Justice at the service of family secrecy

Justice at the service of family secrecy

Excerpts from Volume 7 of the Great Lie of the 20th Century Series On sale at:

Mouton noir editions

A very, very “blind” justice

Everyone knows by what means, the State, and its great deputy Justice, were able to enforce the omerta on military treason until the beginning of the 21st century, since, on July 23, 1945, when the trial opened of Marshal Pétain, if the indictment had correctly retained:

“Crime of attack against the internal security of the State and intelligence with the enemy with a view to favoring his enterprises in correlation with his.”

The first accusation made at the beginning of the trial by the Prosecutor was dismissed: “Military treason”

Result: As in Riom, the slightest allusion to military treason and the Cagoulard plot against the Republic was banned from the debates.
A sad reality recalled by the trial archives for August 6, 1945: On that day, an officer who had the misfortune to mention the case of General Huntziger by declaring at the outset: “The hooded General Huntziger, affected at the opening of Sedan on May 12, 1940 to the Wehrmacht”, was retorted outright by President Montgibaux, who had taken the oath to Pétain in 1941 and eagerly applied the laws of Vichy against the Resistance fighters and opponents: “He It is not, at present, about the Cagoule, but about the responsibility of Marshal Pétain in the policy which was practiced especially after the armistice. »

Couldn’t be clearer! Thus the military witnesses of the prosecution could not ignore that during this trial led by the henchmen of Vichy against their former boss, only the facts of collaboration would be judged.

Or how to throw for the second time into the overflowing dustbins of History, but by the Republic this time, the hooded special sections and the phantom tanks of Bulson, the desertions of officers, the betrayals of generals and all that risked harm the good arrangement of the tale so well proposed by the good Marshal Pétain.

Thus, according to the good principle that one should not awaken old wounds and ask questions likely to harm the authority of the State, – universal excuse – the consensus was reached, and the witnesses were silent on pain of see condemned for “contempt” and their remarks censored again.
This made it possible to quickly forget the fate of Marx Dormoy, Minister of the Interior of the Popular Front who led the hunt for the Cagoulards and was assassinated by the militia under Vichy. From Georges Mandel MP and Minister of the Popular Front, resistance fighter from the start and assassinated in July 1944, again by the Militia. De Jean Zay also deputy and minister assassinated in June of the same year, but also the dozens of deputies placed under house arrest after their unfortunate attempt to reach Algiers aboard the Massilia to form a Republican Government in exile.
Others “forgotten” by history, those who, since the end of the war, have never ceased to question the fable of the State, such as Mr. Pierre Chenevier, President of the Federation of Friends of Fighting France who , in 1973 during the presentation of the insignia of Commander of the Legion of Honor to Mr. Pierre Mondanel, resistant and deported, head of the general control of the Judicial Police who resumed with stubbornness and in spite of pressure from Vichy the investigation into the Cagoule after the assassination of Marx Dormoy, recalled: “The most active Cagoulards were prosecuted, a certain number arrested by the services of the General Security, but you found them in 1940, in Vichy, in the forefront of the revolution. national. They held the levers of control in the government. It should be noted that the Third Reich was quick to release from prison all those who had been arrested. »

And Mr. Baudier, mayor of Vouziers and president of the Ardennes association, those who fought, pointed out to us in his work entitled: that: “Strangely, we note the disappearance of the Memoirs of Pierre Mondanel, the policeman who dismantled the Cagoule, manuscript deposited after his death by his family at the National Library. »
End of quote (Baudier Doors open at Sedan)

Decidedly, it seems that the archives of France during this period were very much the prey of the “rats” of the Ministry of Defense, without this disturbing our Governments much…

Another subject of “no astonishment”: Inspector General Pierre Mondanel who was placed on leave with pay by Vichy until November 1943, then dismissed after his arrest as a leader of a resistance network and deported to Buchenwald, Lindau and Dachau, was expelled from the police at the Liberation!

And we better understand the logic of the magistrates of the purge who, at the Liberation, dismissed Pierre Mondanel from his duties as Inspector General of the Police, when everything pointed to him to become its chief. Glad we didn’t throw him in jail for his participation in the anti-fascist struggle!

And how can we still be surprised that elected officials, such as Mr. Baudier, are still today demanding justice for these men and for all the victims of this betrayal, therefore of this century:

“Convinced Republican, I hope that we apply the motto of our homeland: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. Where is freedom when you cannot access the truth because it is deliberately camouflaged? Where is the equality in choosing among the dead those to honor and those to forget? Where is the brotherhood vis-à-vis ALL the civilian and military victims of this atrocious war where the industry of death was invented?

The blood that permeates our land demands that the truth come out of the well!!
It also demands that young people be informed not of filmed nonsense, a source of colossal profits, but of what their families have experienced and what may happen to them tomorrow.
Information is one of the essential needs of citizens! There’s still much to do ! »
End of quote (Harness Doors open at Sedan page 6)

Finally, we have also discarded the fact, very opportunely recalled by Mrs. Lacroix Riz, a leading revisionist historian, that there was no more “purging” in France than in Germany or anywhere else in Europe, and that most of the senior civil and military officials who had led the fight against the Resistance and the allied forces on all fronts had either been condemned and pardoned quickly, or not worried at all, and found themselves very shortly after the Liberation again to the highest places in the state. The Maurice Papon case was far, and even very, very far, from being exceptional! In fact, it was rather the rule.

The French State, major organizer, judge and executioner

As for all the witnesses who would have spoken anyway, because for them it was a question of defending their lives, they were executed after a sham trial that any banana dictatorship would not have denied, during the so-called period of “Purification” – meaning by this, elimination of troublesome witnesses.

Such as that of Pierre Laval, which General Jauneaud comments as follows: “The investigation of the Laval trial ended on September 12, 1945, after six interrogations. The 18 parliamentary jurors are chosen and not drawn by lot. The trial takes place in the absence of the lawyers, who are unable to defend their client.

On October 6, 1945, faced with the partiality of the declarations, the insults and the threats of his judges, Pierre Laval declared: “a judicial crime is going to be accomplished. I want to be the victim. I do not agree to be an accomplice! His lawyers withdrew: “The honor and prestige of our order forbid us to associate ourselves with debates which are only judicial in name! »

On October 9, Laval was sentenced to death. He was shot five days later, on October 15.

Thus disappeared the statesman who was most conscious of the dangers posed to France by the stifling of the truth concerning the international conspiracy, and the treason which brought about the defeat and slavery of our country. (emphasis mine)

Then Jauneaud quotes a few sentences that Laval said to him, including: “France is not liberated because we don’t want her to know the truth!! »

End of quote (Jauneaud I accuse Marshal Pétain page 570)

Knowing that Pierre Laval was the man of the French cartels, in close contact throughout the war with the Americans through his son-in-law, Count René de Chambrun, descendant of Lafayette, possessing dual Franco-American nationality, nephew by marriage of Theodore Roosevelt (president from 1901 to 1909) therefore cousin of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and darling of Pétain who nicknamed him “rabbit”. But above all that, well beyond these family considerations, he was a business lawyer in close contact with the great interests of Wall Street that we know, therefore with Charles Bedaux and of course a certain Jean Monnet, the main architect of what will be the new European Union brought in the luggage of the American “Liberators”.

Wasn’t there actually every interest in silencing this embarrassing witness, the essential political pivot of this combination between Big Black French international capital and Wall Street, as quickly as possible?

“Tell me my dear that when there’s a bad deal brewing, there’s always a Republic to save!”

The President (film by Henri Verneuil, dialogues Michel Audiard)

And since we are talking about the victims of “Justice” in the way of purifying the Republicans, why not mention General Jauneaud, a convinced Republican, one of the main architects of the restoration of the Air Force under the Popular Front , of which it is established today that he was the victim of what is agreed to call an “unfortunate miscarriage of justice” at the Liberation, which described very well the political context which was to preside over his trial:

“General De Gaulle is dangerously weakened by the civil war situation in which we find ourselves, while Roosevelt and Churchill are undermining the authority of the provisional government, in order to be able to develop their actions hostile to our overseas empire.

Moreover, the American and British secret services are based in Paris. They exert a strong pressure on the personalities of the Resistance of which they were the financiers. There is every reason to think that will particularly go after those who have shown their desire to defend our empire. »

Everyone at this stage of our investigation, if they take care to read these lines carefully, will understand why I underlined such a long passage. Each word, each sentence, contains in substance all the hidden stakes of this betrayal, therefore of this terrible world conflict of five years.
“On October 27, 1944, I was arrested and imprisoned in Fresnes. I take as defender Master Combescure, who tells me: “You are dangerously threatened. The violence and relentlessness of the attacks directed against you are out of proportion to the facts with which you are charged! »

Jauneaud then asked for the summons of several witnesses: including the former Air Minister of the Popular Front Pierre Cot, Joxe, Litvinov, etc. and the disclosure of its note on the existence of the

“Document Vuillemin”, bearing on the responsibilities of General Vuillemin Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force, in the defections of the hunt and the bombardment during the battle in May-June 1940.

But: “On January 8, 1945, Maître Berry came to tell me that the Minister of Justice refused to summon the witnesses cited. “Since the beginning of my career, he adds, this is the first time that I have recorded such a decision. »

And on February 27, I was told that I was summoned to appear before the court of justice of the department of the Seine on March 3, 1945 at 3 p.m. I am charged with having maintained, in time of war, intelligence with the enemy, a crime provided for by articles 75 and 76 of the penal code. The indictment considers me to be “blinded by the pecuniary temptations of Laval”. (-) The charges against me are both ridiculous and serious. They are obviously intended to send me to the execution post… Moreover, the refusal to hear the defense witnesses transforms the judgment into a judicial crime. Indeed I am considered by some secret services as an embarrassing witness. The Pétainists, the Germans, the English and the Americans have, for different reasons, an interest in preventing the revelation of the truth concerning the treason, as well as the international conspiracy directed against France and its overseas empire. When a witness becomes a little too embarrassing, we delete it…”

Either a perfect summary of what we think we have established…

Let us now see what price he will have to pay for his contribution to historical truth: “After the pleadings, and the indictment which asks the jurors to pronounce my death sentence, I take the floor: “the tree must not hide the forest ! There are no Jauneaud cases. On the other hand, the Vuillemin affair seems to me as serious as the Dreyfus affair. It reveals the circumstances under which we capitulated in Munich, the opening of the “Sedan Gate” to Hitler, the assassination of the Third Republic, and Vichy’s collaboration with the enemy!…”

I am sentenced to forced labor for life. I don’t want to quibble. »

This is how we treated the generals who had devoted themselves to serving the Republic by trying to rearm in time, then clearly denouncing the members of the plot! When the French state failed to murder them in rigged trials, it sentenced them to forced labor for life!

General Jauneaud, another victim of ministers of worship

In the long section of dismissed witnesses, General Jauneaud, director of the cabinet and main collaborator of Pierre Cot, holds a place of choice, since as an embarrassing witness he will find himself at the Liberation falsely accused of “collaboration” with the occupier, this with the active complicity of the French Government of the Fourth Republic, then properly placed on the index of History, as evidenced by Gérard Watelet, director of Éditions Pygmalion (now bought by Flammarion), who dared to publish the general’s book in 1977:
Warning: The author of this book, hero of the 1914-1918 war, airman general, was sentenced to forced labor for life on March 15, 1945 by the High Court of Justice of the Seine. Released by decision of President Vincent Auriol on January 3, 1951, he was granted amnesty on February 18, 1954. With hindsight and also thanks to the examination of the various documents that we had in hand, it now seems established that this conviction was a miscarriage of justice. In fact Jauneaud was considered, both by his detractors and by Pétain himself, as an embarrassing witness who had to be silenced at all costs… Also, the author, in the last thirty-one years of his life , he persisted in dismantling the mechanism of the injustice of which he had been the victim. He was accumulating military evidence of what he denounced as an anti-republican plot fomented by the Pétainist clan between 1934 and 1940, very notably shedding light on the drama of our Air Force. This is why it seemed important and fair to us to allow General Jauneaud, now deceased, to add his testimony to the file of contemporary history. Signed: The publisher. »
End of quote (Jauneaud I accuse Marshal Pétain Warning page 5)

Many historians who were among the first revisionists, such as Henri Guillemin, author of The Truth About the Pétain Affair and of so many books of primary importance, also recognized the importance of Jauneaud.

Here is the preface of this excellent author: “This is an important book, a considerable testimony. It is possible that, in detail, statements that are a little too categorical remain, which I do not say are contrary to the truth, but only that they still lack formal proof to support them and make the deposition invulnerable. These proofs will undoubtedly see the light of day (-)

But the essential remains, and untouched. And where is this essential?

He bears the responsibility, discreet but infinitely heavy, of Marshal Pétain for the disaster of 1940. (-)

General Jauneaud’s work will take its place in the “subject’s bibliography” among the least insignificant sources of information. »

Finally, General Jauneaud received the support of Colonel Goutard, whose outspokenness is legendary among historians: “Air Corps General Henri Jauneaud deserves to be read with as much more attention as his views future, between the two wars, were extraordinarily lucid and even prophetic. He was, in fact, for the large air units, the same precursor that were, for the large armored units, the de Gaulle, Liddell Hart, Fuller and Guderian. (-)

Trainee at the war school from 1920 to 1922, he submitted a conclusive report on the “need to provide France with large air bombing and fighter units” which would act in conjunction with large tank-based shock units, towed artillery and mounted infantry. Assigned to the general staff of the army, on leaving the war school, he had the honor of serving under the orders of General Buat, one of the best military brains in our history. The latter approved his project and decided to provide France with a real air force. He therefore instructed him to write an Instruction on the tactical employment of large air units, which he signed on October 9, 1923.
This instruction, which provided for the creation of 186 squadrons – including 38 for heavy and very heavy bombardment, grouped into a mixed brigade and air division – placed in the hands of the commander-in-chief in time of war an “air reserve”, ready to intervene massively. in the battle, at the crucial point, and to create, with terrifying suddenness, the “event” of which Napoleon spoke.(-)

On December 22, 1923, General Buat disappeared, suddenly taken away by a crushing illness, his “doctrine”, in May, disappeared with him. His training was forgotten, and a few months later his technical adviser, Commander Jauneaud, was assigned to Rio de Janeiro where, for eight years from 1924 to 1932, he was able to teach his aerial doctrine… To the Brazilians!
And in September 1939, when the Second World War broke out, we would have neither the armored divisions demanded by Charles De Gaulle, nor the aerial divisions which had been provided for by the Buat-Jauneaud instruction of 1923. (-)

Was the Sedan Gate, in fact, opened to panzers and the Luftwaffe, and for some reason other than military?

Let the author, who has such a clear vision of the future, answer this agonizing question of the past. »

End of quote (preface by Colonel Goutard)

Invitation to which the witness responded as best he could with a sincerity that has guided us more than once in our long investigation into military treason and the plot that presided over it.

And all of this brings us to the admonition of General Gamelin who reminded future generations that they would have to shed light on this betrayal: “For our country to truly become a great power again, the high moral and intellectual force necessary humanity, which it was and must remain, it must both rebuild its union and condemn irremissibly those who have led it to worse than defeat, at the risk of shame. »

End of quote (Gamelin Servir volume 1 Introduction page XV)

But were they heard? Do we have proof today that the States concerned have done anything other than maintain the “family secret”?

The question is therefore: What higher interests did the successive governments of France, as of all the States concerned, want to defend?

A question that Pierre Laval or General Jeaunaud could probably have answered, at least if we judge by the conclusion that the latter gave in his indictment:

And I add this: the presence at the three hearings of my trial of two English officers is not accidental in the precincts of a court assembled to condemn to silence the one who was the youngest general of the army. French, the one who knew too much…” (emphasis mine)

End of quote (Jauneaud I accuse Marshal Pétain pages 158, 160, 166)

LESSONS TO BE LEARNED

We have seen this throughout our investigation:

Everything, absolutely everything, is FALSE in this “incomprehensible” version. NOTHING stands up in this fairy tale as soon as it is confronted with the archives and the most elementary logic.

Whether on a purely military, political or economic level, the lies pile up and their coherence is only apparent.

Thus this systematic dam to the truth has made the history of the Second World War a bottomless quagmire, where today we find everything and anything. And this without control of the Peoples, since each adept of the “theory of illogicality” having developed his religion according to the policy he serves, and the whole having been taken up and mixed at leisure by the most diverse media, more no one is there!

Result: These “forces of evil” presented in a Manichaean way can at choice, and according to the political convictions of the author, apply to fascism, communism, liberalism, the ideology of evil, or the divine will. , for the proposition is true in every sense…

This is why the official fairy tale, in that it offers the unequaled advantage of satisfying everyone, by allowing anything to be said without a clearly defined reality being opposed to it, and because it makes this instrumentalization of history possible for anyone, was, is, and will remain if it continues, a real danger for any democracy!

State secrecy, an attack on the rights of peoples

It is therefore appropriate to violently denounce this perversion, reminding these improvised moral censors that History is waiting at any moment to be able to be revised:

“The writing of history consists of an endless revision of the past. The actual reality of history demands to be considered along with its possibilities” John Lukaks

“Any truth is good for the historian to say, even and especially that which upsets prejudices, clashes with received ideas, or partisan interests.” Raymond Aron

“As Academician Jean d’Ormesson wrote: ‘If you deny freedom to those who make mistakes, there is no more freedom. To defend freedom is to defend these abuses. What I interpret as follows:“ we must not deny freedom to those who, according to you, are wrong. Because then you will only know if it is not you who are mistaken.”  Nerin E. Gun

This is the true duty of historians!

And not, as at the time of the Inquisition, to ensure orthodoxy, using any pretext to excommunicate anyone!

Because this is what awaits the revisionist researcher, if he dares to challenge the “incomprehensible” thesis. If he dares to question the imposed dogma!

Moreover, we all know in France to live it daily, that certain words have become likely to condemn, at first sight, those who would use them.

This is why all historians, without exception, have never dared to use the term “treason”, but preferred those of “strange” victory or defeat, varying at will and playing on words! I mentioned in the introduction, a “suspicion of good quality”…

In truth, we are here within the framework of propaganda: It was a question for certain “experts” and accredited media of establishing a new dictionary, based on political correctness, in order to manipulate underhandedly by the incessant repetition of arguments lies, opinions and consciences.

Consider the “factory of consent” invented in 1917 by Edward Berneys, father of modern advertising and state propaganda, in order to convince the American people to go to war, and so violently denounced by Mr. Noam Chomsky.

Revisionism is not Holocaust denial  

And I am thinking here just as much of the amalgam systematically proposed to the widest public by certain media, between historians quite rightly qualified as “negationists”, because they question the Shoa and other massacres organized by the Nazis, and the “revisionists since, playing on the imprecision of the formulas and a certain consonance of the words, these censors of all political persuasions will immediately attack, or boycott, a researcher who would question the thesis of the mythical Blitzkrieg and its string of miracles, by qualifying it of “negationist”!

By an incredible intellectual pirouette, in their mouths the word “revisionist” becomes offensive, and this even if the archives presented by the historian are irrefutable!

The unfortunate will then be seen as a henchman of Nazism, eager to contest the victory of the “forces of Good against that of Evil”, as soon as he pronounces the word “treason”.

And if, supreme offence, he dared to question the dogma of the industrial and military power of the Reich, or to evoke the contributions of Big International Capital, he would be accused of sacrificing to conspiracy theses!

Finally, if he takes too close an interest in Hitler’s true personality, or in the “miracles” that allowed him to cross the Ardennes and the Meuse, he is undermining the very foundations of religion!

And we cry anathema!

This is why it is never in vain to remind these so-called servants of “democracy” of the principles of our Republic:

“The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the most precious rights of man: every citizen can therefore speak, write, print freely, except to answer for the abuse of this freedom in the cases determined by law.”

Article 11 of the 1993 Declaration of Human Rights

Or this sentence from Condorcet’s speech when he presented to the Assembly his project for a secular and free “School of the Republic”:

“Since this is a matter of public instruction, to tolerate an error would be to become an accomplice to it; not to consecrate truth highly would be to betray it. And even if it were true that political consideration should still, for some time, sully the laws of a free nation; when this insidious or weak doctrine would find an excuse in this stupidity, which one likes to suppose in the people to have a pretext to deceive or oppress them; at least, the instruction which must bring the time when these consideration will be useless, can belong only to the truth alone, and must belong to it entirely.”

Nicolas de Condorcet speech on The general organization of public instruction (April 20 and 21, 1792)

“The Truth alone must belong to him entirely. »

A truth undoubtedly much less comfortable than the “family secret”. But you have to choose which world you want to live in!

The law, ultimate instrument of Omerta

Especially since the official dogma is imposed by many States with extreme violence, since in addition to their alleged legitimacy to hide certain disturbing truths in order not to impose on the Peoples “for their good” certain shocking truths, we find the tools of this condemnation to “silence for life” in their laws.

Another instrument of authority, and how effective, because any historian likely to denounce certain historical lies thus exposes himself to the vagaries of lawsuits for defamation.

Lawsuits brought either by the defendant or by his descendants, and the outcome of which is generally not in doubt since the judges, having no means of apprehending for themselves the quality of the protester’s writings, appoint “experts in the matter.

Experts who are of course authoritative at the highest level of the Army and the State, and recognized by all those who granted them the distinctions and prebends guaranteeing the “quality” of their judgment.

And the circle is complete. Here is the accused delivered to the appreciation of “experts”, who are none other than those he implicates!

The real question, and the only solution to this dilemma, is therefore to ask the Peoples to rule on the legitimacy of these civil courts. For is there, outside the Gayssot law relating to the crime of denial of the Holocaust and other theses denying war crimes, a single article of law allowing any civil judge to rule on the validity of a thesis history on an aspect of this conflict?

Whether military or economic?

And the answer is known to all lawyers: None.
So where is the rule of law in this case?

Of the spirit of Laws

And since we are talking about intimidation, let’s go back for a moment to this famous Gayssot law which, in France, claims to impose a historical truth concerning the Shoa. In this regard, even if obviously I do not question this evidence of the holocaust, I wonder about the merits of a law capable of regulating historical research, and about the existence of a repressive arsenal that can lead a researcher, whoever he is, to prison.

Indeed, Barthélémy Saint-Hilaire, republican philosopher, historian, statesman, wrote in 1849 that: “The citizen owes the fatherland the fruit of his meditations.” This little treatise, published by the Academy of Moral and Political Sciences, establishes the democratic principles:

Laws are made to serve, not to oppress. Except, of course, if the purpose of the author is to harm common morality and “the very peace of the city and the existence of the State”.

But how could the Truth harm the City? In nothing. A proposition that is not necessarily true for the state…

In short, we do not impose a historical thesis by the stick!

The Gayssot law in that its application prohibits, under penalty of judicial condemnation, any dialogue on certain subjects, limits in practice any controversy, therefore consequently the field of research, since in the historical field, EVERYTHING is linked.
I am well aware that the legislator seems to have sought to do justice for the victims of the Holocaust, and he was right in his intentions, but the danger is that in wanting to establish a moral order he has, in fact, limited the search by putting limits to the confrontations of ideas, therefore of archives, between those who are wrong and those who are right.

And this is not tolerable since History is not a field of religious, timeless reflection, there is no question of faith, it is not immutable, but remains alive, current and influential. , present in our everyday life, at least as long as it remains revisable…
The trap into which this law has led French society is thus obvious: By freezing part of its history, the State ratifies, voluntarily or not, the fairy tale, and this regardless of the validity of the moral pretext put forward by the legislator.
To be sure, let’s take a simple example: IG Farben, a chemical manufacturer whose capital and real leaders, following various financial arrangements perfectly recognized by researchers around the world, were mostly Americans. This multinational employed thousands of deportees in its factory located in the heart of the Dachau concentration camp causing the death of many of them and, as a result, shamefully enriched the American State, Wall Street and the small shareholders of this country, even after the United States entered the war.

This is an indisputable and undisputed reality, moreover one of the countless scandals of this war. What is less known is that, under the pretext of protecting the general public from any negationist influence, we avoid talking about this kind of subject!

The argument thus makes it possible to avoid any confrontation of ideas and figures and to evacuate not only the subject, but its corollaries. Thus the unlimited exploitation and the death of tens of thousands of deportees becomes an excellent argument for insidiously “forgetting” to see where a reflection freely carried out on this burning subject of profits, and other political and financial issues, could lead us.
The Gayssot law is therefore, in fact, yet another screen in that it serves, by relying on the reality of the Holocaust, to conceal this disturbing aspect, whereas, as I have said and repeat, while waiting to demonstrate it as surely as this military betrayal: This war, like all those that followed, was not only that of democracies against totalitarianism, this was only the tip of the iceberg. In reality, these hundreds of millions of deaths were sacrificed on the altar of profit!

This is why I oppose this law which could be used tomorrow to protect the real culprits whom I denounce. Because how far will the state be able to extend it? How far will the maneuvers of the self-righteous go, to continue to impose the only “politically correct” versions?

Which brings us back to the will of the Peoples. Because the question of course arises: Will they want to open their eyes?

Or will they prefer to continue to let overly curious historians be muzzled, and condemn innocent people such as General Gamelin or General Jauneaud, “for their greater good”?

Democracy in question

Questions that the revisionists will undoubtedly soon have to ask them, because these judges are demanding tens of thousands of euros in fines from these myth busters and whistleblowers!

And we unfortunately understand why, faced with this concrete threat brandished by a “democracy” using without limits what it calls “state secrecy”, and capable of ruining a career, a reputation and even a life, all historians did not have the same taste for risk, and why the most “reasonable” have continued to consider that the three volumes of General Gamelin’s Souvenirs were nothing but a vulgar partisan plea without the slightest historical value. Why NONE of those who have established their reputation for so many years by publishing numerous works often rewarded by so many academies, considered it essential to look into the new archives of the battle opened in the year 2000. Finally, why no one , neither in France nor elsewhere, has denounced loud and clear the theft of the Journal de Marche du Cabinet Gamelin and the other essential documents on which all the major witnesses were no doubt counting to shed light on the whole affair in good time. Flight yet perfectly known to all.

Omerta on the archives coupled with constant propaganda, as recalled by Noam Chomsky, considered by his peers to be the most brilliant intellectual of the century:
“Propaganda is to democracy what the truncheon is to dictatorship. (-) Indoctrination is in no way incompatible with democracy. Rather, it is, as some have noted, its very essence. (-) If the State loses its baton and if force no longer operates and if the people raise their voice, then this problem appears. People become so arrogant that they refuse civil authority. You have to control their thoughts. To do so, we resort to propaganda, to the fabrication of the necessary consensus of illusions. »
Noam Chomsky, American Focus Student Radio Interview

Countless obstacles accumulated by the highest academic, political and military authorities of ALL democracies, which have been denounced for nearly sixty years by revisionist historians, without their complaints ever being heard by the media.

So the question is: What other shameful secrets are they all protecting?

Secrets of such importance that it is necessary to deprive the citizen of his most basic right: The freedom to choose his future in full knowledge of the real issues.

States bring in their Barbouzes to muzzle historians

States bring in their Barbouzes to muzzle historians

Everyone will have understood that the Vichy State and then the 4th and 5th Republics were keen to conceal the military betrayal.

However, if we can understand the interest of Pétain and his Cagoulard friends, and even of General de Gaulle, very busy restoring the prestige of France, we obviously understand less why and how this “family secret” was so long preserved from the 1960s to the present day.

In view of the position found by France within the concert of Nations, nothing justified such a departure from republican principles.

Another big question: Why haven’t the other democracies concerned revealed the pot of roses?

After all, if we can understand the attitude of Germany, the main accomplice, how can we understand that of the victims: England, Belgium, Holland etc…

There is of course something “incomprehensible” there and which we will of course see in great detail during our investigation to follow on the major imperial issues and those of the world cartels.

In the meantime, and since the purpose of this site of Angry Historians is to make you understand the reasons for our resentment, it is not in vain to teach you that the French revisionist researchers were not the only ones to be savagely fought so that the omerta remains.

To be certain, I offer three striking examples concerning three leading revisionist historians: In the United States, in England and in Germany.

Antony Sutton and the rumor

So let’s go back to Mr. Antony Sutton, economist and historian of British origin, researcher at Stanford University – where he was able to analyze thousands of archives concerning the responsibilities of Wall Street from the Hoover Foundation for five years –

Then a professor at the very famous University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) where the nation’s elite is trained;

It was he who, all names, dates and figures in support, denounced, from the 1960s, the part played by Wall Street in the coming to power of the Bolsheviks in Russia and Hitler in Germany, then the existing links between Wall Street and the great German and Russian trusts, and finally the extent of the responsibilities of the finest jewels of American industry in the rearmament of these two countries.

However, here is the article published about it – and still online in 2021 – on the famous participatory encyclopedia Wikipedia, well known for the fact that it offers everyone the possibility of integrating an article of their own, without any serious control. .

A particularly tendentious article, presenting this researcher recognized by all his colleagues and the best intellectuals for his honesty, as a leader of American conspiracy theorists!

Article that I reproduce here, according to my good habit, in its entirety, so as not to be suspected of counterfeiting:

Antony Cyril Sutton

Key data

Birth

14 February 1925

Dead

17 June 2002 (à 77 ans)

Nationalité

British

Profession

Essayist
Economist

Antony Cyril Sutton, born February 14, 1925 and died June 17, 2002, was a British-born American economist and essayist, a historical figure of conspiracy theorist in the United States.

Biography

Sutton was a research fellow at Stanford in the Hoover Foundation from 1968 to 1973. He taught economics at UCLA. He studied in London, Göttingen and UCLA and received a doctorate in science from the University of Southampton, England. [ref. desired]

Theories

Historian Bernard Bruneteau observes that Sutton, “an ultra-conservative British economist turned American […] has constantly denounced since the 1970s the globalist projects of the American banking establishment, accused in addition of having favored both the advent of the Bolsheviks and Hitler in order to better control Russia and Germany in the future2. The works of the economist are thus praised by Pierre de Villemarest, journalist and writer of the extreme right, for whom “Sutton was the only author who has ever dissected the contracts thanks to which the Nazi and Soviet totalitarianisms were able to live and survive economically “.

In addition, Bernard Bruneteau notes that Alain Soral draws his references relating to a so-called “Jewish globalization by essence” in “old ideological channels”, those of “the current vulgate of the “Judeo-Bolshevism” of the entre- wars6″, but also among “authors of today, presented as ‘historians’ or experts on their subjects, but belonging more to a category of radical or marginal essayists, these ‘proletaroid intellectuals’ described in time by Max Weber7. ” Distributed by Equality and Reconciliation, the publications of Antony Sutton, Anne Kling and Daniel Estulin thus aim to “accredit the thesis of the common origin of the dual globalist impulse of the 20th century – liberal and Marxist. »

About the Skull & Bones Society

According to Sutton, the elite of Skull and Bones society would develop a vision of mass education advocating not individualism but integration into an organic society – a vision inspired by Hegel’s doctrine on the absolute state. In this type of state, the individual finds his freedom through obedience to the laws of the state. Individual liberties, for their part, must submit to a rational tyranny9. In addition, Sutton argues that Wilhelm Wundt’s theory of the similarities between animal and human psychology10 as well as Hegel’s notion of the conflict that creates history11 are integral to Skull & Bones ideology. Thus the conflict between a thesis and an antithesis gives a synthesis and if the thesis-antithesis process is under the control of this society, the synthesis will necessarily follow from its will. In this case, it is a question of the organization, by an elite society, of the conflict Marxism – Nazism with the aim of establishing a single world ideology [unclear] 11. For Sutton, the ultimate synthesis of Skull & Bones is the New World Order12. [not clear]

On the links between Wall Street and Franklin Delano Roosevelt

For Sutton, the action of Franklin Delano Roosevelt was done in the interest of American high finance by his New Deal and by other laws promulgated from 1933.

Works

Books in english :

  • Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development: 1917-1930 (1968)
  • Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development: 1930-1945 (1971)
  • Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development: 1945-1965 (1973)
  • National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union (1973)
  • What Is Libertarianism? (1973)
  • Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution (1974, 1999)
  • Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler (1976, 1999)
  • Wall Street and FDR (1976, 1999)
  • The War on Gold: How to Profit from the Gold Crisis (1977)
  • Energy: The Created Crisis (1979)
  • The Diamond Connection: A manual for investors (1979)
  • Trilaterals Over Washington – Volume I (1979; with Patrick M. Wood)
  • Trilaterals Over Washington – Volume II (1980; with Patrick M. Wood)
  • Gold vs Paper: A cartoon history of inflation (1981)
  • Investing in Platinum Metals (1982)
  • Technological Treason: A catalog of U.S. firms with Soviet contracts, 1917-1982 (1982)
  • America’s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones (1983, 1986, 2002)
  • How the Order Creates War and Revolution (1985)
  • How the Order Controls Education (1985)
  • The Best Enemy Money Can Buy (1986)
  • The Two Faces of George Bush (1988)
  • The Federal Reserve Conspiracy (1995)
  • Trilaterals Over America (1995)
  • Cold Fusion: Secret Energy Revolution (1997)
  • Gold For Survival (1999)

Books in french :

Notes and references

  • Pierre-André Taguieff, « Un portrait hagiographique d’Antony C. Sutton, figure majeure du conspirationnisme américain, principal diffuseur de la vision diabolisatrice de la société « Skull & Bones » », in La Foire aux illuminés. Ésotérisme, Théorie du complot, Extrémisme, Paris, Mille et une nuits, 2005 (ISBN2-84205-925-5), pages 262 et suivantes.
  • · Bruneteau 2015, p. 231, n. 25.
  • · Olivier Dard, La synarchie ou le mythe du complot permanent, Paris, Perrin, coll. « Tempus » (no 469), 2012, 384 p. (ISBN 978-2-262-04101-4, notice BnF no FRBNF43781231, présentation en ligne [archive]), p. 189-190.
  • · Pierre Péan, Le mystérieux docteur Martin (1895-1969), Paris, Librairie générale française (LGF), coll. « Le livre de poche » (no 13935), 1996, 535 p. (ISBN 978-2-253-13935-5, notice BnF no FRBNF36688158), p. 6 ; 497 ; 511.
  • · Pierre de Villemarest, Les Sources financières du nazisme, éd. CEI, 93 p., 1984
  • · Bruneteau 2015, p. 230.
  • · Bruneteau 2015, p. 231.
  • · America’s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones (Online version p. 62)
  • · America’s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones (Online version, p. 73)
  • · America’s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones (Online version p. 76)
  • · America’s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones (Online version, p. 92)
  • · Antony Cyril Sutton, America’s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones (Online version, p. 93)
  1. ·  (en) Bruce W. Dearstyne, « Compte rendu du livre d’Antony Sutton, Wall Street and FDR, 1975 », History : Reviews of New Books, vol. 4, n° 2, Routledge, 1975, p. 44, DOI:10.1080/03612759.1975.9946031.

Appendices

Bibliography

External links

Other Wikimedia projects: :

In this article several characteristic points of the way of proceeding of the secret services, in order to discredit the people whose existence we would like to forget:

First, the article is skilfully written in such a way that an uninformed person can estimate that the most honest and prestigious historians would share the author’s analysis.

While not a word, not a quote supports this narrative bias.

Next, the anonymous author quotes Mr. Bernard Bruneteau, whose field of expertise and work have nothing to do with American imperialism and who, if he sometimes quotes Sutton, does so in a completely superficial way, and without ever accusing him of conspiracy;

Another expert quoted: Mr. Pierre André Taguieff, an excellent historian who has perfectly demonstrated the vices and hidden intentions of the conspiracy theses.
However, in his work cited in reference by the author of this article on Wikipedia, and entitled: the fair for the enlightened, Mr. Taguieff never puts Mr. Sutton in question!

In reality :

On the one hand, pages 262 and following of this work, given in demonstration of the highly conspiratorial vision of Mr. Sutton, do not speak of the subjects evoked by Sutton, but of totally different subjects, and without ever even mentioning closely or by far its name.

It is therefore a pure and simple fake.

On the other hand, the appended document, in which another author evokes the personality of Sutton and the quality of his work, is entirely in his favour. Far from assimilating it in any way to a conspiratorial thesis, on the contrary he praises Sutton and his works, admiring the quality of the archives presented and the seriousness of his research!

So, aside from perhaps the expanded and critical view of Skull and Bones society,

– American secret society founded at Yale University and to which the main figures of what I call the Big Black American Capital belonged, and still belong –

this article is a perfect demonstration of how some people are in charge of misinforming the Peoples.

Because what interest would any individual have in lying so blatantly?

It is clear that this historical fraudster took advantage of Wikipedia, and the fact that most people do not check the references provided, to smear Mr. Sutton’s memory and discredit his work.

Unfortunately for him, we read…

Another example of these attempts at demonization:

  1. Martin Allen, et les services secrets britanniques

This excellent author to whom we owe two essential works for understanding the Second World War and the major issues of the 20th century: The King Who Betrayed and The Strange Journey of Rudolf Hess, also had to deal with the secret services, but British this time, and during his lifetime.

Indeed, in his last work dealing with the essential participation of Himmler – leader of the SS – in the plundering of Europe in favor of the Big black capital, Mr. Allen returns in detail to the existing links between the Big black capital, Wall Street, tax havens, and the Nazis, when it was necessary – during and after the war – to secure the precious booty.

He further asserts that Himmler would quite logically have been assassinated by the Allies, as so many prominent witnesses were, not only by the British, Americans and French, but also by the Germans, since Hitler had shortly before his death a few hundred essential witnesses, who could have denounced both the French military treason and the world conspiracy.

Here is the Wikipedia article regarding. Allen, still in its integral version

Martin Allen

For similar articles, see Allen.

Not to be confused with Martin Allen (soccer).

This UK-related article is a stub.

You can share your knowledge by improving it (how?) according to the recommendations of the corresponding projects.

Martin Allen

Biographie

Birth

1958

 

Nationality

British

Activities

Opinion journalist, historian

Martin Allen is a British writer, author of three history books.

Biography

In a book published in 2005, Martin Allen affirms, based on documents from the British national archives, that Himmler would have been assassinated by the Allies1, a thesis which is supported by David Irving. This book by Allen is still qualified as an excellent work in the Journal of Military History of July 2006.

A few months after the publication of the book, and on the initiative of the Telegraph newspaper, the officials of the British national archives had a specialist appraise certain documents on which Allen relied. The expert concludes that several of these documents are forgeries. According to the article published on this subject by the Telegraph in July 2005, there is nothing to suggest that Martin Allen was in bad faith by using these falsified sources.

Another fake is detected among the documents he used as a source for his book (The King Who Betrayed, Ed. Plon, 2000) on the supposed betrayal of the Duke of Windsor.

The British archives refrained from pressing charges due to the state of health of Martin Allen.

Publications

  • Himmler’s Secret War: The Covert Peace Negotiations of Heinrich Himmler, Da Capo Press, 2005, (ISBN 978-0786717088)
  • The Hitler/Hess Deception : British Intelligence’s Best-Kept Secret of the Second World War, HarperCollins UK, 2004, (ISBN 978-0007141197)
  • Hidden Agenda: How the Duke of Windsor Betrayed the Allies, M. Evans and Company, Inc.; 1st Am. ed. edition, 2002, (ISBN 978-0871319937)

Notes and references

  1. ·  François Kersaudy, « Édouard VIII n’a jamais trahi » [archive], sur Le Figaro, 6 février 2013

We find that this time, the unknown author of this article is not looking for false arguments, he is content to cite a few facts.

By forgetting of course to give Mr. Allen’s version of these accusations of embezzlement.

Then he concludes with a laconic: “The British archives refrained from filing a complaint because of the state of health of Martin Allen”
Supposed, in reality, to endorse in a roundabout way the thesis of falsification, by this absence of commentary or analysis;
Indeed, knowing the state of health of Mr. Allen, which is not worrying, is it not more logical that the outcome of a trial being uncertain, it was more prudent to let a demeaning doubt? What is called the rumor…

Another argument in this direction: this accusation was followed with enthusiasm by all the historical-commercial French that we know very well today for their participation in the thesis of the “incomprehensible Blitzkrieg” or that of a war waged by the powers of the Good to those of Evil, and which you will easily find on the Internet because they are well known for having sung the praises of the splendid British democracy, the royal family and Churchill.
Praises of course greeted by numerous literary prizes, honorary titles and prebends, and even in the case of Mr. Kersaudy by his elevation to the rank of dignitary of the Order of the British Empire …

In reality, how could one imagine that Mr. Martin Allen, recognized worldwide by his peers for his courage and his intellectual honesty, could have risked his reputation and his career by contravening in such a stupid way the rules of his profession?

How can we imagine that he could have played the forger by obtaining paper and vintage typewriters, to further add to the evidence he brought?

It’s ridiculous !

On the other hand, how not to recognize the high expertise of the British Secret Services, specialists in fakes and uses?!

They are perfectly equipped and motivated to produce such documents and slip them into the archives that Mr. Allen consulted!

Services which I defy to raise my accusation, by proving the contrary, for that would require them to demonstrate that His Majesty’s Government would have had no interest in destroying the reputation of a respected historian. So that there was never French military treason, and that Big Black Capital, as well as the British European Party, had nothing to do with this war!

And we understand better why I took the precaution of never, or almost never, consulting the archives, and of basing myself only on writings known to all. Works written by the best academics going completely in the direction of Mr. Allen and that the secret services of his Majesty will have great difficulty in all discrediting.

If they ever have the honesty to open them…

German officers also testified

Another victim of this deliberate desire to cover up betrayal:

Julius Mader, German historian – whom we remember having already met in the 4th volume – author of a book on the generals who revealed the underside of the cards on the Nazi side, in particular with the written testimony of General Piekenbrock who attested that he did not there was no German 5th Column able to organize all the betrayals observed on the ground during the Battle of France such as: Displacement of civilian populations, bridges not jumped, orders for withdrawals in series, assassinations of officers and other “tanks ghosts”…
Here is what he reports of the pressures he had to undergo for having published this document denouncing, among other things, the relations between the Reich and the cartels of Big Black Capital, AGFA, IG Farben, and other mass murderers who, having established their factories in the heart of the concentration camps, used the deportees to further increase their pharaminous profits without worrying about the thousands of victims they caused: “The content of this book being explosive, the command of the secret services of the federal republic and that of the Bundeswehr were to use all the means at their disposal to prevent, or at least thwart, its publication. These networks, which continue the criminal tradition of Hitler’s generals, fear the truth as the devil fears holy water. Thus, for example, the Wehrkunde – a newspaper dealing with military problems, the official organ of the militarist society for the information of the Armies, gave this solemn warning in its columns as early as December 1966: “Very recently, Mader addressed to former officers of the Abwehr letters “from a good German” asking them to send him information, activity reports etc., intended for a documentation that he would be in the process of constituting . In fact, it is a sneak attack directed against the former Abwehr and the Federal German Information Service (one of the first secret service offices in West Germany whose power stands immediately behind that of the Chancellery itself) as well as against the book, recently published by Gert Buchheit, entitled: The German Secret Service – History of Military Defence…

Therefore, it is expressly recommended not to provide any information or documentation to addresses located in the Soviet zone (i.e. in the German Democratic Republic).

Four months later, publications issued under the aegis of the Federal Service for the Protection of the Constitution repeated this kind of warning with even more precision. It was written there:

“If you receive a letter from a certain Julius Mader, do not answer and forward it to the competent Security Services… The current work which Mader is currently working on is to be published under the following title: Hitler’s Spy Generals Depose…
From these reactions, which also underline the necessity and topicality of my work, we can objectively deduce several points:
– First, Hitler’s spy generals benefit from complicities even within West German political circles, but these accomplices are no longer unknown to us.
– Secondly, each of the former officers of the Secret Service of Hitler’s Army had the opportunity to demonstrate their break with their past and to contribute to History by telling the only Truth.
– Third, it has become clear that capitalist circles and high officials of the federal administration have an interest in keeping the past activity of a large number of Nazi war criminals in the shadows by thwarting any investigation of them. »

So of course, I can already hear the “accredited experts” affirming that this work by Mr. Mader was undoubtedly a propaganda tool for the benefit of East Germany, and that it must be placed in the context of the Cold War, before judging its validity.

If so, please answer this…

The German “submarine” is still not sunk

Indeed, concerning the privileged relations between the Nazi Reich and the “democracies” in the Anglo-Saxon style, it is not in vain to come back to yet another “forgotten detail”: The importance that the intelligence services of the Wehrmacht (Abwehr) during the Hitler period, then after the war.

Importance largely minimized since, by highlighting the action of some Democratic officers who fought with all their might against Nazism, such as Admiral Canaris, Oster, or Lahoussen, but about whom we must not forget that they were, for the only part that could be demonstrated, responsible in 12 European countries, without counting the USSR, for the execution or the deportation of 1 million 277 754 resistance fighters and anti-fascist sympathizers.
It was these Abwehr leaders, renamed anti-Communists for the purposes of the fairy tale, who were carefully protected after the war by the American government, then re-infiltrated to the highest level of responsibility in Germany from the West, such:

Joseph Müller, who became one of the Bavarian leaders of the Christian Democratic Party, or Hermann Götz, member of the executive committee of the CDU branch in Hesse, chairman of the committee for refugees, and of the working committee on “internal and external security questions” , director of the federal work community for assistance to soldiers, member of the Ackermanngemeinde within the Society of Sudeten compatriots, Member of Parliament in Bonn from 1949 and, from 1968, Chairman of the Work Commission of social policy of the CDU / CSU group in the Bundestag.
Among the early members of the FDP we also find Doctor Victor Hoven who was once captain and battalion commander in the Brandenburg division of the Abwehr, the section in charge of the liquidation of opponents, who had formed a “fifth column fascist in Belgium.

In 1954, this senior Nazi official already sat in the F.D.P. of the Land of Nordrhein-Westfalen, and in 1957 entered the Bundestag.
Another notorious example: The captain of the Abwehr 2, Theodor Oberländer, a former Nazi Gauleiter who first reappeared on the political scene as a member of the F.D.P. to then become president of the Federal Association of Refugees and Despoiled (BHE) and finally land, in 1956, in the CDU of Adenauer.
Same presence at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with Vice-Admiral Léopold Bürkner, former head of the foreign service under Canaris, who in 1949 became adviser to the ministers of foreign affairs, or even Otto Wagner, alias Doctor Delius, colonel at the Abwehr and head of the K.O. of Bulgaria who, with his friend Commander Alexander Cellarius, former head of the K.O. of Finland Estonia, will become Permanent Advisors to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for South-Eastern and North-Eastern European issues.

And all of this is understandable, if we remember that these ties were not new, since these men of the Abwehr found unconditional support from the highest German representatives of international high finance, such as Hermann Abs , who became chairman and managing director of Deutsche Bank after the war and adviser to successive chancellors of the West German republic, but who occupied in 1942 as chairman of the board of directors of the state bank and representative of the IG Farben, around 40 management positions in industrial companies both in Germany and abroad. That in this capacity, and in full collaboration with the Herman Goering Werke, he exercised a direct influence on La Minière du Sud-Est (under Goering’s control) and Continental Oil (under the control of J.D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil by the Ohio Oil Company) in the Netherlands, in Luxembourg, in Austria, in Czechoslovakia, in Poland, in the Balkan states and within the “Russia” committee as far as the occupied territories of the Caucasus, putting the commercial and industrial information obtained by its spy services in the service of the Abwehr.

We can therefore affirm, without fear of being contradicted, that these trusts under American control, and the German secret services worked throughout the war, hand in hand, in order to organize the looting of Europe.

Here is what Dr. Ilgner, former director of the “NW 7 office” (subversion department) of IG Farben, and vice-president of the Central European Economic Committee, confessed to his contacts with the Canaris before the commission of inquiry of the American military tribunal in Nuremberg: “The Abwehr, like the service of the war economy, wanted to obtain economic information on foreign countries and was very interested in research from the department of political economy… It is true that the information of IG Farben was so complete that there was not the slightest change to be made in its methods of investigation. The political economy department of the IG was then the best and most comprehensive in Germany…”

And what better source of intelligence to identify all the goods still lootable in Europe, then to organize the control of the greatest industrial power of the continent?

Thus we understand better why in 2019, Germany suddenly seemed to discover that more than half of the politicians and senior civil servants in office in the post-war years were former active Nazis…” [1]

So while waiting for our experts to oppose other archives and testimonies to those put forward by Mr. Mader, let our witness conclude: “But the fact that in the end my book saw the light of day clearly shows that the arm of German imperialism is no longer long enough to mutilate historical truth, to prevent the revelation of facts which contribute to its knowledge.
It is in this spirit of respect for historical truth that I thank the personalities and the management of the services of the German Democratic Republic and of other countries who have provided me with effective assistance by communicating their archives to me.
I would particularly like to thank the working “team” of former intelligence officers who organized numerous contacts for me in the two Germanys and contributed, through the mass of their information, to the raw material of this work. »
End of quote (Mader German generals depose – Introduction)

Everyone knows that the list of former Nazis totally subservient to the “Liberators” and their international interests who have reached the highest positions of responsibility in the post-war German state is impressive. The only crime of M. Julius Mader was therefore to quote them, when they should have been “forgotten”.

Just as it was necessary to remove from the fairy tale the “Octagon” system set up by Allen Dulles, still at the head of the American Secret Service, using the gold stolen from the Peoples of Europe by the SS.

A network which, drawing on this “war chest” sheltered in Swiss coffers, mounted a new arms traffic to rearm Germany and gave all the financial means to the CDU to elect its candidate Konrad Adenauer in the Chancellery to lead the Cold War.

And we understand better why Adenauer replaced in command positions men such as Reinhard Gehlen, personal liaison officer in May 1940 between Field Marshal von Brauchitsch and Guderian’s army group, so a man who could only be informed of the French betrayal, to make him the head of the West German secret service and thus put hundreds of other senior Nazi officials at the service of the CIA.

Just back from the elevator…

Fortunately these historians defied the unwritten laws and, thanks to their precise and stubborn work, we were able to draw all the threads linking together the various pillars of the lie of States.

This gives us the right, today, to qualify the authors whom I have denounced in this book as “experts” in disinformation, as “deniers”.

Just like those who try to rehabilitate Hitler, or to deny Nazi crimes, their writings are, as we have seen, tainted by the same bad faith, and proceed from the same intellectual perversity.

They therefore serve a determined cause, and must be judged for what they are: counterfeiters. Then fought in public places, in order to:

“our Fatherland really become a great power again, the high moral and intellectual force necessary for humanity, which it was and must remain”. 

General Gamelin – Serve Volume 1 page XV

[1] Note to the attention of curious readers, the publication in 2005 of a work of more than 700 pages, written by Mr. Ernst Klee entitled: Das Personen lexikon zum drittent Reich. Wer war was vor und nach 1945? proposing the list of thousands of Nazis who obtained post-war high positions in multinationals, or within the German government.

[2] This shell company was created in Switzerland by the arms dealer Rudolf de Ruscheweyh who had made himself known as an intermediary between the Swiss machine tool factory Oerlikon-Bührle, entirely bought between 1927 and 1929 by Herr Emil Jorg Bührle one of the officers already involved in the secret rearmament of Germany in Russia and who, since then, mainly produced anti-aircraft guns sold to both the Allies and the Axis forces. It was under this cover that Ruscheweyh was able to organize the flight of Nazi capital to tax havens and the offshore accounts of Big Black Capital.

After the war, this economically “out of control” system of “democracies” was therefore able to freely reestablish links with “American friends” through the intermediary of Allen Dulles, head of the OSS in Switzerland (ancestor of the CIA), who immediately recruited the former Nazis he needed, in particular the SS who had the upper hand on this treasure and the members of the Secret Services who had been in charge of locating the goods to be looted.

The company Octogon Trust, officially specialized in wealth management and import-export, was then responsible for organizing the flight of war criminals, especially to South America, where they will once again serve Big Black Capital, fomenting on demand the “spontaneous revolutions” or “counter-revolutions” necessary for the overthrow of governments that are too republican…. This system will be described in all its details in the volumes to be published. And for the impatient in: The Testament of Sidney Warburg.


[1] Signalons à l’attention des lecteurs curieux, la parution en 2005 d’un ouvrage de plus de 700 pages, rédigé par M. Ernst Klee intitulé : Das Personen lexikon zum drittent Reich. Wer war was vor und nach 1945 ? proposant la liste des milliers de nazis ayant obtenu après-guerre de hautes fonctions dans des multinationales, ou au sein du gouvernement allemand.

[1] [1] Cette société écran fut crée en Suisse par le marchand d’armes Rudolf de Ruscheweyh qui s’était fait connaître en tant qu’intermédiaire obligé entre l’usine suisse de machines-outils Oerlikon-Bührle, entièrement rachetée entre 1927 et 1929 par Herr Emil Jorg Bührle un des officiers déjà impliqué dans le réarmement secret de l’Allemagne en Russie et qui, depuis, produisait essentiellement des canons antiaériens vendus aussi bien aux alliés qu’aux forces de l’Axe. C’est sous cette couverture que Ruscheweyh put organiser la fuite des capitaux nazis vers les paradis fiscaux et les comptes ofshore du Grand capital noir.

Après la guerre, ce système économiquement « hors contrôle » des « démocraties » put donc librement rétablir les liens avec les « amis américains » par l’intermédiaire d’Allen Dulles, patron de l’OSS en Suisse (ancêtre de la CIA), qui recruta immédiatement les anciens nazis dont il avait besoin, en particuliers les SS ayant eu la haute main sur ce trésor et les membres des Services Secrets qui avaient été en charge de localiser les biens à piller.

La société Octogon Trust, officiellement spécialisée dans la gérance de fortune et l’import-export, fut alors chargée d’organiser la fuite des criminels de guerre, spécialement en Amérique du sud, où ils serviront à nouveau le Grand Capital noir, en fomentant à la demande les « révolutions spontanées » ou « contre-révolutions » nécessaires au renversement des gouvernements trop républicains…. Ce système sera décrit dans tous ses détails dans les tomes à paraître. Et pour les impatients dans : Le Testament de Sidney Warburg

Rudolf Roessler? Never heard of him…

Rudolf Roessler? Never heard of him…

1 – LIGHTS ON SECRET SERVICES

One of the first explanations presented by world historiography to accredit the “surprise effect” of the Blitzkrieg was, as we have seen, the alleged inefficiency of the French secret services which would have left the high command in the dark, both of the capabilities of the German army than the successive plans adopted by Hitler.

A preposterous thesis that should now be analyzed carefully, in order to leave no doubt on this decisive point.

Knowing that the most well-known and effective German informants were very high-ranking officers, belonging either to the OKH (Army Headquarters) or to the OKW (Army Headquarters), who were going to betray the Nazi Reich out of patriotic conviction.

It is therefore appropriate to cite the most striking example of their effectiveness:

The Viking network (Lucy for the Anglo-Saxons) led by a certain …

Rudolf Roessler

During the First World War, this German officer became friends with other Democratic officers.

A few years later, in 1933, disgusted by Hitler’s rise to power and on the advice of his friend Xavier Schnieper – son of a Lucerne State Councilor and Swiss SR officers – he emigrated to found Lucerne a small publishing house, the Vita Nova Verlag, which will serve him to publish perfectly documented articles analyzing from 1933 the policy of the Reich and denouncing Hitler’s projects. All information obtained from his friends, who remained in the army and reached important positions of responsibility.
The coded letters that he receives as well as the frequent visits of his contacts allow him to obtain political and economic information that he publishes in his newspaper under the pseudonym of “Hermes”.

A few months before the declaration of war in September 1939, Roessler, contacted by Colonel Masson, head of the Swiss intelligence services, agreed to stop publishing this information in his newspaper, to communicate it directly to the Swiss services.

At this time the network is structured around a few men:

1° Xavier Schnieper, who recommended Roessler to Colonel Masson, and will become his dealing officer.
2° Colonel Masson, head of the Swiss SRs, himself pro-allied, unlike the head of the army, general Henri Guisan, pro-German. This opposition will force Masson to take risks.

3° Captain Hausamann who, before the war, set up a press service disguising an intelligence network bearing the code name “Bureau HA”.

Hausamann sent Masson daily, through Captain Max Weibel, head of section 9 of the Swiss SRs, the information he obtained daily from Roessler.

He provided the same information to Colonel Barbey, General Guisan’s chief of staff, as well as to the French, British, Belgian, Dutch and Norwegian SRs through Captain Sedlacek (code name: Uncle Tom), a former Czech SR, emigrated to London.
The information therefore reaches ALL the Allies, as well as all threatened neutral countries, as we will see again throughout this investigation.

The coded letters easily passed censorship and, in an emergency, telephone conversations made it possible to transmit Hitler’s latest decisions.

The “Viking Network” which, for the Allies will become the “Lucy Network”, will thus operate throughout the duration of the conflict.

The only condition imposed by Roessler: Never reveal the names of his comrades.

Moreover, even today, no one can claim to know with certainty the names of these German heroes. According to the CIA, in addition to Gersdorf and Thiele, “there is a connection to Generals Wirth, Mueller, Lemmer, Gisevius, Horkheimer, probably Thormann, and possibly Joachim Oster.”

In reality, no one, apart from Roessler, has ever known who precisely these men were sufficiently high up (among “the five”) to be able to know the most intimate decisions of the Führer, almost in real time.

Gaston Pourchot, key witness

The historian and journalist Pierre Accoce crowned by numerous prizes for his works, and at that time investigative journalist at the Express, unveiled the first in 1965 in his bestseller translated into several languages: The War has been won in Switzerland, the existence of what was the most mysterious network of the Second World War.
As he personally confirmed to me in 2012 during a long filmed interview, in 1963 he met the survivors of the Viking network and interviewed, during his investigation of more than a year, many members of the Swiss secret services who worked with Roessler, who died in 1958.

Among them, Schnieper, of course, and the widow of Rudolf Roessler, but especially Colonel Masson, with whom he will have several interviews first in Lausanne, then at his home in Vevey.

He will testify to his relations with Major Gaston Pourchot, Deputy Military Attaché at the French Embassy.

Testimony which can be summed up in a few lines: “The base of the French intelligence services in Switzerland was located on the first floor of the French consulate, rue Sulgenheim in Bern. Commander Pourchot was assisted by Commander Trichet, Captain Mathiot, Lieutenants Duroux, Talichet, Nappey.

This “Pourchot network” had branches in Basel, Zurich, Lausanne, Geneva. About fifty agents in 1940, then 250 specialists from 1942, when the network became the annex of the clandestine national network “Kleber”.

Concerning the engagement of this capital witness that was Commander Pourchot, let us specify that he organized the escape of General Henri Giraud in December 1940, with Colonel Masson and the Alsatian resistance networks, that in 1944 he will be decorated by the General Bethouard for his clandestine action, then received the Legion of Merit in 1946, and some high US decorations with congratulations from President Truman for having transmitted vital information to the Allies until 1945. (He had been contacted in 1942 by Allen Dulles, OSS agent commanded by US General Donovan, and ancestor of the future CIA)

Pourchot and Roessler met regularly: “The ties between Masson and Pourchot dated back to September 1, 1939. They saw each other often, notably at the Odéon café, near Bern City Hall. »

It was to Pourchot that Colonel Masson entrusted the famous message announcing the German attack ten days in advance.

Colonel Masson also confirmed to Mr. Accoce that Pourchot had, upon receipt, himself taken this telegram to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and to the General Headquarters of the army at Vincennes. That the Belgian General Maurice Delvoie, Belgian military attaché in Paris had, at the same time, alerted the French military authorities of this imminent risk.

The facts and the men have therefore been known to everyone since 1940 and proof of the existence of the message informing of the imminent German attack abounds in the books published by intelligence officers, or in specialized journals, such as the Bulletin de la Jura Society of Officers (Swiss), 34th section National Federation of S/Officers. Title of the article: “The German attack in May 1940”. From the pen of Captain Dunand, 2nd Bureau, deputy and contact of the French military attaché in Switzerland: “As of April 30, we received from Bern from a perfectly authorized and first-hand source (Roessler) the following information: L Germany will attack between 8 and 10 May. Stop. Main axis effort, Sedan. Stop. Planned occupation of Holland and Belgium, northern France in 10 days. Stop. Total occupation of France in one month. Stop. End “

Other testimonies confirm: “Alerts emanating from Berlin for Belgium and Holland, from Bern, on behalf of Belgium and France. Source in Switzerland? The service of Roger Masson, Swiss SR, via Commander Gaston Pourchot, French military attaché. »
End of quote (Captain Dimitry Queloz The Swiss Intelligence Service)

Apparently, in view of all these corroborating testimonies, Roessler and his Viking network, as well as the information he passed on, should figure prominently in the story of this battle.
But, surprisingly, it is not.

Better ! Some historiographers and journalists from all walks of life and from all countries still try to ignore, or even dispute, the existence of these warnings…

Historians just as “deaf” as the generals of the fairy tale

In order to leave no doubt about this desire for disinformation, I take the liberty of quoting here Mr. Jean Vanwelkenhuyzen[1], a well-known Belgian expert who, on page 55 of his 1940 book Spotlight on a disaster published in 1996, more than 30 years after that of Pierre Accoce, but still abundantly quoted by all negationist authors, writes: “After the events, as if to restore the image of intelligence, there was much talk of a mysterious warning, issued on 30 April or May 1, by the French military attaché in Bern and prophesying, with variants according to the versions, the offensive for May 8 or 10, with Sedan as the point of application of the main effort. Holland, Belgium and the French North being occupied in 10 days, France in a month. The proof of this message has never been provided and it is all the more regrettable that it would offer a rare example of premonitions since, on April 30 or May 1, Hitler did not know himself that he would open fire on May 10. His decision only fell the day before. »

By inventing from scratch this decisive message from Roessler, the leaders of the French Intelligence Services would therefore have wanted to clear themselves of customs by making the politicians take the blame.

And of course, if we consider the brilliant university titles Mr. Vanwelkenhuyzen: Doctor of political and diplomatic sciences, graduate in economics and financial sciences, and noting that he is in this capacity: director of the Center for Research and histories of the Second World War, secretary general of the International Committee for the History of the Second World War and Vice-president of the Belgian National Committee for Historical Sciences, one cannot but be very impressed by such an affirmation.


[1] The author in question, to support his demonstration, quotes: General Rivet: Were we informed in May 1941: In National Defense Review July 1950 Page 36. But also: Gauché page 211, Reynaud page 422, Henri Navarre , the intelligence service page 110.     


Except that … Colonel Gauché, whom he quotes, is formal in his testimony (published in 1953): “The SR, for its part, brings the precious indications received from its antennas which, for a long time, have been alerted. We reproduce them here, without disclosing the source, but respecting their laconic form; they will only be more striking:

From the beginning of April: “The German SR expects the Belgian border to be closed at the end of April. »

April 11: “Imminent operations in the west, watch out for military movements in the next few days. »

20 April: “German SR personnel abandon their parking places in Belgium”.

May 1: “The German army will attack between May 8 and May 10 along the entire front, including the Maginot Line. The region of Sedan, Belgium, Holland and the French north will be occupied in ten days, France in a month. »

May 2: “Imminent closure of Belgian and Dutch borders”

Night of May 5 to 6: “Next general offensive which will encompass the Netherlands. »

May 6: “The antenna of the German SR of Stuttgart stationed in Luxembourg folds up. Attack ready. The French army, it is said in the circles of the German command, will be unable to stop the armored formations in the open countryside.

May 8 (by way of Italy): “Attack for this very day. »

May 9: “Attack on the 10th, at daybreak. »

This information was preceded by the event. He did not reach the SR until the German attack had just begun. »
End of quote (Left, The second Bureau at work page 211)

In addition to this perfectly explicit testimony, many others, including that of General Navarre at the time, a member of the SRs and head of the Germany department, or of Paul Reynaud, who combined the functions of Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs, confirm that their services had received this message on May 1st.
General Louis Rivet, in his book Carnets d’un chef des Services Secrets 1936-1944, also reports that the 2nd Bureau had been warned by the Swiss SRs of an imminent attack in the Sedan sector, while other witnesses attest that Major Pourchot delivered this information personally to the GHQ of Vincennes, therefore to Generalissimo Gamelin, but also to the N°2 of the Army, General Georges.

So who should you believe? These senior French and Swiss military and political leaders, or a brilliant representative of official history who believes that only the hero of his own book, Colonel Oster of the Abwehr, deserves the attention of the Center for Research and Historical studies of the Second World War, the International Committee for the History of the Second World War, and the Belgian National Committee for Historical Sciences?

To decide between them, let us consider the bases of Mr. Vanwelkenhuyzen’s argument by leaning, as he did, on the German documents according to which, on May 1, Hitler had fixed the date of the offensive at the 5th, then the reported several times:

On May 8, we learn from Jodl: “Alarming news from Holland. Cancellation of permissions, evacuations, roadblocks, other mobilization measures… Führer does not want to wait any longer. Göring asks for at least 10. Führer very agitated, then agrees to postpone until the 10th, which is contrary to his intuition he says. But not one more day”
(quoted by Shirer The Fall of the Third Republic)

Apparently, Hitler was indeed hesitant.
Mr Vanwelkenhuyzen’s arguments therefore seem admissible.

And in any case if we do not think further because, on the one hand, the approximate date was fixed by Hitler as of April 27 and not May 1, as evidenced on this date in his diary by General Jodl, chief of Hitler’s personal staff: “the Führer intends to launch the yellow plan between the first and the 7th of May. »

This allows us to understand how Roessler’s friends have already been able to estimate the probable date as early as April 31.
On the other hand, it had to be decided on the basis of two elements:

1st element: The weather, very unfavorable at the beginning of May.

However, to make the most of Hitler’s best weapon, aviation, it needed good weather over a long period. A thinning, even of a day or two, was not enough.

This is why on the evening of the 9th, when the head of the Luftwaffe weather service finally announces to his Führer that the sky will be cloudless the next day, this good news pushes the latter to offer him a superb gold watch.

But does this gesture mean that, since April 30, this weather specialist had been unable, at least approximately, to predict the period of bad weather which was to extend from May 1 to 9?

A storm in May, especially if it is powerful enough to block aviation, is easily identifiable. We are not talking here of a simple period of bad weather in winter, but of an important and exceptional phenomenon, all the characteristics of which were perfectly known to Marshal Hermann Goering, Commander-in-Chief of the Luftwaffe, who, having the high hand on the meteorological services, had assigned naval launches and submarines, stationed in the Arctic regions to weather surveillance.
However, at the beginning of May, all the specialists were unanimous: There would be a period of exceptional good weather between May 10 and 17: “The reports then specify that the winds will be “weak or moderate with a predominance of currents coming from the north. Their average speed will reach six meters per second. The sky should be partly cloudy. In the valleys morning fog is to be expected, but no precipitation will occur. The average temperature will remain around 14 degrees. In the Ardennes light night frosts are possible, but the days will be bright, with excellent visibility. »

End of quote (Berben and Iselin The Panzers cross the Meuse page 36)

Thus, that this parameter actually played an important role is not debatable. On the other hand, that he was the only one to have delayed the attack is to be ruled out since the end could be foreseen well before the evening of the 9th.

2nd element: The ultimatum that Hitler had planned to send to neutral countries in order to politically justify his attack.

Here are the terms of this document drawn up from May 3: “The German government has known for a long time that the real aim of England and France is the attack in the west against Germany, an attack carefully prepared and the day before it comes true. And which consists of pushing a point towards the territories of the Ruhr, passing through the territories of Belgium and Holland. (-) The government of Germany does not intend, in this struggle for existence imposed on the German people by England and France, to wait until the war is carried on German territory. He has just given the German troops the order to ensure the neutrality of these countries by all the means of military force at Germany’s disposal. »

On this subject, the archives tell us that the Wilhelmstrasse (German Foreign Ministry) will come up against an unforeseen problem because, for his part, the King of the Belgians, perfectly informed by his ambassador in Berlin, Mr. Davignon, will employ all the means from May 8 to prevent the ultimatum from reaching him, notably closing his border to emissaries.

Episode, again, “forgotten” by Mr Vanwelkenhuyzen in his reasoning.

So my questions are:

1° Given these difficulties, was it difficult to foresee that the attack would be delayed?

2° Was Hitler expecting anything other than perfect weather or the delivery of his ultimatum? Like, for example, that the French high command was able to use the Pentecost weekend as a pretext to strip its northern front as appropriate?
In this order of idea, is it possible to imagine that the German democratic generals of the Viking network, by virtue of their position within the OKW, the OKH and the Abwehr, were informed that the permissions had been restored on the French side, and that the emissaries were having difficulty accomplishing their mission?

That they were able to integrate these different elements into their forecasts and therefore had a perfectly clear view of the situation as it stood on April 30?
This allowed them to estimate, given the diplomatic difficulties, the weather, and the Pentecost weekend, that the final date of the attack could not be before May 8 and more certainly the 10, when the weather would be favourable, and where 20% of the French army would actually be far from the front!
Knowing that Roessler’s correspondents were obviously better informed than Oster, – which all historians unanimously confirm – and therefore able to know, well before anyone else, the exact difficulties encountered at all levels, is it not it not logical to estimate that they had no difficulty in crossing all these parameters?
Thesis which would allow us to remove from the equation the possibility that the German and allied SRs would have had, as a common trait, to preferably employ deaf-mute, blind, and slightly deficient specialists in addition…

As for the ultimate reason why Hitler was so impatient, it is given to us on May 7 by the Diary of General Halder:

“The Führer is very excited. He has just been informed of a conversation between the Belgian ambassador to the Vatican and the Belgian foreign minister in Brussels, leading to the conclusion of treason from a German source. »

And all of this confirms that “everyone knew everything, about everyone” and that what the official fairy tale calls a “surprise” is just a big joke.

What we will still have a thousand times the opportunity to verify…

The state thesis fills the dustbins of history

With regard to the value and the exceptional quality of the information communicated to the Swiss SRs, let us recall that in the period going from 1938 to 1941, Roessler and his friends will send twelve thousand single-spaced typed pages, the equivalent of forty normal books!

That is infinitely more than the information provided by Colonel Oster, the main character in Mr Vanwelkenhuyzen’s book.

And we understand that this is irritating for this expert!

Especially since the results obtained by Roessler were decisive on the ground, if not during the campaign in France or Poland for the reasons we have understood, but at least subsequently, on the Eastern Front, as well as General Guderian testifies:
“During the fighting in the kyiv pocket, the commanding general of the Soviet 5th Army was our prisoner on September 26. I had an interesting interview with him, during which I asked him a few questions:
– When did you learn that my tanks were deploying behind your back?
– Answer: “Around September 8”

General Heinz Guderian Erinnerungen eines Soldaten 1951

As for the other “liars” castigated by Mr Vanwelkenhuyzen, they testify in the same way to the effectiveness of the “Viking-Lucy” network: “Lucy held in her hands the threads that went back to the three major commands of the German army… The he effect of his communications on the strategy of the Red Army and on the defeat of the Wehrmacht was considerable. »
Alexander Foote ex-Soviet secret agent – ​​Handbook for Spies 1947

“The Soviets then exploited a fantastic source, located in Switzerland, a man named Rudolph Roessler who had the code name Lucy. By means which have not yet been clarified today, Roessler in Switzerland managed to obtain information from the German high command in Berlin at a fairly uninterrupted rate and often less than twenty-four hours after they had been arrested. day-to-day decisions about the Eastern Front. »
Allen Dulles, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency – The technique of intelligence Paris 1964

Finally, since it seems that Mr. Vanwelkenhuyzen only takes into account, like so many of his colleagues, what can support his own contribution to the Blitzkrieg thesis, I propose to settle the question by recalling that in 1941, during of the Riom trial, President Caous and Attorney General Cassagneau – after having heard the testimonies of the highest officials of the French SRs – were able to draw the following conclusions:

“The mobilization of the German army was followed unit by unit, without any gaps or errors.
– The same was true of the concentration of German units facing Poland, on the one hand, and France, Denmark, Belgium and Holland, on the other.
– The distribution of forces has always been perfectly indicated to the French High Command, during the Polish campaign, during the interval between the Polish and French campaigns.
– The transfer to the West of the large units having taken part in the Polish campaign was entirely monitored by the French S.R., without ever losing sight of a large German unit for more than 24 hours.
– The German position on the eve of May 10, 1940 was known in the smallest details, as well as the possibilities of maneuver that it carried in germ.
– The date and place of the attack of May 10, 1940 were communicated to the French Command with some reservations from the end of March 1940, and, with certainty, from April 1940. (Emphasis mine)
– The constitution of the German land and air forces has been kept up to date without gaps and that as well for their composition as for their equipment and their weapons, and, however paradoxical it may seem, the French S.R. of the German army a rather overestimated description: this is how the number of tanks of the German armored divisions was overestimated by 10 to 15%, due to the fact that the factory outputs were behind the forecasts.
– During the campaign in France most of the German movements were identified from start to finish. In particular each armored division was followed without any error thanks to the interception and the exploitation of all the command messages of the large German units. Thus could be announced and described: the attack on the Meuse, the march towards the Channel, the regroupings for the attacks on the Somme, in Champagne, etc., etc.

The Court even paid tribute to the efficiency and foresight of the secret services…

As for what concerns the indubitable material proof, therefore the original message, we know that the archives of the Quai d’Orsay were burned on May 16, 1940 in the morning. A huge fire in the courtyard of the ministry in which the telegrams, including those emanating from Bern, went up in smoke. A few years later, numerous documents seized by the Wehrmacht from an abandoned train in Charité-sur-Loire were also burned during the fall of Berlin. These famous telegrams and their copies have therefore been destroyed.

But does this authorize the most renowned historians to affirm that they never existed?

Finally, and since the aim here is to put an end to this false controversy, can Mr Vanwelkenhuyzen explain to us why he did not mention in his work, published in 1982, the book by Mrs Amort and Jedlicka: On called it A 54, published by Robert Laffont in 1966 which revealed the existence of another agent, Paul Thümmel, who gave exactly the same information as Roessler and within the same time frame?

Ditto for that of Mrs Paul Berben and Bernard Iselin, two excellent revisionist authors who published in 1969, in their perfectly documented work Les Panzer passers la Meuse, the list of officers having confirmed that this message had reached other Allied staffs . (text already quoted above on April 30)

Same question for the book of General Paul Paillole, at that time responsible for the Germany service.

Testimony published in 1975, therefore seven years before the work of this “expert”: “The imminence of a German offensive appeared to the English. On May 2, a meeting of the heads of departments of the second and fifth French and British Bureaus takes place at the British Embassy. Our information is compared with that of our allies. The connections are further strengthened. The security of British troops operating in France will be provided by our B.C.R.s, to whom British security officers will be added.

Bertrand’s services (thanks to the Enigma machine) reveal the preparation of air attacks on our airfields every day. On May 6, the antenna of the German S. R. of Stuttgart installed in Luxembourg folds. »

End of quote (Paillole Special Services page 188)

“May 2” … Two days after the messages from Roessler from Bern, Commander Munier from Budapest, and Paul Thümmel from Prague. And the confirmation that these messages were also transmitted to the British SRs. That they were studied jointly by the two services.

In addition, we know that the British SRs will be informed by their agent Sator of the date of the attack on May 7.
And we suspect that these must have had other sources, still unknown to historians.

In conclusion, all this confirms that a certain form of Holocaust denial, directed very precisely in order to evade the fact that the Allies knew not only the day and the date of the attack, but also since March 10, 1940 the Manstein plan in all its details, seems always practiced by the highest European and even world university authorities, since the contributions of Roessler, Thümmel, Munier and Sator are systematically evaded or denied by the historiographers, especially the most prestigious.

We are therefore faced with a major attempt at disinformation.

2 – DISORDING VOICES IN THE CHORUS OF THE APOSTLES

As early as May 1940, many members of the French Intelligence Services had been unable to ignore the ongoing betrayal.

They were the ones who founded, upon defeat, the first networks of resistance in occupied France and in the free zone and, even if they never openly denounced it, their writings will often go against the State thesis. .

And we are here in a real dissidence within the army, because the officers loyal to Pétain will return their jacket by joining these networks, only after the German armies are blocked in front of Moscow, then Stalingrad in autumn 1942, and for the slowest after the American landing in North Africa on November 8, 1942. So following the occupation of the free zone and once Germany’s defeat was certain.
This very particular caste of the military corporation, republican and resistant at heart, therefore suffered, not only from what they knew to be a betrayal, but also from the pack effect which made these intelligence specialists post-war capable and effective, the laughing stock of the “experts” and the shame of the Army.

Which brings us to this rebellion of the SRs, much more difficult to manage than when it was a question of silencing Republican officers without exact knowledge of the underside of treason, or a generalissimo at the end of his tether, worn out by polemics.

Because this is where a simple journalist comes into the picture, without much power, but curious about everything…

We see the reappearance of the Roessler constant

Indeed, when Mrs Pierre Accoce and Pierre Quet had their work published on the Roessler network in 1965, it had an international impact. Hollywood wants to make a movie out of it, the authors participate in countless reports, or television shows at prime time.
In short, there is a great risk of seeing the curiosity of some historians aroused by this new light. This is all the more so since the Ministry of Defence, always so anxious to make the evidence disappear, should no doubt have been unaware that for their part Messrs. Amort and Jedlicka, at the end of their own investigation, were preparing to release their work On called it A 54, published by Robert Laffont in 1966.
It therefore became imperative to add a few meshes to the net of lies.
This is what Mr. Vanwelkenhuyzen and a few others, whom we know well today because they are just as devoted as he is to maintaining the family secret, did.

Having said this, it is not useless to understand how Mr. Accoce was able to find the traces of Rudolf Roessler, by interesting us in one of the most discreet heroes of this battle in the shadows:

Captain Henri Trautmann.

The SRs, silent servants? Not that much…

Born in 1901 in Woerth in Alsace, appointed in 1948 to the Directorate of Military and Economic Policy Research at the External Documentation and Counterintelligence Service (S.D.E.C).
He directed the Service Action there in the 1960s, under the direction of General Paul Jacquier, companion of the Liberation, one of the first airmen to have joined the Royal Air Force to continue the fight in June 1940, then the Free French Forces.

To understand the exact circumstances of the entry into play of this other piece of the chessboard, let’s go back to 1963, the date of his meeting with Pierre Accoce, when he was close to retirement and kept in service as an agent of liaison of the S.D.E.C between the action service and the services of the Prime Minister at Matignon.

At that time, he still maintained relations of trust and deep friendship with a “former” SR, predecessor of Paul Jacquier at the head of the SDEC, General Paul Joseph Roger Grossin.
This other irreducible Republican born in 1901 in Oran, had been assigned from September 1939 to May 1940, to the staff of the Fifth Army, that of General Bourret, one of the most active Republican officers in the army, that who, tirelessly, will denounce the efforts of La Cagoule to infiltrate her and whom we have already met several times during our investigation.
During this period, his Chief of Staff was General de Lattre de Tassigny and, we remember, the tank commander Colonel de Gaulle!
It is therefore understandable to what extent these “bad associations” would quickly have an unfortunate influence on him since, taken prisoner at the end of June 1940 in the Vosges, he was not long in escaping and joined France where he joined a group of resistance fighters. affiliated with the Combat group. This will cause him to be removed from the executives by the Vichy government in December 1941. It is within this network that he prepares the Allied landings in Algeria.

Then he joined the Free French Forces of General De Gaulle, alongside his friend de Lattre and it was together that they prepared the landing in Provence and went back to Paris.
After a long period at the General Staff of the Armed Forces, he was appointed in 1957 boss of the S.D.E.C. A function that he will hand over to his companion and friend in resistance, General Paul Jacquet, the one who so obligingly guided Mr. Accoce, through Commander Trautmann, behind the dark scenes of the battle…

A difficult and tortuous maneuver that allowed us to understand how President de Gaulle, then in power, but in this time of the Cold War very concerned with restoring France’s independence from the United States and the Soviet Union, had decided to take revenge on his anti-Republican enemies.

Because nothing was done without his agreement…

Thus, the loop is complete, and we understand better by what other magic trick, the little journalist of the Express was able to find the “forgotten” track of Rudolf Roessler’s Viking network.

Global Omerta

Global Omerta

We remember having heard General Jauneaud denounce the presence at his trial of two English officers, considering that it was: “not fortuitous within the confines of a tribunal assembled to condemn to silence the one who was the youngest general of the French army, the one who knew too much…”

It is therefore probably not useless to investigate further the way in which the English participated in the family secret, because we know well that their silence for eighty years is as eloquent as that of the French governments…

This is why I propose – in case some still doubt the collusion of ALL the governments concerned – a masterpiece of its kind in the great register of lies:

The minutes of the Supreme Inter-Allied Council of April 9, 1940.

Meeting during which the French and British representatives (Chamberlain-Churchill, and Reynaud-Daladier) will feign surprise at the time of the German attack against Denmark and Norway, when we know that the leaders of all these countries were informed of Hitler’s intentions by the German resistance networks, this from the first days of March[1].

To describe this meeting to us, we will follow Mr. François Bédarida, who devoted an excellent work perfectly documented on the question, but whose comments leave pensive…

“The Supreme Council of April 9, 1940 constitutes a special case in the series of Supreme Councils. Decided on the spur of the moment following the invasion, learned in the early morning, of Norway and Denmark, it stands without any preparation, without even a real agenda.

It was in the morning, during the French War Committee meeting urgently at the Elisée at ten o’clock, that the idea of ​​immediate consultation with British civilian and military leaders was adopted.

Chamberlain having also given his agreement, the French leaders (except Gamelin who remains in Paris to prepare a possible entry into Belgium) take the plane for London at noon and the Supreme Council sits in Downing Street in the middle of the afternoon. . »

Today is April 9. The official version, offered here by an expert, claims that General Gamelin, whose role as General-in-Chief of the Allied Armies is BEFORE ANYTHING to participate in his meetings, simply decided to stay in Paris to prepare a “possible entry into Belgium”…

In reality, we know that the Dyle Breda plan has been defined since November, and that if its designer is really busy to the point of not being able to attend this meeting, it is because on this date he is in the process of modifying it totally to add the “trap on the Meuse”.

A trap of which all his allies are warned, at least at the highest level!

Another notable implausibility: If this attack had really been such a “surprise”, wouldn’t his presence have been more than ever essential to agree on the follow-up to be given?

Once again, all this does not add up.

Let’s see what happens next: “Meeting organized in haste (the only possible comparison would be with the Supreme Council of April 27, also set up in disaster) the meeting took place in an atmosphere, if not of panic, at least of haste, of anxiety and uncertainty. (-) At all times telegrams arrive. Some of them are passed on feverishly to heads of government and sitting ministers. Following the debate, one is struck by the look of strategy in the chamber – not to say Café du Commerce – that the discussion takes on several times. The report is therefore undoubtedly the least rich of the series of minutes of the Supreme Council, although it appears instructive by the atmosphere it reveals and several questions of primary importance were raised during the course of trade. »

It is interesting to note that the author, even if he is far from suspecting the slightest desire to fool archivists and historians, notes an unusual atmosphere among the participants. As if these gentlemen were detached from reality. A feeling that one finds when reading the minutes of the same meeting from the pen of four different witnesses: Villelume, Churchill, Reynaud, and Ironside…

Let us now see how Mr. Bédarida will convey the notion of “surprise”: “It is that the Allies, despite several reports from their Intelligence services, were completely taken aback. Nobody seems to have expected the blow, nor to have foreseen it. »
Always this magnificent apparent naivety on the part of the historian: “despite several reports from the SRs”…

Besides, how could these contributions interest the reader, who is only supposed to be interested in the analyzes of the expert!
“As General Spears humorously writes: ‘We could not have been more amazed if, while watching a gangster movie, we had suddenly seen real gangsters come out of the screen. »

I recall that six days earlier, on April 3, Colonel Oster informed that the embarkation of the troops had begun at the port of Stetin, and that the attack would begin on the 9th!
So let’s grant General Spears, head of Her Majesty’s Intelligence Services, that, in the register of tasty digressions, he had nothing to envy to other “witnesses” such as Beaufre, Paillole, Ruby or Minart.

Let us now see if the French will be as gifted: “Paul Baudoin, who recognizes in his memories that “On the night of April 8 to 9, the German reaction burst like a clap of thunder” recounted how, meeting very early in the Office of the President of the Council, Reynaud and his collaborators, after having feverishly awaited the arrival of the atlases, began to search laboriously on the maps for the location of the Norwegian towns mentioned in the telegrams, while sour exchanges opposed Reynaud to Gamelin. »

So here are the highest civil and military officials, who for months have been preparing an attack in Norway to cut off the Reich’s iron supply, suddenly wondering where the country’s main ports are!!!
Apparently Mr. Baudoin – of whom everyone can already guess the decisive role he played in the dismissal of Gamelin and the overthrow of the Third Republic – would also compete for the First Prize, for the best gag to serve in History.

As for the general staff of the British army, it also had a field day:

“In his Memoirs, General Ismay confesses that he, who was at the center of the entire British military information and decision-making apparatus, found himself awakened at dawn on April 9 by a call from the duty officer to the War Cabinet who announced to him, stammering in astonishment, the news of the German attack: “While I was dressing at top speed,” he comments, “I understood for the first time in my life the devastating effect and demoralizing surprise”.

Either a first draft of the version of the sleeping castle of May 10 and the indisputable material proof of the Franco-English understanding as to the family secret since Ismay, at the head of the British SRs, claims to have never heard of the results obtained by the allied SRs for a few years… We understand how “devastated” it could have been. Which brings us back once again to the constant concern, that both French and English would have had, that above all no harm happens to the Germans.
“However, it is precisely on the advantage of surprise that the Germans counted above all by mounting an expedition as unbelievable as Operation Weserübung. A month earlier, to the day, (Admiral) Raeder, in his report to Hitler, had expressed himself in these terms: “The operation in itself is contrary to all the principles of naval warfare. According to these principles, it should only be carried out if we had superiority at sea. But we do not. On the contrary, we must carry out the operation by confronting the British fleet which is very superior to us. »

In fact 99% better! Since we know that on this date, after the great battles at sea of ​​the “phoney war”, the German fleet practically no longer exists.[2]

The last large ships will be sunk or heavily damaged during this battle in Norway!
“Despite this, the Commander-in-Chief of the Navy believes that, provided surprise is complete, our troops can and will be transported successfully to Norway. In many circumstances in military history, it is the very operations that went against all principles that have succeeded, but on one condition: surprise.

And we see here that the inevitable “surprise effect”, a major pillar of the Blitzkrieg theory, also worked at sea!

The allies, however perfectly informed on all the details of this German operation on Norway for weeks, were not there to wait for the Germans. Either a new “incomprehensible blindness” certified by a report of the Supreme Inter-Allied Council!

The report then describes the sequence of events, before concluding:

“Only in Oslo is the unexpected resistance of Oscarborg Fortress somewhat delaying the conquest of the city. »

“Unexpected” resistance from the Norwegians warned in time by Roessler. Which cost the heavy cruiser Blücher to the German fleet, sunk at dawn by the guns of the fort….

New demonstration that when some officers “forget” to be surprised, the bill is no longer the same.

“All in all, on the morning of April 9, the Germans made themselves masters of the principal ports, the airfields and the capital of Norway, as well as the whole of Danish territory: A new and brilliant demonstration of the power of war -flash. »

End of quote (Bédarida The secret strategy of the phoney war pages 363, 364, 365)

Magnificent conclusion of the “expert”: “Blitzkrieg” has also become a maritime concept.

After the revealing one of April 9, let’s come, with the testimony of General Spears, to another Inter-Allied Council during which the absence of French planes on the North-East front was mentioned: “Churchill spoke to me about the change extraordinary attitude of the French at the Supreme Council held in Paris on 22 April. There was no longer talk of outside adventures but, as if the scales had fallen from their eyes, they now revealed a picture, which was all too accurate, (emphasis mine) of Allied weakness compared to their situation during the previous war. “We find ourselves,” said Reynaud, “faced with a growing superiority of the enemy. The current ratio is already three to two and will soon be two to one. As for equipment, Germany had the advantage, both in aviation and artillery and in ammunition supplies. »

However, this “testimony” claiming that President Paul Reynaud had, on the eve of the battle, no idea of ​​the forces present, can only mean two things:

– Either that the real figures would have been hidden from him at the same time by Daladier, Gamelin and all the military and political leaders, including the parliamentarians, since it was debated in the Assembly.

– Either that Reynaud knowingly concealed them, always with the aim of engaging the British to help more actively and quickly in the common defence. Which is the most logical proposition.

However, in both cases, the testimony of General Spears published in 1954 in its English version shows that, like the other British and French generals who participated in the general masquerade, he lied.

Indeed, as we saw in volume N°1, the real German figures were already perfectly known from September 25, 1939 by Lieutenant-Colonel de Villelume, head of President Reynaud’s military cabinet. As for the French figures, we know that they were known to the entire staff.
So how can we imagine that the French and British SRs, who had been working together for months, did not exchange this essential information?

On the other hand, we know from Colonel Masson, head of the Swiss SRs interviewed by Mr. Accoce, that he transmitted all the information obtained from Rudolf Roessler to the Vice-Consul of Great Britain in Geneva, Mr. Victor Farell.
This “error” of the boss of the British intelligence services (MI6) is therefore only one of the countless lies of the state version.

Another demonstration of the virtuosity of the head of the British MI6 in terms of “conflicting”: “What remained incomprehensible to me was the complete paralysis of the French command in the face of events. That they were surprised was normal, but that they did not react with courage and speed was not. »
Indeed, what could be more “normal” than to be “surprised” by an attack of which we know all the details? …

“They seemed to have no plan. No action indicative of a manly reaction seemed to have been taken, or even contemplated, until Weygand’s arrival. All of this passed the understanding, I was told. »

End of quote (Spears Disaster Testimony page 129, 186)

Yes… It is indeed the case to say it. Especially since General Dill was present at the meeting of the 19th at Bondons, and had assured that plan N°4 would be executed without fail by the English!

Other curiosities worth noting in this report of April 22, 1940: “M. Paul Reynaud wishes to draw a picture of the current situation. In the land domain, the Allies find themselves in a position of inferiority from three points of view:

1° From a geographical point of view, the Germans have the advantage of acting on interior lines while the Allies must mount their operations on exterior lines. (-)

2° From the staffing point of view

3° From the point of view of armaments.

As far as manpower is concerned, the Allies currently have only around 100 divisions, compared to 190 German divisions, of which 150 can be engaged on the western front. »

On this point, we know that Paul Reynaud subtly does not count the Belgian and Dutch divisions, on which he is nevertheless certain to be able to count, and does not recall that on May 10, 135 German divisions will face 151 Allied divisions.

“As far as war material is concerned, the current situation is as follows: The Germans have a marked superiority when it comes to aviation and flak. They probably also have a certain superiority for artillery and ammunition stocks. It should not be forgotten that the Reich seized considerable booty in Czechoslovakia and Poland. »
Again, we know these numbers are wrong. And that all the officials present knew it perfectly! [3]

“What are the prospects for the future from this point of view? The Allies are undeniably making great efforts, but it is not possible to assign precise figures or coefficients to these efforts so as to establish a comparison with the German effort. »

New astonishing statement: Paul Reynaud claims not to know how much material the Allies have!

And we are, once again, at the crossroads of enchantments!
“Certainly the Allies have the advantage of being able to make major purchases in the United States. But even taking this last factor into account, it is impossible to say that the Allies could acquire an overwhelming superiority over the adversary. (-)

Remains the weapon of the blockade. (-)

The oil problem is particularly difficult, because Germany has powerful means of action as a supplier, which is Romania. If the Reich attacks the latter country, it seems impossible to prevent it from occupying it entirely.

Undoubtedly certain accidents of the kind which occurred during the last war could happen to the Rumanian wells; but a destruction of these wells would not be sustainable. »

End of quote (Bédarida The secret strategy of the phoney war pages 415, 416, 417, 418)

Here we will see in a future volume that this problem of seizing Romanian oil did not arise before the attack. We are therefore in the field of projection.
In reality, aware of the statements of Senator Jacques Bardoux and the figures provided by General Serrigny Paul Reynaud, like the highest French political leaders, knew perfectly well that Hitler would not have more than two months of ammunition and gasoline to defeat. Estimation that he officially confirmed in his speech to the Senate on May 16, 1940, and corroborated by the most recent studies, such as that of Mr Tooze. [4]

And the conclusion leaves no room for any doubt: 20 days before the German attack, the scales did not “fall out of Paul Reynaud’s eyes”. On the other hand, the fundamental lie of the omnipotence of industry and the German army was in the process of being officially established in the logic of the tale.

Big black capital at the heart of the conspiracy

In reality, we know perfectly well that “everyone knew everything about everyone”, not only about the real capabilities of the armies, or about the plans that were going to be implemented, but also about the intentions of each other.

And the best proof of this perfect knowledge of each other’s intentions, as well as of the major issues, brings us back once again to big black capital and its linchpins through another perfectly explicit example, that of the trip that Mr. Jacques Allier, member of the Management Board of the Banque de Paris et des Pays Bas, in charge of relations with the Norwegian Nitrogen Company (Norsk Hydro) – which the Banque de Paris et des Pays Bas had helped to create in 1905 with the Wallenberg group.
Mandated by Mr. Raoul Dautry, French Minister of Armaments and Republican architect of rearmament under Daladier, he arrived in Oslo in February 1940, a month and a half before the German attack and while the “Manstein” plan was still in progress. study, to ask the director to give him the 200 liters of heavy water that the factory had produced and which could have been used by the Germans to make an atomic bomb.

This heavy water, given free so that it escapes the Nazis will be transferred to the cellars of the Collège de France in Paris in March, then evacuated to London before the defeat.

This is yet another demonstration that the Allies and neutral countries were fully warned, not only by their best agents, but also by the means of “big interests” and European cartels of Hitler’s plan to attack Norway.

And how could it have been otherwise?

All European States, warned by Roessler, are complicit

Thus, is it not clear that all the governments involved in the major issues of this war, both in Europe and in the United States or Russia, have respected the same omerta! Their witnesses lied, in the same proportion as the French and for approximately the same reasons. Their historians knowingly either distorted the truth or avoided the inconvenient questions under the same threats.

And when they had the misfortune to insist, questioning their governments like many British and American researchers quoted in the introduction, they were accused of serving conspiracy theories, or even violently countered by the Secret Services of their own country!

This was the case for Mr. Martin Allen – whom we know well for having denounced the Windsor plot and many other British betrayals on which we will return very largely – when he evoked the innumerable networks under the control of the American government and the Grand black capital, passing through neutral countries, in order to exploit and then secure in tax havens the spoils of Nazi plunder in Europe.
When his work came out, he was falsely accused of having added falsified archives to those that existed in order to support his study. Accusation followed by all the military “historians” and other French historical-commercial that we know.
This while we easily recognize in this maneuver the expertise of the Action Services (MI6) of Her Gracious Majesty, specialists in forgery and use.

Services which I defy to raise my accusation, by proving the contrary, for that would require them to demonstrate that His Majesty’s Government would have had no interest in destroying the reputation of a respected historian. So that there was never French military treason, and that Big Black Capital, as well as the British European Party, had nothing to do with this war!

And we understand better why I took the precaution of never, or almost never, consulting the archives, and of basing myself only on writings known to all. Works written by the best academics going completely in the direction of Mr. Allen and that the secret services of his Majesty will have great difficulty in all discrediting.

If they ever have the honesty to open them…

We also understand that, because it is very risky to question the “theory” of the conspiracy, on the other side of the Channel the colleagues of Mr Allen took the part of expressing themselves with the most extreme precautions, such as Mr. Julian Jackson, who, in a collective work, “dared” to affirm under the title:

Strange French defeat, or strange English victory?

“Many facts are there to remind us that tendencies towards collaboration with the Nazis existed at least as much in Great Britain as in France. To imagine Lloyd Georges or the Duke of Windsor in the role of Pétain is far from absurd. (-) Famous military specialist Basil Liddle Hart believed in March 1940 that Britain should negotiate as quickly as possible the best terms (of dealing with Germany) since there is no way to ‘avoid defeat’. Liddle Hart resisted until the end of the war, fearing that a German defeat would lead to Soviet domination of the European continent. He sees in Hitler a reasonable statesman. (-)

Whatever the ulterior motives of one or the other in this debate, one thing is clear: The idea of ​​seeking the terms of peace was on the agenda of the British government at the end of May 1940.

End of quote (May – June 1940 French defeat, German victory, under the eye of foreign historians pages 177, 198, 204)

“since there is no way to avoid defeat”.

Be the common message sent by all the members of the international conspiracy to the Peoples amazed at so much nerve!

And we are no longer surprised that the Blitzkrieg theory was invented by this military historian, and that it brought him so many medals from governments, and so much media coverage. So such a fine fortune. Such a great talent deserves recognition!
Insolence bringing us back to the documents discovered by Mr. Delpla evoking the contacts made by Lord Halifax with the Italians in an attempt to short-circuit Churchill, [5] and therefore requiring no further comment for the moment.

In Germany the same law of silence

Another victim of this deliberate desire to cover up betrayal:

  1. Julius Mader, German historian – whom we remember having already met in the 4th volume – author of a book on the generals who revealed the underside of the cards on the Nazi side, in particular with the written testimony of General Piekenbrock who attested that he did not there was no German 5th Column able to organize all the betrayals observed on the ground during the Battle of France such as: Displacement of civilian populations, bridges not jumped, orders for withdrawals in series, assassinations of officers and other “tanks ghosts”…
    Here is what he reports of the pressures he had to undergo for having published this document denouncing, among other things, the relations between the Reich and the cartels of Big Black Capital, AGFA, IG Farben, and other mass murderers who, having established their factories in the heart of the concentration camps, used the deportees to further increase their pharaminous profits without worrying about the thousands of victims they caused: “The content of this book being explosive, the command of the secret services of the federal republic and that of the Bundeswehr were to use all the means at their disposal to prevent, or at least thwart, its publication. These networks, which continue the criminal tradition of Hitler’s generals, fear the truth as the devil fears holy water. Thus, for example, the Wehrkunde – a newspaper dealing with military problems, the official organ of the militarist society for the information of the Armies, gave this solemn warning in its columns as early as December 1966: “Very recently, Mader addressed to former officers of the Abwehr letters “from a good German” asking them to send him information, activity reports etc., intended for a documentation that he would be in the process of constituting . In fact, it is a sneak attack directed against the former Abwehr and the Federal German Information Service (one of the first secret service offices in West Germany whose power stands immediately behind that of the Chancellery itself) as well as against the book, recently published by Gert Buchheit, entitled: The German Secret Service – History of Military Defence…

Therefore, it is expressly recommended not to provide any information or documentation to addresses located in the Soviet zone (i.e. in the German Democratic Republic).

Four months later, publications issued under the aegis of the Federal Service for the Protection of the Constitution repeated this kind of warning with even more precision. It was written there:

“If you receive a letter from a certain Julius Mader, do not answer and forward it to the competent Security Services… The current work which Mader is currently working on is to be published under the following title: Hitler’s Spy Generals Depose…
From these reactions, which also underline the necessity and topicality of my work, we can objectively deduce several points:

– First, Hitler’s spy generals benefit from complicities even within West German political circles, but these accomplices are no longer unknown to us.
– Secondly, each of the former officers of the Secret Service of Hitler’s Army had the opportunity to demonstrate their break with their past and to contribute to History by telling the only Truth.

– Third, it has become clear that capitalist circles and high officials of the federal administration have an interest in keeping the past activity of a large number of Nazi war criminals in the shadows by thwarting any investigation of them. »

So of course, I can already hear the “accredited experts” affirming that this work by Mr. Mader was undoubtedly a propaganda tool for the benefit of East Germany, and that it must be placed in the context of the Cold War, before judging its validity.

If so, please answer this…

The German “submarine” is still not sunk

Indeed, concerning the privileged relations between the Nazi Reich and the “democracies” in the Anglo-Saxon style, it is not in vain to come back to yet another “forgotten detail”: The importance that the intelligence services of the Wehrmacht (Abwehr) during the Hitler period, then after the war.

Importance largely minimized since, by highlighting the action of some Democratic officers who fought with all their might against Nazism, such as Admiral Canaris, Oster, or Lahoussen, but about whom we must not forget that they were, for the only part that could be demonstrated, responsible in 12 European countries, without counting the USSR, for the execution or the deportation of 1 million 277 754 resistance fighters and anti-fascist sympathizers.
It was these Abwehr leaders, renamed anti-Communists for the purposes of the fairy tale, who were carefully protected after the war by the American government, then re-infiltrated to the highest level of responsibility in Germany from the West, such:

Joseph Müller, who became one of the Bavarian leaders of the Christian Democratic Party, or Hermann Götz, member of the executive committee of the CDU branch in Hesse, chairman of the committee for refugees, and of the working committee on “internal and external security questions” , director of the federal work community for assistance to soldiers, member of the Ackermanngemeinde within the Society of Sudeten compatriots, Member of Parliament in Bonn from 1949 and, from 1968, Chairman of the Work Commission of social policy of the CDU / CSU group in the Bundestag.
Among the early members of the FDP we also find Doctor Victor Hoven who was once captain and battalion commander in the Brandenburg division of the Abwehr, the section in charge of the liquidation of opponents, who had formed a “fifth column fascist in Belgium.

In 1954, this senior Nazi official already sat in the F.D.P. of the Land of Nordrhein-Westfalen, and in 1957 entered the Bundestag.
Another notorious example: The captain of the Abwehr 2, Theodor Oberländer, a former Nazi Gauleiter who first reappeared on the political scene as a member of the F.D.P. to then become president of the Federal Association of Refugees and Despoiled (BHE) and finally land, in 1956, in the CDU of Adenauer.
Same presence at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs with Vice-Admiral Léopold Bürkner, former head of the foreign service under Canaris, who in 1949 became adviser to the ministers of foreign affairs, or even Otto Wagner, alias Doctor Delius, colonel at the Abwehr and head of the K.O. of Bulgaria who, with his friend Commander Alexander Cellarius, former head of the K.O. of Finland Estonia, will become Permanent Advisors to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for South-Eastern and North-Eastern European issues.

And all of this is understandable, if we remember that these ties were not new, since these men of the Abwehr found unconditional support from the highest German representatives of international high finance, such as Hermann Abs , who became chairman and managing director of Deutsche Bank after the war and adviser to successive chancellors of the West German republic, but who occupied in 1942 as chairman of the board of directors of the state bank and representative of the IG Farben, around 40 management positions in industrial companies both in Germany and abroad. That in this capacity, and in full collaboration with the Herman Goering Werke, he exercised a direct influence on La Minière du Sud-Est (under Goering’s control) and Continental Oil (under the control of J.D. Rockefeller’s Standard Oil by the Ohio Oil Company) in the Netherlands, in Luxembourg, in Austria, in Czechoslovakia, in Poland, in the Balkan states and within the “Russia” committee as far as the occupied territories of the Caucasus, putting the commercial and industrial information obtained by its spy services in the service of the Abwehr.

We can therefore affirm, without fear of being contradicted, that these trusts under American control, and the German secret services worked throughout the war, hand in hand, in order to organize the looting of Europe.

Here is what Dr. Ilgner, former director of the “NW 7 office” (subversion department) of IG Farben, and vice-president of the Central European Economic Committee, confessed to his contacts with the Canaris before the commission of inquiry of the American military tribunal in Nuremberg: “The Abwehr, like the service of the war economy, wanted to obtain economic information on foreign countries and was very interested in research from the department of political economy… It is true that the information of IG Farben was so complete that there was not the slightest change to be made in its methods of investigation. The political economy department of the IG was then the best and most comprehensive in Germany…”

And what better source of intelligence to identify all the goods still lootable in Europe, then to organize the control of the greatest industrial power of the continent?

Thus we understand better why in 2019, Germany suddenly seemed to discover that more than half of the politicians and senior civil servants in office in the post-war years were former active Nazis…”[6]

So while waiting for our experts to oppose other archives and testimonies to those put forward by Mr. Mader, let our witness conclude: “But the fact that in the end my book saw the light of day clearly shows that the arm of German imperialism is no longer long enough to mutilate historical truth, to prevent the revelation of facts which contribute to its knowledge.

It is in this spirit of respect for historical truth that I thank the personalities and the management of the services of the German Democratic Republic and of other countries who have provided me with effective assistance by communicating their archives to me.
I would particularly like to thank the working “team” of former intelligence officers who organized numerous contacts for me in the two Germanys and contributed, through the mass of their information, to the raw material of this work. »

End of quote (Mader German generals depose – Introduction)

Everyone knows that the list of former Nazis totally subservient to the “Liberators” and their international interests who have reached the highest positions of responsibility in the post-war German state is impressive. The only crime of M. Julius Mader was therefore to quote them, when they should have been “forgotten”.

Just as it was necessary to remove from the fairy tale the “Octagon” system set up by Allen Dulles, still at the head of the American Secret Service, using the gold stolen from the Peoples of Europe by the SS.

A network which, drawing on this “war chest” sheltered in Swiss coffers, mounted a new arms traffic to rearm Germany and gave all the financial means to the CDU to elect its candidate Konrad Adenauer in the Chancellery to lead the Cold War. [7]

And we understand better why Adenauer replaced in command positions men such as Reinhard Gehlen, personal liaison officer in May 1940 between Field Marshal von Brauchitsch and Guderian’s army group, so a man who could only be informed of the French betrayal, to make him the head of the West German secret service and thus put hundreds of other senior Nazi officials at the service of the CIA.

Just back from the elevator…


[1] See Volume N° 1: French military betrayal and Volume N°2: Controversies on some “forgotten” betrayals

[2] See volume 1: French military betrayal

[3] For artillery: 7,378 German guns against 14,000 for the allies. For tanks: 2,439 German tanks against 4,204 Allied tanks. For aviation: 2,589 German planes, against nearly 6,000 Allied planes of equivalent quality.

[4] See Volume N°1: French military betrayal

[5] See also volume N°2: Controversies on some “forgotten” betrayals

[6] Note to the attention of curious readers, the publication in 2005 of a work of more than 700 pages, written by Mr. Ernst Klee entitled: Das Personen lexikon zum drittent Reich. Wer war was vor und nach 1945? proposing the list of thousands of Nazis who obtained post-war high positions in multinationals, or within the German government.

[7] [7] This shell company was created in Switzerland by the arms dealer Rudolf de Ruscheweyh who had made himself known as an intermediary between the Swiss machine tool factory Oerlikon-Bührle, entirely bought between 1927 and 1929 by Herr Emil Jorg Bührle one of the officers already involved in the secret rearmament of Germany in Russia and who, since then, mainly produced anti-aircraft guns sold to both the Allies and the Axis forces. It was under this cover that Ruscheweyh was able to organize the flight of Nazi capital to tax havens and the offshore accounts of Big Black Capital.

After the war, this economically “out of control” system of “democracies” was therefore able to freely reestablish links with “American friends” through the intermediary of Allen Dulles, head of the OSS in Switzerland (ancestor of the CIA), who immediately recruited the former Nazis he needed, in particular the SS who had the upper hand on this treasure and the members of the Secret Services who had been in charge of locating the goods to be looted.

The company Octogon Trust, officially specialized in wealth management and import-export, was then responsible for organizing the flight of war criminals, especially to South America, where they will once again serve Big Black Capital, fomenting on demand the “spontaneous revolutions” or “counter-revolutions” necessary for the overthrow of governments that are too republican…. This system will be described in all its details in the volumes to be published. And for the impatient in: The Testament of Sidney Warburg

The truth about the superiority of the Reich’s military industry

The truth about the superiority of the Reich’s military industry

Following the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles, Germany having lost its colonies and vast territories in Europe, raw materials were sorely lacking.
Of the 30 materials necessary for the manufacture of weapons, the Reich possessed only seven in sufficient quantity, while nickel, zinc, tungsten, molybdenum, chromium, beryllium, platinum and bauxite were completely lacking.

There was also a monthly shortage of 600,000 tons of steel, which in December 1939 led General of the Infantry Karl-Heinrich von Stülpnagel, Chief of the Logistics Section of the Wehrmacht General Staff, to write a memorandum specifying that No attack on the Franco-Belgian fortified front would have the slightest chance of success before the spring of 1942.
Here is what Mr. Tooze writes on this delicate subject: “The production of ammunition for the infantry plummeted. The manufacture of mortar bombs ceased altogether in the spring of 1939. The production of artillery shells continued but without copper guide strips.
And ammunition production was not the only one affected.

The shortage of structural steel was such by the end of 1939 that 300 infantry battalions had no proper barracks or garages. The German army had taken on such dimensions that it could no longer be accommodated except under tents. In July 1939, the cuts even affected the army’s weapons programs.

Original plans for 1939 – 1940 called for the production of 61,000 Model 34 machine guns, the new light machine gun that was to give infantry squadrons their basic firepower. After the reduction of the army’s steel quota, this target was reduced to only 13,000.

Similarly, targets for the 10.5 cm light field howitzer, the centerpiece of the German artillery, were reduced from 840 to 460. Production of the classic 98K infantry carbine was to cease completely from in the fall of 1939.

Perhaps most spectacular in the light of subsequent events was the tank program which planned to produce 1200 main battle tanks between October 1939 and October 1940 and which was then cut in half. A total of 34 of the 105 wartime divisions would be severely under-equipped. Of the replacement units responsible for training new recruits, only 10% had weapons. (-)

The Wehrmacht’s ammunition stocks only covered 14 days of intense fighting. The Luftwaffe was similarly affected.
In contrast to the expansive visions of 1938, 1939 was a year of reversal. (-) The 1939-1940 targets were gradually reduced, as was the range of aircraft included in the plans. (-) From January 1939, Plan 10 reduced the target to 8,299. Developed in July 1939, Plan 12 further reduced it by 20% for all aircraft other than the JU 88. In order to preserve the latter program , Plan 12 envisioned the accelerated phase-out of older designs like the JU 87 Stuka. »

And this catastrophic situation at the beginning of 1939 was to deteriorate further: “Instead of an ‘ideal’ maximum of 375 million cartridges of infantry ammunition per month, the allocation of raw materials, starting in July 1939, would allow production of less than 37 million. Instead of 650,000 3.7 cm anti-tank rounds per month, German industry would produce only 39,000. Instead of 450,000 shells per month for light howitzers, 56,300.

The graph (-) which was presented to Hitler in July 1939 shows that if the production of armament had reached a maximum peak of 80 in March 1939, it had fallen back to 15 in July and that there would be no possibility to increase it in view of the current state of the supply of raw materials and in view of the finances of the State.

Germany therefore produced practically no more weapons from July 1939 and would no longer have the means to produce them for a very long time. She is bankrupt. And Hitler knows it perfectly. (-)
Between September 1939 and January 1940, after a first recovery from the trough reached in the summer of 1939, German ammunition production stagnated. The situation in the Luftwaffe sectors, where the severe cuts of the summer of 1939 soon showed their full effect, was even worse. »

End quote (Tooze The Wages of Destruction Pages 304, 305, 314, 341)    

According to Colonel Goutard: “To this was added in the aeronautical industry a complete ignorance of the most elementary rules of national production, writes Colonel Werner Baumbach[1]. One could have imagined that under a controlled production regime, each company was specialized: Messerschmitt building fighters, Junkers heavy bombers, Heinkel medium bombers, etc. However, each manufacturer made it a point of honor to appear in all the compartments! Messerschmitt built both fighters, “giant” transport planes, reconnaissance aircraft, bombers, gliders etc….

At Junkers, the dispersion was even scarier! The effort was spread over multiple models: 17 types and three variants for 1939! And Goutard concludes: If errors were made in the French production, they were largely compensated by the errors of the German production! »

End of quote (Colonel Goutard The war of lost opportunities page 63)

So the question is: How could this legend of the superiority of the German army have endured for so long?

The official nonsense based on the statements of the generals responsible for the defeat

To find out, let’s turn to the artisans of the fable, those who founded official history by writing the score from which historians had to tune their pens.
I am quoting here General Georges, No. 2 in the French army, in charge of the North-East front in May 1940, but also, as we will see, the main architect of the betrayal.
In his preface to the book of “Memories” of General Roton, his chief of staff, he states: “I have said it and confirm it: Germany had in 1940 a large superiority in armored division and an even more overwhelming superiority in aviation (hunting and above all bombardment). In order to respond to this, it would have been necessary to have the same means available. But we were poor in armored formations, poorer still in aviation. Moreover, the absence of reserve armored equipment, the performance of our manufactures, insufficient from the start and gradually reduced as the invasion progressed, deprived us of essential spare parts due to wear and tear. quickly from our own armored formations. So that, each day, their power was decreasing, while the Germans, well provided with replacement material, could maintain in battle their ten “Panzers”, constantly replenished. »

End of quote (Preface from General Georges to General Roton Crucial Years page XI)

So much for the authorized version, which postulates the weakness of the French armament, with regard to the “Kolossale” German power, going so far as to claim that the German equipment was constantly renewed, whereas the French could not replenish theirs. . Which, according to the records we know of and the most recent studies, is the exact opposite of the truth!!

However, how can we imagine that General Georges, commander-in-chief on the North-East Front, or Roton his chief of staff, did not know perfectly the exact count of their troops and their weapons, just like that of their adversary?

Real figures yet accessible from 1956

To answer General Georges, Colonel Goutard went up to the battlements: “But what do we know about this enemy army? One of the most curious characteristics of the memoirs of our generals and of the reports of official or conformist historians is the ignorance in which they leave us of the real situation, material and moral, of the German army in 1939 and 1940. As it has conquered us, they present it to us as a formidable and irresistible instrument. »

End of quote (Goutard The war of lost opportunities page 12)

Then he gives us in 1956 a state of the French armament, very comparable to that which we finally admitted, confirming to us that the French army had largely caught up:

“The “four-year plan” and its addenda were to make it possible to create two armored divisions and a third light mechanical division, to increase the number of motorized divisions to 10 and the number of independent tank battalions to 54. (-) However, the following quantities left production before the end of May 1940:

Heavy tanks B: 387 For a program of 396.

Medium tanks D: 260 (not included in the 1936 program).

Light tanks (R, H, or FCM): 2791 For 2430 planned.

Canon of 25: 6000 Made according to the direction of the manufactures,
4558 according to Gamelin.
6200 according to program management

Canon de 47: 1280 initial program of 612, increased in 1937 to 2160.

Mortars of 81: 5000 for a program of 4800.

Mortars of 60: 5000 according to General Gamelin.

6200 according to the manufacturing department
For an initial program of 4000, increased in 1939 to 6000.

Caterpillar: 4300 according to General Gamelin.

6000 according to the manufacturing department

For a program of 5000.

End of quote (Goutard, The War of Lost Opportunities pages 48, 49 and 50)

Figures to which may be added 3,500 Citroën-Kégresse half-tracked vehicles, 2,500 wheeled Laffly tractors, 500 Lorraine infantry tankettes. That’s a total of more than 12,500 specialized vehicles.

Thus, as Colonel Alerme, despite being a collaborationist and declared supporter of the Marshal, confirms: “The combatants of 14-18 had ended the war with means that outweighed those of their adversaries. However, in the fall of 1939, our army still possessed these means, perfected, modernized, for a large part, also multiplied. The corps of troops, the arsenals, the magazines and the depots had an armament which amounted to more than four hundred billions. (-) It cannot be claimed that we were poorly armed”.
End of quote (Colonel Alerme The military causes of our defeat)

This rearmament effort had been carried out by the socialist government under the presidency of Édouard Daladier who, with the help of his Minister of Armaments Raoul Dautry, organized and rationalized production by nationalizing certain companies, by building up large stocks of materials strategic raw materials, by modernizing tools and decentralizing production sites outside foreseeable combat zones. This allowed a rapid doubling of production capacity.

As for the comparative quality of these materials

Concerning the tanks, let us take again the demonstrations of Mrs. Frieser and Lormier.

In their respective presentations we note without surprise that the German specialist will find more qualities in the French tanks, in particular in terms of shielding and armament, in order to question the supremacy of the Panzers, while Mr. Lormier will estimate the German armored , faster and more lively in manoeuvre, less fuel-hungry, in order to highlight the courage and quality of the French crews.

These are the normal reflexes of authors. There is nothing surprising or open to criticism in this way of dealing with the subject because, in the end, these historians are honest and perfectly in agreement in recognizing that the Somua and the French B and B1 tanks were superior to the best German tanks, that only the 75mm guns of the Panzer IVs had a chance of penetrating their armour, while the French 47mm gun could pierce all those of the Panzers.

Remember that the Panzer IV, the most powerful German tank, had 30 mm armor, while that of the French B tank was 60 mm and that of the British infantry tank Matilda, was 80 mm.

Which situates the problem, because if the 400 French Somua tanks equipped with a sloped armor of approximately 50 mm in cast iron of high quality and specially profiled to make ricochet the shells were, according to Mr. Lormier “considered as the best armored vehicle of this beginning of world war, (-) perfect compromise between firepower, speed, autonomy and protection. It outperforms its German opponents in many ways,” and while the B1 heavy tanks were practically invulnerable, they will bizarrely run out of fuel in the middle of the fighting when, by some extraordinary measure, we manage to get them to line up.

This we will see in detail[2], when studying the various acts of the battle.

In the meantime, let’s see what the German tanks were really worth: The Panzer 1, originally a training vehicle, was only armed with two machine guns. The Panzer 2, armed with a weak 20 mm cannon, was clearly insufficient even against the Allied armored cars.

These two light models represented almost two thirds of the Panzers during the Battle of France.

In the range of medium and heavy tanks, the Panzer III and the two Czech models were only equipped with a weak 37 mm gun, and although many models had been transformed and armed with a long gun, the Panzer IV, yet considered to be at the cutting edge of German technology, in its original version only carried a short 75mm gun and therefore had very limited accuracy and range.

According to Dominique Lormier, it was only effective against the French D2, Somua S35 and B1bis tanks, but had to approach as close as possible to the enemy tanks to have a chance of hitting them and even at this distance, had only little hope of piercing the armor of Allied heavy tanks.

General Halder, speaking of his Panzers, judges them thus:

– Pz I: only good against a weak and demoralized enemy.

– Pz II: slightly better, not good against tanks.

– Pz III: good against enemy tanks. The effect of his weapons is weak. Same remark against enemy infantry.

– Pz IV: good against enemy tanks. Good effect of his weapons also against enemy infantry. »

In conclusion, the great mass of the German light tanks Type: Pz I and II, were completely ineffective against the allied tanks and even against their armored cars, more strongly armored and more mobile.
Thus, to estimate the forces in presence, it is enough to regulate the problem of the number of tanks P 1 and P2 put in line.

For example, Mr. van den Bergh, counted 2389. Then added 429 Pz III, 296 Pz IV and 391 Czech tanks, and there the figures correspond to those of Frieser or Wikipedia.

And that is the main thing, since these 1,116 heavy and medium Panzers will be the only ones capable of combat against the 735 French heavy and medium tanks of the Somua and B1 type, and the 1,400 Renault R 35 and R 39 tanks.

Or a balance of power more than double for the allies!
We can therefore estimate, as all historians have agreed today, that the fight was rarely unequal because of the quality, or the quantity of the material.

I am therefore in a position to cite here some figures given by Mr. Karl Heintz Frieser (The Myth of the Blitzkrieg: pages 51 to 53 and 59 to 64) around which there finally seems to be a consensus, since they are used both by the English and the Germans: (Jacobsen, Fall Gelb- page 258 – 259; Umbreit: The Battle for hegemony » page 279), and even the Canadians like Benoit Lemay, or the Frenchman Dominique Lormier, who almost manage to agree on the essentials.

Regarding the number of divisions:  
For the Germans: 135 divisions, including 42 very poorly equipped and trained reserve divisions. Note that at the start of the campaign only 93 divisions took part in the assault.

For the French: 104 divisions, including 11 reserve divisions.

For the British: 13 divisions, three of which were not complete, but to which should be added two other divisions, including the first armored, which will be brought to the front during the battle.

To these Franco-British divisions must also be added 22 Belgian and 10 Dutch divisions.

That is to say on May 10, 1940, a total of 135 German divisions, against 151 allied divisions.

Regarding artillery:

For the Germans: 7,378 guns
For the French: 10,700
For the British: 1,280
For Belgians: 1,338
For the Dutch: 656

That is a total of 7,378 German guns against 14,000 for the allies.

Regarding tanks:

For the Germans: 2,439 tanks
For the French: 3,250 tanks out of a total of 4,111 without counting the 250 stationed in the colonies.
For the British: 310 tanks on May 10, to which must be added the 330 tanks of the first armored division which will land by the end of May. That is a total of 640 tanks
For the Belgians: 270 tanks
For the Dutch: about 40 tanks  

That is a total of 2,439 German tanks against the 4,204 Allied tanks.

In reality, if the Allied tanks were destroyed en masse, it was essentially: Either because they were not supplied with gasoline, or because they were hit by German bombers, in particular the Stukas.
And the question arises: Why did the Panzers not have to suffer the same attacks? Bringing an unambiguous answer: Simply because the French planes were not there.
While in reality, again, there were more of them…

Regarding aviation

According to the official version, the German supremacy in the air was due to a lack of aircraft on the Allied side, as well as the obsolescence of the equipment and the inexperience of the pilots.

So let’s first consider the total number of aircraft each country had, then those that will actually be engaged during the battle:

For Germany: 3,864 combat aircraft in total.
Of these: 2,756 only ready to intervene.
But of this figure we must remove those who were in line in Norway, so there are 2,589 planes left for the French front.

For France: 3,562 combat aircraft in total (2,402 fighter aircraft and 1,160 bombers) to which must be added 1,464 reconnaissance aircraft, therefore a total of 5,026 aircraft.
Among these: 879 only ready to intervene on the North-East front.

For Great Britain: 1150 combat aircraft in total
Among these: 384 stationed on the French front. Other responders as needed from UK bases.

For the Belgians: 140 combat aircraft in total.
Among them: 118 ready to intervene

For the Dutch: 82 combat aircraft in total.
Among these: 72 ready to intervene.

That is a total of 2,589 German planes engaged on the front, against only 1,455 Allied planes.

These are technically comparable aircraft.

Here we see that the advertised German supremacy is in effect in the air on May 10, but considering the figures for the total forces available, the Allies had far more aircraft at their disposal. In particular more than 5,000 for France. And of course, we will wonder where they went…

Excerpts from Volume No. 1 of the Great Lie of the 20th Century Series: French Military Treason. – 80 years of state lies.

[1] Werner Baumbach: Zu spät! Richard Pflaum Verlag, Munich. At the end of the war, Colonel Baumbach commanded all of the German bombing aviation.

[2] See volumes 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6

About the confusion between republican and Anglo-Saxon democracies

About the confusion between republican and Anglo-Saxon democracies

Every fairy tale – like every state lie, and every religion for that matter – rests on a well-defined moral principle. An apparently logical concept, able to satisfy the most curious as well as the most ignorant, since we are asked to “believe” in an infinite number of improbabilities often qualified as miracles, divine fatalities, chances, and other “incomprehensible” decisions…
In two words, a lie able to satisfy the curiosity of the People, must be based on a dramaturgical principle that everyone can all the more easily adopt as it is nebulous.

Now, what are the two fundamental principles? The good and the bad.

The problem is that they have to be defined.

As far as this second world conflict is concerned, we therefore choose to oppose “democracy and dictatorship”, which can be understood, provided however that we do not rule out the fact that the second of these concepts was common to two apparently opposite ideologies: “ communism” and “fascism”.

And if so, what is the meaning of these two words?

As for communism, it is commonly accepted that it would be based on the idea of ​​solidarity: We put everything in common, so that no one is left behind. Either apparently the republican principle of fraternity.
On the contrary, fascism proposes that everyone has a chance in a world that he will have organized to serve his own interests. Or the imperialist logic par excellence of “everyone for himself and may the best win”. This even if, at their beginning, Italian fascism and Nazism were able to adorn themselves with socialist colors. Republican claims of solidarity quickly abandoned to serve only an authoritarian logic based on force.

The second question remains: What is the value commonly attributed to the word “democracy”?

Infinitely delicate question nowadays, because bringing us back to the British Empire, whose astonishing cohesion for centuries results from its ability to adapt to upheavals, since it managed to unite its colonies and dominions around a total absence of political principles.

In fact, unlike republican democracies, England has never clearly expressed the ideal towards which it is tending by drafting a Constitution, contenting itself with claiming that a series of decrees having modified the balance of power between the King, the Parliament and the People from the year 1215 to the present day would be more than enough to express his conception of the world.

Small arrangement with political logic, which was not going to be without consequences…

England, a kingdom with fluctuating morals

It all began in 1649, when the English nobles and bourgeois cut off the head of King Charles I, then restored royalty, thus inventing a kind of very special democracy: The king would be no more than a screen, the military, religious powers , and money effectively taking control of the country.

Thus, in ultimately safeguarding the role of the king, the guiding principle remained that of the Monarchy by divine right: “God is my right”, implying that to be born rich or poor would be a divine will that must be respected, without seek to change the established order.
This made it possible, over the centuries, to forget to write any constitution that would morally bind the political system, if only by clearly defining the principles supposed to be applied.

It is therefore in this hybrid assembly aimed at involving the People in the decisions of a Parliament legitimized by the person of the king, therefore by God, that it was decided to enlarge the circle of the powerful in order to further strengthen the executive power. .
According to this principle, as soon as a person, whatever his origins, contributed in one way or another to the fortune or the fame of the Empire, he found himself ennobled, then integrated into the elite. On a more modest scale, he was given access to a few very closed clubs, or to certain networks such as Freemasonry.

Nowadays, this mode of government is maintained by what the British claim as a “tradition”, a respect for the past and other populist arguments. In reality, a way of their own not to bind themselves to any principle other than the immediate interest, since the Parliament legally retains the power to modify by a simple law the institutions of the kingdom as well as the fundamental rights of the subjects, without being compelled to respect a clearly established constitution.

In other words, what is commonly called today, in a more flowery way, the imperatives of “real politic” which would give him the moral pretext necessary for the construction of an Empire.

An Empire essential to the development of the country since Great Britain owed its prosperity only to its ability to enrich itself at the expense of others. Without this windfall, its populations were reduced to starvation or exodus.

The fact of living on an island without great resources had therefore first pushed the English to invade France during the Hundred Years War, then to build a fleet which would finally give them unlimited access to these riches which they lacked. so much.
It should therefore never be forgotten that England was, and remains, an aggressive monarchy. The fact that it has become over time a parliamentary monarchy and that its sovereign no longer has the power to decide its destiny alone does not change anything in the spirit of its government, since on the eve of the Second World War II the parliamentarians of the two Chambers were still, for the most part, either aristocrats of old stock, or industrialists or financiers ennobled, or distinguished by their rank of fortune.
This even if the Parliament Act, adopted in 1911, significantly reduced the power of the House of Lords to grant legislative power to the House of Commons – whose members each representing a constituency are always elected by universal suffrage – since in reality the Access to politics remained, if not in principle at least in practice, forbidden to the common people, in any case without great resources, because they had to pay heavy charges to be able to stand for elections.

Anglo-Saxon society on both sides of the Atlantic therefore functioned, and still functions, on what is known as “meritocracy”. In other words: Only he who, by his talents whatever they are, can strengthen the system survives. And too bad for the others!

Which leads us to sum up this very particular form of government as the clearly stated desire to maintain the privileges of the “strongest”, those who “have succeeded”.

In a word: A plutocracy.

Religions, democracies, republics

  • Another nuance completely blurred by the media forming single thought: The difference, not to say the total lack of correspondence, between what they commonly call the “Protestant countries”, mixing in a deliberate misinterpretation the Reformed Lutheran Protestant religion or Calvinist, resulting from a contestation of the excesses of the Catholic Church at the time of the Renaissance; and Anglicanism, whose origin dates back to the decision of King Henry VIII of England to separate his country from the Catholic Church and to make the King the supreme head of the Church of England, following the refusal of the Pope to grant him a divorce from his wife Catherine of Aragon, to marry Anne Boleyn.
    In reality, this schism with the Catholic Church allowed him above all to confiscate the property of the Church of Rome – which at that time owned almost a third of the land – and to significantly reduce its political power, without however recognizing for his own the Reformed Protestant Church which he also condemned in no uncertain terms.

In fact, it was above all a question of strengthening his personal power by getting rid of the religious counter-power, a subtle form of dictatorship.

To fully understand the scope of this decision by Henry VIII, it should be remembered that, just as the Senate of Republican Rome relied on the priests to legitimize the advent of the imperial system and the divination of the person of the Emperor, therefore the end of the Republic, the Christian society had brought the same perversion of the system in order to despoil the Peoples of their legitimate rights to democracy.

Indeed, if we are willing to remember that the essential principles of government of human societies were, since the beginning of humanity, based on three powers: that of the King, that of the People and finally the religious power supposed to serve as impartial arbiter, the fact of uniting royalty and religion in the long term by a convergence of interests was not innocent, because the fact of leaving face to face two powers, – on the one hand Royalty and Religion and of the other the People – systematically brings about a confrontation in which the latter is rarely victorious…

However, Henry VIII by instituting a state religion, therefore being entirely subject to it, went even further in his quest for absolute power and undivided domination over his people.

And we note that with the “Lutheran” Protestant reform it is a question, in opposition to this sort of “coup d’etat” of Henry VIII, of a questioning of this deviation which was the alliance of catholic church, in theory only spiritual power, with a material power such as royalty.
Let us not forget that this notion of hereditary royalty “by divine right” did not exist in the original political organization of the peoples of Europe. Prior to this deviation, as in the days of the Roman Republic, the leader was elected.

And no one will be surprised that this reform has seen the light of day in the ancient pagan countries called “barbarians” of all times opposed to imperialist Rome…

Because in history, everything is linked. Non-stop.

Let us therefore retain from its lessons that having only the appearances of reformed Protestantism – since the essentially Catholic idea of ​​”divine right” and predestination is preserved – this Protestantism of circumstance established by Henry VIII – then further developed by Queen Elisabeth 1st which will carefully balance the contributions of the Reformation and the Catholic principles so as not to harm the principles of hereditary monarchy – must be considered as another essential difference between the Anglo-Saxon countries and the truly Protestant reformist countries in majority of Northern Europe , since even if the founders of the movement such as Luther, Calvin, or Zwingli, only partially questioned the idea of ​​divine legitimacy, their successors, after the Thirty Years War, brought the concept of equality of each person with regard to God and between men.

Or a gradual, but unequivocal, questioning of the idea of ​​predestination, therefore of the right of monarchical succession, and the foundation of republican principles.

Then came the 18th century, known as the “Enlightenment”, during which the Kings granted more and more powers to the representatives of the Peoples.

At the end of this profound change, the Declaration of Independence of the United States was drafted in 1776 and then, with the French Revolution of 1789, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

Moment in the history of civilizations, when two conceptions of the world began to clash:

– On the one hand, that of Republican Democracy based on a principle of solidarity: “Liberty, equality, fraternity” and on human rights.

Model of thought involving the idea, of Protestant influence but also followed by an important category of Catholics, according to which man is responsible for his neighbor and cannot rely solely on the will of God. That there is no “fatality” or divine punishment, and that his duty is to lift others up to bring them to an equal footing. Principles of solidarity followed in its beginnings by the very young American Republic.
– And on the other the royalist conceptions, according to which God, as an enlightened steward, would have given to each according to his merits: To the King a throne, to the Wretched his office, and to the Powerful fortune. And that there would be nothing to change in this rule of “Each for himself and God for all”.

This essential difference in the very conception of politics and human relations was, in large part, at the origin of the wars of the 20th century because the Anglo-Saxon logic which ended up imposing itself in the United States, based on the Darwinist and eugenicist according to which “only the strongest survives”, but also on the divine legitimacy also granted by extension to the so-called “democratic” governments, could only oppose the notions of solidarity and secularism proposed by the Republics.

Thus, even if one can argue that “Protestant” England was the “cradle of Democracy” because in recent history it was the first to have cut off the head of its sovereign to impose the authority of a Parliament, it never became a Republic in the French sense of the term, since it always abstained from deciding on the essential questions of “Brotherhood” and therefore of solidarity, but also of “Equality” between men and races before the Law, to return very quickly to Catholic conceptions of divine right and hereditary power, but also imperialist conceptions of “white supremacy” under the guise of Christianity and the “duty” to civilize.

Indeed, the only common concept adopted was that of “Freedom” because, as we have seen, this is adaptable to all sauces, notably when it comes to waging war on a country, or to foment a revolution there, in the name of “entrepreneurial freedom”.

Besides, how could England have adopted principles of equality, or abandoned the excuse of a so-called Christian “civilizing mission”, since she entered with Oliver Cromwell, great apostle of this “democracy”? circumstance, in the era of its colonial conquests, therefore of slavery?
A conception of colonialism that the French right did not deny, just as anti-republican and royalist as the British.

And we have in this community of imperial interests the genesis of the future alliance of European right-wing parties, when it comes to getting Hitler to declare war on the USSR. And therefore the reasons why it was absolutely necessary to avoid seeing his weak army destroyed from the Battle of France. But let’s not anticipate.

Let us rather see how the philosophers succeeded in translating this fundamental opposition into the minds of the Peoples, because it will have been well understood that, without a perfectly orchestrated propaganda around a defined ideology, it is difficult to make oneself obey it.

Intellectuals take a stand

As far as the Anglo-Saxon Democracies are concerned, the idea therefore very logically imposed itself according to which the interest of all would be the addition of particular interests.

Thesis based on the writings of the 18th century philosopher and economist Adam Smith arguing that Man, being essentially motivated by the prospect of improving his own lot above all, would ultimately act for the good of society as a whole. , since humans are dependent on each other, each is useful to all.

Which amounts to saying that the colonialist or the slaveholder ends up in any case, at the end of the day, by causing the subject peoples to evolve in the right direction, or that the powerful, even if he keeps his workers in misery, the done for their own good, since it offers them the possibility of working, and therefore of surviving.

Or, there again, the imperialist logic in its most beautiful conception.

A conception contradicted by the Republican Democracy of continental Europe, defended at the same time by Jean Jacques Rousseau, for which the general interest takes precedence over the individual.
This is one of the founding ideas of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen which in its article six specifies: “The Law is the expression of the general will. »

Which obviously implies a consensus around a well-defined morality prohibiting going against the general interest, and brings back to its article two: “The goal of any political association is the conservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of Man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression. »

Text obviously complementary to the declaration of independence of the United States: “We hold as self-evident the following truths: all men are created equal; they are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights; among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Governments are established among men to secure these rights, and their just power emanates from the consent of the governed. »

It is therefore on these principles, affirming that the citizen is at the service of a State, itself the guarantor of the Constitution, that the great republican democratic movement, having enthused the United States and Europe by carrying high the humanist ideas of universal peace, social justice, equal rights and respect for the rights of Peoples – therefore anti-slavery and anti-imperialist – animated by idealists powerfully supported by their public opinion, but also by the great national capital, was founded .
And one will not be surprised that it displeased so much – and still displeases despite appearances – the Stateless Big International Capital much more partisan of the principles: “God is my right”, “Me first” “the strongest is right” and all that we are beginning to know so well, at the start of the 21st century, of Anglo-Saxon morality.

To sum up: The concept of Democracy does not have, for the Anglo-Saxons, the same meaning as that which we give to it in France, and more broadly in our old European societies: An Englishman or an American, will reason according to the Darwinian principle of natural selection and divine will, while in our conception, largely influenced by the republican idea of ​​equality and fraternity, but also in the spirit of the Protestant democracies of the Nordic countries, even monarchical, or even of certain Republics , even with a Catholic majority, it was appropriate, and it is still true today because too many have forgotten it, to help the weakest by educating and raising them. To show solidarity, in order to allow him to be your equal.

All this while respecting the part of the spiritual power as independent of the two others, since concerning only the conscience of the People supposed to have a right to vote freed from any “divine” influence. This principle of secularism, enshrined in the Constitution, therefore replaces the political power of a Church deemed too invested in the safeguarding of monarchical principles.

The principle of “divine right monarchy”, according to which God would order the world according to His will, that the wealth as well as the poverty of the subjects would depend on His unique authority and that there would be no reason to oppose it, disappeared.
Thus the Catholic Church, as a support of the monarchy and of the “divine order”, lost its power in the French Revolution, and General Bonaparte, propagator of this new ideology in Europe, was immediately considered the enemy to be destroyed by the supporters of monarchical principles.

In any case, until he is crowned Emperor by the Pope…”

End of quote The Great Lie of the 20th Century Volume 2 Controversies on some “forgotten” betrayals

Click here to buy the book