____________________________________
── France (Napoleon) broke the Austrian kingdom
── Austrian Empire lost to Napoleon of France set up the condition (environment) that enable the spark that ignite the Great war
── (network of alliance and gearing up for war)
──
── The Great war (later renamed to World war I) lead to world war II
── Germany, Germans believe that the Great war had been forced upon them by their enemies. (Who does the Germans considered to be their enemies at the time?) (how do they know they've got the right enemies?) (who told them?) (how were they told?)
──
── because the lesson that the Great war led to World war II, the winning side, knew that to prevent the next possible war, they needed also to rebuild the economy of the loosing side, not just the economy of the winning side. In rebuilding (developing) the economy of these countries, the Russia economy would be modernized.
── see
── Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917–1930. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution (1968)
── Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1930–1945. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution (1971)
── Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1945–1965. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution (1973)
── National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union. New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House (1973)
── A national suicide: military aid to the soviet union, by Antony C. Sutton, published in 1974, is a short form of the three parts volume of Western technology and soviet econommic development, 1917–1930, 1930–1945, 1945–1965.
── later, in what would be a trade off, if you aid in the modernization of a country like Russia, the same country that you helped could later be come your rival (competitor); if you do not aid in a country development and modernization, then ...
── look up Churchhill speech about Russia, list of Churchill speech that is made in the U.S.
── what is clear, but was not developed into public knowledge, is that at the end of the 2nd world war, the Western alliance of countries, with the United States in the lead (??), helped modernized Russia, which later evolved into the Warsaw Pact and then the Soviet Union
── warsaw pact
── (get russian translation)
── (trace the source of this name)
── soviet union
── (get russian translation)
── (trace the source of this name)
── who was modernizing China?
── in the Vietnam-American war (Vietnam war), China was supporting North Vietnam to fight against the American backed South Vietnam; later as part of the continuation of the same war, Russia was supporting North Vietnam to fight against the American; don't know about China role in later part of the war; (need to access Vietnam side of the story)
── before United States got involved in Vietnam, France continued the colonization of Vietnam, interrupted by World war II; the Vietnam leadership, that fought against the Japanese occupation during the 2nd world war, fought against French arm forces; don't know who was supporting Vietnam during the Vietnam-French war; ...
1950
Vietnam War: began November 1, 1955 ── ended April 30, 1975
Result: North Vietnamese victory
source: https://www.bing.com/search?q=vietnam+war
── Vietnam 1965-1975 739 billion (Constant FY2011 $)*††
1960
── Vietnam 1965-1975 739 billion (Constant FY2011 $)*††
── during the Vietnam-American war, underlying U.S. economic condition + war debt put the value of u.s. dollar under pressure, the flight of foreign reserve to exchange the their dollar for gold, president Richard Nixon administration dropped the gold the standard to be replaced with fiat monetary policy; this was done because of the fall in U.S. dollar value would caused other countries, following France and England, to exchange their dollar reserve holding for gold.
── August 15, 1971, the ability to exchange US dollar for gold suspended, p.108, George Soros, The new paradigm for financial markets, 2008
── fiat monetary policy (dropping the gold standard) led to the "boom and bust" cycle
── In May 1973, with the dramatic fall of the dollar
── if you can, connect the dots: Vietnam-American war, war spending, debt, pressure on U.S. dollar (USD), Saudi Arabia holding their currency in USD denomination with USD under pressure, Bilderberg group, Swedish Wallenberg banking family, (Saltsjobaden, Sweden), US Secretary of State Kissinger, US Assistant Treasury Secretary Bennett, October 1973─January 1974 fourfold rise in the price of oil, the explosion of international credit between 1973 and 1979
── how did u.s. finance Vietnam-American war [739 billion (Constant FY2011 $)*††]
── defense spending go out for the war, rise in deficit spending account
── Saudi Arabia money is deposit in US and UK banks, New York Fed account,
── part of the money is deposited ...
── In October 1973─January 1974 a fourfold rise in the price of oil
── Kissinger, Bennett, and Mulford helped orchestrate the secret financial arrangement with SAMA [Saudi Arabia Monetary Authority?] that creatively transformed the high oil prices of 1973-1974 to the direct benefit of the US Federal Reserve Banks and the Bank of England.
── David Mulford of the London-based Eurobond firm of White Weld & Co.
── the fourfold rise in the price of oil would led to excess dollar looking for places to go to?
── if you have lots of money or the problem of too much money like SAMA [Saudi Arabia Monetary Authority?], how do you recirculate the money back into the economy
── lead to the explosion of international credit between 1973 and 1979 (do you need a fourfold rise in the price of oil to have an explosion of international credit) (what other causes and condition that would create an explosion of international credit)
──
____________________________________
── graph
── fed fund rate
── u.s. treasury bond during this period
── interest rate borrowing
── interest rate long term mortgage
── interest rate saving
── interest rate money market fund
____________________________________
1910
1914-1918 the Great war (later renamed to World war I)
── In fact, America prospered because of the war. American farmers sold wheat, cotton, and other crops to both the Allies and the Central Powers. American factories sold guns, ammunition, and other war supplies to both sides., p.45, Zachary Kent, World War I : the war to end wars, 1994. (World War I : the war to end wars / Zachary Kent., 1. world war, 1914-1918--juvenile literature., [1. world war, 1914-1918.], D521.K35 1994, 940.3--dc20, 1994, )
1920
1927
•── The late 1920s stock price bubble 1927–1929 *$$
── big financial bubble
1939
── In September 1939, Hitler invaded Poland, setting loose the Second World War twenty years after Germany's crushing defeat in the First., p.161, Russell Freedman, The war to end all wars: world war I, 2010 , (The war to end all wars: world war I / by Russell Freedman., 1. world war, 1914-1918--juvenile literature., D522.7.F74 2010, 940.3--dc22, )
──
1940
── World war II 1941-1945 4,104 billion (Constant FY2011 $)*††
── because the lesson that the Great war led to World war II, the winning side, knew that to prevent the next war, they needed also to rebuild the economy of the loosing side, not just the economy of the winning side. In rebuilding (developing) the economy of these countries, the Russia economy would be modernized.
1944─1945 Bretton Wood Monetary Conferences
── July 1944
── Mount Washington Hotel, Carroll, New Hampshire
── representatives of 44 countries
── set the gold standard at $35 an ounce
── chose the American dollar as the backbone of international exchange.
── the Bretton Woods Conferences established the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF)
── These two organizations were later instrumental in rebuilding both the European and Japanese infrastructures.
── World Bank
── the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development ── reflects its original mission: the last part, “development”, was added almost as an afterthought.
1950
── Korea 1950-1953 341 billion (Constant FY2011 $)*††
June 25, 1950: North Korea invades South Korea (the forgotton war)
── additional defense spending for war in Korea
1950
Vietnam War: began November 1, 1955 ── ended April 30, 1975
Result: North Vietnamese victory
source: https://www.bing.com/search?q=vietnam+war
── Vietnam 1965-1975 739 billion (Constant FY2011 $)*††
1960
── Vietnam 1965-1975 739 billion (Constant FY2011 $)*††
── during the American-Vietnam war, underlying U.S. economic condition + war debt put the value of u.s. dollar under pressure, the flight of foreign reserve to exchange the their dollar for gold, president Richard Nixon administration dropped the gold standard before other countries, following France and England, exchanged their dollar reserve holding for gold, and adopted fiat monetary policy.
── fiat monetary policy (dropping the gold standard) led to the "boom and bust" cycle
____________________________________
── graph
── fed fund rate
── u.s. treasury bond during this period
── interest rate
── interest rate borrowing
── interest rate long term mortgage
── interest rate saving
── interest rate money market fund
____________________________________
William R. Clark, Petrodollar warfare, 2005 [ ]
p.20 (pdf - page 41/289)
David Spiro's book, The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony
pp.20-21 (pdf - page 41/289)
In typical understatement Spiro noted that, “clearly something more than the laws of supply and demand ... resulted in 70 percent of all Saudi assets in the United States being held in a New York Fed account.”42
40. David E. Spiro, The Hidden Hand of American Hegemony: Petrodollar recycling and International Markets, Cornell university press, 1999, pp. 121-123.
41. Ibid, p. x.
42. Ibid, p. 125.
p.21 (pdf - page 42/289)
In May 1973, with the dramatic fall of the dollar still vivid, a
group of 84 of the world's top financial and political insiders met
at Saltsjobaden, Sweden, the seclude island resort of the Swedish
Wallenberg banking family. This gathering of [the] Bilderberg
group heard an American participant, Walter Levy, outline a ‘scenario’
for an imminent 400 percent increase in OPEC petroleum
revenues. The purpose of the secret Saltsjobaden meeting WAS NOT
TO PREVENT THE EXPECTED OIL PRICE SHOCK, BUT RATHER TO PLAN HOW TO MANAGE
THE ABOUT-TO-BE-CREATED FLOOD OF OIL DOLLARS, a process US Secretary
of State Kissinger later called ‘recycling the petrodollar flows.’
[emphasis added]
-- F. William Engdahl, A Century of War43
p.21 (pdf - page 42/289)
Engdahl's remarkable book, A Century of War, chronicled how certain geopolitical events mirrored a “scenario” discussed during a May 1973 Bilderberg meeting. Apparently powerful banking interests sought to “manage” the monetary dollars flows that were premised upon what the group envisioned as “huge increases” in the price of oil from the Middle East. The minutes of this Bilderberg meeting included projections of OPEC oil prices increasing by 400 percent.44
In 1974 US Assistant Treasury Secretary Bennett and David Mulford of the London-based Eurobond firm of White Weld & Co. set about the mechanism to handle the surplus OPEC petrodollars.45 Kissinger, Bennett, and Mulford helped orchestrate the secret financial arrangement with SAMA that creatively transformed the high oil prices of 1973-1974 to the direct benefit of the US Federal Reserve Banks and the Bank of England.
p.22 (pdf - page 43/289)
Saudi Arabia and the other OPEC producers deposited their surplus dollars in US and UK banks, which then took these OPEC petrodollars and re-lent them as Eurodollar bonds or loans, to governments of developing countries desperate to borrow dollars to finance their oil imports. While beneficials to the US- and UK-based financial centers, the buildup of these petrodollar debts by the late 1970s facilitated the basis for the developing world's debt crisis of the early 1980s. Hundreds of billions of dollars were recycled between OPEC, the London and New York banks, and back to developing countries.
p.22 (pdf - page 43/289)
In The Dollar Crisis, Richard Duncan attributed the 1974 petrodollar recycling mechanism to the “first boom-and-bust crisis of the post-Bretton Woods [Monetary Conference] era.”46
[these excess flow of USD would later result in unsustainable debt in banks, and international lending schemes ]
p.28 (pdf - page 49/89)
The answer is simple: the dollar's unique role as a petrodollar has been the foundation of its supremacy since the mid 1970s. The process of petrodollar recycling underpins the US' economic domination that funds its military supremacy. Dollar/petrodollar supremacy allows the US a unique ability to sustain yearly current account deficits, pass huge tax cuts, build a massive military empire of bases worldwide, and still have others accept its currency as medium of exchange for their imported good and services. The origins of this history are not found in textbooks on international economics, but rather in the minutes of meetings held by various banking and petroleum elites who have quietly sought unhindered power.
(Petrodollar warfare : oil, Iraq and the future of the dollar, William R. Clark, 2005, )
____________________________________
John Malcolm Blair, The control of oil (hardcover), 1976
p.vii
In October 1973─January 1974 a fourfold rise in the price of oil was unilaterally imposed by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries.
p.vii
Within a few months, however, all signs of shortage had disappeared, but the price remained at its new, stratospheric level. Equally puzzling was the dramatic increase in the oil companies' profits.
p.viii
In 1969 Professor Edith Penrose noted: “OPEC has twice attempted a ‘prorationing’ system under which an overall target was set for production and quotas were assigned to the participating countries. Both attempts failed.”2
p.viii
Obviously something new had been added both in the form of market control and in the manner in which it was being exercised. What was past may have continued as the foundation, bu it was no longer the explanation for current developments.
p.viii
Statistical time series are few and far between, and even those that appear to relate to the same subject often differ in their definitions, with the result that they can neither be combined nor compared.
p.ix
On the demand side the essential difficulty is that the industry has grown to such a size that slight differences in predicted growth rates yield strikingly different forecasts of demand, conveying, in relation to anticipated supply, quite different implications for public policy.
p.ix
For example, raising the projected U.S. population for the year 2000 from 252 million to 285 million persons increases the expected gross energy consumption by 13 percent.
p.173
It is difficult to believe that the constant repetition of the words "national security" would have been enough, in itself, to bring about such a far-reaching change in national policy, even to benefit a special interest as powerful as the oil industry. That there was indeed something else to the matter was brought out in a brilliant journalistic exposé by Bernard Nossiter of the Washington Post.51
p.187
Over a long period of years, nothing has contributed more to the evolving structure of the oil industry than the preferential tax advantages bestowed on it by the Congress. Their importance is apparent from the fact that, in the face of a corporate tax rate of 48 percent, the federal income taxes paid in 1974 by the 19 largest oil companies amounted to only 7.6 percent of their income before taxes.1
Recognizeable only to those trained in the arcane art of translating the almost indecipherable prose of tax statutes, the proliferation of preferential provisions is a tribute to the ingenuity and thoroughness with which the industry's tax lawyers (and their Congressional allies) have gone about their work.
Of the preferential provisions, three have been by far the most important ── percentage depletion, the expensing of intangible drilling costs, and the foreign tax credit.
p.187
In the past, criticism of these tax preferences has focused largely on the loss of revenue and the lack of equity. Concerning the former, the staffs of the Treasury department and the Joint committeee on internal revenue taxation placed the combined tax loss in 1972 from percentage depletion and the expensing of exploration and development costs at $2.35 billion.2
With respect to equity, the point has repeatedly been made that the tax preferences have ahd the effect of shifting to individual taxpayers, as well as to other industries, a sizeable tax burden that the oil companies would otherwise have to pay.
For example, the three “defense-related” industries ── petroleum, motor vehicles, and aircraft and missiles ── had in 1965-1966 total asset of $96,778 million and paid U.S. income taxes of $3,185 million.
Of these totals, petroleum companies held 59.7 percent of the assets but paid only 9.3 percent of the taxes. In contrast, motor vehicle companies accounted for 31.7 percent of the assets but paid 79.2 percent of the taxes. And companies in the aircraft and missiles industry held 8.6 percent of the assets but paid 11.5 percent of the taxes.3
“”
pp.187─188
Less well recognized than the revenue and equity criticisms is the fact that the particular forms of tax favoritism employed by the oil industry have been such as to give a powerful discriminatory advantage to integrated companies over the nonintegrated refiners and marketers.
This results from the fact that that two of the three principal tax advantages ── percentage depletion and expensing of exploration costs ── are available only to firms engaged in crude production, and the foreign tax credit is likely to be more valuable to them.
p.188
Thus, in the years following World war II the tax privileges led to a vast expansion in well-drilling activity.
pp.188─189
This complex of tax preferences and supply controls artificially raised and maintained prices, increased the after-tax profitability of oil production, shifted to other taxpayers the burden that would have been borne by the oil industry, and resulted in a vast waste of economic resources. It also had the effect, little noted at the time, of hastening the day when the United States would run out of oil.
pp.233-234
To the majors and the government alike, the reduction in Libyan output was the necessary prerequisite to the staggering price increases of late 1973 and early 1974. Had Libyan production by the independents and crude-long majors been running at the rate anticipated five years earlier by Exxon, the supply in 1973 would have been increase by some 1,500,000 b/d. Had it been necessary to find a market for such a quantity, the chances of making the 1973-74 price increases stick would have been exceedingly remote.
(] according to Professor Edith Penrose, attempt to increase the oil price has been tried before and the inflated price hike didn't stick; what was needed was to take Libyan output out of the picture. Libyan production had being taken out, making the October 1973-January 1974 possible. [)
p.262
Promptly taking advantage of the opportunity, OPEC on October 16 announced an immediate increase of approximately 70 percent ── from $3.00 to $5.11.
Hardly had oil users adjusted to the October raise before they were hit with a second, even greater increase. At a meeting Tehran, OPEC announced a further raise, effective January 1, 1974, to $11.65. As can be seen from Chart 11-1, the price of the “marker grade”, Saudi Arabia light, had thus risen from its long-established level of $1.80 in late 1970 to $2.59 in early 1972, to $3.01 a year later, to $5.11 in October 1973, and then to $11.65 ── a sixfold increase in four years.
p.262
In general, the lighter the grade, the lower the sulphur content, and the less the freight required to equalize with other crudes at North European ports, the higher the price.3
p.262, p.264
As the chart also shows, the marker grade remained at $11.66 for nearly a year, dropping slightly to $11.25 in November 1974. But in October 1975, the OPEC members took their third unilateral action, raising prices by 10 percent, as a result of which the market grade rose to $12.38.
p.264
The leading proponent of the 1974 increase was, unexpectedly, the Shah of Iran, who had earlier been restored to power with the active aid of the C.I.A., had engineered the highest growth rate of any Mideast country,
─
“”
p.316
It has been repeatedly pointed out that profits cannot be legitimately criticized by ignoring the investment required to generate them; Edward Symonds of the First National City Bank made a statement to this effect in 1969:
People outside the petroleum industry are apt to suffer from an optical delusion ── that oil is “the most profitable American industry.” By a kind of optical foreshortening, they see clearly that industry earnings add up to a huge total. According to our tabulations, the U.S. industry declared net earnings after taxes totalling more than $6 billion, and they have been rising ... by some 8 percent annually.
But many observers perceive dimly, if at all, that, to generate these earnings, the companies had to sell goods and services which last year were valued at more than $60 billions. To maintain their pace of activity, these petroleum companies ── most of which have been in business 50 years or more ── have had to build up net assets totalling some $47 billion and yet received a rate of return of 13 percent .... 35
pp.316-317
The oil industry was certainly not the most profitable of these nineteen (19) important fields of production, that honor ── as had been true for many years ── being reserved for the drug industry. The profit performance of the top eight (8) oil companies was also surpassed in 1971 by the eight leading firms in cigarettes, malt liquors, and motor vehicles. AT the same time, the average rate of return for the eight leaders in oil was more than twice that of the leading firms in machine tools, steel, broadwoven fabrics and yarn, aircraft, radio and television, nonferrous metals, and pulp and paper.
─
“”
p.341
solar hot water heaters used on rooftops by homeowners in Arizona, California, and Florida in the early 1900's are still in use today, as is Solar House Number 1 of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which began operation in 1920.
(The Control of Oil., John Malcolm Blair 1914─, 1. petroleum industry and trade., 2. petroleum industry and trade──United States., 3. energy policy──United States., HD9560.6.B55, 338.2'7'282, 1976, )
____________________________________
1950
Vietnam War: began November 1, 1955 ── ended April 30, 1975
Result: North Vietnamese victory
source: https://www.bing.com/search?q=vietnam+war
── Vietnam 1965-1975 739 billion (Constant FY2011 $)*††
1960
── Vietnam 1965-1975 739 billion (Constant FY2011 $)*††
── during the Vietnam-American war, underlying U.S. economic condition + war debt put the value of u.s. dollar under pressure, the flight of foreign reserve to exchange the their dollar for gold, president Richard Nixon administration dropped the gold the standard before other countries, following France and England, exchanged their dollar reserve holding for gold, and adopted fiat monetary policy.
── fiat monetary policy (dropping the gold standard) led to the "boom and bust" cycle
── In May 1973, with the dramatic fall of the dollar
── if you can, connect the dots: Vietnam-American war, war spending, debt, pressure on U.S. dollar (USD), Saudi Arabia holding their currency in USD denomination with USD under pressure, Bilderberg group, Swedish Wallenberg banking family, (Saltsjobaden, Sweden), US Secretary of State Kissinger, US Assistant Treasury Secretary Bennett, October 1973─January 1974 fourfold rise in the price of oil, the explosion of international credit between 1973 and 1979
── In October 1973─January 1974 a fourfold rise in the price of oil
── Kissinger, Bennett, and Mulford helped orchestrate the secret financial arrangement with SAMA [Saudi Arabia Monetary Authority?] that creatively transformed the high oil prices of 1973-1974 to the direct benefit of the US Federal Reserve Banks and the Bank of England.
── David Mulford of the London-based Eurobond firm of White Weld & Co.
── the fourfold rise in the price of oil would led to excess dollar looking for places to go to
── these places would be the explosion of international credit between 1973 and 1979 (??)
──
1973 October─1974 January
•── In October 1973─January 1974 a fourfold rise in the price of oil was unilaterally imposed by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries., p.vii, John Malcolm Blair, The control of oil (hardcover), 1976
1970
•── The surge in bank loans to Mexico and other developing countries in the 1970s *$$
── big financial bubble
1974
•── In The Dollar Crisis, Richard Duncan attributed the 1974 petrodollar recycling mechanism to the “first boom-and-bust crisis of the post-Bretton Woods [Monetary Conference] era.”46, p.22 (pdf - page 43/289), Petrodollar warfare : oil, Iraq and the future of the dollar, William R. Clark, 2005.
── [these excess flow of USD would later result in unsustainable debt in banks, and international lending schemes ]
── en.wikipedia.org
── look up 1974 petrodollar recycling mechanism
── put it here
──
1973─1979
•── explosion of international credit between 1973 and 1979
first oil shock, recycling of petro-dollar,
Euro-dollar market, p.110, George Soros, The new paradigm for financial markets, 2008
── lead to big debt crisis
1980
•── the international banking crisis of the 1980s, p.64, George Soros, The new paradigm for financial markets, 2008.
•── In 1982, Chile got into a major banking crisis, following the radical financial market liberalization in the mid-1970s under the Pinochet dictatorship *†††
── On September 11, 1973, Augusto Pinochet rose to power, overthrowing the democratically elected president Salvador Allende.
── President Richard Nixon and the CIA had been involved in the overthrow of Salvador Allende, the elected leader of Chile. "Complementing the CIA effort, the US government exerted economic pressure on Chile, again to no avail. A second approach, entirely under CIA auspices, encouraged a military coup. President Richard Nixon directed that neither the Departments of State and Defense nor the US Ambassador to Chile be informed of this undertaking."
── https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKturnerStan.htm
•── late 1980s, the Saving and Loans (S&L) companies in the US got into massive troubles, *†††
1982
•── The international lending spree of the 1970s
turned into the international banking crisis in 1982, p.116, George Soros, The new paradigm for financial markets, 2008
•── In 1982, Chile got into a major banking crisis, following the radical financial market liberalization in the mid-1970s under the Pinochet dictatorship *†††
1985–1989
•── The bubble in real estate and stocks in Japan 1985–1989 *$$
── big financial bubble
•── The 1985–1989 bubble in real estate and stocks in Finland, Norway and Sweden *$$
── big financial bubble
1990
── Persian gulf war 1990-1991 102 billion (Constant FY2011 $)*††
1990
•── The surge in foreign investment in Mexico 1990–1993 *$$
── big financial bubble
──
1990
•── The bubble in real estate and stocks in Finland, Norway and Sweden *$$
── 1985–1989 bubble in real estate and stocks
── big financial bubble
•── the 1990s started with banking crisis in Sweden, Finland and Norway, following their financial deregulation in the late 1980s, *†††
── financial deregulation in the last 1980s in Sweden, Finland and Norway
── 1985–1989 bubble in real estate and stocks in Sweden, Finland and Norway
── banking crisis in Sweden, Finland and Norway
1991 Germany, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in 1991
1992
•── The bubble in real estate and stocks in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia
and several other Asian countries 1992–1997 *$$
── big financial bubble
1993
•── the bond rally of 1993 had indeed been a bubble, p.444, Sebastian Mallaby., The Man Who Knew: the life and times of Alan Greenspan, 2016.
── u.s. bond market?
── bond market in other countries?
1994 ??
•── Banker Trust scandal., Charles Sanford, p.469, Sebastian Mallaby., The Man Who Knew: the life and times of Alan Greenspan, 2016.
1994─1995
•── Then there was the ‘tequila’ crisis in Mexico in 1994 and 1995. *†††
1995
•── The bubble in over-the-counter stocks in the United States 1995–2000 *$$
── big financial bubble
1997
•── The bubble in real estate and stocks in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia
and several other Asian countries 1992–1997 *$$
── big financial bubble
•── This was followed by crisises in the ‘miracle’ economies of Asia ─ Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and South Korea ─ in 1997, which had resulted from their financial opening up and deregulation in the late 1980 and the early 1990s. *†††
____________________________________
── graph
── fed fund rate
── u.s. treasury bond during this period
── interest rate
── interest rate borrowing
── interest rate long term mortgage
── interest rate saving
── interest rate money market fund
____________________________________
*$$ Charles Kindleberger's book with Robert Z. Aliber;
Manias, Panics, and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises;
5th edition, 2005
1978, 1989, 1996, 2000;
p.9
The big ten financial bubbles
1. The Dutch Tulip Bulb Bubble 1636 *$$
2. The South Sea Bubble 1720 *$$
3. The Mississippi Bubble 1720 *$$
4. The late 1920s stock price bubble 1927–1929 *$$
5. The surge in bank loans to Mexico and other developing countries in the 1970s *$$
6. The bubble in real estate and stocks in Japan 1985–1989 *$$
7. The 1985–1989 bubble in real estate and stocks in Finland, Norway and Sweden *$$
8. The bubble in real estate and stocks in Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia
and several other Asian countries 1992–1997 *$$
9. The surge in foreign investment in Mexico 1990–1993 *$$
10. The bubble in over-the-counter stocks in the United States 1995–2000 *$$
(Charles Kindleberger, Robert Z. Aliber, Manias, Panics, and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises, 5th edition, 2005, )
____________________________________
*†††
Ha-Joon Chang, Economics : the user's guide, 2014
pp.222-223
In 1982, Chile got into a major banking crisis, following the radical financial market liberalization in the mid-1970s under the Pinochet dictatorship *†††
late 1980s, the Saving and Loans (S&L) companies in the US got into massive troubles, *†††
the 1990s started with banking crisis in Sweden, Finland and Norway, following their financial deregulation in the late 1980s, *†††
Then there was the ‘tequila’ crisis in Mexico in 1994 and 1995. *†††
This was followed by crisises in the ‘miracle’ economies of Asia ─ Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and South Korea ─ in 1997, which had resulted from their financial opening up and deregulation in the late 1980 and the early 1990s. *†††
On the heels of the Asian crisis came the Russian crisis of 1998. *†††
The Brazilian crisis followed in 1999 *†††
and the Argentinian one in 2002, both in part the results of financial deregulation. *†††
first published 2014
this paperback edition published 2015
Ha-Joon Chang, Economics : the user's guide, 2014
____________________________________
Howard W. French., Everything under the heavens : how the past help shape China's push for global power, 2017.
p.279
to create a new global or regional economic and political institutional arrangements
United States, World Bank in 1944;
Japan, Asian Development Bank in 1966;
Germany, European Bank for Reconstruction and Development in 1991;
China, Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank
(Everything under the heavens : how the past help shape China's push for global power / Howard W. French., first edition. | New York : Alfred A. Knopf, [2017] | China──foreign relations──21st century.| China──foreign relations──Asia.|Asia──foreign relations──China.|strategic culture──China.|geopolitics──Asia., LCC JZ1734.F74 2017| DDC 327.51──dc23, https://lccn.loc.gov/2016021957, 2017, )
____________________________________
────────────────────────────────────
── The Great war (later renamed to World war I) lead to world war II
── Germany, Germans believe that the Great war had been forced upon them by their enemies.
──
Russell Freedman, The war to end all wars: world war I, 2010 [ ]
p.155
The treaty formally ending World War I was signed by representatives of the Allied powers and the German government in the Hall of Mirrors of the Palace of Versailles near Paris on June 28, 1919. Forty-eight (48) years earlier, following Germany's victory in the Franco-Prussian War, the now-defunct German Empire had been proclaimed in the same ornate hall.
p.155
The Treaty of Versailles was a compromise that pleased no one. French premier Clemenceau had failed to achieve all the demands of the French people, who complained that the peace terms were too lenient and that Germany should have been partitioned into smaller, and weaker states.
p.155
“This is not peace”, decleared French field marshal Ferdinand Foch. “It is an armistice for twenty years.”
p.157
When the treaty was finally approved in 1919, Lloyd George gloomily predicted, “We shall have to fight another war all over again in twenty-five years.” Foch's twenty-year prophecy was more accurate: Europe went to war again in September 1939.
Today, most historians agree that the Treaty of Versailles helped set the stage for World War II. They consider the First and Second World Wars part of the same struggle. “The Second World War was the continuation of the First”, writes historian John Keegan, “and indeed [World War II] is inexplicable except in terms of the rancor and instabilities left by the earlier conflict.”
p.157
The demands for huge reparations──far more than could ever be paid──were seen as unjust. So was the fact that Germany was given no say in the treaty terms. What rankled most was the treaty's humiliating “war guilt” clause, placing the blame entirely at Germany's feet. Germans continued to believe that the war had been forced upon them by their enemies.
(The war to end all wars: world war I / by Russell Freedman., 1. world war, 1914-1918--juvenile literature., D522.7.F74 2010, 940.3--dc22, )
____________________________________
── France (Napoleon) broke the Austrian kingdom
── Austrian Empire lost to Napoleon of France set up the condition that enable the spark that ignite the Great war
──
pp.64-65
Now that Napoleon had beaten Austria decisively and sent the Russians packing, he was free to reorganize much of the Austrian kingdom. But Talleyrand-Perigord warned Napoleon that
You Majesty is now in a position to
break the Austrian monarchy, or to
support and re-erect it. Once broken,
however; even Your Majesty will not
possess power enough to reassemble
the ruins of shattered states and to
recompose it as the unit it formerly was.
And yet the existence of this single
unit is most necessary. Indeed, it is
quite indispensable for ensuring the
future health of all civilized nations.
The Austrian monoarchy . . . is a poorly
composed mass of different states, almost
all of them with their their own languages,
mores, religions, and political
and civil system of administration, and
whose only common link is their leader.
Today, defeated and humiliated, the
Austrian Empire needs a generous,
understanding hand from is conqueror.63
...[...]...
But the damage foreseen by Talleyrand-Perigord had been done, and tensions among the nationalities that made up the imperfectly mended empire would help bring about the World War of 1914-1918.
(Henderson, Harry, 1951 Jan. 5-, The age of Napoleon / by Harry Henderson.
Summary: Discusses French history under the influence of Napoleon Bonaparte's rise from the lowly origins to military and political power, ending with his defeat and the legacy he left to Europe., 1. Napoleon I, Emperor of the French, 1769-1821--influence--juvenile literature, 2. France--history--revolution, 1789-1799--campaigns--juvenile literature, 3. Napoleonic wars, 1800-1815--campaigns--juvenile literature, pp.64-65 )
____________________________________
────────────────────────────────────
(fictional)
Wall street and like financial firms
To go back a little further, in Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler., Antony C. Sutton, Seal Beach, Calif.: '76 Press (1976), and or some other TEXT, at the end of the Great war (later renamed 1st world war) between ... and ...; having lost the war the Germany economy was in a shamble; England and France (English and French economies) were not in that much better shape either; (this next part is speculative) American Wall street financial house, one or two in particular, was holding German government bond (how does a few few firms hold all the bonds of a country?; don't you want to distribute the risk); American wall street financial firm was holding German government bond (this part is known, not speculation); Wall street (who in wall street) has interest in the recovery of Germany (German economy) to be able to payback the bond; with that interest in mind, someone or some entities in Wall street helped financed Adolf Hitler and the associated organization (club, political party) to power (covering their expense); a book published in ... (not in English, maybe, in Dutch); of course, they could not have known (anticipated) that Adolf Hitler and his associates would take over Germany and go to war (...) (or they financed Hilter with the plan of Adolf Hitler taking over?); there is a second link; a part of Standard oil was sending oil either through Central america or South america to Germany (how much, for how long), in the early part of the war, enabling the beginning of the 2nd world war by the German 3rd reich; a variation: someone, some entity with relationship to Wall Street holding German government bond, helped financed Adolf Hilter and associate to governmental power with the majority support of the German industrialists, to eventually controlling Germany; Adolf Hilter and his cohort, refer to their world order as the 3rd Reich (the 3rd Reich is not a name from outsider); Germany 3rd reich invaded its neighbors and peacefully annexed Austria; no war, yet; while these things were going on, the business unit continued to deliver oil to Germany, fulfilling its business contract; Germany is one of many oil client(s) of the business unit; the U.S. is on the other side of the Atlantic; all this was happening in Western europe (Europe?); the U.S. has not been pulled into the conflict, yet; it would be helpful if someone made a movie about this, the little stories leading up to the 2nd world war.
All the little stories before the Great war, and all the little stories before the 2nd world war.
Take two: We have a Wall street firm or two Wall street firms, during the period after the Great war (who were in the war, what happen); Germany has lost the war; England, France, Germany, all their economy is in a shamble; the Wall street firm ("investment bankers" in the United States) engaged in the sponsoring of Germany government bond; remember, at this stage in the story, no Adolf Hitler, no thi3rd reich, no 2nd world war, no holocaust, no 6 million plus Jews and dissidents, no death camps; the firm is engaging in a straight-forward German government bond deal (James Bond); the twist or the interesting bit, a book published in Dutch, laying out the story through letters, telegrams, communications of a Wall street firm financial support for Adolf Hilter to cover his organization expense; at this stage in history, Adolf Hilter is a guy; nobody knows much about him; he was working as the public speaker for a particular political party; an organization that would later be renamed and reorganized into national socialist party of Germany (gotta look up the original name); next, Standard oil; we have a unit of Standard oil, selling and transporting oil to customers; one of the customer is Germany after the Great war; again, the business unit is engaging in straight-forward business activity of delivering the oil in exchange for fund as payment for the oil; okay, we are going to fast forward the timeline to when the United States officially declared entering the 2nd world war (world war 2, WWII); the Wall street firm that is holding Germany government bond is still holding the bond; They sold German bonds in the US financial market.; ...; Standard oil's business unit is still delivering oil to the German government; the big situation that has changed is that United States is at war with Germany; meanwhile, you are in a classroom, in Harvard business school; you are given a case study; in the scenario you are in charged of Standard oil's business unit; you have a formal contract to deliver oil to Germany; you get payment for the delivery of the oil; your home country is now at war with one of your customer; what do you do?; write a report; layout three different course of actions, none of them good, and kick the decision up stair?; what do you do?; ...
____________________________________
─ Since I was a child, I've always loved a good story.
I believed that stories helped us to ennable ourselves, to fix what was broken in us, and to help us become the people we dreamed of being.
─ Lies
─ that told a deeper truth.
─
─
─
source:
0:..:..
0:..:..
Westworld (American HBO series, united states territory)
season 1 : the maze
West world
The bicameral mind episode
DVD format
spoken language: English
____________________________________
https://www.gabyweber.com/dwnld/artikel/eichmann/ingles/secret_pact_standard_oil.pdf
"Trading with the Enemy“
2. “Getting along with their own business“
The secret pact of Standard Oil with the Nazis and why Adolf Eichmann was silenced
The Russian Revolution installed a new global order. Until 1917, the Europeans were
in command of the world. Then the US corporates wanted to get in the global business,
above all, John D. Rockefeller who founded Standard Oil in 1870. In 1879 he merged
the Vacuum Company and many other firms until 1911, when the Trust was desolved
and broken into many smaller companies. But the Rockefeller family maintained power
in the oil business.
At that time, petroleum was produced in two places, in Texas and in Baku, in the
Caucasus. The Russian oilfields were owned by the Nobel and Rothschild families who
lost their assets with October Revolution. “In summer 1918, Mr. Nobel flew from the
Soviets and begged the German emperor Wilhelm to help him to conquer his assets
back”, says the historian Dietrich Eichholtz. But thinking about “conquer” wasn’t
possible with an unarmed German Republic.
The interest of the Rockefeller family were identical with the interest of Deutsche Bank.
And after WW1, their shares of the „Turkish Petroleum Company“ were transferred as
„enemy property“ to France. For many years, the Deutsche Bank tried to litigate against
this expropriation, but finally they realized that there wouldn’t be any chance on the
legal front. There is strong evidence to suggest that approximately in 1927, Deutsche
Bank and Standard Oil made a secret pact aimed at bringing Hitler to power in order to
conquer the Oil of Baku. Standard Oil promised to supply the fuel.
1927, Standard Oil and IG Farben founded the company „Standard IG Farben“;
president was the oil dealer William Farish from Texas. Standard passed to IG Farben
the patents about the coal hydrogenation processes and the Germans gave them the
patents how to manufacture synthetic rubber. In the same year, 1927, the young Adolf
Eichmann, close friend of Ernest Kaltenbrunner (chief of Hitler’s Gestapo), was hired
by the Vacuum Oil Company in Austria, a relation with future.
While the European powers wanted to avoid growth of German industry after WW1,
US invested huge sums in Germany and never ratified the Versailles Treaty. They sold
German bonds in the US financial market. One of the most important was the"Union
Banking Corporation" of George H. Walker. He named his son-in-law, Prescott Bush,
grandfather of US president George W. Bush, director of the firm. And he made great
business with the Germans, before and after 1933. In the board of his „Walkers
American Shipping and Commerce Company“ with its Hamburg-America Line was
Emil Helfferich, member of „Freundeskreis Reichsführer- SS“ and until end of WW2
President of Deutsch-Amerikanische Petroleum Gesellschaft, later ESSO, and Vacuum
Oil Company in Hamburg.
Discrimination of Jews in Germany was no obstacle in this business. „The United States
were deeply split about our position to National Socialism“, said Professor Christopher
Simpson of American University in Washington DC, „the right wing organization
‚America First’ was openly engaged with the Nazis, considered discrimination of
Jewish population as an internal problem of the German and asked for not get involved
in the European War.“
„America First“ was leaded by the Dulles-brothers, John Foster Dulles, later US
secretary of state, and Allan Dulles, later head of CIA. „America First“ defended the
interest of companies who invested in Germany. War declaration would have put in
danger these interests.
After 1933, everything went well with the pact. The Die Deutsche Bank, once again,
entered with their Deutsche Petroleum AG in oil business. But the Bank needed partners
with know how.
A memorandum of Deutsche Bank, dated March 15th, 1935 makes it clear: „The
Deutsche Petroleum AG (owned by Deutsche Bank, gw.) bought licences and will drill
oil, with state subsidy drill in these new regions. (We) will share this deal with the
Royal Dutch Shell and Vacuum Oil Company, sharing the risk and sharing the future
profits.“
Royal Dutch Shell means British and Dutch monarchies and Vacuum Oil Company
means: Standard Oil. In the attack of Iraq and Iran, Standard Oil wanted to „help“ - with
drilling machines, wrote the chief of the department for Arabic affairs in the Foreign
Ministry in Berlin: „The aim of our attack will be the occupation of Iraq, Syria and
Palestine and the Suez Canal and the Gulf of Persia. We must prepare the takeover of
the oil area of Arabia and Iran. A team of experts under direction of geologist Dr.
Schmidt from the Vakuum-Oil-Company in Hamburg is built and the material, above all
the drilling machines are available“.
This memo is from February 5th, 1942. The US government just had declared the war to
Nazi Germany but Vacuum Oil Company delivered the Wehrmacht with drilling
machines.
The main problem for Germany's attack on the Soviet Union was the need for fuel for
tanks and airplanes. Thanks to the patents of Standard Oil, the Germans could produce
fuel from their own coal, but this was not enough.
The alliance of Standard Oil with the Nazis wasn’t well regarded by the USgovernment,
above all after the entered into the war after Pearl Harbour, on December
7th, 1941. Officials remembered an old law, "Trading with the Enemy“, and opened a
formal investigation against Standard Oil. The accusation was that the company hid
patents from the US-Navy and supplied fuel to German submarines. John D.
Rockefeller said that he wasn’t aware of that and Farish pled "no contest" to charges of
criminal conspiracy with the Nazis. In March 1942, the Pentagon begged President
Roosevelt to stop the investigation, to protect war production and oil supply. Roosevelt
agreed. The Company paid a fine of 5000 dollars and promised to stop fuel supply for
the enemies.
But Farish was forced to appear in front of a Special Committee of the US Senate
investigating the National Defence Program, headed by Senator Harry Truman, who
called behaviour of Standard Oil „treason“. Farish answered in the hearing: "Our
contracts of 1929 (with IG Farben) were to run until 1947. As you gentlemen doubtless
know, contracts such as these are not, in law, abrogated, but merely suspended when the
party’s nations are at war. The parties to such contracts must therefore find some way of
getting along with their own business“.
While the men slaughtered each other in the battlefields in World War II, corporate
America was looking for a way of „getting along with their own business“. It was not
easy, after the decision of US Congress to enter in the War and to frustrate the pact of
Big Oil with the Nazis. For Standard Oil it was a profound defeat. How did they
continue with their "own business“? Maybe creating its own intelligence agency? An
agency that cared above all for business and not for National Security?
Little information is known about such an agency. The CIA published some time ago a
report on their homepage about an intelligence group called „the Pond“, founded in
1942, just in the year of investigation against Standard Oil. William Mosetti, that
mysterious man who played a central role in the Eichmann transportation to Israel,
would fit well in the „Pond“, "The Pond" was disbanded in the fifties, after competition
with CIA. Mosetti, first of all, was a businessman, open towards all sides. The
documents, held by the CIA, are still classified because "they are now in a process of
being reviewed before being sent to NARA to be made available to the public“. As the
CIA official in charge of declassification told me, “this process will take three years”.
But the CIA offered to sell me the information, paying 2880 dollars for the research. My
request to get full access to the „Pond“ documentation is still pending.
The Caucasus campaign lasted five and a half months. From the middle of 1942, when
in the US Standard Oil suffered the official investigation and the Senate Hearing, the
German military started to suffer lack of fuel. In January 43, defeat was complete. The
Nazis Allies - American and British Big Oil - couldn’t fulfill their part of the pact:
the fuel supply.
Standard Oil tried to supply Nazi Germany via neutral countries. Standard Oil of New
Jersey sent a young lawyer from their legal department to Venezuela, full of petroleum.
And in 1940, Socony-Vacuum sent William Mosetti to Argentina. The country was
friendly to the Axis but entered only in March 45 into the war against Germany.
Mosetti was born 1914 in Trieste. His father was director of „Lloyd Triestino“, a
shipping company that controlled the Suez Canal. Mosetti participated in 1935 as a
„First Lieutenant“ in the Abyssinian Campaign of Mussolini. Standard Oil had
promised to the „Duce“ to supply the fuel for this war. 1936, the fascist army took
Addis Abeba, after having used poison gas. After the war, Mosetti was hired first by
General Motors, went in 1939 to Ford in Cologne and on November 15th, 1939 he got
his dream job with Socony-Vacuum, „Standard Oil Company of New York“.
When he came to Argentina, 1940, he saw that the country has its own oil fields, for
their own supply and therefore no interest to export or import oil. And in the US, the
powerful Petroleum Administration of War controlled distribution of oil, to avoid that it
came into the hands of the enemy. But Standard Oil pressured US government to get
permission to import petroleum from the US or from US controlled countries - as a
letter from the US Embassy in Buenos Aires to the State Department shows, written
March 25th, 1942: “A very large bulk of imported crude is imported by the Argentine
subsidiaries of Standard Oil of New Jersey and the Socony-Vacuum combine – Texas.
Any sharp reduction would seriously restrict the activities of these American
companies”.
Did Standard Oil plan to send fuel to the Nazis via the neutral Argentina where Mosetti
stayed? The difference between oil exports from US-controlled refineries in the US, the
Caribbean and Venezuela to Argentina, according to the PAW files held in NARA, and,
on the other hand, the oil imports of Argentina from Standard Oil according to the
Argentinean Trade Ministry is significant in 1941 - but far from satisfying the need of
the German Wehrmacht.
From 1942 on, the difference between export from the US to Argentina and
Argentinean imports from the US get smaller. The sea blockade of the Allied Forced got
impenetrable and the military defeat of the Nazis was sure. So, Big Oil changed their
motto: damage control.
Mosetti left Argentina and arrived March 18th, 1943 in Los Angeles. Normally, an
Italian citizen, once an officer in the fascist army, would have been detained. But
Mosetti told Immigration authorities that from now on he wanted to serve to the Allies.
A "prominent businessman“ guaranteed for him and within few days, Mosetti got US
citizenship. On May 18th, 1943, he was taken by the US Army and received training in
Camp Crowder, Missouri.
The "Office of Strategic Services“ wanted to recruit Mosetti: “French and Italian is
required in addition to a proficiency in guerrilla and/ or commando warfare, close
combat, demolitions and small arms. Must be willing to undertake dangerous and trying
missions, a leader, and physically vigorous. Must also be of the Christian faith”.
But the
Army didn’t want to loose him. „Not available“, noted a Colonel Conelly in the OSSfile.
Mosetti was sent to Northern Africa and participated in the invasion of Italy. In
June 1946, he left the active service of the Army and returned to SOCONY-Vacuum,
then Mobil Overseas Oil Company. When he stood in Leopoldville, Belgish Congo, he
was hired by Daimler-Benz and sent again to Buenos Aires. On 29 of April 1960, the
General Meeting of shareholders of Mercedes Benz Argentina named him General
Director and twelve days later Adolf Eichmann, worker at this moment on Mercedes
Benz and former employee of Vacuum Oil, disappeared. On 23 May, Premier Minister
Ben Gurion announced detention of Eichmann in Israel. But Eichmann never talked in
public about his former employer Standard Oil.
Mosetti resigned 1975 from Mercedes Benz Argentina. His last job was at the US
Embassy in Bern. He died 1992 in Switzerland. was at the US Embassy in Bern. He
died 1992 in Switzerland.
After years of investigation, I am standing in front of a wall of silence. The Freedom of
Information Act and the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act do not work. Several request
are still pending.
Only a public administration can be forced to release information, not private firms. In
the archives of Standard Oil and Daimler-Chrysler I was shown “cleaned” documents.
During three years, Daimler-Chrysler claimed not to know Mosetti’s name, altho for 15
years he was their CEO in Buenos Aires. Then, they sent me, by email, parts of his
resume,but without any date and signature.
I asked Exxon-Mobil about Mosetti and Eichmann, if they financed Eichmann’s
transport out of Argentina and about the secret pact with the Nazis to take the oil fields
of the Caucasus. Exxon-Mobil answered me: “We cannot confirm Mr. Mosetti's
employment as we did not find his name within the available records. We know nothing
of the details of the kidnapping of Mr. Eichmann, nor of any relationship between
Socony-Vacuum and Mr. Eichmann.“
There is still a question to answer, the same question of 1942 as today: how do
governments handle greed of corporations when they violate laws and national security.
In 1942, the US government committed a serious mistake to close the criminal
investigation against Standard Oil.
It committed the same mistake with the laundering of Nazi money. Twice the US
government tried to investigate the destination of Nazi gold, hidden during World War
II. In the last period of the war, their operation "Safehaven" systematically checked the
ties between Germany and Switzerland. But on the eve of the Cold War,"Safehaven“
died. In the 1990's, Secretary Stuart Eizenstat tried again, and published an extensive
report. Although the CIA and FBI participated in this investigation, the report did not
reveal anything new. It didn’t mention the name of Jorge Antonio, his money
laundering and the confiscation of his empire in Argentina – in spite of the fact that
this
confiscation had been discussed in the press for years. CIA and FBI station chiefs surely
read the local press and informed their headquarters. German industry paid ten billon
Deutsche Mark, about five billion dollars, to Jewish organizations for slave workers
during the war and the whole subject disappeared from the newspapers.
At this time, the US Congress, controlled by Democrats, claims to want to stop the war
in Iraq and create conditions to investigate the George W. Bush era of corruption.
Probably, this investigation, if it will happen, will be classified, not public, and
everything will be negotiated again – so that corporates can go along with their own
business, buying their way to more power.
https://www.gabyweber.com/dwnld/artikel/eichmann/ingles/secret_pact_standard_oil.pdf
____________________________________
────────────────────────────────────
── what is clear, but was not make public, is that at the end of the 2nd world war, the Western alliance of countries, with the United States in the lead (??), helped modernized Russia, which later evolved into the Warsaw Pact and then the Soviet Union
── not sure who was modernizing China
── in the Vietnam-American war (Vietnam war), China was supporting North Vietnam to fight against the American backed South Vietnam; later in the same war, Russia was supporting North Vietnam to fight against the American; don't know of China role
── before United States got involved in Vietnam, France continued the colonization of Vietnam, interrupted by World war II; the Vietnam leadership, that fought against the Japanese occupation during the 2nd world war, fought against French arm forces in country; don't know who was supporting Vietnam during the Vietnam-French war; ...
1940
── World war II 1941-1945 4,104 billion (Constant FY2011 $)*††
1950
Vietnam War: began November 1, 1955 ── ended April 30, 1975
Result: North Vietnamese victory
source: https://www.bing.com/search?q=vietnam+war
── Vietnam 1965-1975 739 billion (Constant FY2011 $)*††
BLUF (Bottom Line Up Front):
the conflicts of the Cold War were “not fought to restrain communism” but were organised in order “to generate multibillion-dollar armaments contracts”, since the United States, through financing the Soviet Union “directly or indirectly, armed both sides in at least Korea and Vietnam.”[8]
── https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_C._Sutton
([ the fear of communism, rather than communism itself; and if communism does not exist, then some thing like communism must be created; in one era it was communism, in the next it is terrorism, foreign and domestic; ])
([ what they really mean is not the „Cold war and the communism“ themselves, but the role that „Cold war and the fear of communism“ played; in that era the role was played by „Cold war and fear of Communism“; in the next era the role would most likely be played by the FEAR of some thing else; if that something else does not exist, then it must be created, then the FEAR of it must be manufactured ... ])
([ But [Pierre-Simon Laplace] wasn't nearly as interested in [Cold war and communism] [or fear of communism] as he was in the human [observed interpretation] of those mechanics. ])
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_C._Sutton
At the Hoover Institution, he wrote the study Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development (in three volumes), arguing that the West played a major role in developing the Soviet Union from its beginnings until the then-present year of 1970. Sutton argued that the Soviet Union's technological and manufacturing base, which was then engaged in supplying North Vietnam during the Vietnam War, was built by United States corporations and largely funded by US taxpayers. Steel and iron plants, the GAZ automobile factory, a Ford subsidiary in eastern Russia, and many other Soviet industrial enterprises were built with the help or technical assistance of the United States government or US corporations. He argued further that the Soviet Union's acquisition of MIRV technology was made possible by receiving (from US sources) machining equipment for the manufacture of precision ball bearings, necessary to mass-produce MIRV-enabled missiles.[non-primary source needed]
In 1973, Sutton published a popularized, condensed version of the sections of the forthcoming third volume relevant to military technology called National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union, after which he was forced out of the Hoover Institution.[7][better source needed] His conclusion from his research on the issue was that the conflicts of the Cold War were “not fought to restrain communism” but were organised in order “to generate multibillion-dollar armaments contracts”, since the United States, through financing the Soviet Union “directly or indirectly, armed both sides in at least Korea and Vietnam.”[8][non-primary source needed]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_C._Sutton
Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1917–1930. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution (1968)
Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1930–1945. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution (1971)
Western Technology and Soviet Economic Development, 1945–1965. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution (1973)
National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union. New Rochelle, NY: Arlington House (1973)
____________________________________
A national suicide: military aid to the soviet union, Antony C. Sutton, 1974
A
NATIONAL SUICIDE:
Military Aid to the Soviet Union
Antony C. Sutton
Arlington House New Rochelle, N.Y.
Sutton, Antony C
National suicide
1. technical assistance, American--Russia.
2. military assistance, America--Russia.
3. Russia--Defenses.
4. United States--Defenses.
HC336.24.S97
355.03'2'47
Fourth printing, June 1974
copyright © 1973 by Arlington House, New Rochelle, New York.
[pp.91-92, pp.92-93, pp.94-96, p.97, pp.99-100, p.100]
[pp.91-92]
Bryant Chucking Grinder Company of Springfield, Vermont
Soviet dependence on the West for ball bearings technology peaked after the years 1959-61, when the Soviets required a capability for mass production, rather than laboratory or batch production, of miniture precision ball bearings for weapons systems. The only company in the world that could supply the required machine for a key operation in processing the races for precision bearings (the Centalign-B) was the Bryant Chucking Grinder Company. The Soviet Union had no such mass-production capability. Its miniature ball bearings in 1951 were either imported or made in small lots on Italian and other imported equipment.
In 1960 there were sixty-six such Centalign machines in the United States. Twenty-five of these machines were operated by the Miniature Precision Bearing Company, Inc., the largest manufacturer of precision ball bearings, and 85 percent of Miniature Precision's output went to military applications. In 1960 the USSR entered an order with Bryant Chucking for forty-five similar machines. Bryant consulted the Department of Commerce. When the department indicated its willingness to grant a license, Bryant accepted the order.
[pp.92-93]
The Department of Defense entered a strong-objection to the export of the machines on the following grounds:
In the specific case of the granting of the export license for high-frequency grinders manufactured by Bryant Chucking Grinder, after receiving the request for DOD's opinion from the Department of Commerce, it was determined that all the machines of this type currently available in the United States were being utilized for the production of bearings utilized in strategic components for military end items. It was also determined from information that was available to us that the Soviets did not produce a machine of this type or one that would be comparable in enabling the production of miniature ball bearings of the tolerances and precision required. A further consideration was whether machines of comparable capacity and size can be made available from Western Europe. In this connection, our investigation revealed that none was in production that would meet the specifications that had been established by the Russians for these machines. In the light of these considerations it was our opinion that the license should not be granted.
[pp.94-96]
The testimony of Horace Gilbert to the Senate summarizes the position on the Centalign machines:
Mr. Chairman, I am Horace D. Gilbert, of Keene, N.H., and I am president of Miniature Precision Bearings, Inc., and I would like to express my appreciation for having an opportunity to be here with you and come particularly at this time, when I know that everyone is busy, and at such short notice. As the name implies, my company produces miniature ball bearings of precision quality, 85 per cent of which are used in the national defense effort. All but 1 per cent of our sales are within the United States, and more of these bearings are produced by machines manufactured by Bryant Chucking Grinder Co., of Springfield, Vt.
Our company owns about 25 of these machines our of the 66 which, I believe, presently exist in the United States. This machines was developed over a long period of years, and much of the know-how, Mr. Chairman, in the latest model, was contributed by our company.
[...] <see book for the skipped TEXT> [...]
I am here because I think that this is folly which would undermine our defenses.
The Department of Commerce has attempted to justify its decision with four or five arguments, none of which, in our opinion, appears to be valid, and I would like to touch on these.
First, they say these machines could be purchased in Europe, and consequently, Bryant might as well benefit by their sale here.
I am thoroughly familiar with the machines which are in production in Europe. Part of my knowledge has been gained by three trips to Europe in the last 11 months, and I can assure you that no European manufacturer in fact does produce comparable machines with the accuracy of that which is used by Bryant. I would suggest that, if the Russians could buy this machine in any other market, they would indeed do so. In fact, an American competitor of Bryant, Heald Machine Co., of Worcester, has been attempting for 3 years to imitate and produce a comparable machine, and they have not been successful.
[...] <see book for the skipped TEXT> [...]
Thirdly, the Department of Commerce has suggested that these machines require a skilled operators who need substantial training; and I can assure you this is not true, sir. Even if it were, I am confident that the Russians have skilled technicians who, in a short time, would be able to master the operation of this machine, were it complicated, which it is not, and that is part of the magic of the machine, that it is not complicated. There is a certain amount of skill required to set up the machine, but under contract with Bryant, I understand that the machine must be disassembled and re-assembled in the presence of Russian inspectors who are not at their doorstep. Consequently, they will have whatever knowledge they need to put this machine into immediate operation.
[p.97]
Bryant Chucking Grinder Company
Model "B" Centalign machines with spindle speeds up to 120,000 r.p.m.
[pp.99-100]
1. At least 85 per cent of the bearings manufactured with the help of the Bryant machine are used by defense industries:
Subject machine is a key factor in the economical production of the highest precision for many important Department of Defense applications, such as the latest guidance systems, navigation, fire control, computer, synchro and servo mechanisms used for aircraft, ordnance, ships, missiles and other space vehicles (statement of Mr. J. R. Tomlinson, president, and Mr. B. L. Mims, vice president in charge of engineering, the Barden Corp., Danbury, Conn.).
2. The function performed by the Bryant machine is of critical importance:
The outer ball track grinding operation is one of the last and most vital of those performed on the bearing outer ring. It is the operation which, until the advent of this machine, could probably be called the bottleneck opposing the precision performance of miniature bearings. The necessary perfection of other operations had been achieved 5 to 20 years ago (statement by Mr. H. B. Van Dorn, vice president in charge of engineering, Fafnir Bearing Co., New Britain, Conn.).
3. The Bryant machine is unique in its field; [...] A careful check has revealed that none of the companies named by Mr. Fisk produce machines that can be considered equal or "substantially comparable" to the Bryant machine.
[p.100]
In 1972, just before the presidential election, Nicholaas Leyds, general manager of the Bryant Chucking Grinder Company, announced a contract with the Soviets for 164 grinding machines. Anatoliy I. Kostousov, Minister of the Machine Tool Industry in the Soviet Union, then said they had waited twelve years for these machines, which included mostly the banned models: "We are using more and more instruments of all kinds and our needs for bearings for these instruments is very great. In all, we need to manufacture five times more bearings than 12 years ago."
(Sutton, Antony C, National suicide, 1. technical assistance, American--Russia., 2. military assistance, America--Russia., 3. Russia--Defenses., 4. United States--Defenses., copyright © 1973 by Arlington House, New Rochelle, New York., pp.91-92, pp.92-93, pp.94-96, p.97, pp.99-100, p.100 )
[pp.252-263]
Appendix B
Testimony of the author before subcommittee VII of the platform committee of the Republican party at Miami Beach, Florida, August 15, 1972, at 2:30 P.M.
This appendix contains the testimony presented by the author before the Republican party national security subcommittee at the 1972 Miami Beach convention. The author's appearance was made under the auspices of the American Conservative Union; the chairman of the subcommittee was Senator John Tower of Texas.
Edith Kermit Roosevelt subsequently used this testimony for her syndicated column in such newspaper as the Union Leader (Manchester, N.H.). Both major wire services received copies from the American Conservative Union; they were not distributed. Congressman John G. Schmitz then arranged for duplicate copies to be hand-delivered to both UPI and AP. The wire service would not carry the testimony although the author is an internationally known academic researcher with three books published at Stanford University, and a forthcoming book from the U.S. Naval Institute.
The testimony was later reprinted in full in Human Events (under the title of "The Soviet Military-Industrial Complex") and Review of the News (under the title of "Suppressed Testimony of Antony C. Sutton"). It was also reprinted and extensively distributed throughout the United States by both the American party and the Libertarian party during the 1972 election campaign.
The following is the text of this testimony as it was originally presented in Miami Beach and made available to UPI and AP:
The Soviet military-industrial complex
The information that I am going to present to you this afternoon is known to the Administration.
The information is probably NOT known to the Senator from South Dakota or his advisers. And in this instance ignorance may be a blessing in disguise.
I am not a politician. I am not going to tell you what you want to hear. My job is to give you facts. Whether you like or dislike what I say doesn't concern me.
I am here because I believe--and Congressman Ashbrook believes--that the American public should have these facts.
I have spent ten years in research on Soviet technology. What it is--what it can do--and particularly where it came from. I have published three books and several articles summarizing the work.
It was privately financed. But the result have been available to the Government. On the other hand I have had major difficulties with the U.S. Government censorship.
I have 15 minutes to tell you about this work.
In a few words: there is no such thing as Soviet technology. Almost all--perhaps 90-95 percent--came directly or indirectly from the United States and its allies. In effect the United States and the NATO countries have built the Soviet Union. Its industrial and its military capabilities. This massive construction job has taken 50 years. Since the Revolution in 1917. It has been carried out through trade and the sale of plants, equipment and technical assistance.
Listening to Administration spokesmen--or some newspaper pundits--you get the impression that trade with the Soviet Union is some new miracle cure for the world's problems.
That's not quite accurate.
The idea that trade with the Soviets might bring peace goes back to 1917. The earliest proposal is dated December 1917--just a few weeks after the start of the Bolshevik Revolution. It was implemented in 1920 while the Bolsheviks were still trying to consolidate their hold on Russia. The result was to guarantee that the Bolsheviks held power: they needed foreign supplies to survive.
The history of our construction of the Soviet Union has been blacked out--much of the key information is still classified--along with the other mistakes of the Washington bureaucracy.
Why has the history been blacked out?
Because 50 years of dealing with the Soviets has been an economic success for the USSR and a political failure for the United States. It has not stopped war, it has not given us peace.
The United States is spending $80 billion a year on defense against an enemy built by the United States and West Europe.
Even stranger, the U.S. apparently wants to make sure this enemy remains in the business of being an enemy.
Now at this point I've probably lost some of you. What I have said is contrary to everything you've heard from the intellectual elite, the Administration, and the business world, and numerous well-regarded Senators--just about everyone.
Let me bring you back to earth.
First an authentic statement. It's authentic because it was part of a conversation between Stalin and W. Averell Harriman. Ambassador Harriman has been prominent in Soviet trade since the 1930's and is an outspoken supporter of yet more trade. This is what Ambassador Harriman reported back to the State Department at the end of the World War II:
“Stalin paid tribute to the assistance rendered by the United States to Soviet industry before and during the War. Stalin* said that about two-thirds of all the large industrial enterprises in the Soviet Union has been built with the United States' help or technical assistance.”
* He, in original.
I repeat: “two-thirds of all the large industrial enterprises in the Soviet Union has been built with the United States' help or technical assistance.”
Two-thirds.
Two out of three.
Stalin could have said that the other one-third of large industrial enterprises were built by firms from Germany, France, Britain and Italy.
Stalin could have said also that the tank plants, the aircraft plants, the explosive and ammunition plants originated in the U.S.
That was June 1944. The massive technical assistance continues right down to the present day.
Now the ability of the Soviet Union to create any kind of military machine, to ship missiles to Cuba, to supply arms to North Vietnam, to supply arms for use against Israel--all this depends on its domestic industry.
In the Soviet Union about three-quarters of military budget goes on to purchases from Soviet factories.
This expenditure in Soviet industry makes sense. No Army has a machine that churns out tanks. Tanks are made from alloy steel, plastics, rubber and so forth. The alloy steel, plastics and rubber are made in Soviet factories to military specifications. Just like in the United States.
Missiles are not produced on missile-making machines. Missiles are fabricated from aluminum alloys, stainless steel, electrical wiring, pumps and so forth. The aluminum, steel, copper wire and pumps are also made in Soviet factories.
In other words the Soviet military gets its parts and materials from Soviet industry. There is a Soviet military-industrial complex just as there is an American military-industrial complex.
This kind of reasoning makes sense to the man in the street. The farmer in Kansas knows what I mean. The salesman in California knows what I mean. The taxi driver in New York knows what I mean. But the policy makers in Washington do no accept this kind of common sense reasoning, and never have done.
So let's take a look at the Soviet industry that provides the parts and the materials for Soviet armaments: the guns, tanks, aircraft.
The Soviet have the largest iron and steel plant in the world. It was built by McKee Corporation. It is a copy of the U.S. Steel plant in Gary, Indiana.
All Soviet iron and steel technology comes from the U.S. and its allies. The Soviets use open hearth, American electric furnaces, American wide strip mills, Sendzimir mills and so on--all developed in the West and shipped in as peaceful trade.
The Soviets have the largest tube and pipe mill in Europe--one million tons a year. The equipment is Fretz-Moon, Salem, Aetna Standard, Mannesman, etc. Those are not Russian names.
All Soviet tube and pipe making technology comes from the U.S. and its allies. If you know anyone in the space business ask them how many miles of tubes and pipes go into a missile.
Soviets have the largest merchant marine in the world--about 6,000 ships. I have the specifications for each ship.
About two-thirds were built outside the Soviet Union.
About four-fifths of the engines for these ships were also built outside the Soviet Union.
There are no ship engines of Soviet design. Those built inside the USSR are built with foreign technical assistance. The Bryansk plant makes the largest marine diesels. In 1959, the Bryansk plant make a technical assistance agreement with Burmeister & Wain of Copenhagen, Denmark, (a NATO ally), approved as peaceful trade by the State Dept. The ships that carried Soviet missiles to Cuba ten years ago used the same Burmeister and Wain engines. The ships were in the POLTAVA class. Some have Danish engines make in Denmark and some have Danish engines made at Bryansk in the Soviet Union.
About 100 Soviet ships are used on the Haiphong run to carry Soviet weapons and supplies for Hanoi's annual aggression. I was able to identify 84 of these ships. None of the main engines in these ships was designed and manufactured inside the USSR.
All the larger and faster vessels on the Haiphong run were built outside the USSR.
All shipbuilding technology in the USSR comes directly or indirectly from the U.S. or its NATO allies.
Let's take one industry in more detail: motor vehicles.
All Soviet automobile, truck and engine technology comes from the West: chiefly the United States. In my books I have listed each Soviet plant, its equipment and who supplied the equipment. The Soviet military has over 300,000 trucks--all from these U.S. built plants.
Up to 1968 the largest motor vehicle plant in the USSR was at Gorki. Gorki produces many of the trucks American pilots see on the Ho Chi Minh trail. Gorki produces the chasis for GAZ-69 rocket launcher used against Israel. Gorki produces the Soviet jeep and half a dozen other military vehicles.
And Gorki was built by the Ford Motor Company and the Austin Company--as peaceful trade.
In 1968 while Gorki was building vehicles to be used in Vietnam and Israel further equipment for Gorki was ordered and shipped from the U.S.
Also in 1968 we had the so-called "FIAT deal"--to build a plant at Volgograd three times bigger than Gorki. Dean Rusk and Walt Rostow told Congress and the American public this was peaceful trade--the FIAT plant could not produce military vehicles.
Don't let's kid ourselves. Any automobile manufacturing plant can produce military vehicles. I can show anyone who is interested the technical specification of a proven military vehicle (with cross-country capability) using the same capacity engine as the Russian FIAT plant produces.
The term "FIAT deal" is misleading. FIAT in Italy doesn't make automobile manufacturing equipment--FIAT plants in Italy have U.S. equipment. FIAT did sent 1,000 men to Russia for erection of the plant--but over half, perhaps well over half, of the equipment come from the United States. From Gleason, TRW of Cleveland and New Britain Machine Co.
So in the middle of a war that has killed 46,000 Americans (so far) and countless Vietnamese with Soviet weapons and supplies, the Johnson Administration doubled Soviet auto output.
And supplied false information to Congress and the American public.
Finally, we get to the 1972 under President Nixon.
The Soviets are receiving now--today, equipment and technology for the largest heavy truck plant in the world: known as the Kama plant. It will produce 100,000 heavy ten-ton trucks per year--that's more than ALL U.S. manufacturers put together.
This will also be the largest plant in the world, period. It will occupy 36 square miles.
Will the Kama truck plant have military potential?
The Soviets themselves have answered this one. The Kama truck will be 50 per cent more productive than the ZIL-130 truck. Well, that's nice, because the ZIL series trucks are standard Soviet army trucks used in Vietnam and the Middle East.
Who built the ZIL plant? It was built by the Arthur J. Brandt Company of Detroit, Michigan.
Who's building the Kama truck plant? That's classified "secret" by the Washington policy makers. I don't have to tell you why.
The Soviet T-54 tank is in Vietnam. It was in operation at Kontum, An Loc, and Hue a few weeks ago. It is in use today in Vietnam. It has been used against Israel.
According to the tank handbooks the T-54 has a Christie type suspension. Christie was an American inventor.
Where did the Soviets get a Christie suspension? Did they steal it?
No, Sir! They brought it. They brought it from the U.S. Wheel Track Layer Corporation.
However this Administration is apparently slightly more honest than the previous Administration.
Last December I asked Assistant Secretary Kenneth Davis of the Commerce Department (who is a mechanical engineer by training) whether the Kama trucks would have military capability. In fact I quoted one of the Government's own inter-agency reports. Mr. Davis didn't bother to answer but I did get a letter from the Department and it was right to the point. Yes! we know the Kama truck plant has military capability, we take this into account when we issue export licenses.
I passed these letters on to the press and Congress. They were published.
Unfortunately for my research project, I also had pending with the Department of Defense an application for declassification of certain files about our military assistance to the Soviets.
This application was then abruptly denied by DOD.
It will supply military technology to the Soviets but gets a little uptight about the public finding out.
I can understand that.
Of course, it takes a great deal of self confidence to admit you are sending factories to produce weapons and supplies to a country providing weapons and supplies to kill Americans, Israelis and Vietnamese. In writing. In an election year, yet.
More to the point--by what authority does this Administration undertake such policies?
Many people--as individuals--have protested our suicidal policies. What happens? Well, if you are in Congress--you probably get the strong arm put on you. The Congressman who inserted my research finding into the Congressional Record suddenly found himself with primary opposition. He won't be in Congress next year.
If you are in the academic world--you soon find it's OK to protest U.S. assistance to the South Vietnamese but never, never protest U.S. assistance to the Soviets. Forget about the Russian academics being persecuted--we mustn't say unkind things about the Soviets.
If you press for an explaination what do they tell you?
First, you get the Fullbright line. This is peaceful trade. The Soviets are powerful. They have their own technology. It's a way to build friendship. It's a way to a new world order.
This is demonstrably false.
The Soviet tanks in An Loc are not refugees from the Pasadena Rose Bowl Parade.
The "Soviet" ships that carry arms to Haiphong are not peaceful. They have weapons on board, not flower children or Russian tourists.
Second, if you don't buy that line you are told, "The Soviets are mellowing." This is equally false.
The killing in Israel and Vietnam with Soviet weapons doesn't suggest mellowing, it suggests premediated genocide. Today--now--the Soviets are readying more arms to go to Syria. For what purpose? To put in a museum?
No one has ever presented evidence, hard evidence that trade leads to peace. Why not? Because there is no such evidence. It's an illusion.
It is true that peace leads to trade. But that's not the same thing. You first need peace, then you trade. That does not mean if you trade you will get peace.
But that's too logical for the Washington policy makers and it's not what the politicians and their backers want anyway.
Trade with Germany doubled before World War II. Did it stop World War II?
Trade with Japan increased before World War II. Did it stop World War II?
What was in this German and Japanese trade? The same means for war that we are now supplying the Soviets. The Japanese Air Force after 1934 depended on U.S. technology. And much of the pushing for Soviet trade today comes from the same groups that were pushing for trade with Hitler and Tojo 35 years ago.
The Russian Communist Party is now mellowing. Concentration camps are still there. The mental hospital take the overload. Persecution of the Baptists continues. Harassment of Jews continues, as it did under the Tsars.
The only mellowing is when a Harriman and a Rockefeller get together with the bosses in the Kremlin. That's good for business but it's not much help if you are a G.I. at the other end of a Soviet rocket in Vietnam.
I've learned something about our military assistance to the Soviets.
It's just not enough to have the facts--these are ignored by the policy makers.
It's just not enough to make a common sense case--the answers you get defy reason.
Only one institution has been clearsighted on this question. From the early 1920's to the present day only one institution has spoken out. That is the AFL-CIO.
From Samuel Gompers in 1920 down to George Meany today, the major unions have consistently protested the trade policies that built the Soviet Union.
Because union members in Russia lost their freedom and union members in the United States have died in Korea and Vietnam.
The unions know--and apparently care.
No one else cares. Not Washington. Not big business. Not the Republican Party.
And 100,000 Americans have been killed in Korea and Vietnam--by our own technology.
The only response from Washington and the Nixon Administration is the effort to hush up the scandal.
These are things not to be talked about. And the professional smokescreen about peaceful trade continues.
The plain fact--if you want it--is that irresponsible policies have built us an enemy and maintain that enemy in the business of totalitarian rule and world conquest.
And the tragedy is that intelligent people have brought the political double talk about world peace, a new world order and mellowing Soviets.
I suggest that the man in the street, the average taxpayer voter thinks more or less as I do. You do not subsidize an enemy.
And when this story gets out and about the United States, it's going to translate into a shift of votes. I haven't met one man in the street so far (from New York to California) who goes along with a policy of subsidizing the killing of his fellow Americans. People are usually stunned and disgusted.
It requires a peculiar kind of intellectual myopia to ship supplies and technology to the Soviets when they are instrumental in killing fellow citizens.
What about the argument that trade will lead to peace? Well, we've had U.S.-Soviet trade for 52 years. The 1st and 2nd Five Year Plans were built by American companies. To continue a policy that is a total failure is to gamble with the lives of several million Americans and countless allies.
You can't stoke up the Soviet military machine at one end and then complain that the other end came back and bit you. Unfortunately, the human price for our immoral policies is not paid by the policy maker in Washington. The human price is paid by the farmers, the students and working and middle classes of America.
The citizen who pays the piper is not calling the tune--he doesn't even know the name of the tune.
Let me summarize my conclusions:
One: trade with the USSR was started over 50 years ago under President Woodrow Wilson with the declared intention of mellowing the Bolsheviks. The policy has been a total and costly failure. It has proven to be impractical--this is what I would expect from an immoral policy.
Two: we have built ourselves an enemy. We keep that self-declared enemy in business. This information has been blacked out by successive Administrations. Misleading and untruthful statements have been made by the Executive Branch to Congress and the American people.
Three: our policy of subsidizing self-declared enemies is neither rational nor moral. I have drawn attention to the intellectual myopia of the group that influences and draws up foreign policy. I suggest these policies have no authority.
Four: the annual attacks in Vietnam and the war in the Middle East were made possible only by Russian armaments and our past assistance to the Soviets.
Five: this worldwide Soviet activity is consistent with Communist theory. Mikhail Suslov, the party theoretician, recently stated that the current detente with the United States is temporary. The purpose of the detente, according to Suslov, is to give the Soviets sufficient strength for a renewed assault on the West. In other words, when you've finished building the Kama plant and the trucks come rolling off--watch out for another Vietnam.
Six: internal Soviet repression continues--against Baptists, against Jews, against national groups and against dissident academics.
Seven: Soviet technical dependence is a powerful instrument for world peace if we want to use it.
So far it's been used as an aid-to-dependent-Soviets welfare program. With about as much success as the domestic welfare program.
Why should they stop supplying Hanoi? The more they stoke up the war the more they get from the United States.
One final thought.
Why has the war in Vietnam continued for four long years under this Administration?
With 15,000 killed under the Nixon Administration?
We can stop the Soviets and their friends in Hanoi anytime we want to.
Without using a single gun or anything more dangerous than a piece of paper or a telephone call.
We have Soviet technical dependence as an instrument of world peace. The most humane weapon that can be conceived.
We have always had that option. We have never used it.
(Sutton, Antony C, National suicide, 1. technical assistance, American--Russia., 2. military assistance, America--Russia., 3. Russia--Defenses., 4. United States--Defenses., copyright © 1973 by Arlington House, New Rochelle, New York., [pp.252-263])
____________________________________
IV. The creation of war and revolution
...
College textbooks present war and revolution as more or less accidental results of conflicting forces. The decay of political negotiation into physical conflict comes about, according to these books, after a valiant efforts to avoid war. Unfortunately, this is nonsense. War is always a deliberate creative act by individuals.
... in Western textbooks will you find the evidence that revolutions need finance and the source of the finance in many cases traces back to Wall Street.
Consequently it can be argued that our Western history is every bit as distorted, censored, and largely useless as that of Hitler's Germany or the Soviet Union or Communist China.
... It tells a story of the deliberate creation of war, the knowing finance of revolution to change governments, and the use of conflict to create a New World Order.
...
... Witness this extract from a Scotland Yard Intelligence Report.[1]
"Martens is very much in the limelight. There appears to be no doubt about his connection with the Guarantee (sic) Trust Company. Although it is surprising that so large and influential an enterprise should have dealing with a Bolshevid concern."
Scotland Yard had picked up an accurate report that the Soviets were deeply involved with Guaranty Trust of New York, but ... , and dropped this line of investigation.
... For example, David Rockefeller has met regularly with a KGB agent in the United States -- weekly lunch meeting is a close description. Yet the FBI can't bring itself to investigate David Rockefeller as a potential Soviet agent, ... And, of course, our domestic U.S. Marxists find it absolutely inconceivable that a capitalist would support communism.
Organizations like Scotland Yard and the FBI, and almost all academics on whom investigators rely for their guidelines, have a highly important failing: they look at known verifiable historical facts with a mind set. They convince themselves that they have the explanation of a problem even before the problem presents itself.
.[1] A copy is in U.S. State Department Decimal File, Microcopy, 316, Roll 22, Frame 656.
...
After World War II the world stage was changed. After 1945 it became the Soviet Union on one side versus the United States on the other. The first dialectical clash led to the formation of the United Nations, an elementary step on the road to world government. The second dialectical clash led to the Trilateral Commission, i.e., regional grouping and more subtly to efforts for a merger of the United States and the Soviet Union.
The Order, Skull & Bones, the Russell Trust
Russell Trust Association
The author of the famous - some say infamous - National Security Council document 68 was none other than George Kennan (see page 175)
...
... a report by Ambassador Harriman in Moscow to the State Department, dated June 30, 1944:
"Stalin paid tribute to the assistance by the United States to Soviet industry before and during the war. He said that about two-thirds of all the large industrial enterprise in the Soviet Union has been built with United States help or technical assistance."1
Stalin could have added that the other one-third of Soviet industry had been build by British, German, French, Italian, Finnish, Czech and Japanese companies.
...
1 Original in the U.S. State Department Decimal File 033.1161 Johnston Eric/6-3044 Telegram June 30, 1944.
... There was no Soviet technology - and Harriman KNEW THERE WAS NO SOVIET TECHNOLOGY.
Furthermore, Harriman has been in the forefornt of the cry for "more trade" with the Soviet Union - and trade it the transfer vehicle for technology. In other words, Harriman has been pushing two CONFLICTING POLICIES SIMULTANEOUSLY.
(a) a build-up of Soviet power by export of our technology, and
(b) a Western defense against that power.
Isn't this the Hegelian dialectic? Thesis versus anti thesis, then conflict which leads to a new synthesis.
...
(America's Secret Establishment, An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones, Antony C. Sutton, How The Order creates War and Revolution, Trine Day, Update Reprint 2002, April 1984)
© 1983, 1986, 2002 Antony C. Sutton
____________________________________
────────────────────────────────────
..<------------------------------------------------------------------------------------>
··<────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────>
··<---------------------------------------------------------------------------->
