Wednesday, 28 September 2011
Rosh Hashanah (Jewish New Year): Will God forgive? By Alan Hart At the start of the Jewish New Year I have some questionsfor Britain’s Chief Rabbi, Lord Sacks. They are for him in particular because of what he said in a recorded message of preparation for the New Year, but they are also questions that could and should be asked of rabbis everywhere. First here’s the complete text (quite short) of what Lord Sacks said and can be seen to be saying on You Tube. “That’s the sound of selichot (the choral-like prayer that opened his lordship’s presentation). Of saying sorry. The special prayers we say at this time of the year as we come close to Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, the Jewish new year and the day of atonement. And there’s something so powerful about the ability to say sorry. “Out there in secular society we live in a non penitential culture. When was the last time you heard a politician say, ‘I’m sorry’. Or a rabbi say, ‘I got it wrong’. Or a pundit say, ‘I made a mistake’. “Yet we’re always getting things wrong. That’s what it is to be human. So to be able to say, I’m sorry, I was wrong, forgive me, is important. It’s a moment of honesty in a lifetime of keeping up appearances; of trying to look infallible. And I can say sorry to God because I know he forgives me. I know that because that’s the kind of God he is. That’s why he gave us Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur. So try saying sorry to God. It might just help you, as it has helped me, to say sorry to the people I’ve hurt. Saying sorry is the superglue of interpersonal life. It mends relationships that would otherwise be broken beyond repair. You won’t be sorry that you said, ‘I’m sorry, Shanah toya’. “Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish new year, is a kind of clarion call, a summons to the Ten Days of Penitence which culminate in the Day of Atonement. Yom Kippur is the supreme moment of Jewish time, a day of fasting and prayer, introspection and self-judgement. At no other time are we so sharply conscious of standing before God, of being known.” If this goy (me) completely understands the message, the Chief Rabbi is calling on British Jews (and by obvious implication all others) to say sorry to the people they have hurt as well as God. And if that is so I have three questions. 1. Do the people who have been hurt by Jews in Zionism’s name include the Palestinians? 2. If the answer is “No”, why not? 3. If the answer is “Yes”, why is that most Jews can’t say sorry to the Palestinians for the terrible wrongs done to them in Zionism’s name? (The terrible wrongs only begin with the first phase of Zionism’s ethnic cleansing of Palestine). As I was turning over in my gentile mind possible answers to the last question, I recalled a very revealing story Golda Meir told me in our last conversation shortly before she died. It was about what happened early on the first morning (day two) of the Yom Kippur war when Sadat’s forces were consolidating their hold on the Suez Canal which they had crossed in a surprise attack. Prime Minister Meir convened a kitchen cabinet meeting in her small and very modest Tel Aviv home. Defense Minister Dayan proposed that the IDF should “surrender” its remaining frontline positions on the canal to save lives and withdraw 25 kilometers. To me Golda said: “I told Moshe there was no such word as surrender in our language, then I rushed to that little room there, the toilet, and vomited.” (The full version of that story, and many others, is in my book, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews). Is it the case that there’s no such word as sorry in Zionism’s vocabulary? As I understand it the real problem is that saying sorry to the Palestinians requires all Jews, not only Israeli Jews, to acknowledge the wrong done to the Palestinians in Zionism’s name. And that in turn would require all Jews, not only Israeli Jews, to play their necessary part in righting the wrong done to the Palestinians. Perhaps more to the point is that saying sorry to the Palestinians would raise the Mother and Father of all questions about the legitimacy and criminality of Zionism’scolonial-like enterprise. I’ll address my last question for the moment directly to Lord Sacks. Chief Rabbi, do you really believe that God will forgive the Jews if they don’t say sorry to the Palestinians andthen play their necessary part in righting the wrong done?
Tuesday, 27 September 2011
http://www.codoh.com/newsite/sr/online/sr_171.pdf Is Gilad Atzmon, in His Turn, Becoming a Revisionist? by Robert Faurisson 27 March 2010 (source: http://www.codoh.com/newsite/sr/online/sr_171.pdf ) Born in Israel in 1963, Gilad Atzmon lives in London. As recently as October 27 of last year he said on his website: "I am a proper Zionist Jew […]. I am a Holocaust survivor […]. I am also totally against Holocaust denial […] I oppose Holocaust denial." (http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/after-all-i-am-a-proper-zionist-jew-by-gilad-atzmon.html ) But, on March 13, 2010, he began developing considerations of a revisionist nature (in the long quotation here, I have quoted what seem to me the most significant parts of this change of attitude). "When I was young and naïve I regarded history as a serious academic matter. As I understood it, history had something to do with truth seeking, documents, chronology and facts. I was convinced that history aimed to convey a sensible account of the past based on methodical research. I also believed that it was premised on the assumption that understanding the past may throw some light over our present and even help us to shape a prospect of a better future. I grew up in the Jewish state and it took me quite a while to understand that the Jewish historical narrative is very different. In the Jewish intellectual ghetto, one decides what the future ought to be, then one constructs ‘a past’ accordingly. Interestingly enough, this exact method is also prevalent amongst Marxists. They shape the past so it fits nicely into their vision of the future. As the old Russian joke says, ‘when the facts do not conform with the Marxist ideology, the Communist social scientists amend the facts (rather than revise the theory)’. "When I was young, I didn’t think that history was a matter of political decisions or agreements between a rabid Zionist lobby and its favourite holocaust survivor. I regarded historians as scholars who engaged in adequate research following some strict procedures. When I was young I even considered becoming an historian. "When I was young and naive I was also somehow convinced that what they told us about our ‘collective’ Jewish past really happened. I believed it all, the Kingdom of David, Massada, and then the Holocaust: the soap, the lampshade*, the death march, the six million. "As it happened, it took me many years to understand that the Holocaust, the core belief of the contemporary Jewish faith, was not at all an historical narrative for historical narratives do not need the protection of the law and politicians. It took me years to grasp that my great-grand-mother wasn’t made into a ‘soap’ or a ‘lamp-shade’*. She probably perished out of exhaustion, typhus or maybe even by mass shooting. This was indeed bad and tragic enough, however not that different from the fate of many millions of Ukrainians who learned what communism meant for real. ‘Some of the worst mass murderers in history were Jews’ writes Zionist Sever Plocker on the Israeli Ynet disclosing the Holodomor and Jewish involve-ment in this colossal crime, proba-bly the greatest crime of the 20th century. "The fate of my great-grand-mother was not any different from hundreds of thousands of German civilians who died in an orchestrated indiscriminate bombing, because they were Germans. Similarly, people in Hiroshima died just because they were Japanese. 1 million Vietnamese died just because they were Vietnamese and 1.3 million Iraqis died because they were Iraqis. In short the tragic circumstances of my great grandmother wasn’t that special after all. "It doesn’t make sense. "It took me years to accept that the Holocaust narrative, in its current form, doesn’t make any historical sense. Here is just one little anecdote to elaborate on: "If, for instance, the Nazis wanted the Jews out of their Reich (Judenrein - free of Jews), or even dead, as the Zionist narrative insists, how come they marched hundreds of thousands of them back into the Reich at the end of the war? I have been concerned with this simple question for more than a while. I eventually launched into an historical research of the topic and happened to learn from Israeli Holocaust historian professor Israel Gutman that Jewish prisoners actually joined the march voluntarily. Here is a testimony taken from Gutman’s book: "‘One of my friends and relatives in the camp came to me on the night of the evacuation and offered a common hiding place somewhere on the way from the camp to the factory.… The intention was to leave the camp with one of the convoys and to escape near the gate, using the darkness we thought to go a little far from the camp. The temptation was very strong. And yet, after I considered it all I then decided to join (the march) with all the other inmates and to share their fate’ (Israel Gutman [editor], People and Ashes: Book Auschwitz-Birkenau, Merhavia 1957). "I am left puzzled here, if the Nazis ran a death factory in Auschwitz-Birkenau, why would the Jewish prisoners join them at the end of the war? Why didn’t the Jews wait for their Red liberators? "I think that 65 years after the liberation of Auschwitz, we must be entitled to start to ask the necessary questions. We should ask for some conclusive historical evdence and arguments rather than follow a religious narrative that is sustained by political pressure and laws. We should strip the holocaust of its Judeo-centric exceptional status and treat it as an historical chapter that belongs to a certain time and place. "Sixty-five years after the liberation of Auschwitz we should reclaim our history and ask why? Why were the Jews hated? Why did European people stand up against their next door neighbours? Why are the Jews hated in the Middle East, surely they had a chance to open a new page in their troubled history? If they genuinely planned to do so, as the early Zionists claimed, why did they fail? Why did America tighten its immigration laws amid the growing danger to European Jews? We should also ask for what purpose do the holocaust denial laws serve? What is the holocaust religion there to conceal? As long as we fail to ask questions, we will be subjected to Zionists and their Neocons agents’ plots. We will continue killing in the name of Jewish suffering. We will maintain our complicity in Western imperialist crimes against humanity. "As devastating as it may be, at a certain moment in time, a horrible chapter was given an exceptionally meta-historical status. Its ‘factuality’ was sealed by draconian laws and its reasoning was secured by social and political settings. The Holocaust became the new Western religion. Unfortunately, it is the most sinister religion known to man. It is a license to kill, to flatten, no [sic, for to] nuke, to wipe, to rape, to loot and to ethnically cleanse. It made vengeance and revenge into a Western value. However, far more concerning is the fact that it robs humanity of its heritage, it is there to stop us from looking into our past with dignity. Holocaust religion robs humanity of its humanism. For the sake of peace and future generations, the holocaust must be stripped of its exceptional status immediately. It must be subjected to thorough historical scrutiny. Truth and truth seeking is an elementary human experience. It must prevail." "*During WWII and after it was widely believed that soaps and lampshades were being mass produced from the bodies of Jewish victims. In recent years the Israeli Holocaust museum admitted that there was no truth in any of those accusations." ( http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/truth-history-and-integrity-by-gilad-atzmon.html ) Finally, on March 25, 2010, his site carried the following statement: "AIPAC leaders are clearly repeating the grave mistakes of their forbearers [sic, for forebears]: the American Jewish Congress. They do not learn from their history, for there is not a single Jewish history text to learn from. Instead of a history text, Jews have the Holocaust, an event that matured into a religion. – The holocaust religion is obviously Judeo-centric to the bone. It defines the Jewish Raison d'être. For the Jews it signifies a total fatigue of the Diaspora, it regards the Goy as a potential ‘irrational’ murderer. The new Jewish religion preaches revenge. It even establishes a new Jewish God. Instead of old Yehova, the new Jewish God is ‘the Jew’ himself: the brave and witty being, the one who survived the ultimate and most sinister genocide, the one who came out of the ashes and stepped forward into a new beginning. "To a certain extent the Holocaust religion signals the Jewish departure from monotheism, for every Jew is a potential little God or Goddess. Gilad Shalit is the God ‘innocence’, Abe Foxman is the God anti Semitism, Maddof [sic, for Madoff] is the God of swindling, Greenspan is the God of ‘good economy’, Lord Goldsmith is the God of the ‘green light’, Lord Levy is the God of fundraising, Wolfowitz is the God of new American expansionism and AI-PAC is the American Olympus where American elected human beings come to ask for mercy and forgiveness for being Goyim and for daring to occasionally tell the truth about Israel. – "The holocaust religion is the conclusive stage in the Jewish dia-lectic; it is the end of Jewish his-tory for it is the deepest and most sincere form of ‘self love’. Rather than inventing an abstract God who prefers the Jews to be the chosen people, in the holocaust religion the Jews cut out the divine middle sub-stance. The Jew just chooses one-self [sic, for himself]. This is why Jewish identity politics transcends itself beyond the notion of history. God is the master of ceremony. And the new Jewish God cannot be subject to humanly contingent oc-currences. "The new Jewish God, i.e. ‘the Jew’, just re-writes fables that serve the tribe at any given time. This may explain why the Holocaust religion is protected by laws, while every other historical chapter and narrative is debated openly by his-torians, intellectuals and ordinary people. – As one may guess, with such a self-centered intensive world-view, not much room is left for humanity, grace or universal-ism. It is far from being clear whether Jews can collectively re-cover from their new religion. However, it is crucial that every humanist stands up against the holocaust religion that can only spread misery, death and carnage." ( http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/judea-declares-war-on-obama-by-gilad-atzmon.html )
Wednesday, 21 September 2011
Hitler and the Banksters: The Abolition of Interest-Servitude Stephen Goodson At the end of November 1918, Adolf Hitler returned to Munich and then proceeded to a military camp in Traunstein in south-eastern Bavaria. When the camp was disbanded in April 1919, he went back to Munich, which was still being ruled by a Soviet republic founded by a Polish Jew Kurt Eisner (real name Salamon Kosmanowsky). At the beginning of May, a few days after the communist revolution had been terminated on May 1, 1919 by the Bavarian Freikorps, Hitler was summoned as a member of the 2nd Infantry Regiment to attend a course on political instruction. The purpose of this course of lectures was to provide the soldiers with a background of politics, which would enable them to monitor the many revolutionary and political movements present in Munich at that time. One of the lecturers was a former construction engineer turned economist, Dr Gottfried Feder (1881-1941).(1) His first lecture was entitled “The Abolition of the Interest-Servitude”. Hitler was enthralled by what he heard, and this was to be a turning point in his political career. The following quotations from Mein Kampf reflect his initial thoughts. “ For the first time in my life I heard a discussion which dealt with the principles of stock exchange capital and capital which was used for loan activities. After hearing the first lecture delivered by Feder, the idea immediately came into my head that I had found a way to one of the most essential prerequisites for the founding of a new party. To my mind, Feder’s merit consisted in the ruthless and trenchant way in which he described the double character of the capital engaged in stock exchange and loan transactions, laying bare the fact that this capital is ever and always dependent on the payment of interest. In fundamental questions his statements were so full of common sense that those who criticized him did not deny that au fond his ideas were sound, but they doubted whether it be possible to put these ideas into practice. To me this seemed the strongest point in Feder’s teaching, though others considered it a weak point.(2) And again, …I understood immediately that here was a truth of transcendental importance for the future of the German people. The absolute separation of stock exchange capital from the economic life of the nation would make it possible to oppose the process of internationalization in German business without at the same time attacking capital at such, for to do this would be to jeopardize the foundations of our national independence. I clearly saw what was developing in Germany, and I realized then that the stiffest fight we would have to wage would not be against the enemy nations but against international capital. In Feder’s speech I found an effective rallying-cry for our coming struggle.”(3) Further, he wrote, “The struggle against international finance capital and loan capital has become one of the most important points in the program on which the German nation has based its fight for economic freedom and independence.”(4) A few weeks later Hitler received an instruction from his superiors to investigate a political association called the Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (German Workers Party). At this meeting held in the Sterneckerbrau Inn in Munich, about 20 to 25 persons were present. The main speaker was Dr Gottfried Feder. Shortly thereafter Hitler joined this party and received a provisional certificate of membership numbered seven. His first act on assuming control of the party was to rename it the Nationalsozialistiche Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (National Socialist German Workers Party). Feder, who was the principal drafter of the party’s 25 points, became the architect and theoretician of the program (5) until his unfortunate dismissal as Secretary of State for Economic Affairs in August 1934. Approximately 40 percent of Feder’s ”The Program of the NSDAP” is devoted to economic and financial policies. Below are some of the highlights. Adolf Hitler prints its two main points in leaded type: “THE COMMON INTEREST BEFORE SELF-THE SPIRIT OF THE PROGRAM ABOLITION OF THE THRALLDOM OF INTEREST – THE CORE OF NATIONAL SOCIALISM.” “Once these two points are achieved, it means a victory of their approaching universalist ordering of society in the true state over the present-day separation of state, nation and economics under the corrupting influence of the individualist theory of society as now constructed. The sham state of today, oppressing the working classes and protecting the pirated gains of bankers and stock exchange speculators, is the area for reckless private enrichment and for the lowest political profiteering; it gives no thought to its people, and provides no high moral bond of union. The power of money, most ruthless of all powers, holds absolute control, and exercises corrupting, destroying influence on state, nation, society, morals, drama, literature and on all matters of morality, less easy to estimate.(6) “Break down the thralldom of interest” is our war cry.(7) What do we mean by thralldom of interest? The landowner is under this thralldom, who has to raise loans to finance his farming operations, loans at such high interest as almost to eat up the results of his labor, or who is forced to make debts and to drag the mortgages after him like so much weight of lead. So is the worker, producing in shops and factories for a pittance, whilst the shareholder draws dividends and bonuses which he has not worked for. So is the earning middle class, whose work goes almost entirely to pay the interest on bank overdrafts.(8) Thralldom of interest is the real expression for the antagonisms, capital versus labor, blood versus money, creative work versus exploitation. The necessity of breaking this thralldom is of such vast importance for our nation and our race, that on it alone depends our nation’s hope of rising up from its shame and slavery; in fact, the hope of recovering happiness, prosperity and civilization throughout the world. It is the pivot on which everything turns; it is far more than a mere necessity of financial policy. Whilst its principles and consequences bite deep into political and economic life, it is a leading question for economic study, and thus affects every single individual and demands a decision from each one: Service to the nation or unlimited private enrichment. It means a solution of the Social Question.(9) Our financial principle: Finance shall exist for the benefit of the state; the financial magnates shall not form a state within the state. Hence our aim to break the thralldom of interest. Relief of the state, and hence of the nation, from its indebtedness to the great financial houses, which lend on interest. Nationalization of the Reichsbank and the issuing houses, which lend on interest. Provision of money for all great public objects (waterpower, railroads etc), not by means of loans, but by granting non-interest bearing state bonds or without using ready money. Introduction of a fixed standard of currency on a secured basis. Creation of a national bank of business development (currency reform) for granting non-interest bearing loans. Fundamental remodeling of the system of taxation on social-economic principles. Relief of the consumer from the burden of indirect taxation, and of the producer from crippling taxation (fiscal reform and relief from taxation).(10) Wanton printing of bank notes, without creating new values, means inflation. We all lived through it. But the correct conclusion is that an issue of non-interest bearing bonds by the state cannot produce inflation if new values are at the same time created. The fact that today great economic enterprises cannot be set on foot without recourse to loans is sheer lunacy. Here is where reasonable use of the state’s right to produce money which might produce most beneficial results.” (11) Feder was appointed Secretary of State for Economic Affairs when the National Socialists came to power on January 30, 1933, but his efforts to implement official National Socialist economic policy were immediately frustrated by Dr. Hjalmar Schacht, who had been appointed President of the Reichsbank in March 1933. Schacht was an enigmatic character. Although he was born in Tingleff, Schleswig-Holstein in 1877, his family originally came from Hungary. In 1903 at the age of 26 he joined the Dresdner Bank, and in 1908 he became a Freemason. He was also a student of Hebrew (12) as he deemed that knowledge of this language was necessary if one wished to advance one’s career in banking. Schacht immediately set out to destroy Feder’s plans, which culminated in the latter’s removal from office in August 1934, after Schacht had been appointed head of the Ministry of Economic Affairs. A somewhat attenuated version of monetary reform was introduced. In order to finance the state’s work and rearmament programs, two dummy corporations called Gesellschaft fuer Offentliche Arbeiten (Offa) and Metallforschung Gesellschaft (Mefo) were established. These corporations accepted bills of exchange from suppliers who fulfilled state orders. These bill of exchange were then discounted at the Reichsbank at a rate of 4 percent. They were issued for three months only, which was clearly unsatisfactory in view of the long-term nature of the various projects they were financing. They could, however, be extended at three monthly intervals for up to five years. In January 1939 matters came to a head when Schacht refused extension of RM3 billion worth of Offa and Mefo bills, because of fears of “inflation”. On January 7, 1939, he sent Hitler the following memorandum: “1) The Reich must spend only that amount covered by 2) Full financial control must be returned to the Ministry of Finance. (Then forced to pay for anything the army desired.) 3) Price and wage control must be rendered effective. The existing mismanagement must be eliminated. 4) The use of money and investment markets must be at the sole discretion of the Reichsbank. (This meant a practical elimination of Goering’s Four Year Plan)”(14) By these means Schacht intended to collapse the German economy, which during the period 1933-39 had increased its gross national product by 100 percent. From being a ruined and bankrupt nation in January 1933 with over six million unemployed persons, Hitler had transformed Germany into a socialist paradise and the most powerful and prosperous state in the history of Europe. He angrily rejected the recommendations of the Reichsbank, describing them as “mutiny”.(15) On January 19, 1939 he sacked the impudent lackey of international finance.(16) Without further ado he instructed the Reichsbank to issue all credits requested by the state. A form of Federgeld (Feder money) was now in circulation, although the bills of exchange still attracted nominal interest. A new Reichsbank law, which was promulgated on June 15, 1939, made the bank “UNCONDITIONALLY SUBORDINATED TO THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATE.”(17) Article 3 of the law decreed that the bank should be “directed and managed according to the instructions and under the supervision of the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor.”(18) Hitler was now his own banker, but having departed from the fold of international swindlers and usurers he would, like Napoleon Bonaparte, suffer the same fate: an unnecessary war followed by the ruination of his people and country. Events quickly unraveled. On March 31, 1939, Poland received a blank check(19) from England, which unilaterally offered to guarantee her sovereignty; not only if Germany invaded Poland, but also if Poland invaded Germany! This merely served to stiffen Polish resistance to Hitler’s genuine desire to achieve a permanent solution of all outstanding issues emanating from the Treaty of Versailles. During the next five months the Polish government progressively intensified the oppression, harassment of and attacks on the 1.5 million ethnic Germans living in Poland. These attacks, in which over 58 000 German civilians were killed by Poles in an orgy of savagery, culminated in the Bromberg Massacre on September 3, 1939, in which 5 500 people were murdered. These provocations and atrocities were stoically ignored.(20) Eventually Hitler was forced to employ military intervention in order to protect the Germans in Poland. On August 30, 1939, in an act of great statesmanship, Hitler again offered to the Poles the Marienwerder proposals,(21) namely retention of the existing 1919 borders, the return of Danzig (97% German), the construction of a 60-mile autobahn and rail link connecting West and East Prussia (from Schoenlanke to Marienwerder) and an exchange of German and Polish populations. On the orders of the international bankers, the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax, strongly advised the Poles NOT to negotiate. This is how and why World War II was started. The ensuing forced war resulted in victory for the international financiers and defeat and slavery for all the people of Europe. Today the bankers reign supreme. The European Union with its commissars in Brussels and its so called “European” Central Bank headquartered in Frankfurt, (22) increasingly resembles the old Soviet Union. However, with the recent ongoing “sovereign” debt crisis and the collapse of the Euro, the plan for a united Europe anchored in perpetual debt enslavement has received a major setback and has indeed started to disintegrate. Notwithstanding the inability of Adolf Hitler to permanently liberate Europe, it behooves us to appreciate that what he achieved was not done in vain. It is incumbent on us to learn and understand the fundamentals of usury and to spread that knowledge relentlessly, until our material and spiritual liberties have been restored. End Notes In 1917 Feder formed an organization called the Deutscher Kampfbund gegen Zinsknechtschaft (German Fighting League for the Breaking of Interest Slavery). Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Hurst and Blackett, London, 1933, 122. Ibid., 124. Ibid., 124. Gottfried Feder, The Program of the NSDAP, The National Socialist German Workers’ Party and its General Conceptions, translated by E.T.S. Dugdale, Fritz Eher Verlag, Munich, 1932. Ibid., 21. Ibid., 25. Ibid., 26. Ibid., 27. Ibid., 30. Ibid., 43. Roger Elletson, Monetary Parapometrics: A Case Study of the Third Reich, Christian International Publications, Wilson, Wyoming, 1982, 16. Hitler, op.cit., 125. Edward N. Peterson, Hjalmar Schacht: For and Against Hitler, The Christopher Publishing House, 179. David Marsh, The Bundesbank: The Bank That Rules Europe, William Heinemann Ltd. London, 1992, 119. David Irving, The War Path: Hitler’s Germany 1933-1939, Macmillan, London, 1978, 172. Footnote: “Montagu Norman, governor of the Bank of England, told the U.S. ambassador in London that Schacht was his constant informer over 16 years about Germany’s precarious financial position (U.S. Ambassador Joseph Kennedy reported this to Washington on February 27, 1939.) In 1945, Norman tried to intercede for Schacht at Nuremberg through a fellow Freemason on the British prosecuting team, Harry Phillimore (Schacht was also a Freemason). The U.S. team flatly rejected Phillimore’s advances, but the British judge, Birkett, successfully voted for an acquittal. Marsh, op.cit., 128 Marsh, op.cit., note 40, 300. This was a check that was guaranteed to bounce, as England was only prepared to come to Poland’s aid in the event of a German or Polish invasion, but not one from the Soviet Union. The Poles were unaware of this circumscription. The Soviets took by far the larger portion of Poland viz. 77 300 square miles, as opposed to the 49 800 square miles acquired by Germany. David L. Hoggan, The Forced War: When Peaceful Revision Failed, Institute for Historical Review, Costa Mesa, California, 1989, Chap. 16, “The Terrified Germans of Poland”, 388-90 and The Lodz Riots, 4-7. Das Letze Angebot (The Last Offer) in Verheimlichte Dokumente-Was den Deutschen verschwiegen wird, Fz-Verlag, Munich, 1993, 172-4. It contains all 16 points. Mayer Anselm Rothschild (1743-1812) founded his banking empire in Frankfurt. He infamously counseled his five sons, “Let me control a nation’s money and I care not who writes its laws.”
Sunday, 18 September 2011
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/16/us-usa-tax-swiss-israel-idUSTRE78E7PU20110916 Reuters (US edition) - Friday 16th September 2011 Exclusive: U.S. tax-evasion probe turns to Israeli banks by Lynnley Browning, Reuters, in Hamden, Conn.* The U.S. pursuit of offshore tax evaders is widening to include Israel, where U.S. authorities are scrutinizing three of Israel's largest banks over suspicions their Swiss outposts helped American clients evade taxes, people briefed on the matter said. The banks under scrutiny by the U.S. Justice Department's criminal tax division are Bank Hapoalim, Bank Leumi le-Israel BM and Mizrahi-Tefahot, the sources said. The shift to Israel from Switzerland, for years the main focus of the Justice Department's campaign against offshore private banking secrecy, signals the broadening of a landmark probe by the agency that began in 2007 with UBS AG, Switzerland's largest bank. The shift also opens up a potential sore spot in the historically close relationship between the United States and Israel, a key diplomatic and military ally in the Middle East that is the biggest recipient of U.S. aid -- $3.1 billion last year. U.S.-Israeli relations have come under strain in the past year, after U.S. President Barack Obama's drive to relaunch direct peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians collapsed, although both sides say their decades-old alliance remains unshaken. The scrutiny of the three Swiss branches of the Israeli banks is at an early stage and has not reached the level of that of Credit Suisse, which received a target letter from the Justice Department in July, or of HSBC Holdings, a major European bank, and Basler Kantonalbank, a Swiss cantonal bank, said the people briefed on the matter. U.S.-SWISS ARRANGEMENT CITED Aviram Cohen, a spokesman for Bank Leumi in Tel Aviv, wrote in an e-mailed statement on Thursday that "the request was for general statistical data. It appears that this data was to serve as a basis for a comprehensive arrangement between the Swiss and American Authorities. Obviously, Bank Leumi Switzerland is cooperating fully with the Authorities, in accordance with Swiss Law and under legal advisement." A spokesman for the Bank of Israel, the country's central bank, said on Thursday the agency "cannot comment on questions that refer to specific banking corporations." One person briefed on the matter said the U.S. Justice Department "tries to deal with the entity, not the government" in its crackdown on tax evasion. The scrutiny comes during a wide-ranging campaign by the Justice Department to force nearly a dozen Swiss banks now under scrutiny to pay collectively billions of dollars in fines and admit to criminal wrongdoing. The focus turned to Israel with a letter dated August 31 from the second-highest law enforcement official in the United States, Deputy Attorney General James Cole. Cole gave the three Israeli banks, along with seven Swiss banks, until September 23 to produce broad statistical information on their Swiss operations with U.S. clients. The data requested, according to people briefed on the matter, cover the types of accounts disclosed by UBS in 2009 as part of a deal with the Justice Department to settle U.S. charges that it enabled scores of wealthy Americans to evade billions of dollars in taxes. It also covers other types of accounts, including those opened after the UBS settlement with the Justice Department in February 2009. Under its settlement, UBS entered into a deferred-prosecution agreement, paid a $780 million fine, admitted to criminal wrongdoing, and eventually disclosed details for clients who had unreported accounts of at least 1 million Swiss francs (about $1.15 million) or who owned sham company accounts with that total. The accounts in question covered 2001 through 2008. 10 BANKS While UBS turned over client names, the Cole letter requests only broad, statistical information on how many American taxpayers hold those types of accounts at the 10 banks covered in the letter, the persons briefed on the matter said. In addition to the three Israeli banks, institutions that received the letter include Credit Suisse AG; HSBC; Julius Baer and Wegelin, both smaller private banks, and Basler Kantonalbank. All the banks are being questioned on suspicion of having enabled wealthy Americans to evade taxes, a criminal offense, through unreported bank accounts, people briefed in the matter said. Some banks, including Credit Suisse, also are suspected of lying to the U.S. Federal Reserve and providing unlicensed banking services to American clients. American officials are concerned that the 10 banks appear to have accepted hidden money from American clients who fled UBS in the wake of its scrutiny and assertions by Swiss officials that offshore tax evasion would not be tolerated under the cloak of Swiss bank secrecy rules, the people briefed on the matter said. Swiss banks argue that U.S. laws, which do not distinguish between tax fraud and tax evasion, should not apply to Switzerland. The Alpine country has a tradition of financial secrecy that punishes the disclosure of client data. David Garvin, a tax lawyer in Miami representing American clients of offshore banks, said, "Israel isn't really anxious to be viewed as turning people over." A spokesman for the Israeli embassy in Washington did not respond to questions. NO COMMENT Benny Shoukron, a spokesman for Mizrahi-Tefahot in Tel Aviv, did not respond to requests for comment. Ofra Preuss, a spokeswoman for Bank Hapoalim in Tel Aviv, referred calls to the bank's Swiss branch in Zurich, Bank Hapoalim (Switzerland), saying, "They're separate from us." A spokeswoman for the Swiss branch declined to return calls requesting comment. Datan Dorot, a tax lawyer in Miami who represents U.S. clients of Israeli banks, said that bankers from an Israeli branch of Bank Leumi called his clients about six weeks ago to tell them they needed to close their accounts at the bank's Swiss branches because of scrutiny by the Justice Department. Many of his clients, Dorot said, hold dual U.S.-Israeli citizenship and had opened their Israeli accounts with Israeli passports and not disclosed their U.S. citizenship -- a factor that makes them U.S. taxpayers. Dorot said Bank Leumi's advice that clients close the accounts -- and presumably open new accounts elsewhere -- could cause problems for the clients because the U.S. Internal Revenue Service does not consider merely closing the account to be enough; the U.S. taxpayer must also report the account to the IRS and pay taxes on it. "The Israeli banks are suggesting a very bad idea," Dorot said. --------------------------------------- (*Additional reporting from Reuters Jerusalem bureau; Editing by Howard Goller and Peter Cooney.)
Monday, 5 September 2011
Secret of the Lusitania: Arms find challenges Allied claims it was solely a passenger ship
By Sam Greenhill
Her sinking with the loss of almost 1,200 lives caused such outrage that it propelled the U.S. into the First World War.
But now divers have revealed a dark secret about the cargo carried by the Lusitania on its final journey in May 1915.
Munitions they found in the hold suggest that the Germans had been right all along in claiming the ship was carrying war materials and was a legitimate military target.
Doomed: A contemporary view of the sinking of the Lusitania off Ireland in May 1915
The Cunard vessel, steaming from New York to Liverpool, was sunk eight miles off the Irish coast by a U-boat.
Maintaining that the Lusitania was solely a passenger vessel, the British quickly accused the 'Pirate Hun' of
The disaster was used to whip up anti-German anger, especially in the U.S., where 128 of the 1,198 victims came from.
A hundred of the dead were children, many of them under two.
Robert Lansing, the U.S. secretary of state, later wrote that the sinking gave him the 'conviction we would ultimately become the ally of Britain'.
Americans were even told, falsely, that German children were given a day off school to celebrate the sinking of the Lusitania.
The disaster inspired a multitude of recruitment posters demanding vengeance for the victims.
One, famously showing a young mother slipping below the waves with her baby, carried the simple slogan 'Enlist'.
Two years later, the Americans joined the Allies as an associated power - a decision that turned the war decisively against Germany.
The diving team estimates that around four million rounds of U.S.-manufactured Remington .303 bullets lie in the Lusitania's hold at a depth of 300ft.
The Germans had insisted the Lusitania - the fastest liner in the North Atlantic - was being used as a weapons ship to break the blockade Berlin had been trying to impose around Britain since the outbreak of hostilities in August 1914.
Winston Churchill, who was first Lord of the Admiralty and has long been suspected of knowing more about the circumstances of the attack than he let on in public, wrote in a confidential letter shortly before the sinking that some German submarine attacks were to be welcomed.
He said: 'It is most important to attract neutral shipping to our shores, in the hope especially of embroiling the U.S. with Germany.
'For our part we want the traffic - the more the better and if some of it gets into trouble, better still.'
Hampton Sides, a writer with Men's Vogue in the U.S., witnessed the divers' discovery.
He said: 'They are bullets that were expressly manufactured to kill Germans in World War I - bullets that British officials in Whitehall, and American officials in Washington, have long denied were aboard the Lusitania.'
The discovery may help explain why the 787ft Lusitania sank within 18 minutes of a single German torpedo slamming into its hull.
Some of the 764 survivors reported a second explosion which might have been munitions going off.
Gregg Bemis, an American businessman who owns the rights to the wreck and is funding its exploration, said: 'Those four million rounds of .303s were not just some private hunter's stash.
'Now that we've found it, the British can't deny any more that there was ammunition on board. That raises the question of what else was on board.
'There were literally tons and tons of stuff stored in unrefrigerated cargo holds that were dubiously marked cheese, butter and oysters.
'I've always felt there were some significant high explosives in the holds - shells, powder, gun cotton - that were set off by the torpedo and the inflow of water. That's what sank the ship.'
Mr Bemis is planning to commission further dives next year in a full-scale forensic examination of the wreck off County Cork.