How Britain Tricked a German Battleship into Sinking Itself

The Admiral Graf Spee

Just before he put the gun to his head and pulled the trigger, the German officer penned a final note.

“For a captain with a sense of honor, it goes without saying that his personal fate cannot be separated from that of his ship,” wrote Hans Langsdorff on December 19, 1939, in a hotel room in Buenos Aires. Langsdorff finished his letter to the Nazi ambassador to Argentina, lay down on a German battle flag, and shot himself.

Langsdorff had been the commander of the Admiral Graf Spee, which had been prowling the South Atlantic the week before, and now was resting on the bottom of the harbor at Montevideo, Uruguay. Many a captain has chosen to atone for the loss of his ship by going down with it. Langsdorff had suicide with a pistol two days after he had ordered his ship to be scuttled.

“I can now only prove by my death that the fighting services of the Third Reich are ready to die for the honor of the flag,” he wrote.

But what had led Langsdorff to kill himself? Why meet death in a hotel room instead of at sea? Therein lays one of the most remarkable sea battles of all time: how the Royal Navy bluffed a German battleship into sinking itself.

Of course, the Graf Spee had been born into deception. It was built in the early 1930s, when Hitler pretended to honor the Treaty of Versailles, which limited Germany to warships less than 10,000 tons. With the Graf Spee weighing in at 16,000 tons, the Germans initially gave it the innocuous name of “panzerschiff” (armored ship).

The British had a more ominous—and more accurate—name for the Graf Spee and her sisters Deutschland and Admiral Scheer: “pocket battleships.” Though a third the size of a true battlewagon like the Bismarck, the Deutschland-class ships packed battleship-class eleven-inch guns, rather than the eight-inch guns of a heavy cruiser. The first all-diesel warships, their combination of speed, long range and heavy armament made them ideal raiders to hunt merchant vessels.

When war broke in September 1939, the Graf Spee was dispatched south in search of easy prey in the South Atlantic and Indian Ocean, a vast area made for the long-legged pocket battleship. The Graf Spee‘s career was short but productive, accounting for nine ships totaling 50,000 tons.

Yet the noose was closing as Allied task forces scoured the oceans for the elusive German raider, whose location was marked by the distress calls transmitted by its victims. One of those task forces consisted of the British heavy cruiser HMS Exeter and the light cruisers HMS Achilles and HMS Ajax, all under the command of Commodore Henry Harwood.

HMS Exeter

Based on a message from the Graf Spee‘s last victim, the merchant ship Doric Star which was sunk off South Africa, Harwood shrewdly guessed the raider would sail west toward the River Plate estuary between Argentina and Uruguay. At 06:10 on December 13, 1939, Harwood’s force sighted smoke on the horizon, which turned out to be the Graf Spee. Lindemann had also spotted the British cruisers, but judged them to be destroyers guarding a convoy. Here there would easy pickings for a battleship, he thought until it was too late.

HSM Achilles

The Battle of the River Plate was a battle that should never have happened. The British cruisers with their eight- and six-inch guns steamed at full speed toward a battleship whose eleven-inch guns outranged them, like a boxer with longer arms than his opponent. Yet the Graf Spee also had a glass jaw. With no Axis ports in the South Atlantic, there was no place to seek refuge or repair: if the ship was damaged, it would have to sail 8,000 miles, past the Allied naval blockade of Germany, to reach a German port. In fact, the Graf Speehad been instructed not to engage heavy enemy warships.

HMS Ajax

Nonetheless, in the best naval tradition, Langsdorff ordered full speed and sailed toward the British. Perhaps he had no choice. With his ship and its engines badly in need of maintenance after months at sea, he couldn’t count on escaping the cruisers, which would shadow him while they called in reinforcements.

It was three sharks versus a killer whale in a maelstrom of shell splashes, gun smoke and twisting ships. As with hunting packs, the British ships attacked from different directions to force the Graf Spee to split its fire. When the Graf Spee concentrated on the Exeter, the Achilles and Ajax would close and unleash a salvo to draw the battleship off their sister (both the German and British ships launched torpedoes, none of which hit)

Nonetheless, within the first thirty minutes of the fight, the British were losing. The Exeter had been badly damaged, the heavy cruiser losing two eight-inch gun turrets and with its bridge smashed. The Achilles and Ajax were also hit. With its bigger guns and a speed almost as fast as the cruisers, the German battleship might have finished off its opponents and continued its voyage.

Damaged Exeter

But as so often in battle, the enemy sees a less rosy picture. The battleship had taken a hit from an eight-inch shell that damaged its fuel system so badly that it only had sixteen hours of endurance. Making it back to Germany was impossible, and Lindemann well knew that more Allied warships were on their way. With no Axis ports in the South Atlantic, the only refuge lie in a neutral harbor. The Graf Speelimped toward Montevideo, Uruguay, shadowed by the battered but still feisty British task force.
Yet when the German battleship sailed into the estuary of the River Plate at Montevideo, Lindemann realized that instead of refuge, he had boxed himself into a trap. Under the Hague Convention, a belligerent’s warships were only allowed to remain in a port belonging to a neutral nation for twenty-four hours. And he could see the British warships waiting outside the harbor.

And now came subterfuges worthy of a spy novel. International law also stipulated that before a belligerent’s warship could leave a neutral port, it had to wait at least twenty-four hours after an enemy merchant ship had left that port (thus giving the prospective victim time to get clear). So, Britain and France arranged for their merchant ships to leave Montevideo at intervals to keep the Graf Spee from sailing, while Harwood’s ships made smoke outside the three-mile limit of Uruguayan waters to give the impression of a larger force. With a skill in deception that they would frequently display during World War II, the British spread rumors that an aircraft carrier and battlecruiser were waiting outside the port. In truth, those ships would take several days to arrive from Gibraltar: the only reinforcements the British actually received was the dilapidated old heavy cruiser Cumberland. Even now, with Harwood’s force low on ammunition, the Graf Spee might have been able to escape to neutral but Nazi-sympathizing Argentina.

Yet Lindemann was crushed by contradictory pressures that would have strained any captain. The pro-British Uruguayan government had ordered him to leave or be interned. Berlin ordered that the battleship should not be interned. Seeing no point in sacrificing his crew in what he believed would be a suicidal battle against a superior British force, on December 17, 1939, Lindemann ordered the Graf Spee to be scuttled. Uruguayan authorities allowed the captain and crew to proceed to Buenos Aires, where they discovered the Argentinean press had labeled them cowards and the government intended to intern rather than repatriate them to Germany. Two days later, Lindemann shot himself.

The loss of the Graf Spee was a blow to the prestige of Hitler’s small but expensive navy, for which even the loss of a single heavy warship was significant. Within six months, the Bismarck would join the Graf Spee on the Atlantic sea bed. Within eight months, HMS Exeter would be sunk by the Japanese at the Battle of the Java Sea.

In the Battle of the River Plate, psychology counted as much—and perhaps more—than firepower. The British cruisers had taken a beating, but the Royal Navy’s proud tradition of aggressiveness in the face of daunting odds had paid off yet again. Regardless of who had the bigger guns, in the end, the Germans thought themselves beaten—and the British did not.

And the Graf Spee? She still rests at the bottom of Montevideo harbor. Last year, the Uruguayan government announced it would auction off an artifact recovered from the vessel: a bronze eagle gripping a swastika in its claws. It will be a tawdry ending for an epic battle and a tragic fate.

Advertisements

9 Ancient Ruins We Still Know Almost Nothing About

 

Much of what we know about ancient cultures today comes from the pictures and written documents left behind.

In some cases, artifacts can leave clues as to who the people were that created ancient monuments that are now ruins, but in other instances, there are more questions than answers.Historians, archaeologists, and geologists have many theories about the ruins on this list, but they are just that: theories. These ancient ruins most hold more questions than answers and in some cases, experts are not even certain that they are man-made.

1. Lake Michigan Stonehenge


In 2007, Mark Holley was scanning the floor of Lake Michigan in search of shipwrecks. Instead he found what some have dubbed to be the Lake Michigan Stonehenge. 40 feet below the surface are large stones arranged in a circular formation.

There is very little known about who built this structure and why it was built. The location of the site has been kept secret in order to follow the wishes of the Traverse Bay American Indian community who seek to preserve the site.

The stones may not look remarkable, but they are almost perfectly aligned with each other. If they were placed by humans, then the circular rock formation would have to date back between 6,000 and 10,000 years.

It was 6,000 years ago that this area of Lake Michigan was dry and served as a home for hunter-gatherers. The reason why some suggest the rock formation may be older than 6,000 years has to do with what was discovered on one of the outer rings of the rock circle.

Divers found carved into a large block of granite a petroglyph that looks like a mastodon. The ancient elephant went extinct 10,000 years ago, so for an ancient human to have carved it, they would have needed to be alive at the same time.

Unfortunately, petroglyph experts are not typically divers and therefore have not been able to view the carving in person. But if it is verified, it only raises more questions, such as how were the ancient people able to carve so deeply and precisely into granite?

The site stands out because it is understood that humans did not have the capacity for structures such as this until they settled down into villages and moved out of the hunter-gather phase.

While there are very few answers about the site it would not be the first formation or the first petroglyph to be found underwater or found in the Lake Michigan area, so it is possible that the formation is real.

2. Japan’s Underwater Ruins

Off the coast of Japan’s Yonaguni island are mysterious rock formations that have led to intense debate among archaeologists and geologists. These large stone structures appear to be large, stepped monoliths.

Some of the ruins have walls that are 33 feet tall and columns that rise to within 8 feet of the surface. There are square shapes and formations that look like figures, such as the turtle and the giant face have convinced some that the formations are man-made.

The argument that the structures are man-made comes from the presence of right angles as part of the structure and the twin megaliths that appear to have been placed there.

Maasaki Kimura, who first discovered the site, says that he had found traces of animal drawings and people in the rocks and a symbol that he believes to be a character from the Kaida script.

Kimura claims that he can identify castles, roads, monuments, and even a stadium in the rock formations. If true this would be astonishing as some date the ruins back 10,000 years.

Others present more conservative estimates of 2,000 to 3,000 years, which would still be an astonishing find and would lead to questions about who could have constructed the ruins. Kimura theorized that the ruins could be part of the mythical lost continent of Mu.

On the other side of the debate are geologists who claim that all of the formations are naturally occurring. Yonaguni is found in an earthquake prone region and earthquakes have been known to cause sandstone to fracture in shapes similar to those found at the ruins.

They believe the roads are just channels in the rock and the vertical formations are just rocks that were horizontal but fell vertical when the rocks below them eroded. Others say it is unusual to see so many of these types of formations in such a small area but there is no definitive evidence that concludes the formations at Yonaguni are indeed man-made.

3. Gobekli Tepe

Gobekli Tepe is an archaeological site that has the potential to completely change how historians and archaeologists understand human history.

It challenges many of the assumptions that were made about hunter-gatherers and what led up to the transition to farming raising livestock. Gobekli Tepe is an ancient site located in Turkey and unlike other ruins on this list, there is no doubt that this one is man-made.

The site was discovered during a survey in 1963 conducted by Istanbul University and the University of Chicago, but it was mostly written off as little more than a medieval burial ground.

In 1994, Klaus Schmidt found the survey information on Gobekli Tepe and decided to take a closer look. Upon arriving at the mound, he recognized that the limestone rocks and slabs had the potential to be more than just gravestone but rather T-shaped pillars.

Excavation began the following year and it was not long before the team uncovered the massive pillars that had been buried beneath the surface.

The site was created by placing a ring of the massive seven-ton stone pillars on the ground. This ring would then be covered with dirt.

Another ring of stone pillars would be placed on top of the dirt and covered. This continued to create a gently sloping mound. The ruins are dated back 11,000 years and were created at a time when the region was only known to have hunter-gatherers.

A structure of this sort would have taken a large number of people working for an extended period. Bones found at the site confirm that whoever built the site did plenty of hunting of wild animals.

This challenges the notion that it was only after hunter-gatherers settled down that they had the manpower and skill to create large structures.

Interestingly enough it was just a few centuries after the construction of Gobekli Tepe that there is evidence of farming and domestication of grain and animals. For some this means that it was the need to create the structure that prompted the hunter-gatherers to settle down.

4. Nan Madol

Nan Madol is an ancient city built atop a coral reef in Micronesia. It is believed to be the only ancient city ever built upon a coral reef, but that is just the beginning of what makes this site fascinating.

To date, no one has figured out how the people who lived here were able to build it, what tools they used to do it, where they got the stone, or even how they were able to lift up the columns used to make the wall.

Construction on the city is believed to have started by the 8th or 9th century with the megalithic architecture starting in 1200 CE. The city was the ceremonial and political seat of the Saudeleur Dynasty which brought together the 25,000 people of Pohnpei.

Pohnpeian legend tells us that Nan Madol was built by twin sorcerers Olisihpa and Olosopha, who used a flying dragon to lift the massive stones.

A single cornerstone of Nandowas, the royal mortuary, is estimated to weigh 50 tons. All the stones moved to the site are estimated to be 750,000 metric tons. An impressive feat for people who had no pulleys, no levers and no metal.

Construction of the site took four centuries as it was built in stages but even over 400 years, 1,850 tons of rock would need to be moved and placed each year. Considering the population was only 25,000 that is a monumental undertaking that has yet to be explained.

The city itself was only meant to house 500 to 1000 people. It was a place of residence for the nobility and ruling chiefs. It was also where commoners who could not be trusted were forced to live so that they could always be watched.

There was no access to fresh water or food for the people of Nan Madol, it all had to be brought to the city by boat. The city became abandoned in the 17th century but was still used for religious ceremonies up until the late 19th century.

5. Puma Punku

Puma Punku is an ancient ruin found in Bolivia that dates back to the 6th century CE. It stands out for a number of reasons, both for its history and for its construction. The site features stonework that is unlike anything of the period.

Precise cuts were made to not only add detail to the ruins but also to precisely fit the massive stone blocks together.

The blocks were cut at exact angles so that they would fit together like a puzzle and not require the use of mortar of any kind. Even centuries later the rocks fit so tightly together that not even a razor blade can slip between them.

The intricate carvings on the rocks with straight lines and angles also stand out. There are no chisel marks of any kind and trying to recreate these cuts with the tools known to be available at the time has yet to be accomplished.

Moving the rocks to the site was even a feat as some weighed as much as 100 tons and were moved from a quarry 60 miles from the site. The ruins exist above the tree line so there were not even any trees to use to make rollers to move the massive blocks.

There is even contention over the dating of the ruins. Some put the ruins at over 10,000 years old, despite the carbon dating. When the Incas conquered the region in the 15th century, they incorporated Puma Punku and the rest of Tiwanku city into their empire.

Puma Punku became a huge part of the Incan culture because it was believed to be the place where Viracocha created the ancestral people of all ethnicities and sent them out to populate the world.

While it is not known for certain, it is theorized that Puma Punku served as a spiritual and religious center.

At its peak Puma Punku and Tiwanaku city supported 400,000 people and had a very extensive infrastructure. By 1000 CE the culture abruptly ended for reasons that are still unknown today.

6. Ggantija

The ruins at Ggantija are the second oldest religious structures in the world, second only to the ruins at Gobekli Tepe.

These temples date back more than 5,500 years which makes them older than the pyramids of Egypt. They are found on the Mediterranean island of Gozo. The temples have become a part of Gozitan folklore which says that the temples were built by giantess.

At the site, there are actually two complete temples and one temple that was abandoned before it was finished. The southernmost temple is the best preserve and the oldest dating back to 3,600 BCE.

The temple’s plan includes five huge apses that still have traces of the plaster that once covered them slinging between the rocks. The temple are arranged in a clover leaf shape. They consist of semi-circular apses connected by a passage down the middle. Today it is believed that the apses would have been covered by roofing.

The building of the temple predates the wheel and metal tools which makes the feat even more impressive. Small round stones were found at the site which have some archaeologists guessing that the small stones were used as ball bearings to transport the massive stones.

Even though the site was discovered in the 17th century very little was done on the site until 1827 when it was cleared of debris.

After the clearing of debris, the site fell into decay and was kept in private hands until 1933 when it was expropriated for public benefit, finally allowing the site to be fully excavated, preserved and studied.

There is still very little known about the site. Findings of animal bones in the apses suggest that it may have been used for animal sacrifice.

A large stone at the entrance with a recess might have been used as a ritual ablution station for purification before anyone could enter the complex. The temple does face to the southeast and the equinox sunrise which adds to the belief it was a religious site.

7. Menorcan Taulas

On the island of Menorca stands a monument with taulas as tall as 3.7 meters. The taulas date back thousands of years to between 1000 BCE and 300 BCE. There is very little known about them or how they were created.

There are numerous theories about the site such as that the stones had religious or astronomical significance. Archaeologist Michael Hoskin has posited the idea that the stones were part of an ancient healing cult.

The island of Menorca is a very small rocky island and it is only 50 km across at its widest point. There are 35 separate stone megaliths found on the small island which makes it a place of great interest for archaeologists.

What continues to intrigue archaeologists is that the stone structures look very similar to those found at Stonehenge in England and Gobekli Tepe in Turkey.

The taulas were built by the Talayotic people who lived on the island since 2000 BCE and thrived on the tiny island until the Romans arrived in 125 BCE.

The people who built the stone megaliths left behind no documentation or information about why they were built which leaves very little for archaeologists to go on. Even the name “taulas” means table in the island’s Catalan language and references how the stone appeared before excavation.

Originally all that could be seen of the megaliths were the flat tops which appeared like tables to the locals.

Some suggest that the taulas were the representation of the ancient God much like the cross is to Christians.

A bronze bull statue found at the site have led some to wonder if the taulas are meant to represent the face of a bull and that the ancients who built the site worshiped a bull god.

Another theory is that the temple was built to be oriented to the Centaurus constellation which support the theory that it was built for the healing cult.

8. Longyou Caves

The Longyou Caves are found near the village of Shiyan Beicun in the Zhejiang province in China. They are believed to date all the way back to 212 BCE during the Qin dynasty. What makes the caves particularly remarkable is that it would have taken a monumental effort to create them but there is no record at all of their construction or existence.

The caves were first found in 1992 and that is the first that anyone had ever heard of the mysterious caves. Since the initial discovery 24 caves have been found and one of them is now a tourist attraction.

The caves are located at Phoenix Hill. They are carved into sandstone and are massive for being completely man-made caves. There average floor space of the caves is 1,000 square meters (11,000 square feet). The height of the caves is also substantial reached up to 30 meters (98 feet) and the total covered area is 30,000 square meters (320,000 square feet).

Throughout the caves are pillars that are evenly spaced in order to support the ceiling. The walls, ceiling and columns are decorated with parallel chisel marks. There are also carvings that depict animals such as a horse, fish and bird.

It has been estimated that just to dig out the tunnels would take 1,000 people working around the clock for six years. Added to that the care and precision of the sculpting and the carvings inside the caves would add years to its construction.

The caves are also remarkably preserved. There is no sign of rubble or debris and the carvings are still completely clear and precise. Despite the excellent condition of the caves there remains no evidence of who could have built them.

Only someone like an emperor could have commissioned such a massive project but then there is no explanation for why there would be no record of such a project in the historical records. There is also no explanation for why the caves were built or what they were used for.

Related: 10 Amazing Caves of the Ancient World

9. Underground Italian Pyramids at Orvieto

The Italian city of Orvieto has long been known as a place to view medieval ruins but just recently it has become the focus of archaeologists for another reason. In 2011 it was discovered that there are ruins underneath the city that date back to the Etruscans.

The Etruscans were a sophisticated culture that existed in Italy around 900 BCE. The society would eventually blend into the Roman empire which makes it harder for archaeologists to fully understand their culture today.

Archeologists have been able to excavate 15 meters (49 feet) down to uncover underground pyramids. The site had been intentionally backfilled for reasons that have yet to be understood.

The fill material has been a boon for finding artifacts from the 5th century BCE when the pyramids must have been filled.

What has been of particular interest to archeologists is the number of Etruscan language inscriptions that have been found, more than 150. This could lead to a greater understanding of the Etruscans.

It is believed that there are at least five pyramids below the city but only two of them have started to be excavated.

The process is very slow and painstaking as artifacts need to be preserved and the site itself must be protected as archeologists dig further down. There are still no answers as to the purpose of the pyramids. It is clear that it was not a quarry because the walls are too smooth and precise.

Researchers also do not know why the pyramids were built or what they were used for. Theories about whether they are religious structures or tombs continue but there has been no definitive evidence to point in either direction as of.

Claudio Bizzarri who works at the site believes that they will only find the answer at the bottom of the caverns but no one knows just how far down they will have to dig to get there.

Aftershocks Of Iran’s 1953 Coup Still Felt Around The World, 65 Years Later

 

9AEF0FA0-3C56-4AC1-A3A9-327C9854172E_w650_r1_s

Sixty five years ago, Iranian military officers backed by U.S. and British intelligence agencies initiated a coup d’etat whose aftershocks can still be felt around the globe.

The coup toppled Iran’s first democratically elected government and its popular prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, and is widely credited with fueling the hostility against the West that culminated decades later with the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

But the events that played out over a five-day period from August 15-19 reverberated far beyond Iran’s borders. The coup altered the geopolitical landscape in the Middle East, became a blueprint for a succession of covert U.S. efforts to foster coups and destabilize governments in the ’50s, and provided the Soviet Union with ideological ammunition during the Cold War.

The theory, disputed by some, was that the CIA and Britain’s MI6 masterminded the coup to maintain control over Iranian oil and to prevent Tehran from falling under Soviet influence after World War II.

Mossadegh played a prominent role in Iran’s 1951 move to nationalize its oil industry, which had long been controlled by Britain. The decision led to a worldwide boycott of Iranian oil intended to rein in Mossadegh’s government, but when that failed a secret plan was devised to oust him.

The replacement of Mossadegh with a handpicked prime minister, General Fazlollah Zahedi, opened the way for Iran’s relatively weak shah to gain nearly absolute power within Iran’s constitutional monarchy.

With strong military and economic backing from Washington, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi would take on the role of autocrat until the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

As for Mossadegh himself, he was arrested and convicted of treason, along with scores of government officials, after the coup. He served three years in jail before living under house arrest until his death in 1967.

Lingering Coup

Stephen Kinzer, the author of “All The Shah’s Men: An American Coup And The Roots of Middle East Terror,” sees the coup as a short-term victory for Washington. But in the long-term, he says, Washington’s intervention in Iran would prove detrimental to its standing in Iran.

Mossadegh was named "Time" magazine's Person of the Year in 1953.

Mossadegh was named “Time” magazine’s Person of the Year in 1953.

“From the perspective of history, the coup was not successful for the United States,” Kinzer says. “The 1979 revolution was a long-term effect of the increasing repression from the shah, who came to power as a result of the coup. That Islamic Revolution brought to power a fanatically anti-American regime that has spent more than 30 years working to undermine American interests all over the world.”

Sixty years on, the coup continues to loom large in Iran’s national psyche and remains a thorn in the country’s relations with the West.

Mark Gasiorowski, author of “Mohammad Mosaddeq And The 1953 Coup In Iran,” says the removal of Mossadegh paved the way for two political trends — radical Islamists led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and radical leftists in the form of the militant Mujahedin-e Khalq — to gain ground in the decades after the coup.

“What the coup did was to take out the moderate, secular, element of Iranian politics and enabled radical Islamists and radical leftists to emerge as key opposition factions in place of it [in the 1960s and ’70s],” Gasiorowski says. “The coup had this big impact of essentially eliminating this pro-democracy faction and that had a very important impact on Iranian politics in the intervening years.”

Regional Repurcussions

Gasiorowksi, a professor of political science at Tulane University in New Orleans, says that to many in Iran the coup proved Washington’s duplicity. The United States, which portrayed itself as the guardian of freedom, was seen as resorting to nefarious means to get rid of a democratically elected government to suit its own strategic interests.

Gasiorowski says the ’53 coup had major regional repercussions as well. He says Iran became a key part of the U.S. strategy of containing the Soviet Union in the region, thereby further underpinning the Middle East as a key battleground of the Cold War.

Had the Iran operation not succeeded, the idea of covert operations that became such an integral part of American foreign policy during the 1950s and beyond might not have seemed so appealing.
Author Stephen Kinzer

“The coup really reinforced the Cold War polarization of the region,” he says. “Of course, that’s the reason the United States did it. They did because they were afraid of communist influence in Iran, and they wanted to make Iran, along with Turkey and Pakistan, into a battleship to oppose the Soviet Union.”

In response, the Soviet Union escalated its own activities in the region, providing aid and arms to governments in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Libya, and a host of other states in the Middle East and North Africa.

Kinzer, an award-winning journalist who teaches at Boston University, says the Iranian coup was a milestone for the upstart CIA, which was established in 1947. He says the 1953 coup, which was the agency’s first major successful overthrow of a foreign government, became a template for the future.

“Had the Iran operation not succeeded, the idea of covert operations that became such an integral part of American foreign policy during the 1950s and beyond might not have seemed so appealing,” he says.

Following the 1953 coup in Iran, the CIA orchestrated the successful Guatemalan coup one year later, failed to oust Syria’s president in 1957; and suffered a black eye backing the unsuccessful military invasion of Cuba in 1961.

For decades, the United States denied playing any part in the Iranian coup. But that position ended in 2009 when President Barack Obama acknowledged Washington’s role.

In Britain, meanwhile, the government-funded BBC provided details in 2011 of how it broadcast anti-Mossadegh programs to undermine his government.

Secret files and memoirs of CIA operatives show that the CIA played a pivotal role in initiating and planning Operation Ajax, as the covert operation to oust Mossadegh was called.

 

https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-coup-mossadegh-cia-60th-anniversary/25076552.html

The Complete History of the Freemasonry and the Creation of the New World Order

 

 

The creation of the New World Order (NWO) agenda was put in motion by the infamous character, Mayer Amschel Rothschild, the one who decided to control the entire planet by any means necessary.

Of course, this meant: deception, control, financial enslavement, blackmail and murder… but also far graver things, like: wars, famine and depopulation… a genocide unlike any other before it.

If you want to better understand just how powerful and black-hearted the Rothschild family is, then you must read their complete history HERE.

They are the richest clan in the world, and their empire was built on mountains of bones and sufferance.

1773 – Mayer Amschel Rothschild assembles twelve of his most influential friends, and convinces them that if they all pool their resources together, they can rule the world. This meeting takes place in Frankfurt, Germany.

Rothschild also informs his friends that he has found the perfect candidate, an individual of incredible intellect and ingenuity, to lead the organization he has planned – Adam Weishaupt.

May 1, 1776 – Adam Weishaupt (code named Spartacus) establishes a secret society called the Order of the Illuminati. Weishaupt is the Professor of Canon Law at the University of Ingolstadt in Bavaria, part of Germany. The Illuminati seek to establish a New World Order.

Their objectives are as follows:

1) Abolition of all ordered governments 
2) Abolition of private property 
3) Abolition of inheritance 
4) Abolition of patriotism 
5) Abolition of the family 
6) Abolition of religion 
7) Creation of a world government 

July, 1782 – The Order of the Illuminati joins forces with Freemasonry at the Congress of Wilhelmsbad. The Comte de Virieu, an attendee at the conference, comes away visibly shaken. When questioned about the “tragic secrets” he brought back with him, he replies:

“I will not confide them to you. I can only tell you that all this is very much more serious than you think.”

From this time on, according to his biographer, “the Comte de Virieu could only speak of Freemasonry with horror.”

The insignia of the Order of the Illuminati first appeared on the reverse side of U.S. one-dollar bills in 1933. One can read, at the base of the 13-story pyramid, the year 1776 (MDCCLXVI in Roman numerals). The eye radiating in all directions is the “all-spying eye” that symbolizes the terroristic, Gestapo-like, agency set up by Weishaupt.

The Latin words “ANNUIT COEPTIS” mean “our enterprise (conspiracy) has been crowned with success.” Below, “NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM” explains the nature of the enterprise: a “New Social Order” or a “New World Order”.

1785 – An Illuminati courier named Lanze is struck by lightning, and killed while traveling by horseback through the town of Ratisbon. When Bavarian officials examine the contents of his saddle bags, they discover the existence of the Order of the Illuminati, and find plans detailing the coming French Revolution.

The Bavarian Government attempts to alert the government of France of impending disaster, but the French Government fails to heed this warning. Bavarian officials arrest all members of the Illuminati they can find, but Weishaupt and others have gone underground, and cannot be found.

1796 – Freemasonry becomes a major issue in the presidential election in the United States. John Adams wins the election by opposing Masonry, and his son, John Quincy Adams, warns of the dire threat to the nation posed by the Masonic Lodges:

“I do conscientiously and sincerely believe that the Order of Freemasonry, if not the greatest, is one of the greatest moral and political evils under which the Union is now laboring.”

1797 – John Robison, Professor of Natural History at Edinburgh University in Scotland, publishes a book entitled “Proofs of a Conspiracy” in which he reveals that Adam Weishaupt had attempted to recruit him. He exposes the diabolical aims of the Illuminati to the world.

1821 – George W. F. Hegel formulates what is called the Hegelian dialectic – the process by which Illuminati objectives are achieved. According to the Hegelian dialectic, thesis plus antithesis equals synthesis. In other words, first you foment a crisis.

Then there is an enormous public outcry that something must be done about the problem. So you offer a solution that brings about the changes you really wanted all along, but which people would have been unwilling to accept initially.

1828 – Mayer Amschel Rothschild, who finances the Illuminati, expresses his utter contempt for national governments which attempt to regulate International Bankers such as him:

“Allow me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who writes the laws.”

1848 — Moses Mordecai Marx Levy, alias Karl Marx, writes “The Communist Manifesto.” Marx is a member of an Illuminati front organization called the League of the Just.

He not only advocates economic and political changes; he advocates moral and spiritual changes as well. He believes the family should be abolished, and that all children should be raised by a central authority. He expresses his attitude toward God by saying:

“We must war against all prevailing ideas of religion, of the state, of country, of patriotism. The idea of God is the keynote of a perverted civilization. It must be destroyed.”

Jan. 22, 1870 – In a letter to Italian revolutionary leader Giuseppe Mazzini, Albert Pike – Sovereign Grand Commander of the Southern Jurisdiction of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry – announces the establishment of a secret society within a secret society:

“We must create a super rite, which will remain unknown, to which we will call those Masons of high degree of whom we shall select. With regard to our brothers in Masonry, these men must be pledges to the strictest secrecy. Through this supreme rite, we will govern all Freemasonry which will become the one international center, the more powerful because its direction will be unknown.”

This ultra-secret organization is called The New and Reformed Paladian Rite. (This is why about 95% of the men involved in Masonry don’t have a clue as to what the objectives of the organization actually are. They are under the delusion that it’s just a fine community organization doing good works.)

1875 – Russian occultist Helena Petrovna Blavatsky founds the Theosophical Society. Madame Blavatsky claims that Tibetan holy men in the Himilayas, whom she refers to as the Masters of Wisdom, communicated with her in London by telepathy. She insists that the Christians have it all backwards – that Satan is good, and God is evil. She writes:

“The Christians and scientists must be made to respect their Indian betters. The Wisdom of India, her philosophy and achievement, must be made known in Europe and America.”

1884 – The Fabian Society is founded in Great Britain to promote Socialism. The Fabian Society takes its name from the Roman General Fabius Maximus, who fought Hannibal’s army in small debilitating skirmishes, rather than attempting one decisive battle.

July 14, 1889 – Albert Pike issues instructions to the 23 Supreme Councils of the world. He reveals who is the true object of Masonic worship:

“To you, Sovereign Grand Instructors General, we say this, that you may repeat it to the Brethren of the 32nd, 31st and 30th degrees: The Masonic religion should be, by all of us initiates of the high degrees, maintained in the purity of the Luciferian doctrine.”

1890-1896 – Cecil Rhodes, an enthusiastic student of John Ruskin, is Prime Minister of South Africa, a British colony at the time. He is able to exploit and control the gold and diamond wealth of South Africa.

He works to bring all the habitable portions of the world under the domination of a ruling elite. To that end, he uses a portion of his vast wealth to establish the famous Rhodes Scholarships.

1893 – The Theosophical Society sponsors a Parliament of World Religions held in Chicago. The purpose of the convention is to introduce Hindu and Buddhist concepts, such as belief in reincarnation, to the West.

1911 – The Socialist Party of Great Britain publishes a pamphlet entitled “Socialism and Religion” in which they clearly state their position on Christianity:

“It is therefore a profound truth that Socialism is the natural enemy of religion. A Christian Socialist is in fact an anti-Socialist. Christianity is the antithesis of Socialism.”

1912 – Colonel Edward Mandell House, a close advisor of President Woodrow Wilson, publishes “Phillip Dru: Administrator”, in which he promotes “socialism as dreamed of by Karl Marx.”

Feb. 3, 1913 – The 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, making it possible for the Federal Government to impose a progressive income tax, is ratified. Plank #2 of “The Communist Manifesto” had called for a progressive income tax. (In Canada, the income tax is introduced in 1917, as a “temporary measure” to finance the war effort.)

1913 – President Woodrow Wilson publishes “The New Freedom” in which he reveals:

“Since I entered politics, I have chiefly had men’s views confided to me privately. Some of the biggest men in the U.S., in the field of commerce and manufacturing, are afraid of somebody, are afraid of something. They know that there is a power somewhere so organized, so subtle, so watchful, so interlocked, so complete, so pervasive, that they had better not speak above their breath when they speak in condemnation of it.”

Dec. 23, 1913 – The Federal Reserve (neither federal nor a reserve – it’s a privately owned institution) is created. It was planned at a secret meeting in 1910 on Jekyl Island, Georgia, by a group of bankers and politicians, including Col. House.

This transfers the power to create money from the American Government to a private group of bankers. The Federal Reserve Act is hastily passed just before the Christmas break. Congressman Charles A. Lindbergh Sr. (father of the famed aviator) warns:

“This act establishes the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President signs this act the invisible government by the money power, proven to exist by the Money Trust Investigation, will be legalized.”

1916 – Three years after signing the Federal Reserve Act into law, President Woodrow Wilson observes:

“I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world. No longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.”

1917 – With aid from Financiers in New York City and London, V. I. Lenin is able to overthrow the government of Russia. Lenin later comments on the apparent contradiction of the links between prominent capitalists and Communism:

“There also exists another alliance – at first glance a strange one, a surprising one – but if you think about it, in fact, one which is well grounded and easy to understand. This is the alliance between our Communist leaders and your capitalists.”

(Remember the Hegelian dialectic?)

May 30, 1919 – Prominent British and American personalities establish the Royal Institute of International Affairs in England and the Institute of International Affairs in the U.S. at a meeting arranged by Col. House; attended by various Fabian socialists, including noted economist John Maynard Keynes.

1920 – Britain’s Winston Churchill recognizes the connection between the Illuminati and the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. He observes:

“From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, to those of Trotsky, Bela Kun, Rosa Luxembourg, and Emma Goldman, this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.

It played a definitely recognizable role in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the nineteenth century, and now at last this band of extra- ordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads, and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.”

1920-1931 – Louis T. McFadden is Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Curency. Concerning the Federal Reserve, Congressman McFadden notes:

“When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by International Bankers and international industrialists acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure.

Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers, but the truth is – the Fed has usurped the Government. It controls everything here, and it controls all our foreign relations. It makes and breaks governments at will.” Concerning the Great Depression and the country’s acceptance of FDR’s New Deal, he asserts: “It was no accident. It was a carefully contrived occurrence. The International Bankers sought to bring about a condition of despair here so they might emerge as the rulers of us all.”

1921 – Col. House reorganizes the American branch of the Institute of International Affairs into theCouncil on Foreign Relations (CFR). (For the past 60 years, 80% of the top positions in every administration – whether Democrat or Republican – have been occupied by members of this organization.)

December 15, 1922 – The CFR endorses World Government in its magazine “Foreign Affairs.” Author Philip Kerr states:

“Obviously there is going to be no peace nor prosperity for mankind as long as the earth remains divided into 50 or 60 independent states, until some kind of international system is created. The real problem today is that of world government.”

1928 – “The Open Conspiracy: Blue Prints for a World Revolution” by H. G. Wells is published. A former Fabian socialist, Wells writes:

“The political world of the Open Conspiracy must weaken, efface, incorporate, and supersede existing governments. The Open Conspiracy is the natural inheritor of socialist and communist enthusiasms; it may be in control of Moscow before it is in control of New York. The character of the Open Conspiracy will now be plainly displayed. It will be a world religion.”

1933 – “The Shape of Things to Come” by H. G. Wells is published. Wells predicts a second world war around 1940, originating from a German-Polish dispute. After 1945, there would be an increasing lack of public safety in “criminally infected” areas.

The plan for the “Modern World State” would succeed on its third attempt, and come out of something that occurred in Basra, Iraq. The book also states:

“Although world government had been plainly coming for some years, although it had been endlessly feared and murmured against, it found no opposition anywhere.”

Nov. 21, 1933 – In a letter to Col. Edward M. House, President Franklin Roosevelt writes:

“The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government since the days of Andrew Jackson.”

March 1942 – An article in “TIME” magazine chronicles the Federal Council of Churches (which later becomes the National Council of Churches, a part of the World Council of Churches) lending its weight to efforts to establish a global authority.

A meeting of the top officials of the council comes out in favor of:

1) a world government of delegated powers;
2) strong immediate limitations on national sovereignty;
3) international control of all armies and navies.

Representatives (375 of them) of 30-some denominations assert that “a new order of economic life is both imminent and imperative” – a new order that is sure to come either “through voluntary cooperation within the framework of democracy or through explosive revolution.”

June 28, 1945 – U.S. President Harry Truman endorses world government in a speech:

“It will be just as easy for nations to get along in a republic of the world as it is for us to get along in a republic of the United States.”

October 24, 1945 – The United Nations Charter becomes effective. Also on October 24, Senator Glen Taylor (D-Idaho) introduces Senate Resolution 183, calling upon the U.S. Senate to go on record as favoring creation of a world republic, including an international police force.

Feb. 7, 1950 – International financier and CFR member James Warburg tells a Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee:

“We shall have world government whether or not you like it – by conquest or consent.”

Feb. 9, 1950 – The Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee introduces Senate Concurrent Resolution #66 which begins:

“Whereas, in order to achieve universal peace and justice, the present Charter of the United Nations should be changed to provide a true world government constitution.”

1952 – The World Association of Parliamentarians for World Government draws up a map designed to illustrate how foreign troops would occupy and police the six regions into which the United States and Canada will be divided as part of their world-government plan.

1954 – Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands establishes the Bilderbergers: international politicians and bankers who meet secretly on an annual basis.

1961 – The U.S. State Department issues Document 7277, entitled “Freedom From War: The U.S. Program for General and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World.”

It details a three-stage plan to disarm all nations and arm the U.N. with the final stage in which “no state would have the military power to challenge the progressively strengthened U.N. Peace Force.”

1966 – Professor Carroll Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor at Georgetown University, authors a massive volume entitled “Tragedy and Hope” in which he states:

“There does exist and has existed for a generation, an international network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so.

I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims, and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies, but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”

April 1972 – In his keynote address to the Association for Childhood Education International, Chester M. Pierce, Professor of Education and Psychiatry in the Faculty of Medicine at Harvard University, proclaims:

“Every child in America entering school at the age of five is insane because he comes to school with certain allegiances toward our founding fathers, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being. It’s up to you, teachers, to make all of these sick children well by creating the international child of the future.”

July 1973 – International banker and staunch member of the subversive Council on Foreign Relations, David Rockefeller, founds a new organization called the Trilateral Commission, of which the official aim is “to harmonize the political, economic, social, and cultural relations between the three major economic regions in the world” (hence the name “Trilateral”).

He invites future President Jimmy Carter to become one of the founding members. Zbigniew Brzezinski is the organization’s first director.

There are three major economic areas in the world: Europe, North America, and the Far East (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc.).

If, under the pretext of having to join forces to be able to face economic competition with the two other economic regions, the member countries of each of these three regions decide to merge into one single country, forming three super-States, then the one-world government will be almost achieved.

Like Fabian socialists, they achieve their ultimate goal (a world government) step by step.

This aim is almost achieved in Europe with the Single European Act (Maastricht Treaty) that was implemented in 1993, requiring all the member countries of the European Community to abolish their trade barriers, and to hand over their monetary and fiscal policies to the technocrats of the European Commission in Brussels, Belgium.

In January, 2002, all these European countries abandoned their national currencies to share only one common currency, the “Euro”. Moreover, the Nice Treaty removed more powers from countries to give them over to the European Commission.

What begun innocently in 1952 as the EEC (European Economic Community, a common authority to regulate the coal and steel industry among European nations), finally turned into a European super-state.

Jean Monnet, a French socialist economist and founder of the EEC, had this in mind when he said: “Political union inevitably follows economic union.” He also said in 1948:

“The creation of a United Europe must be regarded as an essential step towards the creation of a United World.”

As regards the North American area, the merger of its member countries is well under way with the passage of free trade between Canada and the U.S.A., and then Mexico.

In the next few years, this free-trade agreement is supposed to include also all of South and Central America, with a single currency for them all.

Mexico’s President Vucente Fox said on May 6, 2002, in Madrid:

“Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish with the United States, but also with Canada, our other regional partner, an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union.”

1973 – The Club of Rome, a U.N. operative, issues a report entitled “Regionalized and Adaptive Model of the Global World System.” This report divides the entire world into ten kingdoms.

1979 – FEMA, which stands for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is given huge powers. It has the power, in case of “national emergency”, to suspend laws, move entire populations, arrest and detain citizens without a warrant, and hold them without trial.

It can seize property, food supplies, transportation systems, and can suspend the Constitution.

Not only is it the most powerful entity in the United States, but it was not even created under Constitutional law by the Congress. It was a product of a Presidential Executive Order.

An Executive Order becomes law simply by a signature of the U.S. President; it does not even have to be approved by the Representatives or Senators in the Congress.

A state of “national emergency” could be a terrorist attack, a natural disaster, or a stock market crash, for example. Here are just a few Executive Orders associated with FEMA that would suspend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

These Executive Orders have been on record for nearly 30 years, and could be enacted by the stroke of a Presidential pen:

# 10995: Right to seize all communications media in the United States.

# 10997: Right to seize all electric power, fuels and minerals, both public and private.

# 10999: Right to seize all means of transportation, including personal vehicles of any kind, and total control of highways, seaports, and waterways.

# 11000: Right to seize any and all American people and divide up families in order to create work forces to be transferred to any place the Government sees fit.

# 11001: Right to seize all health, education and welfare facilities, both public and private.

# 11002: Right to force registration of all men, women, and children in the United States.

# 11003: Right to seize all air space, airports, and aircraft.

# 11004: Right to seize all housing and finance authorities in order to establish “Relocation Designated Areas”, and to force abandonment of areas classified as “unsafe”.

#  11005: Right to seize all railroads, inland waterways, and storage facilities, both public and private.

# 11921: Authorizes plans to establish Government control of wages and salaries, credit and the flow of money in U.S. financial institutions.

1991 – President George Bush Sr. praises the New World Order in a State of the Union Message:

“What is at stake is more than one small country; it is a big idea – a new world order… to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind… based on shared principles and the rule of law… The illumination of a thousand points of light… The winds of change are with us now.”

(Theosophist Alice Bailey used that very same expression – “points of light” – in describing the process of occult enlightenment.)

June, 1991 – World leaders are gathered for another closed door meeting of the Bilderberg Society in Baden Baden, Germany. While at that meeting, David Rockefeller said in a speech:

“We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries.”

Oct. 29, 1991 – David Funderburk, former U.S. Ambassador to Romania, tells a North Carolina audience:

“George Bush has been surrounding himself with people who believe in one-world government. They believe that the Soviet system and the American system are converging.”

May 21, 1992 – In an address to the Bilderberger organization meeting in Evian, France, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger declares:

“Today Americans would be outraged if U.N. troops entered Los Angeles to restore order; tomorrow they will be grateful! This is especially true if they were told there was an outside threat from beyond, whether real or promulgated, that threatened our very existence.

It is then that all peoples of the world will plead with world leaders to deliver them from this evil. The one thing every man fears is the unknown. When presented with this scenario, individual rights will be willingly relinquished for the guarantee of their well being granted to them by their world government.”

July 20, 1992 – “TIME” magazine publishes “The Birth of the Global Nation,” by Strobe Talbott, Rhodes Scholar, roommate of Bill Clinton at Oxford University, CFR Director and Trilateralist (and appointed Deputy Secretary of State by President Clinton), in which he writes:

“Nationhood as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single global authority… All countries are basically social arrangements… No matter how permanent or even sacred they may seem at any one time, in fact they are all artificial and temporary… Perhaps national sovereignty wasn’t such a great idea after all… But it has taken the events in our own wondrous and terrible century to clinch the case for world government.”

1993 – A second Parliament of World Religions is held in Chicago on the 100th anniversary of the first. Like the first convention, this one seeks to join all the religions of the world into “one harmonious whole,” but it wants to make them “merge back into their original element.”

Traditional beliefs of monotheistic religions such as Christianity are considered incompatible with individual “en- lightenment”, and must be drastically altered.

July 18, 1993 – CFR member and Trilateralist Henry Kissinger writes in the “Los Angeles Times” concerning NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement):

“What Congress will have before it is not a conventional trade agreement but the architecture of a new international system…a first step toward a new world order.”

1994 – In the Human Development Report, published by the UN Development Program, there was a section called “Global Governance for the 21st Century.”

The administrator for this program was appointed by Bill Clinton. His name is James Gustave Speth. The opening sentence of the report said:

“Mankind’s problems can no longer be solved by national government. What is needed is a world government. This can best be achieved by strengthening the United Nations system.”

May 3, 1994 – President Bill Clinton signs Presidential Decision Directive 25, and then declares it classified so the American people can’t see what it says.

(The summary of PDD-25 issued to members of Congress tells us that it authorizes the President to turn over control of U.S. military units to U.N. command.)

Sept. 23, 1994 – The globalists realize that as more and more people begin to wake up to what’s going on, they have only a limited amount of time in which to implement their policies. Speaking at the United Nations Ambassadors’ dinner, David Rockefeller remarks:

“This present window of opportunity, during which a truly peaceful and interdependent world order might be built, will not be open for too long… We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis, and the nations will accept the New World Order.”

March 1995 – U.N. delegates meet in Copenhagen, Denmark, to discuss various methods for imposing global taxes on the people of the world.

Sept. 1995 – “Popular Science” magazine describes a top secret U.S. Navy installation called HAARP (High-Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) in the state of Alaska.

This project beams powerful radio energy into the earth’s upper atmosphere. One of the goals of the program is to develop the capability of “manipulating local weather” using the techniques developed by Bernard Eastlund.

(The program has been underway since 1990.)

September 27, 1995 – The State of the World Forum took place in the fall of this year, sponsored by the Gorbachev Foundation located at the Presidio in San Francisco.

Foundation President Jim Garrison chairs the meeting of who’s-who from around the world, including Margaret Thatcher, Maurice Strong, George Bush, Mikhail Gorbachev, and others.

Conversation centers around the oneness of mankind and the coming global government. However, the term “global gov- ernance” is now used in place of “new world order” since the latter has become a political liability, being a lightning rod for opponents of global government.

1996 – The United Nations’ 420-page report “Our Global Neighborhood” is published. It outlines a plan for “global governance,” calling for an international “Conference on Global Governance” in 1998 for the purpose of submitting to the world the necessary treaties and agreements for ratification by the year 2000.

2003 – The world is on the verge of another global war, the “state of emergency” looked for by the one-worlders to impose martial law and the universal microchip under the skin… But with the global shift in awareness, they will not have the last word!

U.S. Civil War: The US-Russian Alliance that Saved the Union

extremes-meet-67b5a-0c611.jpg

At the point of maximum war danger between Great Britain and the United States, the London satirical publication Punch published a vicious caricature of US President Abraham Lincoln and Russian Tsar Alexander II, demonizing the two friends as bloody oppressors. 

From Punch, October 24, 1863.

 “Who was our friend when the world was our foe.” – 
Oliver Wendell Holmes, 1871

One hundred fifty years after the attack on Fort Sumter, the international strategic dimension of the American Civil War represents a much-neglected aspect of Civil War studies. In offering a survey of some of the main issues involved, one feels required to justify the importance of the topic. It is indeed true that, as things turned out, the international strategic dimension of the 1861-65 conflict was of secondary importance. However, it was an aspect that repeatedly threatened to thrust itself into the center of the war, transforming the entire nature of the conflict and indeed threatening to overturn the entire existing world system. The big issue was always a British-French attack on the United States to preserve the Confederate States of America. This is certainly how Union and Confederate leaders viewed the matter, and how some important people in London, St. Petersburg, Paris, and Berlin did as well.

The result is that today, the international dimension is consistently underestimated: even a writer as sophisticated as Richard Franklin Bensel can repeatedly insist in his recent Yankee Leviathan that the US development over the decade before the Civil War was “acted out in a vacuum,” while asserting that “the relative isolation of the United States on the North American continent contributed to the comparative unimportance of nationalism in American life prior to secession.” [1] Reports of American isolation, however, were already exaggerated in the era of a British fleet that could summer in the Baltic and winter in the Caribbean.

Views of the domestic side of the Civil War have often been colored by the sectional loyalties of the authors. In the diplomatic sphere, the international alignments of 1861-65 have been experienced as something of an embarrassment or aberration by American scholars of the twentieth century, at least partly because they inverted the alliance patterns that emerged after 1900. In 1865, the United States was friendly to Russia and Prussia, and resentful and suspicious in regard to Britain and France, whose governments had sympathized with and supported the Confederacy. The general tendency of US historians in 1915 or 1945 or 1952 seems to have been to put the best possible face on things, or, better yet, turn to another area of inquiry. As the Civil War centennial approached, the historian Allan Nevins addressed this issue rather directly in a chapter of his 1960 “War for the Union”. Here he dramatically evoked the immense worldwide significance of Civil War diplomacy in a fascinating paragraph to which Howard Jones calls attention. Nevins, horrified by the idea of US war with Britain, wrote:

It is hardly too much to say that the future of the world as we know it was at stake. A conflict between Great Britain and America would have crushed all hope of the mutual understanding and growing collaboration which led up to the practical alliance of 1917-18, and the outright alliance which began in 1941. It would have made vastly more difficult if not impossible the coalition which defeated the Central Powers in the First World War, struck down Nazi tyranny in the Second World War, and established the unbreakable front of Western freedom against Communism. Anglo-French intervention in the American conflict would probably have confirmed the splitting and consequent weakening of the United States; might have given French power in Mexico a long lease, with the ruin of the Monroe Doctrine; and would perhaps have led to the Northern conquest of Canada. The forces of political liberalism in the modern world would have received a disastrous setback. No battle, not Gettysburg, not the Wilderness, was more important than the context waged in the diplomatic arena and the forum of public opinion. The popular conception of this contest is at some points erroneous, and at a few grossly fallacious…. (Nevins II, 242)

While Nevins does make the point that these questions are important, he feels that many accounts are unfair to Lord Russell, the British foreign secretary, and to Prime Minister Palmerston. Nevins sees Palmerston as a man of peace, an attitude which is impossible to square with the bellicose imperialist bluster of Lord Pam’s civis romanus suminterventionism. Between about 1848 and 1863, the British Empire was at the aggressive height of its world power, had launched attacks on China, India, and Russia, and in the 1860s was backing Napoleon III’s adventure in Mexico and Spain’s in Santo Domingo, both direct challenges to the US Monroe Doctrine. This is a context which often gets lost. Otherwise, Nevins’ assertion that Britain “did not like other nations to fight” turns reality on its head; the greatest art of the Foreign Office was that of divide and conquer. Finally, Nevins pays no attention to the deterrent effect of Russia’s refusal to countenance any European intervention against the Union.

Like so many other historians, Nevins would seem to have allowed the needs of the Cold War present to shape his view of the past — the tendency against which Sir Herbert Butterfield, long Professor of Modern History at Cambridge, warned in the 1930s when we wrote that “it is part and parcel of the Whig interpretation of history that it studies the past with reference to the present….” [2] In Butterfield’s view, this is a method which “has often been an obstruction to historical understanding because it has been taken to mean the study of the past with direct and perpetual reference to the present….it might be called the historian’s ‘pathetic fallacy.’” (Butterfield 11, 30) The following comments are inspired by the conviction that Union diplomacy was Lincoln’s diplomacy, and that it offers valuable lessons for today.

As far as I have been able to determine, there exists no modern exhaustive study of Civil War diplomacy. Of the books I have seen, D. P. Crook comes closest. Crook’s 1974 work is a very serviceable and reliable survey of the entire topic. Crook naturally places US-British relations at the center of his account, focusing on the three crises when UK and/or French intervention against the Union was threatened: the Trent affair of late 1861-1862; the push for intervention by Lord Russell and Gladstone after Antietam in October-November 1862; and the mid-1863 Laird rams/Polish rebellion flare-up (which Howard Jones, by contrast, omits from consideration). For Crook, Secretary of State Seward is the center of attention on the Union side, rather than Lincoln. But Lincoln repeatedly had to override Seward, as in the case of the Secretary of State’s 1861 reckless “foreign war panacea” proposal for a US war against France and Spain (probably involving Britain as well), which Lincoln wisely rejected in favor of his “one war at a time” policy. Here Bensel is of the opinion that Seward’s proposal “revealed the new secretary of state’s profound awareness of the narrow basis of northern nationalism during the early months of the Lincoln administration.” (Bensel 12n) Another view is that Seward was looking for a means of saving face while permitting the south to secede. Seward’s panacea theory can also be seen as a flight forward, a kind of political nervous breakdown. Crook has almost nothing to say about the pro-Union role of Prussia (which surely dissuaded Napoleon III from greater activism), nor about the Holy See, where Pius IX – who had lost his moorings after having been driven out of Rome by Mazzini in 1849 — was pro-Confederate and highly controversial at the time. He also plays down the central importance of Russia for the Union. As for Napoleon II, Crook follows the misleading tradition of stressing the conflicts and suspicion between Napoleon III and Palmerston while downplaying the fundamental fact that Napoléon le petit (who had once been a British constable) always operated within the confines of a Franco-British alliance in which he provided the bulk of the land forces but was decidedly the junior partner.

In contrast to Lincoln, Confederate President Jefferson Davis took almost no interest in diplomatic affairs. The Confederacy sent envoys to London and Paris, but never bothered to even send a representative to St. Petersburg, which turned out to be the most important capital of all.

The Threat of British Intervention

The two great interlocutors of Union foreign policy were Great Britain and Russia, and the geopolitical vicissitudes of the twentieth century tended to distort perceptions of both, minimizing the importance of both British threat and Russian friendship. Crook, in his valuable bibliographical essay, traces this tendency back to the “Great Rapprochement” between Britain and the US in the early twentieth century. The standard work on US-UK relations, Crook notes, was for many years E. D. Adams’ Great Britain and the American Civil War, which plays down friction between London and Washington, and narrates events “from the meridian of London.” (Crook 381)

The Russia-American Special Relationship that Saved the Union

Adams tells his reader that he does not view his topic as part of American history; rather, he poses for himself the contorted question of “how is the American Civil War to be depicted by historians of Great Britain…?” (Adams I 2) Adams treats the autumn crisis of 1862 as the main danger point of US-UK conflict, writing that “here, and here only, Great Britain voluntarily approached the danger of becoming involved in the American conflict.” (Adams II 34) He pleads for understanding for the much-vituperated British role, recalling that “the great crisis in America was almost equally a crisis in the domestic history of Great Britain itself…,” and providing valuable materials in this regard. (Adams I 2) Adams generally relegates Russo-American diplomacy to the footnotes, mentioning the “extreme friendship” and even the “special relationship” of these two nations. In the North, he notes, Russia was viewed as a “true friend” in contrast to the “unfriendly neutrality” of Great Britain and France. (Adams II, 45n, 70n, 225) But for Adams, the main lesson is that the Anglo-American disputes of the Civil War era have “distorted” the “natural ties of friendship, based upon ties of blood and a common heritage of literature and history and law” which exist or ought to exit between the two countries. Those disputes, he suggests, can be relegated to the category of “bitter and exaggerated memories.” (Adams II 305)

Seward, 1861: A US-UK War Would “Wrap the World in Flames”

Kenneth Bourne’s Britain and the Balance of Power in North America, 1815-1908 provides an effective antidote to such sentimental thinking in the form of a notable chapter (singled out for attention by Crook) on the British planning for war with the United States at the time of the Trent affair in December-January 1861, when Seward threatened to “wrap the world in flames” and the British lion roared in reply. [3] Two Confederate envoys, Mason and Slidell, were taken off the British merchant ship Trent by a US warship as they were sailing to plead the cause of intervention in London and Paris; the London press became hysterical with rage, and the anti-Union group in the cabinet saw their chance to start a transatlantic war. This study draws not only upon the British Admiralty archives in the Public Record Office, but also on the papers of Admiral Sir Alexander Milne in the National Maritime Museum at Greenwich. Bourne depicts the British predicament as their “defenceless” position in Canada, even with the help of the 10,000 additional regular infantry which Palmerston deployed in response to the crisis. (Bourne 211) A recurrent British fear was that their soldiers would desert to the American side, urged on by “crimps.” (Bourne 217). Their Canadian vulnerability, the British thought, encouraged Seward and others to twist the tail of the British lion. The US had the only serious warships on the Great Lakes, British fortifications were weak, Canadian volunteers were scarce, and there were few decent muskets for them. The greatest problem was that the Saint Lawrence River was blocked by ice in winter, preventing re-enforcements from reaching Quebec City by water; the only roads inland went dangerously parallel to the Maine border. Some of the British staff officers had to land in Boston and take the Grand Trunk Railway to Montreal. [4] One is left with the impression that winter ice might have cooled Palmerston’s aggressivity even before Seward’s release of the captured Confederate envoys Mason and Slidell did.

Admiralty Plans to Bombard and Burn Boston and New York

The heart of the British strategy in case of war was “overwhelming naval strength based on a few select fortresses,” especially Bermuda and Halifax (in today’s Nova Scotia). (Bourne 208) British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston dispatched a powerful squadron of eight ships of the line and thirteen frigates and corvettes under Admiral Milne to the western Atlantic, and wanted to use the Great Eastern, the largest ship in the world, as a troop transport. London even considered ways to foment secession in Maine. Bombarding and burning both Boston and New York was actively considered as a contingency; it was concluded that the reduction of Boston would be very difficult because of the channels and forts; New York was seen as more vulnerable, especially to a surprise attack. An Admiralty hydrographer saw New York City as “the true heart of [US] commerce, — the centre of …maritime resources; to strike her would be to paralyse all the limbs.” (Bourne 240)

New US Monitors Deterred the British Fleet

By the time spring of 1862 came, the Monitor had come on the scene, further complicating British intervention. The Royal Navy had ironclads, but they were only usable in deep water. Bourne aptly notes that “the American monitors might have played havoc with any attempt by the older wooden frigates to maintain a close blockade” of Union ports. (Bourne 240) As more vessels of the Monitor type were produced by the US, this aspect of the British predicament became even more acute. The point of detailing these facts here is to suggest the existence of a fascinating array of neglected issues. Crook at least sketches this strategic picture before he falls back on the maudlin tradition that it was the dying Prince Albert who was instrumental in restraining Palmerston’s jingoism and avoiding war. Crook also recognizes that in any warlike denouement to the Trent affair, “world-shaking trading and political alignments would be forged.” (136)

Howard Jones, in his account of Anglo-American relations written just after the Thatcher era and the end of the Cold War, pays very little attention to the salient military aspects of the Atlantic situation. Jones offers a limited and legalistic interpretation of the threat of British intervention. He calls “special attention” to the fact that “the most outspoken opponent” of intervention in the British cabinet was the Secretary for War, George Cornewall Lewis. This role emerged through public speeches and cabinet memoranda issued in the wake of Gladstone’s well-known speech in praise of Jefferson Davis and the Confederacy at Tyneside on October 7, 1862. However, the role of Lewis had already been highlighted at some length by Crook, who classified Lewis as “one of the ‘do-nothing’ school rather than a partisan,” and possibly urged on by Palmerston for invidious reasons. (Crook 233) Jones argues that “the great majority of British interventionists were not malevolent persons who wanted the American republic to commit national suicide so they might further their own ends; they wanted to stop the war for the sake of humanity in general and British textile workers in particular.” (Jones 8 ) It is hard to ascribe such humanitarian motives to a group of politicians who had, according to contemporary accounts, recently shocked the world by their murderous atrocities carried out during the repression of the Sepoy Mutiny in India. Jones regards Lewis’s memoranda more as legal briefs rather than strategic estimates: “Lewis knew that they key person he had to dissuade from intervention was Russell. He also knew that the foreign secretary relied on history and international law to justify his stand and that the only way to undermine his argument for intervention was to appeal to that same history and international law.” (Jones 224) This analysis does not capture what actually went on in the brutal deliberations of the dominant power politicians and imperialists of the age, who were more impressed by American monitors and by Russian infantry divisions than by legalistic niceties or high ideals. Given this emphasis, it is not surprising that Jones has little interest in the Russian aspect of the problem, although he does concede that “Russia’s pro-Union sentiment prevented participation in any policy alien to the Lincoln Administration’s wishes.” (Jones 228)

The Union and Russia

The Russian-British rivalry was of course the central antagonism of European history after the Napoleonic era, and the Russian attitude towards London coincided with the traditional American resentment against the former colonial power. Benjamin Platt Thomas’s older study shows that the US-Russian convergence became decisive during the Crimean War; while Britain, France and the Ottoman Empire attacked Russia, the United States was ostentatiously friendly to the court of St. Petersburg. He depicts Russian minister to Washington Éduard de Stoeckl as a diplomat “whose sole aim was to nurture the chronic anti-British feeling in the United States.” (Thomas 111) According to Thomas, Stoeckl succeeded so well that there was even a perceptible chance that the United States might enter the Crimean War on the Russian side. The US press and public were all on the side of Russia, and hostile to the Anglo-French, to the chagrin of the erratic US President Pierce (who had been close to Admiralty agent Giuseppe Mazzini’s pro-British Young America organization) and the doughface politician James Buchanan. The latter, at that time US envoy to London, embraced the British view of the Tsar as “the Despot.” (Thomas 117) Thomas finds that “the Crimean War undoubtedly proved the wisdom of Russia’s policy of cultivating American friendship, and in fact, drew the two nations closer together.” (Thomas 120) But Thomas glosses over some of the more important US-UK frictions during this phase, which included British army recruiting in the US, and the ejection of the British ambassador as persona non grata. (Thomas 120)

Turning to the conflict of 1861-65, Thomas points out that “in the first two years of the war, when its outcome was still highly uncertain, the attitude of Russia was a potent factor in preventing Great Britain and France from adopting a policy of aggressive intervention.” (Thomas 129) He shows that the proposed British-French interference promoted by Lord Russell, the Foreign Secretary, in October 1862 was “deterred at this time mainly” by the Russian attitude, and cites Russell’s note to Palmerston concluding that Britain “ought not to move at present without Russia.” [5] (Thomas 132)

The critical importance of Russian help in deterring the British and Napoleon III as well is borne out by a closer analysis. As early as 1861, Russia alerted the Lincoln government to the machinations of Napoleon III, who was already scheming to promote a joint UK-France-Russia intervention in favor of the Confederacy. [6] As Henry Adams, the son and private secretary of US Ambassador to London Charles Francis Adams, sums up the strategic situation during Lee’s first invasion of Maryland, on the eve of the Battle of Antietam: These were the terms of this singular problem as they presented themselves to the student of diplomacy in 1862: Palmerston, on September 14, under the impression that the President was about to be driven from Washington and the Army of the Potomac dispersed, suggested to Russell that in such a case, intervention might be feasible. Russell instantly answered that, in any case, he wanted to intervene and should call a Cabinet for the purpose. Palmerston hesitated; Russell insisted….” [7]

On September 22, 1862, Lincoln used the Confederate repulse at Antietam to issue a warning that slavery would be abolished in areas still engaged in rebellion against the United States on January 1, 1863. The Russian Tsar Alexander II had liberated the 23 million serfs of the Russian Empire in 1861, so this underlined the nature of the US-Russian convergence as a force for human freedom. This imminent Emancipation Proclamation was also an important political factor in slowing Anglo-French meddling, but it would not have been decisive by itself. The British cabinet, as Seward had predicted, regarded emancipation as an act of desperation. The London Timesaccused Lincoln in lurid and racist terms of wanting to provoke a slave rebellion and a race war,

Gladstone’s Open Hostility to the United States, October 7, 1862

On October 7, 1862, despite the news that the Confederates had been repulsed at Antietam, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer William Gladstone, who spoke for Lord John Russell, pressed for British intervention against the Union and on the side of the Confederacy in a speech at Tyneside, saying: “. . . We know quite well that the people of the Northern States have not yet drunk of the cup [of defeat and partition] — they are still trying to hold it far from their lips — which all the rest of the world see they nevertheless must drink of. We may have our own opinions about slavery; we may be for or against the South; but there is no doubt that Jefferson Davis and other leaders of the South have made an army; they are making, it appears, a navy; and they have made, what is more than either, they have made a nation… We may anticipate with certainty the success of the Southern States so far as regards their separation from the North”. [8]

It was practically a declaration of war against the Lincoln government, and it also contained a lie, since Gladstone knew better than most that the only navy the Confederacy ever had was the one provided with British connivance.

On October 13, 1862 Lord John Russell called a meeting of the British cabinet for October 23, with the top agenda item being a deliberation on the “duty of Europe to ask both parties, in the most friendly and conciliatory terms, to agree to a suspension of arms.” [9] Russell wanted an ultimatum to Washington and Richmond for an armistice or cease-fire, followed by a lifting of the Union blockade of southern ports, followed then by negotiations leading to Washington’s recognition of the CSA as an independent state. If the Union refused, then Britain would recognize the CSA and in all probability begin military cooperation with the Confederates.

US Ambassador Charles Francis Adams asked Russell in advance of the October 23 cabinet meeting what he had in mind. As his son and private secretary Henry Adams recounts, “On October 23, Russell assured Adams that no change in policy was now proposed. On the same day he had proposed it, and was voted down.” Henry Adams was doubtless correct in his impression that “every act of Russell, from April, 1861, to November, 1862, showed the clearest determination to break up the Union.” [10]

At this point, Napoleon III of France invited London to join him in a move against the Union. According to Adams’ memoir, “Instantly Napoleon III appeared as the ally of Russell and Gladstone with a proposition which had no sense except as a bribe to Palmerston to replace America, from pole to pole, in her old dependence on Europe, and to replace England in her old sovereignty of the seas, if Palmerston would support France in Mexico…. The only resolute, vehement, conscientious champion of Russell, Napoleon III, and Jefferson Davis was Gladstone.” [11] Napoleon III had conferred with the Confederate envoy Slidell and proposed that France, England, and Russia impose a six-month armistice on the US and CSA. Napoleon III believed that if Lincoln did not accept his intrusion, this would provide a pretext for Anglo-French recognition of the CSA, followed by military intervention against the Union. [12] There was no real hope of getting pro-Union Russia to join such an initiative, and the reason Napoleon III included Russia was merely as camouflage to cloak the fact that the whole enterprise was a hostile act against Washington.

Russia Rejects the Anglo-French Intrigues for Interference

The clouds of world war gathered densely over the planet. Russell and Gladstone, now joined by Napoleon III, continued to demand aggressive meddling in US affairs. This outcome was avoided because of British and French fears of what Russia might do if the continued to launch bellicose gestures against the Union. On October 29, 1862 there occurred in St. Petersburg an extremely cordial meeting of Russian Foreign Minister Gortchakov with US chargé d’affaires Bayard Taylor, which was marked by a formal Russian pledge never to move against the US, and to oppose any attempt by other powers to do so. Taylor reported these comments by Gortchakov to the State Department: “You know the sentiments of Russia. We desire above all things the maintenance of the American Union as one indivisible nation. We cannot take any part, more than we have done. We have no hostility to the Southern people. Russia has declared her position and will maintain it. There will be proposals of intervention [by Britain and France]. We believe that intervention could do no good at present. Proposals will be made to Russia to join some plan of interference. She will refuse any intervention of the kind. Russia will occupy the same ground as at the beginning of the struggle. You may rely upon it, she will not change. But we entreat you to settle the difficulty. I cannot express to you how profound an anxiety we feel — how serious are our fears.” [13]

The Journal de St. Petersbourg, the official gazette of the Tsarist government, denounced the Anglo-French intervention plan against the US, which had been inspired by Russell. This article helped prevent a wider war: the British cabinet, informed of the Russian attitude by telegraph, voted down Russell’s aggressive project. Russell made his last bid to swing the British cabinet in favor of a policy of interference together with Napoleon III against the Union on November 12, 1862, but he was unable to carry the day, and this turned out to be his last chance for the year.

Seward thought that if the Anglo-French were to assail the Union, they would soon find themselves at war with Russia as well. He wrote to John Bigelow early in the war: “I have a belief that the European State, whichever one it may be, that commits itself to intervention anywhere in North America, will sooner or later fetch up in the arms of a native of an oriental country not especially distinguished for amiability of manners or temper.” (Thomas 128)

Adams to Russell: Superfluous to Point Out this Means War

The summer of 1863, despite the news of Gettysburg and Vicksburg, was marked by another close brush with US-UK war. It was on September 5, 1863 that US Ambassador Charles Francis Adams told Lord Russell that if the Laird rams – powerful ironclad warships capable of breaking the Union blockade which were then under construction in England — were allowed to leave port, “It would be superfluous in me to point out to your Lordship that this is war.” [14] Lord Russell had to pause, and then backed off entirely. The Laird rams were put under surveillance by the British government on September 9, and finally seized by the British government in mid-October, 1863. (Adams II 147) They never fought for the Confederacy.

A revolt against Russian domination of Poland, incited by the British, started in 1863 and lasted into late 1864. Crook points out that it was Lord Russell who told Lord Lyons in March 1863 that the Polish issue had the potential to create a Russo-American common front and thus revolutionize world power relations, evidently to the detriment of London. (Crook 285) Such a prophecy was coherent with the then -fashionable ideas of de Tocqueville about Russia and America as the two great powers of the future.

The Russian Fleets in New York and San Francisco

The most dramatic gestures of cooperation between the Russian Empire and the United States came in the autumn of 1863, as the Laird rams crisis hung in the balance. On September 24, the Russian Baltic fleet began to arrive in New York harbor. On October 12, the Russian Far East fleet began to arrive in San Francisco. The Russians, judging that they were on the verge of war with Britain and France over the British-fomented Polish insurrection of 1863, had taken this measure to prevent their ships from being bottled up in their home ports by the superior British fleet. These ships were also the tokens of the vast Russian land armies that could be thrown in the scales on a number of fronts, including the northwest frontier of India; the British had long been worried about such an eventuality. In mid-July 1863, French Foreign Minister Droun de Lhuys was offering London the joint occupation of Poland by means of invasion. But the experience of the Confederate commerce raiders had graphically illustrated just how effective even a limited number of warships could be when they turned to commerce raiding, which is what the Russian naval commanders had been ordered to do in case of hostilities. The Russian admirals had also been told that, if the US and Russia were to find themselves at war with Britain and France, the Russian ships should place themselves under Lincoln’s command and operate in synergy with the US Navy against the common enemies. It is thus highly significant that the Russian ships were sent to the United States.

US Navy Secretary Gideon Welles: “God Bless the Russians”

Coming on the heels of the bloody Union reverse at Chickamauga, the news of the Russian fleet unleashed an immense wave of euphoria in the North. It was this moment that inspired the later verses of Oliver Wendell Holmes, one of the most popular writers in America, for the 1871 friendship visit of the Russian Grand Duke Alexis:

Bleak are our shores with the blasts of December, Fettered and chill is the rivulet’s flow; Thrilling and warm are the hearts that remember Who was our friend when the world was our foe. Fires of the North in eternal communion, Blend your broad flashes with evening’s bright star; God bless the Empire that loves the Great Union Strength to her people! Long life to the Czar! [15]

The Russians, as Clay reported to Seward and Lincoln, were delighted in turn by the celebration of their fleets, which stayed in American waters for over six months as the Polish revolt was quelled. The Russian officers were lionized and feted, and had their pictures taken by the famous New York photographer Matthew Brady. When an attack on San Francisco by the Confederate cruiser Shenandoah seemed to be imminent, the Russian admiral there gave orders to his ships to defend the city if necessary. There were no major Union warships on the scene, so Russia was about to fight for the United States. In the event, the Confederate raider did not attack. Soon after the war, Russia sold Alaska to the United States, in part because they felt that an influx of Americans searching for gold was inevitable, and in part to keep the British from seizing control of this vast region. Lincoln’s Secretary of the Navy Gideon Welles wrote in his diary, “The Russian fleet has come out of the Baltic and is now in New York, or a large number of the vessels have arrived…. In sending them to this country at this time there is something significant.” Welles was fully justified in his famous concluding words, “God bless the Russians!” [16]

This exceedingly cordial Russo-American friendship set the tone of much nineteenth-century historiography; Thomas indicates that a darker view of Russian motivation began to be heard around 1915 with the work of Professor Frank A. Golder, who emphasized that the Russians were only following their own national interests. [17] According to Thomas, it was “not until Professor Golder published the result of his researches that the matter was finally cleared up and those who were less gullible were found to be correct.” (Thomas 138) Surely no one needs to be reminded that great nations defend their national interests. Disinterested philanthropists are admittedly rare in foreign ministries. However, when the interests converge, alliance de jureor de facto may result, and these can have far-reaching significance. During the American Civil War, the Russian attitude was the most powerful outside factor deterring Anglo-French interference. The need of Russia to prepare its own defenses during the Polish crisis of 1863 was perfectly legitimate and a secret to no one. Nevertheless, Thomas feels compelled to harp repeatedly on point that “the policy of Russia was dictated solely by self-interest.” (Thomas 127)

For Crook, the visiting squadrons were not a fleet, but a “fleet,” and a “not very seaworthy” one at that. In his view, the entire matter can be written off as “popular hysteria” and “folklore”. (Crook 317) The attempt to play down the Russian angle is evident. When Simon Cameron is sent to St. Petersburg as US Ambassador, Woldman and others can see nothing in this but an “exile in Siberia.” (Woldman 115) Another favorite target is Cassius Clay, the very capable US Ambassador to Russia for most of the Civil War (apart from the brief Simon Cameron interlude). Crook retails Bayard Taylor’s crack to Horace Greeley that Clay was “better suited to the meridian of Kentucky than of St. Petersburg.” (Crook 44) In reality, St. Petersburg was on a par with London as one of the two most sensitive and important diplomatic posts the Union had. Cassius Clay, who called himself a “remote relative” of Lincoln’s great American System mentor Henry Clay, was a distinguished American diplomat who played a critical role in saving the Union. Another important US diplomat of the time was the Bostonian John Lothrop Motley, who became a friend of the future Prussian leader Otto von Bismarck while studying at the University of Goettingen. Motley served in US legation in St. Petersburg and from 1861-1867 as the US minister to the Austrian Empire, and later wrote an important biography of Oldenbarneveld, the father of the Dutch Republic, and other studies of Dutch history.

Woldman, at the height of the Cold War, devoted an entire book to denigrating the importance of the US-Russian entente cordiale and of the Russian fleet in particular. In addition to Golder, he cites Professor E. A. Adamov as a key precursor of his views. [18] For Woldman, the Russia of 1863 was already an international pariah, “the most hated nation in Europe,” whose policy reflected “no concern or friendship for the United States.” At the hands of Woldman, the well-established Russo-American amity of the 1850s, 1860s, and beyond is reduced to a “myth.” (Woldman, 156-7) This is not history, but propaganda laced with bile.

Russian friendship provided an economic as well as a military brake on the Anglo-French. Statistics provided by Crook show that in 1861-64, the US and Russia together provided more half or more of all Britain’s wheat imports (16.3 million cwt out of a total of 30.8 in 1863). In case of war with either the US and Russia (and a fortiori in case of war with both), the British would have faced astronomical bread prices, insufficient supply, and an overall situation of famine which would have been conducive to serious internal revolt against the privileged classes — all in all a situation which aristocrats and oligarchs like Palmerston, Russell and Gladstone had to think twice about courting. King Wheat was therefore more powerful than King Cotton. [19]

Confederate commerce raiders built and fitted out with the help of the British had a devastating and long-lasting effect. As Chester Hearn details, Confederate raiders fitted out in Europe, including the Alabama, Shenandoah, and Florida, destroyed 110,000 tons of US merchant shipping, and were factors in the transfer of 800,000 tons to foreign registry, thus partially crippling the merchant marine of the North over decades. [20] On July 11, 1863 Adams indicted London for “active malevolence” on the question of the Laird rams, which were ironclad battleships capable of breaking the blockade; as noted, on September 5 he told Foreign Secretary John Russell, “It would be superfluous in me to point out to your Lordship that this is war.” (Crook 324, 326) Forty years later, Henry Adams remained “disconcerted that Russell should indignantly and with growing energy, to his dying day, deny and resent the axiom of [US Ambassador] Adams’s whole contention, that from the first he meant to break up the Union. [21]

Any international history must tackle the question of the effectiveness of the Union blockade of Southern ports. Crook does a workmanlike job of refuting the Owsley thesis that the blockade was not effective. He reminds us that the statistics used by Owsley and Marcus W. Price are far from conclusive. Crook suggests that the aggregate tonnages of successful blockade runners need to be examined rather than simply the number of ships getting through, since blockade runners were designed to sacrifice cargo capacity for speed. He notes that many successful runs took place during the first year of the war, “before the cordon tightened.” (Crook 174) Many successful runs counted by Price were actually coastwise traders bound for other parts of the Confederacy. “More realistic,” Crook sums up, “would be an attempt to compare wartime clearances with pre-war figures.” (Crook 174) Using Price’s figures for South Carolina, Crook suggests that the blockade may have cut the number of ships leaving the ports of that state by one half during the first year of the war, and by almost two thirds over 1862-1865. Crook’s finding is that “modern naval opinion is inclined to the broad view that the blockade achieved its major objectives by scaring off a potentially massive trade with the south.” (Crook 174)

The British Working Class

A controversial issue linked to Britain’s failure to intervene on the side of the Confederacy involves the attitude of the British working classes, and the role of working class resistance in deterring the Palmerston government from taking action against the US. The traditional view, reflected during the war by contemporaries from President Lincoln to Karl Marx, is that the textile workers of Lancashire, despite the privations imposed on them by the cutoff of southern cotton deliveries, nevertheless heroically supported the Union, especially once it had become clear that this was the anti-slavery cause. This attitude by the British workers was another factor in dissuading Palmerston from pursuing armed intervention. [22]

Owsley, in his King Cotton Diplomacy, mocks any notion that the British working class might have influenced the London cabinet in any way, writing contemptuously that “the population of Lancashire and of all industrial England was politically apathetic, sodden, ignorant, and docile, with the exception of a few intelligent and earnest leaders. They wanted bread, they wanted clothes, they needed medicines to give their sick children and aged parents, they wanted pretty clothing for their daughters and sisters who were being forced into prostitution.” (Owsley 545-6) But on this point as well, Owsley is blinded by class prejudice and is thus highly vulnerable.

Philip Foner provides a useful summary of this issue in his 1981 British Labor and the American Civil War. Foner starts from the acknowledged fact that the British aristocracy was pro-Confederate. Free traders like Cobden and Bright were momentarily antagonized by the Union’s highly protectionist Morrill Tariff of February 1861 (passed the instant the southerners had left the Congress); the Liberals in general were split. But this leaves out the working classes altogether, who remained disenfranchised and alienated from the party structures. He takes issue with the school of writers who claim that British labor was actually sympathetic to the Confederacy. Foner dates the attempt to revise the traditional view of British labor as pro-Union especially from a 1957 article by Royden Harrison of the University of Warwick, which argued that the older thesis was a “legend”; Harrison based his view on an analysis of the labor press, where he discovered that “working-class newspapers and journals were, on the whole, hostile to the Federals” both before and after the Emancipation Proclamation. [23] (Foner 15) Harrison adduced evidence from such papers as Reynolds’ News and the Bee-Hive, which were sympathetic to the Confederacy. Foner calls special attention to a second article by Harrison, published four years later, which seemed to repudiate much of the first article. Writing in 1961, Harrison found that “from the end of 1862, there is overwhelming evidence to support the view that the great majority of politically conscious workmen were pro-Federal and firmly united to oppose war.” [24] Foner points out that subsequent historians have often cited Harrison’s first article while ignoring his subsequent retractions and qualifications. In Foner’s view, the “apex of revisionist historiography” on this issue came in 1973 with the appearance of Mary Ellison’s Support for Secession: Lancashire and the American Civil War, with an epilogue by Peter d’A. Jones. [25] Ellison’s conclusion was that the workers of the Lancashire textile mills were pro-Southern, suspicious of Lincoln, and adamant for British action to break the Union blockade and save the Confederacy. Peter d’A. Jones seconded her efforts, dismissing the older view as (yet another) “myth.” Foner criticizes Ellison’s handling of the evidence in blunt terms. “Ellison’s methodology in proving her thesis is simplicity personified,” writes Foner. “It is to assert repeatedly that pro-Northern meetings were contrived, while pro-Southern gatherings were spontaneous.” (Foner 20) For Foner, pro-Confederate sentiment was limited to certain limited types of labor functionaries and to newspaper publishers, who were sometimes suspected of being on the Confederate payroll. Foner shows how the pro-Union agitation, in which British intelligence asset Karl Marx had to participate to keep any credibility along the workers of England and the continent, eventually lead to the extension of the British franchise through the Reform Bill of 1867.

More recent research would seem to decide this controversy in favor of Foner and the traditional view. R. J. M. Blackett of the University of Houston published an extensive study of how the British public viewed the American conflict, with significant attention for the problem of working class attitudes. Blackett’s study is largely based on the British press, from the London Times to the Bee-Hive to the Confederate-controlled Index. The result is a detailed analysis which in some ways approximates the methods of social history, albeit in regard to a distinctly political topic. Blackett’s title, Divided Hearts, relates to his finding that British society as a whole split over the Civil War. “The Tories were with the Confederacy, so too were the Whigs, but among Liberals there were deep divisions, enough to undermine the unity and strength of the party.” (Blackett 11) After some initial hesitation, Cobden and Bright took up the cudgels for the Union. Free traders were alienated by the Morrill tariff, while abolitionists were unhappy with Lincoln, especially until the end of 1862. British Garrisonians split over whether the Union was worth saving. There was a crisis in the British anti-slavery movement over whether they had lost their old vim of the West Indies abolition era. Literary men like Trollope endorsed the government in Richmond, and Thomas Carlyle’s racism made him a CSA sympathizer; others backed the Union. Chartists split, with Ernest Jones supporting the Union, while most Chartist leaders favored the South. The Church of England went with the South, while Dissenting ministers favored the North. Quakers divided over whether slavery could be extirpated by violence. The overall impression is that the American war stimulated an active politicization which the privileged orders could hardly have welcomed.

Confederate and Union agents were active in Britain, Blackett shows. The Confederate factotum was James Spence, an indefatigable activist who wrote articles, set up organizations, hired speakers, and bribed journalists. Spence was the author of The American Union, a best-selling apology for the Confederacy. Spence’s prize recruit was Joseph Barker, who enjoyed the confidence of working class audiences because of his earlier agitation for working-class causes. Among the elite, a leading pro-Confederate was A. J. B. Beresford-Hope, the brother in law of Lord Robert Cecil of the celebrated and influential political clan, which was itself anti-Union. An energetic Confederate agent was Henry Hotze, who published the pro-Confederate weekly, the Index. Pro-Confederate organizations included the Society for Promoting the Cessation of Hostilities in America, the Southern Independence Association, the Liverpool Southern Club, the Manchester Southern Club, and others.

The pro-Lincoln operative Thurlow Weed provided money and encouragement for friends of the North during a visit early in the war. On the Union side, there were working-class activists like George Thompson. Black Americans like Frederick Douglass, William Andrew Jackson (the former coachman of Jefferson Davis), J. Sella Martin, and others (Blackett provides a detailed list) were highly effective as lecturers on the Union side. They were joined by Henry Ward Beecher and other touring lecturers. Ambassador Charles Francis Adams restricted his own activity to the diplomatic sphere, but encouraged his consuls to become very active on the political front. Among the pro-Union groups were counted the Union and Emancipation Society, the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, and more. Blackett describes the way the contending forces attempted to operate through public meetings and resolutions, using tactics that including packing the podium, fixing the agenda, deceptively worded resolutions, parliamentary maneuvers, rump sessions, goons, and intimidation. These meetings and the resolutions they passed were regarded as being of great political importance. Blackett notes that “Lincoln was so concerned that these resolutions express the right sentiment that he crafted and had sent to Charles Sumner for transmission to John Bright a set of resolutions that could be adopted by public meetings in Britain.” (Blackett 209) Jefferson Davis, by contrast, took no personal interest in such mass organizing.

Part of Blackett’s project is to evaluate the Ellison revisionist thesis. He tests Ellison’s assertions of pro-Confederate sentiment in representative towns like Ashton and Stalybridge, and finds that “distress did not drive the towns’ textile workers to declare in favor of an independent Confederacy.” (Blackett 175) Blackett’s survey of meetings further concludes that “if public gatherings can be used to measure levels of activity and support, then over the country as a whole the Confederacy was at a distinct disadvantage.” (Blackett 198) Even in the textile mill towns of Lancashire, Blackett finds substantial support for the Union. He concludes that “if…the adoption of resolutions are [sic] reasonably accurate indicators of levels of support, then it appears that Ellison has exaggerated the degree to which meetings in Lancashire voted in support of the Confederacy.” And if “in Lancashire the opposing forces seem to be equally divided, the rest of the country voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Union…All the indications are that…even in Lancashire, where Spence and his co-workers had hoped to exploit the crisis to rally support for the Confederacy, the friends of the Union carried the day.” (Blackett 210-212)

Charles Francis Adams wrote to Seward on June 9, 1864 that the British aristocracy was hostile to the Union because “of the fear of the spread of democratic feeling at home in the event of our success.” (Adams II 300) The Civil War awakened the British working class to the degree that Bright in 1866 was able to convince Gladstone that at least part of the urban working class had to be given the vote. Through interaction with Disraeli, the Reform Bill of 1867 was passed; the reactionary romantic Carlyle complained that this was “shooting Niagara.” Foner shows that the measure was due in large part to the agitations unleashed by American events. The formation of the federation of Canada in 1867 was another postwar result.

Crook, to his credit, grapples with the issue of why the Union never attempted after 1865 to use its preponderant power to settle scores with the European powers who had proven hostile, especially Britain. He writes that “one of the puzzles of Civil War history is to explain why the immense anger generated against foreign foes during the war was not translated into expansionist revenge after Appomattox.” (Crook 361) Grant’s and Sherman’s armies were the most effective in the world, and Gideon Welles’ navy was at least among the top three, and most likely preponderant on the coasts of Canada, Mexico, and Cuba, the likely sites of northern revanche. Foner sees a brush with transatlantic war in 1869-70, before the British finally agreed to pay the Union’s claims for damages to compensate the depredations of the Alabama and the other CSA commerce raiders built by the British. But Lincoln had promised an exhausted nation an end to warfare, and this proved to be the last word.

The British government and aristocracy wanted to split the Union; as long as the Confederates were winning successes on the battlefield, they felt they could bide their time as the US further weakened, thus facilitating intervention if required. The twin Confederate disasters of Gettysburg and Vicksburg on July 3-4, 1863 came as a rapid and stunning reverse, and the arrival of the Russian fleets that same summer on both US coasts radically escalated the costs of Anglo-French military meddling. Shortly thereafter, the Danish War of 1864 placed Bismarck’s moves towards German unification at the center of the European and world stage, making it even less likely that the British could tie their own hands by a risky strike against the Union. At the same time, Bismarck’s growing activism made Napoleon III – fearing the Prussian threat — less and less likely to denude his eastern border of troops in order to employ them for intervention in the New World. These factors, and not the moderation or humanitarianism of Palmerston, Russell, or Gladstone, prevented an Anglo-French attack on the United States and, quite possibly, on Russia.

If the British had attacked the United States during the Civil War, this move might well have ushered in a world war in which the United States, Russia, Prussia and perhaps Italy would have been arrayed against Great Britain, France, Spain, and perhaps the Portuguese and Austrian Empires. There is reason to believe that the US-Russia-Prussia coalition would have prevailed. This war might have destroyed the British, French, Spanish, and Portuguese colonial empires almost a century early, and would have made the later creation of the triple entente of Britain, France, and Russia by British King Edward VII impossible. World War I would have taken place during the 1860s rather than half a century later. Fascism and communism might not have occurred in the form they did. As it was, Lincoln fell victim to an assassination plot in which British intelligence, through Canada and other channels, played an important role. Alexander II was killed in 1881 by Russian terrorists of the London-centered post-Bakunin anarchist networks.

==

Bibliography

- Adams, Ephraim Douglas. Great Britain and the American Civil War. London: Longmans, Green, 1925. 2 vols.
- Bensel, Richard Franklin. Yankee Leviathan: The Origins of Central State Authority in America, 1859-1877. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.
- Blackburn, George M. French Newspaper Opinion and the American Civil War. Westport CN: Greenwood, 1997.
- Blackett, R. J. M. Divided Hearts: Britain and the American Civil War. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2001.
- Bourne, Kenneth. Britain and the Balance of Power in North America 1815-1908. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967.
- Callahan, James Morton. The Diplomatic History of the Southern Confederacy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1901; reprint New York: Greenwood, 1968.
- Clay, Cassius. The Life of Cassius Marcellus Clay. New York: Negro Universities Press, 1969.
- Crook, D. P. The North, the South, and the Powers 1861-1865. New York: John Wiley, 1974.
- Foner, Philip S. British Labor and the American Civil War. New York: Holmes and Meier, 1981.
- Hearn, Chester G. Gray Raiders of the Sea How Eight Confederate Warships Destroyed the Union’s High Seas Commerce. Camden ME: International Marine Publishing, 1992.
- Jones, Howard. Union in Peril: The Crisis Over British Intervention in the Civil War. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1992.
- Nevins, Allan. The War for the Union. New York: Scribner, 1960. 2 vols.
- Owsley, Frank Lawrence. King Cotton Diplomacy: Foreign Relations of the Confederate States of America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959. Second edition.
- Thomas, Benjamin Platt. Russo-American Relations 1815-1867. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1930.
- Woldman, Albert A. Lincoln and the Russians. Cleveland: World Publishing, 1952.

These False Flags Were Used To Start A War

 

download

Just in case one’s history textbook had a few extra pages ripped out, this may be a good time to recall just how far one’s government is willing to go to start a war under false pretenses.

Below is a partial list of some of the documented “false flag” events that were intended and/or served to start a war in recent and not so recent history.

download (2)

Franco-Prussian War

Otto von Bismarck waved a “red flag” in front of the “gallic bull” by re-editing a telegram from the Prussian King so that it appeared as though the King had insulted a French ambassador during a time of extremely tense French-German international relations. The telegram is known as the Ems Dispatch. It helped encourage the states to go to war.

download (3)

Russo-Swedish War

In 1788, a head tailor of the Royal Swedish Opera received an order to sew a number of Russian military uniforms that later were used in an exchange of gunfire at Puumala, a Swedish outpost on the Russo-Swedish border, on June 27, 1788. The staged attack, which caused an outrage in Stockholm, was to convince the Riksdag of the Estates and to provide the Swedish king Gustav III with an excuse to declare a “defensive” war on Russia. This was important since the king did not have constitutional right to start offensive war without agreement of the estates who had already made clear that their acceptance would not be forthcoming.

download (4)

Spanish–American War, i.e, the Sinking of the USS Maine

The sinking of the USS Maine on 15 February 1898 in Havana harbor was initially thought to be caused by an external mine exploded under the ship. This belief roused anti-Spanish sentiment in the United States and helped catalyze the Spanish–American War later that same year. In 1911 an extensive study was made of the wreck, and again an external mine was believed to be the cause. In 1976 a team of naval explosive experts re?examined the earlier evidence and concluded that the likeliest cause of the sinking was an internal explosion caused by spontaneous combustion of fuel coal stored in a bunker next to a magazine holding more than 5 short tons (4.5 t) of powder charges for the guns. Despite this analysis, some observers believe that the explosion was caused by a U.S. agent for the purpose of angering the U.S. populace and initiating the war which followed. Cuban politician and former director of the national library Eliades Acosta claims that “powerful economic interests” in the United States were probably responsible not only for the sinking of the Maine but for the assassination of three 19th-century U.S. presidents, beginning with Abraham Lincoln.

The Mukden incident in September 1931 involved Japanese officers fabricating a pretext for annexing Manchuria by blowing up a section of railway. In fact the explosion was so weak that the line was unaffected. Six years later in 1937 they falsely claimed the kidnapping of one of their soldiers in the Marco Polo Bridge Incident as an excuse to invade China proper.

download (5)

Reichstag fire

The Reichstag fire was an arson attack on the Reichstag building in Berlin on 27 February 1933. The fire started in the Session Chamber, and, by the time the police and firemen arrived, the main Chamber of Deputies was engulfed in flames. Police searched the building and found Marinus van der Lubbe, a young, Dutch council communist and unemployed bricklayer who had recently arrived in Germany, ostensibly to carry out political activities.

The fire was used as evidence by the Nazis that the Communists were beginning a plot against the German government. Van der Lubbe and four Communist leaders were subsequently arrested. Adolf Hitler, who was sworn in as Chancellor of Germany four weeks before, on 30 January, urged President Paul von Hindenburg to pass an emergency decree to counter the “ruthless confrontation of the Communist Party of Germany”. With civil liberties suspended, the government instituted mass arrests of Communists, including all of the Communist parliamentary delegates. With their bitter rival Communists gone and their seats empty, the National Socialist German Workers Party went from being a plurality party to the majority; subsequent elections confirmed this position and thus allowed Hitler to consolidate his power.

Historians disagree as to whether Van der Lubbe acted alone, as he said, to protest the condition of the German working class, or whether the arson was planned and ordered by the Nazis, then dominant in the government themselves, as a false flag operation. The responsibility for the Reichstag fire remains an ongoing topic of debate and research.

download (6)

The Gleiwitz Incident

The Gleiwitz incident in 1939 involved Reinhard Heydrich fabricating evidence of a Polish attack against Germany to mobilize German public opinion for war, to establish casus belli, and to justify the war with Poland. Alfred Naujocks was a key organiser of the operation under orders from Heydrich. It led to the deaths of innocent Nazi concentration camp victims who were dressed as German soldiers and then shot by the Gestapo to make it seem that they had been shot by Polish soldiers. This, along with other false flag operations in Operation Himmler, would be used to mobilize support from the German population for the start of World War II in Europe.

download (7)

Winter War

In 1939 the Red Army shelled Mainila, a Russian town near the Finnish border. Soviet authorities blamed Finland for the attack and used the incident as a pretext to start the Winter War four days later.

download (8)

 

Kassa attack

The Kassa attack in 1941 involved the city of Kassa, today Košice (Slovakia), which was then part of Hungary, being bombed by three unidentified planes of apparently Soviet origin. This attack became the pretext for the government of Hungary to declare war on the Soviet Union.

download (9)

Operation Ajax

The replacement of Iran’s Anglo-Persian Oil Company with five American oil companies and the 1953 Iranian coup d’état was the consequence of the U.S. and British-orchestrated false flag operation, Operation Ajax. Operation Ajax used political intrigue, propaganda, and agreements with Qashqai tribal leaders to depose the democratically elected leader of Iran, Mohammed Mosaddeq. Information regarding the CIA-sponsored coup d’etat has been largely declassified and is available in the CIA archives.

download (10)

Operation Northwoods

The planned, but never executed, 1962 Operation Northwoods plot by the U.S. Department of Defense for a war with Cuba involved scenarios such as fabricating the hijacking or shooting down of passenger and military planes, sinking a U.S. ship in the vicinity of Cuba, burning crops, sinking a boat filled with Cuban refugees, attacks by alleged Cuban infiltrators inside the United States, and harassment of U.S. aircraft and shipping and the destruction of aerial drones by aircraft disguised as Cuban MiGs. These actions would be blamed on Cuba, and would be a pretext for an invasion of Cuba and the overthrow of Fidel Castro’s communist government. It was authored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy. The surprise discovery of the documents relating to Operation Northwoods was a result of the comprehensive search for records related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy by the Assassination Records Review Board in the mid-1990s. Information about Operation Northwoods was later publicized by James Bamford.

download (11)

Gulf of Tonkin incident

The Gulf of Tonkin incident (or the USS Maddox incident) is the name given to two separate confrontations involving North Vietnam and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. The first event occurred on August 2, 1964, between the destroyer USS Maddox and three North Vietnamese Navy torpedo boats of the 135th Torpedo Squadron. The second was originally claimed by the U.S. National Security Agency to have occurred on August 4, 1964, as another sea battle, but instead may have involved “Tonkin Ghosts” (false radar images) and not actual NVN torpedo boat attacks.

The outcome of these two incidents was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by “communist aggression.” The resolution served as Johnson’s legal justification for deploying U.S. conventional forces and the commencement of open warfare against North Vietnam.

In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded that the Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, but that there were no North Vietnamese Naval vessels present during the incident of August 4. The Gulf of Tonkin incident has long been accused of being a false flag operation, but this judgment remains in dispute.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-09-05/these-false-flags-were-used-start-war

 

 

World War 1 And The Russian Revolution, How It Really Happend …

download (3)

 

To kick off their long-awaited, pre-planned World War, the New World Order uses “Serbian Nationalists.” .A secret society known as Young Bosnia, possibly working with The Young Turks, plots the murder of an Austrian Royal. Serbia is an Orthodox Christian nation under the protection of Russia. Due to Disraeli’s past schemes, many Serbs also live under Austro-Hungarian rule (in Bosnia) instead of under Serbian sovereignty. This situation has always caused friction, both within Austria-Hungary, and also between Russia and Austria-Hungary.
Archduke Franz Ferdinand is heir to the Habsburg Family throne of Austria-Hungary. While traveling through the Bosnian city of Sarajevo with his wife, Sophie, a bomb is thrown at the Archduke’s open car. He deflects the bomb with his arm and it explodes behind him. The royal couple insists on seeing all those injured at the hospital. After traveling there, they decide to go to the palace, but their driver takes a wrong turn onto a side street, where another assassin named Gavrilo.Princip spots them. He shoots Sophie in the stomach and Franz in the neck. Franz is still alive when witnesses arrive to give aid. His dying words to Sophie are, “Don’t die darling. Live for our children.”

The world is shocked. The fateful prophecies of Tolstoy and Bismarck are about to come to pass.

SUMMER 1914 POST ASSASSINATION CHAIN- REACTION SETS EUROPE ON FIRE
JUNE 29
Anti-Serbian riots erupt in the Austro-Hungarian city of Sarajevo.
JULY 7
Austria-Hungary convenes a Council of Ministers to discuss the situation.
JULY
The Zionist Austro-Hungarian press of Vienna fans the flames of anti-Serbian sentiment. False reports of a Serbian conspiracy are circulated.
JULY
Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, at the request of Russian Tsar Nicholas (his cousin), attempts to restrain his Austro-Hungarian ally by encouraging Austria-Hungary to talk with Serbia. (2)
JULY 28
Austria-Hungary gives in to war hysteria and declares war on Serbia.
JULY 29
To defend its Serbian ally, Russia mobilizes it armies against its former ‘Three Emperors League’ ally Austria-Hungary.
AUGUST 1
Beyond both the Tsar and the Kaiser’s control, the Triple Alliance / Triple Entente time bomb is triggered. Germany declares war on Russia for its mobilization against its ally Austria-Hungary.
AUGUST 1
Ignoring German pleas to not enter the conflict, France begins advancing towards Austria-Hungary in support of its Entente ally, Russia.
AUGUST 3
Facing the dangerous 2-front war that France & England had engineered, (and that Bismarck had feared) Germany quickly advances towards France, through Belgium, while at the same time confronting Russia in the east.
AUGUST 4
Great Britain enters the war on the side of its allies, France and Russia.
SEPTEMBER 5
London Agreement: Triple Entente allies France, Russia, & UK agree that no member shall make separate peace with Germany or Austria-Hungary.
OCTOBER 28
Russia’s southern rival, the Ottoman Turkish Empire, enters the war on the side of Austria-Hungary and Germany. In just a few weeks’ time, Europe is now aflame in war as the Globalist-Zionist press in France, England, Austria, and Germany whip up a mutually destructive nationalist fervor among the European nations.

 

1 & 2: Surrounded by the Great Powers of the Triple Entente, peaceful Germany was forced to quickly advance in two directions. 3: The ‘Willy-Nicky” Telegrams clearly reveal how the Russian and German Emperors both tried to avoid war, but were powerless to stop the dark forces controlling events.

1914-18 EARLY GERMAN VICTORIES / FOLLOWED BY STALEMATE

After Germany’s westward march towards Paris stalls, the Western Front bogs down into a bloody stalemate with trench lines that change little until 1918. In the East, the Russian army successfully fights against the Austro-Hungarian forces but is then forced back by the German army. Additional fronts open after the Ottoman Empire (Turkey) joins the war (on Germany’s side) in 1914. Italy switches sides and joins the Entente powers in 1915. At sea, the British Navy blockades Germany. German U-boats will counter the blockade, and sink many British merchant ships carrying arms and supplies.

Not one inch of German territory was ever lost during the Great War.
1914 THE MANIFESTO OF THE 93 / GERMANY’S LEADING INTELLECTUALS AND ARTISTS CONDEMN THE WEST’S ANTI-GERMAN PROPAGANDA
To counter the lies of the Allied propagandists, 93 of Germany’s leading scientists, scholars and artists sign their name to “The Manifesto of the 93”. The document denounces the lies aimed at Germany, and declares unequivocal support of German military actions. Perhaps the most notable of the accomplished signatories is Wilhelm Roentgen, the Nobel Prize winning physicist who discovered “X-rays”.
The Manifesto reads:
“As representatives of German Science and Art, we hereby protest to the civilized world against the lies and calumnies with which our enemies are endeavoring to stain the honor of Germany in her hard struggle for existence—in a struggle that has been forced on her.
The iron mouth of events has proved the untruth of the fictitious German defeats; consequently misrepresentation and calumny are all the more eagerly at work. As heralds of truth we raise our voices against these.
It is not true that Germany is guilty of having caused this war. Neither the people, nor the Government, nor the Kaiser wanted war.
It is not true that we trespassed in neutral Belgium. It has been proven that France and England had resolved on such a trespass, and it has likewise been proved that Belgium had agreed to their doing so. It would have been suicide on our part not to have preempted this.
It is not true that the life and property of even a single Belgian citizen was injured by our soldiers without the bitterest defense having made it necessary.
It is not true that our troops treated Louvain brutally. Furious inhabitants having treacherously fallen upon them in their quarters, our troops with aching hearts were obliged to fire a part of the town, as punishment. The greatest part of Louvain has been preserved..
It is not true that our warfare pays no respects to international laws. It knows no undisciplined cruelty. But in the east, the earth is saturated with the blood of women

and children unmercifully butchered by the wild Russian troops, and in the west, dumdum bullets mutilate the breasts of our soldiers.
It is not true that the combat against our so-called militarism is not a combat against our civilization, as our enemies hypocritically pretend it is. Were it not for German militarism, German civilization would long since have been extirpated..
We cannot wrest the poisonous weapon—the lie—out of the hands of our enemies. All we can do is to proclaim to the entire world, that our enemies are giving false witness against us.
Have faith in us! Believe that we shall carry on this war to the end as a civilized nation, to whom the legacy of a Goethe, a Beethoven, and a Kant, is just as sacred as its own hearths and homes.”

As the discoverer of ‘X-rays’, Wilhelm Roentgen was able to ‘see through’ the Allies’ anti-                                                 German atrocity propaganda.
DECEMBER 2, 1914 JEWISH-OWNED NEW YORK TIMES REPORTS ON THE PLIGHT OF 6 MILLION JEWS

Again with the 6 million?

jw
DECEMBER 2, 1914 JEWISH-OWNED NEW YORK TIMES REPORTS ON THE PLIGHT OF 6 MILLION JEWS Again with the 6 million? MAY 7, 1915 UK LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY WINSTON CHURCHILL SETS UP THE LUSITANIA TO BE SUNK / 1200 CIVILAINS KILLED
The UK wants to draw America into the war. Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill and Wilson’s Marxist advisor, Edward Mandell House, believe that if Germany can be baited into sinking a British ship with Americans on board, the U.S. will be forced into the war. (4) Unbeknownst to its passengers, the luxury liner Lusitania is carrying arms and explosives destined for Britain. (5) Sailing from New York, Lusitania is loaded with 600 tons of explosives, 6 million rounds of ammunition, 1200 cases of shrapnel shells, and some American passengers. The German embassy in Washington is aware of this and tries to warn American travelers by placing ads in U.S. newspapers, which are refused in most cases. (6) As Lusitania approaches the Irish coast, it is ordered to reduce speed, and its military escort ship, Juno, is withdrawn. (7) Churchill knows that German U-Boats are in the area. He purposely slows down the Lusitania and calls off Juno, leaving the Lusitania as a sitting duck. A German torpedo hit ignites the munitions, causing a secondary explosion which sinks the massive liner in just 18 minutes! Nearly 1200 of its 1959 passengers are killed, including128 Americans. .The American press vilifies Germany, but makes no mention of the smuggled munitions (or perhaps a pre-planted bomb?) which really sank the Lusitania.
During the 1950’s, the British Navy attempts to destroy the historical evidence of the Lusitania explosion by dropping depth charges onto the sunken liner.

1- British Mad Dog Churchill 3-Globalist NY Times, claimed TWO torpedoes hit.

1915-16 IN SPITE OF THE LUSITANIA SINKING, WILSON DELAYS U.S ENTRY INTO THE WAR
The Lusitania incident plays a role in turning American sentiment against Germany, but it is not yet time for America to make its entry. The Zionists are waiting to achieve maximum leverage before ordering Wilson to finally pull the trigger. For the time being, Wilson will just verbally condemn the Lusitania attack, while keeping America out of the war and cruising towards re-election in November, 1916. The British are disappointed. UK politicians, journalists, and the certifiably insane Teddy Roosevelt all mock Wilson as being timid. In an effort to keep America inflamed, the British fabricate a story about German school children being given a holiday to celebrate the sinking of the Lusitania. Other false tales tell of German soldiers nailing babies to church doors in Belgium!
The British know that they will eventually need American help if they are to gain the advantage over The Triple Alliance / Central Powers. The Zionists know this too, but they are biding their time, setting up the UK and the US for the right moment, and the right deal.

Wilson intends to drag America into the war, but his 1916 re-election campaign promises say otherwise.

 

DECEMBER, 1916 GERMAN KAISER TRIES TO STOP THE WAR
The Battle of Verdun rages for 10 months, resulting in 306,000 battlefield deaths (163,000 French and 143,000 German) and 500,000 wounded. That’s an average of 30,000 deaths for each of the 10 months of the battle!
Taking place in north eastern France, Verdun is the longest and most devastating battle of The Great War. By the end of Verdun, the war has broken down into a stalemate, but Germany still holds an advantage. In December of 1916, Kaiser Wilhelm offers to negotiate peace with The Entente Powers. But Britain and France deliberately make impossible demands upon Germany as a condition for even negotiating. In spite of Germany’s sincere efforts to stop the madness, somebody wants this senseless bloodbath to continue. But who? ….. And why?


Battle of Verdun / Kaiser Wilhelm wanted peace all along.
DECEMBER, 1916 DIRTY BACK-ROOM DEAL KEEPS WAR GOING / ZIONISTS TO BRITAIN: “WE CAN BRING THE U.S. INTO THE WAR!”
By December 1916, the Central Powers have a clear advantage. France has suffered horrible losses. Russia is facing internal Red revolutionary chaos. Britain is under U-Boat blockade, and not one square inch of Germany has been occupied. Germany offers generous peace terms. Basically, Kaiser Wilhelm is willing to just call off the war and return to how things were. That’s when the Zionists make their move to fulfill Herzl’s plan! Chaim.Weizman and Nathan Sokolow approach the British with a dirty deal. The Zionists offer to use their international influence to bring the U.S. into the war on Britain’s side, while undermining Germany from within. The price that Britain must pay for U.S. entry is to steal Palestine from Ottoman Turkey (Germany’s ally) and allow the Jews to settle there. (8) Though the official declaration of British support for a Jewish homeland is not to be made public until 1917 (Balfour Declaration), the agreement was, in fact, reached in December of 1916. Soon after that, Zionist agitated anti-German propaganda was unleashed in the U.S. while the Zionists and Marxists of Germany begin to undermine Germany’s war effort from within.


Chaim Weizman made the British an offer they couldn’t refuse. In return, the Zionists want to see the Turkish Empire busted up and Palestine given to the Jews.

FEBRUARY, 1917 THE ‘FEBRUARY REVOLUTION’ TOPPLES RUSSIA’S ROYAL ROMANOV FAMILY

As the Russian economy deteriorates and the war becomes unpopular, the ‘February Revolution’ begins. Communists, Progressive Socialists, and disaffected soldiers combine to destabilize the already weakened reign of Czar Nicholas. The Tsar is forced to abdicate his throne and put under house arrest pending exile. Jews worldwide celebrate the abdication of the Russian Tsar. A “center-left” coalition government consisting mainly of Socialists and Communists is established. A power struggle between the Democratic Socialists and the hard-core Communist (Soviet-Bolshevik) faction follows.


The Romanov Dynasty is over.

APRIL, 1917 WILSON BREAKS HIS PROMISE AND BRINGS THE U.S. INTO THE WAR

During the weeks following the Zionist-UK dirty deal to steal Palestine, the Zionists deliver on their end of the bargain. An intense propaganda campaign is suddenly unleashed in America. The 1915 Lusitania incident is resurrected, along with hype over German U-boat warfare. A German contingency plan to ally with Mexico if the U.S. enters the war (Zimmerman Note) is falsely portrayed as a plot to attack America. Citing various phony pretexts, on April 2nd, 1917, Wilson, who, according to Benjamin Freedman, was under blackmail over an affair he had when he was a Princeton professor, asks Congress for a Declaration of War. Congress complies. Regular forces of the small US military begin arriving in Europe, but it will be months before the full force of drafted men can be deployed.


U.S. Zionist Fred Rothman’s iconic poster portrays Germans as monstrous “Huns”

 

APRIL, 1917 EXILED REDS BEGIN RETURNING TO RUSSIA The terrorist Red leaders that Czar Nicholas had only exiled in 1905 now begin returning to Russia. Vladimir Lenin arrives from Switzerland, via Germany, with a
stash of Zionist banker gold. Leon Trotsky arrives from New York with more money and a gang of Marxist-Jewish thugs. (9) The Zionist-funded Communists immediately undermine the new provisional government. A violent coup is attempted in July, but the Bolshevik Reds are held back. Democratic Socialist Alexander Kerensky becomes Prime Minister as Bolshevik leaders go underground.


Back from Brooklyn, the killer Leon Trotsky (left) will join Lenin (center) in seeking to oust Kerensky (right)

APRIL, 1917 EDWARD BERNAYS FORMS PROPAGANDA COMMITTEE
Wilson establishes the Committee on Public Information (CPI) for the purpose of manipulating public opinion in support of the war. Edward Bernays, “the father of American propaganda” is a CPI member. A nephew of the psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud, Zionist Bernays boasts of his ability to control the public mind. He calls his scientific methods for controlling public opinion, “the engineering of consent.” .In his 1928 book, Propaganda, .Bernays explains: “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. – We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind.”

Bernays and his CPI co-conspirators portray the American war effort as a holy crusade “to make the world safe for democracy”, while at the same time spreading vile hate-filled propaganda directed towards Germany and its Emperor, Wilhelm II.
“Babies & Bayonets.”


In Europe and America, Germany was now the target of hateful and ridiculous war propaganda.


Bernays wrote the book on propaganda and manipulation; literally.
JUNE, 1917 WILSON SIGNS MILITARY DRAFT INTO LAW / VICIOUS HATE PROPAGANDA USED TO ATTRACT VOLUNTEERS
America’s military is very small, but its capacity to field and equip an army is great. The unpopular draft is instituted in 1917. By the war’s end, under the idiotic pretext of “making the world safe for democracy” (Bernays’ slogan), more than 2 million unsuspecting American men will have been sent to fight for Globalism and Zionism.


U.S. propaganda posters encouraged men to enlist by accusing the German “mad brutes” of crucifying women and children.
NOVEMBER, 1917 BRITAIN ISSUES ‘THE BALFOUR DECLARATION’ TO BARON WALTER ROTHSCHILD
The Zionists have delivered on their end of the dirty deal made with the British in 1916. American entry into the war was delivered as promised. By formally, and publicly, issuing “The Balfour Declaration”, Lord Balfour is assuring the Zionists that Britain will fulfill its end of the deal after the war– the theft of Palestine!
The Declaration is delivered to the ‘Baron’ Walter Rothschild. It reads, in part: “His Majesty’s government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object.”
The extraction of this promise from the British is one of the main reasons why the senseless war was kept going, and why America was finally dragged in. In Israel today, Balfour Day (November 2nd) is widely celebrated. The Palestinian Arabs observe it as a day of mourning.


“Dear Lord Rothschild” – Baron Walter Rothschild (left) received the Balfour Declaration from Lord Balfour.
OCTOBER 25, 1917* ‘RED OCTOBER’ / COMMUNISTS SEIZE CONTROL OF ST. PETERSBURG! *NEW STYLE GREGORIAN CALENDER: NOV 7, 1917
Socialist Prime Minister Kerensky struggles to keep a bad economy afloat, an unstable coalition government together, and a tired Russian nation in the war. The time is ripe for the Reds to stage another violent attempt at power. This time, Trotsky, Lenin and their evil gang will succeed. With backing from some Red troops – many of whom had been brainwashed in 1905 Japanese POW camps by communist reading materials paid for by Jacob Schiff (12) – the Capital City of Petrograd (St. Petersburg) is seized during the October Revolution, (aka “Red October”).
Kerensky flees for his life and the new Soviet regime immediately moves to pull Russia out of the war (before Germany can beat them). Outside of Petrograd, the pre-dominantly Jewish Red government is not recognized as legitimate. A bloody civil war between the Jewish-led Reds and the Christian “Whites” is now in the making.


Red rabble-rouser Vladimir Lenin incites the hungry mobs.
FORBIDDEN HISTORY: QUOTE TO REMEMBER:

pp
“The Bolshevik leaders here (Russia), most of whom are Jews and 90 percent of whom are returned exiles, care little for Russia or any other country but are internationalists and they are trying to start a world-wide social revolution.”
David R. Francis, U.S. Ambassador to Russia, January 1918
1918-1921 ‘REDS’ vs ‘WHITES’ / CIVIL WAR IN RUSSIA
After the fall of St. Petersburg to the Reds, a counter-revolutionary civil war will tear Russia apart for three more years. The various opponents of the ‘Reds’ are collectively referred to as ‘The Whites’, led mainly by Admiral Kolchak.
When it becomes apparent that a Red revolutionary army composed solely of workers and some ex-Tsarist troops is far too small to put down the counter-Revolution, Trotsky institutes mandatory conscription of the peasantry into the Red Army. Opposition to Red Army conscription is overcome by terror tactics. Hostages and their families are tortured and killed when necessary to force compliance.


Admiral Kolchak’s Whites vs Trotsky’s Reds
JANUARY, 1918 WILSON LAYS OUT A 14 POINT PEACE PROGRAM / GERMANY AND AUSTRIA-HUNGARY RESPOND POSITIVELY
Had it not been for America’s 1917 entry into the war, the stalemated parties would have ceased fighting on their own and millions of lives would have been saved. But it would not be until 1918 that sufficient numbers of trained American recruits would be ready to deploy in combat operations.
Before fresh new rivers of American blood would be shed (117,000 Americans would die of combat or disease-related causes between April and November of 1918), both Germany and Austria-Hungary again communicate their desire for a peaceful resolution; just as they had previously been proposing to make a mutually acceptable peace with Britain and France all along.
In an address before the U.S. Congress, the puppet warmonger Wilson is forced to admit that, in response to his recent “14 Points” Statement, Germany and Austria-Hungary have indeed expressed general agreement with Wilson’s high-sounding proposals.  But in the very next breath, Wilson casually dismisses these promising peace overtures (referring to them as ‘peace utterances’) as unacceptable. Wilsons’ New York handlers (Baruch, Schiff, Warburg, Morgenthau, Brandeis etc) want their long-awaited war for Globalism (the pre-planned ‘League of Nations’) and Zionism (the British theft of Palestine); and they certainly are not about to allow Germanic peace proposals to derail the NWO Express.

The most astonishing of Wilson’s lies is his rosy description of what the eventual post-war peace is to be like. The fact that so many naive and war-weary Germans will later buy into Wilson’s empty promises, will contribute to Germany’s bizarre unconditional surrender and disarmament in November of that same year, 1918.


1- “Tells Germany She May Be Equal” 2- Wilson’s phony peace talk carried the poison pill of the Globalists’ ‘ League of Nations’.
SPRING, 1918 AFTER SUCCESSFUL SPRING OFFENSIVE, GERMAN TROOPS ‘STABBED IN THE BACK’ BY HOME FRONT JEWS

The Reds of Russia can’t fight a civil war at home and an external war at the same time. Lenin and Trotsky have no choice but to take Russia out of the war. Before the American troops can be deployed in large numbers, Germany diverts its troops from the pacified eastern front and stages a major western offensive. The operation begins in March with an attack on British forces in France. The Germans advance 40 miles and Paris is just 75 miles away! The Spring Offensive is so successful that Wilhelm declares March 24 a National Holiday. At this exact critical point, Marxists & Zionists in Germany stab their countrymen in the back. Marxist Trade Union leaders order factory strikes which deprive German troops of critical supplies. (15) The Jewish owned press, which had fanned war

passions in 1914, suddenly turns sour on the war and begins ripping on the German military. German morale begins to fall quickly, as does industrial output. Recent recruits arrive at the front-line with a defeatist attitude as anti-war protests and general discontent spread throughout Germany. The Great Offensive comes to a halt just as the Americans begin to arrive. German Zionists are betraying Germany so that Palestine can be taken from Germany’s Turkish ally and given to the Jews (Balfour Declaration). German Jewish Marxists and “Democratic Socialists” also see a German defeat as a means to destabilize the nation and stage a revolution.
After the war, the treasonous betrayal of 1918 becomes known as “The Stab-in-the-Back.” Modern liberal “historians” dismiss this allegation as a “legend”, but there is nothing mythical about it. On the brink of final victory, Germany was betrayed from within – plain & simple.


Post war cartoons depict Zionist-Marxists stabbing German soldiers in the back.
SUMMER, 1918 ‘THE YANKS ARE COMING!
It had taken about a full year for America to get its military drafted, trained, and deployed under American command. By the summer of 1918, 10,000 fresh troops arrive daily at the front. About 120,000 of them will die in the Great War, 90,000 in combat, 30,000 from disease. In addition to the badly needed fresh blood, the French and British war machines are now being re-supplied by the industrial output of mighty America.

With the breakdown of the Spring Offensive, the tide turns against Germany and its allies. The Allied counter attack, (100 Days Offensive) begins in August. At the Battle of Amiens, the Allies advance 7 miles into German-held territory in just 7 hours. Back in Germany, the Jewish Press ignores the devastating effects of the Jewish-led factory strikes and Jewish-inspired defeatism. Instead, the newspapers blame General Erich Ludendorff for the recent German setbacks!


Fresh American boys arrived to kill German boys as the Jewish press of Germany shamelessly shifted the blame onto General Ludendorff.


1- Come on man! Join me in dying for Wilson’s lies! 2- Dead American entangled in barbed wire. If only his mother, father, wife, kids, friends could have watched him die. What would they say to Professor Wilson?

JULY 16, 1918 TSAR NICHOLAS AND HIS ENTIRE FAMILY ARE BRUTALLY MURDERED
Tsar Nicholas II had hoped to be exiled to the UK while Kerensky was in power, but his British “ally” had refused to take him in. The Bolsheviks (Communists) now hold Nicholas, his wife Alexandra, his four daughters and young son under house arrest. Their Red captors force them to live on rations.
As a boy, Nicholas had witnessed the bombing murder of his grandfather, Alexander II, in 1881. Nicholas’s tragic error was in failing to execute the Red scum, such as Lenin and Trotsky, after their failed 1905 revolution. Now, his misguided mercy returns to haunt him, and his family.
On the evening of July 16/17, 1918, the royal Romanov Family is awakened at 2AM, told to dress, and then herded into the cellar of the house in which they are being held. Moments later, Jewish Reds storm in and gun down the entire family, their doctor, and three servants in cold blood. Some of the Romanov daughters are stabbed and clubbed to death when initial gunfire fails to kill them. News of the brutal murder of the Romanovs will send shock waves throughout Russia, and all of Christian Europe.


A beautiful family – shot and stabbed to death like animals! As the shooting began, the Tsar tried to shield his young son.

1918 BRITISH DIVERT MANPOWER SO AS TO FINISH OFF THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE AND STEAL PALESTINE

Britain’s previous campaign against the Turks had ended in failure (Gallipoli). Now, with fresh and strong Americans arriving to fight the Germans in Western Europe, British troops are freed-up to concentrate on the Ottoman Empire. Britain covets the oil fields of the Middle East, but the UK also has a debt to repay to the Zionist bosses who dragged the U.S. into the war. Assisting the Brits in the effort to steal Palestine are 10,000 American Jews who enlist to fight not alongside their fellow Americans in Europe, but with the British, who intend to seize their future home, Palestine.  See: The Jewish Legion
During this time, British airplanes drop leaflets over Germany. Printed in Yiddish, the Balfour leaflets seek to win Jewish support in Germany by promising the Jews a ‘homeland’ in Palestine after they have won the war.


1- Vladimir Jabotinsky (left) led Jewish units in the fight against Turkey. 2- Leaving the Americans to do the heavy lifting against Germany, the British head south to dismantle the Ottoman Empire.

1918 LENIN & TROTSKY ESTABLISH THE ‘COMMUNIST INTERNATIONAL’ / VIOLENT RED PLAGUE GOES GLOBAL

88

“All Power to the Workers” really means all power to the New World Order!
With the Russian Civil War raging, the Communist International, known as “The Comintern”, is established in Moscow, Russia. The Comintern states openly that its intention is to fight “by all available means, including armed force, for the overthrow of the international “bourgeoisie” (the entrepreneurial class) and for the creation of an international Soviet republic (world government).” (18)
From 1918-1922, Comintern-affiliated Parties form in France, Italy, China, Germany, Spain, Belgium, the U.S. and other nations. All Communists operate under the direction of the Moscow Reds, who are themselves financed by the same Globalist-Zionist international bankers that created the Federal Reserve and brought about the Great War.
SEPTEMBER 2, 1918 THE ‘RED TERROR’ IS ANNOUNCED IN RUSSIA

 

The Russian Communists plan to strategically use terror to intimidate their White adversaries into submission. On orders from Lenin and Trotsky, the “Red Terror” is announced by the Jewish Red Yakov. Sverdlov. The Red Terror is marked by mass arrests in the middle of the night, executions, and hideously creative tactics of torture. As many as 100,000 Russians are murdered in the Red Terror, carried out by Jewish-run Cheka (secret police). Among the atrocities committed, often in view of victim’s family members, are:
 40,000 White prisoners publicly hanged in the Ukraine
 Burning coals inserted into women’s vaginas
 Crucifixions  Rapes of women of all ages  Victims submerged in boiling oil or tar
“All Power to the Workers” really means all power to the New World Order!

 Victims doused with petrol and burned alive  Victims placed in coffins filled with hungry rats  Victims soaked with water, and turned into human ice-cubes in winter weather.  Priests, monks, and nuns have molten lead poured down their throats (19) The demoralizing terror takes a heavy psychological toll on the frightened Russian people. By 1922, many are broken into submission to the Red monsters of the Cheka.


1 & 2 – The horror of the Jewish Red Terror frightened Europe. Not since the days of Genghis Khan have so many Europeans been so brutally murdered. 3- Yakov Sverdlov was a mass murdering beast.
NOVEMBER 11, 1918 THE GREAT WAR ENDS / ‘THE NOVEMBER CRIMINALS’ BETRAY GERMANY TO THE GLOBALISTS
By the fall of 1918, it is clear that Germany can no longer win the War. Its policy now is “to not lose it either.” As he had in 1916, the Kaiser offers to negotiate peace on terms favorable to all. Though Germany cannot win, the Allies are not able to win either. Germany’s Eastern front with Russia is closed. There are no Allied troops on German soil, the Capital, .Berlin is 900 miles safely away from the front, and the German military is very capable of defending the homeland from any invasion. But the home front is collapsing. Treasonous politicians, Marxist labor union leaders, and Zionist media moguls, combine to demoralize the people and destabilize Germany. The Kaiser is forced to step down, exiling to Holland. On November 11, ‘18, Marxists and liberals of the newly formed “Weimer Republic” (formed in the city of Weimar) lie down and roll over for the Allies!

Incredibly, at a time when the Allies do not have a single soldier on German soil, the Weimar traitors order the military to lay down their arms and withdraw from the front. Based on Wilson’s empty promises of “peace without victory”, the ‘November Criminals’ place Germany at the total mercy of the New World Order.


1- The armistice trap was signed in a railway car in Compiegne, France. 2- Patriotic German cartoon depicts politicians stabbing German troops in the back. 3- Jewish Reds seize Berlin that very day

NOVEMBER 11, 1918 AS JEWISH COMMUNISTS CAPTURE BERLIN / KAISER FLEES TO HOLLAND
In 1915, Jewish Reds Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht founded the “Spartacus League” (named after NWO / Illuminati founder Adam Weishaupt’s code name of “Spartacus”). In 1919, the group becomes the Communist Party of Germany. That same month, the Spartacists, aided by Jewish-Hungarian Red Bela Kun, take advantage of the post-war chaos, and stage a coup in Berlin. Kaiser Wilhelm, fearing the same fate as Tsar Nicholas, flees to Holland. He now regrets his past liberalism and denounces the “Jewish influence” that ruined Germany.
The Communist takeover of Berlin is short lived as veterans known as the ‘Freikorps’ reclaim control from the Jewish Reds and their followers. Luxemburg and Liebknecht are captured and executed. The “Freikorps” has saved Germany from the same deadly fate that has befallen Russia, but the new “democratic socialist” Germany will soon face other serious problems. Just like the hard core Reds of Russia pushed aside the socialist Kerensky, the Reds of Germany will keep trying to grab absolute power from the “democratic socialists” of Weimar.


The German Freikorps saved Germany from the Soviet-style Communist bloodbath that Jewish Reds Luxemburg and Liebknecht were planning. NOVEMBER, 1918 INJURED GERMAN ARMY CORPORAL REACTS BITTERLY TO NEWS OF THE SURRENDER As a 25-year-old ‘starving artist’, Adolph Hitler had volunteered to fight for Austria in 1914. By that time, both of his parents had passed away. Afflicted with tuberculosis during youth, Hitler was rejected for military service. Hitler then pleaded with Bavarian authorities to allow him to fight for Germany. He served with great distinction, and was promoted to Lance Corporal after being awarded the German Iron Cross 2nd Class for bravery. In October ‘16, he was badly wounded and spends two months in a military hospital. He could have stayed home but chose to return to the frontlines. In August of ‘18, Hitler is awarded the prestigious Iron Cross 1st Class. In October 1918, he is blinded by a British poison gas attack. While recovering his eyesight, Hitler hears of Germany’s shameful capitulation. He is confused and outraged. The sacrifice and suffering of the German soldiers had been for nothing. The brave unknown painter from Vienna wants answers, and he won’t rest until the ‘November Criminals’ (his term) are exposed and Germany’s honor restored.


Hitler, seated left, was a heroic and highly decorated soldier.

JANUARY, 1919 THE PARIS PEACE CONFERENCE

The Paris Peace Conference is the meeting of the Allied victors to financially crush Germany and determine the new borders of the defeated nations. The Globalists devise a series of treaties (Paris Peace Treaties) that reshape Europe and the world. At its center are the leaders of the three ‘Great Powers’: Woodrow Wilson (U.S.), Prime Ministers David Lloyd George (U.K.) and Georges Clemenceau (France). Germany is not invited and will have no say in the final decisions.
The Globalists will dismantle existing nations and create new ones. Austria-Hungary and Turkey are carved up; their disparate peoples re-assigned to new states. The Conference also creates the framework for a future World Government, The League of Nations. A Zionist delegation is also present. They had brought America into the war, and now it is time to collect payment for services rendered (Balfour Declaration). Former Arab territories of the Ottoman Empire are separated from Turkish rule and broken up into small states. Palestine is to become a British protectorate. See: British Mandate The Zionist statement establishes the Jew’s claim to a piece of Palestine, guaranteed by The League of Nations and exactly as Herzl had predicted in 1897! Jews from all over the world may now immigrate to British Palestine, but in controlled numbers. The Arabs of Palestine (a 95% majority) were not consulted about this deal, and they are angry.

Clemenceau, Wilson, & George front for the Globalist gangsters in Paris.
JUNE, 1919 GERMANY IS GANG-RAPED BY THE ‘TREATY OF VERSAILLES’
Out of the Paris Peace Conference comes the barbaric and infamous “Treaty of Versailles”. The cruelty of the Treaty is today recognized even by liberal historians. With Germany disarmed by its new government, the Globalists & Zionists proceed to rape the German nation; a nation that did not want war, had tried to avert the war, and had offered to make peace on numerous occasions after the war had begun.

The Treaty contains 440 clauses, 414 of which are dedicated towards punishing Germany for a war that was imposed upon her. Among the key provisions that a disarmed Germany and Austria (Treaty of St. Germaine) are forced to accept at gunpoint and while under a hunger blockade are:
1. Germany must accept 100% responsibility for the war.
2. German armed forces restricted to 100,000 men.
3. The industrial German Rhineland will be occupied by French troops for 15 years. 4. Kaiser Wilhelm II (safe in Holland) should be tried for “offenses against international morality”.
5. The German region of West Prussia is given to the new nation of Poland. Two million West Prussians are forcefully expelled from their homes, and East Prussia is left isolated from the rest of Germany!

6. The German Sudetenland region is put under the rule of the new nation of ‘Czechoslovakia’.

7. The new state of Austria is forbidden from uniting with their brothers in Germany.

8. Germany is stripped of African colonies. Britain, France, & Belgium take them.

9. The coal-rich Saar region of Germany is placed under League of Nations control for 15 years. During this time, its coal is to be shipped to France.

10. The Baltic Sea port city of Danzig is separated from Germany and declared a “free.city.”

11. Germany is forced to pay massive war reparations in the form of money and natural resources. The crushing debt payments (equal to 1 Trillion dollars in modern currency) will devastate the German economy and soon cause a hyper-inflationary monetary collapse.

Defenseless Germany is kept under the hunger blockade until she agrees to the harsh terms. About 100,000 Germans die as a result of the post-armistice food blockade.  The unjust and inhumane Treaty of Versailles will breed resentment and anger for year to come.


1- West Prussia is given to the new state of Poland. East Prussia is cut off from the rest of Germany! 2- German Sudetenland is assigned to the new state of Czechoslovakia