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.

Advertisements

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

Why Random Thoughts are Actually Important, Backed By ScienceLIFESTYLE

Some people call them earworms, some call them mind-pops, but random thoughts that enter your brain for no apparent reason are actually important, according to scientists. Our brains can surprise us with sudden random memories. It could be a line from a play that you were in from 6th grade or a song from a commercial that you saw last week.

The complete unpredictability of these thoughts is a fun part of being human; we get to still be amazed by our brains. Even when science has explored almost all of our grey matter, they are still able to learn new things that we are capable of.

Stray or random thoughts are what scientists call involuntary semantic memories. These thoughts are involuntary, meaning they were not something you were trying to think of. Semantic refers to facts or events, but the word itself means meaning. These random thoughts are memories that come back to you when you aren’t expecting them and they have no apparent meaning.

The most interesting part of these random thoughts is that they might not be random after all. Scientists think that these memories are trying to help you solve a problem.

THIS IS WHY RANDOM THOUGHTS ARE ACTUALLY IMPORTANT, BACKED BY SCIENCE

A song can get stuck in your head or pop into your mind at random. Often, it’s just a portion of a song that we hear repeatedly in our minds, like the chorus. The distinguishing feature of mind-pops is that we have no conscious control over them.

Music that pops into your head at random is called involuntary musical imagery. The more scientific definition of this musical phenomenon is ‘introspective persistence of a musical experience in the absence of direct sensory instigation of that experience.’ In other words, you are hearing things that aren’t really there, but that you have heard before.

musical earworm is usually a song with lyrics that you enjoy or a melody that brings up a particular emotion for you. These persistent songs that get stuck in your mind can be annoying, but what if they were trying to solve a problem for you, rather than annoy you?

Here’s an example:

* You are postponing doing your taxes because you have an unusual situation and might need help. Time goes by while you worry about this problem.

* Days later, the name song pops in your head and you start singing ‘Banana fana fo fana, Hannah.’

This makes you think of your friend Hannah that you knew in college who is now an accountant and who can probably help you with your taxes.

The random earworm song that popped into your mind helped you to remember that you have a friend who can help you solve your problem. Problem solving is one way that scientists believe our random mind pops are benefitting us.

A seemingly random thought can usually be traced back to a trigger. In this example, the trigger was the problem of needing help with filing taxes.

WHY DO WE HAVE RANDOM THOUGHTS?

Scientists believe that random thoughts are likely the result of memory processing and also creative thinking. You may start to notice that you have mind-pops more often when you have a problem that you want to solve.

It’s as if you have told your brain to search for things that can help you solve the problem and your brain responds with random things that are connected.

‘Researchers speculate that mind pops are the result of long-term semantic priming, with an initial exposure to a source of information ‘activating a web of representations in the mind that stay activated until a relevant stimulus in our environment’ triggers the semantic memory. The tenuous relationship between some of these initial activation experiences and the semantic memories that result from them minutes, hours, and even days later hints at a correlation between mind-popping and creative thinking,’ an ability to perceive connections between seemingly unrelated concepts.

People who experience frequent random thoughts tend to rate higher on tests of creative thinking. In a study of the brains of research subjects and their random thoughts, ‘High-frequency mind pops were significantly associated with “larger grey and white matter volume in the prefrontal cortex. This increase in mind pops is also linked to higher creativity and the personality trait of ‘openness.”

HOW YOU CAN MAXIMIZE RANDOM THOUGHTS FOR YOUR BENEFIT

Being mindful is the best way to make use of random thoughts to enhance your creativity. Here are a few ideas to help you allow your random thoughts solve problems for you:

Dwell on the random thought for 90 seconds – Sing along with the song or immerse yourself in the memory that was brought up.

* Read 7 Things That Keep You From Living in the Now – Our guide to avoiding things that keep you from being mindful will help you make use of random thoughts when they happen.

* Think briefly about your current problem – What is it that you are currently struggling with?

Think about how the random thought connects to the problem – Is there a connection between the random thought and the problem?

https://www.powerofpositivity.com/this-is-why-random-thoughts-are-actually-important-backed-by-science/

WHY DID HITLER INVADE THE SOVIET UNION?

STALIN VS HITLER

 

Some Background Information:

stalin

With the world preoccupied by the war in Europe:

  • Stalin violated the Soviet-Polish Non-Aggression Pact by invading Poland in 1939
  • Stalin violated the Soviet-Finnish Non-Aggression Pact by invading Finland in 1939
  • Stalin violated a provision of the Soviet-German Non-Aggression Pact (Ribbentrop-Molotov) by invading Lithuania in 1940
  • Stalin grabbed a piece of eastern Romania in 1940

Hitler believed that Stalin, in secret collaboration with the British, was planning to totally break the Soviet-German Non Aggression Pact by launching a massive surprise attack upon anti-Communist Germany.

The Führer to the German People: 22 June 1941

German people!

National Socialists!

After long months when I was forced to keep silent, despite heavy concerns, the time has come when I can finally speak openly.

When the German Reich received England’s declaration of war on 3 September 1939, the British attempted once again to frustrate any attempt to begin a consolidation, and thus a strengthening, of Europe by fighting the then strongest power on the Continent.

England formerly destroyed Spain through many wars.

For the same reason it waged its wars against Holland.

With the help of all of Europe it later fought France.

 

(left) Napoleon had actually made peace with Tsar Alexander I of Russia.

(right) It was British intrigue that later brought Russia back into Britain’s war against Napoleon; with disastrous results for France.  

 
Hitler (continued): And around the turn of the century, it began to encircle the German Reich and it began the World War in 1914.
100 years later, the British (and French) again lured Tsarist Russia into its war (promising them Constantinople)
.

Hitler (continued): Germany was defeated in 1918 only because of its inner disunity. The results were terrible. After first hypocritically declaring to be fighting only against the Kaiser and his regime, they began the systematic destruction of the German Reich after the German army had laid down its arms. As the prophecy of a French statesman, who had said that there were twenty million Germans too many, began to be fulfilled through starvation, disease, or emigration, the National Socialist movement began building the unity of the German people, thereby preparing the rebirth of the Reich.

This new revival of our people from poverty, misery, and shameful contempt was a sign of a pure internal rebirth. England was not affected, much less threatened, by this. Nonetheless, it immediately renewed its hateful policy of encirclement against Germany. Both at home and abroad, we faced the plot we all know about between Jews and democrats, Bolshevists and reactionaries, all with the same goal: to prevent the establishment of a new people’s state, to plunge the Reich again into impotence and misery.

The hatred of this international world conspiracy was directed not only against us, but also against those peoples who also had been neglected by Fortune, who could earn their daily bread only through the hardest struggle. Italy and Japan above all, alongside Germany, were almost forbidden to enjoy their share of the wealth of the world. The alliance between these nations was, therefore, only an act of self-defense against a threatening, egotistical world coalition of wealth and power.

As early as 1936, according to the testimony of the American General Wood to a committee of the American House of Representatives, Churchill had said that Germany was becoming too strong again, and that it therefore had to be destroyed.

In summer 1939, England thought that the time had come to renew its attempts to destroy Germany by a policy of encirclement. Their method was to begin a campaign of lies. They declared that Germany threatened other peoples. They then provided an English guarantee of support and assistance, next, as in the World War, let them march against Germany.

Thus between May and August 1939, England succeeded in spreading the claim throughout the world that Germany directly threatened Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Finland, Bessarabia, and even the Ukraine. Some of these nations allowed themselves to be misled, accepting the promises of support that were offered, and thereby joined the new attempt to encircle Germany.

Under these circumstances, I believed that I was called by my conscience, and by the history of the German people, to assure not only these nations and their governments that these British accusations were untrue, but also to reassure the strongest power in the East through formal declarations that our interests did not conflict.

National Socialists!

You probably all felt that this was a bitter and difficult step for me. The German people have never had hostile feelings toward the peoples of Russia. During the last two decades, however, the Jewish-Bolshevist rulers in Moscow have attempted to set not only Germany, but all of Europe, aflame. Germany has never attempted to spread its National Socialist world-view to Russia. Rather, the Jewish-Bolshevist rulers in Moscow have constantly attempted to subject us and the other European peoples to their rule. They have attempted this not only intellectually, but above all through military means.

The results of their efforts, in every nation, were only chaos, misery, and starvation.

I, on the other hand, have tried for two decades to build a new socialist order in Germany, with a minimum of interference and without harming our productive capacity. This has not only eliminated unemployment, but also the profits of labor have flowed increasingly to working people.

The results of our policies are unique in all the world. Our economic and social reorganization has led to the systematic elimination of social and class barriers, with the goal of a true people’s community.

Hitler turning shovels of dirt for the Autobahn. Germany has achieved full employment while Britain and the US remained mired in the Great Depression. 
.
It was, therefore, difficult for me in August 1939 to send my minister to Moscow to attempt to work against Britain’s plans to encircle Germany. I did it only because of my sense of responsibility to the German people, above all in the hope of reaching a lasting understanding and perhaps avoiding the sacrifice that would otherwise be demanded of us.
With the exception of Lithuania, Germany declared that those areas and nations were outside Germany’s political interests. There was a special provision in the case that England succeeded in inciting Poland into war against Germany. But here, too, German claims were moderate, and in no relation to the accomplishments of German arms.

National Socialists!

The results of the treaty, which I sought in the interests of the German people, were particularly severe for Germans living in the affected nations.

Over half a million German people’s comrades — all of them small farmers, craftsmen, and workers — were forced, almost overnight, to leave their former homes to escape a new government that threatened them with vast misery, and sooner or later, with complete extermination (Ausrottung).

Even so, thousands of Germans disappeared! It was impossible to learn what had happened to them, or even where they were. More than 160 of them were men holding German citizenship.

I kept silent about all this, because I had to keep silent! My wish was for final agreement with this state, and if possible a lasting settlement.

But even during our march into Poland, in violation of the treaty, the Soviet rulers suddenly claimed Lithuania.

The German Reich never intended to occupy Lithuania, and never made any such demand on Lithuania. To the contrary, it turned down the request by the Lithuanian government to send German troops there, since that did not correspond to the goals of German policy.

Nonetheless, I accepted this new Russian demand. But that was only the beginning of ever new demands.

The victory on Poland, gained exclusively by German troops, gave me the occasion to extend a new offer of peace to the Western powers. It was rejected by the international and Jewish warmongers.

The reason was that England still hoped to mobilize a European coalition against Germany that would include the Balkans and Soviet Russia.

Those in London decided to send Ambassador Cripps to Moscow. He has clear orders to improve relations between England and Soviet Russia, and to develop them along lines England wanted. The English press reported on the progress of his mission, as long as they were not silent for tactical reasons.

The first results were evident in fall 1939 and spring 1940. Russia justified its attempts to subject not only Finland, but also the Baltic states, by the sudden false and absurd claim that it was protecting them from a foreign threat, or that it was acting to prevent that threat. Only Germany could have been meant. No other power could enter the Baltic Sea, or wage war there. I still had to remain silent. The rulers of the Kremlin continued.

Consistent with the so-called friendship treaty, Germany removed its troops far from its eastern border in spring 1940. Russian forces were already moving in, and in numbers that could only be seen as a clear threat to Germany.

According to a statement by Molotov, there were already 22 Russian divisions in the Baltic states in spring 1940.

Although the Russian government always claimed that the troops were there at the request of the people who lived there, their purpose could only be seen as a demonstration aimed at Germany.

As our soldiers attacked French-British forces in the west, the extent of the Russian advance on our eastern front grew ever more threatening.

In August 1940, I concluded that, given the increasing number of powerful Bolshevist divisions, it was no longer in the interests of the Reich to leave the eastern provinces, so often devastated by war, unprotected.

This, however, is exactly what the British and Soviets had hoped. The fact that so much of the German forces, in particular the air force, was tied down in the east made it impossible for the German leadership to bring a radical end to the war in the West.

This was the goal of both British and Soviet Russian policy. Both England and Soviet Russia wanted to prolong this war as long as possible in order to weaken all of Europe and plunge it into ever greater impotence.

Russia’s threatened attack on Rumania was intended not only to take over an important element in the economic life not only of Germany, but of Europe as whole, or at least to destroy it.

With boundless patience, the German Reich attempted after 1933 to win over the southeastern European states as trading partners. We, therefore, had the greatest possible interest in their domestic stability and order. Russia’s entrance into Rumania and Greece’s ties to England threatened to rapidly transform this area into a general battleground.

Despite our principles and customs, and despite the fact that the Rumanian government had brought on these troubles itself, I urgently advised them, for the sake of peace, to bow to Soviet extortion and cede Bessarabia.

The Rumanian government, however, believed that it could justify this step to its own people only if Germany and Italy in return guaranteed the security of its remaining territory. I did this with a heavy heart. When the German government gives a guarantee, it will stand by it. We are neither English nor Jewish.

I thus believed that I had saved peace at the last moment, even if at the cost of a heavy obligation. To reach a final resolution of these problems and to clarify Russian intentions toward the Reich, as well as under the pressure of steadily increasing mobilization along our eastern border, I invited Mr. Molotov to come to Berlin.

The Soviet foreign minister demanded further clarification from Germany on the following four questions:

Molotov’s first question:

Does Germany’s guarantee for Rumania in the event of an attack mean war with Russia in the event of an attack Soviet Russia?

My answer:

The German guarantee is broad and obligates us absolutely. Russia has never told us that it has any interest in Rumania outside Bessarabia. The occupation of northern Bukowina was already a violation of this assurance. I therefore do not believe that Russia could have any further claims on Rumania.

Molotov’s second question:

Russia feels itself threatened by Finland again. Russia is unwilling to tolerate this. Is Germany ready to provide no support for Finland, and above all to withdraw the German troops in Kirkenes?

My answer:

As in the past, Germany has no political interests in Finland. However, the German government cannot accept a new Russian war against the tiny Finnish people, particularly since we could never believe that Finland threatens Russia. However, we do not want war in the Baltic Sea.

1- With no help from the West, the brave Finns valiantly fought back Stalin’s invasions.Only Germany supported tiny Finland
2– Hitler with General Mannerheim of Finland

Molotov’s third question:

Is Germany willing for Soviet Russia to provide a guarantee to Bulgaria, and to send Soviet-Russian troops to Bulgaria for this purpose — although he (Molotov) wished to say that they did not have the intention of removing the king.

My answer:

Bulgaria is a sovereign state, and I did not know that, just as Rumania had asked for a German guarantee, Bulgaria has asked for one from Soviet Russia. I would also have to discuss the matter with my allies.

Molotov’s fourth question:

Soviet Russia absolutely requires free passage through the Dardanelle, and also demands, for its protection, several important positions on the Dardanelle or along the Bosporus. Is Germany willing to agree to this or not?

My answer:

Germany is ready at any time to agree to changes in the Statute of Montreux that benefit the Black Sea states. Germany is not willing to approve Russian bases on the straights.

National Socialists!

I behaved as the responsible leader of the German Reich, but also as a responsible representative of European culture and civilization.

The result was an increase in Soviet Russian activity against the Reich, above all the immediate beginning of efforts to subvert the new Rumanian state and an attempt to use propaganda to eliminate the Bulgarian government.

With the help of confused and immature people, the Rumanian Legion succeeded in organizing a coup that removed General Antonescu and plunged the nation into chaos. By removing legal authority, they also removed the grounds for Germany to act on its guarantee.

Still, I believed it best to remain silent.

Immediately after this enterprise collapsed, there was a new increase in Russian troops along the German eastern border. Increasing numbers of tank and parachute divisions threatened the German border. The German army, and the German homeland, know that until a few weeks ago, there was not a single German tank or motorized division on our eastern border.

If anyone needed final proof of the carefully hidden coalition between England and Soviet Russia, the conflict in Yugoslavia provided it. While I was making a last attempt to keep peace in the Balkans, and in agreement with the Duce invited Yugoslavia to join the Three Power Pact, England and Soviet Russia organized a coup that toppled the government that was ready for such an agreement.

The German people can now be told that the Serbian coup against Germany was under both the English and Soviet Russian flags. Since we were silent, the Soviet Russian government went a step further. Not only did they organize a Putsch, but signed a treaty of friendship with their new lackeys a few days later that was intended to strengthen Serbia’s resistance to peace in the Balkans, and turn it against Germany. It was no platonic effort, either.

Moscow demanded that the Serbian army mobilize.

Since I still believed that it was better not to speak, the rulers of the Kremlin took a further step.

The German government now possesses documents that prove that, to bring Serbia into the battle, Russia promised to provide it with weapons, airplanes, ammunition, and other war material through Salonika.

That happened at almost the same moment that I was giving the Japanese Foreign Minister Dr. Matsuoka the advice to maintain good relations with Russia, in the hope of maintaining peace.

Only the rapid breakthrough of our incomparable divisions into Skopje and the capture of Salonika prevented the realization of this Soviet Russian-Anglo-Saxon plot. Serbian air force officers, however, fled to Russia and were immediately welcomed as allies.

Only the victory of the Axis powers in the Balkans frustrated the plan of involving Germany in battle in the southeast for months, allowing the Soviet Russian armies to complete their march and increase their readiness for action. Together with England, and with the hoped for American supplies, they would have been ready to strangle and defeat the German Reich and Italy.

Thus Moscow not only broke our treaty of friendship, but betrayed it!

They did all this while the powers in the Kremlin, to the very last minute, hypocritically attempted to favor peace and friendship, just as they had with Finland or Rumania.

I was forced by circumstances to keep silent in the past. Now the moment has come when further silence would be not only a sin, but a crime against the German people, against all Europe.

Today, about 160 Russian divisions stand at our border. There have been steady border violations for weeks, and not only on our border, but in the far north, and also in Rumania. Russian pilots make a habit of ignoring the border, perhaps to show us that they already feel as if they are in control.

During the night of 17-18 June, Russian patrols again crossed the German border and could only be repelled after a long battle.

Now the hour has come when it is necessary to respond to his plot by Jewish-Anglo-Saxon warmongers and the Jewish rulers of Moscow’s Bolshevist headquarters.

German people!

At this moment, an attack unprecedented in the history of the world in its extent and size has begun. With Finnish comrades, the victors of Narvik stand by the Arctic Sea. German divisions, under the command of the conqueror of Norway, together with the heroes of Finland’s freedom and their marshal, defend Finnish soil. On the Eastern Front, German formations extend from East Prussia to the Carpathians. From the banks of the Pruth River, from the lower Danube to the Black Sea, German and Romanian soldiers are united under state leader Antonescu.

The purpose of this front is no longer the protection of the individual nations, but rather the safety of Europe, and therefore the salvation of everyone.

I have therefore decided today once again to put the fate of Germany and the future of the German Reich and our people in the hands of our soldiers.

May God help us in this battle

The German preemptive strike saved Europe.


*****************************************

The Führer to the German People: 11 December 1941

“Already in 1940 it became increasingly clear from month to month that the plans of the men in the Kremlin were aimed at the domination, and thus the destruction, of all of Europe. I have already told the nation of the build-up of Soviet military power in the East during a period when Germany had only a few divisions in the provinces bordering Soviet Russia. Only a blind person could fail to see that a military build-up of world-historical dimensions was being carried out. And this was not in order to protect something that was being threatened, but rather to attack that which seemed incapable of defense … I may say this today: If the wave of more than 20,000 tanks, hundreds of divisions, tens of thousands of artillery pieces, along with more than 10,000 airplanes, had not been kept from being set into motion against the Reich, Europe would have been lost.

Millions of Soviet troops were quickly taken prisoner because they were packed along the front line, in OFFENSIVE positions. The Germans then advanced easily across undefended territory. There was so little defense behind the front lines because Stalin was planning an invasion of eastern Europe, NOT a defense of Russia. After the war, the prisoners shown above would be condemned to death in Stalin’s gulags.  Stalin declared: “There are no prisoners of war, just traitors.”

.

 The great sacrifice of Germany and the 500,000 foreign SS Waffen volunteers prevented Stalin from taking ALL of Europe.

Only when you fully understand the MONSTROUS LIES told about World War II, can you fully understand the current drive for World War III!

Five Hundred Years of Injustice:

1463414529348

by Steve Newcomb

The Legacy of Fifteenth Century Religious Prejudice

When Christopher Columbus first set foot on the white sands of Guanahani island, he performed a ceremony to “take possession” of the land for the king and queen of Spain, acting under the international laws of Western Christendom. Although the story of Columbus’ “discovery” has taken on mythological proportions in most of the Western world, few people are aware that his act of “possession” was based on a religious doctrine now known in history as the Doctrine of Discovery. Even fewer people realize that today – five centuries later – the United States government still uses this archaic Judeo-Christian doctrine to deny the rights of Native American Indians.

Origins of the Doctrine of Discovery

To understand the connection between Christendom’s principle of discovery and the laws of the United States, we need to begin by examining a papal document issued forty years before Columbus’ historic voyage In 1452, Pope Nicholas V issued to King Alfonso V of Portugal the bull Romanus Pontifex, declaring war against all non-Christians throughout the world, and specifically sanctioning and promoting the conquest, colonization, and exploitation of non-Christian nations and their territories.

Under various theological and legal doctrines formulated during and after the Crusades, non-Christians were considered enemies of the Catholic faith and, as such, less than human. Accordingly, in the bull of 1452, Pope Nicholas directed King Alfonso to “capture, vanquish, and subdue the saracens, pagans, and other enemies of Christ,” to “put them into perpetual slavery,” and “to take all their possessions and property.” [Davenport: 20-26] Acting on this papal privilege, Portugal continued to traffic in African slaves, and expanded its royal dominions by making “discoveries” along the western coast of Africa, claiming those lands as Portuguese territory.

Thus, when Columbus sailed west across the Sea of Darkness in 1492 – with the express understanding that he was authorized to “take possession” of any lands he “discovered” that were “not under the dominion of any Christian rulers” – he and the Spanish sovereigns of Aragon and Castile were following an already well-established tradition of “discovery” and conquest. [Thacher:96] Indeed, after Columbus returned to Europe, Pope Alexander VI issued a papal document, the bull Inter Cetera of May 3, 1493, “granting” to Spain – at the request of Ferdinand and Isabella – the right to conquer the lands which Columbus had already found, as well as any lands which Spain might “discover” in the future.

In the Inter Cetera document, Pope Alexander stated his desire that the “discovered” people be “subjugated and brought to the faith itself.” [Davenport:61] By this means, said the pope, the “Christian Empire” would be propagated. [Thacher:127] When Portugal protested this concession to Spain, Pope Alexander stipulated in a subsequent bull – issued May 4, 1493 – that Spain must not attempt to establish its dominion over lands which had already “come into the possession of any Christian lords.” [Davenport:68] Then, to placate the two rival monarchs, the pope drew a line of demarcation between the two poles, giving Spain rights of conquest and dominion over one side of the globe, and Portugal over the other.

During this quincentennial of Columbus’ journey to the Americas, it is important to recognize that the grim acts of genocide and conquest committed by Columbus and his men against the peaceful Native people of the Caribbean were sanctioned by the abovementioned documents of the Catholic Church. Indeed, these papal documents were frequently used by Christian European conquerors in the Americas to justify an incredibly brutal system of colonization – which dehumanized the indigenous people by regarding their territories as being “inhabited only by brute animals.” [Story:135-6]

The lesson to be learned is that the papal bulls of 1452 and 1493 are but two clear examples of how the “Christian Powers,” or “different States of Christendom,” viewed indigenous peoples as “the lawful spoil and prey of their civilized conquerors.” [Wheaton:270-1] In fact, the Christian “Law of Nations” asserted that Christian nations had a divine right, based on the Bible, to claim absolute title to and ultimate authority over any newly “discovered” Non-Christian inhabitants and their lands. Over the next several centuries, these beliefs gave rise to the Doctrine of Discovery used by Spain, Portugal, England, France, and Holland – all Christian nations.

The Doctrine of Discovery in U.S. Law

In 1823, the Christian Doctrine of Discovery was quietly adopted into U.S. law by the Supreme Court in the celebrated case, Johnson v. McIntosh (8 Wheat., 543). Writing for a unanimous court, Chief Justice John Marshall observed that Christian European nations had assumed “ultimate dominion” over the lands of America during the Age of Discovery, and that – upon “discovery” – the Indians had lost “their rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations,” and only retained a right of “occupancy” in their lands. In other words, Indians nations were subject to the ultimate authority of the first nation of Christendom to claim possession of a given region of Indian lands. [Johnson:574; Wheaton:270-1]

According to Marshall, the United States – upon winning its independence in 1776 – became a successor nation to the right of “discovery” and acquired the power of “dominion” from Great Britain. [Johnson:587-9] Of course, when Marshall first defined the principle of “discovery,” he used language phrased in such a way that it drew attention away from its religious bias, stating that “discovery gave title to the government, by whose subject, or by whose authority, the discovery was made, against all other European governments.” [Johnson:573-4] However, when discussing legal precedent to support the court’s findings, Marshall specifically cited the English charter issued to the explorer John Cabot, in order to document England’s “complete recognition” of the Doctrine of Discovery. [Johnson:576] Then, paraphrasing the language of the charter, Marshall noted that Cabot was authorized to take possession of lands, “notwithstanding the occupancy of the natives, who were heathens, and, at the same time, admitting the prior title of any Christian people who may have made a previous discovery.” [Johnson:577]

In other words, the Court affirmed that United States law was based on a fundamental rule of the “Law of Nations” – that it was permissible to virtually ignore the most basic rights of indigenous “heathens,” and to claim that the “unoccupied lands” of America rightfully belonged to discovering Christian European nations. Of course, it’s important to understand that, as Benjamin Munn Ziegler pointed out in The International Law of John Marshall, the term “unoccupied lands” referred to “the lands in America which, when discovered, were ‘occupied by Indians’ but ‘unoccupied’ by Christians.” [Ziegler:46]

Ironically, the same year that the Johnson v. McIntosh decision was handed down, founding father James Madison wrote: “Religion is not in the purview of human government. Religion is essentially distinct from civil government, and exempt from its cognizance; a connection between them is injurious to both.”

Most of us have been brought up to believe that the United States Constitution was designed to keep church and state apart. Unfortunately, with the Johnson decision, the Christian Doctrine of Discovery was not only written into U.S. law but also became the cornerstone of U.S. Indian policy over the next century.

From Doctrine of Discovery
to Domestic Dependent Nations

Using the principle of “discovery” as its premise, the Supreme Court stated in 1831 that the Cherokee Nation (and, by implication, all Indian nations) was not fully sovereign, but “may, perhaps,” be deemed a “domestic dependent nation.” [Cherokee Nation v. Georgia] The federal government took this to mean that treaties made with Indian nations did not recognize Indian nations as free of U.S. control. According to the U.S. government, Indian nations were “domestic dependent nations” subject to the federal government’s absolute legislative authority – known in the law as “plenary power.” Thus, the ancient doctrine of Christian discovery and its subjugation of “heathen” Indians were extended by the federal government into a mythical doctrine that the U.S. Constitution allows for governmental authority over Indian nations and their lands. [Savage:59-60]

The myth of U.S. “plenary power” over Indians – a power, by the way, that was never intended by the authors of the Constitution [Savage:115-17] – has been used by the United States to:

  1. Circumvent the terms of solemn treaties that the U.S. entered into with Indian nations, despite the fact that all such treaties are “supreme Law of the Land, anything in the Constitution notwithstanding.”
  2. Steal the homelands of Indian peoples living east of the Mississippi River, by removing them from their traditional ancestral homelands through the Indian Removal Act of 1835.
  3. Use a congressional statute, known as the General Allotment Act of 1887, to divest Indian people of some 90 million acres of their lands. This act, explained John Collier (Commissioner of Indian Affairs) was “an indirect method – peacefully under the forms of law – of taking away the land that we were determined to take away but did not want to take it openly by breaking the treaties.”
  4. Steal the sacred Black Hills from the Great Sioux nation in violation of the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie which recognized the Sioux Nation’s exclusive and absolute possession of their lands.
  5. Pay the Secretary of the Interior $26 million for 24 million acres of Western Shoshone lands, because the Western Shoshone people have steadfastly refused to sell the land and refused to accept the money. Although the Western Shoshone Nation’s sovereignty and territorial boundaries were clearly recognized by the federal government in the 1863 Ruby Valley Treaty, the government now claims that paying itself on behalf of the Western Shoshone has extinguished the Western Shoshone’s title to their lands.

The above cases are just a few examples of how the United States government has used the Johnson v. McIntosh and Cherokee Nation v. Georgia decisions to callously disregard the human rights of Native peoples. Indeed, countless U.S. Indian policies have been based on the underlying, hidden rationale of “Christian discovery” – a rationale which holds that the “heathen” indigenous peoples of the Americas are “subordinate to the first Christian discoverer,” or its successor. [Wheaton:271]

As Thomas Jefferson once observed, when the state uses church doctrine as a coercive tool, the result is “hypocrisy and meanness.” Unfortunately, the United States Supreme Court’s use of the ancient Christian Doctrine of Discovery – to circumvent the Constitution as a means of taking Indian lands and placing Indian nations under U.S. control – has proven Madison and Jefferson right.

Bringing an End to Five Hundred Years of Injustice
to Indigenous Peoples

In a country set up to maintain a strict separation of church and state, the Doctrine of Discovery should have long ago been declared unconstitutional because it is based on a prejudicial treatment of Native American people simply because they were not Christians at the time of European arrival. By penalizing Native people on the basis of their non-Christian religious beliefs and ceremonial practices, stripping them of most of their lands and most of their sovereignty, the Johnson v. McIntosh ruling stands as a monumental violation of the “natural rights” of humankind, as well as the most fundamental human rights of indigenous peoples.

As we move beyond the quincentennial of Columbus’ invasion of the Americas, it is high time to formally renounce and put an end to the religious prejudice that was written into U.S. law by Chief Justice John Marshall. Whether or not the American people – especially the Christian right – prove willing to assist Native people in getting the Johnson ruling overturned will say a lot to the world community about just how seriously the United States takes its own foundational principles of liberty, justice, and religious freedom.

As we approach the 500th anniversary of the Inter Cetera bulls on May 3 and 4 of 1993, it is important to keep in mind that the Doctrine of Discovery is still being used by countries throughout the Americas to deny the rights of indigenous peoples, and to perpetuate colonization throughout the Western Hemisphere. To begin to bring that system of colonization to an end, and to move away from a cultural and spiritual tradition of subjugation, we must overturn the doctrine at its roots. Therefore, I propose that non-Native people – especially Christians – unite in solidarity with indigenous peoples of the Western Hemisphere to impress upon Pope John Paul II how important it is for him to revoke, in a formal ceremony with indigenous people, the Inter Cetera bulls of 1493.

Revoking those papal documents and overturning the Johnson v. McIntosh decision are two important first steps toward correcting the injustices that have been inflicted on indigenous peoples over the past five hundred years. They are also spiritually significant steps toward creating a way of life that is no longer based on greed and subjugation. Perhaps then we will be able to use our newfound solidarity to begin to create a lifestyle based on the first indigenous principle: “Respect the Earth and have a Sacred Regard for All Living Things.”

References

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 8 L.Ed. 25 (1831).

Davenport, Frances Gardiner, 19l7, European Treaties bearing on the History of the United States and its Dependencies to 1648, Vol. 1, Washington, D.C.: Carnegie Institution of Washington.

Johnson and Graham’s Lessee V McIntosh 21 U.S. (8 Wheat.) 543, 5 L.Ed. 681(1823).

Rivera-Pagan, Luis N., 1991, “Cross Preceded Sword in ‘Discovery’ of the Americas,” in Yakima Nation Review, 1991, Oct. 4.

Story, Joseph, 1833, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States Vol. 1 Boston: Little, Brown & Co.

Thacher, John Boyd, 1903, Christopher Columbus Vol. 11, New York: G.P. Putman’s Sons.

Williamson, James A., 1962, The Cabot Voyages And Bristol Discovery Under Henry VII, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wheaton, Henry, 1855, Elements of International Law, Sixth Edition, Boston: Little Brown, and Co.

Ziegler, Benjamin Munn, 1939, The International Law of John Marshall, Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.

 

Heliocentric theory is wrong

hqdefault
There are four pieces of solid evidence that heliocentric theory is wrong (that I know of). The first one requires a bit of visualization but is very difficult to explain otherwise. Three others are 99.99% certain bordering on the ridiculous. You would literally have to make stuff up to try and counter them (and they have!). So without further ado, let’s begin.
+++
Exhibit A – Where is the constant wind?
Exhibit B – Hovering, flying and falling
Exhibit C – Hardly any stellar parallax
Exhibit D – Scientific experiments
Conclusion
+++

Exhibit A – Where is the constant wind?

The density of the Earth has been calculated at 5,515 kg/m3 (whether accurate or not is unknown). The density of air is 1.204 kg/m3 at room temperature, 4580 times less dense than the Earth.

A denser solid object does not carry a less dense gas along with it when it moves. This is self-evident as it is the basis of aerodynamics as shown in the video below.

dog out window
A moving solid object (100km/h car) leaves a gas (air) behind, creating a 100km/h wind in the perceived opposite direction of the moving car.

When the solid planes are more perpendicular, it will push gas (such as air) away from the solid object, such as a fan. The Earth, although a spinning squashed globe, would push a little air out into space due to its slight undulations but by and large it would be very aerodynamic, as this man spinning a basketball shows.

spinning ball
A very aerodynamic globe.

Heliocentric theory states that the Earth rotates at 1675km/h at the equator, 1049km/h in London, and 231km/h in Alert, northern Canada. This rotation would cause winds of almost equal speeds on the Earth’s surface… constantly.

The fastest wind speed known to man is a F5 Incredible tornado with wind speeds of 420-511 km/h. The tornado in Oklamohma in 1999 which killed 38 people and destroyed 8000 homes traveled at 486km/h; the devastation of which we can see below.

Tornado- Oklahoma
If 486km/h winds did this, what would 1675km/h do?

There is nowhere on Earth that has a constant wind speed of between 1675km/h and 231km/h. If there were, nobody living below Greenland could venture outside. We would be all living underground in caves.

Sometimes there are days of no wind, sometimes a mild breeze. The wind travels in all kinds of directions, sometimes changing by the second. Clouds move with the wind and can travel in any direction, but mostly go from West to East. This contradicts heliocentric theory as the Earth is supposed to rotate West to East, which would create winds going in the opposite direction East to West. Oops!

Another piece of self-evident incredulity. There’s more.
+++

Exhibit B – Hovering, flying and falling

Even more obvious is the fact that the Earth does not rotate under hovering objects. A helicopter which hovers above the ground at ANY height from 1 meter all the way to its upper limit of around 8000 meters NEVER experiences the ground traveling 231km/h to 1675km/h West to East, or in any direction in fact.

hovering1
Nope, the Earth is not moving.
hovering2
Still not moving. Who’d a thunk it.

The same applies to those machines which traverse the sky, such as airplanes. The only differential between a one-way and return flight is changes in wind speed and direction.

+++

the rotation of the Earth has no effect on the travel time of an aircraft… it is the headwinds and tailwinds that cause the change in travel times… a mere 65 mph wind is more than enough to cause a difference in travel time of five hours when you are traveling long distances!

+++

Let’s check a flight along the equator just to be sure. Maldives to Singapore and back fits the bill. Singapore Airlines has two flights come up. Maldives to Singapore (West to East) takes 4 hours 45 minutes for both flights and Singapore to Maldives (East to West) takes 4 hours 30 minutes and 4 hours 25 minutes respectively.

The Earth is supposed to rotate at 1675km/h West to East at these locations which are 3388km apart. A Boeing 777 travels at 885km/h at 10,675m. Do I really need to do the math?

Flying from Singapore to the Maldives would take about an hour (including take off and landing) if the Earth were rotating under the plane. Going the other way, it is worse as the plane can only fly half as fast as a rotating 1675km/h Earth and so you would have to continue flying all the way around the globe East to West just to get back to Singapore. This is an obvious fallacy.

asia_ref_2000
Singapore to Maldives is a one-way trip with a rotating Earth.

So, we have gone from 8000m to 10,675m altitude and still the Earth does not move under our feet. If we go any higher there won’t be many air molecules left to be magically Velcroed to the solid Earth’s surface by a mystical and yet unknown force which there must be for heliocentric theory to exist. But let’s go higher anyway.

As mentioned in my first post on the mysterious disappearing stars at high altitude, amateurs can now send weather balloons up into the stratosphere as high as 36,000m. At these heights only about 1% of the air is left, but these few air molecules must also magically stick to the solid surface of the Earth. All these different densities and all somehow staying with the Earth.

Look at the time these balloons are in the air and the difference in distance between landing and take-off. Here’s the first one: Launched at 13:07:38, hit the ground at 16:04:40, highest altitude 29.78Km, distance from launch 108.4 Km! Launched in Maine, USA would give a rotating Earth speed of 1181km/h (45° latitude). That means the Earth should have moved 3500km under the balloon making it land in the middle of USA, but it did not. (The second example on that website page is even worse!)

Let’s go higher. Felix Baumgartner on his world record free-fall jump reached 38,969m altitude and spent 2 and a half hours ascending, 4:19 minutes falling to the ground, and 7 minutes parachuting the rest of the way down. His distance from launch:

Felix-Baumgartner-Landing
70.5km!

So, the 1% of surface air density and all the other air densities on the way to the ground and Felix himself being obviously heavier than air all moved with the rotating Earth in tandem, by some magical mystical force unknown to man. At what height would Felix have experienced the Earth rotating below him? 50km? 70km? 100km? The heliocentric advocates will have to make up a magic number. Why not, it is all fantasy after all.

Let’s continue.
+++

Exhibit C – Hardly any stellar parallax

The stars revolve 360° in 24 hours in an anti-clockwise fashion around the north polar star in the northern hemisphere, and clockwise around the southern star in the southern hemisphere. Photographers take photos with very long shutter speeds to show this effect.

startrails
Rotating stars in the sky at night.

This, you may think, is a good case for a rotating Earth; but on it’s own it is also a good case for a geocentric one, as it demonstrates that either the Earth is moving or the heavens.

However, after 6 months, those EXACT same stars are at the EXACT same location, as can be seen with the naked eye, at which they had been 6 months previously. The annual change in the position of stars in the sky is called stellar parallax. You can demonstrate this lack of parallax by following this experiment devised by Samuel Rowbotham of Zetetic Astronomy.

+++

Take two carefully-bored metallic tubes, not less than six feet in length, and place them one yard asunder, on the opposite sides of a wooden frame, or a solid block of wood or stone: so adjust them that their centres or axes of vision shall be perfectly parallel to each other. Now, direct them to the plane of some notable fixed star, a few seconds previous to its meridian time. Let an observer be stationed at each tube and the moment the star appears in the first tube let a loud knock or other signal be given, to be repeated by the observer at the second tube when he first sees the same star. A distinct period of time will elapse between the signals given. The signals will follow each other in very rapid succession, but still, the time between is sufficient to show that the same star is not visible at the same moment by two parallel lines of sight when only one yard asunder. A slight inclination of the second tube towards the first tube would be required for the star to be seen through both tubes at the same instant. Let the tubes remain in their position for six months; at the end of which time the same observation or experiment will produce the same results–the star will be visible at the same meridian time, without the slightest alteration being required in the direction of the tubes: from which it is concluded that if the Earth had moved one single yard in an orbit through space, there would at least be observed the slight inclination of the tube which the difference in position of one yard had previously required. But as no such difference in the direction of the tube is required, the conclusion is unavoidable, that in six months a given meridian upon the Earth’s surface does not move a single yard, and therefore, that the Earth has not the slightest degree of orbital motion.

+++

Traditionally, stellar parallax has been notoriously difficult to measure with even the best of modern equipment.
+++

The angles involved in these calculations are very small and thus difficult to measure. The nearest star to the Sun (and thus the star with the largest parallax), Proxima Centauri, has a parallax of 0.7687 ± 0.0003 arcsec.

+++

There are 3,600 arcseconds in 1 degree, 180 of which cover the sky at night. No wonder we can’t see any movement with the naked eye. Even so, movement for only a tiny fraction of the stars can be measured at all even by modern equipment!
+++

In 1989, the satellite Hipparcos was launched primarily for obtaining parallaxes and proper motions of nearby stars, increasing the reach of the method tenfold. Even so, Hipparcos is only able to measure parallax angles for stars up to about 1,600 light-years away, a little more than one percent of the diameter of the Milky Way Galaxy. The European Space Agency’s Gaia mission, due to launch in 2013, will be able to measure parallax angles to an accuracy of 10 microarcseconds, thus mapping nearby stars (and potentially planets) up to a distance of tens of thousands of light-years from Earth.

+++
There are an estimated 100 to 200 billion galaxies in the universe (which is bunk, as there are no galaxies) each with up to 100 trillion stars! So being able to detect movement in 1% of the stars of our own galaxy is a miniscule amount. We also know about our space agencies’ weird and wonderful orbiting machines, so even this 1% is unlikely to be true.

This is a big problem for heliocentric theory which states that every 24 hours the Earth rotates on its axis at 1675km/h, revolving around the Sun at 107,000km/h, which in turn moves around the center of the galaxy at 900,000km/h, which moves in the universe at 2,160,000km/h!

Apart from the atmosphere disappearing at these speeds, how is there no stellar parallax, especially considering that all the other stars and galaxies are revolving around each other and the Earth as well. The sky must be a right mess! Each new day must bring a brand new unique constellation in the sky at night with some new stars getting nearer so they can be seen with the naked eye and some traveling further away and disappearing never to return for thousands or millions of years.

Before we move on, this lack of stellar parallax is the reason why advocates of heliocentric theory give the unbelievably enormous distances the heavenly bodies must be from Earth. They can’t measure it! The stars must be thousands and millions of light years away (with the Milky Way 100,000 light years across, 1 light year being 9.46 trillion kilometers!) because there is no (or little) detectable stellar parallax; otherwise heliocentric theory would be definitely wrong.

+++

It is clear from Euclid’s geometry that the effect would be undetectable if the stars were far enough away, but for various reasons such gigantic distances involved seemed entirely implausible: it was one of Tycho Brahe’s principal objections to Copernican heliocentrism that in order for it to be compatible with the lack of observable stellar parallax, there would have to be an enormous and unlikely void between the orbit of Saturn and the eighth sphere (the fixed stars).

+++

Not only is there no evidence for such astronomical distances, but we have now proven that the stars are approximately 4000 miles away!

Does making stuff up to support a theory lacking any observational or experimental evidence sound like science to you?

Speaking of which…
+++

Exhibit D – Scientific experiments

How do we know it is not the heavens or “space” which moves above us, instead of the Earth, which causes both the rotation of the stars and any of their hard-to-detect parallax. We now know it is the former, thanks to an experiment in 1871 by Astronomer Royal, George Airy; which is this:

If stellar parallax is too small to see with the naked eye, then why not artificially increase it. If the Earth rotates at the same speed constantly, then by slowing the light down (by filling the telescope with water), the angle of star movement would increase. If stellar parallax increased then the telescope would have to be tilted more to see the same star and prove a rotating Earth once and for all.

And guess what? As confirmed by others, the most careful measurements gave the same angle for a telescope with water as for one filled with air. This is called “Airy’s failure”. It proved the rotation of the heavens, not Earth, which moves stars.

airy1
The angle stayed the same, proving that the Earth does not rotate.

The heliocentric advocates were now desperate. What was needed was another observable experiment to still offer the possibility of a rotating Earth. Enter Foucault’s pendulum in 1885. This pendulum swings back and forth, each swing moving slightly to the right in the northern hemisphere and to the left in the southern hemisphere until, at the poles, one full circle is achieved in 24 hours. It doesn’t move left or right at all at the equator.

California_Academy_of_Sciences_Foucault_Pendulum_Clock
Foucault Pendulum in California
Foucault
Not to scale, but illustrating the movement.

As you have noticed, this is the same phenomenon as the stars rotating every 24 hours around the polar star, which was proved not to be caused by a rotating Earth thanks to George Airy. Unfortunately for the heliocentric supporters, Foucault’s pendulum also had a problem. In 1954 and 1959, Maurice Allais noticed that during a solar eclipse, which lasted 2 and a half hours, the angle of the pendulum changed dramatically by 13.5°. This has been repeatedly observed with positive results on most of the subsequent eclipses, which obviously means that the pendulum isn’t registering the Earth’s rotation, but the motion of something else instead.

With Airy’s failure proving that the Earth does not rotate, the heliocentric theorists needed to quickly show with no further doubt that the Earth rotated. Enter two staunch supporters of heliocentricity, Albert Michelson and Edward Morley, who in 1887 set up a device which split up light: one beam in the direction of the Earth’s rotation, and one at right angles. The two light beams then recombined and hit a photographic plate. The difference is speed of the two beams would create an interference pattern. They expected to measure a speed of 30 km/s as that was the speed of the Earth’s supposed rotation, but instead registered a variable difference of between 1 and 10 km/s each time the experiment was repeated. They called this a “null” result. This proves that the Earth is not rotating and at the same time proved the existence of the ether.

M-M experiment
Gosh, the traveling light wasn’t rotating with the Earth. Who’d a thunk it?

It didn’t stop there, Georges Sagnac, and Henry Gale conducted similar experiments, but on a rotating platform, which again demonstrated the existence of the ether, already proved by default in 1871 and 1885 by combining the results from George Airy and Foucault’s pendulum, and also in 1887 by the Michelson-Morley experiment.

How do you think the advocates of heliocentric theory responded? Why, they made something up of course! What else could they do but invent another wild theory to play down these experimental results and lead us further into the cesspit of fallacy. Enter showbiz academic of the 20th century, Einstein and the special theory of relativity.

albert-einstein-colorized
Enter the clowns.

Special relativity was invented to make sure all these experiments still gave heliocentric theory a chance of being correct. It needed objects to shrink to a specific size in direct proportion to its speed. These objects weren’t measured! The concept had never been observed at all. It was metaphysical only. But it had to be correct, otherwise the unthinkable would be true.
+++

The rescue operation was performed by means of a purely metaphysical concept lifted directly from Professors Fitzgerald and Lorentz, who had also been trying to explain the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and renamed by him the Special Theory of Relativity. What was suggested was that if the dimensions of an object in motion were assumed to shrink exactly in proportion to the speed at which it was traveling by exactly the necessary amount, mathematical calculations could be made to show that the Earth was in motion after all. No one has ever seen an object shrink as a result of being in motion, and indeed one of the world’s leading authorities on relativity, Dr. Herbert Dingle, was later to dismiss the theory of relativity as metaphysical nonsense with no basis on what could be observed.

+++

Making up a new branch of mathematics to explain the results of experiments that disagrees with your worldview does not a proof make! As a J.J. Thomson once said:

+++

We have Einstein’s space, de Sitter’s space, expanding universes, contracting universes, vibrating universes, mysterious universes. In fact the pure mathematician may create universes just by writing down an equation, and indeed if he is an individualist he can have a universe of his own.

+++

However, when you make stuff up not based on anything in the real world, it is bound to run into trouble.

+++

Ironically, when Special Relativity failed due to its internal contradictions, Einstein had to invent General Relativity to shore up the façade, and in the process he had to take back the very two foundations he had discarded in Special Relativity, namely, (a) that nothing can exceed the speed of light and (b) the existence of ether. In the end, Einstein’s theories were a mass of contradictions which are covered over by obtuse mathematical equations.

+++

Despite this nonsense, the heliocentric “authorities” pushed it through with all their media power and academic might so that once this new mathematics was firmly established, they had carte blanche to sneak in other bad “science” when experimental observations went against them, like black holes, dark matter, wormholes and other such unobservable and unverifiable nonsense. The worst offence though was trying to tie in the Coriolis effect of a rotating Earth with observable atmospheric phenomena. The Coriolis effect is an optical illusion whereby an object traveling in a straight line is seen to be moving in a curved one instead because the observer is on a rotating platform.

wikipedia_coriolis_effect
The Coriolis optical illusion. You are the red dot. Below is what you observe. Above is what actually happens.
the-coriolis-effect
This is the complete pattern and scale of ANY Coriolis effect on the Earth. If something in the real world doesn’t match this, it can NOT be the Coriolis effect!

They say it is this effect which causes moving objects to be deflected in a clockwise direction in the northern hemisphere and anti-clockwise in the southern hemisphere; an example of which are large cyclones. This is obviously false. The Coriolis effect is NOT a force, it is an optical illusion. It cannot cause objects to be deflected; their trajectories remain the same, which is straight. Cyclones do not “travel in straight lines, but just appear to be curved because we are on the surface of a rotating sphere”. Their size ranges from under 222km to over 888km making their curves far too tight and localized. Plus there are very high altitude images looking down on cyclones from above. Is the camera rotating with the Earth to get this curved perspective?

cyclone from above
Is the camera rotating with the Earth? How can a cyclone twisting on itself be a straight line? Is this image even real?
cyclone - Australia
A tropical cyclone in Australia twisting down to Earth is not a straight line.

And what about smaller vortex phenomena like Tornadoes which average only 150m across. Where is the Coriolis effect now?

tornado1
A 150m wide tornado is really a straight line!

If you wish to study further the fallacy of linking the Coriolis effect with atmospheric phenomena then Miles Mathis‘ work is a must. Otherwise, those inclined to understand cyclones and tornadoes would do well to study the relationship between gravity and electromagnetism, and vortex dynamics instead, as even physicists admit that the Coriolis “effect” and electromagnetism is eerily similar. (What a surprise!)
+++

Conclusion

So far we have proved that:

  • The Earth does not tilt.
  • The Earth does not rotate.
  • The Sun moves, not the Earth.
  • The heavens move, not the Earth, which means that:
  • “Space” or the ether moves and not the Earth.
  • “Space” moves in a circular motion (and is probably a vortex).

 

http://www.wildheretic.com/heliocentric-theory-is-wrong-pt1/