Co-editors: Seán Mac Mathúna • John Heathcote
Consulting editor: Themistocles Hoetis
Field Correspondent: Allen Houglande-mail: thefantompowa@fantompowa.org
Bush,Allen
Dulles and the Nazi fortune John
Heartfield- anti-Nazi, anti-war artist Project
for the New American Century - full spectrum dominance Krieg und leichen - die letzte
hoffnung der reichen. War and corpses - the last hope
of the rich by John Heartfield, 1932
FULL
SPECTRUM GLOBAL DOMINANCE: War Editorial APPEASEMENT
AND THE TRUE HISTORY OF WWII How the Bush family
financed Nazi Germany from the 1920's The
birth of American Empire in the First World War How
war is used to stifle the protest of the poor and the progress of
democracy Flame editorial 17th March 2003 - War 1 Full
Spectrum Global Dominance Flame notes with
sorrow the forthcoming unjust and illegal war on the sovereign state
of Iraq and its people. It also rejects the reasons
given for war - which have finally been revealed as a clear case
of a superpower using military force to change the Government of
independent nations. The USA has attempted
to force the other nations of the UN and specifically the Security
Council, to accede to their wish for a Resolution permitting the
use of force, but the only countries in this "broad coalition"
are Britain, Spain and the US. We are now in the
position of the Axis powers in the Second World War; looked on by
the rest of the world with a mixture of contempt and fear. In Britain,
the Government is decrying France with almost as much enthusiasm
as their masters in Washington. The British people
now see Chirac, a once derided tainted political figure, as a man
with more "backbone" than our own Prime Minister. The
resentment , not against the American people, as George W might
say, but against the current regime in particular has risen to the
surface; and the greatest failure of US diplomacy may in fact be
the long-term loss of their oldest ally. The price will be paid
mainly by the long suffering people of Iraq, in blood and burning
oil. It will
not be televised, but will be all too real in the Arabian deserts
and cities for the suffering people of Iraq, and quite probably
for more than a few British soldiers. The terrible truth
of the forthcoming War on Iraq, as nations such as France, Germany
and Russia have been forced to confront, is that is undoubtedly
the first major step towards the assumption of a uni-polar world
dominated by the US. Using technology first
developed during the years after WWII, when the US absorbed and
developed the personnel and projects of Werner von Braun and Unit
731, they now have the confidence to abandon all international obligations
and treaties, regarding the environment, war crimes and United Nations
resolutions. The only nation to have
used nuclear weapons (Hiroshima and Nagasaki), and which has used
chemical weapons (such as Agent Orange in Vietnam) and biological
weapons (currently in South America) is claiming to be going "reluctantly"
to war to prevent the spread of weapons of mass destruction. It is common knowledge
in Britain that Donald Rumsfeld in particular, as well as several
of the other old "spooks" resurrected in the new Bush
regime, were responsible for supplying Saddam with the toxin and
disease -based weaponry in the first place. It is reported on BBC
Television (Correspondent, BBC2 17th March 2003) that Israel is
now apparently using chemical weapons on Palestinian demonstrators. Israel is the only nuclear
state in the Middle East. The programme mentioned above also claims
that American administration in the early 1960's was horrified to
discover the French sale of a nuclear plant to the Israeli's and
demanded immediate inspections. The inspectors were
cleverly fooled that no weapons grade processing was being carried
out; and the US President, furious at the deceit, demanded further
inspections. Fortunately for Israel,
the demand was swiftly forgotten following the unfortunate death
of John F Kennedy in Dallas
soon afterwards, and his replacement by a politician (Lyndon Johnson)
prepared to look the other way - US policy ever since. Bush accuses the Iraqis
of bugging the inspectors; in Britain a 28 year-old woman is currently
under arrest for revealing US instructions to GCHQ to eavesdrop
and monitor the personal communications of UN diplomats and personnel
in New York (an action illegal under international law). We are truly in the
World Turned Upside Down, as the amphetamine-fuelled American prophet,
Philip K. Dick once foretold. In this run-up to a
war that is being thrust upon the world by a small regime of capitalists
at the head of the last superpower-empire; it is worth having a
quick review of the history of the last century as a way of reminding
ourselves which way is up. Sometimes it seems
as though we are being treated as fools, or children; truly, the
veneer of democracy has slipped away to reveal the machinery of
power, and its contempt for the opinions of 'the electorate'. The population of Britain
do not believe that war is necessary or justified. They believe
in the supremacy of the UN and international law, and know that
our government - and indeed, the Queen, British Head of State, and
Commander-in-Chief are vulnerable to any war crimes prosecutions
launched in the aftermath of war. We have already seen
one Cabinet resignation, of the Leader of the Commons, Robin Cook,
over this issue ( 17th March). The British people resent
our country and it's defence forces being risked for an American
power-play, which will undoubtedly result in death and carnage beyond
the sterile imagination of military planners and career politicians.
It is reported that
even the British intelligence services resent being corralled into
such a 'reckless', (to use the word of Clare Short, another British
Cabinet Minister) venture. They neither believe
that Saddam has any substantial WMD's, or any links with Al-Quaida,
or that the US has any moral basis for war. They are also aware
that if our Government is involved in an attack on a sovereign country,
killing any amount of civilians, that country, or its agents, will
feel justified in attacking us (the civilian populations of the
UK, US or Spain). The Middle East will
not be the only area which is inflamed by the conflict; popular
opinion against the US action has already spread far beyond the
"Arab street" or Muslim communities. Other peoples and nations
will inevitably be drawn into the conflict ; the Kurds, for instance,
face massacre by bopth the Iraqis and the Turks; we can be sure
that they will be offered no help to maintain their fragilr independence
by the US and its 'allies'. There are perhaps
three or four central reasons why the world does not trust the principles
or judgement of George Bush and the current US regime. The first is the suspicion
that his administration is made up of ruthless businessman who see
the world purely as potential profit, and are prepared to use American
military might to secure all economic opportunity. This is because of the
involvement of Bush and Vice-President Cheyney in Haliburton, the
Carlisle group and various other oil and defence corporations. Also
the involvement of Donald Rumsfeld, for instance, in initially arming
Saddam's regime with WMD's (and we know the British Government was
doing the same, albeit on a smaller scale). Then there are the stated
aims of , amongst others, the Project for the New American Century
- set up by Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush and others
in 1997. Blatantly in support of the idea of 'full-spectrum global
dominance', it's motto is 'After Bagdhad, Bejiing'. It forsees a world in
which the relationship between one state and another is no more
important than their relationship with the US. The easier this war
is to win, the quicker we will see the onset of the next. Remember,
this is a War without End. The pack of cards may well fall like
this. Iraq, North Korea, Iran, and then possibly Libya and Syria.
Meanwhile, the State of Israel will rid itself of the Palestinians
and Bedouins, the original inhabitants of the land, and finish the
great work of 'ethnic cleansing'. Pity the poor, small
countries like Cuba, which do not allow the US to walk all over
them - Bush is currently pushing for the abandonment of more treaties,
governing the use of "tactical nuclear weapons". No-one has any illusion
that a President appointed by the Supreme Court has any real care
for democracy at home or abroad. Meanwhile the popular opinion across
Europe (including the UK), and the rest of the world has finally
shown its resentmentment of US hegenomony. Perhaps, as well, the
idea of religious fundamentalism is easier for the free-thinking
people of the world to tolerate when it is not being imposed by
the worldÕs last superpower. The imposition of the
WTO, GATT, the IMF and World Bank as the only determinants of international
and national economic policies has been used by the US for a covert
takeover of the world economy, and the doctrine of materialistic
capitalism and the "free-market" - freedom doesn't mean
what it used to. Now Britain is being
pulled in the wake of an Empire that owns and controls us. Unlike the countries
of the ex-Soviet Union, the Britis have no separate language; and
our culture has been subsumed by US film and TV. Britain is now in the
position that it was for the four centuries after the first Roman
soldiers stepped ashore two thousand years ago and replaced our
pagan culture with hollow dreams of Empire. APPEASEMENT
AND THE TRUE HISTORY OF WWII John Heartfield A
prominent Nazi spokesman stated, "In the fulfillment of his task,
the Fuhrer perceives himself as God"s instrument." Heartfield
mocks this by showing the puppet Hitler in the hands of Fritz Thyssen,
a leading Industrialist and head of Germany"s largest steel
trust. Thyssen joined the Nazi Party in 1931. http://burn.ucsd.edu/~resist/
In Britain we have been
bombarded with propaganda decrying the policy of appeasement; using
the emotive word applied to those in the 1930's who stood against
the war on Hitler's Germany. The comparison of George
Bush Jnr to Winston Churchill has caused even more raised eyebrows
in Britain and the rest of Europe.. It is worth remembering
a number of salient facts about WWII, if we are going to make such
comparisons. Hitler's Germany - like
Iraq - was funded and re-armed after the First World War, with a
vast amount of dollars invested by American corporations. The example of the
Ford Company, its use of slave labour and receipt of profits throughout
the war into Swiss accounts were mirrored by many other US corporations.
Amongst the main economic
advisors and investors in pre-war Germany, who not only worked with
Hitler's regime, but had been involved in the initial founding and
financing of the Nazi party, was a certain Prescott Bush, grandfather
of the US President. With the bankers Harriman
and Brown - both still respected finance houses - he offloaded $50
million worth of shares in Nazi Germany to the American people.
His interests in the
coal and steel works of East Silesia paid great dividends when the
German Government invaded Poland and appropriated the territory.
Just before the Polish Government issued a report decrying the wages
and conditions of the workers in mines owned by "American companies".
The profits expanded considerably when the Reich set up "work-camps"
for 'indolent races' and 'undesirables' - one near a small Polish
village now known to the world by the name of Aushwitz. Grandad Bush did get
prosecuted for Trading with the Enemy in 1943 - but not before heÕd
salted away enough funds made out of slave labour and conflict promotion
to set the family up for the next thousand years. Below are the opening
paragraphs of an article published by John Loftus, a former U.S.Department
of Justice Nazi War Crimes prosecutor, the President of the Florida
Holocaust Museum. He is the author of
numerous books on the CIA-Nazi connection including The Belarus
Secret and The Secret War Against the Jews, both of which have extensive
material on the Bush-Rockefeller-Nazi connection.. . From 1945 until
1949, one of the lengthiest and, it now appears, most futile interrogations
of a Nazi war crimes suspect began in the American Zone of Occupied
Germany. Multibillionaire
steel magnate Fritz Thyssen - the man whose steel combine was the
cold heart of the Nazi war machine-talked and talked and talked
to a joint US-UK interrogation team. For four long years,
successive teams of inquisitors tried to break Thyssen"s simple
claim to possess neither foreign bank accounts nor interests in
foreign corporations, no assets that might lead to the missing billions
in assets of the Third Reich. The inquisitors failed
utterly. Why? Because what
the wily Thyssen deposed was, in a sense, true. What the Allied
investigators never understood was that they were not asking Thyssen
the right question. Thyssen did not need any foreign bank accounts
because his family secretly owned an entire chain of banks. He did not have
to transfer his Nazi assets at the end of World War II, all he had
to do was transfer the ownership documents - stocks, bonds, deeds
and trusts--from his bank in Berlin through his bank in Holland
to his American friends in New York City: Prescott Bush and Herbert
Walker. Thyssen's partners
in crime were the father and father-in-law of a future President
of the United States. The allied investigators
underestimated Thyssen's reach, his connections, his motives, and
his means. The web of financial entities Thyssen helped create in
the 1920's remained a mystery for the rest of the twentieth century,
an almost perfectly hidden underground sewer pipeline for moving
dirty money, money that bankrolled the post-war fortunes not only
of the Thyssen industrial empire...but the Bush family as well.
It was a secret Fritz
Thyssen would take to his grave. . . . It should be noted
that the Thyssen group (TBG) is now the largest industrial conglomerate
in Germany, and with a net worth of more than $50 billion dollars,
one of the wealthiest corporations in the world. TBG is so rich
it even bought out the Krupp family, famous arms makers for Hitler,
leaving the Thyssens as the undisputed champion survivors of the
Third Reich. Where did the Thyssens
get the start-up money to rebuild their empire with such speed after
World War II? The enormous sums
of money deposited into the Union Bank prior to 1942 is the best
evidence that Prescott Bush knowingly served as a money launderer
for the Nazis. Remember that Union Banks" books and accounts were
frozen by the U.S. Alien Property Custodian in 1942 and not released
back to the Bush family until 1951. At that time, Union
Bank shares representing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of
industrial stocks and bonds were unblocked for distribution. Did the Bush family
really believe that such enormous sums came from Dutch enterprises?
One could sell tulip bulbs and wooden shoes for centuries and not
achieve those sums. A fortune this size
could only have come from the Thyssen profits made from rearming
the Third Reich, and then hidden, first from the Nazi tax auditors,
and then from the Allies. In 1951, Prescott
Bush and his father in law each received one share of Union Bank
stock, worth $750,000 each. One and a half million dollars was a
lot of money in 1951. But then, from the
Thyssen point of view, buying the Bushes was the best bargain of
the war. He finishes the article
with these prescient comments; The bottom line
is harsh: It is bad enough that the Bush family helped raise the
money for Thyssen to give Hitler his start in the 1920"s, but giving
aid and comfort to the enemy in time of war is treason. The Bush's bank
helped the Thyssens make the Nazi steel that killed allied soldiers.
As bad as financing the Nazi war machine may seem, aiding and abetting
the Holocaust was worse. Thyssen's coal mines used Jewish slaves
as if they were disposable chemicals. There are six million skeletons
in the Thyssen family closet, and a myriad of criminal and historical
questions to be answered about the Bush family's complicity. For conspiracy theorists
the link with the past is never far away. The footnotes to
a biography of the Bush family include these interesting observations.
In fact, in the 1990's
Jeb and George both received the profits from the trust fund set
up by their grandad . It is impossible
that they did not know from where the money had come. Principles seem
to be only for those without power, morals for those without money. John Heartfield The birth of American
Empire in the First World War How war is used to
stifle the protest of the poor and the progress of democracy Socialism - The idea
that society is organised around the mutual interests of all that
make it up; that every human being deserves to be given the best
possible life; and that any produce surplus to the basics are used
for the equal good of all in society. Empire is the mobilisation
of the wealth and population of a country by its ruling class to
increase their profits by appropriating the land and wealth of another
people. No Empires are ever built on unpopulated territory The 20th century began
with over half the world coloured red. The colour of blood
spreading across the map was that of the British Empire, which standing
apart from the European mainland like an ocean fortress, had managed
to become pre-eminent amongst the Western powers in their attempt
to colonise the entire world. Perhaps the fact that
Britain had always had to negotiate with other Empires throughout
its history gave it the edge in the pursuit of commercial profit
and the spread of territory, more through the corruption of local
governments and leaders than pure brute force. It has been said that
the British Empire was built in a fit of absent- mindedness; the
result of successful piracy and wily diplomacy. The real success in
enduring terms was the propogation of the language and the culture,
and all those values with which the British people like to feel
they are associated; values that stood in direct opposition to all
the violence, vainglory and imperial ambition of our rulers. The humanism which founded
the Anti-Slavery Society in South London,was the same that inspired
the Cable Street Riots in the 1930's against fascism; which sent
fathers, brothers and sons to fight and die, like their fathers
and brothers before them in the fields of Europe. Massacred on the shore
at Dunkirk awaiting rescue by hundreds of tiny boats whilst the
factories in Frankfurt and on the Ruhr turned out more profit for
the US corporations. At this point we skip
back to when the map was still scarlet and the British Navy ruled
the world. The still-new Germany,
born out of the old Holy Roman Empire's many small, independent
city-states, and now under the control of the Prussian Junkers,
a militaristic aristocracy descended in fact and spirit from the
Teutonic Knights, perhaps ChristendomÕs darkest crusaders. They had carved a small
empire in the Eastern Europe, committing cultural genocide on the
native populations in Latvia, Estonia and Lithuania; enslaving them
and appropriating their land as vast estates on which the people
would now be serfs. This Germany looked
around and saw that the two great European powers, Britain and France,
had effectively carved up the third world between them. Even tiny
Belgium had its ÔcolonyÕ in the Belgian Congo, run by their King
Leopold as his personal fiefdom; where slavery was often enforced
by mutilation of women and children. And the only way that
Germany would be able to achieve such an Empire would be to build
a Navy which would ultimately be able to challenge the greatest
navy on Earth. The fact that the King-Emperor of Britain was a cousin
of the Kaiser of the Germans was indicative of what lay behind the
nature of Empire. Empire is the mobilisation
of the wealth and population of a country by its ruling class to
increase their profits by appropriating the land and wealth of another
people. No Empires are ever built on unpopulated territory. That
is why Russians still live in Siberia - if they werenÕt there, the
Americans would move in. Ultimately, the 'blood
sacrifice' that is called on to defend an Empire is that of the
serfs, the workers, the ones who never profit in any material way
from the imperial adventure. Like British 'Tommys' or US 'grunts',
most common soldiers are drawn from the lowest social levels of
society - and generally left to return there after service. The First World War
was the dying throes of European Empires. At the peak of their
success, when the British, in particular, seemed unassailable, they
were overtaken by greed and hubris. It is no coincidence
either that the natives had become restless. The initial overthrow
of feudalism in France in 1779 was halted by the intervention of
European monarchies; what resulted was the same change that was
affected in Napoleon - a lean Republican became a corpulent imperialist. His legacy though,
was to overthrow feudalism, and introduce the idea, if not the reality
of equality before the law, for which he was never forgiven by the
patriarchy, the aristocrats - the real inheritors of Europe. The American Republic
was next to break free of the spell of heirarchy, inspired largely
by humanist liberals, atheists and revolutionaries from Britain
and France. A major problem perhaps
was the paradox of a Republic built on slavery; especially in a
country where most of the immigrants who had taken the land were
escaping the serfdom and industrial slavery of Britain, Ireland
and Europe. In the hundred years
after the French Revolution, the poor in Britain and Europe suddenly
found the template they needed to lift the curse of inherited class
and wealth off the backs of the people. By learning how to
organise more effectively than their masters, by rejecting the superstitions
of power that had kept them in fear, by recreating the culture and
finding the voice that a thousand years of the Roman Empire and
kings and princes had taken away; the people of Europe seemed to
be moving towards some more egalitarian society. In Britain, women were
campaigning for a vote, and a united Ireland had been promised by
the British Government. Both Russia and Germany were in the throes
of social turmoil. In industrialised Europe,
the factory owners needed a workforce at least literate and numerate
to man the machines and once you have educated someone, it is very
hard to staop them from asking questions. The clamour of questions
was interrupted by the slaughter of the First World War, which destroyed
what was left of the ancient world in Europe, save some tourist
attractions, and the rare mountaintop monastery. In terms of capital
generated and profit from conflict, the First World War was like
Empire to the power of a thousand. By 1918, the European
civilization was shattered beyond recognition. The Austro-Hungarian
Empire disappeared, the Russian Empire had been replaced by the
Soviet Union; France and Germany were bankrupt, and the British
Empire was in terminal decline. Despite the great deathtolls,
if you had more money than you could ever spend, and you made some
wise investments, you could end up with even more bullion in the
Bank of Switzerland; the 'house' in the Great game. As so happens with
Empire, as the Europeans tore themselves apart on the fields of
Flanders, that unknown international quantity, the USA decided to
play its imperial hand into the vaccum of exhausted power. The United
States entered the war at just the right time to provide the balance,
tip the scales. They had watched "old
Europe" tear itself apart, and like the scavenging wolves on
the edge of the battlefield, they moved in to dismember the corpse.
Various conspiracies
surround the US entry into WWI. The mysterious sinking of the Lusitania,
with its hundreds of children aboard; rumours that a German telegram
was intercepted offering Mexico back the States that America appropriated
the previous century - Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas - if they
entered into a war on the US as Germany's allies; it is also rumoured
that the Balfour Declaration on the founding of the State of Israel
was a part of the price demanded by the Americans of the British
Government. Germany in 1918 had
voted for a Socialist Government which instantly deposed the Kaiser
and sued for peace - despite its army not having been comprehensively
beaten. The immediate result
was a massive blockade by the victorious powers (Churchill alone
in the British Government demanded that it was lifted - perhaps
forseeing the dreadful consequences), and the subsequent starvation
of the German people. (Parallels with Iraq today.) The Junkers and the
capitalists who had profited from the previous five years were able
to buy the guns and hire the men, from the returning demoralised,
defeated troops and challenge the democratically-elected communist
and socialist governments springing up in the new German Republic.
(One member of these Freikorps was a young, slightly deranged corporal
with a toothbrush moustache.) Soon, 'order' was restored,
and an uneasy alliance between these forces, the rich and the people,
was formed with "liberal" capitalist government. The Depression, perhaps
the greatest ever financial sleight of hand, sent the liberal German
democracy back into the vaccum from which it had so recently emerged
- and who was there to pull the people together, set up real Homeland
Security with a pre-emptive policy of regime change in other states
(Spain) and a solution for the bust economy with defence spending
which turned his nation into a military superpower? Why, none other than
that corporal, now being promoted by the friends of Prescott Bush
as the new saviour of Germany. And which nation had
the surplus capital necessary to invest in rebuilding that great
economic powerhouse of a united Germany? France was a wasteland,
and Britain had burnt its credit, and impoverished the coffers in
its last, great imperial war. Its population was tired;
of the forelock-tugging servility demanded by its class system,
the harshness and injustice of its penal system; the industrial
serfdom the poor had been forced into since the first factories
and workhouses took advantage of the landless peasants. Even the German royal
family that arrived a few generations before the conflict to provide
a distraction for the huddled masses whilst the aristocracy reversed
the result of the Civil War, kept their heads down and changed their
name. They abandoned their cousins in Russia to their fate, hoping
to escape the same drama being enacted in a village outside London.
The two sides having
fought to a virtual standstill; the Americans had made a vital difference. They were the force
that tipped the balance and had wisely entered the war at a time
when they could gain the most for the least loss. The USA, which had
been running on profit since the land was taken, and slavery became
the source of labour; had vast amounts of capital that needed to
find investment, and surplus product to sell. Better than nibbling
away at the fringes of the European Empires, picking up what scraps
they had left, was to eat out the heart of Europe itself and turn
it into the building block for a new Empire with its capital in
Washington.
18. One of Dubya's
last cabinet appointments was Robert Zoellick, who was appointed
U.S. Trade Representative shortly before Bush took office. ("Bush's
Trade Chief Rated as Smart, Smooth Negotiator" by Jonathan Petersen;
Los Angeles Times; 1/12/2001; p. A15.)
19. An excerpt from
FTR-186 highlights Zoellick's role as a key foreign policy adviser
to Bush during the campaign. ("Bush Questions Aid to Moscow in a
Policy Talk" by R.W. Apple, Jr.; New York Times; 11/20/99.)
20. Underscoring the
probability of strong ties between the Bush camp and the Bormann
group, the program sets forth Zoellick's participation in the German
Marshall Fund of the United States. (Idem.)
21. Set up as a P.R.
front for German heavy industry, the German Marshall fund is, in
effect, a Bormann front group. (Martin Bormann: Nazi in Exile; by
Paul Manning; pp. 261-262.)
22. Zoellick was one
of the principal figures in the launching of NAFTA, as well as the
Bush/Baker State Department point man in the negotiations that led
to the reunification of Germany. ("Bush Seeking To Overhaul Policy
Making" by Joseph Kahn and Frank Bruni; New York Times; 1/6/2001;
pp. B1-14.)
23. Handling German
reunification, Zoellick must have worked closely with Gunther Strassmeier,
Helmut Kohl's former chief of staff and the architect of German
reunification. Strassmeier is the father of Andreas Strassmeier,
a key figure in the Oklahoma City bombing investigation. (The Beast
Reawakens, by Martin A. Lee; hardcover, Little Brown & Co., pp.
352-3, ISBN 0-316-51959-6.)
24. Zoellick also
helped to midwife the World Trade Organization. (Robert Bruce Zoellick;
by Joseph Kahn; New York Times; 1/12/2001; p. A15.)
25. A James Baker
protege, Zoellick worked with Baker in the Florida recount machinations.
("Bush's Trade Chief Rated as Smart, Smooth Negotiator" by Jonathan
Petersen; Los Angeles Times; 1/12/2001; p. A15.)
