Few people noticed. And he’s not alone in this!
Insider info?

I used excerpts form this video.

This happened last days of may, followed shortly by:

Insider Selling: Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG) CAO Sells 42 Shares of Stock

Posted by MarketBeat News on Jun 3rd, 2022

   Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ:GOOG – Get Rating) CAO Amie Thuener O’toole sold 42 shares of the business’s stock in a transaction that occurred on Wednesday, June 1st. The shares were sold at an average price of $2,298.63, for a total transaction of $96,542.46. Following the completion of the transaction, the chief accounting officer now owns 1,181 shares of the company’s stock, valued at $2,714,682.03. The sale was disclosed in a legal filing with the SEC, which is available at this link.

Amie Thuener O’toole also recently made the following trade(s):Get Alphabet alerts: 

  • On Tuesday, May 3rd, Amie Thuener O’toole sold 42 shares of Alphabet stock. The stock was sold at an average price of $2,335.30, for a total transaction of $98,082.60.
  • On Friday, April 1st, Amie Thuener O’toole sold 42 shares of Alphabet stock. The stock was sold at an average price of $2,800.20, for a total transaction of $117,608.40.

NASDAQ GOOG traded up $72.18 on Thursday, hitting $2,354.92. 1,373,569 shares of the company were exchanged, compared to its average volume of 1,582,973. The company has a market cap of $1.55 trillion, a PE ratio of 21.30, a PEG ratio of 1.07 and a beta of 1.13. Alphabet Inc. has a 12 month low of $2,044.16 and a 12 month high of $3,042.00. The stock has a fifty day moving average of $2,464.33 and a 200-day moving average of $2,675.68. The company has a current ratio of 2.87, a quick ratio of 2.85 and a debt-to-equity ratio of 0.06.

Shares of Alphabet are scheduled to split on Monday, July 18th. The 20-1 split was announced on Tuesday, February 1st. The newly minted shares will be payable to shareholders after the closing bell on Friday, July 15th.

Alphabet (NASDAQ:GOOG – Get Rating) last released its quarterly earnings data on Tuesday, April 26th. The information services provider reported $24.62 earnings per share for the quarter, missing analysts’ consensus estimates of $25.51 by ($0.89). Alphabet had a net margin of 27.57% and a return on equity of 30.18%. During the same quarter in the prior year, the business earned $26.29 earnings per share. On average, analysts expect that Alphabet Inc. will post 112.46 earnings per share for the current year.

GOOG has been the subject of a number of research analyst reports. Tigress Financial upped their price objective on shares of Alphabet from $3,540.00 to $3,670.00 in a research report on Friday, March 18th. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft decreased their price target on shares of Alphabet from $3,150.00 to $2,900.00 in a research report on Wednesday, April 27th. Canaccord Genuity Group upped their price target on shares of Alphabet from $3,350.00 to $3,500.00 and gave the company a “buy” rating in a research report on Wednesday, February 2nd. Cowen upped their price target on shares of Alphabet from $3,500.00 to $3,600.00 and gave the company an “outperform” rating in a research report on Wednesday, February 2nd. Finally, Wedbush restated an “outperform” rating on shares of Alphabet in a research report on Wednesday, April 20th. One investment analyst has rated the stock with a hold rating and thirty have assigned a buy rating to the company. According to data from MarketBeat.com, Alphabet presently has a consensus rating of “Buy” and a consensus price target of $3,308.77.

Several institutional investors have recently added to or reduced their stakes in GOOG. Morgan Stanley lifted its stake in shares of Alphabet by 2.1% in the second quarter. Morgan Stanley now owns 2,433,132 shares of the information services provider’s stock valued at $6,098,209,000 after buying an additional 50,601 shares in the last quarter. New World Advisors LLC purchased a new stake in shares of Alphabet in the third quarter valued at about $724,000. EagleClaw Capital Managment LLC raised its holdings in shares of Alphabet by 3.5% in the third quarter. EagleClaw Capital Managment LLC now owns 2,946 shares of the information services provider’s stock valued at $7,853,000 after purchasing an additional 99 shares during the last quarter. Legacy Wealth Planning LLC purchased a new stake in shares of Alphabet in the third quarter valued at about $205,000. Finally, BloombergSen Inc. raised its holdings in shares of Alphabet by 1.4% in the third quarter. BloombergSen Inc. now owns 45,471 shares of the information services provider’s stock valued at $121,180,000 after purchasing an additional 616 shares during the last quarter. 31.20% of the stock is currently owned by hedge funds and other institutional investors.

About Alphabet

Alphabet Inc provides various products and platforms in the United States, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, the Asia-Pacific, Canada, and Latin America. It operates through Google Services, Google Cloud, and Other Bets segments. The Google Services segment offers products and services, including ads, Android, Chrome, hardware, Gmail, Google Drive, Google Maps, Google Photos, Google Play, Search, and YouTube.

MarketBeat News

So Alphabet stock doesn’t seem to be currently underperforming. If the cause of all these evolutions is not something happening in the present, Gates and the Alphabet CAO could very well have information about something in the future that determined them to take action. Insider info?

As for publicly available info on Alphabet’s future, the only notable event announced is:

Google parent Alphabet announced a 20-for-1 stock split. Here’s what that means and how it will impact investors – CNBC

In short, that means Alphabet shares aren’t many and they are expensive. It also means the current owners are not trading them enough to create speculative value growth. So they split every share in 20 tinier shares with the same total value. Those are bite-sized shares that smaller sharks can take on.

What that also means is that Alphabet needs funds and the little closed circle of rich elite stockholders isn’t providing enough, the actual business is not making much either, so they need to raise more from market speculations. The strategy chosen to achieve this:
They lower their pants a bit for easier plebeian access, in hope they will get access to more plebeian pockets in return.

While all this info might not be enough to derive definitive and specific conclusion about the future of these two pillars of the digital dome, namely Alphabet and Microsoft, a few things can be said with close to 100% certainty:

Extraordinary evolutions have extraordinary causes.

The Military BioTech Complex will have to transform and adapt to the extraordinary change it’s causing. That will reflect in its corporate avatars.

If Twitter is going through a self-inflicted crisis, it’s hardly possible for Google to fully avoid something similar, for the same reasons.
I’d guess Google should suffer even more from user backlash by now, because their offer is even easier to replace, but they’re just better at hiding it and there’s no Elon Musk to look under their hood.

Microsoft’s public image is inextricably tied to Bill Gates’, whose credibility took the most spectacular nosedive last couple of years.

These previous four statements might be one and the same.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Sometimes my memes are 3D. And you can own them. Or send them to someone.
You can even eat some of them.
CLICK HERE

It’s never been about clean new fuels and the environment.
It’s about new data streams and control.
Think “Pegasus”.

Most laughed and forgot this next minute, I saw it as a prime example of how the manufacturers, the government or any decent hacker can troll you in your computerized car

Don’t be a crash test dummy.

If data is the new oil is the new gold…

These new computerized cars are new oil pumps.

The drivers are the data wells.

SHARE THIS VIDEO

The first news segment in my video edit is what prompted this report. It’s been released by Israeli tv only a few days ago and it’s nothing but an ad for the Israeli hacking industry.

Many drivers spend hours every day in super-sized smartphones on wheels, mobile Matrix pods, and everything that goes for smartphones goes for computerized cars, in terms of hackability.

Basically, these new cars belong to the best hacker around. Which is, usually, some military/intelligence service or some private basement dweller.

Think Pegasus.

What does your car know about you? We hacked a Chevy to find out.

Our privacy experiment found that automakers collect data through hundreds of sensors and an always-on Internet connection. Driving surveillance is becoming hard to avoid.

Washington Post, Dec. 17, 2019

Cars now run on data. We hacked one to find out what it knows about you.

Washington Post tech columnist Geoffrey A. Fowler cracked open a Chevrolet to find an always-on Internet connection and data from his smartphone. (Jonathan Baran/The Washington Post)

Behind the wheel, it’s nothing but you, the open road — and your car quietly recording your every move.

On a recent drive, a 2017 Chevrolet collected my precise location. It stored my phone’s ID and the people I called. It judged my acceleration and braking style, beaming back reports to its maker General Motors over an always-on Internet connection.

Cars have become the most sophisticated computers many of us own, filled with hundreds of sensors. Even older models know an awful lot about you. Many copy over personal data as soon as you plug in a smartphone.

But for the thousands you spend to buy a car, the data it produces doesn’t belong to you. My Chevy’s dashboard didn’t say what the car was recording. It wasn’t in the owner’s manual. There was no way to download it.

To glimpse my car data, I had to hack my way in.

We’re at a turning point for driving surveillance: In the 2020 model year, most new cars sold in the United States will come with built-in Internet connections, including 100 percent of Fords, GMs and BMWs and all but one model Toyota and Volkswagen. (This independent cellular service is often included free or sold as an add-on.) Cars are becoming smartphones on wheels, sending and receiving data from apps, insurance firms and pretty much wherever their makers want. Some brands even reserve the right to use the data to track you down if you don’t pay your bills.

When I buy a car, I assume the data I produce is owned by me — or at least is controlled by me. Many automakers do not. They act like how and where we drive, also known as telematics, isn’t personal information.

Cars now run on the new oil: your data. It is fundamental to a future of transportation where vehicles drive themselves and we hop into whatever one is going our way. Data isn’t the enemy. Connected cars already do good things like improve safety and send you service alerts that are much more helpful than a check-engine light in the dash.

But we’ve been down this fraught road before with smart speakers, smart TVs, smartphones and all the other smart things we now realize are playing fast and loose with our personal lives. Once information about our lives gets shared, sold or stolen, we lose control.

There are no federal laws regulating what carmakers can collect or do with our driving data. And carmakers lag in taking steps to protect us and draw lines in the sand. Most hide what they’re collecting and sharing behind privacy policies written in the kind of language only a lawyer’s mother could love.

Car data has a secret life. To find out what a car knows about me, I borrowed some techniques from crime scene investigators.

What your car knows

Jim Mason hacks into cars for a living, but usually just to better understand crashes and thefts. The Caltech-trained engineer works in Oakland, Calif., for a firm called ARCCA that helps reconstruct accidents. He agreed to help conduct a forensic analysis of my privacy.

I chose a Chevrolet as our test subject because its maker GM has had the longest of any automaker to figure out data transparency. It began connecting cars with its OnStar service in 1996, initially to summon emergency assistance. Today GM has more than 11 million 4G LTE data-equipped vehicles on the road, including free basic service and extras you pay for. I found a volunteer, Doug, who let us peer inside his two-year-old Chevy Volt.

I met Mason at an empty warehouse, where he began by explaining one important bit of car anatomy. Modern vehicles don’t just have one computer. There are multiple, interconnected brains that can generate up to 25 gigabytes of data per hour from sensors all over the car. Even with Mason’s gear, we could only access some of these systems.

This kind of hacking isn’t a security risk for most of us — it requires hours of physical access to a vehicle. Mason brought a laptop, special software, a box of circuit boards, and dozens of sockets and screwdrivers.

We focused on the computer with the most accessible data: the infotainment system. You might think of it as the car’s touch-screen audio controls, yet many systems interact with it, from navigation to a synced-up smartphone. The only problem? This computer is buried beneath the dashboard.

After an hour of prying and unscrewing, our Chevy’s interior looked like it had been lobotomized. But Mason had extracted the infotainment computer, about the size of a small lunchbox. He clipped it into a circuit board, which fed into his laptop. The data didn’t copy over in our first few attempts. “There is a lot of trial and error,” said Mason.

(Don’t try this at home. Seriously — we had to take the car into a repair shop to get the infotainment computer reset.)

It was worth the trouble when Mason showed me my data. There on a map was the precise location where I’d driven to take apart the Chevy. There were my other destinations, like the hardware store I’d stopped at to buy some tape.

Among the trove of data points were unique identifiers for my and Doug’s phones, and a detailed log of phone calls from the previous week. There was a long list of contacts, right down to people’s address, emails and even photos.

For a broader view, Mason also extracted the data from a Chevrolet infotainment computer that I bought used on eBay for $375. It contained enough data to reconstruct the Upstate New York travels and relationships of a total stranger. We know he or she frequently called someone listed as “Sweetie,” whose photo we also have. We could see the exact Gulf station where they bought gas, the restaurant where they ate (called Taste China) and the unique identifiers for their Samsung Galaxy Note phones.

Infotainment systems can collect even more. Mason has hacked into Fords that record locations once every few minutes, even when you don’t use the navigation system. He’s seen German cars with 300-gigabyte hard drives — five times as much as a basic iPhone 11. The Tesla Model 3 can collect video snippets from the car’s many cameras. Coming next: face data, used to personalize the vehicle and track driver attention.

In our Chevy, we probably glimpsed just a fraction of what GM knows. We didn’t see what was uploaded to GM’s computers, because we couldn’t access the live OnStar cellular connection. (Researchers have done those kinds of hacks before to prove connected vehicles can be remotely controlled.)

My volunteer car owner Doug asked GM to see the data it collected and shared. The automaker just pointed us to an obtuse privacy policy. Doug also (twice) sent GM a formal request under a 2003 California data law to ask who the company shared his information with. He got no reply.

GM spokesman David Caldwell declined to offer specifics on Doug’s Chevy but said the data GM collects generally falls into three categories: vehicle location, vehicle performance and driver behavior. “Much of this data is highly technical, not linkable to individuals and doesn’t leave the vehicle itself,” he said.

The company, he said, collects real-time data to monitor vehicle performance to improve safety and to help design future products and services.

But there were clues to what more GM knows on its website and app. It offers a Smart Driver score — a measure of good driving — based on how hard you brake and turn and how often you drive late at night. They’ll share that with insurance companies, if you want. With paid OnStar service, I could, on demand, locate the car’s exact location. It also offers in-vehicle WiFi and remote key access for Amazon package deliveries. An OnStar Marketplace connects the vehicle directly with third-party apps for Domino’s, IHOP, Shell and others.

The OnStar privacy policy, possibly only ever read by yours truly, grants the company rights to a broad set of personal and driving data without much detail on when and how often it might collect it. It says: “We may keep the information we collect for as long as necessary” to operate, conduct research or satisfy GM’s contractual obligations. Translation: pretty much forever.

It’s likely GM and other automakers keep just a slice of the data cars generate. But think of that as a temporary phenomenon. Coming 5G cellular networks promise to link cars to the Internet with ultra-fast, ultra-high-capacity connections. As wireless connections get cheaper and data becomes more valuable, anything the car knows about you is fair game.

Protecting yourself

GM’s view, echoed by many other automakers, is that we gave them permission for all of this. “Nothing happens without customer consent,” said GM’s Caldwell.

When my volunteer Doug bought his Chevy, he didn’t even realize OnStar basic service came standard. (I don’t blame him — who really knows what all they’re initialing on a car purchase contract?) There is no button or menu inside the Chevy to shut off OnStar or other data collection, though GM says it has added one to newer vehicles. Customers can press the console OnStar button and ask a representative to remotely disconnect.

What’s the worry? From conversations with industry insiders, I know many automakers haven’t totally figured out what to do with the growing amounts of driving data we generate. But that’s hardly stopping them from collecting it.

Five years ago, 20 automakers signed on to volunteer privacy standards, pledging to “provide customers with clear, meaningful information about the types of information collected and how it is used,” as well as “ways for customers to manage their data.” But when I called eight of the largest automakers, not even one offered a dashboard for customers to look at, download and control their data.

Automakers haven’t had a data reckoning yet, but they’re due for one. GM ran an experiment in which it tracked the radio music tastes of 90,000 volunteer drivers to look for patterns with where they traveled. According to the Detroit Free Press, GM told marketers that the data might help them persuade a country music fan who normally stopped at Tim Horton’s to go to McDonald’s instead.

GM would not tell me exactly what data it collected for that program but said “personal information was not involved” because it was anonymized data. (Privacy advocates have warned that location data is personal because it can be re-identified with individuals because we follow such unique patterns.)

GM’s privacy policy, which the company says it will update before the end of 2019, says it may “use anonymized information or share it with third parties for any legitimate business purpose.” Such as whom? “The details of those third-party relationships are confidential,” said Caldwell.

There are more questions. GM’s privacy policy says it will comply with legal data demands. How often does it share our data with the government? GM doesn’t offer a transparency report like tech companies do.

Automakers say they put data security first. But I suspect they’re just not used to customers demanding transparency. They also probably want to have sole control over the data, given that the industry’s existential threats — self-driving and ride-hailing technologies — are built on it.

But not opening up brings problems, too. Automakers are battling with repair shops in Massachusetts about a proposal that would require car companies to grant owners — and mechanics — access to telematics data. The Auto Care Association says locking out independent shops could give consumers fewer choices and make us end up paying more for service. The automakers say it’s a security and privacy risk.

In 2020, the California Consumer Privacy Act will require any company that collects personal data about the state’s residents to provide access to the data and give people the ability to opt out of its sharing. GM said it would comply with the law but didn’t say how.

Are any carmakers better? Among the privacy policies I read, Toyota’s stood out for drawing a few clear lines in the sand about data sharing. It says it won’t share “personal information” with data resellers, social networks or ad networks — but still carves out the right to share what it calls “vehicle data” with business partners.

Until automakers put even a fraction of the effort they put into TV commercials into giving us control over our data, I’d be wary about using in-vehicle apps or signing up for additional data services. At least smartphone apps like Google Maps let you turn off and delete location history.

And Mason’s hack brought home a scary reality: Simply plugging a smartphone into a car could put your data at risk. If you’re selling your car or returning a lease or rental, take the time to delete the data saved on its infotainment system. An app called Privacy4Cars offers model-by-model directions. Mason gives out gifts of car-lighter USB plugs, which let you charge a phone without connecting it to the car computer. (You can buy inexpensive ones online.)

If you’re buying a new vehicle, tell the dealer you want to know about connected services — and how to turn them off. Few offer an Internet “kill switch,” but they may at least allow you turn off location tracking.

Or, for now at least, you can just buy an old car. Mason, for one, drives a conspicuously non-connected 1992 Toyota.

The ‘Pegasus’ creators, Israeli Military trains and ‘privatizes’ some of the world’s best hackers

the perfect tool for the perfect murder

These being said, we’re dealing here with the perfect tool for the perfect murder.
Speaking of which, we will be commemorating soon 10 years since the death of Michael Hastings, in 2013. #NeverForget

Here’s DARPA talking about hacking cars just months before Michael Hasting’s suspicious death:

SHARE VIDEO

Nowadays, with the Pentagon, the WEF and the Bilderbergers freaking out about the demise of their low-IQ fake-news media and the advent of independent journalism, this report alone is enough to get us targeted by a bunch of agencies that commonly use Pegasus and likely more advanced technology we haven’t even found out about.


You can’t hope much from a truther who drives computerized cars. Since 2013.

Why voting technology has to stay primitive is why cars have to stay primitive.
these cars are never yours and you’re never safe in them

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

For your documentation needs

BILDERBERG MEETING 2022

Washington D.C., 2 June – 5 June 2022
 

SOURCE

The key topics for discussion this year are:

1. Geopolitical Realignments
2. NATO Challenges
3. China
4. Indo-Pacific Realignment
5. Sino-US Tech Competition
6. Russia
7. Continuity of Government and the Economy
8. Disruption of the Global Financial System
9. Disinformation
10. Energy Security and Sustainability
11. Post Pandemic Health
12. Fragmentation of Democratic Societies
13. Trade and Deglobalisation
14. Ukraine

Attendees (alphabetically):

Achleitner, Paul M. (DEU), Former Chairman Supervisory Board, Deutsche Bank AG; Treasurer Bilderberg Meetings

Adeyemo, Adewale (USA), Deputy Secretary, Department of  The Treasury

Albares, José Manuel (ESP), Minister of Foreign Affairs, European Union and Cooperation

Altman, Roger C. (USA), Founder and Senior Chairman, Evercore Inc.

Altman, Sam (USA), CEO, OpenAI

Applebaum, Anne (USA), Staff Writer, The Atlantic

Arnaut, José Luís (PRT), Managing Partner, CMS Rui Pena & Arnaut

Auken, Ida (DNK), Member of Parliament, The Social Democrat Party

Azoulay, Audrey (INT), Director-General, UNESCO

Baker, James H. (USA), Director, Office of Net Assessment, Office of the Secretary of Defense

Barbizet, Patricia (FRA), Chairwoman and CEO, Temaris & Associés SAS

Barroso, José Manuel (PRT), Chairman, Goldman Sachs International LLC

Baudson, Valérie (FRA), CEO, Amundi

Beurden, Ben van (NLD), CEO, Shell plc

Bourla, Albert (USA), Chairman and CEO, Pfizer Inc.

Buberl, Thomas (FRA), CEO, AXA SA

Burns, William J. (USA), Director, CIA

Byrne, Thomas (IRL), Minister of State for European Affairs

Campbell, Kurt (USA), White House Coordinator for Indo-Pacific, NSC

Carney, Mark J. (CAN), Vice Chair, Brookfield Asset Management

Casado, Pablo (ESP), Former President, Partido Popular

Chhabra, Tarun (USA), Senior Director for Technology and National Security, National Security Council

Donohoe, Paschal (IRL), Minister for Finance; President, Eurogroup

Döpfner, Mathias (DEU), Chairman and CEO, Axel Springer SE

Dudley, William C. (USA), Senior Research Scholar, Princeton University

Easterly, Jen (USA), Director, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency

Economy, Elizabeth (USA), Senior Advisor for China, Department of Commerce

Émié, Bernard (FRA), Director General, Ministry of the Armed Forces

Emond, Charles (CAN), CEO, CDPQ

Erdogan, Emre (TUR), Professor Political Science, Istanbul Bilgi University

Eriksen, Øyvind (NOR), President and CEO, Aker ASA

Ermotti, Sergio (CHE), Chairman, Swiss Re

Fanusie, Yaya (USA), Adjunct Senior Fellow, Center for a New American Security

Feltri, Stefano (ITA), Editor-in-Chief, Domani

Fleming, Jeremy (GBR), Director, British Government Communications Headquarters

Freeland, Chrystia (CAN), Deputy Prime Minister

Furtado, Isabel (PRT), CEO, TMG Automotive

Gove, Michael (GBR), Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Cabinet Office

Halberstadt, Victor (NLD), Co-Chair Bilderberg Meetings; Professor of Economics, Leiden University

Hallengren, Lena (SWE), Minister for Health and Social Affairs

Hamers, Ralph (NLD), CEO, UBS Group AG

Hassabis, Demis (GBR), CEO and Founder, DeepMind

Hedegaard, Connie (DNK), Chair, KR Foundation

Henry, Mary Kay (USA), International President, Service Employees International Union

Hobson, Mellody (USA), Co-CEO and President, Ariel Investments LLC

Hodges, Ben (USA), Pershing Chair in Strategic Studies, Center for European Policy Analysis

Hoekstra, Wopke (NLD), Minister of Foreign Affairs

Hoffman, Reid (USA), Co-Founder, Inflection AI; Partner, Greylock

Huët, Jean Marc (NLD), Chairman, Heineken NV

Joshi, Shashank (GBR), Defence Editor, The Economist

Karp, Alex (USA), CEO, Palantir Technologies Inc.

Kissinger, Henry A. (USA), Chairman, Kissinger Associates Inc.

Koç, Ömer (TUR), Chairman, Koç Holding AS

Kofman, Michael (USA), Director, Russia Studies Program, Center for Naval Analysis

Kostrzewa, Wojciech (POL), President, Polish Business Roundtable

Krasnik, Martin (DNK), Editor-in-Chief, Weekendavisen

Kravis, Henry R. (USA), Co-Chairman, KKR & Co. Inc.  

Kravis, Marie-Josée (USA), Co-Chair Bilderberg Meetings; Chair, The Museum of Modern Art

Kudelski, André (CHE), Chairman and CEO, Kudelski Group SA

Kukies, Jörg (DEU), State Secretary, Chancellery

Lammy, David (GBR), Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, House of Commons

LeCun, Yann (USA), Vice-President and Chief AI Scientist, Facebook, Inc.

Leu, Livia (CHE), State Secretary, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs

Leysen, Thomas (BEL), Chairman, Umicore and Mediahuis; Chairman DSM N.V.

Liikanen, Erkki (FIN), Chairman, IFRS  Foundation Trustees

Little, Mark (CAN), President and CEO, Suncor Energy Inc.

Looney, Bernard (GBR), CEO, BP plc

Lundstedt, Martin (SWE), CEO and President, Volvo Group

Lütke, Tobias (CAN), CEO, Shopify

Marin, Sanna (FIN), Prime Minister

Markarowa, Oksana (UKR), Ambassador of Ukraine to the US

Meinl-Reisinger, Beate (AUT), Party Leader, NEOS

Michel, Charles (INT), President, European Council

Minton Beddoes, Zanny (GBR), Editor-in-Chief, The Economist

Mullen, Michael (USA), Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Mundie, Craig J. (USA), President, Mundie & Associates LLC

Netherlands, H.M. the King of the (NLD)

Niemi, Kaius (FIN), Senior Editor-in-Chief, Helsingin Sanomat Newspaper

Núñez, Carlos (ESP), Executive Chairman, PRISA Media

O’Leary, Michael (IRL), Group CEO, Ryanair Group

Papalexopoulos, Dimitri (GRC), Chairman, TITAN Cement Group

Petraeus, David H. (USA), Chairman, KKR Global Institute

Pierrakakis, Kyriakos (GRC), Minister of Digital Governance

Pinho, Ana (PRT), President and CEO, Serralves Foundation

Pouyanné, Patrick (FRA), Chairman and CEO, TotalEnergies SE

Rachman, Gideon (GBR), Chief Foreign Affairs Commentator, The Financial Times

Raimondo, Gina M. (USA), Secretary of Commerce

Reksten Skaugen, Grace (NOR), Board Member, Investor AB

Rende, Mithat (TUR), Member of the Board, TSKB

Reynders, Didier (INT), European Commissioner for Justice

Rutte, Mark (NLD), Prime Minister

Salvi, Diogo (PRT), Co-Founder and CEO, TIMWE

Sawers, John (GBR), Executive Chairman, Newbridge Advisory Ltd.

Schadlow, Nadia (USA), Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute

Schinas, Margaritis (INT), Vice President, European Commission

Schmidt, Eric E. (USA), Former CEO and Chairman, Google LLC

Scott, Kevin (USA), CTO, Microsoft Corporation

Sebastião, Nuno (PRT), CEO, Feedzai

Sedwill, Mark (GBR), Chairman, Atlantic Futures Forum

Sikorski, Radoslaw (POL), MEP, European Parliament

Sinema, Kyrsten (USA), Senator

Starace, Francesco (ITA), CEO, Enel S.p.A.

Stelzenmüller, Constanze (DEU), Fritz Stern Chair, The Brookings Institution

Stoltenberg, Jens (INT), Secretary General, NATO

Straeten, Tinne Van der (BEL), Minister for Energy

Suleyman, Mustafa (GBR), CEO, Inflection AI

Sullivan, Jake (USA), Director, National Security Council

Tellis, Ashley J. (USA), Tata Chair for Strategic Affairs, Carnegie Endowment

Thiel, Peter (USA), President, Thiel Capital LLC

Treichl, Andreas (AUT), President, Chairman ERSTE Foundation

Tugendhat, Tom (GBR), MP; Chair Foreign Affairs Committee, House of Commons

Veremis, Markos (GRC), Co-Founder and Chairman, Upstream

Vitrenko, Yuriy (UKR), CEO, Naftogaz

Wallander, Celeste (USA), Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs

Wallenberg, Marcus (SWE), Chair, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB

Walmsley, Emma (GBR), CEO, GlaxoSmithKline plc

Wennink, Peter (NLD), President and CEO, ASML Holding NV

Yetkin, Murat (TUR), Journalist/Writer, YetkinReport

Yurdakul, Afsin (TUR), Journalist, Habertürk News Network

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

Continuing to restore the real WW2 history because we’re now entering the Netflix adaptation of the same script.
So here’s why, someone hurry to tell Lavrov too:

SHARE

JEWISH-OWNED WIKIPEDIA:

The Bavarian Soviet Republic

The roots of the republic lay in the German Empire‘s defeat in the First World War and the social tensions that came to a head shortly thereafter. From this chaos erupted the German Revolution of 1918. At the end of October 1918, German sailors began a series of revolts in Kiel and other naval ports. In early November, these disturbances spread civil unrest across Germany. On 7 November 1918, the first anniversary of the Russian revolutionKing Ludwig III of Bavaria fled from the Residenz Palace in Munich with his family, and Kurt Eisner, a politician[4] of the Independent Social Democratic Party of Germany (USPD), became minister-president[7] of a newly proclaimed People’s State of Bavaria.

Though he advocated a socialist republic, Eisner distanced himself from the Russian Bolsheviks, declaring that his government would protect property rights. As the new government was unable to provide basic services, Eisner’s USPD was defeated in the January 1919 election, coming in sixth place. On 21 February 1919, as he was on his way to parliament to announce his resignation, he was shot dead by the right-wing nationalist Anton Graf von Arco auf Valley, also known as Arco-Valley.

After Eisner’s assassination, the Landtag convened, and Erhard Auer – the leader of the Social Democrats and the Minister of the Interior in Eisner’s government – began to eulogize Eisner, but rumours had already begun to spread that Auer was behind the assassination. Acting on these false allegations, Alois Linder, a saloon waiter who was a fervent supporter of Eisner, shot Auer twice with a rifle, seriously wounding him. This prompted other armed supporters of Eisner to open fire, causing a melee, killing one delegate and provoking nervous breakdowns in at least two ministers. There was effectively no government in Bavaria thereafter.[8]

Unrest and lawlessness followed. The assassination of Eisner created a martyr for the leftist cause and prompted demonstrations, the closing of the University of Munich, the kidnapping of aristocrats, and the forced pealing of church bells. The support for the Left was greater than Eisner himself had been able to command.[8]

On 7 March 1919, the Socialists’ new leader, Johannes Hoffmann, an anti-militarist and former schoolteacher, patched together a parliamentary coalition government, but a month later, on the night of 6–7 April, Communists and anarchists, energized by the news of a communist revolution in Hungary, declared a Soviet Republic, with Ernst Toller as chief of state. Toller called on the nonexistent “Bavarian Red Army” to support the new dictatorship of the proletariat and ruthlessly deal with any counter-revolutionary behavior.[9][10]

The Hoffmann government fled to Bamberg in Northern Bavaria, which it declared the new seat of government.

Notable people

Active participants in the Freikorps units – those of Oven, Franz Ritter von Epp, and Hermann Erhardt – that suppressed the Bavarian Soviet Republic included future powerful members of the Nazi Party, including Rudolf Hess, a member of the Freikorps Epp.[28][29][30]

One notable supporter of the Soviet Republic was the artist Georg Schrimpf, then aged 30, who was arrested when the movement was crushed.[31] His friend, the writer Oskar Maria Graf, who was also arrested, wrote about the events in his autobiographical novel, Wir sind Gefangene (1927). The famed anarchist novelist Ret Marut (later known as B.Traven) was an active participant in the establishment of Soviet power and worked as head of the Press Department of the Soviet Republic.[32] During the early days of the Soviet Republic, representatives of cultural life also played an important role in the revolution. Some intellectuals such as the economist Lujo Brentano, the conductor Bruno Walter and the writers Heinrich Mann and Rainer Maria Rilke formed the Rat der geistigen Arbeit (Council of Intellectual Work) with Mann as its chairman.[33][34]

Adolf Hitler‘s longstanding chauffeur and first leader of the Schutzstaffel (SS) Julius Schreck signed up and served as a member of the Red Army in late April 1919.[35] Balthasar Brandmayer, one of Hitler’s closest wartime friends, remarked “how he at first welcomed the end of the monarchies” and the establishment of the republic in Bavaria.[35]

Adolf Hitler himself acted as a liaison between his army battalion – he had been elected “deputy battalion representative” – and the Soviet’s Department of Propaganda. Both film footage and a still photograph appear to show Hitler marching in Eisner’s funeral procession.

He wears both a black mourning band and a red band showing support for the Far-Left Government. It is uncertain whether this indicated that Hitler was a true supporter of the soviet, or that he was simply taking an available opportunity not to return to his impoverished pre-war civilian life. His choice may therefore have been a tactical one, rather than one of political belief. It is also known that once the government had fallen, Hitler aligned himself with the Weimar Republic and – as part of a three-person committee assigned to investigate the behavior of his regiment’s soldiers – informed on those who had shown sympathy for the Far-Left Governments.

V. I. Lenin: Message Of Greetings To The Bavarian Soviet Republic


Delivered: 27 April, 1919
First Published: Pravda No. 111, April 22, 1930; Published according to the manuscript
Source: Lenin’s Collected Works, 4th English Edition, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1972 Volume 29, pages 325-326
Translated: George Hanna
Transcription/HTML Markup: David Walters & Robert Cymbala
Copyleft: V. I. Lenin Internet Archive (www.marx.org) 2002. Permission is granted to copy and/or distribute this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License


We thank you for your message of greetings, and on our part whole heartedly greet the Soviet Republic of Bavaria. We ask you insistently to give us more frequent, definite information on the following. What measures have you taken to fight the bourgeois executioners, the Scheidernanns and Co.; have councils of workers and servants been formed in the different sections of the city; have the workers been armed; have the bourgeoisie been disarmed; has use been made of the stocks of clothing and other items for immediate and extensive aid to the workers, and especially to the farm labourers and small peasants; have the capitalist factories and wealth in Munich and the capitalist farms in its environs been confiscated; have mortgage and rent payments by small peasants been cancelled; have the wages of farm labourers and unskilled workers been doubled or trebled; have all paper stocks and all printing-presses been confis-cated so as to enable popular leaflets and newspapers to be printed for the masses; has the six-hour working day with two or three-hour instruction in state administration been introduced; have the bourgeoisie in Munich been made to give up surplus housing so that workers may be immediately moved into comfortable flats; have you taken over all the banks; have you taken hostages from the ranks of the bourgeoisie; have you introduced higher rations for the workers than for the bourgeoisie; have all the workers been mobilised for defence and for ideological propaganda in the neighbouring villages? The most urgent and most extensive implementation of these and similar measures, coupled with the initiative of workers’, farm labourers’ and— ;acting apart from them— ;small peasants’ councils, should strengthen your position. An emergency tax must be levied on the bourgeoisie, and an actual improvement effected in the condition of the workers, farm labourers and small peasants at once and at all costs.

With sincere greetings and wishes of success.

Lenin

ADOLF HITLER ON THE NAZI FORM OF ‘SOCIALISM’ (1932)

from Alpha History

The relationship between Nazism and socialism has provoked considerable debate. The majority of historians contend that Nazism sits alongside Italian fascism on the right-wing of the political spectrum. The Nazis, they argue, were hyper-nationalists obsessed with military and state power and social control. Unlike those of Marxists, Nazi policies did not seek economic levelling, the eradication of class or private property or the redistribution of wealth.

Despite this, some conservative historians argue that Nazism is a factional offshoot or bastardised form of socialism. They point to nomenclature (“National Socialism”), Nazi control and regulation of the German economy and their vast public spending programs. This line of argument has, in recent times, been repeated by many conservative and far-right political pundits.

The following document contains Adolf Hitler‘s explanation of the Nazi form of socialism. It comes from an interview with Hitler conducted by German-American writer and Nazi sympathiser George Sylvester Viereck. The interview appeared in Liberty magazine on July 9th 1932:

“‘When I take charge of Germany, I shall end tribute abroad and Bolshevism at home.’

Adolf Hitler drained his cup as if it contained not tea but the lifeblood of Bolshevism.

‘Bolshevism’, the chief of the Brown Shirts, the Fascists of Germany continued, ‘is our greatest menace. Kill Bolshevism in Germany and you restore 70 million people to power. France owes her strength not to her armies but to the forces of Bolshevism and dissension in our midst’…

I met Hitler not in his headquarters, the Brown House in Munich, but in a private home, the dwelling of a former admiral of the German Navy. We discussed the fate of Germany over the teacups.

‘Why’, I asked Hitler, ‘do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party program is the very anthesis of that commonly accredited to Socialism?’

‘Socialism’, he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, ‘is the science of dealing with the common weal [health or well-being]. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists.

‘Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality and, unlike Marxism, it is patriotic.

‘We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our Socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the State on the basis of race solidarity. To us, State and race are one…

‘What’, I continued my cross-examination, ‘are the fundamental planks of your platform?’

‘We believe in a healthy mind, in a healthy body. The body politic must be sound if the soul is to be healthy. Moral and physical health are synonymous.’

‘Mussolini’, I interjected, ‘said the same to me’. Hitler beamed.

‘The slums’, he added, ‘are responsible for nine-tenths, alcohol for one-tenth of all human depravity. No healthy man is a Marxian. Healthy men recognise the value of personality. We contend against the forces of disaster and degeneration. Bavaria is comparatively healthy because it is not completely industrialised… If we wish to save Germany, we must see to it that our farmers remain faithful to the land. To do so, they must have room to breathe and room to work.’

‘Where will you find the room to work?’

‘We must retain our colonies and expand eastward. There was a time when we could have shared world domination with England. Now we must stretch our cramped limbs only toward the east. The Baltic is necessarily a German lake.’”

Hitler the Communist

Andrew Roberts reviews Thomas Weber’s “Hitler’s First War.”

by Andrew Roberts, 2010

Hitler’s First War:
Adolf Hitler,
the Men of the List Regiment,
and the First World War
By Thomas Weber
Oxford, 416 pages

It might seem impossible for the moral character of Adolf Hitler to be revealed as more cynical and opportunistic than we already suppose, yet that is precisely the revelation arising from the painstaking archival work of Thomas Weber in his superb new work of history, Hitler’s First War. An investigation into young Hitler’s service with an infantry regiment in the First World War, Hitler’s First War also tells the story of the future Fuehrer’s ideological journey in the year following Germany’s surrender in 1918. This is where the book’s true importance lies. Weber—who was educated at Oxford, Harvard, and Princeton and is now a fellow at Aberdeen University—proves beyond doubt that Hitler’s own account in Mein Kampf of how and when he formed his National Socialist theories and policies, hitherto accepted as accurate by his many biographers, was at best tendentious and full of gaps, and at worst completely invented.

Those biographers have generally accepted Hitler’s own contention that his National Socialist views were fully formed by November 1918, when, in an army hospital during his recovery from a temporary gas blinding, he heard of Germany’s surrender. In the year that followed, those views were, we have been told, merely cemented by the revolutionary ferment inside Germany following the defeat; by September 1919, he had joined the National Socialist Party. Weber demonstrates that, far from being a convinced radical proto-fascist in this vital period of political maelstrom, Hitler was in fact politically “confused and disoriented.” At one point, Hitler was an active supporter of the peculiar experiment in revolutionary governance called the Bavarian Soviet Republic and demonstrated public support for its founding father, Kurt Eisner, a Jew and a Communist. “Hitler made sure figuratively and quite possibly literally to burn any traces of his activities during this period,” writes Weber, and small wonder.

But that comes later in the book. The early sections feature eye-opening material on the medals Hitler was awarded during the war—the Iron Cross 2nd Class in 1914 and 1st Class in 1918. Weber has investigated tales of Hitler’s heroism minutely and shows in each case that they were wildly exaggerated by Nazi propagandists or by former comrades keen to curry favor. Far from exhibiting notable courage, Hitler was in fact no braver than the next man, and those decorations were handed out almost “with the rations” to people the officers in his regiment knew and liked. Hitler’s Iron Cross 1st Class, he writes, “was less a sign of bravery than of his position and long service within regimental headquarters.” Indeed, Hitler and others who ran ­dispatches from commander to commander were dubbed “rear area pigs” by the front-line soldiers whom they almost never saw.

“An incorrigible embellisher of his own war service,” Weber calls Hitler, especially once he had the power of Josef Goebbels’s state propaganda apparatus behind him. The stories of his single-handedly capturing a dozen enemy combatants—some accounts claim a score—are proved here to be ludicrous. (In one letter, Hitler said his regiment had even captured the Belgian village of Messines, when it had been miles away and uninvolved.) Far from spending three months fighting in the Battle of the Somme, as John Toland stated in his self-proclaimed “definitive biography” published in 1976, Hitler was there for only four days.

Weber subjects the gullibility of Toland and other prominent biographers, including the eminent Alan Bullock and Joachim Fest, to coruscating ire. Their willingness to take Hitler at face value is even more apparent when it comes to Hitler’s postwar political awakening. “It is impossible convincingly to arrange the existing evidence from Hitler’s time after the war,” Weber writes, “in any way consistent with either a portrayal of Hitler as a Socialist or as the hyper-nationalist Pan-German anti-Semite that he was to become for one simple reason: he was neither.”

In fact, like so many other Germans at the time, Hitler was politically disoriented, with no clear Weltanshauung (worldview). Weber shows how at this vital but politically fluid moment, Hitler’s “future was undetermined and he could have moved in the direction of diametrically different political movements, as long as they combined the promise of a classless society with some kind of nationalism.”

The author of Mein Kampf skates very quickly and superficially over the first five months after the end of the war, which is unsurprising, since in the spring of 1919 in Munich, he, in Weber’s words, “served a government that he was later to deride as treacherous, criminal and Jewish. And he did not keep his head down.”

The story is complicated. Eisner, then the head of state in Bavaria, was assassinated on February 21 by a would-be member of the proto-fascist Thule Society. At Eisner’s funeral in Munich, Hitler actually walked behind the coffin in his role as head of a military unit, the Ersatz Battalion of the 2nd Infantry Regiment. Surviving film footage shows Hitler wearing two armbands at Eisner’s funeral: one the black band of mourning, the other a red armband of the socialist revolution. There are also still photographs of Hitler so attired (taken, ironically enough, by the man who was to become his court photographer, Heinrich Hoffmann). Hitler chose publicly to side with the fallen Jewish Communist leader rather than with the Thule Society, among whose members were several future Nazi leaders, and continued to serve as deputy battalion representative after the Bavarian Soviet Republic was declared in the wake of the riots following Eisner’s death. It came to an end three months later, in May.

Weber goes to pains to show how all the traditional explanations for Hitler’s tergiversations of this period—that he was a socialist, or an agent provocateur, or a secret nationalist counter-revolutionary, and so on—simply do not stand up to the kind of rigorous analysis steeped in the realities of the contemporary political scene to which historians and biographers ought to have subjected them. “If he really had been a committed dyed-in-the-wool Pan-German anti-Socialist, anti-Semite and hyper-nationalist and had only overtly cooperated with the new regime to steer the men around him away from Communism and Social Democracy,” Weber points out, he would have done what many right-wing youths in Germany were doing at the time and joined, even in secret, a Freikorps, a paramilitary gang.

Weber shows that Hitler could easily have resigned his post, as other comrades did, if he had wished. Nor did he do anything to overthrow the regime, unlike genuine fascists of the day, such as Otto Strasser, who later taunted Hitler with his absence. Equally, asks Weber, “If Hitler really had been hiding his true colors and had been the champion of all the other anti-revolutionary men in the unit who were also keeping their heads down, why did none of those men make a statement to the effect once Hitler had become famous, and…why did he not brag about it in Mein Kampf instead of keeping silent about this time?” The answer was that Hitler had not determined which way he was going to move; he had not even yet decided that anti-Semitism was likely to be a useful political tool.

On March 13, 1920, Hitler was formally discharged from the army after 2,050 days of service. He was now free to concentrate on the Nazi Party full-time and to create its policies and philosophies from the maelstrom of often contradictory impulses that had hitherto made up his political thinking. Hitler may have adopted an anti-Semitism that had not previously been evident in his psychological makeup from an opportunistic power-lust rather than a set of racist principles to which he had long adhered.

Hitler’s cynicism about politics and human nature, and his growing faith in his own leadership abilities once he had secured control of the National Socialist Party, were such that he took Germany down the path to unprecedented horror. Yet that specific path had been far from predetermined at the end of the Great War, despite what Hitler himself subsequently claimed. He was always going to be a vicious totalitarian dictator, but whether it was of the fascist or the Communist type would be determined, on the evidence presented in this highly important revisionist work, by the prevailing winds of his calamitous time.

“We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak… we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions”.

Adolf Hitler (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

The Truth about Private Hitler—Historian Thomas Weber on His New Book “Hitler’s First War”

History News Network

A long-hidden treasure trove of new evidence discovered by historian Thomas Weber, PhD, presents the clearest picture yet of Hitler’s war years and debunks the Nazi myths.  Dr. Weber’s new book, Hitler’s First War: Adolf Hitler, the Men of the List Regiment, and the First World War (Oxford University Press, 2010), includes new revelations based on documents from Hitler’s comrades and army records, including:

  • Hitler served a few miles behind the lines as a runner for regimental headquarters in relative comfort, and was considered a mere “tea boy” messenger or “rear-area pig” (Etappenschwein) by frontline soldiers.
  • Hitler was a loner and occasional object of ridicule who never displayed leadership qualities, never rose above the rank equivalent to a U.S. Army private first class, and never had authority over any other men in his four years of service.
  • There is no evidence that Hitler shared anti-Semitic or anti-Bolshevist views with comrades, and indeed, he served with the leftist Soviet Republic of Munich after the war ended before he embraced fascism.
  • There is virtually no evidence of anti-Semitism in Hitler’s regiment during the war.
  • Few of Hitler’s fellow soldiers in his regiment joined the Nazi Party, and many indeed cold-shouldered him at a 1922 veterans’ reunion.
  • The Nazi Party suppressed records from the war that cast Hitler as anything other than a gallant soldier.
  • The First World War did not radicalize Hitler contrary to Nazi propaganda.

           
Dr. Weber studied the archives of Hitler’s regiment, the List Regiment (the 16th Bavarian Reserve Infantry Regiment—RIR 16) and personal documents of soldiers from the regiment, and also conducted interviews with family members.   Much of the material on Hitler’s regiment in the Bavarian War Archive was uncataloged and not considered in previous biographies, and many documents pertaining to Hitler’s unit had been untouched.  Dr. Weber and his researchers compiled a database with a sample of more than seven hundred soldiers and followed the lives of fifty-nine Jewish veterans from the regiment.  According to Dr. Weber, over 70 percent of his book is based on new material.

Hitler’s First War has been acclaimed for its groundbreaking findings based on original research of previously unknown material.  Norman Stone wrote in The Wall Street Journal:  “With some luck and a lot of diligence, Mr. Weber has discovered the missing documents of Hitler’s war service, and it is fair to say that very little of Hitler’s own account survives the discovery.”

Dr. Weber teaches history and is also the Director of the Research Centre on Global Uncertainties at the University of Aberdeen, United Kingdom.  He earned a doctorate at Oxford University, and after that taught or held fellowships at Harvard University, the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Chicago, and the University of Glasgow.  Dr. Weber’s first book, Lodz Ghetto Album, won a 2004 Golden Light Award and a 2005 Infinity Award.  His second book, Our Friend “The Enemy” received the 2008 Duc d’Arenberg History Prize for the best book of a general nature, intended for a wide public, on the history and culture of the European continent.

Dr. Weber spoke at length about his new book from his office at Harvard University during a speaking tour in the United States.


Lindley:  Hitler must be the most scrutinized historical figure in recent memory.  What sparked your biography focusing on World War I?

Weber:  I also thought everything had been written about Hitler, but when I was looking for a new topic to write about, a historian at Oxford, Adrian Gregory, said it was really surprising that no one had ever written about Hitler and his regiment in the First World War.  We concluded that everything we think we know about Hitler and the First World War is based on Mein Kampf and propagandistic claims, but that by looking at the regimental papers of Hitler’s First World War unit I would be able to look beyond the tales told by Nazi propaganda and thus be able to tell if the war really “made” Hitler.  We quickly came to the conclusion that it would be a great idea to do a book using this approach, and the rest is history, I suppose.

Lindley:  When you set out, did you know that documents were in archives in Germany that had not been reviewed or found by other historians?

Weber:  I kind of knew they existed.  While doing my graduate work at Oxford in the second half of the 1990s, I once briefly discussed the issue with one of my professors, Hartmut Pogge von Strandmann.  And that’s how I generally knew there had to be papers, but at that point nobody knew how extensive they would be. 

Obviously, Hitler biographers had visited the Bavarian War Archive in Munich and had looked for facts specific to Adolf Hitler, but they did not find many files, of course, as they looked for documents that specifically mentioned Hitler—and Hitler was just a dispatch runner.  There was also some suggestion that Hitler had files removed from these papers after 1933. And the second and more significant reason is that researchers didn’t realize that most of the files relating to Hitler’s regiment were not housed with the papers of the regiment, but with the division and the brigade to which the regiment belonged.  And the extensive Military Justice files were not cataloged at all.  So, if you went to the archives and asked for materials on Hitler’s regiment, you wouldn’t easily know these files existed.

The Military Justice files were an extraordinary set of sources.  There were about 190 cases of files on Hitler’s regiment, and each case included [information] on the soldiers and officers, and often also confiscated letters and diary fragments.  They were really wonderful in shedding light on what really happened in Hitler’s regiment.

It was this material in the Bavarian War Archive that was the starting point of my research on Hitler’s regiment.  But I then quickly realized that there was more material to be found in other archives.  I decided early on to compile a database of a random selection of approximately seven hundred soldiers.  I checked the names of these soldiers against Nazi Party membership files and de-Nazification files to tell how typical Hitler was compared in his political development to other men of the regiment.  I also compiled a database of the fifty-nine Jewish soldiers and then systematically looked for material on them and on the communities from which they came.  This allowed me to identify where some of those Jewish soldiers had emigrated after 1933, and it allowed me to find some sources on them in other archives and even to find the families of two of the Jewish soldiers.  I also went to northern France to look for sources on the communities in which Hitler’s regiment had stayed during the war.

What also greatly helped was a newspaper in Upper Bavaria, which published a story on my research and encouraged people to come forward if any of their family members had served in Hitler’s regiment in the First World War.  A surprising number of people got in touch with me and offered the letters or papers of their [forebears].

But some finds also resulted from serendipity.  For instance, one day I talked to someone whom I encountered in the Bavarian War Archives who turned out to be an archivist in a small Bavarian town and I told him I was working on Hitler in the war.  He replied that the great-granddaughter of a soldier from Hitler’s regiment had come to him for a high school project the previous year and she had asked him to help her with some records.  He put me in touch with her, which allowed me to see the papers of a soldier who knew Hitler well.

So there was a lot of detective work involved.  And without the computer and Internet revolution of the past few years, I could not have written the book.  For instance, Google Books allowed me to search millions of books for the names of the Jewish soldiers, which led me to often obscure books, which sometimes would refer to files in archives relating to the Jewish soldiers that I otherwise would not have found.  For example, this is how I found the personal papers of a daughter of Jewish soldier from Hitler’s regiment in an archive in New York City.

“Let it be recalled that both Nazism and Communism both portrayed themselves to be champions of “peace and equal rights” but as the Gospel says you can only judge something or someone by the fruits of its actions.” – Times of Malta, “Utopias and Natural Law”, September 20, 2006

Lindley:  How long did the book project take?

Weber:  The actual writing and research for the book took about four years.

Lindley:  You dispel many of the previous views of Hitler’s First World War service in your book, and you come up with a wealth of information that was missed by noted Hitler biographers and probably thousands of researchers.  Can you talk about your new findings and how earlier historians missed the story you tell?

Weber:  My view is that we as scholars constantly have to deal with new evidence, and to use new tools, and constantly to go back to old questions and revise those interpretations in light of new evidence. 

I would be the last person to criticize historians [and Hitler biographers] such as Joachim Fest, Ian Kershaw and Alan Bullock.  I can only be in awe about the productivity and the intelligence of these historians.  But they also had to base their books on evidence available at the time.  And if you write a biography of Hitler’s entire life from 1889 to 1945, you inevitably have to base your book on what specialized studies of evidence exists, and those specialized studies on Hitler in the First World War had either not been done or were not particularly good studies. 

I’m not criticizing at all the magisterial Hitler biographies by people like Kershaw or Bullock or Fest, but they could only be as good as the material and research that existed on these questions.  Ian Kershaw’s book necessarily had to rely on publications about Hitler in the First World War that existed when he wrote his Hitler biography.  I spent about four years researching Hitler in the First World War.  If Ian Kershaw had spent a similar amount of time on each of Hitler’s years of his life, he would never have been able to write his biography.  And also, a majority of Hitler biographers—including Ian Kershaw—are experts on the Third Reich itself.  Therefore, and this is no criticism, they knew the archives for the years 1933 to 1945 much better than for the earlier years.

Lindley:  You debunk popular notions about Hitler’s First World War service such as the idea that Hitler served with gallantry in the war with comrades who were mostly just as hyper-nationalistic and anti-Semitic as he became.  What was Hitler’s role in the war?

Weber:  With the exception of the first few days of the war when he was a combat soldier, he was a dispatch runner for regimental headquarters.  Of course, people knew all along that he was a dispatch runner.  But the conventional view, which was facilitated by Nazi propaganda, was that as a dispatch runner his job was more dangerous than that of a combat soldier in the trenches because, unlike soldiers who were somewhat protected in the trenches, he had to run on a day-to-day basis from trench to trench through machine gun fire and therefore risk his life every day. 

In reality, his job was very different.  He was a dispatch runner for regimental headquarters and he operated a few miles behind the front and took messages from regimental headquarters, for example, to division headquarters or to the command of a battalion.  I’m not saying that this was a pleasant job or that it was not dangerous and I’m not saying it’s something I would want to do myself.  The point here is twofold.  The first one is, even objectively speaking, Hitler grossly exaggerated the dangers and realities of his work during the war.  The second, and more important, is what the soldiers in the front line thought of Hitler’s tasks rather than what dangers of his job objectively were.  Hitler was seen by front-line soldiers as an Etappenschwein, or a “rear-area pig,” or the term in American forces would be “rear echelon motherfucker.” 

I found this in a letter from one of Hitler’s peers at regimental headquarters, written in 1932, when Hitler was waging a legal campaign against some of his critics who were questioning his war record when he ran for the German presidency.  The letter basically said—and I’m paraphrasing, “Look Hitler, you know as well as I do that we both served honorably, but you also know as well as I do that everyone in the trenches thought otherwise.  They thought that we were Etappenschweine.  They thought our job wasn’t as dangerous.  They thought we could sleep in a warm bed at night while they slept in trenches and were exposed to the cold and the rain and enemy fire.” 

The letter confirmed the claims made in accounts critical of Hitler’s war record which had been published by newspapers in the twenties and thirties but which have been dismissed as not trustworthy by Hitler biographers.  I managed to demonstrate that the most important and most scathing of these articles—which was anonymous and against which Hitler took legal action on in 1932—was, in fact,
written by an officer in Hitler’s regiment.  He himself had served as a dispatch runner earlier in the war and later became the commander of the company to which Hitler at least nominally belonged. 

The more I looked, the more I found ample evidence that ordinary soldiers thought Hitler’s job was a much lesser, cushy job.  This is so important because of the gulf that emerged during the war between soldiers in the trenches and the support staff of regimental headquarters.  This gulf existed during and after the war, and explains why a majority of the veterans of Hitler’s regiment cold-shouldered him later. 

To be sure, a number of people, particularly from regimental headquarters, joined Hitler’s Nazi Party early on, but the majority of the veterans did not join the Nazi Party.  And Hitler ever attended only one veterans’ reunion of his regiment in 1922, in high hopes of recruiting people for his movement, but he was cold-shouldered there.  In fact, the veterans at the 1922 reunion were celebrating the main speaker at the event, an officer who later became a member of a resistance group to Hitler and was married to someone who, according to Nazi criteria, was Jewish. 

After that, Hitler never again attended a reunion of the veterans’ association.  Even in 1934 when Nazi propagandists staged a huge reunion amidst much pageantry in Munich, Hitler did not attend the meeting.  Among the materials I received from the great-granddaughter of one of Hitler’s wartime peers—the one the local archivist I met in the War Archive had told me about—I found a postcard written the day after the 1934 reunion by the wife of another of Hitler’s wartime peers. She wrote:  “I hope that the day will come soon when Hitler can stay with his loyal comrades.  My heart is bleeding that there are still comrades who lack the holiness and inner conviction that the future lies with Hitler.  This is why Hitler cannot attend [reunions of the List Regiment].  I understand this all even though I am just a woman.”

The fact that ordinary soldiers of the List Regiment did not think of Hitler as one of them meant a great deal later on when Hitler tried to recruit people for his party.  It also shows that the Nazi myth about Hitler’s war years that became the conventional view of Hitler’s First World War to the present day—according to which he was “made” by the war and a typical product of the regiment politically and in every other sense—is just not true.

Lindley:  A fellow member of the support staff of regimental headquarters of Hitler described his job as being a “postmistress.”

Weber:  Exactly.

Lindley:  Hitler was awarded two Iron Crosses, including the somewhat rare Iron Cross, First Class.  Did you see the citations and the reasons noted for awarding these medals to Hitler?

Weber:  There’s a copy of the official citation in Munich in the Bavarian Archives.  The citations were written in very general terms, basically saying that Hitler had been courageous and served honorably, but not singling out any specific action or event for which he was honored.

Lindley:  Wouldn’t a specific event be noted with particulars in most cases?

Weber:  I think it would be especially true for the Iron Cross, First Class, except maybe for high-ranking officers.  For ordinary soldiers, they would be more specific, and especially for infantrymen, they would mention what specifically was done because it was a rare award.  It’s curious that the one [awarded to] Hitler was so non-specific.

Lindley:  And ironically, the Iron Cross was awarded to Hitler by Hugo Gutmann, a Jewish officer.

Weber:  It was proposed by Gutmann.

Lindley:  Did Hitler then get the award for longevity, since he served through the entire war, and because he was submissive to his superiors?

Weber:  It’s difficult to tell for certain.  It’s probably a combination of two things.  In a traditional sense, he was a very good soldier.  He did what he was asked to do without complaining.  It seems likely that there was a specific incident, which triggered the proposal by Gutmann.  There’s a suggestion that the proposal was triggered, in the summer of 1918, when Hitler and someone else offered to take a message forward through difficult terrain.  Apparently Gutmann said, “If you make it through there, you will get an Iron Cross.”  There is a suggestion that Gutmann had difficulty in delivering on his promise as Hitler’s action was insufficient for an Iron Cross, First Class, which if true might explain why the citation is so general.  That suggests that Gutmann and the other officers of regimental headquarters felt they had to deliver on the promise and probably also considered Hitler’s longevity and the fact that Hitler was well liked by his superiors.  There seems to have been a sense that, if we put down in the citation what he actually did, we might not get it through higher ranks, and therefore we have to come up with something general to get the proposal through.

Lindley:  And Hitler was wounded twice.  Once by shrapnel in the leg, and later supposedly blinded by gas.  With his wounds and hospitalizations, he missed some of the most brutal fighting of the war.

Weber:  That is correct.

Lindley:  And some writers suggest the blindness was psychosomatic rather than resulting from exposure to gas.

Weber:  As far as the blindness is concerned, part of the Nazi Party or Hitler myth was that he had been blinded by mustard gas to show how dangerous his job was, how brave he was.  There also was a claim that he had been recovering, and as he understood Germany had lost the war, he temporarily lost his eyesight again.

A few publications from recent years, however, have presented evidence that Hitler’s blindness indeed was not caused by mustard gas, but rather was psychosomatic or triggered by war hysteria.  In September of this year, following the British release of my book, I found more evidence.  In San Francisco, a radio listener who had listened to my interview with the BBC World Service at the time, came forward and gave letters to me from his father that provide further evidence that Hitler’s blindness was indeed psychosomatic.  

It’s possible he suffered from post-combat stress.  There has been some suggestion that he was released from hospital early, and his treatment was at a stage where he was left uncured.  This may explain some personality traits he developed.  Whether that is raw speculation or plausible, I find difficult to determine.  However, I think we can safely say that, in 1919, Hitler is not just radicalized but also suddenly moves from being an unremarkable soldier without any leadership qualities to becoming a leader.  No one around him saw leadership qualities in Hitler in the First World War.

Lindley:  Yes.  His lack of any leadership qualities in the war is stunning.

Weber:  Suddenly this follower, within months, turns into this charismatic leader who found his voice and preached with a high degree of certitude.  To understand not only his radicalization but also this change in personality, we really have to look at the psychological development of Hitler.  I can’t really say what happened, but it’s plausible that Hitler’s mental makeup changed, and that he developed some kind of personality disorder that helped him become a charismatic leader able to exercise leadership functions.

Lindley:  He seemed to display an authoritarian personality disorder.

Weber:  When you compare Hitler and Stalin, it’s complicated.  Hitler is this absolute tyrant, responsible arguably for the largest number of people ever killed.  On the other hand, people who personally interacted with him in the 1920s and 1930s generally found him quite charming.  That could explain why people who met Hitler underestimated him, or said what was happening was horrible but was probably not Hitler’s fault because they tried to divorce Hitler from the violent reality of the Third Reich.

Stalin, by contrast, was on every level of the word a thug.   He tyrannized and killed people in his immediate entourage.  He enjoyed having the people who surrounded him drink themselves senseless and then watch their behavior.  Hitler treated his immediate entourage very differently, which also raises questions about Hitler’s mental development and personality traits.

Lindley:  Unlike Stalin, he didn’t usually execute his officers.

Weber:  Except for the Night of the Long Knives. But that‘s the exception rather than the rule.  For Stalin, the rule was that he had no qualms about executing people with whom he had had personal interaction.

Lindley:  You note that Hitler had little social contact with other soldiers and didn’t join in carousing but preferred to paint or read political books.  Can you say more about his rather atypical behavior?

Weber:  We cannot know for sure what he did beyond these activities but it seems that he did not do much elseas he did not indulge in the favorite pastime of many soldiers:  drinking. Unlike many of his peers, all evidence suggests that he also did not frequent brothels.  It’s important to remember that soldiers often suffered from extreme boredom during the war.  So there is really a limit as to what Hitler could do during the war to keep himself occupied when he was not on duty.  While on leave, he once visited Brussels and probably also took part in a day trip to the Belgian coast while not on duty.  Hitler had a real thirst for knowledge, particularly as far as it related either to architecture or to history, and would have thus been excited to visit Brusselsless for the temptations of drink and sex that a city behind the front offered (as would have been the case for many other soldiers) than for the architectural wonders of Brussels.

Lindley:  Some of Hitler’s List Regiment comrades joked that he was so inept that he couldn’t even feed himself in a canned food factory because he couldn’t open a can with a bayonet.

Weber:  Yes, but almost all of his immediate comrades seem to have gotten on with him.  There seems to have been no people who really hated him amongst those who had frequent interaction with him.  But it also seems that almost everyone, irrespective of whether they later sided with Hitler or not, saw him as a bit of a loner, an awkward person, as someone they accepted in their midst, but not someone who they really saw as one of them.  His immediate comrades showed no sign that they were rallying around Hitler or even that Hitler was formulating political ideas in the trenches (with which they either agreed or disagreed).  Even people who later joined him and who genuinely liked him seemed not to have taken Hitler particularly seriously during the war.

Lindley:  You put to rest in your book the idea that Hitler was openly anti-Semitic and anti-Bolshevik during the First World War.

Weber:  Yes.

Lindley:  It will be stunning for most readers that Hitler displayed no leadership qualities during the war.

Weber:  It was stunning to me.  Of course, once Hitler becomes a charismatic leader, his experience in the First World War, particularly his experience in his unit at regimental headquarters, became very important.  The regimental headquarters provided for him a model of a functioning organization and of how to set up an organization and how leadership might work.  While he had not shown leadership qualities himself during the war, and there was not a single soldier who had to answer to Hitler, it was still those experiences that mattered retrospectively when Hitler was trying to find a way of how to build an organization and deal with people. 

And of course, when he built the Nazi Party, he turned to Max Amann, the staff sergeant of regimental headquarters, and asked him to join as managing director of the Nazi Party because Hitler could trust him in building an organization.  And, during the peacetime years of the Third Reich, Hitler turns to Fritz Wiedemann, the regimental adjutant, and asks him to become one of his personal adjutants in the Reich Chancellery in Berlin.  Hitler indeed tries to reproduce the organization model of regimental headquarters in the First World War.

Lindley:  Was Hitler ever at a rank equivalent to a U.S. Army corporal during the First World War? 

Weber:  No, he wasn’t.  It’s basically a mistranslation of the German term Gefreiter. To be fair, it’s also a reflection of the difficulty of translating military ranks. But the correct translation for Gefreiter would be private first class.  Hitler had no line of command over anyone else.  It’s quite wrong to describe Hitler as Corporal Hitler.        

Lindley:  Among his lies, Hitler falsely claimed that he was a sole survivor of one battle with Scotland’s Gordon Highlanders and the Black Watch. What did Nazi Party do to spread such stories and suppress the truth?

Weber:  They disseminated stories like this one through textbooks for primary and high school students, through newspaper and magazine articles, photo books, textbooks for members of the Hitler Youth, etc.  They suppressed the truth mainly through intimidation, by putting people temporarily into concentration camps.  They also liquidated people who had knowledge of Hitler’s medical record from 1918, which showed that his blindness resulted from war hysteria and not from mustard gas.  And they of course also suppressed the truth by cleverly discrediting critics of Hitler.  They also cleverly made use of the code of honor of the military which made it very difficult openly to attack a former wartime peer without the risk of being ostracized themselves for such an attack.

Lindley:  You indicate that Hitler’s war experience dictated the way he fought World War II.

Weber:  I wouldn’t say fully dictated.  The First World War provided lessons to Hitler on how to fight and not fight a war.  Particularly, in the second part of the Second World War, he no longer trusted the generals and very often overrode their decisions, saying—I’m paraphrasing, “Look, you generals may have been officers in the First World War, but you were behind the front,” leveling the same criticism at them as his comrades leveled against him.   “I know what the realities of the First World War were, and this is what we did, for instance, in the Spring Offensive of 1918, and this is what we are going to do in Russia.”  He’d use those retroactively reconfigured experiences to advance nonsensical propositions of how to fight the Second World War.

Lindley:  I think readers will also be surprised that, just after the First World War ended, Hitler served with the left-wing Soviet Republic of Munich, rather than with the right-wing Freikorps.

Weber:  Yes, it’s amazing.  At the very least we can say is that Hitler’s path toward fascism was very unusual for fascists.  The standard route was to be radical right wing at the end of the First World War, then through the Freikorps, to becoming a fascist.  Hitler’s political socialization is very different.  While his future fellow fascists are fighting the Soviet Republic, he is in the center of Munich serving the Soviet Republic.  He even serves as one of the elected representatives of his postwar unit.

Hitler biographers have tried to make sense of his actions by arguing that maybe they were a smokescreen for what he really wanted to do, or that he was a secret spokesperson for hyper-nationalists, or that he was a full-fledged communist.  I find none of these explanations persuasive.  The problem is that scholars thought that they had to resolve Hitler’s contradictory actions during this time by showing that one action was a smokescreen for another.

My argument is that the whole point is that Hitler’s actions should not be resolved.  His actions were contradictory and he had flexible political ideas.  The least we can say, whatever ideas Hitler might have secretly harbored, that was not why his fellow soldiers voted for him as a representative of his post-war battalion in 1919.

The idea that all of these soldiers [who served with Hitler] were German nationalists and Hitler had stayed in the army like other German hyper-nationalists doesn’t work.  The overwhelming majority [of his fellow soldiers] in the Bavarian Elections of 1919—and we know this because special election districts had been set up in military barracks and military hospitals—voted for the Social Democrats or for other democratic parties.  As up to 80 percent of soldiers in Munich still in the military in early 1919 voted for democratic parties, it is inconceivable that the soldiers from Hitler’s postwar unit would have voted for Hitler if they saw him as some sort of anti-socialist and anti-democratic radical.

After all, that’s exactly why we call ourselves National Socialists! We want to start by implementing socialism in our nation among our Volk! It is not until the individual nations are socialist that they can address themselves to international socialism.

Adolf Hitler, As quoted by Otto Wagener in Hitler—Memoirs of a Confidant, editor, Henry Ashby Turner, Jr., Yale University Press (1985) p. 288

Lindley: What do you think sparked Hitler’s radical anti-Bolshevist and anti-Semitic views?

Weber:  It’s a difficult question on what is cause and what is effect here:  whether his morbid anti-Semitism and anti-Bolshevism were the cause of his fascism or the effect.  It’s remarkable that this person with no leadership qualities suddenly became a charismatic leader, but also that his ideology goes far further than that of most other fascists in Germany during this time.  To be sure, other fascists shared his ideas and his eliminationist anti-Semitism, but not all of them.  Indeed, some did not take his extreme form of anti-Semitism seriously.  But, as it later turned out, this extreme anti-Bolshevism and anti-Semitism was the core of his ideology and very much drove his actions from 1933, and particularly after 1941.

We can only answer that question [about the genesis of Hitler’s extreme views] once we know more about what happened to Hitler between March of 1919 and the fall of 1919.  I find it convincing that Hitler was not immediately radicalized in a fascist way by the experiences of the Soviet Republic.  He even had fluctuating political ideas in the summer of 1919, and he was intermingling with people with similarly fluctuating ideas.  His political mentor during this time, Karl Mayr, who was also his commanding officer, ends up as a defender of the Weimar Republic and a Social Democrat.  In 1933, he fled Germany for France but after the German invasion of France, he was put in a concentration camp.  And Ernst Schmidt, Hitler’s fellow dispatch runner during the war with whom Hitler spent almost all the time during the revolutionary period, becomes a Nazi in the 1920s, but, like Mayr, shows democratic leanings until the mid-1920s. 

This is all to say that it’s difficult to know what exactly triggered Hitler’s move to fascism in 1919.  It might have been the result of a politicization, or other contingent factors, including an attempt to find a new ersatz family now that his ersatz family from regimental headquarters from the war had disintegrated.  And maybe there was an element of him trying to distance himself from his actions during the Soviet Republic of Munich, but that’s speculation.

Lindley:  It seems Hitler was disappointed that List Regiment veterans did not rally to his fascist cause, and that most indeed rejected his political views.

Weber:  I’m just speculating, but I think he was genuinely hurt by this rejection because I think he sought acceptance by the members of his regiment.  And he respected even those veterans who were critical of him. 

Interestingly—and this goes back to the Hitler-Stalin comparison—despite the fact that a significant number of veterans openly challenged Hitler, he did not have any of them liquidated.  He put some of them temporarily in concentration camps or prison, but he did not order any of them liquidated, not even Jewish veterans.  Gutmann was put into a Gestapo prison in 1937, but was not eliminated, and crucially, he came out of prison again.  The same is true of another Jewish veteran, Siegfried Heumann, who is tried in 1936, and gets away with it.  Of course, a significant number of Jewish veterans, including Heumann, ultimately died in the death camps of the East in the Holocaust.  But the important point here is that they die as Jews and not as members of his regiment.  Hitler did not order any of his fellow Jewish or non-Jewish fellow soldiers liquidated.  So, despite being hurt and cold-shouldered, there’s a sense that Hitler seeks approval from his regiment, and in a way he respects them more than they respect him.         

Lindley:  You grew up in Germany, and your grandfather served with the Luftwaffe during the Second World War.  Did your background prompt your research on Hitler?

Weber:  I find it difficult to answer.  I prefer other people answer, rather than analyze myself.  It’s true that if you grow up in a country that’s a Western democratic modern state, but you realize that not long before, your state was very different, and it was your country that committed unspeakable crimes, you ask why.  The people that you know and you experience as friendly neighbors or loving grandparents were involved with this regime.  I’m not saying they all fully supported it, but they were all some way or another involved in this regime.  I suppose that raises the question of how do we make sense of this.  Why is it that a country that was arguably the most educated in the world and a country of nice neighbors and loving grandparents managed to unleash war and genocide at an unprecedented level?  I’m sure that triggered at least in part my questions.

Lindley:  In the United States some fear a similarly repressive regime here.  We trust our system of checks and balances to prevent such an extremist nightmare. Yet Germany had a democratic government with the Weimar Republic in the 1920s when Hitler and his thugs were marginalized, but with a bad economy and a tragic series of events, Hitler came to power in 1933.

Weber:  I think it’s unlikely that anything like Nazi Germany could happen in the United States, which after all is one of the great success stories of the modern world.  However, I don’t want to sound like a doomsayer, but even seemingly strong democratic states can rapidly de-democratize and radicalize in certain periods of time.  Periods of extreme economic volatility may go hand in hand with war or other extreme crises.   Any kind of war creates an atmosphere of you’re with us or against us.  I’m the last person who would want to equate the United States with fascist regimes. Nevertheless, I am still with Fritz Stern—the eminent historian and public intellectual—who in a series of articles and talks since 9/11 has warned the American public about the danger of how even democratic societies can radicalize. In extreme periods of crisis, even stable democratic states quickly can become prone to radicalization and to an undermining of democracy.

Lindley:  How do you think your book adds to our understanding of Hitler?

Weber:  It changes our understanding in two ways.  First, on seeing how Hitler was “made” or radicalized.  If you can show that the most extreme political leader of the twentieth century was politicized and radicalized in a very different manner than was previously believed, then that in itself is a very significant finding.

In addition, it changes our understanding of how Hitler came to power, and how he was inventing and re-inventing himself in a way that made him attractive to a German electorate.  And it sheds new light on how Hitler rose to power.

It also changes our understanding of many other issues.  For instance, we now know that, when Hitler based decisions in the Second World War on experiences from the First World War, he was not governed by immediate experience, but rather by reconfigured or reinvented experience.  It changes our understanding of how Hitler’s anti-Semitism came about.  

Beyond Hitler, it changes our understanding of Jewish-Gentile relations and it raises the question of whether the First World War was the “seminal catastrophe” of the twentieth century that George F. Kennan famously thought it was.   I’m convinced it was a catastrophe for Eastern Europe, but I’m not sure it was the “seminal catastrophe” of the twentieth century for Germany or for Hitler.

Lindley:  What does it mean that the First World War was not the “seminal catastrophe” in twentieth-century German history?  Didn’t Hitler derail democracy by stressing the war myth?

Weber:  The idea of World War I being the “seminal catastrophe” in twentieth century German history really is that the First World War planted the seeds of all subsequent problems and disasters in German (and European) history.  My argument is that that is not really true but that despite First World War, the future of a democratic (or at least semi-democratic) Germany still looks fairly bright as soldiers return from the war.  The argument is that subsequent events (and not the war itself) functioned as the root problems of Germany’s subsequent descent into darkness.

Yes, Hitler did derail democracy by stressing the war myth but my point is that there is no direct line from Hitler’s war experience to the failure of democracy in Germany.  I think your question implicitly already answers why the war not the seminal catastrophe of Germany’s twentieth century:  You refer to “the war myth” rather than “Hitler’s war experience.” In other words, not the war itself but what was made of the war after the event was the problem.  This is to say that only because of things that happened after the war was it possible for the war to be “reinvented” in a way that derailed democracy.

Hitler on Marxism

“National Socialism derives from each of the two camps the pure idea that characterizes it, national resolution from bourgeois tradition; vital, creative socialism from the teaching of Marxism.” – January 27, 1934, interview with Hanns Johst in Frankforter Volksblatt

Hitler on Teaching Socialism

“There is a difference between the theoretical knowledge of socialism and the practical life of socialism. People are not born socialists, but must first be taught how to become them.” – October 5, 1937, speech in Berlin

Hitler on Capitalism

“In those countries, it is actually capital that rules; that is, nothing more than a clique of a few hundred men who possess untold wealth and, as a consequence of the peculiar structure of their national life, are more or less independent and free. They say: ‘Here we have liberty.’ By this they mean, above all, an uncontrolled economy, and by an uncontrolled economy, the freedom not only to acquire capital but to make absolutely free use of it. That means freedom from national control or control by the people both in the acquisition of capital and in its employment. This is really what they mean when they speak of liberty. These capitalists create their own press and then speak of the ‘freedom of the press.’ In reality, every one of the newspapers has a master, and in every case this master is the capitalist, the owner. This master, not the editor, is the one who directs the policy of the paper. If the editor tries to write other than what suits the master, he is ousted the next day. This press, which is the absolutely submissive and characterless slave of the owners, molds public opinion. Yes, certainly, we jeopardize the liberty to profiteer at the expense of the community, and, if necessary, we even abolish it.” – December 10, 1940, speech in Berlin

Hitler on Socialism

“Socialism as the final concept of duty, the ethical duty of work, not just for oneself but also for one’s fellow man’s sake, and above all the principle: Common good before own good, a struggle against all parasitism and especially against easy and unearned income. And we were aware that in this fight we can rely on no one but our own people. We are convinced that socialism in the right sense will only be possible in nations and races that are Aryan, and there in the first place we hope for our own people and are convinced that socialism is inseparable from nationalism.” – August 15, 1920, speech in Munich at the Hofbräuhaus.

Hitler on Social Justice

“Because it seems inseparable from the social idea and we do not believe that there could ever exist a state with lasting inner health if it is not built on internal social justice, and so we have joined forces with this knowledge.” – August 15, 1920, speech in Munich at the Hofbräuhaus

Hitler on Class Abolition

“We must on principle free ourselves from any class standpoint.” – April 12, 1922, speech in Munich

“There are no such things as classes: they cannot be. … here there can be no class, here there can be only a single people and beyond that nothing else.” – April 12, 1922, speech in Munich

Hitler on Marxism and Socialism

(Editor’s Note: StoppingSocialism.com does not agree with Hitler’s description of socialism, communism, and Marxism below. He deliberately misled people about the meaning of these terms for political reasons.)

“Socialism is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national.” – 1923, Interview with George Sylvester Viereck

Hitler on State Property Control

“To put it quite clearly: we have an economic program. Point 13 in that program demands the nationalization of all public companies, in other words socialization, or what is known here as socialism. … the good of the community takes priority over that of the individual. But the State should retain control; every owner should feel himself to be an agent of the State; it is his duty not to misuse his possessions to the detriment of the State or the interests of his fellow countrymen. That is the overriding point. The Third Reich will always retain the right to control property owners. If you say that the bourgeoisie is tearing its hair over the question of private property, that does not affect me in the least. Does the bourgeoisie expect some consideration from me? Today’s bourgeoisie is rotten to the core; it has no ideals anymore; all it wants to do is earn money and so it does me what damage it can. The bourgeois press does me damage too and would like to consign me and my movement to the devil.” – May 4, 1931, interview with Richard Breiting

Hitler on the Bourgeoisie

“Over the last 40 years, the German bourgeoisie has been a lamentable failure; it has not given the German people a single leader; it will have to bow without gainsaying to the totality of my ideology.” – May 4, 1931, interview with Richard Breiting

Hitler on German Socialism

“What they hate is the Germany which sets a dangerous example for them, this social Germany. It is the Germany of a social labor legislation which they already hated before the World War and which they still hate today. It is the Germany of social welfare, of social equality, of the elimination of class differences—this is what they hate! They hate this Germany which in the course of seven years has labored to afford its Volksgenossen a decent life. They hate this Germany which has eliminated unemployment, which, in spite of all their wealth, they have not been able to eliminate. This Germany which grants its laborers decent housing—this is what they hate because they have a feeling their own peoples could be ‘infected’ thereby. They hate this Germany of social legislation, this Germany which celebrates the first of May as the day of honest labor.” – May 8, 1939, speech “Party Comrades! My German Volksgenossen!” at the Bürgerbräukeller in Munich

Hitler on the Hammer and Sickle

“The hammer will once more become the symbol of the German worker and the sickle the sign of the German peasant.” – May 1, 1934, May Day speech in Berlin

Hitler on German Socialism

“Is there a nobler or more excellent kind of Socialism and is there a truer form of Democracy than this National Socialism which is so organized that through it each one among the millions of German boys is given the possibility of finding his way to the highest office in the nation, should it please Providence to come to his aid?” – January 30, 1937, On National Socialism and World Relations speech in the German Reichstag

Hitler on Profits

“And justice is on the side of those nations that fight for their threatened existence. And this struggle for existence will spur these nations on to the most tremendous accomplishments in world history. If profit is the driving force for production in the democracies—a profit that industrialists, bankers, and corrupt politicians pocket—then the driving force in National Socialist Germany and Fascist Italy is the realization by millions of laborers that, in this war, it is they who are being fought against. They realize that the democracies, if they should ever win, would rage with the full capitalist cruelty, that cruelty of which only those are capable whose only god is gold, who know no human sentiments other than their obsession with profit, and who are ready to sacrifice all noble thought to this profit instinct without hesitation. This struggle is not an attack on the rights of other nations, but on the arrogance and avarice of a narrow capitalist upper class, one which refuses to acknowledge that the days are over when gold ruled the world, and that, by contrast, a future is dawning when the people will be the determining force in the life of a nation.” – January 1, 1941, speech in Berlin

Hitler on His Own Fanatical Socialism

“Germany’s economic policy is conducted exclusively in accordance with the interests of the German people. In this respect I am a fanatical socialist, one who has ever in mind the interests of all his people.” – February 24, 1941, speech on the 21st anniversary of the Nazi Party

Hitler on the Triumph of Socialism

“All the more so after the war, the German National Socialist state, which pursued this goal from the beginning, will tirelessly work for the realization of a program that will ultimately lead to a complete elimination of class differences and to the creation of a true socialist community.” – March 21, 1943, speech for Heroes’ Memorial Day

The following quotes are attributed by Otto Wagener in Hitler: Memoirs of a Confidant

“In the past—that is, for most people it is still the present-the individual is everything, everything is directed at maintaining his life and improving his existence, everything focuses on him. … In socialism of the future, on the other hand, what counts is the whole, the community of the Volk. The individual and his life play only a subsidiary role. He can be sacrificed—he is prepared to sacrifice himself should the whole demand it.”

“Aren’t these liberals, those reprobate defenders of individualism, ashamed to see the tears of the mothers and wives, or don’t these cold-blooded accountants even notice? Have they already grown so inhuman that they are no longer capable of feeling? It is understandable why bolshevism simply removed such creatures. They were worthless to humanity, nothing but an encumbrance to their Volk. Even the bees get rid of the drones when they can no longer be of service to the hive. The Bolshevik procedures are thus quite natural.”

“What Marxism, Leninism, and Stalinism failed to accomplish, we shall be in a position to achieve.”

“But first, there will have to be national socialism. Otherwise the people and their governments are not ready for the socialism of nations. It is not possible to be liberal to one’s own country and demand socialism among nations.”

“After all, that’s exactly why we call ourselves National Socialists! We want to start by implementing socialism in our nation among our Volk! It is not until the individual nations are socialist that they can address themselves to international socialism.”

“But we National Socialists wish precisely to attract all socialists, even the Communists; we wish to win them over from their international camp to the national one.”

Quotes selected by Chris Talgo (ctalgo@heartland.org), editor at The Heartland Institute.

Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini in Munich, Germany, ca. June 1940. Photo provided by Marion Doss. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic (CC BY-SA 2.0) 

Mussolini: The Young Socialist Radical

Roots of Fascism: Part 3

Samuel Griswold. Fighting Fascism, Apr 15

Mussolini’s 1903 Mugshot in Bern, Switzerland

Benito Mussolini emigrated to Switzerland in 1902, where he became active in the Italian socialist movement.  He worked for the L’Avvenire del Lavoratore newspaper, served as secretary of the Italian workers union in Lausanne, gave speeches and organized meetings for socialist activists and sympathizers.  He continued to study socialist philosophers including Friedrich Nietzche, Vilfredo Pareto of the Lausanne School, and the syndicalist Georges Sorel.  It was Sorel’s ideas about the need for a violent overthrow of liberal democracy and capitalism through violence, general strikes and direct action that highly influenced Mussolini’s own political views and were later incorporated into his Fascist movement.   He also credited Christian socialist Charles Peguy and the syndicalist Hubert Lagardelle as being some of his mentors.

Mussolini denounced Italy’s “imperialist war” in Libya

Mussolini spent two weeks in jail in 1903, after having been arrested for advocating for a general strike.  The Swiss government deported him back to Italy, but he returned after falsifying his papers.  He studied at the University of Lausanne and was arrested, a year later, in Geneva, Switzerland. Subscribe

 

In February of 1909, he moved to the Italian-speaking city of Trento which was then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.  There, he worked in the office of the local socialist party.  

Mussolini returned to his hometown in Italy, in 1910, to edit the weekly newspaper, Lotta di Classe (The Class Struggle).  He also published “Il Trentino veduto da un Socialista (Trentino as seen by a Socialist), in the Left-Wing periodical La Voce.

Mussolini described Marx as the “greatest of all theorists of socialism”

In September of 1911, he denounced Italy’s “imperialist war” in Libya, as a participant in a socialist-led riot.  This protest caused him to be arrested and to spend five months in jail.  But, it also built his credibility and led to his becoming editor of the Socialist Party newspaper, Avanti.



Describing Marx as the “greatest of all theorists of socialism,” Mussolini fully considered himself a follower of the Communist founder.  Vladimir Lenin would later criticize Italian socialists for expelling him from their ranks.  So, why did he separate from the Italian Socialist Party?  Did his political philosophy really change? 

In Roots of Fascism: Part 4, we shall see that his passion for socialism remained strong and true.  It was his philosophy about Italian involvement in World War I that evolved.

Hitler’s “Brownshirts” were a bunch of commies led by a gay guy, very akin to Biden’s Antifa:
SHARE

IF YOU MADE IT SO FAR, YOU DESERVE A BONUS

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them

“Via the BIS, the American and British bankers would maintain a mostly secret friendship with their Nazi and Japanese counterparts straight through World War II while thousands and thousands of American and British men in uniform were being killed and maimed in the fight to defeat the Nazis and Japanese.” 

John Strausbaugh, Victory City, A History Of New York and New Yorkers During World War II

Except they were mostly Jewish Germans with no real loyalty to either America, UK, Germany or even Jewry.

In its early years, intermarriage among the German-Jewish elite was common. Consequently, the partners of Kuhn, Loeb were closely related by blood and marriage to the partners of J & W SeligmanSpeyer & Co.Goldman, Sachs & Co.Lehman Brothers and other prominent German-Jewish firms. Prior to the Second World War, a particularly close relationship existed between the partners of Kuhn, Loeb and M. M. Warburg & Co. of Hamburg, Germany, through Paul and Felix, who were Kuhn, Loeb partners. Later on, following World War II, their cousin Sigmund Warburg would briefly continue this relationship as a partner and Executive Director of the firm.

Wikipedia

This chapter explores the conflicting pressures to which the American investment banking firm Kuhn, Loeb and Company was exposed during the period of American neutrality preceding US entry into World War I. All the partners were of German Jewish origin. Two, Paul M. Warburg and Felix M. Warburg, were brothers of Max M. Warburg, who was heavily involved in financing the German war effort. Others, including the senior partner Jacob H. Schiff, were emigres from Germany. Some, however, especially partner Otto H. Kahn, were staunchly anglophile in outlook. Many Wall Street bankers, notably the pre-eminent investment bank J. P. Morgan and Company, were fiercely pro-Allied in sympathy, and put heavy pressure on Kuhn, Loeb to participate in Allied war loans. Their German associates, however, Kuhn, Loeb to abstain from such business, and if possible to take part in German war financing. With partners in the firm divided, Kuhn, Loeb tried to remain neutral. The firm did not invest in Allied war loans. Jacob Schiff, a leading member of the Jewish community, stated that this stance did not reflect any sympathies with Germany, but the fact that Tsarist Russia, notorious for its persecution of its Jewish minority, was one of the Allies. Meanwhile, certain individual partners made well-publicized purchases of these securities.

A CONFLICT OF LOYALTIES: KUHN, LOEB & COMPANY AND THE FIRST WORLD WAR, 1914-1917. IN STUDIES IN THE AMERICAN JEWISH EXPERIENCE II: CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE FELLOWSHIP PROGRAMS OF THE AMERICAN JEWISH ARCHIVES, EDS. ABRAHAM J. PECK AND JACOB RADER MARCUS. ROWMAN AND LITTLEFIELD, 1984, PP. 1-32, 169-182.

THE SHORT COURSE:

(MY EDIT)

“The BIS would shelter hundreds of millions of dollars in Nazi gold, stolen from conquered nations and from slaughtered Jews (including dental fillings, jewelry, and such).”

John Strausbaugh, Victory City, A History Of New York and New Yorkers During World War II
SHARE

THE LONG COURSE:

“BANKING WITH HITLER” – DOCUMENTARY / HISTORY CHANNEL

371 Swiss banks stand accused of collaborating with the Nazis during World War II. This was suspected at the time by by U.S. Secretary of Treasury Henry Morgenthau, who began investigating this collaboration. He found the Swiss were not alone. His archives reveal that both British and American bankers continued to do business with Hitler, even as Germany was invading Europe and bombing London.

This investigative film next shows in detail the roles played by the Anglo-German banking clique. Key members of the Bank of England together with their German counterparts established the BIS, the Bank for International Settlement, which laundered the plundered gold of Europe. On its board were key Nazis such as Walther Funk and Hjalamar Schact The president of BIS was an American, Thomas McKittrick, who readily socialized with leading Nazis. Not only the BIS, but other allied banks worked hand in hand with the Nazis. One of the biggest American banks kept a branch open in Occupied Paris and, with full knowledge of the managers in the U.S., froze the accounts of French Jews. Deprived of money to escape France, many ended up in death camps.

When Pres. Roosevelt died in April 1945, Morgenthau lost his protector and his crusade against the banks came to an end. He was further weakened when men in his department were accused of being Communists during the McCarthy era. This incredible story contains interviews with surviving members of banking families and Morgenthau’s investigative team as well as newly found archive material.

SHARE

The leader of the BIS during the war was a Wall Streeter named Thomas McKittrick.

“He traveled freely in Nazi territory and in Mussolini’s Italy during the war. In 1943, U-Boats received orders not to meddle with the ship that carried him back to NY for high-level meetings to discuss BIS business, after which he traveled to Berlin for a debriefing at the Reichsbank.”

When the war ended, McKittrick was made Vice President at the Rockefeller’s Chase National Bank. He couldn’t have picked a more suitable employer.

It turns out six months before Hitler invaded Poland, Chase Bank wired $25 million for his war machine.

Chase and J.P. Morgan weren’t done in their role as Hitler’s private bankers.

“When Germany occupied France in 1940, most American businesses there left. Chase and J.P. Morgan kept their banks in France open for the duration. They did business with and for the Nazi occupiers, from seizing the accounts of Jewish customers to funding the Gestapo’s brutal activities against the Franch people.”

Evidently, one of Chase’s growth strategies targeted Nazi-occupied France.

The Daily News reported:

“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.”

Sometimes Wall Street gets a bad rap, often serving as a scapegoat for populist leaders looking to rally the troops against a pretty unlikable foe.

Sadly, this isn’t one of those cases. – Source: Victory City by John Strausbaugh

THE TOWER OF BASEL

Hitler’s Bankers Rebranded

James J Puplava with Adam LeBor, author of “Tower of Basel – The Shadowy History of the Secret Bank That Runs the World”

A Very Unauthorized History of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Switzerland

“In a special reprise edition of the Financial Sense Newshour from earlier this year, Jim welcomes journalist Adam LeBor, author of “Tower of Basel”, a very unauthorized history of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) in Basel, Switzerland. For many decades it has stood at the center of a global network of money, power and covert global influence. LeBor and others call it the most important bank the world. The BIS predates both the IMF and the World Bank, yet very few have heard of it or knows what it does. The BIS helped finance the Nazi war machine before, and during, WWII. It also hosted much of the planning and technical preparation for the Euro. LeBor believes without the BIS, the Euro would likely not exist. The bank is also immensely profitable, making over a billion dollars tax-free in 2012, from a very small number of important customers. The BIS continues to host the world’s most powerful central bankers every year in Basel.”

Never mind the Czech gold the Nazis stole…

The Bank for International Settlements actually financed Hitler’s war machine

By Adam Lebor, The Telegraph, 31 Jul 2013

The documents reveal a shocking story: just six months before Britain went to war with Nazi Germany, the Bank of England willingly handed over £5.6 million worth of gold to Hitler – and it belonged to another country.

The official history of the bank, written in 1950 but posted online for the first time on Tuesday, reveals how we betrayed Czechoslovakia – not just with the infamous Munich agreement of September 1938, which allowed the Nazis to annex the Sudetenland, but also in London, where Montagu Norman, the eccentric but ruthless governor of the Bank of England agreed to surrender gold owned by the National Bank of Czechoslovakia.

The Czechoslovak gold was held in London in a sub-account in the name of the Bank for International Settlements, the Basel-based bank for central banks. When the Nazis marched into Prague in March 1939 they immediately sent armed soldiers to the offices of the National Bank. The Czech directors were ordered, on pain of death, to send two transfer requests.

The first instructed the BIS to transfer 23.1 metric tons of gold from the Czechoslovak BIS account, held at the Bank of England, to the Reichsbank BIS account, also held at Threadneedle Street.

The second order instructed the Bank of England to transfer almost 27 metric tons of gold held in the National Bank of Czechoslovakia’s own name to the BIS’s gold account at the Bank of England.

To outsiders, the distinction between the accounts seems obscure. Yet it proved crucial – and allowed Norman to ensure that the first order was carried out. The Czechoslovak bank officials believed that as the orders had obviously been carried out under duress neither would be allowed to go through. But they had not reckoned on the bureaucrats running the BIS and the determination of Montagu Norman to see that procedures were followed, even as his country prepared for war with Nazi Germany.

His decision caused uproar, both in the press and in Parliament. George Strauss, a Labour MP, spoke for many when he thundered in Parliament: “The Bank for International Settlements is the bank which sanctions the most notorious outrage of this generation – the rape of Czechoslovakia.” Winston Churchill demanded to know how the government could ask its citizens to enlist in the military when it was “so butter-fingered that £6 million worth of gold can be transferred to the Nazi government”.

It was a good question. Thanks to Norman and the BIS, Nazi Germany had just looted 23.1 tons of gold without a shot being fired. The second transfer order, for the gold held in the National Bank of Czechoslovakia’s own name, did not go through. Sir John Simon, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had instructed banks to block all Czechoslovak assets.

The documents released by the Bank of England are revealing, both for what they show and what they omit. They are a window into a world of fearful deference to authority, the primacy of procedure over morality, a world where, for the bankers, the most important thing is to keep the channels of international finance open, no matter what the human cost. A world, in other words, not entirely different to today.

The BIS was founded in 1930, in effect by Montagu Norman and his close friend Hjalmar Schacht, the former president of the Reichsbank, known as the father of the Nazi economic miracle. Schacht even referred to the BIS as “my” bank. The BIS is a unique hybrid: a commercial bank protected by international treaty. Its assets can never be seized, even in times of war. It pays no taxes on profits. The Czechoslovaks believed that the BIS’s legal immunities would protect them. But they were wrong.

The Bank of England’s historian argued that to refuse the transfer order would have been a breach of Britain’s treaty obligations with regard to the BIS. In fact there was a powerful counter-argument that the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia had rendered any such obligations null and void as the country no longer existed.

A key sentence in the Bank of England documents is found on page 1,295. It reads: “The general attitude of the Bank of England directors of the BIS during the war was governed by their anxiety to keep the BIS to play its part in the solution of post-war problems”. And here the secret history of the BIS and its strong relationship with the Bank of England becomes ever more murky.

During the war the BIS proclaimed that it was neutral, a view supported by the Bank of England. In fact the BIS was so entwined with the Nazi economy that it helped keep the Third Reich in business. It carried out foreign exchange deals for the Reichsbank; it accepted looted Nazi gold; it recognised the puppet regimes installed in occupied countries, which, together with the Third Reich, soon controlled the majority of the bank’s shares.

Indeed, the BIS was so useful for the Nazis that Emil Puhl, the vice-president of the Reichsbank and BIS director, referred to the BIS as the Reichsbank’s only “foreign branch”.

The BIS’s reach and connections were vital for Germany. So much so, that all through the war, the Reichsbank continued paying interest on the monies lent by the BIS. This interest was used by the BIS to pay dividends to shareholders – which included the Bank of England. Thus, through the BIS, the Reichsbank was funding the British war economy. After the war, five BIS directors were tried for war crimes, including Schacht. “They don’t hang bankers,” Schacht supposedly said, and he was right – he was acquitted.

Buried among the typewritten pages of the Bank of England’s history is a name of whom few have ever heard, a man for whom, like Montagu Norman, the primacy of international finance reigned over mere national considerations.

Thomas McKittrick, an American banker, was president of the BIS. When the United States entered the war in December 1941, McKittrick’s position, the history notes, “became difficult”. But McKittrick managed to keep the bank in business, thanks in part to his friend Allen Dulles, the US spymaster based in Berne. McKittrick was an asset of Dulles, known as Codename 644, and frequently passed him information that he had garnered from Emil Puhl, who was a frequent visitor to Basel and often met McKittrick.

Declassified documents in the American intelligence archives reveal an even more disturbing story. Under an intelligence operation known as the “Harvard Plan”, McKittrick was in contact with Nazi industrialists, working towards what the US documents, dated February 1945, describe as a “close cooperation between the Allied and German business world”.

Thus while Allied soldiers were fighting through Europe, McKittrick was cutting deals to keep the Germany economy strong. This was happening with what the US documents describe as “the full assistance” of the State Department.

The Bank of England history also makes disparaging reference to Harry Dexter White, an official in the Treasury Department, who was a close ally of Henry Morgenthau, the Treasury Secretary. Morgenthau and White were the BIS’s most powerful enemies and lobbied hard at Bretton Woods in July 1944, where the Allies met to plan the post-war financial system, for the BIS to be closed.White, the Bank history notes rather sneeringly, had said of the BIS: “There is an American president doing business with the Germans while our boys are fighting the Germans.”

Aided by its powerful friends, such as Montagu Norman, Allen Dulles and much of Wall Street, the BIS survived the attempts by Morgenthau and White to close it down. The bank’s allies used precisely the argument detailed on page 1,295 of the Bank of England’s history: the BIS was needed to plan the post-war European economy.

From the 1950s to the 1990s the BIS hosted much of the planning and technical preparation for the introduction of the euro. Without the BIS the euro would probably not exist. In 1994, Alexander Lamfalussy, the former BIS manager, set up the European Monetary Institute, now known as the European Central Bank.

The BIS remains very profitable. It has only about 140 customers (it refuses to say how many) but made a tax-free profit of about £900 million last year. Every other month it hosts the Global Economy Meetings, where 60 of the most powerful central bankers, including Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, meet. No details of meetings are released, even though the attendees are public servants, charged with managing national economies.

The BIS also hosts the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, which regulates commercial banks, and the new Financial Stability Board, which coordinates national regulatory authorities. The BIS has made itself the central pillar of the global financial system.

Montagu Norman and Hjalmar Schacht would be very proud indeed.

Adam LeBor is the author of ‘Tower of Basel: The Shadowy History of the Secret Bank That Runs the World’, published by PublicAffairs

Following his retirement, he was raised to the peerage as Baron Norman, of St Clere in the County of Kent, on 13 October 1944. In addition to receiving the Distinguished Service Order, Norman was sworn of the Privy Council in 1923 and was created a Grand Officer of the Order of the Crown.

Wikipedia

Let me rephrase that: The Nazi-loving chief of Bank of England was anointed among Crown’s most trusted dozen, having only the Jewish-blooded queen and princes above him.

From “Secrets of the Federal Reserve – The history, organization and controlling interests behind the Federal Reserve”, by: Eustace Mullins, 1983, we find out that…

<<Chairman McFadden informed the House of a dispatch in the Public Ledger of Philadelphia, October 24, 1931, “GERMAN REVEALS HOOVER’S SECRET. The American President was in intimate negotiations with the German government regarding a year’s debt holiday as early as December, 1930.” McFadden continued,

“Behind the Hoover announcement there were many months of hurried and furtive preparations both in Germany and in Wall Street offices of German bankers. Germany, like a sponge, had to be saturated with American money. Mr. Hoover himself had to be elected, because this scheme began before he became President. If the German international bankers of Wall Street — that is Kuhn Loeb CompanyJ. & W. SeligmanPaul WarburgJ. Henry Schroder — and their satellites had not had this job waiting to be done, Herbert Hoover would never have been elected President of the United States.

The election of Mr. Hoover to the Presidency was through the influence of the Warburg Brothers, directors of the great bank of Kuhn Loeb Company, who carried the cost of his election. In exchange for this collaboration Mr. Hoover promised to impose the moratorium of German debts. Hoover sought to exempt Kreuger’s loan to Germany of $125 million from the operation of the Hoover Moratorium. The nature of Kreuger’s swindle was known here in January when he visited his friend, Mr. Hoover, in the White House.”

Not only did Hoover entertain Francqui in the White House, but also Ivar Kreuger, the most famous swindler of the twentieth century.

On December 13, 1932, Chairman McFadden introduced a resolution of impeachment against President Hoover for high crimes and misdemeanors, which covers many pages, including violation of contracts, unlawful dissipation of the financial resources of the United States, and his appointment of Eugene Meyer to the Federal Reserve Board. The resolution was tabled and never acted upon by the House.

In criticizing Hoover’s Moratorium of German War Debts, McFadden had referred to Hoover’s “German” backers. Although all of the principals of “the London Connection” did originate in Germany, most of them in Frankfurt, at the time they sponsored Hoover’s candidacy for the Presidency of the United States, they were operating from London, as Hoover himself had done for most of his career.

Also, the Hoover Moratorium was not intended to “help” Germany, as Hoover had never been “pro-German”. The Moratorium on Germany’s war debts was necessary so that Germany would have funds for rearming. In 1931, the truly forward-looking diplomats were anticipating the Second World War, and there could be no war without an “aggressor”.

Hoover had also carried out a number of mining promotions in various parts of the world as a secret agent for the Rothschilds, and had been rewarded with a directorship in one of the principal Rothschild enterprises, the Rio Tinto Mines in Spain and Bolivia.

Francqui and Hoover threw themselves into the seemingly impossible task of provisioning Germany during the First World War. Their success was noted in Nordeutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, March 13, 1915, which noted that large quantities of food were now arriving from Belgium by rail. Schmoller’s “Yearbook for Legislation, Administration and Political Economy” for 1916, shows that 1 billion pounds of meat, 1.5 billion pounds of potatoes, 1.5 billion pounds of bread, and 121 million pounds of butter had been shipped from Belgium to Germany in that year.

A patriotic British woman who had operated a small hospital in Belgium for several years, Edith Cavell, wrote to the Nursing Mirror in London, April 15, 1915, complaining that the “Belgian Relief” supplies were being shipped to Germany to feed the German army. The Germans considered Miss Cavell to be of no importance, and paid no attention to her, but the British Intelligence Service in London was appalled by Miss Cavell’s discovery, and demanded that the Germans arrest her as a spy.

Sir William Wiseman, head of British Intelligence, and partner of Kuhn Loeb Company, feared that the continuance of the war was at stake, and secretly notified the Germans that Miss Cavell must be executed. The Germans reluctantly arrested her and charged her with aiding prisoners of war to escape. The usual penalty for this offense was three months imprisonment, but the Germans bowed to Sir William Wiseman’s demands, and shot Edith Cavell, thus creating one of the principal martyrs of the First World War.

With Edith Cavell out of the way, the “Belgian Relief” operation continued, although in 1916, German emissaries again approached London officials with the information that they did not believe Germany could continue military operations, not only because of food shortages, but because of financial problems. More “emergency relief” was sent, and Germany continued in the war until November, 1918.>>

Mr. Paul M. Warburg Seriously Ill: Founder of American Federal Reserve Bank System and Brother of FeLIX WARBURG

JEWISH TELEGRAPHIC AGENCY, January 15, 1932

Mr. Paul M. Warburg, the famous banker, who was the initiator of the American Federal Reserve Bank System, a brother of Mr. Felix M. Warburg and of Herr Max Warburg, is seriously ill with pneumonia, and his condition is causing extreme anxiety.

Mr. Warburg is 63 years of age.

If Americans were in the habit of conferring titles of distinction on creative thinkers, Paul M. Warburg would have been accorded this honour for his work in the introduction of the Currency Reform in the United States which culminated in the Federal Reserve System, Professor Edwin R. A. Seligman of Columbia University wrote in the “New York Evening Post” in 1927.

Mr. Warburg, who like all his brothers, bears the middle name Moritz, which was the name of their father, was a member of the Kuhn, Loeb banking firm (Mrs. Warburg was before her marriage Nita Loeb) resigning all his directorships, trusteeships, etc. when he was appointed by President Wilson in 1914 as a member of the Federal Reserve Board. In 1917 he was appointed a member of the United States Section of the International High Commission.

A year ago, Mr. Warburg delivered a speech in New York decrying the American isolation theory and advising the United States to seek larger international co-operation and courageous action to help the world to emerge from the stagnation into which it has fallen.

When Mr. Henry Ford was still conducting his antisemitic campaign, he launched an attack on Mr. Paul Warburg in 1925, accusing him of being the head and front of a movement in which the Federal Reserve System was being used as an instrument to foist German financial methods on the United States and to bring about a German control of American industry and business. Mr. Bernard Baruch and Mr. Aaron Sapiro, whose libel action against Mr. Henry Ford was the immediate point which brought about his recantation of his antisemitism, were included with Mr. Paul Warburg as his chief assistants in the plot.

The “Pacific Banker”, the leading financial paper in the North-west, dismissed the accusation as “a ridiculous obsession”, and wrote: Paul M. Warburg is a name which stands very high in American banking as that of the man who laid down the central idea upon which the whole Federal Reserve System was erected; who cast aside all thought of remuneration to become a member of the original Board, in fact its Deputy Governor; who has shown a genius in sound finance and a whole hearted service to the country which is recognised everywhere in responsible quarters”.

Associated Press, 30 Jul 1996: Switzerland gave the American, British and French Allies around 60 million dollars of Nazi gold to help pay for the reconstruction of Europe after the Second World War – according to documents just revealed. Jewish groups say this is just a fraction of the hoard which belongs to them – stolen from Jews in Germany before and during the war. The documents reveal that more than four billion dollars worth of gold was shipped by the German Reichsbank to Switzerland during the war. These Swiss banks have traditionally closed their doors to any attempt to investigate their notoriously secret accounts. Now it has been revealed they made a very secret deal with the victorious Western Allies after World War II which allowed them to keep millions of dollars worth of gold. Jewish groups claim they concealed the theft and were permitted to get away with it, because of British fears that if they forced the issue, Swiss loans to their war-ravaged country would not be forthcoming.
In a new spirit of openness, the Swiss banks are now cooperating with the World Jewish Congress. External auditors are to be allowed full access to all banking records. However a Swiss lawyer acting for many of the claimants says the task is a massive one – not least because of the difficulty in tracing who deposited the money.
“The problem is with names – you don’t know with what name, or what code, or what fantasy name accounts existed. Did the person who put it here put it in his own name or a fantasy name or code or did he give it to a Swiss cousin, attorney or somebody else to do it? That’s the first problem – second problem is the time that has gone by. If an account is still there the old account opening form should also be there – but as result of the time that has gone by – fifty years – with computerisation in the meantime I hear, although unofficially from various banks we may not have these documents any more”, said Dr Herbert Winter, lawyer.

Exploring the Vatican’s role in aiding Nazi criminals to escape punishment for their crimes, this book, originally published in 1991, first revealed the Vatican-Swiss bank connection to Nazi gold and documented the hidden links to Western investors in Nazi Germany. Since its publication, major revelations about the role of Swiss banks have confirmed Unholy Trinity’s expose of the flight of the Nazi’s stolen treasures; the new introduction and new final chapters, written by Aarons and Loftus for this edition, bring the book completely up to date and show how the media have missed the vital Vatican connection in the Swiss-bank story.

Among other things, the authors demonstrate that U.S. and British code-breakers were fully aware of the Holocaust as early as 1941 but lied to the Western press; that the code-breakers bugged the Swiss banks and then buried secrets of Nazi gold transfers to protect U.S. intelligence chief Allen Dulles; and that the Australian, British, and Canadian governments are still waging a campaign to keep their citizens ignorant about the Nazi war criminals living among them.

Covering all these topics and more, Unholy Trinity is the definitive history of a series of profoundly disturbing cover-ups involving the Holy See, Allen Dulles, the Swiss banks, and the remnants of the Third Reich.. – Amazon

ROTHSCHILD BANKING CARTEL AND THE FEDERAL RESERVE – MAPPING THE OCTOPUS – IRANIAN TV DOCUMENTARY

SHARE

“In 1928, “the London Connection” decided to run Herbert Hoover for president of the United States. There was only one problem; although Herbert Hoover had been born in the United States, and was thus eligible for the office of the presidency, according to the Constitution, he had never had a business address or a home address in the United States, as he had gone abroad just after completing college at Stanford. The result was that during his campaign for the presidency, Herbert Hoover listed as his American address Suite 2000, 42 Broadway, New York, which was the office of Edgar Rickard. Suite 2000 was also shared by the grain tycoon and partner of J. Henry Schroder Banking Corporation, Julius H. Barnes.
After Herbert Hoover was elected president of the United States, he insisted on appointing one of the old London crowd, Eugene Meyer, as Governor of the Federal Reserve Board. Meyer’s father had been one of the partners of Lazard Freres of Paris, and Lazard Brothers of London. Meyer, with Baruch, had been one of the most powerful men in the United States during World War I, a member of the famous Triumvirate which exercised unequalled power; Meyer as Chairman of the War Finance Corporation, Bernard Baruch as Chairman of the War Industries Board, and Paul Warburg as Governor of the Federal Reserve System.
A longtime critic of Eugene Meyer, Chairman Louis McFadden of the House Banking and Currency Committee, was quoted in The New York Times, December 17, 1930, as having made a speech on the floor of the House attacking Hoover’s appointment of Meyer, and charging that “He represents the Rothschild interest and is liaison officer between the French Government and J.P. Morgan.” On December 18, The Times reported that “Herbert Hoover is deeply concerned” and that McFadden’s speech was “an unfortunate occurrence.” On December 20, The Times commented on the editorial page, under the headline, “McFadden Again”, “The speech ought to insure the Senate ratification of Mr. Meyer as head of the Federal Reserve. The speech was incoherent, as Mr. McFadden’s speeches usually are.” As The Times predicted, Meyer was duly approved by the Senate.”

Secrets of the Federal Reserve London Connection – Eustace Mullins

Rothschild: The Hidden Sovereign Power Behind BIS

Posted on  by The Bernician
With added images and links from Silview.media

In order to prove that the House of Rothschild was the hidden hand behind the founding of the Bank of International Settlements [BIS] in Basle, Switzerland – purportedly the central bank for the central banks, pictured above – the following facts need to be sustained with compelling evidence:

1. The men who founded BIS were working for or with the House of Rothschild when they founded the bank.

2. The governors of the central banks which became members of the BIS board of directors were working for or with the House of Rothschild in their financial policy-making.

3. The House of Rothschild has benefited, whether directly or indirectly, from any aspect of the business conducted by BIS.


BIS was founded by four men on 17/05/1930,: Hjalmar Schacht [Head of Reichsbank], Charles G Dawes [Chairman of City National Bank], Owen D Young [founder of RCA and chairman of General Electric] and Montague Norman [governor of the Bank of England and partner in JP Morgan].

From the founding of the bank until at least 1939, Schacht worked closely with Jacob Schiff, the Warburgs and Montague Norman, in funneling Wall Street and City of London money into Hitler’s rearmament program; as is documented in Professor Antony Sutton’s painstaking work, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler:

“In October 1931, Warburg received a letter from Hitler which he passed on to Carter at Guaranty Trust Company, and subsequently another bankers’ meeting was called at the Guaranty Trust Company offices. Opinions at this meeting were divided. “Sidney Warburg” reported that Rockefeller, Carter, and McBean were for Hitler, while the other financiers were uncertain.

Montague Norman of the Bank of England and Glean of Royal Dutch Shell argued that the $10 million already spent on Hitler was too much, that Hitler would never act. The meeting finally agreed in principle to assist Hitler further, and Warburg again undertook a courier assignment and went back to Germany.

On this trip Warburg reportedly discussed German affairs with “a Jewish banker” in Hamburg, with an industrial magnate, and other Hitler supporters.

One meeting was with banker von Heydt and a “Luetgebrunn.” The latter stated that the Nazi storm troopers were incompletely equipped and the S.S. badly needed machine guns, revolvers, and carbines.”

This evidence shows that the transfers of those funds into the accounts held in trust by BIS for Hitler’s regime were all facilitated by the Warburgs, a family which long ago assimilated itself into the House of Rothschild by marriage and without whom the Rothschild’s hand in world affairs would not have been capable of remaining hidden for so long.

It is therefore fair to deduce from this circumstantial evidence alone that the Warburgs were acting as Rothschild proxies in the financing of Hitler’s rise to power, in which they were aided and abetted by at least two of the four BIS founders, in Schacht and Norman.

Paul Warburg was also the driving force behind the creation of the US Federal Reserve, which congressman Charles Lindbergh described as: “…the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson] signs this Bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalised… The greatest crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill.”

Warburg’s reward for bringing into being the U.S. Federal Reserve was to be its first chairman. While speaking before the House Committee on Banking and Currency in 1913, he confessed that, having emigrated to America in 1902, following an extensive education in international banking in Europe, he became a partner of Kuhn, Loeb & Co, which was to become a Rothschild-controlled shareholder of the American central bank.

It is self-evident that the education Warburg received was given by the Rothschilds, just as it was given to Jacob Schiff whilst he lived at their Frankfurt home before emigrating to America.

Between the American Civil War and the beginning of the First World War, the main U.S. agents of the Rothschild Empire were JP Morgan, Abraham Kuhn and Solomon Loeb. Newsweek magazine published a brief history of Kuhn, Loeb & Co on February 1st 1936, which stated:

“Abraham Kuhn and Solomon Loeb were general merchandise merchants in Lafayette, Indiana, in 1850. As usual in newly settled regions, most transactions were on credit. They soon found out that they were bankers…

In 1867, they established Kuhn, Loeb and Co., bankers, in New York City, and took in a young German immigrant, Jacob Schiff, as partner. Young Schiff had important financial connections in Europe.

After ten years, Jacob Schiff was head of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., Kuhn having retired. Under Schiff’s guidance, the house brought European capital into contact with American industry.”

Those European “financial connections” were the Rothschilds, in whose Frankfurt house Jacob Schiff was purportedly educated; and their German partners, the M.M. Warburg Company of Hamburg and Amsterdam, who were and remain but an extension of the same all-powerful banking house – Rothschild by anther name.

During the latter decades of the previous century, the Rothschilds provided John D. Rockefeller with enough finance to develop and dramatically expand his Standard Oil business. The mechanics of the investment were performed by the Warburgs and Jacob Schiff at Kuhn Loeb, who also financed Edward Harriman’s and Andrew Carnegie’s rail-road and steel empires; whilst JP Morgan’s empire was founded on credit extended by the Rothschild-controlled bank in New York.

It naturally follows that, on the basis that the names of Warburg, Morgan and Schiff are synonymous with that of Rothschild, the banking house is widely considered to have power, control or undue influence over every member of the Federal Reserve board, as well as the selection of its chairman.

In August 1976, the House Banking Committee Staff Report was published, detailing the history of the board members of the Federal Reserve, a portion of which can be seen below:

 N.M. Rothschild , London - Bank of England
                                 ______________________________________
                                |                                     |
                                |                           J. Henry Schroder     

                                |                             Banking | Corp.
                                |                                     |
                          Brown, Shipley - Morgan Grenfell - Lazard - |
                           & Company        & Company       Brothers  |
                                |               |              |      |
            --------------------|        -------|              |      |
            |                   |        |      |              |      |
 Alex Brown - Brown Bros. - Lord Mantagu - Morgan et Cie -- Lazard ---| 
 & Son      |  Harriman       Norman     |    Paris          Bros     |
            |                   |        /      |            N.Y.     |
            |                   |       |       |              |      |
            |            Governor, Bank | J.P. Morgan Co -- Lazard ---| 
            |            of England    /  N.Y. Morgan       Freres    |   
            |            1924-1938    /   Guaranty Co.      Paris     |
            |                        /    Morgan Stanley Co.  |      / 
            |                       /           |              \Schroder Bank   
            |                      /            |              Hamburg/Berlin
            |                     /      Drexel & Company         /  
            |                    /       Philadelphia            / 
            |                   /                               /
            |                  /                           Lord Airlie
            |                 /                               /
            |                /     M. M. Warburg       Chmn J. Henry Schroder
            |                |      Hamburg ---------  marr. Virginia F. Ryan
            |                |         |               grand-daughter of Otto
            |                |         |                Kahn of Kuhn Loeb Co.
            |                |         |                        
            |                |         |                        
Lehman Brothers N.Y -------------- Kuhn Loeb Co. N. Y.                         
            |                |     --------------------------                     
   µ
            |                |       |                      |                     
           8
            |                |       |                      |
Lehman Brothers - Mont. Alabama   Solomon Loeb           Abraham Kuhn
            |                |     __|______________________|_________
Lehman-Stern, New Orleans   Jacob Schiff/Theresa Loeb  Nina Loeb/Paul Warburg
-------------------------    |       |                      |
             |               | Mortimer Schiff        James Paul Warburg
_____________|_______________/       |
|            |          |   |        |
Mayer Lehman |     Emmanuel Lehman    \
|            |          |              \
Herbert Lehman     Irving Lehman        \
|            |          |                \
Arthur Lehman \    Phillip Lehman     John Schiff/Edith Brevoort Baker
              /         |             Present Chairman Lehman Bros
             /  Robert Owen Lehman    Kuhn Loeb - Granddaughter of
            /           |             George F. Baker
           |           /               |
           |          /                |
           |         /           Lehman Bros Kuhn Loeb (1980)
           |        /                  |
           |       /             Thomas Fortune Ryan
           |      |                    |
           |      |                    |
      Federal Reserve Bank Of New York |
           ||||||||                    |
  ______National City Bank N. Y.       |
  |        |                           |
  |   National Bank of Commerce N.Y ---|
  |        |                            \
  |   Hanover National Bank N.Y.         \
  |        |                              \
  |   Chase National Bank N.Y.             \
  |                                        |
  |                                        |
Shareholders - National City Bank - N.Y.   | 
-----------------------------------------  |  
  |                                        /
James Stillman                            /
Elsie m. William Rockefeller             /
Isabel m.  Percy Rockefeller            / 
William Rockefeller          Shareholders - National Bank of Commerce N. Y.   
J. P. Morgan                 -----------------------------------------------
M.T. Pyne                    Equitable Life - J.P. Morgan
Percy Pyne                   Mutual Life - J.P. Morgan
J.W. Sterling                H.P. Davison - J. P. Morgan
NY Trust/NY Edison           Mary W. Harriman
Shearman & Sterling          A.D. Jiullard - North British Merc. Insurance
|                            Jacob Schiff
|                            Thomas F. Ryan
|                            Paul Warburg
|                            Levi P. Morton - Guaranty Trust - J. P. Morgan
|
|
Shareholders - First National Bank of N.Y.
-------------------------------------------
J.P. Morgan
George F. Baker
George F. Baker Jr.
Edith Brevoort Baker
US Congress - 1946-64
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders - Hanover National Bank N.Y.
------------------------------------------
James Stillman
William Rockefeller
|
|
|
|
|
Shareholders - Chase National Bank N.Y.
---------------------------------------
George F. Baker

The chart above first published 1976, reveals the linear connection between the Rothschilds and the Bank of England, and the London banking houses which ultimately control the Federal Reserve Banks through their stockholdings of bank stock and their subsidiary firms in New York. The two principal Rothschild representatives in New York, J. P. Morgan Co., and Kuhn,Loeb & Co. were the firms which set up the Jekyll Island Conference at which the Federal Reserve Act was drafted, who directed the subsequent successful campaign to have the plan enacted into law by Congress, and who purchased the controlling amounts of stock in the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 1914. These firms had their principal officers appointed to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the Federal Advisory Council in 1914. In 1914 a few families (blood or business related) owning controlling stock in existing banks (such as in New York City) caused those banks to purchase controlling shares in the Federal Reserve regional banks. Examination of the charts and text in the House Banking Committee Staff Report of August, 1976 and the current stockholders list of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks show this same family control.
Source: Federal Reserve Directors: A Study of Corporate and Banking Influence. Staff Report, Committee on Banking,Currency and Housing, House of Representatives, 94th Congress, 2nd Session, August 1976.

In the event this table is accurate [and there is no reason to believe it is not], there is not one individual or bank or investment company included that could not be considered a Rothschild interest, whether by partnership, investment, lending, commissioning or founding, at the time the Federal Reserve Act was passed into law.

Back in 1907, before the creation of the Federal Reserve, Rothschild-controlled Kuhn Loeb chief, Jacob Schiff, warned the New York Chamber of Commerce that:

“…unless we have a Central Bank with adequate control of credit resources, this country is going to undergo the most severe and far reaching money panic in its history.”

Not long after this speech, the Rothschilds’ agents created a financial panic on Wall Street by making margin calls on the market’s biggest borrowers, just as Nathan Rothschild did by selling government bonds low in the aftermath of the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, both of which resulted in an enormous transfer of wealth to the international bankers during the financial panics that ensued.

Reflecting upon the 1907 panic, Paul Warburg, when speaking to the Banking and Currency Committee, confirmed that he was a driving force behind the Aldrich Plan for the creation of a privately owned US central bank:

“In the Panic of 1907, the first suggestion I made was, “let us have a national clearing house” [Central Bank]. The Aldrich Plan [for a Central Bank] contains many things that are simply fundamental rules of banking. Your aim must be the same.”

In addition to this compelling evidence of the hidden hand of Rothschild influence and control, the Telegraph newspaper published an article on 31/07/2013, detailing the revelations contained in documents released by the Bank of England, concerning the transfer of Czech gold to the Reichsbank BIS account. The article stated:

“The documents reveal a shocking story: just six months before Britain went to war with Nazi Germany, the Bank of England willingly handed over £5.6 million worth of gold to Hitler – and it belonged to another country.

The official history of the bank, written in 1950 but posted online for the first time on Tuesday, reveals how we betrayed Czechoslovakia – not just with the infamous Munich agreement of September 1938, which allowed the Nazis to annex the Sudetenland, but also in London, where Montague Norman, the eccentric but ruthless governor of the Bank of England agreed to surrender gold owned by the National Bank of Czechoslovakia.

The Czechoslovak gold was held in London in a sub-account in the name of the Bank for International Settlements, the Basel-based bank for central banks. When the Nazis marched into Prague in March 1939 they immediately sent armed soldiers to the offices of the National Bank. The Czech directors were ordered, on pain of death, to send two transfer requests.

The first instructed the BIS to transfer 23.1 metric tons of gold from the Czechoslovak BIS account, held at the Bank of England, to the Reichsbank BIS account, also held at Threadneedle Street.

The second order instructed the Bank of England to transfer almost 27 metric tons of gold held in the National Bank of Czechoslovakia’s own name to the BIS’s gold account at the Bank of England.”

In more simplistic terms, Montague Norman transferred 21 tonnes of Czech gold held by BIS in a Bank of England account, to a Reichsbank account it also held in trust at the English central bank, in order that his friend and fellow central bank head Schacht could finance the final stages of the rearmament of Hitler’s Germany; in addition to transferring 27 tonnes of Czech gold into another BIS account held at the Bank of England, for purposes we can realistically suppose were of a similar criminal nature.

Before any further investigations, it is already clear that Schacht and Norman, the governors of the Reichsbank and the Bank of England respectively, turned a blind eye to a massive theft of wealth from a sovereign nation, to provide arms for the Hitler’s Reich, for whom the drums of war had been beating since 1930. This was done in their unaccountable capacities as trustees of BIS national accounts.

Whilst there is a mountain of additional evidence, for the purposes of this essay, it has already been shown that, on the balance of probabilities, two of the four men who founded BIS were working for or with the House of Rothschild, on the ground that all of the money transferred to Schacht’s Reichbank was sent by Rothschild proxy, Jacob Schiff [or his agents] at Kuhn Loeb; whilst the gold transfer from the Bank of England was authorised by Schacht’s fellow BIS founder, Montague, who both must have known that Hitler’s troops had invaded Prague and that the Czech government would never have consented to gifting such a vast amount of gold to Hitler’s Reich and BIS at the time the transfer was sanctioned.

The only question remaining is whether the House of Rothschild has benefited from the operations of BIS, but the answer arises swiftly from a summary of the answers to the other two questions posed.

We have already established that Schacht and Montague co-founded BIS in 1930 and were carrying out Nazi money laundering operations for Rothschild interests, MM Warburg and Kuhn Loeb; and that Paul Warburg was appointed the first chairman of the Federal Reserve in 1914, after the Act he drafted was passed into law; so it is reasonable to assert that the House of Rothschild benefited from these events in the following ways:

1. A Rothschild agent was placed in charge of the issue of American credit, at the helm of a new privately owned US central bank, the board of which was entirely made up of the representatives of Rothschild interests. This meant that when the heads of the central banks were appointed to the BIS board of directors, Rothschild agents were guaranteed influence over the bank’s operations.

2. This sequence of events significantly increased Rothschild influence and power over both the US Government and the European nations who needed BIS to facilitate loans to their central banks in order to wage WWII; the evidence of which can still be seen today in the form of Donald Trump’s Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, who worked for Rothschild Inc for three decades, as well as Rothschild controlled President Macron of France.

3. The House of Rothschild clearly used their agents, Schacht, Montague, Warburg and Schiff, to fund both sides in WWII in order to provide the circumstances required for the creation of the Zionist state of Israel; which could not have been achieved with such efficiency and secrecy without the participation of BIS, the sovereign bank which grants the protection of immunity from criminal prosecution to any Rothschild agent appointed to the board or to act as its representative, under the terms its Headquarters Agreement with the Swiss Federal Council. This allows Rothschild operations to be carried out above and beyond any legal jurisdiction or national government scrutiny.

There is a veritable plethora of evidence which would further substantiate the logical assertion that the Rothschilds have benefited, both directly and indirectly, from the operations of the Bank of International Settlements since its creation, but the compelling sources cited in the foregoing passages substantiate that in and of themselves.

The inescapable conclusion is therefore that BIS is and always has been a House of Rothschild interest, despite the fact that the evidence is disguised by the governors of the world’s central banks sitting on the board, every one of which is controlled in much the same way the Rothschilds control the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve. A rigged system in their favour, if ever there was one.

To be continued?
Our work and existence, as media and people, is funded solely by our most generous readers and we want to keep this way.
Help SILVIEW.media survive and grow, please donate here, anything helps. Thank you!

! Articles can always be subject of later editing as a way of perfecting them