The USA, Russia, China Triangle and the Fall of the Soviet Union

A Changing Geopolitical Landscape

During WW2 the United States and China were allies against Japan. They were later joined by the Soviets, when the German Nazis broke their alliance with the Russian Communists, and they invaded Russia in 1941, in order to get hold of the oil of Baku (Azerbaijan). But the Nazis were defeated at Stalingrad and they never reached Baku.

1 The USA Russia China Triangle

After jointly destroying the Nazis in WW2, the Soviets and the Americans became enemies once more, and the Soviets supported the Chinese Communists, while the Americans supported the Chinese nationalists in the Chinese Civil War. The Communists won the war, and the Chinese nationalists fled the Chinese mainland, and they established a small Chinese state in Taiwan. For a while the United States recognised Taiwan as China.

Map USA, Soviet Union and China

2 Map USA Russia and China.JPG

 

But the Soviets and the Chinese were also competing with each other in Asia after WW2, and the Chinese were very unhappy with the strong Soviet military presence in the oil rich countries of Central Asia, and also in Mongolia, which they perceived as a threat. Very often the Russians and the Chinese would support rival communist parties or groups in third world countries i.e. Angola, Mozambique, Somalia, Ethiopia, and Zimbabwe. See Russia VS China, and the Sino-Soviet Split.

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2015/08/11/russia-vs-china/

The Chinese and the Soviets jointly fought the Americans in Vietnam and the Korean Wars, but the Chinese and the Americans jointly fought the Soviets in Afghanistan.

Gradually, the Americans and the Chinese managed to improve their relations. The Soviet threat was what actually brought the two countries closer. From 1979 onwards, the American companies started investing in China, transforming Communist China from a poor agricultural economy to the factory of the world.

The benefit for the Americans was that they were dragging China away from the Soviets and closer to United States. Moreover the American consumers started enjoying very cheap goods, which were made in China, from very cheap Chinese workers. However for these Chinese workers even these low salaries represented a dramatic increase in their standards of living. Extreme poverty was reduced by almost 70% in the period 1981 to 2009. But many manufacturing jobs were transferred from Western Europe and United States to China. See “The Socialist Myth of Economic Bubbles”.

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/450662

 

Image Extreme Poverty Rates

3 Extreme Poverty.JPG

While the Americans were trying to drag China closer to them and away from the Soviets, the Russians were not wasting their time either. The KGB was preparing the demolition of the Soviet Union, in order to export the vast Russian oil and natural gas reserves to the big industrial economies of Western Europe i.e. Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, United Kingdom and Spain. These energy flows would generate billions of dollars in export revenue for Russia, while at the same time they would increase Russia’s influence in Western Europe. The Russians also expected the Europeans to invest and build their factories in Russia, in order to take advantage of the cheap Russian labour (build your factories in Russia instead of China).

Therefore the world was moving towards a new geopolitical landscape, with China moving away from the Soviet Union and closer to USA, while the European Union was moving away from the United States and closer to Russia. Ronald Reagan tried to prevent the energy connection of Europe and Russia, but the German industry was very hungry for the Russian oil and gas.

Map China moves closer to America while Europe moves closer to Russia

4 Map USA Russia and China

Map

5 World Map.JPG

The KGB Breaks the Soviet Union

It is very naïve to assume that the Soviet Union fall because of its economic problems, or because of the poverty of its people. The Soviet Union was run by KGB, and it still is. The Soviet Union had tremendous powers to terrorize the Soviet population. Nobody would dare to openly criticize the Communist Party.

Look at what happens in North Korea, which is a Communist country of 25 million inhabitants, with a GDP of only 40 billion dollars. And yet nobody dares to complain, because the Communist Party will execute them if they dare to do so. The KGB had a lot more power than North Korea in terrorizing its population.

Picture Kim Jong Un, Dictator of North Korea and Grand Son of the founder of the North Korean Communist Party (Kim Il Sung)

6 Kim Jong Un

Revolutions occur when a foreign country is using the domestic Communist Party to attack this country’s army. Before WW1 the German Empire, the Austrian Empire and the Ottoman Empire, supported the Russian Communist Party in order to defeat Russia in WW1. See “Zionists VS Bolsheviks : The Good and the Bad Jews of Churchill and Stalin”.

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2017/04/02/zionists-vs-bolsheviks-the-bad-and-the-good-jews-of-churchill-and-lenin/

In the Soviet Union the Communist Party was already running the country, and therefore no foreign country could finance the Communist Party to attack the country. And China was a weaker country than the Soviet Union and could not support some Communist Party and defeat the Russian Army.

The Islamists of the Persian Gulf could cause some turmoil in the Muslim Colonies of the Soviet Union in the Caspian Sea and Central Asia i.e. Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan etc., because the Communists almost prohibited Islam.

The Pope could also cause some problems in Poland, a religious Catholic country, but Poland was not a member of the Soviet Union anyway.

Therefore it is ridiculous to believe that the KGB could not hold the Soviet Union together, if the Russians were not interested to export their oil and gas to Europe, increasing Russia’s influence over Europe, while generating billions in hard currency from these exports. The Russian friendly “assault” on Europe would follow the American friendly “assault” on China.

Remember that the KGB was controlling 100% of the Soviet economy. To mobilize a crowd you need to be able to provide it with information and propaganda, and of course some financial support, armaments etc. Look at what happens in USA today, where the Russians, the Chinese, the Mexicans, the Islamists etc, they all have their partners in USA, and they are attacking the American government with propaganda.

Iran, Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia and Hezbollah are controlling the drug cartels of Latin America and they finance the American gangs of United States. Moreover the Arabs of the Gulf and the Chinese have great influence over the American Academia, Hollywood and journalism. All of them are able to launch assaults on the American governments, both through the media, but also in the streets.

But they can do it because they USA has an open economy and a free society, and these countries can easily buy American academics, journalists and actors, in order to promote their interests in United States. But in the Soviet Union the KGB was controlling 100% of the economy. To criticize the Communist Party one would need a permit from the party, or he would die.

Also remember that the Europeans were constantly worrying about their oil supplies from the Persian Gulf and North Africa, because a potential war would block their imports and freeze their energy hungry economies. Therefore they saw the Russian supplies as a lot more reliable, and also cheaper in terms of transport costs. And of course it was the Soviet Union that supported counties like Egypt, Syria and Iraq, countries that were fighting the NATO allies i.e. Saudi Arabia, Israel etc.

The Ruthless KGB Leader

Those who doubt that the KGB broke the Soviet Union, they should take into account that Michael Gorbachev, the last leader of the Soviet Union and the man who broke the Soviet Union, was handpicked by Yuri Andropov, the most ruthless KGB leader. Yuri Andropov was also the longest serving, the most educated and the most effective leader of KGB (1967-1982), and after KGB he became the leader of the Soviet Union in 1982, till his death in 1984.

Already from 1980 Yuri Andropov was promoting the “reformer” Michael Gorbachev, and he chose him as his successor when he became leader of the Soviet Union. Gorbachev had to wait a year after Andropov’s death before becoming leader of the Soviet Union.

For Andropov and Gorbachev see the following articles

Wikipedia “Yuri Andropov : Promotion of Gorbachev”

From 1980 to 1982, while still chairman of the KGB, Andropov opposed plans to occupy Poland after the emergence of the Solidarity movement and promoted reform-minded party cadres including Mikhail Gorbachev.[7] Andropov was the longest-serving KGB chairman and did not resign as head of the KGB until May 1982, when he was again promoted to the Secretariat to succeed Mikhail Suslov as secretary responsible for ideological affairs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuri_Andropov#Promotion_of_Gorbachev

 

“Ex-K.G.B. Chief Says Andropov Supported Purges”

13 Paragraph

During his 15 months as Soviet leader, in which he began an anti-corruption drive, he promoted Mr. Gorbachev’s career. Soviet insiders say he wanted Mr. Gorbachev, then agricultural secretary, to succeed him.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/06/15/world/ex-kgb-chief-says-andropov-supported-purges.html

 

“Who is Mikhail Gorbachev? Former leader of the Soviet Union who helped end the Cold War and Nobel Prize winner”, Ιανουάριος 2017

10, 11, 12, 13 Paragraphs

In 1980 he was promoted to the Soviet Union’s all-powerful executive committee, the Politburo.

He was a protege of Soviet leader Yuri Andropov and helped him begin much-needed reforms.

Andropov picked him as his successor when he died, but he had to wait until another ageing leader Constantin Chernenko also died before he could rise to the very top.

In 1985 he was elected general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union – effectively the ruler of the USSR and the whole Soviet bloc.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2721803/who-is-mikhail-gorbachev-former-leader-of-the-soviet-union-who-helped-end-the-cold-war-and-nobel-prize-winner/

Yuri Andropov was behind the hijackings of the Western airliners. Andropov was also behind the assassination attempt against Pope Jean Paul B. The assassin was a member of the Turkish nationalist organization Grey Wolves, and according to the CIA behind the attack was KGB and Yuri Andropov. The reason was that the Pope was an anticommunist, he was Polish, and he was financing the anti-Communist movement in Poland, when the Polish people were trying to overturn their puppet government which was imposed on them by the Soviets.

Yuri Andropov was also the man who personally oversaw the revival of anti-Semitism in the post-war Europe, after Israel won Egypt in the war of 1967. After the Holocaust anti-Semitism was very weak in Europe. Under Andropov’s leadership, the KGB translated and distributed thousands of copies of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion to the Muslim world, in order to mobilize the Soviet allies against Israel, which was the most reliable American ally since the early 1960s. It was this man who spread anti-Semitism in Europe, in order to discredit the United States in the eyes of the European people, by presenting the United States as a part of a Jewish conspiracy. Today Russia and Israel are allies against Turkey and Qatar, and the centre of European anti-Semitism has moved to the Russian rivals i.e. France, Sweden, Poland etc.

For more details on Yuri Andropov and KGB see “Disinformation”

KGB Propaganda

https://www.amazon.com/Disinformation-Strategies-Undermining-Attacking-Promoting-ebook/dp/B00D99V2RY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1492616715&sr=8-1&keywords=soviet+propaganda+pacepa

So it was this man, Yuri Andropov, who picked the reformer Michael Gorbachev as his successor. Wouldn’t it be naïve to believe that the KGB was not preparing the break up of the Soviet Union since 1980? By breaking the Soviet Union the Russians left the rich in oil Central Asia to China. Central Asia was a thorn in the Russo-Chinese relations during the 20th Century.

By breaking the Soviet Union the Russians also left Azerbaijan to Turkey and Iran, since Caucasus was a thorn in the Russo-Turkish and Russo-Iranian relations during the previous centuries. Note that the Russians had discovered the rich oil and gas reserves of Western Siberia, and they were no longer dependent on Baku, as it was the case during the World Wars of the 20th Centuries.

Map

8 World Map.JPG

The Russians also relaxed their grip on Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, and allowed them to operate like cushions between Russia and Western Europe. And obviously the Russians were not happy at all when these countries were absorbed by NATO in 1999 (Poland, Hungary, Check Republic), and in 2004 (Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia).

According to the Russians the Americans had promised them that NATO would not absorb these countries. The Americans do not accept the Russian claims. The Russians were even more dissatisfied when they saw that NATO was using Georgia and Ukraine, two Soviet members, to hurt vital Russian interests. And the same was true for Syria.

If we want to be fair we must say that Russia is a mafia state run by KGB, but we must also admit that the West was very disrespectful towards Russia after the demise of the Soviet Union. When you know that the KGB broke the Soviet Union to export the Russian oil and gas, and you threaten these exports by using ex Russian allies or satelites i.e. Syria, Ukraine, Georgia, then you are looking for trouble.

 

Map Qatar-Turkey and White Stream Pipeline

9 Pipelinestan.JPG

Reversing the Tide

Today we see once more the reversing of the above geopolitical landscape. Now the United States is afraid of China, and the Europeans are afraid of Russia. By promoting the natural gas of the Muslim Brotherhood (Qatar-Iran-Turkmenistan-Kazakstan) to Europe, as the French, the Polish, the Swedish and others wanted, the Americans were pushing Russia towards China’s arms. And if the United States had to fight Russia and China, it would make sense for Germany to join this alliance, and that’s how that would look for the United States. It is a bit ugly. Of course the United States would have France, UK, India, Japan. But it still looks ugly in the Pacific Ocean.

Map (Germany-Russia-China) VS USA

10 World War 3.JPG

Now Trump is proposing to Russia to take Syria, to China to take Iran, and to both of them to leave Iraq for the United States.

Map

11 Obama VS Trump

That’s good for the Russians, because Syria and Israel will block the natural gas of Middle East from exiting to the Mediterranean Sea. And Russia would not be very happy to have a Chinese Empire at its south. China already has Pakistan and Iran, and Iran has Syria, and if Iran takes Iraq, as China would wish it did, China would exit to the Mediterranean Sea through satellites.

Map The New Chinese Empire

12 Map Chinese Empire.JPG

And obviously the French, the British, the Poles, the Swedish etc, are not feeling very comfortable with the United States having friendly relations with Russia, because it is Russia and not China they are afraid of.

The French elections of April and May 2017 will be very important, because we have to see how France will respond to this new geopolitical landscape, and whether France will decide to break the European Union and go for one to one relations with USA, Russia and China.

France can stop bothering Russia in Syria, focusing on the uranium, oil and natural gas of North Africa (Niger, Chad, Algeria), without threatening of course the Russian exports to Europe. And at the same time France can demand from China and Iran to stop bothering her in North Africa, where they are fighting France for the uranium of Niger and Chad. In return France could import Iranian oil and not support the Americans against China.

 

Articles

“The Obama and the Trump Doctrines”

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2017/04/09/the-obama-and-the-trump-doctrines/

“Russia VS China”

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2015/08/11/russia-vs-china/

“USA, Russia and China in the Middle East”

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2015/01/12/usa-russia-china-in-the-middle-east-alliances-conflicts/

“Disinformation”, Ion Pacepa

https://www.amazon.com/Disinformation-Strategies-Undermining-Attacking-Promoting/dp/1936488604/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481498722&sr=8-1&keywords=disinformation

Disinformation: Former Spy Chief Reveals Secret Strategies for Undermining Freedom, Attacking Religion, and Promoting Terrorism Hardcover – June 25, 2013

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2348191/EXCLUSIVE-KGB-operation-seeded-Muslim-countries-anti-American-anti-Jewish-propaganda-1970s-laying-groundwork-Islamist-terrorism-U-S-Israeli-targets.html

“Pope John Paul II : Assassination Attempts and Plots”

As he entered St. Peter’s Square to address an audience on 13 May 1981,[209] Pope John Paul II was shot and critically wounded by Mehmet Ali Ağca,[16][84][210] an expert Turkish gunman who was a member of the militant fascist group Grey Wolves.[211] The assassin used a Browning 9 mm semi-automatic pistol,[212] shooting the pope in the abdomen and perforating his colon and small intestine multiple times.[79] John Paul II was rushed into the Vatican complex and then to the Gemelli Hospital. On the way to the hospital, he lost consciousness. Even though the two bullets missed his mesenteric artery and abdominal aorta, he lost nearly three-quarters of his blood. He underwent five hours of surgery to treat his wounds.[213] Surgeons performed a colostomy, temporarily rerouting the upper part of the large intestine to let the damaged lower part heal.[213] When he briefly regained consciousness before being operated on, he instructed the doctors not to remove his Brown Scapular during the operation.[214] One of the few people allowed in to see him at the Gemelli Clinic was one of his closest friends philosopher Anna-Teresa Tymieniecka, who arrived on Saturday 16 May and kept him company while he recovered from emergency surgery.[70] The pope later stated that Our Lady of Fátima helped keep him alive throughout his ordeal.

Small marble tablet in St. Peter’s Square indicating where the shooting of John Paul II occurred. The tablet bears John Paul’s personal papal arms and the date of the shooting in Roman numerals.

Could I forget that the event in St. Peter’s Square took place on the day and at the hour when the first appearance of the Mother of Christ to the poor little peasants has been remembered for over sixty years at Fátima, Portugal? For in everything that happened to me on that very day, I felt that extraordinary motherly protection and care, which turned out to be stronger than the deadly bullet.[216]

Ağca was caught and restrained by a nun and other bystanders until police arrived. He was sentenced to life imprisonment. Two days after Christmas in 1983, John Paul II visited Ağca in prison. John Paul II and Ağca spoke privately for about twenty minutes.[84][210] John Paul II said, “What we talked about will have to remain a secret between him and me. I spoke to him as a brother whom I have pardoned and who has my complete trust.″

On 2 March 2006 the Italian parliament’s Mitrokhin Commission, set up by Silvio Berlusconi and headed by Forza Italia senator Paolo Guzzanti, concluded that the Soviet Union was behind the attempt on John Paul II’s life,[211][217] in retaliation for the pope’s support of Solidarity, the Catholic, pro-democratic Polish workers’ movement, a theory that had already been supported by Michael Ledeen and the United States Central Intelligence Agencyat the time.[211][217] The Italian report stated that Communist Bulgarian security departments were utilised to prevent the Soviet Union’s role from being uncovered.[217] The report stated that Soviet military intelligence (Glavnoje Razvedyvatel’noje Upravlenije), not the KGB, were responsible.[217] Russian Foreign Intelligence Service spokesman Boris Labusov called the accusation “absurd”.[217] The pope declared during a May 2002 visit to Bulgaria that the country’s Soviet-bloc-era leadership had nothing to do with the assassination attempt.[211][217] However, his secretary, Cardinal Stanisław Dziwisz, alleged in his book A Life with Karol, that the pope was convinced privately that the former Soviet Union was behind the attack.[218] It was later discovered that many of John Paul II’s aides had foreign-government attachments;[219] Bulgaria and Russia disputed the Italian commission’s conclusions, pointing out that the pope had publicly denied the Bulgarian connection.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II#Assassination_attempts_and_plots

 

“Pope John Paul II assassination attempt”

8, 9, 10, 11, 12 Paragraphs

KGB Director Yuri Andropov was convinced that Pope John Paul II’s election was the product of an Anglo-German conspiracy orchestrated by Zbigniew Brzezinski to undermine Soviet hegemony in largely Catholic Poland and ultimately to precipitate the collapse of the entire Soviet Union. The Pope’s announcement of a pilgrimage to Warsaw fueled Andropov’s apprehension, with Andropov issuing a secret memorandum to Soviet schoolteachers:[14]

The Pope is our enemy…. Due to his uncommon skills and great sense of humor he is dangerous, because he charms everyone, especially journalists. Besides, he goes for cheap gestures in his relations with the crowd, for instance, [he] puts on a highlander’s hat, shakes all hands, kisses children, etc…. It is modeled on American presidential campaigns…. Because of the activities of the Church inPoland our activities designed to atheize the youth not only cannot diminish but must intensely develop…. In this respect all means are allowed and we cannot afford sentiments.[14]

Ali Ağca had made several trips to Sofia, Bulgaria. He also claimed to have had contacts with a Bulgarian agent in Rome whose cover was the Bulgarian national airline office. Soon after the shooting, Sergei Antonov, a Bulgarian working in Rome for Balkan Air, was arrested based on Ağca’s testimony and accused of being the Bulgarian agent who masterminded the plot.[citation needed] In 1986, after a three-year trial, he was found not guilty. According to the CIA’s chief of staff in Turkey, Paul Henze, Ağca later stated that in Sofia, he was once approached by the Bulgarian Secret Service and Turkish mafiosi, who offered him three million German marks to assassinate the Pope.[15]

American journalist Arnaud de Borchgrave claimed that the Bulgarians chose Ağca to supply themselves with plausible deniability; choosing a member of the Grey Wolves that had allegedly been involved with the local KGB in drug smuggling routes through Bulgaria to Western Europe would distance themselves because of the implausibility of the link.[16]

Some people, notably Edward S. Herman, co-author with Frank Brodhead of The Rise and Fall of the Bulgarian Connection (1986), and Michael Parenti, felt Ağca’s story was dubious, noting that Ağca made no claims of Bulgarian involvement until he had been isolated in solitary confinement and visited by Italian Military Intelligence (SISMI) agents. On 25 September 1991, former CIA analyst Melvin A. Goodman (now Senior Fellow at the Center for International Policy) revealed that his colleagues, following hierarchical orders, had falsified their analysis to support the accusation. He declared to the US Senate intelligence committee that “the CIA hadn’t any proof” concerning this alleged “Bulgarian connection”.[17][18] Neither the Severino Santiapichi court nor the investigation by judge Franco Ionta found evidence that SISMI planted Ağca’s story. A French lawyer, Christian Roulette, who authored books blaming Western intelligence agencies for the assassination attempt, testified in court that the documentary evidence he referred to actually did not exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_Paul_II_assassination_attempt

 

 

Aljazeera VS Donald Trump

 

According to Aljazeera, the socialist news network that belongs to the Emir of Qatar, and which is also the largest network of the Muslim Brotherhood, the Sunnis of Syria must not thank Donald Trump for his attack on Assad’s air base. See Aljazeera “Syrians should not be thanking Trump for the strikes”, April 2017.

First because the attack was minor, second because the Americans have notified the Russians about the attack before hand, third because Assad’s removal is not a priority of the Trump administration, and fourth because Putin’s and Trump’s problem in Syria is Iran and not Assad. Aljazeera also accuses Russia for her cooperation with Israel.

The ambition of the Qataris is to overturn Assad in order to promote the Muslim Brotherhood pipeline i.e. Qatar-Turkey. The ambition of Iran is to block the Qatar-Turkey-Europe pipeline, and to reach the Mediterranean Sea i.e. Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline, and maybe in the future to also promote the Iran-Turkey-Europe natural gas pipeline. Russia’s ambition is to block both the Qatar-Turkey-Europe and the Iran-Turkey-Europe pipeline. The Obama’s administration ambition was to promote a single pipeline for the Muslim Brotherhood i.e. (Qatar+Iran)-Saudi Arabia-Jordan-Turkey-Europe pipeline, by helping the Muslim Brotherhood, which is supported by Turkey, Qatar and Iran, to overturn the Saudi and the Jordanian King.

You can see that even though Qatar and Iran have very different interests, they are together against Donald Trump, because Donald Trump’s ambition is to leave Syria to Russia i.e. the Qatar-Turkey pipeline dies, and in return ask Russia to leave Iraq to the United States, i.e. the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline dies.

Iran and Qatar hope to receive support from France and China, two countries which are also hurt by the USA-Russia détente.

Map Oil and Gas Reserves and Pipelines

 

Syrians should not be thanking Trump for the strikes

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2017/04/syrians-thanking-trump-strikes-170408090859357.html?utm_source=Al+Jazeera+English+Newsletter+%7C+Weekly&utm_campaign=33e0f2c686-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_04_09&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e427298a68-33e0f2c686-224888961

 

Map Erbil-Ceyhan PipelineJPG

Map Gazprom Pipelines

White Stream Pipeline

Map Kurdistan Pipelines

Map Shareholders of TAP

Possible IS State 1

TAPI

Χάρτης Αγωγοί Νότιας Ευρώπης

Saudi Sudan Pipeline

The Obama and the Trump Doctrines

The Obama and the Trump Doctrine

On the 7th of April 2017 the American President Donald Trump ordered the attack of a Syrian airbase, which was controlled by forces of the Syrian government (Bashar al-Assad). I believe that on its own the attack does not say much, because it is normal to expect the Russians to offer more space to Syria to the Trump administration, compared to what they did with the Obama administration, and what they would do with a Clinton administration.

The Trump doctrine is much friendlier towards Russia, while both the Obama and the Clinton doctrine were pushing very aggressively the natural gas of the Muslim Brotherhood. At the following maps you can see the Obama and the Trump doctrine.

Obama, the leftist son of an anti-American Shiite Muslim from Kenya, saw the Muslim Brotherhood very positively, and he supported the Muslim Brotherhood, hoping that Iran and Qatar could jointly send their natural gas to Europe and India through Turkey and Pakistan. The ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood is Communism with a God (Allah). With the Obama Doctrine there would be a united Muslim front against Russia in the Middle East.

 

Image The Obama Doctrine – The Axis of the Muslim Brotherhood Natural Gas

Τραμπ Πούτιν.JPG

Image 2 The Obama Doctrine – The Muslim Brotherhood Natural Gas Goes to Europe and India

Obama Doctrine.jpg

Donald Trump on the other hand believes that the West should help Russia to promote her natural gas exports to the American allies i.e. the E.U., India, Japan and South Korea, in order to break the Russian-China axis. After all Russia and China have competing interests too. See “Russia VS China”.

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2015/08/11/russia-vs-china/

Image The Trump Doctrine

US Russian Cooperation.JPG

Or at least Trump hopes to weaken the Russia-China axis, if not break it, since Russia sells a lot of oil to China. But what is for sure is that the more the United States and the EU support the Muslim Brotherhood, the more they push Russia towards China, and as a result the United States will have to face a Russo-Chinese bloc in the Pacific Ocean.

The Trump doctrine is that the United States should stop promoting the natural gas of the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria i.e. the Qatar-Turkey pipeline, and leave Syria to Russia, and in return ask from Russia to stop supporting China and Iran against the United States in Iraq.

People are killing each other for centuries for the commercial corridor that connects the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea i.e. today’s Iraq, Jordan, Israel, Syria, Lebanon. This is the corridor the British and the French gained from the Ottomans during the First World War (1914-1918). Obviously Trump would be very happy if the United States was controlling Syria, but if you want to throw Russia out of traditional spheres of influence i.e. Syria and Ukraine, you cannot expect the Russians to be happy. You should expect them to respond.

Image Map The Iraq-Syria Corridor

Χάρτης Συρίας Ιράκ.JPG

Interpreting the Trump Attack

Therefore the Trump doctrine is much better than the Obama doctrine for both the United States and Russia, and as a result the Russians will be willing to share control of Syria with the Trump administration, as long as the vital Russian interests are not hurt. That’s why Trump can be bolder in Syria compared to Obama, when he wants to attack ISIS, Iran and Hezbollah in Syria. The Russians will even allow the Trump government to be somewhat more aggressive towards the Assad government. Also remember that ISIS are the ex people of Saddam Hussein, who were trained by the KGB and were given oil fields by the Assad regime in Syria.

It is Al-Qaeda who fights Assad in Syria and not ISIS. Before the Arab Spring Al-Qaeda was trained and supported by Iran and Hezbollah, but after the Arab Spring in Syria the Syrian Al-Qaeda changed her name, cut relations with central Al-Qaeda, and started receiving support from the Arabs of the Gulf i.e. Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait etc, and also from the Turks. See “How Putin and Assad Created the Islamic State”.

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/654465

See also “The Architects of Al-Qaeda and ISIS”

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/655129

The countries that mainly supported attacks against the Assad regime in the previous years were France, Turkey, and the Arabs, and that’s why ISIS carried out terrorist attacks against France, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. But it is also true that the Turks were also helping ISIS against the Kurds in Syria, and also it is true that the Arabs were helping ISIS against the Shiite militias in Iraq.

Under Obama the United States was only attacking ISIS, but not the Assad regime, because Obama did not want to hurt his alliance with Iran by attacking Assad, a strong Iranian ally. Remember that in the Obama doctrine both Qatar and Iran would use the gas field they share, which is the largest gas field in the world i.e. the South Pars/North Fields, in order to supply Europe and India with natural gas through Turkey and Pakistan.

Image 2 The Obama Doctrine – The Muslim Brotherhood Natural Gas to Europe and India

Obama Doctrine

Image The War for the Pipelines

Map Oil and Gas Reserves and Pipelines.JPG

Image Qatar-Turkey

Possible IS State 1.jpg

Image The War in Afghanistan and Georgia

TAPI.JPG

Therefore I believe that for the moment we should see the Trump attack on Assad as a proof that Donald Trump is willing to support their traditional allies, i.e. Turkey, Israel and the Arabs of the Gulf, and not as a proof that Trump has changed his mind and now he is willing to promote the natural gas of the Muslim Brotherhood. As long at Trump does not change his doctrine, and as long as he does not promote the natural gas of the Muslim Brotherhood, his attacks in Syria will hurt more ISIS, Iran and Hezbollah and a lot less Russia. So what matters is not whether Trump carries an attack against the allies of Russia, but whether he moves away from his doctrine, and closer to the Obama doctrine. That’s what will determine how forceful the Russian response will be, because in Syria every player has different interests.

Also note that last week Trump met with the Egyptian dictator al-Sisi, who has imprisoned the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was supported by Turkey, Qatar and Iran, with the blessings of Obama and Clinton, and the Muslim Brotherhood’s largest tv channel is the socialist anti-American Aljazeera, which is owned by the Emir of Qatar.

Donald Trump on the other hand praised the Egyptian President, whom he calls a fantastic guy, and he is not very friendly towards Qatar, a country which heavily bet on the election of Hilary Clinton. And Trump is hostile towards Iran. And if Iran keeps attacking the United States in Iraq Donald Trump might even decide to attack Iran. Probably he would not dare to invade Iran, because there would be a war with Russia and China, but he could order a limited attack against the Iranian nuclear facilities.

Also note that Iraq is not just about oil for the United States, as the Communists and the Islamists are saying in the United States. After the 9/11 attack the United States had to move its military bases from Saudi Arabia to Qatar. But Qatar also sees China as the future importer of its gas, even though Qatar needs the military presence of the United States, as a protection against the Saudis and the Iranians. Remember that the Chinese have stronger ties with the Iranians than with the Arabs, both due to the traditional alliance between the Arabs of the Gulf and NATO, but also due to geographical reasons i.e. China can connect to Iran avoiding the sea and the American navy, but she cannot do that with the Arabs of the Gulf.

Therefore you should not see Trump’s obsession with Iraq only in terms of Iraq’s oil reserves. The Americans overturned the Sunni minority of Saddam Hussein, which became Al-Qaeda of Iraq, and later the Islamic State of Iraq, in order to empower the Shia majority of Iraq and the Kurds of Iraq, both of whom were suppressed by the Saddam regime.

The Weakness of the Trump Doctrine

During the Cold War things were quite simple for NATO. NATO was protecting the oil of the Persian Gulf and North Africa from the Soviets, and the rich in oil Soviets were using their allies to make life hard for NATO. Even China was cooperating more with the US than the Soviets after 1980, and the American companies went to China, and transformed China from a poor agricultural economy to the factory of the world.

But now the big threat for the Americans is no longer Russia but China, while the Europeans are still afraid of their neighbouring Russia and much less of China. That’s why Trump says that NATO is obsolete and he is wondering why the United States is not leaving Syria to Russia, instead of promoting the natural gas of the Muslim Brotherhood, a policy that pushes Russia towards China.

Map China and Russia Against the United States

Russia and China Against the US.JPG

But that does not mean that the Trump doctrine is based on the assumption that Russia will align herself with the United States against China, if the US helps Russia to export her gas to the EU, India, Japan and South Korea. The Trump doctrine is based on the assumption that the US will become stronger, and will be able to fight China in the future, irrespective of what Russia does.

But obviously by stop promoting the Muslim Brotherhood, which is designated as a terrorist organization in Russia, Trump hopes that Russia will be at least neutral towards China and the US. Remember that Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and he would probably be very happy if the Muslim Brotherhood overturned the Sauds in Saudi Arabia with the help of Turkey, Iran and Qatar. The Muslim Brotherhood ideology i.e. Socialism and Islam, is very close to Obama’s ideology.

The main weakness of the Trump doctrine is that it hurts some traditional American allies for example Qatar, France and Poland. If Trump helps Russia exports her gas to India, Japan and South Korea, which are all US allies, the Qatari exports will be deeply hurt, because these countries, together with China, absorb the Qatari production.

Moreover, France is hurt by Trump’s effort for an American-Russian détente. France left NATO in 1966, and went back to NATO 33 years later, because she wanted to play the Soviets against the Americans. The French were complaining that the Americans were prioritising their relationship with the British. But now, if the United States approaches Russia, bypassing France, which was the middle man, France’s geopolitical significance will be significantly reduced, given that the Americans have close ties with the British, and the Russians have close ties with the Germans, who are by far Russia’s best customer in oil and gas.

Map The Geopolitical Problem of France

Map The Problem of France.JPG

France will have the option to approach China, in order to play the Americans against the Chinese, but China is far away to help France in case of a war. Moreover China and Iran are competing with France for the uranium of Northern Africa i.e. Niger, Chad. France desperately needs this uranium because the country is dependent on energy produced from nuclear factories. Germany decided to close her nuclear factories after the Fukushima nuclear disaster of Japan in 2011, and replace nuclear energy with Russian natural gas. But obviously France would prefer not to be dependent on Russian natural gas imports, which would come through Germany, because that would make France dependent on Germany and Russia, which would not be good for France in case of a war.

Obviously the French and the British would prefer to import oil and natural gas from Africa (Trans-Saharan Pipeline) and the Middle East (Qatar-Turkey and Turkmenistan-Europe pipelines), instead of being dependent on Russia. But to do that you go to a war with Russia, because most of Russian export revenues come from sales of oil and natural gas to Europe. After all the reason the Russians dropped the Soviet Union was to export their oil and gas to the large industrial economies of Europe i.e. Germany, France, Great Britain and Italy.

Map France and United Kingdom

France and Britain.JPG

Another problem of the Trump doctrine is that he wants to reverse the large trade deficits that the United States runs with China, and many American multinationals are based in China. And the same is true for Mexico. These American companies export their products to the United States, and China and Mexico put pressure on them in order to spread her propaganda against Trump.

Look at what happens with the New York Times, which promotes the interests of the Mexican industrialists, and how biased the paper is towards Trump. Carlo Slim, the Mexican socialist industrialist who is supported by the Mexican government, is the largest shareholder of the New York Times.

All the above does not mean that Trump wants to go to a war with China. That’s the last thing Trump wants. Trump wants China to leave Iraq to the American sphere of influence. For China it would be great if Iran takes control of Iraq, because Iran already has Syria. And Pakistan is a strong Chinese ally, and that would bring China to the Mediterranean Sea, taking also control of the Persian Gulf. That would not be good for Russia either.

Map The New Soviet Union (China)

China's' New Empire.JPG

Trump would like China to have Iran and Pakistan in her sphere of influence, in order for China to have access to oil and natural gas by land, which would help China to stop converting the South China Sea to a Chinese lake. And as I said Trump expects China to leave Iraq to the US, and the US to leave Syria to Russia.

Map USA-Russia-China

Trump Doctrine.JPG

Remember that the First World War, and also the Second, happened because Germany was threatening the British, the French and the Russian to reach the Persian Gulf and the Caspian See through her allies the Ottomans (Turks) and the Austrians. Now China is threatening to do the same through her allies Pakistan and Iran.

 

Map WW1 and WW2

WW1.JPG

Map WW1

Map of World War 1.JPG

Image South Energy Corridor

Map Shareholders of TAP.JPG

Map The Russian Pipelines

Map Gazprom Pipelines.JPG

Map Kurdistan

Map Kurdistan Pipelines

Map The White Pipeline and the War in Ukraine and Georgia

White Stream Pipeline.JPG

Map Turkey VS Russia

Map Erbil-Ceyhan PipelineJPG

 

Zionists VS Bolsheviks : The Good and the Bad Jews of Churchill and Lenin

Before the creation of Israel in 1948, there was a Jewish civil war in Palestine, with the majority of the Palestinian Jews supporting Great Britain (Haganah), and a minority of the Palestinian Jews, mainly Communist Jews, supporting the Russians. Maybe a few of them were even working of the Italian fascists.

The Jews who were working for the Russians (Soviets) were carrying terrorist attacks against the British, who at the time had Palestine under British control. These Jews were hunted, and very often executed or deported from Palestine, by the British and their Jewish allies (Haganah).

In 1917 the British had promised to create a Jewish state in Palestine (Balfour Declaration), among other things because there were many Russian Jews in the Russian Communist Party, and the British were hoping that they would give the Russian Jews of the Communist Party an incentive to use their influence, in order to keep Russia in WW1 against Germany (1914-1918).

But it was the Germans who had brought the Russian Communists in power, in order to attack the Russian Army, and the Russian Communists, both Jews and no-Jews, were not very interested in helping the British when they rose to power in 1917.

Instead, the Russian Communists withdrew Russia from WW1, they gave many Russian territories to the Germans, the Austrians and the Ottomans, in exchange for their support against the Russian army, and they also made public the secret agreements between the British the French and the Russians, about how they planned to split the Ottoman colonies of the Middle East in case the won the war.

The architect of the October (Bolshevik) Revolution was the German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmerman. Arthur Zimmerman was also the architect of the Irish (Easter Rising) and Indian (Hindu-German Conspiracy) revolts against the British. See Wikipedia “Arthur Zimmermann”.

Image Arthur Zimmermann: The Architect of the October (Bolshevik) Revolution in 1917

Arthur Zimmerman

Map October (Bolshevik) Revolution 1917 : Germany-Austria-Turkey-Russian Communist Party (green) against England-France-Russian Empires (purple)

Map October Revolution.JPG

You can see on the map that the Germans and their Communist allies had a clear geographical advantage against the Russian army, because the Brits and the French could only support the Russian army through the Middle East.

Lenin and Stalin were not using the Communist Jews only against the British in Palestine. There were many Russian Jews who had fled Russia before the Bolshevik Revolution, hunted by the Russian Tsar, and they ended up in Germany, UK, the United States and elsewhere. And some of them were Communists, and when they rose to power Lenin and Stalin were using these Communists Jews to undermine Germany, England and the United States.

In 1920, Henry Ford, the greatest American industrialist at the time, published the International Jew. The International Jew was a variant of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which had been published by the Tsarist police in the beginning of the 20th Century Russia, when the German, Austrian and Ottoman Empires were using the Russian Communists to undermine the Russian Tsar. Henry Ford was also doing business with Nazi Germany, and Hitler was one of his admirers. See also “Inside Hitler’s Mind”.

It is not true that the Jews were controlling the Communist Party of Russia, but a very large portion of the Russian Jewish population saw Communism positively. It is easier for atheism to appeal to a religious minority (Jews) than to a religious majority (Christians).

At the same time that Henry Ford financed the publishing of the International Jew, Winston Churchill published an article about bad and good Jews, titled “Zionism Versus Bolshevism : A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People”.

Image The Good and the Bad Jews of Winston Churchill 1920

Zionism VS Bolshevism.JPG

The reason Winston Churchill wrote this article was that the Soviets supported Jewish Communists in Great Britain and Palestine, in order to attack the Brits. In Palestine the Germans and the Italians were also supporting the Muslim Brotherhood against the British. See “Hitler’s Alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood”.

Actually the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem organized the Arab Spring of Palestine (1936-1939) against the British, with the support of Mussolini and Hitler. When the British were hunting the Grand Mufti he was hiding in Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, and he was organizing the Muslim parts of the SS in Bosnia. See Daily Caller “Nazi SS Commander Wished Islamic Leader Success In Fight ‘Against The Jewish Invaders”, March 2017

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was also the man who convinced Hitler to end his policy of allowing the Jews of the countries he conquered to flee, because they ended up in Palestine. And Hitler followed the advice of the Grand Mufti and implemented the Final Solution. See “Netanyahu, Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem”.

But let me go back to 1920. While in the United States Henry Ford was financing the International Jew, Winston Churchill wrote “Zionism VS Bolshevism”, with a part of it titled “Good and Bad Jews”. Churchill called “good Jews” the nationalist Jews (Zionists), who were the allies of Great Britain, and he called “bad Jews” the international Jews (Bolsheviks), who were the allies of Lenin and Stalin. See “Good and Bad Jews”, 1920

http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.html

With the Arab Spring that started in the 21st Century, the French started fighting in Syria with the Russians, the Syrians and the Iranians, because the French, the Turks and the Arabs of the Gulf wanted to overturn Bashar al Assad, in order to advance the Qatar-Turkey pipeline. They were hoping that Turkey, Iran and Qatar would cooperate as a Muslim Brotherhood axis, in order to supply Europe with gas bypassing Russia.

Map The 21st Century War for the Natural Gas Pipelines

Map of Oil and Gas

Israel has aligned itself with Russia against Turkey and Qatar, and the French are using the French Jews as a bargaining chip in order to threat Israel. Obviously the French don’t do that openly, they just live it to their Muslim friends. But Netanyahu replied by saying that French Jews should immigrate to Israel if they are threatened in France. And Putin also said that European Jews can go to Russia if they are threatened in Europe. Putin was not only referring to France, but also to Scandinavia, because the Scandinavian countries are enemies of Russia, and Russia said that if Sweden and Finland join NATO Russia will start WW3. Scandinavia has become the European fortress of anti-Semitism. But besides France and Scandinavia there is also England, where the leader of the opposition i.e. Jeremy Corbyn, is very close to Iran and Venezuela, and the Labour Party has become very anti-Semitic under his leadership.

The French are saying that they do not want the French Jews to leave France, and I believe them. Especially Emannuel Valls who is married to a French Jewish woman. But they certainly want to use them in order to blackmail Israel, in order to help their allies the Arabs, and their new friends Iran. Maybe not Valls, but Valls is only one man. You saw how bad he did in the race for the leadership of the socialist party in 2016.

See Politico “Putin invites Jews to Russia”

http://www.politico.eu/article/putin-invites-jews-to-russia/

See Telegraph “France does not want Jews to leave’ say leaders Hollande and Valls”, February 2015

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11415030/France-does-not-want-Jews-to-leave-say-leaders-Hollande-and-Valls.html

As you can see at the following map, the largest part of European Jewry lives in France i.e. 580 thousands. France is only third, with the US first (8m) and Israel (6m) second in Jewish populations.

Image World Jewish Population

Πληθυσμός Εβραίων

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11415030/France-does-not-want-Jews-to-leave-say-leaders-Hollande-and-Valls.html

So there are still good and bad Jews, according to their allies. It is the same with the Kurds. The Kurds are facing the situation faced by the pre-Israel Jews. Some Kurds are allies of the Americans, some of Russia, some of Iran, some of Syria, some of Turkey, and there are good and bad Kurds according to their allies, and how you want to see it. And there is Kurdish civil war.

Map Kurdistan Pipelines.JPG

The problem is that now there are good and bad Jews even in United States. As long as the United States was fighting the Soviets, Israel was America’s best friend, so there were only good Jews in the United States. But now that the Trump administration tries to approach Russia, in order to brake the China-Russia alliance, and Israel has made good with the Russians, the pro-Arab and anti-Russian Americans started talking about bad Jews, in an indirect way of course. On the other hand the Jewish Americans are usually democrats, so they are anti-Trump, and people like Trump start seeing bad and good Jews too. So there are bad and good Jews for both the Democrats i.e. mainly the pro-Russian Jews of Israel, and the Republicans i.e. the anti-Trump American Jews. Now that America is so polarized there will be good and bad Jews in the United States too.

Map Gazprom Pipelines

Map Erbil-Ceyhan PipelineJPG.JPG

Map of The Ottoman Empire 1900

Map of World War 1.JPG

Possible IS State 1.jpg

Χάρτης Gazprom Αγωγοί.jpg

Map Iraq Sunni Shia Kurds.JPG

Map of Iraqi Desert

Map South Energy Corridor

Σαουδική Αραβία.jpg

Τουρκία Σαουδική Αραβία Ιράν

Χάρτης Nabucco

Χάρτης Αφρική - Ευρώπη

Αποθέματα Πετρελαίου ανά Χώρα.JPG

Αποθέματα Φυσικού Αερίου

Ο Χάρτης του Φυσικού Αερίου.JPG

TAPI.JPG

Saudi Sudan Pipeline.JPG

Xin Jiang Pipelines.JPG

Proven Oil Reserves.JPG

Map Oil Gas Pipelines Middle East.JPG

Map of Asian Colonies

Map of Oil and Gas Reserves.JPG

Africa Colonies.JPG

Earth.JPG

Countries by GDP.JPG

Military Spending

Military Spending

Salt A World History

Russia+China against the US

Trump VS Le Pen 2.JPG

US and Russia Against China

Trump VS Le Pen.JPG

Χάρτης Αγωγοί Νότιας Ευρώπης.JPG

Articles

“Nazi SS Commander Wished Islamic Leader Success In Fight ‘Against The Jewish Invaders”, March 2017

The Israel National Library released a rediscovered telegram Wednesday that reveals that notorious Nazi leader Heinrich Himmler wished the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem success in fighting Jews who were migrating to Israel during World War II.

The telegram, dated Nov. 2 1943, shows Heinrich Himmler, the notorious commander of the Nazi Schutzstaffel (or S.S.), offered Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini “warm wishes” in his continued fight against the Jews. The letter was sent on the anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, which expressed the British government’s support for the establishment of a Jewish homeland in what is now Israel.

“To Grand Mufti Amin al-Husseini: From the outset, the National Socialist [Nazi] movement of Greater Germany has been a standard-bearer in the battle against world Jewry,” said Himmler’s telegram. “For this reason, it is closely following the battle of freedom-seeking Arabs, particularly in Palestine, against the Jewish invaders. The shared recognition of the enemy and the joint fight against it are creating the strong base [uniting] Germany and freedom-seeking Arabs around the world. In this spirit, I am pleased to wish you, on the anniversary of the wretched Balfour Declaration, warm wishes on your continued fight until the great victory.”

Husseini’s connections to Nazi Germany date back to at least the late 1930s, when he traveled to fascist Italy and Germany to avoid a British arrest warrant for his alleged role in the Arab revolt, which lasted from 1936 to 1939. He collaborated with the Nazis in propaganda broadcasts and reportedly aided the S.S. in the recruitment of Bosnian Muslims. Husseini is also known to have met with Adolf Hitler, and requested German support for the liberation of Palestine from the British. He is considered a key historical figure in Palestinian nationalism.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/30/nazi-ss-commander-wished-islamic-leader-success-in-fight-against-the-jewish-invaders/

“Netanyahu, Hitler and the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem”

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2015/10/23/netanyahu-hitler-and-the-grand-mufti-of-jerusalem/

“Arthur Zimmermann”

1st Paragraph

Arthur Zimmermann (5 October 1864 – 6 June 1940) was State Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the German Empire from 22 November 1916 until his resignation on 6 August 1917. His name is associated with the Zimmermann Telegram during World War I. However, he was closely involved in plans to support rebellions in Ireland and in India, and to assist the Bolsheviks to undermine Tsarist Russia.

5th Paragraph

In late 1914 Zimmermann was visited by Roger Casement, the Irish revolutionary. A plan was laid to land 25,000 soldiers in the west of Ireland with 75,000 rifles. However, the German general staff did not agree. In April 1916 Casement returned to Ireland in a U-boat and was captured and executed. A German ship (the Libau) renamed the Aud, flying Norwegian colours, shipped 20,000 rifles to the south Irish coast, but it failed to link up with the rebels and was scuttled. Planning on this support, a minority of the Irish Volunteers launched the Easter Rising inDublin. Though the Rising failed, its political effect led on to the Anglo-Irish war in 1919–22 and the formation of the Irish Free State.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Zimmermann

“Inside Hitler’s Mind”

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/inside-hitlers-mind/

“WHO WAS BEHIND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION?”

The anti-communist movement in America has long been afflicted by an
historical misunderstanding which persists today. There is a widespread
teaching about communism and its origins which is false. It is a
teaching which has influenced millions of Americans.

The 20th century version of this teaching originated with Russian
anti-Semites. Relying on false documents and a conspiratorial
hypothesis, these anti-Semites blamed Jews and Freemasons for a
wide-ranging global conspiracy to destroy Christianity and create a
world government. One of the key historical facts alleged by these
Russian anti-Semites has to do with the origins of the Bolshevik
Revolution.

In this context, the importance of historical facts and
interpretations should not be underestimated. If our historical facts
are incorrect, then our political understanding will be weak and our
actions will be misdirected. If we believe in enemies and conspiracies
that do not exist in reality, then real conspiracies will be
misapprehended or ignored.

A body of literature and testimony, based on false assertions and
bogus documentation, began to appear in the West after the Bolshevik
Revolution. This literature and testimony asserted (and continues to
assert) that certain American bankers, who happen to have Jewish names,
had financed the Bolshevik Revolution. Once the Russian anti-Semites
planted this poisonous seed, it spread rapidly. Henry Ford was an early
convert to this claim. Hitler and the Nazis were also believers in it.

After the collapse of Nazi Germany, writers and publicists like
Robert Welch, Gary Allen and Anthony Sutton continued to advance the
thesis that a sinister Western group financed and directed the communist
revolution in Russia. This group, it was said, used international
communism to advance their own sinister agenda in the West.

George Knupffer, a Russian emigre, was an early advocate of this
view. As a Russian monarchist, he worked to influence American public
opinion by writing books. Long before the founding of the John Birch
Society by Robert Welch, Knupffer and his compatriots advanced the
theory that Russia had been a testing ground — a preliminary experiment
— used by forces located outside of Russia.

Who was behind this conspiracy?

According to Knupffer, it was the Warburgs and Jacob Schiff of Kuhn,
Loeb & Co. that financed the Bolshevik Revolution. These were the
alleged culprits and villains behind it all. These were the evil
geniuses of the October Revolution. Allen and Sutton followed Knupffer’s
line — which had previously been advanced by Henry Ford’s anti-Semitic
publications of the 1920s and 1930s.

It must be said, in response to this conspiracy theory, that the
allegations against the Warburgs and Schiffs are false. These
allegations, which originate in anti-Semitic propaganda, have been
repeated so often that many good people have come to accept them without
question.

In truth, the culprits behind the communist takeover in Russia were
not in New York, and they did not have Jewish names. The villains were
in Berlin and they had German names. As it happens, the chief architect
of the Bolshevik Revolution was none other than German Foreign Secretary
Arthur Zimmermann. During the First World War the Political Section of
the German Foreign Office had been devising a plan to bring revolution
to Russia. It was Zimmermann’s pet idea. From 1915 to 1917 the German
secret service began cultivating socialists of all parties. Baron
Gisbert von Romberg, the German minister in Switzerland, urged that the
Kaiser put his money behind Lenin and his Bolsheviks. Count Diego von
Bergen, the German official in charge of political subversion within
Russia, believed that a large enough sum of money could bring Lenin to
power.

How much money did the Kaiser provide to Lenin?

The German Social Democrat, Eduard Bernstein, later said that the sum
supplied to Lenin by the Kaiser “was very large, an almost unbelievable
amount, certainly more than 50 million gold marks.”

General Max von Hoffmann, who negotiated the German-Soviet
Brest-Litovsk peace treaty, later confirmed: “Lenin and his comrades
received vast sums of money from the Kaiser’s government for their
destructive agitation.”

In fact, General Hoffmann admitted that he blackmailed Lenin into
signing the Brest-Litovsk treaty, and it is simple to see how this was
done. Since Lenin’s takeover of Russia had been accomplished with help
from German agents and German money while Russia was at war with
Germany, Lenin’s treason was obvious. All the Germans had to do was
publish the truth about their secret alliance with Lenin and the
Bolshevik government would collapse.

Once in power, Lenin did not want to sign the peace treaty with
Germany. But he had no choice. At the Time Kaiser Wilhelm triumphantly
pronounced that Lenin “was finished.” The Kaiser could “out” Lenin at
any time and bring an end to Russia’s Bolsheviks. But Germany
disintegrated later that year and the Kaiser abdicated. The treaty with
Lenin became meaningless.

The blackmail was left unused and later proved to be something of a
scandal and embarrassment for the German military itself.

By a strange quirk of fate, the Bolsheviks broke loose from their
Imperial German sponsors.

Aside from German files and memoirs on the subject, French
counter-intelligence detected and documented collusion between Lenin and
the Kaiser in March 1917. The intelligence service of Russia’s
Provisional Government also uncovered evidence of German-Bolshevik
collusion in July 1917. It was then learned that large sums of money
were being channeled to Lenin’s people in Russia through the Bank of
Siberia in Petrograd. This money was traced back through Scandinavia to
Imperial Germany. Because of this discovery, Lenin had to go underground
to avoid arrest as a German agent.

In preparing its case against Lenin, the Provisional Government
compiled 20 volumes of evidence tying Lenin to German agents and German money.

It is very important that we respect the facts of history. It is even
more important that we avoid building our political ideas around false
historical claims about New York bankers with Jewish names. The origins
of the Marxist revolution in Russia have been documented by an army of
researchers and writers. This work needs to be studied and understood.

We cannot combat the false doctrines of the left with a false
doctrine of the right.

http://www.wnd.com/2000/05/6446/

“The International Jew: A Summary of Anti-Semitism in the 20th Century”

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2017/01/21/the-international-jew-a-brief-summary-of-20th-century-anti-semitism/

“Putin invites Jews to Russia”

http://www.politico.eu/article/putin-invites-jews-to-russia/

“France does not want Jews to leave’ say leaders Hollande and Valls”, February 2015

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11415030/France-does-not-want-Jews-to-leave-say-leaders-Hollande-and-Valls.html

“The Alliance Between Hitler and the Muslim Brotherhood”

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2016/08/18/the-alliance-between-hitler-and-the-muslim-brotherhood/

“The International Jew”

1η, 2η, 3η Παράγραφος

The International Jew is a four volume set of booklets or pamphlets published and distributed in the early 1920s by Henry Ford, an American industrialist and automobile manufacturer.

In Spring 1920, Ford made his personal newspaper, The Dearborn Independent, chronicle what he considered the “Jewish menace”. Every week for 91 issues, the paper exposed some sort of Jewish-inspired evil major story in a headline. The most popular and aggressive stories were then chosen to be reprinted into four volumes called The International Jew.[1]

It is to be distinguished from The International Jew: The World’s Problem which was the headline in The Dearborn Independent and is the name of a collection of articles serialized in The Dearborn Independent.

8η, 9η, 10η, 11η Παράγραφος

1927 Libel Suit

A libel lawsuit, brought by San Francisco lawyer and Jewish farm cooperative organizer Aaron Sapiro in response to antisemitic remarks, led Ford to close the Independent in December 1927. News reports at the time quoted him as being shocked by the content and having been unaware of its nature. During the trial, the editor of Ford’s “Own Page”, William John Cameron, testified that Ford had nothing to do with the editorials even though they were under his byline. Cameron testified at the libel trial that he never discussed the content of the pages nor sent them to Ford for his approval.[3] Investigative journalist Max Wallace doubted the veracity of this claim and wrote that James M. Miller, a former Dearborn Independent employee, swore under oath that Ford had told him he intended to expose Sapiro.[4] According to Michael Barkun, “That Cameron would have continued to publish such controversial material without Ford’s explicit instructions seemed unthinkable to those who knew both men. Mrs. Stanley Ruddiman, a Ford family intimate, remarked that “I don’t think Mr. Cameron ever wrote anything for publication without Mr. Ford’s approval”.

Influence on Nazi Anti-Semitism

Ford’s International Jew was translated into German in 1922 and was cited as an influence by Baldur von Schirach, one of the Nazis leaders, who stated “I read it and became anti-Semitic. In those days this book made such a deep impression on my friends and myself because we saw in Henry Ford the representative of success, also the exponent of a progressive social policy. In the poverty-stricken and wretched Germany of the time, youth looked toward America, and apart from the great benefactor, Herbert Hoover, it was Henry Ford who to us representedAmerica.”[6] Ford is the only American mentioned in Hitler’s Mein Kampf, but is only mentioned once in one sentence, where Hitler writes “Every year makes them [American Jews] more and more the controlling masters of the producers in a nation of one hundred and twenty millions; only a single great man, Ford, to their fury still maintains full independence.” The second edition of the book removed reference to Ford.

The Patriotic Publishing Co

In 1934, The Patriotic Publishing Co., an unincorporated entity that operated out of a post office box[8][not in citation given] “Issued” and “Compiled and edited” The Protocols as an expanded 300-page tome. The expansion from less than 100 pages to 300 pages was made possible by copying substantial sections from The Dearborn Independent. Most of the later imprints of the Protocols are derived from this 1934 edition.

George F. Green and the Christian Nationalist Crusade

In June 1949 there appeared a 174-page, one-volume abridgment of the text, titled The International Jew, subtitled “The World’s Foremost Problem”, and edited by George F. Green[10] (who is not to be confused with the novelist and short-story writer of the same name). It was published by Green, editor of The Independent Nationalist [11]

The book was also sold in the United States, where it was distributed by the Christian Nationalist Crusade

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_International_Jew

“Communist Party of the USA”

The Communist Party of the United States of America (CPUSA) was a Moscow-controlled Marxist-Leninist party in the United States. It nominated a candidate for president from 1924 through 1984, sometimes with funding from the atheistic Communist Soviet Union. With the collapse of the Soviet Union it became a hollow shell and has urged voters to support the Democrat Party.[1]

The Soviet Union used the CPUSA to recruit spies after the U.S. recognized theUSSR in 1933.

The CPUSA was under heavy attack by the U.S. government after 1947 and the start of the Cold War. After gaining control of many Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) locals and unions it was expelled from the CIO in 1948. After losing its main base it continued to operate some small unions, such as the fur workers. It supported and gained control of the presidential campaign of Henry A. Wallace in 1948. After 1948 it was a hunted target and played only a small role.

Membership in the CPUSA was a high maintenance commitment—the Party demanded full control of people’s ideas, friendships, jobs and activities. There were repeated in-depth investigations, humiliating interrogations, forced confessions, and purges. Many sympathizers (or “fellow travelers”) supported Communist goals but refused to become members. Of those who did join turnover in membership was very high, with most people staying less than a year before they quit in disgust with the intellectual and social regimentation of the party and its structure as a top-down dictatorship that took orders from Moscow. The CPUSA did not execute anyone, but many—probably most—of the American Communists who traveled to Russia were killed there.[2]

http://www.conservapedia.com/Communist_Party_of_the_United_States_of_America

Zionism versus Bolshevism.

A Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People

By the Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill.

SOME people like Jews and some do not; but no thoughtful man can doubt the fact that they are beyond all question the most formidable and the most remarkable race which has ever appeared in the world.

Disraeli, the Jew Prime Minister of England, and Leader of the Conservative Party, who was always true to his race and proud of his origin, said on a well-known occasion: “The Lord deals with the nations as the nations deal with the Jews.” Certainly when we look at the miserable state of Russia, where of all countries in the world the Jews were the most cruelly treated, and contrast it with the fortunes of our own country, which seems to have been so providentially preserved amid the awful perils of these times, we must admit that nothing that has since happened in the history of the world has falsified the truth of Disraeli’s confident assertion.

Good and Bad Jews

The conflict between good and evil which proceeds unceasingly in the breast of man nowhere reaches such an intensity as in the Jewish race. The dual nature of mankind is nowhere more strongly or more terribly exemplified. We owe to the Jews in the Christian revelation a system of ethics which, even if it were entirely separated from the supernatural, would be incomparably the most precious possession of mankind, worth in fact the fruits of all other wisdom and learning put together. On that system and by that faith there has been built out of the wreck of the Roman Empire the whole of our existing civilization.

And it may well be that this same astounding race may at the present time be in the actual process of producing another system of morals and philosophy, as malevolent as Christianity was benevolent, which, if not arrested, would shatter irretrievably all that Christianity has rendered possible. It would almost seem as if the gospel of Christ and the gospel of Antichrist were destined to originate among the same people; and that this mystic and mysterious race had been chosen for the supreme manifestations, both of the divine and the diabolical.

‘National’ Jews

There can be no greater mistake than to attribute to each individual a recognizable share in the qualities which make up the national character. There are all sorts of men — good, bad and, for the most part, indifferent — in every country, and in every race. Nothing is more wrong than to deny to an individual, on account of race or origin, his right to be judged on his personal merits and conduct. In a people of peculiar genius like the Jews, contrasts are more vivid, the extremes are more widely separated, the resulting consequences are more decisive.

At the present fateful period there are three main lines of political conception among the Jews. two of which are helpful and hopeful in a very high degree to humanity, and the third absolutely destructive.

First there are the Jews who, dwelling in every country throughout the world, identify themselves with that country, enter into its national life and, while adhering faithfully to their own religion, regard themselves as citizens in the fullest sense of the State which has received them. Such a Jew living in England would say, “I am an English man practising the Jewish faith.” This is a worthy conception, and useful in the highest degree. We in Great Britain well know that during the great struggle the influence of what may be called the “National Jews” in many lands was cast preponderatingly on the side of the Allies; and in our own Army Jewish soldiers have played a most distinguished part, some rising to the command of armies, others winning the Victoria Cross for valour.

The National Russian Jews, in spite of the disabilities under which they have suffered, have managed to play an honorable and useful part in the national life even of Russia. As bankers and industrialists they have strenuously promoted the development of Russia’s economic resources, and they were foremost in the creation of those remarkable organizations, the Russian Co-operative Societies. In politics their support has been given, for the most part, to liberal and progressive movements, and they have been among the staunchest upholder of friendship with France and Great Britain.

International Jews

In violent opposition to all this sphere of Jewish effort rise the schemes of the International Jews. The adherents of this sinister confederacy are mostly men reared up among the unhappy populations of countries where Jews are persecuted on account of their race. Most, if not all, of them have forsaken the faith of their forefathers, and divorced from their minds all spiritual hopes of the next world. This movement among the Jews is not new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.

Terrorist Jews

There is no need to exaggerate the part played in the creation of Bolshevism and in the actual bringing about of the Russian Revolution, by these international and for the most part atheistical Jews, it is certainly a very great one; it probably outweighs all others. With the notable exception of Lenin, the majority of the leading figures are Jews. Moreover, the principal inspiration and driving power comes from the Jewish leaders. Thus Tchitcherin, a pure Russian, is eclipsed by his nominal subordinate Litvinoff, and the influence of Russians like Bukharin or Lunacharski cannot be compared with the power of Trotsky, or of Zinovieff, the Dictator of the Red Citadel (Petrograd) or of Krassin or Radek — all Jews. In the Soviet institutions the predominance of Jews is even more astonishing. And the prominent, if not indeed the principal, part in the system of terrorism applied by the Extraordinary Commissions for Combating Counter-Revolution has been taken by Jews, and in some notable cases by Jewesses. The same evil prominence was obtained by Jews in the brief period of terror during which Bela Kun ruled in Hungary. The same phenomenon has been presented in Germany (especially in Bavaria), so far as this madness has been allowed to prey upon the temporary prostration of the German people. Although in all these countries there are many non-Jews every whit as bad as the worst of the Jewish revolutionaries, the part played by the latter in proportion to their numbers in the population is astonishing.

‘Protector of the Jews’

Needless to say, the most intense passions of revenge have been excited in the breasts of the Russian people. Wherever General Denikin’s authority could reach, protection was always accorded to the Jewish population, and strenuous efforts were made by his officers to prevent reprisals and to punish those guilty of them. So much was this the case that the Petlurist propaganda against General Denikin denounced him as the Protector of the Jews. The Misses Healy, nieces of Mr. Tim Healy, in relating their personal experiences in Kieff, have declared that to their knowledge on more than one occasion officers who committed offenses against Jews were reduced to the ranks and sent out of the city to the front. But the hordes of brigands by whom the whole. vast expanse of the Russian Empire is becoming infested do not hesitate to gratify their lust for blood and for revenge at the expense of the innocent Jewish population whenever an opportunity occurs. The brigand Makhno, the hordes of Petlura and of Gregorieff, who signalized their every success by the most brutal massacres, everywhere found among the half-stupefied, half-infuriated population an eager response to anti-Semitism in its worst and foulest forms.

The fact that in many cases Jewish interests and Jewish places of worship are excepted by the Bolsheviks from their universal hostility has tended more and more to associate the Jewish race in Russia with the villainies, which are now being perpetrated. This is an injustice on millions of helpless people, most of whom are themselves sufferers from the revolutionary regime. It becomes, therefore, specially important to foster and develop any strongly-marked Jewish movement which leads directly away from these fatal associations. And it is here that Zionism has such a deep significance for the whole world at the present time.

A Home for the Jews

Zionism offers the third sphere to the political conceptions of the Jewish race. In violent contrast to international communism, it presents to the Jew a national idea of a commanding character. it has fallen to the British Government, as the result of the conquest of Palestine, to have the opportunity and the responsibility of securing for the Jewish race all over the world a home and centre of national life. The statesmanship and historic sense of Mr. Balfour were prompt to seize this opportunity. Declarations have now been made which have irrevocably decided the policy of Great Britain. The fiery energies of Dr. Weissmann, the leader, for practical purposes, of the Zionist project. backed by many of the most prominent British Jews, and supported by the full authority of Lord Allenby, are all directed to achieving the success of this inspiring movement.

Of course, Palestine is far too small to accommodate more than a fraction of the Jewish race, nor do the majority of national Jews wish to go there. But if, as may well happen, there should be created in our own lifetime by the banks of the Jordan a Jewish State under the protection of the British Crown, which might comprise three or four millions of Jews, an event would have occurred in the history of the world which would, from every point of view, be beneficial, and would be especially in harmony with the truest interests of the British Empire.

Zionism has already become a factor in the political convulsions of Russia, as a powerful competing influence in Bolshevik circles with the international communistic system. Nothing could be more significant than the fury with which Trotsky has attacked the Zionists generally, and Dr. Weissmann in particular. The cruel penetration of his mind leaves him in no doubt that his schemes of a world-wide communistic State under Jewish domination are directly thwarted and hindered by this new ideal, which directs the energies and the hopes of Jews in every land towards a simpler, a truer, and a far more attainable goal. The struggle which is now beginning between the Zionist and Bolshevik Jews is little less than a struggle for the soul of the Jewish people.

Duty of Loyal Jews

It is particularly important in these circumstances that the national Jews in every country who are loyal to the land of their adoption should come forward on every occasion, as many of them in England have already done, and take a prominent part in every measure for combating the Bolshevik conspiracy. In this way they will be able to vindicate the honor of the Jewish name and make it clear to all the world that the Bolshevik movement is not a Jewish movement, but is repudiated vehemently by the great mass of the Jewish race.

But a negative resistance to Bolshevism in any field is not enough. Positive and practicable alternatives are needed in the moral as well as in the social sphere; and in building up with the utmost possible rapidity a Jewish national centre in Palestine which may become not only a refuge to the oppressed from the unhappy lands of Central Europe, but which will also be a symbol of Jewish unity and the temple of Jewish glory, a task is presented on which many blessings rest.

http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.html

The End of Vladimir Putin

As you can read at the following article from Express, Vladimir Putin is considering withdrawing in 2017. Supposedly for reasons that have to do with his health. Express is a British newspaper close to Nigel Farage’s UKIP, which is a pro-Russian party.

See Express “Reign of Putin OVER? ‘Health problems to force Russian president to stand down NEXT YEAR”, November 2016

 

Capture.JPG

Putin was a KGB leader who became Russia’s leader in 2000, due to the war declared against NATO by Russia and Iran. NATO was supporting energy networks that were hurting both Iran and Russia, like the Muslim Brotherhood pipeline (Qatar-Turkey-Europe), but also the Turkmenistan-Ukraine-Poland pipeline, through Georgia. Both of these pipelines were hurting Russia. NATO was also promoting the Turkmenistan-India pipeline through Afghanistan, which was hurting Iran (TAPI pipeline).

The South Pars/North Field gas field, shared by Qatar and Iran, is the largest gas field in the world, while the Turkmen Galkynysh is the second largest gas field in the world.

Map (Russia+Iran) VS NATO

Χάρτης ΗΠΑ Ρωσίας.JPG

Obama tried to add Iran to the Muslim Brotherhood pipeline (Iran+Qatar-Saudi Arabia-Syria-Turkey-Europe). Obama was hoping to brake the Red Jihad axis (Russia+Iran), in order to send the natural gas of the South Pars/North Fields to Europe through the Sunni part of Syria, avoiding the Kurdistan of Turkey, where Russia has a lot of influence over the Kurdish terrorists of PKK.

But now Donald Trump is pushing France and Great Britain to cooperate with Russia, so that all together can face China, which will be the greatest rival of the US in the 21st Century. The change in the American policy means that sooner or later Europe’s gates will open for the Russian gas. If the Americans really want the Russians as their allies against China, they will have to help them export their gas to all of their allies i.e. Europe, India, South Korea and Japan.

Map The Trump Doctrine

Χάρτης ΗΠΑ Ρωσία 2.JPG

Without US support to NATO, Russia wins the war in Syria and Ukraine, and there is space for an alliance between USA and Russia, or at least for a normalization of their relations. China could try to replace Russia in the Red Jihad axis (China+Iran), but China exports 500 billion dollars of goods to the United States. Therefore it is difficult for Chinao to start supporting terrorist attacks against the US, because the US will impose economic sanctions on China.

The Russians are already thinking of handing Edward Snowden to the Americans. Edward Snowden is the American agent who stole information from the US secret services and sold them to Russia. Obviously the Russians have already taken what they wanted to take from Snowden, but nevertheless handing him to the United States will be very important. If Russia hands Snowden to the US they will discourage American soldiers to betray the United States in the future, because they will see what happened to Snowden who did it.

If Vladimir Putin, the ex-KGB chief, walks away, the Russians will send another positive signal to their new friends, the Americans. Vladimir Putin moved from the top of KGB to the leadership of Russia in order to fight NATO, which was hurting vital Russian economic interests. After all the Russians abandoned the Soviet Union to export their oil and gas to the large economies of Western Europe (Germany, UK, France, Spain, Italy).

Yuri Andropov, another KGB leader, became the leader of the Soviet Union, when the Israelis defeated the Egyptians in 1967, with NATO’s support, and they established the Iranian-Israeli energy axis, which was bypassing the Arabs and the Suez Canal through the Israeli port of Eilat in the Red Sea. Yuri Andropov started a merciless war against NATO countries and Israel, and he was using skyjacking as one of his favourite weapons against the West.

With Putin’s rise to power in 2000, the Russians started supporting Iran, which was supporting Hezbollah, which was supporting Al-Qaeda, against the US and France. In 2001, while the Americans were negotiating with the Taliban the TAPI pipeline, Al-Qaeda attacked the Twin Towers. This was a Saudi attack, with Hezbollah’s support, and Hezbollah was supported by Iran, and Iran was supported by Russia, and Russia was led by Vladimir Putin. Al-Qaeda used an airplane attack, which was one of the Yuri Andropov’s favourite methods for demoralizing the West. The Americans responded with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If in the Trump era the Americans and the Russians become friends, maybe it will be time for Vladimir Putin to walk away from the cameras. After all Vladimir Putin has been leading Russia’s war against NATO in the last 15 years. Maybe the Russians will bring forward a more Western style leader. After all Putin’s mission is finished. Russia won the war in Syria and Ukraine.

Map of Oil and Gas.jpg

Σαουδική Αραβία 1.jpg

 

“Reign of Putin OVER? ‘Health problems to force Russian president to stand down NEXT YEAR”

VLADIMIR Putin could be forced to quit the Kremlin next year because of his worsening health, an insider has claimed.

The Russian president – a former KGB agent who prides himself on his physical fitness – is considering standing down in 2017 because of “certain circumstances”.

Political analyst Valery Solovey, a professor at Moscow State Institute of Foreign Affairs, gave the vague prediction that Mr Putin would quietly slip out of the public limelight in the next 12 months.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/731307/Vladimir-Putin-resign-Russian-president-quit

 

 

 

The Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C.)

During the 5th Century Athens and Sparta were the two strongest city states of Greece, and all other cities were either allies of Sparta or Athens (500-400 B.C.). Athens and Sparta were agricultural economies, and their main exports were wine and oil olive.

The development of pottery allowed the storage and export of wine and olive oil with the usage of amphorae, in order to import goods from the fertile lands of the Nile (Egypt) and Mesopotamia (Persia).

At the following map you can see Athens and Sparta and their allies a few years before the Peloponnesian War broke out (431-404 B.C.).

Map Athens (orange) and Sparta (Purple)

Athens Sparta.JPG

Sparta was controlling Peloponnese, while Athens’ soil was not very good for agriculture, and Athens became a naval power which was looking for colonies in order to find fertile lands to increase her oil, wine and grain production.

When the Persians invaded Greece (500-480 B.C.) the Athenians and the Spartans jointly fought the Persians, even though they were bitter enemies.

After the Greco-Persian Wars, Athens became a great naval power which dominated trade in the Aegean Sea. Both the Spartans and the Persians were very unhappy with the rising power of Athens. The Spartans believed that sooner or later the Athenians would turn against Sparta in order to take control of the Peloponnesian agricultural production. The Persians were unhappy because the Athenians, with their great naval power, were controlling East Aegean Sea and were blocking Persia’s way to the Aegean Sea.

As a result the Peloponnesian War broke out, and the Spartans allied with the Persians against the Athenians, putting the Athenian Empire in the middle (431-404 B.C.).

Map Athens (red) – Sparta (red) – Persia (yellow)

Map Athens Sparta Persia.JPG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War#/media/File:Pelop_war_en.png

During the Peloponnesian War the Athenians tried to take control of Sicily (Italy) in order to increase their farming lands and production, because they thought it would give them an advantage in the Peloponnesian War. The Spartans again allied with Syracuse against Athens, and the expedition became a Waterloo for the Athenians.

The Athenians were finally defeated in the Peloponnesian War, but neither the Athenians nor the Spartans ever recovered from this war. As a result Macedonia rose to power a few years later, and the great Greek King Alexander the Great finally managed to unite all Greeks, and he led the Greek army victoriously to Persia and Egypt. Under Alexander the Great both the Nile (Egypt) and the Mesopotamia (Persia) came under Greek control (330-320 B.C.).

Map The Empire of Alexander the Great

Χάρτης Μακεδονική Αυτοκρατορία.JPG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Great#/media/File:MacedonEmpire.jpg

 

Image Peloponnesian War

Peloponnesian War.JPG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peloponnesian_War

 

“The treaties between Persia and Sparta”

In the first phase of the Peloponnesian War, the Archidamian War, the Spartans had been unable to achieve their aim: dissolving the Delian League. However, after the catastrophic losses that Athens had suffered during the Sicilian Expedition, the balance of power had changed and Sparta renewed the war: the Decelean or Ionian War. Moreover, the Athenians had supported a rebel in the Persian Empire, Amorges, an act that broke the (tacit or official) agreement between the Achaemenid king and the Delian League not to interfere in each other’s sphere of influence. So, Sparta and Persia shared a dislike of Athens and had something to offer to each other. In 412, they concluded an agreement, which was later revised.

It was not certain that the new alliance would bring down Athens. In the mid-fifth century, it had survived a war against an identical coalition. However, after the losses of the Sicilian Expedition, things might be different. Still, Athens held out for seven more years.

The Athenian historian Thucydides (c.460-c.395) has included the three versions of the treaty in the eighth book of his History of the Peloponnesian War, which was translated by Richard Crawley.

First treaty (412)

The Spartans and their allies made a treaty with the King and Tissaphernes [the satrap of Lydia] upon the terms following:

Whatever country or cities the King has, or the King’s ancestors had, shall be the king’s: and whatever came in to the Athenians from these cities, either money or any other thing, the King and the Spartans and their allies shall jointly hinder the Athenians from receiving either money or any other thing.

The war with the Athenians shall be carried on jointly by the King and by the Spartans and their allies: and it shall not be lawful to make peace with the Athenians except both agree, the King on his side and the Spartans and their allies on theirs.

If any revolt from the King, they shall be the enemies of the Spartans and their allies.note And if any revolt from the Spartans and their allies, they shall be the enemies of the King in like manner.

This was outrageous. The treaty stated that Sparta surrendered all of Greece outside the Peloponnese. The Persian king Cyrus the Great had subdued all “Yaunâ” living in Asia (ca.545), Darius I the Great had conquered Thrace and Macedonia (c.512), to which king Xerxes had briefly added Thessaly, Boeotia, and Attica in 480-479. The Spartan government was unable to accept this treaty, because it had started the war “to liberate Greece”. Therefore, the Spartans kept the treaty secret and sent Therimenes to ask for a revision.

Second treaty (winter 412/411)

The convention of the Spartans and the allies with King Darius [II Nothus] and the sons of the King,note and with Tissaphernes for a treaty and friendship, as follows:

Neither the Spartans nor the allies of the Spartans shall make war against or otherwise injure any country or cities that belong to King Darius or did belong to his father or to his ancestors; neither shall the Spartans nor the allies of the Spartans exact tribute from such cities. Neither shall King Darius nor any of the subjects of the King make war against or otherwise injure the Spartans or their allies.

If the Spartans or their allies should require any assistance from the King, or the King from the Spartans or their allies, whatever they both agree upon they shall be right in doing.

Both shall carry on jointly the war against the Athenians and their allies: and if they make peace, both shall do so jointly.

The expense of all troops in the King’s country, sent for by the King, shall be borne by the King.

If any of the states comprised in this convention with the King attack the King’s country, the rest shall stop them and aid the King to the best of their power. And if any in the King’s country or in the countries under the King’s rule attack the country of the Spartans or their allies, the King shall stop it and help them to the best of his power.

The revised treaty can be seen as a clarification of the terms of the first treaty. The line “whatever country or cities the King has shall be the king’s”, which may have been a conventional Persian expression, was replaced by an expression that sounded better to Greek ears: neither side would injure each other’s possessions. The Persians also explained that they would pay Spartan troops in Asia, something that may have gone without saying in the first treaty, because the Persian king was supposed to give presents to anyone who had done him a service. Persia’s demand that Sparta would help to punish rebels could be dropped from the treaty, because Amorges, who was the most important rebel, had by now been eliminated.

On the other hand, the Spartans clarified their intentions. The first treaty had said that the allies would prevent Athens from collecting tribute; now it was stated that Sparta was not supposed to do this either. In other words, the Persian negotiators obtained a guarantee that Sparta would not found an empire.

So, the revised treaty was not a big improvement of Sparta’s position, and it is not surprising that the Spartan ambassador Therimenes disappears from history. The Spartans were not happy with his results.

Third treaty (late spring 411)

In the thirteenth year of the reign of Darius,note while Alexippidas was ephor at Sparta, a convention was concluded in the plain of the Meander by the Spartans and their allies with Tissaphernes, Hieramenes, and the sons of Pharnaces, concerning the affairs of the King and of the Spartans and their allies.

The country of the King in Asia shall be the King’s, and the King shall treat his own country as he pleases.

The Spartans and their allies shall not invade or injure the King’s country: neither shall the King invade or injure that of the Spartans or of their allies. If any of the Spartans or of their allies invade or injure the King’s country, the Spartans and their allies shall prevent it: and if any from the King’s country invade or injure the country of the Spartans or of their allies, the King shall prevent it.

Tissaphernes shall provide pay for the ships now present, according to the agreement, until the arrival of the King’s vessels: but after the arrival of the King’s vessels the Spartans and their allies may pay their own ships if they wish it. If, however, they choose to receive the pay from Tissaphernes, Tissaphernes shall furnish it: and the Spartans and their allies shall repay him at the end of the war such moneys as they shall have received.

After the vessels have arrived, the ships of the Spartans and of their allies and those of the King shall carry on the war jointly, according as Tissaphernes and the Spartans and their allies shall think best. If they wish to make peace with the Athenians, they shall make peace also jointly.

The first article was the same as in the first treaty: “the country of the King shall be the King’s”. It is clear that the Persians used the opportunity to use their own formula again. However, the Spartan negotiator, Lichas, obtained a concession: the King’s country was described as “Asia”. Darius accepted that he would not recover Thrace, Macedonia, Thessaly, Boeotia, and Attica. Another interesting novelty is that the Persians promised to send a fleet; in return, to Spartans gave up all claims for the freedom of the Greek towns in Asia.

For the Spartans, this was a highly embarrassing treaty: they gave up their role as liberators of Greece. But they had no alternative. The Sicilian disaster had offered them a great opportunity, but Athens had not collapsed. Sparta now needed Persia, but after the elimination of Amorges, the great king no longer needed Sparta, so he could demand anything he he wanted.

In the end, both parties decided to ignore the treaty. The Persian navy never reached the Aegean, and the Spartans felt free to make peace offers to Athens without consulting king Darius. It was only after Tissaphernes had been replaced by Darius’ son Cyrus that Persia really started to support Sparta. It is possible that Cyrus, who did not like the idea that his brother Artaxerxes would succeed to the throne, was already planning a revolt. Unlike Darius and Tissaphernes, he needed something that only Sparta could offer: mercenaries for a march to the Persian heartland.

This page was created in 2005; last modified on 17 July 2016.

http://www.livius.org/sources/content/thucydides/the-treaties-between-persia-and-sparta/

Inside Hitler’s Mind

Geostrategically speaking, Hitler had very few options, and therefore it is very easy to see the world through his eyes.

Hitler.JPG

The first thing to note is that during the Interwar Period (1919-1938) oil was mainly produced in United States, Russia, the Persian Gulf, mainly Iraq, and South-Eastern Asia, mainly Indonesia. The oil of North Africa and Saudi Arabia had not been discovered yet.

Map Oil Production in the Interwar Period

Map Oil.JPG

During World War 1 the British and the French had managed to take control of the oil of the Persian Gulf, the Russians had the oil of the Caspian Sea under their control, and Germany had nothing. The Germans could only count on the smaller oilfields of Romania.

Map The International Order After WW1

Map UK France Russia Germany Italy.JPG

The Italians were importing their oil through the British and the French, and they knew very well that in case of war the British and the French could immediately cut off their oil supplies.

What Hitler wanted was to destroy the world order that was established after WW1, in order for Germany to take control either the oil of the Persian Gulf, or the oil of the Caspian Sea, or both. To do that Hitler had only five choices. At the following map you can see four of them.

Map Inside Hitler’s Mind

Hitler's MindJPG.JPG

The option for Hitler was to repeat the strategy of the German Empire during World War 1 i.e. to march to the Persian Gulf through Austria and Turkey (yellow line).

However if Hitler was to do that the Russians, the British and the French would do what they did during WW1. They would leave their differences aside for a while, and they would attack Germany.

Moreover, during the Balkan Wars of 1912-1913 the British, the Russians and the French had used Greece and Serbia to form a geographic wall between Germany and the Ottoman Empire. In addition, Turkey was scared by her defeat in WW1, and she preferred to remain neutral.

For all the above reasons Hitler did not want, or could not, repeat the strategy of the German Empire during WW1, in order to reach the Persian Gulf and the Caspian Sea through Austria and Turkey.

The second option for Hitler was to form an alliance with Mussolini, in order to jointly attack the British and the French at Palestine and get hold of the oil of the Persian Gulf (purple line).

Map Inside Hitler’s Mind

Hitler's MindJPG.JPG

This option was partially used by Hitler and Mussolini with the Arab Spring of Palestine of 1936-1939 (Arab Revolt 1936-1939). Mussolini was the main supporter of the Arab Spring of Palestine, and he was sending money and weapons to the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and the Muslim Brotherhood, in order to cause an Arab Revolt against the British. But Hitler was also a close ally of the Muslim Brotherhood, and therefore it is a sure thing that he was behind the Arab Spring of Palestine too. See “The Alliance Between Hitler and the Muslim Brotherhood”.

https://iakal.wordpress.com/2016/08/18/the-alliance-between-hitler-and-the-muslim-brotherhood/

Many Jewish terrorists were also attacking the British, most of them supported by Stalin and Russia. It is said that Jewish terrorism against the British was also supported by Hitler and Mussolini, but Hitler and Mussolini were allies of the Muslim Brotherhood, and therefore Stalin had a lot more space to support Jewish terrorists against the British.

Remember that many of the Jews of Palestine were Russian Jews who had fled Russia to escape from the Tsar. The Jews were allies of the Ottomans, and Tsarist Russia was very anti-Semitic. Palestine was an Ottoman colony at the time, and many Jews were leaving Russia for Palestine, were they were welcome by the Ottomans. When the Russian Communists came to power they were recturing some of these Jews of Palestine in order to carry out terrorist attacks against the British.  However during the British mandate of Palestine most of the Jews of Palestine were British allies i.e. the Haganah.

Therefore Hitler did use this second option, even if only partially, and he attacked the British in Palestine with Mussolini. What is interesting is that Mussolini had almost become an ally of Britain and France against the Nazis in 1935 with the Stresa Front agreement. With the agreement of Stresa Front the British and the French agreed to give Mussolini some space in Africa, in order to convince him not to become a Nazi ally.

However things went wrong because Mussolini wanted Italy to have direct military control over the agreed regions in Africa, while the British and the French were willing to offer Italy diplomatic and economic control.

Map The Mussolini Ambitions

Map Italian Colonies.JPG

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_imperialism_under_Fascism#/media/File:Italian_Fascist_Empire.png

During WW1 the British and the French had taken control of East Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf, and Mussolini thought that it was only fair that they allowed Italy to control Libya and Ethiopia, in order to reach the Indian Ocean through Africa. As I said the oil of North Africa had not been discovered yet, and Egypt was in Britain’s sphere of influence.

But if Mussolini controlled the Horn of Africa with his army, the British and French spheres of influence in the Persian Gulf would be constantly under threat, because Mussolini could attack them from Ethiopia, the Russians could attack them from the Caucasus and Iran, and Germany could attack them through Turkey. Moreover Mussolini could attack the British and French ships at the Straits of Bab el Mandeb at the Red Sea, and he could cut off their oil supplies from the Gulf. Remember that the oil pipelines of the Middle East were constructed after the end of WW2. See Foreign Affairs “Pipelines in the Sand”.

Therefore the British and the French were willing to grant Italy with the political and economic control of the Horn of Africa, but not with militarily control. That was not enough for Mussolini, who finally decided to enter the war on the side of Germany and Russia against Britain and France.

Map The Italian Corridor of Mussolini (Green Line)

Map Mussolini.JPG

Hitler’s third option was to form an alliance with the British against the French and the Russians. The Russians were fighting the British in India and the French were fighting the British in Africa, and therefore the Germans could form an alliance with the British, in order to take the disputed borderlands at their borders with France, and in order to take the oil of the Caspian Sea from Russia. And in return they would leave the Persian Gulf to the British (pink line).

Map Inside Hitler’s Mind

hitlers-mindjpg

That was the so called Lebensraum i.e. the “living space” of Germany, which you can see at the following map.

Map Lebensraum

Map Lebensraum.JPG

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0b/Greater_Germanic_Reich.png/350px-Greater_Germanic_Reich.png

But the British were not interested in helping the Nazis promote the Lebensraum i.e. to take the oil of the Caspian Sea, because Hitler was not reliable, and they were sure that once he had taken control of the Caspian oil he would march to the Persian Gulf. The British were proposing Hitler and alliance with Germany accepting the international order that was created with WW1, which meant that Germany would import oil from Britain and Russia, but would not stretch her muscle to the Caspian Sea. But the British proposal did not satisfy Hitler.

The fourth option for Hitler was to form an alliance with Stalin against the French and the British. The Germans would attack the British at the Persian Gulf from the West, and the Russians would attack the British from the north at the Persian Gulf and India.

Map Inside Hitler’s Mind

hitlers-mindjpg

This one was the option that was finally promoted by Hitler, but in a version proposed by Stalin. The Russian Communists agreed to supply the Nazis with oil, iron and wheat, in order to help them beat the British and the French, but they did not want to exhaust their army in a war against the British, because they knew that once Hitler had got hold of the the Persian Gulf he could march to the Caspian Sea too.

Therefore they agreed to help Hitler beat the British and the French, while they would keep their army fresh, in order to defend their oil supplies if Hitler decided to attack them after the British and the French were finished, and in order to attack the British in India if they lost the war against the Nazis.

This plan was a good one for Stalin. The Germans, the French and the British would exhaust themselves in a war, and that would increase the relative strength of Russia. And that was what actually happened up to a point. But in the end the Nazi-Communist alliance was broken by Hitler, because the oil that was sent to him by the Russian Communists was not enough for his thirsty army. And Hitler invaded Russia in 1941 to take control of the oil of Baku.

These were the 4 out of the 5 options that Hitler had at his disposal. The 5th option for Hitler was to follow the British advise and respect the post WW1 international order. But that meant Hitler would not go for neither the Persian Gulf nor the Caspian Sea, and it was an option not interesting for Hitler. Therefore Hitler decided to form an alliance with the Russian Communists, and go for the oil of the Persian Gulf instead.

Map the Nazi-Communist Alliance

Map Nazis Communists.JPG

References

I read various things and I normally do not mention my references. But sometimes, when something really helps my thinking, I have to mention some references, as I have done with Murray Rothbard in some of my economic essays.

Therefore I have to mention Henry Kissinger’s Diplomacy. Three of the chapters of his book really helped me understand the geopolitics of World War 2 i.e. “The End of Illusion – Hitler and the End of Versailles”, “Stalin’s Bazaar”, and “The Nazi Soviet Pact”.

Very simple writing, very clever writing, very informative writing.

Image Henry Kissinger’s Diplomacy

Kissinger.JPG

Articles

In March 1938 the first oilfield of Saudi Arabia was discovered.

“History of the oil industry in Saudi Arabia”

Saudi Arabian oil was first discovered by the Americans in commercial quantities at Dammam oil well No. 7 in 1938 in what is now modern day Dhahran.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_oil_industry_in_Saudi_Arabia

 

Libya’s importance was enhanced in the 50s, when there were signs that Libya had oil, and in 1959 oil was discovered.

“COLD WAR LIBYA:ALL ABOUT OIL”

1-5th Paragraphs

When the Cold War began, Libya held little importance for either superpower. Yes, it was the home to Wheelus Air Force base, one of the major American bomber bases in the Eastern Hemisphere, but that’s about it. Leading exports were esparto, a type of grass used to make paper for currency bills, and scrap metal scavenged from the rusting tanks and trucks and weaponry that had been left behind by the Allies and the Axis powers.

The country gained some recognition when independence was declared on December 24, 1951. The Soviet Union had been stymied in its efforts to establish a Mandate over the country following the end of World War II. Now, Libya was the first country to achieve independence through the United Nations. It was also one of the first former European possessions in Africa to gain independence.

Proclaimed a constitutional and hereditary monarchy, the new United Kingdom of Libya was made up of three arbitrarily joined provinces: Cyrenaica, Tripolitania, and Fezzan. The kingdom formed a federal government with three capital cities.: Tripoli, Benghazi, and Al Bayda. Idris as-Senussi, the Emir of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica and the leader of the Senussi Muslim Sufi order, was declared king.

Two years after independence, on March 28, 1953, Libya joined the Arab League.

In the mid 1950s, Libya gained further significance with the growing suspicion that the country might produce oil.

8th Paragraph

The first round of negotiations in 1957 saw 17 companies bid for a total of 84 concessions. Early exploration results were disappointing, but this changed in 1959 when Standard Oil of New Jersey made a huge strike about 100 miles south of the Mediterranean coast. The US State Department summed it up: “Libya has hit the jack-pot.”

13-18th Paragraphs

While the Libyan government at that time was friendly — or at least neutral — toward the United States, the Libyan business environment was hostile, permeated with corruption.

Soon the political environment would be hostile as well. On April 25, 1963, the federal system of government was abolished and the name of the country was changed to the Kingdom of Libya.  More far reaching changes were soon to come.

The monarchy ended on September 1, 1969 when a group of military officers  staged a coup d’état against King Idris while he was in Turkey for medical treatment.  The coup was led by a 28 year old army officer named Mu’ammar Abu Minyar al-Qadhaffi. King Idris was exiled to Egypt.

The new regime, headed by the Revolutionary Command Council (RCC), abolished the monarchy and proclaimed the new Libyan Arab Republic. The new RCC’s motto became “freedom, socialism, and unity.” It pledged to remedy “backwardness”, take an active role in the Palestinian Arab cause, promote Arab unity, and encourage domestic policies based on social justice, non-exploitation, and an equitable distribution of wealth.

The new government soon negotiated with the Americans to evacuate the Wheelus Air Base from Libya. The agreement had just two more years to run. In December 1969, the US agreed to vacate the facility by June 1970.

http://coldwarstudies.com/2011/03/24/cold-war-libyaall-about-oil/

 

“Oil – Oil and world power”

The United States dominated world oil production in the first half of the twentieth century. U.S. fields accounted for slightly more than 70 percent of world oil production in 1925, around 63 percent in 1941, and over 50 percent in 1950. The U.S. oil industry operated in a unique regulatory environment that included a permissive legal regime, generous tax treatment, and a cooperative system of national production control centered on the state of Texas, which accounted for almost half of total U.S. production. During the Great Depression, the federal government, several state governments, and the oil companies worked out a control system that placed a ceiling on total output and allocated production so that marginal producers could survive in the face of considerable excess capacity. Although Texas authorities refused to require producers to pool their extractive activities in each oil field, thereby allowing wasteful extractive processes to continue, the system allowed high-cost marginal wells to continue to produce, thus preserving lower-cost fields for future use. Higher prices also somewhat reduced consumption. With the Texas Railroad Commission as a balance wheel, the system remained in place until the early 1970s, when domestic production alone could no longer fill national demand.

In addition to being blessed with a thriving and productive domestic oil industry, five of the seven great oil corporations (the so-called Seven Sisters) that dominated the international oil industry from the 1920s to the 1970s were American companies. U.S. oil companies, along with British firms, dominated the oil industries of the two main producing countries in Latin America, Mexico and Venezuela, and had smaller holdings throughout the region. During the 1920s and early 1930s, the United States successfully supported efforts by U.S. oil companies to gain oil concessions in the Middle East. U.S. companies were also involved in regionally significant oil fields in the Netherlands East Indies. By the eve of World War II, U.S. companies accounted for nearly 40 percent of oil production outside the United States and the Soviet Union.

More importantly, the United States possessed the means to ensure the stability of the producing regions and gain access to their oil. The United States Navy had emerged from World War I second to none, thus providing the United States with the capability of securing access to overseas oil-producing areas. The United States was already firmly entrenched in the oil-rich Gulf of Mexico–Caribbean region before World War I for security reasons that predated oil’s emergence as a strategic commodity. World War II and the Cold War reinforced traditional U.S. determination to maintain an economic and strategic sphere of influence in Latin America. Securing the Persian Gulf, which emerged as the center of the world oil industry following World War II, was more difficult for several reasons, including the region’s distance from the United States, the involvement of rival great powers, and the dynamics of regional politics. Great Britain had emerged as the leading power in the Middle East following World War I. Following World War II, the United States gradually assumed Britain’s role as the main guarantor of Western interests in the Middle East.

Oil became an important element in military power in the decade before World War I when the navies of the great powers, led by Great Britain and the United States, began to switch from coal to oil as their source of power. In addition, the major military innovations of World War I—the submarine, the airplane, the tank, and motorized transport—were all oil-powered. Although the surface fleets of the great powers played a relatively minor part in the fighting, German submarines wreaked havoc on British and French shipping and helped bring the United States into the war. In addition, oil carved out a role in the manufacture of munitions when the British, using a process developed by Royal Dutch/Shell, began extracting toluol, an essential ingredient in the explosive TNT, from oil. Access to oil became more important toward the end of the war with the transition from static trench warfare, with its limited demand for oil-powered machinery, to a more fluid operational environment in which tanks, motorized transport, and aircraft played a larger role.

Britain and France were able to draw on over-seas sources of supply from Iran, Mexico, and the United States, while the Germans were limited to oil from Romania. By the last year of the war, the United States was supplying more than 80 percent of Allied oil requirements, and the American navy was playing a key role in supplying and protecting tanker transport of oil to Europe. Although Lord Curzon‘s boast that the Allied cause had floated to victory on a wave of oil was an overstatement, severe shortages of oil in 1917 and 1918 threatened to immobilize the Royal Navy and the French army. In both cases, urgent requests to the United States for help led to the provision of the needed supplies. In contrast, without such external assistance, oil shortages hindered German military operations at critical points.

In addition to being a tremendous military asset, access to ample supplies of oil provided the United States with important advantages in the industrial transformation of the first half of the twentieth century. By the 1890s, the United States had overtaken Great Britain as the leading industrial power in the world, and by the 1920s, the U.S. economy was larger than the combined economies of the next six great powers (Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Soviet Union, and Japan).

Cheap and plentiful supplies of oil were a prerequisite for the automobile industry, which played a central role in the U.S. economy from the 1920s to the 1960s. Oil became the fuel of choice in land and sea transport as well as the only fuel for air transport, and challenged coal as the main source of energy for industry. Oil also played an important, if somewhat less crucial, role in heating and electricity generation, but oil-powered machinery became crucial to modern agriculture, and oil became an important feedstock for fertilizers and pesticides. Indeed, with the development of the petrochemical industry, oil reached into almost every area of modern life. Already almost one-fifth of U.S. energy consumption by 1925, oil accounted for around one-third of U.S. energy use by World War II. Outside the United States, in contrast, oil was a secondary fuel reserved mainly for transportation and military uses and accounted for less than 10 percent of energy consumption in western Europe and Japan before World War II.

The Soviet Union was the only other great power that possessed significant quantities of oil within its borders. The Russian empire had been the world’s leading oil producer in 1900, accounting for more than half of world production. Soon thereafter a combination of geological and political problems caused output to plummet. Soviet oil production recovered rapidly in the 1920s, and by 1939 the Soviet Union was the second-largest oil producer in the world, far behind the United States and slightly ahead of Venezuela. Although the Soviets reentered exports markets briefly in the late 1920s, by the end of the 1930s almost all Soviet oil production was being devoted to internal uses.

The other great powers (Great Britain, France, Germany, and Japan) lacked indigenous oil reserves and were therefore dependent on foreign sources. Although British companies held concessions in Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia, maintaining access to this oil required stability in the oil-producing areas and control of the sea routes linking the oil-producing areas to Britain. British security policy called for the Mediterranean and the Middle East to be defended because they lay athwart land, sea, and air routes to India, the Far East, and the Pacific dominions. If the Mediterranean were closed, a prospect that seemed increasingly likely as Britain’s relative power declined in the 1930s, access to Middle East oil would be very difficult, assuming that the oil fields and other facilities could be defended. Production in the Far East was not great, and access to its oil would be even more difficult to defend in wartime. Wartime access to Western Hemisphere oil would be dependent on the acquiescence and probably the assistance of the United States, to which Britain had conceded regional supremacy shortly after 1900 and whose help would be needed to transport the oil safely across the Atlantic. This dependence on the United States for vital oil supplies was a critical weakness in Great Britain’s power position.

During the 1930s, the British government studied the possibility of reducing its reliance on imported oil by using Britain’s ample coal supplies as a source of synthetic oil. It rejected this alternative on security grounds, concluding that, given the British position in the major oil producing areas and the strength of the Royal Navy, reliance on imported oil would be less vulnerable to interdiction than large synthetic oil plants that would be conspicuous targets for air attack.

France’s stake in foreign oil was largely limited to a share in Iraqi oil production and a few holdings in Romania. Access to Iraq, which by 1939 supplied almost half of France’s oil imports, was dependent on British assistance to keep the Mediterranean open and the Middle East secure. Romania was able to fill only a small portion of French oil requirements, and access to Romanian oil would be unreliable in the event of a conflict with Germany. Access to Western Hemisphere oil, the other source of French imports, was dependent on U.S. goodwill and assistance. The French also explored extracting oil from coal and using alcohol as a motor fuel, but neither alternative provided sufficient supplies to relieve France’s dependence on imported oil. France was thus doubly dependent, needing British and U.S. cooperation to ensure access to oil.

German and Japanese oil companies had been shut out of the major foreign oil-producing areas, leaving both nations dependent on foreign companies for necessary supplies and thus vulnerable to economic and political pressure. Moreover, their access to oil in the Middle East and the Western Hemisphere was threatened by British and U.S. control of the oil-producing areas and Anglo-American command of the sea routes to these regions.

Convinced that oil was essential to fuel his ambitions, Nazi leader Adolf Hitler moved to promote the development of a synthetic fuel industry in Germany shortly after taking power in 1933. By the outbreak of World War II, coal-derived synfuels accounted for nearly half of Germany’s peacetime oil needs. The process of extracting oil from coal was complicated and expensive, and the huge installations required massive amounts of steel and were very vulnerable to air attack. Therefore, obtaining access to oil that did not depend on sea routes subject to interdiction by enemies remained an important part of Nazi expansionist strategy.

Germany received large quantities of oil from the Soviet Union under the terms of the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact, and in November 1940 gained assured access to Romanian oil when Romania was forced to adhere to the Tripartite Pact. These supplies were inadequate for Germany’s needs, leading Hitler to look to the conquest of the rich oil fields of the Caucasus as a way to gain oil for Germany’s highly mechanized military machine. Thus, the desire to gain assured access to oil was an important factor in Hitler’s decision to invade the Soviet Union in June 1941.

Obtaining access to oil was also a key factor behind Japan’s decision to attack the United States. By the end of the 1930s, Japan was dependent on the United States for 80 percent of its oil needs. Most of the rest came from the Netherlands East Indies, where Shell and the Standard-Vacuum Oil Company, a jointly owned subsidiary of Standard Oil (New Jersey) and Socony-Vacuum, controlled production. The Netherlands East Indies possessed the largest reserves in East Asia, and control over its oil would go a long way toward meeting Japan’s oil needs. On the other hand, seizing the Netherlands East Indies would lead to conflict with Great Britain and the United States. Nevertheless, the Japanese chose this course after the United States, Britain, and the Netherlands imposed an oil embargo on Japan in the late summer of 1941 in response to Japan’s decision to take control of all Indochina.

World War II marked the apogee of oil’s direct military importance, and the role of oilpowered weapons systems demonstrated that oil had become the lifeblood of the modern military machine. All the key weapons systems of World War II were oil-powered: surface warships (including aircraft carriers), submarines, airplanes (including long-range bombers), tanks, and a large portion of sea and land transport. Oil continued to play an important role in the manufacture of munitions, and the development of petroleum-based synthetic rubber helped relieve Allied dependence on Southeast Asian natural rubber supplies, most of which were in the hands of the Japanese for much of the war.

The United States entered World War II with a surplus production capacity of over one million barrels per day, almost one-third of U.S. production in 1941. This margin enabled the United States, almost single-handedly, to fuel not only its own war effort but that of its Allies, once the logistics of transporting the oil safely across the Atlantic had been mastered. In addition, U.S. leadership in oil-refining technology provided the U.S. military with such advantages as 100-octane aviation gasoline and specialty lubricants needed for high performance aircraft engines.

The Soviet Union also benefited from having indigenous oil supplies. The Soviets were able to retain control of the vital Caucasian oil fields, and rushed new fields in the Volga-Urals region, safely removed from the fighting, into production. These successes helped Soviet forces attain the mobility necessary to repel the German invaders and go on the offensive.

German and Japanese failure to gain secure access to sufficient oil supplies was an important factor in their defeat. German synthetic fuel production proved barely adequate for wartime requirements, and failure to gain control of the rich oil fields in the Caucasus, coupled with setbacks in the Middle East and North Africa, left the German military vulnerable to oil shortages throughout the war. Indeed, Germany was able to hang on as long as it did only because the absence of a second front until the summer of 1944 kept oil requirements at manageable levels. In the late summer of 1944, the Allied bombing campaign began belatedly targeting synthetic fuel plants. By the end of the war, the German war machine was running on empty.

The Japanese gained control of the Netherlands East Indies in 1942, but many of the oil facilities had been sabotaged and took time to restore to full production. More importantly, transporting oil from the East Indies to Japan proved increasingly difficult owing to the remarkable success of U.S. submarines in interdicting Japanese shipping. By late 1944, Japan faced serious oil shortages, with crippling military consequences.

With the exception of the jet engine, the major military innovations of World War II—radar, ballistic missiles, and the atomic bomb—were not oil-powered. Nevertheless, oil remained central to the mobility of land, sea, and air forces. Despite the development of nuclear-powered warships (mainly aircraft carriers and submarines), most of the world’s warships remained oil-powered, as did aircraft, armor, and transport. In addition, each new generation of weapons required more oil than its predecessors. Thus, while the advent of the atomic age meant that access to oil would not have been a key factor in a full-scale war between the United States and the Soviet Union, which presumably would have been fought primarily with nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, such conflicts as the wars in Korea, Vietnam, and the Persian Gulf were fought with conventional, largely oil-powered weapons, thus demonstrating the continued centrality of oil-powered forces, and hence oil, to military power.

Oil’s economic importance increased after World War II as the United States intensified its embrace of patterns of socioeconomic organization premised on high levels of oil use, and western Europe and Japan made the transition from coal to oil as their main source of energy. U.S. and world oil consumption skyrocketed in the 1950s and 1960s. Between 1950 and 1972, total world energy consumption increased 179 percent, much faster than population growth, resulting in a doubling of per capita energy consumption. Oil accounted for much of this increase, rising from 29 percent of world energy consumption in 1950 to 46 percent in 1972. By 1973, oil accounted for 47 percent of U.S. energy consumption. Western Europe and Japan were even more dependent on oil for meeting their energy needs; by 1973 oil accounted for 64 percent of west European energy consumption and 80 percent of Japanese energy consumption.

Control of oil played a vital role in establishing and maintaining U.S. preeminence in the postwar international system. Adding to its domestic power base, the United States consolidated its control of world oil in the decade following World War II. By the mid-1950s, U.S. oil companies were firmly entrenched in the great oil-producing areas outside the Soviet Union. Equally, if not more important, the United States, as the dominant power in the Western Hemisphere, controlled access to the region’s oil, and the United States alone had the economic and military power to secure Western access to Middle East oil.

The Soviet Union also possessed a powerful domestic oil industry, but despite geographical proximity, extensive efforts, and widespread anti-Western sentiment in Iran and the Arab world, the Soviets failed to achieve a secure foothold in the Persian Gulf and had little impact on the region’s oil industry. The Soviets had even less influence over the Western Hemisphere’s oil producers. Indeed, the U.S.-led economic boycott of Cuba forced the Soviets to supply the one foothold they possessed in the Western Hemisphere with oil at subsidized prices.

The strong position of the United States in world oil provided multiple advantages. In addition to being central to military power and economic prosperity, control of oil gave the United States leverage over its allies and its former and prospective enemies. U.S. policymakers saw economic growth as essential to preventing the recurrence of the divisive ideological and social conflicts of the interwar years. Soviet expansion into eastern and central Europe as a result of World War II left the Soviet Union in control of almost all of Europe’s known indigenous oil reserves as well as important sources of coal in Poland and the Soviet zone of Germany. Making matters worse, postwar western Europe faced a coal shortage of alarming proportions owing to wartime overproduction and destruction and postwar food, transportation, and other problems.

To fuel economic recovery and to prevent western Europe from becoming dependent on the Soviets for energy, the United States sought to ensure that this critical area received the oil it needed. Economic growth, in turn, was crucial to mitigating the divisive class conflicts that had divided European and Japanese society in the first half of the century. Economic growth and prosperity undercut the appeal of leftist parties, financed the welfare state, perpetuated the ascendancy of moderate elites, and sustained the cohesion of the Western alliance. By controlling access to essential oil supplies, the United States was able to reconcile its aim of German and Japanese economic recovery and integration into a Western alliance with that of ensuring against the recurrence of German and Japanese aggression.

Economic growth in western Europe and Japan was central to the containment of Soviet power and influence during the Cold War because it helped prevent these areas from falling to communism through internal processes. Finally, for many years after World War II the Soviets lacked sufficient oil to fight a major war. Hit hard by wartime damage, disruption, transportation problems, equipment shortages, and overuse, Soviet oil production dropped after the war, and the Soviet Union was a net importer of oil (mostly from Romania) until 1954. Exclusion of the Soviets from the Middle East retained oil for Western recovery, and kept the Soviets short of oil. In addition, U.S. and British strategic planners wanted to keep the Soviets out of the Middle East because the region contained the most defensible locations for launching a strategic air offensive against the Soviet Union in the event of a global war. Throughout the Cold War, ensuring Western access to Middle East oil was a basic objective of U.S. foreign policy.

http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/O-W/Oil-Oil-and-world-power.html