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”.

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.

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

This territory is the birthplace of the Chabad guru, rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson, of the first mayor of Tel-Aviv and ofKlezmer music. Also a good home to Trotsky, for a while.
It was meant to be a second Palestine, but Stalin ruined their plans.
And the only gentile I know that got this far with his research on this topic was murdered.

ABSTRACT

SHARE

PREAMBLE

  1. Zelensky is controlled by Chabad.
  2. Putin is controlled by Chabad.
  3. Chabad doesn’t argue itself.
  4. Chabad doesn’t find a peace resolution in Ukraine.

_______________________________________
Conclusion: The resolution is war.

Which would explain why Russia doesn’t seem to hurry or throw its best resources into this pit.

Groomers admit Russia is throwing 50 years-old junk in Ukraine, then struggle to spin it

If Chabad wins either way, who loses either way?

The local population, the dead ones especially. The ones in the separatist regions and the South most specifically, as they’re the only Ukrainians shelled by Ukrainian Army rather than by the “invaders”.
But the ripples are global and can be manipulated in more ways than we can imagine.

“Be cursed, Zelensky!” shout the Mariupol people you won’t see on JTV

Doesn’t that victimized local population include lots of Chabad / Jews?

Not quite, they’re mostly gone by now, but promise to return, as this Kharkov Chabad rabbi announced on April 22, 2022:

Who are the Jews of Ukraine, according to Chabad.org :


“Today, Ukraine boasts a thriving Jewish infrastructure that includes synagogues, mikvahs, a matzah bakery, Jewish schools and yeshivahs, and social services organizations. The first permanent post-Perestroika Chabad-Lubavitch emissaries to Ukraine arrived in 1990 to what was still the Soviet Union, and began leading the synagogues in Kharkov and Dnipro (Dnepropetrovsk until 2014) that had just been returned to the Jewish community by the authorities. Their work built on Chabad’s deep roots in the region, including decades of underground Jewish activism throughout the Soviet era.

Chabad maintains Jewish orphanages in Zhitomir—the children were evacuated farther west this week—Odessa, and Dnipro. It is far from only relief work that they are engaged in. As the quality of life in Ukraine has risen, so has the quality of Jewish life. Chabad maintains a Jewish university in Odessa and has built the largest Jewish center in the world in Dnipro. Kosher restaurants dot the country as well, signaling a level of material and spiritual comfort few could have predicted just a few decades ago.

According to the United States Holocaust Memorial Musuem, prior to Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, “Ukraine was home to the largest Jewish population in Europe… While scholars are still researching the scale of the Holocaust in Ukraine, they estimate at least one and a half million Jews were killed there.” The Nazis, with the help of local collaborators, gathered Ukraine’s Jews in local ghettos, but, for the most part, instead of deporting them to camps, shot them in forests and fields close to home. Such killing fields dot the entire Ukraine, with places such as Babi Yar outside of Kiev—where some 40,000 Jews were murdered—among the most well-known.

Many surviving Jews returned home after the war, and traces of the former Pale of Settlement were readily visible as late as the 1980s and early 90s. Back then, small, historically Jewish towns in western Ukraine still had synagogues and significant numbers of native Yiddish speakers, their concentration diminishing the farther east one went. When Chabad of Zhitomir was established in the early 1990s by Rabbi Shlomo and Esther Wilhelm, one of their responsibilities was to reach out to the dozens of smaller Jewish towns where throngs of older Jews still lived.” – Chabad.org

What I pictured so far suggests an ethnically targeted depopulation agenda and a revenge agenda that don’t argue, just may overlap with other agendas. A reverse pogrom.

Goyim depopulation operation going well in Ukraine


Depop policies are not entirely new to them, Ukraine has hardly survived through Holodomor once, under the helms of Jews…

“Last July, the Ukrainian Security Service released a list of high-ranking Soviet state and Communist Party officials — as well as officials from NKVD, the police force of Soviet Russia — that essentially blamed Jews and Latvians responsible for perpetrating and executing the famine because most of the names on the list were Jewish.”

JEWISH TELEPGRAPHIC AGENCY, JUNE 15, 2009

“Zelensky told reporters that he had asked Netanyahu to recognize as a genocide the 1932 Holodomor famine caused by Soviet policies, but Netanyahu did not.”

JEWISH TELEPGRAPHIC AGENCY, AUG 20, 2019


But why just those specific areas, what do they have in common?

Well, it seems the disputed territory map largely overlaps with a former area of high Jewish interest:


Rare documents and press reports tell a rare story.

A CRAZY HIDDEN STORY OF ROTHSCHILD-WARBURG PROTO-COMMUNISM

THE LIFE STORY OF SHMUEL YELISHEVITCH
Related orally in Yiddish by Shmuel Yelishevitch in 1992, at the age of 92.
This written record was translated simultaneously from Yiddish and written in Hebrew.[Translated by Chaim Freedman, 1998/9]

I was born in a Jewish house, father, mother and seven children. I was the youngest of the six sons and the daughter who was the firstborn. We lived in an old house on an estate called Azarevitch. The estate had a Russian landowner and we worked his land. When we built a larger house, my grandfather and grandmother continued to live in the old house. Grandfather was a religious Jew and attended the synagogue every day which was one kilometer from the house. One day, a severe winter day, on the way home from the synagogue he fell and broke his foot. Due to his inability to work he wanted to move to his son Gotlieb who lived close to the synagogue. Grandmother was afraid to sleep alone in the house at night. She paid me two kopecks per night so that I should stay with her. I was then aged six and grandmother told me each evening about the history of the family which is engraved in my memory.

The Colonies

The estate was founded in 1800 before which it was desolate. Rothschild, who was friendly with Queen Katerina was aware of the difficult life of the Jews in Polotsk and in Vitebsk and it was forbidden for them to live in the villages unless they were craftsmen. In the same period army service in Russia was by those who were abducted whose service was for twenty five years.

Rothschild approached the Queen Katerina and suggested to her to grant the Jews an area of land and he would finance the settlement of Jews there. The idea found favor with the queen, she visited the Ukraine, passed through the steppes and discovered that it was desolate and uncultivated. She suggested to Rothschild to accompany her and visit the area and it was decided to establish Jewish colonies in that area. She promulgated an order to divide the area such that each family would receive a plot of land and that those families who settled there would not be enlisted in the army.

That is how they established seventeen settlements of one to two hundred families each. The largest colony was called Bakher3. Others were called Latent4, Engels, Myadler, Peness, Di Vilner, Kabilni, Gravskoy, these were on one side.On the other side there were, amongst them, Horkes, Nazrivka ( in Yiddish Azeritch where I was born), Priud, Kavalevsk, Haloshkas, Pervi (2) numer, Dritten (3) numer, Numer (4) Ferten numer, Hopalover. In between an area of sixty kilometers there were also Russian villages.
Every family received forty kilometers of land, a two-family house and next to it for each family, a dunam of land to grow household needs. Two thousand dunams was left in reserve for family expansion.
SOURCE

Felix Warburg Expresses Satisfaction with Jewish Settlements in Crimea

JTA, May 19, 1927

The inspection tour of the new Jewish colonies made by Felix M. Warburg and his party came to a close today with a visit to the Julius Rosenwahl Colony.

Of the 136 new Jewish colonies, 27 were visited by, Mr Warburg, who was accompanied by James II. Becker, Dr. Bernard Kahn and Dr. Joseph A. Rosen, head of the Agro-joint in Russia. In addresses to the settlers, Mr. Warburg expressed his pleasure at the rate of development and at the energy and efficiency of the colonists and the management of the Agro-joint, the agency of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee responsible for the colonization work.

What a fantastic year for mr. Felix!

And these two had more brothers, one of them, called Max, was dealing i the same money and people trafficking business “niche”:

“Together with his brother Felix M. Warburg, who was a successful banker in the U.S., Max M. Warburg organized financial aid for Jews in Eastern Europe. As the war led to increasing antisemitism, Warburg started to ask officials to protect Jews against discrimination. During the war Warburg came to be one of the leading figures to advise German politicians, diplomats, and the military in financial matters. In October 1918 he was appointed a financial advisor to the chancellor (Reichskanzler) Prinz Max von Baden. In 1919, Warburg served the German delegates during the negotiations on the Versailles peace treaty as an economic specialist. Warburg preferred to keep a low profile. When Walther *Rathenau asked him in early 1922 to join the cabinet (Reichsregierung) as minister of finance he refused, saying that two Jewish ministers would be too much for Germany. After the assassination of Rathenau the murderers planned also to kill Warburg. In 1924 he was appointed a member of the board (Generalrat) of the Reichsbank. The Warburg Bank was still one of the most important banking companies in Germany. From the late 1920s on Warburg intensified his interest in Zionism.

From World War I on, his brothers Felix M. and Paul M. Warburg opened the doors to the leading financial circles in North America for their brother. This was – again – especially helpful, when Germany urgently needed fresh capital during the world economic crisis between 1930 and 1932. After the Nazis came to power in Germany, the Warburg Bank came under increasing pressure. Max M. Warburg focused on helping Jewish emigrants to get their money out of Germany via the Palaestina-Treuhand GmbH. After the Warburg Bank was closed by the National Socialists, Warburg himself immigrated in 1938 to New York, where he died.”

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

M.M. Warburg, Aus meinen Erinnerungen (1952, edited by Eric M. Warburg); E. Rosenbaum et al., Das Bankhaus M.M. Warburg & Co. 1798 bis 1938 (1976); R. Chernow, The Warburgs (1993).


Sources: Encyclopaedia Judaica

If this is how they treated their home-country, Germany, how much can you hope from them for America and the Federal Reserve?
Or Ukraine…

WARBURG WHO?
WARBURG FEDERAL RESERVE

Previously on SILVIEW.media: “THE QUESTION IS ONLY WHETHER WORLD GOVERNMENT WILL BE ACHIEVED BY CONSENT OR BY CONQUEST” – WARBURG / ROTHSCHILD PROGENITURE IN 1950 US SENATE HEARINGS

AND MR. FED REPORTED TO…

On December 15, 1931, 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.”

Eustace Mullins – Secrets of the Federal Reserve London Connection

From Wikipedia:
Kuhn, Loeb & Co. was an American multinational investment bank founded in 1867 by Abraham Kuhn and his brother-in-law Solomon Loeb.[1] Under the leadership of Jacob H. Schiff, Loeb’s son-in-law, it grew to be one of the most influential investment banks in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, financing America’s expanding railways and growth companies, including Western Union and Westinghouse, and thereby becoming the principal rival of J.P. Morgan & Co.

In the years following Schiff’s death in 1920, the firm was led by Otto Kahn and Felix Warburg, men who had already solidified their roles as Schiff’s able successors. However, the firm’s fortunes began to fade following World War II, when it failed to keep pace with a rapidly changing investment banking industry, in which Kuhn, Loeb’s old-world, genteel ways, did not seem to fit; the days of the gentleman-banker had passed.

The firm lost its independence from the Bulge Bracket in 1977 when it merged with Lehman Brothers, creating Lehman Brothers, Kuhn, Loeb Inc. The combined firm was itself acquired in 1984 by American Express, forming Shearson Lehman/American Express and with that, the Kuhn, Loeb name was retired.

History

Kuhn, Loeb & Co. was an investment bank located in New York City. It was founded in 1867, by Abraham Kuhn and Solomon Loeb. Kuhn and Loeb had created a successful merchandising business in CincinnatiOhio, when they decided to move east, to New York, to take advantage of the country’s burgeoning economic expansion. Company records indicate that by the time Kuhn and Loeb established their partnership, they were able to capitalize it at $500,000 (equivalent of about $9.7 million in 2021). On January 1, 1875, Jacob Schiff (1847–1920), Solomon Loeb’s son-in-law, joined the firm. He eventually became its leader and grew the firm into the second most prestigious investment bank in the United States behind J. Pierpont Morgan’s J.P. Morgan & Co.
….

It also acted as the leading investment house for John D. Rockefeller, through the guidance of his investment adviser, Frederick T. Gates. Rockefeller invested in many syndicates with the bank, including major stakes in the prominent railroad companies, as well as contributing to its consolidation of the Chicago meatpackers, which resulted in the formation of a leading trust. Overseas ventures that Rockefeller also got involved with included the bank’s loans to the Chinese and Imperial Japanese governments.

The firm also joined a partnership with Rockefeller in 1911 to gain control of the Equitable Trust Company, which was later to merge and become the Chase Bank.[2]

Famous partners of the firm included Otto KahnPaul WarburgFelix WarburgMortimer SchiffBenjamin Buttenwieser, Abraham Wolff, Lewis Strauss, and Sigmund Warburg, founder of S.G. Warburg.

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…

Although the Kuhn, Loeb name is probably gone forever, the firm’s legacy is not. Former Kuhn, Loeb employees remain in senior positions throughout Wall Street, and until recently, at Lehman Brothers. Vestiges of the firm survived in the form of Lehman Brothers’ extensive fixed income capabilities, including many of their bond indices, such as the Government/Credit index. This index, originally created in 1973 by Kuhn, Loeb, as the Government/Corporate index, was among the first generation of bond index data to measure the fixed income market. It is still the preeminent benchmark in its class.

Longest Serving Partners: Jacob H. Schiff (45 years), Felix M. Warburg (40 years)

Clients of the Firm

And the Warburgs report to…

Then came Purim. Firstly we baked Homentashen, filled with poppy seed, with raisins, with plums. We went to Shule `to kill’ Haman. The children used their `Gregers'(# noisemakers) when they heard his `holy’name. In the morning we sent `Sholekh Mones’. On two trays were arranged all sorts of good things, covered with a white cloth. The children took firstly to Grandfather and Grandmother. Father and mother had sent `Sholokh Mones’. Grandmother took off the trays what the children had brought and put all sorts of her good things. And Grandfather gave a few koppecks. We felt so rich, like Rothschild. We went home happy.

THE MEMOIRS OF ROKHEL LUBAN
Rokhel Luban was born in 1898 in the Jewish agricultural colony called Trudoliubovka (also known to the Jews as Engels) in the government of Yekaterinoslav in the southeastern Ukraine.

Ukraine stats

  • The latest population estimate for Ukraine is 42,800,000.
  • As of 1 January 2016, the core Jewish population of Ukrainians was estimated to be 56,000 (0.13% of the wider population) and the enlarged Jewish population was estimated at 140,000.
  • An estimated 200,000 Ukrainians qualify for Israeli citizenship under the Law of Return.
  • The largest Jewish population centres in Ukraine are Kiev, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov and Odessa.

The paragraph below is from Introduction to the Study of the Jewish Agricultural Colonies in the Ukraine by Chaim Freedman, written in 2005. Since then, under the lead of Sylvia Walowitz, Jewish Gen has added a large digital database Courland-Kherson Jewish Relocation 1837-1840 (lists searchable in Latvia and Ukraine databases on Jewish Gen http://www.jewishgen.org).

“In the late 18th century large areas of territories in south-east Ukraine came under the control of the Russian Tsarist regime. At that time this area was known as Novorussia (New Russia) and was divided roughly into three Guberniyas (provinces): Kherson, Yekaterinoslav and Tavritch (the latter included the Crimean peninsula and part of the adjacent mainland). The Russian government was anxious to develop this region by settlement from the rest of the Russian Empire. At the same time the government sought a way to relieve itself of the so-called “Jewish Question”, particularly in what are now Lithuania, Latvia and Belarus. With the accession of Tsar Alexander the First, legislation was passed to define and partially relieve the situation of the Jews. One objective of this legislation was to encourage Jews to leave the crowded and economically poor centers in the north and establish new settlements in Novorussia. Those Jews who qualified to be included in this enterprise were promised financial support to set up agricultural colonies, with the added incentive of exemption from military service (the period of exemption changed at various times throughout the 19th century).”

Russian Jewish agricultural colonies became models for communal agricultural efforts worldwide. Karl Marx cited the kolonii as examples of workers taking control and lifting themselves up through hard work. Zionists in the early 20th century used Russian kolonii as models for Kibbutzim in Israel, particularly in the Second Aliyah after 1904. After the Russian Revolution of 1917, the Bolshevik government carried out collectivization efforts during 1920–1938, see Komzet and OZET. Many kolonii became kolkhozes during this period.

Wikipedia

A more detailed but very brushed history of the colonies is available in the Jewish Encyclopedia.

See also

List of Jewish Agricultural Colonies

Map of the Jewish settlements in Crimea for December 17, 1926
SOURCE

Ekaterinoslav (Dnyepopetrovsk) Gubernia

  • Alexandrovsk (Zaporozhe)
  • Andreyevka
  • Bakkers (Zatishe)
  • Bogodarovka (Novodarovka, Kovilevsk)
  • Donetsk (Yuzovka, Stalino)
  • Gaichul (Hichur, Novoukrainka)
  • Gorykaya (Nazarevitch)
  • Gottland
  • Grafskoy (Prolotarsky)
  • Grunau
  • Gulaipole
  • Karla Leibnekta
  • Khlebodarovka (Suntsove)
  • Krasnoselka (Driternumer)
  • Ludvigstahl
  • Marienfeld (Marinopol)
  • Marionovka
  • Mariupol
  • Mezheritch (Ferternumer)
  • Nadeshnaya (Der Vilner)
  • Nechayevka ( Gorki, Peness)
  • Melitopol
  • Mikhailovka
  • NovoZlatopol (Pervernumer)
  • Orekhov
  • Priyutnaya (Takni)
  • Reichenfeld (Shirokoye)
  • Roskoshnoye (Galushkes)
  • Rovnopol (Lates)
  • Rozovka
  • Sladkovodnaya (Kobilnye)
  • Tokmak
  • Trudoliubovka (Engels)
  • Tsarakonstantinovka (Kubishevo, Kamenka)
  • Vasilkovka
  • Velikomikhaylovka
  • Veselaya (Hoopolova)
  • Zaparozhe (Aleksandrovsk)
  • Zatishye (Bakhers)
  • Zelenopole (Myadler)
  • Dribovka

Kherson Gubernia

  • Berislaw
  • Bolshoi Nagartav
  • Bolshoi Sedeimenukha
  • Bobovri Kut
  • Dibrovka
  • Dobraya
  • Efingar
  • Inguletz
  • Israelovka
  • Izluchistoye
  • Lvovo
  • Malaya Nagaratav
  • Malaya Sedeimenukha
  • Novo Berislav
  • Novo Poldol’skiy
  • Novopoltavka
  • Novo Vitebsk
  • Lvovo
  • Romanovka
  • Volnaya

Tavrida Gubernia

  • Berdyansk

Jewish Colonies

Now let’s do a little Jewish Ukraine Travel:

Mykolaiv

Mykolaiv has had a Jewish population since its founding, and Jewish laborers were involved in its construction. Aside from construction work, many merchants came to the city in order to build businesses selling to the Navy and its sailors. However, Jews were banned from Mykolaiv from 1829-1859, during the reign of the arch-conservative Emperor Nicholas I.

Mykolaiv’s most famous son is Menachem Mendel Schneerson (1902-1994), probably the most important religious figure in 20th century Judaism. His family moved to Yekaterinoslav (Dnipro) in 1907 when his father became the city’s Rabbi. As an adult, he studied in Berlin before the Nazis took power, then went to Paris, where he stayed until the Nazis followed him there as well. The Rebbe escaped to New York on the very eve of the Nazi conquest of Paris. In 1950, he succeeded his father in law to become the seventh leader of Chabad-Lubavitch.

The Rebbe was most influential through his innovations in the field of Kiruv, or outreach. Chabad Houses are found all over the world, and their members are a frequent site handing out shabbat candles and helping men wrap tefilin. Their website is a fantastic resource for Jewish learning as well. Chabad emissaries were sent to Ukraine after the fall of the Soviet Union in order to rebuild Jewish life and most synagogues in the country are Chabad-affiliated. His enormous personal magnetism allowed him to build relationships both across the spectrum of Jewish observance and into the non-Jewish world.

DSC03878.jpg

Another famous Jew, though one with a more spotted reputation, who passed through Mykolaiv was Leon Trotsky. Trotsky moved to Mykolaiv as a young adult and began his career as a revolutionary organizing other workers here in 1896. He would later go on to lead the Bolshevik Red Army during the Civil War and was a favored candidate to succeed Lenin, but lost the power struggle to Joseph Stalin. He would then go into exile in Mexico before Stalin had him assassinated.

 

KHERSON

Located at the mouth of the Dnipro River, the most important trade and transport artery in Ukraine, Kherson was originally envisioned as the heart of the Russian Empire’s expansion on the Black Sea Coast. So much so that it is the final resting place of Grigory Potemkin, the Prince who oversaw the conquest and colonization of the region. However, the Dnipro estuary proved to be too shallow to be as useful of a port, so the city became eclipsed by neighboring Mykolaiv and Odessa.

The Map of Jewish Agricultural Colonies of Kherson Guberniya
Ed. note: The colony Vol’naya is not specified on a map because of its isolated position. This colony was located north west of Odessa.
SOURCE

Jews settled in Kherson as soon as the city was founded, and soon made up a large percentage of the city’s merchants. Lumber and grain export were the largest businesses. Outside of the city itself, Kherson region hosted several Jewish agricultural colonies.

The main synagogue of the city, located at Teatralna Street 27, was originally constructed in 1895, but was burned down during the Nazi occupation. After renovating the building, the Soviet authorities turned it into a dormitory for workers at the Petrovsky factory, then later a ward for treating alcoholics. It was handed back to the Jewish community after Ukrainian independence in 1991. It is now renovated and fully operational, with a school and several community organizations.

DSC04003.jpg

Kherson oblast is the second least densely populated in Ukraine, and is home to many sites for nature tourism. These include Oleshky Sands, the largest desert in Europe, Askania Nova Nature Preserve, Dzharylhak National Nature Park, and the Dead Sea-like salt pools surrounding Lake Syvash.

 CHABAD IN KHERSON

MELITOPOL

Melitopol is a moderately sized city in the south of Zaporizhia Oblast that has some of the oldest archaeological finds in Ukraine. The Kamyana Mohyla site, in the outlying village of Myrne, was a religious site from the Neolitic era up through the Medieval period. Before the Russian conquest, the city was a fortified town of the Nogai Turks called Kyzyl-Yar. As the Russian Empire took over the lands of the Crimean Khanate, it became a small village occupied by Cossack families.

In 1842, Melitopol was given its status as a city along with its name, which is Greek for Honey City. Melitopol is still famous for producing honey, as well as cherries. By the late 19th century, it was roughly 40% Jewish. While nearly all of Melitopol’s Jews were killed in the Holocaust and the city is now predominantly ethnic Ukrainian and Russian, they are proud of their diverse roots and are a participant in the Council of Europe’s Intercultural City Program.

Melitopol Synagogue is located on Interkulturna Street, in between Chernyshevs’koho and Mykhaila Hrushevskoho. There is also a memorial to Holocaust victims and the Righteous Among Nations. The statue is, in part dedicated to Vera and her Alla Zemtseva, who rescued Zhanna Tsyparska from the fascists.

THE CROWN JEWEL – ODESSA

Although a settlement existed on the site in ancient times, the history of the modern city began in the 14th century when the Tatar fortress of Khadzhibey was established there; it later passed to Lithuania-Poland and in 1480 to Turkey. The fortress was stormed by the Russians in 1789 and the territory ceded to Russia in 1792. A new fortress was built in 1792–93, and in 1794 a naval base and commercial quay were added. In 1795 the new port was named Odesa for the ancient Greek colony of Odessos, the site of which was believed to be in the vicinity.

Encyclopedia Britannica

Tatars are a Turkic nomadic population related to Khazars, and the two could’ve been easily mistaken one for another by ancient historians.

This stream of immigration carried Jews in large numbers into the city. Eventually this would give Odessa one of the largest concentrations of urban Jews to be found anywhere in the world. During the period from 1815 to 1861, the Jewish population rose from under four thousand to well over seventeen thousand individuals. In 1854, seven thousand Jews were citizens of Odessa, while six thousand other Jewish residents were officially considered to belong to other Russian towns. An English traveler observed: “The Jews form the largest portion of the foreign population. … A few are very rich and engage in the banking business; many make large purchases of imported goods from the foreign merchants and sell them retail in their own shops.

Not only did Odessa offer Jews unprecedented economic opportunities and freedom to pursue their own cultural interests, but its liberal atmosphere allowed them some participation in political affairs—a rare prerogative in tsarist Russia. In the 1850s, eleven Jews served in city offices. Both Vorontsov and his successor Stroganov insisted that Jews participate fully in all aspects of the city’s life. This steady influx linked the urban population through familial and other networks with the Jewish settlements in the hinterland. This laid the basis for still more massive immigration after 1861. ” 

Patricia Herlihy, “Odessa: A History 1794-1914”. Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts 

ODESSA ACCORDING TO Cultural Guide to European Jewry – JGuideEurope

SOURCE

Established in 1794, Odessa was captured by Admiral de Ribas from the Turks for Empress Catherine II of Russia. The city developed rapidly during the nineteenth century, largely due to the arrival of colonists from “New Russia”. It soon became a melting pot of Russians, French, Armenians, Poles, Greeks, Moldavians, and Jews. Forbidden to reside in Saint Petersburg, Moscow or Kiev, Jews poured into the southern Russian cities of Odessa and Nikolayev, eventually constituting a third of their population before the Second World War. Even today, Odessa still bears their mark.

A Jewish city

An Odessan was asked one day,
-How many people live in Odessa?
-One million.
-And how many of them are Jews?
-I just told you. One million.

You see, in people’s minds, “Odessan” and “Jews” are often confused.

Jewish Odessa began at the Greek Square (“Gretsk, that’s what they call the street where the Jews do business”, Sholem Aleichem wrote), Alexandrovski Prospect, the old marketplace, and the streets named Evreiskya, Bazamaya, and Malaya-Arnautskaya. It continued on the other side of Preobrajenska Street, down Tiraspolskaya to Staroportofrankovskaya streets, and beyond that to the neighborhood by the train station. It covered the entire Moldavanka suburb, where the famous Privoz market is found, and ended at the Slobodka district, where the deportation convoys waited during the German-Romanian occupation. The Jewish quarter encompassed a tremendous area, in other words, stretching from downtown all the way to the western and northern suburbs. Before the war, 350000 Jews lived here. They number no more than 50000 today.

Odessa, between yesterday and today

Today, only 3% of Odessa’s population is Jewish, approximately 30000 people. However, the city is still seen as one of Europe’s Jewish capitals. When, in 1916, Isaac Babel, wrote about a “city built by Jews”, he didn’t only refer to the number of Jews, but also to the general atmosphere, tolerant toward minorities.

Recently, archaeologists unveiled Jewish tombs dating from 1770, thus proving that a Jewish community existed there before Odessa’s creation. Indeed, in the 18th century, Jews were salt dealers in this province, that was then known under the name Hadjibey. According to the records, before its conquest by Iossif Derbos, about 10 Jews lived in this region. A hundred year later, there were 138000. The first Jewish inhabitants of Odessa came from the Russian Empire’s shtetls, and from the well-known city of Brody in Galicia. A lots of Jews bore the name of the shtetl they originated from.

The first Jewish inhabitants of Odessa were attracted by the privileges offered by the Russian Empire to the volunteers willing to settle in South Russia. For the Jewish community, it meant escaping the oppression they suffered from in the rest of the Empire. In Odessa, Jews were almost equal to other citizens. Therefore, 100 years after its creation, one third of Odessa’s population was Jewish, and became known as “the star of exile”, as Babel described the zionist movement in the city. Let’s add that leaving the shtetl for Odessa meant -in general- an increased quality of life. For some, the possibility of emigrating to Palestine, from a dream, became a reality. The frequent pogroms also fostered the rise of zionism in Odessa. Still, in 1941, half of the population was Jewish.

Life in the different quarters of the city

To the difference of many cities in the Russian Empire, Odessa didn’t have a Jewish quarter. Although some locations such as Moldavanka, Yevreyskaya, Bazarnaya, and Malaya Arnautskaya were at the center of the everyday community life. Being from small communities, the Jewish population tended to reproduce in Odessa the structural system they knew in the shtetl. Everyday life evolved around the synagogue, the mikveh, the school, the kosher butchery and charitable organizations. The first community newspaper was published in 1795.

The community elite was personified by Brodsky’s Jews, seen as the most educated, wealthy and liberals. In general, the European aspiration of the Brodsky Jews, the fact that Odessa was geographically far away from the centers of Judaism, the diversity if nationalities and social classes composing the city : all those elements explain why Odessa’s community was unique.

At the beginning of the 20th century, Odessa became the biggest market for exchanges and buisinesses in South Russia. Jews managed 90% of the seed export business ; owned 50% of the factories ; produced the white stones that served to the city’s construction ; the Korelsky family managed the biggest tobacco factory of the Empire etc…On the other side, one third of the city’s Jews lived in poverty.

The “Gate to Zion”

Historian Steven Zipperstein notes that the history of Odessa’s Jewish community is closer to the one of San Francisco than the one of Kiev. In this port city, the Jews lived without the constraints and limitations of the Russian Empire. They were not isolated and were an active part of the city’s life. The language barrier didn’t apply as well. However, at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, the tolerant and multicultural Odessa was nicknamed “Gate to Zion”. Indeed, it became one of the centers of the zionist movement, and the city where thousands of Jews left to Palestine.

The center of the zionist activity was the “Palestine Committee”. This organization helped the relocation of farm workers and craftsmen in Palestine. The committee was initiated in the 1880s by Lev Pinsker, Ahad Haam, Bialik, Klauzner, or Ben Ami were also part of the board. The members also raised funds to buy lands in Palestine. The land were the Hebraic University of Jerusalem was built was purchased by the committee. This is why Lev Pinsker was displaced there in 1934.

One of the most active members of this committee, Meir Dizengoff, was the first mayor of Tel Aviv. This is merely a coincidence. In some respect, Tel Aviv was built in Odessa. Lilienblum, one the yishuv first journalist, wrote that in Odessa, Jews arrived to the shores of the black sea, built a city and developed a port. If they were able to to that in Odessa, they would achieve their goal on the shores of the Mediterranean as well.

Another center of the zionist activity was the Brodsky synagogue. Around 70 houses were built through fund raising executed by the synagogue. Those buildings were the first of the future city of Nes Ziona.

To properly prepare the future emigrants, an Hebrew-only school was opened in 1903. In the same time, the publishing house Moria published school books in Hebrew and sends them to Tel Aviv.

From 1919 to 1927, the boat Ruslan shipped a numerous part of the Odessa intelligentsia to Palestine. Among them, lots were about to become the leaders of the future Israel.

The State Archives of Odessa Region (SAOF) is one of the largest archives in Southern Ukraine. Document holdings include more than 13,100 fonds (record groups) consisting of more than 2,009,604 files. These documents date back to the end of the eighteenth century until the present and reflect the history of the City of Odessa, Odessa Region and Southern Ukraine (formerly Novorussia). A large number of these documents are concerned with Jewish history.

The State Archives of Odessa Region was founded in 1920 as the Odessa Historical Archives. Its main function was the collection of archival documents in the territory of Odessa and Odessa Guberniya (Province), control under departmental archives, responsibility for the safety of valuable materials and the researching and publication of documents. Many famous scientists, public leaders and officials took part in the establishment of the state archival system in Odessa Region.

SAOR began with 22 fonds and collections from various organizations, agencies, religious institutions that concluded their activities after the revolution.

The main fonds of the pre-revolutionary period were:

• Administration of Novorussia and Bessarabia Governor-General
• Odessa City Chief
• Odessa City Council
• Guardianship Committee for Foreign Settlers in Southern Russia
• Odessa Police Office
• Commercial Court
• Banks
• Odessa Port Offices and Customs
• Novorussijsky University, colleges and schools
• Building organizations
• Cultural Societies

Jewish materials were represented as separate parts of those finds (Jewish sections) or in common management records.

From the mid 1920s until 1940, the Odessa Archive received 33 fonds from Jewish institutions, including:

• Odessa Affiliate of the Committee of Society for the Spreading of
   Learning Among the Jews in Russia
Private Banks of Ashkenazi and Barbash
• Odessa City Rabbi
• Talmud Torah
• College for Artisans of Society “Trud” (Labor”), KOMZET, ORTVERBAND
• Odessa Pedagogical Jewish College

These fonds were of great interest to researchers. During this time, there was open support and acceptance of various ethnic groups. In 1931, the Jewish section in the Odessa Archives was established; the Search Room opened in 1927 and scientists received extensive access to documents. The first Odessa historians working with Jewish records were:

• S. Borovoj (“Jewish Colonies in Novorussia, 1830-1840”)
• L. Strizhak (“Economic state of the Jews in the Steppe Ukraine”)
• A. Buzhevich (Jewish Commissions, 1882”)
• D. Rishman (“History of Jews in Novorussia”)
• A. Reminik (“Jewish Theatre”

The academician, M. Slabchenko, prepared the materials of Zhaporozje Sich Kosh for publication and located Jewish records among them; but the research and qualified description of them was made by the a young scientist, Saul Borovoj. In 1940, S., Borovoj defended a doctoral dissertation on the subject of “Studying the History of Jews in Ukraine, XVI-XVIII centuries.”

With the beginning of World War II and German-Romanian occupation of Odessa in 1941, a major portion of the documents were evacuated to Stalingrad and later to the town of Uralsk in the West Kazakhstan Region. In Odessa, the City Chief Alexianu ordered the liquidation of “all Soviet garbage” and to convert the archives into a horse stable. The Director of the Archives, G. Serbsky, did not obey and valuable documents were salvaged. Replacements and evacuations led to irrecoverable waste; more than one million files (50% were lost during the war. Jewish fonds also suffered very much. For example, documents destroyed included great portions of materials of:

• Odessa City Rabbi (320-819 files)
• Odessa Affiliate of the Committee of Society of the Spread of
   Learning Amount the Jews in Russia (462-495 files)
• Odessa House of Jewish
• Culture (82-84 files, and others

In April 1944, SAOR renewed its work in Odessa. After the war, there were not significant incoming Jewish materials other than some private fonds. Since 1990, SAOR has begun the process of declassifying about 900 fonds of German-Romanian Occupying Administrative and other Institutions. These files contain information about the creation of 139 concentration camps and ghettos in”Transnistra,” names of the imprisoned Jews and the policy of genocide.

In 1992, SAOR included records of the former Archives of Odessa Regional Committee of the Communist Party of the USSR (more than 6,000 fonds), including Jewish fonds such as:

• Odessa Region and City Committees of Poalei-Zion
• Odessa Region Committee of Jewish Communist Union of Youth
• Editorial Office of the newspaper “Kommunistische Stimme” and others.

From 1945 until the early 1990s, scientists did not conduct special research on Jewish history. In spite of the fact that Jewish fonds were not secret, there was not any information about them in the Guide to Odessa Archives published in 1961.

Interest in this subject developed from the beginning of the 1990s. During the last 13 years, fifteen foreign researchers, representing scientific center in Germany, Israel, USA, Canada and Japan as well as Ukrainian historians and others have made great contributions to Jewish history using extensive archival sources.

The historical focus on national minorities in Novorussia is one of the main directions of activity in the Odessa Archives in recent years. Materials on Jewish history were presented at some exhibits at the Odessa Historical and Literary Museums. In 2000, the complete register of fonds and collections, including Jewish ones, for pre-revolution period was published, Also, some databases were created including:

• Name Indexes of the Odessa Jews on Materials of the First All-Russian
   Census in 1897 (not complete)
• Odessa Board for Small Businesses, 1894-1918

The name and thematic catalogs of Jews were also brought up to date. SAOR participates in the international program “Documents on History and Culture of Jews in Archives of Ukraine” (Ukraine-Russia-USA).

One of the recent projects of the Odessa Archives is an archeographical edition of Jews of Odessa and Southern Ukraine: History in Documents (End of XVIII-Beginning of XX Century). The book was prepared with support from the Odessa department of the “Joint” and was published in 2003. The book includes:

1Survey of 72 basic fonds of the Odessa Archives for pre-revolutionary and Soviet periods which contain documents on Jewish history (33 fonds of Jewish institutions, 24 fonds of administrative, court, statistics, customs and other institutions that were related to the subject and 15 private fonds). Description of every fond provides information about inclusive dates and quantity of files, varieties and contents of documents in general.
2Documental Digest. 250 documents on pre-revolutionary history of Jews are represented on 12 thematical lines including:
• Legislation on Jews, State policy and the Jewish subject in the
   Russian Empire
• Settlement in Novorussia, Jewish colonies, migration and emigration
• Trade, industry, banks
• Educational movements; science
• Religious and moral life
• Charity
• Medical institutions and societies
• Publishing business
• Jewish pogroms
• Army service
• Participation in revolution movements
• Criminal world

Document examples
• Regulation for Jews (April 13, 1835)
• Directions of Higher Authorities about the foundation of the Commission
   for Education of Jews (1842)
• Abolition of kahals (1844)
• Settlement of Jews on State lands (1847)
• Prohibition of special Jewish clothes (1851)
• Visits to police office on day off (1852)
• Election order for Jews (1857)
• Registration Rules for Jews – foreign subjects (1880)
• Materials of the Commission on the Jewish Problem (1881)
• Directions regarding admission of Jews to universities (1913)
• Circular of the Ministry of Jewish Affairs regarding election to Jewish
   public boards (1818)
• Information about resettling Jews from Podolia to Kherson Guberniyas
   and the number of Jewish colonies (1835-1839)
• Project of some merchants from Kremenchug, Pavlograd and Uman
   to establish a model Jewish colony of Michailsdorf in Bessarabia (1840)
• Report of the Governor-General M.S. Vorontsov regarding reformation
   of the Jews in Russia (1844)
• Appointment of the Mennonite Quenzer to the post of Chief in the
   colony of Gromokleva (1857)
• Conflict and fighting between the Jews and Gypsies in Rezina
   (Bessarabia)
• Activities of the Odessa Society for Relief to Jews, Peasants and
   Artisans in Syria and Palestine (1888)
• Jewish Colonization Society (1892)
• Emigration from Odessa to Argentina (1895)
• Inclusion of Jews to the Odessa merchants and petty bourgeois
• Foundation of A. Rafalovich’s firm (1850)
• Society for Bilateral Aid to Jewish counterman (manager) (1862)
• Registration of owners of manufacturing enterprises in Odessa (1898)
• Information about activities of the M. Ashkenazi firm (1898)
• S. Barbash’s bank (1915)
• Materials about the Foundation of the Jewish College for Boys in
   Odessa (1826)
• Odessa Jewish Society “Beseda” (Converse”) (1863)
• Society for Bilaterial Aid to the Jewish teachers in Novorussia (1866)
• Activities of the Talmud Tora in Odessa (1877)
• Statistical information about Jewish students in the Novorussijsky
   University (1881)
• Establishing of S. Gurovich and R. Khari scholarships at Odessa Commercial College (1888, 1892)
• Activities of the Society “Trud” (1895-1901)
• Odessa Affiliate of the Committee of Society of the Spread of Learning
   among Jews in Russia (1897)
• Cheders in Ekaterinoslav and Tavrich Provinces (1903)
• Building of the Second Talmud Torah in Odessa (1904)
• Activities of Societies of “Ivrija” (1907)
• Lovers of Jewish Language (1907)
• Club “The Jewish Public Meeting” (1908)
• Odessa Jewish Public Nachman Byalik Library “Seifer” (1919)
• The College “Yeshivot” (1915-1916)
• Documents about the number of synagogues and houses of prayer
   in Odessa (1840)
• Commendation to the Rabbi of the colonies of Novo-Vitebsk, Novo-
   Podolsk and Novo-Kovno – Rabbi Benjamin Knyazhik with gold medal
   for good service (1862)
• Registration of 63 synagogues and houses of prayer in Odessa with
   dates of foundation and addresses (1890-1894)
• Materials about parishioners of the Brodsky Synagogue (1892-1894)
• Statute of the Odessa Society for Jews Converted to the (Russian)
   Orthodox Faith (1894
• Birth entry of David Oustrach (1908)
• Information about the Jewish Hospital in Odessa (1832,1854)
• Establishing of the Iosif Valtuch Orthopedic Institute (1888)
• Klara Weinberg’s Medical Center for Vaccination against smallpox
   (1893)
• Documents about prohibition of the merchant Aksenfeld to open a
   printing house in Odessa (1852)
• Program of the first magazine for Jews in Russian “Rassvet” (*1860)
• Information about edition of “Hamelitz (1867)
• “Kadima” (1906)
• “Unser Leben” (1912)
• “Jewish Anecdotes” (1916
• Materials from the editorial collection of Sergey Stern
• Materials about the establishment of:

     • Odessa Jewish Charity Society (1866)
     • Kogan’s House (1873)
     • Jewish Hospice (1880)

• Benefections of A. Brodsky, R. Khari, OKhais, M. Morgulis, M.
   Rabinovich, Rafalovich, Katzen, Luisa Ashkenazi and others for
   Jewish orphans (1866-1898)
• Activities of the Societies of “Druzhelyubije” [“Friendship”] (1898)
• Central Jewish Registration Bureau
• Reports and notes of the extraordinary Odessa Governor-General,
   gubernial authorities and Odessa City Chief about pogroms in Odessa
   and Novorussia in 1881, 1886, 1905
• Evidence from witnesses including Rosa Drutman’s statement about
   the murder of the Veitzman family in 1905.
• Information about the liberation of Jewish students from military
   service (1844)
• Drafting of Jewish peasants who were avoiding military service (1847)
• Materials about legal proceedings charging E. Kenis with abetting Jews
   in avoiding military service (1885-1888).
• Materials from the police court case of David Bronstein (Lev Trotsky)
   arrested for revolutionary activities in Nikolayev (1898)
• Reports of police officers about participation of Jews in revolutionary
   developments, court materials accusing M. Bogomolny with having
   illegal Bund and Poalei-Zion literature (1904)
• Activities of the Jewish Self-Defense guard in Moldavanka
   [Odessa] (1906)
• Relationship of cadets (political party) to the “Jewish Problem” (1908)
• Reports of Police and Customs authorities about the Jews engaged in
   contraband, forgery, prostitution (international), discreditable
   practices with securities, etc.
3Genealogical Chapter, Fond 359: Odessa Board for Small Business, Jewish Section, 1894-1918 (alphabetical name index of 4,505 heads of Jewish families that had a status of Odessa Meshchanin (petty bourgeois) with address locations.
Page 179 from the above book
with an alphabetical name index
of 4,505 heads of Jewish families.
Information includes name,
address, date of birth,
age and list number.


[Enlarge image]

Genealogical research is a way to examine the facts through the history of families and to determine the place of an individual in society and his influence on the world. This is an important research focus in order to understand the historical period, its affect on individual families and our place in history.

For example, family history research for the Odessa petty bourgeois Krakhmalnikovs revealed an engrossing story of the development of confectionary production that began in 1892 as a factory and trade firm “The Krakhmalnikov Brothers” and continues to operate now as the Joint Stock Company “Odessa.” By the way, descendants of this family now live in the USA after emigrating from Odessa in 1906. Some family members continue in this occupational field including Bruce Kreig, a grandson of Abram Krakhmalnikov. While he is a professor of Archeology at Chicago University, at the same time he is a famous international expert in food and cooking. After searching the documentary materials in the Odessa Archives, he wrote “We are very happy to know that we are a part of the history of Odessa.”

The Public Archive of Odessa region Survey of funds and documents
HISTORY OF THE JEWS OF ODESSA And SOUTH OF THE UKRAINE
 “the Jews of Odessa and south of the Ukraine: history in the documents “
(The first volume – end OF THE XVIII – THE XX centuries)
SOURCE

 ADMINISTRATIVE ESTABLISHMENTS
Control of the Novorossisk and Bessarabian governor general
Office of the Odessa mayor
Trustee committee about the foreign settlers of the southern edge of Russia
Odessa urban on the compulsory military service presence

ESTABLISHMENTS OF THE URBAN And CLASS SELF-GUIDANCE
Odessa urban thought, the Odessa urban setting
Odessa petty-bourgeois setting

POLICE, JUDICIAL, PROSECUTOR And NOTARIAL ESTABLISHMENTS
Odessa municipal magistracy
Office of the Odessa police chief
Elder notary of the Odessa circuit court
Odessa merchant’s court
 
FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS And THE JARS
Banker house Of Ashkenazi in Odessa

ESTABLISHMENTS OF THE RELIGIOUS CULT
Odessa municipal ravvinat

Cultural-educational SOCIETIES
Committee of the Odessa department of the society of the propagation of education among the Jews

THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS
Funds for the higher educational institutions of g.Odessy, general education secondary schools, schools and schools and oranov of their control
Odessa Jewish School “Of Talmud- Thor”
Odessa 6- Class School Of efrussi

FUNDS FOR THE SOVIET PERIOD
Funds for the establishments of the period of the temporary German- Rumanian occupation

ADMINISTRATIVE ESTABLISHMENTS

Control of the Novorossisk and Bessarabian governor general
f. 1, 1797-1874, 29624 matters


General- governor archive both by the volume and on the significance, is placed in the category of the separately valuable funds GAOO. Since 1803 Odessa was the administrative center of Novorossisk edge and the residence of governor general, who accomplished control of the enormous territory of the Kherson, Ekaterinoslav, Tavricheskeye provinces and Bessarabian region. In the archive of governor is concentrated the information on the history of Jews in the south of the Ukraine v on the different aspects.

Legislative acts are widely represented, the resolutions of imperious organs – emperor edicts about the rules of the settling of Jews in by Novorossisk edge, positions about Jews 1835, 1844, position about the box collection of 1839, rules about the production by the Jews of crafts only in the small cities, the settlements and the places (op.2ya8 (1847), d.eeeya). Was preserved the matter for particular office concerning the report of the governor general of the graph Of m.S.Vorontsova to emperor “relative to the assumed measures to the conversion of Jewish people in Russia” (1843, f.y, op.yshche, d.y28).

There are opinions and decisions of the chiefs of provinces, information about their fulfillment on the following questions: on the settling of Jews on the particular, landowner’s and fiscal earth (1847-1859 yr, op.2ya9, d.”‘; 1849, op.y92, d.e0; 1854, op.y9e, dd.88-89); on the moving out of Jews to 50 versts from the border of Austria and Prussia (1852, op.2yshch, d.ey); on the limitation of Jews in the trade – opinion of the chiefs of provinces about the equation in the rights of Jews with the Christians (1857, op.y9shch, d.shchya9); on the department of Jews into the special blocks (1856, op.20e, d.ya”); on the prohibition by them entrance into Moldavia (1861, op.y”e, d.2ya); on the order of the selections of Jews to the urban and public posts (1857, op.y9shch, d.”0″); on the subordination of Jews to general control and the destruction of kagalov (1844, op.yshchya, d.e”; 1845, op.y92, d.90); on the establishment of commissions for the formation of Jews (op.y92 (1842), of d.e9); on permission to buy to Jews the earth in the Crimea; on the assignment to the Jew- farmers of the 50- summer privilege of release from the rekrutskoy duty, about the isolation of loans to the acquisition of economy, about the establishment in the Ekaterinoslav province of the colonies of “Israeli Christians”, about the candle and box collections (pub. 248 (1858), dd.2yaye, 2415; op.2ya8 (1843), d.y0shch), the device of hospitals and almshouses (op.2ya8 (1843), of d.y09; op.y9e (1854), d.yy8; op.2ya8 (1854), d.2′”0; op.y”(1868), d.y2y). Was preserved the information about a quantity of kagalov, synagogues and Jewish schools in the edge (op.2yya (1834, d.e), about the collection of donations to the construction of synagogues and of houses of prayer (1842, op.2ya8, d.9’), about the establishment in Odessa of Jewish school (op.y90 (1826 g.) d.ya”) and handicraft classes in by Novorossisk edge (op.y9e (1853), d.98).

A number of documents they reflect the process of Jewish colonization. These are materials about land surveying of the earth for the device of colonies, application of the Jews of Podolskiy, Grodnenskoy and Vitebskoy of provinces about the migration into the Kherson province (1837, op.yya8, d.y; 1838, d.shch; 1840, d.ee, 2728); the information about the desire of merchants to found model Jewish colony in Bessarabia (1840, op.2yshch, d.y’). There are permissions of authorities to the delivery of passports for the entrance from abroad or of migration from other provinces of Russia, information about the state of Jewish colonies (1841, op.2ya8, d.2″Рё; 1843, op.2ya8, d.y08, 115), about the Jew- farmers (1859, op.y’, d.y0shch), about the measures for an improvement in control of the Jewish settlings (1843, op.2ya8, d.yy0), about the “disorders” in the colonies (1841, op.2ya8, d.89). Materials on the colonization are concentrated in the fund also on the separate inventory – “about the Jewish colonies of Novorossisk provinces” (inventory 2, 1837-1847, 101 matters). This of order and the reports of the central and local administrative bodies of control about the outlet of the earth in the Kherson and Ekaterinoslav provinces for the settling of Jews and device for them of agricultural colonies, the assignment of fiscal means for the building of the houses of colonists, the determination of the staff of officials and supervisors for control of the newly formed settlings. There are petitions of Jews of Podolskiy, Kurlyandskeye, Vitebsk, Mogilev, Grodnensk, Kovenskeye and Minsk provinces about the migration into Novorossiyu, and also applications of some colonists about the permission by it to return in the previous place of residence, about the delivery of passports and tickets for the departure to the earnings.

In the documents is contained valuable information about the development of Jewish colonies beaver Kut, greater and small Nagartav, Seydemenukha, Ingulets, Yefengar, Kamenka, tortuous (Khortitskiy district), Izrailevka (Bobrinetskiy district), new Berislav, L’vov, Romanovskoye, Novopoltavka (Kherson district) – statistical evidence, reports and the review of the officials of the department of the state asset and other officials about the development of agriculture and handicraft matter, wine ransom, about a quantity of inhabitants and the status of the health of population, the device of training and medical institutions, in particular, in Nagartave, the passage of some colonists from judaic to orthodox faith, applications of Jews about their reckoning in farmers, about their release from the rekrutskoy duty.

Office of the Odessa mayor
f. 2, 1802-1837, 1848-1854, 1856-1917, 20890 matters


The materials of fund are systematized on 16 inventories, comprised in accordance with the structure of the office: tables capable, secret, economic, construction, certified, societies and meetings, 1 All-Russian population census. Inside each inventory the matters are systematized in the chronological order with some retreats. Materials on the history of Jews do not compose united collection, but they bear the separate nature and they are included in all structural parts.

Capable table (inventories 1, 1a, 1b, 4 – ch.2, 1796-1919 yr.)

Orders of mayor about the order of compilation of public sentences, about the order of conducting, to checking and zasvidetel’stvovanii of the Jewish metric books, about the establishment of handicraft classes with the fiscal Jewish schools, about the introduction of examination for the teachers of Jews, about the Odessa Jewish hospital.

Lists about a quantity of Jews in Odessa, kagalov, synagogues and houses of prayer, information about discovery and activity of synagogues and of houses of prayer, selections of their officials. Information about the Odessa rabbis, in such cases to shvabakhere, doctor of philosophy To krepse.
Information about the commercial houses, the enterprises, the drugstores and the therapeutic establishments – Abraham rafalovich, the steamer offices Kossodo, Rappoport et al., particular hospitals Of gurovich, Polukhera, Meringa and the assertion of the regulations of the orthopedic institute of Joseph val’tukh in Odessa.

Orders relative to Jewish rites and customs – about the prohibition since 1851 to the Jews of the carrying of special Jewish clothing, about the prohibition to appear into the urban police during subbotniye and authorized days, to arrange wedding festivals on the streets of Odessa, to woman- jewesses to shave heads, to accomplish some religious rites not by rabbis.

Matters about the assignment of the right of trade in Russia to Jews -inostrannopoddannym only to the merchants of the 1st guild, about the enumeration of Jews into the agricultural title, about the permission to Jews to open printing houses, in particular, to merchant aksenfel’d. Permissions to the publication of newspapers and periodicals, in such cases. “dawn”, “gamelits”. Information about the collisions between the Jews and the Christians on the religious soil, about the activity of London missionaries for the rotation of Jews into Christianity.

Permissions about the erection of Jews into the honorable citizenship – I.Gorovitsa, M.Gurovicha, etc.

_ matter about permission found different society – mutual assistance Jewish salesman, “conversation, mutual assistance Jew, mutual assistance jewess, Jewish blagotvoritelСЃogo charity association, society for propagation education between Jew, society for propagation craft between Jewish woman, mutual assistance Jew, assistance farmer and craftsman in Syria and Palestine, society for assistance inverted in Christianity Jew, society care about poor and homeless Jewish child, society mutual aid merchant agent and different merchant- Jew, society sanitary colony for treatment and training weak health study indigent Jewish population Odessa, society assistance require toiler- Jew Odessa, society for benefit former pupil commercial school Fa1ga, society care about poor Jewish population on settlement -Romanovke, society assistance by the student of the commercial school Of gokhmana, society of working aid to the requiring themselves Jews of Odessa, society “friendliness” and other.

Materials about the charitable activities – about the donation A.Brodskim of house and 50 thousand rubles for the Jewish orphans and the device of barracks for 30 patients, about the establishment in the Jewish orphan house of allowance to im.Ashkinazi and of other nominal allowances, and also of allowance Of rafalovicha in the Jewish orphan house, the device of house for the aged Jews, the establishment by the Jews of almshouse, the donation Of l.Ashkinazi 76500 rub to the construction of operating building in the Odessa Jewish hospital.

Orders concerning the educational institutions, in particular, school “eshibot”, the commercial school of the name Of gurovicha, school “labor”, the musical classes Of plinera, “Talmud- tori”, the dancing classes Of khaimovicha and Krymershmoysa, musical is course Rafalovicha, bandmaster it is course Kauffmann, drawing is course Reynbol’da, to the professional school of the practical painting Of tovelevicha.
Materials about the establishment into 1875 with the mayor of the post of scientific Jew and reports of scientific Jews (Genikesa and of others.)

Secret table (inventory 2, 1820-1912; op.ye, 1874-1910 yr.)

On inventory 2: the matter for search and establishment of supervision after the persons, suspected of the criminal and political crimes, on the delivery of evidence about the loyalty. Lists of political prisoners, materials on the dispatch to the settling into Siberia and other province. Circular about the prohibition of voluntary offerings among the Jews by the name “collection to the Israeli earth”. Documents and the protocols of commission for Jewish problem. Matters about the transfer from Warsaw to Odessa of the monthly Jewish journal “gaboker-Or”, about the assertion of the program of weekly political- public and literary Jewish newspaper in the Russian language “love” edited by Yakov Prilukera.

On inventory 13: the matter of office about the Jewish pogroms in Odessa in 1905 (dd.e-shch).

Economic table (inventory 3, 1830-1916)

Permissions to the discovery of industrial and commercial enterprises, information about the state of factories and plants, commercial houses, application in questions of owner’s activity. Deal about the construction of Odessa Jewish hospital of 1860; on the sums of box and candle collections and the content of Jewish schools 1864 about the discovery of the enterprises: Gamsheyem by Wolf, By b.Rozenbergom – vodka distilleries, by Siegal, by Schechter, by Vaynberg – factories of water and lemonade, Rafalovichem – the plant of starch and of solodovareniya, Gurovichem – the factory of finishing it is pin and the preparation of vinegar, By perel’muterom – cosmetic institution, by Frenkel – the factory of the preparation of fraction, dynamic meter Gusevs, By roytblat, b. by goose, by Barban – cotton factories, Shorshteynom – sheet metal factory, Brodskim – sugar refinery, by Bronstein – the medovarennogo plant, etc; on the assertion of plan for the construction of Jewish cold synagogue.

Sudnyy table (inventory 4, 1828-1914 yr.)

Materials about sale of the immovable properties for the debts, selection of complaints and claims, spiritual wills and guardianships, penalty of duties, expulsion of an alien abroad on the charge in the criminal and political crimes, performance of judicial sentences, into t.ch.:ob abduction by foreign Jews abroad of the russkopoddannykh women for the completion in Konstantinopole of public houses (d.”, 2483); on the delivery to the Jews of metric evidence; “about the investigation of denunciation about the formed gang of Jews, which issues the false of passport to the departure abroad. 1882 g.”,” on the complaint of the parishioners of Odessa main synagogue of improper actions of the warden of the synagogue Of a.Kupervassera on the post “; the alphabets of prisoners; rule for the activity in Russia of joint-stock Jewish colonization company and information about its work 7670); “about the meetings of Zionist- Jews”.

Construction committee (inventory 5, 1812-1901 yr.)

Information about the construction of public buildings, the outlet of the urban earth to private individuals, the activity of urban architects, in particular, about the service in the post of the architect of the 5th part of Odessa not the class artist of Joseph kolovich (drafter Of brodskoy synagogue).

Certified table (inventory 6, 1808-1912 yr.)

Passport, tickets to the entrance into Russia or the departure beyond its limits for the years 1808-1898 (they were preserved not completely). Matters to the individual citizens on the reckoning in Odessa petty bourgeois merchants, on the drive to the oath and the delivery of evidence to those, who accepted Russian citizenship, to the delivery of foreign passports, in particular, to avstriyskopoddannomu rabbi gersh To dannemarku in the passage into S- Petersburg, Moscow and Kiev. Lists about the foreigners, who arrived from abroad.

Table of societies and meetings (inventory 7, 1906-1914 yr.)

There are permissions to the establishment, the regulations and the information about the activity of societies and meetings of g.Odessy. Are introduced the society of the mutual aid of those been of handicraft society “labor”, the society of assistance to Jew- farmers and craftsmen in Syria and Palestine, Odessa territorialistskoye emigratory society, the union of Jewish charity associations and establishments “central Jewish registration bureau”, the department of Vilenskiy of the charitable Jewish society Of “gmilus-Khesed”, the society of the amateurs of Jewish language, Jewish public meeting in Odessa, the Jewish society Of “ivriya”, and also different professional societies with the traditionally high percentage of the participation of Jewish population – particular agents, brokers, photographers, industrialists, etc.

First All-Russian population census of 1897 (inventory 8, 9, 10)

The sheets of census with 3 thousand addresses were preserved, in them were registered the surname, name and patronymic of inhabitant, his age and the place of generation, citizenship, class, formation, religion, social position, profession, sources of income. (in 1897 the number of Odessa residents, who showed by native language Jewish, was 124511 man. – 2-4 on the number national group after Russians).

Trustee committee about the foreign settlers of the southern edge of Russia
f. 6, 1800-1873, 14815 matters


In the fund for 9 inventories, in the inventories в„–в„– 1a, 3 and 4 there are divisions on the Jewish table, in the rest the materials according to the Jews are not isolated as separate complexes.

In the fund were put off the materials on the colonization of Novorossisk edge, in such cases about the appearance and development of Jewish colonies in the Ekaterinoslav and Kherson provinces. These are reports and the list of the supervisors of Jewish colonies, circumferential orders and shul’tsev about the population, the welfare of colonies (statistical evidence since 1811), the penalty of taxes, the delivery of loans, the elections of officers, the development of agriculture, horticulture, trade; the application of the Jews of the western provinces of the Russian Empire about the migration into the newly formed colonies, about their reckoning in colonists and other classes, about the Jewish schools, about the fight with the vagabondage of Jew- colonists. Interest they can represent materials about the realization of government plan with respect to the involvement of Jews in productive zemledel’chestvo on the model of the well organized German farmer economies, the reciprocal effect of Jewish and mennonitskikh colonies – for example, about the building by mennonitami of houses for the arrived Jews in the colony To nechayevke, about the designation of wardens from mennonitov into the Jewish settlings, in particular, David Hertz into the colony to L’vov, about the migration of mennonitov in a constant place of residence into the Jewish colonies for the purpose of the development of there particular production, about the creation of the mixed settlings (Yudenplan in Khortitse), about the isolation by mariupol’skimi mennonitami of wheat for the sowing to Jew- colonists, about the orders by the Jews of agricultural instruments and seeds in molochanskikh mennonitov, etc.


Odessa urban on the compulsory military service presence
f. 315, 1884-1920, 1022 matters


Materials according to the Jews are not isolated as separate complex.

Lists of reservists and their metric vypisi (beginning from 1884 of generation), the private affairs of draftees, correspondence on the postponements of military service.

ESTABLISHMENTS OF THE URBAN And CLASS SELF-GUIDANCE

Odessa urban thought, the Odessa urban setting
ff. 4, 16, 1796-1920, 67818 matters


The Duma and setting knew by economic, financial, construction and businesses. Jewish department:

f. 4, inventory 107 (1824-1872, 1034 matters)
f. 4, inventory 108 (1884-1895, 120 matters)
f. 16, inventory 109 (1896-1903, 76 matters)
f. 16, inventory 110 (1904-1912, 183 matters)
f. 16, inventory 124, part of 2, p. 399-423 (1870-1920 yr.)


Annual reports of Jewish department. Information about the start of the arrived in Odessa Jews in petty-bourgeois and merchant class, the transfer from the class into the class, the restoration in the class and the exception from the same. Family and personal lists of Odessa Jew- petty bourgeois, merchants and craftsmen. Lists of Jews musical spark gaps and shops.

Metric books and the lists of the borne and dead Jews (men), not registered in Odessa municipal ravvinate, in particular, by that belonging not to what konfessii. Correspondence on the certification of metric evidence about the generation, marriage, death and to the correction of errors in metric records. The decisions of setting about the establishment of the events of the generation of those, who do not be registered according to the metric books, and the alphabetical lists of such citizens. Correspondence on the delivery of passports, it is specific to the residence, evidence and other documents.

Tax lists of Odessa petty-bourgeois Jewish class. Correspondence and lists on the rekrutskim collections, on the apportionment of candle and box collections.

Lists of Jewish schools and materials about their content, in particular, the report of the member of the setting N.A. Of gantsa about the delivery in 1919 to the Jewish community of subsidy in the amount of 3806000 rub to the content of 28 elementary schools. Lists of Jews, which entered educational institutions.

Information about building and discovery of synagogues and houses of prayer. Lists of synagogues and houses of prayer and their terms. Information about the officials of Jewish society – rabbis To fil’shteyne, Stopchike, Polinkovskom, To shvabakhere, the wardens of synagogues Abraham -Xasime, To kupervassere, scientific Jew Solomon To guroviche, etc.

Materials about the donations, the content disabled, charitable actions, allocation of assets to the content of Jewish hospital, Jewish cemeteries, shelters. Lists of philanthropists and their spiritual wills (A.M.Brodskogo, etc.).

Besides the inventories on the Jewish department, funds for 4 and 16 contain additional those 144 comprised on the years of inventory – on the general office management, the construction and charitable departments, the public education and the bookkeeping, in which also there is an information on the history of Jewish community against the background of townspeople life. The significant interest present the yearly lists of merchants, who declared capital, to list about the collection of taxes, materials about the discovery of commodity-industry enterprises, the outlet of the sections of the urban earth under the individual building, the participation of citizens in the urban self-guidance. The comparative analysis of documents can give idea about the formation, the increase and the motion of the private capital, formation and development of Jewish commercial houses, economic state of both the Jewish community as a whole and its individual representatives. In the fund for setting was preserved “the periodical of the honorable citizens of Odessa. 1854-1897 “, into which were carried 304 surnames of distinguished and most authoritative in the Odessa society citizens, in such cases of 96 Jews and karaites with the members of their families.

Odessa petty-bourgeois setting
f.eshch9, 1828-1919, 200 matters


Jewish department (1894-1918, 44 matters) is represented by the family lists of the Odessa petty bourgeois- Jews (list it contains the names of all members of family with the indication of their age or date of generation, relation to the military service, the addresses of stay at the moment of the composition of document over the signature of the head of family).

POLICE, JUDICIAL, PROSECUTOR And NOTARIAL ESTABLISHMENTS

Odessa municipal magistracy
f. 17, 1795-1839, 162 matters


Magistracy knew by the administrative and judicial matters of Odessa petty bourgeoisie and merchants. In its office management were put off the most important and chronologically earliest materials of economic nature – the information about the delivery of commercial and estimated evidence, about the assertion of merchant women, zaprodazhnykh, borrowed letters, introductions into the estate, about the selection of commercial transactions, bankruptcies, complaints. There are also lists, lists and correspondence about a quantity of merchants and petty bourgeois, their properties and capital, organization it is shop particular applications about the reckoning into the Odessa merchants and the petty bourgeoisie, in particular, for the years 1808-1809. – M.Sh.Medyanika, Levi and Aron pibergod, Solomon and Abel Gershkovichey, Leyby of Krakow, tsesarskopoddannogo T.G.Kumana, etc. (op.e), Leyby Of balabana, Abraham bondoni, Gilelya Of manusovicha, Mordko Of moshkovicha, Mendel Doyberga, Yakuba Lando, Getselya Of fridentalya, Moshi Mangubi, etc. (op.shch), the information about the individual citizens, in such cases Jews, added into the Odessa petty bourgeoisie in 1811-1812.

Documents about the erection of Jews in the post or the suspension from it are of interest also. In the fund there is an “alphabet about the Jews” in 1811 (op.e, d.yayashch)

Office of the Odessa police chief
f. 314, 1824-1917, 437 matters


Fund contains reports, reports, correspondence of the officials of the police about search and detention of the persons, suspected and accused in the criminal and political crimes; the lists of citizens, which consist under the supervision of the police, the political prisoners of Odessa prison, exiled to the hard labor works, the members of underground organizations, participants in the revolutionary movement, Jewish pogroms in Odessa. There is information about the participation of Jews in the revolutionary movement. The political matters can serve as an example: on the participation in the preparation of attempt on governor in 1902 of the members of the party of the terrorists, in number of whom of 30 pupils of school “labor”; on the creation in 1907 by young Jews headed by leftist Mochmanom – by the workers of the plant of gene – guard by the name “young will” in contrast the “union of Russian people” and their participation in the “expropriation” of private property; on the witnesses on business Of beylisa; on the establishment By i.A.Trivusom, Ya.Landesmanom, S.Rabinovichem and By i.B.Smirom of “Odessa Zionist club KADIMA”; on the activity of “Jewish territorialisticheskoy organization” and its theorist Israel To zangvile; on supervision after the sect of subbotniks and “zhidovstvuyushchikh” and others.

Fund is rich in the materials, which tell about the role of Jews in the criminal peace. From the criminal cases present interest materials about the activity in Odessa of the criminal groups of fal’shivomonetnogo and gambling business, sutenerstva, smuggling, and also of information about the well-known criminals – international pocket pilferer To moyshe To miroshnike-Irline (Bear- American), the international souteneurs Isaac Goldstein and the silverer, the cardsharper Zinof golender in the nickname “Pushkin” et al.


Elder notary of the Odessa circuit court
f. 35, 1869-1920, 32404 matters


Funds contain the notarial reports about the buying and selling, the donation, the will of the immovable property and land sections, given to the estates, agreements about the transactions, concluded by the notaries of g.Odessy, the Odessa, Anan’evskogo and Tiraspol’ districts of Kherson province. There is, for example, information about the enterprises Of frola Of shpolyanskogo.

Odessa merchant’s court
f. 18, 1808-1920, 5072 matters


Materials on the selection of commercial transactions, the delivery of estimated evidence, the collection of the commercial duties, matter for guardianship, commercial insolvency, registration of commercial institutions in the territory of Odessa mayorship. There are books of the registration of commercial establishments (1836-1843), of list about the property and capital of merchants (1826-1843), investigation and judicial matters for bankruptcies, promissory note actions, containing valuable information about activity and state of Jewish commercial houses.

FINANCIAL ESTABLISHMENTS And THE JARS

Banker house Of Ashkenazi in Odessa
f. 246, 1893-1918, 5 matters


Materials on establishment and activity of the joint-stock company of southeastern steam navigation “star” of the banker house Of ashkenazi. Balances and reports on the operation of steamship “eastern star” (1906-1916). Statements about the income, which is subject to taxation by the state income tax (1917-1918).

ESTABLISHMENTS OF THE RELIGIOUS CULT

Odessa municipal ravvinat
f. 39, 1846, 1854, 1875-1920, 499 matters


The metric books about the generation, the marriage, divorce and death of the Jews Odessa and alphabets to them – base source for the genealogical studies (documents of ravvinata for the years 1835-1874 they perished in the years of 2-1 world war).

The funds for another konfessiy – Kherson spiritual consistory (f. 37), Evangelical- Lutheran and reform arrivals (ff. 630, 894) – contain information about the passage of Jews from judaic religion to Christian, about the marriages of israelites with the representatives of other religions, about the registration of Jews, who belong not to what faith.

Cultural-educational SOCIETIES

Committee of the Odessa department of the society of the propagation of education among the Jews
f. 442, 1880-1881, 36 matters


Regulations of the Odessa department of society, correspondence on organizational questions also about its activity. Protocols of the general meetings of the members of society; the application of students about the rendering by them of material aid, the determination to the pedagogical work; correspondence with the Petersburg committee, particular Jewish and other educational institutions for questions of the organization of enlightenment work among the Jews, delivery of means to the content of educational institutions, job placement of teachers, method of donations. Lists of instructors, members of society; the information about the Jewish schools of g.Odessy, the libraries of department and their reports. Brief survey of the activity of Odessa department, estimate of libraries and museum. Information about the members of the society

THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS

Funds for the higher educational institutions of g.Odessy, general education secondary schools, schools and schools and oranov of their control
(about 40 funds)


Tyuey ppozvolyayut to investigate such questions as shaping of intellectual layer in the Jewish medium, level of the education of Jews, their contribution to the cultural and scientific life of city. Thus, in the materials Of rishel’evskogo face (f. 44, 1817-1865, 3262 matters) are considerable valuable information about trained in this Odessa’s first higher educational institution Jews.

Created on the base of face in 1865. Novorossisk university (f. 45, 1865-1920, 44688 matters), only in the south of the Ukraine, played large role in the making of a Jewish intelligentsia Of novorossii. In kon.KhyKh- of nach.KhKh of substances the Jews composed significant layer among the students of Odessa. The private affairs of students – remarkable historical source, which makes possible for researcher to personify epoch. The matter contains, as a rule, application about the method into the educational institution and the release at its end, copy of metric evidence about the generation, the secondary school graduation certificate, information about the behavior and progress, photograph of student. In kon.Kh.IKh – nach.KhKh of substances in by Novorossisk university were trained many representatives of well-known Jewish families.

In the fund for Odessa highest female it is course (f.eeya, 1906-1920, 11321 matters) numerous information about the jewess- girl students.

Odessa Jewish School “Of Talmud- Thor”
f. 441, 1891-1906, 13 matters


Correspondence with the Odessa urban setting on organizational and economic questions. Circulars and the order of the inspector of people schools for training- organizational and financial-economic questions. Information about the composition of the trustee council of school, the rules of the internal regulation (d.y0); application about the delivery of benefits being required. List of students.

Odessa 6- Class School Of efrussi
f. 125, 1898-1901, 714 matters


Minutes of the meeting of pedagogical council. General and examination lists about the successes, the behavior, the diligence and the abilities of students. Circular orders of the trustee of Odessa training region about the designation of teachers and their rewarding, about the grant-aided students. Lists of those entering, students and external students. Class, table and object periodicals. Curricula (op.y, d.ya’).

the Receipt- cashbox books of payment for the instruction and the income- expense books. Photographic cards of external students (op.y, d.’y; op.2, d.eya), information and the certification of external students (op.2, d.28). The private affairs of students (op.e, 607 matters).

FUNDS FOR THE SOVIET PERIOD

In the funds for administativnykh control elements 1930- X yr. (councils, their executive committees and the subordinate structures of all levels) – the information about the nationalization of property in well-off citizens, the dekulakization. The materials of the inspectorates of public education (ff. 150, 134, 1919-1930, 2201 matters) tell about the activity of Jewish sections, schools, libraries, the creation in Odessa of the unique museum of Jewish culture.

The documents of the independent funds for Jewish public organizations, educational institutions and political parties reflect many aspects of the state national policy of post-revolutionary period with respect to the poorest part of the Jewish population – creation of Jewish national regions, collective farms and agricultural comradeships, the organization of the system of the national educational institutions, cultural societies for the Jews, the activity of international organizations for rendering aid to the victims of pogroms in the period of Civil War in the Ukraine and starving, migration into Birobidzhan, departure of Jews into Palestine, activity of youth associations.

Funds for the establishments of the period of the temporary German- Rumanian occupation
887 funds, 1941-1944.


The materials of the organs of authority and control, created with German- Rumanian authorities in the temporarily occupied territory of Odessa and Odessa region give idea about the catastrophe of Jewish people in period 2- of world war. The documents of boards, pretur, prefectures, working communities, enterprises and establishments contain information about the creation of the network of concentration camps and ghetto in the newly formed governorship Of transnistrii and concentration in them of Jewish population, about rendering aid concluded Rumanian Jewish communities. There are numerous lists of those, who were being located in the ghetto. By the colleagues of archive is created the alphabetical nominal card index of victims and indicator about the presence of lists on 139 ghetto Of transnistrii (Mogilev, Bershad’, Berezovka, Kameneq- Podolskiy, Obodovka, Domanevka, etc.). Since 1990 archive gave out sv.yshch of thousand of information to citizens about the confirmation of their stay in the ghetto within the framework of the implementation of international programs on the compensation for the substituted to them damage. The demands of these citizens also can be examined as the significant historical source, since the detailed descriptions of tragic events, morale of the prisoners of ghetto, fates of concrete people are contained in many.

Sources for the Jewish Agricultural Colonies, adjacent towns and villages, located at various times in Southern Ukraine, Bessarabia, Podolia and the Crimea, are relatively hard to find. This site gathers data about the individual settlements, the points of origin of these settlers and recounts their stories.

…AND THEN USSR PUT THE AGRO-JOINT OUT. IS THIS WHAT zELENSKY AND PUTIN ARE WORKING TO REPAIR?

Is this what most Jews are promising to come back for, and some have even stayed to fight for?

On page 404 we find a mention for:
“Warburg, Edward M. (1908–1992). AJJDC Chairman, 1941–1943, 1946–1965.”

Yeah, I know Russian Bolshevik / communist oligarchy was initially Jewish for the most part, I’ve already discussed it in earlier reports. But that changed over time, as the party became a humongous soviet monster, there simply weren’t enough Jews to provide for all regional leaderships and gentiles eventually established their own “nobility”, even though Jews maintained many top positions. A new hungry generation of commies is like a new wave of locusts. I saw the same process happening in my home-country, Romania.

And from here everything just falls in line like a Russian-made Tetris game.

Whatever “Ukriane” is…


This is either too big of a coincidence or not a coincidence.
We don’t do coincidence theories around here.

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

IT DOESN’T MATTER WHICH GOVERNMENT OR OTHER SOCIOPATHIC CRIME SYNDICATE HATES YOUR GUTS FOR READING OUR TYPE OF STUFF, THEY’RE PROBABLY IN SOME EPSTEIN OR MAXWELL BOOKS AND PICS.
SEE DETAILS / ORDER

I wouldn’t normally waste your precious life with a full Albert Bourla interview, but his latest delivery at Davos 2022 is spectacularly shameless and delusional.

Here are a couple of short take-outs:

“Our vaccines prevent illness & transmission, Efficacy so high not much room for improvement “
SHARE

Same clown spilling the beans in another circus arena not long ago:

BILLIONS FREE PFIZER JABS SIT IN WAREHOUSES, compliance our greatest concern
SHARE

This falls in line with what the Moderna CEO, Stephane Bancel, has just revealed on the same stage a few days earlier:

SHARE

All those sitting jabs are billions lives we saved. Something to be proud of.
The cherry top is how much we got to them, their amusement while taking on anti-vaxxers is so badly acted it gave Arnold Schwarzenegger the cringe.

Watch the full thing (33min):

Good job convincing people you’re not utter lunatics, boys!
Borat called: “great success!”

Meanwhile, Bourla seems to have problems breathing in our atmosphere with his new genetically engineered gills.

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

ORDER

Schooling is not education. This is.

meet the warburgs

Paul M. Warburg

  • Vice Governor [Vice Chair], Board of Governors, 1916–1918
  • Member, Board of Governors, 1914–1916
  • Born: August 10, 1868
  • Died: January 24, 1932

Paul M. Warburg was sworn in as a member of the first Federal Reserve Board on August 10, 1914. He was appointed vice chairman (called “vice governor” before 1935) on August 10, 1916. He resigned from the Board on August 9, 1918.

Warburg was born in Hamburg, Germany, in 1868. He graduated from high school in Hamburg in 1886 and began working for an exporting firm there. He then moved on to positions at shipping and banking companies in London and Paris. He returned to Hamburg in 1895 and became a partner in the banking firm M.M. Warburg and Company, founded by his great-grandfather. 

Warburg was a partner in the family firm until 1907. However, in 1902, he moved to New York City and joined his father-in-law’s company as a partner overseeing international loans to several governments. In 1911, he became a naturalized US citizen.

Warburg was considered one of the top authorities on central banking both in Europe and the United States and was active in the monetary reform movement taking place in the United States in the early 1900s. He gave speeches, published several articles advocating the establishment of a US central bank, and was an unofficial advisor to the National Monetary Commission, which was established following the Panic of 1907 to study banking system reform. In 1910, Warburg was one of six men, including Sen. Nelson Aldrich, to participate in a secret meeting on Jekyll Island, Georgia, that resulted in a plan for a National Reserve Association. Although the “Aldrich plan” was rejected by Congress, it laid the foundation for the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, which created the Federal Reserve System. President Woodrow Wilson appointed Warburg to the new entity’s first Board in 1914.  

Although Warburg left the Federal Reserve Board in 1918, he continued to serve the Federal Reserve as a member of the Federal Advisory Council (1921–26). He resumed his activities in business and philanthropic circles as well. For example, he founded and was the first chairman of the Executive Committee of the American Acceptance Council in 1919. In 1921, he organized the International Acceptance Bank to promote US government financing of reconstruction in Europe following the war.

Warburg was also a director of the Council on Foreign Relations (1921–32), a trustee of the Institute of Economics (1922–27), and a trustee of the Brookings Institution after it merged with the Institute of Economics in 1927. He also helped establish the Carl Schurz Memorial Foundation in 1930. He served at various times as a director of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, Union Pacific Railroad, and Western Union Telegraph Company. Warburg was also a director of the Julliard School of Music and a trustee of Tuskegee College.

Warburg continued to take an active interest in the nation’s monetary affairs and banking system. In March 1929, he warned that the wild stock speculation resulting from stock price increases and improper bank lending practices would have disastrous results if left unchecked. On October 29 of that year, the stock market crashed.

Throughout his career, Warburg was a prolific writer. Most notable among his published works was a two-volume set on the Federal Reserve System published in 1930. The Yale University Library (Manuscripts and Archives) is the repository for Warburg’s papers dating from 1904 to 1932. The collection includes 169 volumes on banking and finance.

Warburg died at his home in New York in 1932. At the time of his death, he was chairman of the Manhattan Company and a director of the Bank of Manhattan Trust Company, Farmers Loan and Trust Company of New York, and First National Bank of Boston.

Written by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. 


THE MOST WARBURG THING TO DO

The Meeting at Jekyll Island

by Gary Richardson and Jessie Romero, Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond

November 20, 1910–November 30, 1910

A secret gathering at a secluded island off the coast of Georgia in 1910 laid the foundations for the Federal Reserve System.

The old clubhouse, Jekyll Island, Georgia.

The old clubhouse, Jekyll Island, Georgia. (Courtesy of Tyler E. Bagwell)


In November 1910, six men – Nelson Aldrich, A. Piatt Andrew, Henry Davison, Arthur Shelton, Frank Vanderlip and Paul Warburg – met at the Jekyll Island Club, off the coast of Georgia, to write a plan to reform the nation’s banking system. The meeting and its purpose were closely guarded secrets, and participants did not admit that the meeting occurred until the 1930s. But the plan written on Jekyll Island laid a foundation for what would eventually be the Federal Reserve System.

The Need for Reform

At the time, the men who met on Jekyll Island believed the banking system suffered from serious problems. The Jekyll Island participants’ views on this issue are well known, since before and after their conclave several spoke publicly and others published extensively on the topic. Collectively, they encapsulated their concerns in the plan they wrote on Jekyll Island and in the reports of the National Monetary Commission.

Like many Americans, these men were concerned with financial panics, which had disrupted economic activity in the United States periodically during the nineteenth century. Nationwide panics occurred on average every fifteen years. These panics forced financial institutions to suspend operations, triggering long and deep recessions. American banks held large required reserves of cash, but these reserves were scattered throughout the nation, held in the vaults of thousands of banks or as deposits in financial institutions in designated reserve and central reserve cities. During crises, they became frozen in place, preventing them from being used to alleviate the situation. During booms, banks’ excess reserves tended to flow toward big cities, especially New York, where bankers invested them in call loans, which were loans repayable on demand to brokers. The brokers in turn loaned the funds to investors speculating in equity markets, whose stock purchases served as collateral for the transactions. This American system made bank reserves immobile and equity markets volatile, a recipe for financial instability.

In Europe, in contrast, bankers invested much of their portfolio in short-term loans to merchants and manufacturers. This commercial paper directly financed commerce and industry while providing banks with assets that they could quickly convert to cash during a crisis. These loans remained liquid for several reasons. First, borrowers paid financial institutions – typically banks with which they had long-standing relationships – to guarantee repayment in case the borrowers could not meet their financial obligations. Second, the loans funded merchandise in the process of production and sale and that merchandise served as collateral should borrowers default. The Jekyll Island participants also worried about the inelastic supply of currency in the United States. The value of the dollar was linked to gold, and the quantity of currency available was linked to the supply of a special series of federal government bonds. The supply of currency neither expanded nor contracted with seasonal changes in demands for cash, such as the fall harvest or the holiday shopping season, causing interest rates to vary substantially from one month to the next. The inelastic supply of currency and limited supplies of gold also contributed to long and painful deflations.

Furthermore, Jekyll Island participants believed that an array of antiquated arrangements impeded America’s financial and economic progress. For example, American banks could not operate overseas. Thus, American merchants had to finance imports and exports through financial houses in Europe, principally London. American banks also struggled to collectively clear checks outside the boundaries of a single city. This increased costs of inter-city and interstate commerce and required risky and expensive remittances of cash over long distances.

In an article published in the New York Times in 1907, Paul Warburg, a successful, German-born financier who was a partner at the investment bank Kuhn, Loeb, and Co. and widely regarded as an expert on the banking systems in the United States and Europe, wrote that the United States’ financial system was “at about the same point that had been reached by Europe at the time of the Medicis, and by Asia, in all likelihood, at the time of Hammurabi” (Warburg 1907). 

Just months after Warburg wrote those words, the country was struck by the Panic of 1907. The panic galvanized the US Congress, particularly Republican senator Nelson Aldrich, the chair of the Senate Finance Committee. In 1908, Aldrich sponsored a bill with Republican representative Edward Vreeland that, among other things, created the National Monetary Commission to study reforms to the financial system. Aldrich quickly hired several advisers to the commission, including Henry Davison, a partner at J.P. Morgan, and A. Piatt Andrew, an economics professor at Harvard University. Over the next two years, they studied banking and financial systems extensively and visited Europe to meet with bankers and central bankers.

The Duck Hunt

By the fall of 1910, Aldrich was persuaded of the necessity of a central bank for the United States. With Congress ready to begin meeting in just a few weeks, Aldrich — most likely at Davison’s suggestion — decided to convene a small group to help him synthesize all he had learned and write down a proposal to establish a central bank.

The group included Aldrich; his private secretary Arthur Shelton; Davison; Andrew (who by 1910 had been appointed assistant Treasury secretary); Frank Vanderlip, president of National City Bank and a former Treasury official; and Warburg.

A member of the exclusive Jekyll Island Club, most likely J.P. Morgan, arranged for the group to use the club’s facilities. Founded in 1886, the club’s membership boasted elites such as Morgan, Marshall Field, and William Kissam Vanderbilt I, whose mansion-sized “cottages” dotted the island. Munsey’s Magazine described it in 1904 as “the richest, the most exclusive, the most inaccessible” club in the world.

Brunswick, Georgia, train station. Jekyll Island meeting attendees arrived here.
Train station in Brunswick, Georgia, near Jekyll Island. (Courtesy Tyler E. Bagwell)

Aldrich and Davison chose the attendees for their expertise, but Aldrich knew their ties to Wall Street could arouse suspicion about their motives and threaten the bill’s political passage. So he went to great lengths to keep the meeting secret, adopting the ruse of a duck hunting trip and instructing the men to come one at a time to a train terminal in New Jersey, where they could board his private train car. Once aboard, the men used only first names – Nelson, Harry, Frank, Paul, Piatt, and Arthur – to prevent the staff from learning their identities. For decades after, the group referred to themselves as the “First Name Club.”

An additional member of the First Name Club was Benjamin Strong, vice president of the Bankers Trust Company and the future founding chief executive officer (then called governor, now called president) of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. But it is unlikely Strong attended the meeting on Jekyll Island. In his autobiography, Vanderlip recalls him attending, but no other account indicates Strong’s presence. Most scholars and journalists who have written about the issue, including Bertie Charles (B.C.) Forbes — the founder of Forbes magazine and the journalist who first revealed the meetings in an article in 1916 — have concluded Strong did not attend (Forbes 1916). Strong had worked closely with the Jekyll Island attendees in other venues, however, and his ideas were certainly present at the meeting even if he was not there in person. After the meeting, as the First Name Club revised the plan and prepared it for publication, Strong was frequently consulted and according to Forbes, “joined the ‘First-Name Club’ as ‘Ben’” (Forbes 1922).

The Plan Takes Shape

Aldrich and his colleagues quickly realized that while they agreed on some broad principles — establishing an elastic currency supplied by a bank that held the reserves of all banks — they disagreed on details. Figuring out those details was a “desperately trying undertaking,” in Warburg’s words. Completely secluded, the men woke up early and worked late into the night for more than a week. “We had disappeared from the world onto a deserted island,” Vanderlip recalled in his autobiography. “We put in the most intense period of work that I have ever had.”

By the end of their time on Jekyll Island, Aldrich and his colleagues had developed a plan for a Reserve Association of America, a single central bank with fifteen branches across the country. Each branch would be governed by boards of directors elected by the member banks in each district, with larger banks getting more votes. The branches would be responsible for holding the reserves of their member banks; issuing currency; discounting commercial paper; transferring balances between branches; and check clearing and collection. The national body would set discount rates for the system as a whole and buy and sell securities.

Shortly after returning home, Aldrich became ill and was unable to write the group’s final report. So Vanderlip and Strong traveled to Washington to get the plan ready for Congress. Aldrich presented it to the National Monetary Commission in January 1911 without telling the commission members how the plan had been developed. A final report, along with legislative text, went to Congress a year later with a few minor changes, including naming the new institution the National Reserve Association.

In a letter accompanying the report, the Commission said it had created an institution “scientific in its method, and democratic in its control.” But many people, especially Democrats, objected to the version of democracy it presented, which could have allowed the largest banks to exert outsized influence on the central bank’s leadership. With a presidential election coming up, the Democrats made repudiating the Aldrich plan a part of their platform. When Woodrow Wilson won the presidency and the Democrats took control of both houses, Aldrich’s National Reserve Association appeared to be shelved.

Leaders of the Democratic Party, however, also were interested in reform, including President Wilson and the chairs of the House and Senate Committees on Banking and Currency, Carter Glass and Robert Owen, respectively. Glass and Owen both introduced proposals to form a central banking system based on draft legislation supported by Wilson. Glass, Owen, and their staffs directly consulted with Warburg, whose technical expertise was respected by Democratic and Republican politicians alike. Wilson’s chief political adviser, Col. E. M. House, met and corresponded with Warburg to discuss banking reform in general and the Glass and Owen plans in particular. So did William McAdoo and Henry Morgenthau, senior political and policy advisers to Wilson who served in his administration. Morgenthau assured Warburg “that he sent his copy of the [January 10, 1913] memorandum to President Wilson” (Warburg 1930, p. 90). Together, these ideas formed the basis of the final Federal Reserve Act, which Congress passed and the president signed in December 1913. The technical details of the final bill closely resembled those of the Aldrich Plan. The major differences were the political and decision-making structures, which was a compromise acceptable to both the progressive and populist wings of the Democratic Party.

Postscript

B.C. Forbes somehow learned about the Jekyll Island trip and wrote about it in 1916 in an article published in Leslie’s Weekly (October 19, 1916 p. 423), which was recapitulated a few months later in an article in the magazine Current Opinion. In 1917, Forbes again described the meeting in Men Who Are Making America, a collection of short biographies of prominent entrepreneurs, including Davison, Vanderlip, and Warburg. Not many people noticed the revelation, and those who did dismissed it as “a mere yarn,” according to Aldrich’s biographer.

The participants themselves denied the meeting had occurred for twenty years, until the publication of Aldrich’s biography in 1930. The impetus for coming clean was probably the publication in 1927 of Carter Glass’s memoir, An Adventure in Constructive Finance. In it, Glass, by now a senator, claimed credit for the key ideas in the Federal Reserve Act, which prompted the Jekyll Island participants to reveal their roles in creating the Federal Reserve.

Warburg was especially critical of Glass’s description of events. In 1930, he published a two-volume book describing the origins of the Fed, including a line-by-line comparison of the Aldrich bill and the Glass-Owen bill to prove their similarity. In the introduction, he wrote, “I had gone to California for a three months’ rest when the appearance of a series of articles written by Senator Glass…impelled me to lay down in black and white my recollections of certain events in the history of banking reform.” Warburg’s book does not mention Jekyll Island specifically, although he states that

“In November, 1910, I was invited to join a small group of men who, at Senator Aldrich’s request, were to take part in a several days’ conference with him, to discuss the form that the new banking bill should take. … when the conference closed … the rough draft of what later became the Aldrich Bill had been agreed upon … The results of the conference were entirely confidential. Even the fact that there had been a meeting was not permitted to become public. … Though eighteen years have gone by, I do not feel free to give a description of this most interesting conference concerning which Senator Aldrich pledged all participants to secrecy. I understand, however, a history of Senator Aldrich’s life … will contain an authorized account to of this episode” (Warburg 1930, pp. 58-60).

Disagreements over authorship of the Federal Reserve Act received widespread publicity in the late 1920s. Glass defended his claim for the lion’s share of the credit in speeches, in his book, and in submissions to prominent publications including the New York Evening Post and the New York Times. Critics responded in similar venues and academic journals. For example, Samuel Untermyer, former counsel to the House Committee on Banking and Currency, published a pamphlet titled “Who is Entitled to the Credit for the Federal Reserve Act? An Answer to Senator Carter Glass,” in which he asserted that Glass’s claims of primary authorship were “fiction,” “fable,” and a “work of imagination” (Untermyer 1927). In 1914, Edwin Seligman, a prominent professor at Columbia University, wrote that “in its fundamental features the Federal Reserve Act is the work of Mr. Warburg more than of any other man.” In 1927, Seligman and Glass debated this point in a series of letters published in the New York Times.

The Jekyll Island Club never bounced back from the Great Depression, when many of its members resigned, and it closed in 1942. Today, its former clubhouse and cottages are National Historic Landmarks. But the debates at and about the conference on Jekyll Island remain relevant today.


Bibliography

Forbes, B.C. Men Who Are Making America. New York: B.C. Forbes Publishing Co., Inc., 1917.

Forbes, B.C. “How the Federal Reserve Bank Was Evolved by Five Men on Jekyl Island.” Current Opinion vol. 61, no. 6 (December 1916): pp. 382-383.

Glass, Carter. An Adventure in Constructive Finance. New York: Doubleday, 1927.

Glass, Carter, “Mr. Warburg and the Bank: A Reply to Prof. Seligman on the Paternity of the Federal Reserve,” New York Times, February 15, 1927, p. 24.

Lamont, Thomas. Henry P. Davison: The Record of a Useful Life. New York and London: Harper and Brothers Publishers, 1933.

Lowenstein, Roger. America’s Bank: The Epic Struggle to Create the Federal Reserve. New York: Penguin Press, 2015.

New York Times. “Untermyer Assails Glass on Bank Act: Calls His History of Federal Reserve Fiction and Its Author Credulous. Claims Glory for Owen. Wilson, McAdoo and Bryan also Entitled to Credit … ” June 20, 1927, p. 4.

Seligman, Edwin R. “Introduction: Essays on Banking Reform in the United States, by Paul M. Warburg.” Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science vol. 4, no. 4 (July 1914): pp. 3-6.

Seligman, Edwin R., “The Federal Reserve Act. Professor Seligman Takes Issue with a Statement by Senator Glass,” New York Times, February 1, 1927, p. 26.

Stephenson, Nathaniel Wright. Nelson W. Aldrich: A Leader in American Politics. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930. Reissued in 1971 by Kennikat Press.

Untermyer, Samuel. “Who Is Entitled to Credit for the Federal Reserve Act? An Answer to Senator Carter Glass.” Manuscript, June 19, 1927. Available at http://www.okhistory.org/historycenter/federalreserve/untermeyer.pdf

United States National Monetary Commission. Letter from Secretary of the National Monetary Commission, Transmitting, Pursuant to Law, the Report of the Commission. Washington: Government Printing Office, January 8, 1912. https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/title/641, accessed on August 11, 2015.

Vanderlip, Frank, and Boyden Sparks. From Farm Boy to Financier. New York and London: D. Appleton-Century Company, 1935.

Warburg, Paul M., “The Defects and Needs of Our Banking System,” New York Times: Annual Financial Review, January 6, 1907, p. 14-15, 38-39.

Warburg, Paul M. The Federal Reserve System: Its Origins and Growth. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1930.

Wicker, Elmus. The Great Debate on Banking Reform. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press, 2005.

Written as of December 4, 2015. 

MORE OF THEIR HISTORY WRITTEN BY THEMSELVES

MEET FELIX THE COOLEST CAT

Recognition for the service and philanthropy of Felix M. Warburg, chairman of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, was expressed by one of the new Jewish settlements in the Ukraine, at solemn exercises held yesterday.

Djankoy, a settlement adjacent to the colonies Novy Put and Novaya Zarya, near Krivoy Rog, was renamed Felix Warburg.

Mr. Warburg laid the cornerstone for the first intermediate school in the Jewish colonies, established at Novy Put.

A report of the events during Mr. Felix M. Warburg’s visit to the Jewish colonies in the Ukraine, was made public yesterday by the National Headquarters of the United Jewish Campaign on the basis of a cable received yesterday from Moscow by David A. Brown, national chairman.

Mr. Warburg and James H. Becker, accompanied by Dr. Bernard A. Kahn and Dr. Joseph A. Rosen, on their arrival in the colonies of the Cherson district, where the new Jewish “autonomous region” was recently established, were given a tremendous ovation by the Jewish settlers whose entrance upon a new permanent livelihood as productive workers on the soil was made possible by the aid of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, of which Mr. Warburg is the chairman.

The travellers came from Moscow first to the Cherson settlements, and thence to the colonies of the Krivoy-Rog district, where they were received with equal enthusiasm. The inhabitants of Novy Put and Novaya Zaria, both recently established settlements in this section, expressed the desire to have their colonies renamed in honor of Mr. Warburg. In Novy Put the visitors officiated at the laying of a cornerstone for a high school, one of the significant first landmarks in the effort for the establishment of a modern educational system for the children of the twentieth century Jewish pioneers on the Russian steppes.

The establishment of schools and other facilities for an adequate community life goes hand in hand with the agricultural and economic aid provided by the Joint Distribution Committee, which operates in Russia under the name of Agro-Joint, with the official sanction and cooperation of the Russian government. The agricultural colonization program was begun a little over two and a half years ago when the great spontaneous “back to the soll” movement took start among the Jews of Russia, as an escape from the dwindling trading occupations of the city and the crushing political proscriptions leveled against this class under the new economic organization of the country. Its purpose was to give organized direction and support for expansion to what has been hailed by authoritative social students as an epochal new development offering revolutionizing potentialities for the future economic structure of Jewish life in Eastern Europe. More than 10,000 families have already taken up farmsteads in the Ukraine, White Russia and Crimea, on vast virgin tracts comprising over 700,000 acres whose prewar value is estimated at over $12,000,000. In addition to the free gift of the land, the government furnishes free transportation and free lumber for building, and tax and military service exemption for the first three years.

The aid provided by American subsidies through the Agro-Joint includes loans to settlers to enable them to make the transition from the cities to the interior and to build them homes, purchase of farm implements, seed and live-stock, well drilling and road building, organization of farm cooperatives, and the maintenance of agricultural experiment stations and a staff of field experts to supervise instruction of the colonists in their new vocation. The work of the Agro-Joint is under the direction of Dr. Joseph A. Rosen, a noted American agricultural scientist, who carried out the agricultural relief program of the American Relief Administration during the great famine in the Volga region in 1921-22. Dr. Rosen is accompanying Mr. Warburg and his party on their tour of the colonies.

With 100 new settlements already established, thousands of more families, according to Dr. Rosen have registered their desire to take up land and are anxiously waiting to be enabled to go-Further development of the work depends, however, on the amount of money which the Agro-Joint will have at its disposal. The J. D. C.’s appropriation for Russia calls for $2,000,000 for this year, of which $1,500,000 is for agricultural purposes.

Whether this sum will actually be forthcoming depends on the payment of pledges made to the $25,000,000 United Jewish Campaign, all other resources of the J. D. C. being now exhausted. With the spring season now at its height, when the ground must be prepared for sowing, it is particularly vital that the funds for carrying on the work should be assured, and the campaign leaders have been compelled to issue an emergency call urging local leaders throughout the country to borrow on funds pledged to the state and city drives, to make the minimum amounts urgently needed not only for Russia but for all of Eastern Europe available for the transmission to Europe at the earliest possible moment. – JTA, 1927

Felix M. Warburg, chairman of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, on the conclusion of his visit to the new Jewish colonies in Russia, sent a cable to David A. Brown, national chairman of the United Jewish Campaign, and James N. Rosenberg, vice-chairman of the Joint Distribution Committee, describing his impressions of his inspection.

Mr. Warburg expressed himself as profoundly impressed with the permanent foundations of a new Jewish agricultural class being laid through the work of the Agro-Joint.

“Later I hope to persuade American Jewry to invest further in this practical and humanitarian work,” Mr. Warburg said in his message. His visit covered more than forty colonies in the three districts of the Ukraine, White Russia, and the Crimea, in which the Agro Joint is working. There are 135 colonies in all, in which more than 10,000 families of former impoverished traders and city dwellers have established themselves. All these colonies have been founded within the last three years.

A second cable was received at the same time from James H. Becker of Chicago, who is traveling with Mr. Warburg.

Mr. Warburg’s cable, as made public by Mr. Brown, reads:

“After delightful inspection our main three districts, am both satisfied proud of permanent foundation bringing these colonists only happiness only self-re-spected healthy life possible here, probably within near future. With unemployment more seriods, number anxious to become self-supporting independent farmers steadily increasing. First three years have gone according to schedule entirely satisfactory, and seeing them in their homes secure, contented, with hopes revived, working farms, starting repayments, is joy as well as vindication of Rosen’s plan. government encouraging, aiding our successful effort. Later I hope to persuade Jewry to invest further in this practical and humanitarian work. Meantime you and few who have given, worked, and seen for themselves realize that least American Jews can do is pay pledges without delay, for our obligations here must be met according to schedule. Nature’s seasons and desirable land wont wait.”

Mr. Becker’s cable read:

“Although have followed closely all oral, written reports, from our representatives who have seen colonization undertaking, I had no adequate picture of its magnitude of spirit. Have inspected work in all three districts. Visited and passed through more than forty out of hundred thirty-five our colonies. By October will have hundred eighty. Saw settlements in all stages of development, some formed this spring, to those completing third year. Have fine efficient business and technical organization, which receives inexperienced city dwellers, teaches them farming, helps them build houses, plant vineyards, prepared fields, sow crops, establish creameries, cooperative farm banks, etc., and remains in contact with them until they are independent farmers. This is great historic opportunity to acquire more land and continue turning declassed occupationless discouraged people into independent farmers. Although this sounds strong statement, nevertheless absolutely accurate. At present number persons we can help depends only upon money available. Can’t stress too much absolute necessity assuring funds enabling us carry out program and obligations already assumed. – JTA, 1927

SOURCE

PURCHASE, N. Y., Aug. 30, 1975 —The marriage of Mrs. Barbara Warburg of New York and Vineyard Haven, Mass., widow of Paul Felix Warburg, the financier and philanthropist, to Leonardo Mercall of East Hampton, L. 1,, and Athens, took place here today at the home of John L. Loeb, the investment banker, and Mrs. Loeb. State Supreme Court Justice John C. Marbach performed the ceremony in the presence of members of the couple’s immediate families.

The bride, the former Barbara Tapper of Chicago, was the widow of Baron D’Almeida when she was married to Mr. Warburg in London in 1949.

The bridegroom, who graduated in 1923 from Oxford University, prefers in this country not to use the title of Count, to which he is entitled. He was previously married to the former Lily Stathatos of Athens.

The couple will divide their time between New York and Europe. – New York Times

WARBURG – THE NEXT GENERATION

James Warburg before the Subcommittee on Revision of the United Nations Charter

Revision of the United Nations Charter: Hearings Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations  (1950) 
United States Senate

SOURCE

REVISION OF THE UNITED NATIONS CHARTER
Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Relations
United States Senate
81st Congress, 2d Session
on Resolutions relative to the United Nations charter, Atlantic Union, World Federation, etc.
Feb. 2, 3, 6, 8, 9, 13, 15, 17, and 20, 1950
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 1950: 64429
PP. 494-508


Subcommittee on Revision of the United Nations Charter
Elbert D. Thomas, Utah, Chairman
Theodor Francis Green, Rhode Island
Alexander Wiley, Wisconsin
H. Alexander Smith, New Jersey
February 17, 1950Washington, D. C.

STATEMENT OF JAMES P. WARBURG OF GREENWICH, CONN.

I am James P. Warburg, of Greenwich, Conn., and am appearing as an individual.

I am aware, Mr. Chairman, of the exigencies of your crowded schedule and of the need to be brief, so as not to transgress upon your courtesy in granting me a hearing.

The past 15 years of my life have been devoted almost exclusively to studying the problem of world peace and, especially, the relation of the United States to these problems. These studies led me, 10 years ago, to the conclusion that the great question of our time is not whether or not one world can be achieved, but whether or not one world can be achieved by peaceful means.

We shall have world government, whether or not we like it. The question is only whether world government will be achieved by consent or by conquest.

(our emphasis added)

Today we are faced with a divided world—its two halves glowering at each other across the iron curtain. The world’s two superpowers—Russia and the United States—are entangled in the vicious circle of an arms race, which more and more preempts energies and resources sorely needed to lay the foundations of enduring peace. We are now on the road to eventual war—a war in which the conqueror will emerge well nigh indistinguishable from the vanquished.

The United States does not want this war, and most authorities agree that Russia does not want it. Indeed, why should Russia prefer the unpredictable hazards of war to a continuation of here present profitable fishing in the troubled waters of an uneasy armistice? Yet both the United States and Russia are drifting—and, with them, the entire world—toward the abyss of atomic conflict.

SUPPORT OF SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 56

Mr. Chairman, I am here to testify in favor of Senate Resolution 56, which, if concurrently enacted with the House, would make the peaceful transformation of the United Nations into a world federation the avowed aim of United States policy. The passage of this resolution seems to me the first prerequisite toward the development of an affirmative American policy which would lead us out of the valley of death and despair.


I am fully aware that the mere passage of this resolution will not solve the complex problems with which we are confronted. Our recognition of the inadequacy of the present United Nations structure, and our declared determination to strengthen that structure by Charter amendment, will not alone overcome the Russian obstacle. But it will, at long last, chart our own goal and enable us to steer a straight course toward a clearly seen objective. Moreover, it will unite us in purpose with the vast majority of the peoples of the non-Soviet world.

Until we have established this goal, we shall continue to befog and befuddle our own vision by clinging to the illusion that the present structure of the United Nations would work, if only the Russians would let it work. That has been our position to date.

Until we establish this goal, we shall continue to ask other peoples to unite with us only in the negative purpose of stopping Russia. Fear-inspired negative action makes poor cement for unity.

Once we shall have declared a positive purpose—once we shall have cemented the united will of the free peoples in a common aspiration— we shall be in a far stronger position to deal with the obstacles presented to the realization of that purpose.

Mr. Chairman, I prefer Senate Resolution 56 to other resolutions now before you for two major reasons:

UNIVERSAL FEDERATION REQUIRED

First: Senate Resolution 56 goes to the root of the evil in the present state of international anarchy. It recognizes that there is no cure for this evil short of making the United Nations into a universal organization capable of enacting, interpreting, and enforcing world law to the degree necessary to outlaw force, or the threat of force, as an instrument of foreign policy. It states the objective in unequivocal terms.

Second: Senate Resolution 56 does not commit the United States to any specific next steps to be taken toward the attainment of that objective. In the present-state of world affairs, it would seem to me unwise to commit ourselves to any fixed plan of action, without first exploring all the possibilities. In contrast to Senate Resolution 56, other proposals before you seem to me either to set a goal short of what is needed to ensure peace, or to foreclose the ultimate attainment of a universal organization by an over-eager acceptance of half measures, on the theory that half a loaf is better than none.

Limitations of time prevent my going into detail, but I should like to state specifically the conviction that any exclusive partial federation, such as the Atlantic Union, would not only serve to harden the existing cleavages in a divided world, but would create new and dangerous cleavages within our half of the divided world.

I should like to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that I do not minimize the many and complicated problems which will remain to be solved, once Senate Resolution 56 is enacted. Mr. Hickerson of the Department of State listed them most carefully. In due course we shall have to define more closely what we mean by world government and by what steps we propose to get there. I have given considerable study to these problems. I believe them to be soluble—but not by the adoption of any hastily conceived formulas, and, above all, not without exploring patiently and carefully what is in the minds of other peoples, who, while friendly to us, do not share our historical background nor our particular political or economic prejudices and predilections.

If we seek peace under law by common consent, we cannot expect to impose our imprint upon the world. We must be prepared to accept some sort of a composite pattern, in which we may preserve for ourselves the things we cherish, but in which others may be equally free to do the same. We may or may not be able to find a common pattern with the present rulers of Russia. We most certainly can, and must, find a common pattern not only with the peoples of western Europe but with the peoples of Asia, Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. Perhaps a shorthand device for stating the point would be to say that we must find a common pattern with Nehru, before we can even think of trying to find a common pattern with Stalin.

AFFIRMATIVE POLICY REQUIRED

The virtue of Senate Concurrent Resolution 56 is precisely that it does not commit us to the narrow pattern which the State Department dreads. It is a broad declaration of purpose and nothing more.

Secretary Acheson said the other day that the only agreements which can usefully be made with the Kremlin are those which rest upon established fact. I think this is true, and not only with respect to Russia. But, as to Russia, the trouble has been that we have been letting the Kremlin create the existing facts.

One of your colleagues made a speech the other day, which seemed to me to leap straight for the jugular vein in our present foreign policy. Senator McMahon proposed that we create some facts of our own.

One of these facts, which your colleague specifically proposed to create, would, in my judgment, be far more powerful than our recent decisions to develop and manufacture hydrogen bombs. Senator McMahon proposed that we present the Kremlin with the fact of our determination to dedicate our strength to a world-wide, cooperative crusade, waged through the United Nations, against hunger, poverty, disease, and ignorance. This is the sort of bold affirmative action in the economic field which could, if pursued, create the climate for the attainment of our political objective—namely, the establishment of a world community living at peace under law.

Without detracting from the imaginative courage of Senator McMahon’s proposal, I regret that, in his first presentation, he has attached it to a self-negating proviso. His plan, so right in itself, would become operative only if a disarmament agreement were first reached with the Kremlin under which the United States could save $10,000,000,000 a year out of its military budget. This is extremely unlikely.

Moreover, even if the Russians were to accept a modified Baruch plan, this would not suffice, because, at best, such a plan would outlaw only one type of weapon and one method of waging war. It would, in effect, establish world government in the limited field of atomic energy, but it would leave the use of all other types of weapons to the discretion of nation-states dwelling in a state of international anarchy.

At a conference in New York last week, I ventured to put forward an alternative, in which Senator McMahon’s world-wide Marshall plan would not be conditioned upon anything the Kremlin might or might not be willing to do. Under this alternative, we should not wait for Russia. The benefits of the McMahon plan would become immediately available to those countries which made known their will to accept supranational authority—not only in the field of atomic energy, but in the whole field of international relations—to the extent necessary in order to establish peace under law.

Obviously, the proposed alternative condition—agreement to outlaw all weapons and war itself—is one which we cannot impose until we ourselves have accepted it. But, once we have accepted it, by adopting the concurrent resolution now before you, we shall be in a position to proceed with Senator McMahon’s cooperative plan, hand in hand with the majority of the world’s peoples.

Thus we should present the Kremlin with two vital new facts not of its own making:

First. The united determination of the majority of the world’s peoples to establish a rule of law and thus eventually to free themselves from the burden of armaments and from the overhanging fear of annihilation; and

Second. The steady progress of the massed forces of humanity embattled in a common crusade against hunger, poverty, disease, and ignorance.

The first of these new facts would, for a time, be static. The avowed aim could not be realized without Russian cooperation. The second of these new facts would be dynamic. It would demonstrate how peoples devoting their energies and resources to cooperative effort outstrip those peoples whose governments subsist on force and pursue only the goal of widening the orbit of their own arbitrary power.

Taken together, these two facts would exert a mounting pressure toward cooperation upon the Kremlin. It is true that a regime, which maintains itself by force at home, cannot readily renounce force as an instrument of foreign policy. Yet even such a regime can, in the long run, be brought to accept new facts which alter the conception of its own self-interest and self-preservation.

The creation of one such new fact has been boldly proposed by a member of your committee. The creation of the other lies in your hands today.

In order not to trespass upon your time, Mr. Chairman, I have left a number of gaps in the presentation of the suggested modification of the McMahon proposal. To fill in these gaps, I ask leave to have included in the record of my testimony, the paper already referred to, which was delivered last week at a conference of the Postwar World Council in New York.

Senator THOMAS. Without objection, it will be included.

(The paper referred to is as follows:)

SENATOR MCMAHON’S PEACE BOMB-WORKABLE PLAN OR DESPERATE HOPE?

[The Current Affairs Press, New York 17, N. Y.](By James P. Warburg)

I. IS IT A PLAN OR JUST A HOPE?

The speech delivered in the United States Senate on February 2, 1950, by the Honorable Brien McMahon, may well go down in history as the turning point in postwar United States policy. On the other hand, it is also quite possible that its echoes will die away within a few weeks or months, if the flame of hope which it kindled is allowed to flicker and die out.

For the first time since the cold war began, one of the major architects of United States foreign policy stood up and denounced the sterility of the present negative approach to peace—denounced as hopelessly outworn the ancient motto: “He who wants peace had better prepare for war.” This was the beginning of hope.

But Senator McMahon did more than merely repudiate the idea that security can be attained through maintaining the greatest arsenal of destructive weapons. He put forward a constructive proposal for an affirmative approach to peace. Was this proposal a workable plan for peace? Or was it merely the expression of a desperate anxiety that a workable plan for peace should be developed?

Briefly stated, Senator McMahon proposed that, if the Soviet Union would accept effective international control of atomic energy, the United States should declare itself willing to cut its military expenditures from 15 to 5 billion dollars a year, and to contribute the $100,000,000,000 so saved to a world-wide economic recovery program, channeled through the United Nations. The Senator envisaged a cooperative program, to which other nations would likewise contribute—a program lasting perhaps 5 years and calling for a total contribution of $50,000,000,000 from the United States. The present European recovery program, the point 4 program, atomic energy development and, presumably, all other programs of economic rehabilitation and development would be combined in this single over-all plan. Under it, all nations, including the Soviet Union, would be eligible for assistance.

This proposal falls into two parts: the proposal itself, and the conditions upon which it was put forward. Let us consider each separately.

II. THE CONCRETE PROPOSAL

The plan itself recognizes and squarely meets several major defects in our present foreign-aid policies.

By implication, it recognizes the futility of all military aid as opposed to economic assistance. Explicitly, as to economic assistance itself, Senator McMahon’s proposal corrects three major errors in our present procedures:

1. We have so far been attempting to deal with isolated parts of the world economy without an over-all concept or plan. For example, we are trying desperately to “integrate” western Europe by one major effort, while making another wholly separate effort to raise the living standards of the so-called underdeveloped areas of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. We have so far -overlooked the fact that parts of western Europe are actually much more closely “integrated” with parts of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East than they are with each other.

Senator McMahons’ plan recognizes the need for a single, coordinated, worldwide effort, applied at whatever may be the points of maximum leverage on the world’s economy.

2. We embarked, in 1947, upon a wholly negative concept of extending economic and military aid wherever needed to contain Soviet-communism. We then tried to switch to a positive approach, when Secretary Marshall, in launching his well-known project, declared: “Our policy is not directed against any country or doctrine, but against hunger, poverty, desperation, and chaos.” Our attempt to make this switch was frustrated by Molotov’s famous walk-out, which doomed the Marshall plan to become primarily an instrument in the negative cold war. (It is beside the point of this discussion to speculate upon which would have happened, if Russia had accepted Secretary Marshall’s invitation.) In January, 1949, President Truman made a second start toward an affirmative policy, when he enunciated the point 4 principle. This declaration of principle remains as yet unimplemented and the legislation now before Congress would, if enacted, constitute only a very small first step in its execution.

Senator McMahon’s proposal carries the affirmative emphasis over into the whole of our foreign economic assistance effort. It restores the original Marshall plan concept.

3. We have been operating, in our foreign-aid programs, almost wholly outside the United Nations. The basic tenet of our policy has been to strengthen the United Nations; nevertheless, we have acted unilaterally in western Europe, in Greece and Turkey, and in China. President Truman’s point 4 program will apparently attempt to channel at least some of the proposed technical aid through the United Nations, but most, if not all, of the needed capital investments are expected to flow unilaterally from the United States to the participating countries, in accordance with bilateral bargains made outside of the United Nations. Senator McMahon’s proposal recognizes the need for channeling the whole program through the United Nations.

These are three major contributions to the making of an American policy that might lead to enduring peace. There is a fourth contribution implicit in the Senator’s proposal.

Because we have committed so large a part of our resources to military preparations and to European aid, we have arrived at the crisis in Asia feeling impoverished. Our budget is heavily out of balance. Taxes are already burdensome. Therefore, whatever we do in Asia must, we think, be done without spending any substantial funds from our Treasury. This led President Truman to speak of “our vast imponderable resources” and to think in terms of technical advice rather than financial assistance. Since then, however, it has become clear that technical advice without substantial help in carrying it into effect would be of no great usefulness, and so we have built a point 4 program on the hypothesis that private investors can be induced to provide the necessary capital. To a very great extent, I believe this hypothesis to be an illusion, especially in the initial stages of the program.

Senator McMahon’s proposal would make aid to the underdeveloped areas an integral part of an over-all program financed largely by Government contributions channeled through the United Nations. This would in no way preclude private investment. It would, on the contrary, create the only conditions in which private capital might be willing and able to make an important contribution.

We see, then, that the McMahon proposal might, if reduced to a practicable plan, cure precisely those defects from which our past efforts have suffered and from which the point 4 program will suffer, if we pursue our present course.

III. THE SELF-NEGATING PROVISO

Let us now consider the conditions upon which this extremely interesting proposal has been put forward.

The whole plan rests upon the assumption that the United States can save $10,000,000,000 a year (two-thirds of its present military budget). This assumption, in turn, rests upon Russian acceptance of a modified Baruch plan for the international control of atomic energy.

Various commentators have pointed out that this point of departure negates the whole proposal and makes it merely a clever propaganda maneuver. They have pointed out that, if Russia would not accept the Baruch plan when we had an atomic monopoly, she would certainly not accept it now; in other words, that the Baruch plan is out of date.

This criticism seems to me wide of the mark. It is true that the Baruch plan is out of date. But I can find no conclusive evidence in the Senator’s speech to suggest that he would object to modifying it, so long as it remained an enforceable plan fortified by the right of inspection. The real difficulty lies elsewhere.

The Acheson-Lilienthal report, from which the Baruch plan derived, was a revolutionary document. It said, in so many words, that there was no way to prevent the construction and probable use of atomic weapons, short of establishing a world authority capable of enacting, administering, and enforcing law. The Baruch plan was, in effect, a plan for the establishment of world government in the field of atomic energy.

Now the amazing thing was this: We, the United States, were willing to put forward this far-seeing proposal and to abide by it, but without recognizing the revolutionary nature of our own proposition. It never occurred to us that the principle, which we recognized as valid with respect to atomic weapons, was equally valid with regard to all weapons. We talked about government under law with respect to A-bombs, but went on talking about international anarchy with respect to TNT-bombs. This is something like a community which decides to outlaw murder by the use of firearms, enacts a law to that effect, and hires a policeman to enforce it, but leaves murder by knives, hatchets, and poison to the discretion of individuals. For what, pray, is any attempt to control so-called conventional armaments by treaty between sovereign nation states, other than leaving the use of such armaments to the discretion of the individual governments?

The trouble with the Baruch plan-even if brought up to date-is that it deals only with one type of weapon. It outlaws one method of waging war. What we need to do is to outlaw all weapons of aggression. What we need to do is to outlaw war itself.

The puzzling thing about Senator McMahon’s proposal is that he did not make this the condition-if there was to be a condition-for the adoption by the United States of an affirmative policy toward peace. It would be less puzzling if Senator McMahon had not himself sponsored a resolution, now before both Houses of Congress, which would make the development of the United Nations into a world federation the avowed aim of American policy. In signing his name to this resolution, Senator McMahon recognized that there can be no peace without a world organization capable of enacting, administering, and enforcing world law, in such a way as to prevent aggression by any nation against another with any weapons of force-from hatchets to H-bombs.

Why not, then, combine two bravely taken positions of wise statesmanship into one? It seems to me that, were he to do this, Senator McMahon would have a theoretically impeccable plan.

It is true that the proposals thus modified would still not be a practicable plan, because the Russians would hardly accept world government with regard to all weapons any more readily than they would accept the enforcement of law with regard to one type of weapon. This brings me to the final observation I should like to make concerning the Senator’s proposal.

IV. THE PLAN MADE REALISTIC

If the policy suggested by Senator McMahon is a wise policy for the United States to pursue, why must it be made conditional upon any Russian action? The obvious answer is that we cannot afford to cut our military expenditures by $10,000,000,000 a year unless there is an effective agreement to disarm; and that, unless we can save the $10,000,000,000 out of our military budget, we cannot afford to spend them on economic reconstruction.

The first half of this answer must be accepted as correct. Disarmament by example will get us nowhere.

The second half of the answer seems to me open to question. Suppose we take for granted that no effective disarmament agreement is possible at the present time, and that we cannot, therefore, count on any substantial saving in our military budget. Is it so certain that we cannot afford to go ahead nevertheless with the constructive program put forward by Senator McMahon?

To begin with, we should not be talking about a ‘net increase of $10,000,000,000, a year in our expenditure. The money we are now spending in western Europe and in other parts of the world for purely economic aid—excluding military assistance—comes to at least $4,000,000,000 a year. If these existing programs were integrated, as proposed, in the new over-all plan, we should be adding only six billions to our annual expenditure. Thus, the 5-year program would cost us 30—not 50 billions. Furthermore, it seems reasonably certain that, with or without the over-all McMahon plan, we shall have to spend considerable sums in Asia and the Middle East during the next 5 years if we intend to hold our own in a continuing cold war. It is, therefore, fair to say that the adoption of the McMahon plan without any conditions whatever would probably not add more than four or five billion dollars a year to our expenditures.

Can we afford such an increase?

I should like to put the question to you In reverse: Can we afford not to undertake such a plan? The last war cost us over $1,000,000,000,000. It cost us very early as much per week as this program would cost us per year. No one knows what the next war would cost.

Clearly we can afford it, if the program can reasonably be expected to get us off the greased slide that leads to atomic war and on to the long and arduous road that leads to peace.

I, for one, believe that Senator McMahon has outlined a plan that can reasonably be expected to lessen the existing tensions, to strengthen the United Nations, to put the United States into an unassailable moral position and to improve the lot of mankind. I believe that the United States should embark upon such a plan without making its decision subject to whatever the Kremlin may or may not be willing to do at the present time.

Secretary of State Acheson has said that the only agreements that can be made with the Kremlin are agreements which rest upon existing facts. Let us, then, present, the Kremlin with a fact far more powerful than our decision to develop and manufacture ever more horrible weapons of destruction. Let us present the Kremlin With the fact that the United States is determined, in spite of its military burdens, to commit an act of faith-to dedicate its great strength to constructive cooperation with all the world’s peoples in a world-wide crusade against hunger, poverty disease, and ignorance. Let us present the Kremlin with the fact of a challenge not only to its military power but to its purposes, which are the ultimate roots of its power.

V. SHOULD WE LET RUSSIA PARTICIPATE IN THE NEW OVER-ALL PLAN?

The condition I would attach to Senator McMahon’s proposal is one that we shall not be able to impose until we, ourselves, have accepted it. That condition is that only those nations shall be eligible to participate in the plan whose peoples have made known their will to accept the rule of law—not merely in the field of atomic weapons but in the whole field of international relations—to the degree necessary in order to outlaw force, or the threat of force, as a method of settling disputes.

Once we declare our own willingness to transform the United Nations into an organization capable of enforcing peace under law, we shall find ourselves in company with the entire non-Soviet world. We shall then be in a position to proceed with our over-all cooperative plan hand in hand with the majority of the world’s peoples.

When the rulers of the Russian people decide that they, too, wish to participate on these terms, then, at long last, the arms race can come to an end, and all the world’s peoples can be released from the burden which lies so heavily upon them, and from the overhanging threat of annihilation which beclouds their lives with fear.

It would, I think, be foolish to think that this can happen in the immediate future as the result of any sort of negotiations. A regime which maintains itself at home by the use of force cannot readily renounce force as an instrument of foreign policy. In the long run, however, even such a regime can be brought to realize—by “demonstration of fact”—that those peoples, who devote their energies to peaceful cooperation, will outstrip the peoples whose governments pursue only the sterile aim of widening the orbit of their own arbitrary power. The alternatives with which we are faced today are not whether we should or should not “talk to the Russians.” The alternatives we face are whether or not to do—in spite of the Russians—what needs to be done and what. in our hearts, we know we should do.

Freed from its self-defeating proviso, Senator McMahon’s proposal can become a mighty weapon for peace.

Freed from its own myopic, penny-pinching fears, our Government can use this proposal to end the long nightmare in which we have been living.

QUESTIONS

Senator THOMAS. Senator Smith?

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Warburg, I am interested in your program here. I gather from your statement that you are not prepared to go as far as the so-called Hutchins plan, which is a proposed set-up for a world federation—you are not prepared to go that far?

Mr. WARBURG. No, sir.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I also gather that you are not in accord with the proposals of the Atlantic Union group which contemplates a preponderance of power at this time in order to give us a strong bargaining position with Russia?

Mr. WARBURG. No, sir; I am not in favor of that, as I stated in my testimony.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. And you think the proposals we have had to move step by step are not adequate?

Mr. WARBURG. That is right.

WORLD “FEDERATION” OR “ORDER”?

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Now there is one difficulty that has been raised in these hearings, in regard to a particular resolution, and that is to the use of the word “federation,” and that is on the theory that it prejudges the kind of world set-up to exist. In other words, it is sort of copying after our own state or Swiss state. Some think that it goes too far and some think that unless we can see the thing through and blueprint it as to what it means, we should not use it. I have been asked as to those things, and as to the substitution of the word “order” for the word “federation” so that you won’t have the implication of some kind of federated. states, if that might not be better in this resolution, if adopted.

Mr. WARBURG. I would hesitate to express an unconsidered opinion as to this, Senator. It seems to me that “federation” is as broad as “order,” and a little more specific in the sense that it is more limited if you like, because it means that you delegate power to a federal government, whereas “order” might be unitary government, and if I were afraid of having this too broad, I would prefer the word “federation” because it does imply a limited delegation of power.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. You feel it presupposes that we might commit ourselves to something like the Swiss Federation, or our own federation, or any other existing federation at the approach. I am wondering whether you are prepared to go that far, where you say in your statement that you are not trying to outline the details, you mean you are not prepared to say yet what kind of over-all federal legislature should be set up to enact the kind of laws you contemplate?

Mr. WARBURG. No; because I don’t think we alone are capable of thinking that out. I think that is a cooperative matter that calls for cooperative effort.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I just wondered whether you wanted the United States to commit itself to that approach, and to the implication of the word “federation” at this time.

Mr. WARBURG. I think the essential thing we should undertake is that we declare our willingness to participate in some sort of world organization capable of enacting, administering, interpreting, and, enforcing world law, whether you call it a federation, a government, or world order, I don’t think that matters. I don’t share in Mr. Hickerson’s anxiety that this limits us to a narrow approach. I think this is a broad approach, and I like it for that reason; whereas some of the other proposals are not, and I think they would be a misstep at the present time.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Would you be willing, irrespective of whether this is passed or not, to support the Thomas-Douglas proposal, or the so-called Ferguson Resolution, if you know what they are?

Mr. WARBURG. I don’t know the Ferguson Resolution.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. The Ferguson Resolution is simply an approach through the United Nations, recognizing the United Nations, and presupposes that it has in it a possibility of expansion and proposes that that area of expansion should be explored under the United Nations as it is today, a trial-and-error approach, rather than contemplating a blueprint for the future.

Mr. WARBURG. I couldn’t support that because it doesn’t seem to go to the root of the matter, which is simply that the United Nations in its present form is a league of sovereign states, and the root of the evil is that it is not a league of sovereign people. Unless you cure that, I don’t think you can attack the root of the evil. I don’t think our present resolutions go far enough, I may be incorrect, but in my understanding, the resolution won’t go far enough to change the United Nations from a league of nations to a league of people.

Senator THOMAS of Utah. It would not change the structure of the United Nations at all.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. That is all I had in mind, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to bring out, if I could, Mr. Warburg’s position on these things, and the relation to other proposals. We are dealing with lots of proposals and we will have to meet in executive session when the hearings are over, and think through the positions taken by the different witnesses.

I feel grateful to you for your splendid presentation, Mr. Warburg. Your point of view is very valuable.

Mr. WARBURG. If I might sum it up, I think Senate Resolution 56 does the minimum required to undertake the job we have to undertake without going any further than is necessary, to accomplish that minimum, at the present time.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. You don’t claim Senate Resolution 56 would meet any of the immediate present crises before us?

Mr. WARBRG. No, but I think it would get us on a course with a charted goal toward which we could steer, which would enable us to meet the crises, and without such a goal, I don’t see how we can, because we will go on zigzagging.

DISARMAMENT PROPOSAL

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Would you care to comment on Senator Tydings’ suggestion that the President call a disarmament conference to deal with that as the immediate problem before us, before we get to Senator McMahon’s proposal?

Mr. WARBURG. With all due respect to Senator Tydings, I have never seen any hope in disarmament or limitation of armaments by agreement between sovereign nations or states, because all of the treaties between the sovereign nations or states are such that anyone can break them at their convenience, and the result is that you give a head start to the aggressor.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I ought to say, in behalf of Senator Tydings’ proposal that he wouldn’t think of going into it unless there were some practical plan for international inspection.

Mr. WARBURG. I would find it difficult to imagine any practical plan which did not involve some form of world government.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. That is one of the difficulties we have. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

IMPLEMENTATION OF SENATE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 56

Senator WILEY. Mr. Chairman, Senate Resolution 56 merely expresses the sense of the Congress. Do you think, Mr. Warburg, that it should be a fundamental objective of the foreign policy of the United States to support and strengthen the United Nations and seek its development into a world federation open to all nations with defined and limited power?

Where do you go from there?

Mr. WARBURG. I don’t think one needs to answer that question at the present time, sir. I can tell you where I think, or where I would try to go. As far as I can see today, the next thing I would do would be to explore with the other nations, and as I said in my statement, particularly with a nation like India, what the common ground is on which we could reasonably hope to build a pattern on which they could live and we could live, each keeping the things we cherish. If we could do that, find the common pattern or the common meeting ground for the non-Soviet world, and I believe it can be done, then one begins this trial-and-error business, finding out how the details would work out in terms of a constitution, and so forth.

Senator WILEY. I want to thank you for that explanation, because I agree fully with you that all the resolution does is to express the sense of the Congress the hope and wish that through man’s ingenuity and vision he can evolve something that may do this job.

Mr. WARBURG. I should say, if I might, sir, it is more than a wish. I think it is a determination. I think if the Congress enacts this concurrent resolution, it is requesting the President to declare this as an avowed aim of the American policy, and aims of American policy have a habit of being more than wishes.

Senator WILEY. I won’t quibble with you about the meaning of words. What I have in mind is that it is not a mandate because under the Constitution this is a question of foreign policy. It virtually says to the President, “Now, get busy and see if you can do something about this terrible situation that we are in.” The State Department says that they have been busy. They have been trying in every way, through the United Nations, through their ambassadors, to try to reach some workable arrangement with Joe Stalin. The only reason I am interjecting this angle is because, as you have heard today, two Congressmen have intimated that the passage of one of these resolutions would be unconstitutional. When those very suggestions get to the public, and they connect them with the daily news, a bad psychological condition is created. I think it is well to have it clear that all we are doing here is exploring these suggestions. If any resolution is passed, all it does is to suggest to the President who, under the Constitution, has responsibility for our foreign relations, that we want him to keep on exploring to see if we can do something to antidote the Russian influence.

EFFECT OF RESOLUTION ON PEOPLE OF THE WORLD

Now, I want to ask another question: Assume now that pursuant to this resolution the President is requested to head in a certain direction in foreign relations to take steps to support and strengthen the United Nations in such a way that there will be developed a world federation open to other nations.

Assume that we are successful in getting this resolution through. Suppose we get India and Pakistan and their 500,000,000 people to enter our organization. We could make a lot of other assumptions.

All right, how are we going to, by having this mechanism, change the ideological approach of these people? I am interested, vitally interested, because I think that is the crux of the thing-how are we going to win the battles of the mind?

Mr. WARBURG. What I attempted to suggest, and let me restate it because I think it is the nub of the problem. I don’t think that by our avowed intention to transform the United Nations into a world federation, that we change an existing crisis with Russia, and the whole Communist orbit.

Senator WILEY. That should be set out—

Mr. WARBURG. It may, hitch together, because that is only half of what I want to say.

I don’t think we can meet that crisis in any other way except by embarking on this road, and then doing some other things as well. I don’t think then, even if you attained world government, you would necessarily have a guaranty of peace-I don’t think you can have peace without world government, I think we need to proceed on two parallel lines, one political, and one economic. I think the political line is that we must declare our intention to do the one thing that can preserve the peace in the world, and oddly enough, the United States and the Soviet Union are the only two great powers that are on record as opposing the transformation of the United Nations, That is the only thing we agree with Uncle Joe on. Most of the other nations in the world are about ready to do something about it. That is the political approach.

But, parallel, to that, that is why I brought in Senator McMahon’s proposal, I think we can do a great deal to create the limits within which the world community can grow and become possible, and I think the Senator hit the nail on the head with his proposal, except as I say he hitched it to another proviso.

I think we should go ahead and do precisely what he says, and not wait for Russia. We should get together with the other nations, which are willing to share our purpose to create the rule of law in the world.

Senator WILEY. Have you ever heard of the statement that a treaty is but a scrap of paper?

Mr. WARBURG. Yes.

Senator WILEY. Have you seen any indication in the last 30 years that the nations have changed their approach on that?

Mr. WARBURG. If your question means, do I believe that we can make a treaty with the Russians, I will say precisely the opposite. I am saying we should proceed, irrespective of a treaty with the Russians.

Senator WILEY. I am talking about whether or not the question of the validity of a treaty is just as strong as the intent of the parties to maintain it and keep it.

Mr. WARBURG. That is correct.

Senator WILEY. And, when you talk about creating a world government, you mean, I presume, that not simply the mechanism, but that the parties to that will live and die with the instrument; that they are ready to live and ready to sacrifice and ready to carry it through. But we have seen how in the economic front, the doctrine of the British, that a contract is a valid thing between two parties, has fared, and you have seen in the nations of the earth, the old British doctrine go out the window and the idea is now, “Get as much as you can, and forget the contract.”

Mr. WARBURG. Senator, I think you have put your finger on the primary reason why this resolution is necessary. As long as you have a world organization which is in effect nothing more than a multilateral agreement between sovereign states, you have precisely the situation you describe. The minute you have government and law, and law enforcement, there is no longer a question of whether you are willing to stick to a contract, you have to, or the policeman will come and take you in to jail.

Senator WILEY. You are assuming law and law enforcement. That means that Uncle Sam would become the world policeman.

Mr. WARBURG. No, no. I am not assuming that we will run the world government. I am not assuming that this world federation is a device for extending our own power.

Senator WILEY. You are not assuming that all the other folks on the earth are going to run us, are you?

Mr. WARBURG. I am assuming that a government will be run as our own Government is run, by the development of a fair process of representation which has to take in all the factors that apply to that, not only population, but productivity and education and all those things.

Senator WILEY. That is a consummation devoutly to be wished for, but are you not really assuming that we have won the battle of ideas in the minds of men, so that-we all see alike? Until you do that, you will have your internal conflict.

Mr. WARBURG. I don’t think we have won the battle for the minds of men, I think we are in the process of losing it, sir.

Senator WILEY. I think we have lost it. I want to win it back, if there is a way to do it. If yours is the way to do it, you will have to demonstrate it, and you will have to demonstrate that if we join up with all the groups of the earth, that we won’t be taken for a ride. We have been so naive in our world dealings, as you know, with the Soviet Union particularly and with others, and my whole thought in questioning you is to see or make sure that the thing we want, in other words, people sitting down, nations sitting down together, keeping faith with one another, things that we want to be–that our wishes do not lead us up other blind alleys that we would regret.

Mr. WARBURG. I subscribe to that, but I do very strongly feel that what we are doing today is following a policy which is made largely in Moscow, a fear-dictated negative policy designed to stop the Russians from whatever they want to do. I think the only way we will ever stop the Russians is to. develop a positive policy of our own, and I think the two parts of a pattern go together. You can’t have law without government, and you can’t have peace without law, that is part A; and, part B, the fact that you have to conduct a really serious world-wide war on hunger, disease, ignorance, and poverty if you want to have the people of the world on our side. I don’t mean to be Santa Claus. I mean, there should be a cooperative endeavor, such as Senator McMahon was talking about, in which everybody chips in.

Senator WILEY. We have to have that recognition. If we have it, can we get all the other folks to have that recognition, and then keep faith?

Mr. WARBURG. I think the first problem we should meet is in ourselves. One of the things I think we have been doing too much, is that we have stopped ourselves from getting started in the right direction because we then say, conveniently, “Oh, well, the other fellow won’t do it anyway, so what’s the use.”

If we said, “This is something we have to do,” and did it, we would find an awful lot of other people coming along who, once something was started, might be persuaded to join us.

Senator WILEY. You understand, of course, that we have a great deal of disagreement here between great minds in relation to the appropriateness of the mechanism. You are in favor of this, others are in favor of the North Atlantic Union, so, great minds differ on the mechanism, but they all seem to think that their mechanism will do the job.

Now, the thing I am trying to bring out in my questions is, that no mechanism will do the job unless there is a willingness and intent on the part of the peoples to carry it through.

Mr. WARBURG. Including our own.

Senator WILEY. Yes, that is the thing, and there is always the danger that because men of high standing, like yourself, get up here and talk about a mechanism, that some people believe it is going to give us the thing right off the bat, ipso facto, so to speak—it is going to be self-operating. That is a very dangerous condition for us to get into. We must make sure that whatever we do, it does not go out to the public that at long last we have found the magic something that is going to bring peace on earth. Peace is a question of conflict within the minds of men, and between nations. Conflict in the minds of men has been generated through centuries of hate and competition between people for material wealth and political domination. That basic conflict is not eliminated by merely passing a resolution or creating a mechanism. It has to be something finer, a rebirth within the minds of men. Do you agree with that?

Mr. WARBURG. Yes, but nothing I ever said, or that I have ever written indicated that I think that by passing a resolution we will have the millennium, nor are we talking about a mechanism. I think we are talking about an aim to find a mechanism; something different. We are not saying this is the mechanism by which you do it, we are saying you have to find it. We have to find the mechanism which will enable us to substitute the rule of law for the rule of anarchy in the world.

Senator WILEY. You have no mechanism, you are searching for one. Others say they have the mechanism.

Mr. WARBURG. I think that is all this resolution commits us to, to search for a mechanism to create the rule of law.

Senator WILEY. Thank you.

Senator THOMAS. Thank you, Mr. Warburg.

Mr. WARBURG. Thank you, sir.

James Warburg Biographical/Historical Note

SOURCE: JFK Library

1896 Born August 18, Hamburg, Germany

1917 A.B., Harvard

1917-1918 Navy Flying Corps

1919 National Metropolitan Bank of Washington

1919-1921 First National Bank of Boston

1921-1929 Vice President, International Acceptance Bank

1929-1931 President, International Manhattan Company

1931-1932 President, International Acceptance Bank

1932-1935 Vice Chairman of the Board, Bank of Manhattan Company

1932-1934 Financial Advisor to President Roosevelt and London Economic Conference

1933 Financial Advisor, World Economic Conference, London

1934-1936 Work in opposition to certain New Deal Policies

1939-1941 Work against isolationism in American foreign policy

1941-1942 Special Assistant to the Coordinator of Information

1942-1944 Deputy Director, Overseas Branch, Office of War Information

1944 Advisor and speech writer, Political Action Committee of the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO-PAC)

1945-1969 Touring, speaking, and writing efforts on behalf of “a more creative foreign policy”

1969 Died June 3, Greenwich, Connecticut

And this is just history as written by its winners.
We will keep digging deeper to find out what they forgot to tell us and what they made up.

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

This organization is also tied to Ukraine and its biolabs.

LATEST: OH NOES! #BillGatesBioTerrorist is trending!

NTI Co-Chairman and CEO Ernest J. Moniz and Munich Security Conference (MSC) Chairman Ambassador Wolfgang Ischinger convened 19 current and former global leaders and experts for a March 17, 2021 senior leaders tabletop exercise focused on reducing high-consequence biological threats with potentially catastrophic consequences.

This third annual tabletop exercise organized by NTI’s Global Biological Policy and Programs team (NTI | bio) in conjunction with the MSC is part of the MSC’s “Beyond Westlessness: The Road to Munich 2021” campaign. This effort includes several virtual high-level events and initiatives aimed at advancing the security policy dialogue on priorities for a new transatlantic agenda and laying the groundwork for in-person debates in Munich later in the year. This year’s exercise was conducted on a virtual platform due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The impact of COVID-19 provided a pressing backdrop for this exercise, as the ongoing pandemic has highlighted weaknesses in the international architecture for preventing, detecting, and responding to pandemic threats. This is an urgent concern because future pandemics could match or exceed COVID-19’s devastating impact in lost lives and shattered economies. Even more concerning is that there are critical gaps in biotechnology oversight that create opportunities for accidental or deliberate misuse with potentially catastrophic global consequences. This was illustrated in the exercise scenario: a localized bioweapons attack with a genetically engineered monkeypox virus begins in the fictional country of Brinia. Over 18 months, the scenario evolves into a globally catastrophic pandemic, leaving 40% of the world’s population infected and over a quarter billion people dead.

The fictional exercise scenario unfolded gradually through a series of short videos that participants reacted to during a facilitated discussion. Key themes emerged regarding the need to strengthen international pandemic risk assessment and early warning systems; to establish clear triggers for national-level anticipatory response and aggressive early action to slow disease transmission and save lives; to reduce biotechnology risks and enhance oversight of life sciences research; and to promote new and stronger international health security preparedness financing mechanisms.

A full report will be published later in 2021. More information about previous exercises can be found in final reports from 2019 and 2020.

Enter the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI).

NTI was founded in 2001 by former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn and philanthropist Ted Turner. It serves as the Secretariat for the “Nuclear Security Project”, in cooperation with the Hoover Institution at Stanford. Former Secretary of State George P. Shultz, former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry, former Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger and Nunn (the “four horsemen of the nuclear apocalypse”) guide the project—an effort to encourage global action to reduce urgent nuclear dangers and build support for reducing reliance on nuclear weapons, ultimately ending them as a threat to the world

Wikipedia

The only connection between nuclear threats and monkey-pox?
Bill Gates and The Rockefeller Foundation, see below:

In early 2018, NTI received a $6 million grant from the Open Philanthropy Project. The grant will be used to “help strengthen its efforts to mitigate global biological threats that have increased as the world has become more interconnected.”

Why?

 In January 2018 NTI announced that it had received $250,000 in support from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. That money will help advance NTI’s efforts in developing a “Global Health Security Index”. The index would analyze a country’s biological programs and policies.

Why?

#BillGatesBioTerrorist: “Ok, What if a bio-terrorist brought smallpox to 10 airports.?”

NTI has received international recognition for work to improve biosecurity, primarily through creating disease surveillance networks. Whether a biological threat is natural or intentional, disease surveillance is a key step in rapid detection and response. Because the response of a health system in one country could have a direct and immediate impact on a neighboring country, or even continent, NTI developed projects that foster cooperation among public health officials across political and geographic boundaries.

In 2003, NTI created the Middle East Consortium for Infectious Disease Surveillance (MECIDS) with participation from Israel, Jordan, and the Palestinian Authority. MECIDS continues to share official health data and conduct infectious disease prevention training.

NTI also created the Connecting Organizations for Disease Surveillance (CORDS), which in 2013 launched as an independent NGO that links international disease surveillance networks, supported by the World Health Organization, and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

This is just the top line of a large and spectacular Board of Directors:

Co-chaired by Moniz, Nunn and Ted Turner, NTI is governed by a Board of Directors with both current and emeritus members from the United States, Japan, India, Pakistan, China, Jordan, Sweden, France and the United Kingdom. They include:

AND BOOM!
The famous Nunn-Lugar duo re-united for yet another mission.
You know them from their previous hit piece, the world famous Nunn–Lugar Act and Pentagon’s activities in the former USSR, including Ukraine’s biolabs.
See: US RAN GRUESOME BIOWEAPON RESEARCH IN OVER 25 COUNTRIES. WUHAN, TIP OF AN ICEBERG

Advisors to the Board of Directors include leading figures in science, business and international security. Advisors to the Board include:

NTI’s staff includes experts in international affairs, nonproliferation, security and military issues, public health, medicine and communications, who have operational experience in their areas of specialty

Former U.S. Secretary of Energy Ernest J. Moniz was named co-chair and chief executive officer by the Board of Directors of the Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) in March 2017.  He began serving in June 2017.

An American nuclear physicist who was named as the 13th United States Secretary of Energy by President Barack Obama in May 2013. He is one of the founders of The Cyprus Institute and he was the Associate Director for Science in the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Clinton administration.

Before his appointment as Secretary of Energy, he served in a variety of advisory capacities, including at BP, General Electric and the King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

WIKIPEDIA

In November 2020, Moniz was named a candidate for Secretary of Energy in the Biden Administration.] However, former Governor of Michigan Jennifer Granholm was chosen instead.[ Most likely because Moniz has been criticized by environmentalists for his ties to the oil and gas industries. During his career, Moniz has served on the advisory boards for BP, one of the largest oil and gas companies, and General Electric. Prior to his appointment as Secretary of Energy, Moniz served as a trustee of the King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center in Saudi Arabia, according to Wikipedia.

Meanwhile, he turned 200% woke-green.

Al Gore would be pleased to hear that “An Inconvenient Truth,” his documentary on global climate change, passed the MIT test. Ernest J. Moniz, director of the MIT Energy Initiative, and Peter H. Stone, professor of climate dynamics at the MIT Center for Global Change Science, declared that Gore did “a fine job framing the problem.”

MIT

Ah, well…

 His parents were both immigrants from Portugal. Ernest Moniz father’s name is under review and mother unknown at this time. We will continue to update details on Ernest Moniz’s family.

Ted Turner is founder and co-chair of NTI, a global security organization working to reduce threats from nuclear, biological and chemical weapons; chairman of the Turner Foundation, Inc., which supports efforts to grow and diversify the movement, conserve land to protect and restore wildlife and biodiversity, catalyze the transition to a clean energy future, and protect and restore water resources; chairman of the United Nations Foundation, which promotes a more peaceful, prosperous and just world; and chairman and co-founder of the Ted’s Montana Grill restaurant chain, which operates 47 locations nationwide.
Turner is also chairman of Turner Enterprises, Inc., a private company, which manages his business interests, land holdings and investments, including the oversight of two million acres in 11 states and in Argentina, and more than 50,000 bison head.

NIT

Strengthening Global Systems to Prevent and Respond to High-Consequence Biological Threats

REPORT Nov 23, 2021

In March 2021, NTI partnered with the Munich Security Conference to conduct a tabletop exercise on reducing high-consequence biological threats. The exercise examined gaps in national and international biosecurity and pandemic preparedness architectures—exploring opportunities to improve prevention and response capabilities for high-consequence biological events. Participants included 19 senior leaders and experts from across Africa, the Americas, Asia, and Europe with decades of combined experience in public health, biotechnology industry, international security, and philanthropy.

This report, Strengthening Global Systems to Prevent and Respond to High-Consequence Biological Threats: Results from the 2021 Tabletop Exercise Conducted in Partnership with the Munich Security Conferencewritten by Jaime M. Yassif, Ph.D., Kevin P. O’Prey, Ph.D., and Christopher R. Isaac, M.Sc., summarizes key findings from the exercise and offers actionable recommendations for the international community.

Exercise Summary

Developed in consultation with technical and policy experts, the fictional exercise scenario portrayed a deadly, global pandemic involving an unusual strain of monkeypox virus that first emerged in the fictional nation of Brinia and spread globally over 18 months. Ultimately, the exercise scenario revealed that the initial outbreak was caused by a terrorist attack using a pathogen engineered in a laboratory with inadequate biosafety and biosecurity provisions and weak oversight. By the end of the exercise, the fictional pandemic resulted in more than three billion cases and 270 million fatalities worldwide.

Discussions throughout the tabletop exercise generated a range of valuable insights and key findings. Most significantly, exercise participants agreed that, notwithstanding improvements following the global response to COVID-19, the international system of pandemic prevention, detection, analysis, warning, and response is woefully inadequate to address current and anticipated future challenges. Gaps in the international biosecurity and pandemic preparedness architecture are extensive and fundamental, undermining the ability of the international community to prevent and mount effective responses to future biological events—including those that could match the impacts of COVID-19 or cause damage that is significantly more severe.

Report Findings and Recommendations

Discussion among exercise participants led to the following key findings:

(The full findings are available on page 14 of the report.)

  • Weak global detection, assessment, and warning of pandemic risks. The international community needs a more robust, transparent detection, evaluation, and early warning system that can rapidly communicate actionable information about pandemic risks.
  • Gaps in national-level preparedness. National governments should improve preparedness by developing national-level pandemic response plans built upon a coherent system of “triggers” that prompt anticipatory action, despite uncertainty and near-term costs—in other words, on a “no-regrets” basis.
  • Gaps in biological research governance. The international system for governing dual-use biological research is neither prepared to meet today’s security requirements, nor is it ready for significantly expanded challenges in the future. There are risk reduction needs throughout the bioscience research and development life cycle.
  • Insufficient financing of international preparedness for pandemics. Many countries around the world lack financing to make the essential national investments in pandemic preparedness.

To address these findings, the report authors developed the following recommendations:

(The full recommendations are available on page 22 of the report.)

  1. Bolster international systems for pandemic risk assessment, warning, and investigating outbreak origins
    • The WHO should establish a graded, transparent, international public health alert system.
    • The United Nations (UN) system should establish a new mechanism for investigating high-consequence biological events of unknown origin, which we refer to as a “Joint Assessment Mechanism.”
  2. Develop and institute national-level triggers for early, proactive pandemic response
    • National governments must adopt a “no-regrets” approach to pandemic response, taking anticipatory action—as opposed to reacting to mounting case counts and fatalities, which are lagging indicators.
    • To facilitate anticipatory action on a no-regrets basis, national governments should develop national-level plans that define and incorporate “triggers” for responding to high-consequence biological events.
  3. Establish an international entity dedicated to reducing emerging biological risks associated with rapid technology advances
    • The international community should establish an entity dedicated to reducing the risk of catastrophic events due to accidental misuse or deliberate abuse of bioscience and biotechnology.
    • To meaningfully reduce risk, the entity should support interventions throughout the bioscience and biotechnology research and development life cycle—from funding, through execution, and on to publication or commercialization.
  4. Develop a catalytic global health security fund to accelerate pandemic preparedness capacity building in countries around the world
    • National leaders, development banks, philanthropic donors, and the private sector should establish and resource a new financing mechanism to bolster global health security and pandemic preparedness.
    • The design and operations of the fund should be catalytic—incentivizing national governments to invest in their own preparedness over the long term.
  5. Establish a robust international process to tackle the challenge of supply chain resilience
    • The UN Secretary General should convene a high-level panel to develop recommendations for critical measures to bolster global supply chain resilience for medical and public health supplies.

EXPERIMENT CONCLUSIONS

To learn more about NTI’s previous tabletop exercises at the Munich Security Conference, see our 2019 report, “A Spreading Plague,” and our 2020 report,  “Preventing Global Catastrophic Biological Risks.”

In 2021, I showed that MICROSOFT CREATED BY IBM TO AVOID ANTI-TRUST LAWS. GATES LIKELY JUST A FRONTMAN.
Just as likely, he left a fading enterprise only to front this bigger and more promising business of ‘plandemics’ and great resets. He’s now the face of GAVI and vaccines, which fronts for, the World Bank, the real plandemic writers and directors, as I’ve shown as far as 2020: FINAL EVIDENCE COVID-19 IS A ‘SIMEX’ – PLANNED SIMULATION EXERCISE BY WHO AND WORLD BANK

It was my mistake to put WB and WHO on the same level in that headline, WHO does not exists as an entity with own will and personality, it’s just a drawer of sock-puppets.

As for the World Bank / IMF, they’re ran by our old (anything but) friends… scroll a bit the PDF below and take a look who authors this internal report I snitched from the WB website!

Simpletons cried it’s impossible to set up a global event like a pandemic because no one can align all these countries.
In fact, about 190 countries and governments owe money to WB / IMF and need to borrow more all the time because they run on debt like Twitter. 190 out of less than 200. There is less agreement over how many countries are there than there is about Covid. Because many countries are not recognized by all players, but Bill Gates is recognized as an Overlords spokesperson.
Running human farms on debt is actually how they ended up in a global economic collapse long before Covid, and this is one of the main reasons behind their desperate need for a Great Reset.


Autoimmune mucocutaneous blistering diseases after SARS-Cov-2 vaccination: A Case report of Pemphigus Vulgaris and a literature review

SOURCE

Abstract

Background: Cases of severe autoimmune blistering diseases (AIBDs) have recently been reported in association with the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccination.

Aims: To describe a report of oropharyngeal Pemphigus Vulgaris (OPV) triggered by the mRNABNT162b2 vaccine (Comirnaty®/ Pfizer/ BioNTech) and to analyze the clinical and immunological characteristics of the AIBDs cases reported following the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

Methods: The clinical and immunological features of our case of OPV were documented. A review of the literature was conducted and only cases of AIBDs arising after the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were included.

Case report: A 60-year old female patients developed oropharyngeal and nasal bullous lesions seven days after the administration of a second dose of the mRNABNT162b2 vaccine (Comirnaty®/ Pfizer/BioNtech). According to the histology and direct immunofluorescence findings showing the presence of supra-basal blister and intercellular staining of IgG antibodies and the presence of a high level of anti-Dsg-3 antibodies (80 U/ml; normal < 7 U/ml) in the serum of the patients, a diagnosis of oropharyngeal Pemphigus Vulgaris was made.

Review: A total of 35 AIBDs cases triggered by the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination were found (including our report). 26 (74.3%) were diagnosed as Bullous Pemphigoid, 2 (5.7%) as Linear IgA Bullous Dermatosis, 6 (17.1%) as Pemphigus Vulgaris and 1 (2.9%) as Pemphigus Foliaceus. The mean age of the sample was 72.8 years and there was a predominance of males over females (F:M=1:1.7). In 22 (62.9%) cases, the disease developed after Pfizer vaccine administration, 6 (17.1%) after Moderna, 3 (8.6%) after AstraZeneca, 3 (8.6%) after CoronaVac (one was not specified). All patients were treated with topical and/or systemic corticosteroids, with or without the addition of immunosuppressive drugs, with a good clinical response in every case.

Conclusion: Clinicians should be aware of the potential, though rare, occurrence of AIBDs as a possible adverse event after the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. However, notwithstanding, they should encourage their patients to obtain the vaccination in order to assist the public health systems to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic.

IN CONCLUSION:

When you rob a planet, you need large laundromats for all that doe.

And you also need large numbers of very good Public Relations executives. Which are hard to come by in Disneyland.

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