French counter-terror boss says Putin didn’t kill Litvinenko, US and UK did – and he has proof

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

Bell By Ricky Twisdale
Russia Insider & SOTT.net

Paul Barril


A former French official who has had senior roles in internal security and terror fighting has come forward with a remarkable statement: that he has documentary evidence proving that Alexander Litvinenko, the Russian spy who died from polonium poisoning, was killed by US and UK special services

In a lengthy interview which is soon to be published, he goes further, saying that Litvinenko's murder was a special sevices operation designed to defame Russia and Vladimir Putin, that the notorious Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky was involved, and was himself killed by MI6 when he became a liability. He even says he knows the code name of the operation: "Beluga".

From Oped News, Monday, March 27:

Operation Beluga: A US-UK Plot to Discredit Putin and Destabilize the Russian Federation 

Renowned French security expert Paul Barril has let loose a bombshell: the existence of Operation Belugaa covert Western intelligence scheme intended to undermine Russia and its leaders. 

Is that what's behind much of the threatening rhetoric now going back and forth between the US and Russia? 

Barril exposed Operation Beluga in a recent interview with Swiss businessman Pascal Najadi on the 2006 Alexander Litvinenko death case. Litvinenko was a reputed former spy who many believe was murdered with radioactive polonium on orders of Vladimir Putin. 

Najadi says the interview drew out the converse revelation that Litvinenko was actually killed by "an Italian who administered the deadly polonium 210." What's more, he astonishingly says, the operation was carried out under the auspices of the US and UK. 

In my books The Phony Litvinenko Murder and Litvinenko Murder Case Solved I've written about an Italian connection. But I can't confirm that Barril is talking about the same person.


Barril's allegations should be taken seriously. He is a renowned French intelligence figure who is known in France as "Superflic", which translates roughly as "Supercop." In the French public eye he is a kind of combination of Eliot Ness, James Bond, and William Bratton.For many years he was the second in command of the ski-mask wearing GIGN, the legendary elite French special forces unit, who top the "badass" rankings of special forces anywhere, and had other high ranking internal security positions in the French government.

Since leaving government service he has handled security issues as a private contractor for heads of state in the Middle East, Latin America and Africa. He has been at the center of several controversies over the years, and is a well-known author. There is no question that he has access to intelligence at the state level which would give him insights into this affair.

In the interview, Barril alleges that Berezovsky was working closely with MI6 and the CIA to discredit Russia and Putin, and that large sums from these agencies were passing through Berezovsky's hands to be paid to individuals to cooperate in these efforts. Barril says Litvinenko was one of Berezovsky's bag men, who passed funds on to others.

From the interview:

"Russia has nothing to do with (the murder of Litvinenko). The case was fabricated from the beginning. Polonium was chosen as the poison because due to its production in Russia it would implicate Russia. The objective of the whole operation was to discredit president Putin and the FSB. It was done because Russia is blocking US interests around the world, especially in Syria. It was an attempt to weaken Putin's hold on power, to destabilize Russia."

In the interview, Barril mentions the outspoken Putin foe, financier William Browder, as being in close cooperation with Berezovsky in the discreditation efforts. He also says he is sure Berezovsky was murdered by his secret service handlers after they realized he was behaving erratically and had to be silenced so that he wouldn't give them away.

Finally, he says he will make his evidence available to a public investigation of the affair if it is run by a credible individual. He suggests Carla del Ponte as a good choice to do it, because he is convinced she is not under the control of the CIA.

Barril's allegations are sure to raise further questions around the 2006 Litvinenko murder, which hit the headlines again in January, 2016, when a UK public inquiry into the affair failed to deliver a conclusive verdict.

The case is 10 years old, but still elicits widespread public interest due the spy-thriller ingredients of the murder mystery: spy - counterspy hijinks, radiation poisonings, accusations (which have been conclusively debunked) that Putin himself 'probably' ordered the murder, seedy nightclubs, a disgraced oligarch who ends up mysteriously dead in his bathroom, sobbing widows on the stand, preposterous politicized "show" trials, politicians grandstanding, and much more.

An accomplished murder mystery author would have trouble coming up with something this surreal.

Comment: Alexander Mercouris has done an excellent job summing up and analysing London's Litvinenko Inquiry: The Litvinenko Inquiry: London's Absurd Show Trial 


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Ricky Twisdale served as deputy editor at Russia Insider, 2015-2017. He lives in Moscow. From 2013-2015 he lived in western Ukraine, where he played witness to events before, during, and after Ukraine's "Maidan revolution." 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

black-horizontal
Things to ponder

While our media prostitutes, many Hollywood celebs, and politicians and opinion shapers make so much noise about the still to be demonstrated damage done by the Russkies to our nonexistent democracy, this is what the sanctimonious US government has done overseas just since the close of World War 2. And this is what we know about. Many other misdeeds are yet to be revealed or documented.

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” — acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump — a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all. Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report

[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]



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

BE SURE TO PASS OUR ARTICLES ON TO KIN, FRIENDS AND COLLEAGUES

Newsletter 14: Was World War One a War To Control Oil?


Hello Dear Reader,
.
Once again I select an excerpt from my work to share with you. This free geopolitical newsletter has become for me a great enrichment of my contact with many of you readers as they provoke numerous comments and feedback I ordinarily would miss. I thank you for that and for your continued support. This time I draw on in depth research I did almost a decade earlier to prepare a manuscript expanding on what I detail in my best-selling book, A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics. If you find this little-known chapter in our contemporary history important and interesting, I would encourage you to purchase the book via Amazon. Enjoy your journey back a century, sadly, what has been a century of war.
Best,
F. William Engdahl



A few Amazon Reader Reviews of Century of War:
"A must read for every citizen on this planet... -- Amazon Customer
"A must read..." -- Ahmed M. Alrayes
"One of the best books I ever read. -- Abdulmuhsen S Al Meshaan
"...this clearly written book is a must read -- José Ewerton
"My many thanks to Mr. Engdhal for his monumental work. -- Rugambwa Smart
Read this book -- K. W. Tighe
"Fascinating information – Goodview
"Excellent book. – Gospi
"Absorbing reading even for seasoned history buffs. A masterful dissection of the normally murky and misleading origins of World War I. A page-turner."—P. Greanville, The Greanville Post


Click on image or here to buy the book:

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

By F. William Engdahl 22 June, 2007

Abstract—

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

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



Oil and the buildup to the Great War

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

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

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

The pillars of Empire

Turkish infantry on eve of WWI

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

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

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

London-- a City built on gold

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

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

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

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

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


Boers with a German-made Mauser mortar. The tough Dutch settlers gave the British army a run for their gold.

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

British Empire’s onset of economic decline

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

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

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

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

Britain increased its dependence on imported goods following the introduction of free trade. From 1883 to 1913 the Sterling value of her imports rose by 84%. The real effect of the shift to import dependence was obscured by the phenomenal success of earnings from invisibles. In 1860 Britain led the world in coal production, the raw material feeding her industry and fueling her navy, with almost 60% of the total.By 1912 that fell to 24%. Similarly, in 1870 England enjoyed an impressive 49% share of total world iron forging output. By 1912 it was 12%. Copper consumption, an essential component of the emerging electrification transformation, went from 32% of world consumption in 1889 to 13% by 1913.11

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

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

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

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

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

A revolution in Naval Power

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]n 1882, petroleum had little commercial interest. The development of the internal combustion engine had not yet revolutionized world industry. One man understood the military-strategic implications of petroleum for future control of the world seas, however.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


French trench expecting gas attack.

Germany emerges in a second industrial revolution

[dropcap]B[/dropcap]eginning the 1870's the German Reich, proclaimed after the Prussian victory over France in 1871, saw the emergence of a colossal new economic player on the map of Continental Europe.

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

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

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

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

The German rail revolution

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he rail infrastructure to transport this rapidly expanding flow of industrial goods, was the initial locomotive for Germany's first Wirtschaftswunder. State rail infrastructure spending doubled the kilometers of track from 1870 to 1913. The German electrical industry grew to dominate half of all international trade in electrical goods by 1913. German chemical industry became the world's leader in aniline dye production, pharmaceuticals and chemical fertilizers.

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

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

A Railway changes the geopolitical map of Europe

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

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

Berlin’s Drang nach Osten

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he answer for Berlin's need to secure new markets and raw material to feed its booming industries clearly lay in the east—specifically in the debt-ridden, ailing Ottoman Empire of Sultan Abdul Hamid II. The situation in Ottoman Turkey had become so extreme that the Sultan had been forced by his French and British creditors to put the finances of the realm under the control of a banker-run agency in 1881. By the Decree of Muharrem (December 1881) the Ottoman public debt was reduced from £191,000,000 to £106,000,000, certain revenues were assigned to debt service, and a European-controlled organization, the Ottoman Public Debt Administration (OPDA), was set up to collect the payments. The OPDA subsequently acted as agent for the collection of other revenues and as an intermediary with European companies seeking investment opportunities. Its affairs were controlled by the two largest creditors—France and Britain, the French being the larger.

Sultan Abdul Hamid II portrait, taken during an official visit to England. The dejected look may indicate his predicament at the hands of British financiers.

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

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

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

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

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

Britain reacts

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

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

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

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

By 1913 that German engagement had taken on an added dimension with a German-Turkish Military Agreement under which German General Liman von Sanders, member of the German Supreme War Council, with personal approval of the Kaiser, was sent to Constantinople to reorganize the Turkish army on the lines of the legendary German General Staff. In a letter to Chancellor [Theobald] von Bethmann-Hollweg, dated April 26, 1913,

Hans von Wangenheim

[Hans] Freiherr von Wangenheim, the German Ambassador to Constantinople declared, "The Power which controls the Army will always be the strongest one in Turkey. No Government hostile to Germany will be able to hold on to power if the Army is controlled by us... " 25.

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



Isolating the German Reich

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

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

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

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

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

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


Herbert

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

British active measures

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

"If 'Berlin-Baghdad' were achieved, a huge block of territory producing every kind of economic wealth, and unassailable by sea-power would be united under German authority,"

warned R.G.D. Laffan. Laffan was at that time a senior British military adviser attached to the Serbian Army.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Karl Theodor Helfferich

The ultimate reason England declared war in August, 1914 lay fundamentally, "in the old tradition of British policy, through which England grew to great power status, and through which she sough to remain a great power," stated Deutsche Bank's Karl Helfferich, the man in the midst of negotiations on the Baghdad Railway, in 1918. "England's policy was always constructed against the politically and economically strongest Continental power," he stressed.

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


German soldiers with gas masks in WW1. Almost everyone who died in that war, on either side, never quite understood the real causes of the war. And a century later, humanity has yet to learn its lessons.

Endnotes:

1 Glyn Davies, A History of Money from Ancient Times to the Present Day, rev.ed., (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1996), 348-352.
2 Sir John Clapham, Bank of England, Vol.II, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1944), p.217.
3 Timothy Green, Central Bank Gold Reserves: An historical perspective since 1845, World Gold Council, Research Study no. 23, November 1999, London.

4 T. Green, Central Bank Gold..., 3,6.
5 Russell Ally, Gold & Empire: The Bank of England and South Africa’s Gold Producers, 1886-1926, (Johannesburg, Witwatersrand University Press, 1994), 31.
6 T. Green, Central Bank Gold..., 6-9.
7 As South African economic historian Russell Ally put the relationship between the Boer War and the Bank of England’s gold reserves, ‘To be sure, Britain did not take physical control of the Transvaal just because the Bank of England was concerned about the state of its gold reserves...However, this should not detract from the fact that there was a growing appreciation of the importance of the Witwatersrand’s gold for the Bank of England’s safeguarding its leadership of the international gold standard and that this coincided with the mining magnates’ (e.g. Rhodes and others—f.w.e.) hostility towards Kruger’s government.’ Cited in Russell Ally, Gold & Empire: The Bank of England and South Africa’s Gold Producers, 1886-1926, (Johannesburg, Witwatersrand University Press, 1994), 25. Ally also notes the crucial role of Lord Milner, then High Commissioner of the Cape Colony and later Governor of Transvaal. Milner and his circle, using the resources from the will of Cecil Rhodes, later founded The Round Table and a periodical of the same name, in order to advance an enormously influential agenda for the regeneration of the British Empire, a fascinating subject beyond the scope of this brief essay.
8 P.J. Cain and A.G. Hopkins, British Imperialism: Innovation and Expansion 1688-1914, (London, Longman, 1993), 373.
9 Susan Fairlie, ‘The Corn Laws and British Wheat Production, 1829-76,’ Economic History Review, Second Series, Vol. 22, No. 1, April 1969, 88-116.
10 Cain and Hopkins, British Imperialism, 181ff.
11 Cited in Sonderabdruck aus der Frankfurter Zeitung, Gegen die englische Finanzvormacht, (7 November, 1915), Frankfurt am Main, Druck & Verlag der Frankfurter Societsdruckerei GmbH.
12 Hans Rosenberg, ‘Political and Social Consequences of the Great Depression of 1873-1896 in Central Europe,’ Economic History Review, Vol. 13, nos.1&2, 1943.
13 Eric J. Dahl, ‘Naval innovation: from coal to oil,’ Joint Force Quarterly, Winter, 2000. The details on oil versus coal powered ships is found in Anton Mohr, The Oil War, (New York, Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1926), 113-115. Anton Zischka, Oelkrieg: Wandlung der Weltmacht Oel, Leipzig, Wilhelm Goldmann Verlag, 1939) 293 for additional comparative data of oil over coal.
14 Winston Churchill, quoted in Peter Slulgett, Britain in Iraq: 1914-1932, (London, Ithaca Press, 1976, 103-4.
15 Anton Mohr, The Oil War, (New York, Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1926), 118-120.
16 There are numerous sources which detail the rapid industrial transformation of the German Reich after 1870. Especially useful in this regard are Karl Erich Born, Wirtschafts-und Sozialgeschichte des Deutschen Kaiserreichs (1867 /71-1914), (Stuttgart, Steiner Verlag, 1985; and Knut Borchardt, The German Economy, 1870 to the present., (London, Weidenfeld & Nicholson, 1967).
17 Karl Helfferich, Deutschlands Volkswohlstand 1888-1913, (Berlin, Verlag von Georg Stilke, 1913).
18 K.E. Born, Wirtschafts...
19 Charles Sarolea, The Bagdad Railway and German Expansion as a Factor in European Politics ( Edinburgh, 1907), p. 3, quoted in Edward Mead Earle, Turkey, The Great Powers, and The Bagdad Railway
A Study in Imperialism, (New York The Macmillan Company, 1924), v.
20 Count Leo von Caprivi, quoted in Franz Fischer, War of Illusions: German Policies from 1911 to 1914,( New York, W. W. Norton Company Inc., 1975), 49.
21 E.M. Earle, The Great Powers..., 58-60. Earle included a 1922 correspondence of his with the representative of the British rail group, Mr E. Rechnitzer, in which the latter stated, ‘My offer being much more favorable than that of the Germans, it seemed likely in August, 1899, that it would be accepted. Unfortunately the Transvaal War broke out in the autumn of that year, and the German Emperor, a few days after the declaration of war,

specially came to London to ask our Government to give him a free hand in Turkey. It appears that there was an interview between the Emperor and Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, who was more interested in Cecil Rhodes' scheme in Africa than in my scheme in Turkey.’
22 Anton Mohr, The Oil War, 80-81.

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

24 Sara Reguer, Persian Oil..., 134.
25 Freiherr von Wangenheim, cited in Hans Herzfeld, Die Liman-Krise und die Politik der Großmächte in der Jahreswende 1913/14, Berliner Monatshefte 11, 1933., 841 ff.
26 Baron Max von Oppenheim as cited in The First World War: Haji Wilhelm, http://www.channel4.com/history/microsites/F/firstworldwar/cont_jihad_1.html., accessed on 18 June, 2007.
27 Martin Gilbert, A History of the Twentieth Century, Volume One:1900-1933, (London, Harper Collins, 1997), 81-82. See also Peter Hopkirk, On Secret Service East of Constantinople, (London, Juhn Murray, 1994), 85-87, for more on Oppenheim’s role in supporting the Jihad.
28 Edward Mead Earle, Turkey, the Great Powers..., 217-18.
29 Gerald Lowther to Grey, 4 August 1908, Pte. Lowther Papers (FO800/193B), cited in Hasan Ünal, Britain and Ottoman Domestic Politics: From the Young Turk Revolution to the Counter-Revolution, 1908-9, Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 37, No.2, April 2001, 1-2.
30 R.G.D. Laffan, The Serbs: The Guardians of the Gate, (1917, reprinted by Dorset Press, New York, 1989), 163-4.
31 Noel and Charles R.Buxton, The War and the Balkans (London, George Allen and Unwin, 1915), 1
32 Ibid., 20-21.
33 Nikolaus Brauns, Deutsch-türkische Beziehungen im Kaiserreich, 4.5.4 Deutsche Kompromisse mit der Entente..., www.agahdari.com, 30 October 2006, 38
34 Cited in Peter Sluglett, Britain in Iraq..., 104-5.
35 Nubar Gulbenkian, Wir—die Gulbenkians: Porträt in Oel, (München, R. Piper & Co., 1966), 93-95.
36Peter Slugett, Britain in...,105.
37 Karl Helfferich, Der Weltkrieg: Vorgeschichte des Weltkrieges, (1919, Ullstein & Co., Berlin), 165-6.


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
  Born in Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States, Engdahl is the son of F. William Engdahl, Sr., and Ruth Aalund (b. Rishoff). Engdahl grew up in Texas and after earning a degree in engineering and jurisprudence from Princeton University in 1966 (BA) and graduate study in comparative economics at the University of Stockholm from 1969 to 1970, he worked as an economist and freelance journalist in New York and in Europe. Engdahl began writing about oil politics with the first oil shock in the early 1970s. His first book was called A Century of War: Anglo-American Oil Politics and the New World Order and discusses the alleged roles of Zbigniew Brzezinski and George Ball and of the USA in the 1979 overthrow of the Shah of Iran, which was meant to manipulate oil prices and to stop Soviet expansion. Engdahl claims that Brzezinski and Ball used the Islamic Balkanization model proposed by Bernard Lewis. In 2007, he completed Seeds of Destruction: The Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation. Engdahl is also a contributor to the website of the anti-globalization Centre for Research on Globalization, the Russian website New Eastern Outlook,[2] and the Voltaire Network,[3] and a freelancer for varied newsmagazines such as the Asia Times. William Engdahl has been married since 1987 and has been living for more than two decades near Frankfurt am Main, Germany.


black-horizontal
[premium_newsticker id=”154171″]




Old vs. new scholarship on the continent of China: an 8-part series


horiz-long grey

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

Terracotta army: Definitely not in Texas.

Europe is a continent and China is not only because the winners write the history books.

There is no scientific reason Europe is a continent: Europe is not a separate land mass, nor does it even sit on its own tectonic plate - we may as well call Canada a continent. China’s land mass area is nearly identical with Europe’s. What makes West Eurasia more special than East Eurasia?

Anyway, China is far more than just a country - it’s better to think of it like the Islamic World: “Chinese” is really a signifier of a common culture which transcends ethnicity, language, geography, an individual nation, an individual church, etc.

It’s absurd to think of China as homogenous: China has nearly 60 officially-recognised minorities today, and that’s after a couple millennia of consolidation. There are about 100 Indo-European languages (if we rightly exclude the Indo-Iranian branch - neither of which are in Europe, LOL), but hundreds of Sinitic languages still exist (and that’s even after excluding the Tibetan, South and Southeast Asian branches).

No Western dynasty or power could compare with the combined size, scope and duration of their Chinese counterparts. In the US they say, “Everything is bigger in Texas” - I have been to China, and they should say: “Everything is 10 times bigger than in Texas, in China”. Stand before the terracotta warriors at Xi’an and you’ll see what I mean.

Is it because Europe’s geography made it as isolated as a Greek island, and thus culturally unique? China has been far more isolated than Europe: it wasn’t accessible for sea trade until later in its history, most Chinese lived in only the northern plains until 1000AD, and there wasn’t sustained, firmly-intellectual contact with non-Chinese until the 7th century (Read Pepe Escobar’s fun, culturally-sprawling book 2030, which includes fascinating historical information about Xuanzang, who served the same “East-West” uniter role that Escobar does today, thankfully.)

Anyway, I think that Europe as an idea is bogus: it’s all about Mediterranean versus non-Mediterranean (Northern European) culture, and that was certainly their own view for many, many centuries.

Who is arrogant, who is defensive, who is right?

The arrogance of the West is that they believe they have the best system.

The arrogance of the Chinese is that they believe they are the best people.

(The arrogance of the Iranians is that they believe they are the best martyrs, when they are really just the best at believing that everyone else is the worst martyr!)

[dropcap]I[/dropcap] would say the Chinese are closer to their goal than the West, because there's absolutely no doubt in 2018 that the West European system (bourgeois capitalism) is not the best - even Westerners are revolting in White Trash Revolutions across the bloc.

The Chinese have always had an apparent disinterest in the rest of the world, and that seems to imply an arrogant self-glorification.

But they have some grounds for their belief: Their millennia-old meritocracy - the Civil Service Examination - made public service the highest good, was open to all, but tapped only a few. It’s a bit intimidating to think that one must compete with 1500 years of cumulative efforts of their best and brightest, no? Also, their neo-Confucian hierarchy of “scholar, farmer, tradesman, merchant, soldier” is such a high-minded inverse of the Western view that one surely does a double-take when learning about it for the first time. (China shows that such a system is actually feasible!)

And it’s especially hard to counter the arrogance of China in 2018, as they are the world's most successful socialist country ever, and also the most successful country today in a host of key areas.

Perhaps it is because I hail from a humble, small, self-denying people who only live to serve God and his children with good works (I’m such a good martyr!) that I have no sour grapes for China’s apparent victory over the West. Anyway, since 1979 Iran is, I am extremely proud to say, neither East nor West (bad martyr - so arrogant!).


White Trash conundrum: Where do humble people learn when no learning is available?

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he problem is: Since 1949 it has been virtually impossible to find any English-language studies of China which did not primarily exist to elevate the West over China.

All the West has - or wants - when it comes to China analysts is either an alarmist or a denier. So from academia to journalism {except for leftist studies and books]- prior to the internet - you had no chance to find honest reporting on China or from China.

The average Westerner knows seemingly nothing of Chinese history other then the idea of an imperial emperor and a farmer in a huge bamboo hat…and China is a continent!

Ignorance is dangerous: Even if the West wanted to defeat China - and Obama’s (failed) “Pivot to China” shows that they do - they could not, because they do not even know their enemy. Such ignorance has already led them to catastrophic bloodletting in Indochina and Korea (and Afghanistan, Iran and elsewhere).

The alternative to scholarship which exists to elevate the West over China is a scholarship which sympathetically tries to understand China on its own terms and merits. Thankfully for those who want to learn about China - in 2018 we finally have this option.

How does one become a ‘doyen’ on China? You don’t get honest, dammit!

This is the first of a 8-part series which compares the West’s old scholarship on China with the new scholarship which…it just can’t suppress anymore.

Being interested in China, many years ago I asked a professor-friend in academia who taught Chinese history for a top comprehensive history on that little hamlet. He suggested: China: A New History by John King Fairbanks (2nd edition 2006).

I can see why this is a standard university-level textbook - it ticks all the establishment boxes: Fairbanks was educated at Exeter and Oxford, became Harvard’s first-ever China scholar, was known as “the West’s doyen on China”, and this book was his “masterwork” which killed him - he died of a heart attack the day he submitted it to his publisher.

My condolences. But while it may be fine on the bone oracles of the Shang Dynasty, it is rather pure junk when it comes to dealing with modern China.

But I figured that going in: I did not expect anything but a rabid fear of Red China, the casual arrogance that the Western model is superior and a total glossing over of both Communist China’s successes & the West’s crimes in China.

I wanted the academic viewpoint because I didn’t expect much from Western journalists, who I know already genuflect at the altar of the Fairbanks-types (dead or alive).

If you do look to journalists, the only comprehensive history on China which is ranked more popular (just slightly) on Amazon than Fairbanks’ academic work is John Keay’s China: A History. Keay is a longtime reporter for The Economist, which is as editorially-sympathetic to Red China as is the CIA (or as is Harvard’s establishment).

Clearly, selecting Fairbanks as a “standard bearer” for Western scholarship on China is fair and appropriate for a series such as this one.

On the other side, open-minded readers finally have new, better, accurate resources, but it is best exemplified by Jeff J. Brown’s truly indispensable China is Communist, Dammit! (2017).
Brown comes from two fundamentally different places than Fairbanks: the outside and the inside.

Brown is not trying to join the establishment, apparently feels no responsibility to unquestioningly uphold it…and thus has all the editorial control of an outsider; Brown is also living inside China, and it seems fair to assume that he has to actually be sympathetic and understanding of those around him, in order to avoid repeated bouts of culture shock and homesickness.

People will say that Brown’s title shows his bias…and I see nothing wrong with that accusation nor the title itself. “Objective journalism” is equal parts goal and myth: “One person’s ‘freedom fighter’ is another person’s ‘terrorist’”, and I learned that on the very first day of journalism school.

I actually object to Fairbanks’ title far more. It should have been: China: A Rewritten History, because it certainly is not the history the Chinese know and believe - it’s the Chinese history the West wants to believe. And that is unfortunate for Fairbanks and his readers…but it is also exactly why Fairbanks gets the laurels while Brown is probably hoping just a few people actually buy his book, dammit!

(Is Brown secretly 1/8th Iranian or something? What a martyr! Sell out already, sheesh!)


The beauty of Brown's book is that it helps provide a balance which anyone interested in China has long been lacking and desiring. It is truly a one-of-a-kind book, and I would not be surprised if it gets translated widely because it is so very necessary in 2018. In short: the book contains truly excellent analysis, but it’s especially unique because of the sheer number of monumental facts and in-depth anecdotes which non-Chinese refuse to admit or discuss - where else can they be found but in this book? (Indeed, how can one ever have “excellent analysis” if they don’t have all the facts?)

Brown does not work for The Economist, so the mainstream media is never going to review his book. Yet he will go down as one of the “first movers” in the development of a new trend: Western analysts who gave up on attacking China.


Why you should read all 8 parts - think of what you’ve been missing!

Even before reading either Brown’s book or this series, I think one must concede: Year after year and decade after decade, the West has underestimated the vibrancy, stability and success of the Chinese model.

It is therefore fair to conclude that their analysis is fundamentally flawed in some way, so it would be useful to you to re-examine their foundations.

The aim of this series is two-fold:

Firstly, it will compare how the two very different authors analyzed the three primary events of modern China - the Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, the legacy of Mao - and secondly it will synthesise the very different groups of facts, anecdotes and analysis presented by these two authors in order to arrive at: modern analytical conclusions about China, possible parallels of the Chinese experience with other countries, and continue with the ongoing modern debate of socialism versus capitalism.

In short, by holding up the old and new scholarship on China one can see which is accurate and which is not, and why. By unlearning bad scholarship on China and learning new, good scholarship on China, we can confidently move forward towards greater global understanding.

China is daunting - after all, how can the West understand a China which has been culturally anti-capitalist since ’49…BC? True, modern, unbiased understanding of any continent is a major task, but quite an edifying one.


A previous book, China Rising, Capitalist Roads, Socialist Destinations, was the first volume to examine China's society comprehensively.

The bottom line is that the Western establishment’s view is so ideologically-driven, so unsympathetic, so wilfully opposed to accepting the native’s view of themselves, that it can fairly be called “extremist”. (An irony is that some will view this statement as unfair, yet will will label Brown’s work “extremist” without hesitation….)

Ultimately, extremism is a tactic used to confuse the issue and deliberately reduce understanding…and that’s what this series tries to subvert.

The credit goes to the modern scholarship of those like Brown’s, which does something which 20th century scholars did not want to do: clarify the impressive humanity of 21st century China.

The reality is that the West has a huge “mutual knowledge gap” due to their vast anti-Communist China campaign. Rest assured that China knows all about the last 500 years of Western history, which it experienced first-hand during their 110 years (1839-1949) of Western & Japanese control (many include Japan with the West, quite fairly) which they remember as the “century of humiliation”.

That’s a a pretty harsh assessment of themselves for the Chinese to carry around, no?

But China is serious business….Thankfully, today we can finally access authors like Brown, who have compiled superb, comprehensive scholarship to allow today’s readers to grant China the seriousness and honesty it deserves. And the Fairbankses of the Western world are everywhere else…providing copy and rubber-stamping diplomas. 

Whether or not we choose to apply modern China’s solutions to our native problems is another question, and up to the reader, but willfully ignoring their solutions is so prejudiced that it cannot honestly be called “scholarship”.

***********************************
This is the 1st article in an 8-part series which compares old versus new Western scholarship on China.

Here is the list of articles slated to be published, and I hope you will find them useful in your leftist struggle!

Old vs. new scholarship on the continent of China: an 8-part series

Daring to go beyond Western propaganda on the Great Leap Forward’s famine

When Chinese Trash saved the world: Western lies about the Cultural Revolution

Mao’s legacy defended, and famous swim decoded, for clueless Western academics

The Cultural Revolution’s solving of the urban-rural divide

Once China got off drugs: The ideological path from opium to ‘liberal strongman’ Macron

Prefer the 1% or the Party? Or: Why China wins

China's only danger: A 'Generation X' who thinks they aren't communist


About the author
 RAMIN MAZAHERI, Senior Correspondent & Contributing Editor, Dispatch from Paris • Ramin is the chief correspondent in Paris for Press TV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His work has appeared in various journals, magazines and websites, as well as on radio and television. He can be reached on Facebook.


 Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

horiz-long grey

uza2-zombienation


black-horizontal




“Highly Likely”


The Russian UN representative made his presentation first, outlining their doubts about the case as expressed by the UK and the manner in which it is being handled. This was followed by the British UN representative and her attempt at a rebuttal to the Russian comments.

About Jim Miles
Jim Miles is a Canadian educator living in British Columbia. He writes regularly about the Middle East and its militarization and economic subjugation. His concerns include the commodification of the world by corporate governance and the American government. He writes book reviews and opinion pieces which are published here, as well as in The Palestine Chronicle and Foreign Policy Journal. His work is widely distributed across the Internet.”





U.S. DROPS FLEAS WITH BUBONIC PLAGUE ON NORTH KOREA; MAINSTREAM MEDIA YAWNS

HELP ENLIGHTEN YOUR FELLOWS. BE SURE TO PASS THIS ON. SURVIVAL DEPENDS ON IT.

By



This happened some 63 years ago, but as the U.S. government has never stopped lying about it, and it’s generally known only outside the United States, I’m going to treat it as news.

Here in our little U.S. bubble we’ve heard of a couple versions of a film called The Manchurian Candidate. We’ve heard of the general concept of “brainwashing” and may even associate it with something evil that the Chinese supposedly did to U.S. prisoners during the Korean War. And I’d be willing to bet that the majority of people who’ve heard of these things have at least a vague sense that they’re bullshit.

If you didn’t know, I’ll break it to you right now: people cannot actually be programed like the Manchurian candidate, which was a work of fiction. There was never the slightest evidence that China or North Korea had done any such thing. And the CIA spent decades trying to do such a thing, and finally gave up.

I’d also be willing to bet that very few people know what it was that the U.S. government promoted the myth of “brainwashing” to cover up. During the Korean War, the United States bombed virtually all of North Korea and a good bit of the South, killing millions of people. It dropped massive quantities of Napalm. It bombed dams, bridges, villages, houses. This was all-out mass-slaughter. But there was something the U.S. government didn’t want known, something deemed unethical in this genocidal madness.

As usual, Frankenheimer's film was a complete inversion of the truth. The story also has that absurd anti-communist cliché reeking of Fascist lies, that the sinister puppeteers (the parents of the brainwashed killer) were actually rich members of the upper class. Yea the 1% is crawling with commies.

It is well documented that the United States dropped on China and North Korea insects and feathers carrying anthrax, cholera, encephalitis, and bubonic plague. This was supposed to be a secret at the time, and the Chinese response of mass vaccinations and insect eradication probably contributed to the project’s general failure (hundreds were killed, but not millions). But members of the U.S. military taken prisoner by the Chinese confessed to what they had been a part of, and confessed publicly when they got back to the United States.

Some of them had felt guilty to begin with. Some had been shocked at China’s decent treatment of prisoners after U.S. depictions of the Chinese as savages. For whatever reasons, they confessed, and their confessions were highly credible, were borne out by independent scientific reviews, and have stood the test of time.

How to counter reports of the confessions? The answer for the CIA and the U.S. military and their allies in the corporate media was “brainwashing,” which conveniently explained away whatever former prisoners said as false narratives implanted in their brains by brainwashers.

And 300 million of so Americans more or less sort of believe that craziest-ever dog-ate-my-homework concoction to this day!

The propaganda struggle was intense. The support of the Guatemalan government for the reports of U.S. germ warfare in China were part of the U.S. motivation for overthrowing the Guatemalan government; and the same cover-up was likely part of the motivation for the CIA’s murder of Frank Olson.

There isn’t any debate that the United States had been working on bio-weapons for years, at Fort Detrick — then Camp Detrick — and numerous other locations. Nor is there any question that the United States employed the top bio-weapons killers from among both the Japanese and the Nazis from the end of World War II onward. Nor is there any question that the U.S. tested such weapons on the city of San Francisco and numerous other locations around the United States, and on U.S. soldiers. There’s a museum in Havana featuring evidence of years of U.S. bio-warfare against Cuba. We know that Plum Island, off the tip of Long Island, was used to test the weaponization of insects, including the ticks that created the ongoing outbreak of Lyme Disease.

Dave Chaddock’s book This Must Be the Place, which I found via Jeff Kaye’s review, collects the evidence that the United States indeed tried to wipe out millions of Chinese and North Koreans with deadly diseases.

“What does it matter now?” I can imagine people from only one corner of the earth asking.

I reply that it matters that we know the evils of war and try to stop the new ones. U.S. cluster bombs in Yemen, U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan, U.S. guns in Syria, U.S. white phosphorus and Napalm and depleted uranium used in recent years, U.S. torture in prison camps, U.S. nuclear arsenals being expanded, U.S. coups empowering monsters in Ukraine and Honduras, U.S. lies about Iranian nukes, and indeed U.S. antagonization of North Korea as part of that never-yet-ended war — all of these things can be best confronted by people aware of a centuries-long pattern of lying.

And I reply, also, that it is not yet too late to apologize. [And rectify policies, although that will have to wait for a real revolution.—Eds.]

This is the TGP version of this post, in conjunction with The Daily Sheeple.

We encourage you to share and republish our reports, analyses, breaking news and videos (Click for details).


Contributed by David Swanson of Global Research.  


ABOUT THE AUTHOR
David Swanson is a leading US bourgeois antiwar activist. Swanson co-founded the website After Downing Street (now War Is A Crime .org), based around the U.S. congressional concern of the Downing Street memo. Additionally, Swanson embarked on a campaign to impeach President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney[2] through the now defunct website ConvictBushCheney.Org[3] as well as contributing to the introduction of Dennis Kucinich’s The 35 Articles of Impeachment and the Case for Prosecuting George W. Bush. Despite his antiwar stance, Swanson, surprisingly, maintains operational affiliations with the Democrats. As an author, David Swanson has written several books; Daybreak: Undoing the Imperial Presidency and Forming a More Perfect Union[8] (2009), War Is a Lie (2010), When the World Outlawed War (2011) and War No More: The Case for Abolition (2013).

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License

ALL CAPTIONS AND PULL QUOTES BY THE EDITORS NOT THE AUTHORS

black-horizontal
Things to ponder

While our media prostitutes, many Hollywood celebs, and politicians and opinion shapers make so much noise about the still to be demonstrated damage done by the Russkies to our nonexistent democracy, this is what the sanctimonious US government has done overseas just since the close of World War 2. And this is what we know about. Many other misdeeds are yet to be revealed or documented.

Parting shot—a word from the editors
The Best Definition of Donald Trump We Have Found

In his zeal to prove to his antagonists in the War Party that he is as bloodthirsty as their champion, Hillary Clinton, and more manly than Barack Obama, Trump seems to have gone “play-crazy” — acting like an unpredictable maniac in order to terrorize the Russians into forcing some kind of dramatic concessions from their Syrian allies, or risk Armageddon.However, the “play-crazy” gambit can only work when the leader is, in real life, a disciplined and intelligent actor, who knows precisely what actual boundaries must not be crossed. That ain’t Donald Trump — a pitifully shallow and ill-disciplined man, emotionally handicapped by obscene privilege and cognitively crippled by white American chauvinism. By pushing Trump into a corner and demanding that he display his most bellicose self, or be ceaselessly mocked as a “puppet” and minion of Russia, a lesser power, the War Party and its media and clandestine services have created a perfect storm of mayhem that may consume us all. Glen Ford, Editor in Chief, Black Agenda Report

[premium_newsticker id=”211406″]