Korean War

The population of North Korea was approximately 8-9 million in 1950 prior the Korean War which began on June 25th of that year. It was a genocidal war that the U.S. was never meant to win, just like the Vietnam War. US sources acknowledge 1.55 million civilian deaths in North Korea, 215,000 combat deaths, MIA/POW 120,000, and 300,000 combat troops wounded. On June 25, 1950, Kim Il-sung, North Korea’s communist dictator, sent his troops to invade South Korea. American forces, fighting under UN authority, came to South Korea’s defense, in a bloody three-year war that ended in stalemate.

But how did Kim Il-sung and the communists come to power in North Korea? U.S. foreign policy put them there, in a roundabout way. During World War II, the U.S. fought the Germans in Europe and the Japanese in Asia. The Soviet Union, then under Joseph Stalin’s brutal rule, was America’s “ally” during this war. The Soviets, however, only fought Germany; they maintained a nonaggression pact with Japan.

But at the “Big Three” conferences at Teheran and Yalta, President Roosevelt asked Stalin if he would break his treaty with Japan and enter the Pacific war. Stalin agreed – on condition that the United States supply him with all the weapons, vehicles and materiel his Far Eastern army would need for the expedition. Roosevelt agreed, and some 600 shiploads of supplies were sent to Russia to equip Stalin’s army to fight Japan.

This was an absurd foreign policy decision. Stalin was a well-known aggressor. The 1939 invasion of Poland, which officially began World War II, had actually been a joint venture by the Germans and Soviets. In 1940, Stalin had invaded Finland, Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania, and annexed part of Romania. No one could seriously believe he would bring benevolence to Asia.

Stalin did not send his army into the Far East until five days before the war ended; Japan, already struck by the atomic bomb, was ready to surrender. Soviet forces moved into China, where, after very limited fighting, they accepted the surrender of huge Japanese weapons depots. They then turned these weapons, plus their own American lend-lease supplies, over to communist rebel Mao Tse-tung. Thus armed, the Chinese communists ultimately overthrew the Nationalist government. Continue Reading at Patri-X.com HERE…

World War I

With few exceptions, English-speaking historians have put the blame for both world wars on Germany. This is false history. The first real historian of World War I, or what was called at the time the Great War or the World War, was Harry Elmer Barnes. Barnes was Professor of Historical Sociology at Smith College and the William Bayard Cutting Fellow in History at Columbia University. His book, The Genesis of the World War, was published in 1926 by Alfred A. Knopf in New York.

Instead of covering up, as expected, the allied crimes and treachery against Germany, Barnes told the truth. The German Kaiser, a relative of the British and Russian royal families, was known throughout the world as a peacemaker, praised by The New York Times for that role. It is a known and indisputable fact that the German government acted for peace until Germany, the last power to mobilize, had to mobilize or be overrun by Russia and France, who were allied with the British against Germany. Never before in history has the very last power to mobilize been blamed for starting a war. But facts never get in the way of court historians.

The genesis of the war was the desire on the part of two of the Russian Tsar’s ministers for Constantinople and the French president for territory, Alsace-Lorraine, lost to Germany in the 1870 Franco-Prussian war. These schemers used Austria’s response to the assassination of the Austrian archduke in Serbia, which they likely orchestrated, to declare war, as Germany was the protector of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire.

President Woodrow Wilson secured an armistice to the World War, which had senselessly destroyed millions of lives, by promising Germany that if she agreed to an armistice, there would be no territorial losses for Germany and no reparations. When Germany agreed to the armistice, it was Germany that occupied territories of the opposing camp. There were no foreign troops on German territory.

As soon as Germany disengaged, the British put into effect a food blockade that forced starving Germans to submit to the exploitative Versailles Treaty that violated every promise that President Wilson had made. Some intelligent people, including the most famous economist of the 20th century, John Maynard Keynes, said that the Versailles Treaty, an exercise in coverup for who caused the war, guaranteed a future war. And they, not the grasping corrupt establishment, were right.

For his truth-telling efforts, Harry Elmer Barnes was declared by the court historians to be a German agent paid to write a false history. As Barnes’s voice was greatly outnumbered, the history of the Great War remained, for most, falsified throughout the 20th century.

Barnes was vindicated in 2014 when Christopher Clark at Cambridge University published The Sleepwalkers: How Europe Went to War in 1914. Clark added to Barnes’s evidence that the Great War resulted from a plot by two Russian government ministers and the president of France to steal coveted territory from Germany and Turkey.

But 100 years after the war, who is around to care? All the people who died in the war as well as their bereaved families who suffered from the plot of three evil men are dead and gone. The consciousness of the world has already been distorted by a century of false history, a false history that set up Germany for blame again, this time for World War II.

History books record that World War I started when the nations went to war to avenge the assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the heir to the Habsburg throne, on June 28, 1914. This is the typical explanation. But the “revisionist historian” knows just what caused and what the purpose was of the conflagration of World War I.

Up until America’s entry into this war, the American people had followed the wise advice of President George Washington given in his farewell address, delivered to the nation on September 17, 1796. President Washington said: “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world…. Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humour or caprice?”

President Washington attempted to warn the American people about getting embroiled in the affairs of Europe. But in 1914, it was not to be. There were those who were secretly planning America’s involvement in World War I whether the American people wanted it or not.

The Plan to Involve America in World War 1

The pressure to involve the American government started in 1909, long before the actual assassination of the Archduke.

Norman Dodd, former director of the Committee to Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations of the U.S. House of Representatives, testified that the Committee was invited to study the minutes of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as part of the Committee’s investigation. The Committee stated: “The trustees of the Foundation brought up a single question. If it is desirable to alter the life of an entire people, is there any means more efficient than war…. They discussed this question… for a year and came up with an answer: There are no known means more efficient than war, assuming the objective is altering the life of an entire people. That leads them to a question: How do we involve the United States in a war. This is in 1909.”

So the decision was made to involve the United States in a war so that the “life of the entire people could be altered.” This was the conclusion of a foundation supposedly committed to “peace.”

The method by which the United States was drawn into the war started on October 25, 1911, when Winston Churchill was appointed the First Lord of the Admiralty in England.

Winston Churchill is an interesting individual, as he later came to the conclusion that there was indeed a master conspiracy at work in the major events of the world, when he wrote the following in 1920: “From the days of Spartacus—Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky (Russia)… this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization… has been steadily growing.”

The second key appointment made during the pre-war period was the appointment of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as Assistant Secretary of the Navy by President Woodrow Wilson.

Roosevelt is also on record as concluding that there was a conspiracy, at least in the United States. He once wrote to Colonel Edward Mandell House: “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson, and I am not wholly excepting the administration of W.W. (Woodrow Wilson.) The country is going through a repetition of Jackson’s fight with the Bank of the United States—only on a far bigger and broader basis.”

The Sinking of the Lusitania

The next step in the maneuvering of the United States into the war came when the Cunard Lines, owner of the ocean liner, the Lusitania, turned the ship over to the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill. It now became a ship of the English Navy and was under the control of the English government.

The ship was sent to New York City where it was loaded with six million rounds of ammunition, owned by J.P. Morgan & Co., to be sold to England and France to aid in their war against Germany.

It was known that the very wealthy were interested in involving the American government in that war, and Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan was one who made note of this. “As Secretary [Bryan] had anticipated, the large banking interests were deeply interested in the World War because of wide opportunities for large profits. On August 3, 1914, even before the actual clash of arms, the French firm of Rothschild Freres cabled to Morgan and Company in New York suggesting the flotation of a loan of $100,000,000, a substantial part of which was to be left in the United States, to pay for French purchases of American goods.”

England broke the German war code on December 14, 1914, so that “By the end of January, 1915, [British Intelligence was] able to advise the Admiralty of the departure of each U-boat as it left for patrol….”

This meant that the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, knew where every U-boat was in the vicinity of the English Channel that separated England and France.

The ocean liner was set to sail to England already at war with Germany. The German government had placed advertisements in the New York newspapers warning the American people considering whether or not to sail with the ship to England that they would be sailing into a war zone, and that the liner could be sunk.

Secretary Bryan promised that “he would endeavor to persuade the President (Woodrow Wilson) publicly to warn the Americans not to travel [aboard the Lusitania]. No such warning was issued by the President, but there can be no doubt that President Wilson was told of the character of the cargo destined for the Lusitania. He did nothing… .”

Even though Wilson proclaimed America’s neutrality in the European War, in accordance with the prior admonitions of George Washington, his government was secretly plotting to involve the American people by having the Lusitania sunk. This was made public in the book The Intimate Papers of Colonel House, written by a supporter of the Colonel, who recorded a conversation between Colonel House and Sir Edward Grey of England, the Foreign Secretary of England:

Grey: What will America do if the Germans sink an ocean liner with American passengers on board?

House: I believe that a flame of indignation would sweep the United States and that by itself would be sufficient to carry us into the war.

On May 7, 1915, the Lusitania was sunk off the coast of County Cork, Ireland by a U-boat after it had slowed to await the arrival of the English escort vessel, the Juno, which was intended to escort it into the English port. The First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, issued orders that the Juno was to return to port, and the Lusitania sat alone in the channel. Because Churchill knew of the presence of three U-boats in the vicinity, it is reasonable to presume that he had planned for the Lusitania to be sunk, and it was. 1201 people lost their lives in the sinking.

This sinking has been described by Colin Simpson, the author of a book entitled The Lusitania, as “the foulest act of wilful murder ever committed on the seas.”

But the event was not enough to enable President Wilson to declare war against the German government, and the conspirators changed tactics. They would use other means to get the American people involved in the war, as the “flame of indignation” did not sweep the United States as had been planned.

Robert Lansing, the Assistant Secretary of State, is on record as stating: “We must educate the public gradually — draw it along to the point where it will be willing to go into the war.”

After the sinking of the Lusitania, two inquiries were held, one by the English government, in June, 1915, and one by the American government in 1918. Mr. Simpson has written that “Both sets of archives… contain meager information. There are substantial differences of fact in the two sets of papers and in many cases it is difficult to accept that the files relate to the same vessel.”

But in both inquiries, the conclusions were the same: torpedoes and not exploding ammunition sank the Lusitania, because there was no ammunition aboard. The cover-up was now official.

But there have been critics of these inquiries. One was, of course, the book written by Colin Simpson, who did the research necessary to write his book in the original minutes of the two inquiries.

The Los Angeles Times reviewed Mr. Simpson’s book and concluded: “The Lusitania proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the British government connived at the sinking of the passenger ship in order to lure America into World War I. The Germans, whose torpedo struck the liner, were the unwitting accomplices or victims of a plot probably concocted by Winston Churchill.”

President Wilson was seeking re-election in 1916. He campaigned on his record of “keeping us out of the War” during his first term of office from 1912 to 1916.

The Real Reason for World War 1

But behind the scenes, Wilson was secretly plotting America’s entry into the War, mainly through the machinations of Wilson’s major advisor, Colonel Edward Mandell House. House had already committed America to a participation in the war: “The House-Grey memorandum… pledged American intervention on the side of the Allies if Germany would not come promptly to the peace table. This agreement was approved by Wilson eight months before the 1916 election.”

But the real reason the War was being fought was slowly emerging. One of the first revelations occurred on May 27, 1916, when President Wilson urged the creation of the League of Nations in a speech entitled League to Enforce Peace. Wilson argued that what the world needed to prevent the recurrence of a similar war was a world government.

Some were not happy with the slowness of America’s entry into the war. One of these was Franklin Roosevelt, who:

In the early months of 1917 [before the official declaration of war by the United States government] he had been in constant conflict with his chief, Secretary of the Navy, Joseph Daniels, over the same issues.

For Daniels, who resisted every move that might carry the United States into the war, those four months (January through April) of 1917 were the “agony of Gethsemane.”

He opposed convoying [the intentional sending of American ships into the war zone in the hope that one would be sunk by the German Navy]. He opposed the arming of merchant ships [intentionally provoking the German Navy into believing that the ship was a ship of war].

Roosevelt favored both.

And when a filibuster prevented congressional authorization of the arming of merchantmen, Roosevelt was impatient with Wilson for not immediately using his executive power to arm [the ships]. He dined at the Metropolitan Club with a group of Republican “warhawks” [Roosevelt was a Democrat]. It included Theodore Roosevelt, General Wood, J.P. Morgan, and Elihu Root [one of the founders of the CFR].

The primary topic of discussion was, according to Roosevelt’s diary, “how to make Administration steer a dear course to uphold rights.”

This was an euphemism for an aggressive policy on the high seas that would result in indents and involve the United States in the war.

Roosevelt’s badgering apparently paid off, for on April 2, 1917, President Wilson asked Congress for a Declaration of War, and it was granted on April 6. The United States was now in the war “to end all wars,” and “to make the world safe for democracy.”

The war wound its horrible course through the destruction of human lives and ended on November 11, 1918.

Historian Walter Millis wrote the following about the purpose of the war and about House’s basic intent: “The Colonel’s sole justification for preparing such a batch of blood for his countrymen was his hope of establishing a new world order [a world government] of peace and security….”

The Outrageous Treaty of Versailles

The official treaty that ended the war was the Treaty of Versailles, where representatives of all sides sat down at a conference table and wrote the treaty.

Several interesting personalities attended these meetings. In the British delegation was the British economist John Maynard Keynes, and representing the American banking interests was Paul Warburg, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve. His brother. Max, the head of the German banking firm of M.M. Warburg and Company, of Hamburg, Germany, and who “was not only in charge of Germany’s finances but was a leader of the German espionage system” was there as a representative of the German government.

The Treaty was written to end the war, but another delegate to the conference. Lord Curzon of England, the British Foreign Secretary, saw through what the actual intent was and declared: “This is no peace; this is only a truce for twenty years.” Lord Curzon felt that the terms of the Treaty were setting the stage for a second world war, and he correctly predicted the year it would start: 1939.

Lord Curzon was indeed a prophet: he picked the actual year that World War II would start!

One of the planks of the Treaty called for large amounts of war reparations to be paid to the victorious nations by the German government. This plank of the Treaty alone caused more grief in the German nation than any other and precipitated three events:

  • The “hyperinflation” of the German mark between 1920 and 1923;
  • The destruction of the middle class in Germany; and
  • The bringing to power of someone who could end the inflation: a dictator like Adolf Hitler.

This plank was written by John Foster Dulles, one of the founders of the Council on Foreign Relations, and later the Secretary of State to President Dwight Eisenhower.

Even John Maynard Keynes became concerned about the Treaty. He wrote: “The peace is outrageous and impossible and can bring nothing but misfortune behind it”.

In addition to writing the Treaty of Versailles, the nations who were victorious in the war also wrote the Charter of the League of Nations, which was ratified on January 10, 1920, and signed by President Wilson for the American government. Wilson brought the treaty back to the United States and asked the Senate to ratify it The Senate, remembering George Washington’s advice to avoid foreign entanglements and reflecting the views of the American people who did not wish to enter the League, refused to ratify the treaty. President Wilson was not pleased, possibly because he saw himself, as Senator Henry Cabot Lodge was quick to point out, as: “… a future President of the world.”

It is now apparent that Wilson intended to head up the world government the war was fought to give the world, and he became depressed when the Treaty was not ratified. Imagine the disappointment of one who had come so close to becoming the very first President of the World, only to have it taken away by the actions of the Senate of the United States. Imagine the sense of incredible power that Wilson must have felt, thinking he would become the very first individual in the history of mankind to rule the world. Others had tried and failed, but Wilson was confident that he would succeed.

But the American people, expressing their displeasure through the Senate, would not let him.

The Rich Get Richer

Others were not so disappointed, however. “The war, in brief, provided an unparalleled opportunity for the richest families to grab [exorbitant profits] at the expense of the public and, without exception, they made the most of this opportunity. The rich families, to be sure, wanted the war to be won, but they took care that the victory was expensive to the common taxpayers. They uttered no cries for government economy… so long as the public treasury was at their disposal.”

One of the families who reaped the exorbitant profits were “the Rockefellers, who were very eager for the United States to enter World War I, [and who] made far more than $200,000,000 from that conflict.”

But support for the League of Nations continued. The Grand Orient Lodge of Freemasonry of France was one which advised all of its members: “It is the duty of universal Freemasonry to give its full support to the League of Nations….”

As could have been anticipated, the League of Nations became a major issue during the Presidential election of 1920.

The Republican candidate Warren G. Harding was on record as opposing the League and further attempts to ratify the charter: “It will avail nothing to discuss in detail the League covenant, which was conceived for world super-government In the existing League of Nations, world governing with its super-powers, this Republic will have no part.”

He was opposed in the Republican primaries by General Leonard Wood, one of the Republican “warhawks,” who was “.. .backed by a powerful group of rich men who wish(ed) a military man in the White House.”

The American people, once again manifesting their disapproval of the League, voted for Harding as an evidence of that distrust and concern. Harding outpolled his opposition by a greater margin than did President Wilson who had “kept us out of the war” during the election of 1916. Wilson got only fifty-two percent of the vote, and Harding got sixty-four percent

Harding was a supporter of William Howard Taft, the President who opposed the bankers and their Federal Reserve Bill. After his election, he named Harry M. Daugherty, Taft’s campaign manager, as his Attorney General.

His other Cabinet appointments were not as wise, however, as he unexplainably surrounded himself with men representing the oil industry.

For instance:

  • his Secretary of State was Charles Evans Hughes, an attorney of Standard Oil;
  • his Secretary of the Treasury was Andrew Mellon, owner of Gulf Oil;
  • his Postmaster General was Will Hays, an attorney for Sinclair Oil; and
  • his Secretary of the Interior was Albert Fall, a protégé of the oil men.

It was Mr. Fall who was to be President Harding’s downfall, as he later accepted a bribe from Harry Sinclair in exchange for a lease of the Navy’s oil reserves in Teapot Dome, Wyoming.

There are many who believe that the scandal was intended to discredit the Harding administration in an attempt to remove him from office for two very important reasons:

  • Harding was consistently vocal against the League of Nations, and there was still a chance that its supporters could get the United States to join as the League had survived the Senate’s prior refusal to ratify the treaty, and
  • Attorney General Daugherty had been prosecuting the oil trusts under the Sherman anti-trust laws.

These activities did not please the oil interests who had created the Teapot Dome scandal. But Harding unfortunately did not live to see the full repercussions of the artificial scandal, as he died on August 2, 1923, before the story completely surfaced. (There are those who believe that there were some who couldn’t wait for the Teapot Dome Scandal to remove President Harding, and that he was poisoned.)

But the oil interests allowed it to completely play its course as a warning to future Presidents of the United States not to oppose the oil interests.

The warning has been generally heeded. Not many have chosen to contend with the true rulers of the United States.

The True Cause of World War 1

History books record that World War I started when the nations went to war to avenge the assassination of the Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the heir to the Habsburg throne, on June 28, 1914.

This is the typical explanation. But the “revisionist historian” knows just what caused and what the purpose was of the conflagration of World War I.

Up until America’s entry into this war, the American people had followed the wise advice of President George Washington given in his farewell address, delivered to the nation on September 17, 1796. President Washington said: “It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world…. Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humour or caprice?’

President Washington attempted to warn the American people about getting embroiled in the affairs of Europe. But in 1914, it was not to be. There were those who were secretly planning America’s involvement in World War I whether the American people wanted it or not.

The Plan to Involve America in World War 1

The pressure to involve the American government started in 1909, long before the actual assassination of the Archduke.

Norman Dodd, former director of the Committee to Investigate Tax Exempt Foundations of the U.S. House of Representatives, testified that the Committee was invited to study the minutes of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace as part of the Committee’s investigation. The Committee stated: “The trustees of the Foundation brought up a single question. If it is desirable to alter the life of an entire people, is there any means more efficient than war…. They discussed this question… for a year and came up with an answer: There are no known means more efficient than war, assuming the objective is altering the life of an entire people. That leads them to a question: How do we involve the United States in a war. This is in 1909.”

So the decision was made to involve the United States in a war so that the “life of the entire people could be altered.” This was the conclusion of a foundation supposedly committed to “peace.”

The method by which the United States was drawn into the war started on October 25, 1911, when Winston Churchill was appointed the First Lord of the Admiralty in England.

Winston Churchill is an interesting individual, as he later came to the conclusion that there was indeed a master conspiracy at work in the major events of the world, when he wrote the following in 1920: “From the days of Spartacus—Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky (Russia)… this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization… has been steadily growing.”

The second key appointment made during the pre-war period was the appointment of Franklin Delano Roosevelt as Assistant Secretary of the Navy by President Woodrow Wilson.

Roosevelt is also on record as concluding that there was a conspiracy, at least in the United States. He once wrote to Colonel Edward Mandell House: “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson, and I am not wholly excepting the administration of W.W. (Woodrow Wilson.) The country is going through a repetition of Jackson’s fight with the Bank of the United States—only on a far bigger and broader basis.”

The Sinking of the Lusitania

The next step in the maneuvering of the United States into the war came when the Cunard Lines, owner of the ocean liner, the Lusitania, turned the ship over to the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill. It now became a ship of the English Navy and was under the control of the English government.

The ship was sent to New York City where it was loaded with six million rounds of ammunition, owned by J.P. Morgan & Co., to be sold to England and France to aid in their war against Germany.

It was known that the very wealthy were interested in involving the American government in that war, and Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan was one who made note of this. “As Secretary [Bryan] had anticipated, the large banking interests were deeply interested in the World War because of wide opportunities for large profits. On August 3, 1914, even before the actual clash of arms, the French firm of Rothschild Freres cabled to Morgan and Company in New York suggesting the flotation of a loan of $100,000,000, a substantial part of which was to be left in the United States, to pay for French purchases of American goods.”

England broke the German war code on December 14, 1914, so that “By the end of January, 1915, [British Intelligence was] able to advise the Admiralty of the departure of each U-boat as it left for patrol….”

This meant that the First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, knew where every U-boat was in the vicinity of the English Channel that separated England and France.

The ocean liner was set to sail to England already at war with Germany. The German government had placed advertisements in the New York newspapers warning the American people considering whether or not to sail with the ship to England that they would be sailing into a war zone, and that the liner could be sunk.

Secretary Bryan promised that “he would endeavor to persuade the President (Woodrow Wilson) publicly to warn the Americans not to travel [aboard the Lusitania]. No such warning was issued by the President, but there can be no doubt that President Wilson was told of the character of the cargo destined for the Lusitania. He did nothing… .”

Even though Wilson proclaimed America’s neutrality in the European War, in accordance with the prior admonitions of George Washington, his government was secretly plotting to involve the American people by having the Lusitania sunk. This was made public in the book The Intimate Papers of Colonel House, written by a supporter of the Colonel, who recorded a conversation between Colonel House and Sir Edward Grey of England, the Foreign Secretary of England:

Grey: What will America do if the Germans sink an ocean liner with American passengers on board?

House: I believe that a flame of indignation would sweep the United States and that by itself would be sufficient to carry us into the war.

On May 7, 1915, the Lusitania was sunk off the coast of County Cork, Ireland by a U-boat after it had slowed to await the arrival of the English escort vessel, the Juno, which was intended to escort it into the English port. The First Lord of the Admiralty, Winston Churchill, issued orders that the Juno was to return to port, and the Lusitania sat alone in the channel. Because Churchill knew of the presence of three U-boats in the vicinity, it is reasonable to presume that he had planned for the Lusitania to be sunk, and it was. 1201 people lost their lives in the sinking.

This sinking has been described by Colin Simpson, the author of a book entitled The Lusitania, as “the foulest act of wilful murder ever committed on the seas.”

But the event was not enough to enable President Wilson to declare war against the German government, and the conspirators changed tactics. They would use other means to get the American people involved in the war, as the “flame of indignation” did not sweep the United States as had been planned.

Robert Lansing, the Assistant Secretary of State, is on record as stating: “We must educate the public gradually — draw it along to the point where it will be willing to go into the war.”

After the sinking of the Lusitania, two inquiries were held, one by the English government, in June, 1915, and one by the American government in 1918. Mr. Simpson has written that “Both sets of archives… contain meager information. There are substantial differences of fact in the two sets of papers and in many cases it is difficult to accept that the files relate to the same vessel.”

But in both inquiries, the conclusions were the same: torpedoes and not exploding ammunition sank the Lusitania, because there was no ammunition aboard. The cover-up was now official.

But there have been critics of these inquiries. One was, of course, the book written by Colin Simpson, who did the research necessary to write his book in the original minutes of the two inquiries.

The Los Angeles Times reviewed Mr. Simpson’s book and concluded: “The Lusitania proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the British government connived at the sinking of the passenger ship in order to lure America into World War I. The Germans, whose torpedo struck the liner, were the unwitting accomplices or victims of a plot probably concocted by Winston Churchill.”

President Wilson was seeking re-election in 1916. He campaigned on his record of “keeping us out of the War” during his first term of office from 1912 to 1916.

Sources:

Resources:

Chronological History of Events Related to WWII

Open Mind Conference 2017 in Copenhagen, Denmark: Speakers were Ole Dammegard, Mette Mitchell, Hugh Newman, James Corbett, Corine  Hutsebaut, and Max Igan

Open Mind Conference 2017 in Copenhagen, Denmark: Speakers were Ole Dammegard, Mette Mitchell, Hugh Newman, James Corbett, Corine Hutsebaut, and Max Igan

The Open Mind Conference is an alternative conference that hosts internationally-acclaimed speakers from all around the world. The topics that have been discussed over the years include global conspiracies, the health implications of mobile technology, geoengineering and organic versus conventional agriculture. The 2017 Open Mind Conference was the sixth conference with a fascinating array of lectures. DAY 1, Sept 16th 2017 At the Open Mind Conference ...
Read More
A Jewish Defector, Benjamin Freedman, Warns America About the Pagan Conspiracy to Take Over the World

A Jewish Defector, Benjamin Freedman, Warns America About the Pagan Conspiracy to Take Over the World

A speech was given before a patriotic audience at the Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C., on behalf of Conde McGinley's patriotic newspaper of that time, Common Sense. Freedman gives an insider's viewpoint (as a high-level insider of Jewish organizations) of history over the last 100 years and beyond, as he discusses that the so called Jews are actually a Pagan and Barbarian tribe that adopted the ...
Read More
Red Symphony - The Interrogation of Rothschild Agent Christian Rakovsky Reveals Rothschild-Illuminati Conspiracy to Establish a World Dictatorship of the Super Rich

Red Symphony – The Interrogation of Rothschild Agent Christian Rakovsky Reveals Rothschild-Illuminati Conspiracy to Establish a World Dictatorship of the Super Rich

Red Symphony -Interrogation of Christian Rakovsky, a Rothschild agent who was fighting for his life. His death sentence had already been pronounced. He basically said to Stalin’s men: ‘. . . if you interview me tonight, you will not kill me." In light of Rakovsky’s powerful connections, Stalin was intrigued enough to order his chief interrogator, Gavriil G. Kusmin, to interview Rakovsky and see what he ...
Read More
Smedley Butler, the Most Decorated Marine in U.S. History, Publishes 'War is a Racket'

Smedley Butler, the Most Decorated Marine in U.S. History, Publishes ‘War is a Racket’

Smedley Butler became widely known for his outspoken lectures against war profiteering, U.S. military adventurism, and what he viewed as nascent fascism in the United States. In December 1933, Butler toured the country with James E. Van Zandt to recruit members for the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW). He described their effort as "trying to educate the soldiers out of the sucker class." In his speeches ...
Read More
Bonus Marchers Evicted by U.S. Army Under President Hoover's Order

Bonus Marchers Evicted by U.S. Army Under President Hoover’s Order

In 1924, six years after the end of World War I, Congress voted to give a bonus to veterans – $1.25 for each day served overseas, $1.00 for each day served in the States. The catch was that payment would not be made until 1945. The roaring twenties was a prosperous time, so the veterans found the delay acceptable. However, the onslaught of the Great Depression ...
Read More

World War II

Most of us, who grew up in the “winning” countries of WWII (America, Britain, etc.), were told that World War II was the “Good War”, or the “The Great Crusade Against Evil”.  We were also exposed to endless episodes of the History Channel and dozens of war movies from Hollywood, all with the same message:  The Allies were courageously good while the Axis were inherently evil.  But is this really what happened, or just an example of, “The victors write the history books”?  If you can remove the cognitive bias and have an open mind for truth, wherever the known facts take you, then you may learn that the mainstream message about World War II is based not in truth, but in blatant misinformation, falsehood and outright lies.  The allies it seems, were ALL-LIES.

From a lecture by Scholar Georg Franz-Willing:

I. Historical Development from the Nineteenth Century to the First World War

In 1955, the Indian diplomat and historian K. M. Panikkar, a longtime friend and collaborator of Pandit Nehru, the Indian prime minister, published a book entitled Asia and Western Dominance 1498-1945. He shows Western dominance of Asia as beginning with the Portuguese Vasco da Gama’s discovery of the maritime route to India, and ending with the Second World War. The two world wars off the first half of the 20th century he justly describes as a European civil war. By this self-mutilation, Europe lost its position in the world, its hegemony, and caused itself to be divided into two spheres of influence: one American, and one Russian. /1

One can only understand the origins, progress, and results of the Second World War if, like Panikkar, one considers both world wars as constituting one homogeneous, inwardly coherent era. The immediate roots of the Second World War lie in the termination of the First World War by the so-called “suburban treaties” of Paris in 1919.

The deeper causes of both world wars have to be sought in the industrialization of our mode of life, and in the capitalistic imperialism of the second half of the l9th century. The upheaval in economy and society caused by new technology, modern means of communication and transport, and the rapid growth of the European population led to the development of the modern capitalist economy.

Great Britain was the birthplace and starting point of the process of industrialization. It became the world’s department store. The British imported raw materials from their colonies and delivered the finished products all over the world.

India, the main competitor to Britain’s textile industry, was forcibly reduced to a colony producing only raw materials. France, the most dangerous enemy of British colonialism, had been weakened during the coalition wars against Napoleon, until finally England’s naval hegemony was secured by Nelson’s victory over the combined French and Spanish fleets at Trafalgar in 1805.

The British Empire was undoubtedly the leading power of the world throughout the l9th century. Up to the outbreak of the First World War, it was the leading industrial nation and the most important financial, as well as maritime and naval power. /2 The European balance of power, the foundation of British rule around the world, had been reestablished at the Congress of Vienna in 1815. This system of peace following the Napoleonic Wars broke down with the Crimean War (1853-1856). /3 At that time Great Britain and France declared war on tsarist Russia because of its attack on the decrepit Turkish Empire and defeated the Russians soundly. Then, with the national unification of Italy and the foundation of the Second German Reich after the victorious war against France in 1870-71, a new system of states suddenly developed in Europe. By uniting the south and central German states with Prussia, Bismarck shaped the Second German Reich.

Between 1850 and 1870, the European continent, as well as North America, completed the transition to an industrial mode of living. The United States carried out the process of industrialization at the same rate as the leading industrial nations of Europe, which were at that time Great Britain and France. The Civil War of 1861-1865, with the defeat of the Confederate States, saved the large American Union and secured its way to becoming an industrial world power-a portentous event for the development of Europe and the world. /4 It was at this same time that East Asia was forcibly opened up by the two Anglo-Saxon world powers and France. After the bloody suppression of the Sepoy revolt from 1857 to 1859, the English made India into a crown colony and made it the heart of the British Empire. /5 By Admiral Perry’s 1853 expedition, the Americans forced Japan to abandon its policy of isolation, /6 and with the beginning of the Meiji period in 1868, Japan’s adoption of the new industrial economy took hold with ever-increasing speed. In the same way, China, the country with the world’s largest population, was forcibly joined to the Anglo-Saxon economic system by the peace treaty of Peking in 1860, which had been preceded by the British Opium Wars (1840-1860). France had been involved in these wars too. The Chinese Empire was thus degraded to a semi-colony. /7

In the seventies, capitalist imperialism set in, starting from England, as a competition of powers now borne on the wings of technology. World economy, as it was developed radiating from Great Britain, involved, and still involves, the drive to world hegemony through the struggle to dominate resources and markets. In this competition for global rule, the British Empire was to a great extent in the lead. From this largest commonwealth in human history, stretching over five continents, capitalist imperialism ever widened its orbit of power.

Runners-up were the United States and (especially on the European mainland) the German Reich. Germany’s industry took off at a breath-taking rate. Between 1870 and 1890, German inventive genius, German organization, diligence, and competence shaped the newly unified German Reich into the leading industrial power of the European continent, and in English eyes, made it a bothersome competitor. In 1887, the British government enacted the Trade Marks Act, requiring any German product coming onto the British world market to bear the mark “Made in Germany.” This measure soon boomeranged, however. For the consumer, “Made in Germany” became the sign of the better, while at the same time the less costly, product.

German competition grew irresistibly. In the fields of iron and steel production and in the chemical industries, Germany outdistanced its British competitor by the turn of the century. To this were added the growth of merchant shipping, and later, the navy. In the eighties, the German Reich acquired protectorates or colonies in Africa. In the nineties, a number of islands in the Pacific were added. On the coast of China, Germany acquired Kiaochow with its capital Tsingtao by a lease treaty in 1897.

As Germany’s industrial and financial power as well as its trade increased, a growing antagonism between Germany and the British Empire arose. Everywhere the ambitious German industry confronted a British competitor avidly observing the growing danger to his monopolistic trade relations, jealously guarded until then. A 1910 conversation between Lord Balfour, leader of the British Conservative Party, and Henry White, then United States Ambassador in London, shows the contrast between the two European industrial powers, and the attitude of the British leadership: /8

Balfour: We are probably fools not to find a reason for declaring war on Germany before she builds too many ships and takes away our trade.

White: You are a very high-minded man in private life. How can you possibly contemplate anything so politically immoral as provoking a war against a harmless nation which has as good a right to a navy as you have? If you wish to compete with German trade, work harder.

Balfour: That would mean lowering our standard of living. Perhaps it would be simpler for us to have a war.

White: I am shocked that you of all men should enunciate such principles.

Balfour: Is it a question of right or wrong? Maybe it is just a question of keeping our supremacy.

In connection with this conversation, General Wedemeyer calls attention to a statement by the British military historian, General J. F. C. Fuller: /9

Fuller remarks with reference to this recorded conversation that its interest does not lie simply in the evidence it affords of Balfour’s unprincipled cynicism. Its significance lies in the fact that “the Industrial Revolution has led to the establishment of an economic struggle for existence in which self-preservation dictated a return to the ways of the jungle. The primeval struggle between nation and nation in which all competitors were beasts.”

Naturally, the rapid growth of Germany’s population, economy, and its military potential was a thorn in the sides of its neighbors on the continent. France had never overcome the defeat of 1870 and thirsted for revenge. Russia, the largest land power and main enemy of the British Empire throughout the l9th century (especially in Asia), had lost the Crimean War in 1856, and had to withdraw in the face of British power after a second, victorious war against the Turkish Empire, for fear of another military confrontation with England.

The Berlin Congress of 1878, which was dominated by Bismarck, rearranged affairs in the Balkans. By his supreme statesmanship, the chancellor managed to avoid another war between Russia, the largest land power, and England, the largest sea power. From then on, however, the relationship between Russia and Germany deteriorated. Inspired by the pan-slavic tendencies then prevailing in the tsar’s empire, a sinister watch-word came to the fore: “On to Vienna through Berlin!” In the same way as it tried to divide up the Turkish Empire, Russian imperialist policy sought to dismember the Habsburg Monarchy, which included a number of different peoples. Russia wanted to place them all under the religious rule of the tsar as protector of the Orthodox Christians in the Balkans. Diplomatically speaking, that meant nothing less than the integration of Bulgaria and Serbia into the Russian monarchy, as well as that of all the West and South Slavic peoples. After Japan defeated Russia in Asia during the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-05, which ended with a peace brought about by the American President Theodore Roosevelt, the Russian expansionist policy then changed its aim and turned again to the Balkans.

In 1914, Serbia unleashed the fury of war, as the Austrian heir apparent, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, and his wife were both murdered by Serbian terrorists. The murders had been organized by Colonel Dragutin Dimitrevic, chief of the intelligence department of the Serbian General Staff, while the Russian military attache in Belgrade, Colonel Artamanov, financed them. /10 In addition, the Serbian government had received an assurance of support from the Russian government in case of an Austrian attack on Serbia. Thus tsarist Russia bears the main responsibility for the outbreak of the First World War. Russia encouraged Serbia to war, and on July 25 the Russian Privy Council decided on a partial mobilization of the Western provinces adjacent to Austria-Hungary and Germany. /11

Russia had been allied with France since 1892; France had connected herself with England in 1904 by the “Entente Cordiale,” and Russia had made an agreement with England in 1907. The encirclement of the two Central Powers-Germany and Austria — was complete. Italy was an unreliable ally of the Central Powers; but it was only the British declaration of war against Germany on August 4, 1914, that enlarged the European conflict into a world war. Following the 27th of July, the British navy was the first force to fully mobilize. /12

Two years before the outbreak of that war, convinced of the inevitability of war between England and Germany, the American author Homer Lea (1876-1912) wrote in his book The Day of the Saxon. /13

The German Empire is less in area than the single state of Texas, while the Saxon race claims political dominion over half of the landed surface of the earth and over all its ocean wastes. Yet the German Empire possesses a greater revenue than the American Republic, is the richest nation in productivity and possesses a population 50 percent greater than the United Kingdom. Its actual military power is manifoldly greater than that of the entire Saxon race. Germany is so tightly encircled by the Saxon race that it cannot make even a tentative extension of its territory or political sovereignty over non-Saxon states without endangering the integrity of the Saxon world. Germany cannot move against France without involving or including in its downfall that of the British Empire. It cannot move against Denmark on the North, Belgium and the Netherlands on the West or Austria-Hungary on the South without involving the British nation in a final struggle for Saxon political existence. Any extension of German sovereignty over these non-British states predetermines the political dissolution of the British Empire. In a like manner any extension of Teutonic sovereignty in the western hemisphere, though against a non-Saxon race and remote from the territorial integrity of the American Republic, can only succeed in the destruction of American power in the western hemisphere.

The founder of the Soviet Union, Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, said about the causes of the First World War: “We know that three robbers (the bourgeoisie and the governments of England, tsarist Russia and France) prepared to plunder Germany.” /14

Germany faced the Triple Entente of the British Empire, France, and Russia, while its own allies — Austria-Hungary, the Turkish Empire, and, since 1915, Bulgaria, were all weak and in need of support. Italy, which had originally been allied with the two Central Powers, remained at first neutral and then entered the war on the side of the Entente.

Despite the unequal distribution of forces, the military ability and economic competence of Germany, as well as the spirit of sacrifice and endurance shown by its people, proved so strong that Germany’s eastern enemy, Russia, collapsed in the spring of 1917. In March 1918, after the Bolshevik Revolution, the Russian Empire had to sign the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk dictated by the victorious Central Powers. Fate seemed to have decided in favor of the Central Powers. The Western allies were facing the necessity of a compromise settlement of peace. In order to avoid that, England then entangled the United States in the war.

After the outbreak of war in 1914, the U.S.A. provided the Entente with ammunition, arms, and other war material, thus committing an open breach of its neutrality. Most of this traffic in arms was conducted by the Morgan banking company. To secure its arms manufacturers’ profits, the U.S.A. had to enter the war as an active participant, thereby losing its position as a neutral mediator.

The decisive influence in winning the Wilson Administration over to war was that of the Zionists. England had won their help by promising to establish a national home for Jews in Palestine if Jews exercised their influence in Washington in favor of an active American military intervention in the European war. The decision was facilitated by the fact that their kinsmen were able to seize power in Russia in 1917 by the Bolshevik revolution after the downfall of the anti-semitic tsarist regime. The United States declared war upon the Central Powers on April 6, 1917; on November 2, 1917 the British Foreign Secretary handed over to Baron Rothschild a government statement concerning the e.ctshlichment of n notional home for sews in Palestine. /15

II. The ‘Suburban Treaties’ of Paris

It was the intervention of the United States which decided the war in favor of the Entente,.because of America’s immense military potential and its fresh troops. In October 1918 the last Imperial government of the German Reich asked-Wilson, the American president, to mediate talks regarding an armistice and eventually a peace treaty, based on the “Fourteen Points” he had proclaimed earlier. The Western Allies, however, did not adhere to these “Fourteen Points.” Thus, they broke the preliminary contract, whose validity was emphasized by American politicians and presidential advisors like Bernard Baruch and John Foster Dulles. According to Baruch, the President had refused “to accept measures which clearly do not respond to the motions we had persuaded the enemy to agree to and of which we may not change anything, just because we are powerful enough to do that.” /16 At Versailles, Baruch was Wilson’s advisor in financial affairs. Similarly, the South African prime minister, General Smuts, in his letter to the American president dated May 30, 1919, pointed out the obligations the Western Allies accepted in the preliminary treaty, which they did not honor. President Wilson, however, was not able to defend his point of view against the Western Powers, since he was severely ill. /17

Wilson had induced the German people to capitulate and overthrow the monarchy by the promise, soon to be broken, of a peace without annexations and indemnities. Capitulation and revolution delivered the German Empire to the mercy of the vengeful victors. Germany was not allowed to take part in the peace negotiations; the victors alone decided the conditions of peace, in a procedure without precedent in European history. On May 7, 1919, the peace conditions were handed over to the German peace delegation. Count Brockdorff-Rantzau, foreign secretary and leader of the delegation, pointed out in his speech before the delegates of the Western Allies and their associates: /18

… We know the impact of the hate we are encountering here, and we have heard the passionate demand of the victors, who require us, the defeated, to pay the bill and plan to punish us as the guilty party. We are asked to confess ourselves the sole culprits; in my view, such a confession would be a lie …

By these words the foreign secretary refused to accept article 231 of the peace treaty, the so-called war-guilt article, the lie which claimed that Germany was solely responsible for the war and could therefore be made responsible for all the havoc wrought by the war. The victors threatened that if the German government didn’t sign the treaty, they would invade Germany proper. Indignation in the Weimar National Assembly was general, and the climate of opinion favored rejection. The Social Democrat Philipp Scheidemann, who had proclaimed the German Republic on 9 November 1918, and was prime minister of the first republican government elected by the National Assembly, declared: “I ask you, who as an honest man — not even as a German, simply as an honest man feeling himself bound by contracts, is able to accept such conditions? Which hand would not wither, should it be bound in such chains? In the government’s view, this treaty is unacceptable.” /19 Scheidemann, as well as Count Brockdorff-Rantzau, resigned under protest. Important German-Jewish economic leaders, namely Walther Rathenau and the Hamburg banker Max Warburg, took a firm stand against accepting the dictate of the victors and called for a refusal, even against the odds of an enemy invasion of Germany. /20 The National Assembly, however, did not have the courage to maintain such a position, and under protest, voted acceptance of the Versailles dictate. It was on June 28, 1919, the date fixed by the victorious powers, that the National Assembly’s plenipotentiaries had to sign that treaty. The date had been chosen as a reminder of the murder at Sarajevo on June 28, 1914.

Connected with the “war guilt article” were the punitive regulations of sections 227-231, referring to the surrender of “war criminals” to the victors, the most prominent “criminal” on the lists being the German emperor, who had fled to the Netherlands. Since the Dutch government declined to extradite the emperor, the planned trial did not take place. The German government refused to hand over other prominent German leaders to the victors, and passed an act concerning prosecution of war crimes.

One of the inhuman conditions of capitulation was the hunger blockade against Germany, which was continued by French demand until the Versailles Treaty came into force in January 1920.

Because of its long-term effects, the hunger blockade imposed by the British was more decisive in defeating the Central Powers than was wartime military pressure. The number of deaths due to hunger and malnutrition is estimated at 800,000 for 1919 alone. A committee of American women traveling through Germany by order of Herbert Hoover, chief of war relief and later president, reported in July 1919, “If the conditions continue which we have seen in Germany, a generation will grow up in Central Europe which will be physically and psychologically disabled, so that it will become a danger for the whole of the world.” 21

Adolf Hitler, then an unknown soldier, experienced the famine which lasted throughout the war and in those early postwar years. His political program was born of those experiences, particularly his idea of conquering Ukraine for the German people. Conquering the fertile regions of southern Russia could provide not only living space for the German people; it could ban forever the possibility of another hunger blockade.

Hitler experienced the Revolution of November 1918 lying wounded in a military hospital. He became a passionate enemy of the November Revolution and of the “Soviet Republic” in the Bavarian capital of Munich during April 1919, a political coup staged chiefly by Jews and directed by Lenin’s radio commands from Moscow. Hitler became a member of the then totally unimportant “Deutsche Arbeiterpartei” (German Worker’s Party) founded in January of that same year, and he soon proved to be a brilliant orator. His main topic was the Versailles dictate, which he saw as closely connected with the November revolution and the mischievous revolutionary activities of the Jews. As a German of the late Habsburg Monarchy, he was a fanatic supporter of a union of the Austrian Germans with the German Reich. The main focuses of his political activity were the fight against the peace dictate, the Marxist-Communist threat with the leading role of the Jews in the revolt, and the fight for self-determination and equality of rights for the German people. /22

The overthrow of the monarchy, the change from an empire to a republic, as well as the capitulation, had been sparked by President Wilson’s third note, dated October 23, 1918. The National Assembly, which began sitting in January 1919, was determined to shape the new state and government according to the Western example, as the victors had wished. By the peace dictate, however, the Allies had sentenced the Weimar Republic to death even before the new constitution had been ratified by the National Assembly. On June 28, 1919, the German government signed the Versailles dictate; the new constitution came into force on the 11th of August, burdened with the curse of the Versailles treaty and its unrealizable demands. The miserable end of the Weimar Republic, “the freest democracy of the world,” and its result, Hitler’s dictatorship, were consequences of the Versailles dictate. The victors had won the war but lost the peace by their treaty.

The most important stipulations of the dictate of Versailles were as follows: The German Reich had to cede 73,485 square kilometers, inhabited by 7,325,000 persons, to neighboring states. Before the war it had possessed 540,787 square kilometers and 67,892,000 inhabitants; after the war, 467,301 square kilometers and 59,036,000 inhabitants remained. Germany lost 75Vo of its yearly production of zinc ore, 74.8q7o of iron ore, 7.7% of lead ore, 28.7Vo of coal, and 4No of potash. Of its yearly agricultural production, Germany lost 19.7Vo in potatoes, 18.2Vo in rye, 17.2No in barley, 12.6No in wheat, and 9.6No in oats.

The Saar territory and other regions to the west of the Rhine were occupied by foreign troops and were to remain so for fifteen years, with Cologne, Mainz, and Coblenz as bridgeheads. The costs of the occupation, 3,640,000,000 gold marks, had to be paid by the German Reich. Germany was not allowed to station troops or build fortifications to the west of the Rhine and in a fifty-kilometer zone to the east.

Germany was forced to disarm almost completely, the conditions calling for: abolition of the general draft, prohibition of all heavy arms (artillery and tanks), a volunteer army of only 100,000 troops and officers restricted to long-term enlistments; reduction of the navy to six capital ships, six light cruisers, twelve destroyers, twelve torpedo-boats, 15,000 men and 500 officers. An air force was absolutely prohibited. The process of disarmament was overseen by an international military committee until 1927. Additionally, all German rivers had to be internationalized and overseas cables ceded to the victors.

The economic conditions of the Versailles treaty were as follows: After the delivery of the navy, the merchant ships had to be handed over as well, with only a few exceptions. Germany was deprived of all her foreign accounts — private ones too — and lost her colonies. For a period of ten years, Germany had to supply France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and Italy with 40 million tons of coal per year, and had to deliver machines, factory furnishings, tools and other materials for the restoration of devastated areas in Belgium and the North of France. In regard to the hunger blockade, which continued until January 1920, a special hardship on the German people was the forced delivery of German cattle to the victors for breeding and slaughtering purposes.

The Versailles Treaty did not contain any limitation on the victors’ financial demands, in order to facilitate additional demands. In 1920, the Western allies fixed the amount of reparations first at a sum of 269 billions of gold marks; then, in 1921, at 132 billions — both unrealistic demands. France made use of this opportunity by occupying additional German cities. This policy of blackmail culminated in the invasion of the Ruhr territory by French and Belgian military units in January, 1923. In this way, France hoped to accomplish the disintegration of the German Reich, and to establish the Rhine as France’s eastern frontier. Thereafter, the French occupation forces accelerated inflation in the occupied zones by confiscating the presses for printing bank notes, and produced money in unprecedented amounts. It was thus that France promoted high inflation until the breakdown of German currency. /23

The French government, however, did not achieve its goal. Even its British and Italian allies condemned the French attack on the Ruhr as an open breach of the Versailles treaty. The paralysis of the German economy resulting from inflation, combined with passive resistances forced the United States to abandon its policy of isolation and to concentrate on regulation of the war debts.

The Habsburg Empire, the second strongest of the Central Powers, was destroyed and divided up by the victors. Serbia and Romania were amply rewarded with substantial enlargements of territory, since they had sided with the Western Allies. Serbia swallowed its Croatian, Slovenian, and Montenegrin neighbors to become the Kingdom of Yugoslavia, and Romania received the eastern part of the former Hungarian Monarchy. The victors established another new state, especially favored by President Wilson, and which up to then had been unknown in European history, namely, Czechoslovakia. This new Czechoslovakia became the heir of the monarchy of Bohemia-Moravia, formerly belonging to the western half of the Habsburg monarchy, and of old Slovakia, then part of Hungary. Because the Czech leaders Thomas Masaryk and Eduard Benes, had given false data to the victors, the Czechs, forming only 44q10 of the population of the new state, were allowed to rule over the other 56tto of the population, consisting of 23q7o Germans, 18Vo Slovaks, 5No Magyars, 3.8to Ukrainians, 1.3Vo Jews and 0.6Vo Poles. The Sudeten Germans were the largest minority, numbering 3.5 million persons, followed by the Slovaks, numbering 2.5 million, who had only agreed to the establishment of the new Czechoslovak state after they had been promised full autonomy. This promise was broken. Also, Italy was ceded the German South Tyrol. /24

At their national assembly in Vienna in November 1918, the Germans of the Austrian part of the Habsburg Empire had decided to join themselves to the German Reich. The Weimar National Assembly had agreed to annex the 10 million Germans of the western half of the Danube Empire. The victors, however, denied the German people their right of self-determination, forcing 3.5 million Sudeten Germans under Czech rule, and compelling the Austrian Germans to establish an “independent” republic with Vienna as its capital. The truncated Austrian state was burdened with the peace dictate of St. Germain, /25 a treaty as hard and humiliating as that of Versailles. Hungary, the Eastern part of the Habsburg Monarchy, reduced to one-third of its former territory due to its losses in favor of Romania, Serbia, and Czechoslovakia, was forced to sign an equally harsh treaty at Trianon.

Poland, newly founded as a monarchy in 1916 after its liberation from Russia rule by German troops, became a republic and was greatly enlarged at the expense of Germany and Austria-Hungary. From the Habsburg Empire, Poland received Galicia and Cracow; Germany had to renounce her rights to West Prussia, Posen, and the eastern part of Upper Silesia. The German city of Danzig was separated from the Reich and put under the administration of the League of Nations as a so-called “free city.” The “Polish Corridor” separated East Prussia from the rest of the Reich so that this Prussian province was inaccessible to officials except by sea.

This sadistic fixing of frontiers was due mainly to French influence. The French commander-in-chief, Marshal Ferdinand Foch, declared that in twenty years a new war was inevitable. To hold Germany down permanently, France devised a system of treaties with Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, and Yugoslavia. Britain’s Prime Minister David Lloyd George disapproved of the imposition of the new German-Polish frontiers, /26 but the British government did nothing to prevent it. General Henry Allen, the commander-in-chief of the American occupation forces of the Rhine, also spoke strongly against such “wrong policy.” /27

When seen from a global point of view, the most imminent result of the First World War was the victory of the United States of America. The first stage of the European civil war had resulted in a decrease of European power and brought about America’s rise to the world’s leading power, as well as the determining factor in the fate of Europe. Certainly the two Western colonial powers of Great Britain and France had reached their greatest territorial extension overseas as well as their climax of power in Europe with the defeat of Germany, the destruction of the Habsburg Monarchy, and the division of the Turkish Empire; but they had been able to win only by the help of an extra-European power, and they had thereby become America’s debtors. The British Empire, which up to then had been the main representative of European power overseas, as well as the main financial and naval power, had by war’s end become dependent on its North American “junior partner.” By the agreement reached at the Washington Naval Conference of 1921-1922, London had to share its naval rule with the U.S.A. and grant America equality of rights on the seas.

Because he was afflicted with paralysis, President Wilson was not able in 1918 and 1919 to realize the ideals based on his “Fourteen Points.” The peace treaties were thus distorted by French and English hatred and vengeance, endangering the peace after they had won the war with American help. /28 The American president was able to effect the creation of the League of Nations, envisioned as a world government peacefully regulating disputes among peoples, but an isolationist majority in Congress prevented American membership in the League, as well as rejecting ratification of the Versailles treaty. In 1921, the U.S.A. and Germany signed a separate peace agreement securing all the advantages of the Versailles treaty for the U.S.A However, the attempt to withdraw into isolation was a grave mistake as well as an evasion of responsibility, for Europe had neither been able to end the war on its own or to reach a compromise peace. Thus the main responsibility for the subsequent development of European history falls on the United States.

Cardinal Pietro Gasparri, Papal Secretary of State, declared that the forced peace of Versailles was unacceptable. The name of God had been excluded from it, and from it not only one, but ten wars would originate. /29 Lenin, the atheist founder of the Soviet Union, said about the dictate of Versailles: /30

An atrocious peace, making slaves out of millions of highly civilized people. That is no peace; those are conditions dictated to a helpless victim by robbers with knives in their hands.

George Kennan, the well-known American diplomat and historian, judged: /31

In this way, the pattern of the events that led the Western world to new disaster in 1939 was laid down in its entirety by the Allied governments in 1918-19. What we shall have to observe from here on, in the relations between Russia, Germany and the West, follows a logic as inexorable as that of any Greek tragedy.

III. The Period between the Wars

Since the Allied powers depended upon Germany’s reparation payments to repay their debts to the U.S.A., the American government in 1924 regulated the reparations problem with a payment plan named for the American financier Charles Dawes. The Dawes Plan was based on the principle of changing political guilt into commercial debt. Accordingly, American loans, mainly short-term ones, poured into the German economy. Germany could only meet the victors’ reparation claims by a surplus resulting from increased exports. Since many states pursued a policy of enacting protective tariffs to restrict German competition, a new payment plan had to be arranged in 1928, the so-called Young Plan, named after the American banker Owen Young.

According to the Young Plan, the German Reich would pay reparations until 1988, while at the same time having to pay interest on and amortize the mainly short-term private loans. However, the shattering 1929 Wall Street crash and the ensuing crisis of world economy rendered the Young Plan absurd before it came into force. By 1931 mass employment and a decrease in the gross national product stemming from the Wall Street crash led to German insolvency and moved Hindenburg, then president of the German Reich, to write to President Hoover asking for a moratorium. In July 1932 the Conference of Lausanne ended German reparation payments by fixing a final payment of three billion gold marks. The German Reich had altogether paid 53.15S billion gold marks in reparations, including contributions in kind.

The German economy had still to meet interest obligations deriving from Germany’s enormous foreign debt. In the spring of 1933, after political leadership had changed simultaneously in the U.S.A. and in Germany, the influence of Jewish and Socialist emigrants from Germany caused relations between the two countries to deteriorate. At first, both President Roosevelt and the Hitler government countered identical domestic problems of economic depression and mass unemployment by state work programs: the New Deal in the USA; the Four Year Plan in Germany. Shortly after his inauguration in 1933, Roosevelt announced a large-scale naval rearmament program and established diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union in the hope of fostering trade relations which could boost American industry. /32 One year later, the Soviet Union was accepted as a member of the League of Nations, another augury of the anti-German coalition of the Second World War.

After the nationalist parties’ seizure of power in Germany, resulting after one-and-a-half years in Hitler’s autocratic rule, based on a mass-movement, all the victor states of the First World War talked of a future war. It was not Hitler who wanted the war, but rather his internal and external enemies. Shortly after Hitler’s rise to power, the Polish government suggested a preventive war against Germany to its French ally. /33 In March 1933, the international Jewish leadership decreed a propaganda and economic war on Germany, linked to a boycott of German products. During his journey to America in May 1933, Hjalmar Schacht, the President of the Reichsbank, found the atmosphere hostile. When his talks with President Roosevelt concerning regulation of German debts took a friendly turn, Schacht explained to Roosevelt that Germany could meet its obligations to American private creditors only if Germany were given the opportunity to increase its exports. This, however, did not jibe with the international boycott movement organized by the Jews, which sought a speedy overthrow of the Hitler government. During his stay in America, Schacht was also told that Paris nursed exceedingly anti-German sentiments and that people were saying that Germany should be divided up in order to accomplish what had been neglected in Versailles. /34

Schacht managed to render the boycott useless, however, and he made Germany economically independent by signing the clearing agreements. The Four-Year Plan proved to be a success, and the Hitler government managed to get nearly all the jobless into some kind of employment by the end of 1937. At the same time, the American New Deal failed. After that, Roosevelt changed his policy to one favoring intervention. He introduced it by his “Quarantine” speech dating from October 1937, directed against Japan but also against Germany and Italy. /35

For the ambitious Roosevelt, a large-scale war could help in solving his domestic problems by absorbing the unemployed through an armament boom, as well as subsequently bringing to pass the “American Century” through his leadership of a world government. He favored turmoil in Europe, and through his Ambassador, Anthony Biddle, he influenced the Polish government not to enter into negotiations with Germany. /36 When, in 1938, the German people realized the right of self-determination by merging Austria and the Sudetenland into the Reich according to the decisions of the Munich conference of September 1938, Roosevelt protested against the Western powers’ acceptance of Germany’s rightful claims. The Munich agreement, involving Germany, Great Britain, France, and Italy, was the last independent decision in Europe, uninfluenced by either America or Russia. Therefore, President Roosevelt declared it a capitulation to Hitler, and brought pressure on the Western powers and Poland to offer stiff resistance to Germany. /37 Roosevelt and Stalin had equal interests in the outbreak of a war in Europe, each of them nursing his own dream of a world domination; Roosevelt as president of a world government in the form of the United Nations, Stalin as dictator of a Communist world empire. /38

IV. The Outbreak of the Second World War

The problem of inducing the enemy to fire the first shot in order to be able to brand him the aggressor was easier in the German-Polish confrontation than it was to be two years later in the conflict between Japan and the U.S.A. The Polish, influenced by the American administration and relying on their alliance with Great Britain and France, reacted to the last German peace proposal with a general mobilization. Thus they forced the German government’s hand. According to Frederick the Great of Prussia, “The attacker is the one who forces his adversary to attack.” Thanks to the treason of Herwarth von Bittenfeld, then secretary to the German embassy in Moscow, President Roosevelt knew of the German-Russian secret treaty of August 23, 1939 even before Hitler could inform his ally. Roosevelt, however, did not inform the Polish government of this intelligence, since he, like Stalin, wanted war. /39

The Soviet dictator signed the treaty with Hitler in order to cause war between the capitalist states. It was his aim to intervene after the capitalist powers were exhausted. In this way he intended to emerge as victor of the war. In order to effect the Bolshevist world revolution, with the ultimate aim of establishing Moscow’s rule over the world, the conquest of Germany was essential. /40 Bolshevist attempts at seizing power in Germany between 1918 and 1923 had failed because of the Freikorps (Volunteer Corps) and the Reichswehr. /41 By means of the Second World War and with the help of President Roosevelt, Stalin would conquer half of Europe, including half of Germany, and integrate it into the Communist block. Roosevelt’s dream of becoming president of the world was not to come to pass, however; he died on April 12, 1945, eighteen days before Hitler’s suicide.

On September 3, 1939, the British government declared war on Germany and thus forced France to take the same disastrous step, hypocritically claiming they were doing so to protect Polish independence. Exactly twenty-five years earlier, on August 4, 1914, the British government had declared war on the German Reich, proclaiming its support for Belgian neutrality. Within a quarter of a century, the British Empire thus started two unprovoked wars in order to destroy Germany. /42 To be sure, in 1939 the British government did not act independently, but was pressured intensely by the American President. Joseph Kennedy, from 1938 to 1940 the-United States Ambassador in London, later replied to a question of James Forrestal, the U.S. secretary of defense, on just how it was that war had broken out:

Hitler would have fought Russia without any later conflict with England if it had not been for Bullitt’s [William Bullitt, then Ambassador to France urging on Roosevelt in the summer of 1939 that the Germans must be faced down about Poland; neither the French nor the British would have made Poland a cause of war if it hadn’t been for the constant needling from Washington. Bullitt, he said, kept telling Roosevelt that the Germans would not fight, Kennedy said that they would and that they would overrun Europe. Chamberlain, he says, stated that America and the world Jews had forced England into the war. In his telephone conversations with Roosevelt in the summer of 1939, the President kept telling him to put some iron up Chamberlain’s backside … /43

The 1941 German attack on the Soviet Union was a preventive war to avoid the Soviet Russian attack then being prepared. At that time the Soviet Union proved the most heavily armed state, underestimated not only by the German, but also by the Allied general staffs. /44

Roosevelt’s diplomacy contributed to the failure of German attack plans for the spring of 1941. Since he had engineered the Yugoslavian coup d’état of March 27, 1941, /45 the German command saw the necessity of a Balkan campaign, thus delaying the attack on the Soviet Union by five weeks. For President Roosevelt, America’s entry into the European war was complicated by the Neutrality Act, and by the German government’s silence over the growing breaches of neutrality committed by the U.S.A. on behalf of the Western Allies throughout the years 1939-1941. /46 Eventually, Roosevelt found the “backdoor to war” by provoking war with Japan. /47 His economic sanctions and political demands had been devised with the purpose of driving Japan into war, forcing it to fire the first shot and thus appear to the world as the aggressor. He attained this objective through his ultimatum of November 26, 1941, which he had issued without informing the American Congress. The Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor of December 7, 1941 was thereby artificially provoked. /48

By his demand for unconditional surrender Roosevelt made impossible any attempt at a political solution of the war problems. For him and his British friend Winston Churchill the complete destruction of the German Reich and the extermination of the German people were the main objective of the war. Military force, only a means for attaining an end in the view of Clausewitz, became an end in itself. Anti-German propaganda, directed by the American administration itself, grew to an infernal extent.

In the spring of 1941, when the U.S.A. was still officially neutral, the Jewish author, Theodore Kaufman, published the book Germany Must Perish. In it he outlined a plan for the biological eradication of the German people through the forced sterilization of the whole adult population. /49

Charles Lindbergh, the famous American pilot, recorded these extermination plans in his diary. /50 The sterilization plans could not be put into effect due to the developing discord within the anti-Hitler coalition. In 1943, Roosevelt disclosed to Cardinal Spellman that he intended to leave Europe to the Russians as a sphere of influence. /51 One year later, when the Red Army conquered Poland, disagreements arose between Great Britain and the USA on one side, and Stalin on the other, terminating with Poland’s complete integration into the Communist sphere of influence. That was just one of the results of a world war unleashed by Great Britain in order to defend Poland.

After being elected four times, contrary to the American tradition, President Roosevelt was in such bad physical shape after his fourth inauguration that he was unable to fulfill his duties. Similar to President Wilson at Versailles in 1919, Roosevelt at Yalta in 1945 showed alarming signs of exhaustion and dementia. At times he was not able to follow Stalin’s line of thought during his talks with the Soviet dictator. Thus the Russian autocrat had an easy game at ramming through his plans regarding Europe and Asia. In Europe the Soviet Union reached the Elbe-Saale Line, dividing Germany, as well as the Occident, into two parts. As to East Asia, Stalin had the Portsmouth Treaty between Russia and Japan revised as a reward for Russian help in the defeat of Japan. Four years later, in 1949, China turned Communist, Communism’s greatest triumph after its success in Europe.

My lecture is now drawing to a close and I shall summarize. In the course of the l9th Century, a capitalist world economy had led to the growing importance and intensification of economic ties and interests on the international stage; on the one hand bringing the nations together and establishing an interconnection of all peoples by modern means of transport and communication; on the other hand, aggravating old conflicts and creating new ones. The possibility of mutual and international involvement in other people’s affairs, and of unending conflicts, was particularly increased. It was characteristic of the pre-industrial age that man could only reach limited aims, by limited means; the sign of the Machine Age and its mode of living was the enabling of man to strive for unlimited aims by seemingly unlimited means.

The conflicts resulting from a capitalistic world economy culminated at the turn of the century in the international rivalry between Germany and the British Empire. This tension, which had never existed before between these two nations, was rooted in trade competition, and overshadowed all the old conflicts between the Continental powers. A local conflict ignited by the small Balkan state of Serbia in 1914, and expanded to a war of European scale by Russia’s meddling on Serbia’s side, developed into a world war with the British declaration of war on Germany. Werner Sombart, the well-known German historian of capitalism, describes the nature of this development: /52

… [the] common characteristic of all developments of the capitalist era is a pressure toward infinity, a boundlessness of aims, a force striving beyond all organic measure. Here we have one of those inner contradictions pervading modern culture: that life, in its highest and strongest action, overreaches and … destroys itself.

The American intervention in the European civil war in 1917, brought about by British policy and ensuring the Allied victory, ushered in the climax of Anglo-Saxon world rule. At that time, after overthrowing two of the most powerful continental powers, Russia and Germany, the two Anglo-Saxon powers were rulers of the globe. They won the war, but they lost the peace because of their own incapability to shape a just order of peace. Britain and America bear the main responsibility for the further course of international history in the American Century.

The Second World War was a necessary consequence of the First World War’s termination in the peace dictates of Versailles and St. Germain. The immediate origins of the Second World War were the Allied Powers’ breaking of the preliminary agreement based on Wilson’s Fourteen Points; the refusal of the right of self-determination and of equality of rights for the German people; the creation of the eastern frontier and the “Polish Corridor”; the treaties’ paragraphs on war guilt and war criminals, and impossible financial and economic claims.

The outbreak of the war of 1939 was caused directly by the conflict between Poland and Germany over the “Corridor” and Danzig problems. Great Britain and the USA did not grant Germany fulfillment of her rights to self-determination: unification of Austria and the Sudeten region with the German Reich in 1938 had shifted the relations between the powers on the continent in favor of Germany-an event unacceptable for England’s traditional policy of a “Balance of Powers.” Equally unacceptable for America was the Europeans’ independent decision at the Munich conference, excluding the United States and the Soviet Union.

By means of a European war, both Roosevelt and Stalin intended to realize their dream of world rule according to totally different views and totally different aims. Thus Washington and Moscow staged a new European war, enabling both colossi to destroy and displace a Europe engaged in self-mutilation. The European order of the world was replaced by two “super powers,” leading to a balance of terror. Thus, America lost her position as arbiter mundi [“world arbiter”] which she had at tempted to exercise in 1919, and was forced on the defensive against an aggressive and expansionist Communism striving for exclusive world domination.

WW2Truth.com is a great resource for truth about the Second World War and it lists several resources for studying and reading a truthful account:

Novice Level Revisionist: The best way to approach WWII if you are new to the topic is the “survey” or “big picture” approach. There are several excellent books that provide this wide angle viewpoint for the interested reader.

  1. The Bad War by Mike King.  Back in March of 2017, this book was banned from Amazon along with over 100 other titles. Kind of shocking, because although Mike debunks the Holocaust in the book, this is by no means a “holocaust denial” book. It is, however, an excellent chronological survey, that actually goes all the way back to 1848, so you really do get an excellent history lesson. The book is loaded with primary source quotes and many illustrations. It really allows you to see all the connections and although the book is written in a simple, straightforward style, you will find no sappy, simple-minded white-washing of the original events.
  2. Germany’s War: The Origins, Aftermath & Atrocities of World War II by John Wear  Another excellent survey of the war from the German perspective which contains a great deal of research and information not found in others books of its kind.  The book is in three parts: Part 1- a detailed survey of how the Allies, not the Germans wanted World War II and how they made it happen.  Part 2 – a section on the atrocities committed by the Allies which are almost never discussed by “court” historians.  Part 3 – an examination of the accusations against Germany in regards to the atrocities they committed, including the Holocaust.
  3. The Ruling Elite: Death, Destruction, and Domination by Deanna Spingola. This book is over 700 pages long of valuable information about Hitler, and who he really was, and how he transformed Germany. There is also information on pre-war events and there is extensive information on little known events that happened during WWII such as Rudolf Hess’s peace mission to Britain.
  4. The Myth of German Villainy by Benton Bradbury. This is an excellent book, and it attacks WWII from the perspective of the Germans. Why were the Germans villainized so greatly? Mr. Bradbury suggests that the negative propaganda from WWII was in many ways an extension of the negative propaganda from WWI. What I found most helpful was seeing the war from the German perspective, which is rare because most of what we get is a disproportionate amount of the “Anglo-US” version of events.
  5. Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World by Patrick Buchanan. Anyone who lived through the 1980’s remembers Pat Buchanan. He is no longer a reporter for ABC, nor is he running for office, but instead he writes some very good articles and this book. The book makes a great argument that WWII was a war that we should have avoided, given the destructiveness to Europe, European peoples, and the tremendous cost to the British Empire and the United States.
  6. The All Lies Invasion by Mike Walsh.  This is a recently published book by author Michael Walsh, who has written extensively about Hitler and the Third Reich.  This book is a catalog of the extensive list of lies written about Hitler, National Socialism, Third Reich Germany and World War II.  This book is essential because it exposes so many of the lies that are still pervasive today, that you must understand if you intend to get to the truth.
  7. Apocalypse 1945:  The Destruction of Dresden by David Irving.  This was one of David Irving’s first books, and got him noticed by historians and non-historians.  It is an excellent account of the events leading up to Dresden, the bombings and the aftermath.  Irving is well-known for his reliance on first hand sources, and this book has many eyewitness accounts as well as interviews with top British and German officials.  All of his books are good, and he was one of the first historians who told the German side of the story.

Recommended articles:

  1. A Straight Look at the Second World War
  2. With “Victories Like WWII, Who Needs Loses?
  3. WWII Myths Fuel Western Crimes
  4. The Origins of the Second World War
  5. The Dark Side of the “Good” War
  6. The “Good War” Myth of World War II
  7. Did World War II Have to Happen?

Intermediate Level Revisionist: After you are able to see the bigger picture, and start to see how the lies really do not make any sense at all, you are ready to confront key issues head on. The intermediate level is where you can look at specific events, and personalities, so in many ways it is the opposite of the wide angle viewpoint of the novice. You also will want to start looking at primary sources, something that most mainstream historians never do.

  1. Warwolves of the Iron Cross: The Union Jackal: “england’s bloody path to empire and downfall” (Wehrwolf Book 4) By Veronica Clark. This book is loaded with many hidden gems, primarily having to do with Hitler and National Socialist Germany. This book debunks many myths surrounding Hitler and Germany, many of them propagated by several truth media “gatekeepers”. Was Hitler a Rothschild agent? Was National Socialist Germany funded by the Rothschilds? Is there a “Fourth Reich” in the US? Ms. Clark shoots down them all, one by one, revealing a very different Hitler and National Socialist Germany than what we were taught and manipulated to believe. V.K. Clark has many books out and is one of the few researchers who is doing significant work correcting the official WWII story. This book, in my opinion, is the best place to start.
  2. The Real Roosevelts By Mike King. This is a much needed corrective to the propaganda documentary by Ken Burns called “The Roosevelts”. This book is written in similar format to The Bad War, and with just as much primary documentation and piercing wit. In fact, in many ways, this is a very scathing satire of the Roosevelts, and it should make you laugh. One thing is certain, you will forever forget their crispy clean image so painstakingly crafted by the media.
  3. Why Hitler Came to Power By Theodore Abel. This is another excellent primary source book, that was written during the time of National Socialist Germany and NOT 50-70 years after. The author received over 700 essays from NSDAP members on why they joined the party. The author selected a cross-section for the book, and so you get a unique inside view of the motivations of Germans from all walks of life of why they were enthusiastic about Hitler and the National Socialists.
  4. The War that Had Many Fathers By Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof. This book is another long, well-researched book, that goes into great detail chronicling the beginning of WWII. It is unique because it is written by a German scholar, so we get the German perspective (which you will start to realize is much more accurate and truthful than the Anglo-US perspective).
  5. Communism in Germany By Adolf Ehrt. Nothing is more understated and ignored than the real Communist threat during the interwar period in Germany. This expose, was written by an NSDAP party member in 1938. After reading this well-documented book, which is not an emotional propaganda piece, you will start to understand what a huge threat communism was to Germany, and that the rise of Hitler and the NSDAP was a REACTION to this monstrous beast.
  6. The Eastern Front By Leon Degrelle. This is an excellent first person combat narrative from one of Hitler’s most decorated and heroic SS soldiers. No, he was not a mind controlled German pure-bread Aryan robot, but rather a Belgian volunteer, who joined the SS to fight Bolshevism and Communism. The SS have been so maligned, and distorted, and this certainly is an excellent corrective.
  7. The Chief Culprit By Viktor Suvorov. The author took a careful look at documents only released after the fall of the Soviet Union in 1990, to conclude that Stalin was planning a massive assault on Germany and the rest of the west. Hitler and his generals got wind of this, and this, the author concludes, is why Germany attacked Russia as a preventative assault in June of 1941.

Recommended articles:

  1. Rethinking Hitler and National Socialism
  2. Demystification of the Birth and Funding of the NSDAP
  3. How Franklin Roosevelt Lied America Into War
  4. Crimes of the Bolsheviks
  5. Understanding National Socialism – It’s foundation, what it really stood for, opposed, and why

Advanced Level Revisionist: If you have made it this far, you are now ready to confront the Holocaust and start sorting through the myth and reality of this event. Secondly, you should start to see that Hitler and the National Socialists may not have been the bogeymen they were made out to be, and you will want to read what they had to say for themselves. Lastly, you will need to confront the true nature of the war atrocities, and you will realize, at this point, they were far greater than you imagined.

  1. Mein Kampf By Adolf Hitler. By now, you should read this book, which had sold about 10 million copies by the end of the war. You should not be worried at this point that somehow you will become evil or turn into a “Nazi” after reading it! What you will find is a well-ordered, highly intellectual mind who had a piercing insight into the world affairs of his time. You will not only learn about the nature of National Socialism, but you will get a history lesson that you will not find anywhere else. This is the Thomas Dalton edition, which he just translated, and it is EXCELLENT!!  Dalton is also the author of Debating the Holocaust.
  2. Manifesto for the Abolition of Enslavement to Interest on Money by Gottfried Feder. This small “booklet” packs a powerful punch, and in it, you will finally learn the real motivations of National Socialism, and why they had to be stopped. This was translated by Hading Scott, a revisionist historian who maintains a website called: National-Socialist-Worldview.
  3. Hitler’s Revolution by Richard Tedor. This is a highly researched survey of Hitler’s plan for Germany and you will soon see why the author refers to it as a revolution. Hitler brought Germany out of the depths of despair, and made her an economic powerhouse while the rest of the world was suffering in deep depression. You will learn in great detail how the National Socialists did this, and why they were beloved by all Germans for their timely rescue.
  4. World Freemasonry Unveiled translated by V.K. Clark. After reading this book, that was originally a series of articles published in “Aufbau”, the authorized journal of the Office of Commerce and Trade of the NSDAP, you will finally understand who is behind the masons and why National Socialism viewed them as public enemy number two after world Communism.
  5.  Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust: Myth & Reality by Nicholas Kollerstrom. I can not say enough about this book, it is thoroughly researched, balanced, and deadly accurate. This book decimates the myth of the holocaust not with emotionalism and sensational dogma but scientific facts. If you read one book on the holocaust, this should be the one.
  6. Dissecting the Holocaust edited by Germar Rudolf. This book is a scientific tour de force that systematically dismantles the holocaust in a rational, scientific way. It is actually a series of essays by many famous “holocaust deniers” such as Germar Rudolf, Jurgen Graf and Robert Faurisson, to name a few.
  7. Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany 1944-1947 by Thomas Goodrich. I am not going to lie to you, this book is very hard to read. If you get through it, it will clarify in your mind who really possess evil on this planet. This book is well-researched, and filled with many first-person interviews and accounts of what happened during these horrible years. The author takes you there, whether you like it or not.

Recommended articles:

  1. Was Hitler a Zionist Stooge?
  2. A Real Holocaust:  Dresden
  3. Hellstorm: The Devil’s Cauldron
  4. What is the “Holocaust” Story Really All About?
  5. The Auschwitz Gas Chamber Illusion
  6. Hitler and the Banksters:  The Abolition of Interest-Servitude

The best websites for Researching WWII:

  1. David Irving’s Website
  2. No Time For Silence
  3. What Really Happened?
  4. Committee For Open Debate on the Holocaust (CODOH)
  5. WEARS WAR ON THE LIES, LIARS & WW2
  6. Tomato Bubble WWII Files
  7. Real History of WWII
  8. Institute For Historical Review
  9. The Barnes Review
  10. Carolyn Yeager
  11. Justice 4 Germans
  12. German Victims

​Videos:

  1. Europa: The Last Battle
  2. Hitlers War (David Irving)
  3. Hidden History of WW2 (Irving)
  4. David Irving Lecture: The Manipulation of History
  5. Revising History – Windows, Fetzer & Kollerstrom discuss the holocaust
  6. Day of Deceit – The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor (Myth20c – Ep153)
  7. The Ultimate Red Pill
  8. Adolf Hitler: The Man Who Fought the Bank
  9. More HERE…

Chronological History of Events Related to WWII

President Trump 2019 State of the Union Speech

President Trump 2019 State of the Union Speech

Madam Speaker, Mr. Vice President, Members of Congress, the First Lady of the United States, and my fellow Americans: We meet tonight at a moment of unlimited potential. As we begin a new Congress, I stand here ready to work with you to achieve historic breakthroughs for all Americans. Millions of our fellow citizens are watching us now, gathered in this great chamber, hoping that we ...
Read More
Report: Nazi Criminals Were Given ‘Safe Haven’ in U.S.

Report: Nazi Criminals Were Given ‘Safe Haven’ in U.S.

A secret history of the United States government’s Nazi-hunting operation concludes that American intelligence officials created a “safe haven” in the United States for Nazis and their collaborators after World War II, and it details decades of clashes, often hidden, with other nations over war criminals here and abroad. The 600-page report, which the Justice Department has tried to keep secret for four years, provides new ...
Read More
The 1994 Rockefeller Report Examining Biological Experimentation on U.S. Military

The 1994 Rockefeller Report Examining Biological Experimentation on U.S. Military

During the last 50 years, hundreds of thousands of military personnel have been involved in human experimentation and other intentional exposures conducted by the Department of Defense (DOD), often without a servicemember's knowledge or consent. In some cases, soldiers who consented to serve as human subjects found themselves participating in experiments quite different from those described at the time they volunteered. For example, thousands of World ...
Read More
The Leuchter Report: The First-Ever Forensic Investigation of the Alleged Extermination Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek

The Leuchter Report: The First-Ever Forensic Investigation of the Alleged Extermination Gas Chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek

In early 1988, American execution hardware expert Fred A. Leuchter, Jr., carried out the first-ever forensic investigation of the alleged extermination gas chambers at Auschwitz, Birkenau and Majdanek. His sensational conclusion -- that these structures were never used as gas chambers to kill people -- set off an international controversy that is still continuing. In a detailed report, commonly referred to simply as The Leuchter Report, ...
Read More
An Updated International Red Cross Audit Records a Total 282,077 Deaths of All Internees in all German Concentration Camps from All Causes.

An Updated International Red Cross Audit Records a Total 282,077 Deaths of All Internees in all German Concentration Camps from All Causes.

An updated International Red Cross audit records a total 282,077 registered deaths of all internees in all German Concentration Camps from all causes. The 1946 number 271,301. The Auschwitz Red Cross death records contain the death certificates of some 69,000 individuals, of whom about 30,000 were listed as Jews who died of various causes, none of which included gassing or incineration. There is one survey of ...
Read More

War

Some readers may be familiar with this interview of Norman Dodd, done many years ago by G. Edward Griffin. Norman Dodd was the Chief Investigator for what became known as the Reece Committee, which had the task of investigating Tax-Exempt Foundations, to determine if they were acting in any “un-American” manner. Mr. Dodd died a short while after Mr. Griffin’s interview. Mut, Mr. Dodd’s work on the committee helped us understand the war racket better:  “We are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations. In that year, the trustees, meeting for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year in a very learned fashion. The question is: “Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?” And they conclude that no more effective means than war to that end is known to humanity. So then, in 1909, they raised the second question and discussed it, namely: “How do we involve the United States in a war?”

Well, I doubt at that time if there was any subject more removed from the thinking of most of the people of this country than its involvement in a war. There were intermittent shows in the Balkans, but I doubt very much if many people even knew where the Balkans were. Then, finally, they answered that question as follows: “We must control the State Department.” That very naturally raises the question of how do we do that? And they answer it by saying: “We must take over and control the diplomatic machinery of this country.” And, finally, they resolve to aim at that as an objective.

Then time passes, and we are eventually in a war, which would be World War I. At that time they record on their minutes a shocking report in which they dispatched to President Wilson a telegram, cautioning him to see that the war does not end too quickly.

Former managing director of Goldman Sachs – and head of the international analytics group at Bear Stearns in London (Nomi Prins) –  notes:

Throughout the century that I examined, which began with the Panic of 1907 … what I found by accessing the archives of each president is that through many events and periods, particular bankers were in constant communication [with the White House] — not just about financial and economic policy, and by extension trade policy, but also about aspects of World War I, or World War II, or the Cold War, in terms of the expansion that America was undergoing as a superpower in the world, politically, buoyed by the financial expansion of the banking community.

***

In the beginning of World War I, Woodrow Wilson had adopted initially a policy of neutrality. But the Morgan Bank, which was the most powerful bank at the time, and which wound up funding over 75 percent of the financing for the allied forces during World War I … pushed Wilson out of neutrality sooner than he might have done, because of their desire to be involved on one side of the war.

Now, on the other side of that war, for example, was the National City Bank, which, though they worked with Morgan in financing the French and the British, they also didn’t have a problem working with financing some things on the German side, as did Chase

When Eisenhower became president … the U.S. was undergoing this expansion by providing, under his doctrine, military aid and support to countries [under] the so-called threat of being taken over by communism … What bankers did was they opened up hubs, in areas such as Cuba, in areas such as Beirut and Lebanon, where the U.S. also wanted to gain a stronghold in their Cold War fight against the Soviet Union. And so the juxtaposition of finance and foreign policy were very much aligned.

So in the ‘70s, it became less aligned, because though America was pursuing foreign policy initiatives in terms of expansion, the bankers found oil, and they made an extreme effort to activate relationships in the Middle East, that then the U.S. government followed. For example, in Saudi Arabia and so forth, they get access to oil money, and then recycle it into Latin American debt and other forms of lending throughout the globe. So that situation led the U.S. government.

Indeed, JP Morgan also purchased control over America’s leading 25 newspapers in order to propagandize US public opinion in favor of US entry into World War 1.

And many big banks did, in fact, fund the Nazis.

The BBC reported in 1998:

Barclays Bank has agreed to pay $3.6m to Jews whose assets were seized from French branches of the British-based bank during World War II.

***

Chase Manhattan Bank, which has acknowledged seizing about 100 accounts held by Jews in its Paris branch during World War II ….”Recently unclassified reports from the US Treasury about the activities of Chase in Paris in the 1940s indicate that the local branch worked “in close collaboration with the German authorities” in freezing Jewish assets.

The New York Daily News noted the same year:

The relationship between Chase and the Nazis apparently was so cozy that Carlos Niedermann, the Chase branch chief in Paris, wrote his supervisor in Manhattan that the bank enjoyed “very special esteem” with top German officials and “a rapid expansion of deposits,” according to Newsweek.

Niedermann’s letter was written in May 1942 five months after the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor and the U.S. also went to war with Germany.

The BBC reported in 1999:

A French government commission, investigating the seizure of Jewish bank accounts during the Second World War, says five American banks Chase Manhattan, J.P Morgan, Guaranty Trust Co. of New York, Bank of the City of New York and American Express had taken part.

It says their Paris branches handed over to the Nazi occupiers about one-hundred such accounts.

One of Britain’s main newspapers – the Guardian – reported in 2004:

George Bush’s grandfather [and George H.W. Bush’s father], the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings … continued until his company’s assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act

***

The documents reveal that the firm he worked for, Brown Brothers Harriman (BBH), acted as a US base for the German industrialist, Fritz Thyssen, who helped finance Hitler in the 1930s before falling out with him at the end of the decade. The Guardian has seen evidence that shows Bush was the director of the New York-based Union Banking Corporation (UBC) that represented Thyssen’s US interests and he continued to work for the bank after America entered the war.

***

Bush was a founding member of the bank [UBC] … The bank was set up by Harriman and Bush’s father-in-law to provide a US bank for the Thyssens, Germany’s most powerful industrial family.

***

By the late 1930s, Brown Brothers Harriman, which claimed to be the world’s largest private investment bank, and UBC had bought and shipped millions of dollars of gold, fuel, steel, coal and US treasury bonds to Germany, both feeding and financing Hitler’s build-up to war.

Between 1931 and 1933 UBC bought more than $8m worth of gold, of which $3m was shipped abroad. According to documents seen by the Guardian, after UBC was set up it transferred $2m to BBH accounts and between 1924 and 1940 the assets of UBC hovered around $3m, dropping to $1m only on a few occasions.

***

UBC was caught red-handed operating a American shell company for the Thyssen family eight months after America had entered the war and that this was the bank that had partly financed Hitler’s rise to power.

Indeed, banks often finance both sides of wars:

(The San Francisco Chronicle also documents that leading financiers Rockefeller, Carnegie and Harriman also funded Nazi eugenics programs … but that’s a story for another day.)

After all, wars are the fastest way for banks to create more debt … and therefore to make more profit.  No wonder they love war.

The Federal Reserve and other central banks also help to start wars by financing them.  Thomas Jefferson and the father of free market capitalism, Adam Smith, both noted that the financing wars by banks led to more – and longer – wars.

And America apparently considers economic rivalry to be a basis for war, and is using the military to contain China’s growing economic influence.

Multi-billionaire investor Hugo Salinas Price says:

What happened to [Libya’s] Mr. Gaddafi, many speculate the real reason he was ousted was that he was planning an all-African currency for conducting trade. The same thing happened to him that happened to Saddam because the US doesn’t want any solid competing currency out there vs the dollar. You know Gaddafi was talking about a gold dinar.

Senior CNBC editor John Carney noted:

Is this the first time a revolutionary group has created a central bank while it is still in the midst of fighting the entrenched political power? It certainly seems to indicate how extraordinarily powerful central bankers have become in our era.

Robert Wenzel of Economic Policy Journal thinks the central banking initiative reveals that foreign powers may have a strong influence over the rebels.

This suggests we have a bit more than a ragtag bunch of rebels running around and that there are some pretty sophisticated influences. “I have never before heard of a central bank being created in just a matter of weeks out of a popular uprising,” Wenzel writes.

Indeed, many claim that recent wars have really been about bringing all countries into the fold of Western central banking, and that the wars against Middle Eastern countries are really about forcing them into the dollar and private central banking.

The most decorated American military man in history said that war is a racket, and noted:

Let us not forget the bankers who financed the great war. If anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers.

The big banks have also been laundering money for terrorists. The big bank employee who blew the whistle on the banks’ money laundering for terrorists and drug cartels says that the giant bank is still aiding terrorists, saying:

The public needs to know that money is still being funneled through HSBC to directly buy guns and bullets to kill our soldiers …. Banks financing … terrorists affects every single American.

He also said:

It is disgusting that our banks are STILL financing terror on 9/11 2013.

And see this.

According to the BBC and other sources, Prescott Bush, JP Morgan and other leading financiers also funded a coup against President Franklin Roosevelt in an attempt – basically – to implement fascism in the U.S. See this, this, this and this.

Kevin Zeese writes:

Americans are recognizing the link between the military-industrial complex and the Wall Street oligarchs—a connection that goes back to the beginning of the modern U.S. empire. Banks have always profited from war because the debt created by banks results in ongoing war profit for big finance; and because wars have been used to open countries to U.S. corporate and banking interests. Secretary of State, William Jennings Bryan wrote: “the large banking interests were deeply interested in the world war because of the wide opportunities for large profits.”

Many historians now recognize that a hidden history for U.S. entry into World War I was to protect U.S. investors. U.S. commercial interests had invested heavily in European allies before the war: “By 1915, American neutrality was being criticized as bankers and merchants began to loan money and offer credits to the warring parties, although the Central Powers received far less. Between 1915 and April 1917, the Allies received 85 times the amount loaned to Germany.” The total dollars loaned to all Allied borrowers during this period was $2,581,300,000. The bankers saw that if Germany won, their loans to European allies would not be repaid. The leading U.S. banker of the era, J.P. Morgan and his associates did everything they could to push the United States into the war on the side of England and France. Morgan said: “We agreed that we should do all that was lawfully in our power to help the Allies win the war as soon as possible.” President Woodrow Wilson, who campaigned saying he would keep the United States out of war, seems to have entered the war to protect U.S. banks’ investments in Europe.

The most decorated Marine in history, Smedley Butler, described fighting for U.S. banks in many of the wars he fought in. He said: “I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high-class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

In Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, John Perkins describes how World Bank and IMF loans are used to generate profits for U.S. business and saddle countries with huge debts that allow the United States to control them. It is not surprising that former civilian military leaders like Robert McNamara and Paul Wolfowitz went on to head the World Bank. These nations’ debt to international banks ensures they are controlled by the United States, which pressures them into joining the “coalition of the willing” that helped invade Iraq or allowing U.S. military bases on their land. If countries refuse to “honor” their debts, the CIA or Department of Defense enforces U.S. political will through coups or military action.

***

More and more people are indeed seeing the connection between corporate banksterism and militarism ….

Indeed, all wars are bankers’ wars.

There have been many US military interventions that were based on lies. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is not some kooky blogger’s opinion. It is an extensively documented and indisputable fact.

Nothing has ever been done to address this extensively documented and indisputable fact. No laws were ever changed. No war crimes tribunals were ever held. No policies or procedures were ever revised. No one was ever even fired. No changes were implemented to prevent the Iraq deception from happening again, and, when it happened again, no changes were implemented to prevent the Libya deception from happening again.

When you make a mistake, you take measures afterward to ensure that you never make the same mistake again. When you do something on purpose, and you intend on doing it again, you do not take any such measures.1

We should think carefully about the reality of war. Most of us have been conditioned to regard military combat as exciting and glamorous – an opportunity for men to prove their competence and courage. Since armies are legal, we feel that war is acceptable; in general, nobody feels that war is criminal or that accepting its criminal attitude. In fact, we have been brainwashed. War is neither glamorous nor attractive. It is monstrous. It’s very nature is one of tragedy and suffering. – The Dalai Lama

Chronological History of Wars and Their Real Agenda:

Report: Two Decades After 9/11, Pentagon Is Providing Covert Air Support To The Taliban

Report: Two Decades After 9/11, Pentagon Is Providing Covert Air Support To The Taliban

(ZeroHedge) Nearly two decades following 9/11 and the initial invasion of Afghanistan which ostensibly had as its objective the removal and destruction of the hardline Islamist Taliban government, the United States military is providing covert support to the same "outlawed" Taliban with the latest aim of booting ISIS from the country. A report in The Washington Post on Thursday details that this secret assistance focuses on the Pentagon providing air power ...
Read More
PsyOp? Falconer Alleges Hard Evidence that Biden, Obama, Hillary Executed Seal Team 6

PsyOp? Falconer Alleges Hard Evidence that Biden, Obama, Hillary Executed Seal Team 6

A story, oddly, was allowed to go viral on Sunday promoting a Benghazi document drop in the coming week that "is the most explosive information that Americans and the world will ever hear..." according to Anna Khait. Alan Parrot, a devout Sikh for decades who grew up in Maine and became a Falconer in Iran for the Shah. He also worked for the royal families of ...
Read More
72 Republicans Vote with Democrats to Remove Civil War-Era Memorabilia from U.S. Capitol

72 Republicans Vote with Democrats to Remove Civil War-Era Memorabilia from U.S. Capitol

A total of 72 House Republicans voted with Democrats to remove certain Civil War-era memorabilia from public view in the United States Capitol. The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD), mandates that a bust of former Supreme Court Justice Roger Brooke Taney sitting in the U.S. Capitol be replaced with a bust of former Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. Additionally, the Democrat plan mandates the removal from ...
Read More
US, Afghan Forces Come Under 'Direct Fire' In Eastern Afghanistan

US, Afghan Forces Come Under ‘Direct Fire’ In Eastern Afghanistan

There were multiple American casualties after U.S. and Afghan troops were fired on during a mission in Afghanistan's eastern Nangarhar province on Saturday, two U.S. officials confirmed to Fox News. Military personnel were fired upon while carrying out the operation, but the number of deaths and the severity of any injuries have yet to be confirmed, according to The Associated Press. Military spokesman Col. Sonny Leggett issued in a statement, saying those ...
Read More
WIKILEAKS: Chemical Weapons Watchdog Ordered Deletion of ‘All Traces’ of Findings That Syrian ‘Chemical Attack’ May Have Been Staged

WIKILEAKS: Chemical Weapons Watchdog Ordered Deletion of ‘All Traces’ of Findings That Syrian ‘Chemical Attack’ May Have Been Staged

Wikileaks has published shocking leaked documents from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in which they covered up a dissenting report that concluded chemical weapons were not used in the Syrian city of Duoma last year. The latest release is the fourth batch of leaked documents that WikiLeaks has published from OPCW. In one of the leaked e-mail exchanges, from February 27-28, between members of the ...
Read More

Operation Menu

In 1965, President Nixon and his National Security Advisor, Henry Kissinger, unleashed B-52 secret genocidal carpet bombing of Cambodia and Laos over a four year period with U.S. forces dropping more than 500,000 tons of bombs on Cambodia with no regard for civilian life, a people who still tilled the soil with water buffalo, resulting in up to 1 million deaths. Following the bombing, many peasants were so outraged at the U.S. and their puppet leader in Cambodia that they chose to join the Khmer Rouge, a marginal revolutionary communist group whose ranks swelled to a major force. After taking power, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge unleashed a reign of terror killing over one million people. Most historians agree that Pol Pot would not have won power without U.S. economic and military destabilization of Cambodia.

When people think of genocide and Cambodia, they tend to think of the Khmer Rouge, and the “Killing Fields”; of their evidently insane Democratic Kampuchea regime which began its “Year Zero” in 1975. But a Finnish Inquiry Commission designated the years 1969 to 1975 in Cambodia (a time of massive aerial bombardment by the US and of bitter civil war wholly sustained by the US) as Phase 1 of the ‘Decade of Genocide’.2 Estimates of Cambodian deaths resulting from the 1969-75 war range from Vickery’s 500,000 killed3 to a credible 1 million excess deaths estimated by Sorpong Peou.4 Given that the Cambodian population was an estimated 6 or 7 million in the period of the Second Indochina War, this gives us a figure of between 1 in 6 and 1 in 14 of all Cambodians killed.

US actions inside Cambodian borders began years before the devastating carpet bombing. The US ‘Studies and Operations Group’ conducted attacks with US Special Forces personnel in Cambodia throughout the 1960s. In 1967 these were institutionalized as “Salem House” (later known as “Daniel Boone”). This program was kept secret from the US congress and conducted a total of 1,835 missions. Their primary activity appears to have been the laying of “sanitized self-destruct antipersonnel” mines anywhere up to 30 kilometers beyond the border. Their supposed mission was intelligence gathering, but throughout the whole program they only captured 24 prisoners.5 The Special Forces troops usually disguised themselves as Vietnamese PLAF fighters and sometimes murdered civilians in false-flag operations.6

In 1970 Sihanouk was overthrown by General Lon Nol7 and Prince Sirik Matak with tacit support from Washington and probable assistance by the CIA. Washington recognized the new regime within hours.8 So fast was recognition of Lon Nol’s government that it must have precluded any possibility that the changes on the ground were being assessed, which strongly suggests that the US must have had detailed foreknowledge in order to have any confidence in its judgement. Sihanouk’s overthrow made civil war unavoidable.

In 1969, before the above events, the US began bombing Cambodia in what was known as “Operation Menu”. From Saigon, US General Creighton Abrams insisted that he had “hard evidence” that the Central Office for South Vietnam headquarters (COSVN HQ) had been located in the “Fish Hook” salient of Cambodia.9 The problem was that no such place ever existed, though for years the US had mounted operations to crush it when they claimed it was located in South Vietnam.10 Once under way, Operation Menu spread to other areas. Despite the carpet bombing of area supposed to contain COVSN HQ, in April 1970 Abrams claimed that the headquarters still existed as a fortified underground bunker with 5000 personnel.11 In May US and RVN forces invaded Cambodia, the action justified in part as an attempt, yet again, to wipe out the COVSN HQ “which had become the Holy Grail of the American war”.12 The US/RVN invasion simply, and predictably, drove communist forces deeper into Cambodia.13

It is a known and predictable effect that the killing of civilians drives people to take up arms, it is a “counterproductive” counter-insurgency tactic which actually strengthens the enemy.14 It is worth remembering that the famous maverick US Army officer John Paul Vann made the same observation in 1962.15 One of the most striking examples of generating an enemy by killing civilians, is what occurred in Cambodia from 1969 onwards. Ben Kiernan repeatedly cites evidence in numerous consecutive instances that US/RVN aerial bombardment strengthened the Khmer Rouge insurgency, and, more specifically the anti-Vietnamese faction of the Khmer Rouge under Pol Pot.16 In 1969, the Khmer Rouge consisted of perhaps 4000 – an ultimately unthreatening insurgency.

By the end of 1972, they were able, with DRV logistical support, to “hold their own” against Lon Nol’s armed forces, which, at US instigation, had been enlarged to between 132,000 and 176,000 (not counting “ghost” soldiers, who existed only on the books of the corrupt officers who collected their pay) and had massive US/RVN air support.17 In William Shawcross’s words, “the new war was creating enemies where none previously existed”18 and by this stage, Lon Nol’s regime was already reduced to the control of shrinking and fragmenting enclaves.19

When the the US generated a war in Cambodia they had already had a great deal of experience in Vietnam and Laos, and what occurred in Cambodia is, in many ways, a naked exposure of the logic behind the genocidal war system, less obfuscated because, ironically, Cambodia was a “sideshow” where it was not the details but the whole war which was kept obscure from the public.

Within a year of Lon Nol’s coup, as mentioned, the economy of Cambodia was virtually destroyed, not only by bombing, but also by US aid. Aid was channelled to the import of commodities and surplus US agricultural goods. It also underwrote the Cambodian government and armed forces: “By the end of 1970, the government was spending five times its revenue and earning nothing abroad.”20 Most of the population became reliant on US aid to eat, and rice supplies were kept at the minimum level needed to prevent food riots. By 1975, malnutrition was widespread and many children starved to death.21

Going back in time to 1970, less than two months after the coup that brought Lon Nol to power, the US invaded Cambodia, along with ARVN forces. They did not bother to forewarn Lon Nol who found out after Richard Nixon had announced the invasion publicly.22 This invasion along US and RVN bombing and the civil war made refugees of around half of the Cambodian population.23 Lon Nol was outraged by the invasion and when later briefed by Alexander Haig (then military assistant to Kissinger) about US intentions he wept with frustration. According to Shawcross,

“He wished that the Americans had blocked the communists’ escape route before attacking, instead of spreading them across Cambodia. … The Cambodian leader told Haig that there was no way his small force could stop them. … [Haig] informed Lon Nol that President Nixon intended to limit the involvement of American forces…. They would be withdrawn at the end of June. The the President hoped to introduce a program of restricted military and economic aid. As the implications of Haig’s words for the future of Cambodia became clear to Lon Nol, he began to weep. Cambodia, he said, could never defend itself.”24

As has been detailed, US actions, particularly in bombing, were directly responsible for creating the communist enemy which overthrew Lon Nol. The bombing between 1969 and 1973 took up to 150,000 lives.25 If averaged out, over 33 tons of ordnance were used to kill each Khmer Rouge insurgent.26 Despite the fact that Vietnamese pilots bombed any Cambodian they could, which aided only the Khmer Rouge, Lon Nol acceded to a US demand that he request an increase in VNAF bombing in 1971.27 By May 1972, the Lon Nol regime had control of perhaps 10 per cent of the country and continued to lose territory which was thereafter fragmented into ever smaller enclaves.28 The result was by that stage foregone, and yet the war dragged on for three years with the greater part of the 1 million deaths occurring after that point.

In 1970, when Henry Kissinger briefed Jonathan “Fred” Ladd, who was slated to conduct the war in Cambodia, he told him, “Don’t even think of victory; just keep it alive.”29 The point of the US bombing was not to win a military victory – it was to destroy Cambodia as part of an Indochina “exit strategy” – and that is a clear instance of genocide under the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. When the US Congress finally blocked aid to Cambodia and South Vietnam, it was with the belated realisation that such aid would not give any hope of victory or improve a bargaining position. Senator Mike Mansfield spoke out, “Ultimately Cambodia cannot survive…. Additional aid means more killing, more fighting. This has got to stop sometime.”30

So that was the end of the US involvement in Cambodia, and their legal culpability. The Khmer Rouge took over Phnom Penh, and the refugees were shocked to see that the black-clad cadres were mostly young teens, fanatical and brutalized by half a young lifetime of fighting and death. The US was not responsible for the fantasies of the Pol Pot clique, who believed that supernatural amounts of food could be produced without recourse to machine power, nor for their refusal to accept aid.

But the US had deliberately brought the Cambodian population to the brink of starvation – destroying farmland and driving peasants off the land. Perhaps 500,000 or more died of starvation. Hundreds of thousands were executed for political or ideological reasons, murdered by the Khmer Rouge who the US had largely brought into existence. And when the Vietnamese put the regime to an end (and despite what you may read about this being justifiable as “humanitarian intervention” it was in fact legitimate self-defense – if you don’t believe me you can read about Khmer Rouge foreign policy, border attacks, and espoused official desire to exterminate all Vietnamese) when the Khmer Rouge were supplanted, the US insisted that they retain a seat at the UN and started giving aid to their guerrilla forces.

Kieran Kelly blogs at On Genocide. (via GlobalResearch.ca)

Commentary by John Pilger

Two American aid workers, Linda Mason and Roger Brown, later wrote: “The US government insisted that the Khmer Rouge be fed . . . the US preferred that the Khmer Rouge operation benefit from the credibility of an internationally known relief operation.” Under American pressure, the World Food Program handed over $12m in food to the Thai army to pass on to the Khmer Rouge; “20,000 to 40,000 Pol Pot guerillas benefited,” wrote Richard Holbrooke, the then US assistant secretary of state.

I witnessed this. Traveling with a UN convoy of 40 trucks, I drove to a Khmer Rouge operations base at Phnom Chat. The base commander was the infamous Nam Phann, known to relief workers as “The Butcher” and Pol Pot’s Himmler. After the supplies had been unloaded, literally at his feet, he said: “Thank you very much, and we wish for more.”

In November of that year, 1980, direct contact was made between the White House and the Khmer Rouge when Dr Ray Cline, a former deputy director of the CIA, made a secret visit to a Khmer Rouge operational headquarters. Cline was then a foreign policy adviser on President-elect Reagan’s transitional team.

By 1981, a number of governments had become decidedly uneasy about the charade of the UN’s continuing recognition of the defunct Pol Pot regime. Something had to be done. The following year, the US and China invented the Coalition of the Democratic Government of Kampuchea, which was neither a coalition nor democratic, nor a government, nor in Kampuchea (Cambodia).

It was what the CIA calls “a master illusion”. Prince Norodom Sihanouk was appointed its head; otherwise little changed. The two “non-communist” members, the Sihanoukists, led by the Prince’s son, Norodom Ranariddh, and the Khmer People’s National Liberation Front, were dominated, diplomatically and militarily, by the Khmer Rouge. One of Pol Pot’s closet cronies, Thaoun Prasith, ran the office at the UN in New York.

In Bangkok, the Americans provided the “coalition” with battle plans, uniforms, money and satellite intelligence; arms came direct from China and from the west, via Singapore. The non-communist fig leaf allowed Congress – spurred on by a cold-war zealot Stephen Solarz, a powerful committee chairman – to approve $24m in aid to the “resistance”.

Until 1989, the British role in Cambodia remained secret. The first reports appeared in the Sunday Telegraph, written by Simon O’Dwyer-Russell, a diplomatic and defence correspondent with close professional and family contacts with the SAS. He revealed that the SAS was training the Pol Pot-led force.

Soon afterwards, Jane’s Defence Weekly reported that the British training for the “non-communist” members of the “coalition” had been going on “at secret bases in Thailand for more than four years”. The instructors were from the SAS, “all serving military personnel, all veterans of the Falklands conflict, led by a captain”.

The Cambodian training became an exclusively British operation after the “Irangate” arms-for-hostages scandal broke in Washington in 1986. “If Congress had found out that Americans were mixed up in clandestine training in Indo-China, let alone with Pol Pot,” a Ministry of Defence source told O’Dwyer-Russell, “the balloon would have gone right up. It was one of those classic Thatcher-Reagan arrangements.” Moreover, Margaret Thatcher had let slip, to the consternation of the Foreign Office, that “the more reasonable ones in the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in a future government”.

In 1991, I interviewed a member of “R” (reserve) Squadron of the SAS, who had served on the border. “We trained the KR in a lot of technical stuff – a lot about mines,” he said. “We used mines that came originally from Royal Ordnance in Britain, which we got by way of Egypt with marking changed . . . We even gave them psychological training. At first, they wanted to go into the villages and just chop people up. We told them how to go easy . . .”

The Foreign Office response was to lie. “Britain does not give military aid in any form to the Cambodian factions,” stated a parliamentary reply. The then prime minister, Thatcher, wrote to Neil Kinnock: “I confirm that there is no British government involvement of any kind in training, equipping or co-operating with Khmer Rouge forces or those allied to them.”

On 25 June 1991, after two years of denials, the government finally admitted that the SAS had been secretly training the “resistance” since 1983. A report by Asia Watch filled in the detail: the SAS had taught “the use of improvised explosive devices, booby traps and the manufacture and use of time-delay devices”. The author of the report, Rae McGrath (who shared a joint Nobel Peace Prize for the international campaign on landmines), wrote in the Guardian that “the SAS training was a criminally irresponsible and cynical policy”.

When a UN “peacekeeping force” finally arrived in Cambodia in 1992, the Faustian pact was never clearer. Declared merely a “warring faction”, the Khmer Rouge was welcomed back to Phnom Penh by UN officials, if not the people. The western politician who claimed credit for the “peace process”, Gareth Evans (then Australia’s foreign minister), set the tone by calling for an “even-handed” approach to the Khmer Rouge and questioning whether calling it genocidal was “a specific stumbling block”.

Khieu Samphan, Pol Pot’s prime minister during the years of genocide, took the salute of UN troops with their commander, the Australian general John Sanderson, at his side. Eric Falt, the UN spokesman in Cambodia, told me: “The peace process was aimed at allowing [the Khmer Rouge] to gain respectability.”

The consequence of the UN’s involvement was the unofficial ceding of at least a quarter of Cambodia to the Khmer Rouge (according to UN military maps), the continuation of a low-level civil war and the election of a government impossibly divided between “two prime ministers”: Hun Sen and Norodom Ranariddh.

The Hun Sen government has since won a second election outright. Authoritarian and at times brutal, yet by Cambodian standards extraordinarily stable, the government led by a former Khmer Rouge dissident, Hun Sen, who fled to Vietnam in the 1970s, has since done deals with leading figures of the Pol Pot era, notably the breakaway faction of Ieng Sary, while denying others immunity from prosecution.

Once the Phnom Penh government and the UN can agree on its form, an international war crimes tribunal seems likely to go ahead. The Americans want the Cambodians to play virtually no part; their understandable concern is that not only the Khmer Rouge will be indicted.

The Cambodian lawyer defending Ta Mok, the Khmer Rouge military leader captured in 2012, has said:

“All the foreigners involved have to be called to court, and there will be no exceptions . . . Madeleine Albright, Margaret Thatcher, Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George Bush . . . we are going to invite them to tell the world why they supported the Khmer Rouge.”

It is an important principle, of which those in Washington and Whitehall currently sustaining bloodstained tyrannies elsewhere might take note.

Source: https://www.globalresearch.ca/how-thatcher-helped-pol-pot/5330873

Notes

  1. Yoram Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self-Defense (3rd ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001, pp 184-5.
  2. Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media. London: Vintage, 1994 (1988), p 260.
  3. Ibid, p 263.
  4. Sorpong Peou, Intervention & Change in Cambodia: Towards Democracy? Singapore: Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 2000, p 54.
  5. Ibid, pp 64-5.
  6. Ben Kiernan, The Pol Pot Regime: Race, Power, and Genocide in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1996, p 18.
  7. The US had developed ties with Lon Nol in the 1950s and by 1970, according to CIA officer Frank Snepp, he was one of two candidates being groomed by the CIA to take Sihanouk’s place (William Shawcross, Sideshow: Kissinger, Nixon and the Destruction of Cambodia. London: Fontana, 1980 (1979), pp 114-5).
  8. Ibid, pp 114-23; William Blum, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and C.I.A. Interventions Since World War II (2nd ed.), Monroe: Common Courage Press, 2004, pp 137-8; Peou, Intervention & Change in Cambodia, pp 125-6.
  9. Shawcross, Sideshow, p 19.
  10. Marilyn Young, The Vietnam Wars 1945-1990, New York: Harper Perennial, 1991, pp 72, 186; Tucker, Vietnam, p 129; Turley, The Second Indochina War, pp 79-80.
  11. Shawcross, Sideshow, p 140.
  12. Young, The Vietnam Wars, p 245.
  13. Shawcross, 1979, p 151.
  14. David Keen, Endless War? Hidden functions of the ‘War on Terror’. London, Ann Arbor: Pluto Press, 2006, pp 58-61.
  15. Neil Sheehan, A Bright Shining Lie: John Paul Vann and America in Vietnam (New York: Vintage 1989 (1988), p pp 106-111.
  16. Kiernan, The Pol Pot Regime, pp 19-23. Also see Peou, Intervention & Change in Cambodia, p 128.
  17. Shawcross, Sideshow, pp 73, 180, 194-5, 261.
  18. Ibid, p 249.
  19. Ibid, p 254.
  20. Ibid, p 220.
  21. Ibid, p 317-9.
  22. Ibid, p 149.
  23. Peou, Intervention & Change in Cambodia , p 127.
  24. Shawcross, Sideshow, p 163.
  25. Kiernan, The Pol Pot Regime, p 24.
  26. Ibid, p 19.
  27. Shawcross, Sideshow, p 186.
  28. Ibid, pp 254-5.
  29. Ibid, p 169.
  30. Nigel Cawthorne, Vietnam: A War Lost and Won. London: Arcturus Publishing, 2003, p 213.

See also: