Why Men With Dark Intentions Destroyed the Library of Alexandria


Ancient civilizations are a fascinating topic, and it’s clear we have so much to learn from them when it comes to our way of life, our health, our technology, science, nature, consciousness, and the nature of reality itself.

Be it information in the form of written text, or advanced ancient structures like the Kailasa temple, one of 32 cave temples and monasteries located within the Ellora Caves in India, their knowledge — how they acquired it and how they constructed their masterpieces — remains a complete mystery.

With all of our modern day technology, knowledge, and wisdom, there is still no way to accomplish some of the feats of civilizations past, feats that required an extremely advanced understanding of mathematics, physics, and more.

There is evidence that many ancient achievements required an extremely advanced form of technology as well, and many examples to prove these assertions.

Another fascinating point to make is the fact that many groundbreaking discoveries within the realm of quantum mechanics, as well as neuroscience, closely resemble the teachings of several ancient civilizations and native American populations.

This is why today, there are conferences held every single year between academics and spiritual leaders, like Tibetan monks, to discuss how they relate, and books like Blackfoot Physics continue to be published.

Sometimes it seems we are re-learning much of the knowledge kept by the ancient world.

This is exactly why the burning of the library of Alexandria was such a tragedy. It was one of the greatest libraries in human history, holding a vast archive of manuscripts and books from all over the ancient world, and what our ancients would have themselves considered ancient.

It was built after the famous Alexander the Great conquered Egypt and acquired knowledge from all parts of the globe. From East to West, the teachings of multiple civilizations throughout human history up to that time could be found in the great library.

The books contained in this library touched upon every subject that concerns humanity, from health, science, and astronomy to geology, philosophy, mysticism, magic, knowledge of the spiritual world, and much more.

Manly P. Hall describes it as follows in The Secret Teachings of All Ages:

“Prior to the Christian Era seven hundred thousand of the most valuable books, written upon parchment, papyrus, vellum, and was, and also tablets of stone terra cotta, and wood, were gathered from all parts of the ancient world and housed in Alexandria, in buildings specially prepared for the purpose. This magnificent repository of knowledge was destroyed by a series of three fires.”

It was burned down in approximately A.D. 389  by Caesar, from the order of Theodosius I. Also known as Theodosius the Great, he was a Roman Emperor from AD 379 to AD 395, ruling over both the Eastern and the Western halves of the Roman Empire.

Libraries as such were well known to multiple ancient civilizations in Egypt, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Syria, and Greece, who were very impressed by Oriental knowledge.

There is literary evidence of Greek individuals visiting Egypt specifically to acquire knowledge: e.g., HerodotusPlato (particularly in Phaedrus and Timaeus), Theophrastus, and Eudoxus of Cnidus (as detailed by Diogenes Laërtius in the 3rd century CE).

According toe H.P. Blavatsky in Isis Unveiled:

“They (the Rabbis of Palestime and the wise men) say that not all the rolls and manuscripts, reported in history to have been burned by Caesar, by the Christian mob, in 389, by the Arab General Amuru, perished as it is commonly believed; and the story they tell is the following.:

“At the time of the contest for the throne, in 51 B.C., between Cleopatra and her brother Dionysius Ptolemy, the Bruckion, which contained over seven hundred thousand rolls all bound in wood and fire-proof parchment, was undergoing repairs and a great portion of the original manuscripts, considered among the most previous, and which were not duplicated, were stored away in the home of one of the librarians.

“Several hours passed between the burning of the fleet, set on fire by Ceasar’s order, and the moment when the first buildings situated near the harbor caught fire in their turn; and *** the librarians, aided by several hundred slaves attached to the museum, succeeded in saving the most previous of the rolls.”

Manly P. Hall writes that the books that were saved were actually buried in Egypt and in India, and until they are discovered, “the modern world must remain in ignorance concerning many great philosophical and mystical truths. The ancient world more clearly understood these missing links – the continuity of the pagan Mysteries in Christianity.”

These pagan mysteries, Hall writes, are the heart of mysticism, which actually represents true Christianity. This makes sense; any civilization, you would assume, would seek out the knowledge and wisdom of those prior. It’s one of many paths to truth, or at least new discoveries that help one in their contemplation of truth.

Hall states:

“There are persistent rumors that Jesus visited and studied in both Greece and India, and that a coin struck in His honor in India during the first century has been discovered. Early Christian records are known to exist in Tibet, and the Monks of a Buddhist monastery in Ceylon still preserve a record which indicates that Jesus sojourned with them and became conversant with their philosophy.

“Although early christianity shows every evidence of Oriental influence, this is a subject the modern church declines to discuss. If it’s ever established beyond question that Jesus was an initiate of the pagan Greek or Asiatic Mysteries, the effect on the more conservative members of the Christian faith is likely to be cataclysmic.”

Information like this, among other topics like life on other planets and sacred and magical (considered mythical by many) information about shamanism, magic, and sorcery, predate modern Christianity.

Different sects of Christianity, after the ancient Romans created their own version, now condemn these teachings even though they were embedded within the original doctrines.

This is one of many reasons the aristocracy of ancient Rome ordered the library destroyed, because it would ruin the foundations of what they were creating — a new religion for man to follow, one whose doctrine contradicted the one prior.

This type of religion was forced upon people, and those who did not follow were subject to death and exile. Anybody who questioned these new doctrines received harsh penalties throughout the ages, especially as time progressed and the expansion of civilization, from that point, moved forward.

“The early Christians used every means possible to conceal the pagan origin of their symbols, doctrines, and rituals. They either destroyed the sacred books of other peoples among whom they settled, or made them inaccessible to students of comparative philosophy, apparently believing that in this way they could stamp out all record of the pre-christian origin of their doctrines. In some cases the writings of various ancient authors were tampered with, passages of a compromising nature being removed or foreign material interpolated.”

Conquering the World

Before the creation of a certain type of Christianity by ancient Rome, truth seemed to be more apparent, but darkness seemed to have permeated the world of light even prior.

Atlantis is a great example, as Plato, among other ancient scholars, told us that the eventual demise of this civilization was brought forth by ego-driven desires that soon developed among them, when the Atlantean kings were “lured” from “the pathway of wisdom and virtue.”

“Filled with false ambition, the rulers of Atlantis determined to conquer the gods into his holy habitation and addressed them. Here Plato’s narrative comes to an abrupt end, for the Critias was never finished.”

“A technologically sophisticated but morally bankrupt evil empire – Atlantis – attempts world domination by force. The only thing standing it its way is a relatively small group of spiritually pure, morally principled and incorruptible people – the ancient Athenians.

“Overcoming overwhelming odds… the Athenians are able to defeat their far more powerful adversary simply through the force of their spirit. Sound familiar? Plato’s Atlantean dialogues are essentially an ancient greek version of ‘Star Wars.’” – Ken Feder, professor of archaeology, taken from his book Frauds, Myths and Mysteries: Science and Pseudoscience in Archaeology

The sacred teachings and artifacts in Atlantis were perverted and used for selfishness by some. These teachings made their way into Egypt, and eventually into ancient Greece, until the Roman Empire dominated the world, burned the library where many of these teachings were probably held, and disseminated their own version of knowledge and truth across the land.

Do some of these books lie within the libraries of the Vatican today? If much of the mythical stories we’ve heard and read about are real, they would indeed bring down the modern day understanding of religion and spirituality that’s been spread by the families of ancient Rome.

Are we looking at a cover-up of knowledge regarding “what is,” and have we been deceived?

The burning of Alexandria’s library was one tragic event involving the destruction of ancient knowledge, similar to the mass Native North American genocide that saw even more knowledge of humanity lost, stolen, and hidden.

This is why examining ancient sources of truth, or whatever is left of it, is always interesting, because it’s hard to receive something that’s been created and used as the backbone of deception — modern day religion.

Note: The Library of Alexandria was said to be burning for 6 months….






Did you know…

…that just 3 days before the start of the history altering genocidal tragedy that was World War 2, Adolf Hitler pleaded for peace with Britain and France. His sincere overtures were ignored as the Allies, under the phony pretext of “protecting” their aggressive and militaristic Polish ally, declared war first!

the headlines of the Hitler-hating newspapers of Britain and America confirmed that it was the Allies who declared “a long war” on Germany while Hitler continued to plead  for peace and calm. Note the sub-headline in Image #3 “Blunt Reply to Georing’s Peace Try On”…a reference to Britain’s refusal to even talk with Germans (Hemann Georing was the #2 man in Germany)

Below is the abridged text of the thoughtful and logical letter which Hitler wrote to French President Edouard Daladier…just days before the outbreak of the war with British-French Poland–a letter which The New York Times published on its front page, and cannot now deny.


You won’t see this letter on the History Channel or in a Ken Burns PBS crockumentary!  


August 28, 1939


Hitler Note and Paris Communique

The text of Chancellor Hitler’s letter to Premiere Daladier of France:


Chancellor’s Letter


Commentary and images added

pdf of original article 8/28/1939



My dear Minister President:


I understand the misgiving to which you give expression. I, too, have never overlooked the grave responsibilities which are imposed upon those who are in charge of the fate of nations. As an old front line fighter, I, like yourself, know the horrors of war. Guided by this attitude and experience, I have tried to remove all matters that might cause conflict between our two peoples.


I have quite frankly given one assurance to the French people, namely, that the return of the Saar would constitute the precondition for this. After its return I immediately and solemnly pronounced my renunciation of any further claims that might concern France. The German people approved of this, my attitude.


Under the terms of the post-World War I Treaty of Versailles, the Saar region was to be occupied jointly by the United Kingdom and France for 15 years. The Saar’s coal production was controlled by France. In 1935, a referendum was permitted and the people of the Saar region (which borders France) voted, by a margin of 91%, to return to Germany. 



After the Saar vote to happily reunify with the German fatherland was held as promised, Hitler declared that Germany’s western borders were fixed.




As you could judge for yourself during your last visit here, the German people, in the knowledge of its own behavior held and holds no ill feelings, much less hatred, for its one-time brave opponent. On the contrary, the pacification of our western frontier led to an increasing sympathy. Certainly as far as the German people are concerned, a sympathy which, on many occasions, showed itself in a really demonstrative way.



This is 100% true. Throughout the 1930’s, neither in the German press nor among the happy German people, does one find any expression of animosity towards France or England. This is remarkable given what was done to the defenseless nation after World War I (territorial losses, crushing monetary reparations, hunger blockade, occupation, theft of resources, etc).


1- After many years of humiliation and suffering, the German people under Hitler had obtained happiness. The last thing they or their government wanted was for another destructive war against France and England.


2- Former British Prime Minister David Lloyd George visited Hitler in 1936, and then wrote:


There is for the first time since the war a general sense of security. The people are more cheerful. There is a greater sense of general gaiety of spirit throughout the land. It is a happier Germany. I saw it everywhere and Englishmen I met during my trip and who knew Germany well were very impressed with the change.


The idea of a Germany intimidating Europe with a threat that its irresistible army might march across frontiers forms no part of (Hitler’s) new vision.” (here)



The construction of the western fortifications, which swallowed and still swallow many millions (of Marks) at the same time constituted for Germany a document of acceptance and fixation of the final frontiers of the Reich. In doing so, the German people have renounced two provinces which once belonged to the German Reich, later were conquered again at the cost of much blood, and finally were defended with even more blood.


I believed that by this renunciation and this attitude every conceivable source of conflict between our two peoples that might lead to a repetition of the tragedy of 1914-1918 had been done away with.



Hitler makes a very logical point here. If someone builds an expensive fence along a certain line on his property, common sense tells us he has accepted that line as his property line, and everything on the other side as his neighbor’s. By spending millions of marks on border fortifications at a certain location, Hitler’s verbal renunciation of additional territory was supported by actual deeds as well.



In order to diffuse any possible tension between France and Germany, Hitler renounced any claim to the stolen provinces of Alsace-Lorraine and built Germany’s defense fortifications behind the region.



This voluntary limitation of the German claims to life in the West, can, however, not be interpreted as an acceptance of all other phases of the Versailles dictate. I have really tried, year after year, to achieve the revision of at least the most impossible and unbearable provisions of this dictate by way of negotiation. This was impossible.


In this sense I have tried to remove from the world the most irrational provisions of the Versailles dictate. I have made an offer to the Polish government which shocked the German people. Nobody but myself could even dare go before the public with such an offer. It could therefore be made only once.



The man is telling the truth, again! In its September 2nd issue, the New York Times will summarize the details of the generous offer that Germany made to aggressive Poland. Among other concessions, Hitler offered to give Poland a 1-mile wide highway running through German territory so that it would always have access to the Baltic Sea. Poland’s answer was to increase the abuse of Germans who were stranded in Poland due to the post-World War I land grab.



Western Prussia was stolen at gunpoint under threat of starvation after Germany was deceived and betrayed into unconditionally surrendering during World War I. The ridiculous Danzig Corridor handed the region to the newly-created state of Poland and cut off Eastern Prussia from the rest of the Reich. Germans trapped in the Corridor and the “free city” of Danzig (Image 2 / today Gdansk, Poland) were horribly abused and denied the right of self-determination.



I am deeply convinced that if, especially, England at that time had, instead of starting a wild campaign against Germany in the press and instead of launching rumors of a German mobilization, somehow talked the Poles into being reasonable, Europe today and for twenty-five years could enjoy a condition of deepest peace.


As things were, Polish public opinion was excited by a lie about German aggression. Clear decisions that the situation called for were made difficult for the Polish government. Above all, the government’s ability to see the limitations of realistic possibilities was impaired by the guarantee promise that followed.



Hitler was not the only one to accuse the British press of warmongering. Among others, Lord Beaverbrook, the biggest newspaper man in England, made this same observation in a pair of 1938 private letters. Beaverbrook:

“There are 20,000 German Jews in England – in the professions, pursuing research. They all work against an accommodation with Germany.”

In a subsequent letter, Beaverbrook added:

“The Jews have got a big position in the press here. . At last I am shaken. The Jews may drive us into war.”



Media mogul Beaverbrook wrote privately what he dared not say publicly.



The Polish government declined the proposals. Polish public opinion, convinced that England and France would now fight for Poland, began to make demands one might possibly stigmatize as laughable insanity were they not so tremendously dangerous. At that point an unbearable terror, a physical and economic persecution of the Germans although they numbered more than a million and a half began in the regions ceded by the Reich.



In regard to Poland being propped up and encouraged to fight Germany, again, Hitler can be corroborated by an independent source. From Count Jerzey Potocki, Polish Ambassador to the United States, written privately in 1934:

“Above all, propaganda here is entirely in Jewish hands. When bearing public ignorance in mind, their propaganda is so effective that people have no real knowledge of the true state of affairs in Europe … President Roosevelt has been given the power.. to create huge reserves in armaments for a future war which the Jews are deliberately heading for.”


1- Polish Ambassador Jersey Potocki leaving FDR’s White House.


 2- Marshal Rydz-Smigley was the effective military dictator of Poland. Backed by the UK, France, & FDR, the “brave” Smigley (who later fled from his defeated country) was very outspoken in his warmongering against Germany. (here)



I do not want to speak of the atrocities that occurred. Suffice it to say that Danzig, too, was made increasingly conscious through continuous aggressive acts by Polish officials of the fact that apparently it was delivered over to the high-handedness of a power foreign to the national character of the city and its population.



It’s true, again! As the Polish government “looked the other way”, Germans suffered extreme abuse at the hands of Bolshevik terror gangs. The September 3rd massacre at Bromberg, which propaganda historians have tried to mitigate, but cannot deny, gives a clear indication of the malevolent and envious hatred directed towards innocent Germans. At Bromberg, as many as 3000 Germans, including women and children were tied up, tortured, bludgeoned, mutilated, butchered or shot – and it wasn’t the first time that such events took place in the Corridor.





May I now take the liberty of putting a question to you, Herr Daladier: How would you act as a Frenchman if, through some unhappy issue of a brave struggle, one of your provinces severed by a corridor occupied by a foreign power? And if a big city – let us say Marseilles – were hindered from belonging to France and if Frenchmen living in this area were persecuted, beaten and maltreated, yes, murdered, in a bestial manner?


You are a Frenchman, Herr Daladier, and I therefore know how you would act. I am German, Herr Daladier. Do not doubt my sense of honor nor my consciousness of duty to act exactly like you. If, then, you had the misfortune that is ours, would you then, Herr Daladier, have any understanding that Germany was without cause to insist that the corridor through France remained, that the robbed territory must not be restored, and that the return of Marseilles be forbidden?



The logic of Hitler’s question to Daladier is impossible to refute, which is why propaganda historians have edited the existence of the Danzig Corridor, as well as the abuses and murders which took place within it, out of the history books and off of the TV crockumentaries.



Daladier (left) meeting with Hitler in 1938 to peacefully diffuse the Sudetenland controversy.




Certainly I cannot imagine, Herr Daladier, that Germany would fight against you for this reason. For, I and all of us, have renounced Alsace-Lorraine in order to avoid further bloodshed. Much less would we shed blood in order to maintain an injustice that would as unbearable for you as it would be immaterial to us.


Possibly we, as old front fighters, can best understand each other in a number of fields. I ask you, however, do understand this also: That it is impossible for a nation of honor to renounce the claim of almost two million human beings and to them maltreated at its own borders. I have therefore set up a clear demand to Poland. Danzig and the Corridor must return to Germany.
I see no way of persuading Poland, which feels herself as unassailable, now that she enjoys the protection of her guarantees, to accept a peaceful solution.  If our two countries on that account should be destined to meet again on the field of battle, there would nevertheless be a difference in the motives. I, Herr Daladier, shall be leading my people in a fight to rectify a wrong, whereas the others would be fighting to preserve that wrong.




Touche! The Fuhrer got you on that one, Monsieur Daladier! Care to respond, Eddie? Eddie? Hello? (sound of crickets)





That is the more tragic since many important men, also among your own people, have recognized the insanity of the solutions then found (at Versailles) as also the possibility of maintaining it lastingly.


That our two peoples should enter a new, bloody war of destruction is painful not only for you, but also for me, Herr Daladier. As already observed, I see no possibility for us on our part to exert influence in the direction of reasonableness upon Poland for correcting a situation that is unbearable for the German people and the German Reich.


– Adolf Hitler


Nearly 7 years into Hitler’s reign, at a time when Europe was still at peace and Jews were living well and prospering in Hitler’s Germany (it’s true!), Hitler’s logical, thoughtful and truthful attempt to avert disaster fell on deaf ears. Neither the French nor the British even attempted to refute Hitler’s claims. Instead, just like modern day ‘court historians,’ they simply ignored the irrefutable points which Hitler expressed; and then babbled on about “the rights of Poland.”

By now, the warmongering pressures on French President Daladier and British Prime Minister Chamberlain were too much to hold back. Thus emboldened, the militaristic and ultra-nationalist government of Poland allowed ultra-Nationalists and Jewish Bolshevik Partisans to escalate their border provocations of Germany; culminating with the September 1st German counter-attack against Poland, followed by the liberation of the Corridor and Danzig.

Britain and France declared war on Germany, yet did not lift a finger to help Poland. Having been played for ‘chumps.’ Poland was soon discarded by the Allies as Stalin’s Soviet Union then invaded Poland from the east. While continuing to ignore Hitler’s pleas for peace, the Allies will spend the next eight months plotting Scandinavian-based maneuvers and deploying a massive mechanized fighting force in northern France, in anticipation of invading Germany via “neutral” Belgium and Holland, sometime in the Spring of 1940.  

The rest, as they say, is history.




The delirious people of German Danzig greet Hitler as their liberator. Britain & France went to war and unleashed hell over this?!



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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Their objectives are as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Remember the Hegelian dialectic?)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(The program has been underway since 1990.)

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

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

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

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

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

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


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.



- 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.

¿Qué es lo que realmente está escondido en los archivos secretos del Vaticano?


El misterio y la intriga son inherentes a la Santa Sede. La gente siempre se preguntará qué autoridades religiosas están conspirando a puertas cerradas, qué tesoros se encuentran dentro de las bóvedas del Vaticano. A pesar de las afirmaciones de que el Papa tiene pruebas de extraterrestres y demonios escondidos en sus catacumbas, la verdad de los archivos secretos es mucho más realista. Debido a esto, también es mucho más interesante. De las cartas escritas a mano de personajes históricos como Mary Queen of Scotts y Abraham Lincoln a los toros papales excomulgando a Martín Lutero, el contenido de los archivos es suficiente para hacer que los ojos de cualquier erudito se abran. Sin embargo, la naturaleza de alto nivel que hace que el contenido tan fascinante es también lo que los hace tan estrechamente guardado. En realidad, no es evidencia de extraterrestres que el Vaticano se esconda del ojo público, sino documentos que pueden mostrar que la Iglesia fue cómplice del terror patrocinado por el estado de Mussolini y, posiblemente, incluso en los pogromos antisemitas de Hitler.

Archivum Secretum

La verdad detrás de los archivos secretos proviene de una traducción errónea del latín. El nombre real de los archivos del Vaticano es Archivum Secretum Apostolicum Vaticanum. ‘Secretum’ en latín no significa ‘secreto’ como algunos pueden suponer. Se traduce más exactamente como “personal” o “privado”. De hecho, los archivos están formados por las cartas privadas y los registros históricos de los últimos papas durante los últimos cuatro siglos. Los archivos fueron establecidos por el Papa Pablo V. El Papa claramente tenía un sentido de la importancia histórica de la correspondencia papal y sabía que tales documentos deben ser preservados. Sin embargo, el siglo 17 fue firmemente de la mentalidad de que la gente común no debe estar al tanto de las palabras intercambiadas por los reyes y los papas. Así que los archivos se mantuvieron bajo llave.

Acceso a los Archivos Privados

No fue hasta 1881 que el Papa León XIII permitió a los investigadores ver algunos de los contenidos del archivo. Sin embargo, no era fácil para uno ver los documentos y el procedimiento no ha cambiado mucho en los últimos 200 años. En primer lugar, los periodistas, los estudiantes y los historiadores aficionados no tienen acceso. Una vez que una parte interesada ha demostrado que él o ella es un erudito lo suficientemente serio, las credenciales se conceden que debe renovarse cada seis meses. Para ingresar a los archivos, “los estudiosos entran por la Porta Sant’Anna, pasan guardias suizos, recorren el Cortile del Belvedere y presentan credenciales” (O’Loughlin, 2014).


La Porta Sant Anna, donde los visitantes deben pasar para llegar a los archivos (Wikimedia Commons)

Una vez admitidos, los académicos deben solicitar qué documentos específicos desean revisar. Sólo se les permite solicitar tres por día. Así que en lugar de poder navegar por el contenido del archivo, deben seleccionar los artículos de los catálogos en los que los elementos se escriben a mano en italiano o latín. Estos catálogos son bastante imponentes considerando que los archivos contienen “50 millas [80km] de estanterías y documentos que datan del siglo VIII” (Keyser, 2015). “Si en pocos minutos se dan cuenta de que lo que buscan no está en las carpetas solicitadas, se ven obligados a hacer las maletas para el día, un desafío para los académicos en un plazo o para quienes han viajado largas distancias” ( O’Loughlin, 2014). Las computadoras están permitidas, pero no la fotografía, por lo que los expertos pasan la mayor parte de las sesiones en las salas de lectura escribiendo notas.

Gemas históricas

Si una persona es lo suficientemente afortunada como para tener acceso a los Archivos del Vaticano, podría perseguir joyas históricas como:

El pergamino de 60 metros que contiene los minutos de las pruebas de los Caballeros Templarios, que duró varios años a partir de 1307.

El Inter caetera, la bula papal emitida por el Papa Alejandro VI en 1493 que dividió el mundo entre los españoles y los portugueses

Una carta de Miguel Ángel al Papa Julio II

La bula papal de 1521 del Papa León X excomulgando a Martín Lutero

La petición de Enrique VIII de 1530 envió al Papa Clemente VII para pedir la anulación del matrimonio del rey con Catalina de Aragón, que incluye las firmas y sellos de más de 80 señores y clérigos ingleses (el Papa se negó)

Una carta al Papa Sixto V de María, reina de los escoceses, pidiendo a la Iglesia que intervenga poco antes de su ejecución

Notas relativas al juicio de 1633 contra Galileo

Una carta al Papa Inocencio X de la Gran Emperatriz Viuda Helena Wang de China

Una carta del Papa Clemente XII al Séptimo Dalai Lama pidiendo protección a los misioneros franciscanos en el Tíbet.

Cartas de ambos Abraham Lincoln y Jefferson Davis (ambos escritos en 1863, ni el hombre católico) en los esfuerzos para que el Papa Pío IX caiga a favor de la Unión o la Confederación


Una carta del rey Enrique VIII a Ana Bolena, que se celebra en el archivo del Vaticano (dominio público)

Papa Pío XII en Liga con los nazis?

David Kertzer, un historiador de la Universidad de Brown, pudo examinar documentos del reinado de Pío XI (1922-1939). Concluyó que el papa “hizo tratos con Mussolini para proteger el interés de la Iglesia a cambio del silencio sobre el antisemitismo patrocinado por el estado, una conclusión en desacuerdo con el relato de la Iglesia” (O’Loughlin, 2014). Los grupos están presionando al Papa Francisco para poner plenamente a disposición los contenidos relacionados con el Papa Pío XII (1939 – 1958) para que el mundo pueda finalmente saber con certeza el compromiso del hombre con los nazis. Algunos dicen que apoyó a Hitler, bien de una manera similar al apoyo de la Iglesia a Mussolini, o quizá incluso más sustancialmente. Otros dicen que el Papa trabajó contra los nazis y ayudó a esconder judíos y otros objetivos de la agresión nazi.

“La gente habla, los expertos hablan. ¿Hay cosas que no están disponibles porque son vistos como poco halagadores desde el punto de vista de la Iglesia? “, Dijo Kertzer. Sin embargo, admite Kertzer, los Archivos Secretos son atendidos por profesionales y “hay una apreciación de una seria erudición histórica” ​​(O’Loughlin, 2014).

En 2012, en conmemoración del 400 aniversario de los archivos, se pusieron a disposición del público 100 documentos en una exposición llamada Lux in Arcana.


Lux in Arcana – Los archivos secretos del Vaticano se revelan.

Crédito: El Vaticano Imagen superior: Algunas de las 50 millas de estanterías en el archivo secreto del Vaticano Foto: El Vaticano

Por Kerry Sullivan


The Guardian. “In Pictures: Secrets of the Vatican Archives.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 16 Sept. 2010. Web. https://www.theguardian.com/books/gallery/2010/sep/08/vatican-secret-archives-pope.

Keyser, Hannah. “15 Historic Wonders Housed in the Vatican’s Secret Archives. “Mental Floss. Mental Floss, Inc., 15 May 2015. Web. http://mentalfloss.com/article/63850/15-historic-wonders-housed-vaticans-secret-archives.

O’Loughlin, Michael. “What’s Hidden in the Vatican Secret Archives?” Crux. Crux Catholic Media Inc., 01 Sept. 2014. Web. https://cruxnow.com/church/2014/09/01/whats-hidden-in-the-vatican-archives/.


La Primera Guerra Mundial y la Revolución Rusa, cómo realmente sucedió

download (3)

Para iniciar su esperada y anticipada guerra mundial, el Nuevo Orden Mundial utiliza “nacionalistas serbios”. Una sociedad secreta conocida como Young Bosnia, que posiblemente trabaja con The Young Turks, representa el asesinato de un Real austriaco. Serbia es una nación cristiana ortodoxa bajo la protección de Rusia. Debido a los planes pasados ​​de Disraeli, muchos serbios también viven bajo regla austro-húngara (en Bosnia) en vez de bajo soberanía serbia. Esta situación ha causado siempre fricción, tanto en Austria-Hungría, como también entre Rusia y Austria-Hungría. El Archiduque Franz Ferdinand es heredero del trono de la familia Habsburgo de Austria-Hungría. Mientras viaja a través de la ciudad bosnia de Sarajevo con su esposa, Sophie, una bomba es lanzada al coche abierto del archiduque. Desvía la bomba con su brazo y explota detrás de él. La pareja real insiste en ver a todos los heridos en el hospital. Después de viajar allí, deciden ir al palacio, pero su conductor da un giro equivocado en una calle lateral, donde otro asesino llamado Gavrilo.Princip los localiza. Le tira a Sophie en el estómago ya Franz en el cuello. Franz sigue vivo cuando llegan testigos para dar ayuda. Sus palabras moribundas a Sophie son: “No te mueras cariño. Vive para nuestros hijos.

images (1)

El mundo está conmocionado. Las fatídicas profecías de Tolstói y Bismarck están a punto de suceder.


29 de junio

Los disturbios antisubios estallan en la ciudad austro-húngara de Sarajevo.

07 DE JULIO Austria-Hungría convoca a un Consejo de Ministros para discutir la situación.


La prensa sionista austro-húngara de Viena alienta las llamas del sentimiento anti-serbio. Se difunden informes falsos de una conspiración serbia.

JULIO El Kaiser Wilhelm II de Alemania, a petición del zar ruso Nicholas (su primo), intenta contener a su aliado austro-húngaro animando a Austria-Hungría a hablar con Serbia. (2)

28 de julio

Austria-Hungría cede a la histeria de la guerra y declara la guerra a Serbia.

29 de julio

Para defender a su aliado serbio, Rusia moviliza sus ejércitos contra su antiguo aliado ‘Liga de los Tres Emperadores’ Austria-Hungría.


Más allá del control del zar y del Kaiser, se dispara la bomba de tiempo Triple Alliance / Triple Entente. Alemania declara la guerra a Rusia por su movilización contra su aliado Austria-Hungría.


Ignorando las súplicas alemanas para no entrar en el conflicto, Francia comienza a avanzar hacia Austria-Hungría en apoyo de su aliado Entente, Rusia.


Frente a la peligrosa guerra de dos frentes que Francia y Inglaterra habían diseñado, (y que Bismarck temía) Alemania rápidamente avanza hacia Francia, a través de Bélgica, mientras que al mismo tiempo enfrenta a Rusia en el este.


Gran Bretaña entra en la guerra al lado de sus aliados, Francia y Rusia.


Acuerdo de Londres: los aliados de la Triple Entente Francia, Rusia y Reino Unido acuerdan que ningún miembro hará una paz separada con Alemania o Austria-Hungría.

28 de octubre

El rival sur de Rusia, el Imperio turco otomano, entra en la guerra por el lado de Austria-Hungría y Alemania. En tan sólo unas semanas, Europa está ahora en llamas en la guerra, mientras la prensa sionista globalista en Francia, Inglaterra, Austria y Alemania agita un fervor nacionalista mutuamente destructivo entre las naciones europeas.

1 y 2: Rodeado por las grandes potencias de la Triple Entente, la pacífica Alemania se vio obligada a avanzar rápidamente en dos direcciones. Los telegramas “Willy-Nicky” revelan claramente cómo los emperadores rusos y alemanes intentaron evitar la guerra, pero fueron impotentes para detener las fuerzas oscuras que controlaban los acontecimientos.


Después de la marcha hacia el oeste de Alemania hacia los puestos de París, el Frente Occidental se hunda en un estancamiento sangriento con líneas de trinchera que cambian poco hasta 1918. En el este, el ejército ruso lucha con éxito contra las fuerzas austrohúngaras, . Frentes adicionales se abren después de que el Imperio Otomano (Turquía) se une a la guerra (en el lado de Alemania) en 1914. Italia cambia de lado y se une a las potencias de la Entente en 1915. En el mar, la Marina Británica bloquea Alemania. Los submarinos alemanes contrarrestarán el bloqueo y hundirán a muchos buques mercantes británicos que llevan armas y suministros.

Ni una pulgada del territorio alemán se perdió jamás durante la Gran Guerra.

1914 EL MANIFIESTO DE LOS PRINCIPALES INTELECTUALES Y ARTISTAS DE LA ALEMANIA CONDENA LA PROPAGANDA ANTI-ALEMANA DEL OESTE Para contrarrestar las mentiras de los propagandistas aliados, 93 de los principales científicos, eruditos y artistas de Alemania firman su nombre en “El Manifiesto del 93”. El documento denuncia las mentiras dirigidas a Alemania, y declara un apoyo inequívoco de las acciones militares alemanas. Tal vez el más notable de los signatarios logrados es Wilhelm Roentgen, el físico ganador del Premio Nobel que descubrió “rayos X”. El Manifiesto dice:

“Como representantes de la ciencia y el arte alemanes, protestamos ante el mundo civilizado contra las mentiras y calumnias con que nuestros enemigos tratan de manchar el honor de Alemania en su lucha por la existencia, en una lucha que se le ha impuesto. La boca de hierro de los acontecimientos ha demostrado la falsedad de las ficticias derrotas alemanas; En consecuencia, la tergiversación y la calumnia están más activamente en el trabajo. Como heraldos de la verdad levantamos nuestras voces contra éstos. No es cierto que Alemania sea culpable de haber causado esta guerra.

Ni el pueblo, ni el Gobierno, ni el Kaiser querían la guerra. No es cierto que nos invadimos en Bélgica neutral. Se ha comprobado que Francia e Inglaterra se han resuelto sobre tal transgresión, y también se ha demostrado que Bélgica había accedido a hacerlo. Habría sido un suicidio de nuestra parte no haberlo hecho. No es cierto que la vida y las propiedades de un solo ciudadano belga hayan sido heridas por nuestros soldados sin que la defensa más amarga lo hubiera hecho necesario. No es cierto que nuestras tropas trataron a Louvain brutalmente. Los furiosos habitantes que habían caído traicioneramente sobre ellos en sus cuarteles, nuestras tropas con corazones doloridos fueron obligados a disparar una parte de la ciudad, como castigo.

La mayor parte de Lovaina ha sido conservada. No es cierto que nuestra guerra no respeta las leyes internacionales. No conoce crueldad indisciplinada. Pero en el este, la tierra está saturada con la sangre de las mujeres Y los niños despiadadamente asesinados por las tropas rusas salvajes, y en el oeste, las balas dumdum mutilan los pechos de nuestros soldados. No es cierto que el combate contra nuestro llamado militarismo no sea un combate contra nuestra civilización, como pretenden hipócritamente nuestros enemigos. Si no fuera por el militarismo alemán, la civilización alemana habría sido extirpada desde hacía tiempo. No podemos arrancar el arma venenosa -la mentira- de las manos de nuestros enemigos.

Todo lo que podemos hacer es proclamar al mundo entero, que nuestros enemigos están dando un falso testimonio contra nosotros. ¡Ten fe en nosotros! Cree que continuaremos esta guerra hasta el fin como una nación civilizada, a quien el legado de un Goethe, un Beethoven y un Kant, es tan sagrado como sus propios hogares y hogares.

Como el descubridor de los “rayos X”, Wilhelm Roentgen fue capaz de “ver a través” de la propaganda anti-alemana de los aliados.


¿Otra vez con los 6 millones?




El Reino Unido quiere atraer a Estados Unidos a la guerra. El señor del Almirantazgo Winston Churchill y el asesor marxista de Wilson, Edward Mandell House, creen que si Alemania puede ser atrapada en hundir un buque británico con los estadounidenses a bordo, los Estados Unidos serán forzados a entrar en la guerra. (4) Sin saberlo de sus pasajeros, el lujoso Lusitania lleva armas y explosivos destinados a Gran Bretaña. (5) Navegando desde Nueva York, Lusitania está cargada con 600 toneladas de explosivos, 6 millones de municiones, 1200 cajas de metralla y algunos pasajeros americanos. La embajada alemana en Washington es consciente de esto y trata de advertir a los viajeros estadounidenses mediante la colocación de anuncios en los periódicos estadounidenses, que se rechazan en la mayoría de los casos. (6) A medida que Lusitania se acerca a la costa irlandesa, se ordena reducir la velocidad, y su buque de escolta militar, Juno, es retirado. (7) Churchill sabe que los U-Boats alemanes están en el área. Él intencionalmente ralentiza la Lusitania y llama a Juno, dejando a la Lusitania como un pato sentado. Un golpe de torpedo alemán enciende las municiones, causando una explosión secundaria que hunde el revestimiento masivo en sólo 18 minutos! Casi 1200 de sus 1959 pasajeros mueren, incluidos128 estadounidenses. . La prensa estadounidense vilipende a Alemania, pero no menciona las municiones de contrabando (o quizás una bomba pre-plantada?) Que realmente hundió a la Lusitania. Durante los años 50, la marina británica intenta destruir la evidencia histórica de la explosión de Lusitania dejando caer cargas de profundidad sobre el revestimiento hundido


1- British Mad Dog Churchill 3-Globalista NY Times, reclamó dos torpedos de éxito. 1915-16 A PESAR DE LA LUSITANIA QUE FUMA, WILSON RETRASA LA ENTRADA DE LOS EEUU EN LA GUERRA

El incidente de Lusitania juega un papel importante en convertir el sentimiento estadounidense contra Alemania, pero aún no ha llegado el momento de que Estados Unidos haga su entrada. Los sionistas están esperando para lograr el máximo apalancamiento antes de ordenar a Wilson que finalmente tire del gatillo. Por el momento, Wilson sólo condenará verbalmente el ataque de Lusitania, manteniendo a Estados Unidos fuera de la guerra y cruzando hacia la reelección en noviembre de 1916. Los británicos están decepcionados. Los políticos del Reino Unido, los periodistas y el loco Teddy Roosevelt, todos ellos ridiculizan a Wilson por ser tímidos. En un intento de mantener a Estados Unidos inflamado, los británicos inventan una historia sobre los niños alemanes que reciben unas vacaciones para celebrar el hundimiento de la Lusitania. ¡Otras historias falsas hablan de soldados alemanes clavando bebés en puertas de iglesias en Bélgica! Los británicos saben que eventualmente necesitarán ayuda de Estados Unidos si quieren ganar la ventaja sobre la Triple Alianza / Poderes Centrales. Los sionistas saben esto también, pero están esperando su tiempo, estableciendo el Reino Unido y los Estados Unidos por el momento adecuado, y el trato correcto.


Wilson pretende arrastrar a Estados Unidos a la guerra, pero sus promesas de campaña de reelección de 1916 dicen lo contrario.

DICIEMBRE, 1916 EL ALEMÁN KAISER INTENTA PARAR LA GUERRA La batalla de Verdun se agrava durante 10 meses, resultando en 306.000 muertos en el campo de batalla (163.000 franceses y 143.000 alemanes) y 500.000 heridos. ¡Eso es un promedio de 30,000 muertes por cada uno de los 10 meses de la batalla! En el noreste de Francia, Verdun es la batalla más larga y devastadora de la Gran Guerra. Al final de Verdún, la guerra se ha desmoronado en un punto muerto, pero Alemania sigue teniendo una ventaja. En diciembre de 1916, el Kaiser Wilhelm se ofrece a negociar la paz con los Poderes de la Entente. Pero Gran Bretaña y Francia deliberadamente hacen exigencias imposibles a Alemania como condición para negociar. A pesar de los esfuerzos sinceros de Alemania para detener la locura, alguien quiere que este absurdo baño de sangre continúe. ¿Pero quién? ….. ¿Y por qué?


La batalla de Verdun / Kaiser Wilhelm quería paz todo el tiempo. DICIEMBRE, 1916 EL TRATO DE SUELDO SUCIO MANTIENE LA GUERRA QUE VA / SIONISTAS A GRAN BRETAÑA: “¡PODEMOS LLEVAR LOS EEUU EN LA GUERRA!” Para diciembre de 1916, las Potencias Centrales tienen una clara ventaja. Francia ha sufrido pérdidas horribles. Rusia se enfrenta al caos interno revolucionario rojo. Gran Bretaña está bajo bloqueo de U-Boat, y no se ha ocupado una pulgada cuadrada de Alemania. Alemania ofrece generosos términos de paz. Básicamente, Kaiser Wilhelm está dispuesto a acabar con la guerra y volver a cómo eran las cosas. ¡Ahí es cuando los sionistas hacen su movimiento para cumplir el plan de Herzl! Chaim.Weizman y Nathan Sokolow se acercan a los británicos con un trato sucio. Los sionistas se ofrecen a utilizar su influencia internacional para llevar a los Estados Unidos a la guerra en el lado de Gran Bretaña, mientras que socavar Alemania desde el interior. El precio que Gran Bretaña debe pagar por la entrada de Estados Unidos es robar Palestina de Turquía otomana (aliado de Alemania) y permitir que los judíos se asienten allí. Aunque la declaración oficial del apoyo británico a una patria judía no debe hacerse pública hasta 1917 (Declaración de Balfour), el acuerdo fue alcanzado de hecho en diciembre de 1916. Poco después, los sionistas agitaron la propaganda anti-alemana Se desató en los EE.UU. mientras los sionistas y marxistas de Alemania comienzan a socavar el esfuerzo de Alemania de la guerra desde dentro


Chaim Weizman hizo a los británicos una oferta que no podían rechazar. A cambio, los sionistas quieren ver el imperio turco destruido y Palestina entregada a los judíos. FEBRERO, 1917 LA “REVOLUCIÓN FEBRERA” SUBE LA FAMILIA ROYAL ROMANOV DE RUSIA A medida que la economía rusa se deteriora y la guerra se vuelve impopular, comienza la ‘Revolución de Febrero’. Los comunistas, los socialistas progresistas y los soldados descontentos se combinan para desestabilizar el ya debilitado reinado del zar Nicolás. El zar se ve obligado a abdicar de su trono y poner bajo arresto domiciliario en espera de exilio. Los judíos de todo el mundo celebran la abdicación del zar ruso. Se establece un gobierno de coalición de “centro-izquierda” compuesto principalmente por socialistas y comunistas. Sigue una lucha de poder entre los socialistas demócratas y la parte comunista (soviético-bolchevique).

La dinastía Romanov ha terminado.


Durante las semanas que siguieron al trato sucio sionista-británico para robar Palestina, los sionistas cumplen con su objetivo final. Una campaña de propaganda intensa se desencadena repentinamente en América. El incidente de 1915 Lusitania es resucitado, junto con el bombo sobre la guerra alemana del U-barco. Un plan de contingencia alemán para aliarse con México si Estados Unidos entra en guerra (Nota de Zimmerman) es falsamente retratado como una trama para atacar a América. Citando varios falsos pretextos, el 2 de abril de 1917, Wilson, que según Benjamin Freedman estaba bajo chantaje sobre un asunto que tenía cuando era profesor de Princeton, le pide al Congreso una Declaración de Guerra. El Congreso cumple. Las fuerzas regulares de los pequeños militares estadounidenses comienzan a llegar a Europa, pero pasarán meses antes de que la fuerza total de los hombres reclutados pueda ser desplegada.

El cartel icónico de Fred Rothman de los EEUU retrata alemanes como monstruoso “Huns”


Los líderes terroristas del Red que el Zar Nicolás sólo exilió en 1905 ahora comienzan a regresar a Rusia. Vladimir Lenin llega de Suiza, a través de Alemania, con un Escondite de oro banquero sionista. León Trotsky llega de Nueva York con más dinero y una banda de matones marxistas y judíos. (9) Los comunistas financiados por sionistas socavan inmediatamente el nuevo gobierno provisional. Un golpe violento se intenta en julio, pero los rojos bolcheviques se detienen. El socialista demócrata Alexander Kerensky se convierte en primer ministro cuando los líderes bolcheviques pasan a la clandestinidad.

De regreso de Brooklyn, el asesino Leon Trotsky (izquierda) se unirá a Lenin (centro) en la búsqueda de expulsar Kerensky (derecha)


Wilson establece el Comité de Información Pública (CPI) con el fin de manipular la opinión pública en apoyo de la guerra. Edward Bernays, “el padre de la propaganda americana” es un miembro del CPI. Un sobrino del psicoanalista Sigmund Freud, el sionista Bernays se jacta de su capacidad para controlar la mente pública. Él llama a sus métodos científicos para controlar la opinión pública, “la ingeniería del consentimiento”. En su libro de 1928, Propaganda, Berns explica: “La manipulación consciente e inteligente de los hábitos y opiniones de las masas es un elemento importante en la sociedad democrática . Los que manipulan este mecanismo invisible de la sociedad constituyen un gobierno invisible que es el verdadero poder gobernante de nuestro país. – Estamos gobernados, nuestras mentes están moldeadas, nuestros gustos formados, nuestras ideas sugeridas, en gran parte por hombres de los que nunca hemos oído hablar. Son ellos quienes tiran de los cables que controlan la mente pública. ” Bernays y sus co-conspiradores del CPI describen el esfuerzo bélico estadounidense como una santa cruzada “para hacer el mundo seguro para la democracia”, mientras que al mismo tiempo difunde una vil propaganda llena de odio dirigida hacia Alemania y su emperador Wilhelm II. “Bebés y bayonetas.”

En Europa y América, Alemania era ahora el blanco de la propaganda de guerra odiosa y ridícula.

Bernays escribió el libro sobre propaganda y manipulación; literalmente.


El ejército de Estados Unidos es muy pequeño, pero su capacidad de campo y equipar un ejército es grande. El proyecto impopular se instituyó en 1917. Al final de la guerra, bajo el pretexto idiota de “hacer el mundo seguro para la democracia” (lema de Bernays), más de 2 millones de hombres norteamericanos inocentes habrán sido enviados a luchar por el globalismo y el sionismo.

Los carteles de propaganda estadounidenses alentaron a los hombres a alistarse acusando a los “brutos locos” alemanes de crucificar a mujeres y niños.


Los sionistas han entregado en su extremo del trato sucio hecho con los británicos en 1916. La entrada americana en la guerra fue entregada según lo prometido. Por formalmente y públicamente, emitiendo “La Declaración de Balfour”, Lord Balfour está asegurando a los sionistas que Gran Bretaña cumplirá su fin del acuerdo después de la guerra, ¡el robo de Palestina! La Declaración es entregada al ‘Barón’ Walter Rothschild. Dice en parte: “El gobierno de Su Majestad ve con beneplácito el establecimiento en Palestina de un hogar nacional para el pueblo judío, y hará todo lo posible para facilitar el logro de este objetivo”. La extracción de esta promesa de los británicos es una de las razones principales por las que la guerra sin sentido se mantuvo en marcha, y por qué Estados Unidos finalmente se arrastró pulg En Israel hoy día Balfour (2 de noviembre) es ampliamente celebrado. Los árabes palestinos lo observan como un día de duelo.

“Querido Lord Rothschild” – El barón Walter Rothschild (izquierda) recibió la declaración Balfour de Lord Balfour.


7 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 1917 El primer ministro socialista Kerensky lucha por mantener a flote una mala economía, un gobierno de coalición inestable y una cansada nación rusa en la guerra. El tiempo está maduro para que los Rojos lleven a cabo otro violento intento de poder. Esta vez, Trotsky, Lenin y su pandilla malvada tendrá éxito. Con el respaldo de algunas tropas rojas – muchas de las cuales habían sido lavadas el cerebro en 1905 campamentos de prisioneros japoneses por materiales de lectura comunistas pagados por Jacob Schiff (12) – la ciudad capital de Petrogrado (San Petersburgo) es incautada durante la Revolución de Octubre “Octubre Rojo”). Kerensky huye de su vida y el nuevo régimen soviético se mueve inmediatamente para sacar a Rusia de la guerra (antes de que Alemania pueda vencerlos). Fuera de Petrogrado, el gobierno predominantemente judío Red no es reconocido como legítimo. Una sangrienta guerra civil entre los rojos dirigidos por los judíos y los “blancos” cristianos está ahora en proceso.

Vladimir Lenin, un guerrillero rojo, incita a las turbas hambrientas. HISTORIA PROHIBIDA: CITA PARA RECORDAR:


“Los líderes bolcheviques aquí (Rusia), la mayoría de los cuales son judíos y el 90 por ciento de los cuales son devueltos exiliados, se preocupan poco por Rusia o cualquier otro país, pero son internacionalistas y están tratando de iniciar una revolución social mundial”.

David R. Francis, Embajador de los Estados Unidos en Rusia, enero de 1918 1918-1921 ‘REDS’ vs ‘WHITES’ / GUERRA CIVIL EN RUSIA

Después de la caída de San Petersburgo a los Rojos, una guerra civil contrarrevolucionaria desgarra a Rusia por otros tres años. Los diversos opositores de los “rojos” son colectivamente referidos como “los blancos”, dirigidos principalmente por el almirante Kolchak. Cuando resulta evidente que un ejército revolucionario Rojo, compuesto únicamente de obreros y algunas tropas ex-zaristas, es demasiado pequeño para acabar con la contrarrevolución, Trotsky inscribe el reclutamiento obligatorio del campesinado en el Ejército Rojo. La oposición al reclutamiento del Ejército Rojo es superada por tácticas terroristas. Los rehenes y sus familias son torturados y asesinados cuando es necesario para forzar el cumplimiento.

Los Blancos del Almirante Kolchak vs Rojos de Trotsky


De no haber sido por la entrada de Estados Unidos en 1917 en la guerra, los partidos estancados habrían dejado de luchar por su cuenta y millones de vidas se habrían salvado. Pero no sería hasta 1918 que un número suficiente de reclutas estadounidenses entrenados estarían listos para desplegarse en operaciones de combate. Antes de que se derramaran nuevos ríos de sangre americana (117.000 estadounidenses morirían de causas relacionadas con el combate o la enfermedad entre abril y noviembre de 1918), tanto Alemania como Austria-Hungría volvieron a comunicar su deseo de una resolución pacífica; Tal como habían estado proponiendo previamente para hacer una paz mutuamente aceptable con Gran Bretaña y Francia todo el tiempo. En una alocución ante el Congreso de los Estados Unidos, el marioneta belicoso Wilson se ve obligado a admitir que, en respuesta a su reciente Declaración de “14 puntos”, Alemania y Austria-Hungría han expresado su acuerdo general con las propuestas de Wilson. Pero en el aliento siguiente, Wilson casualmente rechaza estas prometedoras tentativas de paz (refiriéndose a ellas como “declaraciones de paz”) ​​como inaceptables. Los manipuladores neoyorquinos de Wilsons (Baruch, Schiff, Warburg, Morgenthau, Brandeis, etc.) quieren su esperada guerra por el Globalismo (la pre-planeada “Liga de las Naciones”) y el sionismo (el robo británico de Palestina); Y ciertamente no están a punto de permitir que las propuestas de paz germánicas descarrilaran el NWO Express. Lo más asombroso de las mentiras de Wilson es su brillante descripción de cómo será la eventual paz de posguerra. El hecho de que tantos ingenuos y cansados ​​alemanes compraran más tarde las promesas vacías de Wilson, contribuirán a la bizarra entrega incondicional y al desarme de Alemania en noviembre de ese mismo año, 1918.

1- “Dice a Alemania que puede ser igual” 2- La falsa charla de paz de Wilson llevaba la píldora venenosa de la “Liga de Naciones” de los Globalistas.


Los rojos de Rusia no pueden luchar una guerra civil en el país y una guerra externa al mismo tiempo. Lenin y Trotsky no tienen más remedio que sacar a Rusia de la guerra. Antes de que las tropas estadounidenses puedan desplegarse en gran número, Alemania desvía sus tropas del frente pacificado del este y organiza una gran ofensiva occidental. La operación comienza en marzo con un ataque contra las fuerzas británicas en Francia. ¡Los alemanes avanzan 40 millas y París está a sólo 75 millas de distancia! La ofensiva de primavera es tan exitosa que Wilhelm declara el 24 de marzo una fiesta nacional. En este punto crítico, los marxistas y sionistas en Alemania apuñalan a sus compatriotas en la espalda. Los líderes sindicales marxistas ordenan huelgas de fábrica que privan a las tropas alemanas de suministros críticos. (15) La prensa judía, que había abierto la guerra Pasiones en 1914, repentinamente se convierte en agrio en la guerra y comienza a rasgar en el ejército alemán. La moral alemana comienza a caer rápidamente, al igual que la producción industrial. Recientes reclutas llegan a la primera línea con una actitud derrotista como protestas contra la guerra y el descontento general se extendió por toda Alemania. La Gran Ofensiva se detiene justo cuando los estadounidenses comienzan a llegar. Los sionistas alemanes traicionan a Alemania para que Palestina pueda ser tomada del aliado turco de Alemania y entregada a los judíos (Declaración de Balfour). Los marxistas judíos alemanes y los “socialistas demócratas” también ven una derrota alemana como un medio para desestabilizar la nación y organizar una revolución. Después de la guerra, la traición traidora de 1918 se conoce como “El Stab-in-the-Back”. Los “historiadores” modernos liberan esta alegación como una “leyenda”, pero no hay nada mítico al respecto. Al borde de la victoria final, Alemania fue traicionada desde dentro – simple y llanamente.

Las caricaturas de la posguerra representan sionistas-marxistas apuñalando a soldados alemanes en la espalda.


Había tardado un año entero en América para que sus militares fueran reclutados, entrenados y desplegados bajo el mando norteamericano. En el verano de 1918, 10,000 tropas frescas llegan diariamente al frente. Alrededor de 120,000 de ellos morirán en la Gran Guerra, 90,000 en combate, 30,000 de enfermedad. Además de la sangre fresca muy necesaria, las máquinas de guerra francesas y británicas están siendo re-suministradas por la producción industrial de la poderosa América. Con la ruptura de la ofensiva de primavera, la marea se vuelve contra Alemania y sus aliados. El contraataque aliado, (100 Days Offensive) comienza en agosto. En la batalla de Amiens, los aliados avanzan 7 millas en el territorio de dominio alemán en sólo 7 horas. De vuelta en Alemania, la prensa judía ignora los efectos devastadores de las huelgas dirigidas por los judíos y el derrotismo de inspiración judía. En cambio, los periódicos culpan al general Erich Ludendorff por los recientes reveses alemanes!

Nuevos muchachos americanos llegaron a matar a muchachos alemanes cuando la prensa judía de Alemania cambió descaradamente la culpa al general Ludendorff.

1- ¡Vamos, hombre! ¡Únete a mí para morir por las mentiras de Wilson! 2- Americano muerto enredado en alambre de púas. Si sólo su madre, su padre, su esposa, sus hijos, sus amigos pudieran haberlo visto morir. ¿Qué dirían al profesor Wilson?


El zar Nicolás II había esperado ser exiliado al Reino Unido mientras Kerensky estaba en el poder, pero su “aliado” británico se había negado a aceptarlo. Los bolcheviques (comunistas) ahora tienen a Nicholas, su esposa Alexandra, sus cuatro hijas y su hijo menor arresto domiciliario. Sus captores rojos los obligan a vivir con raciones. Niño, Nicolás había sido testigo del asesinato por bombardeo de su abuelo, Alejandro II, en 1881. El trágico error de Nicholas fue no ejecutar la escoria roja, como Lenin y Trotsky, después de su fallida revolución de 1905. Ahora, su miserable misericordia vuelve a perseguirlo, ya su familia. En la noche del 16/17 de julio de 1918, la familia real Romanov se despierta a las 2AM, se le dice que se vista, y luego se reúne en el sótano de la casa en la que están detenidos. Momentos después, los rojos judíos entran y matan a toda la familia, a su médico ya tres sirvientes a sangre fría. Algunas de las hijas Romanov son apuñaladas y golpeadas hasta morir cuando los disparos iniciales no las matan. Noticias del brutal asesinato de los Romanov enviarán ondas de choque por toda Rusia, y toda la Europa cristiana.

¡Una familia hermosa – tirada y apuñalada a la muerte como animales! Cuando comenzó el tiroteo, el zar trató de proteger a su joven hijo.


La anterior campaña de Gran Bretaña contra los turcos había terminado en fracaso (Gallipoli). Ahora, con los americanos frescos y fuertes que llegan para luchar contra los alemanes en Europa Occidental, las tropas británicas se liberan para concentrarse en el Imperio Otomano. Gran Bretaña codicia los campos petroleros de Oriente Medio, pero el Reino Unido también tiene una deuda que pagar a los jefes sionistas que arrastraron a los Estados Unidos a la guerra. Ayudar a los británicos en el esfuerzo de robar Palestina son 10.000 judíos estadounidenses que se alistan para luchar no junto con sus compatriotas en Europa, sino con los británicos, que tienen la intención de apoderarse de su futuro hogar, Palestina. Ver: La Legión Judía Durante este tiempo, aviones británicos lanzan folletos sobre Alemania. Impreso en yiddish, los folletos de Balfour buscan ganar el apoyo judío en Alemania prometiendo a los judíos una “patria” en Palestina después de haber ganado la guerra.

1- Vladimir Jabotinsky (izquierda) lideró las unidades judías en la lucha contra Turquía. 2- Dejando a los norteamericanos para hacer el levantamiento pesado contra Alemania, los británicos se dirigen hacia el sur para desmantelar el Imperio Otomano.



¡”Todo el Poder a los Trabajadores” significa realmente todo el poder al Nuevo Orden Mundial! Con la guerra civil rusa furiosa, la Internacional Comunista, conocida como “La Comintern”, se establece en Moscú, Rusia. El Comintern declara abiertamente que su intención es combatir “por todos los medios disponibles, incluida la fuerza armada, para el derrocamiento de la” burguesía “internacional (la clase empresarial) y para la creación de una república soviética internacional (gobierno mundial)”. 18)

De 1918 a 1922, los partidos afiliados a la Comintern se forman en Francia, Italia, China, Alemania, España, Bélgica, Estados Unidos y otras naciones. Todos los comunistas operan bajo la dirección de los Rojos de Moscú, que son financiados por los mismos banqueros globales internacionalistas sionistas que crearon la Reserva Federal y provocaron la Gran Guerra. 2 DE SEPTIEMBRE DE 1918 EL ‘TERROR ROJO’ ES ANUNCIADO EN RUSIA


Los comunistas rusos planean usar estratégicamente el terror para intimidar a sus adversarios blancos en sumisión. Por orden de Lenin y Trotsky, el “terror rojo” es anunciado por el Yakov rojo judío. Sverdlov. El Terror Rojo está marcado por detenciones masivas a mitad de la noche, ejecuciones y tácticas horriblemente creativas de tortura. Hasta 100.000 rusos son asesinados en el Terror Rojo, llevado a cabo por la Cheka (policía secreta), dirigida por los judíos. Entre las atrocidades cometidas, a menudo en vista de los miembros de la familia de la víctima, se encuentran:  40.000 prisioneros blancos ahorcados públicamente en Ucrania  Carbones ardientes insertados en las vaginas de las mujeres  Crucifixiones  Violaciones de mujeres de todas las edades  Víctimas sumergidas en aceite o alquitrán hirviendo ¡”Todo el Poder a los Trabajadores” significa realmente todo el poder al Nuevo Orden Mundial!  Víctimas empapadas con gasolina y quemadas vivas  Víctimas colocadas en ataúdes llenos de ratas hambrientas  Víctimas empapadas con agua, y convertidas en cubos de hielo humanos en invierno.  Los sacerdotes, los monjes y las monjas tienen el plomo fundido derramado en sus gargantas (19) El terror desmoralizante toma una carga psicológica pesada sobre el pueblo ruso asustado. En 1922, muchos se rompen en sumisión a los monstruos rojos de la Cheka.

1 & 2 – El horror del terror rojo judío asustó a Europa. Desde los días de Genghis Khan no se han asesinado brutalmente tantos europeos. 3- Yakov Sverdlov era una bestia asesina en masa.


Para el otoño de 1918, está claro que Alemania ya no puede ganar la guerra. Su política ahora es “no perderla tampoco”. Como lo hizo en 1916, el Kaiser se ofrece a negociar la paz en términos favorables a todos. Aunque Alemania no puede ganar, los Aliados tampoco pueden ganar. El frente oriental de Alemania con Rusia está cerrado. No hay tropas aliadas en territorio alemán, la capital. Berlim está a 900 millas de distancia de la fachada, y el ejército alemán es muy capaz de defender a la patria de cualquier invasión. Pero el frente de la casa se está derrumbando. Los políticos traidores, los líderes sindicales marxistas y los magnates de los medios sionistas se combinan para desmoralizar al pueblo y desestabilizar a Alemania. El Kaiser se ve obligado a dimitir, exiliando a Holanda. El 11 de noviembre de 18, los marxistas y liberales de la recién formada “República de Weimer” (formada en la ciudad de Weimar) se acuestan y se lanzan hacia los Aliados! Increíblemente, en un momento en que los Aliados no tienen un solo soldado en suelo alemán, los traidores de Weimar ordenan a los militares que depongan las armas y se retiren del frente. Basados ​​en las vacías promesas de Wilson de “paz sin victoria”, los ‘Criminales de Noviembre’ colocan a Alemania en la misericordia total del Nuevo Orden Mundial.

1- La trampa del armisticio fue firmada en un vagón en Compiegne, Francia. 2- La historieta alemana patriótica representa a los políticos que apuñalan a tropas alemanas en la parte posterior. 3- Los judíos se apoderan de Berlín ese mismo día

11 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 1918 COMO COMUNISTAS JUDÍOS CAPTURA BERLÍN / KAISER FLEES A HOLANDA En 1915, los rojos judíos Rosa Luxemburg y Karl Liebknecht fundaron la “Liga Spartacus” (nombrada en honor al nombre en código de “Spartacus” del fundador de NWO / Illuminati, Adam Weishaupt). En 1919, el grupo se convierte en el Partido Comunista de Alemania. Ese mismo mes, los espartaquistas, ayudados por el judío-húngaro Red Bela Kun, aprovechan el caos de la posguerra, y realizan un golpe en Berlín. Kaiser Wilhelm, temiendo el mismo destino que el zar Nicolás, huye a Holanda. Ahora lamenta su liberalismo pasado y denuncia la “influencia judía” que arruinó a Alemania. La toma de poder comunista de Berlín es de corta duración como veteranos conocidos como el control de recuperación de los “Freikorps” de los rojos judíos y sus seguidores. Luxemburgo y Liebknecht son capturados y ejecutados. Los “Freikorps” han salvado a Alemania del mismo destino mortal que le ha sucedido a Rusia, pero la nueva Alemania “socialista democrática” pronto se enfrentará a otros problemas graves. Al igual que los rojos de Rusia, los rojos de Rusia dejaron de lado al socialista Kerensky, los rojos de Alemania seguirán tratando de obtener el poder absoluto de los “socialistas democráticos” de Weimar.

Los Freikorps alemanes salvaron a Alemania del baño de sangre comunista de estilo soviético que los judíos Reds Luxemburg y Liebknecht estaban planeando.


Como artista hambriento de 25 años de edad, Adolfo Hitler se había ofrecido a luchar por Austria en 1914. En ese momento, sus dos padres habían fallecido. Afligido por la tuberculosis durante la juventud, Hitler fue rechazado por el servicio militar. Hitler entonces pidió a las autoridades bávaras que le permitieran luchar por Alemania. Él sirvió con gran distinción, y fue ascendido a Lance Corporal después de haber sido galardonado con la Cruz de hierro alemana 2 ª Clase por valentía. En octubre de 16, fue herido gravemente y pasó dos meses en un hospital militar. Podría haberse quedado en casa, pero optó por volver a las líneas de frente. En agosto de 18, Hitler recibe la prestigiosa Cruz de Hierro de 1ra Clase. En octubre de 1918, es cegado por un ataque de gas venenoso británico. Mientras recupera la vista, Hitler escucha la vergonzosa capitulación de Alemania. Está confundido e indignado. El sacrificio y el sufrimiento de los soldados alemanes habían sido para nada. El valiente pintor desconocido de Viena quiere respuestas, y no descansará hasta que los ‘Criminales de Noviembre’ (su término) queden expuestos y el honor de Alemania restablecido.

Hitler, sentado a la izquierda, era un soldado heroico y altamente condecorado.


La Conferencia de Paz de París es la reunión de los vencedores aliados para aplastar financieramente a Alemania y determinar las nuevas fronteras de las naciones derrotadas. Los Globalistas elaboran una serie de tratados (Tratados de Paz de París) que remodelan Europa y el mundo. En su centro están los líderes de las tres ‘Grandes Potencias’: Woodrow Wilson (Estados Unidos), los Primeros Ministros David Lloyd George (EE.UU.) y Georges Clemenceau (Francia). Alemania no está invitada y no tendrá voz en las decisiones finales. Los Globalistas desmantelarán las naciones existentes y crearán otras nuevas. Austria-Hungría y Turquía están talladas; Sus pueblos dispares reasignados a nuevos estados. La Conferencia también crea el marco para un futuro Gobierno Mundial, la Sociedad de Naciones. Una delegación sionista también está presente. Habían traído a Estados Unidos a la guerra, y ahora es el momento de cobrar el pago por los servicios prestados (Declaración de Balfour). Los antiguos territorios árabes del Imperio Otomano están separados del dominio turco y divididos en pequeños estados. Palestina se convertirá en un protectorado británico. Ver: Mandato británico La declaración sionista establece la demanda del judío a un pedazo de Palestina, garantizado por la Liga de las Naciones y exactamente como Herzl había predicho en 1897! Los judíos de todo el mundo pueden ahora emigrar a la Palestina británica, pero en números controlados. Los árabes de Palestina (una mayoría del 95%) no fueron consultados sobre este acuerdo, y están enojados.

Clemenceau, Wilson, y George frente a los gangsters Globalista en París.


De la Conferencia de Paz de París se produce el bárbaro e infame “Tratado de Versalles”. La crueldad del Tratado es hoy reconocida incluso por los historiadores liberales. Con Alemania desarmada por su nuevo gobierno, los Globalistas y Sionistas proceden a violar a la nación alemana; Una nación que no quería la guerra, había tratado de evitar la guerra, y había ofrecido hacer la paz en numerosas ocasiones después de que la guerra había comenzado. El Tratado contiene 440 cláusulas, 414 de las cuales se dedican a castigar a Alemania por una guerra que se le impuso. Entre las disposiciones clave que una Alemania desarmada y Austria (Tratado de St. Germaine) se ven obligados a aceptar a punta de pistola y mientras están bajo un bloqueo de hambre son:

1. Alemania debe aceptar el 100% de responsabilidad por la guerra.

2. Fuerzas armadas alemanas restringidas a 100.000 hombres.

3. La Renania alemana industrial será ocupada por las tropas francesas durante 15 años.

4. Kaiser Wilhelm II (seguro en Holanda) debe ser juzgado por “ofensas contra la moral internacional”.

5. La región alemana de Prusia Occidental se da a la nueva nación de Polonia. ¡Dos millones de prusianos occidentales son expulsados ​​de sus hogares y la prusia oriental queda aislada del resto de Alemania!

6. La región alemana de los Sudetes se somete al régimen de la nueva nación de «Checoslovaquia».

7. Se prohíbe al nuevo estado de Austria unirse con sus hermanos en Alemania.

8. Alemania está despojada de las colonias africanas. Gran Bretaña, Francia y Bélgica los toman.

9. La región de Sarre, rica en carbón, de Alemania, se encuentra bajo el control de la Sociedad de Naciones durante 15 años. Durante este tiempo, su carbón se enviará a Francia.

10. La ciudad portuaria de Dantzig, del Mar Báltico, está separada de Alemania y declarada “ciudad libre”.

11. Alemania se ve obligada a pagar grandes reparaciones de guerra en forma de dinero y recursos naturales. El aplastante pago de la deuda (equivalente a 1 billón de dólares en moneda moderna) devastará la economía alemana y pronto causará un colapso monetario hiperinflacionario. Defenseless Alemania se mantiene bajo el bloqueo del hambre hasta que ella acepta los duros términos. Alrededor de 100.000 alemanes mueren como resultado del bloqueo alimentario posterior al armisticio. El injusto e inhumano tratado de Versalles generará resentimiento y enojo durante el año venidero.

1- La Prusia Occidental se da al nuevo estado de Polonia. Prusia del Este es cortada del resto de Alemania! 2- Los Sudetes alemanes se asignan al nuevo estado de Checoslovaquia



Royal Advisors Have Advocated False Flag Terrorism for More Than 2,000 Years

Kautilya (also called “Chanakya”) was a royal advisor thousands of years ago in ancient India. His writings are considered an important precursor to much modern thought. Wikipedia notes:

He is considered the pioneer of the field of political science and economics in India, and his work is thought of as an important precursor to classical economics.

2,300 years ago – in the 4th century B.C. – Kautilya advocated the use of false flag attacks:

The brother of a seditious minister may put forward his claim for inheritance. While the claimant is lying at night at the door of the house of the seditious minister or elsewhere, a fiery spy … may murder him and declare “Alas! the claimant for inheritance is thus murdered (by his brother).” Then taking the side of the injured party, the king may punish the other (the seditious minister).

*** The king may send a seditious minister with an army of inefficient soldiers and fiery spies to put down a rebellious wild tribe or a village, or to set up a new superintendent of countries or of boundaries in a locality bordering upon a wilderness, or to bring under control a highly-rebellious city, or to fetch a caravan bringing in the tribute due to the king from a neighboring country. In an affray (that ensues in consequence of the above mission) either by day or at night, the fiery spies, or spies under the guise of robbers … may murder the minister and declare that he was killed in the battle. While marching against an enemy or being engaged in sports, the king may send for his seditious ministers for an interview. While leading the ministers to the king, fiery spies with concealed weapons shall, in the middle enclosure of the king’s pavilion, offer themselves to be searched for admittance into the interior, and, when caught, with their weapons by the door-keepers, declare themselves to be the accomplices of the seditious ministers. Having made this affair known to the public, the door-keepers shall put the ministers to death, and in the place of the fiery spies, some others are to be hanged. While engaged in sports outside the city, the king may honor his seditious ministers with accommodation close to his own. A woman of bad character under the guise of the queen may be caught in the apartment of these ministers and steps may be taken against them as before. A sauce-maker or a sweetmeat-maker may request of a seditious minister some sauce and sweetmeat by flattering him–“thou alone art worthy of such things.” Having mixed those two things and half a cup of water with poison, he may substitute those things in the luncheon (of the king) outside the city. Having made this event known to the public, the king may put them (the minister and the cook) to death under the plea that they are poisoners.

*** When there arises a quarrel among seditious persons, fiery spies may set fire to their fields, harvest-grounds, and houses, hurl weapons on their relatives, friends and beasts of burden, and say that they did so at the instigation of the seditious; and for this offense others may be punished. Spies may induce seditious persons in forts or in country parts to be each other’s guests at a dinner in which poisoners may administer poison; and for this offense others may be punished.

500 years ago, Machiavelli wrote:

In order to keep the power, one has to use terror sometimes.

Machiavelli and the father of the Neo-Conservative movement – Leo Strauss – advocated false flag terror as a political tool. Strauss, an admirer of Machiavelli, believed that a stable political order required an external threat and that if an external threat did not exist, one should be manufactured.

Specifically, Strauss thought that:

A political order can be stable only if it is united by an external threat . . . . Following Machiavelli, he maintained that if no external threat exists then one has to be manufactured.

Leaders throughout history have also acknowledged the political “benefit” of false flags:

“This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector.” – Plato “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” – U.S. President James Madison “Terrorism is the best political weapon for nothing drives people harder than a fear of sudden death”. – Adolph Hitler “Why of course the people don’t want war

… But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship … Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.” – Hermann Goering, Nazi leader. “The easiest way to gain control of a population is to carry out acts of terror. [The public] will clamor for such laws if their personal security is threatened”. – Josef Stalin

These are not just idle words … presidents, prime ministers, congressmen, generals, spooks, soldiers and police from around the world have admitted to false flag terrorism.