intentionally to give Britain ‘a golden bridge’ so that parts of the British army could escape. A ‘chivalrous’ gesture of that kind would contribute to a quicker peaceable understanding with Churchill. This contention belongs in the realm of numerous untrue postwar legends.”

 

Hitler’s Alleged Desire for Peace

 

Hitler had never wanted war with Great Britain. To Hitler, Great Britain was the natural ally of Germany and the nation he admired most. Hitler had no ambitions against Britain or her Empire, and all of the captured records solidly bear this out.[9]

 

After Germany’s conquest of Poland, Hitler made a peace offer to Britain and France that was quickly rejected. Included in Hitler’s peace offer was the evacuation of Poland by the Wehrmacht, except for Danzig and the “Corridor.”[10]

 

Hitler’s desire to make peace with Great Britain continued throughout the war. Numerous sources state that Hitler’s desire to make peace with Great Britain was the reason Hitler ordered his troops to halt before reaching Dunkirk.

 

For example, Gerard Menuhin in his book Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil states that he asked Dr. Gerhard Frey why Hitler had allowed the evacuation of the British army at Dunkirk, when Hitler had the opportunity of capturing the entire British army. Dr. Frey replied:[11]

 

“It had been a last gambit to gain some understanding with Britain…In fact, Hitler had been duped since the Munich Agreement in September 1938 into believing that there existed in Britain a strong movement for appeasement and against war with Germany, a movement led by Chamberlain, which would outweigh in importance and effect Churchill’s warmongering faction. This illusion had been fostered by banker Kurt von Schroder, who backed the ‘Anglo-American Fellowship’ (an organization to which many leading British industrialists and companies belonged). Hence, Hitler’s reluctance to attack the British Expeditionary Force in its hopeless position on the beaches.”

 

German Field Marshal Gerd von Rundstedt insisted that his hands were tied by Hitler’s instructions to halt the offensive against Dunkirk. Hitler talked to Rundstedt and two key men of his staff, Gen. Georg von Sodenstern and Gen. Günther Blumentritt. As Gen. Blumentritt tells the story:[12]

 

“He [Hitler] then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. […] He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere. He [Hitler] concluded by saying that his aim was to make peace with Britain on a basis that she would regard as compatible with her honor to accept.”

 

Blumentritt often thought about this conversation in his subsequent reflections on the course of events at Dunkirk. Blumentritt felt that Hitler had ordered the halt for more than military reasons, and that it was part of his political plan to make peace easier to reach. If the BEF had been captured at Dunkirk, Hitler thought the British might have felt that their honor had suffered a stain that must be eliminated. Hitler had hoped to conciliate the British by letting the BEF escape.[13]

 

There is also evidence that the Luftwaffe was not used as fully or as vigorously as it could have been. Some of the German air chiefs say that Hitler put the brake on here as well.[14]

 

British historian F.J.P. Veale wrote about the evacuation of British troops at Dunkirk:[15]

 

“That the bulk of the troops succeeded in escaping at all was due entirely to Hitler’s delusion that the dark menace of Asia overshadowing Europe would induce Great Britain to come to an understanding with Germany in self-protection.”

 

Hitler told his friend Frau Troost:[16]

 

“The blood of every single Englishman is too valuable to be shed. Our two people belong together, racially, and traditionally – this is and always has been my aim even if our generals can’t grasp it.”

 

Hitler stated in his Testament on February 26, 1945:[17]

 

“Churchill was quite unable to appreciate the sporting spirit of which I had given proof by refraining from creating an irreparable breach between the British and ourselves. We did, indeed, refrain from annihilating them at Dunkirk. We ought to have been able to make them realize that the acceptance by them of the German hegemony established in Europe, a state of affairs to the implementation of which they had always been opposed, but which I had implemented without any trouble, would bring them inestimable advantages.”

 

Having been given the gift of Dunkirk by Hitler, Churchill refused to acknowledge it. Churchill instead described the evacuation of British troops off the beaches of Dunkirk as a heroic miracle accomplished by the British navy. Churchill became even more bellicose in his determination to continue the war.[18]

 

What is the Truth?

 

There is little question that Hitler’s order to halt the offensive against Dunkirk allowed the British troops to escape. In an interview after the war, German Gen. Ewald von Kleist stated:[19]

 

“We could have wiped out the British army completely or taken the whole army as captive if it weren’t for the stupid order of Hitler.”

 

It is also generally recognized that Hitler’s order to halt his troops before reaching Dunkirk hurt the German war effort. German Gen. Erich von Manstein wrote:[20]

 

“Dunkirk was one of Hitler’s most devastating mistakes. It hampered him in attempting the invasion of Britain and subsequently enabled the British to fight in Africa and Italy.”

 

So, why did Hitler order his troops to halt before reaching Dunkirk?

 

In this author’s opinion, Hitler had hoped to make peace with the British and preserve the British Empire. Hitler’s desire to preserve the British Empire was expressed on another occasion when the military fortunes of the Allies were at their lowest ebb. When France appealed for an armistice, German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop gave the following summary of Hitler’s attitude toward Great Britain in a strictly private talk with the Italian Foreign Minister Count Galeazzo Ciano:[21]

 

“He [Ribbentrop] said that in the Führer’s opinion the existence of the British Empire as an element of stability and social order in the world is very useful. In the present state of affairs, it would be impossible to replace it with another, similar organization. Therefore, the Führer – as he has also recently stated in public – does not desire the destruction of the British Empire. He asks that England renounce some of its possessions and recognize the fait accompli. On these conditions Hitler would be prepared to come to an agreement.”

 

After Dunkirk, Ribbentrop wrote that Hitler was enthused with making a quick peace with England. Hitler outlined the peace terms he was prepared to offer the British:[22]

 

“It will only be a few points, and the first point is that nothing must be done between England and Germany which would in any way violate the prestige of Great Britain. Secondly, Great Britain must give us back one or two of our old colonies. That is the only thing we want.”

 

Ribbentrop told Rep. Hamilton Fish that cooperation between England and Germany was essential for the maintenance of peace. Hitler had even “offered to place 15 German army divisions and the entire fleet at the disposal of the British government to support her empire in case of war anywhere in the world.” Fish did not believe this statement from Ribbentrop at the time, but it was substantiated years later.[23]

 

On June 25, 1940, Hitler telephoned Joseph Goebbels to lay out the terms of an agreement with Great Britain. Goebbels wrote in his diary:[24]

 

“The Führer […] believes that the [British Empire] must be preserved if at all possible. For if it collapses, then we shall not inherit it, but foreign and even hostile powers take it over. But if England will have it no other way, then she must be beaten to her knees. The Führer, however, would be agreeable to peace on the following basis: England out of Europe, colonies and mandates returned. Reparations for what was stolen from us after [World War I].”

 

Hitler took the initiative to end the war after the fall of France in June 1940. In a victory speech on July 19, 1940, Hitler declared that it had never been his intention to destroy or even harm the British Empire. Hitler made a general peace offer in the following words:[25]

 

“In this hour I feel it to be my duty before my conscience to appeal once more to reason and commonsense in Great Britain as much as elsewhere. I consider myself in a position to make this appeal, since I am not the vanquished, begging favors, but the victor, speaking in the name of reason. I can see no reason why this war must go on.”

 

This speech was followed by private diplomatic overtures to Great Britain through Sweden, the United States, and the Vatican. There is no question that Hitler was eager to end the war. But Churchill was in the war with the objective of destroying Germany. Churchill was not concerned with saving the British Empire from destruction. British Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax also wanted the war to continue, and brushed aside what he called Hitler’s “summons to capitulate at his will.”[26] Hitler’s peace offer was officially rejected on July 22, 1940.[27]

 

Hitler’s desire to preserve the British Empire was expressed on numerous other occasions. For example, on August 14, 1940, during the Battle of Britain, Hitler called his field marshals into the Reich Chancellery to impress upon them that victory over Britain must not lead to the collapse of the British Empire:[28]

 

“Germany is not striving to smash Britain because the beneficiaries will not be Germany, but Japan in the east, Russia in India, Italy in the Mediterranean, and America in world trade. This is why peace is possible with Britain – but not so long as Churchill is prime minister. Thus, we must see what the Luftwaffe can do, and wait a possible general election.”

 

Conclusion

 

For the Allies, Hitler’s order to halt his troops before reaching Dunkirk was an astonishingly well-timed mercy. German generals such as Heinz Guderian, Franz Halder and many others were furious with Hitler for preventing them from capturing the British soldiers at Dunkirk.[29]

 

However, Hitler’s order to halt his troops before reaching Dunkirk was not made primarily for military reasons. Hitler’s mistake was to assume that Churchill would ever enter into a peace agreement with Germany. On January 20, 1943, Joseph E. Davies disclosed that Hitler offered to retire from office if by doing so Great Britain would make peace with Germany. Churchill and other British leaders refused Hitler’s offer.[30]

 

Churchill never once attempted to make peace with Germany. In a January 1, 1944, letter to Stalin, Churchill said:[31]

 

“We never thought of peace, not even in that year when we were completely isolated and could have made peace without serious detriment to the British Empire, and extensively at your cost. Why should we think of it now, when victory approaches for the three of us?”

---

Endnotes

 

A version of this article was originally published in the July/August 2026 issue of The Barnes Review.

 

[1] Miracle of Dunkirk History.com https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/dunkirk.

 

[2] Ullrich, Volker, Hitler: Downfall 1939-1945, New York: Alfred A. Knoph, 2020, pp. 103f.

 

[3] Ibid., p. 104.

 

[4] Kershaw, Ian, Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis, New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2000, p. 295.

 

[5] Guderian, Heinz, Panzer Leader, London: Michael Joseph Ltd., 1952, p. 120.

 

[6] Irving, David, Hitler’s War, New York: The Viking Press, 1977, p. 125.

 

[7] Irving, David, Göring: A Biography, Hammersmith, London: Grafton Books, 1991, p. 290.

 

[8] Jacobsen, Hans-Adolf, Dunkirk: German Operations in France 1940, Havertown, Penn.: Casemate Publishers, 2019, p. 194.

 

[9] Irving, David, Hitler’s War, op. cit., p. 3.

 

[10] Schultze-Rhonhof, Gerd, 1939 – The War that Had Many Fathers: The Long Run-Up to the Second World War, 6^th edition, München, Germany: Olzog Verlag GmbH, 2011, p. 667.

 

[11] Menuhin, Gerard, Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil, Washington, D.C.: The Barnes Review, 2015, p. 296.

 

[12] Hart, B. H. Liddell, The Other Side of the Hill, London: Papermac, 1970, pp. 200f.; Hart, B. H. Liddell, History of the Second World War, New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1970, p. 83; see also Chamberlain, William Henry, America’s Second Crusade, Chicago: Regnery, 1950, p. 76.

 

[13] Hart, B. H. Liddell, History of the Second World War, op. cit., p. 83.

 

[14] Ibid., p. 82.

 

[15] Veale, Frederick J. P., Advance to Barbarism, Newport Beach, Cal.: Institute for Historical Review, 1993, p. 332.

 

[16] Hart, B. H. Liddell, The Other Side of the Hill, op. cit., pp. 200f.

 

[17] Fraser, L. Craig, The Testament of Adolf Hitler: The Hitler-Bormann Documents, pp. 72f.

 

[18] Bradberry, Benton L., The Myth of German Villainy, Bloomington, Ind.: AuthorHouse, 2012, p. 369.

 

[19] Goldensohn, Leon, (Robert Gellately editor), The Nuremberg Interviews, New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2004, p. 342.

 

[20] Von Manstein, Erich, Lost Victories, Novato, Cal.: Presidio Press, 1994, p. 124.

 

[21] Ciano, Count Galeazzo, Ciano’s Diplomatic Papers, London: Odhams Press, 1948, p. 373.

 

[22] Hinsley, F. H., Hitler’s Strategy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951, p. 81.

 

[23] Fish, Hamilton, FDR The Other Side of the Coin: How We Were Tricked into World War II, New York: Vantage Press, 1976, p. 87.

 

[24] Ferguson, Niall, Empire: The Rise and Demise of the British World Power Order and the Lessons of Global Power, New York: Basic, 2003, pp. 330f.

 

[25] Hitler, Adolf, My New Order, Edited with commentary by Raoul de Roussy de Sales, New York: Reynal and Hitchcock, 1941, p. 837.

 

[26] Chamberlain, William Henry, America’s Second Crusade, Chicago: Regnery, 1950, p. 84.

 

[27] Hinsley, F. H., Hitler’s Strategy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951, p. 82.

 

[28] Denman, Roy, Missed Chances: Britain and Europe in the Twentieth Century, London: Indigo, 1997, p. 130.

 

[29] Gelb, Norman, Dunkirk: The Complete Story of the First Step in the Defeat of Hitler, New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1989, pp. 129, 131.

 

[30] Walsh, Michael, The Battle for Europe: Hidden Truths About the Second World War, United Kingdom: The Historical Review Press, 2012, p. 15.

 

[31] Walendy, Udo, The Methods of Reeducation, Vlotho/Weser, Germany: Verlag für Volkstum und Zeitgeschichtsforschung, 1979, p. 3.