War is a Racket

A speech and a 1935 short book, by Smedley D. Butler, a retired United States Marine Corps Major General and two-time Medal of Honor recipient. Based on his career military experience, Butler discusses how business interests commercially benefit, such as war profiteering from warfare. He had been appointed commanding officer of the Gendarmerie during the United States occupation of Haiti, which lasted from 1915 to 1934.

After Butler retired from the US Marine Corps in October 1931, he made a nationwide tour in the early 1930s giving his speech “War is a Racket”. The speech was so well received that he wrote a longer version as a short book published in 1935. His work was condensed in Reader’s Digest as a book supplement, which helped popularize his message. In an introduction to the Reader’s Digest version, Lowell Thomas praised Butler’s “moral as well as physical courage” Thomas had written Smedley Butler’s oral autobiography.

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 he denounced the Economy Act of 1933, called on veterans to organize politically to win their benefits, and condemned the FDR administration for its ties to big business. The VFW reprinted one of his speeches with the title “You Got to Get Mad” in its magazine Foreign Service. He said: “I believe in…taking Wall St. by the throat and shaking it up.” He believed the rival veterans’ group the American Legion was controlled by banking interests. On December 8, 1933, he said: “I have never known one leader of the American Legion who had never sold them out—and I mean it.”

In addition to his speeches to pacifist groups, he served from 1935 to 1937 as a spokesman for the American League Against War and Fascism. In 1935, he wrote the exposé War Is a Racket, a trenchant condemnation of the profit motive behind warfare. His views on the subject are summarized in the following passage from the November 1935 issue of the socialist magazine Common Sense:

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. (Wikipedia)

War is a Racket

By USMC Major General Smedley D. Butler (1881-1940)

Published 1935

Chapter One

Maj. General Smedley Butler, USMC War is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the [First] World War, a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns, no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war, nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few – the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.

Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep’s eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce [one unique occasion], their dispute over the Polish Corridor.

The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia [Yugoslavia] complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other’s throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people – not those who fight and pay and die – only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.

There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.

Hell’s bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?

Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in “International Conciliation,” the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:

“And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace… War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it.”

Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war – anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter’s dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.

Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.

Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the “open door” policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.

Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war – a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.

Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit – fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.

Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn’t they? It pays high dividends.

But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?

What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?

Yes, and what does it profit the nation?

Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn’t own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became “internationally minded.” We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington’s warning about “entangling alliances.” We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade balance during the twenty-five-year period was about $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a purely bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well have been ours without the wars.

It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people – who do not profit.

Chapter Two

WHO MAKES THE PROFITS?

The World War, rather our brief participation in it, has cost the United States some $52,000,000,000. Figure it out. That means $400 to every American man, woman, and child. And we haven’t paid the debt yet. We are paying it, our children will pay it, and our children’s children probably still will be paying the cost of that war.

The normal profits of a business concern in the United States are six, eight, ten, and sometimes twelve percent. But war-time profits – ah! that is another matter – twenty, sixty, one hundred, three hundred, and even eighteen hundred per cent – the sky is the limit. All that traffic will bear. Uncle Sam has the money. Let’s get it.

Of course, it isn’t put that crudely in war time. It is dressed into speeches about patriotism, love of country, and “we must all put our shoulders to the wheel,” but the profits jump and leap and skyrocket – and are safely pocketed. Let’s just take a few examples:

Take our friends the du Ponts, the powder people – didn’t one of them testify before a Senate committee recently that their powder won the war? Or saved the world for democracy? Or something? How did they do in the war? They were a patriotic corporation. Well, the average earnings of the du Ponts for the period 1910 to 1914 were $6,000,000 a year. It wasn’t much, but the du Ponts managed to get along on it. Now let’s look at their average yearly profit during the war years, 1914 to 1918. Fifty-eight million dollars a year profit we find! Nearly ten times that of normal times, and the profits of normal times were pretty good. An increase in profits of more than 950 per cent.

Take one of our little steel companies that patriotically shunted aside the making of rails and girders and bridges to manufacture war materials. Well, their 1910-1914 yearly earnings averaged $6,000,000. Then came the war. And, like loyal citizens, Bethlehem Steel promptly turned to munitions making. Did their profits jump – or did they let Uncle Sam in for a bargain? Well, their 1914-1918 average was $49,000,000 a year!

Or, let’s take United States Steel. The normal earnings during the five-year period prior to the war were $105,000,000 a year. Not bad. Then along came the war and up went the profits. The average yearly profit for the period 1914-1918 was $240,000,000. Not bad.

There you have some of the steel and powder earnings. Let’s look at something else. A little copper, perhaps. That always does well in war times.

Anaconda, for instance. Average yearly earnings during the pre-war years 1910-1914 of $10,000,000. During the war years 1914-1918 profits leaped to $34,000,000 per year.

Or Utah Copper. Average of $5,000,000 per year during the 1910-1914 period. Jumped to an average of $21,000,000 yearly profits for the war period.

Let’s group these five, with three smaller companies. The total yearly average profits of the pre-war period 1910-1914 were $137,480,000. Then along came the war. The average yearly profits for this group skyrocketed to $408,300,000.

A little increase in profits of approximately 200 per cent.

Does war pay? It paid them. But they aren’t the only ones. There are still others. Let’s take leather.

For the three-year period before the war the total profits of Central Leather Company were $3,500,000. That was approximately $1,167,000 a year. Well, in 1916 Central Leather returned a profit of $15,000,000, a small increase of 1,100 per cent. That’s all. The General Chemical Company averaged a profit for the three years before the war of a little over $800,000 a year. Came the war, and the profits jumped to $12,000,000. a leap of 1,400 per cent.

International Nickel Company – and you can’t have a war without nickel – showed an increase in profits from a mere average of $4,000,000 a year to $73,000,000 yearly. Not bad? An increase of more than 1,700 per cent.

American Sugar Refining Company averaged $2,000,000 a year for the three years before the war. In 1916 a profit of $6,000,000 was recorded.

Listen to Senate Document No. 259. The Sixty-Fifth Congress, reporting on corporate earnings and government revenues. Considering the profits of 122 meat packers, 153 cotton manufacturers, 299 garment makers, 49 steel plants, and 340 coal producers during the war. Profits under 25 per cent were exceptional. For instance the coal companies made between 100 per cent and 7,856 per cent on their capital stock during the war. The Chicago packers doubled and tripled their earnings.

And let us not forget the bankers who financed the great war. If anyone had the cream of the profits it was the bankers. Being partnerships rather than incorporated organizations, they do not have to report to stockholders. And their profits were as secret as they were immense. How the bankers made their millions and their billions I do not know, because those little secrets never become public – even before a Senate investigatory body.

But here’s how some of the other patriotic industrialists and speculators chiseled their way into war profits.

Take the shoe people. They like war. It brings business with abnormal profits. They made huge profits on sales abroad to our allies. Perhaps, like the munitions manufacturers and armament makers, they also sold to the enemy. For a dollar is a dollar whether it comes from Germany or from France. But they did well by Uncle Sam too. For instance, they sold Uncle Sam 35,000,000 pairs of hobnailed service shoes. There were 4,000,000 soldiers. Eight pairs, and more, to a soldier. My regiment during the war had only one pair to a soldier. Some of these shoes probably are still in existence. They were good shoes. But when the war was over Uncle Sam has a matter of 25,000,000 pairs left over. Bought – and paid for. Profits recorded and pocketed.

There was still lots of leather left. So the leather people sold your Uncle Sam hundreds of thousands of McClellan saddles for the cavalry. But there wasn’t any American cavalry overseas! Somebody had to get rid of this leather, however. Somebody had to make a profit in it – so we had a lot of McClellan saddles. And we probably have those yet.

Also somebody had a lot of mosquito netting. They sold your Uncle Sam 20,000,000 mosquito nets for the use of the soldiers overseas. I suppose the boys were expected to put it over them as they tried to sleep in muddy trenches – one hand scratching cooties on their backs and the other making passes at scurrying rats. Well, not one of these mosquito nets ever got to France!

Anyhow, these thoughtful manufacturers wanted to make sure that no soldier would be without his mosquito net, so 40,000,000 additional yards of mosquito netting were sold to Uncle Sam.

There were pretty good profits in mosquito netting in those days, even if there were no mosquitoes in France. I suppose, if the war had lasted just a little longer, the enterprising mosquito netting manufacturers would have sold your Uncle Sam a couple of consignments of mosquitoes to plant in France so that more mosquito netting would be in order.

Airplane and engine manufacturers felt they, too, should get their just profits out of this war. Why not? Everybody else was getting theirs. So $1,000,000,000 – count them if you live long enough – was spent by Uncle Sam in building airplane engines that never left the ground! Not one plane, or motor, out of the billion dollars worth ordered, ever got into a battle in France. Just the same the manufacturers made their little profit of 30, 100, or perhaps 300 per cent.

Undershirts for soldiers cost 14¢ [cents] to make and uncle Sam paid 30¢ to 40¢ each for them – a nice little profit for the undershirt manufacturer. And the stocking manufacturer and the uniform manufacturers and the cap manufacturers and the steel helmet manufacturers – all got theirs.

Why, when the war was over some 4,000,000 sets of equipment – knapsacks and the things that go to fill them – crammed warehouses on this side. Now they are being scrapped because the regulations have changed the contents. But the manufacturers collected their wartime profits on them – and they will do it all over again the next time.

There were lots of brilliant ideas for profit making during the war.

One very versatile patriot sold Uncle Sam twelve dozen 48-inch wrenches. Oh, they were very nice wrenches. The only trouble was that there was only one nut ever made that was large enough for these wrenches. That is the one that holds the turbines at Niagara Falls. Well, after Uncle Sam had bought them and the manufacturer had pocketed the profit, the wrenches were put on freight cars and shunted all around the United States in an effort to find a use for them. When the Armistice was signed it was indeed a sad blow to the wrench manufacturer. He was just about to make some nuts to fit the wrenches. Then he planned to sell these, too, to your Uncle Sam.

Still another had the brilliant idea that colonels shouldn’t ride in automobiles, nor should they even ride on horseback. One has probably seen a picture of Andy Jackson riding in a buckboard. Well, some 6,000 buckboards were sold to Uncle Sam for the use of colonels! Not one of them was used. But the buckboard manufacturer got his war profit.

The shipbuilders felt they should come in on some of it, too. They built a lot of ships that made a lot of profit. More than $3,000,000,000 worth. Some of the ships were all right. But $635,000,000 worth of them were made of wood and wouldn’t float! The seams opened up – and they sank. We paid for them, though. And somebody pocketed the profits.

It has been estimated by statisticians and economists and researchers that the war cost your Uncle Sam $52,000,000,000. Of this sum, $39,000,000,000 was expended in the actual war itself. This expenditure yielded $16,000,000,000 in profits. That is how the 21,000 billionaires and millionaires got that way. This $16,000,000,000 profits is not to be sneezed at. It is quite a tidy sum. And it went to a very few.

The Senate (Nye) committee probe of the munitions industry and its wartime profits, despite its sensational disclosures, hardly has scratched the surface.

Even so, it has had some effect. The State Department has been studying “for some time” methods of keeping out of war. The War Department suddenly decides it has a wonderful plan to spring. The Administration names a committee – with the War and Navy Departments ably represented under the chairmanship of a Wall Street speculator – to limit profits in war time. To what extent isn’t suggested. Hmmm. Possibly the profits of 300 and 600 and 1,600 per cent of those who turned blood into gold in the World War would be limited to some smaller figure.

Apparently, however, the plan does not call for any limitation of losses – that is, the losses of those who fight the war. As far as I have been able to ascertain there is nothing in the scheme to limit a soldier to the loss of but one eye, or one arm, or to limit his wounds to one or two or three. Or to limit the loss of life.

There is nothing in this scheme, apparently, that says not more than 12 per cent of a regiment shall be wounded in battle, or that not more than 7 per cent in a division shall be killed.

Of course, the committee cannot be bothered with such trifling matters.

Chapter Three

WHO PAYS THE BILLS?

Who provides the profits – these nice little profits of 20, 100, 300, 1,500 and 1,800 per cent? We all pay them – in taxation. We paid the bankers their profits when we bought Liberty Bonds at $100.00 and sold them back at $84 or $86 to the bankers. These bankers collected $100 plus. It was a simple manipulation. The bankers control the security marts. It was easy for them to depress the price of these bonds. Then all of us – the people – got frightened and sold the bonds at $84 or $86. The bankers bought them. Then these same bankers stimulated a boom and government bonds went to par – and above. Then the bankers collected their profits.

But the soldier pays the biggest part of the bill.

If you don’t believe this, visit the American cemeteries on the battlefields abroad. Or visit any of the veteran’s hospitals in the United States. On a tour of the country, in the midst of which I am at the time of this writing, I have visited eighteen government hospitals for veterans. In them are a total of about 50,000 destroyed men – men who were the pick of the nation eighteen years ago. The very able chief surgeon at the government hospital; at Milwaukee, where there are 3,800 of the living dead, told me that mortality among veterans is three times as great as among those who stayed at home.

Boys with a normal viewpoint were taken out of the fields and offices and factories and classrooms and put into the ranks. There they were remolded; they were made over; they were made to “about face”; to regard murder as the order of the day. They were put shoulder to shoulder and, through mass psychology, they were entirely changed. We used them for a couple of years and trained them to think nothing at all of killing or of being killed.

Then, suddenly, we discharged them and told them to make another “about face” ! This time they had to do their own readjustment, sans [without] mass psychology, sans officers’ aid and advice and sans nation-wide propaganda. We didn’t need them any more. So we scattered them about without any “three-minute” or “Liberty Loan” speeches or parades. Many, too many, of these fine young boys are eventually destroyed, mentally, because they could not make that final “about face” alone.

In the government hospital in Marion, Indiana, 1,800 of these boys are in pens! Five hundred of them in a barracks with steel bars and wires all around outside the buildings and on the porches. These already have been mentally destroyed. These boys don’t even look like human beings. Oh, the looks on their faces! Physically, they are in good shape; mentally, they are gone.

There are thousands and thousands of these cases, and more and more are coming in all the time. The tremendous excitement of the war, the sudden cutting off of that excitement – the young boys couldn’t stand it.

That’s a part of the bill. So much for the dead – they have paid their part of the war profits. So much for the mentally and physically wounded – they are paying now their share of the war profits. But the others paid, too – they paid with heartbreaks when they tore themselves away from their firesides and their families to don the uniform of Uncle Sam – on which a profit had been made. They paid another part in the training camps where they were regimented and drilled while others took their jobs and their places in the lives of their communities. The paid for it in the trenches where they shot and were shot; where they were hungry for days at a time; where they slept in the mud and the cold and in the rain – with the moans and shrieks of the dying for a horrible lullaby.

But don’t forget – the soldier paid part of the dollars and cents bill too.

Up to and including the Spanish-American War, we had a prize system, and soldiers and sailors fought for money. During the Civil War they were paid bonuses, in many instances, before they went into service. The government, or states, paid as high as $1,200 for an enlistment. In the Spanish-American War they gave prize money. When we captured any vessels, the soldiers all got their share – at least, they were supposed to. Then it was found that we could reduce the cost of wars by taking all the prize money and keeping it, but conscripting [drafting] the soldier anyway. Then soldiers couldn’t bargain for their labor, Everyone else could bargain, but the soldier couldn’t.

Napoleon once said,

“All men are enamored of decorations…they positively hunger for them.”

So by developing the Napoleonic system – the medal business – the government learned it could get soldiers for less money, because the boys liked to be decorated. Until the Civil War there were no medals. Then the Congressional Medal of Honor was handed out. It made enlistments easier. After the Civil War no new medals were issued until the Spanish-American War.

In the World War, we used propaganda to make the boys accept conscription. They were made to feel ashamed if they didn’t join the army.

So vicious was this war propaganda that even God was brought into it. With few exceptions our clergymen joined in the clamor to kill, kill, kill. To kill the Germans. God is on our side…it is His will that the Germans be killed.

And in Germany, the good pastors called upon the Germans to kill the allies…to please the same God. That was a part of the general propaganda, built up to make people war conscious and murder conscious.

Beautiful ideals were painted for our boys who were sent out to die. This was the “war to end all wars.” This was the “war to make the world safe for democracy.” No one mentioned to them, as they marched away, that their going and their dying would mean huge war profits. No one told these American soldiers that they might be shot down by bullets made by their own brothers here. No one told them that the ships on which they were going to cross might be torpedoed by submarines built with United States patents. They were just told it was to be a “glorious adventure.”

Thus, having stuffed patriotism down their throats, it was decided to make them help pay for the war, too. So, we gave them the large salary of $30 a month.

All they had to do for this munificent sum was to leave their dear ones behind, give up their jobs, lie in swampy trenches, eat canned willy (when they could get it) and kill and kill and kill…and be killed.

But wait!

Half of that wage (just a little more than a riveter in a shipyard or a laborer in a munitions factory safe at home made in a day) was promptly taken from him to support his dependents, so that they would not become a charge upon his community. Then we made him pay what amounted to accident insurance – something the employer pays for in an enlightened state – and that cost him $6 a month. He had less than $9 a month left.

Then, the most crowning insolence of all – he was virtually blackjacked into paying for his own ammunition, clothing, and food by being made to buy Liberty Bonds. Most soldiers got no money at all on pay days.

We made them buy Liberty Bonds at $100 and then we bought them back – when they came back from the war and couldn’t find work – at $84 and $86. And the soldiers bought about $2,000,000,000 worth of these bonds!

Yes, the soldier pays the greater part of the bill. His family pays too. They pay it in the same heart-break that he does. As he suffers, they suffer. At nights, as he lay in the trenches and watched shrapnel burst about him, they lay home in their beds and tossed sleeplessly – his father, his mother, his wife, his sisters, his brothers, his sons, and his daughters.

When he returned home minus an eye, or minus a leg or with his mind broken, they suffered too – as much as and even sometimes more than he. Yes, and they, too, contributed their dollars to the profits of the munitions makers and bankers and shipbuilders and the manufacturers and the speculators made. They, too, bought Liberty Bonds and contributed to the profit of the bankers after the Armistice in the hocus-pocus of manipulated Liberty Bond prices.

And even now the families of the wounded men and of the mentally broken and those who never were able to readjust themselves are still suffering and still paying.

Chapter Four

HOW TO SMASH THIS RACKET!

WELL, it’s a racket, all right.

A few profit – and the many pay. But there is a way to stop it. You can’t end it by disarmament conferences. You can’t eliminate it by peace parleys at Geneva. Well-meaning but impractical groups can’t wipe it out by resolutions. It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war.

The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labor before the nations manhood can be conscripted. One month before the Government can conscript the young men of the nation – it must conscript capital and industry and labor. Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our munitions makers and our shipbuilders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all the other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted – to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get.

Let the workers in these plants get the same wages – all the workers, all presidents, all executives, all directors, all managers, all bankers –

yes, and all generals and all admirals and all officers and all politicians and all government office holders – everyone in the nation be restricted to a total monthly income not to exceed that paid to the soldier in the trenches!

Let all these kings and tycoons and masters of business and all those workers in industry and all our senators and governors and majors pay half of their monthly $30 wage to their families and pay war risk insurance and buy Liberty Bonds.

Why shouldn’t they?

They aren’t running any risk of being killed or of having their bodies mangled or their minds shattered. They aren’t sleeping in muddy trenches. They aren’t hungry. The soldiers are!

Give capital and industry and labor thirty days to think it over and you will find, by that time, there will be no war. That will smash the war racket – that and nothing else.

Maybe I am a little too optimistic. Capital still has some say. So capital won’t permit the taking of the profit out of war until the people – those who do the suffering and still pay the price – make up their minds that those they elect to office shall do their bidding, and not that of the profiteers.

Another step necessary in this fight to smash the war racket is the limited plebiscite to determine whether a war should be declared. A plebiscite not of all the voters but merely of those who would be called upon to do the fighting and dying. There wouldn’t be very much sense in having a 76-year-old president of a munitions factory or the flat-footed head of an international banking firm or the cross-eyed manager of a uniform manufacturing plant – all of whom see visions of tremendous profits in the event of war – voting on whether the nation should go to war or not. They never would be called upon to shoulder arms – to sleep in a trench and to be shot. Only those who would be called upon to risk their lives for their country should have the privilege of voting to determine whether the nation should go to war.

There is ample precedent for restricting the voting to those affected. Many of our states have restrictions on those permitted to vote. In most, it is necessary to be able to read and write before you may vote. In some, you must own property. It would be a simple matter each year for the men coming of military age to register in their communities as they did in the draft during the World War and be examined physically. Those who could pass and who would therefore be called upon to bear arms in the event of war would be eligible to vote in a limited plebiscite. They should be the ones to have the power to decide – and not a Congress few of whose members are within the age limit and fewer still of whom are in physical condition to bear arms. Only those who must suffer should have the right to vote.

A third step in this business of smashing the war racket is to make certain that our military forces are truly forces for defense only.

At each session of Congress the question of further naval appropriations comes up. The swivel-chair admirals of Washington (and there are always a lot of them) are very adroit lobbyists. And they are smart. They don’t shout that “We need a lot of battleships to war on this nation or that nation.” Oh no. First of all, they let it be known that America is menaced by a great naval power. Almost any day, these admirals will tell you, the great fleet of this supposed enemy will strike suddenly and annihilate 125,000,000 people. Just like that. Then they begin to cry for a larger navy. For what? To fight the enemy? Oh my, no. Oh, no. For defense purposes only.

Then, incidentally, they announce maneuvers in the Pacific. For defense. Uh, huh.

The Pacific is a great big ocean. We have a tremendous coastline on the Pacific. Will the maneuvers be off the coast, two or three hundred miles? Oh, no. The maneuvers will be two thousand, yes, perhaps even thirty-five hundred miles, off the coast.

The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the united States fleet so close to Nippon’s shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles.

The ships of our navy, it can be seen, should be specifically limited, by law, to within 200 miles of our coastline. Had that been the law in 1898 the Maine would never have gone to Havana Harbor. She never would have been blown up. There would have been no war with Spain with its attendant loss of life. Two hundred miles is ample, in the opinion of experts, for defense purposes. Our nation cannot start an offensive war if its ships can’t go further than 200 miles from the coastline. Planes might be permitted to go as far as 500 miles from the coast for purposes of reconnaissance. And the army should never leave the territorial limits of our nation.

To summarize: Three steps must be taken to smash the war racket.

We must take the profit out of war.

We must permit the youth of the land who would bear arms to decide whether or not there should be war.

We must limit our military forces to home defense purposes.

Chapter Five

TO HELL WITH WAR!

I am not a fool as to believe that war is a thing of the past. I know the people do not want war, but there is no use in saying we cannot be pushed into another war.

Looking back, Woodrow Wilson was re-elected president in 1916 on a platform that he had “kept us out of war” and on the implied promise that he would “keep us out of war.” Yet, five months later he asked Congress to declare war on Germany.

In that five-month interval the people had not been asked whether they had changed their minds. The 4,000,000 young men who put on uniforms and marched or sailed away were not asked whether they wanted to go forth to suffer and die.

Then what caused our government to change its mind so suddenly?

Money.

An allied commission, it may be recalled, came over shortly before the war declaration and called on the President. The President summoned a group of advisers. The head of the commission spoke. Stripped of its diplomatic language, this is what he told the President and his group:

“There is no use kidding ourselves any longer. The cause of the allies is lost. We now owe you (American bankers, American munitions makers, American manufacturers, American speculators, American exporters) five or six billion dollars.

If we lose (and without the help of the United States we must lose) we, England, France and Italy, cannot pay back this money…and Germany won’t. So…

“Had secrecy been outlawed as far as war negotiations were concerned, and had the press been invited to be present at that conference, or had radio been available to broadcast the proceedings, America never would have entered the World War. But this conference, like all war discussions, was shrouded in utmost secrecy. When our boys were sent off to war they were told it was a “war to make the world safe for democracy” and a “war to end all wars.”

Well, eighteen years after, the world has less of democracy than it had then. Besides, what business is it of ours whether Russia or Germany or England or France or Italy or Austria live under democracies or monarchies? Whether they are Fascists or Communists? Our problem is to preserve our own democracy.

And very little, if anything, has been accomplished to assure us that the World War was really the war to end all wars.

Yes, we have had disarmament conferences and limitations of arms conferences. They don’t mean a thing. One has just failed; the results of another have been nullified. We send our professional soldiers and our sailors and our politicians and our diplomats to these conferences. And what happens?

The professional soldiers and sailors don’t want to disarm. No admiral wants to be without a ship. No general wants to be without a command. Both mean men without jobs. They are not for disarmament. They cannot be for limitations of arms. And at all these conferences, lurking in the background but all-powerful, just the same, are the sinister agents of those who profit by war. They see to it that these conferences do not disarm or seriously limit armaments.

The chief aim of any power at any of these conferences has not been to achieve disarmament to prevent war but rather to get more armament for itself and less for any potential foe.

There is only one way to disarm with any semblance of practicability. That is for all nations to get together and scrap every ship, every gun, every rifle, every tank, every war plane. Even this, if it were possible, would not be enough.

The next war, according to experts, will be fought not with battleships, not by artillery, not with rifles and not with machine guns. It will be fought with deadly chemicals and gases.

Secretly each nation is studying and perfecting newer and ghastlier means of annihilating its foes wholesale. Yes, ships will continue to be built, for the shipbuilders must make their profits. And guns still will be manufactured and powder and rifles will be made, for the munitions makers must make their huge profits. And the soldiers, of course, must wear uniforms, for the manufacturer must make their war profits too.

But victory or defeat will be determined by the skill and ingenuity of our scientists.

If we put them to work making poison gas and more and more fiendish mechanical and explosive instruments of destruction, they will have no time for the constructive job of building greater prosperity for all peoples. By putting them to this useful job, we can all make more money out of peace than we can out of war – even the munitions makers.

So…I say,

TO HELL WITH WAR!

This reenactment video is a compilation of some of his speeches. The two-time Congressional Medal of Honor recipient exposes war profits that benefit the few at the expense of many. Throughout his distinguished career in the Marines, Smedley Darlington Butler demonstrated that true patriotism does not mean blind allegiance to government policies with which one does not agree. To Hell with war.

Audiobook (1 hour):

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…

Vietnam War

The media depicted the war as a “quagmire” begun by “right-wing hawks” who wanted to stop the spread of communism.  They said the war was “unwinnable,” dragged out because the “hawks” were too proud to pull our troops out, our military having underestimated the determination of Ho Chi Minh’s forces. Here’s what the media omitted: The roots of the Vietnam disaster trace to World War II. At the “Big Three” conferences at Teheran and Yalta, President Roosevelt asked Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin if he would break his nonaggression pact with Japan and enter the Pacific war. Stalin agreed – on condition that the US supply him with all the weapons and materiel his Far Eastern army would need for the expedition. Roosevelt agreed, and some 600 shiploads of Lend-Lease supplies were sent to Russia to equip the Soviet army to fight Japan. The Vietnam conflict was also allowed to continue to weaken the resistance of Americans against any type of war or fight against communism.

After more than fifty years, new and explosive information has emerged from Presidential library files and CIA confidential records. Americans never knew what was happening in Vietnam and neither did the men who were on the ground doing the fighting and dying. Discipline became almost non-existent and fragging became a major issue as back home the United States approached a state of near revolution. The young were not willing to risk their lives for a cause they did not understand nor believe in.

In his book “Vietnam Exposed,” author Frank Newby traces the story from its beginning with the Catholic French planters and peasant slavery to the fight for their independence which led to the incursion of the communist agitators. The people of French Indochina were not communists. They were slaves of the Catholic Church trying to secure their freedom. They followed the leader who offered the best opportunity. America sided with the French exploiters and the peasants sided with the communists who offered them an opportunity to break free. America did not stop the spread of communism, it aided and abetted it by flawed policies and inept leadership. This book exposes all the flaws and mistakes which were perpetrated by our politicians with flawed logic and advice who did not know or understand history or try to find peaceful paths to a solution.

How the U.S. Navy Sold the Vietnam War

Dr. Tom Dooley, whose best-selling book “Deliver Us From Evil” helped create a favorable climate of opinion for U.S. intervention in South Vietnam, has long been linked to legendary CIA officer Edward G. Lansdale and his black operations in Vietnam between 1954 and 1955. But the real story about Dooley’s influential book, which has finally emerged from more recent scholarly research, is that it was engineered by an official of the U.S. Navy’s Pacific Command, Capt. William Lederer.

Lederer is best known as the co-author, with Eugene Burdick, of the 1958 novel “The Ugly American,” which was turned into a 1963 movie starring Marlon Brando. Far more important, however, is the fact that from 1951 through 1957 Capt. Lederer was on the staff of the commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet (CINCPAC), Adm. Felix Stump.

The Pacific Command was intensely interested in Dooley, because the U.S. Navy had the greatest stake of all the military services in the outcome of the conflict between the communists and U.S.-backed anti-communist regimes in Vietnam and China during the mid-1950s. And the Pacific Command was directly involved in the military planning for war in both cases.

Adm. Arthur Radford, the former CINCPAC and then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, led the senior officials pressing President Dwight D. Eisenhower to approve a massive U.S. airstrike against the Viet Minh at Dien Bien Phu in April 1954. And between 1954 and 1955, Adm. Stump called for increasing the size of the Nationalist Chinese raids on the Chinese mainland from offshore islands. He also pushed for a U.S. attack on the mainland, including the use of nuclear weapons, if necessary, to defend those same offshore islands.

Capt. Lederer met Dooley in Haiphong, Vietnam, in 1954 after the Navy launched “Operation Passage to Freedom” to help transport more than 300,000 Vietnamese civilians, soldiers and members of the French Army from the French-controlled North to Saigon. A CIA psychological warfare team led by Lansdale had slipped into Hanoi and Haiphong to sabotage the Ho Chi Minh government takeover and to spread propaganda to provoke fear among Catholics and other residents.

The key tactic of the Lansdale team was to print a series of “black propaganda” leaflets—designed to appear as though they came from the Viet Minh—to frighten residents of the North into leaving for South Vietnam. The most dramatic such deception involved spreading the rumor that the U.S. military was going to bomb Hanoi, a story that was further promoted by leaflets showing concentric circles of destruction of the city by an atomic bomb.

Lt. Tom Dooley, a young Irish Catholic Navy doctor, was “loaned” by the U.S. Navy to Lansdale for the operation, although Dooley apparently thought the team’s function was to gather intelligence. Dooley’s job was ostensibly to manage medical supplies needed for the movement of North Vietnamese to the South, but in fact Dooley functioned as the team’s propagandist, briefing visiting news media and sending out out reports through Catholic media in the United States that supported the CIA’s anti-Viet Minh mission.

Lederer quickly recognized Dooley as a potentially valuable propaganda asset because of his connection with Vietnamese Catholics and his penchant for telling tales of Viet Minh atrocities. It was Lederer who suggested that Dooley write a book about his experiences with North Vietnamese refugees who wanted to move to the South. The Navy gave him a leave of absence to write it, and Lederer became Dooley’s handler for the project. Dooley was a charismatic public speaker but needed Lederer’s help with writing. Lederer also introduced Dooley to Reader’s Digest—by far the most popular magazine in America, with 20 million readers. Chief of Naval Operations Arleigh Burke officially embraced the book and even wrote the introduction to it.

Reader’s Digest published a highly condensed 27-page version of the book in its April 1956 edition, and Farrar, Straus and Cudahy immediately published the full-length version. It became a runaway bestseller, going through twelve printings.

The constantly reiterated theme of Dooley’s book “Deliver Us From Evil” was that the Ho Chi Minh government was determined to suppress the Catholic faith in Vietnam and used torture and other atrocities to terrorize Catholics into submission. That was a grotesque distortion of actual Viet Minh policy. The Ho Chi Minh government had worked hard from the beginning of the war to ensure that there was no interference with Catholics’ exercise of their faith, even establishing severe legal penalties on any infringement of that freedom.

But Dooley’s book was full of lurid descriptions of North Vietnamese Communist atrocities against Catholics that Dooley claimed to have known about from treating the victims. It told of the Viet Minh having partially torn off the ears of several teenagers with pliers and left them dangling—supposedly as punishment for their having listened to the Lord’s Prayer.

And he described the Viet Minh taking seven youths out of their classroom and forcing wooden chopsticks through their eardrums. The children, he wrote, had been accused of “treason” for having attended a religious class at night. As for the teacher, Dooley claimed the Viet Minh had used pliers to pull out his tongue, as punishment for having taught the religious class.

But it was widely recognized within the U.S. government that these stories  were false. Six U.S. Information Agency officials who had been in North Vietnam during that period, as well as former Navy corpsmen who had worked in the Haiphong camp with Dooley, all said they had never heard of any such events. And in 1992 Lederer himself, who had made 25 fact-finding trips to Vietnam since 1951, told an interviewer, “[T]hose things never happened. … I traveled all over the country and never saw anything like them.”

Many years later, in an interview with scholar Edward Palm, Lederer disclaimed any significant influence on the content or tone of Dooley’s book, even though Dooley had credited Lederer with helping put the book in final form. Lederer also told Palm he didn’t remember any such stories appearing in the first draft of the book he read.

But Palm, who obtained the first draft of the manuscript from Dooley’s papers, confirmed to this writer that the first draft did contain those stories of atrocities. And Palm’s monograph documented the fact that the last draft chapter was dated the end of July 1955 and that communications from both men at the time indicated that Lederer had met repeatedly with Dooley during June and July to help him finish the draft.

Palm also quoted from Dooley’s first draft to show that it concluded with a call for Americans to be ready for a U.S. war against communism. If negotiations with the Soviet Union failed to bring “lasting peace,” Dooley’s draft warned, “Communism will have to be fought with arms … it must be annihilated….”  Dooley concluded, “[T]here can be no concessions, no compromise and no coexistence.”

Palm pointed out that the published version of the book dropped that rabidly warlike rhetoric and instead introduced a new character named “Ensign Potts” to represent the view that America must be ready to fight a war to destroy communism. The role of the “Potts” character was to be converted to Dooley’s argument that service to the ordinary Vietnamese would be the most effective way to prevail in the Cold War—after Dooley’s tearful recounting of the story of the Viet Minh puncturing the Catholic youths’ ears with chopsticks, reduced “Potts” to tears as well.

Lederer and Burdick popularized the idea that personal kindness to the people of Southeast Asia from American could help defeat Communism in “The Ugly American” and that same idea infused Lederer’s own March  1955 Reader’s Digest article on the interactions between U.S. sailors and Vietnamese aboard a U.S. Navy ship. Lederer told Palm in a 1996 interview that he had suggested that Dooley model his book on that article.

Palm wrote that he didn’t believes Lederer’s personal preference was to promote a U.S. war in Vietnam. But Lederer had obviously approved Dooley’s portrayal of the Vietnamese Communists as an alien horde terrorizing the Catholics. Catholics were the fastest-growing religious denomination in America from 1940 to 1960, during which time their numbers doubled, and Dooley’s message was an obvious way of mobilizing American Catholics to support Adm. Stump and the Navy’s agenda for Vietnam.

Marine Lt. Col. William Corson, who was detailed to the CIA during much of his career and knew Dooley during the writing of his book, told fellow former Marine Edward Palm in a 1997 telephone interview, “Dooley was programmed toward  a particular end.” He did not say specifically what that end was, but he appeared to mean building popular support for U.S. intervention in Vietnam.

While on a nationwide book tour, Dooley was one of the featured speakers at the first conference of The American Friends of Vietnam—later known as the “Vietnam Lobby”—in Washington, D.C., on June 1, 1956. The meeting was held at a crucial moment in U.S. Vietnam policy. Eisenhower was still supporting the election for a government throughout Vietnam as called for by the 1954 Geneva Agreement, with strict conditions for a free vote. Meanwhile, hardliners in the administration were pushing for opposing that election outright on the ground that Ho Chi Minh would certainly win it, regardless of conditions.

Dooley’s contribution was to describe “Communism” as an “evil, driving, malicious ogre” and recount the “hideous atrocities that we witnessed in our camps every single day.” And he retold the story of the Viet Minh punishing the schoolchildren by puncturing their eardrums.

A few weeks after the meeting, Eisenhower reversed his previous position of supporting the all-Vietnamese Vietnamese, opening the path to deeper U.S. political and military intervention in Vietnam.

Dooley had just learned that his secret life as a gay man in the Navy had been discovered by Naval intelligence, and he was forced to quietly resign. At Lansdale’s suggestion, Leo Cherne of the International Rescue Committee helped Dooley establish a primitive medical clinic near the Chinese border in northern Laos. But Dooley had to agree to cooperate with CIA in Laos by allowing it to smuggle arms into the site of the clinic to eventually be distributed to local anti-Communist militiamen.

The Dooley Clinic in Laos helped make him a hugely popular celebrity, with two more best-selling books, feature stories in popular magazines and network television appearances. By the time Dooley died of cancer in 1961, a Gallup Poll found that Americans viewed him as the third most admired person in the world, after Eisenhower and the pope. But his role in the larger tragedy of U.S. war in Indochina was to serve as the instrument of a highly successful campaign by the U.S. Navy to create the first false propaganda narrative of the conflict—one that has endured for most of Dooley’s fans for decades.

But Dooley’s popularity and saintly image increased the power of his tales of Viet Minh atrocities against Catholics that represented the first major false U.S. propaganda narrative of the Vietnam conflict—one that helped build public support for the U.S. military intervention in Vietnam that began under President John F Kennedy in 1962.

Source: https://www.globalresearch.ca/how-u-s-navy-sold-vietnam-war/5679662https://www.globalresearch.ca/who-won-the-vietnam-war-2/172

On Aug. 10, 1964, President Lyndon Johnson signed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution though he knew its justification was based entirely on deception. Indeed, it was a continuation of a pattern of deception begun with a series of clandestine acts of war against North Vietnam by U.S. forces known as “Oplan 34-A.”

Oplan 34-A consisted of sabotage and psychological warfare attacks directed against and into North Vietnamese territory. This reality was only brought to light seven bloody years later with the release of the “Pentagon Papers” by courageous whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg.

These deceptions, culminating with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, triggered an unwinnable war fought entirely on false pretenses and further deceptions of the American people until defeat could no longer be postponed.

Yet, in addition to the massive loss of life and irreparable wounds to so many participants , along with the enormous economic costs, the other U.S. victim of the Vietnam War was the U.S. Constitution itself. Specifically, it was the Bill of Rights, which, taken together, provide the American people the “right to know.”

The Bill of Rights was enacted so the U.S. citizenry could act as “centinels,” as James Madison put it, over government officials, including intelligence and military officials, not the opposite. This was to protect the Republic against both perfidious and incompetent officials.

But officials during the Vietnam War worked to turn that principle upside-down. These officials would succeed in institutionalizing within the military their belief that the “people” themselves couldn’t be trusted with information of what was being done in their name.

Military and intelligence leaders saw the need for themselves and their institutions to act as “sentinels” over the citizens so civilians could never again appreciably interfere with the military’s contemplation, planning or conduct of a “war.” The constitutional right to know became the “center of gravity,” the main target, for the military’s effort to suppress any future civilian “interference” with the military, a strategy that violated the very purpose of the Constitution.

Beyond infringing on the constitutional right of the American people to know what their government is doing, this reversal of who is supposed to control whom also came at the cost of national security. The “right to know” is not a mere privilege or luxury Americans have as a birthright; it is in the Constitution as part of the system of checks and balances the Framers created to provide for the “common defence,” and has been the greatest strength the U.S. has had through its history, as other militaristic regimes that have come and gone show.

Opening the Gates of Hell on Vietnam

In Kill Anything that MovesNick Turse put together a comprehensive picture, written with mastery and dignity, of what American forces actually were doing in Vietnam. The findings disclose an almost unspeakable truth.  Meticulously piecing together newly released classified information, court-martial records, Pentagon reports, and firsthand interviews in Vietnam and the United States, as well as contemporaneous press accounts and secondary literature, Turse discovers that episodes of devastation, murder, massacre, rape, and torture once considered isolated atrocities were in fact the norm, adding up to a continuous stream of atrocity, unfolding, year after year, throughout that country.

It has been Turse’s great achievement to see that, thanks to the special character of the war, its prime reality — an accurate overall picture of what physically was occurring on the ground — had never been assembled; that with imagination and years of dogged work this could be done; and that even a half-century after the beginning of the war it still should be done. Turse acknowledges that, even now, not enough is known to present this picture in statistical terms. To be sure, he offers plenty of numbers — for instance the mind-boggling estimates that during the war there were some two million civilians killed and some five million wounded, that the United States flew 3.4 million aircraft sorties, and that it expended 30 billion pounds of munitions, releasing the equivalent in explosive force of 640 Hiroshima bombs.

Yet it would not have been enough to simply accumulate anecdotal evidence of abuses. Therefore, while providing an abundance of firsthand accounts, he has supplemented this approach. Like a fabric, a social reality — a town, a university, a revolution, a war — has a pattern and a texture.  No fact is an island. Each one is rich in implications, which, so to speak, reach out toward the wider area of the surrounding facts. When some of these other facts are confirmed, they begin to reveal the pattern and texture in question.

Turse repeatedly invites us to ask what sort of larger picture each story implies. For example, he writes:

“If one man and his tiny team could claim more KIAs [killed in action] than an entire battalion without raising red flags among superiors; if a brigade commander could up the body count by picking off civilians from his helicopter with impunity; if a top general could institutionalize atrocities through the profligate use of heavy firepower in areas packed with civilians — then what could be expected down the line, especially among heavily armed young infantrymen operating in the field for weeks, angry, tired, and scared, often unable to locate the enemy and yet relentlessly pressed for kills?”

Like a tightening net, the web of stories and reports drawn from myriad sources coalesces into a convincing, inescapable portrait of this war — a portrait that, as an American, you do not wish to see; that, having seen, you wish you could forget, but that you should not forget; and that the facts force you to see and remember and take into account when you ask yourself what the United States has done and been in the last half century, and what it still is doing and still is.

Scorched Earth in I Corps

My angle of vision on these matters is a highly particular one. In early August 1967, I arrived in I Corps, the northernmost district of American military operations in what was then South Vietnam.  I was there to report for the New Yorker on the “air war.” The phrase was a misnomer.  The Vietnamese foe, of course, had no assets in the air in the South, and so there was no “war” of that description.

There was only the unilateral bombardment of the land and people by the fantastic array of aircraft assembled by the United States in Vietnam.  These ranged from the B-52, which laid down a pattern of destruction a mile long and several football fields wide; to fighter bombers capable of dropping, along with much else, 500-pound bombs and canisters of napalm; to the reconfigured DC-3 equipped with a cannon capable of firing 100 rounds per second; to the ubiquitous fleets of helicopters, large and small, that crowded the skies. All this was abetted by continuous artillery fire into “free-fire” zones and naval bombardment from ships just off the coast.

By the time I arrived, the destruction of the villages in the region and the removal of their people to squalid refugee camps was approaching completion. (However, they often returned to their blasted villages, now subject to indiscriminate artillery fire.) Only a few pockets of villages survived. I witnessed the destruction of many of these in Quang Ngai and Quang Tinh provinces from the back seat of small Cessnas called Forward Air Control planes.

As we floated overhead day after day, I would watch long lines of houses burst into flames one after another as troops moved through the area of operation.  In the meantime, the Forward Air Controllers were calling in air strikes as requested by radio from troops on the ground. In past operations, the villagers had been herded out of the area into the camps.  But this time, no evacuation had been ordered, and the population was being subjected to the full fury of a ground and air assault. A rural society was being torn to pieces before my eyes.

The broad results of American actions in I Corps were thus visible and measurable from the air. No scorched earth policy had been announced but scorched earth had been the result.  Still, a huge piece was missing from the puzzle.  I was not able to witness most of the significant operations on the ground firsthand. I sought to interview some soldiers but they would not talk, though one did hint at dark deeds.  “You wouldn’t believe it so I’m not going to tell you,” he said to me. “No one’s ever going to find out about some things, and after this war is over, and we’ve all gone home, no one is ever going to know.”

In other words, like so many reporters in Vietnam, I saw mainly one aspect of one corner of the war.  What I had seen was ghastly, but it was not enough to serve as a basis for generalizations about the conduct of the war as a whole. Just a few years later, in 1969, thanks to the determined efforts of a courageous soldier, Ron Ridenhour, and the persistence of a reporter, Seymour Hersh, one piece of the hidden truth about ground operations in I Corp came to light.

It was the My Lai massacre, in which more than 500 civilians were murdered in cold blood by Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 20th Infantry, of the Americal Division. In subsequent years, news of other atrocities in the area filtered into the press, often many years after the fact. For example, in 2003 the Toledo Blade disclosed a campaign of torture and murder over a period of months, including the summary execution of two blind men by a “reconnaissance” squad called Tiger Force.  Still, no comprehensive picture of the generality of ground operations in the area emerged.

It has not been until the publication of Turse’s book that the everyday reality of which these atrocities were a part has been brought so fully to light. Almost immediately after the American troops arrived in I Corps, a pattern of savagery was established. My Lai, it turns out, was exceptional only in the numbers killed.

Turse offers a massacre at a village called Trieu Ai in October 1967 as a paradigm.  A marine company suffered the loss of a man to a booby trap near the village, which had in fact had been mostly burned down by other American forces a few days earlier.  Some villagers had, however, returned for their belongings. Now, the Marine company, enraged by its loss but unable to find the enemy, entered the village firing their M-16s, setting fire to any intact houses, and tossing grenades into bomb shelters.

A Marine marched a woman into a field and shot her.  Another reported that there were children in the shelters that were being blown up.  His superior replied, “Tough shit, they grow up to be VC [Vietcong].”  Five or ten people rushed out of a shelter when a grenade was thrown into it.  They were cut down in a hail of fire. Turse comments:

“In the story of Trieu Ai one can see virtually the entire war writ small.  Here was the repeated aerial bombing and artillery fire… Here was the deliberate burning of peasant homes and the relocation of villagers to refugee camps… Angry troops primed to lash out, often following losses within the unit; civilians trapped in their paths; and officers in the field issuing ambiguous or illegal orders to young men conditioned to obey — that was the basic recipe for many of the mass killings carried out by army soldiers and marines over the years.”

The savagery often extended to the utmost depravity: gratuitous torture, killing for target practice, slaughter of children and babies, gang rape.  Consider the following all-too-typical actions of Company B, 1st Battalion, 35th infantry beginning in October 1967:

“The company stumbled upon an unarmed young boy.  ‘Someone caught him up on a hill, and they brought him down and the lieutenant asked who wanted to kill him…’ medic Jamie Henry later told army investigators. A radioman and another medic volunteered for the job.  The radioman… ’kicked the boy in the stomach and the medic took him around behind a rock and I heard one magazine go off complete on automatic…’

“A few days after this incident, members of that same unit brutalized an elderly man to the point of collapse and then threw him off a cliff without even knowing whether he was dead or alive…

“A couple of days after that, they used an unarmed man for target practice…

“And less than two weeks later, members of Company B reportedly killed five unarmed women…

“Unit members rattled off a litany of other brutal acts committed by the company… [including] a living woman who had an ear cut off while her baby was thrown to the ground and stomped on…”

Pumping Up the Body Count

Turse’s findings completed the picture of the war in I Corps for me.  Whatever the policy might have been in theory, the reality, on the ground as in the air, was the scorched earth I had witnessed from the Forward Air Control planes. Whatever the United States thought it was doing in I Corps, it was actually waging systematic war against the people of the region.

And so it was, as Turse voluminously documents, throughout the country.  Details differed from area to area but the broad picture was the same as the one in I Corps. A case in point is the war in the Mekong Delta, home to some five to six million people in an area of less than 15,000 square miles laced with rivers and canals. In February 1968, General Julian Ewell, soon to be known by Vietnamese and Americans alike as “the Butcher of the Delta,” was placed in charge of the 9th Infantry Division.

In December 1968, he launched Operation Speedy Express. His specialty, amounting to obsession, was increasing “the body count,” ordained by the high command as the key measure of progress in defeating the enemy. Theoretically, only slain soldiers were to be included in that count but — as anyone, soldier or reporter, who spent a half-hour in the field quickly learned — virtually all slain Vietnamese, most of them clearly civilians, were included in the total.  The higher an officer’s body count, the more likely his promotion. Privates who turned in high counts were rewarded with mini-vacations. Ewell set out to increase the ratio of supposed enemy soldiers killed to American soldiers killed.  Pressure to do so was ratcheted up at all levels in the 9th Division. One of his chiefs of staff “went berserk,” in the words of a later chief of staff.

The means were simple: immensely increase the already staggering firepower being used and loosen the already highly permissive “rules of engagement” by, for example, ordering more night raids.  In a typical night episode, Cobra gunships strafed a herd of water buffalo and seven children tending them. All died, and the children were reported as enemy soldiers killed in action.

The kill ratios duly rose from an already suspiciously high 24 “Vietcong” for every dead American to a completely surreal 134 Vietcong per American.  The unreality, however, did not simply lie in the inflated kill numbers but in the identities of the corpses.  Overwhelmingly, they were not enemy soldiers but civilians.  A “Concerned Sergeant” who protested the operation in an anonymous letter to the high command at the time described the results as he witnessed them:

“A battalion would kill maybe 15 to 20 a day.  With 4 battalions in the Brigade that would be maybe 40 to 50 a day or 1200 a month 1500, easy. (One battalion claimed almost 1000 body counts one month!)  If I am only 10% right, and believe me its lots more, then I am trying to tell you about 120-150 murders, or a My Lay [My Lai] each month for over a year.”

This range of estimates was confirmed in later analyses. Operations in I Corp perhaps depended more on infantry attacks supported by air strikes, while Speedy Express depended more on helicopter raids and demands for high body counts, but the results were the same: indiscriminate warfare, unrestrained by calculation or humanity, on the population of South Vietnam.

Turse reminds us that off the battlefield, too, casual violence — such as the use of military trucks to run over Vietnamese on the roads, seemingly for entertainment — was widespread.  The commonest terms for Vietnamese were the racist epithets “gooks,” “dinks,” and “slopes.”  And the U.S. military machine was supplemented by an equally brutal American-South Vietnamese prison system in which torture was standard procedure and extrajudicial executions common.

How did it happen? How did a country that believes itself to be guided by principles of decency permit such savagery to break out and then allow it to continue for more than a decade?

Why, when the first Marines arrived in I Corps in early 1965, did so many of them almost immediately cast aside the rules of war as well as all ordinary scruples and sink to the lowest levels of barbarism?  What chains of cause and effect linked “the best and the brightest” of America’s top universities and corporations who were running the war with the murder of those buffalo boys in the Mekong Delta?

How did the gates of hell open? This is a different question from the often-asked one of how the United States got into the war. I cannot pretend to begin to do it justice here. The moral and cognitive seasickness that has attended the Vietnam War from the beginning afflicts us still. Yet Kill Anything that Moves permits us, finally, to at least formulate the question in light of the actual facts of the case.

Reflections would certainly seem in order for a country that, since Vietnam, has done its best to unlearn even such lessons as were learned from that debacle in preparation for other misbegotten wars like those in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here, however, are a few thoughts, offered in a spirit of thinking aloud.

The Fictitious War and the Real One

Roughly since the massacre at My Lai was revealed, people have debated whether the atrocities of the war were the product of decisions by troops on the ground or of high policy, of orders issued from above — whether they were “aberrations” or “operations.” The first school obviously lends itself to bad-apple-in-a-healthy-barrel thinking, blaming individual units for unacceptable behavior while exonerating the higher ups; the second tends to exonerate the troops while pinning the blame on their superiors.

Turse’s book shows that the barrel was rotten through and through.  It discredits the “aberration” school once and for all. Yet it does not exactly offer support for the orders-from-the-top school either. Perhaps the problem always was that these alternatives framed the situation inaccurately.  The relationship between policy and practice in Vietnam was, it turns out, far more peculiar than the two choices suggest.

It’s often said that truth is the first casualty of war. In Vietnam, however, it was not just that the United States was doing one thing while saying another (for example, destroying villages while claiming to protect them), true as that was.  Rather, from its inception the war’s structure was shaped by an attempt to superimpose a false official narrative on a reality of a wholly different character.

In the official war, the people of South Vietnam were resisting the attempts of the North Vietnamese to conquer them in the name of world communism.  The United States was simply assisting them in their patriotic resistance.  In reality, most people in South Vietnam, insofar as they were politically minded, were nationalists who sought to push out foreign conquerors: first, the French, then the Japanese, and next the Americans, along with their client state, the South Vietnamese government which was never able to develop any independent strength in a land supposedly its own.  This fictitious official narrative was not added on later to disguise unpalatable facts; it was baked into the enterprise from the outset.

Accordingly, the collision of policy and reality first took place on the ground in Trieu Ai village and its like. The American forces, including their local commanders, were confronted with a reality that the policymakers had not faced and would not face for many long years. Expecting to be welcomed as saviors, the troops found themselves in a sea of nearly universal hostility.

No manual was handed out in Washington to deal with the unexpected situation. It was left to the soldiers to decide what to do. Throughout the country, they started to improvise. To this extent, policy was indeed being made in the field. Yet it was not within the troops’ power to reverse basic policy; they could not, for instance, have withdrawn themselves from the whole misconceived exercise.  They could only respond to the unexpected circumstances in which they found themselves.

The result would combine an incomprehensible and impossible mission dictated from above (to win the “hearts and minds” of a population already overwhelmingly hostile, while pulverizing their society) and locally conceived illegal but sometimes vague orders that left plenty of room for spontaneous, rage-driven improvisation on the ground. In this gap between the fiction of high policy and the actuality of the real war was born the futile, abhorrent assault on the people of Vietnam.

The improvisatory character of all this, as Turse emphasizes, can be seen in the fact that while the abuses of civilians were pervasive they were not consistent. As he summarizes what a villager in one brutalized area told him decades later, “Sometimes U.S. troops handed out candies.  Sometimes they shot at people.  Sometimes they passed through a village hardly touching a thing.  Sometimes they burned all the homes. ‘We didn’t understand the reasons why the acted in the way they did.’”

Alongside the imaginary official war, then, there grew up the real war on the ground, the one that Turse has, for the first time, adequately described.  It is no defense of what happened to point out that, for the troops, it was not so much their orders from on high as their circumstances — what Robert J. Lifton has called “atrocity-producing situations” — that generated their degraded behavior. Neither does such an account provide escape from accountability for the war’s architects without whose blind and misguided policies these infernal situations never would have arisen.

In one further bitter irony, this real war came at a certain point to be partially codified at ever higher levels of command into policies that did translate into orders from the top. In effect, the generals gradually — if absurdly, in light of the supposed goals of the war — sanctioned and promoted the de facto war on the population.  Enter General Ewell and his body counts.

In other words, the improvising moved up the chain of command until the soldiers were following orders when they killed civilians, though, as in the case of Ewell, those orders rarely took exactly that form.  Nonetheless, the generals sometimes went quite far in formulating these new rules, even when they flagrantly contradicted official policies.

To give one example supplied by Turse, in 1965, General William Westmoreland, who was made commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam in 1964, implicitly declared war on the peasantry of South Vietnam. He said:

“Until now the war has been characterized by a substantial majority of the population remaining neutral.  In the past year we have seen an escalation to a higher intensity in the war.  This will bring about a moment of decision for the peasant farmer.  He will have to choose if he stays alive.”

Like his underlings, Westmoreland, was improvising. This new policy of, in effect, terrorizing the peasantry into submission was utterly inconsistent with the Washington narrative of winning hearts and minds, but it was fully consistent with everything his forces were actually doing and about to do in I Corps and throughout the country.

A Skyscraper of Lies

One more level of the conflict needs to be mentioned in this context.  Documents show that, as early as the mid-1960s, the key mistaken assumptions of the war — that the Vietnamese foe was a tentacle of world communism, that the war was a front in the Cold War rather than an episode in the long decolonization movement of the twentieth century, that the South Vietnamese were eager for rescue by the United States — were widely suspected to be mistaken in official Washington.  But one other assumption was not found to be mistaken: that whichever administration “lost” Vietnam would likely lose the next election.

Rightly or wrongly, presidents lived in terror of losing the war and so being politically destroyed by a movement of the kind Senator Joe McCarthy launched after the American “loss” of China in 1949.  Later, McGeorge Bundy, Lyndon Johnson’s national security advisor, would describe his understanding of the president’s frame of mind at the time this way:

“LBJ isn’t deeply concerned about who governs Laos, or who governs South Vietnam — he’s deeply concerned with what the average American voter is going to think about how he did in the ball game of the Cold War. The great Cold War championship gets played in the largest stadium in the United States and he, Lyndon Johnson, is the quarterback, and if he loses, how does he do in the next election? So don’t lose. Now that’s too simple, but it’s where he is. He’s living with his own political survival every time he looks at these questions.”

In this context, domestic political considerations trumped the substantive reasoning that, once the futility and horror of the enterprise had been revealed, might have led to an end to the war. More and more it was understood to be a murderous farce, but politics dictated that it must continue. As long as this remained the case, no news from Vietnam could lead to a reversal of the war policies.

This was the top floor of the skyscraper of lies that was the Vietnam War. Domestic politics was the largest and most fact-proof of the atrocity-producing situations.  Do we imagine that this has changed? (source)

A Deep Cynicism

While the “Pentagon Papers” revealed nothing of military significance at the time of their release in 1971, they did reveal the “deep cynicism by the military towards the public and a disregard for the loss of life and injury suffered by soldiers and civilians,” as one historical assessment noted.

More threatening to President Richard Nixon, however, was H.R. “Bob” Haldeman’s observation that the disclosures led the ordinary guy to believe that “You can’t trust the government; you can’t believe what they say; and you can’t rely on their judgment. And the implicit infallibility of presidents, which has been an accepted thing in America, is badly hurt by this, because it shows that people do things the president wants to do even though it’s wrong, and the president can be wrong.”

Military leaders such as General William Westmoreland had a similar view of any information that could prove embarrassing to the military when published by the press corps.

So Nixon, in his role as Commander in Chief presiding over a war that practically everyone conceded as lost, and the military leaders who had run the war with their self-defeating “strategies,” counter-attacked against the press whom they blamed for turning Americans against the war. They charged the media with a “stab in the back” of the military. This became a common belief in the military and among pro-war civilians to the ultimate detriment of the United States. In fact, Nixon had called the press “our worst enemy” in the war.

Getting It Right

There were wiser officials who saw the war as unwinnable from the beginning. Undersecretary of State George Ball advised against entering what he recognized as a Vietnamese civil war.

The military had officers who knew the war was unwinnable as well, at least by 1967 when “only” 12,269 Americans had been listed as killed. General Fred Weyand, though only identified much later, told reporters “Westie just doesn’t get it. The war is unwinnable. We’ve reached a stalemate and we should find a dignified way out.”

This recognition led to a very accurate New York Times article of Aug. 7, 1967, unlike the intelligence reports that Westmoreland’s G-2 (Intelligence) staff produced. Two unidentified generals were quoted, one later revealed as Weyand, who stated that he had destroyed a single North Vietnamese division three times:

“I’ve chased main-force units all over the country and the impact was zilch. It meant nothing to the people. Unless a more positive and more stirring theme than simple anti-communism can be found, the war appears likely to go on until someone gets tired and quits, which could take generations.”

The other general’s quote was “Every time Westie makes a speech about how good the South Vietnam Army is, I want to ask him why he keeps calling for more Americans. His need for reinforcements is a measure of our failure with the Vietnamese.”

The article’s author wrote, referring to the South Vietnamese, that “The best talent in the current generation has long since been lost: Thousands of men who might be leading South Vietnamese troops in combat are serving with the North Vietnamese or the Vietcong, heirs to the country’s nationalist revolution against the French.” Or they were languishing in exile following South Vietnamese purges.

But it being truthful, the article enraged President Johnson and Generals Westmoreland and Earle Wheeler, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Had Johnson shaped his decision-making to the astute analysis of the “press” in this case, the losses of the Vietnam War would have been much lower. Instead, he granted Westmoreland’s wish for a “surge,” and sent an additional 205,000 soldiers to Vietnam.

Westmoreland’s Bigotry

Westmoreland expressed what he understood of the Vietnamese people when he said, “The Oriental doesn’t put the same high price on life as does a Westerner. … We value life and human dignity. They don’t care about life and human dignity.” This viewpoint was passed on to too many subordinates we now know, as seen in the far more common occurrence of American war crimes than previously known, which further alienated Vietnamese from the U.S.

Taking such bigotry as a license to treat Vietnamese villagers in the harshest manner, Westmoreland’s policy included destroying their rice paddies and herding the people into “relocation camps.”

“Herding” villagers and their livestock was literally true as the Army described “Operation Rawhide” in a press release after Westmoreland decreed there would be no more farming, or farmers, in the Central Highlands. In this case, the old adage — “it was worse than a crime, it was a blunder” – understated the case.

Nixon’s attacks on the press were easily dismissed as routine for him and he eventually shuffled off in disgrace anyway. But most insidiously, American military leaders who couldn’t agree amongst themselves on how to fight the war could agree on who was responsible for losing it: the press.

Their accusation against the press was that it reported negative news, even though true, causing Americans to lose their “will” to fight, and an antiwar movement grew out of that. These military leaders believed or convinced themselves that they would have won the war if not for the media’s “negativity.”

This “stab in the back” myth became conventional wisdom within much of the military down to the present day, as shown in numerous military journal articles, due to these officers’ efforts to revise history at the expense of their country.

This hostility toward the press is best shown in some of the writings of retired Lt. Col. Ralph Peters, who has even suggested that journalists may have to be targeted; killed. Short of that though has come the military’s strict grip on the message through the information control policies of today.

These policies are to classify and over-classify practically all information related to the military, total surveillance over the population, both foreign and domestic, and the harshest of consequences for whistle blowers, even though or maybe because they reveal illegality by military and intelligence officials.

Stab in the Back Origin

German General Erich Ludendorf created the template for how guilt was to be assigned by a military after they’ve lost a war. In his case, it was World War I. He created the “stab in the back” myth that laid blame for Germany losing the war on civilians who were alleged to be defeatist and who undercut morale or were insufficiently loyal.

Germany had become ever more militarized as World War I went on, just as the other belligerents had, so there was no longer a press free of military censorship to cast the blame on. But Ludendorf’s accusations of disloyalty against German civilians paved the way for the eventual Nazi takeover and the draconian system of censorship, surveillance and military commissions over civilians that the Nazis put into place.

Political dissent was criminalized as a violation of German’s absolute duty of loyalty to the nation under the law of war during wartime, which the Nazis worked to make permanent. (Today, some American legal commentators glibly echo this by suggesting that censorship may be necessary to suppress “antigovernment speech” which “may demoralize soldiers and civilians,” while arguing that we’re now in a “long war” of indefinite duration against a tactic known as “terrorism.”)

In World War II Germany, trying cases of “disloyalty” primarily fell to the infamous “People’s Court;” in actuality a military commission or a “war court.” Anyone “disloyal” in any manner or degree was said to degrade the war-fighting “will” of the German people. Representative examples of these offenses include suggesting the war was the cause of food shortages or making an innocuous joke about a German leader.

Vietnam War Lost

In the style of Ludendorf, senior American military officers in charge of the conduct of the Vietnam War similarly accused civilians of stabbing the military in the back after South Vietnam fell to the North. Their accusation against elected officials was that they didn’t give the military everything the military asked for to fight the war, as if the resources of the U.S. were inexhaustible or as if that was a strategy in itself.

General H.R. McMaster added a slight twist by including the Joint Chiefs of Staff for not demanding even more troops and inflicting even greater harm by increasing costs to the civilian economy. But the most insidious charge was against the press of the day, the media. Leading officers accused the media of having caused the American people to lose their “will” to fight the war.

It wasn’t that these officers didn’t give credit to Americans for drawing conclusions from seeing the dead and wounded returned, it was that civilians had no right to their own conclusions if they were in conflict with military leadership. The solution seen by these military leaders was to deny information to the citizenry regarding military operations except for “feel good” news.

The officers accusing the press were all responsible for the conduct of the war,
including General Westmoreland. In his 1976 book, A Soldier Reports, Westmoreland revealed that President Johnson expressed regrets he had not imposed censorship – and the General obviously shared that regret.

But Westmoreland was coy enough to damn the press with faint praise. While disclaiming any vendetta against the press, in spite of their “errors, misinterpretations, judgments, and falsehoods,” Westmoreland quoted an Australian journalist who had said “there are those who say it was the first war in history lost in the columns of the New York Times.”

Westmoreland lamented elsewhere: “Vietnam was the first war ever fought without any censorship. Without censorship, things can get terribly confused in the public mind.
But Westmoreland is who was confused. He wrote: “Reflecting the view of the war held by many in the United States and often contributing to it, the general tone of press and television comment was critical, particularly following the Tet offensive of 1968.”

Not be critical was to be confused. Westmoreland could not fathom that the American people and the press, along with soldiers in his own Army, could see his war strategy was completely irrational and failing, even while he was deliberately covering that fact up with a disinformation campaign.

Accept What You’re Told

Westmoreland, like Nixon, believed the citizens’ duty was to accept anything they were told by the government, especially by the military. This would explain why neither could understand that the role of the press under the U.S. Constitution is to act as the people’s watchdog; to protect the people’s interests. This is especially so in wartime as a check on incompetent officers, as Westmoreland proved to be.

Though Westmoreland had sworn an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, he wrote: “It may well be that between press and official there is an inherent, built-in inherent conflict of interest. There is something to be said for both sides, but when the nation is at war and men’s lives are at stake, there should be no ambiguity. . . . If the nation is to wage war — declared or undeclared — a policy should be set to protect the interests of both press and government and avoid the ambiguity that characterized relationships in South Vietnam.”

Here, Westmoreland laid the ideological cornerstone of strict military information and media control which the U.S. has now. This allows the appearance of a free press, but one thoroughly conditioned to defer to the government, the military or the intelligence services.

An example of this is the suppression for a year by the New York Times of an article written by James Risen about President George W. Bush’s use of warrantless wiretaps against Americans in his “war on terror.” Unlike so many “journalists” who merely celebrate the military and the intelligence agencies, Risen acted as a journalist should.

That the military and the intelligence agencies need the oversight meant to be provided by a free, critical press, the so-called Fourth Estate, is made convincingly, though perhaps unintentionally, by retired Army Lt. Col. Lewis Sorley in his book: Westmoreland: The General Who Lost Vietnam. Paradoxically, or ironically, Sorley was one of the officers who blamed the press for determining the course of the war but his book on Westmoreland refutes that argument.

Vainglorious Westie

Westmoreland was a vainglorious officer of shallow intellect in the George Armstrong Custer mold. He had advanced through lower-level commands, not without some controversy regarding his judgment. His major accomplishment in the decade before going to Vietnam seemed to be as Superintendent of West Point. His “accomplishments” there were to get a new football stadium funded, expand the size of the Corps of Cadets so the football team would have more cadets to draw upon, and having a pamphlet sent to influential people, “West Point Points the Way in Post Efficiency.”

But upon being appointed Commander of U. S. Forces in Vietnam, Westmoreland immediately assumed he was now an expert on Vietnam.

Brimming with his customary conceit, fresh off his successful campaign for the new football stadium, Westmoreland, according to Sorley, wrote to his father shortly after arrival in Vietnam in April 1964, “this war has been very badly reported to the American people through the press, and I might say the New York Times is perhaps the best example of what I mean.”

He claimed that the New York Times had not sent their best reporters to the war zone and that many were “young, immature, impetuous men who have been unprepared to report the situation objectively.” He viewed other leading journalists in Vietnam with similar disdain.

But Associated Press reporter Peter Arnett pointed out: “When Westy took command in 1964, I was thirty years of age. I had been in Southeast Asia for eight years, and had been all over Vietnam. I was married to a Vietnamese woman. My father-in-law was a colonel in the Vietnamese army. I knew John Paul Vann and most of the American advisors. What did he [Westmoreland] mean that we were too young and didn’t know anything? Westy was wrong.”

Information Warfare

According to Sorley, when Westmoreland was decrying the “errors, misinterpretations, judgments, and falsehoods” of the press, all of which pertained to himself, he was actively creating falsehoods of success for the press to report. Sorley describes Westmoreland’s active role in LBJ’s “Progress Offensive,” an active disinformation campaign, or Information Operation as it would be called today, designed to mislead the American people and their elected representatives.

Its objective was consistent with Joint Chief of Staff Chairman General Earle Wheeler’s guidance to portray the war in the most favorable light, in disregard of the facts.

The “Progress Offensive” was “a systematic effort to convince the American people that the war in Vietnam was being won,” according to Sorley, especially in 1967. Westmoreland was a willing partner in that. But Westmoreland’s deceit began even before he was brought on board the “Progress Offensive.”

Westmoreland had submitted statistics to Wheeler in early 1967 showing that the enemy was increasing the “tactical initiative.” Sorley wrote that Wheeler was distraught and wailed: “If these figures should reach the public domain they would, literally, blow the lid off Washington.”

So Wheeler first instructed Westmoreland not to release the figures to the news media. As more information became available showing the situation worsening, with Westmoreland’s maltreatment of Vietnamese villagers probably being a cause, Wheeler sent a general officer out to help Westmoreland “fix” the problem.

Later, Westmoreland sent a memorandum to Wheeler stating: “Lieutenant General Brown’s team and members of my staff have developed terms of reference in the form of new definitions, criteria, formats and procedures relating to the reporting of enemy activity which can be used to assess effectively significant trends in the organized enemy combat initiative.”

In fact, this amounted to manipulation of intelligence by Westmoreland which later became the “order of battle” controversy and set the stage for Americans to be shocked by the Tet Offensive in January-February 1968. How many additional American lives would be lost and ruined due to this chicanery did not seem to be relevant to the numbers fixers.

A Conspiracy to Deceive

That this numbers manipulation was a conspiracy to deceive the public and the policymakers is shown by a message sent by General Bruce Palmer on Aug. 19, 1967, stating that Westmoreland was concerned that “the U.S. press is painting a pessimistic, stalemated situation in RVN.” Palmer continued: “To counteract this distorted impression of the true situation, he [Westmoreland] is launching a local campaign to portray and articulate the very real progress underway in the Vietnamese War.”

As Sorley put it, far from being the reluctant participant Westmoreland claimed to be, he “was opening his own branch office of the Progress Offensive.”

Westmoreland reported his plans to Wheeler and others in August 1967, at the time of the New York Times article cited above, that “of course we must make haste carefully in order to avoid charges that the military establishment is conducting an organized propaganda campaign, either overt or covert.”

As he saw it in Vietnam, “while we work on the nerve endings here we hope that careful attention will be paid to the roots there — the confused or unknowledgeable pundits who serve as sources for each other.” And as shown, a couple of his own generals including General Weyand also served as sources for those “confused or unknowledgeable pundits.”

Sorley notes that General Wheeler could have told President Johnson the truth and “provided him with the information he needed to make informed decisions about the future course of the war. But he did not.”

This subversion of the constitutional principle that the military is subordinate to civilian officials by a deliberate deception could be said to be tantamount to treason, and should have been cause for Court Martial of Wheeler, Westmoreland and their co-conspirators, without excusing Johnson for his misconduct.

Hammering Home the Point

Following Westmoreland’s lead after the war, other senior military leaders came out with their own books disclaiming any responsibility for the Vietnam disaster. Among them were Admiral Ulysses S. Grant Sharp, Jr., Commander in Chief, Pacific; Lt.Gen. Phillip Davidson, MACV J-2, (Westmoreland’s chief intelligence officer); General Bruce Palmer, Jr.; and Westmoreland’s one-time aide, Lt. Gen., Dave R. Palmer. All in essence accused the press of stabbing the nation and the military in the back, in the Ludendorf model.

In Summons of the Trumpet, written in 1978, Lt. Gen. Dave R. Palmer wrote: “Dissent and dissenters inside America itself did much to discredit the war by spreading doubt and sowing despair.”

Palmer allowed that the dissenters covered a wide spectrum of society, from housewives to retired generals, adding that they had two things in common, they were highly visible and their ranks grew as the war years stretched on.

This caused “confusion” in Dave Palmer’s view. He wrote that “debate and dissent, based on emotion as well as logic, grew apace as the war progressed, serving mightily as major contributors to confusion.” But to Palmer, the news media bore responsibility “for having muddied issues in the war,” concluding that “the American press failed to clarify the war in Vietnam and, not unfairly, can be accused of adding to the public bewilderment.”

But who was truly confused? Later in his book, Palmer quotes part of Westmoreland’s summary of 1967, which reached Washington four days before the Tet Offensive began. As Palmer says, “Like nearly every official, the general was optimistic. He confidently reported:

“‘In many areas the enemy has been driven away from the population centers; in others he has been compelled to disperse and evade contact, thus nullifying much of his potential. The year ended with the enemy resorting to desperation tactics in attempting to achieve military/psychological victory; and he has experienced only failures in these attempts.’”

But Palmer stated, “the government had not deliberately misled the American people.” He explains that was why they were so stunned, because the “President and his entourage truly believed their own assurances.” But that wasn’t true.

Selling the Public

As a close associate of Westmoreland’s, Palmer would have known of Westmoreland’s “Progress Offensive” which was designed to mislead the American people into believing that “progress” in the war was being made. Palmer’s disingenuous accusation that the press was responsible for the confusion of the American people when it was his own commander working to sow confusion and mislead the people he was supposed to be working for, the American public, can only be seen as shameless blame shifting from his military cronies onto the press.

Continuing this theme was the other commander over the Vietnam War, Admiral Ulysses S. Grant Sharp, CINCPAC. As CINCPAC, Sharp was in charge of the air war by the Navy and the Air Force over North Vietnam during Westmoreland’s tenure.

Sharp wrote Strategy for Defeat, wherein he explained how he and General Westmoreland would have won the war but for those “civilian politico decision makers” who had “no business ignoring or overriding the counsel of experienced military professionals” in the conduct of the war.

But in the end, Admiral Sharp accused the American press of losing the war by eroding our “will” because “we were subjected to a skillfully waged subversive propaganda campaign, aided and abetted by the media’s bombardment of sensationalism, rumors and half-truths about the Vietnam affair — a campaign that destroyed our national unity?”

Another Westmoreland crony, General Bruce Palmer, Jr., deputy commander in Vietnam, bewailed in his 1984 book that “the United States seems to share a common weakness of Western democracies, an inability to inculcate in people the kind of determination and almost religious zeal which communist countries have achieved.”

But it wasn’t for lack of trying to artificially “inculcate’ this zeal. Palmer claims that many of the officers in Vietnam resented “having our field commander being put on the spot” by being called back to the U.S. and being used for political purposes by LBJ, such as to testify to Congress on how well the war was going. But Palmer acknowledged that Westmoreland enjoyed those occasions and would return to Saigon still “up on cloud nine.”

But General Palmer’s arguments were logically conflicted. With his book, The 25-Year War: America’s Military Role in Vietnam, one wonders if the author isn’t schizophrenic. He gives all the evidence for why it was self-evident that Vietnam was an unwinnable war being run by amateurs, even listing the multitudinous errors committed in Vietnam by U.S. military leaders, including their own disputes on strategy.

Palmer also calls congressional members hypocrites for making antiwar speeches while voting money for the war, as if there were not harsh political consequences for anyone not “supporting the troops.” He also faulted teachers and professors for opposing the war. Yet, at the time he was writing his book, General Palmer claimed that, in hindsight, the war might not have been winnable all along. Still, he criticized those who questioned it.

Back in Time

None of the above officers could match Lt. Gen. Phillip B. Davidson, however, in hostility toward the press and the Constitution, which he was sworn to protect. Davidson’s books on Vietnam transports one back to the Second German Reich of Kaiser Wilhelm, when Prussian militarism was at its peak and war was celebrated for its own sake.

Davidson argued that Congress should have declared war on the Vietnamese so the U.S. government could exercise censorship and prosecute dissenters for treason. This, in fact, is a suggestion made today by some authoritarian law school commentators, with the so-called “Long War” that we’re in.

But it was Col. Harry Summers, Jr., relying on works by arch-neoconservative and militarist Norman Podhoretz, who took deception to an even higher level than Westmoreland while making the “stab in the back” accusation against the media.

In doing so, Summers also deceived his intellectually lazy fellow military officers by substituting a parody of On War by Carl von Clausewitz, with his own On Strategy, which then became very influential in the U.S. military according to David Petraeus and remains on many military reading lists today.

In fact, Summers’s On Strategy was a revisionist falsification of Clausewitz’s principles. A slight knowledge of Clausewitz and On War is necessary to understand this.

Understanding Clausewitz

Clausewitz fought a war of resistance against Bonaparte imperialism. With an anti-imperial viewpoint and respect for the sovereignty of other nations, Clausewitz saw the defensive as the stronger form of war at the strategic level, not the offensive.

He wrote: “we must say that the defensive form of warfare is intrinsically stronger than the offensive. This is the point we have been trying to make, for although it is implicit in the nature of the matter and experience has confirmed it again and again. It is at odds with prevalent opinion, which proves how ideas can be confused by superficial writers.”

Those superficial writers today would include Dick Cheney who has always favored the offensive form of war – called “forward leaning” – that he wants other Americans to fight.

Clausewitz understood that when nations did go to war, “the reason always lies in some political situation, and the occasion is always due to some political object. War therefore, is an act of policy.”

Since war is driven by its political object, “the value of this object must determine the sacrifices to be made for it in magnitude and also in duration,” but once the expenditure of effort exceeds the value of the political object, the object must be renounced and peace must follow. Westmoreland and other pro-Vietnam War advocates failed to understand this.

Clausewitz also wrote, “Be that as it may, we must always consider that with the conclusion of peace the purpose of the war has been achieved and its business is at an end.” For Clausewitz, even between adversarial states, the objective of war policy is to restore peace, not to maintain a permanent state of war against a concept such as “terrorism” or with a permanent occupation of territory seized in war, such as the West Bank and Gaza.

An Informed Electorate

Policy for any nation will be what its sovereign decides. In a democratic republic, the sovereign is supposed to be its citizens and, therefore, it is for them to consider how best to pursue national policy. That requires the electorate to be informed, necessitating the free flow of information; a fundamental requirement of democratic governance and its greatest strength.

Without the “right to know” and an involved citizenry, including an active and critical press, there is no gauge for when “the “expenditure of effort, exceeds the value of the political object” to determine when “the object must be renounced and peace must follow.”

Or if the “object” should never have been pursued in the first place. Military leaders, with only a few exceptions, only demand more “surges.” For the political calculation on war or peace to be made with any accuracy, there also must be tolerance for dissenting opinions.

Clausewitz’s theory of war was fully consistent with the attitudes of many American Founders on the need to avoid “entangling alliances” that could drag the young nation into ill-considered wars. In the early years of the Republic, American leaders were particularly on guard against pressures that sought to involve them in conflicts between France and England.

Contrast this with On Strategy, the “Bible” for the “stab in the back” crowd. What its author, Col. Harry Summers, Jr., did was to flip Clausewitz’s strategic theory upside down, ignoring Clausewitz’s recognition that the defensive was the stronger form of war than the offensive.

Unfortunately, Summers’s book, by its association with Clausewitz, acquired a veneer of strategic legitimacy for which the United States is still paying today. Primarily, that cost is paid by the loss of the constitutional “right to know” as most post-Vietnam War administrations have accepted the fallacious claim that the press was responsible for “losing” Vietnam and thus have further curtailed the public’s access to “national security” information.

Why Does This Matter?

This process of over-classification and excessive secrecy has reached an apex with the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama despite the latter’s promises of greater “transparency.” Instead, the antagonism toward a free press – and an informed public – that came out of the Vietnam War have continued to guide information policy, including aggressive prosecutions aimed at whistleblowers, such as Pvt. Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning and National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, and legal intimidation of journalists, such as James Risen and Glenn Greenwald.

Fanatics such as Fox News commentator retired Lt. Col. Ralph Peters have even called for “targeting” members of the media.

And, despite the Obama administration’s zeal in protecting “national security” secrets, there is now an echo of the “stab in the back” complaint against President Obama for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq, even though it was President Bush who accepted the timetable demanded by the Iraqi government.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney and daughter Liz virtually accused Obama of treason against the United States when they claimed “he abandoned Iraq and we are watching American defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.”

The inestimable Lt. Col. Ralph Peters went even further when he charged Obama with “the creation of the first jihadi state in modern history stretching from central Syria to central Iraq and now approaching Baghdad all because President Obama saw everything through a political lens.”

But a more accurate “stab in the back” accusation against President Obama would be that he has continued the post-Vietnam approach of hiding as much “national security” information as possible from the American people and trying to use the press more as a conduit for propaganda than for dissemination of truth.

For decades now, the deadliest “stab in the back” to the American Republic has been the one inflicted on the Bill of Rights, with President Obama seeming to give it a final twist.

Source: https://original.antiwar.com/todd_pierce/2014/08/08/the-long-reach-of-vietnam-war-deceptions/

Who Won the Vietnam War?

March 8 1965 marks the commencement of the Vietnam war. 30 April 1975 marks the official end of the Vietnam War. Yet today Vietnam is an impoverished country.  The Hanoi government is a US proxy regime. Vietnam has become a new cheap labor frontier of the global economy. Neoliberalism prevails. In a bitter irony, Vietnam which was a victim of US war crimes has become a staunch military ally of the US under Washington’s  “Pivot to Asia” which threatens China.

And now The Trump administration has been pressuring North Korea to adopt the “Vietnam Model” as a prerequisite to “normalization” and the lifting of economic sanctions. The Vietnam Model is not a Solution for Vietnam, or any other country for that matter. In 2019, the minimum hourly wage in Vietnam’s export manufacturing sector is of the order 20 cents an hour. Health services have in large part been privatized. Education is grossly underfunded. Poverty is rampant.

On April 30, 1975, the Vietnam War ended with the capture of Saigon by Communist forces and the surrender of General Duong Vanh Minh and his cabinet in the Presidential palace. As troops of the People’s Army of Vietnam marched into Saigon, U.S. personnel and the last American marines were hastily evacuated from the roof of the U.S. embassy. Twenty years later a fundamental question still remains unanswered: Who won the Vietnam War?

Vietnam never received war reparations payments from the U.S. for the massive loss of life and destruction, yet an agreement reached in Paris in 1993 required Hanoi to recognize the debts of the defunct Saigon regime of General Thieu. This agreement is in many regards tantamount to obliging Vietnam to compensate Washington for the costs of war.

Moreover, the adoption of sweeping macro-economic reforms under the supervision of the Bretton Woods institutions was also a condition for the lifting of the U.S. embargo. These free market reforms now constitute the Communist Party’s official doctrine. With the normalization of diplomatic relations with Washington in 1994, reference to America’s brutal role in the war is increasingly considered untimely and improper. Not surprisingly, Hanoi had decided to tone down the commemoration of the Saigon surrender so as not to offend its former wartime enemy. The Communist Party leadership has recently underscored the “historic role” of the United States in “liberating” Vietnam from Vichy regime and Japanese occupation during World War II.

On September 2, 1945 at the Declaration of Independence of Ba Dinh Square in Hanoi proclaiming the founding of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, American agents of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS, the predecessor of today’s CIA) were present at the side of Ho Chi Minh. While Washington had provided the Viet Minh resistance with weapons and token financial support, this strategy had largely been designed to weaken Japan in the final stages of World War II without committing large numbers of U.S. ground troops.

In contrast to the subdued and restrained atmosphere of the commemoration marking the end of the Vietnam War, the 50th anniversary of independence is to be amply celebrated in a series of official ceremonies and activities commencing in September and extending to the Chinese NewYear.

Vietnam Pays War Reparations

Prior to the “normalization” of relations with Washington, Hanoi was compelled to foot the bill of the bad debts incurred by the U.S.-backed Saigon regime. At the donor conference held in Paris in November 1993, a total of nearly $2 billion of loans and aid money was generously pledged in support of Vietnam’s free market reforms.

Yet immediately after the conference, a secret meeting was held under the auspices of the Paris Club. Present at this meeting were representatives of Western governments. On the Vietnamese side, Dr. Nguyen Xian Oanh, economic advisor to the prime minister, played a key role in the negotiations. Dr. Oanh, a former IMF official, had been Minister of Finance and later Acting Prime Minister in the military government of General Duong Van Minh, which the U.S. installed 1963 after the assassination of President Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother(f.2). Dr. Oanh, while formally mediating on behalf of the Communist government, was nonetheless responsive to the demands of Western creditors.

The deal signed with the IMF (which was made public) was largely symbolic. The amount was not substantial: Hanoi was obliged to pay the IMF $140 million (owned by the defunct Saigon regime) as a condition for the resumption of new loans. Japan and France, Vietnam’s former colonial masters of the Vichy period, formed a so-called “Friends of Vietnam” committee to lend to Hanoi” the money needed to reimburse the IMF.

The substantive arrangement on the rescheduling of bilateral debts (with the Saigon regime), however, was never revealed. Yet it was ultimately this secret agreement (reached under the auspices of the Paris Club) which was instrumental in Washington’s decision to lift the embargo and normalize diplomatic relations. This arrangement was also decisive in the release of the loans pledged at the 1993 donor conference, thereby bringing Vietnam under the trusteeship of Japanese and Western creditors. Thus twenty years after the war, Vietnam had surrendered its economic sovereignty.

By fully recognizing the legitimacy of these debts, Hanoi had agreed to repay loans that had supported the U.S. war effort. Moreover, the government of Mr. Vo Van Kiet had also accepted to comply fully with the usual conditions (devaluation, trade liberalization, privatization, etc.) of an IMF-sponsored structural adjustment program.

These economic reforms, launched in the mid-1980s with the Bretton Woods institutions, had initiated, in the war’s brutal aftermath, a new phase of economic and social devastation: Inflation had resulted from the repeated devaluations that began in 1973 under the Saigon regime the year after the withdrawal of American combat troops(f.3). Today Vietnam is once again inundated with U.S. dollar notes, which have largely replaced the Vietnamese dong. With soaring prices, real earnings have dropped to abysmally low levels.

In turn, the reforms have massively reduced productive capacity. More than 5,000 out of 12,300 state-owned enterprises were closed or steered into bankruptcy. The credit cooperatives were eliminated, all medium and long term credit to industry and agriculture was frozen. Only short-term credit was available at an interest rate of 35 percent per annum (1994). Moreover, the IMF agreement prohibited the state from providing budget support either to the state-owned economy or to an incipient private sector.

The reforms’ hidden agenda consisted in destabilizing Vietnam’s industrial base. Heavy industry, oil and gas, natural resources and mining, cement and steel production are to be reorganized and taken over by foreign capital. The most valuable state assets will be transferred to reinforce and preserve its industrial base, or to develop a capitalist economy owned and controlled by Nationals.

In the process of economic restructuring, more than a million workers and over 20,000 public employees (of whom the majority were health workers and teachers) have been laid off(f.5). In turn, local famines have erupted, affecting at least a quarter of the country’s population(f.6). These famines are not limited to the food deficit areas. In the Mekong delta, Vietnam’s rice basket, 25% of the adult population consumes less than 1800 calories per day(f.7). In the cities, the devaluation of the dong together with the elimination of subsidies and price controls has led to soaring prices of rice and other food staples.

The reforms have led to drastic cuts in social programs. With the imposition of school fees, three quarters of a million children dropped out from the school system in a matter of a few years (1987-90)(f.8). Health clinics and hospitals collapsed, the resurgence of a number of infectious diseases including malaria, tuberculosis and diarrhea is acknowledged by the Ministry of Health and the donors. A World Health Organization study confirmed that the number of malaria deaths increased three-fold in the first four years of the reforms alongside the collapse of health care and soaring prices of antimalarial drugs(f.9). The government (under the guidance of the international donor community) has also discontinued budget support to the provision of medical equipment and maintenance leading to the virtual paralysis of the entire public health system. Real salaries of medical personnel and working conditions have declined dramatically: the monthly wage of medical doctors in a district hospital is as low as $15 a month(f.10).

Although the U.S. was defeated on the battlefield, two decades later Vietnam appears to have surrendered its economic sovereignty to its former Wartime enemy.

No orange or steel pellet bombs, no napalm, no toxic chemicals: a new phase of economic and social destruction has unfolded. The achievements of past struggles and the aspirations of an entire nation are undone and erased almost with a stroke of the pen.

Debt conditionality and structural adjustment under the trusteeship of international creditors constitute in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, an equally effective and formally nonviolent instrument of recolonization and impoverishment affecting the livelihood of millions of people.

Source: https://www.globalresearch.ca/who-won-the-vietnam-war-2/172

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