Relevance for the Present
The eminent American historian Carroll Quigley, Foreign Services School, Georgetown University, Harvard and Princeton, describes the post-war situation leading to the Cold War, stating that the immediate policy of the USA rested on free trade and aid via the Marshall Plan which would have included assistance for economic recovery to the Soviet bloc. However the USSR saw this as a means for the USA to establish its pre-eminence in the post war era. Quigley, a liberal globalist who saw the “hope” of the world being through a world government, wrote:
On the whole, if blame must be allotted, it may be placed at the door of Stalin’s office in the Kremlin. American willingness to co-operate continued until 1947, as is evident from the fact that the Marshall Plan offer of American aid for a co-operative Europe recovery effort was opened to the Soviet Union, but it now seems clear that Stalin had decided to close the door on co-operation and adopted a unilateral policy of limited aggression about February or March of 1946. The beginning of the Cold War may be placed at the date of this inferred decision or may be placed at the later and more obvious date of the Soviet refusal to accept Marshall Aid in July 1947.[14]
Quigley refers to the American initiative for atomic energy “internationalization” and how this arguably very dangerous scenario for world domination was again scotched by Stalin:
The most critical example of the Soviet refusal to co-operate and of its insistence on relapsing into isolation, secrecy, and terrorism is to be found in its refusal to join in American efforts to harness the dangerous powers of nuclear fission.[15]
A State Department committee under Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson and David Lilienthal, in conjunction with a “second committee of citizens” led by the international banker and perennial presidential adviser Bernard Baruch were convened in 1946 to draft a plan for “some system of international control of nuclear energy.” The plan was presented by Baruch to the UN General Assembly on June 14 1946.[16]
It would own, control, or licence all uranium from the mine through processing and use, with operation of its own nuclear facilities throughout the world, inspection of all other such facilities, absolute prohibition of all nuclear bombs or diversion of nuclear materials to non-peaceful purposes, and punishment for evasion or violation of its regulations free from the Great Power veto which normally operated in the Security Council of the UN.[17]
This was therefore a method of trying to bypass the problem of veto that had been insisted upon by the USSR to ensure its sovereignty, which had from the start rendered the UN impotent as a world authority. Quigley laments that this extraordinarily “generous offer” by the USA, “…was brusquely rejected by Andrei Gromyko on behalf of the Soviet Union within five days…”[18] Quigley points out that one of the main points the USSR raised in rejecting the Baruch Plan[19] was that there must be no tampering with the Great Power veto.
Gromyko recalling his time as Soviet representative on the UN Atomic Energy Commission, states of the Baruch Plan:
The actual intention was to be camouflaged by the creation of an international body to monitor the use of nuclear energy. However, Washington did not even try to hide that it intended to take the leading part in this body, to keep in its own hands everything to do with the production and storage of fissionable material and, under the guise of the need for international inspection, to interfere in the internal affairs of the sovereign nations.[20]
Baruch told Gromyko that all industries dealing with fissionable material would be inspected by experts, Gromyko remarking, “Inevitably at that time they would all be Americans.” Quigley’s moral indignation at the USSR’s rejection notwithstanding, we are now in a position of hindsight, considering recent world events, to understand Soviet suspicions. The moral choice is not as clear-cut as Quigley supposes. Japan had been A-bombed whilst seeking peace terms, the basis of which was the sanctity of the Emperor. America’s position was unconditional, and of course it can be assumed that the Administration knew the Japanese could not accede to anything that would compromise Hirohito or the imperial house. Allen Dulles who became head of the CIA, related in an interview with Clifford Evans in 1963 that he had been in contact with Japanese factions that were in a position to sue for peace[21]; that the sole Japanese concern was that the Emperor as the unifying factor of the Japanese would be left alone. “Just weeks later… Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed.”[22]
In an informative article, Bob Fisk comments on the bombing of Japan:
Stalin was finally impressed by the effect of Truman’s new weapon at Hiroshima. He very much wanted the bomb for Russia. When U.S. proposals to limit the bomb to America alone were uncompromising, Stalin’s scientists accelerated their work.[23]
It might be suspected, certainly from Soviet quarters, that the bombing of Japan was intended as a show of US might vis-à-vis the USSR. However, even Britain was concerned at US intentions, Prime Minister Clement Atlee explaining:
We had to hold up our position vis-à-vis the Americans. We couldn’t allow ourselves to be wholly in their hands… We had worked from the start for international control of the bomb… We could not agree that only America should have atomic energy…[24]
Were both the USSR and Britain then being selfish, as implied indignantly by Quigley? Baruch himself stated:
The gains of our scientists, our engineers, our industrialists, produced the supreme weapon of all time — the atomic bomb. That we shall never give away, until and unless security for us, for the world, is established. Until that time comes, the U.S. will remain the guardian of safety. We can be trusted….[25]
The rhetoric by Baruch about the USA being the “trusted guardian” of world peace and freedom is the same mantra the world has heard from Woodrow Wilson to Obama.
Pacifist guru Bertrand Russell wrote in 1946 in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, expressing frankly the liberal internationalist attitude towards the USSR, which was anything but benign. Russell, who was to play a key role along with many other eminent liberals and leftists as Stalin-hating Cold Warriors in the CIA founded Congress for Cultural Freedom,[26] makes it plain that the atomic bomb represented the ace card to the forcible establishment of a world state:
The American and British governments… should make it clear that genuine international co-operation is what they most desire. But although peace should be their goal, they should not let it appear that they are for peace at any price. At a certain stage, when their plans for an international government are ripe, they should offer them to the world… If Russia acquiesced willingly, all would be well. If not, it would be necessary to bring pressure to bear, even to the extent of risking war.[27]
To assert that Stalin thwarted a global NWO is to show total ignorance of the financing of the Soviet Union. In truth, the very same financiers funded the “revolution of 1917”, the Mao revolution of the 1945-47, and the build-up of Communist China. The Soviet Union was the best enemy money could buy. Just as WALL STREET financed Hitler, so too it financed Stalin and his successors. Why you ask? The answer should be apparent based on the world today: To create a global NWO. The Hegelian dialectic, the controlled opposition, the continual threats of war, the strengthening of totalitarian socialist economies, the oligarchical globalists who control most of the worlds central banks, these are forces of history. Read Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope and the Anglo-American Establishment for more information. Also check out the RED SYMPHONY FOR INSIGHT INTO THE THE TRUE POWER OF BANKERS.
If Mr Hart had read what I’ve written for FPJ he would know that I understand dialectical strategies, having written the article on ‘socialism, revolution and capitalist dialectics’, that I know who backed the Maoist takeover – which Stalin tried to thwart – and who funded the Bolsheviks.
As I state in the article on the Cold War, it will be unpalatable to many that Stalin scotched the US effort to establish a new world order via the UNO and the Baruch Plan, but the writer does not address any of the material in the essay. Creating a bogus enemy out of the USSR by using Stalin in order to pursue a dialectical strategy makes no sense on any level. The best opportunity for a world state via the UNO came immediately after WWII, and Stalin scotched it. If Stalin had played along who else would have been able to resist the type of world authority that was being proposed by the USA? The globalist agenda would have been completed decades ago.
Quigley does not say that the plutocrats backed the USSR; on the contrary he states that they lost control from Stalin onwards, and I cite Quigley in my essay. Of his 1200 page magnum opus ‘Tragedy and hope’, only several dozen pages refer to the international bankers, but certain conspiracy theorists cite him selectively.
Quigley erred gravely in identifying the globalist power structure as “Anglophile.” This has given rise to all types of nonsense about the British Monarchy, sometimes with extraterrestrial reptiles being thrown in for good measure. The CFR and the Rhodes group parted ways at the earliest stages, as Grosse states in his CFR history, “Continuing the Inquiry.”
Grosse’s semi-official CFR history, quoted extensively in my essay, states that the USSR soon became problematic. Quigley states the same, and Armand Hammer alludes to such matters from personal experience in his autobiography. There is no reason to think that Grosse is providing misdirection on this or anything else. He states that the CFR was pro-Bolshevik, but rightly predicted that the USSR would soon take an unpalatable direction.
“Red Symphony” , supposedly the Stalinist interrogation of Trotskyite Christian Rakovsky, is interesting but not authentic. It supposedly quotes Rakovsky in reference to Trotsky’s father in law being the banker Zhivitovsky. The alleged quote is a verbatim cut-and-paste job from the 1919 US Military Intelligence Report entitled “Bolshevism and Judaism” which was in reality written by the Czarist emigre Boris Brasol. Zhivitovsky was Trotsky’s uncle, and was indeed involved in funding the Bolsheviks.
The Trotsky – Stalin split has been of enduring importance in understanding post war policy to the present, as I attempted to show. It also epxlains alot about the ideological impetus for Cold War US policy, and the new Cold War emerging as the result yet again of Russian self-assertion. More power to them.
That was my thought exactly. Thanks for commenting.
This is good if Americans think, read and understand this things. But I saw much more comments for translations of this article on russian site…
Mr Nikolaev
What Russian site? Would of course be interested to know.
Regards
K R Bolton
To: Dr K R Bolton
Oh, some random Russian propaganda site.
Of course, Mr. Puppet John, this is exactly the propaganda site, the Western propaganda, as this the site with translations on non Russian articles, from the whole World. Usually we (Russians) read it just for LOLS, as no one “compos mentis” considers this major mass of this bletcherous, incompetent scribble as thomthing worthy…
But!.. From time to time…
Thank you, thank you so much, Dr. K R Bolton, for brilliant analytic material!!!
Agree with John Puppet – 100% sure that this is Russian propaganda.
Thanks for the truth.
From Russia with love.
To Dr. K R Bolton, apologise’ if this comment is somewhat late. I was curious about the situation of Europe during these times. Do you think Europes long history of internal conflict and multitude of ethnicity will prevent it from ever returning to the world stage as a unified dominant global power to rival the likes of the U.S and Russia?
Rosco
The artifical nation-state constructs are engendering conflict, and should be broken down into organic entities.Paradoxical as it might seem, this might lessen division, as hatreds are caused when people are forced together rather than uniting as the result of a dialectical historical process. One prime example would be the dissolution of Belgium in favour of the Walloon and Flemish nations, as per the recent election victory of Flemish separatists.
Unity is unfortunately achieved usually by outside pressures – an outer enemy . America I think will sink as a power through internal flaws. Other powers will emerge and China and Russia i think will become enemies once more, with emerging conflicts in Asia, the issue of water resources coming to the fore. From such crises both new dangers and new opportunities emerge. I would personally opt for an alignment with Russia, my own country, New Zealand, being obsessed with China which i think will cause us great problems in the near future. My recent articles on geopolitical problems appearing in World Affairs, India Quarterly and the Journal for Social, Political and Economic Studies might be of interest in regard to some of these questions.
As America and the globalist poison continue to spread there is hope of a reaction, a resurgence of faith in Europe as a response to the alienation and superficiality caused by globalisation. Perhaps resurgent forces in Europe will emerge in the midst of spiritual, cultural, social, economic and political crises? I think Spengler can be profitably read for many insights.
thats silly you shouldn’t talk crap about a kool bloke
you should all bow down ryan will be in power soon enough to destroy you all
if you go back to the Khammurabbic Consitution of 2600BC and notice the emergence of the babylonian state; you will notice the ‘Satan’ of the prophets, whom of course were all murdered for the reason of someones empire. His name is there and he would be king; and we would note the war against monarchies and religions today; esp judaism and christianity as they once and no longer are. it is well known that the roman church, the islamic mosque, and the jewish rabbinacy are a singular religious fraud. its in reality the babylonian church of satan. marduke was proclaimed ruler of the world by An and Enlil and Khammurabbi was apointed as the human face in the geopolitic. But his father did not elect him however.
Thats why Ea, soon, by 1600BC went on his own and elected a priestly government via mosis. From 600BC and on the infiltration of the jewish kingship and jewish priesthood were complete. the last kings of israel were babylonian, equally the priesthood. there is no valid jewish priesthood. there are no legal rabbis. that lays the foundation to est that the roman church is a fraud, as paul whom was saul did note of its precedence of origin; via the false jewish church; they whom call themselves jews but are not. in those days power was determined via religion up until modern time. and it continues.
somewhere near 600bc marduke, in the absence of his fathers, An, Enlil, Ea went his own way. he had clear intention to prove men as unworthy self government if under test. unfort his contestation did not consider a resistant minority of many millions. many believe and have faith in the promise of the kingdom the lord of israel predicated upon and that he himself would ensure.
this desire for power, on the part of marduke pushes the panorama of history. the history is but a plot. 6000 nuclear missiles cannot be wrong. 5000 f35 fighters produced under a viel of cold war illusion, a lie covering a truth.
who is coming circa 2012 dec 25 to avenge the murder of his people and the plan of his rebellious son to murder off the entirety of christians and jews with the islamic religion, created for that purpose. under the weight of getting along with islam, they would justify the removal of judaism and christianity and docile us into believing in a fictious need for a religious commonality.
keep careful view upon the lords prayer, i pray each day for the coming of a kingdom, i dont pray for the coming of the un. and neither does that charter ever declare the premise of that kingdom. and it equates that false islam dares stand brother to judah and israel and christ. never. a religion that will not accept the supremacy of the lord of israel, ea, whose name is jesus christ equally in the encryption of the faith, is a satanic instrument in fact. there is no mohammed and there is no allah . its a dogma.
the lord of abraham, whose name is Ea will determined who mohammed will be or who he wont be. this is his earth. and no UN will ever have the audacity to stand a halfbred freak born against natural order as god properly meant it, to ever declare himself equal. he is unworthy even to offer sacrifice. and if you cannot sacrifice you cannot be a priest. and as Daniel attests beauty defines faith and faith beauty.
and No freak against nature, like Obama will ever continue his damned riegn as a puppet of babylon.
Marduke will not keep this earth. The testimony of his Father is before us. and he has never been known to fail.
Amen.
:-` I am very thankful to this topic because it really gives up to date information ;~-
The sheep will always deny the truth simply b/c they were and still are being brainwashed by the mainsleaze media and that they will always be subservient to the whims of the Zionists masters and owners..
Crazt conspiracy theory always based on some reality. Soros controls the world? Well why he is a minnow compared to non jewish greats such as buffet and gates. the richest jew in the world (sheldon) doesnt even get into to the top 20 richest people in the world. What a stupid article. I wish jews did rule the world then we could get rid of those fakestinians and tell that muppet kerry to bog off back to the USA
What a stupid comment. The article doesn’t say Soros “controls the world”, must less that Jews do. The only mention of Jews, in fact, is in the comments. I can only guess that you based your comment on your impression of the article based on on others’ comments instead of actually reading the article for yourself.
Mate just check out your final paragraph conclusion:
” run by regimes that have been installed by those noble NGO’s of the Soros network etc. The CFR therefore recommends that more should be done to “accelerate the integration of those states into the West.” [46] The CFR recommends that US Congress interfere directly in the Russian political process by funding opposition movements in Russia under the façade of strengthening democracy, by increased funding for the Freedom Support Act, in this instance referring specifically to the 2007-2008 presidential elections.[47] Of note is Mark F Brzezinski as one of the authors, who served on the National Security Council as an adviser on Russian and Eurasian affairs under Clinton, as his father Zbigniew served under Carter. Antonia W Bouis is cited as founding executive director of the Soros Foundations (1987-92). James A Harmon, senior advisor to the Rothschild Group, et al.
What can be expected under Obama in regard to Russia? Despite the electoral rhetoric Obama has pursued policies in the same direction as prior administrations. Mark Brzezinski was Obama’s foreign policy adviser during the presidential campaign.[48] Of particular significance is that among Obama’s primary backers is George Soros, which makes anything other than a subversive and belligerent attitude towards Russia unlikely”
If that does not read like the protocols of zion I dont know what does. Absolutely loopy! Enjoy the conspiracy theorys though.
Dude, that Soros funds NGOs that engage in the activities described is hardly a secret. To try to compare this observation to the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is just ignorant.
Pierre Omidyar co-funded Ukraine revolution groups with US government, documents show
http://pando.com/2014/02/28/pierre-omidyar-co-funded-ukraine-revolution-groups-with-us-government-documents-show/
and
Assistant Secretary Nuland at U.S.-Ukraine Foundation Conference
We’ve invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine.
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2013/12/20131216289031.html#ixzz2uDCREyNA
You can read about the NGO’s and the direct funding this has nothing to do with Jews. Our government financed Nazi’s and Islamic Militants in the Ukraine.
Pierre Omidyar co-funded Ukraine revolution groups with US government, documents show
http://pando.com/2014/02/28/pierre-omidyar-co-funded-ukraine-revolution-groups-with-us-government-documents-show/
via
Will This Iranian Billionaire Bring The US To Its Knees?
http://www.westernjournalism.com/iranian-billionaire-access-nsa-top-secret-documents/
and
Assistant Secretary Nuland at U.S.-Ukraine Foundation Conference
We’ve invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in these and other goals that will ensure a secure and prosperous and democratic Ukraine.
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2013/12/20131216289031.html#ixzz2uDCREyNA
At rallies last month, the Crimean Tatars were chanting both “Allahu Akbar” in Arabic and “Glory to Ukraine” in Ukrainian. At the time, there was an outside chance of a Crimean regional government supported by the Crimean Tatars, some Ukrainians and local elites who resented the rule of Viktor Yanukovych’s clique., which is why Russia then intervened to put its supporters in power instead.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/05/tartar-ukraine-sunni-muslims-threat-russian-rule-crimea
Russians don’t heed to the nonsense rhetoric coming from the West.
We don’t buy your silly talk about “democracy”, “free speech”, peace on earth etc, because we see right through it.
We know
1) there is not democracy or free speech in the West, unless you agree with the official totalitarian liberalist logic
2) we base our world view on our natural instincts, intuition, which tells us you are the enemy and come to kill us and take over our country, because that is what was attempted by YOU and happened after the collapse of USSR
3) jews are behind all revolutions and “human” rights groups in Russia and around the world – and it can’t be good
4) you are no longer even hiding your duplicitous hypocrisy – by calling the Ukrainian junta “legitimate” and based on international law when in fact the glaring facts say otherwise, and at the same time your leaders tell us that a referendum in Crimea to join Russia is illegitimate and is in violation of all kinds of laws. You are really that dumb to think that we are as dumb as you are?
Pray for the USA please. We need to be on a different path.
With head in shame, I don’t disagree with what you write about my country… except the term liberal as applied to American politics of today. That is a sham label in the news, as USA is conservative right. Liberal meaning: “political
doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the
individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically
believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being
harmed by others, but they also recognize that government itself can
pose a threat to liberty.” So you see, it is not liberalism that is the enemy, nor is democracy. It is imperialism, in all its forms, which requires consolidated power. That is the enemy of us all. All our governments, no matter what label we give it… it shall impose totalitarian rule whether through fascism, socialism, communism… all the same when unveiled to expose imperialism with a few elites running the sham.
besides how many millions of people had to die for democracy?
The United States has been the biggest violator of human rights since World War ll, directly leading to the death of over 20 million people in the past 70 years, says an American political analyst in Virginia.
A study conducted several years ago by American historian James Lucas reveals that US military forces were directly responsible for the deaths of between 20 and 30 million people in wars and conflicts in 37 nations, said Keith Preston, chief editor of AttacktheSystem.com.
This article is a joke. I live in Romania and know for sure that Russia always tried to expand in Europe regardless of the regime.