Одговори 
 
Оцена Теме:
  • 0 Гласова - 0 Просечно
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Кухиња
18-02-2014, 02:17 AM
Порука: #1
Кухиња
Занимљиво да ова приватна школа стојих у Град Лондона
А Цити Лондон је као мини држава као Ватикан....и као Дистрик Колумбија у Вашинтона....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLGzreJguBI

Занимљиво да се из ове школе се нађе Јејмза Клугман и Доналд Маклина......
А занимљиво да један Проф Николас Дикин води говор од Комунизам у тај Грешанску Школу?
http://www.gresham.ac.uk/lectures-and-ev...-the-1930s
Пронађи све корисникове поруке
Цитирај ову поруку у одговору
11-03-2014, 06:17 PM
Порука: #2
RE: Кухиња
http://www.academia.edu/2172451/Britain_..._1941-1945
Пронађи све корисникове поруке
Цитирај ову поруку у одговору
20-03-2014, 02:23 AM
Порука: #3
RE: Кухиња
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=24369
Пронађи све корисникове поруке
Цитирај ову поруку у одговору
23-03-2014, 04:56 AM (Последња измена: 23-03-2014 04:57 AM од Захумље.)
Порука: #4
RE: Кухиња
НИКОЛАЈ СТАРИКОВ: КАКО ЈЕ ХИТЛЕР ПОСТАО НАЈМРАЧНИЈА ТАЈНА БРИТАНСКЕ ДИПЛОМАТИЈЕ
уторак, 25 фебруар 2014 20:14

Хитлер је намеравао да живи са Енглезима у миру, а да ратује са Русијом

За Геополитику говори руски историчар Николај Стариков, аутор интригантне књиге Ко је приморао Хитлера да нападне Стаљина

Ваша књига отвара нова историјска питања и доводи у сумњу званичну историографску оцену Другог светског рата. За почетак вас молимо да прокоментаришете вашу тезу да је Немачка била неспремна за Други светски рат и да то илуструјете подацима, које молимо да мало шире образложите: да је после три недеље напада на Пољску, Немачкој почело да понестаје авиобомби, а после шест недеља кампање у Француској, немачкој армији је почела да понестаје муниција.

— Како би се водио светски рат, треба схватати две сасвим очите ствари. Као прво – за њега се треба спремати, и то темељно спремати, пошто ће тај рат дуго трајати. Ипак је то светски рат. И друго што треба схватати – да бисте у том рату победили, морате потући оне који су у тренутку његовог почетка најјача велесила. Таквих чак може бити и неколико. Замислимо да је 1970. године нека земља усхтела да освоји читав свет. Очигледно би морала да потуче две велесиле: СССР и САД. Данас једну, САД. Скупа са чанколизима и савезницима. А сада се упитајмо која земља је била најјача 1939. године? После пораза Немачке и уништења Русије током Првог светског рата, најјача велесила била је Велика Британија, чија савезница је била нешто мање моћна Француска. Значи, планирајући светски рат, Хитлер је морао да планира рат са тим земљама. А шта је у стварности? Наредбу за припрему рата против Пољске издао је априла 1939. године, то јест четири месеца пре почетка рата. А шта је са плановима ратовања са Енглезима и Французима? Немачка их 1. септембра 1939. године уопште није имала. Признаћете, чудан је то агресор који чак нема ни планове за рат. На питање да ли је Хитлер био будала, одговор је негативан. Не, није био. Просто није намеравао да ратује са Енглеском, није хтео да ратује са Морем. Хитлер је маштао да и сâм постане део цивилизације Мора. Отуд и планови изградње бродова Трећег рајха. Да је Хитлер желео да освоји читав свет, то јест да уништи хегемонију Енглеске у свету, били би му потребни бродови, бродови, и опет бродови. А без моћне морнарице започињати борбу са Лондоном за предњачење у свету глупо је и безизгледно. Потребни су не само „полупоморски“ савезници попут Италије и Јапана, потребна је и сопствена морнарица. Гледамо програм изградње бродова који је одобрио Адолф Хитлер. Адмирал Редер, командант немачке морнарице, понудио је фиреру на избор два плана развоја немачке морнарице:

– први је претпостављао убрзану изградњу подморница у најкраћем року;

– други, познат као план „Z“, био је предвиђен за дужи рок, пошто је образлаган тиме „да у наредних десет година рат неће започети“. Према том плану, требало је изградити читаво мноштво великих бродова. Хитлер је управо њега изабрао. И премда је план био предвиђен за десет година (до 1948. године), затражио је да се оствари током шест година. Значи, судећи по изабраном плану развоја морнарице, фирер чак ни теоретски није требало да ратује са Енглеском пре 1944–1945. године. При томе је Хитлер практично забранио да се граде подморнице, јефтин и делотворан начин да се „изједначе изгледи“ са Британијом. И после тога нам кажу како је он одлучио да „освоји читав свет“ и започео остваривање своје жеље 1939. године. А однос снага на мору био је, према стању на дан 1. септембра 1939. године: носачи авиона: Енглеска – 7, Француска – 1, Немачка – 0; тешке крстарице: Енглеска – 15, Француска – 7, Немачка – 2; лаке крстарице: Енглеска – 49, Француска – 12, Немачка – 6; ескадрени разарачи: Енглеска – 183, Француска – 59, Немачка – 22; разарачи: Енглеска – 0, Француска – 12, Немачка – 20; подморнице: Енглеска – 65, Француска – 78, Немачка – 57; торпедни чамци: Енглеска – 27, Француска – 9, Немачка – 20; монитори: Енглеска – 3, Француска – 0, Немачка – 0.

Стање у погледу подморница било је још жалосније него што бројке показују. Велики адмирал Редер извештавао је Хитлера да је за рат са Енглеском потребно 300 подморница. Али, када су Енглеска и Француска објавиле Немачкој рат 3. септембра 1939. године, Немци су имали свега 57 подморница, од чега 23 у стању борбене способности. То јест, ионако их је било трипут мање него код савезника, а оних у стању борбене способности – читавих пет пута мање. Намеће се једноставан закључак – Хитлер није намеравао да освоји читав свет, није се спремао за светски рат, зато што није стварао снагу способну да одузме свет онима којима је припадао. Хитлер је намеравао да живи са Енглезима у миру, а да ратује са Русијом. Управо зато је његова припрема за рат била вапијуће лоша, и Вермахт је потрошио залихе муниције после двадесет дана борбе, још у Пољској. А војничку опрему и муницију за рат са Русима дале би му Енглеска и Француска.

Но, такође, ваздушна кампања Луфтвафеа (немачког ваздухопловства) на Енглеску је била са војног аспекта крајње чудна. Осим бомбардовања Лондона, које је пробудило отпор и вољу британског становништва, колико знамо, Луфтвафе није, као у другим земљама, приступио системском уништавању аеродрома, лука, војноиндустријских капацитета, индустријске и саобраћајне инфраструктуре. Да ли је овај закључак исправан, и како га ви коментаришете?

— Хитлера су на власт довели Енглези ради рата са Русијом – СССР. Када је одлучио да започне своју игру, склопивши Споразум о ненападању са СССР, Енглеска и Француска су почеле да га на све могуће начине подстрекавају на рат са Стаљином, како би га вратиле првобитном сценарију. Хитлер је, са своје стране, пошто је до ногу потукао Француску, покушавао да „уразуми“ Лондон и заврши рат. Неколико пута је нудио мир Западу, али су Енглези увек одбијали. Бомбардовање Енглеске у лето 1940. године вршено је са половином, чак четвртином снаге. То је била некаква „принуда на мир“, а не удар на инфраструктуру у циљу уништавања и лишавања руководства. И колико су ти немачки напади били разорни и страшни? Према званичним подацима, у Лондону је током Битке за Енглеску погинуло 842 и рањено 2.347 лица. У најпознатијем немачком ваздушном нападу на енглески град Ковентри 14. новембра 1940. године погинуло је 568 лица. Свакако, сваки погинули је за жаљење, али видимо да те бројке у поређењу са бројем жртава бомбардовања у Русији, Србији и Немачкој, уопште не изгледају упечатљиво. Енглеска је током читавог Другог светског рата изгубила 388.000 људи, од чега 62.000 цивила. То значи да у жртве немачких бомбардовања током читавог Другог светског рата можемо убројати свега 62.000 Британаца. Да ли је то много или мало? Све постаје јасније у поређењу. Француска под немачком окупацијом није за савезничку авијацију представљала циљ број један. Зато је тамо од енглеског и америчког бомбардовања за четири године (од лета 1940. до лета 1944. године) погинуло 30.000 људи. Али, када је дошло до искрцавања у Нормандији, авијација Британије и САД почела је да неупоредиво чешће бомбама равна француске градове и села ради уништавања немачке војске. Услед тога је током три летња месеца 1944. године, током којих су Немци избачени из Француске, од бомби својих ослободилаца погинуло још 20.000 Француза (а укупно – 50.000). Само у Стаљинграду је током једног страшног дана 23. августа 1942. године погинуло око 50.000 цивила. А губици немачких цивила услед бомбардовања и дан-данас су тајна иза седам печата. Укупан број нико не наводи. Зато што је ужасавајући. Да је у Другом светском рату победила Немачка, Черчилу, Рузвелту и савезничким руководиоцима авијације било би зајемчено место на оптуженичкој клупи и смртна пресуда за стотине хиљада жртава. Али историју пишу победници. Зато су у Нирнбергу судили другим злочинцима, за друге злочине, а они који су уништавали немачке градове, скупа са свим њиховим житељима, отишли су у пензију. Само у Дрездену је током два дана бомбардовања погинуло око 150.000 цивила.

Централно али суштинско питање које постављате у својој књизи је – зашто је Немачка напала Совјетски Савез, када то није било у њеном интересу. Ви чак као илустрацију наводите изјаву Хитлера Герману Раушнингу, која је нама била потпуно непозната, а у којој је Хитлер, на питање шта ће бити у случају војног савеза Енглеске, Француске и Русије, одговорио: „Тада ће мени, просто, доћи крај“. Зашто је, упркос томе, Хитлер напао Совјетски Савез?

— Енглеска није хтела мировне преговоре. Хладнокрвно је бомбардовала немачке градове. Показивала је одлучност да се бори до краја. Са њом се могло ратовати, чак је и победити, али је Адолф Хитлер, претресајући те могућности, себи постављао два питања. По коју цену ће бити постигнута та победа? И оно најважније – зашто? Немачкој је предстојала тешка борба без видљивог краја, а на Истоку је СССР, макар и тренутно лојалан, спокојно решавао своје стратешке задатке. Одмах пошто је Хитлер до ногу потукао Француску, Стаљин је решио проблем Прибалтика: Летонија, Литванија и Естонија ушле су у састав СССР. Исто тако враћена је и Бесарабија, коју је заузела Румунија. Совјетском Савезу је сасвим одговарао рат на Западу, рат Хитлера, кога су створили Англоамериканци, са својим бившим газдама. Али да ли је такав обрт догађаја одговарао самом Адолфу Хитлеру? Читавог живота жудео је да уништи комунизам и уђе у савез са Англосаксонцима, а уместо тога све се дешавало обрнуто.



И тада је 10. маја 1941. године у Велику Британију, тобоже на сопствену иницијативу, одлетео Хитлеров најближи саборац Рудолф Хес [1]. То је био очајнички покушај да се склопи мир између Немачке и Енглеске. Заправо тај Хесов циљ није никаква тајна: „Он је знао и схватао Хитлеров унутрашњи свет – његову мржњу према Совјетској Русији, његову страствену жељу да уништи бољшевизам, његово одушевљење Енглеском и искрену жељу да живи у пријатељству са Британском империјом...“ [2].

До напада на СССР преостало је нешто више од месец дана. Хитлер је морао да одлучи хоће ли „Барбаросу“ да спроводи или не. И тај удар није био унапред одлучен. Све до Хесовог лета није била донета никаква коначна одлука о нападу на нашу земљу: „Наредба о удару на СССР у складу са планом Барбароса појавила се тек 10. јуна“ [3]. Адолф Хитлер никад не би започео рат на два фронта. Зашто је ипак започео? Зато што је у тренутку удара на СССР био убеђен како никаквог другог фронта нема нити ће бити. То је и представљало исход Хесовог лета.

Важно је схватити како у читавом загонетном случају са летом фиреровог заменика у Енглеску тајну не представља Хитлеров предлог, већ британски одговор на њега.

Енглези су зајемчили своју неутралност, благонаклону за Хитлера, у његовом будућем рату са СССР. Као и склапање за Немачку дугоочекиваног мира пошто Русија буде до ногу потучена...

„Немачки фашисти су у ствари зато и послали у Енглеску познатог Хеса како би убедио енглеске политичаре да се придруже свеопштем походу против СССР. Али су се Немци жестоко прерачунали. Без обзира на Хесове напоре, Велика Британија и САД су се (...) обрнуто, обреле у истом табору са СССР против хитлеровске Немачке“ [4], рекао је Стаљин у Москви, опседнутој од стране фашиста. То и јесте одговор. Како је у таквим приликама Адолф Хитлер могао да се прерачуна? Јер, да је енглеска влада категорички одбацила фирерове предлоге и недвосмислено одбила да са њим преговара, чему се шеф Немачке могао надати, отпочињући рат на Истоку? Откуд би Хитлер могао да сматра како ће се Лондон „придружити“ свеопштем походу на СССР, да је имао енглеско одбијање? Чисто је безумље нападати на Совјетски Савез у околностима када Енглеска не жели мир. Али зато, ако Енглези јемче своје немешање у сукоб, обећавају макар и то да ће мирно седети на свом Острву, ако не и да ратују заједно са нацистима против Руса, онда је то – излаз из ћорсокака. Само треба Русију потући до ногу и мир са Енглеском биће склопљен.

Да бисмо нашим читаоцима илустровали нелогичност напада на Совјетски Савез, молимо вас да нам нешто више кажете о томе, о чему иначе у књизи пишете, да је Совјетски Савез био поуздан трговински и економски партнер Немачкој, да јој је испоручивао нафту, пшеницу и друге стратегијске сировине и материјале који су били од виталне важности за немачку војску и привреду – све оне материјале за којима се, након напада на СССР у Немачкој све више осећао дефицит.

— СССР није био савезник Немачке. СССР је био трговински партнер Немачке. При томе је трговао и са Енглеском и Француском. Енглези су све своје ратове водили по истом начелу: блокирали би морнарицом обалу, гушећи противничку земљу блокадом. Копнена трговина са СССР омогућавала је Немачкој да избегне гушење блокадом. Немци су преко територије СССР могли да превозе важну робу за своју привреду, купујући је по читавом свету. Све то одједанпут је завршено 22. јуна 1941. године. Уместо трговинског партнера Немачка је добила смртног непријатеља, сопственим рукама створивши савезника Енглезима.

Кључно питање је – ко је финансирао немачку ратну машинерију у њеном походу на исток, ко је обезбеђивао кредите за оружје и муницију, и са којим циљем? Ако је неко финансирао, преко кога су ишли ти финансијски трансфери? Каква је улога Швајцарске и њених банака у томе?

— Нико не зна тачан износ новца уложеног у обнову Немачке. Разне процене говоре о приближно 28–30 милијарди долара до 1930. године [5]. Занимљиво је да укупне ратне репарације Немачке за исто раздобље износе нешто више од 10 милијарди марака [6]. И такве прилике су настале управо онда када су Немачку почели да сматрају потенцијалним кандидатом за ново сатирање Русије. У Немачку привреду су упумпавали знатно више средстава него што су узимали. Наравно, таква сразмера доприносила је обнови индустријске производње у Немачкој, која је већ 1927. достигла предратну. Упумпавање средстава вршено је у складу са два плана: Јунговим и Давесовим. Њихово деловање приведено је крају 1932. године, а Немачка је фактички ослобођена плаћања репарација, премда је исплатила тек незнатан део. Зашто? Зато што ће у јануару 1933. године канцелар постати Адолф Хитлер, коме предстоји да изведе економско чудо. А за то му је потребан новац.

Ево само неколико бројки које показују какве врсте задатак је стајао пред Хитлером када је дошао на власт. Буџетски трошкови за наоружање порасли су од 1933. до 1939. године готово десет пута (са 1,9 милијарди марака на 18,41 милијарди марака). Пораст удела у буџету је ништа мање упечатљив: са 24 на 58 одсто [7]. Ради поређења, главна светска „опасност“ која је тобоже намеравала да освоји читав свет, комунистички СССР, трошио је 1934. године на војне потребе девет одсто свог буџета, Француска – 8,1, Јапан – осам, Енглеска (која је, као и увек, намеравала да ратује туђим рукама) – 3 одсто [8].

Као што нам је из историје познато, Адолф Хитлер је свој задатак обавио. У невероватно кратком року – током свега шест година колико је био на власти − успело му је да изгради војну машинерију невероватне моћи. То историчари зову нацистичким економским чудом. Ватрено се расправља: да ли је неспоран раст немачке привреде у Хитлерово доба био реалан или је пре подсећао на економску пирамиду када најбољи излаз из ћорсокака постаје рат. Ма колико чудно изгледало – ниједна страна те апстрактне расправе није у праву. Раст и опадање немачке привреде уопште није одређиван унутрашњим разлозима. Успехе нациста финансирао је и организовао читав тадашњи „цивилизовани свет“, како земље Запада воле да називају њихови поклоници у нашој земљи. Зато Хитлер није одређивао ни рокове престанка раста или наставка развоја немачке индустрије. Јер очито је да Немачка без помоћи са стране није могла дуго подносити папрене трошкове наоружања. Према томе, постојала су само два излаза: или уливање нових средстава са стране у немачку привреду, тј. њено даље спонзорисање, или отпочињање рата са Русијом, због чега су Хитлера и одгајали. Господари света – Англосаксонци − нимало не воле да улудо троше новац. За њих је чисто економски (чак не политички!) био уноснији брзи почетак војног сукоба. Што пре почне, тим ће мање новца морати да уливају у бездано ждрело хитлеровске војне машинерије. Зато би почетак рата 1938. године био бољи него 1939. године, а 1939. бољи него 1940.

Сви смо ми одрасли људи и схватамо да никаква чуда у привреди не постоје. Тако и невероватни Хитлерови успеси на светској позорници нису били условљени његовим генијалним талентима као дипломате или државника, већ тиме што су Енглеска, САД и Француска унапред са њим договориле препуштање својих позиција.

Једно од питања које постављате је зашто су немачки авиони имали енглеске моторе. Како је то могуће?

— Реално је Луфтвафе 1936. имао двокрилац Не51. То није ништа друго до „пољопривредни авион“. Чак је коришћен у почетној фази Другог светског рата, премда се још у Шпанији показао као безнадежно застарео у поређењу са совјетским ловцима, којима су били наоружани републиканци [9]. Али за немачко ратно ваздухопловство 1936. године Не51 уопште није био старудија, већ нешто сасвим ново. Историја тог авиона почиње тек 1931. обраћањем Министарства саобраћаја Немачке, по поруџбини Рајхсвера, фирми Хенкел са молбом да развију двокрилац једносед [10]. Први лет огледног узорка изведен је новембра 1932. године, да би серијска пеоизводња тог авиона започела тек у пролеће 1934. године. Али пошто Хитлер још није био огласио стварање Луфтвафеа, имали су цивилне ознаке и регистрацију. И две године касније Хитлер ће са тим најновијим „пољопривредним авионима“ престрашити читаву Европу?

Они немачки авиони које смо навикли да видимо на сличицама и у филмовима стићи ће у немачку војску кудикамо касније од оног времена када је Запад почео да их се „боји“. Идемо редом. Најмасовнији и најпознатији немачки ловац Другог светског рата био је месершмит Бф109. Израда његових прототипа почела је тек крајем 1934. године, а огледни узорак „месера“ извео је први лет 28. маја 1935. године [11]. Страховити борбени авион, засад у једном примерку, имао је енглески мотор Ролс-Ројс, Кестрел V. Зашто енглески, упитаћете? Једноставно зато што немачки мотори исте врсте још нису били готови. Те су британски „другови“ помагали. Јер Енглеска је у то време била главни светски извозник оружја и војних материјала...

И није само један огледни узорак имао британски мотор. Сви серијски месершмитови у почетку су имали те моторе, све док немачка индустрија није произвела довољан број сопствених: „Од 28 врста немачких војних авиона 1935. године њих 11 имало је енглеске и америчке моторе, које су испоручивале фирме Ролс-Ројс, Армстронг-Сидли, Прет-Витни и др.“ [12].

Успешна летачка испитивања учинила су ловац Вилија Месершмита фаворитом. Међутим, немачки пилоти су Бф109 испрва дочекали са неповерењем. Зашто? Зато што су навикли на отворене кабине својих „пољопривредних авиона“, а у том ловцу се пилотска кабина херметички затварала. Али нама нису важни страхови немачких пилота, него датуми масовног приспећа ловаца у летачке јединице, у оно време када су их се „бојали“ шефови Енглеске и Француске. Статистика производње тих авиона, нажалост, не пружа основ за такве страхове: 1936. године – два огледна узорка, 1937. године – 54 комада.



Пре неколико година, поводом годишњице споразума између Рибентропа и Молотова, западна штампа је веома негативно историјски оценила тај договор. Да ли су само споразум Рибентроп–Молотов, или и други историјски споразуми Немаца и Руса предмет критике англосаксонских историчара, али и политичара?

— Споразум о ненападању СССР са Немачком сасвим је побркао карте Енглеској, која је намеравала да нахушка Хитлера на СССР. Уместо тога, Немачка се са Русијом споразумела. Отуд и мржња према том документу, у коме се ради само о једној ствари: две земље неће међусобно ратовати. То је све. Ничег више тамо нема. А оригинале наводно потписаних тајних протокола нико никада није видео. Постоје некакве фотокопије. Лично сам уверен да су то кривотворине, сачињене у време владавине издајника Горбачова.

Такође, шокантна је и ваша тврдња о мисији Рудолфа Хеса. Зашто је Рудолф Хес искочио падобраном у Енглеској? Да ли је то био индивидуални акт „болесног човека“ или је он предао личну поруку Хитлера Черчилу, и како објаснити његово самоубиство у позним годинама?

— Занимљива чињеница: одмах после Хесовог лета 10. маја 1941. године, већ сутрадан, моћни напади немачке авијације на Енглеску изнебуха су сасвим престали, и обновљени су тек јануара 1943. године. Сада о судбини самог Хеса. Он је 17. августа 1987. године, као последњи живи руководилац Трећег рајха, напустио овај свет. Рудолф Хес је у тренутку смрти у затвору Шпандау имао готово 93 године. У затвору је одлежао већ 46 година. Сви они који су заједно са њим, по пресуди Нирнбершког трибунала доспели у затвор, већ одавно су га напустили. Он је од 1966. године био једини сужањ затвора Шпандау. Одлежавши осам година од 15, под изговором слабог здравља, на слободу је изашао дипломата Константин фон Нејрат. Затвор су напустили адмирал Дениц и шеф Хитлерјугенда Балдур фон Ширах, одлежавши својих 20 година. А Рудолф Хес је и даље остајао тамо. Зашто? Зато што је осуђен на доживотни затвор, рећи ће читалац. И погрешиће. Иста таква доживотна пресуда није била сметња за ослобођење адмирала Редера после свега 10 година и министра привреде Трећег рајха Валтера Функа, који је одлежао 12. Они су пуштени на слободу зато што нису поседовали тако страшну тајну као Хес. Јер је само он знао шта су Енглези обећали Хитлеру, и зашто им је Хитлер поверовао...

А и Хесова смрт била је врло загонетна. Деведесетогодишњи оронули старац покушао је да се током шетње убије и обесио се, омотавши електрични кабл око врата. Хесови чувари покушали су да му дају вештачко дисање, и то толико усрдно да су му сломили грудни кош и ребра [13]. Покојников син је, не верујући званичном извештају енглеских стручњака за судску медицину из британске болнице у коју је тело допремљено, наложио поновну обдукцију. И треба рећи да је имао озбиљне разлоге за то. Хес се увек налазио под надзором, а на дан смрти чувар га је напустио буквално на неколико минута. „За то време оронулом старцу је успело да напише опроштајно писмо, привеже продужни кабл за прозорску резу, провуче главу кроз омчу и затегне је – пошто је на врату остао водораван траг – и да падне или се баци на земљу?“ [14]

Током поновне обдукције коју су извршили немачки лекари, на врату леша откривен је други траг од кабла. Испало је да је деведесетогодишњем старцу успело да се „обеси“ − двапут. Трагови на врату и повреде унутрашњих органа врата недвосмислено су сведочили да је Хес задављен. А претходно су га отпозади ударили по глави, услед чега се појавио хематом на потиљку, чудан и необјашњив у случају самоубиства. [15]

Зашто су морали да убијају старца, и ко је то убиство извршио? Хесов син Волф Ридигер ни тренутак није посумњао у то да су његовог оца убили Енглези. [16] Страшна тајна британске дипломатије, која је Хитлера загрејала за напад на СССР, није смела да се открије. А непосредни узрок убиства постала је необуздана брбљивост Михаила Сергејевића Горбачова. Тај нестручни политичар потписао је смртну пресуду не само сопственој држави него и вајкадашњем нацисти. Ствар је о томе што су се већ поодавно чули гласови који позивају на Хесово пуштање из затвора. Главни противник тога увек је био СССР, чији став је био врло једноставан – нацистима није место на слободи. Знајући да Совјетски Савез неће дати сагласност за Хесов излазак из затвора, Велика Британија је могла да изиграва доброг иследника и увек изјављује како није против његовог ослобађања. И, ево, почела је „Перестројка“, „Ново мишљење“, и Михаил Сергејевић, ништа не схватајући у историји и политици, изјављује својим западним пријатељима како је спреман да им учини нешто пријатно и слаже се са Хесовим пуштањем. То је за Горбачова био гест добре воље, још један потез за портрет „социјализма са људским лицем“, а Лондону је та изјава задала мноштво непријатних брига. Пошто није преостао никакав повод за даље остајање опасног старца у затвору, Енглези су били принуђени да цурење информације спрече убијањем њеног носиоца.

Сви материјални докази узрока смрти Рудолфа Хеса − кућица у врту, кабл и намештај, чак и сам затвор Шпандау − уништени су одмах после његове смрти. Британска влада је одредила да списи у Хесовом предмету остану поверљиви до 2017. године. Али зашто? Шта би то могло да се крије у записницима његових саслушања? Шта то има Велика Британија да крије ако је, како нас уверавају, одлучно одбила да преговара са нацистима? Обрнуто, те списе требало би качити на сваки стуб, штампати у свим новинама. Јер то је доказ прогресивности и демократичности Магловитог Албиона. Какав велелепан повод за пропаганду: ми, Енглези, категорички смо одбацили све предлоге крвавог Адолфа Хитлера. А уместо тога најстрожа поверљивост. Нелогично? Не, логично. Зато што одбијања није било, већ је била сагласност.

__________

Напомене:

[1] Време Хесовог лета уопште није било случајно одабрано. Према плану немачког Главног штаба, припреме за план Барбароса требало је да се заврше до 15. маја 1941. године.

[2] В. Черчил, Други светски рат, Москва, Војениздат, 1991, т. 3, стр. 29.

[3] П. Судоплатов, Разни дани тајног рата и дипломатије. Година 1941, Москва, Олма-Прес, 2001, стр. 18.

[4] Извештај Јосифа Стаљина на свечаној седници Московског Совјета посланика трудбеника... Москве поводом 24. годишњице Велике Октобарске социјалистичке револуције. Москва, 6. новембра 1941. године. Навод према: С. В. Кормилицин, А.В. Лисев, Лаж од совјетског информбироа, Санкт Петербург, Нева, 2005, с. 289.

[5] Г. Ђакомо Препарата, Хитлер Inc.Како су Британија и САД стварали Трећи рајх, Москва, 2007, стр. 251.

[6] Исто.

[7] Како је кован немачки мач, Москва, Јауза, 2007, стр. 13.

[8] Исто.

[9] В. Н. Шунков, Крила Трећег рајха, Минск, Харвест, 2004, стр. 206.

[10] Исто, стр. 205.

[11] Исто, стр. 106.

[12] Овсјаниј И. Д., Тајна у којој се рат рађао, Москва, Политиздат, 1971, стр. 44.

[13] П. Педфилд, Рудолф Хес – Хитлеров саборац, Смољенск, Русић, 1998, стр. 524.

[14] Исто, стр. 535.

[15] Исто, стр. 529-530, 536, 542.

[16] Исто, стр. 530.

Са руског превела:Сава Росић

Геополитика

Srboljub Savic • 24 days ago
Британска допломатија и Југославија 1941
Истовремено са догађајима и одлучујућим данима пред напад на СССР ( и после тога) одвија се
и "прича" о Југославији.
Не верујем да има историчара или познавалаца историје краљевина СХС, па Југославије, који
би кнеза Павла описивали као "Немца" или "про-Н..". Поред свих одлика, високо образованог, уметности, чак посвећеног, ..., по образовању, маниима, .., нио је (можда) "нај-Енглез", у земљи,
тог доба. Неспорно, био је свестан немачке претње, поготово, што су се многи догађаји и страдања већих, већ одиграла, пре почетка 1941.
Он, истовремено, није био свестан, ко је у позадини атентата на Краља Александра, ни зашто се
десило тада и где. Још вероватније, није био свестан, колико се са њим рачунало, да поведе
Југославију, да гине за круну али британску. Својим покушајем да отклони или бар ублажи
(извесно) страдање Југославије, опасно је угрозио игру и интересе "духовне мајке"-В.Б. Посебно,
ново "топовско месо", било је потребно у Северној Африци, Грчкој (и Египту), управо тих "дана".
Како је МИ6, брзо реаговао и спречио даљу "штету", пучем 27-ог марта, то "нај-Енглез, кнез и
про-Немац", није изгубио живот. "награђен" је прогоном, изолацијом, печатом "издајника", тадашњег и новог (пост 45-те) режима.
За разлику од њега, генерал Симовић се вратио у земљу и мирно проживео остатак живота.
Ко је и зашто, после био, највећи син, и неименовани "нај-Енглез", видели смо на сахрани,
коју су "амери" (и не само) оценили као нај-.., у историји.
Шта да се ради! Мала земља, мала дипломатска игра, тајна, ...
А, "једна је, мајка!", империјална-В.Б.
Србољуб Савић
7 • Odgovor•Podeli ›

Дуња • 25 days ago
Замислимо данас споразум Путин-Меркел........
5 • Odgovor•Podeli ›

prelom Дуња • 23 days ago
Браво Дуња, својим једноредним коментаром осветлисте овај мрак од текста и коментара.
1 • Odgovor•Podeli ›

zarije bulatovic • 25 days ago
Nedovoljno, tekst sa puno rupa, ni reči o Mosbiju, Hitlerovom pandanu u Engleskoj, ni reč o Edvardu koji je abdicirao zbog veza sa nacistima, ni reč o Eugenici, nauci koju su Englezi napravili, a nacisti prisvojili i usavršili do užasa. Samo nagoveštaji, bez hrabrosti. ni reči o tome da je američki kapital podigao Hitlerovu Nemačku, da je ogromno bogatstvo prebačeno iz Engleske konvojima u Ameriku, a kada je stiglo tamo Hitler je prekinuo planove o invaziji. Ni reči o tome da je to prebačeno bogatstvo u Americi pokrenulo proces amputacije kolonijalnog sveta od osiromašene Engleske.
Nedovoljno ozbiljan članak za vaše novine, skoro kao podmetačina i skretanje pažnje.
7 • Odgovor•Podeli ›

Srboljub Savic zarije bulatovic • 25 days ago
Г. Николај Стариков каже за себе да није историчар (у поменутој, и књизи "1917", које сам обе прочитао у оригиналу). У својим кнњигама критикује историчаре, износи бројке и чињенице.
Понекад, његове речи звуче, као да је германофил, што није. Не крије огорченост, кривећи
британску и француску обавештајну службу и њихове државе. Рус је и "монархиста" и млад.
Иначе, даје довољно података и поставља питања, пружајући свој одговор. Мене је успео
да убеди, да су нам "историчари" (чак и они који су то) наметнули стереоптипе, који нас
заводе у "истину победника", а једино признатих-англосаксонаца.
За нас, у Србији, неопходно би било да знамо, бар нашу историју 19-ог и 20-ог века, да
разумемо ширу. Нажалост, наша историја није изолована, поготово не од непосредног
окружења, па то, без егоцентризма, треба да познајемо.
Управо смо у тренутку, када нам споља утврђују "кључну улогу" у Првом светском рату, а
ми, у незнању, лењости и ..., помажемо да се то учврсти и још оправдају сви остали
злочини нама почињени и све тешке увреде, не према појединцима већ, целом српском
народу.
Због тога, помиње се само Гаврило Принцип, а не и Недељко Чабриновић и цела група,
припремљена и распоређена на улицам Сарајева, чланова револуционарне, ослободи- лачке организације БиХ, Младе Босне. Не помињу се ослобођени сваке кривице, на суђењу, јер је међу њима и "тастер" (или "инсајдер"), који је омогућио брзо хапшење целе
групе. Не помиње се ни Владимир Гаћиновић, ни његово "службовање" у Цириху и класичан
крај, у 27-ој години. Уместо Младе Босне, помиње се "Црна рука", јер "терористичкије"
звучи од званичног имена, "Уједињење или смрт", и опет, само Апис, без "конца", ка
поменутом Цириху и мало измењеног краја живота, исте, 1917 године.
Како "победник пише историју", то је Србија изазивач, а "главни" Аустро-Угарска и Немачка.
Док нам г. Стариков, открива (у књизи "1917") улогу Велике Британије у изазивању рата
Немачке и Русије (и Француске), није тешко схватити и њену улогу у организовању
атентата, са обе стране-жртве и атентатора. Такође, за нас, којима су сва чула, замазана
"Антантом", разоткрива се танка љуштура, плаћена огромном ценом. Од Видовдана 1914,
"савезници" су, за Србију учинили само онолико, колико их је руски цар Николај, претњом
принудио. Тог кобног јула 1914, главни "мајстор", В.Б. радио је само да дође до рата
измеђи Немачке (и колико преостаје, после уништења Србије, Аустро-Угарској) и Русије.
Србија је, у дипломатској игри помињана (Русији) само кад је то доприносило војном
(рату) ангажовању Русије. Деловањем "савезника" Србија и српска војска је доведена у
(буквални) "ћорсокак", из којег је једини излаз била албанска голгота (уз тешко страдање).
Ни у даљем току рата и догађаја, Србија није ништа добила (осим што је платила).
У следећем "поглављу", (скоро) све се поновило, делом и због прихаваћених стереотипа
"победничке" историје. Ново је, повлачење носилаца моћи Велике Британије, у сенку
"чеда", уведеног у свет и "истријску позорницу"- САД. Биланс "друге велике кланице"
показује, само што је предвиђено. Нестанак колонијализма је привид, јер су несатли само
спољни облици. Чак,и данас, Комонвелт има 53 државе чланице, а "глобализам" на делу
не виде само они који очи не отварају.
Иста сила-В.Б. (и САД) дозолила је "Хитлеровој" Немачкој да склони огроман новац, који
је брзо, после краја 2-ог св, рата, вратила (уз додаатк) и могла да оствари муњевиту
обнову. За следећи чин, створен је НАТО и ЕЗ, "заједничка" валута, министар(ка)
спољних послова (без министарства), ..- структура, са Немачком на врху, САД, "једином"
силом а права, аморфног и невидљивог облика, моћ В.Б. је у још дубљој сенци.
( * чланак: Интервју и део једне од две кључне књиге нека нам послужи за "копање" по ...)
Србољуб Савић
18 • Odgovor•Podeli ›

Miksha011 Srboljub Savic • 25 days ago
Цењени Србољубе,

Мали додатак Вашем коментару на који сте ме навели помињањем Комонвелта. Верујем да већина посетилаца не зна како изгледа заклетва која се полаже када стекнете право да постанете држављанин Канаде:
I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen

The Queen's Privy Council for Canada, тело које чине сви садашњи и бивши министри Канаде, председници парламента и сената, премијери канадских провинција и судије врховног суда. Заклетва:
I, [name], do solemnly and sincerely swear (declare) that I shall be a true and faithful servant to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, as a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council for Canada. I will in all things to be treated, debated and resolved in Privy Council, faithfully, honestly and truly declare my mind and my opinion. I shall keep secret all matters committed and revealed to me in this capacity, or that shall be secretly treated of in Council. Generally, in all things I shall do as a faithful and true servant ought to do for Her Majesty.

Да ли знате да је званични назив канадске владе Her Majesty's Government?

Генерални гувернер Аустралије, главнокомандујући војске, поставља амбасадоре, министре, судије. Заклетва:
I, (name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her heirs and successors according to law. So help me God!

Премијер Аустралије и министри-заклетва:
I, (name), do swear that I will well and truly serve the people of Australia in the office of (position) and that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Australia. So help me God!

И тако даље, и тако даље...
pogledaj više
5 • Odgovor•Podeli ›

Marko Obilić Miksha011 • 25 days ago
Сва литература која је у интересу "немогуће љубави" Немачке и Русије посвећена умањивању историјске одговорности Немачке и приписивању искључиве или предоминантне кривице за све историјске катаклизме у последњих неколико столећа "Великом Сатани" Британији и њеној еманацији и баштинику СДА је након "Мајдана" дефинитивно ад акта, пасе, превазиђено и промашено градиво. Уосталом, САД су бар равноправно еманација Немачке, колико и Британије - сваки пети становник САД се на најновијем попису становништва изјаснио да има немачке корене и да себе доживљава етничким Немцем! Сво зло које је Србе сналазило последњих 100 година има препознатљиво географско порекло. Од српске крви коју су Немци директно или преко својих сатрапа пролили могла би се испунити река Морава, од извора, до ушћа. И данас смо под немачком окупацијом - они контролишу и на узди држе наше политичаре, наше финансије, медије и културу. Увек један те исти, некад прерушени, а некад осиони и арогантни немачки империјализам. Русија је покушала на све могуће и немогуће начине да задобије немачко поверење и наклоност. На примерима Југославије и Украјине најбоље се види право немачко лице и амбиција. Биће веома тешко, теже него са Наполеоном и Хитлером, али важно је уједињену непријатељску хорду препознати и дочекати је трезвено. У већини коментара и овде и у васколикој српској и руској јавности осећа се резигнација и констернираност. Сви су оправдано разочарани и неоправдано затечени. Осећа се разумљива забринутост, зебња, која не сме прерасти у страх, који паралише расуђивање и дефетизам, који компромитује природни инстинкт за преживљавањем, које је могуће само пружањем активног ОТПОРА, који не сме бити безглаво улетање у пројектоване и укалкулисане замке непријатеља, већ интелигентан, са одговорима који су изненађујући и имају довољан одвраћајући потенцијал, и што је најважније са благовременим одговорима, јер свако завлачење главе у песак и одлагање суочавања са непријатељем на резервним положајима, у дубини сопствене територије, у коју је непријатељ већ дубоко захватио, може бити фатално. Ако треба да запрети свиме са чиме располаже, што ће, пре или касније, морати да уради, Русији је боље да то уради САДА, не само ради заштите милиона својих сународника од геноцида, или заштите своје флоте, него пре свега ради очувања кредибилитета у очима целог света - 'како непријатеља тако и, што је не мање важно, потенцијалних колебљивих, а сада и уплашених савезника.
pogledaj više
13 • Odgovor•Podeli ›

Miksha011 Marko Obilić • 24 days ago
Близак ми је Ваш начин размишљања о овој теми. Не слажем се по питању тога ко доминира на овом нашем простору, а слажем се да никада не смемо заборавити ко је, између осталог, донео одлуку без преседана да један убијен Немац вреди сто српских живота. Ако неко не зна, наредбу је издао фелдмаршал Вилхелм Кајтел 1941. године. Што се тиче Империје, она као и увек, доноси одлуке у свом најбољем интересу. Право питање је када ће остале з
Пронађи све корисникове поруке
Цитирај ову поруку у одговору
17-04-2014, 06:04 PM
Порука: #5
RE: Кухиња
Док је био жив био је светски ауторитет на уплетавање Банкарство у политици и ратове!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h_V-ARe_nE

second chapter of The World Order - A Study in Hegemony (1985) by Eustace Mullins.

The Communist Revolution of 1917 was planned, supervised and financed by the global financial elite.

The concept of political 'Left wing' and 'Right wing' is just a charade, created for us by the global elite - to give us an opposition, an enemy to blame; to keep us fighting amongst ourselves. Read on...

Chapter Two: Soviet Russia

Soviet Russia was allowed to emerge from the destruction of World War II as one of the victors, solely because she was needed as the next “evil empire” against which the civilised West could launch a new Crusade. Because Russia was bankrupt, had lost 40 million of her population in the war, plus another 66 million murdered by the Bolsheviks since 1917, and was unable to feed herself, once again the World Order was obliged to step in with enormous subsidies of food and material from the U.S., in order to maintain an “enemy power”.

The Belgian Relief Commission of 1916 became the Marshall Plan of 1948. Once again, the loads of supplies were shipped into Europe, ostensibly for our Allies, but destined to maintain the Soviet bloc.

Although Jacob Schiff’s personal agent, George Kennan, had regularly toured Russia during the latter part of the nineteenth century, bringing in money and arms for the Communist revolutionaries (his grandson said that Schiff had spent $20 million to bring about the Bolshevik Revolution) more concerted aid was called for to support an entire regime. Kennan also aided Schiff in financing the Japanese in the Russo-Japanese War of 1905; the Japanese decorated Kennan with the Gold War Medal and the Order of the Sacred Treasure. In 1915, the American International Corporation was formed in New York. Its principal goal was the coordination of aid, particularly financial assistance, to the Bolsheviks which had previously been provided by Schiff and other bankers on an informal basis. The new firm was funded by J.P. Morgan, the Rockefellers, and the National City Bank. Chairman of the Board was Frank Vanderlip, former president of National City, and member of the Jekyll Island group which wrote the Federal Reserve Act in 1910; directors were Pierre DuPont, Otto Kahn of Kuhn, Loeb Co., George Herbert Walker, grandfather of Vice President George H. Bush, William Woodward, director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; Robert S. Lovett, right-hand man of the Harriman-Kuhn, Loeb Union Pacific Railroad; Percy Rockefeller, John DiRyan, J.A. Stillman, son of James Stillman principal organiser of the National City Bank; A.H. Wiggin, and Beekman Winthrop. The 1928 list of AIC directors included Percy Rockefeller, Pierre DuPont, Elisha Walker of Kuhn,Loeb Co., and Frank Altschul of Lazard Freres. In their program of aiding the Communists, AIC worked closely with Guaranty Trust of New York (now Morgan Guaranty Trust). Guaranty Trust’s directors in 1903 included George F. Baker, founder of the First National Bank; August Belmont, representative of the Rothschilds; E.H. Harriman, founder of Union Pacific Railroad; former vice president of the U.S., Levi Morton, who was a director of U.S. Steel and the Union Pacific; Henry H. Rogers, partner of John D. Rockefeller in Standard Oil, also a director of Union Pacific; H. McK. Twombly, who married the daughter of William Vanderbilt, and was now the director of fifty banks and industries; Frederick W. Vanderbilt, and Harry Payne Whitney.

No one would seriously believe that bankers of this magnitude would finance an “anti-capitalist” revolution for the Communists, yet this is exactly what happened.

These same men financed Woodrow Wilson’s political campaigns, and
it was these same men to whom Wilson referred in his opening address to the Paris Peace Conference, when he said, “There is moreover a voice calling for these definitions of principles and purposes which is, it seems to me, more thrilling and more compelling than any of the moving voices with which the troubled air of the world is filled. It is the voice of the Russian people. There are men in the United States of the finest temper who are in sympathy with Bolshevism because it appears to them to offer that regime of opportunity to the individual which they desire to bring about.” (The Great Conspiracy Against Russia, Seghers and Kahn.) The men of “the finest temper”, to whom Wilson referred, the Morgans and the Rockefellers, did not really desire opportunity for the individual; what they desired was the lifelong imposition of slavery under the World Order, and this is the goal which they continue to strive to achieve, on a world wide basis.
Пронађи све корисникове поруке
Цитирај ову поруку у одговору
20-04-2014, 02:52 AM
Порука: #6
RE: Кухиња
http://tomatobubble.com/rothschild_romanov.html

http://www.pulsonline.rs/data/images/201...1291144930
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mira_Adanja-Polak

Која парадокс ова полак....ради интервју са Принц Михаило Романов.....!
Пронађи све корисникове поруке
Цитирај ову поруку у одговору
20-04-2014, 07:37 PM (Последња измена: 20-04-2014 07:40 PM од Захумље.)
Порука: #7
RE: Кухиња
http://www.globalresearch.ca/bankers-are...rs/5378240

ll Wars Are Bankers’ Wars

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

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

***Image by Terry Robinson

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

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

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

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

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

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

The BBC reported in 1998:

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

***

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

The New York Daily News noted the same year:

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

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

The BBC reported in 1999:

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

***

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

***

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

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

***

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

Indeed, banks often finance both sides of wars:
(The San Francisco Chronicle also documents that leading financiers Rockefeller, Carnegie and Harriman also funded Nazi eugenics programs … but that’s a story for another day.)

The Federal Reserve and other central banks also help to start wars by financing them .

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

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

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

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

He also said:

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

And see this.

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

Kevin Zeese writes:

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

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

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

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

***

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

Indeed, all wars are bankers’ wars.

Imperialism: Bankers, Drug Wars and Genocide

Mexico’s Descent in the Inferno


n May 2011, Mexican investigators uncovered another mass clandestine grave with dozens of mutilated corpses; bringing the total number of victims to 40,000 killed since 2006 when the Calderon regime announced its “war on drug traffickers”. Backed by advisers, agents and arms, the White House has been the principal promotor of a ‘war’ that has totally decimated Mexico ’s society and economy.

If Washington has been the driving force for the regime’s war, Wall Street banks have been the main instruments ensuring the profits of the drug cartels. Every major US bank has been deeply involved in laundering hundreds of billions of dollars in drug profits, for the better part of the past decade.

Mexico ’s descent into this inferno has been engineered by the leading US financial and political institutions, each supporting ‘one side or the other’ in the bloody “total war” which spares no one, no place and no moment in time. While the Pentagon arms the Mexican government and the US Drug Enforcement Agency enforces the “military solution”, the biggest US banks receive, launder and transfer hundreds of billions of dollars to the drug lords’ accounts, who then buy modern arms, pay private armies of assassins and corrupt untold numbers of political and law enforcement officials on both sides of the border.

Mexico’s Descent in the Inferno

Everyday scores, if not hundreds, of corpses – appear in streets and or are found in unmarked graves; dozens are murdered in their homes, cars, public transport, offices and even hospitals; known and unknown victims in the hundreds are kidnapped and disappear; school children, parents, teachers, doctors and businesspeople are seized in broad daylight and held for ransom or murdered in retaliation. Thousands of migrant workers are kidnapped, robbed, ransomed, murdered and evidence is emerging that some are sold into the illegal ‘organ trade’. The police are barricaded in their commissaries; the military, if and when it arrives, takes out its frustration on entire cities, shooting more civilians than cartel soldiers. Everyday life revolves around surviving the daily death toll; threats are everywhere, the armed gangs and military patrols fire and kill with virtual impunity. People live in fear and anger.

The Free Trade Agreement: The Sparks that lit the Inferno

In the late 1980’s, Mexico was in crisis, but the people chose a legal way out: they elected a President, Cuahtemoc Cardenas, on the basis of his national program to promote the economic revitalization of agriculture and industry. The Mexican elite, led by Carlos Salinas of the Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) chose otherwise and subverted the election: The electorate was denied its victory; the peaceful mass protests were ignored. Salinas and subsequent Mexican presidents vigorously pursued a free trade agreement (NAFTA) with the US and Canada , which rapidly drove millions of Mexican farmers, ranchers and small business people into bankruptcy. Devastation led to the flight of millions of immigrant workers. Rural movements of debtors flourished and ebbed, were co-opted or repressed. The misery of the legal economy contrasted with the burgeoning wealth of the traffickers of drugs and people, which generated a growing demand for well-paid armed auxiliaries as soldiers for the cartels. The regional drug syndicates emerged out of the local affluence.

In the new millennium, popular movements and a new electoral hope arose: Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO). By 2006 a vast peaceful electoral movement promised substantial social and economic reforms to ‘integrate millions of disaffected youth’. In the parallel economy, the drug cartels were expanding and benefiting from the misery of millions of workers and peasants marginalized by the Mexican elite, who had plundered the public treasury, speculated in real estate, robbed the oil industry and created enormous privatized monopolies in the communication and banking sectors.

In 2006, millions of Mexican voters were once again denied their electoral victory: The last best hope for a peaceful transformation was dashed. Backed by the US Administration, Felipe Calderon stole the election and proceeded to launch the “War on Drug Traffickers” strategy dictated by Washington .

The War Strategy Escalates the Drug War: The Banking Crises Deepens the Ties with Drug Traffickers

The massive escalation of homicides and violence in Mexico began with the declaration of a war on the drug cartels by the fraudulently elected President Calderon, a policy pushed initially by the Bush Administration and subsequently strongly backed by the Obama – Clinton regime. Over 40,000 Mexican soldiers filled the streets, towns and barrios – violently assaulting citizens – especially young people. The cartels retaliated by escalating their armed assaults on police. The war spread to all the major cities and along the major highways and rural roads; murders multiplied and Mexico descended further into a Dantesque inferno. Meanwhile, the Obama regime ‘reaffirmed’ its support for a militarist solution on both sides of the border: Over 500,000 Mexican immigrants were seized and expelled from the US ; heavily armed border patrols multiplied. Cross border gun sales grew exponentially .The US “market” for Mexican manufactured goods and agricultural products shrank, further widening the pool for cartel recruits while the supply of high powered weapons increased. White House gun and drug policies strengthened both sides in this maniacal murderous cycle: The US government armed the Calderon regime and the American gun manufacturers sold guns to the cartels through both legal and underground arms sales. Steady or increasing demand for drugs in the US – and the grotesque profits derived from trafficking and sales— remained the primary driving force behind the tidal wave of violence and societal disintegration in Mexico .

Drug profits, in the most basic sense, are secured through the ability of the cartels to launder and transfer billions of dollars through the US banking system. The scale and scope of the US banking-drug cartel alliance surpasses any other economic activity of the US private banking system. According to US Justice Department records, one bank alone, Wachovia Bank (now owned by Wells Fargo), laundered $378.3 billion dollars between May 1, 2004 and May 31, 2007 (The Guardian, May 11, 2011). Every major bank in the US has served as an active financial partner of the murderous drug cartels – including Bank of America, Citibank, and JP Morgan, as well as overseas banks operating out of New York , Miami and Los Angeles , as well as London .

While the White House pays the Mexican state and army to kill Mexicans suspected of drug trafficking, the US Justice Department belatedly slaps a relatively small fine on the major US financial accomplice to the murderous drug trade, Wachovia Bank, spares its bank officials from any jail time and allows major cases to lapse into dismissal.

The major agency of the US Treasury involved in investigating money laundering, the Undersecretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, deliberately ignored the blatant collaboration of US banks with drug terrorists, concentrating almost their entire staff and resources on enforcing sanctions against Iran . For seven years, Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey used his power as head of the Department for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence to pursue Israel ’s phony “war on terrorism” against Iran , rather than shut down Wachovia’s money-laundering operations with the Mexican drug terrorists. In this period of time an estimated 40,000 Mexican civilian have been killed by the cartels and the army.

Without US arms and financial services supporting both the illegitimate Mexican regimes and the drug cartels – there could be no “drug war”, no mass killings and no state terror. The simple acts of stopping the flood of cheap subsidized US agriculture products into Mexico and de-criminalizing the use and purchase of cocaine in the US would dry up the pool of ‘cartel soldiers’ from the bankrupted Mexican peasantry and the cut back the profits and demand for illegal drugs in the US market.

The Drug Traffickers, the Banks and the White House

If the major US banks are the financial engines which allow the billion dollar drug empires to operate, the White House, the US Congress and the law enforcement agencies are the basic protectors of these banks. Despite the deep and pervasive involvement of the major banks in laundering hundreds of billions of dollars in illicit funds, the “court settlements” pursued by US prosecutors have led to no jail time for the bankers. One court’s settlement amounted to a fine of $50 million dollars, less than 0.5% of one of the banks (the Wachovia/Wells Fargo bank) $12.3 billion profits for 2009 (The Guardian, May 11, 2011). Despite the death of tens of thousands of Mexican civilians, US executive branch directed the DEA, the federal prosecutors and judges to impose such a laughable ‘punishment’ on Wachovia for its illegal services to the drug cartels. The most prominent economic officials of the Bush and Obama regimes, including Summers, Paulson, Geithner, Greenspan, Bernacke et al, are all long term associates, advisers and members of the leading financial houses and banks implicated in laundering the billions of drug profits.

Laundering drug money is one of the most lucrative sources of profit for Wall Street; the banks charge hefty commissions on the transfer of drug profits, which they then lend to borrowing institutions at interest rates far above what – if any – they pay to drug trafficker depositors. Awash in sanitized drug profits, these US titans of the finance world can easily buy their own elected officials to perpetuate the system.

Even more important and less obvious is the role of drug money in the recent financial meltdown, especially during its most critical first few weeks.

According to the head of United Nation’s Office on Drugs and Crime, Antonio Maria Costa, “In many instances, drug money (was)… currently the only liquid investment capital…. In the second half of 2008, liquidity was the banking system’s main problem and hence liquid capital became an important factor…interbank loans were funded by money that originated from drug trade and other illegal activities… (there were) signs that some banks were rescued in that way.” (Reuters, January 25,2009. US edition). Capital flows from the drug billionaires were key to floating Wachovia and other leading banks. In a word: the drug billionaires saved the capitalist financial system from collapse!

Conclusion

By the end of the first decade of the 21st century, it has become clear that capital accumulation, at least in North America, is intimately linked to generalized violence and drug trafficking. Because capital accumulation is dependent on financial capital, and the latter is dependent on the industry profits from the multi-hundred-billion dollar drug trade, the entire ensemble is embedded in the ‘total war’ over drug profits. In times of deep crises the very survival of the US financial system – and through it, the world banking system – is linked to the liquidity of the drug “industry”.

At the most superficial level the destruction of Mexican and Central American societies – encompassing over 100 million people – is a result of a conflict between drug cartels and the political regimes of the region. At a deeper level there is a multiplier or “ripple effect” related to their collaboration: the cartels draw on the support of the US banks to realize their profits; they spend hundreds of millions on the US arms industry and others to secure their supplies, transport and markets; they employ tens of thousands of recruits for their vast private armies and civilian networks and they purchase the compliance of political and military officials on both sides of the borders

For its part, the Mexican government acts as a conduit for US Pentagon/Federal police, Homeland Security, drug enforcement and political apparatuses prosecuting the ‘war’, which has put Mexican lives, property and security at risk. The White House stands at the strategic center of operations – the Mexican regime serves as the front-line executioners.

On one side of the “war on drugs” are the major Wall Street banks; on the other side, the White House and its imperial military strategists and in the ‘middle’ are 90 million Mexicans and 40,000 murder victims and counting.

Relying on political fraud to impose economic deregulation in the 1990’s (neo-liberalism), the US policies led directly to the social disintegration, criminalization and militarization of the current decade. The sophisticated narco-finance economy has now become the most advanced stage of neo-liberalism. When the respectable become criminals, the criminals become respectable.

The issue of genocide in Mexico has been determined by the empire and its “knowing” bankers and cynical rulers.

Корисћавање овај калуп......како се она повезује са деловање у БЕОГРАДИЈЕ и ЦЕТИНАРИЈЕ?
Пронађи све корисникове поруке
Цитирај ову поруку у одговору
30-04-2014, 03:01 AM
Порука: #8
RE: Кухиња
http://inserbia.info/today/2014/04/cia-d...ia+News%29
Пронађи све корисникове поруке
Цитирај ову поруку у одговору
30-04-2014, 04:23 PM
Порука: #9
RE: Кухиња
http://maviboncuk.blogspot.co.uk/2011/04...arvus.html

Последице ово је био ГЕНОЦИД НАД АРМЕНЦИ.....

Пре тога било је балкански Рат

После Балканске ратове било је Први Светски Рат

После тога је било Болшевичка Револуција....што су покушали да уведе неколико пута!

http://hayaryakanch.wordpress.com/2013/0...r-madness/

ТАКО МОЈ ПИТАЊЕ САДЕ.....ко има ПАРВАСОВОГ УЛОГА НА БАЛКАН И РУСИЈА САДЕ?
Тај ко му жена игра на стола? Или је то неко других из разне државе....или ту има више особа!...АЛИ УЛОГА ИМ ЈЕ ИСТА!
Пронађи све корисникове поруке
Цитирај ову поруку у одговору
04-05-2014, 03:44 AM
Порука: #10
RE: Кухиња
http://mauryk2.files.wordpress.com/2010/...-chart.gif
Пронађи све корисникове поруке
Цитирај ову поруку у одговору
06-05-2014, 03:40 AM (Последња измена: 06-05-2014 04:37 AM од Захумље.)
Порука: #11
RE: Кухиња
http://www.jekyllclub.com/
http://www.historichotels.org/hotels-res...istory.php
Створена у 1886 године...места где су најбогатијих банкери се окупљалих у та времена
Има прич да је ово место било где у 1901 су "банкери" ималих планове створилих Федерална Резерва, што је било створен у 1910....чак мислим да је та концепције где ратове оплачкају државе.....зашто их задуже!

Oil and the origins of the
‘War to make the world safe for Democracy’

By F. William Engdahl, 22 June, 2007



Abstract:



At first almost unnoticed after 1850, then with significant intensity after the onset of the Great Depression of 1873 in Britain, the sun began to set on the British Empire. By the end of the 19th Century, though the City of London remained undisputed financier of the world, British industrial excellence was in terminal decline. The decline paralleled an equally dramatic rise of a new industrial Great Power on the European stage, the German Reich. Germany soon passed England in output of steel, in quality of machine tools, chemicals and electrical goods. Beginning the 1880’s a group of leading German industrialists and bankers around Deutsche Bank’s Georg von Siemens, recognized the urgent need for some form of colonial sources of raw materials as well as industrial export outlet. With Africa and Asia long since claimed by the other Great Powers, above all Great Britain, German policy set out to develop a special economic sphere in the imperial provinces of the debt-ridden Ottoman Empire. The policy was termed “penetration pacifique” an economic dependency which would be sealed with German military advisors and equipment. Initially, the policy was not greeted with joy in Paris, St. Petersburg or London, but it was tolerated. Deutsche Bank even sought, unsuccessfully, to enlist City of London financial backing for the keystone of the Ottoman expansion policy—the Berlin-to-Baghdad railway project, a project of enormous scale and complexity that would link the interior of Anatolia and Mesopotamia (today Iraq) to Germany. What Berlin and Deutsche Bank did not say was that they had secured subsurface mineral rights, including for oil along the path of the railway, and that their geologists had discovered petroleum in Mosul, Kirkuk and Basra.

The conversion of the British Navy under Churchill to oil from coal meant a high risk strategy as England had abundant coal but no then-known oil. It secured a major concession from the Shah of Persia in the early 1900’s. The Baghdad rail link was increasingly seen in London as a threat to precisely this oil security. The British response to the growing German disruption of the European balance of power after the 1890’s was to carefully craft a series of public and secret alliances with France and with Russia—former rivals—to encircle Germany. As well, she deployed a series of less public intrigues to disrupt the Balkans and encourage a revolt against the Ottoman Sultan via the Young Turks that severely weakened the prospects for the German Drang nach Osten. The dynamic of the rise of German assertiveness, including in addition to the Baghdad rail, the decision in 1900 to build a modern navy over two decades that could rival England’s, set the stage for the outbreak of a war in August 1914 whose real significance was a colossal and tragic struggle for who would succeed the ebbing power of the British Empire. The resolution of that epic struggle was to take a second world war and another quarter century before the victor was undeniably established. The role of oil in the events leading to war in 1914 is too little appreciated. When the historical process behind the war is examined from this light a quite different picture emerges. The British Empire in the decades following 1873 and the American Century hegemony in the decades following approximately 1973 have more in common than is generally appreciated.

###



Oil and the buildup to the Great War

In trying to sort out the myriad of factors at play in Eurasia on the eve of the First World War it is important to look at the processes leading to August 1914, and the relative calculus of power at the time. This means examining economic processes, including financial, raw material, population growth— in the context of relations among nations, and political and--as defined by the original and influential English geopolitician, Sir Halford Mackinder--geopolitical forces--a political economy or geopolitical approach.

It was common in the days of the Great War to speak of the Great Powers. The Great Powers were so named because they both were great in size and wielded great power in the affairs of nations. The question was what constituted “great.” Until 1892, the United States was not even considered enough a contender at the table to warrant posting a full Ambassador level diplomatic mission. She was hardly a serious factor in European or Eurasian affairs. The Great Powers included Great Britain, France, the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Czarist Russia. After its defeat of France in 1871, Germany too joined the ranks of the Great Powers, albeit as a latecomer. Ottoman Turkey, known then as the “sick man of Europe” was a prize which all Great Powers were sharpening their knives over, as they anticipated how to carve it up to their particular advantage.

In 1914, and the decades following the end of the Napoleonic Wars in Europe, it was almost axiom that there was no power on earth greater than the British Empire. The foundations of that Empire, however, were far less solid than generally appreciated.



The pillars of Empire
Approaching the end of the 1890's, Britain was in all respects the pre-eminent political, military and economic power in the world. Since the 1814-15 Congress of Vienna, which carved up post -Napoleonic Europe, the British Empire had exacted rights to dominate the seas, in return for the self-serving "concessions" granted to Habsburg Austria and the rest of Continental European powers, which concessions served to keep central Continental Europe divided, and too weak to rival British global expansion.

British control of the seas, and, with it, control of world shipping trade, was one of the pillars of a new British Empire. The manufacturers of Continental Europe, as well as much of the rest of the world, were forced to respond to terms of trade set in London, by the Lloyds shipping insurance and banking syndicates. While Her Royal Navy, the world's largest, policed the major sea -lanes and provided cost-free "insurance" for British merchant shipping vessels, competitor fleets were forced to insure their ships against piracy, catastrophe and acts of war, through London's large Lloyd's insurance syndicate.

Credit and bills of exchange from the banks of the City of London were necessary for most of the world's shipping trade finance. The private Bank of England, itself the creature of the pre-eminent houses of finance in the City of London as the financial district is called--houses such as Barings, Hambros, and above all, Rothschilds--manipulated the world's largest monetary gold supply , in calculated actions which could cause a flood of English exports to be dumped mercilessly onto any competitor market at will. Britain's unquestioned domination of international banking was the second pillar of English Imperial power following 1815.[1]



London-- a City built on gold
British gold reserves were very much the basis for the role of the Pound Sterling as the source spring of world credit after 1815. "As good as Sterling" was the truism of that day, which was shorthand for the confidence in world markets that Sterling itself was “as good as gold.”[2] After a law of June 22 1816, gold was declared the sole measure of value in the British Empire. British foreign policy over the next 75 years or more, would be increasingly preoccupied with securing for British private banks and for the vaults of the Bank of England, the newly mined reserves of world gold, whether in Australia, California or in South Africa.[3]

The London gold market had expanded with the famous discovery of gold at Sutter’s Mill in California in 1848, and the Australian discoveries three years later, to become the world’s dominant gold trading center. Gold merchant houses such as Stewart Pixley and Samuel Montagu joined the ranks of brokers. Rothschild’s added the role of becoming the Royal Mint gold refinery besides their banking business, along with Johnson Matthey. The Bank of England would certify “good delivery” status for these select gold fixing banks of the City, an essential element of growing international payments settlements in gold.[4]

After 1886 weekly shipments of gold from especially South Africa, which comprised some two-thirds of the total in the years prior to the war, were offloaded at the docks of London, making the London gold market the unchallenged world leader.[5]

By 1871 England was joined in its gold standard by other industrializing countries, who found enough gold from their foreign export trade to link their national currencies as well to the gold standard. In 1871 Germany, on the wave of her victory over France, with its reparations in French gold, proclaimed the birth of the German Reich with Chancellor Bismark as the decisive political power. Gold was made the backing for the Reichsmark. The German Reich acquired 43 metric tons after 1871in reparations from France, helping Germany to quadruple its gold stock immediately after 1871, giving the liquidity for the unprecedented expansion of German industry. By 1878 France, Belgium and Switzerland had followed Germany and England on to the new gold standard for international trade. Czarist Russia, a major gold producer also used gold in its official reserves.[6]

In 1886 vast finds of gold were discovered in Transvaal. British prospectors streamed over the border from the Cape Colony, earlier annexed by Britain. Cape Colony Prime Minister was a British miner, Cecil Rhodes, who held a vision of an African continent controlled by England from the Cape to Cairo. As nationalist Boers became ever more assertive of their independence from the British in the 1890’s it was clear in London that they must take South Africa by force. The financial future of the City of London and the future of the Empire rested on that conquest.

By 1899 when the Anglo-Boer War broke out, a war for control of the gold of Transvaal, the region had become the world’s largest single producer of gold.[7] Rhodes’ mines were the largest operators. French and German investors also had large stakes, but British miners controlled between 60 and 80% of the mine output.[8] The bloody victory of England in that war, ensured the continued domination of the City of London as the “world’s banker .” The serious loss of industrial hegemony by Britain after 1873 was largely obscured by her role in grabbing the vast gold reserves discovered in 1886 in Transvaal.



British Empire’s onset of economic decline
Behind her apparent status as the world's pre-eminent power, Britain was slowly deteriorating internally. After 1850 a sharp rise in British capital flowing overseas took place. After the US Civil War and with the emerging of German and Continental European as well as Latin American industrialization in the early 1870’s, this flow of capital out of the City of London became massive. Britain’s wealthy found returns on their money far greater abroad than at home. It was one consequence of the 1846 Corn Law Repeal, the introduction of free trade in agriculture to force cheaper wages and to feed that labor with cheaper foodstuffs imported from Odessa, the United States, India and other foreign suppliers.[9] Buy Cheap, Sell Dear had become the dominant economic pattern.[10]

After 1846, wage levels inside Britain began falling with the price of bread. The English Poor Laws granted compensation for workers earning below human subsistence wage, with income supplement payments pegged to the price of a loaf of wheat bread. As bread prices plunged, so did living standards in England.

As a consequence, while the merchant banks and insurers of the City of London thrived, domestic British industrial investment and modernization, which had allowed England to lead the industrial revolution after the introduction of Watt’s improved steam-powered engine in the 1760’s, stagnated and declined after 1870.

One consequence was the shift in economic weight from the industrial north of England—Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds, Newcastle, Liverpool-- south to London and the financial and trade services tied to the growing role of the City in international finance. From trade in “visibles” like coal, machines and steel products, Britain shifted to a nation earning from what were termed “invisibles,” or financial return on overseas investment and services.

Britain increased its dependence on imported goods following the introduction of free trade. From 1883 to 1913 the Sterling value of her imports rose by 84%. The real efect of the shift to import dependence was obscured by the phenomenal success of earnings from invisibles. In 1860 Britain led the world in coal production, the raw material feeding her industry and fuelling her navy, with almost 60% of the total.By 1912 that fell to 24%. Similarly, in 1870 England enjoyed an impressive 49% share of total world iron forging output. By 1912 it was 12%. Copper consumption, an essential component of the emerging electrification transformation, went from 32% of world consumption in 1889 to 13% by 1913.[11]

The final quarter century of the 1800’s was the beginning of the end of the hegemonic position of Britain as the world’s dominant economic power.

In 1873 a severe economic depression, dubbed in English history the Great Depression, spread, persisting until 1896, almost a quarter Century, a decisive period in the development of the forces leading to the Great War in 1914. The 1873 depression led to the further decline of British industrial competitiveness. Price levels went into steady fall or deflation, profit margins and wages with it. Huge sums of capital remained idle or went abroad in search of gain.

While the crisis in England was severe, the effects outside Britain were short-lived. By the mid-1890’s the German Reich was in the midst of an economic boom unlike any before. The rival German and other Continental economies were rapidly industrializing and exporting to markets once dominated by British exports. [12]

By the 1880’s Britain’s leading circles and advocates of Empire realized that they needed to not only send their entrepreneurs like Cecil Rhodes to mine the gold to feed the banks of the City of London. Increasingly, they realized a revolution in the technology of naval power was required if the Royal Navy was to continue its unchallenged hegemony of the seas. That required a radical shift in British foreign policy. The revolution in technology was the shift from coal to oil power.

After the 1890’s, though little publicized, the search for secure energy in the form of petroleum would become of paramount importance to Her Majesty’s Navy and Her Majesty’s government. A global war for control of oil was shaping up, one few were even aware of outside select policy circles.



A revolution in Naval Power
In 1882, petroleum had little commercial interest. The development of the internal combustion engine had not yet revolutionized world industry. One man understood the military -strategic implications of petroleum for future control of the world seas, however.

In a public address in September 1882, Britain's Admiral Lord Fisher, then Captain Jack Fisher, argued to anyone in the British establishment who would listen, that Britain must convert its naval fleet from bulky coal-fired propulsion to the new oil fuel. Fisher and a few other far-sighted individuals began to argue for adoption of the new fuel. He insisted that oil-power would allow Britain to maintain decisive strategic advantage in future control of the seas.

Fisher argued the qualitative superiority of petroleum over coal as a fuel. A battleship powered by diesel motor burning petroleum issued no tell-tale smoke, while a coal ship's emission was visible up to 10 kilometers away. It required 4 to 9 hours for a coal-fired ship's motor to reach full power, an oil motor required a mere 30 minutes and could reach peak power within 5 minutes. To provide oil fuel for a battle ship required the work of 12 men for 12 hours. The same equivalent of energy for a coal ship required the work of 500 men and 5 days. For equal horsepower propulsion, the oil -fired ship required 1/3 the engine weight, and almost one-quarter the daily tonnage of fuel, a critical factor for a fleet whether commercial or military. The radius of action of an oil-powered fleet was up to four times as great as that of the comprable coal ship.[13]

In 1885 a German engineer, Gottleib Daimler, had developed the world's first workable petroleum motor to drive a road vehicle. The economic potentials of the petroleum era were beginning to be more broadly realized by some beyond Admiral Fisher and his circle.

By 1904 Fisher had been named Britain’s First Sea Lord, the supreme naval commander, and immediately set to implement his plan to convert the British navy from coal to oil. One month into his post, in November 1904, a committee was established on his initiative to “consider and make recommendations as to how the British Navy shall secure its oil supplies.” At that time it was believed the British Isles, rich in coal, held not a drop of oil.

The thought of abandoning the security of domestic British coal fuel in favor of reliance on foreign oil was a strategy embedded in risk. The Fisher Committee had been dissolved in 1906 without resolution of the oil issue on the election of a Liberal government pledged to work for arms control. By 1912, as the Germans began a major Dreadnought-class naval construction program, Prime Minister Asquith convinced Admiral Fisher to come out of retirement to head a new Royal Commission on Oil and the Oil Engine in July 1912.

Two months later on Fisher’s recommendation, the first British battleship using only oil fuel, the Queen Elizabeth, was begun. Fisher pushed the risky oil program through with one argument: “In war speed is everything.” Winston Churchill had by then replaced Fisher as First Lord of the Admiralty and was a strong advocate of Fisher’s oil conversion. Churchill stated in regard to the Commission finding, “We must become the owners or at any rate the controllers at the source of at least a proportion of the oil which we require.” [14]

From that point, oil conversion of the British fleet dictated national security priority to secure large oil reserves outside Britain. In 1913 less than 2% of world oil production was produced within the British Empire.[15]

By the first decade of the 20th Century securing long-term foreign petroleum security had become an essential factor for British grand strategy and its geopolitics. By 1909, a British company, Anglo-Persian Oil Company held rights to oil exploration in a 60-year concession from the Persian Shah at Maidan-i-Naphtun near the border to Mesopotamia. That decision to secure its oil led England into a fatal quagmire of war which in the end finished the British Empire as the world hegemon by Versailles in 1918, though it would take a second World War and several decades before that reality was clear to all.



Germany emerges in a second industrial revolution

Beginning the 1870’s the German Reich, proclaimed after the Prussian victory over France in 1871, saw the emergence of a colossal new economic player on the map of Continental Europe.

By the 1890's, British industry had been surpassed in both rates and quality of technological development by an astonishing emergence of industrial and agricultural development within Germany. With the United States concentrated largely on its internal expansion after its Civil War, the industrial emergence of Germany was seen increasingly as the largest "threat" to Britain's global hegemony during the last decade of the century.

After England’s prolonged depression in the 1870's, Germany turned increasingly to a form of national economic strategy, and away from British "free trade" adherence, in building a national industry and agriculture production rapidly.

From 1850 to 1913, German total domestic output increased five-fold. Per capita output increased in the same period by 250%. The population began to experience a steady increase in its living standard, as real industrial wages doubled between 1871 and 1913.

In the decades before 1914, in terms of fuelling world industry and transportation, coal was king. In 1890, Germany produced 88 million tons of coal while Britain, produced more than double as much at 182 million tons. By 1910, the German output of coal had climbed to 219 million tons, while Britain had only a slight lead at 264 million tons. Steel was at the center of Germany's growth, with the rapidly-merging electrical power and chemicals industries close behind. Using the innovation of the Gilchrist Thomas steel-making process, which capitalized on the high-phosphorus ores of Lorraine, German steel output increased 1,000% in the twenty years from 1880 to 1900, leaving British steel output far behind. At the same time the cost of making Germany's steel dropped to one -tenth the cost of the 1860's. By 1913 Germany was smelting almost two times the amount of pig iron as British foundries. [16]



The German rail revolution

The rail infrastructure to transport this rapidly expanding flow of industrial goods, was the initial locomotive for Germany's first Wirtschaftswunder. State rail infrastructure spending doubled the kilometers of track from 1870 to 1913. The German electrical industry grew to dominate half of all international trade in electrical goods by 1913. German chemical industry became the world's leader in analine dye production, pharmaceuticals and chemical fertilizers.

Paralleling the expansion of its industry and agriculture, between 1870 and 1914 Germany's population increased almost 75% from 40,000,000 to more than 67,000,000 people. Large industry grew in a symbiosis together with large banks such as Deutsche Bank, under what became known as the Grossbanken model of interlocking ownership between major banks and key industrial companies. [17]

One aspect of that economic expansion after 1870, more than any other, aside from the program of Admiral von Tirpitz to build a German Dreadnaught-class blue water navy to challenge British sea supremacy, that brought Germany into the geopolitical clash which later became World War I, was the decision of German banking and political circles to build a rail link that would connect Berlin to the Ottoman Empire as far as Baghdad in then-Mesopotamia. [18]



A Railway changes the geopolitical map of Europe

"When the history of the latter part of the nineteenth Century will come to be written, one event will be singled out above all others for its intrinsic importance and for its far-reaching results; namely, the conventions of 1899 and of 1902 between His Imperial Majesty the Sultan of Turkey and the German Company of the Anatolian Railways."-[19]-

Towards the end of the 19th Century, German industry and the German government began to look in earnest for overseas sources of raw materials as well as potential markets for German goods. The problem was that the choice pieces of underdeveloped real estate had been previously carved up between rival imperial powers, especially France and Britain. In 1894 German Chancellor, Count Leo von Caprivi, told the Reichstag, “Asia Minor is important to us as a market for German industry, a place for the investment of German capital and a source of supply, capable of considerable expansion, of such essential goods (as grains and cotton) as we now buy from countries of which it may well sooner or later be in our interests to make ourselves independent.”[20] Caprivi was supported in turning to Asia Minor by large sections of the German industry, especially the steel barons, and by the great banks such as Deutsche Bank, as well as the foreign policy establishment and the military under General Helmuth von Moltke, Chief of the General Staff.



Berlin’s Drang nach Osten

The answer for Berlin’s need to secure new markets and raw material to feed its booming industries clearly lay in the east—specifically in the debt-ridden, ailing Ottoman Empire of Sultan Abdul Hamid II. The situation in Ottoman Turkey had become so extreme that the Sultan had been forced by his French and British creditors to put the finances of the realm under the control of a banker-run agency in 1881. By the Decree of Muharrem (December 1881) the Ottoman public debt was reduced from £191,000,000 to £106,000,000, certain revenues were assigned to debt service, and a European-controlled organization, the Ottoman Public Debt Administration (OPDA), was set up to collect the payments. The OPDA subsequently acted as agent for the collection of other revenues and as an intermediary with European companies seeking investment opportunities. Its affairs were controlled by the two largest creditors—France and Britain, the French being the larger.

The Germans set about to change that dependency of Ottoman Turkey on the British and French. For his part, Sultan Abdul Hamid II was all too pleased to open his door to growing German influence as a welcome counterweight and a source of new capital to solve the economic problems of the empire.

In 1888, the Oriental Railway from Austria, across the Balkans via Belgrade, Sofia, to Constantinople, was opened. This linked with the railways of Austria-Hungary and other European countries and put the Ottoman capital in direct communication with Vienna, Paris, and Berlin. It was to be significant for later events.

By 1898, the Ottoman Ministry of Public Works had applications from several European groups to build railways in the Anatolian part of the empire. These included an Austro-Russian syndicate, a French proposal, a proposal from a group of British bankers, and the proposal of the German Deutsche Bank. The Sublime Porte had no desire to have significant Russian presence on its territory, because of Russian desires for access for its navy through the Dardanelles. The British government backing for its bankers faded away with outbreak of the Boer War in 1899. The French proposal was considered significant enough that Deutsche Bank entered into negotiations with the French Banks about a joint venture. [21]

The Sultan, Abdul Hamid II, on November 27, 1899, awarded Deutsche Bank, headed by Georg von Siemens, a concession for a railway from Konia to Baghdad and to the Persian Gulf. In 1888 and again in 1893, the Sultan had assured the Anatolian Railway Company that it should have priority in the construction of any railway to Baghdad. On the strength of that assurance, the Anatolian Company had conducted expensive surveys of the proposed line. As part of the railway concession, the shrewd negotiators of the Deutsche Bank, led by Karl Helfferich, negotiated subsurface mineral rights twenty kilometers to either side of the proposed Baghdad Railway line.[22] Deutsche Bank and the German government backing them made certain that included the sole rights to any petroleum which might be found. The Germans had scored a strategic coup over the British, or so it seemed. Mesopotamian oil secured through completion of the Berlin-Baghdad Railway was to be Germany’s secure source to enter the emerging era of oil-driven transport.

The German success was no minor event. The geographical position of the Ottoman Empire, dominating the Balkans, the Dardanelles straits, and territory to Shatt-al-Arab at the Persian Gulf, from Aleppo to Sinai bordering the strategic Suez Canal link to the British Empire India trade, down to Aden at the Strait of Bab el Mandeb. The German-Ottoman agreement assuring construction of the final section of the Berlin-Baghdad Railway meant the shattering of England's hope of bringing Mesopotamia, with its strategic location and its oil, under her exclusive influence and it meant as well a major defeat for France.



Britain reacts

Systematically, Britain took measures to secure her exposed flank in Mesopotamia. By 1899, Britain had secured a 99-year exclusive agreement between Britain and Kuwait, nominally part of the debt-ridden and militarily weak Ottoman Empire from the unscrupulous Shaikh Mubarak-al-Sabah. By 1907 they had converted it to a ‘lease in perpetuity.’

In 1905, through the machinations of British spy, Sidney Reilly, Lord Strathcona, secured exclusive rights to Persian oil resources and what in 1909 became the Anglo-Persian Oil Company, after discovery of oil there in 1908. The company negotiated an agreement with Winston Churchill, First Lord of the Admiralty, shortly before World War I, for major financial backing by the British Government in return for secure oil for the Royal Navy. In 1912 the government, at Churchill’s urging, bought controlling interest secretly in Anglo-Persian Oil Company. She had negotiated with the Sheikh of Muhammerah to also build an oil refinery, depot and port on Abadan Island adjacent to the Shaat-al-Arab as part of the emerging British policy to keep the Germany out of the strategic Mesopotamian oil-rich region. [23]

A German-built rail link to Baghdad and on to the Persian Gulf, capable of carrying military troops and munitions, was a strategic threat to the British oil resources of Persia. Persian oil was the first crucial source of secure British petroleum for the Navy. Already, the decision by the German Reichstag to approve the massive naval construction program of Admiral von Tirpitz in the German Naval Law of 1900, to build 19 new battleships and 23 battle cruisers over the coming 20 years, presented the first challenge to Britain’s rule of the seas. At the Hague Convention of 1907 Germany refused to continue an earlier ban on “aerial warfare.” Under Count Zepplin, the Germans had been the first to develop huge airships. [24]

Turkey, backed and trained by Germany, had the potential, should it get the financial and military means, to launch a military attack on what had become vital British interests in Suez, the Persian route to India, the Dardanelles. By 1903 the German Reich was prepared to give the Sultan that means in the form of the Baghdad Railway and German investment in Ottoman Anatolia.

By 1913 that German engagement had taken on an added dimension with a German-Turkish Military Agreement under which German General Liman von Sanders, member of the German Supreme War Council, with personal approval of the Kaiser, was sent to Constantinople to reorganize the Turkish army on the lines of the legendary German General Staff. In a letter to Chancellor von Bethmann-Hollweg, dated April 26, 1913, Freiherr von Wangenheim, the German Ambassador to Constantinople declared, “The Power which controls the Army will always be the strongest one in Turkey. No Government hostile to Germany will be able to hold on to power if the Army is controlled by us…” [25].

German intelligence operatives, led by Baron Max von Oppenheim, a German Foreign Ministry diplomat and an archaeologist, had made extensive surveys of Mesopotamia already beginning 1899 to explore the proposed route of the Baghdad Railway, confirming the estimated of Ottoman officials that the region held oil. The British referred to Oppenheim as “The Spy.” He was also an ardent German imperialist. In 1914 shortly before outbreak of war, Oppenheim reportedly told Kaiser Wilhelm, “When the Turks invade Egypt, and India is set ablaze with the flames of revolt, only then will England crumble. For England is at her most vulnerable in her colonies.” He was author of a German strategy of encouraging a Turkey-led Jihad or Holy War and against the colonial powers of Britain, France and Russia as a strategy of war. [26]

Isolating the German Reich

By the end of the 1880’s fundamental shifts in security and trade alliances had begun. Britain, France and Russia were all growing alarmed at the emerging power and potential threat of the German Reich. In October 1903 Britain and France came together to agree spheres of influence which resulted in signing of an Entente Cordiale in April 1904, ending their imperial rivalries over Egypt, Morocco, Sudan and allowing both to concentrate on the threat posed by Germany in alliance with Austro-Hungary. [27]

By 1907, following its defeat in the Russo-Japan War of 1905 in a conflict that Britain overtly helped along by providing battleships to the Japanese to destroy the Russian Pacific Fleet, Russia settled its disputes with Britain over Afghanistan, The Great Game as Kipling termed the fight between Britain and Russia for control of the Afghan passage to India. Russia also settled their dispute with Britain over Persia and in June 1908 at the Baltic port of Reval, King Edward VII met his cousin Czar Nicholas II to agree on an Anglo-Russian alliance. The system of carefully built diplomatic alliances laid by Bismark which saw France in 1887 as the only country hostile to Germany, had, by 1908 turned to one in which by then the only friendly ally of Germany was the Austro -Hungarian Empire, a remarkable reversal of alliances and the prelude to the Great War.

In the months up to outbreak of war in 1914, there were efforts at cooling down a mounting confrontation between the two great power blocks—the Triple Entente of England, France, Russia and the alliance of Germany with Austro-Hungary. In 1911 Germany and Russia signed the Potsdam Agreement over rights to northern Persia in return for Russian agreement not to block the Baghdad Railway progress. Clear, however, was that Germany was fully committed to completing the Baghdad project.

Following the Balkan wars from 1910-1912, it was obvious to all that the next part of the Ottoman Empire to be carved up was Anatolian Turkey itself. The balance between the Great Powers was endangered with the result of the Balkan Wars, and the stunning defeat of the Ottoman army by small opponents. In a very short period, Turkey lost most of her territory in Europe except for İstanbul and a small hinterland, and retreated back to defence line in Çatalca.

Britain and British intelligence was active in the Balkans stirring revolt and opposition to Constantinople’s rule. The Entente Powers—France, England and Russia-- knew that despite all her efforts, Germany did not have strong cards in the Balkans. And the Balkans constituted a strategic link between Berlin and Baghdad as a glance at a good typographical map reveals.

The success of the so-called Young Turk revolution of 1908-9 in forcing the Sultan to reinstate a constitutional monarchy with a parliament unleashed a series of destabilizing revolts in the Balkan provinces of the empire. British intelligence was actively engaged in pushing events along. The Young Turk revolutions of 1908 and 1909, which ended the reign of Abdul Hamid in the Ottoman Empire, offered France and Great Britain an unprecedented opportunity to assume moral and political leadership in the Near East. Many members of the Committee of Union and Progress, the revolutionary party, had been educated in western European universities--chiefly in Paris--and had come to be staunch admirers of French and English institutions.[28] In 1908, as Constantinople was under the chaotic rule of the secular Young Turk Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), Anglo-Turkish relations were quite warm. The British Ambassador, Sir Gerald Lowther, at least in the initial days after the takeover in 1908, extended unlimited British support for the revolution. He told the Foreign Secretary, Sir Edward Grey, “Things have gone as well as they could.” [29] The role of the Yung Turks, most of whom were members of various European freemason lodges, is a rich and important story beyond the scope of this brief essay. Initially at least the Young Turk regime viewed the agreements between the Sultan and the Germans on the Baghdad Railway and oil rights to be a symbol of the corruption and destruction of Turkish national resources.

British diplomatic and intelligence operatives also played a role in Albanian independence in the Balkans. A key if little-known figure of British machinations at the time was Aubrey Herbert, Member of Parliament and British intelligence officer who was close to Gertrude Bell and T. E. Lawrence (“Lawrence of Arabia”). Herbert had been active since 1907 in fomenting Albanian independence from Constantinople, and was offered the Crown of Albania for his efforts, an offer which his friend, Asquith, dissuaded him from taking.

British active measures

As well in Serbia British military and intelligence networks were most active prior to outbreak of war. Major R.G.D. Laffan was in charge of a British military training mission in Serbia just before the war. Following the war, Laffan wrote of the British role in throwing a huge block on the route of the German-Baghdad project:

"If 'Berlin-Baghdad' were achieved, a huge block of territory producing every kind of economic wealth, and unassailable by sea-power would be united under German authority," warned R.G.D. Laffan. Laffan was at that time a senior British military adviser attached to the Serbian Army.

"Russia would be cut off by this barrier from her western friends, Great Britain and France," Laffan added. "German and Turkish armies would be within easy striking distance of our Egyptian interests, and from the Persian Gulf, our Indian Empire would be threatened. The port of Alexandretta and the control of the Dardanelles would soon give Germany enormous naval power in the Mediterranean."

Laffan suggested a British strategy to sabotage the Berlin-Baghdad link. "A glance at the map of the world will show how the chain of States stretched from Berlin to Baghdad. The German Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, Bulgaria, Turkey. One little strip of territory alone blocked the way and prevented the two ends of the chain from being linked together. That little strip was Serbia. Serbia stood small but defiant between Germany and the great ports of Constantinople and Salonika, holding the Gate of the East...Serbia was really the first line of defense of our eastern possessions. If she were crushed or enticed into the 'Berlin-Baghdad' system, then our vast but slightly defended empire would soon have felt the shock of Germany's eastward thrust." (emphasis added - w.e.) [30]

In 1915, after returning from a mission to Bulgaria, British MP, Noel Buxton wrote in the introduction to his book similar views of the strategic role of the Balkans for British strategy of blocking Germany and Austro-Hungary:

“No one now denies the supreme importance of the Balkans as a factor in the European War. It may be that there were deep-seated hostilities between the Great Powers which would have, in any case, produced a European War, and that if the Balkans had not offered the occasion, the occasion would have been found elsewhere. The fact remains that the Balkans did provide the occasion…” [31]

Buxton added, “The Serbian army would be set free to take the offensive, and possibly provoke an uprising of the Serbian, Croat, and Slovene populations of the Austrian Empire. Any diminution of the Austrian force would compel the Germans to withdraw a larger number of troops from the other theatres of war.” [32]

The only Great Power whose interest lay in preventing the further deterioration of Ottoman control of its territories on the eve of war was Germany. The success of its grand economic and political project to win Ottoman Turkey as an informal sphere of influence, as well as securing the rights of the Baghdad Rail link to Mesopotamia and eventually to the Persian Gulf depended on preserving a stable political regime in Constantinople as partner.[33]

In April 1913, His British Majesty’s Foreign Office handed the Turkish Ambassador to London an official British statement of intent regarding Mesopotamian oil: “His Majesty’s Government…rely on the Ottoman Government to make without delay arrangements in regard to the oil wells of Mesopotamia which will ensure British control and meet with their approval in matters of detail.” [34]

Ironically, just on the eve of the assassination of the Austro-Hungarian Archduke and heir to the Habsburg throne in Sarajevo by Gavrilo Princip, a member of a Serbian Black Hand secret society with reported French Masonic ties, agreements were finally reached between the Germans, the British and the Turkish parties over oil rights in Mesopotamia.

In 1909, the National Bank of Turkey was founded following a trip, on request of England’s King Edward, by the influential London banker, Sir Ernest Cassel. Cassel was joined by the mysterious and wealthy Ottoman subject, of Armenian origin, Calouste Gulbenkian. The bank had no representation of Ottoman origins. Its board included Hugo Baring of the London bank, Earl Cromer, Barons Ashburton, Northbrook and Revelstone. At the time Lord Cromer was Governor of the Bank of England. This elite British entity in Constantinople then created an entity called the Turkish Petroleum Company, in which Gulbenkian was given 40% share. The purpose was to win from the Sultan an oil concession in Mesopotamia. Simultaneously, a second British-controlled enterprise, Anglo-Persian Oil Company was actively trying to extend its Persian oil claims into the disputed borders with Mesopotamia. The third player, the only one with exploration rights from Sultan Abdul Hamid II was the Baghdad Railway Company of Deutsche Bank. The crafty British were about to change that.

The combined British efforts forced the German group into a compromise. In 1912 and again in early 1914 on the eve of the war, with the backing of British and German governments, the (British) Turkish Petroleum Company was reorganized. Share capital was doubled. Half went to Anglo-Persian Oil Company, now secretly owned by the British Government. Another 25% was held by the Anglo-Dutch Royal Dutch Shell group. A final 25% was held by the Deutsche Bank group, the only ones with rights to exploit the oil resources to either side of the Baghdad rail line. Finally, Shell and Anglo-Persian each agrees to give Gulbenkian 2.5% of their shares for a total of 5%. On June 28, 1914, in one of the great ironies of history, the Turkish Petroleum Company won the oil concession from the Sultan’s government. It did not matter. War had broken out and British forces would secure the entire oilfields of Mesopotamia after Versailles in a new League Protectorate called Iraq.[35]

In June 1914, just days before outbreak of war, the British Government, acting on First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill’s urging, bought the majority share of the stock of Anglo -Persian Oil Company and with it she took automatically APOC’s major share in Deutsche Bank’s Turkish Petroleum Company. [36] London left nothing to chance.

Why would England risk a world war in order to stop the development of Germany's industrial economy in 1914?

The ultimate reason England declared war in August, 1914 lay fundamentally, "in the old tradition of British policy, through

which England grew to great power status, and through which she sough to remain a great power," stated Deutsche Bank’s Karl Helfferich, the man in the midst of negotiations on the Baghdad Railway, in 1918. "England's policy was always constructed against the politically and economically strongest Continental power," he stressed.

"Ever since Germany became the politically and economically strongest Continental power, did England feel threatened from

Germany more than from any other land in its global economic position and its naval supremacy. Since that point, the English-German differences were unbridgeable, and susceptible to no agreement in any one single question." Helfferich sadly noted the accuracy of the declaration of Bismarck from 1897, "The only condition which could lead to improvement of German-English relations would be if we bridled our economic development, and this is not possible."[37]



Endnotes:

[1] Glyn Davies, A History of Money from Ancient Times to the Present Day, rev.ed., (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1996), 348-352.

[2] Sir John Clapham, Bank of England, Vol.II, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1944), p.217.

[3] Timothy Green, Central Bank Gold Reserves: An historical perspective since 1845, World Gold Council, Research Study no. 23, November 1999, London.

[4] T. Green, Central Bank Gold…, 3,6.

[5] Russell Ally, Gold & Empire: The Bank of England and South Africa’s Gold Producers, 1886-1926, (Johannesburg, Witwatersrand University Press, 1994), 31.

[6] T. Green, Central Bank Gold…, 6-9.

[7] As South African economic historian Russell Ally put the relationship between the Boer War and the Bank of England’s gold reserves, ‘To be sure, Britain did not take physical control of the Transvaal just because the Bank of England was concerned about the state of its gold reserves…However, this should not detract from the fact that there was a growing appreciation of the importance of the Witwatersrand’s gold for the Bank of England’s safeguarding its leadership of the international gold standard and that this coincided with the mining magnates’ (e.g. Rhodes and others—f.w.e.) hostility towards Kruger’s government.’ Cited in Russell Ally, Gold & Empire: The Bank of England and South Africa’s Gold Producers, 1886-1926, (Johannesburg, Witwatersrand University Press, 1994), 25. Ally also notes the crucial role of Lord Milner, then High Commissioner of the Cape Colony and later Governor of Transvaal. Milner and his circle, using the resources from the will of Cecil Rhodes, later founded The Round Table and a periodical of the same name, in order to advance an enormously influential agenda for the regeneration of the British Empire, a fascinating subject beyond the scope of this brief essay.

[8] P.J. Cain and A.G. Hopkins, British Imperialism: Innovation and Expansion 1688-1914, (London, Longman, 1993), 373.

[9] Susan Fairlie, ‘The Corn Laws and British Wheat Production, 1829-76,’ Economic History Review, Second Series, Vol. 22, No. 1, April 1969, 88 -116.

[10] Cain and Hopkins, British Imperialism, 181ff.

[11] Cited in Sonderabdruck aus der Frankfurter Zeitung, Gegen die englische Finanzvormacht, (7 November, 1915), Frankfurt am Main, Druck & Verlag der Frankfurter Societsdruckerei GmbH.

[12] Hans Rosenberg, ‘Political and Social Consequences of the Great Depression of 1873-1896 in Central Europe,’ Economic History Review, Vol. 13, nos.1&2, 1943.

[13]Eric J. Dahl, ‘Naval innovation: from coal to oil,’ Joint Force Quarterly, Winter, 2000. The details on oil versus coal powered ships is found in Anton Mohr, The Oil War, (New York, Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1926), 113-115. Anton Zischka, Oelkrieg: Wandlung der Weltmacht Oel, Leipzig, Wilhelm Goldmann Verlag, 1939) 293 for additional comparative data of oil over coal.

[14] Winston Churchill, quoted in Peter Slulgett, Britain in Iraq: 1914-1932, (London, Ithaca Press, 1976, 103-4.

[15] Anton Mohr, The Oil War, (New York, Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1926), 118-120.

[16] There are numerous sources which detail the rapid industrial transformation of the German Reich after 1870. Especially useful in this regard are Karl Erich Born, Wirtschafts-und Sozialgeschichte des Deutschen Kaiserreichs (1867 /71-1914), (Stuttgart, Steiner Verlag, 1985; and Knut Borchardt, The German Economy, 1870 to the present., (London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1967).

[17] Karl Helfferich, Deutschlands Volkswohlstand 1888-1913, (Berlin, Verlag von Georg Stilke, 1913).

[18] K.E. Born, Wirtschafts...

[19] Charles Sarolea, The Bagdad Railway and German Expansion as a Factor in European Politics ( Edinburgh, 1907), p. 3, quoted in Edward Mead Earle, Turkey, The Great Powers, and The Bagdad Railway

A Study in Imperialism, (New York The Macmillan Company, 1924), v.

[20] Count Leo von Caprivi, quoted in Franz Fischer, War of Illusions: German Policies from 1911 to 1914,( New York, W. W. Norton Company Inc., 1975), 49.

[21] E.M. Earle, The Great Powers…, 58-60. Earle included a 1922 correspondence of his with the representative of the British rail group, Mr E. Rechnitzer, in which the latter stated, ‘My offer being much more favorable than that of the Germans, it seemed likely in August, 1899, that it would be accepted. Unfortunately the Transvaal War broke out in the autumn of that year, and the German Emperor, a few days after the declaration of war, specially came to London to ask our Government to give him a free hand in Turkey. It appears that there was an interview between the Emperor and Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, who was more interested in Cecil Rhodes' scheme in Africa than in my scheme in Turkey.’

[22] Anton Mohr, The Oil War, 80-81.

[23] UK National Archive, BP Archive, Archon Code: 1566.
http://www.archiveshub.ac.uk/news/0300bp.html,
accessed on 16 June, 2007. BBC, The Company File: From Anglo-Persian Oil to BP Amoco, August 11, 1998.,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/149259.stm.
Details available on the relation between the British government and Anglo-Persian are detailed in Anton Mohr, The Oil War, 124-129. For background on Churchill’s role in securing oil sources and converting the Navy see Sara Reguer, Persian Oil and the First Lord: A Chapter in the Career of Winston Churchill , Military Affairs, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Oct., 1982), 134-138.

[24] Sara Reguer, Persian Oil..., 134.

[25] Freiherr von Wangenheim, cited in Hans Herzfeld, Die Liman-Krise und die Politik der Großmächte in der Jahreswende 1913/14, Berliner Monatshefte 11, 1933., 841 ff.

[26]Baron Max von Oppenheim as cited in The First World War: Haji Wilhelm,
http://www.channel4.com/history/
microsites/F/firstworldwar/cont_jihad_1.html.,
accessed on 18 June, 2007.

[27]Martin Gilbert, A History of the Twentieth Century, Volume One:1900-1933, (London, Harper Collins, 1997), 81-82. See also Peter Hopkirk, On Secret Service East of Constantinople, (London, Juhn Murray, 1994), 85-87, for more on Oppenheim’s role in supporting the Jihad.

[28] Edward Mead Earle, Turkey, the Great Powers…, 217-18.

[29] Gerald Lowther to Grey, 4 August 1908, Pte. Lowther Papers (FO800/193B), cited in Hasan Ünal, Britain and Ottoman Domestic Politics: From the Young Turk Revolution to the Counter-Revolution, 1908-9, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 37, No.2, April 2001, 1-2.

[30] R.G.D. Laffan, The Serbs: The Guardians of the Gate, (1917, reprinted by Dorset Press, New York, 1989), 163-4.

[31] Noel and Charles R.Buxton, The War and the Balkans (London, George Allen and Unwin, 1915), 1

[32] Ibid., 20-21.


Повезано
Lord Rothschild who was Winston Churchill's handler in two World Wars appointed him First Lord of the Admiralty, and Jackie Fisher began to modernize the Royal Navy in time for W W 1, Fisher was appointed Chairman of the Royal Commission to move from coal fired ships to the newly invented diesel engine, and Rudolf Diesel who demonstrated the wonders of running the new engine on peanut oil at the World fair in 1900 was invited over to demonstrate the engine to the admiralty, Rothschild saw to it that Rudolf Diesel "jumped" over board from his ship, and Churchill then demanded the ships be fired by Rothschild’s oil, Fisher was furious and a long running rift began with Churchill.

The bankers funded the Russian revolution in 1917, the Czar was very wealthy and the bankers seized Russia's wealth and the Czars bank accounts in London and Paris and turned Russia in to a giant prison camp for its people, killing 63 million Christians, some say 110 million, for Russia was to be the Trojan horse to asset strip Europe and the USA.

In the early days Rothschild had sent his 5 sons to the major capitals of the world and told them to agitate for war and print the money to carry it out, and later Germany in W W 1 paid a terrible price, the war was said to have taken at least one young man from every family in the British nation, men from all over the British empire gave their menfolk for a war that achieved little but hugely enriched the bankers.



WORLD WAR ONE

Admiral Fisher was appointed First Sea lord, a tough little man who had gained rapid promotion, in this capacity he grasped at the opportunity that he believed dreadnoughts offered the Navy, and thus he was instrumental in Britain's naval race with Germany, he was also a vociferous supporter of submarines, and believed they would spell the end for large battleships. In this he was wrong but he was one of the few in the Navy who recognized that submarines would play such an important role.

In October 1914, Fisher was called in by Winston Churchill, and another clash was inevitable. It came over Churchill's disastrous Gallipoli and Dardanelles campaigns where Churchill overrode all opposition to carry them through.

Admiral Fisher was told to shut up or resign, so in the midst of W W 1 Britain’s most able Admiral resigned his post in May 1915.

When Admiral Fisher died in 1920 Churchill ordered no publicity, this was resisted but few copies of his obituary were printed at that time.

It should be said that in one letter to Churchill whom he described as a "tool of the Jewish bankers" Fisher used a term which many believe came out of the internet age, O.M.G. for "Oh My God, these initials were originally penned by Fisher in a letter to Churchill and described him as an "infernal meddler" Fisher a devout Christian had no time for Churchill and knew the Rothschild/Churchill alliance was part and parcel of engineering the war and the sinking of the Hampshire with lord Kitchener on board to prolong it, the Lusitania see-

Later in W W 2 Churchill would again have serious rows with his naval intelligence chief Admiral Domvile and imprison him for the wars duration, Churchill was called in Parliament "The Shithouse" over his initials WC and changed parties 4 times and discussed it several more, it was said he had no loyalties and no allegiance to anyone but himself.

His bodyguard Det Walter Thomson said Churchill saw film of Hitler on the newsreels and saw him standing in an open car waving to the masses as they drove through the crowds, while Churchill believed he would be assassinated by his own people for dragging them into another pointless war and used several body doubles when seen in public.

First Sea Lord Admiral Sir David Beatty said " Churchill was quite mad" and his accusations that Churchill secretary Lord Boothy MP and Winston Churchill were both pederasts were later confirmed by Lord Moran Churchill's doctor and MI6.

Churchill was to push the blame on Lord Cherwells advice for the awful firebombing of German civilian targets onto Arthur "Bomber" Harris, the real architect of the war in the air ( not the war crimes ) was Lord Dowding, Churchill sacked him at the very moment of victory.

Churchill's speech writer and note taker Laurence Burgis said Churchill had his own private cinema, and would lay drunk through most the films, while sending millions to their deaths.

Just as most people know that the war on Iraq was fought on lies and subterfuge, so was W W 1 and W W 2, experts call them “bankers wars “and during the Cold War in one of London’s main underground bunkers we were told in a lecture by a prominent Rabbi that one more world war was necessary, the Armageddon of scripture was to bring in a golden age, for who I wondered?

Before every war the bankers withhold all the money causing an economic depression so men would have to join the army, and that Britain and the USA were almost totally communist dictatorships now but under different names.

The people wait in silence as those behind the scenes prepare us for the final carnage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Domvile

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/19..._turks.pdf

The Founding Fathers
Of Modern Turkey

By Jack Manuelian
4-8-6

David Musa Pidcock, in his book "Satanic Voices", says that " the city of Constantinople fell to an army of between 70,000 and 80,000 occult Masonic Jews and 20,000 crypto-Muslim Jews, without a shot being fired." and that "within six years of the Young Turk revolution of 1908 and the fall of Constantinople to the 70,000 Jews the great war of WWI began on schedule." During that war some half and million Armenians living in Turkey, along with other half million other Christians of Turkey like Greeks, the Assyrians and Aramaian were barbarously killed in what came to be known as the First Genocide of the twenty century.


However, David is dead wrong in assuming that all the Jews of Salonika were involved in "overtaking Constantinople," only certain Jews were involved and the majority were Innocent. The Young Turk movement, in its initial phase even had some Greeks and Armenians in its members, as David himself quotes Lady Quennborough (Edith Starr Miller) from her book Occult Theocracy: "Not till 1900, when the Grand Orient virtually took over the Young Turk Party which was composed chiefly of Jews, Greeks and Armenians, did this movement assume a serious aspect." Page 585.


Texe Marrs, in his article entitled "Sea of Blood" wrote that in 1908 " Masonic Jewish socialists overthrew the Islamic Ottoman government of Turkey and commenced [in 1915] the genocidal murder of two million Christian Armenians. 'Butcher Brigades' of criminals cut off so many hands of Christian victims, the British Consul reported, that, if placed side-by-side, a highway could have been built of severed human hands." Besides a photo of a withered black hand, Texe comments: "This severed hand of a Christian Armenian woman slain in the massacre was dried and kept as a souvenir and talisman by a Jewish Mason in the town of Salonika." http://www.texemarrs.com/052005/sea_of_blood.htm


What Texe Marrs did miss is that those dried and withered hands, treated with vinegar and spices and turned black in color, are kept not as souvenirs but are used as talismans in a witchcraft ceremony to cast spells and curses.


David Pidcock corroborates his claim with extracts from two official documents. One is taken from "The Acacia" (October 1908 issue), the Masonic organ of the Grand Orient, an official Masonic publication:


"A secret Young Turk council was formed and the whole movement was directed from Salonika. Salonika, the most Jewish town in Europe-70,000 Jews out of a population of 100,000- was specially suited for the purpose. It already contained several lodges, in which the revolutionaries could work without being disturbed. These Lodges are under the Protection of European diplomacy. And as the Sultan was without weapon against them, his fall was inevitable...On the 1st May, 1909, the representatives of 45 Turkish Lodges met in Constantinople and founded the 'Grand Orient Ottoman'. Mahmoud Orphi Pasha was nominated Grand Master....A short time after a Supreme Council of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rites was also founded and recognized by the French and Italian authorities." Source--Vicomte Leon de Poncins in his The Secret Powers Behind the Revolution, page 66.


The other document is a letter from Sir Gerard Lowther of the British Embassy in Constantinople to Sir Charles Harding. The letter is stated to be private and confidential, dated May 29, 1910, In Constantinople:


"Dear Charles, Gorst's [Sir Eldon Goest, Consul-General in Cairo, Egypt] telegram of the 23rd April about the rumored appointment of Mohamed Farid as delegate in Egypt of the Constantinople Freemasons, 'said to be intimately connected with the committee of Union and Progress [of the Young Turks]', prompts me to write to you at some length on the strain of continental Freemasonry running through the Young Turk movement.


"I do so privately and confidentially, as this new Freemasonry in Turkey, unlike that of England and America, is in great part secret and political, and information on the subject is only available in strict confidence, while those who betray its political secrets seem to stand in fear of the hand of the Mafia.


"As you are aware, the Young Turkey movement in Paris was quite separate from and in great part in ignorance of the inner workings of that in Salonika. The latter has a population of about 140,000, of whom 80,000 are Spanish Jews, and 20,000 of the sect of Sabetai Levi (Zevi) or Crypto-Jews, who externally profess Islamism. Many of the former [Spanish Jews] have in the past acquired Italian Nationality and are Freemasons affiliated to Italian Lodges. Nathan, the Jewish Lord Mayor of Rome, is high up in Masonry, and the Jewish Premiers Luzzati and Sonnino, and other Jewish senators and deputies, are also, it appears, Masons. They claim to have been founded from and to follow the ritual of the 'Ancient Scottish.'


"...The inspiration of the movement in Salonika would seem to have been mainly Jewish [Ataturk also came from Salonika], while the words 'Liberty', 'Equality', 'Fraternity', the motto of the Young Turks, are also the device of Italian Freemasons...Shortly after the revolution in July 1908, when the Committee established itself in Constantinople, it soon became known that many of its leading members were Freemasons..."


David, in his book, give an excerpt from "The Times History of the War" volume 14, page 308: "


"Salonika, with its 80,000 Jews speaking their inherited Spanish dialect, was already a Jewish home; and who could except a Jew, with his history of wandering behind him, to abandon lightly so fair an asylum? Loyalty and material interest combined to make the Sephardim stay where they were and stand by the Turks. They became linked to the Turks more intimately through a crypto-Jewish Moslem community, the Donme, descended from Sephardim converted in the seventeenth century [to Islam].


"The Donme were represented by Djavid Bey, the finance minister...and through Oriental Free Masonry, which they controlled, the Salonika Sephardim were associated from the beginning with the Young Turkish movement. In Turkey as in Hungry, and from the same mixed motives of gratitude and ambition, they threw in their lot with the ruling race, and they supplied the intellectual element in the new Turkish Nationalism.


"The author of the standard exposition of the 'Pan-Turanian Movement', who calls himself by the pure Turkish name of 'Tekin Alp', is believed to have been a Salonika Jew, and there is also reason to suppose that the secularizing, anti-Islamic tendency which is also so remarkable a feature in Pan-Turanianism was partly the effect of this Jewish influence."


David believes in the existence of a Judeo-Masonic conspiracy directed against Orthodox Jews and Orthodox Christians, along with a conspiracy of cover up. He writes "a conspiracy of chutzpah to obfuscate is well established." This latter conspiracy could explain why there are still some who deny the First Genocide of the 20th Century, during WWI; the risk from being exposed would be too much a payment.


This conspiracy of chutzpah (chutzpah is a Jewish term meaning shameless impudence) to obfuscate exist also in regard to the Second Genocide, during WWII. David claims in his book that when Zionists found out at the turn of the century that the majority of the poor Jewish people of Europe were not interested in moving to a new homeland in Palestine, "a parcel of land" (as Theodor Herzl referred to it) which he was trying to purchase from the Ottoman Sultan, who by the way refused to sell or give, Theodor "hit upon the master plan, which he estimated correctly, would enable the Zionists to obtain Palestine througt the sympathy generated in the west by the mass sacrifice [the holocaust] of some of those poor Jews." Which turned out to be in the millions, and the plan quite successful, this success can be attributed in part to the fact that those conspirators tested the Genocide on the Armenians first before applying it on the masses of the poor Jews.


Indeed, the Armenian Genocide was a dry-run for the Jewish Genocide, as Barry Chamish himself also said and wrote about.
Пронађи све корисникове поруке
Цитирај ову поруку у одговору
06-05-2014, 04:45 AM (Последња измена: 06-05-2014 04:53 AM од Захумље.)
Порука: #12
RE: Кухиња
How the British ran the Sarajevo murder

On June 28, 1914, Archduke Ferdinand and his wife were gunned down in Sarajevo, Bosnia, providing the convenient incident that triggered W orId War I. In March 1917, the trigger-man Gavrilo Princip and his accomplices, Nedjelko Chabrinovitch and Tryfon Grabezh, were put on trial in a Serbian court. All proudly confessed to the murders, saying that it was necessary to kill the archduke since he was an opponent of Greater Serbia. They reported that they were members of the Black Hand, and that their superior in that society, Milan Ciganovitch, directed the murder. Interrogation of the accused reveals aspects of
how the murder was organized:
President [of the court]: "Did you speak to Ciganovitch about Freemasonry?"
Princip: "Why do you ask me?"
President: "Because I want to know."
Princip: "Yes, Ciganovitch told me he was a Freemason.
. . . On another occasion he told me that the heir
apparent [Archduke Ferdinand] had been condemned to
death by a Freemason's lodge."
Defendant Chabrinovitch was then examined. He stated
that the lodge official who organized the murder was
Dr. Radoslav Kazimirovitch.
Chabrinovitch: "He is a Freemason, in some ways
one of their heads. He travelled off at once [so soon as
Chabrinovitch et al. agreed to the murder] and travelled
the continent. He was in Budapest, Russia, and France
Whenever I asked Ciganovitch about our affair [the
planned murder] he replied: 'When that man comes back.'
Then he told me that the Freemasons had condemned the
archduke to death two years before but that no people
would carry out the sentence. Afterwards, when he gave
the Browning and the cartridges, he said, 'That man came
back from Budapest last night,' I knew the journey had
been made in connection with our affair and that he had
conferred with certain circles abroad.
President: "Are you telling us fairy tales?"
Chabrinovitch: "No. It is the plain truth-a hundred
times truer than your documents about the Black Hand."
In 1917, British author C.H. Norman reported that
the Grand Orient Masons were behind the murder of the
archduke, in his pamphlet "Some Secret Influences behind
the War":
"Somewhere about the year 1906 I was invited to
attend a meeting of Englishmen fot the purpose of discussing
a proposal to form an English lodge of the Grand
Orient. . . . The lodge was 'to be engaged in propaganda
on behalf of the Entente Cordiale' • . . with this apparently
innocent object I found myself in sympathy. But,
nevertheless, I decided to discover whether it was all its
benevolent program pretended.

"To my astonishment I found tile Grand Orient was
about to embark upon a vast political scheme in alliance
with the Russian Okhrana, which could only be brought
to fruition by a terrible European war."
Norman reported that the Grand Orient included many
leading Frenchmen, notably "M. Poincare, Combes, Delcasse,
Briand, Viviani, Millerande." He further reported
that the London agent of the Grand :Orient was involved
in planning the murder of the archduke.-Joseph Brewda

http://www.larouchepub.com/eiw/public/19...rajevo.pdf

Невероватно колико проблема имао да шаљем овај текст!
Пронађи све корисникове поруке
Цитирај ову поруку у одговору
06-05-2014, 11:49 PM
Порука: #13
RE: Кухиња
Млади Турука Паралел са Млада Босна


Palmerston launches Young Turks to permanently control Middle East
Joseph Brewda

Chorus: It is clear that the B’nai B’rith is an abject tool of British intelligence, run and directed to serve the interests of British imperial policy, and not the interests of Jews, nor even of B’nai B’rith members. The one peculiarity of B’nai B’rith in comparison to the other organizations launched by Palmerston and his three stooges, is that B’nai B’rith will be used for a wider variety of tasks in various countries and epochs. Therefore, the B’nai B’rith will be more permanent in its continuous organization than its Mazzinian counterparts, among which it stands out as the most specialized.

At the end of this century, one of the tasks assigned to the B’nai B’rith will be to direct, with the help of other Mazzinian agents, the dismemberment and partition of the Ottoman Empire. This is the state the British will call “the sick man of Europe.” Historically, the Ottoman Empire offers surprising tolerance to its ethnic minorities. In order to blow up the empire, that will have to be changed into brutal racial oppression on the Mazzini model.

In 1862, during the time of the American Civil War, Mazzini will call on all his agents anywhere near Russia to foment revolt as a way of causing trouble for Alexander II. A bit later, with the help of Young Poland, Mazzini will start a Young Ottoman movement out of an Adam Smith translation project in Paris. In 1876, the Young Ottomans will briefly seize power in Constantinople. They will end a debt moratorium, pay off the British, declare free trade, and bring in Anglo-French bankers. They will be quickly overthrown; but the same network will soon make a comeback as the Young Turks, whose rule will finally destroy the Ottoman Empire.

In 1908, the Committee for Union and Progress, better known as the Young Turks, carried out a military coup, overthrew the sultan, and took power in the Ottoman Turkish empire. Once in power, they carried out a racist campaign of suppressing all non-Turkish minorities. Within four years, their anti-minority campaigns provoked the Balkan wars of 1912-13, among Turkey, Greece, Bulgaria, and Serbia. By 1914, these wars had triggered World War I, with Turkey becoming an ally of Germany.

Within seven years of coming into power, the Young Turks destroyed the Ottoman Empire. British intelligence had manipulated every nationalist group in the Empire, both the Young Turks, and their opponents.

When the Young Turks took power, the Ottoman Empire still included Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Palestine, and the Arabian Peninsula. The empire still included much of the Balkans: half of Greece, half of Bulgaria, half of Serbia, and all of Albania. Its land area was much bigger than present-day Turkey.

Although most of the population of the Ottoman empire were Turks, there were also large numbers of Slavs, Greeks, Arabs, Armenians, and Kurds. The Ottoman empire was a multi-ethnic empire, as were the nearby Austrian and Russian empires.

The Young Turks came to power waving the banner of democracy, but they soon picked up the banner of pan-Turkism. The idea was to form a state that included all the Turkic peoples of Asia. Since half of these people lived in Russia, this policy meant a collision with Russia.

But pan-Turkism was not created by the Young Turks or even in Turkey. It was first called for in the 1860s by a Hungarian Zionist named Arminius Vambery, who had become an adviser to the sultan, but who secretly worked for Lord Palmerston and the British Foreign Office. Vambery later tried to broker a deal between the Zionist leader Theodor Herzl and the sultan, over the creation of Israel.

The Young Turks also raised the banner of a pan-Islamic state. The idea was to bring all the Muslim peoples of the world into one empire, whether or not they were Turkish. This was another goal that meant conflict with Russia.

This idea was also not created by the Young Turks or in Turkey. It was first called for in the 1870s by an English nobleman named Wilfred Blunt, whose family had created the Bank of England. Blunt was a top British intelligence official who advocated using Islam to destroy Russia. Blunt’s family later patronized the British KGB spy “Kim” Philby.

While the Young Turks were pushing the pan-Turkic and pan-Islamic movements, the British were also boosting all the anti-Turkish independence movements within the empire. They were supporting Arab nationalism, led by Lawrence of Arabia. They were supporting Serbian nationalism, led by the British agent Seton-Watson; Albanian nationalism, led by Lady Dunham; and Bulgarian nationalism, led by Noel Buxton. All of these peoples wanted to break free from the Ottoman Empire; but they also claimed the land of their neighbors.

For example, the British supported the idea of carving a “Greater Armenia” out of Turkey, Iran, and Russia. This “Greater Armenia” had no possibility of existing. None of the Great Powers, including Britain, really wanted it. The Kurds, who lived in the same area, didn’t want it. But the British told the Armenians they supported their plans.

At the same time, the British were also telling the Kurds they supported the idea of “Greater Kurdistan.” As the map shows, the proposed territories of “Greater Kurdistan” and “Greater Armenia” were almost identical.

In 1915, during World War I, the Kurds killed about 1 million Armenians. The Young Turks, who had been put in power by the British, used the Kurds (who thought they had the support of the British) to slaughter the Armenians (who also thought they had the support of the British). The British then used this genocide as a justification for trying to eliminate Turkey.

In fact, the next year, the British and French got together to plan the division of the Ottoman Empire between themselves. According to the plan, which only partially worked, Turkey itself would be reduced to a tiny area on the Black Sea. The rest of the empire would go to Britain and France.

B’nai B’rith and the Young Turks
But who were these “Young Turks,” who so efficiently destroyed the empire?

The founder of the Young Turks was an Italian B’nai B’rith official named Emmanuel Carasso. Carasso set up the Young Turk secret society in the 1890s in Salonika, then part of Turkey, and now part of Greece. Carasso was also the grand master of an Italian masonic lodge there, called “Macedonia Resurrected.” The lodge was the headquarters of the Young Turks, and all the top Young Turk leadership were members.

The Italian masonic lodges in the Ottoman Empire had been set up by a follower of Giuseppe Mazzini named Emmanuel Veneziano, who was also a leader of B’nai B’rith’s European affiliate, the Universal Israelite Alliance.

During the Young Turk regime, Carasso continued to play a leading role. He met with the sultan, to tell him that he was overthrown. He was in charge of putting the sultan under house arrest. He ran the Young Turk intelligence network in the Balkans. And he was in charge of all food supplies in the empire during World War I.

Another important area was the press. While in power, the Young Turks ran several newspapers, including The Young Turk, whose editor was none other than the Russian Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky. Jabotinsky had been educated as a young man in Italy. He later described Mazzini’s ideas as the basis for the Zionist movement.

Jabotinsky arrived in Turkey shortly after the Young Turks seized power, to take over the paper. The paper was owned by a member of the Turkish cabinet, but it was funded by the Russian Zionist federation, and managed by B’nai B’rith. The editorial policy of the paper was overseen by a Dutch Zionist named Jacob Kann, who was the personal banker of the king and queen of the Netherlands.

Jabotinsky later created the most anti-Arab of all the Zionist organizations, the Irgun. His followers in Israel today are the ones most violently opposed to the Peres-Arafat peace accords.

Another associate of Carasso was Alexander Helphand, better known as Parvus, the financier of the 1905 and 1917 Russian revolutions. Shortly after 1905, Parvus moved to Turkey, where he became the economics editor of another Young Turk newspaper called The Turkish Homeland. Parvus became a business partner of Carasso in the grain trade, and an arms supplier to the Turkish army during the Balkan wars. He later returned to Europe, to arrange the secret train that took Lenin back to Russia, in 1917.

Of course, there were also some Turks who helped lead the Young Turk movement. For example, Talaat Pasha. Talaat was the interior minister and dictator of the regime during World War I. He had been a member of Carasso’s Italian masonic lodge in Salonika. One year prior to the 1908 coup, Talaat became the grand master of the Scottish Rite Masons in the Ottoman Empire. If you go to the Scottish Rite headquarters in Washington, D.C., you can find that most of the Young Turk leaders were officials in the Scottish Rite.

But who founded the Scottish Rite in Turkey? One of the founders was the grand master of the Scottish Rite in France, Adolph Cremieux, who also happened to be the head of the B’nai B’rith’s European affiliate. Cremieux had been a leader of Mazzini’s Young France, and helped put the British stooge Napoleon III into power.

The British controller: Aubrey Herbert
You can find the story of the Young Turks in the B’nai B’rith and Scottish Rite archives, but you cannot find it in history books. The best public account is found in the novel Greenmantle, whose hero is a British spy who led the Young Turks. Carasso appears in the novel under the name Carusso. The author, John Buchan, who was a British intelligence official in World War I, later identified the novel’s hero as Aubrey Herbert.

In real life, Herbert was from one of the most powerful noble families in England. The family held no fewer than four earldoms. His repeated contact with Carasso and other Young Turk leaders is a matter of public record. Herbert’s grandfather had been a patron of Mazzini and died leading revolutionary mobs in Italy in 1848. His father was in charge of British Masonry in the 1880s and 1890s. His uncle was the British ambassador to the United States. During World War I, Herbert was the top British spymaster in the Middle East. Lawrence of Arabia later identified Herbert as having been, at one time, the head of the Young Turks.

The U.S. State Department also played a role in the conspiracy. From 1890 through World War I, there were three U.S. ambassadors to Turkey: Oscar Straus, Abraham Elkin, and Henry Morgenthau. All three were friends of Simon Wolf. And all three were officials of B’nai B’rith.

Young Turks and the Armenian Genocide

The Young Turks were the perpetrators of the Armenian Genocide. The Young Turk Movement emerged in reaction to the absolutist rule of Sultan Abdul-Hamid (Abdulhamit) II (1876-1909). With the 1878 suspension of the Ottoman Constitution, reform-minded Ottomans resorted to organizing overseas or underground. The backbone of the movement was formed by young military officers who were especially disturbed by the continuing decline of Ottoman power and attributed the crisis to the absence of an environment for change and progress. Working secretly in unconnected clusters under the watchful eye of the Hamidian secret police, the Young Turks succeeded in overturning the rule of the autocratic sultan when the Ottoman armies in European Turkey openly supported the movement. Abdul-Hamid’s reinstatement of constitutional and parliamentary rule in July 1908 ushered in a brief period of legalized political activity by a panoply of reformist Turkish parties as well as Armenian political and revolutionary organizations. The Young Turks earned further public support when their intervention was required to suppress the April 1909 counter-revolution staged by the palace.

At the center of the Young Turk Revolution stood the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) (Ittihad ve Terakki Jemiyeti) formed in 1895. Its members came to be known as Ittihadists or Unionists. The most ideologically committed party in the entire movement, the CUP espoused a form of Turkish nationalism which was xenophobic and exclusionary in its thinking. Its policies threatened to undo the tattered fabric of a multi-ethnic and multi-religious society. Taking advantage of the political confusion reigning in the aftermath of the First Balkan War which the Ottoman Empire lost in 1912 to its former subject states, the CUP seized power in a coup d’etat in January 1913. As it led the empire to a partial recovery in the Second Balkan War, the CUP monopolized political power domestically by bringing the Parliament completely under its influence. It also began to steer away from the long-held Ottoman foreign policy of alliances with Great Britain and France, and forged a stronger military cooperation with Germany. Moreover, the CUP compensated for the Ottoman retreat in the Balkans by promoting Pan-Turkism, an expansionist program designed to challenge Russia in its southern tier. By the time World War I broke out in August 1914, the CUP constituted a chauvinistic band which had subordinated the Ottoman state to its Turkist ideology. It also propelled the country into war against its better interests by entering into a secret accord with Germany.

To consolidate Turkish rule in the remaining territories of the Ottoman Empire and to expand the state into the so-called Turanian lands in the east, most held by Iran and Russia, the CUP devised in secret a program for the extermination of the Armenian population. From the viewpoint of Ittihadist ideology and its new and ambitious foreign policy, the Armenians represented a completely vulnerable population straddling an area of major strategic value for its Pan-Turanian goals. Ottoman misrule had made the Armenians, a prosperous minority despite its political disadvantages, sympathetic to Russia. To the Ittihadists, the global crisis of 1914 represented a rare opportunity to change the fortunes of the Ottoman state and to use the cover of war to embark upon a policy of both internal and external social engineering the likes of which had not been attempted or imagined. Once again they gambled on the element of surprise, subterfuge, and radical daring, this time against a civilian minority population.

Even though the initial advance of Ottoman forces in 1914 into Russia and Iran did not result in a permanent expansion, on the whole the Ottoman armies held Allied forces in check until 1916 and did not capitulate until 1918. The main thrust of the Armenian Genocide, however, was implemented within the first year of the war, years ahead of any imminent collapse. While the mass deportations of the civilian Armenian population was carried out in the spring and summer of 1915 and were completed by the fall, the systematic slaughter of the Armenians had started earlier with the murder of the able-bodied males already drafted into the Ottoman armed forces. By expropriating the movable and immovable wealth of the Armenians, the CUP also looked upon its policy of genocide as a means for enriching its coffers and rewarding its cohorts. The elimination of a commercially viable minority fulfilled part of the nationalist program to concentrate financial power in the hands of the state and promote greater Turkish control over the domestic economy.

Enver, Talaat, and Jemal, who were responsible for these policies formed the governing triumvirate which had concentrated power its hands with the January 1913 coup. The triumvirs divided the governance of the Ottoman Empire among themselves.

A young military hero who married into the Ottoman dynasty, Enver provided the most public face of the CUP. As Minister of War he coordinated the buildup of the Turkish armed forces with German financial, logistical, and planning support. In an ill-conceived plan of attack, he precipitated land warfare against Russia in the Caucasus in the dead of winter. His December 1914 campaign cost an entire army lost in a period of four weeks. In his capacity as the Deputy Commander-in-Chief (the honorary command being reserved for the sovereign), Enver exercised ultimate control over the Ottoman armies which carried out major atrocities, first in 1915 and then with renewed vigor when Turkish forces broke the Russian line in 1918 and invaded the Caucasus. The forces under the command of his brother, Nuri, and uncle, Halil, spread devastation through Russian Armenia and carried out massacres of Armenians all the way to Baku. Talaat as Minister of the Interior in Istanbul ran the government for a figurehead grand vizier. He was the mastermind of the Armenian Genocide and coordinated the various agencies of the Ottoman government required for the deportation, expropriation, and extermination of the Armenians. Jemal who was Minister of the Navy controlled the southern part of the Ottoman Empire as virtual viceroy from his seat in Damascus and was responsible for checking the British line in Egypt. As commander of Syria, the concentration camps and extermination sites fell within his jurisdiction. Beyond the government ministries, the CUP also operated secret groups for the purpose of infiltrating enemy territory and for promoting Pan-Turkism in neighboring countries. The most infamous of its operations was the Teshkilâti Mahsusa, Special Organization, composed of outlaws especially recruited to carry out the CUP secret agenda. The high purpose of their mission was evidenced by their disposition at the command of two major CUP ideologues, Dr. Nazim and Dr. Behaeddin Shakir, both of them medical professionals, the prime organizers of the on-site implementation of the Armenian Genocide. Lastly, the CUP entrusted local command of the genocidal process to the provincial valis, or governors-general, who were made responsible for the execution of Talaat’s and Enver’s orders.

With the defeat of the Ottomans in World War I the denouement of the CUP became a drawn out matter pursued by all their opponents. Fully cognizant of the Allied threat to hold them responsible for war crimes, the CUP cabinet ministers resigned from the government with the signing of the Armistice of Mudros in October 1918. The key Ittihadist leaders fled Turkey, while the rank and file went underground. The post-war Ottoman government convened tribunals in 1919 to hear testimony on the conduct of the war and the implementation of the Armenian Genocide. While many second rank figures were prosecuted individually, the party as a whole was indicted for the crimes of conspiracy and massacre. The verdicts found the accused guilty of capital crimes, but the principal culprits were only tried in absentia. To bring them to justice, a clandestine group was formed by the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnak Party) to seek out and execute the Ittihadists in hiding in Germany and Italy. Vowing vengeance they tracked down Talaat in Berlin where he was assassinated in 1921. Behaeddin Shakir was also killed in Berlin in 1922, and Jemal in Tbilisi in 1922. Enver in a last adventure met his end in 1922 in Central Asia leading a cavalry charge against an advancing Red Army unit. Though most of the CUP chieftains had taken refuge in Germany, Jemal and Enver had established contact with the Bolsheviks offering their services in the cause of one more revolution. In the meantime, as he led the Turkish Nationalist movement, Mustafa Kemal distanced himself from the Ittihadists but absorbed into his forces former CUP members prepared to switch allegiance. In 1926 Kemal himself stamped out the remaining cells of the CUP when they were accused of plotting his assassination and sent Dr. Nazim and others to the gallows. —Rouben Paul Adalian

Generally passed over in accounts of the Holocaust are the executions by the Jewish Fighting Organization of Jewish inhabitants of the Ghetto. At least a dozen Jews were executed, judged guilty of collaborating with the Nazis. Alfred Nossig, one of the executed, deserves notice in Holocaust studies as a negative role model. He is perhaps unique in having had a cameo role in the first genocide of this century, the Armenian genocide, and of playing a part in the Holocaust.
Nossig was appointed to the Judenrat in late l939 on the order of the S.S. and he reported to and advised the Gestapo. A talented and in some ways distinguished figure, he wrote the first Zionist pamphlet in Polish (1887). He helped found the pioneering Jewish Bureau of Statistics in Berlin (circa 1904). And in l9l5 he was in Istanbul, perhaps acting for the Germans and probably attempting to interest the Ottomans in Jewish immigration. Nossig had two interviews with Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. ambassador to the Ottoman empire and principal contemporary publicizer of the Armenian genocide. In his second interview, Nossig drew his chair close to Morgenthau’s and in a “friendly and confidential manner” said: “I want to speak to you as one Jew to another . . . You are very active in the interest of the Armenians and I do not think you realize how unpopular you are becoming . . . You are just spoiling your opportunity for usefulness and running the risk your career will end ignominiously.” (Jonathan Petrie)
Пронађи све корисникове поруке
Цитирај ову поруку у одговору
07-05-2014, 01:26 AM (Последња измена: 07-05-2014 01:55 AM од Захумље.)
Порука: #14
RE: Кухиња
Dr. Radoslav Kazimirovitch.
Сад ја незнам јели Ексекутиц Интелигенс говори од Др.Радован Казимировић ко занимљиво је можда био школски друг са Владика Николај Велимировић од Кремски пророци.....а се срео са Отац Захарија у 1915 године.

http://www.novinar.de/2011/09/03/episkop...onima.html

Јели је Казимировић остао у КОМУНИСТИЧКОЈ земљи или је успео да побегне?

Занимљиво да је Казмировић занимало тај других и тречи светски рат!
Холклатнер (???)
http://www.astrozenit.com/astro-magazin/...roroanstvu

David James Smith
http://www.amazon.com/One-Morning-Saraje...0753825848

Један извор за Слободног зидарства и Казимировић....(јели је он био Теолог?)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horatio_Bottomley
John Bull
Ових се спомену......где се најпрво споменује улоге нека слободних зидари!
Пронађи све корисникове поруке
Цитирај ову поруку у одговору
Одговори 


[-]
Podeli (Prikazi sve)
Facebook Linkedin Twitter Digg

Скочи на Форум:


Корисник(а) прегледа ову тему: 1 Гост(а)